Anna wrote;

I don’t see how someone can be considered sinful from conception if they aren’t actually there yet?

This is a reference to Psalm 51:5

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

In the context of David realising the extent of his sinfulness this quote may be an exaggeration to display David’s hatred of self because of his adultery and murder rather than a statement of doctrine.  What do you think?

If you get a baby pre-birth, as long as it hasn’t breathed once yet, it is OK to kill it?  That’s certainly not what these authors were trying to convey in those passages!  Most pro-abortion people would also find that horrible.

I am anti-abortion in my own ethics, but as I compare my ethics to Scripture and let it be shaped I get challenged.  In the case of a preborn baby, if breathing is linked to God’s definition of having life then to terminate the pregnancy would not kill the baby as killing can only occur to someone/thing that is alive.  I agree that the authors were not advocating abortion in the passages I quoted, but they may have been describing a doctrine that defines the difference between life and non life.

Dannii wrote;

Biblically, life is very strongly linked with blood. So if there was any point other than conception, it would be when the heart starts beating. Breath is more associated with spirit than soul.

You are right that blood is strongly linked to life, but do you have any reference to heart beating in scripture to add weight to your argument?
I’m a little confused about the difference between spirit and soul.  The word ‘spirit’ is the word breath in Greek (pneuma, I think) I don’t know how the soul is different though, please explain.

Is there a passage that suggests that the unborn child is actually alive?
Exodus 21:22-25 as discussed earlier is not clear who the passage is talking about, is it the harm of the mother or the miscarried child?  This doesn’t indicate that the baby was alive, but it does suggest that the presence of an unborn baby means people must take special care of pregnant mothers.

As Jesus said, the law in the Old Testament in many respects (e.g. divorce) was a concession to human sinfulness.

Biologically there is simply no ground for distinguishing between a foetus and a newborn infant - we are all of the one species.  Attempts to argue that the foetus is not human seems to me to have about as much credibility as attempts to argue that people of a different race aren’t human.

True, our criminal law doesn’t reflect this, and didn’t even reflect it when abortion was illegal (abortion was never punished to the same extent as murder of a fully-grown adult); but then even now, parents who murder their own infants are sentenced somewhat more leniently than in other cases.  People who murder the terminally ill (another category where common humanity is contested) are often as not, not gaoled at all nowadays.  Man’s law does not reflect God’s law in such matters.

Craig Thacker - 21 May 2008 03:27 AM

......  In the case of a preborn baby, if breathing is linked to God’s definition of having life then to terminate the pregnancy would not kill the baby as killing can only occur to someone/thing that is alive.  I agree that the authors were not advocating abortion in the passages I quoted, but they may have been describing a doctrine that defines the difference between life and non life.

As the ‘difference’ between life and non-life is death, I doubt that we need a doctrine to ‘define’ it.

A most wonderful passage about pregnancy is :

Psalm 139:13-15 (NIV)

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

15 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,

As life begins at conception, I don’t understand what some see as a problem. My wife ( and all other mothers ) can testify that when they get kicked in the stomach by the growing child-within, they know that the baby-within is well and truly alive. One of the great thrills for expectant fathers is for the wife to grab your hand when the baby-within is moving around and she says “feel this” so that you can share the joy and wonder.

And by the way, babies-in-utero ‘breathe’ through their umbilical cord.

Fetuses get their oxygen from their mother through the umbilical cord.  The protein in your blood that carries oxygen and makes it red is called hemoglobin.  When you were a fetus your hemoglobin was a little different
than it is now-it was able to bind and carry oxygen more efficiently so could survive on less oxygen.  Just before birth and shortly after, the hemoglobin begins to change to the adult form that is used when breathing air.

We are indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made”.

but the question still remains, if an unborn child is truly a living human being, why do most people do nothing about it except vocally condemn it?

Kevin Goddard wrote:

And by the way, babies-in-utero ‘breathe’ through their umbilical cord.

This is true that oxygen is exchanged but it not taking a breath, much the same as plants and insects have a gas exchange but do not take a breath, which is why the Scriptures never say that plants or insects have the ‘breath of life’ like it does about animals and humans.

However just looking at Genesis 1:21 which seems to refer to swarming sea creatures as living yet they certainly do not take a breath.  So they may be considered living but not have a spirit.

Please indulge my train of thought at the moment as I think out loud.

Do unborn babies have a spirit?  According to the logic a fetus may be alive, but without a spirit they will not continue to exist after death and will not face judgement.  So maybe that is why the LORD does not go into detail about protecting the unborn?  That is if a person does not receive their spirit until they take a breath.
Genesis 2:7

7then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

In this passage Adam became a living creature after he received breath into his nostrils, which is the same as receiving the spirit of life into his nostrils.  So before Adam’s first breath he did not have the spirit of life.  Does this applying to every person?  Or is heaven going to be full embryos that never saw the light of Day?

