When Does Human Life Begin?

[doubtingmerle]

TLet's pose the opposite question. What functions of a soul occur when there is no longer a body (post-mortum)?

Are you not aware that science has shown that memories, emotions, and thoughts are a function of the brain? How can such things occur if there is no brain?

But that is another subject. See Is there life after death?

 

[doubtingmerle]

we now know that the structures of the brain, spinal column and heart are all present and visible within the first three weeks of development.

But is there a brain? That is the question.The evidence indicates that preliminary brainwaves do not even begin until past 20 weeks. And we know that, where there are no brainwaves, there can be no thoughts, emotions or personality. So how can this group of cells be called a person?

 

[doubtingmerle]

In the opening post I proposed an alternative to the view of the fetus that is accepted by most Christians, that the fetus is in the process of becoming a human, but that it is not yet a living person, at least not in the early stages of development. Nobody has presented any evidence to counter that. Everything that has been said about the complete DNA being there and the fact that the fetus will eventually be fully human is fully compatible with the view presented in the OP. So I take it that there is no evidence that this view is wrong. There is no evidence that the embryo is human life. It appears that those who oppose the aborting of the embryo on the grounds that it is human life have nothing to base their claim on. Case closed.

 

[Natman]

But is there a brain? That is the question.The evidence indicates that preliminary brainwaves do not even begin until past 20 weeks. And we know that, where there are no brainwaves, there can be no thoughts, emotions or personality. So how can this group of cells be called a person?

Just like the "gelatinous" blob we assumed as the extent of early embryo 100 years ago, before the advent of powerful microscopes, the real issue is whether or not we can measure brainwaves before that point. Just because we can't yet measure them doesn't mean that they do not exist.

Furthermore, you have posed a "moral" question on a "theolgical" and "philosophical" website expecting to get a secular answer. The bible indicates that we have a soul that endures after the body is parished.

Matthew 10:28
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
​

If it is assumed that human life consists of body, spirit and soul, and that it is God that enjoins the soul (this is a Christian site), creating human life, then how do we determine when that occurs? We are only told that it occurs, not when it occurs except "in our mothers womb". To second guess this process in order to destroy an embryo is to risk the wrath of God for the commission of murder.

Son-cerely in Christ,
Nate

 

[doubtingmerle]

the real issue is whether or not we can measure brainwaves before that point. Just because we can't yet measure them doesn't mean that they do not exist.

Neither can we measure brainwaves in a dead person. Should we continue life support even after a person is confirmed dead, just in case he may be alive, so we are sure we are not embalming a living person? I don't think so. We need to be practical. If there is no evidence that a corpse or an embryo has mind function, would not God understand that we did what we thought to be right based on what we knew?

If it is assumed that human life consists of body, spirit and soul, and that it is God that enjoins the soul (this is a Christian site), creating human life, then how do we determine when that occurs? We are only told that it occurs, not when it occurs except "in our mothers womb".

Okay, so you cannot prove a soul enters the zygote at conception. Perhaps the soul enters in the sperm stage. Perhaps it occurs just before birth. (Or perhaps it never occurs.) Can you continue to insist that those who disagree on when life begins are wrong?

One Christian here suggested that life begins when the zygote attaches to the womb. Are you sure that this person is wrong? Or can you tolerate some difference of opinion on this matter?

 

[Natman]

Neither can we measure brainwaves in a dead person. Should we continue life support even after a person is confirmed dead, just in case he may be alive, so we are sure we are not embalming a living person? I don't think so. We need to be practical. If there is no evidence that a corpse or an embryo has mind function, would not God understand that we did what we thought to be right based on what we knew?

There are other measurable evidences of death of a fully developed human such lack of a beating heart, room temperature body, rigamortis, rotting flesh, than there is of a partially developed, microscopic zygote. That said, we're not talking about determining death here. We're talking about causing it.

My concern is that I personally do not know if God would "understand" that we "thought" what we did was okay, and so He would be obliged to be gracious.

Okay, so you cannot prove a soul enters the zygote at conception. Perhaps the soul enters in the sperm stage. Perhaps it occurs just before birth. (Or perhaps it never occurs.) Can you continue to insist that those who disagree on when life begins are wrong?

No. But neither can I insist that they are absolutley right.

The point is that we simply do not know, and until we do, we should not take it for granted that it is okay to destroy what many believe to be the beginnings of human life and human personhood.

