To my home page

The contents of this document are my own responsibility, not those of SWU. I do not personally agree with everything on pages linked to this one, but have linked to these pages for educational purposes. University students and professors need to be aware of views that they do not agree with. Some readers aren't going to agree with my views.

Contents: When does life begin?

Definitions

Scripture

Exodus 21:22-3

Web references

Norman Ford's When did I begin?

Are we asking the wrong question?

Why does it matter?

Conclusion

It is my belief that for most people, the question posed is not the real question. What they really want to know, or really want others to agree with them about, is something like: "What is the moral status of the unborn?" or "What rights should be given to the unborn?" or "How should the unborn be treated?"

Added Dec 13, 2007: Noted Catholic commentator Richard John Neuhaus agrees. He has written : "The moral question is not . . . about when a human life begins. That is a biological and medical question on which there is no serious dispute. The moral question can be put this way: At what point in its existence ought we, and for what reasons ought we, to recognize that a human life should be protected in law?"

Before answering all or any of these, there are some preliminary questions that should be dealt with. In dealing with any subject, there are two very important considerations. First, What do the words mean? Second, What does the bible say about it?

Table of Contents

I am assuming that "when," "does" and "begin" need no definition. What about "life?" Merriam-Webster Online has many entries, and many definitions of life as a noun. Here are the ones I believe are most pertinent:

1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body . . .
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b : one or more aspects of the process of living <sex life of the frog>
4 : spiritual existence transcending physical death

Let us consider these definitions of life. They are not completely satisfactory. We do not consider a human who has stopped growing, or is no longer capable of reproduction, to be dead, provided other criteria are met, in spite of the definition. For non-animal life, or some simple animal life, we doubt if there are any "mental experiences," since the brain is non-existent, or seems too simple to have experiences. Nonetheless, the definitions are pretty good. It isn't easy to define life.

Note that an embryo, or an unborn fetus, is not completely "vital and functional." As development proceeds, the definition is better met. However, even at the one-cell stage, an embryo satisfies some of the definitions of life. It would have capacity for metabolism and growth. Reproduction? Not yet. (But, of course, a 6-year-old doesn't have that, either.) Reaction to stimuli? Little or none. A one-celled fertilized egg could be taken as having begun a "sequence of physical . . . experiences." Mental experiences? No. There is no brain until several days later, and an embryo almost certainly is not capable of mental experiences even when the brain is first recognizable as such. The developing brain is probably capable of some mental experiences at some stage before birth, although "mental experiences" needs to be defined. Does a one-celled human embryo have "spiritual existence?" Maybe, maybe not. For one thing, an early embryo (up until 12 days post-conception) sometimes splits into more than one, and identical twins or multiple births occur. Did the single cell have a spiritual existence which is shared among identical siblings? Surely identical siblings don't share a spiritual existence. For another, many people question whether any spiritual existence is possible until the brain reaches a stage of advanced functionality, capable of mental experiences. There may be spiritual existence before conception, but we have no proof of that.

There is another end to life. When is something no longer alive? Currently in North America most people have come to accept a definition of death that is related to definition 2a. When the individual is no longer capable of mental experiences, that is, has irreversibly lost all higher brain functions, she is dead, or should be treated as such.

If being alive means being able to have mental experiences, or being able to have higher brain functions, then there is some point before which an embryo is not alive. Specialized brain cells are not present at all until the embryo is several days old. There is, however, a difference between a 2-day embryo and a person in an irreversible coma, namely that the 2-day embryo can develop the capacity for mental experiences and higher brain functions, whereas the person in a coma has lost that capacity.

Genetically, human life can, indeed, be said to begin at conception--the genes which will act in forming the individual are all present in a single cell for the first time. But none of the definitions above refer to genetic life, and the most rabid anti-abortionist doesn't really seem to arguing against abortion on the grounds of the establishment of genetic identity. Instead, they are invoking genetic identity to bolster other arguments.

Table of Contents

Genesis 2:7 says that God formed humans from the dust of the ground, and that we became alive when He placed the breath of life into us. If this is to be taken literally for present-day persons, then we become alive when we take our first breath.

