It is obvious that clause A refers to God knowing the person PRIOR to their construction in the womb. Therefore, to disrupt the child before the blood is formed is to do a few things:
1. It violates God's intent.
2. It ignores that life is, at that point, being SHARED with/by God Himself.
3. It violates "a man...be united to his wife and they shall be one flesh." Obviously, the man and woman are never the same person. Therefore, the one flesh they are speaking of is the uniting of their bodies to form a new human. That uniting is from the moment the sperm says "Howdy" to the egg. And it is a new "flesh" at that moment of their union.
Those 3 can only add up to the personhood of the conceived new human.
While I agree with your logic and your position, nevertheless I think we need to concede that A does not necessarily follow B. The fact of the matter is that in dozens of places in the old testament God reiterates that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and therefore I think that those who make the case that the embryo is not fully alive until the heart begins to beat have a legitimate theological argument.
I came to the defense of Eagle Eye on this point as there were a lot of posters who were basically accusing him of being a Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid clone because he had made a valid theological argument in favor of holding off calling an abortion murder unless it actually stopped a beating heart.
I for one would be more than happy (and very satisfied) to support a law that prohibited all abortions where an ultrasound could detect a beating heart. That would eliminate 99.99999% of all abortions.
But some people will not be content until not only are all abortions prohibited, but that all contraceptive practices are met with equal disdain and punished either as if a murder had taken place. As shown earlier on this thread Jer 1:5 is used as a justification for considering artificial contraception to be in the same league with abortion.
First of all, God would certainly know who was and who wasn't conceived or destined to be born at all. Doesn't he already know everything, including what choices we'll make tomorrow?
Second, this seems to indicate that contraception is wrong. But again, on what basis? God already knows....
I'm detecting a very clear inconsistency on the declared Biblical morality and ethics amongst posters on this thread. They want to jump through hoops, squeeze through needle eyes, and swallow camels before they accept a couple very clear verses.
The people of that time did not understand the differing stages of embryonic development that is commonly taught in today's high schools, therefore their major distinction was the live birth and first breath. That was when life began and when a person exhaled for the last time that was their death. They didn't have stages of brain death or cardiac death, etc. One was either breathing or not.
Today we can split those hairs.
But if one wants to be Biblically accurate instead of building a philosophy of man, then one has to accept what the Bible says.
In regards to killing innoccents, as far as I know, Jesus Christ was the only truly innoccent blood that was ever shed. The rest of mankind was born tainted, dead in tresspasses and sin. The idea that babies are innoccent is not Biblical. We ALL were born dead in tresspasses and sin..they just can't have yet intentionally sinned. But they were born into sin.
And, btw, I hear a lot of the "sanctity of life" per the religious persons in the pro life movement, yet I see NOTHING in the Bible to support that, at least not as it is promulgated.
God directed Isreal to wipe out its enemies, down to the livestock.
On more than one occaission Isreal was told to rid itself of non Isreal/gentile wifes.
Jehu, well he did what God told him to do.
So knowing how God commanded theses massacres, it seems odd that anyone would promote the "sanctity of life"