When Is a Baby, a Baby: At Conception or at Birth?

I suggest to understand words and statements and passages within their context.

There may be some passages in OT Law in which situations of "fetus/unborn" are compared to same situations of "newborn/child" and where one could from that context see whether such situations are treated exactly the same or are treated differently. I would think that if they are treated the exactly the same, there would be no essential difference between the status of a fetus and a newborn baby; if they are treated differently, there would seem to be an essential difference in status between fetus and newborn baby, with the difference perhaps even stated in the context.

Has someone here ever done a study on this matter, perhaps even found such possibly relevant passages in Scripture (OT or NT)?

God made man in His own image, forming him from the dust of the Earth, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and "Man became a living soul."

And no human has come into life from any other system, except Jesus, the Messiah of God.

THAT life has come down from Adam through generation to generation, till it produces the next generation.

Fifty years from now, some will cry "I tried to see my Doctor, but he is overcome with patients; where are all the doctors?"

Another will complain "I tried to make an appointment with an attorney, but none is available; where are all the attorneys?"

Yet another will cry "I tried to enroll my child in school, but they had no teachers to teach her; where are all the teachers?

Then my boss called me and said "Stay home today, I heard on the news we are going to be under attack from a foreign army." I asked "Where are all our defenders of our great nation?"

Then a voice will respond from heaven.....

"YOU ABORTED THEM."

The question of "when does life begin in the process of human replication" is a very simple one; "it began in Eden's Garden, thousands of years ago, and has never been interrupted between that introduction, and our own introduction to the next generation."

Beginning with the union of two gametes; i.e., One egg + 1 sperm; develops to a Zygote, then to a Blastocyst, to an Embryo, to a Fetus, and is finally born into an uncaring world.

Life did not "BEGIN" at any step within the process; It began with the living egg and the living sperm of the parents, developed in accord with its nature as designed by GOD from its DNA, and every step in the process dealt only with living material and design.

And no scientist can duplicate the process other than taking an already provided Human gamete and adding an already provided human gamete from the opposite gender, to begin an already determined process, to fruition.

In the nineteen-sixties, the medical world produced the "Morning after pill," and Women went berserk; they shouted one to another, "MEN WANT ONLY ONE THING" and set about to provide that "THING;" and they then began to rely upon ABORTION as a Birth-Control device, because it was too much trouble to go to the drug store for "the PILL."

We now rely upon prayer, to correct the glitch in the system,never once admitting to "baby-Murder." But God is warning us, now with a virus, sometimes with an insect, sometimes with an Army, Play-time is over.

Then there is the problem of Homosexuality, rampant in our nation, and approved by some of the voters to run for President of this great GOD-FEARING nation. Do you see a certain hypocrisy developing here?

But look out folks, It gets worse -  "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." [Heb 12:4]

Wolfgang Posts: 2,519 12:24PM Flag

@Lamech posted:

Wolfgang posted: Man became a living human being when "breath of life" (breath which provides life) was introduced into the situation / process of the making of man. The forming of man's body was not the step which made man a living human being. Only with the breath introduced by God's working did that lifeless human body become ea living soul.[/quote]

@Lamech:That is precisely what I said. "Man became a living soul AFTER God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life."

Wolfgang posted:This statement is self-contradictory: The first sentence is in accordance with the truth from Genesis => "life did not begin at any time within the process" !! The next sentence flat out contradicts the first sentence and the truth from Genesis, because it claims that they very first steps in the process of the growing of the body is the beginning of the living human being.[/quote]

@Lamech:The active word here is "Within." Forming the body is NOT "Within" the process, it begins all that follows; therefore, it is the first step of the process. There is also a last step, called "Birth." All else is "WITHIN" the process. Forming begins it, birthing ends it, Everything in between builds upon the pattern laid down by God's instruction to " Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Wolfgang posted:A further point to consider: Has a stillborn been a living being that was killed ?? Why is a stillborn considered "dead born" (in other languages, for example in German, it is even termed that way - "totgeboren"). In other words, the stillborn is not considered to have been a living human person who has died, but is dead born because of the fact that it never took a breath !

Lamech: If it did not live, how did it attain size and shape prior to being "stillborn?"

The people who develop words to suggest events, may be ignorant of many aspects of said events. Therefore, to suggest a "stillborn" is dead born because it never took a breath, overlooks the simplest fact, that almost all newborns never "took a breath" prior to being born.

That first "breath of life" may be prior to the babe leaving the womb, but mostly it is the process of passing through the birth canal that "massages" the new-to-be-born to the extreme that the first breath becomes a reaction to the birthing activity itself. Either way, it does not change anything in my post.

Well, was it ignorance that caused the writer of Gen to state that what God had made and formed (a human body) only BECAME A LIVING SOUL when breath was given to it by God (that is, when breathing had occurred?

Why does Scripture speak of "THE BREATH of life" but not of "the body of life"??

According to Gen, a LIVING SOUL (a living human being) is BREATHING ... no breath, no living human being. So, yes, all newborn BECOME living souls when they take their first breath.

Now, just to clarify, I did not write Scripture .... I am just reading it.

Does a fetus have breath of life before birth? Was the fetus in Elizabeth's womb a conscious worshiping human being (approx. 6 months into the pregnancy)? What happens normally and naturally if the baby's birth occurs prematurely at such early stage?

