Bible tells us life begins in the womb

[Orianna]

Originally Posted by wes144

My Source is the Bible. Just because a movement is not felt does not mean the child that is beginning to growis not alive. Logically the handwork of God in the womb

Here is a small sampling. Job 31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?
Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
Hoseah 12:3 He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:
Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.
Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
The bottom line is if there is any point after conception that the child is not alive it will naturally abort and the mother will no longer be pregnant.

These arguments make too many assumptions that is not in the text! Some of your scripture compilation refers to arguments that might be useful regarding reincarnation of souls, spirits in limbo before its chosen mother, the exceptional and holy vs. normal birth of Christ (how can the virgin birth of Christ be used to argue pro-life w/o addressing something is different about His birth?).. and yet these quotes are grouped as proof that life begins at conception.

Though I am a Catholic, I accept my knowledge and that of the wisest and most brilliant scholars is faulty, short in understanding, thus we must guard against using controversial or unclear writings to drive home points we believe in.., If there are many ways to read a passage, what we believe is only our interpretation and logical, critical analysis are necessary steps, for the sake of credibility.

Further, whereas in the times of Christ, no one understood the process of fertilization, meiosis, genetics, etc. only that from the womb comes life... the big question of pro-life, 'WHEN does life begin?' cannot be deciphered from those writings! Otherwise, the writing would have addressed this specifically. Rather, you have answered without footing for debate 'WHERE does life begin?'

[ahs]

Originally Posted by Oldtimer_7

AHS, we both agree that quick means living, but quick refers to those who have begun moving in the womb. In the Oxford English Dictionary, defination 4a says: "Quick with child, said of a female in the stage of pregnancy in which the motion of the foetus is felt. Now rare or obselete." The earliest citation is from about 1450. From the numbers you use in your post, it looks like you have copied from some other source that goes into a good deal of detail. Not that I am challenging you or attempting a battle of definitions, but what is your source? Thanks in advance.

I copied that from one of the online dictionaries...not webster but I don't remember which it was. The reason it's numbered that way is because it went through all the adj meanings first, etc...and got ot the nouns at that point. I only pasted the nouns. But just to give credit properly, here is the webster link and you can select whether you want the adj, verb, or noun meanings. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quick

[antunesaa]

Originally Posted by Oldtimer_7

One thing that I have tried to understand in my denomination is when and why the wording of the Apostles Creed was changed from "the quick and the dead" to "the living and the dead." I recently spoke at a church that used the older text in English, which brought the question back to mind. Quickening usually occurs around the fourth month, not at conception. Any ideas or comments?

Are you suggesting the specious argument of defining an arbitrary moment when a human being starts to exist? If it were not for the pressure of having a justification for abortion, rational people would just state the obvious: the embryo is human and is a being, therefore is a human being. At least some abortion defenders say clearly that they weight the killing of a human being against the well-being of another human being and decide for the latter. You may think what you want about these people's behavior, but surely they have a rational (although merciless) justification.

If I had to point out the major social problem in modern societies, I would not choose unemployment, or terrorism, or racism, or even war. I would pick abortion, that primitive and barbaric act that we practice at an industrial scale. We humans will pay a huge price for this overwhelming silent holocaust.

[antunesaa]

Originally Posted by Orianna

These arguments make too many assumptions that is not in the text! Some of your scripture compilation refers to arguments that might be useful regarding reincarnation of souls, spirits in limbo before its chosen mother, the exceptional and holy vs. normal birth of Christ (how can the virgin birth of Christ be used to argue pro-life w/o addressing something is different about His birth?).. and yet these quotes are grouped as proof that life begins at conception.

Though I am a Catholic, I accept my knowledge and that of the wisest and most brilliant scholars is faulty, short in understanding, thus we must guard against using controversial or unclear writings to drive home points we believe in.., If there are many ways to read a passage, what we believe is only our interpretation and logical, critical analysis are necessary steps, for the sake of credibility.

Further, whereas in the times of Christ, no one understood the process of fertilization, meiosis, genetics, etc. only that from the womb comes life... the big question of pro-life, 'WHEN does life begin?' cannot be deciphered from those writings! Otherwise, the writing would have addressed this specifically. Rather, you have answered without footing for debate 'WHERE does life begin?'

I agree with the first part of your argument and also the last. But you seem to be too concerned about when life begins. Suppose the problem of mothers having unwanted babies didn't exist; all babies engendered would be wanted by their mothers. Given our knowledge about the formation of new human beings, what moment would you pick for them to be truly human beings? If there is a truth, your best shot at finding it is if you're unencumbered by considerations external to question at hand. When life begins should be independent of the opinion of third parties, right?

