The unethical practice of designing babies

[highlyfavored]

Our society is fast becoming godless. i heard there's this new catch called "Family balancing" where a couple pays a doctor to help them conceive a child of a gender they do not already have. Our insatiable lost for self gratification is leading many to ignore God's will in favor of theirs. Findings show that it is possibe to select the gender of a child, but isn't this comical when you cannot select the child's personality?

[Helen]

They are getting very close to designing various traits, and not just gender -- as though God doesn't know what He is doing.

[JohnDB]

You don't know the half of it.

Snowflake babies come in a catalogue with appearances and educational abilities.   

That's current and today.

Nevermind the future of genetically modified children.  This technology is about 5 years from reality.

And what about insurance companies mandating some of these "cures".

[Catholica]

And people think that there is nothing wrong with in vitro fertilization. 

[chosenone]

And people think that there is nothing wrong with in vitro fertilization. 

Some friends of my son and his wife recently had a lovely little girl born after IVF. His sperm and her egg, nothing wrong with that. Another couple, who used to go to our church, also has a baby this way. In fact after years of trying, God told them they were going to have son, and a couple of years later, they did. 

[Catholica]

And people think that there is nothing wrong with in vitro fertilization. 

Some friends of my son and his wife recently had a lovely little girl born after IVF. His sperm and her egg, nothing wrong with that. Another couple, who used to go to our church, also has a baby this way. In fact after years of trying, God told them they were going to have son, and a couple of years later, they did. 

And the other fertilized embryos were likely murdered or frozen to be murdered later.  And oftentimes when too many "take" they are selectively reduced, aka murdered in the mother's womb post-implantation.

Even if in vitro succeeds in helping a family conceive, there are inherent evils in the process that make it evil.  And this thread is just about an evil extension to that same process.

No Christian should support in vitro fertilization.  Life should be in God's hands, not man's.  Couples should rely on the Lord for this gift, and not grab it for themselves.

[Helen]

Catholica, while I can understand your point of view, and certainly share a good part of it, IVF and genetic manipulation are really two entirely different things.  Choosing the sex is probably preferable to the murder of baby girls that has gone on in China for so long, because people want sons.  One of our adopted children is now a mother herself.  She was the product of a concubine relationship in Taiwan and was supposed to be aborted, or at least drowned if she was a girl.  The young (teen) mother got to a Christian mission in time during labor and we got a really wonderful daughter.

[Catholica]

Catholica, while I can understand your point of view, and certainly share a good part of it, IVF and genetic manipulation are really two entirely different things.  Choosing the sex is probably preferable to the murder of baby girls that has gone on in China for so long, because people want sons.  One of our adopted children is now a mother herself.  She was the product of a concubine relationship in Taiwan and was supposed to be aborted, or at least drowned if she was a girl.  The young (teen) mother got to a Christian mission in time during labor and we got a really wonderful daughter.

Genetic manipulation is facilitated by IVF, and is just one of the consequences of considering IVF as acceptable, recognizing a fallen world.

The problem in China is their one-child policy. But let's consider what you wrote: choosing the sex is probably preferable to the murder of baby girls. 

To select the sex, an embryo must first be created.  That is, a person must be conceived, either through IVF or naturally.  If that person is of the wrong sex, they are murdered. 

So either way, either sex-selection or post birth, there is at least a 50% chance that a child will be murdered.  So even in the best case the "fix" for the evil of murdering children in China is as bad as the moral evil it "fixes".  But in IVF, the chances are much higher of multiple persons being murdered, as all "unneeded" embryos (ie human persons) are murdered.  And the embryo that is implanted may not take, leading to another procedure where more people are murdered.

Thus IVF means of sex-selection is still morally equal to or worse than the murder of young girls in China.  And what makes things even worse is that IVF is less visible, which makes it less likely that people will stand up against the evil policy that "necessitates" it.

[JohnDB]

Catholica, while I can understand your point of view, and certainly share a good part of it, IVF and genetic manipulation are really two entirely different things.  Choosing the sex is probably preferable to the murder of baby girls that has gone on in China for so long, because people want sons.  One of our adopted children is now a mother herself.  She was the product of a concubine relationship in Taiwan and was supposed to be aborted, or at least drowned if she was a girl.  The young (teen) mother got to a Christian mission in time during labor and we got a really wonderful daughter.

Not really that much different ethically.


The leftover embryos are often put up for "adoption" and placed in a catalog for a family to "adopt" with all kinds of attributes to go along with the frozen embryo.


So that way prospective adoptive families can shop for the child they really want to have...complete with choice in gender and hair color and eyes and all of that. Most of the genes can soon be spliced and replaced or even destroyed (when down syndrome).


these traits are then genetically dominant when that child grows up. Removing a gene that creates sickle cell can be completely removed from a family tree. Or many other traits can soon be "fixed" like PCOS or brown eyes and brown hair...or even smaller brain capacity etc etc etc.

[chosenone]

And people think that there is nothing wrong with in vitro fertilization. 

Some friends of my son and his wife recently had a lovely little girl born after IVF. His sperm and her egg, nothing wrong with that. Another couple, who used to go to our church, also has a baby this way. In fact after years of trying, God told them they were going to have son, and a couple of years later, they did. 

And the other fertilized embryos were likely murdered or frozen to be murdered later.  And oftentimes when too many "take" they are selectively reduced, aka murdered in the mother's womb post-implantation.

Even if in vitro succeeds in helping a family conceive, there are inherent evils in the process that make it evil.  And this thread is just about an evil extension to that same process.

No Christian should support in vitro fertilization.  Life should be in God's hands, not man's.  Couples should rely on the Lord for this gift, and not grab it for themselves.

The Lord gave them their promised son, and He chose to do it though IVF.
The wifes mother saw a picture from God of the child before he was even conceived, and it was the son they had through IVF. All that happens is that their own sperm and egg are fertilised outside the womb, and not inside. Its still a miracle.
We need to stop putting God in our own boxes. No more than one or two embryos are put back now, so that none need to be killed in the womb. 

Just because some people misuse things, doesnt mean that they cant still be used for good.

The internet can be used for all sorts of evil, but we still use it don't we.

[dotterofzion]

In my opinion, any medical proceedure that involves discarding unused embryos is murder.
         Our need to solve our own problems without God's help has led us to devicing all of these unethical practices. While I know that couples with infertility issues are going through trials, as Christians we need to refer to the Bible for guidiance and direction in life. Abraham and Sarah had to wait for years to have a child, Isaac and Rachael too. The Bible tells us that children are gifts from God, if we accept practices like IVF and PGD, we take the glory from God  and give to man. I have heard couples thank doctors for helping them conceive a child, where does God come in? Are all the unused embryos  adopted? What happens when they are not? We are always quick to condemn China, but how many Chinese citizens are Christians? How many fear God?

[MeMyself]

I thanked my doctor and the nurses that helped me deliver my babies. I thanked our adoptions worker for helping us adopt. That doesn't mean God was not thanked or glorified.

[chosenone]

In my opinion, any medical proceedure that involves discarding unused embryos is murder.
         Our need to solve our own problems without God's help has led us to devicing all of these unethical practices. While I know that couples with infertility issues are going through trials, as Christians we need to refer to the Bible for guidiance and direction in life. Abraham and Sarah had to wait for years to have a child, Isaac and Rachael too. The Bible tells us that children are gifts from God, if we accept practices like IVF and PGD, we take the glory from God  and give to man. I have heard couples thank doctors for helping them conceive a child, where does God come in? Are all the unused embryos  adopted? What happens when they are not? We are always quick to condemn China, but how many Chinese citizens are Christians? How many fear God?

There are many many Christians in China and the church is growing rapidly. However you dont need to be a believer to know that murdering a new baby because it is a girl is wrong, or that aborting a baby because it is a girl is wrong. 
I think its important to thank people who help us in life with whatever it is. God often uses doctors for his purposes.

[dotterofzion]

Majority of the population in China is not Christian. Religion in China has been characterised by Pluralism since the begining of Chinese history. Chinese religions are family oriented and do not demand exclusive adherence allowing the practice of several at the same time.
       Since 1949 China has been governed by the Communist party of China which is an atheist organization. Buddhism remains the most widely practiced religion. One of the largest groups of religious traditions is Popular religion, another is the religion of Han which overlaps with Taoism and the worship of shen ; a collection of local ethnic dietis, heroes and ancestral figures from Chinese methology.
            Recent survey shows that Christians are between 4 to 5 percent, and Islam 1 to 2 percent. However the biggest part of the population 60 to 70 percent is mostly agnostic or atheist(godless). Among the intellectuals they have Confucianism, also Wonderism and Wu is popular.
            In th OT when the children of Isreal where led astray, they worship foreign gods among whom was Molech. Among some of the crimes they commited was sacrificing their sons and daughter's in it's temple.
            Our God is a Holy and upright God. If we too are holy and upright as He calls us to be, moral and ethical codes of conduct should be practiced amongst us. I do not understand why happenings in China should always come up as a reference point as it is in this case, if they were godly they would not kill their daugjters.

[chosenone]

Majority of the population in China is not Christian. Religion in China has been characterised by Pluralism since the begining of Chinese history. Chinese religions are family oriented and do not demand exclusive adherence allowing the practice of several at the same time.
       Since 1949 China has been governed by the Communist party of China which is an atheist organization. Buddhism remains the most widely practiced religion. One of the largest groups of religious traditions is Popular religion, another is the religion of Han which overlaps with Taoism and the worship of shen ; a collection of local ethnic dietis, heroes and ancestral figures from Chinese methology.
            Recent survey shows that Christians are between 4 to 5 percent, and Islam 1 to 2 percent. However the biggest part of the population 60 to 70 percent is mostly agnostic or atheist(godless). Among the intellectuals they have Confucianism, also Wonderism and Wu is popular.
            In th OT when the children of Isreal where led astray, they worship foreign gods among whom was Molech. Among some of the crimes they commited was sacrificing their sons and daughter's in it's temple.
            Our God is a Holy and upright God. If we too are holy and upright as He calls us to be, moral and ethical codes of conduct should be practiced amongst us. I do not understand why happenings in China should always come up as a reference point as it is in this case, if they were godly they would not kill their daugjters.

China has the fastest growing church in the world. There are more born again Christians in China than in the USA. The latest estimate is 155 million and that number is growing by about 9% each year.

http://www.billionbibles.org/china/how-many-christians-in-china.html

[chosenone]

Majority of the population in China is not Christian. Religion in China has been characterised by Pluralism since the begining of Chinese history. Chinese religions are family oriented and do not demand exclusive adherence allowing the practice of several at the same time.
       Since 1949 China has been governed by the Communist party of China which is an atheist organization. Buddhism remains the most widely practiced religion. One of the largest groups of religious traditions is Popular religion, another is the religion of Han which overlaps with Taoism and the worship of shen ; a collection of local ethnic dietis, heroes and ancestral figures from Chinese methology.
            Recent survey shows that Christians are between 4 to 5 percent, and Islam 1 to 2 percent. However the biggest part of the population 60 to 70 percent is mostly agnostic or atheist(godless). Among the intellectuals they have Confucianism, also Wonderism and Wu is popular.
            In th OT when the children of Isreal where led astray, they worship foreign gods among whom was Molech. Among some of the crimes they commited was sacrificing their sons and daughter's in it's temple.
            Our God is a Holy and upright God. If we too are holy and upright as He calls us to be, moral and ethical codes of conduct should be practiced amongst us. I do not understand why happenings in China should always come up as a reference point as it is in this case, if they were godly they would not kill their daugjters.

China has the fastest growing church in the world.

In IVF, is it usually the husbands sperm and the wives egg that are being fertilised, just as they would be in the womb, and placed back in the wife's womb. It is their biological baby, and they just needed a little help in one part of the whole 9 month process.
The fact that researchers and a few doctors have misused that for their own ends, doesn't take away from the fact that millions of lovely healthy and much love children are alive today because of this small procedure, who wouldnt have been without it.
I am fortunate in that I got pregnant immediately with each of my 3 children, so I didn't have to consider this, but I would never ever condemn those couples who have had their children this way.

[JohnDB]

The problem with this is the fact that science is outstripping our theological positions.

It really shouldn't but there is the truth of this. 

At what point is there life?
At conception in a petri dish?
Or is it at first breath?

What would God think of genetically modifying children or adults?

What happens to a person who has a life altering disease they have struggled with their entire life suddenly gets cured?
Their identity is radically altered the same way as if they lost a limb.

