When Does Human Life Begin?
Question:
When does human life begin?
Response:
In general, Biblical theologians agree that human life (not just biological life) begins at conception based on Genesis 1:26-27, Psalm 51:5-6, and Psalm 139:13-16. For quick reference, here are the texts with some quick commentaries:
Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, "Let us make Humanity in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created Humanity in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.
Gen 1:26-27 speaks to the biological fact that a person's DNA marks him or her as either male or female at conception. In other words, a single cell fertilized egg (or "zygote) is a sexual being with a unique genetic identity. Thus, at conception, a person is an Image of God. True, the Bible does recognize that some people are born with ambiguous sexual identities [see Matt 19:12], but these persons are no less an Image of God.
Psalm 51:5-6 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.
Psalm 51 suggests that a person has a moral identity at conception, meaning a person has moral potential. Does this mean that a single celled human being can do right or wrong? In this world, No... but in the world to come, I would argue that a single celled human being could have a moral role as a witness to wrongdoing. In other words, I do think that aborted children will ultimately witness against their parents and the society which allowed such practices to take place. One thing to keep in mind about Psalm 51 was the circumstance in which David made it. David was an adulterer who had desparately tried to keep his married mistress' unborn child a secret and eventually murdered her husband Uriah to do it. Since Roe vs Wade, there have been millions of secret pregnancies that ended in abortion. According to this world, these aborted children accomplished nothing, but in the world to come, they will have to determine right vs wrong. They will have an opportunity to serve as witnesses. They will also have the ability to forgive their parents. You can't get more human than that.
Psalm 139:13-16 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. 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.
This passage suggests that a person is known by God, before the point of conception. Furthermore, as a person is "knitted together" in his or her mother's womb, we must remember that it is God who is at work. He is the Creator who makes human beings in His Image. We all were created by God to be like God. The idea that some of us human beings would terminate and kill unborn children warrants pure condemnation. Those that do it deserve to be aborted themselves, meaning blotted out of God's book of life referenced Psalm 139:16.
There are other biblical passages worth discussing concerning the abortion issue. My favorites are the Jesus and John the Baptist conception passages found in the Gospel of Luke.
I hope this helps you as you develop your own personal theology and ethic towards abortion.
In Christ, Marty
When does human life begin?
Response:
In general, Biblical theologians agree that human life (not just biological life) begins at conception based on Genesis 1:26-27, Psalm 51:5-6, and Psalm 139:13-16. For quick reference, here are the texts with some quick commentaries:
Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, "Let us make Humanity in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created Humanity in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.
Gen 1:26-27 speaks to the biological fact that a person's DNA marks him or her as either male or female at conception. In other words, a single cell fertilized egg (or "zygote) is a sexual being with a unique genetic identity. Thus, at conception, a person is an Image of God. True, the Bible does recognize that some people are born with ambiguous sexual identities [see Matt 19:12], but these persons are no less an Image of God.
Psalm 51:5-6 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.
Psalm 51 suggests that a person has a moral identity at conception, meaning a person has moral potential. Does this mean that a single celled human being can do right or wrong? In this world, No... but in the world to come, I would argue that a single celled human being could have a moral role as a witness to wrongdoing. In other words, I do think that aborted children will ultimately witness against their parents and the society which allowed such practices to take place. One thing to keep in mind about Psalm 51 was the circumstance in which David made it. David was an adulterer who had desparately tried to keep his married mistress' unborn child a secret and eventually murdered her husband Uriah to do it. Since Roe vs Wade, there have been millions of secret pregnancies that ended in abortion. According to this world, these aborted children accomplished nothing, but in the world to come, they will have to determine right vs wrong. They will have an opportunity to serve as witnesses. They will also have the ability to forgive their parents. You can't get more human than that.
Psalm 139:13-16 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. 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.
This passage suggests that a person is known by God, before the point of conception. Furthermore, as a person is "knitted together" in his or her mother's womb, we must remember that it is God who is at work. He is the Creator who makes human beings in His Image. We all were created by God to be like God. The idea that some of us human beings would terminate and kill unborn children warrants pure condemnation. Those that do it deserve to be aborted themselves, meaning blotted out of God's book of life referenced Psalm 139:16.
There are other biblical passages worth discussing concerning the abortion issue. My favorites are the Jesus and John the Baptist conception passages found in the Gospel of Luke.
I hope this helps you as you develop your own personal theology and ethic towards abortion.
In Christ, Marty
Shalom
I am not part of these classes, but I am a student of scripture and a follower of Christ, and I have a few comments...
Firstly, Gen 1:26-27 speaks in terms of category or type (male and female humans as opposed to male and female fish or male and female land animals) and not in terms of biological progression or state. Thus, it says nothing at all about or toward conception, nothing about or toward the zygote, and neither can it speak about or toward DNA (a modern understanding born of the scientific revolution). To speak of this text as indicating human life at conception can only be done from within the interpreter's own meaning and not the text's.
