• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Biblically, life begins at birth

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrilsthe breath of life; and man became a living being." The first human life did not begin with the first two particles of dust that God assembled. It didn't even begin when all of the particles of dust were assembled. It began with the first breath.

This is far from the only passage that suggests that life begins with the first breath rather than conception:

-Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

-Ezekiel 37:5 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life."


In fact both the Hebrew and Greek words for "soul" are synonymous with "breath"

-Ruach: Strong's Hebrew: 7307. ?????? (ruach) -- breath, wind, spirit

-Nephesh: Strong's Hebrew: 5315. ??????? (nephesh) -- a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion

-Pneuma: Strong's Greek: 4151. ?????? (pneuma) -- wind, spirit



Clearly the Biblically supported position is that life begins not at conception but with the first breath.



Furthermore. the Bible gives explicit instructions on how to force a woman to abort a pregnancy that results from an adulterous relationship:

Numbers 5:11 "Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her...

...may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

...If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry

Question for debate: Is there any sort of biblical support for the notion that life begins at conception?[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif][/FONT]
 
Good find. I wonder what implications this has on those who adhere to the bible.
 
The belief that life begins at conception is the notion that sperm is more important than a living woman.
 
The belief that life begins at conception is the notion that sperm is more important than a living woman.

No it isn't. It is the belief that life begins at conception. It is also a secular belief that contradicts the biblical account.
 
We discussed this - in another thread - and we had some more passages, too . . . . but I can't find that post
 
Good find. I wonder what implications this has on those who adhere to the bible.

Those crafty Catholics found a loop hole -- Oxygenated blood travels through the umbilical cord. Seriously, that's how they explain their pro-life stand.

I've watched two babies being born and two parents die--first breath is a powerful idea.

Thank you to the OP for posting this.
 
It really doesn't matter what the bible says to these pro-lifers, they are only interested in punishing people for "illicit" sex anyway. Why else would they now be starting on birth control? Either they are jealous of the "freedom" they believe they were cheated out of or are so hung up on sex that they blame the worlds problems on it
At least some posters on this board are honest about the real reason and it has nothing to do with a tadpoles "life". I know all the denials that will follow but they are only fooling themselves.
 
Those crafty Catholics found a loop hole -- Oxygenated blood travels through the umbilical cord. Seriously, that's how they explain their pro-life stand.

I've watched two babies being born and two parents die--first breath is a powerful idea.

Thank you to the OP for posting this.

So life begins with the umbilical cord?
 
It really doesn't matter what the bible says to these pro-lifers, they are only interested in punishing people for "illicit" sex anyway. Why else would they now be starting on birth control? Either they are jealous of the "freedom" they believe they were cheated out of or are so hung up on sex that they blame the worlds problems on it
At least some posters on this board are honest about the real reason and it has nothing to do with a tadpoles "life". I know all the denials that will follow but they are only fooling themselves.

So this is really about abortion rather than religion, right? Wrong forum if so.

But catch me up to speed, Iguanaman. Where's your evidence that "pro-lifers" are interested only in "illicit sex"?

And who is just now "starting" on birth control? Point me to where this is a new development because I obviously haven't been paying your close attention.

I like your either/or; it's a classic. Thank you. It illuminates so clearly the logic deficits in those of narrow, made-up minds. When you spell it out so clearly, there's really no way anybody could ever respond reasonably to you.
 
Those crafty Catholics found a loop hole -- Oxygenated blood travels through the umbilical cord. Seriously, that's how they explain their pro-life stand.

I've watched two babies being born and two parents die--first breath is a powerful idea.

Thank you to the OP for posting this.

Oxygenated blood does not travel through the umbilical chord at conception, so do the Catholics at least acknowlege that life does not begin then either?

Also, oxygenated blood travels to my hand. Does that mean that my hand is a seperated life? My hand does not draw breath. It is just a part of me, and uses the oxygen from the breath I draw. Should my hand offend me, I might cut it off, and it would not be murder.
 
Last edited:
Can you link me to this umbilical cord/oxygenated blood thing? I've never heard of it. Is this Catholic doctrine?
 
