1

Possible Duplicate:
Do Fetuses have souls? Is the aquisition of a soul instantenous or continuous?

What Scriptural basis has been used in Christianity to support the idea that the soul is already in the fetus before the fetus starts breathing, i.e. before it is delivered?

Community
  • 1
brilliant
  • 9,903
  • 13
  • 61
  • 127
  • related post : http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9542/do-fetuses-have-souls-is-the-aquisition-of-a-soul-instantenous-or-continuous – Mike Oct 01 '12 at 16:37
  • I closed as a duplicate because the current top-voted and accepted answer on that question answers this one. – El'endia Starman Oct 01 '12 at 19:13
  • i would suggest we keep this one around as a signpost. I agree it should be closed, but not deleted. – Affable Geek Oct 02 '12 at 12:42

1 Answers1

1

Jeremiah 1:5

"Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you."

This conflicts with Exodus 21:22

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

(The implication here is that a fetus is treated as property, not life)

Affable Geek
  • 64,044
  • 28
  • 189
  • 354
  • 2
    Personally, I am very Pro-Life - but I would warn against trying to make that argument strictly from Scripture. It can be done both ways. – Affable Geek Oct 01 '12 at 16:11
  • The Jeremiah passage could be understood as indicating God's foreknowledge. "I knew you before you were even created". – DJClayworth Oct 01 '12 at 17:31
  • 1
    The implication (that a fetus would be considered property) only holds if the 'injury' clause applies to the pregnant woman, and not the (unborn til this point) baby. Especially given Exodus 21:23 and on contain the standard 'limiting' clause (eye for eye, etc). – Clockwork-Muse Oct 01 '12 at 18:08
  • Where do you get the idea that that verse treats the unborn child as property? Because the parents must press the suit on the child's behalf? But what would you expect? If a 2-year-old was injured, would you expect him to fight for recompense himself? – Jay Oct 03 '12 at 04:10
  • @Jay if you look at the punishments doled out for causing a miscarriage, you will see that the punishment is a property crime. The law does not say "life for life," in regards to the baby killed, but rather just a fine. – Affable Geek Oct 03 '12 at 11:46
  • Well, but wives were treated as property as were slaves, not that it made them nonalive or nonhuman. –  Oct 03 '12 at 13:47
  • @AffableGeek - "The law does not say "life for life," in regards to the baby killed" - That's, I guess, only if you consider the 'injury' clause as applied to the pregnant woman only - that is, not to the fruit of the womb (see Clockwork-Muse's comment). – brilliant Oct 03 '12 at 15:05
  • 1
    @AffableGeek As Brilliant and Clockwork note, you appear to be assuming that "injury" refers to injury to the mother rather than to the baby. If it means injury to the baby, then this law calls for very severe penalties on someone who harms an unborn baby. In any case, the fact that in some cases the penalty is a fine rather than retribution does not at all prove that the unborn baby is considered property. ... – Jay Oct 11 '12 at 07:35
  • ... Look up just a couple of verses to 21:18. If two men fight and one is injured but not killed, the person who caused the injury must compensate for his lost income until he recovers. That is, physical injury to a person is penalized by a fine. That doesn't mean the person is considered anyone's property. – Jay Oct 11 '12 at 07:35
  • The Exodus passage does not conflict; here the father collects damages in return for having to care for a cripple. – Joshua Feb 03 '16 at 23:10