Psalm 139:13-15 credits God with creating the psalmist's "inmost being," with knitting him together in his mother's uterus, and says "I was made in the secret place . . . woven together in the depths of the earth."

Jeremiah 1:5 says that God knew Jeremiah before he was born, indeed, before "I formed you in the womb."

Luke 1:41-44 says that the unborn John the Baptist responded to the unborn Jesus, when Mary came to visit John's mother.

An examination of some old commentaries does not indicate that the authors saw these passages as having particular relevance to the question of when life begins. (I am using old commentaries for two reasons. First, they are in public domain and available on-line. Second, they represent the thought of leading scholars in the church before the present debate on abortion, hence should not have been biased because of this debate.) For example, Matthew Henry wrote that "The uncommon motion of the babe in her womb was a token of extraordinary emotion of her spirit under a divine impulse." He does not talk about the pre-natal state of John the Baptist, but of Elizabeth's emotions. Nor does John Wesley, who agrees with Henry. The 1917 edition of Scofield's reference notes, (which is not a complete commentary) does not have any notes on any of these verses.

Some of these great commentators did see another importance, however. As C. H. Spurgeon puts it in his commentary on Psalm 139 in The Treasury of David:
Do not think that God made man at first, and that ever since men have made one another. No (saith Job), "he that made me in the womb made him": Job 31:15. David will inform us: "I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works", etc. As if he had said, Lord, I am wonderfully made, and thou hast made me. I am a part or parcel of thy marvellous works, yea, the breviate or compendium of them all. The frame of the body (much more the frame of the soul, most of all the frame of the new creature in the soul) is God's work, and it is a wonderful work of God. And therefore David could not satisfy himself in the bare affirmation of this, but enlargeth in the explication of it in Psalms 139:15-16. David took no notice of father or mother but ascribed the whole efficiency of himself to God.

Spurgeon refers to Genesis 2:7 in his commentary on Psalm 139.

John Calvin's commentary on Psalm 139:13-16 says nothing about the soul, or when life begins, either. Calvin wrote that "David no doubt means figuratively to express the inconceivable skill which appears in the formation of the human body." He went on to say that "The embryo, when first conceived in the womb, has no form; and David speaks of God's having known him when he was yet a shapeless mass . . ."

Calvin's commentary on Jeremiah 1:5 (go here for page with links to alternative file formats for this material) emphasizes God's calling of Jeremiah, and does not dwell on Jeremiah's physical or spiritual state.

Calvin believed (go here for page with links to alternative file formats for this material) that it was Elizabeth who was stirred emotionally when Mary, pregnant with Jesus, came to see her in Luke 1:41-45:
It is natural that sudden joy, on the part of a pregnant woman, should cause a motion of the child in her womb; but Luke intended to express an extraordinary occurrence. No good purpose would be served by involving ourselves in intricate questions, if the child was aware of the presence of Christ, or felt an emotion of piety: it is enough for us that the babe started by a secret movement of the Spirit. Luke does not say that the feeling belonged to the child, but rather intimates that this part of the Divine operation took place in the mother herself, that the babe started in her womb . . .
However, Calvin did believe that a fetus should be granted human rights.

It is possible, of course, that Calvin, Henry, Spurgeon, Scofield and Wesley missed a great truth, and the Bible does, after all, clearly specify the stage at which life begins. After all, before Luther the church didn't seem to have much understanding of the role of grace in salvation, and there are other cases where a theologian found important new Biblical truth. Perhaps the time is now right for us to see what was there all the time, but unseen, namely the pre-natal status of the unborn, in these verses. It is also all too possible for more to be read into these scriptures than is really there, and I personally believe that that has been done.

Table of Contents

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 . . . (Exodus 21:22-23, NIV. The NIV has a footnote, indicated by the asterisk, which says "Or she has a miscarriage.")

