Looking for biblical evidence of "when does life begin?"

[jcrichton]

RosaryFan’s post is essentially correct, that the soul is placed into the fertilized egg at the moment of conception. The Biblical basis for this can be found by examining both Deuteronomy 25:7-10 and Genesis 38:8-10 in light of Jewish and Catholic interpretation.

***If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, ‘My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel.’ Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, ‘I am not willing to marry her,’ 4 his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’ ***(Deuteronomy 25:7-10)
Having a male heir and continuing the family name and bloodline were so important to ancient Israelites that the mosaic law demanded a brother in-law to marry his brother’s widow in the event of his brother’s death, to have children by her and to raise those children who would then inherit his dead brother’s estate. Note that the penatly for not doing so was public humiliation - spit in his face, etc.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.” Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. (Genesis 38:8-10)Onan refused to raise an heir to his brother with his brother’s widow, enjoying the sex act but withdrawing and “spilling his seed” at the last moment. But note that his punishment was not public humiliation by humans - God himself demanded Onan’s life.

Why was Onan’s life demanded of him? Why was he not punished with public humiliation instead?

We know that man’s body is created and mortal. We also know that man’s spirit is created by God and immortal. When a man’s spriit seperates from his body, we call that death. The body returns to the dust and the spirit lives on either in Heaven or Hell. If a spirit is not present in a body, the body is dead. The spirit must be present for there to be life. Now if conception takes place, the baby is alive but if the spirit should seperate from the fertilized egg, the life will die. Where there is no spirit, there is no life. In order for their to be life, the immortal spirit must be united with the mortal body.

During sexual union, man brings the sperm and woman brings the egg. But it is God who brings the spirit. The spirit does not come from the father or mother but from God. That is why the Church teaches that man and woman are co-creators of human life along with God. When man and woman unite sexually, God is present in a special way. Man and woman bring what is necissary to create the mortal body and God is present to add the immortal spiritual soul. If the spirit is not added at the moment of conception, the baby is not conceived - dead. This is what makes sex a holy, spiritual act, because God is present in a special way.

God’s allowing man and woman to co-create a human life with him is one of his greatest giffts to us. In Onan’s case, he denied God the opportunity to create a new life and so God demanded his in return. Under the mosaic law it makes perfect sense… eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life. This is why Onan was not just humiliated publically but why God demanded his life. A life for a life!

While not explicitly stated in the Bible, intepretation of Deuteronomy 25 together with Genesis 38 as “Life beings at conception” was the understanding of these passages throughout Jewish theological history, up until modern reformed Judiasim, must like modern reformed Protestantism, taught otherwise. it is also part of the Biblical basis for teaching that abortion, contraception and masturbations are essentially a rejection of God’s invitation to man to become a participant in the genesis of human life (co-creators) and as such, grave sins against God himself. This is also the Magesterial interpretation of the Church established by Jesus Christ.

-Tim-

Excellent post, Tim!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[praxising]

A soul is infused the moment a human being is created, and a human being is created the moment a sperm penetrates an egg…

Just to be clear, it isn’t an independent life until there is a complete set of chromosomes in a nucleus that are able to replicate. And there are actually many steps and failures between the penetration/division point. That’s biology.

As for the Church, I was taught it’s a Mystery as to when a soul is infused into a body and no one knows, so the Church errs on the side of caution, presuming facts not in evidence to be as conservative as possible and protect unborn life. Just in case.

 

[Salvatore123]

praxising,

Although what you say is technically correct, I believe the Church’s position on these issues is not as vague as you imply.

Conception and Protection of the Result of Conception

CCC No. 2270 states:

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

The relevant part of the Didache - the earliest known writing we have regarding Christianity’s position on the unborn - states:

"2 The Second Commandment

2:1 The second commandment of the teaching is this:

2:2 . . . you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor."

Citing the Didache and other Church documents, the CCC states even more explicitly in the relevant part:

No. 2271 . . . You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish . . . Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception . . ."

Finally, CCC No. 2274 states in relevant part:

“Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.”

Although not directly, the CCC comes as close as anything I have read in it as far as defining what constitutes conception:

“No. 2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.”

As I said, although it is not a direct “definition” per se, the above quote from the CCC seems to make clear that conception occurs when the sperm penetrates the egg, as that is the only “act which brings the child into existence . . . [by] the power of doctors and biologists . . .” in a petrie dish.

In an earlier post, I distinguished between a totipotent zygote and an embryo, but I do not believe the Church has ever made, nor will it ever make, such a distinction. The only way man can “distinguish” the two is by - as you suggest - separating certain “transitions” between the moment of the sperm penetrating the egg and the creation of additional cells, and even this can only be done through the use of an electron microscope.

From a purely medical/biological point of view, I have found the following definitions of “conception” (and even here, the line blurs on occasion):

1. a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.
   b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.
2. Fertilisation (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy) is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism. In animals, the process involves the fusion of an ovum with a sperm, which eventually leads to the development of an embryo.
3. The process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both. (This definition, from Webster’s, is the most inarticulate, as it does not really distinguish conception from fertilization and implantation, whereas the Church certainly does make such a distinction).

