English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

John the baptized leaped with the Holy Ghost in Elizabeth stomach, so I guess it in the womb....

2006-06-23 05:57:47 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 0 1

If you read each time there is a woman about to have a baby in Biblical stories, it usually is phrased "she conceived and bore...".

Combined with the verses about G-d watching over people in the womb, etc. It seems pretty clear from a Biblical perspective. Life begins at conception.

However, there is also clearly a greater value on the mother than on the pregnancy, and a clear case that if there is a life-and-death choice between mother or infant, the mother should be chosen over the infant.

The traditional "eye for an eye" verse in Exodus, actually refers to damage to a pregnant woman injured through abuse/violence. It clearly states that if she loses the baby, the cost to the offender is a fine paid to the husband for loss.

But if the WOMAN is hurt, then the offender will lose what the woman has lost.

The woman's life is paramount. The loss of the "fruit" is considered merely a property loss.

2006-06-23 13:28:11 · answer #2 · answered by spedusource 7 · 0 0

NO. The bible does not specifically state it anywhere. At any regard, the bible is just an earlier version of it's modern-day televangelism equivalent. NO one really KNOWS who wrote it. No one really KNOWS if the original meaning is conferred properly (as no actual original written texts exist - it was carried on in oral tradition for centuries). The bible is population control propaganda. And damn good propaganda at that as I can see that it's working on you and billions of others (call it the Koran, Book of Mormon, etc).

Hav a great life believing some random's rules and regulations on how to behave. Oh - and before you born agains bash this, remember that although you're fond of calling it 'the book of christ', no part of the bible was ever written by jesus...

2006-06-23 13:09:56 · answer #3 · answered by Makakio 3 · 0 0

Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


It's a real shame when an atheist (me) has to give a bible lesson.

2006-06-23 13:02:03 · answer #4 · answered by Left the building 7 · 0 0

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood.

So perhaps during the moment that the egg burrows into the blood-rich uterine lining (a process that began at 6 days after fertilization). However, I would read the following first...
http://tinyurl.com/oe6yr

Loreli - Don't worry about what makes people mad. Quote accurately. That is more important than "getting along".

2006-06-23 12:59:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Life begins before we are even born, as the Lord said "I knew you before you were born". Not an exact quote from the bible, sorry that seems lately to make people mad on here!

2006-06-23 13:00:05 · answer #6 · answered by Punky 4 · 0 0

Loreli's quote "I knew you before you were born" is indeed in the Bible, but there are quotes that you can use either way. But that's what people are doing. There are churches that are pro-choice. And there are many that are pro-life. I would say, if you're looking for more perspective, just read the quotes, not as pro-choice or pro-life, and see what they mean to you.

2006-06-23 13:03:03 · answer #7 · answered by millancad 5 · 0 0

You will not find that text in the Bible. However, the clues are clear; the Bible always says that once the female got pregnant it says that she was with Child, even Mary with Jesus before she was even sure she was pregnant the angel of the Lord said to her that she was with child, he didn't say she was with phoetus.

2006-06-23 12:59:48 · answer #8 · answered by Damian 5 · 0 0

no, it begins as soon as it is concieved, a new life, even while in the mothers stomach. and the baby takes breaths while in the mother, just not of air exactly.

2006-06-23 12:57:52 · answer #9 · answered by megan w 2 · 0 0

Not explicitly, no. There are some references that imply that life begins well before birth, but nothing that says, "life begins at X time."

2006-06-23 12:58:16 · answer #10 · answered by monger187 4 · 0 0

A life begins when the head emerges from the birth canal; if it is a breach then when most of the body has emerged.

Genesis 2:7 God made Adam's body out of the dust of the earth. Later, the "man became a living soul" only after God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." This seems to state clearly that Adam's personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become human after it starts breathing; a fetus is only potentially human; an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person. The most important word in the Hebrew Scriptures that was used to describe a person was "nephesh;" it appears 755 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as "living soul" in the above passage. One scholar, H.W. Wolff, 1 believes that the word's root means "to breath." He argues that during Old Testament times, "Living creatures are in this way exactly defined in Hebrew as creatures that breathe."
bulletGenesis 25:21-23 "...Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." The passage refers to the twin fetuses of Rebekah as being "nations." They are clearly not nations at that state of development; the word has to be interpreted symbolically. They are rather two fetuses who were later born and whose descendents -- according to the Bible -- became two nations. The passage also refers to the twin fetuses as "banim:" a Hebrew word which almost always means a "newborns" or "infants," or "children." The ancient Hebrews did not have a separate word to describe "fetuses." So they used the same word to describe fetuses that they also used to refer to children. English translations of the Bible use the term "children" here; this would more accurately be translated as "fetuses" except that the latter primarily a medical term. Again, the passage does not address the main question: are the fetuses full persons, or are they potential persons?
bulletGenesis 38:24 Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that he was responsible for Tamar's pregnancy.)
bulletExodus 13:1-2 "The Lord said to Moses, 'Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether [hu]man or animal.'" Throughout much of the ancient Middle East, the firstborn son in each family was ritually murdered as a sacrifice to the Gods. However if the first son was preceded either by the birth of a girl or a miscarriage, then the ceremony is not performed, as the son was not the first offering of the womb. In later years, this practice evolved into a substitute animal sacrifice, or a cash donation to the temple, or a dedication of the child to their deity. "...the ancestors of the Israelites probably at one time actually sacrificed their first born children, as Genesis 22:1-14 implies." 2 These passages relate to infanticide, not abortion, because the infant would be killed after birth. But it shows the low regard for newborn humans during that era. Other references of human sacrifices in the Hebrew Scriptures are found at:
bulletJudges 11:29-40: Jephthah promises God that he will make a human sacrifice of the first person who comes to greet him when he returns home after a successful battle. He later ritually sacrifices his only daughter.
bulletI Kings 16:34: This passage may refer to the killing by Hiel of his two children during the reconstruction of Jericho. Excavations there have uncovered the remains of persons who seem to have been sacrificed "to obtain divine favor." 9
bulletII Kings 16:3: Ahaz, king of Judah, murdered his son as a human sacrifice.
bulletII Kings 17:17: The people of Judah abandoned worship at the temple in Jerusalem. They were said to have burned their children as human sacrifices to Baal.
bulletII Kings 21:6: Manasseh burned his son as a human sacrifice to Baal.
bulletIsaiah 57:5: Isaiah, speaking for the Lord, comments on the practice of the people of Israel in sacrificing their children, "down in the valleys, under overhanging rocks."
bulletJeremiah 7:31: Jeremiah, speaking for the Lord, criticizes the people of Judah for burning "their sons and daughters in the fire."
bulletetc.
bulletExodus 20:13"You shall not murder." This verse is often mistranslated "Thou shalt not kill." Murder is actually being referred to -- the killing of a human person. Since the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures and the tradition of the Jewish people regarded a human person as beginning at birth when the newborn first takes a breath, this verse would not apply to abortion.

2006-06-23 13:09:19 · answer #11 · answered by Mike and Gina 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers