# When does the Bible say human life begins?



## Pergamum (Dec 22, 2011)

Conception is not fertilisation | Donald's Thoughts

Above is a questionable article.



Does it begin at conception, implantation, fertilization, etc? What about the dividing of cells to make twins or the eating of some cells by others as potential twins are absorbed into the other?

Is the belief that life begins as conception somehow "traducian" as the author of the linked article claims?


----------



## asc (Dec 22, 2011)

Sorry i didn't read the article in great detail but biologically, conception and fertilization are synonymous. It's clearly the biological start of a new human being. 

Mixing modern biological terms with Biblical terms is an easy way to get very confused.


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 22, 2011)

There was a similar thread here.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 22, 2011)

I believe that life begins at conception. I also sympathize with the traducian view on the origin of the soul. 

Are these two things compatible? Even in post-conception cell divisions resulting in twins?


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Jan 15, 2012)

Perhaps the fact that Doctor Boyd practised medicine. It is not a degree he earned from a seminary. He is both a qualified doctor and with a background in the ministry of the word. He is therefore able to write from a strong evangelical perspective on these matters. The fact is that his article in my opinion is sound.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 15, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> I believe that life begins at conception. I also sympathize with the traducian view on the origin of the soul.
> 
> Are these two things compatible? Even in post-conception cell divisions resulting in twins?



I think that only becomes a conceptual difficulty, even on the traducian view, when God's exhaustive providence over all things is forgotten.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Jan 15, 2012)

Four quick things. Firstly has anyone actually read Dr "ing's booklet? Secondly are we aware this is a response to the booklet? Has anyone cconsidered that conception and fertilisation are not the same thing ? Adam was formed from the dust of the ground AND then breathed life into his nostrils.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 15, 2012)

ProtestantBankie said:


> Adam was formed from the dust of the ground AND then breathed life into his nostrils.



That shows that the body can exist before the soul - but Eve was taken from Adam and we read nothing of a separate breathing in her case. There are obviously some pretty sharp disanalogies between the creation of the first man and the subsequent generation of the race.


----------



## Esther W. (Jan 15, 2012)

I agree with Dr. Boyd's conclusions. During the 6 or 7 days it takes for the fertilized egg to implant and actually begin a pregnancy, I do not think "ensoulment" has happened. It takes about 36 hours for the fertilized egg to even become a blastocyst. As the author notes- during breast feeding a woman's body, due to hormones, rejects the implantation of fertilized eggs-natures birth control as it were. This uniquely natural phenomena would, in my opinion, support the Dr.'s conclusion.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 16, 2012)

Dr Boyd's an orthodox man. I would be interested to know what ethical conclusions he draws from the points he makes.

If it is the case that it can be shown biblically-speaking that conception and ensoulment are subsequent to fertilisation, fertilisation is still the beginning of a new human life, which is to be given all due respect.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 16, 2012)

The definition of when human life begins and when pregnancy begins has enormous implications to us in this day of abortion, the-emergency-contraception pill (which is not truly contraception but is abortion if we count human life and pregnancy as beginning at conception and not beginning at implantation) and human embryo use and study.

Boyd states:



> Dr Ling blames the British Council of Churches for “an entirely novel way of thinking about the early days of human life to say that pregnancy did not begin until implantation”,



I believe it is wrong (medically and theologically) to state that life does not begin until implantation.



> "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
> [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]



The association of pro-life physicians seems to equate conception and fertilization. I agree with their assertion that from the very first moment that a new separate organism is formed, that is the beginning of life, even though a successfull implantation may not occur (all docs, after all, call an ectopic pregnancy a pregnancy even though implanation in a viable way is not accomplished).


Here is my position, from the same Association of Pro-Life Physicians:


> According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.
> 
> Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.
> 
> ...




Thus, it appears that not only Dr. Ling disagrees with Daniel Boyd, but the Association of Pro-Life Physicians does, too, equating conception with fertilization and stating that the beginning of a human life begins then. And, theologically, this would appear to be the time of "ensoulment."


Boyd states the following and I am looking for reliable proof of this assertion:



> However, there are multitudes of fertilised human eggs which disappear every month in a woman’s menstrual flow



Really? Multitudes? Every month? 

There are some fertilized eggs that do not successfully implant and I would call these pregnancies. And 18 US states would, too. Therefore, even if the term "contragestive" has become popular to avoid the term "abortifacient" I believe that to prevent the implantation of an already fertilized egg (a new life, with its own dna) is to commit murder. Thus, Wal-Mart know dispenses murder pills for babies.

Therefore, it seems that "ensoulment" occurs at conception because that is when human life begins.

Thoughts?

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

-
-
From the Pro-Life Action League:



> When does life begin?
> 
> Biology is crystal clear that at the moment of conception (also known as fertilization), a unique organism comes into existence. Since this new life possesses human DNA and is the offspring of human parents, it can legitimately only be described as human life.
> 
> ...




