The Life begins at First Breath argument

I've argued strongly for Life Begins at Conception before, but I'm someone willing to change my views after further study of Scripture.  I've also talked about how nuanced the Abortion issue is here.

First disclaimer however is that I know many making the Life at First Breath argument do so treating that as synonymous with Life beginning at Birth.  That is an error, we now know scientifically that the fetus develops lungs & nostrils and begins breathing at about six months.  And undeniable Biblical proof that it is alive before birth is provided by Jeremiah 1 and Luke 1:39-45, that's two witnesses.  We don't know at what point in the pregnancy it was that God spoke to Jeremiah, but we know the visitation was six months into Elizabeth's pregnancy, exactly the point the fetus develops lungs is when John leaped for Joy in his mother's womb.

Passages like Psalm 139 and Isaiah 44 may refer to conception, but not in a context that in any way helps define when Life Begins.  Psalm 139 is about God's foreknowledge, it's entire context is about how God knew you BEFORE your life began, not when it began.  Same btw with the references to Conception in Jeremiah 1.

 In this study of mine from a few months ago, some Biblical significance to the fact that the lungs are formed six months after conception is discussed.

Genesis 2:7 says that Adam became a living soul when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.  

Also Ezekiel 37: The Dry Bones vision, which is contrary to some people's insistence is about the literal Bodily Resurrection as David being there proves.  The same imagery is used, God Breaths the Life into the dry bones to Resurrect them.

In both Hebrew and Greek the word for "spirit" often translated "ghost" also means "breath".  

In the New Testament believers are never refereed to as dead, we have Eternal Life, the time our bodies are clinically dead is just refereed to as a sort of sleep.  Repeatedly the moment of physical death is defined as "gave up the ghost", that can equally accurately be translated "gave up the breath" as an idiom for "stopped breathing".  This phrase is used both of Jesus Death on The Cross, and Stephen's stoning in Acts 7.

Psalm 33:6 could also be seen as backing up this doctrine.  As well as Job 34:14-15.

There is the counter argument I'm aware of that Blood is The Life and the fetus' heart starts beating at less then a month.  But the heart is not pumping it's own blood yet at that point but the Mother's.  The Fetus begins producing it's own blood about 5 days before the Lungs are formed.

When Pro-Choicers who are Ok with Abortion being illegal at a certain point refer to a fetus becoming "viable", this is the point in the pregnancy they are referring to.  It is after the lungs are formed that the child could survive if it's born prematurely, but if it's born before that it usually doesn't make it.

Margaret Sanger(Planned Parenthood founder)quotes

I’m not taking these from Pro-Life propaganda sources, these are independently sourced directly from her own writings.  Their indisputable.

[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

-Commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, December 10, 1939. - Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.

-Speech quoted in “Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do.” The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174.

All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class

-“Morality and Birth Control”, February-March, 1918, pp. 11,14.

As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation…. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

-“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda”, October 1921, page 5.

Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

-“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda”, October 1921, page 5.

The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.

-“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda”, October 1921, page 5.

..give dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

-“A Plan for Peace”, April 1932, pp. 107-108

Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing… Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand. [npg] In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York.

-Autobiography 1938, Chapter 29, “While the Doctors Consult”, p. 366.

In passing, we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of ‘fit’ and ‘unfit.’ Who is to decide this question? The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.

-The Pivot of Civilization1922, Chapter 8, “Dangers of Cradle Competition”

Eugenics aims to arouse the enthusiasm or the interest of the people in the welfare of the world fifteen or twenty generations in the future. On its negative side it shows us that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all—that the wealth of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization.

-The Pivot of Civilization1922, Chapter 8, “Dangers of Cradle Competition”

Our ‘overhead’ expense in segregating the delinquent, the defective and the dependent, in prisons, asylums and permanent homes, our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrate our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism. No industrial corporation could maintain its existence upon such a foundation. Yet hardheaded ‘captains of industry,’ financiers who pride themselves upon their cool-headed and keen-sighted business ability are dropping millions into rosewater philanthropies and charities that are silly at best and vicious at worst. In our dealings with such elements there is a bland maladministration and misuse of huge sums that should in all righteousness be used for the development and education of the healthy elements of the community.