[DaveW]

I have a problem (as catholica and others have expressed) with the casual attitude toward frozen concepti. These are human beings made in God's image.

Although that is NOT the issue of designer children. I understand the attraction of removing congenital diseases from the human genome. But I am very concerned that in doing so we are killing off people or creating people that can be so flawed as to be almost unviable.

Some related issues I am at a quandary over (disturbed but not sure it violates scripture) is the attempt to resurrect the neanderthal race from the dna of preserved bodies; and the splicing of human genes into other animals like primates. (which would not be tampering with any human concepti)

[Catholica]

And people think that there is nothing wrong with in vitro fertilization. 

Some friends of my son and his wife recently had a lovely little girl born after IVF. His sperm and her egg, nothing wrong with that. Another couple, who used to go to our church, also has a baby this way. In fact after years of trying, God told them they were going to have son, and a couple of years later, they did. 

And the other fertilized embryos were likely murdered or frozen to be murdered later.  And oftentimes when too many "take" they are selectively reduced, aka murdered in the mother's womb post-implantation.

Even if in vitro succeeds in helping a family conceive, there are inherent evils in the process that make it evil.  And this thread is just about an evil extension to that same process.

No Christian should support in vitro fertilization.  Life should be in God's hands, not man's.  Couples should rely on the Lord for this gift, and not grab it for themselves.

The Lord gave them their promised son, and He chose to do it though IVF.
The wifes mother saw a picture from God of the child before he was even conceived, and it was the son they had through IVF. All that happens is that their own sperm and egg are fertilised outside the womb, and not inside. Its still a miracle.
We need to stop putting God in our own boxes. No more than one or two embryos are put back now, so that none need to be killed in the womb. 

Not more than one or two humans are murdered in the process.  I don't see the big deal.  You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, you have to murder a few people to make a baby.  So what, right? 

Embryos that are not "put back" are generally (or nearly always eventually) destroyed.  i.e. murdered.

Just because some people misuse things, doesnt mean that they cant still be used for good.

The internet can be used for all sorts of evil, but we still use it don't we.

The internet is not inherently evil.  IVF is.  It ALWAYS involves murdering humans.  God can make good come out of evil; true. 

People are also conceived by rape sometimes.  It doesn't mean that rape is not evil. 

If you think that this is not a fair comparison, you are right.  People are not always murdered in a rape.  IVF is much worse.

I find it shocking that it is so hard to convince Christians that IVF is an inherent evil.  Do you not believe that life begins at conception?  It does!  What do you call the killing of a living person?  Is there a word for that in the Bible, perhaps one of the commandments of God?

[dotterofzion]

All modern scientific textbooks agree that there are five characteristics of living things:
1) Living things are highly organised
2) All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy
3) All living things have an ability to respond to their environment
4) All living things have an ability to reproduce
5) All living things have an ability to adapt
  According to the elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization. When a sperm unites with an oocyte(egg). From this moment the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt and has the ability to reproduce(the cells divide then divide again e.t.c, and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce the members of the species) Non-living things can not do this.
A human being is a product of conception; which is when a human male sperm unites with a human oocyte(egg). Genetically a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. 

[Helen]

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment, with the understanding that this is simply a role I am playing:

1.  The Bible says "the life is in the blood."  (Lev. 17:11) -- is the tiny little fertilized egg biblically alive?

2.  The Bible uses the word 'nephesh' to indicate 'breath of life' -- the fertilized egg cannot breathe. 

So regardless of what modern biology says, is it biblically alive before three weeks along, which is when the first blood cells are formed?  The heart is starting to pump that blood at four weeks along.  The earliest possible date for biblical life would appear to be about three weeks along.

Comments?

[DaveW]

The Bible uses the word 'nephesh' to indicate 'breath of life'

Nefesh is used in a variety of ways - the most common being to indicate an individual person.  I am aware of no place it indicates breath.  That would be Ruach or Neshama Chai.

[Helen]

OK, let's just go with the blood then.