Also, stating that the OT refers to the "womb" and not the "fallopian tube" as proof of an argument is very weak. The bible is not a biology book and speaks of body parts very generally or in ways other than literal (bowels of affection, gird up loins, etc)....

---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------




> The next thing to notice is that the consistent biblical idea of ‘conceive/conception’ is that the mother conceives the child Gen 4:1,17; et passim. Obvious – but completely overlooked by Dr Ling and in most discussions of the subject. Conception is a comment about the mother’s state, not about the stage of embryo development. Conception is to be with child, to be pregnant 2Samuel 11:5. To equate fertilisation with conception is to confuse two completely different issues. Thus we can say that the Lord Jesus Christ was ‘conceived’ by His mother Mary, but no egg was fertilised.
> 
> Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist Lk 1:24,36 and Mary conceived Jesus Lk 1:31; 2:21. The Greek word sullambano means “to take hold of, seize, capture, catch’. Various Hebrew and Greek words are translated ‘conceive’ but exegesis and analysis shows that the general idea is that the womb ‘takes hold of’ the blastocyst (the technical term for development at the stage of implantation) so that the mother is “with child” or becomes pregnant. Shortly after this she becomes aware that she is with child. By this stage, God has breathed the human soul into the conceived child. The obvious ‘discontinuous’ events which makes the difference are implantation sullambano and ensoulment Gen 2:7.
> 
> ...



I found this weak, also. 

Doesn't the egg initially receive the sperm such that implantation (of the new and separate organism) need not usurp the place of conception as the sullambano?


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 16, 2012)

I don't think Donald Boyd is saying that human life doesn't begin at fertilisation, but just that fertilisation precedes conception (i.e. implantation in the womb) and ensoulment.

He also doesn't say what his view of embryo experimentation and abortifacients is. I presume he'd be against them.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 16, 2012)

But he is saying that fertilization and conception are different and are not the beginning of life it appears. He seems to make an argument for implantation. This goes against the Pro-Life literature out there.

---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------

ABORTION - Does life begin only when the embryo implants?

Another good link addressing the implantation issue.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 16, 2012)

The OP asks, "When does the Bible say....?"

Last night at supper I was reading Psalm 139 to my family. What an amazing portion of scripture. From what I read there, a life begins in God's thoughts, NOT at conception, NOT at "ensoulment".

Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts;

you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Wonderful are your works;

my soul knows it very well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you,

when I was being made in secret,

intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;

in your book were written, every one of them,

the days that were formed for me,

when as yet there was none of them.

17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!

How vast is the sum of them!

18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand.

I awake, and I am still with you."

God was tracking and ordaining us even when we were trace elements and substances in the earth. The beginning of each life is done in secret where no many can see or discover a beginning. For man to interfere at any point with the creation of a life is to do violence to the image of God.

Abortion is a word that describes God's providential act in terminating the process of a life. Abortion is an act of God that we often call a miscarriage. When a doctor or human, premeditatedly ends the life of a baby with instruments or a pill, this is not abortion, this is murder, this is the destruction of life in the image of God. Man has no right to interfere with the process of life or the termination of a baby. If at some point the development of the baby threatens the life of the mother, then the doctors are to make every effort to preserve both lives. If the baby dies during this life saving procedure then this is not an abortion, it is the tragic death of a baby during a medical procedure to save life. Doctors should never abort, this is the exclusive prerogative of the Almighty.

If we can keep the terms and definitions in the proper categories then these difficult questions will answer themselves.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 16, 2012)

*Pergy*


> But he is saying that fertilization and conception are different and are not the beginning of life it appears. He seems to make an argument for implantation. This goes against the Pro-Life literature out there.




You're right enough, Pergy. He does say human life begins at conception i.e. implantation rather than fertilisation:


> but the Bible is unmistakably clear that human life begins at conception.


----------



## Esther W. (Jan 19, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> I don't think Donald Boyd is saying that human life doesn't begin at fertilisation, but just that fertilisation precedes conception (i.e. implantation in the womb) and ensoulment.
> 
> He also doesn't say what his view of embryo experimentation and abortifacients is. I presume he'd be against them.



Agreed, but I also see how the implications of the case he makes could be used to justify abortive agents prior to implantation at the very least. My contention was/is that he is scientifically speaking accurate. Also that his comments regarding the natural (God endowed) hormonal changes that prevent implantation while a woman is lactating, indicate that "ensoulment" does not take place prior to implantation.


----------



## MW (Jan 19, 2012)

The examples of Adam and Jesus are not "ordinary" examples. One should not derive an ordinary principle from an extraordinary event.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Jan 19, 2012)

The fact that majority of pro-life material disagrees is the biggest obstacle for the argument of Dr Boyd being given a fair hearing.
Dr Ling's booklet has many weaknesses and yet, just about every reformed Church in the UK will have a copy of it (it is produced by The Christian Institute one of the few Christian para-church organisations operating).

As leader of the Scottish Christian Party, Dr Boyd is responsible for the following policy statement "We will campaign for full human rights to be given to the unborn child, thus acknowledging the child’s humanity from conception."


----------