Secondly, Psalm 51:5-6 is most likely not speaking about biological conception. The “mother” of the speaker, in terms of the liturgical setting of the Psalm, is Israel. And even if one were to speak of the poet's own original personal and individual proclamation, there is no reason to think this is speaking of biological conception on a natural basis that has no continuance or dependence upon a specifically Jewish oriented location around Torah. We have more reason to suppose that the author is speaking of a lawless conception such as, for instance, being born of an adulterous relationship, than of having some natural sin inherent at the point of conception without point of reference in the Hebraic social world. And if we were to go as far even as to take the scribal addition to the psalm as being representative of the true historical reality of its social location—meaning this is really what David himself wrote in the situation of his sin with Bat-Sheva and Uriah, it should most appropriately be interpreted as metaphor and poetry that seeks to communicate the repenting mind of a man who knows the depth of his guilt and is not trying to stand before God in innocence, rather than a literal statement tying the reasons for his sin with Bat-Sheva and Uriah to his own nature at the moment of creation, which is actually God's doing and which would therefore make God responsible for his sin. Therefore, it is highly unlikely there is anything in this psalm that points to the moment of conception itself or as having some meaning in and of itself in terms of morality, and therefore, no ties are possible whatsoever to the issue of abortion.
Thirdly, Psalm 139:13-16 indeed looks to God as the originator of creation both personal and communal. However, “The idea that some of us human beings would terminate and kill unborn children warrants pure condemnation” is not present in this text. Neither is the idea that “Those that do it deserve to be aborted themselves, meaning blotted out of God's book of life.” How the leap is made across a chasm of nothingness from the text to arrive at these statements is confounding.
Reply to this
Since you brought up 3 points, I think its probably best to try to respond to each one. As to your first point:
You Wrote:
"Gen 1:26-27 speaks in terms of category or type (male and female humans as opposed to male and female fish or male and female land animals) and not in terms of biological progression or state."
Response:
No, that's not right. The differentiation between male and female is only made for human beings in Genesis 1. Plants, animals, fish, and birds are described as being made "according to their kind" but there is no differentiation made in terms of sex. Gen 1:27 is different and clearly makes the point that both men and women are images of God and that collectively Humanity is also an image of God. As for biological progression or state, the text is all encompassing: a person is an image of God regardless of biological progression, whether young or old.
You Wrote:
"Thus, it says nothing at all about or toward conception, nothing about or toward the zygote, and neither can it speak about or toward DNA (a modern understanding born of the scientific revolution)."
Response:
I disagree. The ancients understood that unborn children were either male or female, as we do today. They also knew that human life began at conception. The idea that life does not begin at conception is a modern idea. Many moderns reject the idea that life begins at conception on so-called scientific grounds. However, the scientific evidence merely reinforces the ancient idea, particularly Gen 1:27.
Reply to this
You Wrote:
"Psalm 51:5-6 is most likely not speaking about biological conception. The “mother” of the speaker, in terms of the liturgical setting of the Psalm, is Israel. And even if one were to speak of the poet's own original personal and individual proclamation, there is no reason to think this is speaking of biological conception on a natural basis that has no continuance or dependence upon a specifically Jewish oriented location around Torah. We have more reason to suppose that the author is speaking of a lawless conception such as, for instance, being born of an adulterous relationship, than of having some natural sin inherent at the point of conception without point of reference in the Hebraic social world. And if we were to go as far even as to take the scribal addition to the psalm as being representative of the true historical reality of its social location—meaning this is really what David himself wrote in the situation of his sin with Bat-Sheva and Uriah, it should most appropriately be interpreted as metaphor and poetry that seeks to communicate the repenting mind of a man who knows the depth of his guilt and is not trying to stand before God in innocence, rather than a literal statement tying the reasons for his sin with Bat-Sheva and Uriah to his own nature at the moment of creation, which is actually God's doing and which would therefore make God responsible for his sin. Therefore, it is highly unlikely there is anything in this psalm that points to the moment of conception itself or as having some meaning in and of itself in terms of morality, and therefore, no ties are possible whatsoever to the issue of abortion.
Response:
I am not sure what your sources are, but there are some pretty radical assertions here. My argument is a simple Qal Vahomer argument: If we are sinful from the time our mothers conceived us, then we have moral potential at conception. If we have moral potential, then this would suggest that we have human dignity at conception.
So, I guess I have some questions for you:
1. Why is the "mother" of the speaker Israel? If I render the text, as you suggest, it makes no sense: "Surely I was a sinner from birth, sinful from the time Israel conceived me?"
2. In terms of the psalm's original liturgical setting, I think you are trying to cite Gunkel and Mowinckel, but I wasnt able to figure out exactly where this came from... So, it kindof sounds made up... If you are citing someone else's argument, it would be helpful to know where its coming from. References are always helpful.
3. I think that its hard to say that David did not write this Psalm, nor many others. Why would you think this is a metaphor? Consider the historical context...
Reply to this
You Wrote:
"Psalm 139:13-16 indeed looks to God as the originator of creation both personal and communal. However, “The idea that some of us human beings would terminate and kill unborn children warrants pure condemnation” is not present in this text. Neither is the idea that “Those that do it deserve to be aborted themselves, meaning blotted out of God's book of life.” How the leap is made across a chasm of nothingness from the text to arrive at these statements is confounding."
Response:
I think that the strongest refute is Psalm 139:19-20 itself:
Psalm 139:19 Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God! O men of blood, depart from me! 20 They speak against you with malicious intent; your enemies take your name in vain!
The idea is that the wicked are the ones attacking and destroying God's creation, specifically people made in God's Image who are fearfully and wonderfully made. They are described as men of blood and they speak against God with malicious intent. Even worse, the wicked take His name in vain, calling themselves true worshippers of God when they are not, deceiving themselves and others.
Reply to this
Do you mind if I refered your blog post on my fb account?
Reply to this
Sure, no problem!
Reply to this