Or can you tolerate some difference of opinion on this matter?

It's not a question of whether I can tolerate it. It is a question of whether God can or would tolerate it, and whether He would hold me accountable for not doing something about it if He has put the concern on my heart.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[doubtingmerle]

My concern is that I personally do not know if God would "understand" that we "thought" what we did was okay, and so He would be obliged to be gracious.

This is what this is all about to you, isn't it? You have no evidence that the early fetus has a soul. You have no evidence that it has the things we value in humans--thoughts, emotions, personality, and memories. In fact, there is very strong evidence that these do not exist in the early fetus, for there is no functioning brain. But you are scared to take the chance. What if you were wrong? What will happen to you if you make a mistake?

If you choose to live your life by such fears, go ahead. If you serve a God who will torment you if you make an honest mistake, than you need not take the chance. But not everybody is dominated by such fears. Why must you force them to live by your fears?

How can you insist that others who do not have such fears are wrong? Why must everybody else live by the irrational fears that your words echo?

And how can Christians ignore all of the issues that affect their lives? How can they re-elect a President who started a war in Iraq that had no real purpose? How can they ignore all of the losses in jobs in America? How can they ignore the huge debt that our children will need to pay? How can they ignore that the tax breaks are going to the rich? How can they ignore the destruction of the environment? How can they ignore America's loss of global friendship? How can Christians look at one issue, and ignore the things that are devastating their lives?

 

[Natman]

This is what this is all about to you, isn't it? You have no evidence that the early fetus has a soul. You have no evidence that it has the things we value in humans--thoughts, emotions, personality, and memories.

And you have no evidence that it does not.

But you are scared to take the chance. What if you were wrong? What will happen to you if you make a mistake? If you choose to live your life by such fears, go ahead.

For me, it is more a matter of "repect" and "love" than "fear". I know that I am a sinner deserving of eternal death. But I also know that I have accepted Jesus Christ as my much needed Savior and that "NOTHING" can separate me from Him.

If you serve a God who will torment you if you make an honest mistake, than you need not take the chance. But not everybody is dominated by such fears. Why must you force them to live by your fears?

How can you insist that others who do not have such fears are wrong? Why must everybody else live by the irrational fears that your words echo?

It matters not what I, or anyone else, thinks about the matter. It only matters what God thinks about it. Also, it does not matter whether we "believe" that God exists or not, or whether He would punish us for an "honest" mistake or not (I have made many "honest" and "dishonest" mistakes in my life). It only matter what He WILL do when we stand before Him in judgement.

And how can Christians ignore all of the issues that affect their lives? How can they re-elect a President who started a war in Iraq that had no real purpose? How can they ignore all of the losses in jobs in America? How can they ignore the huge debt that our children will need to pay? How can they ignore that the tax breaks are going to the rich? How can they ignore the destruction of the environment? How can they ignore America's loss of global friendship? How can Christians look at one issue, and ignore the things that are devastating their lives?

WOW! This looks like the beginning of a whole thread.

How can they re-elect a President who started a war in Iraq that had no real purpose?

The "real" purplse of the war in Iraq was to SAVE lives, not take them... to remove a tyrannous regime that killed hundreds of thousands of their own people, financed terror throughout the middle-east and the world and threatened millions of lives her in America. The Keufler report showed that Saddam was continuously collecting arms, equipment and money to wage war on America, even under the "watchful" eye of the United Nations and through their scandalous "Oil for Food" program.

How can they ignore all of the losses in jobs in America?

The current administration can hardly be blamed for the crash of the ecomony in 2001, but it has done an excellent job of rebuilding since then.

How can they ignore the huge debt that our children will need to pay?

Can you imagin how high it would be if the other multi-trillion dollar plan had been implemented?

How can they ignore that the tax breaks are going to the rich?

The tax breaks were primarily given to the middle class, and the "rich" are still paying the majority of the taxes.

How can they ignore the destruction of the environment?

What destruction of the environment?

How can they ignore America's loss of global friendship?

We have not lost any "global friendships". On matters pertaining to the middle east, we were never "friends" with the pandering French, Germans and Russians. They were far too involved financially in the middle east to get involved in any way that would undermine their largest source of income. It would have been a conflict of interest.

You need to get your nose out of the liberal press and find a more balanced source of information.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[doubtingmerle]

And you have no evidence that it [the early fetus] does not [have a soul].

