Saturday, April 30, 2011

Biology and the Bible: Life at First Breath

     In the fetal circulatory system, there is a gap in the fetus's heart called the foramen ovale or "oval opening". This hole diverts blood flow from the lungs, thereby not allowing the lungs to function before fully developing seeing as how a developing fetus doesn't need its lungs while in amniotic fluid. Directly after birth or possibly sometime during, the baby takes their first breath. After this first breath, the oval opening closes, allowing blood to flow into the lungs and the lungs to begin working. This mere act of taking a breath declares the biological independence from its mother's body, and causes a change in the babies' biology until their death. It's a momentous occasion, which is why we celebrate BIRTHdays instead of "Conception days".
     In scripture, the first breath is also acknowledged as the beginning of life:
         Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
         Ezekiel 37:5-10 "Thus says the LORD God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live. I will lay sinews on you, and will bring up flesh on you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD. I saw, and, behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh came up, and skin covered them above; but there was no breath in them. Then said he to me, Prophesy to the wind, prophesy, son of man, and tell the wind, Thus says the LORD: Come from the four winds, breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up on their feet, an exceedingly great army." 
         Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."
         
     It also shows in scripture that just because you are physical doesn't make you living: 
                    
          Habakkuk 2:19 "Woe to him who says to the wood,'Awake!' or to the mute stone,'Arise!' Shall this teach? Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in its midst."
           Jeremiah 10:14 "Every man is become brutish and is without knowledge; every goldsmith is disappointed by his engraved image; for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them."  
           Ezekiel 37:8 "I saw, and, behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh came up, and skin covered them above; but there was no breath in them."

     The scriptures also say that only an organism that has the breath of life can die:

           Psalm 104:29 "When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust."
               1 Kings 17:17 "It happened after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him."

     Life is the union of body and soul as portrayed in biblical text.The "breath of life" is considered in the bible to be the evidence that something or someone is a living being. We see here in multiple places that life does not begin in the womb according to the bible because of the absence of breath in the fetus' nostrils. Therefore logically, we can not conclude that abortion is indeed murder. Murder in the bible is the unjustified killing of a human being. One must think, WHY is murder a sin? The answer is relatively clear. How does a person sitting in church know that a person walking down the street is saved just by looking at them? Its impossible. To kill an individual means that one is sending them to their judgment early, not giving them a chance to be saved (at least in christian perspective).  Seeing as how the unborn do not have breath in their lungs and therefore do not have the breath of life, they cannot have a soul and therefore they do not exist in a spiritual sense. Look at this quote from the book of Ecclesiastes:
            
          "There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men: A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease. If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other." (6:1-5)

    This passage is incredibly powerful. Life is vanity (uselessness). King Solomon, the author of Ecclesiastes, was the wisest man on earth, whose knowledge was given to him by the Lord. Basically, he knows a thing or two. This passage not only states that an unborn child born "untimely" (abortion, prematurity, miscarriage) "cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered in darkness". Solomon also states that the untimely birth is "better off than" the man who has a hundred children, many years of long life but no good within. Another position Solomon puts forth comes  a couple of chapters earlier.

           "So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter. Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun." (4:1-3)

