Abortion and the "soul"

[agnosticatheist]

At what point does the human fetus acquire a soul?

Until brain activity starts, the human fetus is technically just a non-conscious, non-sentient life form.

The hypothetical soul is what supposedly makes us human and "makes us special from the rest of the animal world". I think it is fair to say that everything that is claimed to be a function of the soul (consciousness/awareness, emotions, moral reasoning) are not possible without the brain.

If the human fetus does indeed acquire a soul when brain activity starts, then why is it wrong to abort the fetus before brain activity starts? It's nothing special before the brain activity starts. Sure, it has its own unique DNA. It is a functioning organism. But, the same could be said of a housefly, crocodile, etc. If any such organisms were presenting a problem, I would guess theists would have no objection to them being terminated...

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 8 by Jashwell]

Actually the baby doesn't rely on the mother to do anything other than not attempt to self harm.

And the mother can offload the baby after it is born as well.

None of which changes the fact that the baby (and all of us) are dependant and that being dependant is not a basis for murder.

Generally speaking we protect those under our care.

[enaidealukal]

Questions about "souls" are hypothetical since there is no assurance that any such thing exists.

When a hypothetical "soul" enters the body may be interesting conjecture; however, any hypothetical answer is as good as any other since no one knows about "souls"...

Thus, statements concerning "souls" are a matter of belief -- not knowledge.

Exactly. More precisely, it is a belief for which there is apparently no sound rational basis or epistemic justification, in light of the currently available evidence. Given that, asking for a reasoned response to a question regarding a belief that is fundamentally unreasoned strikes me as entirely pointless. The only criteria we could possibly have to distinguish a good response to this question from a bad one is internal consistency, and that is obviously no assurance of truth. Basically, the OP amounts to nothing more than asking whether one can come up with a coherent story regarding souls, since there is no evidence to potentially distinguish any answer as being any better than the next.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 8 by Jashwell]

Actually the baby doesn't rely on the mother to do anything other than not attempt to self harm.

The foetus? Do you actually believe that?

And the mother can offload the baby after it is born as well.

The mother has to carry the foetus. It's her decision if she doesn't want to.

None of which changes the fact that the baby (and all of us) are dependant and that being dependant is not a basis for murder.

Generally speaking we protect those under our care.

Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is legal. Connotations of a word shouldn't be emphasised in a meaningful discussion.

Dependency isn't a basis for murder, willing support however is (by definition) a basis for having the right to stop support. Otherwise it's not willing support.


Being a human shouldn't be what gives you equal rights; being a conscious being capable of morality should. Tying it down to species is similar to tying it down to race.

Do you think the following should have the same rights as an adult?
http://takingstock.asas.org/takingstock ... 886644.jpg

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 13 by Jashwell]

The foetus? Do you actually believe that?

Sure. A woman still needs to eat, work, etc. Getting rid of the foetus can hurt the mother.

The mother has to carry the foetus. It's her decision if she doesn't want to.

It is always up to the parent if they want to get rid of the child. That's obvious right?

Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is legal. Connotations of a word shouldn't be emphasised in a meaningful discussion.

I am sure there are things that are legal that you disagree with and are against. Coal Seam Gas?

Nor is morality dependant upon the law. If the law says it is legal to kill Jews would you agree that killing Jews is not immoral?

Dependency isn't a basis for murder, willing support however is (by definition) a basis for having the right to stop support. Otherwise it's not willing support.

We are all supported, we are all dependant. You just legalised murder.

Being a human shouldn't be what gives you equal rights; being a conscious being capable of morality should. Tying it down to species is similar to tying it down to race.

I'm not making an equal rights argument. There is no such thing as equality. What makes you think equality is real?

Do you think the following should have the same rights as an adult?
http://takingstock.asas.org/takingstock ... _embryo1-e...

Were my wife pregnant I would hope to defend that image with my life.

edit: Honestly I have seen people more willing to defend dreams or ideas than those that want to kill babies.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 8 by Jashwell]

Actually the baby doesn't rely on the mother to do anything other than not attempt to self harm.

The foetus? Do you actually believe that?

And the mother can offload the baby after it is born as well.

The mother has to carry the foetus. It's her decision if she doesn't want to.

None of which changes the fact that the baby (and all of us) are dependant and that being dependant is not a basis for murder.

Generally speaking we protect those under our care.

Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is legal. Connotations of a word shouldn't be emphasised in a meaningful discussion.

Dependency isn't a basis for murder, willing support however is (by definition) a basis for having the right to stop support. Otherwise it's not willing support.


Being a human shouldn't be what gives you equal rights; being a conscious being capable of morality should. Tying it down to species is similar to tying it down to race.

