Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 04:38 PM Oct 2012

The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A Living Being .. really read this its good.

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

After God formed man in Genesis 2 , He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”

In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.

According to the bible, destroying a living fetus does not equate to killing a living human being even though the fetus has the potential of becoming a human being. One can not kill something that has not been born and taken a breath. This means that a stillborn would not be considered a human being either. Of course, every living sperm has the potential of becoming a human being although not one in a million will make it; the rest are aborted.




.
MOre:

http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/1/post/2012/10/the-bible-tells-us-when-a-fetus-becomes-a-living-being.html

I think its always good to use their own book to prove your point.

78 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A Living Being .. really read this its good. (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter Oct 2012 OP
This isn't a new argument... ohheckyeah Oct 2012 #1
I would prefer that we move away from biblical arguments altogether, MadHound Oct 2012 #2
I feel the same way. GreenPartyVoter Oct 2012 #4
I feel much the same - However, fighting the pro-zygote crowd with science GoneOffShore Oct 2012 #14
Yes, this is what they believe in . This is proof to them. The Wielding Truth Oct 2012 #40
I agree. Michigan Alum Nov 2012 #62
You are correct. MsPithy Nov 2012 #72
exactly RainDog Nov 2012 #76
Amen... onecent Oct 2012 #31
I don't but sometimes Ichingcarpenter Oct 2012 #8
it would be nice to have a response to their attitude that liberal_at_heart Oct 2012 #48
I don't know... In general I would agree with you but... Xyzse Oct 2012 #9
I disagree.... ohheckyeah Oct 2012 #11
I wish we could Heathen57 Oct 2012 #36
What you prefer and what sometimes has to happen WilliamPitt Oct 2012 #43
it's wasted breath in any event.... mike_c Oct 2012 #46
Exactly. CrispyQ Oct 2012 #55
I want to recommend this post. loudsue Nov 2012 #73
Colbert rocks! CrispyQ Nov 2012 #74
No it's not wasted breath.... ohheckyeah Nov 2012 #63
I didn't know this. The Breath of Life. Yes. libdem4life Oct 2012 #3
How do Republicans get around this? KansDem Oct 2012 #5
This enquiring mind wants to know. nt justiceischeap Oct 2012 #10
They say that the fetus breaths by using the oxygen in the blood. L0oniX Oct 2012 #54
Interesting counter argument defacto7 Oct 2012 #6
Will come in handy with rwingers BainsBane Oct 2012 #7
This shows their true colors treestar Oct 2012 #12
The sperm and ovum are alive on a cellular level before they unite. Qutzupalotl Oct 2012 #20
The fetus is not separate from the mother. JDPriestly Oct 2012 #27
Agreed. Qutzupalotl Oct 2012 #32
Bookmarking for later. Thanks! Lucinda Oct 2012 #13
left wing 'eisogesis' is as bad as right wing eisogesis. grantcart Oct 2012 #15
It's spelled ohheckyeah Nov 2012 #64
well actually I believe that it is spelled grantcart Nov 2012 #67
Actually, traditional Catholic teaching nichomachus Oct 2012 #16
In the Middle Ages, a Catholic priest told me, the fetus was not considered to be alive until the JDPriestly Oct 2012 #28
You were alive in the Middle Ages? GeorgeGist Oct 2012 #51
A Catholic priest told me that . . . . JDPriestly Oct 2012 #53
I don't know anyone who's felt a baby move in the third month. It's usually the fourth or fifth, gkhouston Nov 2012 #60
Actually, in Islam they believe the fetus gets its soul on the 120th day TexasBushwhacker Nov 2012 #61
End of the third month, which would be the beginning of the fourth month. JDPriestly Nov 2012 #77
Thanks. MissMarple Oct 2012 #17
I've always believed this Flying Dream Blues Oct 2012 #18
Also God commanded Moses not to count children under a month old in the census cags Oct 2012 #19
And don't forget God's commandment that all the children and babies of the Amalekites be murdered. cags Oct 2012 #22
FUNDAMENTALISTS SHOULD KNOW THIS FACT ROBROX Oct 2012 #21
yep, I always use that argument on Bible fappers. They find it hard to refute. librechik Oct 2012 #23
Those parts don't apply. obxhead Oct 2012 #24
I grew up reading the Bible. We are human beings from the moment we take our first breath. JDPriestly Oct 2012 #25
Bookmarked for later tnlurker Oct 2012 #26
K&R SunSeeker Oct 2012 #29
Nice, but it won't matter to the anti-choice crowd. Matariki Oct 2012 #30
Actually the generally held belief by all was that life began with the first breath until teewrex Oct 2012 #33
It's clear they don't really care about life. DaveJ Oct 2012 #34
And anti-death penalty KamaAina Oct 2012 #45
With respect, and understanding that in life... BlueNoteSpecial Oct 2012 #35
It's not so much an argument to convince the zealots rock Oct 2012 #37
Thanks for posting. Sherman A1 Oct 2012 #38
Great find. Thanks for posting! Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #39
Will vs Choice Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #41
logic won't work with these folks. spanone Oct 2012 #42
Bookmarked for future reference kentuck Oct 2012 #44
Recced and book marked. progressoid Oct 2012 #47
It's not the only part of the Bible they don't follow.... Wounded Bear Oct 2012 #49
I love how they quote Leviticus liberal_at_heart Oct 2012 #50
Your position might be better than the average fundy's, but your argument isn't. D23MIURG23 Oct 2012 #52
This is interesting to know. CrispyQ Oct 2012 #56
Yeah, I heard that upi402 Oct 2012 #57
Hence Orthodox Jews don't spout off the crap about it being a live human Sgent Oct 2012 #58
Meh. That's the Old Testament. Duer 157099 Nov 2012 #59
Whoa!!! The bible had EMOTICONS??? cui bono Nov 2012 #65
K&R-ing theinquisitivechad Nov 2012 #66
I find it interesting that religious christians today fasttense Nov 2012 #68
They don't care. The Doctor. Nov 2012 #69
The "pro-life" movement's goal isn't to stop abortions or to protect life YoungDemCA Nov 2012 #70
First breath SamKnause Nov 2012 #71
kindly keep all dogma away from my reproductive decisions PeaceNikki Nov 2012 #75
Further, abortion, using natural medications, existed MineralMan Nov 2012 #78