This passage, in the chapter immediately following the Exodus presentation of the Ten Commandments, gives directions for what to do if two men are fighting and a pregnant woman is accidentally struck during the fight. There are two possible interpretations of one part of these verses. This part may mean either that the woman gives birth prematurely, or that she has a miscarriage, and, as far as I am able to determine, the interpretation is just not certain. The NIV interprets the Hebrew as meaning premature birth, but gives the miscarriage meaning as a text note. Other translations may do the opposite.

John Piper has written an on-line article on this passage, in which he sets forth his reasons (including examining the Hebrew words used) for doubting that it can be interpreted as meaning a miscarriage. He may be correct. I would be more confident of his scholarship, however, if he hadn't quoted the NIV, as I have above, but ignored the footnote and its alternate interpretation.

Matthew Henry's Commentary says the following about this passage in Exodus: "Observe here, I. The particular care which the law took of women with child, that no hurt should be done them which might occasion their mis-carrying. The law of nature obliges us to be very tender in that case, lest the tree and fruit be destroyed together, v. 22, 23." It seems clear that Henry believed that the passage was referring to a miscarriage. (The same commentary is also available through the Blue Letter Bible.)

Neither Scofield's nor Wesley's commentaries, available at http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries, shed any light on the interpretation. Neither does the Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, or John Courson's audio commentary, both available from the Blue Letter Bible. Courson speaks only of injury to the woman.

Calvin, however, (go here for page with links to alternative file formats for this material) states: the foetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, "if death should follow," must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother.
Calvin, then, believed that the fetus is already to be treated as a human, and that the proper interpretation is a miscarriage.

The David Guzik Study Guide (available for Exodus 21:22 from the Blue Letter Bible) assumes that the passage refers to a premature birth.

If the passage refers to premature birth, then it has little relevance for the question at hand. However, if it means that the pregnant bystander has a miscarriage as a result of a fight, it seems very relevant--the penalty for accidentally causing a miscarriage isn't death, as it would be for accidentally killing an adult. (For accidental death, the Law had a provision allowing the accidental killer to escape to a City of Refuge, but if the killer never got to the city of refuge, or left it prematurely, he was subject to vengeance by the family of the deceased. See Numbers 35. Exodus 21:13 also refers to this.) If the meaning is a miscarriage, the person who accidentally brought about the death of the unborn does not need to go to the City of Refuge. Thus, one possible interpretation of this passage is that the death of an unborn is not the same as accidental death or murder of a person who has been born. This is not the only possible interpretation, but even if it has a 10% chance of being the correct one, that needs to be taken into account, and people need to be careful of claiming unequivocal biblical support for a "life begins at conception" view.

Table of Contents

It seems clear that these web sites were created and posted for the purpose, not of examining the question of when life begins, but of promoting the conclusion of the authors, namely that life begins at conception, therefore abortion, and some other procedures, are equivalent to murder, and, of course, morally wrong, and should be legally wrong. Such promotion, when it claims authority for sources that the sources do not merit, like calling a rather obscure scientist "the father of modern genetics," is misleading. This tactic is, if deliberate, un-Christian.

There are other web sites that are just as adamant, and that present evidence in just as biased a manner, on the "other side," that is, that argue that an unborn embryo or fetus is not worthy of any special treatment--any use of such, or any disposal of such entities, is morally and legally justified.

"When Does Human Life Begin?" by Scott Gilbert of Swarthmore College
This page, by an embryologist and historian of biology, presents seven different biological answers to the question posed. He starts with the view that the sperm and the egg are alive (they have metabolism, and sperm, at least, seem capable of responding to chemical stimuli), goes through viability (when a fetus could survive if separated, probably at somewhere around 22-25 weeks of development) and finishes at birth, when the baby takes on a separate existence, and at about which time the immunological system begins to differentiate between self and non-self. His point is that the question of when human life begins is not one on which "science" has one unambiguous answer. He is correct.

Gilbert also has a more extensive web page, with the same title, "When Does Human Life Begin?" from his DevBio, a companion to the 7th edition of his Developmental Biology text. Gilbert considers the Exodus 21 passage, as well as Talmudic law, and philosophical insights into the question. See also Gilbert's Summary.

Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights, Part Four: When Does a Human Become a Person by Francis J. Beckwith of the Christian Research Institute, is a thorough and scholarly examination of current thought, coming to the conclusion that personhood begins at conception. Beckwith rejects the idea that "full humanness" does not occur until about 40 to 43 days after conception, because, prior to that time, the brain has not developed enough for there to be brain waves. He also rejects viability (when a fetus can survive outside the womb, which is at about 20 weeks after conception), and sentience ("capable of experiencing sensations such as pain") as criteria for becoming fully human.

'When Does Life Begin? Biblical background on the abortion debate," by Charles Henderson for About.com
Henderson's statement is brief, but I found it very thought-provoking. Here's some of it:
The relatively modern idea that life begins at conception is entirely unbiblical. Not only that, it is more in accord with a purely humanistic perspective for it places the initiative for life in the hands of the human parents. Life begins, not in the mind of God, but in the womb of a woman following intercourse. That this notion of how life begins postdates the Bible entirely does not seem to matter to those who rely upon it.
Henderson, in other words, agrees with Spurgeon. The real place that human life begins is in the mind of God. I confess that I am still working out the implications of that idea.

"When Does Life Begin?" by Operation Rescue West

Abortion Perspectives by Jeff Gilbert was available in January 2002, but doesn't seem to be available as of February 2003. Here is a quotation from that page:
"The important point to note is that the church fathers always proscribed abortion subsequent to the point that they understood the fetus to become animate (i.e. a living person)." Gilbert, like many others, indicates that the point of animation has not always been placed at conception. Historically, some held that it was 40, or 80, days after conception, and some held that it was at quickening, or when the fetus is first felt to move, which would be at about 4 months.

Personhood, the Bible, and the Abortion Debate by Paul D. Simmons

The next two sites are about the history of thought on abortion in the Catholic Church:
The Abortion Decision, by Catholics for Freedom of Choice, states that, in the past, the Catholic Church often condemned abortion more because of sexual sin involved than because it was considered equivalent to murder. It also says that "no pope has proclaimed the prohibition of abortion an 'infallible' teaching."

Teachings of the Magisterium on Abortion by Priests for Life

Cloning: redefining when life begins by Kelly Hollowell of the Institute for Creation Research

"Life: Defining the Beginning by the End" by Maurine L. Condic, is in the May, 2003, issue of First Things. Condic rejects definitions based on form, ability, or choice, in favor of a definition based on functioning as an organism, which function is possessed by embryos, she says. She points out that Abraham Lincoln argued that slavery could not be rationally defended based on any of these. Condic writes:

Embryos are genetically unique human organisms, fully possessing the integrated biologic function that defines human life at all stages of development, continuing throughout adulthood until death. The ability to act as an integrated whole is the only function that departs from our bodies in the moment of death, and is therefore the defining characteristic of “human life.” This definition does not depend on religious belief or subjective judgment. From the landmark case of Karen Ann Quinlan (1976) on, the courts have consistently upheld organismal function as the legal definition of human life. Failure to apply the same standard that so clearly defines the end of human life to its beginning is both inconsistent and unwarranted.

Table of Contents

Ford considers several important facts about human development, and also about development of other mammalian embryos. (There are ethical and legal restraints on experimentation on human embryos, but not nearly so many on experimentation with mammalian embryos.) This is his bottom line: "A human person cannot exist before the formation of a distinct living ontological individual with a truly human nature that retains the same ontological identity throughout successive stages of development." (xvi)

So when does such an individual come about, according to Ford? He is quite willing to concede that genetic individuality is established at conception. However, he does not believe that ontological individuality is established at that point, or that a fertilized egg has a soul.

He concludes that the primitive streak stage (roughly at the 14th day of development) of human embryonic development is the point at which ontological individuality is established, and that it is also the first point at which an embryo could have a soul.

One reason for this conclusion is that embryos in earlier stages can form identical twins. He cannot accept that an individual dies at that point, and that two new individuals are formed. He concludes, instead, that, although genetic uniqueness has been established, it doesn't make sense to speak of a human being prior to the primitive streak stage.

