A Question About Life

[Pete Vecchi]

When does life begin? When does life end? What constitutes being "alive"?

Much of the debate on this issue has to do with abortion. On one extreme, there are people who see abortion as perfectly fine in any and all circumstances up to the moment of natural birth, because until then, these people believe that there is no separate life. On the other extreme, there are people who go so far as to say that neither a male sperm nor a female egg should be in any way restricted from having the chance to fertilize together, because there is the potential for life until the time the sperm or the egg dies naturally. The vast majority of people believe something between those two extremes.

As a disclaimer, I am "pro-life" when it comes to the abortion issue. But my personal history shows that I did not always hold that position. I was 11 years old when the Roe v. Wade decision came down from the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time, I was by family heritage a part of the Roman Catholic Church, although my family was pretty much inactive when it came to the church (I don't think we even went to church on Easter most of the time). However, I knew the position of the Roman Catholic Church at the time was that abortion was a mortal sin. Birth control was a sin too.

Once Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, my understanding of the issue was based on however it was reported by CBS News (and its local affiliate, channel 2 in the Chicago area). I knew the Catholic Church was strongly anti-abortion, but the information I received about the issue rarely looked at the issue from the perspective of when life begins, but rather from the right of a woman to be able to do what she wanted to do with her own body.

As the years passed, I started learning more about the development of human life. Scientific and medical advancements have shown that the child has a discernible heartbeat separate from that of the mother with days of conception. The pre-born child has its own blood-type (when the blood-types of the father and mother are such that the child's blood-type will differ from the mother), and the pre-born child has its own DNA. When I learned those things, I could not come to any conclusion other than that the pre-born child is a separate life from the mother.

Yet when looking at the Bible, we don't see this type of detail. There are some generalities, such as when the Psalmist said to God, "You knit me together in my mother's womb," or that "the child" leaped inside the womb of Elizabeth when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting.

Granted, the Bible is not supposed to be viewed as a science book. Yet as Christians, we still believe that the Bible is full of truth. Unquestionably, the humans who wrote the words of the Bible centuries ago did not have the scientific knowledge to understand blood-types, DNA, and prenatal heartbeats. But it seems that they did indeed understand heartbeats and breathing. And when it comes to the Bible, the words about life seem to center upon breath.

God breathed life into Adam. In Exodus 37, the dry bones in the valley did not come to life until breath came into them. In Genesis, the deaths of Abraham, Ishmael, Rachael, Isaac, and Jacob are all described as saying that these people breathed their last. Mark and Luke use similar words when describing the death of Jesus. At the same time, the Bible really doesn't describe life as having to do with a beating heart.

Part of the Wesleyan understanding of theology is that we are to use not only the Bible, but also human reason when looking for truth. But not all Christians believe that part about human reason, instead saying that only the Bible can be the ultimate authority on God's revealed truth.

As I said, I am pro-life. I believe that the scientific and medical evidence points to the fact a pre-born child is indeed an individual life rather than a part of the mother's body. At the same time, the Bible seems to indicate that the key to life is breath--something that a child does not generally have until after birth.

In the end, if I err, I will err on the side of life. At the same time, I am interested in the truth, and in knowing what the Bible truly says about when life begins and ends.

Does anyone have any additional thoughts?

[Craig Laughlin]

I think in order to pursue this you will need to refine your question. It needs to be something along the lines of - When is human life a soul? (An eternal soul being that which makes us like God with the imago dei and therefore inherently immoral to kill)

- In procreation life does not technically begin, (was dead and is now alive) rather it differentiates. (creates a different life) Animal egg and sperm are alive they are just not capable of producing a separate life without getting together.

There is only one verse I am aware of that speaks directly to the issue of whether or not an unborn child is a human with human rights. It is not well known because it goes against the modern anti-abortion movement. It is,

Exodus 21:22-25, which reads:
"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

This is the only verse I know that address the question directly and completely. (Good thing I'm not a Biblical literalist or proof texter) In this case the unborn child is under the rule of things rather than people. A monetary settlement is made rather than a life for life judgement.