The Soul and its Creation

Teaching regarding the soul is a bit more vague.

The 8th General Council of Constantinople established the dogma that man possesses only one single spiritual soul: unam animam rationabilem et intellectualem habere hominem.

Synods at Constantinople and Braga both rejected the teaching that souls exist before their connection with a body.

Strict scriptural proof regarding when and how a soul is created does not exist. Nevertheless, many, many Church pronouncements through the years lead us to the “comfortable” theological position that, “each individual soul is created by God out of nothing at the moment of its unification with the body.” Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, Sect. 15, No. 4

In his encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII said, “The Catholic Faith obliges us to hold firmly that souls are immediately created by God.”

"Modern Christian philosophy generally holds that the creation and infusion of the spiritual soul coincides with the moment of conception."Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, Sect. 15, No. 4

Ott cites for contrast of the above quote, a condemnation by decree from the Holy Office on March 4, 1679, of the following heresy: “1185 35. It seems probable that every foetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time that it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion.”

cont’d

 

[Salvatore123]

cont’d from previous post

Disingenuousness of Citing “Early Church Fathers” on when Life Begins

In closing, it is important to note that early theologians such as St. Augustine did not have the requisite knowledge of biology so as to permit them to comment with authority on matters such as when a child in the womb deserved protection.

The poster-person for how NOT to be a Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, raised this exact issue recently when she said, regarding abortion and the beginning of life:

"as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”

Several cardinals and numerous bishops across the US immediately criticized Pelosi for not only misrepresenting Church teaching, but also because of her duplicity in citing “Church Fathers” on matters that they simply did not have the wherewithal to know at that time the information we have today.

This may sound uncharitable, but if it were possible for Pelosi to lose an election and NEVER be permitted to serve in a position where she could have a hand in deciding a matter on abortion, I would gladly serve extra time in Purgatory (assuming, God willing, I make it there).

 

[jcrichton]

cont’d from previous post

Disingenuousness of Citing “Early Church Fathers” on when Life Begins

In closing, it is important to note that early theologians such as St. Augustine did not have the requisite knowledge of biology so as to permit them to comment with authority on matters such as when a child in the womb deserved protection.

The poster-person for how NOT to be a Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, raised this exact issue recently when she said, regarding abortion and the beginning of life:

"as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”

Several cardinals and numerous bishops across the US immediately criticized Pelosi for not only misrepresenting Church teaching, but also because of her duplicity in citing “Church Fathers” on matters that they simply did not have the wherewithal to know at that time the information we have today.

This may sound uncharitable, but if it were possible for Pelosi to lose an election and NEVER be permitted to serve in a position where she could have a hand in deciding a matter on abortion, I would gladly serve extra time in Purgatory (assuming, God willing, I make it there).

…loved your closing statement!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

I remember a very interesting pamphlet from Pro-life agency here.

It was about the story of Nativity is in itself a testament as to when life begins.

After reading the pamphlet, I now believe that Jesus, even as a day old, dividing cell in the womb of Mama Mary, was already God. His Spirit was already present at that early time.

It is hard to believe otherwise.

The story of the Nativity already points, in my opinion, biblically, that life begins at conception because as Jesus was present from that moment, so it is also with us.

 

[onenow1]

I remember a very interesting pamphlet from Pro-life agency here.

It was about the story of Nativity is in itself a testament as to when life begins.

After reading the pamphlet, I now believe that Jesus, even as a day old, dividing cell in the womb of Mama Mary, was already God. His Spirit was already present at that early time.

It is hard to believe otherwise.

The story of the Nativity already points, in my opinion, biblically, that life begins at conception because as Jesus was present from that moment, so it is also with us.

Eugenia

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Eugenia

What I said was how I summarized what I read in the pamphlet I mentioned.

This interesting pamphlet was from Pro-life agency in my country (Philippines) and it made me realize that the biblical evidence as to when life begins is something we celebrate every year, make plays and sing songs about …and its the story of the Nativity…the story of Christmas.

I read it last year, a few months before Christmas (I think) …so when Christmas-time came, I looked at the Nativity scene with new eyes.

This very interesting pamphlet really helped me understand what the bible had to say about when life begins …I am hoping that you (and anybody who may want to read this) can find the same pamphlet in the Pro-life agency in your own country.

The title is: Mary’s Pregnancy by J.C. Wilke, M.D.

 

[jcrichton]

I read it last year, a few months before Christmas (I think) …so when Christmas-time came, I looked at the Nativity scene with new eyes.

…I would say that you had a spiritual awakening; sadly too many of us simply coast through life making ourselves vulnerable to the cultural philosophies that arise around us (much of it recycled under a slightly different name/cause)… this “choice” ideology reminds me so much about the two roads in Jesus’ warnings–how seemingly wonderful and pleasant the road that leads to perdition is… and how so many coast right into or is it down to it!

Maran atha!

Angel