Source for "it's a baby from conception"?

[2xx1xy1JD]

Many of the fundie blogs make it crystal clear that people believe that fertilized egg = baby. Not just potential baby, but actual baby, just really small, with all the rights (or more) of any born human being. They insist that this is the Biblical view, as set out by God.

Here's my question: where exactly does it say this?

Now, I'm not Christian, so it's possible that I've missed some NT source and it's not up to me to tell Christians what to believe, but I'm pretty familiar with the OT and it never says this. In fact, Exodus 21:22-25 clearly says the opposite.

I've read that this is a fairly new fundie belief. If so, how do people believe that it was always what the bible said?

[Arete]

A lot of fundies rely on the verse in Ezekiel(?), Isaiah(?), right now the correct prophet escapes me, and I am having an attack of lazy, but God speaks to him and says "..while you were in your mother's womb, I knew you", which is interpreted to mean that God has a relationship with each human being even before they are born.

[Miggy]

The passage is from Jeremiah and it's "Before I knew you in the womb ..." I've always taken that to mean that long before there was an idea of your existence, God knew you would exist. It's nothing to do with whether you are a person at conception or at birth.

I always use the passage about when woman attacked, has miscarriage the attacker is charged with assault NOT murder as my argument for why a fetus is not a person. (The passage goes on to give examples of when it is murder.) interestingly, there is a comment on Anna's Instagram today using this exact passage as proof that a fetus is a person. I am going away now to look up the exact wording of the passage.

[anjulibai]

A lot of fundies rely on the verse in Ezekiel(?), Isaiah(?), right now the correct prophet escapes me, and I am having an attack of lazy, but God speaks to him and says "..while you were in your mother's womb, I knew you", which is interpreted to mean that God has a relationship with each human being even before they are born.

Yeah, that's the line I've heard many times. I don't think I've heard much else, though; definitely nothing from the NT.

[jaynie]

The passage is from Jeremiah and it's "Before I knew you in the womb ..." I've always taken that to mean that long before there was an idea of your existence, God knew you would exist. It's nothing to do with whether you are a person at conception or at birth.

I always use the passage about when woman attacked, has miscarriage the attacker is charged with assault NOT murder as my argument for why a fetus is not a person. (The passage goes on to give examples of when it is murder.) interestingly, there is a comment on Anna's Instagram today using this exact passage as proof that a fetus is a person. I am going away now to look up the exact wording of the passage.

My memory is fuzzy, but I have it in my head that this passage was edited in the 70s so that the guy is charged with murder rather than assault. Can anyone confirm that, or elaborate on the notion?

[jerkit]

Steven anderson had some ass backward reasoning why it's fertilization not implantation. It had something to do with Abraham and Sarah conceiving seed, therefore life begins with seed.

[Firiel]

The one I've heard the most is "I knit you together in your mother's womb" from somewhere in Psalms. Psalms is poetry, so the fact that they are trying to "take it literally" and are also adding literal meaning that isn't really there is just really dumb.

[Firiel]

The passage is from Jeremiah and it's "Before I knew you in the womb ..." I've always taken that to mean that long before there was an idea of your existence, God knew you would exist. It's nothing to do with whether you are a person at conception or at birth.

I always use the passage about when woman attacked, has miscarriage the attacker is charged with assault NOT murder as my argument for why a fetus is not a person. (The passage goes on to give examples of when it is murder.) interestingly, there is a comment on Anna's Instagram today using this exact passage as proof that a fetus is a person. I am going away now to look up the exact wording of the passage.

I looked it up in an interlinear version of the Bible-- here's the link: biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=exodus+21%3A21-23&t=nas

Thing is, KJV and NAS translations are quite different. I can kind of follow Greek, so interlinear really helps me for NT verses. I've got nothing with Hebrew. If we have any resident Hebrew scholars, I'm sure they can help. The thing is that anti-abortion folks interpret the verse as saying, "If the woman gives birth prematurely because of an assault but the baby is okay, then the dude must pay a fine. If the baby is not okay, then it is murder." A pro-choice person would say the verse is saying "If the baby dies, it's a fine. If the woman dies, it is life for a life."

[docmom]

So how do the "it's a baby from conception" folks handle anembryonic pregnancies (AKA blighted ovum)?? In this case, conception occurs but because of genetic defects an embryo never develops. The pregnancy can implant and a yolk sac can form but the embryonic pole doesn't. There is no way such a pregnancy could ever result in a person. Skeptic minds want to know...

[2xx1xy1JD]

In Hebrew, the words for miscarriage are literally translated as "the child will go out".

The Jewish tradition follows a commentary from Rashi (who lived from 1040 to 1105) that the reference to further harm refers to the mother, not the child. This is based on a passage in the Talmud at Sanhedrin 79a, where the discussion clearly assumes that further harm would be to the mother. The Talmudic discussion would date back to at least 500 (when it was published in written form), but the discussions themselves reflect an older oral tradition.