Do you think the following should have the same rights as an adult?
http://takingstock.asas.org/takingstock ... 886644.jpg

I forget just which fallacy you have just committed...or rather, the name of it.

But it's one that I have seen repeated by many pro-abortion advocates: the idea that protecting the simple right to life of a willingly conceived womb bound human being is equivalent to giving that human all the rights of a human adult.

C'mon.

Nobody is arguing that a newborn has all the rights of an adult; that newborn baby girl has very few of those rights. She cannot vote, choose what she eats, wears, does or lives. Nobody would hand her the keys to the car for anything but chewing on. But nobody is suggesting that her lack of all those rights means that it's OK to kill her 'just because."

The only right this cell of yours has, at that moment, is the right to try to survive...and the right NOT to have that survival made utterly impossible.

On the other hand, given that a conceptus WILL eventually become a human adult with all the rights that come with it....unless of course it dies first...makes the argument that it's OK to kill it because it doesn't have those rights yet problematic.

In fact, that particular argument makes my stomach turn.

I know...this thread is about..sorta...when a fetus gets a soul. As I wrote before, we don't know.

The problem is, the real topic of this thread isn't 'when does the fetus get a soul,' it's the same question as 'when does a fetus become a human"

The answer is...it doesn't become human. It IS human, from the instant of conception. As the rights we assign to humans grow with the development of that human, that very first stage of life has only one 'right' that should be recognized: the right to try to survive. The right not to be killed because...just because.

[Jashwell]

I forget just which fallacy you have just committed...or rather, the name of it.

But it's one that I have seen repeated by many pro-abortion advocates: the idea that protecting the simple right to life of a willingly conceived womb bound human being is equivalent to giving that human all the rights of a human adult.

C'mon.

Nobody is arguing that a newborn has all the rights of an adult; that newborn baby girl has very few of those rights. She cannot vote, choose what she eats, wears, does or lives. Nobody would hand her the keys to the car for anything but chewing on.

That wasn't really what I meant, nor is it emphasised, but I recognise the complaint. I don't really have a better way of phrasing it, and driving a car isn't really a right. (For reference I think it'd either be a slippery slope or a straw man)

My point is if you ignore that kind of right that uses age restrictions, do you think the same rights that apply to other humans still apply to it?

Do you think it has more rights than any other species would?

But nobody is suggesting that her lack of all those rights means that it's OK to kill her 'just because."

The only right this cell of yours has, at that moment, is the right to try to survive...and the right NOT to have that survival made utterly impossible.

Why does it have the right to survive any more than any other life would?
It's a collection of cells. The only recognisable difference between that a human embryo and a chicken embryo or possibly even a fly embryo at that early a stage is the DNA. (Obviously later in it will have more differences, but you presumably think that by the stage where the only difference is the DNA that it should have different rights)

Even if you think aborting a cow embryo is not as bad as aborting a human embryo, I can't see a basis for that beyond an unobservable difference that a secular state wouldn't easily recognise (ie a soul).

Does the mother not have the right to withdraw support?

On the other hand, given that a conceptus WILL eventually become a human adult with all the rights that come with it....unless of course it dies first...makes the argument that it's OK to kill it because it doesn't have those rights yet problematic.

In fact, that particular argument makes my stomach turn.

It wouldn't if it was aborted - where would the problem be?
Is the potential for life supposed to be as well recognised as life itself?

The chance of it gaining full rights doesn't mean it should have some rights.
On the other hand, the mother already has rights. Among those are the right to her body and the right to withdraw support.

I know...this thread is about..sorta...when a fetus gets a soul. As I wrote before, we don't know.

The problem is, the real topic of this thread isn't 'when does the fetus get a soul,' it's the same question as 'when does a fetus become a human"

I don't think the answer is just "we don't know", it's "we can't know".
The difference between the soul and the soulless is unobservable.

The answer is...it doesn't become human. It IS human, from the instant of conception. As the rights we assign to humans grow with the development of that human, that very first stage of life has only one 'right' that should be recognized: the right to try to survive. The right not to be killed because...just because.

I think being human in that sense of the word (not in the sense of "it's the same species as us") means to be a conscious empathetic individual capable of morality and importantly learning (including moral learning).
I don't recognise any of those things in a foetus, and I don't see why we should give it a right to survive that we don't give various bacteria or plants.



I also think the OP is fundamentally unanswerable, though the issue he raises with other species is that is it just the soul that makes humans gain this level of value? What value do other animals have?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 13 by Jashwell]

The foetus? Do you actually believe that?