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed body --- Psalm 139:13-16

...and the most obvious:

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. --- Jeremiah 1:5
 
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed body --- Psalm 139:13-16

...and the most obvious:

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. --- Jeremiah 1:5

Jeremiah 1:5 is one of my favorites. Lets take another gander at it:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jeremiah 1:5

God says that He knew Jeremiah not only before he was born, but before he was even formed in the womb. BEFORE he was even conceived. By this standard, life does not begin at conception, but rather it begins BEFORE conception. If we continue to follow the logic, then not having sex with a girl that you have the opportunity to have sex with is murder because you killed the person who could have been born as a result of your intercourse. That potential for pregnancy was already a human life since God knew them before they were conceived. By preventing their conception, you murdered them.

A more reasonable interpretation is that God knew Jeremiah before he was conceived, because he knew that Jeremiah would be conceived. He appointed Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations before he was born because He knew that Jeremiah would be born.

In the same way that He might know that any given pair of sperm and egg might not ever become a human life, He might also know that a given fetus will never become a human life. Knowing people before they are conceived does not mean that He knows non-people who will never be conceived. Similarly it does not mean that He knows non-people before they are miscarried.
 
Jeremiah 1:5 is one of my favorites. Lets take another gander at it:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jeremiah 1:5

God says that He knew Jeremiah not only before he was born, but before he was even formed in the womb. BEFORE he was even conceived. By this standard, life does not begin at conception, but rather it begins BEFORE conception. If we continue to follow the logic, then not having sex with a girl that you have the opportunity to have sex with is murder because you killed the person who could have been born as a result of your intercourse. That potential for pregnancy was already a human life since God knew them before they were conceived. By preventing their conception, you murdered them.

A more reasonable interpretation is that God knew Jeremiah before he was conceived, because he knew that Jeremiah would be conceived. He appointed Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations before he was born because He knew that Jeremiah would be born.

In the same way that He might know that any given pair of sperm and egg might not ever become a human life, He might also know that a given fetus will never become a human life. Knowing people before they are conceived does not mean that He knows non-people who will never be conceived. Similarly it does not mean that He knows non-people before they are miscarried.

Following your logic, what then would be the moral implications for humans?
 
Panache, What about real functions functioning as always compared to every interpretation humanity composed to plant seeds of doubt by either side of theology vs theory in metaphysical sciences of psychiatry, psychology creating philosophies to die for?

I mean humanity invents ways to tip the scales of natural balnce holding the moment as is going on now and societal architechs of humanity's social identities get all the glory in creating the world to become a set of staged events fighting over character's rights taking gender liberty away without a fight in fear of making self fulfilling prophecies come true.

Now I understand symbolism over substance as one better mind the words of faith because their sole body doesn't matter under rule of law.
 
Last edited:
Biblically, I don't give a ****.
 
Then why are you posting on this thread?
 
Then why are you posting on this thread?

Maybe because I feel the need to point out that you don't need a 2,000 year old book to guide your daily morals?

Gee, how foolish of me.
 
So if life begins at birth or first breath, that thing in there isnt human and it isnt alive?
 
Then why are you posting on this thread?

Because the rule of law in governance of flesh is composed with good intentions by those that follow scriptures assuring the spirit is of higher value than one's sole characteristics of being human.

In the psychological game of class warfare, this is the battlefield of ideas, only in this tecnology sole vs sole. Not sole verses words in type, pictures on film, metaphors defined by one and nobody can question without an interpretor to what both sides meant to say that doesn't add up to all three versions of maybe.
 
Panache, What about real functions functioning as always compared to every interpretation humanity composed to plant seeds of doubt by either side of theology vs theory in metaphysical sciences of psychiatry, psychology creating philosophies to die for?

I mean humanity invents ways to tip the scales of natural balnce holding the moment as is going on now and societal architechs of humanity's social identities get all the glory in creating the world to become a set of staged events fighting over character's rights taking gender liberty away without a fight in fear of making self fulfilling prophecies come true.

Now I understand symbolism over substance as one better mind the words of faith because their sole body doesn't matter under rule of law.