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
1. This isn't a new argument...
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 04:40 PM
Oct 2012

In Genesis Adam didn't become a living being until he took his first breath.

It's a good article, thanks for posting.

 

MadHound

(34,179 posts)
2. I would prefer that we move away from biblical arguments altogether,
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 04:42 PM
Oct 2012

Let's just stick with the factual ones instead of trying to dress up everything with a religious veneer.

GoneOffShore

(17,336 posts)
14. I feel much the same - However, fighting the pro-zygote crowd with science
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 05:02 PM
Oct 2012

and logic, doesn't seem to make any headway.

Shooting them with their own ammo.....priceless.

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
76. exactly
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:17 PM
Nov 2012

And this thinking was the position of the Southern Baptists until they aligned, politically, with Catholics over this to create a coalition within the Republican Party.

So, the Southern Baptists changed their doctrine to match a version of Christianity that they routinely identified as "The Whore of Babylon" in Revelations.

Not that any of that has anything to do with reality, but it's indicative of the importance of opposing feminism and supporting anti civil rights actions from Republicans that coincided with the Southern Strategy.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
8. I don't but sometimes
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 04:48 PM
Oct 2012

you need to be able to speak the lingo to the natives in the jungles
of their beliefs.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
48. it would be nice to have a response to their attitude that
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 08:11 PM
Oct 2012

their belief is moral while the non-religious belief or scientific facts are immoral. I know it would have no impact on what they believe but it would be nice to be able to stand up and say you know what I am just as moral as you. You do not have moral superiority here just because you say you do.

Xyzse

(8,217 posts)
9. I don't know... In general I would agree with you but...
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 04:49 PM
Oct 2012

When dealing with zealots and fundamentalists, the only thing that they would listen to is what they purportedly support.

If you just go by logic, it won't penetrate. If you use their words against them, you might have a chance.
However, more likely than not, even with these, it would still go from one ear, out of the other.

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
11. I disagree....
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 04:57 PM
Oct 2012

some of us were raised with the idea that the Bible is truth and we were hammered with the idea that the Bible says life starts at conception. Knowing that is NOT what the Bible says gives those of us who have always stood alone in our families, churches or communities some validation and comfort. It's not easy standing against a belief system that you are surrounded by like I have been. I argued the pro-choice side in a debate in 1971 and believe me, it wasn't easy to take that stand in a conservative area and conservative school as a 17 year old.