In short - at the very least, we have proof that a group of scholars who knew Hebrew very well all concluded that miscarriage = a fine and consequences less than that of killing a person, in discussions going back at least 1,500 years ago.

[Firiel]

So how do the "it's a baby from conception" folks handle anembryonic pregnancies (AKA blighted ovum)?? In this case, conception occurs but because of genetic defects an embryo never develops. The pregnancy can implant and a yolk sac can form but the embryonic pole doesn't. There is no way such a pregnancy could ever result in a person. Skeptic minds want to know...

It was a baby who will be in heaven, free from the earthly condition that caused it to die before birth.

[Firiel]

In Hebrew, the words for miscarriage are literally translated as "the child will go out".

The Jewish tradition follows a commentary from Rashi (who lived from 1040 to 1105) that the reference to further harm refers to the mother, not the child. This is based on a passage in the Talmud at Sanhedrin 79a, where the discussion clearly assumes that further harm would be to the mother. The Talmudic discussion would date back to at least 500 (when it was published in written form), but the discussions themselves reflect an older oral tradition.

In short - at the very least, we have proof that a group of scholars who knew Hebrew very well all concluded that miscarriage = a fine and consequences less than that of killing a person, in discussions going back at least 1,500 years ago.

Thanks, 2xx! I was hoping you'd weigh in.

While Googling, I discovered a website (americanrtl.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion#Exodus21) that said this:

But note the word used to describe the consequence of the crime described in Exodus 21:22, "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely," the Hebrew word for miscarriage, shaw-kole, is NOT used

What are they talking about? Are there different words for different types of miscarriage? I don't doubt they are spinning stuff, but do you know what the basis for the spin is?

EDIT: Google is telling me that shaw-kole means "to become barren" or "miscarriage." Seems to be used mostly in the first sense, but I haven't fully explored it.

[SunnyAndrsn]

The source that I was taught was Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Taking it a little farther, we were also taught that since we were sinful in the womb, aborted babies went to hell. Therefore, abortion was not only murder, but it condemned unborn aborted babies to hell. They never mentioned miscarried babies.

That was when I started to question this particular church. I think a God who can create the universe can manage not to send babies to hell.

[Firiel]

The source that I was taught was Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Taking it a little farther, we were also taught that since we were sinful in the womb, aborted babies went to hell. Therefore, abortion was not only murder, but it condemned unborn aborted babies to hell. They never mentioned miscarried babies.

That was when I started to question this particular church. I think a God who can create the universe can manage not to send babies to hell.

Wow. I was horrified when a Calvinist pastor told me that his denomination believed babies of non-Christians went to hell. At least the parents of supposedly-in-hell babies were largely unaffected because, well, non-Christians typically don't believe in hell. I can't even imagine saying that all dead/miscarried children go to hell. What a huge comfort to grieving parents! Don't worry about your miscarriage-- your child is in hell! You should try to have another child-- hopefully that one won't end up burning for eternity too! :|

[jerkit]

Wow. I was horrified when a Calvinist pastor told me that his denomination believed babies of non-Christians went to hell. At least the parents of supposedly-in-hell babies were largely unaffected because, well, non-Christians typically don't believe in hell. I can't even imagine saying that all dead/miscarried children go to hell. What a huge comfort to grieving parents! Don't worry about your miscarriage-- your child is in hell! You should try to have another child-- hopefully that one won't end up burning for eternity too! :|

It that a particularly common belief among Calvinists? I've never heard it before.

[SunnyAndrsn]

Wow. I was horrified when a Calvinist pastor told me that his denomination believed babies of non-Christians went to hell. At least the parents of supposedly-in-hell babies were largely unaffected because, well, non-Christians typically don't believe in hell. I can't even imagine saying that all dead/miscarried children go to hell. What a huge comfort to grieving parents! Don't worry about your miscarriage-- your child is in hell! You should try to have another child-- hopefully that one won't end up burning for eternity too! :|

Exactly. Like I said, they would never mention what happened to miscarried babies, but the inference was that since aborted babies went to hell....

I can't even imagine the grief of those parents. A friend of mine had a preemie, years later, and it was a huge, huge, huge deal to the godmother to have the baby baptized as soon as possible. So much so, that she did the deed herself, without telling the parents, as they didn't have the same narrow belief system.

[Firiel]

It that a particularly common belief among Calvinists? I've never heard it before.

It's not uncommon. This particular pastor was of the United Reformed denomination, and I'm pretty sure that's the denominational stance, that you can tell the predestination of a child/baby who died by the stance of its parents. Other Calvinists say differently. I suppose some might just say it's a crapshoot about whether baby is in heaven and others might say that God predestined the child's death and therefore also predestined it to heaven. Though since God makes the predestination choice based on whimsy and a dice roll (apparently) and humans are sinful by nature, I can't see any good reason to make a caveat that all babies who die go to heaven.