As for the record in Lk 1:41, we should note what the text actually says:

Did the babe hear what Mary way saying? Or did Elisabeth hear the salutation? The verse is not about the babe hearing Mary's voice and understanding what she said, but about Elisabeth and her reaction, and it - as an effect of Elisabeth's reaction reports that "the babe leaped in her womb". It is common knowledge that during pregnancy, a pregnant woman can experience that the fetus at times will react to her movements, emotions, etc.,

For example, note that prior to birth, normally the fetus will be turn its position in the womb in preparation for birth ... while we describe this in active voice as "the baby turned", in reality the baby was turned (passive) by whatever natural process the woman's body undergoes in order to prepare and accommodate the birth.

Thus, Lk 1:41 reports not John the baptist living as a human person in Elisabeth's womb and hearing and understanding Mary's words and then doing a leaping dance, but speaks about Elisabeth and her reaction to Mary's salutation, including the fetus moving inside of her.

Where did I say that child moved in that scene as part of a process of preparing and accommodating birth ??? I spoke of this process as an illustration that even though people speak in active voice about that (the babe turned), the reality is that the fetus did so not because of some own conscious decision but was turned (passive voice) due to natural process in the woman's body to prepare for birth.

As for the baby "leaped for joy", the verse does not say that the baby heard Mary's greeting, rather Elisabeth clearly says that Mary's greeting sounded in her ears.

Thus I conclude from the text details and observations of what can happen during pregnancy in regards to a fetus moving (such as is described at times as kicking, leaping, etc.), that in the situation at hand the babe in her womb moved/ leaped as Elisabeth (not the babe) heard Mary's greeting. It seems clear that Elisabeth was rather joyful at that moment, and it would very possible that her reaction and emotional response triggered the babe's leaps.

Actually, the text says that Elisabeth said "the babe leaped in my womb for joy" !!! This statement is how Elisabeth described what was happening in her body.

SImple incident from own personal experience: => When my wife was pregnant with our son (7th month), I was gone for almost a week to a conference, and as I was returning and she met me at the airport, when she saw me come out of customs, the babe "moved joyfully in her womb", s0 her words when we hugged a few moments later. Now, it should be as plain as anyone's nose on their faces, that the babe in her womb had no clue whatever (visible or audible) what exact moment I came into my wife's view at the airport sliding door of the customs area opening. And yet, the babe "kicked" / "moved joyfully" in the words of my wife ... What happened? Obviously the reaction of joy of my wife triggered the babe to move.

The gospel text does state what Elisabeth said ... the gospel text as such does NOT teach or claim that the babe leaped for joy in the womb.

I quoted the part that was relevant to clarifying WHO according to the gospel narrative actually SAID what you worded as "the text says". The gospel text does not state or teach that the babe in the womb acted because it heard something and made a conscious decision "to leap for joy". The gospel text states and teaches that Elisabeth in her words described what happened inside her when she heard Mary's greeting.

Why did you eliminate my simple incident which I mentioned at the end of post which clarifies how the text about "babe doing something in the womb" is not ofi ts own conscious decision, but rather happens in reaction to something triggered by the pregnant woman.

You seem to distinguish between what the text "states" and what it "teaches" or "claims." Help me understand why that distinction matters. The text states, teaches, and claims that Elizabeth told Mary her child leapt for joy in her womb when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting. What's more, at no point does the text dispute Elizabeth's contention. On what basis can you argue that Luke doesn't believe Elizabeth is telling the truth, or that the point of Elizabeth's claim is not that she thinks her child reacted to Mary's greeting?

The example of your and your pregnant wife's encounter at an airport basically repeated the point you made earlier in the same post when of the movement of Elizabeth's baby you wrote, "It seems clear that Elisabeth was rather joyful at that moment, and it would very possible that her reaction and emotional response triggered the babe's leaps." Of your child's movement at the airport you wrote, "Obviously the reaction of joy of my wife triggered the babe to move." Because I saw no substantive difference between the point of your airport story and your conclusion about Elizabeth's child's leap for joy to which I had just at length responded, I saw no need to respond to it separately. [NOTE: The similarity of the two stories is made obvious by the fact that In each case you identified the cause of the child's movement with the same verb - "triggered."] By responding to the first story, I think I responded to the second story.

And I must note that curiosity about my "elimination" of your airport story is rich coming from you, a poster who over the years and still to this day has never acknowledged, let alone addressed, countless questions and comments I left for you in my responses to your posts, even though I posed each of them to you multiple times.

Here are some questions for you advertisers of the idea that "a babe in the womb" (also called "fruit of the womb") is a (full functioning? consciously thinking?) baby:

From what point in time from conception onward is the fetus a living human baby?

Is a human being Biblically described and defined as a living being , a living soul, able to live on its own?

Life starts at conception and is a baby.

The spirit is given at conception

It would not grow if it didn't have a spirit, for the body without the spirit is dead.

James 2:6 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

That scripture is about Jesus filling Elizabeth and her baby John in her womb with the Holy Spirit while Jesus was in Mary's womb.

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.

Humans all have their own spirit, and when we are saved we are given the Holy Spirit.

You deny the scriptures.

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:

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.

John 1:33 I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’

You don't know that people were filled with the Holy Spirit before Jesus came, died, raised again and ascended?

The Holy Spirit given to all believers was the promise fulfilled after Jesus came and ascended back to heaven.

@Wolfgang

The Bible says Jesus is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.

Jesus came from heaven and is the One.

John 1:33 I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’