-The Pivot of Civilization1922, Chapter 12, “Woman and the Future”
The following is not her’s in origin, but she still said it.

The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.

-W.E.B. DuBois, Birth Control Review, June 1932. Quoted by Sanger in her proposal for the “Negro Project.”
Below is not directly her’s but fromBirthControlReview.

Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.

-Ernst Rudin, Birth Control Review, April 1933.

It is not my desire to turn anyone I disagree with into a 2 Dimensional Cartoon villain.  So I will not deny she also expressed legitimate concerns about Women’s rights.

Actually what’s amusing is she still in-spite of all this would not agree with the modern Pro-Choice movement’s insistence that the Unborn don’t qualify as Human beings.

I'm both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice

I define Life as beginning at Conception, but defining when life begins is not the only issue with regards to Abortion. I've become less radically "Pro-Life" over time.

Life is an important thing to protect, and so is Freedom of Choice, a good Libertarian and a good Christian believes in both of those things. Abortion represents an area where the two conflict, it's perfectly natural that different people will have different views on where to draw the line. But it's unfortunately standard on both sides to engage in demonizing the other.

I've shown, in another article of mine, that Life Begins at Conception Biblically, and that Abortion fits the Biblical definition of Murder.  But not all acts of Murder are equal, I do not view a woman who has an abortion, especially a teenage girl, the same as I do an Ax murderer. However I'll never agree with the most radical "Pro-Choice" people who want abortion to be treated like any ordinary medical procedure like having your tonsils removed.

I should also add that I oppose the Death Penalty

I'm going to give some advice to both sides. But I kind of have more for Pro-Life precisely because that's where I firmly was once and still identify with them more culturally as a Fundamentalist Christian.

To Pro-Lifers.
1. Don't engage in Slut shamming, I know only a loud Minority do that, but it's still important advice. And be careful because something can sound that way whether you intended it to or not.
2. Stop naively confusing the "Morning after Pill" with Abortion, it's not, the "Morning After Pill" will not terminate a pregnancy. it's merely a last resort to prevent conception. I go into more detail on that near the end of the defining when life begins dissertation.
3. When asked about the Rape exception, no matter what your view on that is don't answer with "Punish the Rapist not the Baby" a desire to punish is not why a women in that situation desires an Abortion.
4. Understand that Abortion is not a vice, the majority of ordinary people who are Politically "Pro-Choice" do want to lower the number of Abortions.
5. To many Pro-Chociers proving the child is alive won't be enough. They cite the issue of Autonomy, that no person has to right to use another person's body without their consent. No matter how innocent or dependent on that for their own life they are. This argument is why I feel we need to at least concede the Rape Exception.

And stop supporting Republicans, they're not Pro-Life their just using you. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act would have ended legal Abortion, but when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress NO ONE made any effort to support his bill.

To Pro-Choicers.
1. No matter how much of a Woman's rights issue it is to you, that does not mean Pro-Lifers are automatically misogynists. There are and have been plenty of Pro-Life Feminists, including early Feminists before it became popular.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/index
2. And quit that silly "If a Fetus is alive so is a Sperm" and "If Abortion is murder so is Masturbation". It's a silly argument, it's not that difficult to understand the view that it's the uniting of the Sperm and Egg and their merging together that is the beginning of Life. Agree with it or not, it's not difficult to understand.

Basically both sides need to quit insisting the other is lying about what they say motivates them. That is inherently naive and hateful.

There is a claim that Numbers 5:11-31 is an Abortion ritual, though I see no reference to a pregnancy in it.  There are a lot of ways that passage is used against The Bible by modern critics.  Thing is, it's the opposite of the kinds of "Ordeals" used to expose "witches" in medieval times.  In this case it is something supernatural happening that was harmful to the woman. To my knowledge drinking bitter water would not actually scientifically cause that effect (Nahmandies also pointed this out).  It is actually my theory that this story is here for the purpose of allowing a husband an excuse to let his wife get away with adultery, I don't believe anyone was ever in fact condemned by this ritual.