Sure. A woman still needs to eat, work, etc. Getting rid of the foetus can hurt the mother.

The emotional and physical demand the foetus puts on the mother is overwhelming.

If all a mother had to do was "not self harm", then I imagine a lot less people would abort.

The mother has to carry the foetus. It's her decision if she doesn't want to.

It is always up to the parent if they want to get rid of the child. That's obvious right?

Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is legal. Connotations of a word shouldn't be emphasised in a meaningful discussion.

I am sure there are things that are legal that you disagree with and are against. Coal Seam Gas?

Nor is morality dependant upon the law. If the law says it is legal to kill Jews would you agree that killing Jews is not immoral?

I didn't say that it was.
I said that it was the wrong word.
I implied that you used the wrong word because you wanted to emphasise it as an act of barbarity.

Dependency isn't a basis for murder, willing support however is (by definition) a basis for having the right to stop support. Otherwise it's not willing support.

We are all supported, we are all dependant. You just legalised murder.

Withdrawing support and going out of your way to kill something is completely different. Once a baby has been born, it can (and sometimes is) adopted by different people. Why would you abort a baby that has been born? You're just going out of your way.

If you're helping someone fix their car, should you be able to decide to stop helping at almost any time you want?

A foetus isn't capable of self awareness, morality, being conscious, and many of the reasons for which we should give things human rights.

For what reason should we give a foetus a right to live?
The difference between embryos (at the stage I gave a picture of) human and almost any other animal you could think of is just DNA.
You think that we shouldn't, presumably because of an unobservable entity assigned to this at an unknown stage.

Should a secular state worry about souls?

How do you know it gains a soul at conception? (as is the point of this thread)
Where does the Bible speak of embryos and zygotes?

Being a human shouldn't be what gives you equal rights; being a conscious being capable of morality should. Tying it down to species is similar to tying it down to race.

I'm not making an equal rights argument. There is no such thing as equality. What makes you think equality is real?

I mean more things like the rights we give humans to survive over things and animals.

Do you think the following should have the same rights as an adult?
http://takingstock.asas.org/takingstock ... _embryo1-e...

Were my wife pregnant I would hope to defend that image with my life.

edit: Honestly I have seen people more willing to defend dreams or ideas than those that want to kill babies.

Once again, babies are birthed fetus'. A baby is born, a fetus isn't.
And a baby can learn, can become capable of self awareness, because of things it has in the now, not things it will have.

And it's a cheap shot I know, but that's bovine. Specifically a cow's embryo.
A human embryo would be the same at this stage aside from DNA and perhaps the distribution of the same chemical reactions.
Didn't you notice the difference?
Does a cow embryo have less rights than a human embryo?


You seem to think the soul is "ascribed" at conception.
Why do you think this?
How could you tell?
Would it be ok to abort something that doesn't have a soul?

[dianaiad]

I forget just which fallacy you have just committed...or rather, the name of it.

But it's one that I have seen repeated by many pro-abortion advocates: the idea that protecting the simple right to life of a willingly conceived womb bound human being is equivalent to giving that human all the rights of a human adult.

C'mon.

Nobody is arguing that a newborn has all the rights of an adult; that newborn baby girl has very few of those rights. She cannot vote, choose what she eats, wears, does or lives. Nobody would hand her the keys to the car for anything but chewing on.

That wasn't really what I meant, nor is it emphasised, but I recognise the complaint. I don't really have a better way of phrasing it, and driving a car isn't really a right. (For reference I think it'd either be a slippery slope or a straw man)

My point is if you ignore that kind of right that uses age restrictions, do you think the same rights that apply to other humans still apply to it?

Do you think it has more rights than any other species would?

I think a human fetus has the same basic rights any other human does. Especially if you ignore the age restriction thing. After all, that IS the only difference between a freshly conceived human and a human adult; age.

In this case, that would be the right not to have survival be made impossible, simply because it is inconvenient.

But nobody is suggesting that her lack of all those rights means that it's OK to kill her 'just because."

The only right this cell of yours has, at that moment, is the right to try to survive...and the right NOT to have that survival made utterly impossible.

Why does it have the right to survive any more than any other life would?

First, please note: I wrote 'try to survive,' not 'survive.'

It has the same right to try to survive that any other human does, subject to the same whims of fate.

It's a collection of cells. The only recognisable difference between that a human embryo and a chicken embryo or possibly even a fly embryo at that early a stage is the DNA.

That's pretty recognizable. Indeed, that IS the difference. The only recognizable difference between chalk and cheese is that one is harder than the other, but nobody is tempted to confuse the two.