Sure I do. There is clear evidence that it is the brain that thinks, remembers feels, and decides. (See Is there life after death?) And there is clear evidence that the early fetus has no brain. So how can a fetus have a soul if it cannot think, remember, feel, or decide?

For me, it is more a matter of "repect" and "love" than "fear".

Why do your posts sound like fear to me?

It matters not what I, or anyone else, thinks about the matter. It only matters what God thinks about it.

But nobody knows what God thinks. Can you tell me when God thinks human life begins?

The "real" purplse of the war in Iraq was to SAVE lives, not take them... to remove a tyrannous regime that killed hundreds of thousands of their own people, financed terror throughout the middle-east and the world and threatened millions of lives her in America. The Keufler report showed that Saddam was continuously collecting arms, equipment and money to wage war on America, even under the "watchful" eye of the United Nations and through their scandalous "Oil for Food" program.

This was all answered at "They that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

The tax breaks were primarily given to the middle class, and the "rich" are still paying the majority of the taxes.

This was all answered at "Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?"

What destruction of the environment?

My point exactly. Many Christians see only one issue, and do not even know what is going on in other issues.

We have not lost any "global friendships".

Huh? Are you serious?

You need to get your nose out of the liberal press and find a more balanced source of information.

Fox News, perhaps?

 

[doubtingmerle]

For me, it is more a matter of "repect" and "love" than "fear".

Let me see if I have this straight: You have been insisting that everybody must go by your definition of when life begins, that is, at conception. You have no proof that this is when it happens. But you insist that we must all go by your definition, or risk the wrath of God. Let me repeat your words in case you forgot:

If it is assumed that human life consists of body, spirit and soul, and that it is God that enjoins the soul (this is a Christian site), creating human life, then how do we determine when that occurs? We are only told that it occurs, not when it occurs except "in our mothers womb". To second guess this process in order to destroy an embryo is to risk the wrath of God for the commission of murder. [emphasis added]

Okay? And now you tell us that your decision is based on respect and love? Really? Do you not understand why some of us think your warning that we "risk the wrath of God" is an appeal to fear?

I am glad that you are not now telling us to live our lives in fear of the wrath of God that would come if we honestly misunderstood when human life begins.

I know that I am a sinner deserving of eternal death.

Eternal death? What exactly are you referring to? Hell? Why do you put a spin on the words? Why not say that we are bad, dispicable people who deserve to be tortured with unimaginable tortures in a burning hell for all eternity. For that is what your words mean, isn't it?

I have deep respect for human life, and the intrinsic value of being human. Hell, to me is not compatible with respect for humans. Your words seem to me to be the ultimate of disrespect for the human condition.

This is what is so strange about the abortion debate. The modern self-esteem movement began in humanist circles, while preachers were still telling of our inner evil and that we deserved hell. Then Christians woke, up, and decided self-esteem was good after all. And somehow they tied anti-abortion with pro-self-esteem to declare that only they had true respect for the value of life. But your words betray the problem. Anti-abortion is all about loving the mechanics of the body, not about loving the thoughts, personality, and mind of a person, things that don't even exist in the embryo. Instead anti-abortionists tell us that the inner personality--the part that is most valuable about humans--is rotten and deserving of eternal hell. What a degrading view of humanity!

This is why I choose to have respect for the true value of human life more than I respect the mechanisms of life.

 

[Beoga]

In the opening post I proposed an alternative to the view of the fetus that is accepted by most Christians, that the fetus is in the process of becoming a human, but that it is not yet a living person, at least not in the early stages of development. Nobody has presented any evidence to counter that. Everything that has been said about the complete DNA being there and the fact that the fetus will eventually be fully human is fully compatible with the view presented in the OP. So I take it that there is no evidence that this view is wrong. There is no evidence that the embryo is human life. It appears that those who oppose the aborting of the embryo on the grounds that it is human life have nothing to base their claim on. Case closed.

If you are alive now, and once you were not, when exactly did you become alive?
If living things exist on earth now, and once they did not, when exactly did living things start to exist?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay, folks you can read this thread for yourself and make up your mind. Has anybody presented convincing evidence that life begins at a particular point in time--such as at conception--in this thread? I think not. So it seems there is no reason for people to insist that their definition of when human life begins is the only possible correct answer. And so people need not deny the right of abortion to those who think the embryo is not human life.