Intellectual knowledge is good but it doesn't always help to quell the guilt and doubts one has when going against their upbringing.

Heathen57

(573 posts)
36. I wish we could
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 07:09 PM
Oct 2012

keep it factual, but these people only believe their own bible and sometimes you have to use their own book against them to get through to them.

mike_c

(36,267 posts)
46. it's wasted breath in any event....
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 07:43 PM
Oct 2012

Religious fundamentalists usually acquire their beliefs culturally, and stick to them no matter what evidence to the contrary undermines them. Logic and science obviously won't shake their delusions, and neither will appealing to their own belief system-- when the bible or whatever religious text they acknowledge argues against their core values, they'll either rationalize the difference, if they can be bothered to engage in thought at all, or they'll simply dismiss the contrary information out of hand.

I'll bet you could put 100 randomly selected anti-choice christian fundamentalists into a room and have Billy Graham himself making this argument and quoting scripture in its defense, and at the end of the day 100 anti-choice fundamentalists would leave the room "with their faith strengthened." That's how rigid thinking works.

CrispyQ

(36,413 posts)
55. Exactly.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 11:24 PM
Oct 2012

Much as they claim they love Jesus they abhor his teachings & instead embrace the old testament.



ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
63. No it's not wasted breath....
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:57 AM
Nov 2012

my brother has done a complete turnaround in his thinking in the last year. He is no pro-choice, pro-women's rights, pro-gay marriage.....so don't tell me it's wasted breath.My father, who voted Republican all of his life, voted for President Obama. He said he would never vote for another Republican as long as he lives. He left a church because they were preaching an anti-gay,anti-choice message.


That's how rigid thinking works.


What you are engaging in is rigid thinking as well. You've already decided that nobody ever changes their mind. Well, you're WRONG.

KansDem

(28,498 posts)
5. How do Republicans get around this?
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 04:45 PM
Oct 2012
...a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

Do they just bypass the first breath and jump to the second breath?

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
6. Interesting counter argument
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 04:45 PM
Oct 2012

Yes, it's nice when cherry picked arguments turn right back around again and either disqualify or contradict their own reading material. It's too bad they take it seriously to begin with, but if they do why not give them something to chew.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
12. This shows their true colors
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 04:59 PM
Oct 2012

see they do not really care when life begins. In fact, they are using an updated, modern, science based definition of when life begins since it suits their purpose. Otherwise, the Bible is literally true. But that won't suit their purpose here.

Their purpose is control of females and acknowledgement by all females they are under that control.

Qutzupalotl

(14,285 posts)
20. The sperm and ovum are alive on a cellular level before they unite.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 05:46 PM
Oct 2012

I think the question is not when life begins, but how it is defined. Cellular life predates conception, and continues for some time after clinical death; so I have to reject it as a basis for the start of life. First breath to last breath is about as good a definition of the beginning and end of individual life as I can think of.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
27. The fetus is not separate from the mother.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 06:28 PM
Oct 2012

It takes months, maybe a year, before the infant really begins to understand that it is a separate person from its mother or caregiver.

Until it takes its first breath, the fetus is really a part of the mother's body, not a separate being.

This is important because the fact is that, until that first breath, the infant cannot have a will, much less a free will. It cannot express its will until that first breath. The first action that a baby takes of its own will is to breathe. Even then, the breath is a reflex of the baby not exactly an expression of the baby's will.

In traditional Christian theology, that is an important distinction.

Qutzupalotl

(14,285 posts)
32. Agreed.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 06:40 PM
Oct 2012

I can sort of understand the emotion behind RW views on this. IF abortion were murder, their anger would be justified. But I really don't believe that it is. And until someone can definitively say when life begins — and I think the first breath is a good choice — I will err on the side of keeping abortion safe and legal.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
67. well actually I believe that it is spelled
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 01:20 AM
Nov 2012

?????????

In any case hunting and pecking your way through sacred texts to try and confirm a pre-existing point of view is to scholarship and reason as bubble gum is to cuisine.

