One place where I disagree with the Christian mainstream is on the issue of abortion and when life begins. Most believe that the fetus is a person with rights at conception. However, as I have noted at my pro-life site Citizens For Reasonable Abortion Limits, I think the point of personhood must be defined as sometime after that, no later than 8 weeks into pregnancy, and quite possibly earlier (see the GRAPHIC pic at right – 8 week aborted fetuses look horrifically human). I believe that that position can be defended ethically. However, Christians also want a biblical argument, and perhaps the presence of blood is more biblical than conception.
Now, while there are plenty of biblical arguements (most not entirely convincing to me) for the "life begins at conception" stance, today I found one that argues that life, or the point of personhood, should be defined at around 14 days, the point at which blood is first seen. They chose this because of the scriptures in Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
–Jeremiah 1:5
This scripture answers the question for me.
Carl
That says nothing about conception. And it says *before* I formed thee? I guess you assume that God starts the forming right away. But what if it means he "knew" us before conception? Does this mean that birth control is sin? That "every sperm is sacred", to borrow a phrase?
You are correct, the verse cited says nothing about conception. It speaks of God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah, and of the fact that, when Jeremiah was being formed, He, God, would be doing the forming. Thus when you say that this verse does not speak to conception, you are correct. For in all technicality, this verse presumes to precede conception.
Carl
Actually Carl, that's pretty sound to me. Still, I'm not sure we should hold out for that position legislatively speaking – it's definitely an all-or-nothing position.
I just thought it wiser to argue for an early marker, since even most pro-choicers admit that later term abortions are horrific and morally questionable (even though they may want to leave that choice up to women and not the govt). I think that my approach can get broader support, and would save a lot of lives.
And unless we have major revival, i don't know if we will ever get a majority of people to outlaw abortion in every state. I would rather get a 90% solution now, and work very hard at reducing teen pregnancy beyond that. A 100% solution may not be doable.
Shaky ground still Seeker, as I have argued here before, how can you be sure that the first 8 weeks are free and clear of a moral imperative? Don't we take measures in law to prevent even the possibility of doing potential bodily harm? Drunk driving laws as an example: it's deemed wrong because someone "might" get hurt.
Biblically, if God has plans for a life, and we destroy those plans, that is sin. Pretty simple. Contraception is a red herring and ignores God's forknowledge. Obviously not every sexual encounter is a life meant to be nor is it a "potential human". God is well aware of the outcomes in every situation and in fact He causes the conception to occur in the first place ( we tend to forget that). God knowing us before our conception refers to the fact that He has plans for our lives. The is no "person" before conception by any definition, unless you believe like the Mormons that our souls pre-exist our bodies.
I don't think making a Biblical arguement about blood is any more persuasive to the general public than conception.
I am not saying that the first 8 weeks are ok – on my site, i argue that it is the lastest possible marker, and we should look at moving it back.
But legislatively speaking, I am being a pragmatist. Isn't it better to save 90% than 0%, while fighting for the 100% solution and never getting it?
I thought life began when God breathed life into the dust? Without God's individual intent, I don't believe life is possible or defineable. None of us are able to answer for God, therefore, none of us can have the conclusive answer on this debate. However, we should all ponder the debate in the deepest recesses of our hearts.
Life starts at conception. At this early stage in life each individual contains his or her own DNA, genetics, and chromosomes. That means that the same DNA that frees, persecutes, or sentences a criminal is formed at this moment of conception. The moment the sperm hits the egg, the individual who is truly and individual contains all of his or her parents DNA. Whether or nor they are male or female is logged into their genetics and can not be altered until birth.
There is seriously something wrong with the way we are raising people if we refuse to remember God the Creator created us each individually and has cared for us even "BEFORE WE WERE BORN."
No one on earth should be able to take away that right through science or technological advances(AKA: Abortion, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research)
Sarah, even if you believe that, I think that your reasoning, as far as public legislation is concerned, is flawed, as I have discussed in
– The Evangelical Argument on Stem Cells is Flawed
– Personhood in Jewish Tradition
– Does Life Start at Conception?