Case closed.

 

[Natman]

Has anybody presented convincing evidence that life begins at a particular point in time--such as at conception--in this thread? I think not. So it seems there is no reason for people to insist that their definition of when human life begins is the only possible correct answer. And so people need not deny the right of abortion to those who think the embryo is not human life.

Case closed.

Neither has anyone presented any convencing evidence that human life does NOT begin at conception. In THAT light, and because of the possiblle implication of "murder" in the event that science can potentially state unequivocally that life begins at conception, as well as the fact that a substantial portion of society believe that life begins at conception, then we should err on the side of caution.

In other words, until we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, both scientifically and philosophically, the point at which we become a human being, we should not legislate permission to destory that which MIGHT be human life.

As you said....

CASE CLOSED!

Son-cerely in Christ,
Nate

 

[doubtingmerle]

In other words, until we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, both scientifically and philosophically, the point at which we become a human being, we should not legislate permission to destory that which MIGHT be human life.

I see.

And you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a sperm is not human life, can you? So, if we use your logic, than you must get as many women pregnant as possible this week. Else you will be guilty of murdering sperm.

Not everybody agrees with your logic.

 

[Natman]

I see.

And you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a sperm is not human life, can you? So, if we use your logic, than you must get as many women pregnant as possible this week. Else you will be guilty of murdering sperm.

Not everybody agrees with your logic.

That is just ridiculous logic.

Scientifically we know that sperm contain only half of the necessary DNA to produce "human life", nor does an unfertilized egg. Also, we know that male human bodies are creating, destroying and disposing of billions of sperm cells daily in natural, God designed body processes, and that millions of eggs are destroyed and displosed of daily in the natural, God designed process known as menstruation. We also know that human life will never start unless sperm and egg are joined, and that it only requires one egg and one sperm to start the process. In fact, of the millions of sperm that may be injected in a single sexual encounter, ONLY one has a chance of fertilizing an egg, assuming that an egg is ready and waiting to be fertilized. The rest are summarily destroyed and disposed of.

So, even by your logic, if I were to attempt to impregnate every female I could, I would still be responsible for the destruction of millions of sperm. (Gives new meaning to the term "spermicide"). God would not design a system by which we become sinners merely by fullfilling His edict to "go forth and beget".

Also, the Bible does not decree the destruction and disposal of sperm and egg to be immoral, indeed, with the exception of the woman that had the "issue of blood", they are never even mentioned.

So yes, I believe that I can prove that sperm is not human life.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[doubtingmerle]

Natman, may I remind you that it is you that came up with the logic that we must assume the fertilized egg is a human being unless we can prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I disagree with that argument. We do not demand proof beyond a shadow of a doubt in any other circumstance. Why do you demand that kind of proof here?

We know nothing beyond a shadow of a doubt. We don't even know that the earth is round beyond a shadow of a doubt. It could always be that we are mistaken. But the evidence that it is round is so overwhelmingly obvious, we know it is true beyond all reasonable doubt. And so we declare that the earth is round based on the fact that we can determine it beyond all reasonable doubt. We do not demand proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

In court, a man must be shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before he is executed. We do demand proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. If we demanded proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, nobody would ever be sentenced.

In self defense, you must not prove the attacker is threatening your life beyond a shadow of a doubt. You must only be reasonably certain. What if he has mistaken you for an old friend, and is pretending with a water gun? What if you accidently walked on the stage of a movie, and the man is an actor innocently playing his role in the movie? What if you are hallucinating? And so you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man with a gun intends to kill you. But you can know it beyond all reasonable doubt. So you pull out your gun and finish off the moron. That is how it works.

That is just ridiculous logic.

Oh, but you have insisted that one must know beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you insist on using that criteria, one would need to assume that even stones had human souls.

Look once more at what I said:

There is clear evidence that it is the brain that thinks, remembers feels, and decides. And there is clear evidence that the early fetus has no brain. So how can a fetus have a soul if it cannot think, remember, feel, or decide?

​

And here was your response:

Until we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, both scientifically and philosophically, the point at which we become a human being, we should not legislate permission to destory that which MIGHT be human life.

​

So it was you who determined that my criteria of clear evidence was not sufficient. It is you who added the requirement that one must know beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Scientifically we know that sperm contain only half of the necessary DNA to produce "human life", nor does an unfertilized egg.