All that being said this is one of those issue that people have a hard time listening to one another on. For the most part people talk past one another and when that doesn't work they turn up the volume and the rhetoric. - Good luck.

[Pete Vecchi]

I think in order to pursue this you will need to refine your question. It needs to be something along the lines of - When is human life a soul? (An eternal soul being that which makes us like God with the imago dei and therefore inherently immoral to kill)

- In procreation life does not technically begin, (was dead and is now alive) rather it differentiates. (creates a different life) Animal egg and sperm are alive they are just not capable of producing a separate life without getting together.

There is only one verse I am aware of that speaks directly to the issue of whether or not an unborn child is a human with human rights. It is not well known because it goes against the modern anti-abortion movement. It is,

Exodus 21:22-25, which reads:
"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."


This is the only verse I know that address the question directly and completely. (Good thing I'm not a Biblical literalist or proof texter) In this case the unborn child is under the rule of things rather than people. A monetary settlement is made rather than a life for life judgement.

All that being said this is one of those issue that people have a hard time listening to one another on. For the most part people talk past one another and when that doesn't work they turn up the volume and the rhetoric. - Good luck.

I've seen that verse used both ways--that "life for life" can mean the life of the unborn child. The 1984 NIV renders it this way:

"“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

There is then a footnote after the words "gives birth prematurely" that says, "Or, 'she has a miscarriage'". I don't know which translation is more accurate. Miscarriage seems to imply that the life of the pre-born child came to and end, thereby making the rest of the passage read as though the child is property rather than a human life. But as the 1984 NIV translation reads, the fight could cause the mother to go into labor and deliver the baby earlier than it should have been born, but the baby survived without serious injury. However if the baby dies, then it is to be life for life, etc...

I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I don't know which is the proper rendering or meaning.

You are also correct that the point is about the soul of the human being. The soul is what makes the human being a human being. I don't think the question of when the soul enters or leaves the body is answered at all in Scripture, just as the Scripture really does not explain what the soul actually is.

Edit: I have no idea why "The 198" in my above mention of the New International Version of the Bible (1984 edition) was highlighted and linked to BibleGateway. I can't seem to get the link out of there, though, so in it stays.

[Craig Laughlin]

Yeah, I'm not a Hebrew Scholar either. That being said I am suspicious that this is more eisegesis than exegesis. It also strains one's understanding of the purpose of the law in that it makes this about a very minor issue, the baby being born early but in fine condition, as opposed to being about a major issue, the loss of a potential child. It seems to me that if a child is born early but healthy their is really very little harm at all. Why mention that while ignoring the far more serious issue of the death of an unborn child?

Again, not a Hebrew scholar and given my hermeneutic it doesn't really matter.

[Ryan Scott]

Life began when God spoke and it doesn't ever end.

I don't think we can properly talk about individual participation in life without starting from the larger framework. Most of our debates are too narrowly focused.

[Wilson Deaton]

When does life begin? When does life end? What constitutes being "alive"?

...
Does anyone have any additional thoughts?

I think the question of "life" and when it "begins" is a VERY different question from the question of "human personhood." I don't care if a "fetus" is alive or not. I care if it is a human person or not. The two aren't necessarily the same.

Wilson

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I think the question of "life" and when it "begins" is a VERY different question from the question of "human personhood." I don't care if a "fetus" is alive or not. I care if it is a human person or not. The two aren't necessarily the same.

Wilson

Wilson - I'm not understanding your distinction.