[Catholica]

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment, with the understanding that this is simply a role I am playing:

1.  The Bible says "the life is in the blood."  (Lev. 17:11) -- is the tiny little fertilized egg biblically alive?

2.  The Bible uses the word 'nephesh' to indicate 'breath of life' -- the fertilized egg cannot breathe. 

So regardless of what modern biology says, is it biblically alive before three weeks along, which is when the first blood cells are formed?  The heart is starting to pump that blood at four weeks along.  The earliest possible date for biblical life would appear to be about three weeks along.

Comments?

My comment is that if you are not sure whether a human person is alive or not, it is a sin to do something to that person that would end their life.  A human person is procreated, normally in the mother's womb, and becomes a person at the moment of conception.

Perhaps you can tell us this, would it have been a sin for Mary to abort Jesus before he was 3 weeks in her womb?

Also, does a biological organism that is not alive grow?

[dotterofzion]

Helen according to the Bible life is a gift from God
'I choose you before i gave you life, and before you were born i selected you to be a prophet to the nation' (Jeremiah 1 vs. 4)
What does this scripture mean to you?
'Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live(Gen 2 vs. 7)
Adam was already formed, yet he was not alife,he only began to live when God breathed life into him.

[Helen]

from Catholica:

My comment is that if you are not sure whether a human person is alive or not, it is a sin to do something to that person that would end their life.  A human person is procreated, normally in the mother's womb, and becomes a person at the moment of conception.

I agree with you.  However conception happens in the fallopian tube, not in the womb. So is the fertilized egg, before it is implanted in the womb, alive?  It is not receiving nourishment or giving off waste.  It has no blood -- please remember I am role-playing here....

Perhaps you can tell us this, would it have been a sin for Mary to abort Jesus before he was 3 weeks in her womb?

She was impregnated by God Himself and He told her about that.  So your question is really moot.  Mary agreed to the process before it happened, didn't she?

Also, does a biological organism that is not alive grow?

That's an oxymoronic question since if it is biological it does grow by definition and if it is not alive, it does not biologically grow.  You have to define your terms first, actually, and that is what I am attempting to do here.

************

from dotterofzion:

Helen according to the Bible life is a gift from God
'I choose you before i gave you life, and before you were born i selected you to be a prophet to the nation' (Jeremiah 1 vs. 4)
What does this scripture mean to you?

I agree life is a gift from God.  That is not the point.  The point is, when does life begin? 
The translation you have of Jeremiah is not accurate.  The most ancient mss (the Egyptian Alexandrian LXX, translated about 280 years before Christ) reads -- in the English -- "And the word of the Lord came to him, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth from the womb, I sanctified thee; I appointed thee a prophet to the nations."

The differences are there, and that still leaves the question open.

'Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live(Gen 2 vs. 7)
Adam was already formed, yet he was not alife,he only began to live when God breathed life into him.

That's an interesting point, but has nothing to do with conception and the beginning of life.  Adam was -- as was Eve -- a unique event.  If you are going to claim life only begins with breath, however, we are really in a pickle, as often premature infants do not have lungs capable of breathing yet.

And I KNOW that is not where you are leading!

[Catholica]

from Catholica:

My comment is that if you are not sure whether a human person is alive or not, it is a sin to do something to that person that would end their life.  A human person is procreated, normally in the mother's womb, and becomes a person at the moment of conception.

I agree with you.  However conception happens in the fallopian tube, not in the womb. So is the fertilized egg, before it is implanted in the womb, alive?  It is not receiving nourishment or giving off waste.  It has no blood -- please remember I am role-playing here....

The Bible says that Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb.  I just thought I'd point that out.  The Bible was not meant to be a science book.

The fertilized egg is growing from the moment it is conceived.  It is a biological organism.  Therefore it is alive.  It doesn't need blood at this stage to grow.

The verse about blood is part of a warning about dietary laws, and it was not meant to be a scientific explanation of when life begins.  Can life exist without blood?  Angels nod their heads yes.  Can biological creatures remain alive without blood?  Scientists nod yes, there are several types which do not have blood at all.

Perhaps you can tell us this, would it have been a sin for Mary to abort Jesus before he was 3 weeks in her womb?

She was impregnated by God Himself and He told her about that.  So your question is really moot.  Mary agreed to the process before it happened, didn't she?

She did, but it wasn't commanded for her.  Did the person of Jesus become a person in her womb in that moment?  Or when he developed blood?

Also, does a biological organism that is not alive grow?

