Below is a discussion with a professor of Biblical theology who supports and teaches the position that life does not begin at conception in the mother's womb, but is subsequent to the baby's departure from the mother's womb at physical birth - and only then after the baby literally breaths air through its nostrils for the first time does God actually impart the human spirit of life into it.  He uses the creation of Adam as his source and basis of argument.  However, as any student of the Bible readily knows, the creation of Adam was a one time event that was never to be replicated again throughout all of human history.  Thus, I asked him the following question:

Can you please point me to a Scripture(s) or Biblical lexicon(s) that actually defines a “baby” as you suggest in the highlighted section of your statement below? (emphasis added)

…There is a definite distance here, the same distance that is naturally and inevitably present with all the "yet to be born", precisely because there can be no direct interaction in utero. This is not an accident of divine design, in my view, but a reinforcement of precisely what I have been arguing here, namely, that the unborn are prospective persons (and extremely important as such, worthy of being highly valued and protected), but they do not have independent, spiritual life as true living persons until God gives that gift to them by imparting a human spirit, the "breath of life" which is not given until the point of birth.

Going forwards, as I have been reading through some of your posted materials on this topic, I came across a Q & A session with a pediatrician/Internal Medicine physician who asked you a question regarding part II,3,b "the human spirit is implanted by god at birth".  To this end, you suggested to him the following:

This is not at all to imply that for this reason [i.e., the gift of the human spirit at birth being the cause of human life] the fetus has no worth in God's eyes. Quite to the contrary, the unborn are highly valued in scripture (Ex.21:22; Job 10:8-12; Ps.139:13-16; Is.44:24; 49:4-5). Further we may note that in the Bible children are considered a great blessing (cf. 1Sam.2:1-11 and Lk.1:46-55), with infertility seen as a curse (Hos.9:14; cf. Gen.38; Lev.20:20-21; 1Sam.1:11), and pregnancy as a blessing and occasionally even a means of vindication (cf. Num.5:11-31 and Lk.1:25). Whereas, on the other hand, the sacrifice of children is an abomination (Lev.18:21; Deut.12:31; 18:10; Ps.106:37-38).

Subsequent to your answer, the physician replied by suggesting that you should consider Lk. 1:41 in support of his theological notion that life does indeed begin and exist even within the mother’s womb. 

Luke 1:41 (KJV)
⁴¹ And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

As such, you replied by stating the following (emphasis added):

I have little experience of such things, but I believe that I am correct in saying that reflex movements of the fetus in the womb of expectant mothers do sometimes correspond to the emotional and physical experiences of the mothers. In the case of Elizabeth, she had an emotional response to hearing Mary's voice, knowing that Mary was carrying Jesus, and she is the one described in this context as being "filled with the Spirit", not John, who, significantly, would be filled with the Spirit – from birth (i.e., as soon as he left the womb, not while within it).

That being said, I will argue the point that John was indeed filled with the Holy Spirit even while he was in his mother’s womb.  You translate and define the greek word “ek” used in Lk. 1:15 to mean, as highlighted above, when John left his mother’s womb and NOT while he was within his mother’s womb.  As you well know, from a biblical greek translation perspective that is indeed acceptable. 

However, this is your personal choice and most certainly not one driven by any compelling greek grammar or context.  Thus, there is equally, or maybe as I would suggest an even more appropriate translation for the greek work “ek” used in Lk. 1:15, and that being, even before He is born while still in his mother’s womb, as you can easily find by a brief internet search.  Therefore, there are many credible greek scholars who translate the greek “ek” in Lk. 1:15 as I have just stated above - even before He is born.  https://biblehub.com/luke/1-15.htm    

Luke 1:15 (KJV)
¹⁵ For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from [before He is born] his mother's womb.

Therefore, your argument of “after He left his mother’s womb” is only a personal translation/definition and may or may not be correct.  However, if the later translation of “even before He is born while still in his mother’s womb ” is actually correct then your entire argument of God giving the spirit/life after physical birth and his leaving the womb fails because we both know that the Holy Spirit does not fill and result in a dead non-entity (person/being)…

Finally, another area of concern that you reveal in your rebuttal regarding Lk. 1:41 goes to the question I asked at the very beginning of my argument - you reference the “BABY” that was in Elizabeth’s womb – the greek “brephos” as you define it above in the highlighted section of your statement.  However, I will argue that this person inside of Elizabeth’s womb was indeed a “living” Holy Spirit filled “baby” and not a mere non-person fetus as you suggest.  The same identical greek “brephos” (baby) is equally used to refer to the baby Jesus in Lk. 2:12 & 16.  Therefore, if the “brephos” baby Jesus was alive outside of Mary’s womb, equally so was the Holy Spirit filled “brephos” baby John alive inside of Elizabeth’s womb, even before his physical birth and departure outside the womb. 

To reiterate once again, I agree that the greek word "ek" used in Lk. 1:15 can mean "out of" as one of its several possible meanings.

However, the greek "ek" of Lk. 1:15 equally means "from".  Therefore, "from" is defined as indicating the starting point of origin/source.  Thus, the baby John was filled with the Holy Spirit even "from" his mother's womb.  His mother's womb being the starting point of origin/source for both he and the Holy Spirit infilling. 

Thus, the greek word "ek" defined as "from" indicating a starting point of origin/source is used extensively throughout the NT and defined as such in all the greek lexicons I have researched.  Therefore, what you suggest is that the infilling of John by the Holy Spirit could not have taken place until “AFTER” the baby had completely left both Elizabeth’s womb and her body – “Out Of”. 

You state the following:  https://www.ichthys.com/mail-life-begins-at-birth.htm