I can also include this interesting verse, Ecclesiastes 11:5:
> As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.
Quite simply, according to the Bible life begins at conception, our capacity for good and evil begins at conception, God chooses us at conception and our status of being in the 'image of God' starts at conception.
The above verses and doctrine are not 'Calvinist', Calvinism is the belief that God's choice is the primary cause of salvation as opposed to man's choice, but that distinction is irrelevant here.
If you're referring to the reference to the law on accidental harm to pregnant mothers in Exodus it's irrelevant to the question of when life begins. I can think of many reasons why courts would be lenient about sentencing regarding harm of unborn compared to born human beings. For example, if you when driving accidentally bump a man on the road and he dies but he was a hemophiliac, is it not just for a court to take that into account when sentencing? You did kill the man, but extenuating circumstances give the chance of leniency, justly deserved.
> As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.
Quite simply, according to the Bible life begins at conception, our capacity for good and evil begins at conception, God chooses us at conception and our status of being in the 'image of God' starts at conception.
The above verses and doctrine are not 'Calvinist', Calvinism is the belief that God's choice is the primary cause of salvation as opposed to man's choice, but that distinction is irrelevant here.