Abortion is not a defining issue in how I vote either way. My general philosophy is that the more the Mainstream Media makes a big deal of something, the more it's likely a distraction from what the people in power don't want us knowing they're doing. I never vote for Republicans or Democrats (except Ron Paul), when choosing a 3rd Party candidate to support, I've supported both Pro-Life (Chuck Baldwin) and Pro-Choice (Gary Johnson) ones.

The Bible defines Life as beginning at Conception.

As a Libertarian I do not want the law defining anything based solely on what The Bible says, so for this post I'm putting the legal/political debate aside for a moment (it's an issue Libertarians are divided on anyway). I do see people constantly question that The Bible defines Life as beginning at Conception and thus Abortion as Murder, so I'm going to address that here.

In Jeremiah chapter 1 God SPEAKS to Jeremiah in his Mother's Womb.

Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." David is saying he was Sinful at Conception, you can only be Sinful if your alive, but more then that, Sin is unique to Human life, Animals are never defined as Sinning Biblically even at their most animalistic. Some will try to argue this refers to Sex, that is idiotic, I've written entire articles elsewhere on how that's not how the Bible views Sex, but either way Psalm 51 is David talking about HIS Sin.

Abortion as an intentional act is specifically mentioned only once. Amos 1:13 "Thus saith YHWH; For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have ripped open the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border:" Clearly not approved of.

Genesis 16:11 "And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son" Not Fetus not Zygote but Child.

Exodus 21:22-23, isn't entirely clear to modern readers. The issue is what "mischief follow" (which should be translated "evil follow") means, some people want to think it means the Mother dieing, I don't think that's logical. the earlier phrase "fruit depart from her" does not necessarily mean the Baby died, it is possible rarely for the baby to survive a miscarriage if it happens late enough in the pregnancy. I think the "Evil following" can refer to either the child or the mother dieing.

Psalm 139:13-16 actually describes the Conception process, with amazing Scientific accuracy for over 3000 years ago.

Isaiah 44:2&24 also clearly refer to conception.

We know from Genesis 9:4-6, Leviticus 17:11&14, and Deuteronomy 12:23 that "The Blood is the Life" and that the Shedding of Man's Blood is murder. Genesis 4 also bares this out. The "Fetus" has a Heartbeat at 21-24 days, before most women ever know their Pregnant.

Let's look at the New Testament.
Like 1:15 "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: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." Remember that if your ever quizzed on when the Ministry of John The Baptist began.

Life ultimately can't be defined purely Scientifically "A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there’s no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?"-Dr. Manhattan.

Lots of people have been declared "Legally dead" because their heart stopped but been revived. And some people can even be declared "Brain Dead" but other parts of their bodies still function. So if the end of life can be as ambiguous as it's start. Yet many Pro-Choice people will call you an Idiot if you choose to define life as beginning for example even as soon as it's Heart Beats. The most common argument is "Viability" well lots of born individuals lack "viability".

Problem exist even when defining the beginning of life Metaphysically or spiritually. It's often worded as a matter of when the Soul enters the Body/Fetus/Zygote or whatever you call it. But you see The Bible does not support the idea of Pre-Existence, though it's part of many apostasies.

Genesis 2:7 "And Yahweh God formed Adam of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Adam became a living soul." Doesn't say a Soul entered him, it says he "became a living soul". I don't believe it's only the body created at conception, I believe the soul and spirit are as well.

Conception is a process that begins when the sperm enters the egg, not merely a "moment". A process which as I said early on here The bible describes in detail, the "Zygote" may not be "a living soul" when the process begins, but it is by the end I believe.

One fact that is no common knowledge is that the sperm usually doesn't reach the egg till over 12 hours after ejaculation. This ignorance is why the "morning after pill" is often incorrectly defined as a type of abortion. There is an Abortion pill now, but it's a very separate pill.

The morning after pill is merely a sort of concentrated birth control pill, (which women are told not to take if their already on the pill). It will not harm an already conceived "zygote", it merely attempts to prevent conception from happening. It's not the same as Abortion and whether you view birth control itself as wrong or not it can't be called murder, and so as a Libertarian I certainly don't want the morning after pill to be illegal.

Defining when life begins is not the only issue with regards to Abortion. I have a post on the Politics and Religion forum dealing with that more.