And your assumption about our own shortcomings does recommend an extremely careful approach to the most sensitive of issues - life itself - doesn't it?

[Orianna]

Regarding the area we are in contention, when life begins, I am afraid that I must not be a very good catholic. I do not believe life begins at conception. I do believe it begins prior to birth and specifically when the soul of another being enters the womb of a woman. I believe this may be preordained, and most scripture suggests it is, though nothing states that another mother cannot be chosen should the first woman reject housing and nourishing the new life.

And as I read verses in the bible, I always seek any other possible clarification. None of the quotes used in support of pro-lifers have ever convinced me, without a shadow of a doubt, that another meaning just might have been intended by the author. My process of viewing things and formulating an opinion on the right to life or the right to choose, takes into consideration several factors:

1. The current knowledge at the time of the writings, which agreeably was quite lacking in the process of birthing a human or any animals. This limits the amount of affirmation available to be extracted regarding the big questions of 'When life begins'. You cannot extract more information than the writer was capable of putting into sensible words at the time, agreed? The mistake most defenders of pro-life make is to take gigantic leaps of faith regarding what the authors could have been divulging on this matter, and ignore what was common knowledge for the disciples.

2. I have extensive scientific knowledge on the biological process. Including what occurs from meiotic divisions prior to ovum selection, follicular preparation prior to fertilization, the earliest combining of DNA from male and female (zygotes), the process of implantation, tissue development, organ development, etc. At which point does it become fate? There are plenty of eggs awaiting, when fertilization does not occur each month, has the woman sinned? This becomes a strange argument!

3. The acceptance of war killing by the average Christian, which is murder, i.e. taking another life. Our soldiers commit the sin, Thou Shalt Not Kill, every time. So even many women and children of our 'enemies' are slaughtered mercilessly. Where are the Christians of this country who are demanding our leaders stop the killing? You cannot fight for one life and not the other. Because, in God, even our enemies are our brothers. He loves all of us. How can we justify our acceptable actions of killing and instead tell a woman that those fertilized eggs are no longer a part of her body and she cannot control what happens next? The argument will be that we must kill them to save ourselves? Did Jesus partake in this action? Would a disciple kill his enemy rather than be killed? Of course not, because Christians were held to a higher standard than Hebrews. Not even a real threat in our homeland would justify this form of taking another life.

If instead we argue when the soul enters the womb there is now another human being inhabiting the woman's body, there is a better chance for the right to life position to stand alongside a rational position that all killing is sinful. I say this because scientifically, it doesn't make sense to determine new life in one cell. After first trimester offers a better argument for life. Many early writings have suggested, the formation of human organs has occurred, there is movement (quickening as in the scripture), and, this is in line with the stories of when a soul enters... and none of this contradicts the bible if you open your mind to interpretations that fit the scripture but different than what you came up with. Surely it makes more sense for the soul to enter after risk of miscarriage is so high?

Right to life without a stand against war is folly on mankind... or should I dare say womankind? No matter, the argument stands because the bible has not given a date... it is man that has decided this after the ability to perform abortions.

I hope this has done justice to your questions and I post this with the humility that even my understanding is far short of God's knowledge of the matter... only He knows and pains over all kinds of human hand in killing.

[Oldtimer_7]

The ancients were not stupid nor were they unobservant. Quickening was the best they could do, if we compare it to modern science. Yet, even with our scientific knowledge, we do not have a clearcut defination. Children are routinely treated today and survive who would have died just a couple of decades ago. Women carry children to term who would have themselves died of things like eclampsia.

Some years ago, I had a woman in counseling who was a lesbian. Her lesbianism was the result of an unintended pregnancy, followed by the abandonment by the child's father. The tradegic situation was compounded by the baby dying in the fifth month. The male doctor refused to do an abortion (I anticipate that we can get into a debate of whethere it would be an abortion if the child was dead.) At any rate, the woman carried the dead baby for four more months and then delivered it. The complications of the delivery nearly killed the woman. After that, the woman wanted nothing to do with men in any circumstance.

What I am getting at is that arbritarianism is damaging whichever way it is applied. I hope that we can agree on that point. Also damaging is the attempt to dodge an issue as important as this, which is what I think my denomination did by changing the wording of the Apostle's Creed.

[_Abyssinia]

Murder is wrong: Gen. 9:6; Matthew 15:19;19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; John 8:44; Acts 3:14; and Romans 1:28-29; 13:9.

