Nope. I understand that. I'm doing what P-Marlowe challenged: Attempting to find a biblical basis for "life" beginning prior to blood forming.
I've never worked on it before.
Yet, I've no doubt it is the the truth based on the Jeremiah verse in which God says that He knew Jeremiah before Jeremiah was formed in the womb.
Also, Christ left His estate with God and took the form of a human through the mechanism of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary. Her "seed" was to bruise the head of the serpent, therefore, Mary did contribute her seed in the equation. That seed was at one point pre-blood, but it was also the incarnated, second person of the Trinity.
Are we saying it lacked "life" EVEN THOUGH it was the eternal second person of the blessed Trinity?
I think the case can also be made that because Christ was fully human that ANY human characteristics He had would also be shared by us.
Arguments in regard to that issue are clearly esoteric and subject to varied interpretations, However, the "life is in the blood" argument is concrete. If the life is in the blood, then it is clear that the presence of a heartbeat signifies "life" as defined by the Bible. Any interpretation of life beginning before that point must necessarily rely on some esoteric interpretation of some obscure passage that may or may not relate to the issue.
Ultimately there must be a concrete basis for imposing laws upon people to protect the "life" of the unborn. If the issue is all cloudy and subject to diverse interpretations, then we will never be able to draft legislation to protect the unborn. I therefore believe that the presence of a heartbeat is sufficient evidence (both biblically and biologically) of "life" to require the state to institute measures to protect that "life".
I do not believe we will ever reach a legal consensus that life begins at conception or that contraception should be outlawed to protect the life of the unconceived.
I'm being a realist here.
Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!