(Obviously later in it will have more differences, but you presumably think that by the stage where the only difference is the DNA that it should have different rights)

That's the problem...'only difference' is, and will remain the only difference for the entirety of that life. the DNA makes this group of cells HUMAN. Nothing else. The only thing that would keep it from being a human newborn, or a toddler, or an adult, is death.

So yeah, I think that one right comes with the DNA; the right to try to survive without having that survival made impossible because it's inconvenient.

Even if you think aborting a cow embryo is not as bad as aborting a human embryo, I can't see a basis for that beyond an unobservable difference that a secular state wouldn't easily recognise (ie a soul).

"Even if?"
????

I'm not certain where that one came from. I am a theist. I believe that we have spirits that join with our physical bodies, making us souls (sorry about the grammatical nitpicking there). However, we really don't know when that joining happens. It COULD happen at conception. Could happen later. It would behoove us to err on the side of caution and refrain from aborting a human that just might have a spirit. At the same time, my belief system doesn't look quite as harshly upon women who abort as it does upon those who murder...for the same reason; we don't know. We can't treat the woman like a murderer because...what if that aborted fetus didn't have a spirit yet? Innocent until proven guilty works both ways here.

But MY objection to abortion is actually more strict than that of my church, because it has nothing at all to do with whether those unborn children have spirits. It has everything to do with the DNA...that one instant at which the entirety of the person, physically, is narrowed down to one individual; conception. From that point on, there are only two options...this individual becomes a human adult or it dies.

At the point of conception, then, it gets the one right that every human being should have; the right not have his or her existence made impossible...because someone else found it inconvenient. Especially when that 'someone else' was responsible for inviting that person into existence.

Does the mother not have the right to withdraw support?

No.

Not when her freely chosen actions, engaging in the process specifically designed (by God or by evolution or both) to produce this new life, actually succeeds in its purpose.

Human law understands this issue: if you invite someone to live with you, you cannot, by law, refuse him hospitality; you invited him, you are responsible...and if, after inviting him, you, simply because you find him incovenient, throw him out into certain death (something he wouldn't have faced had you not invited him) you would be guilty of some level of homicide.

................and THAT is when the invitee has the choice to accept your hospitality or not.

In the case of a fetus, it's more like....the woman kidnapped this life, forced it into being only to kill it? Nah....and I'd feel this way no matter what my religious opinions were.

So yeah, she invited this unique human into being. It was her choice. She is now responsible.

She isn't obligated, of course, if she didn't engage in sex willingly, or if the pregnancy endangers her life and health (more than normal). But when it is the result of consensual sex?

Oh, yes. Then she is.

....and yes, I can say so; I have given birth to five children; I am fully aware of what is involved here.

On the other hand, given that a conceptus WILL eventually become a human adult with all the rights that come with it....unless of course it dies first...makes the argument that it's OK to kill it because it doesn't have those rights yet problematic.

In fact, that particular argument makes my stomach turn.

It wouldn't if it was aborted - where would the problem be?
Is the potential for life supposed to be as well recognised as life itself?

There is no 'potential.' Perhaps the sperm has 'potential,' since it can combine with any human ova to form any one of a huge number of different individual humans. The same may be said for an ovum. However, once all those possibilities are narrowed to one, there is no more 'potential,' but actuality. It's not going to be 'potentially' anything BUT the human adult that the DNA defines...unless it dies first. The only thing left to do is grow and develop. Come to think of it, that's all a human infant has to do in order to become an adult, too; grow and develop.

This 'potential' thing is, in my view, one of the nastiest arguments I come across; you wouldn't consider murdering a child because it's only a "potential' adult, would you? Well, a fetus/blastocyst/conceptus is exactly as much a 'potential' human adult as that infant is; all it needs to do is grow, and the only thing that will prevent it is death.

Exactly like the human fetus.

The chance of it gaining full rights doesn't mean it should have some rights.

Just one; the right to try to survive without that survival being made impossible because the woman finds that life inconvenient.

On the other hand, the mother already has rights. Among those are the right to her body and the right to withdraw support.

LANDLORDS don't have that right against people who absolutely can live outside the apartment.

Women who deliberately invite a life...that cannot then survive without her, shouldn't have that right either, morally and ethically, if not legally.

What women absolutely do have the right to do is prevent pregnancy if they don't want one. Given the state of modern contraception, there really isn't any excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.

None. I think that a woman has the right to risk her life and health...but she shouldn't make someone else pay for her mistakes with his or her life.

I know...this thread is about..sorta...when a fetus gets a soul. As I wrote before, we don't know.

The problem is, the real topic of this thread isn't 'when does the fetus get a soul,' it's the same question as 'when does a fetus become a human"

I don't think the answer is just "we don't know", it's "we can't know".
The difference between the soul and the soulless is unobservable.