That's an oxymoronic question since if it is biological it does grow by definition and if it is not alive, it does not biologically grow.  You have to define your terms first, actually, and that is what I am attempting to do here.

It's not an oxymoronic question.  It's just an obvious question.  So we establish that if a biological organism is growing, then it must be alive.  Because a biological organism doesn't have to be growing.  And it doesn't grow if it isn't alive.

The fertilized oocyte begins to grow the moment that it is fertilized.  Not after it implants, not at 7 weeks when it has blood.  It immediately starts growing and becomes a blastocyst five days later even before it is implanted.  It is clearly alive.

The only thing left to argue is whether this fertilized egg is a person.  It is clearly alive...  And destroying a person who is alive is murder, no matter how small they are.  But does the Bible say when a fertilized egg becomes a person?  I would state that a person is a person as soon as it has it's genetic material.  It is simply in a different stage of development at different parts of it's life.  And I would also say that the person Jesus was in Mary's womb at the moment of His conception.

[Helen]

I think you are confusing something.  I am not talking about our current biological definition of life, but by what may be the biblical definition of life.

Please understand, I am against abortion in any form (other than natural) and at any stage.  But I think it is important to separate what the Bible says and what our current science says. 

I know where the verse about the life being in the blood comes from.  Nevertheless, it is an important comment in the Bible and should not be lightly passed by.

[Catholica]

I think you are confusing something.  I am not talking about our current biological definition of life, but by what may be the biblical definition of life.

Please understand, I am against abortion in any form (other than natural) and at any stage.  But I think it is important to separate what the Bible says and what our current science says. 

I know where the verse about the life being in the blood comes from.  Nevertheless, it is an important comment in the Bible and should not be lightly passed by.

I think that we can use reason to weed out erroneous interpretations of scripture. 

Scripture says that "the life is in the blood" and what you are suggesting is an extension, that something without blood is not alive.  However jellyfish, sponges, flatworms and roundworms do not have blood.  So either these animals are not alive, or you have misapplied what is meant by "the life is in the blood".   Can you see any other option?

I think that it is pretty clear that Jellyfish are alive, ergo, the rational conclusion would be that you have misapplied this verse.  Either something is alive or it is not.  There is no "biblical vs. biological" conflict, at least when it comes to something so obviously contradicting.

[JohnDB]

Just as a devil's advocate here.


Adam was not alive till God breathed life into him.


This argument has been used by those not on the conservative side of things.
Some of the elements of Bible stories were about those that were "born from above" and not "born again" as has been popularly mistranslated. IOW they were foretold to be born and called of God for special purposes...like Sampson and Isaac and Jesus.


But I would think that an all powerful God and Sovereign God could thwart any attempt of man to not have a baby born that He wished to be born...despite man's best efforts to stop or kill said baby.


I could cite story after story...but to what purpose?


BUT


Also I worship a God who is really Good and gives and creates all life. Scripture clearly says that an accounting for all blood shall be made. Blood/Life belongs to God and taking said life is really wrong too. So is touching that which does not belong to us and solely belongs to God.


So to err on the side of caution is also really prudent.


But at what point are we touching/taking that which doesn't belong to us?
Are vasectomies wrong?
Tubal Ligations?
Hysterectomies?


Where is the line on the very slippery slope?

[dotterofzion]

Job acknowledged that his existence began on the night when he was conceived
'O God put a curse on the day i was born, put a curse on the night when i was conceived.....'(Job 3 vs. 2 - 10)
God considers the spirit and the soul to be alive. Therefore biblically speaking life begins when God creates both.
Since things like the human genome project prove to us that the fetus is human from the very moment of conception(It has all the human genetic code and it will never become e.g. a lizard or a kitten) It appears that God begins forming us at the moment of conception.
'Indeed i was born guilty a sinner when my mother conceived me' This verse indicates that the unborn child posseses a sinful nature at the time of conception. Since sin is a spiritual phenomenon, the presence of a sinful nature indicates a spiritual nature and thus a soul, making the child a complete human being from conception.

[Helen]

dotter, I have no idea which translation you are using, but the reference to conception is not in either the ancient mss or several modern ones.  Job regrets that he was not miscarried, that he was born alive, and that his mother nursed him.  There is no reference to conception.

