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...

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 26 by AdHoc]

When I say distinguishable, I don't mean properties with which we ourselves can distinguish (except in this abstract philosophical & conceptual sense). I mean how is a spirit different from nothing. How is a spirit a thing?

I don't think a spirit is a thing. How would I describe it? Immaterial, eternal, created by God, novel.

If you actually think a spirit is nothing, then a spirit demonstrably doesn't exist.

Do gravitons exist? Because they are arguably nothing.

Something exists, therefore nothing does not exist.

I have to chuckle at the irony of this last statement... You are an atheist and you say "nothing does not exist"? What about God? Don't you believe God does not exist? Or faeries?

I would've expected a rational atheist to say lots of things don't exist.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 29 by AdHoc]

Murder is by definition unlawful killing.

"What is the moral difference in your opinion [between murder and execution]?"
I'm against capital punishment, but I do support the majority of laws (or don't have preferable alternative laws) regarding what is and isn't murder in the UK. Obviously I condemn the genocide that was the holocaust.

What do you mean "It's a question of conscience"?
It isn't - it's a definition. Under current (and past) UK legislation, the holocaust was mass murder. Under Nazi German legislation, the holocaust wasn't murder.
This is a fact.


What do you mean "You're going to dig in on that hill and try to actually defend it?"?
Whether or not it's killing or murder has no intrinsic moral implications at all.
Legal killing can be moral. Murder can be moral.
Legal killing can be immoral. Murder can be immoral.
The only difference between the two is whether or not the state approves.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 31 by AdHoc]

"Immaterial" says absolutely nothing about it. Explain what being immaterial actually means.

I don't know if gravitons do exist, they're currently hypothetical particles and gravity has yet to be quantised to my knowledge.
How would they be nothing?

As for the last bit, it's simply the truth. The existence of anything is the non-existence of nothing - a trivial rewording can show this.
"Any thing exists" -> "Some thing does [not not] exist" -> "No thing does not exist"

To say "nothing exists" is to say there isn't anything that exists.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 29 by AdHoc]

Murder is by definition unlawful killing.

"What is the moral difference in your opinion [between murder and execution]?"
I'm against capital punishment, but I do support the majority of laws (or don't have preferable alternative laws) regarding what is and isn't murder in the UK. Obviously I condemn the genocide that was the holocaust.

Ok I think we agree on this point.

What do you mean "It's a question of conscience"?
It isn't - it's a definition. Under current (and past) UK legislation, the holocaust was mass murder. Under Nazi German legislation, the holocaust wasn't murder.
This is a fact.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't really care what the Nazi goverment says, in my heart I know its immoral and I use the english word "murder" to describe it. If someone can supply a particular dictionary that defines it as something else I don't really care. In my conscience it is immoral absolutely.

What do you mean "You're going to dig in on that hill and try to actually defend it?"?
Whether or not it's killing or murder has no intrinsic moral implications at all.
Legal killing can be moral. Murder can be moral.
Legal killing can be immoral. Murder can be immoral.
The only difference between the two is whether or not the state approves.

On this point lets agree to disagree.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 31 by AdHoc]

"Immaterial" says absolutely nothing about it. Explain what being immaterial actually means.

I don't know if gravitons do exist, they're currently hypothetical particles and gravity has yet to be quantised to my knowledge.
How would they be nothing?

As for the last bit, it's simply the truth. The existence of anything is the non-existence of nothing - a trivial rewording can show this.
"Any thing exists" -> "Some thing does [not not] exist" -> "No thing does not exist"

To say "nothing exists" is to say there isn't anything that exists.

Good point, you got me there.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 35 by AdHoc]

To be fair, I think it's an artefact of language.

Clearly there are things that don't exist, but this is a different context to the above.

There's the obvious distinction that to say "X exists conceptually" means the concept of X exists, and I guess saying "X doesn't exist" means saying that X is not a real thing.
That seems to be the best way to phrase it.

[Clownboat]

As to the subject of your post. I tend towards the idea that the fetus technically becomes a soul when it begins receiving oxygen via the mother's body. Having said that I still do not believe abortion is a valid option at any stage from conception on. Two major reasons for this. 1) If left go the mother's body would in nearly every instance carry the fetus to term despite the mother's wishes. Yes, there are instances when this is not so and the fetus is miscarried, again, despite the mother's wishes. This, to me, clearly shows nature's, or nature's God's, intent.