Do you know it beyond a shadow of a doubt? Yes science has clear evidence that the sperm contains only half the necessary DNA. It also has clear evidence that the fertilized egg has no brain. So why do you accept that the sperm has only half the DNA--based on clear evidence--but refuse to accept that the fertilized egg has no thoughts, which is also based on clear evidence?

Also, we know that male human bodies are creating, destroying and disposing of billions of sperm cells daily in natural, God designed body processes, and that millions of eggs are destroyed and displosed of daily in the natural, God designed process known as menstruation.

We also know that there are millions of fertilized eggs that never attach to the womb, and soon die. If you are allowed to use this argument to prove that the sperm is not life, than I can use your argument to prove that the fertilized egg is not human life. Are you sure your argument is valid?

We also know that human life will never start unless sperm and egg are joined, and that it only requires one egg and one sperm to start the process.

We also know that the fertilized egg will not form life unless it attaches to the womb. So if you can use the criteria that when something requires something else to continue the process, it is not life, I could use the same argument.

In fact, of the millions of sperm that may be injected in a single sexual encounter, ONLY one has a chance of fertilizing an egg, assuming that an egg is ready and waiting to be fertilized. The rest are summarily destroyed and disposed of.

And most fertilized eggs never make it either. Does that mean that they are not life?

So, even by your logic, if I were to attempt to impregnate every female I could, I would still be responsible for the destruction of millions of sperm. (Gives new meaning to the term "spermicide").

And also, if you were to save every zygote you could, many zygotes would still die. Would you be guilty of mass zygoticide?

Also, the Bible does not decree the destruction and disposal of sperm and egg to be immoral, indeed, with the exception of the woman that had the "issue of blood", they are never even mentioned.

Neither does the Bible declare the voluntary disposal of a zygote to be immoral.

But the Bible does praise the voluntary killing of living babies. How can you trust a book that praises the killing of babies?

So yes, I believe that I can prove that sperm is not human life.

You can prove the sperm is not human life beyond all reaonable doubt. But have you proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt? And so it seems to me that your shadow of a doubt criteria is bogus. We should go by reasonable doubt. And a sperm or a zygote is, beyond all reasonable doubt, not a thinking, feeling human being.

 

[seebs]

But the Bible does praise the voluntary killing of living babies. How can you trust a book that praises the killing of babies?

To be fair, the praise you're probably thinking of is in Psalms, and in fact, if you compare Jeremiah (I think?) to that section of Psalms, you find a call to a very different attitude towards those same people.

 

[Natman]

Natman, may I remind you that it is you that came up with the logic that we must assume the fertilized egg is a human being unless we can prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
...
In court, a man must be shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before he is executed. We do demand proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. If we demanded proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, nobody would ever be sentenced.

Okay. I'll concede that I should have used "reasonable doubt". My reasoning remaines the same.

Oh, but you have insisted that one must know beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you insist on using that criteria, one would need to assume that even stones had human souls.

No. Because my refernce for the presence of souls is the Bible, and because the Bible never give a hint of rocks having souls beyond the antithetical metaphor of "rocks crying out" praises to th Lord if we don't.

Look once more at what I said:

There is clear evidence that it is the brain that thinks, remembers feels, and decides. And there is clear evidence that the early fetus has no brain. So how can a fetus have a soul if it cannot think, remember, feel, or decide?

​

Do you know it beyond a shadow of a doubt? Yes science has clear evidence that the sperm contains only half the necessary DNA. It also has clear evidence that the fertilized egg has no brain. So why do you accept that the sperm has only half the DNA--based on clear evidence--but refuse to accept that the fertilized egg has no thoughts, which is also based on clear evidence?

Again. My reference for the presence of souls, the Bible, indicates that there is life, thoughts, memories etcetera above and beyond this plane of existence, in Heaven or Hell. For those of us that are not transformed immediately, that means that our existing bodies must first die... therefore, no brain, no heart, no body.

We also know that there are millions of fertilized eggs that never attach to the womb, and soon die. If you are allowed to use this argument to prove that the sperm is not life, than I can use your argument to prove that the fertilized egg is not human life. Are you sure your argument is valid?

We also know that the fertilized egg will not form life unless it attaches to the womb. So if you can use the criteria that when something requires something else to continue the process, it is not life, I could use the same argument.