There are other reasons for his conclusion. One such is that he believes that there must be at least a simple nervous system for ensoulment to be possible. Another is that, in mice, and in sheep and goats, it is possible to produce a viable individual mammal, a chimera, surviving after birth, from more than one early embryo. (In the case of mouse chimeras, the animals can achieve maturity.) Such animals clearly have cells which have descended from more than one cell. It is possible to clearly identify more than one origin. Although such experiments have not been reported in humans (and Ford hopes that such experiments are never carried out) he supposed it likely that, if they were, similar results would be found. Thus, both because a single human embryo, at very early stages, can become more than one adult, and because two or more genetic individuals can become one, he cannot accept that genetic uniqueness is the same thing as human individuality.

Table of Contents

To determine how to act, Christians should go to the Bible. They may also go to other Christians, including Christian thinkers of the past. They should examine their own consciences.

There are scriptural principles which weigh on this question. Perhaps the most basic is The Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12, although it has been argued that it doesn't apply to the unborn. Would I have wanted to be aborted? I don't think so. I should treat unborn humans, regardless of their mental, legal, or spiritual status, as I would have wanted to be treated were I in that position. With a possible exception for severe handicaps, or other very special circumstances, where the fetus might have chosen not to be born, if it could have made that choice, that rules out abortions. (There is such a thing as a "wrongful life" lawsuit, which, in effect, claims, on behalf of a child, that he or she should should not have been allowed to be born.)

The Ten Commandments includes a commandment against adultery. Literally, adultery can only be performed by at least one married person. The commandment to not commit adultery made the Top Ten, as it were, because adultery violates a covenant between two people, and strikes at the heart of the family. The fact that the commandment is against adultery doesn't mean that God allows other kinds of sexual activity. Quite the contrary. (See, for example, I Corinthians 6:13-15, which forbids sex outside of marriage. See also the key passage in Matthew 5:27-28, in which Jesus declares that it isn't the act of adultery, or is not only the act, but the motive behind it, that is the real adultery.) Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, presents heterosexual marriage between virgins as God's ideal, even using it as a model for the relationship between Christ and the church. We shouldn't practice sex outside of heterosexual marriage. Abortion, used as a way of covering up the consequences of such practices, is wrong.

The Ten Commandments has a commandment forbidding murder. The main reason that the question of when life begins is being asked is because, on the one hand, many people believe that abortion and destructive scientific/medical uses of unborn humans are, morally, murder. On the other hand, many people believe that the woman who carries an unborn human is morally free to decide what to do with such a being. Can we settle this question?

As indicated above, equating destruction of an unborn human with murder is not without its problems. In the first place, scripture may indicate that accidentally causing a miscarriage is not the same as accidentally killing someone. Second, the church has not always believed that human life begins at conception, and, of course, some Christians do not believe so now. Third, biologically speaking, it is not possible to state unequivocally that human life begins at conception.

I have already indicated how I think I should act toward a fertilized egg. Fertilized eggs, and more developed humans, should usually be helped towards birth, and not eliminated.

Table of Contents

For one thing, it matters to me because I should want to do the right thing.

For another, it matters because there are scientific/medical advances which give us unprecedented opportunities to manipulate unborn humans. I have spoken of abortion above, and that seems to be the main reason why this question comes up.

Human cloning is now a possibility. If this were, or has been (Clonaid, an arm of the Raelian religion, claims that human clones have been born in the last few months, but this claim has been challenged) carried out, a nucleus would be removed from a fertilized egg, and a nucleus from a human who had been born would be inserted in its place. The egg with the replaced nucleus would be implanted into a woman's uterus and born in the normal manner. What's wrong with that? Well, there are several potential problems. The first is the question of safety. There is some evidence that the results of cloning are not normal, based on research in animals. Also, there would be potential humans that would not be brought to birth, in most cases, as artificial reproductive procedures usually produce more than one egg, and usually treat more than one, to make it more likely that at least one will be a "success." Most people agree that this procedure should not be carried out in humans unless it is as safe as the usual means of reproduction. (Which, of course, has its own risks.) Many are also opposed to discarding a potential human. However, there are some logical problems with this line of thought.