And while I understand, from others, the idea of a jellyfish being alive and such, that is depending on our definition of being alive.  Trees are also alive, are they not, in our modern terminology?  How is cutting down a tree different from killing a horse, or a dolphin? 

And, in our modern definition, bacteria are also alive. 

But trees and bacteria do not have the breath of life.

Please understand, I DO understand the arguments being made, but we cannot pick and choose what definitions we want in order to suit our own sensibilities.  Biblically, for instance, is a tree or a mosquito alive?  Or are they simply chemically replicating systems, not considered alive by BIBLICAL standards? 

This is a serious question I have often wondered about.

And it may have something to do with the idea of allowing some fertilized eggs in a petri dish to be thrown out.

I'm not trying to offend.  And personally I also prefer the conservative take regarding the idea that if there is any doubt, best to err on the side of caution.

But the question remains.

[dotterofzion]

Helen, I am using the Good News Bible.
Let me remind u of the following passages:
"A healthy tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a poor tree bear good fruit. Every tree is known by the fruit it bears; you do not pick figs from thorn bushes or gather grapes from bramble bushes" (Luke 5 vs. 43)
"....They are like trees that grow beside a stream, that bear fruit at the right time, and whose leaves do not dry up"(Ps. 1 vs. 3)
"There are four animals in the world that are small, but very, veryn clever......Ants: they are weak, but they store up their food in the summer.....Locusts: they have no king, but they move in formation (Prov. 30 vs. 24 - 27)
Biblically, trees were considered capable of reproducing, therefore they were considered alive and not chemically replicating systems as you have suggested
Flowers do not have blood, yet the Bible suggest that God provides the clothes they wear(Mattew 6 vs. 29)
Will God provide clothes for an organism He considers to be a mare chemical replicating system? 
Ants and locusts do not have blood. Yet it is evident that even in the OT these insects were not just considered as mare chemically replicating systems, but as intelligent creation of God, that we as human beings can learn some wisdom from.

[Helen]

dotter, crystals are elegantly beautiful.  Stars are incredibly complex.  Opals are stunning.  They are also 'clothed' well.

God did it all, and more.  That something has a covering does not mean it is alive.  Nor does the fact that something is an intelligent creation and we can learn from it mean it is alive.

I appreciate your emotional response to this, but the biblical references you are using are not helping. 

The Bible seems to define life by blood.  Hence the sacrifices.  Hence Jesus' needing to bleed for us -- by His wounds we are healed.   If this is correct then no, insects, bacteria, trees, flowers, etc. are not BIBLICALLY alive although because of OUR definition of life in biology, we consider them alive.  Crystals also grow.  Stars also have 'birth,' 'aging,' and 'death.' 

And yes, this does lead up to the honest question as to whether a fertilized egg is alive.  We eat fertilized chicken eggs here (we have fourteen laying hens and two roosters).  Are we then killing a living thing when we break open the egg and fry it? 

It's an honest question and I am not trying to be in favor of any type of abortion whatsoever (in or out of the body), so please try to understand what I am asking from a purely biblically frame of reference.

The Good News Bible is not a translation.  It is more of an interpretation done by Catholics to promote Catholic theology.  It is not true to the original language or meaning.

And the fact that pictures are used does not mean they pictures are of biblically living things.   For instance, what the Good News translates as 'animals' in Proverbs 30 is actually "very little things." 

[dotterofzion]

Helen, is the biblical reference to 'The breath of life' and the fact that God breathed life into Adam not enough proof that life does not start in the blood?
'In the beginning was the word...' not the blood
Biblically facts show that life does not start in the blood
''In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God(Jn 1 vs. 1) is God not alive?
'In Him was life...' (Jn 1 vs. 4) If God is Spirit and not flesh how can He have life(which is supposed to exist in the blood alone)?
'And without Him was nothing made' (Jn 1 vs. 3)
How can He create life if He is not living? And how can He be living if He does not have blood(which you suggest is where life begins)?
'And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us' (Jn.1 vs. 14) 
It is a fact Christ had life before he was transformed inti flesh., and He lives despite His on despite His physical death.
Biblical evidence shows that life was created by God, and existed before the creation of man. Hence it can and does exist without blood.
God is the creator of life and life can exist without blood.