And most fertilized eggs never make it either. Does that mean that they are not life?

And also, if you were to save every zygote you could, many zygotes would still die. Would you be guilty of mass zygoticide?

No. I made exception for God designed "natural" processes. It is one thing for God to destroy lief naturally through His design. It is another for man to destroy life through un-natural or manipulative processes.

Neither does the Bible declare the voluntary disposal of a zygote to be immoral.

But the Bible does praise the voluntary killing of living babies. How can you trust a book that praises the killing of babies?

If you are referring to the Israelites being instructed by God through the prophets to destroy entire civilizations, that is God's authority to do so...not man's. God and God alone creates life and God and God alone has and grants the authority to take life.


Let's give an abstract example of the situation with the fertilized embryo.

Every day, you pass a house and every day you see someone different exit the house.

Let's say, one night, you have a machine gun and you walk up to the darkened house in the middle of the night. You see no lights on. You hear no one talking inside. You see no motion in or around the house. You feel no vibrations when you touch the walls.

Is it okay to open fire on the house, shooting bullets through every quadrant?

No.

Just because you can't detect that there is life in the house with your limited senses of sight, hearing and touch does not precluded that there is no life in the house. You know that a living person walks out of the house every day, but you have no clue as to house he or she gets there.

We assume (as Christians) that somewhere between conception and birth (we don't know when for certain, beginning, midterm, end) , a soul is bonded to the body being formed in the womb, and remains bound until death.

We assume (as Christians) that the soul continues on after the body is destroyed, therefore the presense or absense of a brain is not a necessity to the existence of the soul.

We assume that the bonding point is not toward the later periods of pregnancy because many babies are born in the second and early third trimester, survive and grow to maturity.

Therefore, it could just as easily be the moment the egg is fertilized as it could be the day just before deliverey.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay. I'll concede that I should have used "reasonable doubt".

Great. And I think I know beyond a reasonable doubt that an embryo has no brain, and that human thought is impossible without a brain. Am I not then justified in concluding, beyond a reaonable doubt, that an embryo is not a thinking, feeling human being?

My reference for the presence of souls, the Bible, indicates that there is life, thoughts, memories etcetera above and beyond this plane of existence, in Heaven or Hell.

As we have shown in another thread, there can be no thoughts unless there is a brain. Care to join us there?

Neither does the Bible declare the voluntary disposal of a zygote to be immoral.

Interesting. So you can voluntarily dispose of a zygote--a fertilized egg--and it is not immoral. You seem to be favoring abortion here.

If you are referring to the Israelites being instructed by God through the prophets to destroy entire civilizations, that is God's authority to do so...not man's. God and God alone creates life and God and God alone has and grants the authority to take life.

No, I was refererring to Psalm 137:8-9 where it praises the killing of babies. Do you agree with these verses that it is a blessed thing to kill babies? I don't agree with them.

Your words do not sound even close to "pro-life" to me. They are all about following an ancient book, whether it means giving life or killing life. That is the issue with you, isn't it?

If the Bible told you to abort as many babies as you could, would you do it? Your words seem to say you would.

Just because you can't detect that there is life in the house with your limited senses of sight, hearing and touch does not precluded that there is no life in the house.

Than how can you allow an unfertilized egg to die? How can you conclude that there is no life in the unfertilized egg. (If you turn to science for the answer, I will turn to science to show there is no thoughts in the fertilized egg.)

We assume (as Christians) that somewhere between conception and birth (we don't know when for certain, beginning, midterm, end) , a soul is bonded to the body being formed in the womb, and remains bound until death.

Suppose others have different assumptions. Why do you want to force them to live by your assumptions?

 

[doubtingmerle]

To be fair, the praise you're probably thinking of is in Psalms, and in fact, if you compare Jeremiah (I think?) to that section of Psalms, you find a call to a very different attitude towards those same people.

Hello Seebs. Welcome back.

Yes, there are some passages of scripture that differ with the attitude expressed in Psalm 138. The ancient writers sometimes had good advice, and sometimes reflected primitive, evil desires as they did in Psalm 138. My point was that one cannot assume the advice is good, just because it is found in the Bible.

But all of this is immaterial, since the claim was that the Bible condemns the voluntary termination of a fetus. But, of course, that person could not support his claim, since the Bible never condemns a mother for voluntarily terminating a fetus.