What would make you value "humanness" over "alive" or "life-bearing"? Are you allowing scientific, medical, or psychological definitions to determine what you mean by life? "Life" is pretty important to us as Christians, even if it doesn't line up with scientific definitions, be it "pumping heart," "breathing air," "brain activity," or whatever. As Pete demonstrated, the scriptures don't speak this way, most notably in Genesis 1 and Ezekiel 37 where life begins with the infilling breath of God (which I think has little to do with oxygen and much to do with the ability to bear life). Then later, Jesus came speaking and teaching about life everlasting. He called people to live, not "be human" (or if we can draw from what he said that he was asking us to "be human," I'm not sure I could make a distinction between the two). Even further, the life-giving presence of the Holy Spirit came through breath (of Christ) in John 20, and in Luke-Acts, the Holy Spirit came as the enlivening/empowering rush of air (wind).

Can you help me understand your distinction?

[Craig Laughlin]

Life began when God spoke and it doesn't ever end.

I don't think we can properly talk about individual participation in life without starting from the larger framework. Most of our debates are too narrowly focused.

I think this is right but at the end of the day we have to speak into contemporary ethics. Christ followers ministering as medical professionals deserve direction from us that makes sense in the context of the very real decisions they have to make. At some point we have to get specific.

(Disclaimer - I come from a line of medical professionals who have had to make hard choices over the years)

[Wilson Deaton]

Wilson - I'm not understanding your distinction.

What would make you value "humanness" over "alive" or "life-bearing"?

In the context of abortion, some people want to argue that it is "murder" because the fetus is "alive." I am simply responding to that distinction using the definitons "they" use. In short, I'm saying that I don't believe we can settle the abortion question based on whether or not we declare a fetus is "alive."

In another context, such as discussing Jesus coming that we might have "life," I would respond differently.

Wilson

[George Wallace]

Yeah, I'm not a Hebrew Scholar either. That being said I am suspicious that this is more eisegesis than exegesis. It also strains one's understanding of the purpose of the law in that it makes this about a very minor issue, the baby being born early but in fine condition, as opposed to being about a major issue, the loss of a potential child. It seems to me that if a child is born early but healthy their is really very little harm at all. Why mention that while ignoring the far more serious issue of the death of an unborn child?

Again, not a Hebrew scholar and given my hermeneutic it doesn't really matter.

Craig,
I really don't think it is a matter of eisegesis at all. Neither am I a Hebrew scholar, but the majority of translations seem to say something to the effect that the "child came out" or the 'child was born prematurely.'

Hit Biblegateway with the verse and scroll though the different translations and you'll see. I could only find 'miscarrage' in the CEB and one other. Apparently, the phrase in Hebrew just means the child came out or her fruit came forth. So it then comes down to context and interpretation.

If you check John Gill's Commentary (who was a Language Scholar) you will see he breaks it down to which Targum interpreted it which way. So apparently their is history of it being interpreted both ways.

The most 'damning' for the pro-life, even more so than the translation you quoted is Wycliffe's Translation.

But the majority seem, whether they are considered a "liberal" or "conservative" translation go with, the baby came out or was born prematurely and if footnoted, then reference miscarriage there.

Blessings
George

[Billy Cox]

Craig,
I really don't think it is a matter of eisegesis at all. Neither am I a Hebrew scholar, but the majority of translations seem to say something to the effect that the "child came out" or the 'child was born prematurely.'

I suspect that in ancient times, the net result of a premature birth was typically the same as a miscarriage or still birth. By trying to draw a meaningful distinction, we are reading our modern viewpoint back into an ancient world, where it does not belong.

[Pete Vecchi]

I suspect that in ancient times, the net result of a premature birth was typically the same as a miscarriage or still birth. By trying to draw a meaningful distinction, we are reading our modern viewpoint back into an ancient world, where it does not belong.

Well, yes and no. There is no doubt that medical science has coma a long, long way in allowing prematurely born babies to survive (as evidence, I cite my own granddaughter who was born at 28 weeks, spent about 2 months in the NICU, and today--at age 5 1/2, is doing great--Praise the Lord!) At the same time, medical science also tells us that the unborn baby is basically fully developed after 8 months--that the final month is basically just growth. Therefore, I can see a situation occurring in Old Testament times where 2 men are fighting and cause a woman who is 8 1/2 months pregnant to go into labor and deliver the baby prematurely--with the definite possibility that the baby could be born apparently "unharmed" (aside from not having grown to the size they would have grown in utero, which probably wouldn't have been detected in Old Testament times).

