Does the Bible actually consider human beings to be alive from conception onward?

Y.C. from Canada asks:

Recently, I had watched an episode of the popular television CSI. In the episode, they were discussing the issue of abortion and life. The lead CSI, Gil Grissom, mentioned that according to the Bible, life starts with the blood, suggesting that humans are not to be considered ‘alive’ from the moment of conception. When I looked at your position, it seems to be that life is defined by breathing and having blood, so that plants and, apparently, insects are not alive in the Biblical sense.

By this ‘breathing creature’ definition, CSI, as well as the latest issue of American Atheist ([reference removed]) would be correct in stating that: a) the pre-born human is not a living being, and b) having blood is a necessary and sufficient condition, then at least for the first two weeks after conception, this human is not alive.

Would you please help me resolve this dilemma?

<p;padding-top:0;margin-top:0>CMI USA’s Lita Cosner responds:

Dear Y.C.,

The Bible does say that the life is in the blood, and associates breathing with nephesh chayyah (living soul) creatures. However, it is fallacious to apply these criteria to the developing child in the womb who does not yet have these characteristics to exclude him or her as human. Leave the child alone for a few weeks and he or she will have blood (or whatever other characteristic one wants to make definitional for life). Furthermore, the unborn child begins to breathe amniotic fluid as an important part of the development of the lungs (as well as receiving oxygen through the umbilical cord, which could be considered a type of ‘breathing).


Continue Reading on