Please give these a read.
Sarah
No one on earth should be able to take away that right through science or technological advances(AKA: Abortion, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research)
By that logic alone, we should also deny the benefits of advanced pre-natal care for premature babies born way early, any further research to stop and cure incurable diseases, halt keeping coma patients or brain dead people allive through artificial methods, etc.
For without those sorts of meddlesome interventions by human beings, those individuals would either live or die (more likely die) as it were due to God's plan for them.
We are in effect intervening and countering our own faith by accepting these modern medicine marvels that you seem to not object to while on the other side of the coin disparage the medical benefits of stem cell research.
An acorn is NOT a tree.
Um, so smart guy, when *is* an acorn a tree? After germination? After it breaks the soil? After it's one inch tall? ;)
We are in effect intervening and countering our own faith by accepting these modern medicine marvels that you seem to not object to while on the other side of the coin disparage the medical benefits of stem cell research.
I don't buy this line of reasoning, because it is basically saying the ends justifies the means. The question is not whether or not it is ethical to do medical research, but whether or not it is ethical to experiment on embryos.
Until the left comes up with some reasonable valuation of the fetus, rather than being willing to kill it via abortion throughout pregnancy, their accusations of the unethicalness of prohibiting ESC research fall on deaf ears because they are ignoring the elephant in the room, that is, their failure to safeguard the fetus from ESC research by setting limits to the maturity of the cells.
I don't buy this line of reasoning, because it is basically saying the ends justifies the means. The question is not whether or not it is ethical to do medical research, but whether or not it is ethical to experiment on embryos.
Seeker, no I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that I find it disingenuous for Evangelicals to go out and say we should stop messing with God by trying to unlock the secrets of Embryonic Stem Cell research (do no research at all), while on the other side of the coin they were all rabid to save Terri Schiavo and also save severely premature babies using technology to keep them alive where they would otherwise die.
Basically my standard is this:
You want to block stem cell research on religious & ethical grounds? Fine. Then be consistent and not get in a tizzy when a brain dead individual or a premature baby that is being kept alive solely by machines (with no chance to live otherwise) has the plug pulled.
Human beings by using machinery in those situations are in effect interfering with the will of God. If a person is supposed to die, they will die. If they are supposed to live, they will live. Using machinery to prolong the inevitable with what amounts to a terminal condition is interfering with that course of events.
You can go ahead and try and argue otherwise, but that is what a strict Catholic upbringing brought into perspective for me. Either God is in control or he is not. If he is, then let him have the control and don't try to intervene as outlined above.
– Silver
i believe that life starts at conception because there are many different beliefs of what it taked to be considered living. and by far means a fertilized embryo fits into every category. i think that life begins at conception because the sperm is livin to fertilize the egg and so when it gets to the egg it just evolves into another form of life. an as time progresses it grows and keeps evolving, from a zygote to an embryo to a baby to a toddler an so on an so on.
The larger question is, though, not just what we believe, but how we translate that into moral imperatives and legislation.
For example, I believe that the individual exists from conception (note I didn't say "life"), but does that mean we must extend legal protection from that point? Or should we also consider other principles, like the rights of the mother, the consciousness of the fetus, etc?
I think that a fairer and more balanced way to legislate is to also consider these other principles – which is why I think, no matter what we *believe* indivdiually, the most reasonable and intellectually and ethically equitable way of legislating is to disallow abortion after about 4-8 weeks of gestation, not from conception.
This is what I recommended at c-ral.org
Life, in my opinion, is God's to control. Arguments about abortion are based on moral principles. MY moral principle is this: If God meant for it to be, it will be. If He does not want that child here, HE will take it away. We have no right to take this matter into our own hands – HE is the one to decide who lives and who dies. After all, is He not the Judge on Judgement Day?
I support the Democratic process for abortion limits.
Please support me for US Senate, by going to WilliamLee2014.org