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.
At this point, I’m not focused on legal interpretations and what the state does or doesn’t do.
I’m focused on the challenge of biblical interpretation for life beginning at conception.
I believe that I just proved it to a BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN, and that it wasn’t esoteric.
One must ask at which point the “in utero, incarnate, second person of the trinity” was NOT life.
I agree with you, P-Marlowe. But then, I'm a realist, too.
It seems to me there cannot really be a "legal consensus" without an underlying social/moral consensus. Which evidently we do lack.
Under the circumstances, it seems to me the best the law can do is to mitigate the damage to Life occasioned by a society increasingly callous on life issues, from cradle to grave.
Thank you so much, P-Marlowe, for your insightful essay/post!
“Life” means growth. Something that is not alive, does not grow. For instance - corpses, skeletons, shed skin, cut hair, furniture, rocks, etc.
As soon as the embryo divides the first time, it is alive, because it is growing. To me (maybe I’m a simpleton) it’s simple.
Growth = the presence of life.
Every adult or aged body is still growing - cells dividing, etc.
I am 100% pro-life regarding the slaughter of the unborn, which is the topic of this thread.
Here is a short story:
A girl, 19 years old or thereabouts (she was taking a lot of drugs and some alcohol at the time, so didn’t notice things like birthdays and January 1, etc) had sex with one young man she barely knew. Drugs and/or alcohol were involved. At that time, another young man she barely knew hopped on and performed sex with her - she was not ready for this, but didn’t fight or anything but I can tell you she wasn’t happy.
Rest of the story in a bit. BTW, this happened in late 1968 or early 1969.