Don't know, Can't know...whatever. My objection hasn't got anything to do with ensoulment or when, or if, that happens.

In fact, if there is no spirit/soul thing going on, my objection is even more powerful; if there is no spirit that 'goes on,' then you are advocating destroying the only possibility that unique individual has to live. At all.

At least if there IS a spirit, there is the possibility of life after the destruction of the body...however miniscule that might be.

The answer is...it doesn't become human. It IS human, from the instant of conception. As the rights we assign to humans grow with the development of that human, that very first stage of life has only one 'right' that should be recognized: the right to try to survive. The right not to be killed because...just because.

I think being human in that sense of the word (not in the sense of "it's the same species as us") means to be a conscious empathetic individual capable of morality and importantly learning (including moral learning).
I don't recognise any of those things in a foetus, and I don't see why we should give it a right to survive that we don't give various bacteria or plants.

Bacteria and plants never will become conscious empathetic individuals capable of morality and learning. They aren't designed for it. That fetus, though, WILL, if you don't kill it first, exactly the way that tiny baby boy WILL, if the DNA has designed him that way, become a 6'10" basketball player. It's not 'potential,' if the only thing that prevents it is death.

My niece has the 'potential' to be an opera singer; she's good enough. She also has the 'potential' to become a lawyer. She's studying for that. She can do either one or neither one, and still live.

A fetus can only become what its DNA says it is, unless it gets killed first. That's not 'potential.' That's reality. That's actuality.

I also think the OP is fundamentally unanswerable, though the issue he raises with other species is that is it just the soul that makes humans gain this level of value? What value do other animals have?

Don't ask me that question...I happen to believe that all living things have spirits.

[Zzyzx]

.

Getting rid of the foetus can hurt the mother.

Is it not her right to decide whether to take that risk to her own health?

Inducing abortion is much more likely to harm the mother when oppressive laws make the practice illegal. It is then done clandestinely, often by people who lack medical training, under unhygienic conditions, using dangerous techniques.

It is worthy of note that Christian women option for legal abortion over a half million times per year in the US -- in spite of supposed religious objection. Does "walk the talk" apply here somehow?

You just legalised murder.

Correction: The Supreme Court under the Constitution of the United States legalized abortion (determined that it was not illegal or criminal). The definition of "murder" is "unlawful killing", therefore, any act that is NOT unlawful killing is NOT "murder." That you (generic term) think otherwise is immaterial.

[Zzyzx]

.

. After all, that IS the only difference between a freshly conceived human and a human adult; age.

I disagree.

There is a great degree of developmental difference between a fetus and an adult.

.
The only recognizable difference between chalk and cheese is that one is harder than the other, but nobody is tempted to confuse the two.

I disagree

There are many observable differences between chalk and cheese in addition to hardness -- including specific gravity, chemistry, luster, nutritional value, etc.

.
That's the problem...'only difference' is, and will remain the only difference for the entirety of that life. the DNA makes this group of cells HUMAN. Nothing else. The only thing that would keep it from being a human newborn, or a toddler, or an adult, is death.

A severed finger has human DNA -- does that impart to it a "right to life?"

.
I am a theist. I believe that we have spirits that join with our physical bodies, making us souls (sorry about the grammatical nitpicking there). However, we really don't know when that joining happens.

Notice that you believe that humans have spirits and/or souls. Believing something is no assurance that it is true.

It COULD happen at conception. Could happen later.

OR, it could not happen at all if the "spirit" or "soul" are nothing more than imaginary. So far those are simply religious and/or mental constructs that have not been shown to actually exist in the real world.

Should someone's religious or mental constructs be given force of law?

.
Not when her freely chosen actions, engaging in the process specifically designed (by God or by evolution or both) to produce this new life, actually succeeds in its purpose.

I disagree.

It is unfortunate (but probably biologically necessary) that recreation and reproduction are closely coupled. However, in modern society when recreation (or whatever intercourse is called) results in pregnancy, that is reversible.

.
I know...this thread is about..sorta...when a fetus gets a soul. As I wrote before, we don't know.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "IF a human gets a "soul" (which is far from certain) it may be of importance to determine when that occurs. Since NEITHER is known, all is conjecture, opinion, religious dogma.

.
I happen to believe that all living things have spirits.

Again, that is a matter of belief, not knowledge.


Perhaps ONE thing we can agree on is that abortion is a poor form of birth control. Other means are preferable in my opinion (favoring vasectomy and/or tubal ligation). Then recreation is extremely unlikely to produce unwanted reproduction.