   The children that are unborn are not only better off than the "prosperous man" in chapter 6, but also in a better position than the living and the dead of the earth in chapter 4. Seeing as how these individuals who have not yet been foreshadow the thoughts on the antithesis to the "prosperous man", they are on "high ground" for they have more rest and they have never seen the evil done under the sun. Therefore, with these thoughts in mind, what questions are we to ask of the "Pro-Life" movement? Do they truly care for these unborn children? Why, when an unborn child is deemed "unwanted" by their parents, do the "Pro-Lifers" argue so vehemently FOR the power to impose the vanity and evil of this world onto an innocent child? Think, but do not attempt to answer this question. 
    Many of the "Pro-lifers" that I have spoken to have the tendency to see this world with a side of sugar cookies, proclaiming "beauty" and other lovely things about this world. I see no beauty in this life. There is starvation, hatred, misogyny, human trafficking, poverty, disease, rape, futility, stress, abuse, injustice, corruption, crime, and suffering throughout this entire world. And somehow, "Pro-Lifers" find an excuse to force this on a child who is coming into this world.. alone. They say "It isn't the baby's fault" whenever they talk about abortion. I agree. It isn't their fault that this world sucks so bad, it isn't their fault that their mommy was too poor to buy good birth control and now they must be sold to the highest bidder in some orphanage either.  I don't think it's their fault at all.
    "Pro-Life" says that a child has the "right" to be born to a mother who doesn't want them. Someone tell me please.. Who on earth would like to exercise that right? If the woman who conceived me would rather throw me in a garbage can than take me home, why in the name of all creation would I want her caring for me!? Unwanted pregnancies and births are downright catastrophic to people who are not prepared, ESPECIALLY the child. The child takes the coup de grace while the family tries to stay afloat in the economic strain of feeding this excess belly. This scenario WILL frustrate the parents. And now for the bad news: we're human. These unwanted children forced upon people through emotional blackmail and flawed exegesis will now no longer be worth the strain. Their lives will be considered a burden and they will be treated as such. This isn't news.
     It is a well known fact in the fields of Psychology, Sociology and other behavioral sciences that unwanted children are at the absolute highest risk of physical and emotional abuse. "Pro-Life" denies this outright, not only to further its agenda, but at the harm of millions of children. How could a community that claims to care so much for all these children, immediately turn around to produce legislation that would offer abuse, abandonment (adoption as a mainstream practice), and neglect of innocent children?
"Pro-Life" claims that its position is biblical and logical. as you can see from the evidence in this post and the many more to come, this is not true. I will be back to talk of 2 more facets of this issue that "Pro-Life" holds so dear to its cause, the proposed alternatives to abortion and the concept of "personhood".                                        
     
         




 
        
   

2 comments:

  1. As a pro-choicer (for lack of a better word) and a long-since lapsed Christian, I’m intrigued by your point of view.

    It’s been a long time since I read a bible, but I seem to recall some part of the Old Testament dealing with punishments for various crimes that said that if you assaulted a pregnant woman in such a way that you caused a miscarriage, you would have to be punished. However, the punishment was a fine, which was a much smaller punishment than murder. To me that suggests a scriptural basis for not seeing an embryo/fetus as the legal equivalent of a person. Even under the strictest ancient Hebrew laws killing an embryo/fetus was not the same as murder. I guess that passage might also be used to say that abortion should be illegal, but it doesn’t suggest that abortion is actually murder.

    (I may just be mixing up Hammurabi’s code of laws with Old Testament laws, but I think I’m remembering correctly.)

    I was always taught that when quoting a bible it’s best to give the name of the version that you’re using (NIV, KJV, etc.) Once in a while there are subtle differences in wording that suggest different meanings, so it’s good to show which one you are drawing from. For example, whether according to Jesus one is supposed to approach the Kingdom of God “AS a child” or “LIKE a child.” Two very different connotations found in two different translations of what is supposed to be the same book.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I most definitely see your point, the passage that you are describing is in fact Exodus 21:22-25 in the section dealing with laws concerning persons and properties. I believe I mentioned earlier in my first post that I was predominately using the King James Version bible, to preserve meaning. This can cause a lot of confusion regarding the ten commandments as the whole Pro Life argument rests on one commandment. The commandment "thou shalt not kill" is very much contested. The Hebrew translation detotes desire in the act of killing and thus it should translate to "thou shalt not murder". This meaning is often the one most contested amongst Pro life and Pro Choice individuals, in an attempt to give either side an edge. I just wanted to cover that in case you have questions on that particular topic in the future :). Also I want to say congratulations on being the first individual to post on this blog. I apologize for not posting in awhile but I do get excited about this issue and I fear that if I do it too much I may never do anything else! Hahaha!

    ReplyDelete