[Craig Laughlin]

I think this is were the "we're not experts in Hebrew" comes into play. What would be helpful is to know if there is another word in Hebrew for what we think of as baby who is dead or damaged because of being born to soon. I suspect not. I also think the context works strongly against the idea of this referring to a healthy premature birth. Why would there be compensation for a healthy birth? Maybe some penalty for wounding the women but that is covered under the eye for an eye provision.

I think Billy's point about imposing our categories is valid. Given the much less precise culture of measurement (and science in general) when these texts were written it is doubtful that a baby born two weeks early and healthy was even considered a premature birth. It is far more likely that the idea of "early birth" inherently carried the idea that something had gone wrong. Which would also explain the need for the law to step in.

Where are our Hebrew scholars?

[Jim Chabot]

I think this is were the "we're not experts in Hebrew" comes into play. What would be helpful is to know if there is another word in Hebrew for what we think of as baby who is dead or damaged because of being born to soon. I suspect not. I also think the context works strongly against the idea of this referring to a healthy premature birth. Why would there be compensation for a healthy birth? Maybe some penalty for wounding the women but that is covered under the eye for an eye provision.

I think Billy's point about imposing our categories is valid. Given the much less precise culture of measurement (and science in general) when these texts were written it is doubtful that a baby born two weeks early and healthy was even considered a premature birth. It is far more likely that the idea of "early birth" inherently carried the idea that something had gone wrong. Which would also explain the need for the law to step in.

Where are our Hebrew scholars?

I haven't been following this closely so this may have already been mentioned.

The context here is an accidental birth or miscarriage. In our context we draw a differentiation between accidental which would be wrongful death (civil) or manslaughter (criminal) and a deliberate act which would be murder. It should also be considered that in recent years we have moved toward considering an accidental death occurring during the commission of a crime to be considered murder as well. It's complicated especially considering societal differences.

While I'm not discounting the difference here where you appear to be equating a civil penalty with property and a criminal penalty with life. I am thinking that while this may appear to be the case on the surface, it may also be a stretch without more to back it up.

Just thinking out loud here, but I can recall a court case I read recently where a man was run over and killed with the final ruling being that no wrong had occurred. Just wondering how we would view this a few thousand years later. Is there enough to draw a certain conclusion?

http://masscases.com/cases/app/47/47massappct360.html

[Billy Cox]

Well, yes and no. There is no doubt that medical science has coma a long, long way in allowing prematurely born babies to survive (as evidence, I cite my own granddaughter who was born at 28 weeks, spent about 2 months in the NICU, and today--at age 5 1/2, is doing great--Praise the Lord!) At the same time, medical science also tells us that the unborn baby is basically fully developed after 8 months--that the final month is basically just growth. Therefore, I can see a situation occurring in Old Testament times where 2 men are fighting and cause a woman who is 8 1/2 months pregnant to go into labor and deliver the baby prematurely--with the definite possibility that the baby could be born apparently "unharmed" (aside from not having grown to the size they would have grown in utero, which probably wouldn't have been detected in Old Testament times).

Considering that in ancient times many babies likely died even at full-term and even full-term birth weights would be far less than those that we see today, it seems unlikely that the premature birth survival rate is anything to hang one's hat on.

Again, it's not much of a stretch to say that in ancient times a premature birth was not so different from a miscarriage or stillbirth. It seems at best that Exodus 21 treats an induced abortion/miscarriage as a property crime...and that doesn't even address what they did if/when a pregnant woman induced her own abortion/miscarriage.

[Ryan Scott]

I think this is right but at the end of the day we have to speak into contemporary ethics. Christ followers ministering as medical professionals deserve direction from us that makes sense in the context of the very real decisions they have to make. At some point we have to get specific.

