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

[Ichingcarpenter]

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.

[ohheckyeah]

1. This isn't a new argument...

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

It's a good article, thanks for posting.

[MadHound]

2. I would prefer that we move away from biblical arguments altogether,

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

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. I feel the same way.

[GoneOffShore]

14. I feel much the same - However, fighting the pro-zygote crowd with science

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

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

[The Wielding Truth]

40. Yes, this is what they believe in . This is proof to them.

[Michigan Alum]

62. I agree.

[MsPithy]

72. You are correct.

They do not believe science or logic or reason or evidence.

[RainDog]

76. exactly

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.

[onecent]

31. Amen...

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. I don't but sometimes

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

[liberal_at_heart]

48. it would be nice to have a response to their attitude that

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]

9. I don't know... In general I would agree with you but...

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]

11. I disagree....

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]

36. I wish we could

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.

[WilliamPitt]

43. What you prefer and what sometimes has to happen

ain't always going to be in the same room.

[mike_c]

46. it's wasted breath in any event....

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]

55. Exactly.

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

[loudsue]

73. I want to recommend this post.

All the way to the bottom of it.

[CrispyQ]

74. Colbert rocks!

He did actually say this on one of his shows!

[ohheckyeah]

63. No it's not wasted breath....

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.

[libdem4life]

3. I didn't know this. The Breath of Life. Yes.

[KansDem]

5. How do Republicans get around this?

...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?

[justiceischeap]

10. This enquiring mind wants to know. nt

[L0oniX]

54. They say that the fetus breaths by using the oxygen in the blood.

[defacto7]

6. Interesting counter argument

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.

[BainsBane]

7. Will come in handy with rwingers

Thanks!

[treestar]

12. This shows their true colors

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]

20. The sperm and ovum are alive on a cellular level before they unite.

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]

27. The fetus is not separate from the mother.

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]

32. Agreed.

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.

[Lucinda]

13. Bookmarking for later. Thanks!

[grantcart]

15. left wing 'eisogesis' is as bad as right wing eisogesis.

[ohheckyeah]

64. It's spelled

eisegesis.

[grantcart]

67. well actually I believe that it is spelled

εισεγεσισ

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]

16. Actually, traditional Catholic teaching

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]

28. In the Middle Ages, a Catholic priest told me, the fetus was not considered to be alive until the

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.

[GeorgeGist]

51. You were alive in the Middle Ages?

[JDPriestly]

53. A Catholic priest told me that . . . .

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]

60. I don't know anyone who's felt a baby move in the third month. It's usually the fourth or fifth,

and some women never feel their babies move at all.

[TexasBushwhacker]

61. Actually, in Islam they believe the fetus gets its soul on the 120th day

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

[JDPriestly]

77. End of the third month, which would be the beginning of the fourth month.

[MissMarple]

17. Thanks.

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]

18. I've always believed this

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]

19. Also God commanded Moses not to count children under a month old in the census

[cags]

22. And don't forget God's commandment that all the children and babies of the Amalekites be murdered.

[ROBROX]

21. FUNDAMENTALISTS SHOULD KNOW THIS FACT

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

[librechik]

23. yep, I always use that argument on Bible fappers. They find it hard to refute.

[obxhead]

24. Those parts don't apply.

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]

25. I grew up reading the Bible. We are human beings from the moment we take our first breath.

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.

[tnlurker]

26. Bookmarked for later

[SunSeeker]

29. K&R

[Matariki]

30. Nice, but it won't matter to the anti-choice crowd.

Their motive is controlling women, not following the bible.

[teewrex]

33. Actually the generally held belief by all was that life began with the first breath until

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]

34. It's clear they don't really care about life.

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]

45. And anti-death penalty

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

[BlueNoteSpecial]

35. With respect, and understanding that in life...

...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.

[rock]

37. It's not so much an argument to convince the zealots

as to prove what hypocrites they are.

[Sherman A1]

38. Thanks for posting.

Bookmarked this one....

[Bernardo de La Paz]

39. Great find. Thanks for posting!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. Will vs Choice

[spanone]

42. logic won't work with these folks.

[kentuck]

44. Bookmarked for future reference

Thanks

[progressoid]

47. Recced and book marked.

[Wounded Bear]

49. It's not the only part of the Bible they don't follow....

[liberal_at_heart]

50. I love how they quote Leviticus

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]

52. Your position might be better than the average fundy's, but your argument isn't.

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]

56. This is interesting to know.

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

[upi402]

57. Yeah, I heard that

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

[Sgent]

58. Hence Orthodox Jews don't spout off the crap about it being a live human

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]

59. Meh. That's the Old Testament.

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

[cui bono]

65. Whoa!!! The bible had EMOTICONS???

[theinquisitivechad]

66. K&R-ing

So I can easily find this later! Thank you!

[fasttense]

68. I find it interesting that religious christians today

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.]

69. They don't care.

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]

70. The "pro-life" movement's goal isn't to stop abortions or to protect life

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.

[SamKnause]

71. First breath

Thanks for posting.

[PeaceNikki]

75. kindly keep all dogma away from my reproductive decisions

None of it belongs in a discussion about medical science.

[MineralMan]

78. Further, abortion, using natural medications, existed

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.