OneMale, in answer to your query regarding the comparison of every interpretation humanity composed to plant seeds of doubt by either side of theology vs theory in metaphysical sciences of psychiatry, psychology creating philosophies to die for as compared to real functions functioning as always, I must admit that I have not familiarized myself with every interpretation humanity composed to plant seeds of doubt by either side of theology vs theory in metaphysical sciences of psychiatry, psychology creating philosophies to die for so I can't say for certain, but certainly for all the interpretations humanity composed to plant seeds of doubt by either side of theology vs theory in metaphysical sciences of psychiatry, psychology creating philosophies to die for with which I am familiar, I find them for more entertaining than real functions functioning as always, but less engaging than functions of the square root of negative one functioning abnormally.

The natural balance, being less precarious than one might imagine, seems to have maintained its balance despite thousands of years of such human invention to try and tip it, for behold the moment is still held.

Try to find the archetype of social entropy before ruminating on the vertical hierarchy vs the lateral monopoly that has been establishing, decaying and reestablishing itself fractally on every level like a Mandelbrot pattern upon the face of the universe.
 
Interesting. I've always thought the belief that life begins at conception has more of a basis in science than religion, but I hadn't heard of some of these passages.

As my moral (as opposed to political) opposition to abortion is not based on the Bible, this doesn't change my opinion very much.
 
Strange to see the OP use the Bible as a credible source all of a sudden. Lol

Anyway

The Humanity of the Pre-born in the Old Testament

God had plans for us before we were born. Jeremiah 1:4-5; Isaiah 49:1, 5

David discusses the spiritual state he was in before he was born (his personhood began at conception). Psalm 51:5

Jacob and Esau were distinct individuals before birth. Genesis 25:22-28

Scripture gives identity to unborn human life. Psalm 139 - notice the spiritual relationship the psalmist has while in the womb "The psalmist surveys his life in four stages: Past, present, future, and before birth, and in all four refers to himself as 'I.' He who is writing as a full-grown man has the same personal identity as the fetus in his mother's womb." (John R.W. Stott)

Samson's mother is told to alter her diet while pregnant because Samson, the child in her womb is to be consecrated unto the Lord. Here we have a direct concern for the life of the preborn. Judges 13:2-5

These verses do not distinguish between "potential life" and "actual life" when referring to the pre-born. Genesis 16:11; Isaiah 46:3-4; Psalm 22:9-10 (Notice in Psalm 22:10. "From my mother's womb you have been my God."

*snip*

The Humanity of the Pre-born in the New Testament

Paul was set apart from his mother's womb. Galatians 1:15

Jesus is spoken of in the womb. Matthew 1:20-21 (Note: The incarnation is the most compelling Christian apologetic for the sanctity of unborn human life. To argue that life does not begin at conception must lead one to assume that the human Christ was at one point a "potentially human" Christ. Those who say that life does not begin at conception are in direct opposition to the Apostles' Creed and in almost certain agreement with an early heresy, "adoptionism." which claimed that Jesus became God at some later point in life. The early church refuted this, and affirmed in the Apostles' Creed that the eternal Son became incarnate in Mary's womb, choosing the phrase, "conveived by the Holy Ghost." That which was conceived by the Holy Ghost was not an "it," a "potential human," or a "blob of tissue." It was our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.)

John the Baptist is spoken in the womb. Luke 1:15-17 - Filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. Luke 1:39-44. John's reaction to the pre-born Christ entering the room. (Note that Luke 1:36 tells us Elizabeth was six months along when Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb. Verse 56 tells us that Mary stayed with Elizabeth for three months until Elizabeth gave birth to John the Baptist. This means that Mary was literally in the first weeks or even days of her pregnancy when she approached Elizabeth, was called the mother of the Lord, and carried the embryo Christ who elicited John's leap in the womb.)

The Greek word brephos (lit. "babe" or "baby") is used to describe the pre-born and the born. Born: Luke 2:12, 16; Acts 7:19; 1 Peter 2:2. Pre-born: Luke 1:41, 44.

http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/scripture_sanctity_biblestudy.htm
 
Last edited:
Following your logic, what then would be the moral implications for humans?

Following my logic, the moral implication is that preventing someone from ever living is not the same as killing someone. When you choose to abstain from sex, you are preventing someone from ever living just as much as you do when you perform an abortion. That is not at all equivalent to murder.
 
Back
Top Bottom