The second problem is the question of why? If the purpose were to replicate one's genes, and, nearly, one's body, this would most likely be an extreme example of pride in action. Also, it wouldn't work, if the goal was to replicate one's personality. Identical twins, who have the same genes, and are usually brought up in a nearly identical environment (which would not be possible for a cloned individual) do not have the same personality. A cloned person, raised in a different environment, at a different time, would be less like the original than identical twins are like each other. As to fanciful ideas that clones could somehow share thoughts with each other, or with their source individual, why and how would they be able to do this?

Another reason for doing so is proposed, and given the name therapeutic cloning. Cells from a seriously handicapped or diseased individual would be used to create a clone, and stem cells, say, would be extracted from the clone before birth, and used to repair the damage in the original source of the genetic material. There are some considerable areas of ignorance here. We don't know very much about stem cells and their potential. There is some evidence that adult stem cells may be just as good as embryonic stem cells, and there don't seem to be any moral problems with the use of adult stem cells.

Therapeutic cloning is considered problematic because it involves creating and discarding human embryos, or that it involves treating human beings as instruments, for a specific designed purpose. However, therapeutic cloning isn't the only way this is done. Many people were conceived for some specific purpose. In Old Testament times, often the purpose was to carry on the male line. In many cultures the purpose has been to produce cheap labor. In our own culture, having a child is sometimes mostly because a parent, or parents, want to live their own unrealized dreams in the lives of their children. They hope, plan, and manipulate so that their children will become beauty queens, star athletes, movie stars, or even preachers. So we already have children born for specific purposes not of their choosing.

Another problem with therapeutic cloning is that an embryo, or even a baby, is not competent to give consent for their use to help the source of their genes. We usually don't allow non-competent adults to participate in dangerous scientific or medical procedures. Unborn humans, or early humans, should be protected. True, and yet there may be some justifications for therapeutic cloning. Let us suppose that your parents had a child who was very sick, but this sibling had a 25% or greater chance of being helped by a kidney from you, his younger sibling, incompetent to consent to the procedure. If you could look back on such a situation as an adult, and your older sibling had died because the procedure wasn't done, you would probably feel considerable resentment toward your parents and their medical advisers. That being the case, wouldn't The Golden Rule argue that we should let incompetent humans participate in some procedures? Wouldn't we wish that we had been allowed to do so?

The 2002 National Academy Press report on Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning covers some of the issues.

There are other related problematic areas, including various kinds of in vitro fertilization, but the issues are the same, namely safety, treating embryos as instruments, and discarding embryos.

Table of Contents

I'm not sure when life begins. Genetic uniqueness usually begins at conception, but sometimes it doesn't, and genetic uniqueness and the beginning of life are not necessarily the same thing. I am sure that human embryos, fetuses and babies should always be treated with respect. I'm not sure what treating a human embryo with respect means.

I believe that abortion done to nullify the consequences of a sexual sin is wrong, and, in fact, only nullifies some of the consequences. It may bring about new consequences. Abortion for other selfish reasons is also wrong.

I am not certain that in vitro fertilization, in which several eggs are fertilized, and only one used, is always wrong. An embryo comes to life that otherwise wouldn't have had that chance, and a married heterosexual couple who otherwise could not have a biological child may be enabled to have one, even though not all embryos are used. I suppose that, given the chance, most embryos in that situation would consent.

I am also in doubt about therapeutic cloning for the production of stem cells, but hope that adult stem cells will be found to be useful in this regard, so that embryonic stem cells are not needed, again because I suppose that most embryos would consent to such a procedure, if they have the chance.

I am opposed to bringing a human clone to term, for three reasons. One is  safety--there is a serious risk that such a being would not be normal. A second is that the reasons for bringing a clone to term would often, maybe always, be selfish. Third is because the clone might grow up with unreasonable expectations. (Would you want to be Michael Jordan's clone?) If one clone, for whatever good reason, was brought to term, it would open the door for bringing others to term for what might be very bad reasons.

Table of Contents