Just surprised so many here get fooled by it.

nichomachus

(12,754 posts)
16. Actually, traditional Catholic teaching
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 05:07 PM
Oct 2012

was that the fetus acquired a soul at about six or seventh month. The "life begins at ejaculation" is a fairly new thing for them.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
28. In the Middle Ages, a Catholic priest told me, the fetus was not considered to be alive until the
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 06:30 PM
Oct 2012

quickening in the 3d to 4th month. Our law gives the mother the right to decide on abortion without any restrictions until the end of the third month. That is stated in a decision by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor called Casey.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
53. A Catholic priest told me that . . . .
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 09:48 PM
Oct 2012

Because it is Halloween, I am wearing my witch's hat tonight, not my zombie hat. It's Halloween, but I did not rise from my tomb just to post on DU.

gkhouston

(21,642 posts)
60. I don't know anyone who's felt a baby move in the third month. It's usually the fourth or fifth,
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:30 AM
Nov 2012

and some women never feel their babies move at all.

TexasBushwhacker

(20,131 posts)
61. Actually, in Islam they believe the fetus gets its soul on the 120th day
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:43 AM
Nov 2012

which would correspond with quickening. On that day, the mother is supposed to rest.

MissMarple

(9,656 posts)
17. Thanks.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 05:20 PM
Oct 2012

The right wing religious just love to cherry pick the Bible to support their biases, ignoring the overall message of the Christ they profess to follow.

Flying Dream Blues

(4,484 posts)
18. I've always believed this
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 05:24 PM
Oct 2012

but didn't know it was in the Bible! I agree, since this is the authority they are looking to, it is the only way to win this argument.

cags

(1,914 posts)
22. And don't forget God's commandment that all the children and babies of the Amalekites be murdered.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 05:47 PM
Oct 2012
 

ROBROX

(392 posts)
21. FUNDAMENTALISTS SHOULD KNOW THIS FACT
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 05:46 PM
Oct 2012

This article lists facts which come from the HOLY BOOK. But there are many of the flock who do not have the cognizance to understand the written words. They understand what they are told because they are sheep who are being lead by the RULER OF THIS WORLD or SATAN.

CHEERS

 

obxhead

(8,434 posts)
24. Those parts don't apply.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 05:59 PM
Oct 2012

That's their argument.

The Bible is a tool to be used, twisted, and misquoted to support their beliefs or needs at the time.

It should be their beliefs are shaped by everything in the Bible, but they never have and never will be. It's all a farce; just another form of control.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
25. I grew up reading the Bible. We are human beings from the moment we take our first breath.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 06:22 PM
Oct 2012

The first breath is what makes us a separate human being.

The fundies have it so, so, so wrong -- at least according to the Bible.

The Breath of Life. That is the phrase that I remember so well.

Matariki

(18,775 posts)
30. Nice, but it won't matter to the anti-choice crowd.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 06:35 PM
Oct 2012

Their motive is controlling women, not following the bible.

teewrex

(96 posts)
33. Actually the generally held belief by all was that life began with the first breath until
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 06:40 PM
Oct 2012

Pat Robertson came along. I remember when it changed from first breath to conception. It always amazed me how Christians can change their beliefs to suit themselves just by having a "revelation from god"

DaveJ

(5,023 posts)
34. It's clear they don't really care about life.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 06:41 PM
Oct 2012

If they cared about life, they'd be anti-war.

Being anti-abortion is more of a social agenda that is opposed to premarital sex, IMO. A social agenda that is also carried out by the same sort of Christians who in the past would cut off male genitals to achieve higher singing voices in their church choirs.

Labeling the movement "pro life" is new, and when it was first used seemed really weird since it had no relationship whatsoever to their real attitudes.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
45. And anti-death penalty
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 07:42 PM
Oct 2012

Only a tiny fraction of anti-choicers actually follow through with this; they're mainly Catholics who call their philosophy "the Seamless Garment".