I know facts can be unfortunate, but it seems your view on the subject is based off of a falsehood. Perhaps a re-think is in order?

In general, less than 70% of all fertilized eggs will even implant into the mother's womb causing pregnancy to continue. From there, there is a 25-50% chance of aborting before you even know you are pregnant. If, however, you make it to your first month, your odds go up to 75% chance of carrying to term. So if you look at it from the point of all those little souls being given a home, only to be miscarried before they even know they are alive, that's a very mean God.
Scientific research has compiled the following information about the rates of naturally aborted pregnancies in human beings.

Over several trials, this concludes that around 70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneou ... _in_humans

I am not a fan of abortions, but to dislike the idea for religious reasons is very odd to me, considering the fact that the process this god chose for making babies results in about 70% of them being aborted naturally.

This god puts a natural process in place that has a 70% chance of the fetus not coming to term, but if a person were to choose to not have a fetus, all hell breaks loose.

[agnosticatheist]

As to the subject of your post. I tend towards the idea that the fetus technically becomes a soul when it begins receiving oxygen via the mother's body. Having said that I still do not believe abortion is a valid option at any stage from conception on. Two major reasons for this. 1) If left go the mother's body would in nearly every instance carry the fetus to term despite the mother's wishes. Yes, there are instances when this is not so and the fetus is miscarried, again, despite the mother's wishes. This, to me, clearly shows nature's, or nature's God's, intent.

I know facts can be unfortunate, but it seems your view on the subject is based off of a falsehood. Perhaps a re-think is in order?

In general, less than 70% of all fertilized eggs will even implant into the mother's womb causing pregnancy to continue. From there, there is a 25-50% chance of aborting before you even know you are pregnant. If, however, you make it to your first month, your odds go up to 75% chance of carrying to term. So if you look at it from the point of all those little souls being given a home, only to be miscarried before they even know they are alive, that's a very mean God.
Scientific research has compiled the following information about the rates of naturally aborted pregnancies in human beings.

Over several trials, this concludes that around 70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneou ... _in_humans

I am not a fan of abortions, but to dislike the idea for religious reasons is very odd to me, considering the fact that the process this god chose for making babies results in about 70% of them being aborted naturally.

This god puts a natural process in place that has a 70% chance of the fetus not coming to term, but if a person were to choose to not have a fetus, all hell breaks loose.

Let me guess: It's this way because of the fall?

[dianaiad]

This god puts a natural process in place that has a 70% chance of the fetus not coming to term, but if a person were to choose to not have a fetus, all hell breaks loose.

So....this makes it acceptable to kill the survivors?

I mean, really?

I can imagine this argument in the murder trial of a sniper who killed the three villagers who made it through a mine field untouched.

"Your honor, it's OK to kill these three; after all, everybody else in their group got blown up!"

I've never been able to understand this argument.

[agnosticatheist]

This god puts a natural process in place that has a 70% chance of the fetus not coming to term, but if a person were to choose to not have a fetus, all hell breaks loose.

So....this makes it acceptable to kill the survivors?

I mean, really?

I can imagine this argument in the murder trial of a sniper who killed the three villagers who made it through a mine field untouched.

"Your honor, it's OK to kill these three; after all, everybody else in their group got blown up!"

I've never been able to understand this argument.

This is one of those cases where the analogy does not really hold up because of the details.

The difference between fetuses that make it to the first month and the three villagers in your scenario is that the three villagers have brain activity, have a personality, memories, experiences, feelings, (according to some) soul, etc.

The only way that I can see your argument from earlier holding up is if you take the position that abortion before brain activity is murder because you are denying a potential person a potential shot at life. I think that's a fair argument to make, and it's the one that I am in favor of in terms of opposition to abortion.

It just seems that often theists want to argue stuff along the lines of:

"It's not just a collection of tissue, it's a person!"

"It's a human, and so it has rights just like all other humans do"

If you press those same theists to explain what makes humans so special, unique, and worthy of special treatment not afforded to the rest of earth's lifeforms, they would probably point to characteristics, such as personality, moral reasoning, emotions, free will, etc, that don't appear until at least when brain activity first appears, and with some of those issues, much later than when brain activity first appears.