Have you noticed how some doctrines are so built into the church that people believe the doctrine before they discover it in the Scriptures?

I’m struggling to see support from scripture against abortion.  It’s like how my minister said from the pulpit a couple of weeks ago how the Bible clearly condemns gambling.  Yet he did not support that claim with Scripture, personally I’m yet to find a place where the Bible addresses it.  Likewise with abortion, I don’t think the Bible addresses it.  Yet history tells us that prostitutes from biblical times where having abortions.  So if it was to be condemned surely it would be addressed.

I want to tread carefully around this issue, because children are a blessing from the Lord.  But I want to let my mind be transformed by God and not by popular opinion so can someone defend the anti-abortion doctrine of Scripture?  If not maybe that is why Christians do not want to publicly be asked to defend this ideal.

In this passage Adam became a living creature after he received breath into his nostrils, which is the same as receiving the spirit of life into his nostrils.

He actually became a living soul. And could the spirit there actually be referring to the HS?

And could the spirit there actually be referring to the HS?

It is a good question, however I think the ‘spirit of life’ is not the third person of the Trinity but rather the spirit attached to each living person/animal.  Is attached the correct term?

That’s what I had always thought, but who knows? Sometimes I get frustrated at not being able to quite understand how a Jew a few thousand years ago would have understood the Bible because of being a Christian now. I’d be interested to find out if the Jews see this spirit in Gen 2 as the same as the spirit that, for example, came to the judges.

Luke 1:41-44 (English Standard Version)
41And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

This is an interesting passage.  The unborn John the Baptiser leaps for joy when he came into the presence of the unborn Lord Jesus.  This would suggest that a fetus can recognize the Lord and respond appropriately to Him.

Also;

Genesis 25
21 Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The LORD answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. 22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the LORD.

23 The LORD said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”

Why did the babies jostle in the womb?  Is it perhaps that God has placed some sort of spirit within these fetus’ that has caused them to fight against one another.  Without a spirit I don’t think one would have the desire to triumph over the other.

These passages provide some evidence of the fetus being a child of God, but they do not present a strong case against abortion on there own.  Can some one provide a strong case against abortion from scripture?  Please try to avoid making a case from science and the definition of a human, as this is not helpful for biblical theology.

Craig T <><

Kevin wrote

As the ‘difference’ between life and non-life is death, I doubt that we need a doctrine to ‘define’ it.

Sorry I didn’t address this earlier, but the difference between life and non-life is not death.  Death is only experienced by things that are alive.  So for example a rock is a non-life.  But biblically I think life is attributed to moving creatures and the spirit of life to breathing creatures, that is, actively breathing creatures not passive breathing.

Craig, you originally said :

Craig Thacker - 21 May 2008 03:27 AM
...... In the case of a preborn baby, if breathing is linked to God’s definition of having life, then to terminate the pregnancy would not kill the baby as killing can only occur to someone/thing that is alive.  I agree that the authors were not advocating abortion in the passages I quoted, but they may have been describing a doctrine that defines the difference between life and non life.

And now you come back with :

Sorry I didn’t address this earlier, but the difference between life and non-life is not death.  Death is only experienced by things that are alive.  So for example a rock is a non-life.

And here I was thinking that we were talking about “In the case of a preborn baby...”. Now suddenly an unborn baby is equated with a rock ?  I don’t follow the connection. However, perhaps an unborn baby is a living being after all .

Kevin wrote;

And here I was thinking that we were talking about “In the case of a pre-born baby...”. Now suddenly an unborn baby is equated with a rock?  I don’t follow the connection. However, perhaps an unborn baby is a living being after all.

This is my point.  Does the Bible consider a pre-born baby to be alive?  From what I’ve shown, the Bible seems to link life for a human to actively breathing.  Because the ‘spirit of life’ is only in breathing creatures/humans, then a pre-born child does not have the ‘spirit of life’.  And to me, having the ‘spirit of life’ is essential for a person to live with God in heaven forever or be without God forever.

Does a person have value if they are without a spirit?  Or are they just an object?

If we can put together a theological argument against abortion, then I for one will defend it.  But I’m yet to see any argument from scripture that suggests that a foetus is a life.  At best so far we have seen that it is a crime to harm a pregnant woman so that she loses her baby.  But the punishment suggests that a life was not lost in that circumstance.

Lev 17: “‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood… For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life.”

A foetus has blood yes? Then it’s alive.

That’s a good one.  I think we are getting closer to a solid biblical argument.

If we are sinful from conception [Psalm 51], we must be living to be sinning though I spose you could tell me that Ephesians 2 says the sinner is dead.

Of course my eagerly awaited third grandchild is alive!