(Disclaimer - I come from a line of medical professionals who have had to make hard choices over the years)

Exactly, but if we don't start with an overarching view of life, then we get stuck with absolutes. "This is absolutely a justified taking of life," or "This is absolutely immoral to take life."

Medical professionals and ultimately each individual, has to make decisions about life from time to time, whether it be a soldier in war, a pregnant woman, a surgeon, or someone with a medical power of attorney.

As Christians we have to start with the notion that life is bigger than the individual decision we make - and that death is a part of life. Every time we take an individual life, it is regrettable, but we have to take each situation as it comes. Sometimes there are nothing but bad options.

I don't know a single person on the planet who would argue that taking life is never, under any circumstances, an appropriate choice. We simply disagree on when and in what situations.

I think it's important for us to start with a broader context in which both death and suffering are necessary parts of life, at least in our present understanding.

[Craig Laughlin]

Exactly, but if we don't start with an overarching view of life, then we get stuck with absolutes. "This is absolutely a justified taking of life," or "This is absolutely immoral to take life."

Medical professionals and ultimately each individual, has to make decisions about life from time to time, whether it be a soldier in war, a pregnant woman, a surgeon, or someone with a medical power of attorney.

As Christians we have to start with the notion that life is bigger than the individual decision we make - and that death is a part of life. Every time we take an individual life, it is regrettable, but we have to take each situation as it comes. Sometimes there are nothing but bad options.

I don't know a single person on the planet who would argue that taking life is never, under any circumstances, an appropriate choice. We simply disagree on when and in what situations.

I think it's important for us to start with a broader context in which both death and suffering are necessary parts of life, at least in our present understanding.

Agreed.

[Billy Cox]

As Christians we have to start with the notion that life is bigger than the individual decision we make - and that death is a part of life. Every time we take an individual life, it is regrettable, but we have to take each situation as it comes. Sometimes there are nothing but bad options.

I agree. Unfortunately this is where the conversation typically ends too. If we agree that abortion is murder in some or even most circumstances merely makes it a matter of personal conscience.

The pro-life/anti-abortion movement is primarily interested in the collective conscience as codified and enforced by the power of the state...questions of personal conscience are beside the point and might as well be a pro-choice argument. (just sayin')

[Ryan Scott]

I agree. Unfortunately this is where the conversation typically ends too. If we agree that abortion is murder in some or even most circumstances merely makes it a matter of personal conscience.

Well, then it would be in line with the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene.

[Melissa DeBono]

There is a legitimate different of thought on the beginning of life that does not get much real attention. Pro-life people tend to fall in the camp of believing that "life" begins at either conception (6-72 hours after intercourse) or implantation, about a week later. Women do not generally even know they are pregnant at that time.

In my understanding, in official Judaism "life" begins with birth. Prior to that, the life of the child is considered lesser than the life of the woman. Within Jewish tradition that 'lesser" life begins when the mother first can feel the baby move. (Doesn't that give profound beauty to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist proclaiming that the baby leaped in her womb when Mary arrived?) In an ancient culture, this makes a lot of sense. This is the first REAL proof that the pregnancy is viable. This is generally 20 weeks in for a first pregnancy, a bit earlier in a subsequent pregnancy. That is QUITE far in. In this day and age, women have usually heard a viable heartbeat by 11 weeks, and have often had an ultrasound, know the gender of the baby and often have named the baby well before the first movement is felt. Today, babies born at that stage are even saved! For a lot of people, the 24 week point is a significant point in differentiation of the fetus as person, as the child has a considerable chance of survival in the outside world.

For every woman her pregnancy begins and ends in very personal, profound emotional ways. For some women a pregnancy is not really 'real' until the first movements, and while birth is a profound moment, it's not neccessarily an "end," all the moments afterward are still a continuation of the same natural process which connect mother and child. Traditionally women were told not to announce a pregnancy until after the third month, when the chance of miscarriage is very high, and they deal with that loss in very different ways. Some women can "feel" like an early miscarriage is a death, while others "feel" like it is little different than a missed period, a curiosity. It is important that we not base all our moral decisions on the emotional elements, but it's not irrelevant to the discussion. Women need to be supported in their decision making through the whole process, and they don't need the insult of being treated as if they are not giving careful consideration to the morality of their actions.