[jerkit]

It's not uncommon. This particular pastor was of the United Reformed denomination, and I'm pretty sure that's the denominational stance, that you can tell the predestination of a child/baby who died by the stance of its parents. Other Calvinists say differently. I suppose some might just say it's a crapshoot about whether baby is in heaven and others might say that God predestined the child's death and therefore also predestined it to heaven. Though since God makes the predestination choice based on whimsy and a dice roll (apparently) and humans are sinful by nature, I can't see any good reason to make a caveat that all babies who die go to heaven.

Describing God as "whimsy" put an image of God the Father wearing a Marry Poppins get-up and doing a little jig in my head.

So good came out of this discussion :P

[2xx1xy1JD]

The source that I was taught was Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Taking it a little farther, we were also taught that since we were sinful in the womb, aborted babies went to hell. Therefore, abortion was not only murder, but it condemned unborn aborted babies to hell. They never mentioned miscarried babies.

That was when I started to question this particular church. I think a God who can create the universe can manage not to send babies to hell.

WTF??

I was taught the exact opposite - if someone dies who was too young to sin, or not mentally competent enough to sin, it means that they, by definition, had a sinless existence and could have only built up merit.

[browncoatslytherin]

WTF??

I was taught the exact opposite - if someone dies who was too young to sin, or not mentally competent enough to sin, it means that they, by definition, had a sinless existence and could have only built up merit.

i was taught the same, that there was supposed to be an age that children could die before and they would automatically go to heaven. the age was never specified - i think it was supposed to be a mental age, so they had to be aware that what they were doing was a sin - but anything before that and they were fine. this is coming from an independant, fundamental, evangelical baptist pov.

[Palimpsest]

i was taught the same, that there was supposed to be an age that children could die before and they would automatically go to heaven. the age was never specified - i think it was supposed to be a mental age, so they had to be aware that what they were doing was a sin - but anything before that and they were fine. this is coming from an independant, fundamental, evangelical baptist pov.

But all this is about the Original (Inherited) Sin Doctrine (imposed in 2 CE on Christianity and argued about by various denominations ever since then) rather than whether life begins at conception.

[Firiel]

WTF??

I was taught the exact opposite - if someone dies who was too young to sin, or not mentally competent enough to sin, it means that they, by definition, had a sinless existence and could have only built up merit.

It depends on what doctrine you are using. Within Protestantism, the biggest divide is between Calvinists and Armenians. Generally, Calvinists believe in predestination/no freewill while Armenians support the doctrine of freewill. I've never heard of an Armenian denomination that believes children or mentally disabled people will go to hell. The idea is that they do not have the competency to fully understand and respond to Christ's message, so they don't need to actively make that decision to go to heaven.

Calvinist beliefs vary, and I don't know the nuances of the denominations well enough to say who exactly believes what. But the pastor that talked to me was representing a normal doctrinal view in his denomination.

[docmom]

It was a baby who will be in heaven, free from the earthly condition that caused it to die before birth.

But it never existed. There was never even a tiny scrap of tissue that could become a baby. Did the yolk sac go to heaven?

If you believe this, and I'm not suggesting you do, Firiel, then why wait for conception to declare life? Surely all ova and sperm are actually life and we shouldn't waste any of them (Monty Python got there first BTW)

[Firiel]

But it never existed. There was never even a tiny scrap of tissue that could become a baby. Did the yolk sac go to heaven?

If you believe this, and I'm not suggesting you do, Firiel, then why wait for conception to declare life? Surely all ova and sperm are actually life and we shouldn't waste any of them (Monty Python got there first BTW)

I know you aren't suggesting I believe it, but I just wanted to confirm that I don't think life starts at conception. :)

I've heard my very conservative cousin make the following argument: At the moment of conception, there is a new and unique genetic code, indicating that life has started. An egg is just half of a woman's genetic code, and a sperm is just half of a man's genetic code. New life happens when they first join together and create a new genetic entity.

Said cousin is an identical twin, so I want to ask him who became human first-- him or his brother. Or ask him if they really are different people because they have the same DNA.

EDIT: My mom had a very early miscarriage, but her body didn't get the message and continued to "think" it was pregnant for a couple of months. As a child, I assumed I had a little brother or sister up in heaven.

[Arete]

But all this is about the Original (Inherited) Sin Doctrine (imposed in 2 CE on Christianity and argued about by various denominations ever since then) rather than whether life begins at conception.

Imposed on Western Christianity. Eastern Christianity does not believe in an Original Sin doctrine. Children are born without sin. What Eastern Christianity believes is that all human beings as they come into understanding have the potential to sin.

And I was taught that Psalm 51 was specifically about King David crying out to God in repentence.