Psalm 51:5 (David says,“Behold,I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” and Luke 1:44 (“For behold,when the sound of your greeting reached my ears,the baby leaped in my womb for joy.” Both describe the unborn using personal attributes.

Unborn described by using personal pronouns. Jeremiah 1:5 says,“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Matthew 1:20-21 states, “But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream,saying, ‘Joseph,son of David,do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.’

Jesus was regarded as a child from conception. Matthew 1:20 says,“But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.’ The Angel tells Joseph: “the Child who has been conceived” is “of the Holy Spirit.'

The unborn called baby. Luke 1:41 states,“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (1:44).”

The same punishment was applicable to someone who kills or injures the unborn as for one who kills or injured an adult, Exodus 21:22-23 states, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely,yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life . . . .”

Mosaic law viewed the unborn as persons worthy of the same rights as adults.

The unborn are called by God throughout birth. Similarly to Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 49:1 says ,“Listen to me, O islands, And pay attention,you peoples from afar, the LORD called me from the womb; from the body of my mother He named me.”

The unborn are known by God as personally as any other person already born. Psalm 139:15-16 says, “My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written;the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.” Describing the prophet Jeremiah, Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.

[Mintaka]

The important point to remember about "the quick and the dead" is that it's a TRANSLATION of the Apostle's Creed. The source language is Latin, not Old English and Middle English, much less Early Modern English.

"iudicare vivos et mortuos" means "to judge the living and the dead."

Except in Yorkshire and the quick of your nail, "quick" only means "rapid" in English these days. Not lively, not living.

Like the Sabbath, Creed translations are made for man and not man for Creed translations. The living language is the language we use for approved vernacular translations. The words used should be formal, yes. Incomprehensible, no.

[Orianna]

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

Murder is wrong: Gen. 9:6; Matthew 15:19;19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; John 8:44; Acts 3:14; and Romans 1:28-29; 13:9.

Psalm 51:5 (David says,“Behold,I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” and Luke 1:44 (“For behold,when the sound of your greeting reached my ears,the baby leaped in my womb for joy.” Both describe the unborn using personal attributes.

Unborn described by using personal pronouns. Jeremiah 1:5 says,“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Matthew 1:20-21 states, “But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream,saying, ‘Joseph,son of David,do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.’

Jesus was regarded as a child from conception. Matthew 1:20 says,“But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.’ The Angel tells Joseph: “the Child who has been conceived” is “of the Holy Spirit.'

The unborn called baby. Luke 1:41 states,“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (1:44).”

The same punishment was applicable to someone who kills or injures the unborn as for one who kills or injured an adult, Exodus 21:22-23 states, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely,yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life . . . .”

Mosaic law viewed the unborn as persons worthy of the same rights as adults.

The unborn are called by God throughout birth. Similarly to Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 49:1 says ,“Listen to me, O islands, And pay attention,you peoples from afar, the LORD called me from the womb; from the body of my mother He named me.”

The unborn are known by God as personally as any other person already born. Psalm 139:15-16 says, “My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written;the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.” Describing the prophet Jeremiah, Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.

The problem I have with using Jeremiah, a great prophet, or Jesus; which God gave life even before their birth. is because they are not like you and I, but great prophets of God! Thus, the point made is that God even knew them and preordained their auspicious births. And that is the point of the scripture.... their birth's were preordained before time. If you want to believe this is the same for everyone, that is your prerogative. But I think that position takes the impact of these sayings away entirely. I believe the specialness of their births are being discussed here, making a point their lives are of special purpose including by special birth. Consider that, and you truly cannot argue pro-life from these holy words.

[Orianna]

Originally Posted by Mintaka

The important point to remember about "the quick and the dead" is that it's a TRANSLATION of the Apostle's Creed. The source language is Latin, not Old English and Middle English, much less Early Modern English.

"iudicare vivos et mortuos" means "to judge the living and the dead."

Except in Yorkshire and the quick of your nail, "quick" only means "rapid" in English these days. Not lively, not living.

Like the Sabbath, Creed translations are made for man and not man for Creed translations. The living language is the language we use for approved vernacular translations. The words used should be formal, yes. Incomprehensible, no.

Sorry, but I haven't been able to decipher your point or what position from this comment.

But, recall that the original creed was not written in Latin. The Holy Roman Church had St. Jerome translate early testaments around 400AD (Vulgate). The formal written language during apostles time was Greek, and it had to be translated into Latin which was the language of the growing church.
The spoken languages during the apostles time and geography would have been Aramaic and/or Hebrew, depending on heritage.