Interestingly, in some areas of the world, Planned Parenthood is seen as a major player in the elimination of abortion. In areas where abortions are easily accessible and cheap, and contraception is expensive and difficult to obtain, a women's health center that provides both is first and foremost an opportunity to prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place.

[Ryan Scott]

The original English translation of the Apostle's Creed was that Christ would return to judge the "quick and the dead" - quick meaning a fetus that moved. It was later changed to "living."

No real comment, just interesting.

[Billy Cox]

Well, then it would be in line with the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene.

Only if one's conscience leads them to avoid abortion in every circumstance. Where we collectively distrust conscience, a rule book like the Manual will do nicely.

[Ryan Scott]

Only if one's conscience leads them to avoid abortion in every circumstance. Where we collectively distrust conscience, a rule book like the Manual will do nicely.

Of course, the Manual "rule" on abortion is that it should only be done in consultation with clergy and medical experts. There is an implication of last resort and regret. I think this is one of our better statements. It's worded well and leaves a lot of room for conscience; one of the few that do.

[Billy Cox]

Of course, the Manual "rule" on abortion is that it should only be done in consultation with clergy and medical experts. There is an implication of last resort and regret. I think this is one of our better statements. It's worded well and leaves a lot of room for conscience; one of the few that do.

Fair enough. As an aside, if you think it's one of our better statements, you can bet that it (like Article IV) is an object of much scorn and dissatisfaction in some quarters of the Nazarene Church.

[Pete Vecchi]

It is ironic that 4 days after I began this thread, I sat in the nursing home room of my 92-year-old father-in-law, watching his body breathing very laboredly, shortly after the family was called in by the Hospice nurse, because it was her opinion that my father-in-law was "actively dying." He had been in the nursing home for over 4 years. During the first 2 years, we saw how his memory was fading to the point that he no longer remembered the homes he lived in over the past 40+ years. Over the past 2 years, he pretty much quit responding to people, and was asleep at least 80% of the time. When he was awake, only very rarely did he seem to recognize anyone, and then it was only for a few moments at a time. As I watched him "actively dying" last Wednesday night, I thought about the topic of this thread. The rest of the family and I felt that we had in essence lost him 2 years ago. Yet despite health problems (including a heart issue), his body kept on going. Last Wednesday night, I wondered what it was within him that made his body keep struggling for breath. His body ceased the struggle about 45 minutes after I had that thought.

I would not advocate doing anything to bring about death. Yet for 2 years I wondered what made his body keep going. As I said, the "Pappy" we knew in essence left us about 2 years ago. But until 11:17pm last Wednesday, the breath of life was still in his body.

There is some evidence that during the past two years, at least one family member has had an epiphany about Christ, life, and death, and if it would have been known to my father-in-law that it would take him being in the nursing home unable to recognize us for 2 years to bring about this epiphany, I'm sure he would have agreed to go through it for the sake of carrying on Christ's mission on earth.

[Billy Cox]

There is some evidence that during the past two years, at least one family member has had an epiphany about Christ, life, and death, and if it would have been known to my father-in-law that it would take him being in the nursing home unable to recognize us for 2 years to bring about this epiphany, I'm sure he would have agreed to go through it for the sake of carrying on Christ's mission on earth.

I think this varies depending on the individual. Someone could just as easily conclude that God is cruel, aloof, evil or some combination thereof based on the same situation. Is it worth it? I can't answer that.

[Pete Vecchi]

I think this varies depending on the individual. Someone could just as easily conclude that God is cruel, aloof, evil or some combination thereof based on the same situation. Is it worth it? I can't answer that.

I'm not saying it was cause and effect, rather looking at how circumstances may have been used by God in this case.