BlueNoteSpecial

(141 posts)
35. With respect, and understanding that in life...
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 06:47 PM
Oct 2012

...the very thing(s) that a human needs to believe may not be true at all, this "good book" is only that. It has been rewritten, revised & reconstituted into so many "versions", by so many differing "religions" for so many centuries, that these "stories" can hardly be taken as fact. Interpretation, superstition, fear, control, and the sordid, violent history of the catholic church, give credibility to "faith", not fact. Christianity is the most vile, and dangerous ideology ever foisted upon Mankind. Just ask the descendants of the millions of muslims, hindus, buddists, and native nature worshipers whose narratives, and symbols were appropriated into the "church", after being systematically slaughtered in the name of "God's will". This is, and has been, a circular argument, regarding when life begins, I do not take this lightly, nor do I presume, as a Man, to have an unmovable position regarding terminating a life. I cannot begin to fathom the weight this choice imparts on a Woman. No Man can. Believe what you must, but I'll believe in the miracles I can see...you, me, children, the trees, but never a dogma that states, "Yahweh or no way". We are each a Sovereign Authority over our own bodies, please respect that.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
50. I love how they quote Leviticus
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 08:20 PM
Oct 2012

The only people who follow Leviticus are orthodox Jews. Christians who do not follow the rules put forth in Leviticus have no authority to quote Leviticus on homosexuality.

D23MIURG23

(2,845 posts)
52. Your position might be better than the average fundy's, but your argument isn't.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 08:49 PM
Oct 2012

The fundies end up with back asswards views because they are laboring under the delusion that their favorite work of fiction is a source of information about reality. Your post follows the same bad rational to the opposite conclusion. The reality is that the bible most likely supports both positions, and more importantly the people who wrote the bible had no idea how reproduction worked, and were in no way qualified to comment.

CrispyQ

(36,413 posts)
56. This is interesting to know.
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 11:28 PM
Oct 2012

I'm not the religious die-hards would hear it, though. But it's good info to have.

upi402

(16,854 posts)
57. Yeah, I heard that
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 11:30 PM
Oct 2012

a caller called in with that - maybe to Democracy Now! or Norman Goldman - can't recall...

Sgent

(5,857 posts)
58. Hence Orthodox Jews don't spout off the crap about it being a live human
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 11:41 PM
Oct 2012

The misogynists spout off about other things -- but the idea that life begins at conception is foreign to them.

The Jewish view is (and has been since the Middle Ages) that a fetus is a potential life -- not a life. Also, almost all commandments can be broken to protect the mother's actual health or life, so abortion for health reasons isn't an issue in this community.

They still are against abortion in most (not all) cases, but this "life begins conception" crap is news to them.

Duer 157099

(17,742 posts)
59. Meh. That's the Old Testament.
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:11 AM
Nov 2012

God made all sorts of New Rules with the New Testament. Ask a fundie, they'll tell you.

 

fasttense

(17,301 posts)
68. I find it interesting that religious christians today
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:15 AM
Nov 2012

are trying to follow a book that was written when people would throw their newly born children on the trash heap, if they didn't want them. If you wanted a slave you would pick up a child from the dump to raise. If a woman gave birth to a child that wasn't the sex they wanted (usually girls), they would put the baby by the river or in the trash to die.

So all this crap about Jesus and others of his time caring about a fetus is pure lies. None of them cared if a fetus lived. They didn't even care if the newborn infant lived most times.

 

The Doctor.

(17,266 posts)
69. They don't care.
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 03:17 PM
Nov 2012

They will believe the book says what they want it to say. They do not follow the book they use to justify their ideals and actions. There is no getting through to these people. They have no reason, no sense of irony. They do not use logic, they do not care about facts or contradictions.

They are zealots, plain and simple.

 

YoungDemCA

(5,714 posts)
70. The "pro-life" movement's goal isn't to stop abortions or to protect life
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 03:30 PM
Nov 2012

Their goal is to regulate sex, specifically the sexual activity of women (men, not so much).

Let's keep that in mind. It's not about religion, it's about social hierarchies.

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
75. kindly keep all dogma away from my reproductive decisions
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:11 PM
Nov 2012

None of it belongs in a discussion about medical science.

MineralMan

(146,248 posts)
78. Further, abortion, using natural medications, existed
Fri Nov 2, 2012, 02:09 PM
Nov 2012

during Biblical times. Nothing is said in the Bible against it. The earliest written mention of abortion is probably in Hippocrates' oath, where doctors pledge not to use "pessaries that cause abortion." That was a long, long time ago, long enough ago that the oath was taken on pagan deities. Such abortions were not uncommon then, so you'd think there would be some mention of them in the Bible. But, there is no mention of abortion whatsoever in it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Bible Tells Us When A...