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...

[Clownboat]

I can only think of one; "thou shalt not murder" are there really others? "Many" even?

- The Catholic Church opposes abortion because it believes that life is sacred and inviolable.
- Generally, the Orthodox Churches forbid abortion as going against the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill'.
- The Church of England states that the unborn child is alive and created by God.
- Islam teaches that life begins at conception and is created by God. The unborn child has certain rights such as the right to care, protection and life. Abortion on any grounds is forbidden in the Islamic holy book Al'Quran. "Do not kill or take a human life which God has declared to be sacred." (Chapter 6,verse 151)
- Hindu scriptures refer to abortion as garha-batta (womb killing) and the Atharva Veda describes abortionists as the greatest of sinners.
- I'll stop here.

Of course I am aware of non-religious reasons for disliking abortion. Did you not read the part of my post where I even said I was not a fan? I bolded it for you this time. Obviously, I don't like the idea of it for reasons that are not religious. Either way, the 70% stat is irrelevant for the people that dislike it for non religious reasons. This should have been apparent I would have thought.

What are the reasons that you dislike abortion for? Or would you prefer not to share them?

There is nothing pretty or glamorous about a medical abortion. See pics and let me know if you enjoy the idea. My personal reasons would not be relevant.

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.

thats an interesting tact to take. You're equating miscarriage with abortion? Do you then equate senescence with murder?

Spontaneous abortion: A miscarriage , that is, any pregnancy that is not viable (the fetus cannot survive) or in which the fetus is born before the 20th week of pregnancy.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... ekey=17774

As you can see, I am correct to equate miscarriage with abortion here.

I don't agree that they are the same thing at all. Let me be more specific in my comparison... Lets say two fetuses survives to term, no miscarriages, no abortions. And the children grow to the age of one day old. One dies from complications and one is murdered. Are those two results the same thing?
I think not.

Sorry, I'm going with my link here as the authority over your "I don't agree".
See again: Spontaneous abortion: A miscarriage.......
This seems cut and dry. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you will need to offer more than an "I don't agree".

I'm not surprised to see you go the semantics route rather then deal with the implications though.

Why are you not surprised? Is it because you know me really well or does nothing surprise you anymore?

When I debate, I try to envision my opponents rebuttal. I have yet to hear a rebuttal to this, so expecting semantics is not much of a stretch as I did not expect said rebuttal. Nothing to do with you personally.

[Clownboat]

I'm tired of hearing the "murder" claims, or the "you are destroying a soul" claims when it comes from people that choose to believe in a god that created a process that aborts 70% naturally. Why is this so hard to understand and how does pointing that out equal killing survivors?

If aborting a fetus equals to murder, then surely the fact that God has allegedly created such a world where it happens naturally does not justify us doing it as well, does it? So why is this "point" that you are making even relevant to the question of whether abortion is justified?

The fact that you are tired of hearing something does not constitute an argument, frankly it's just an unnecessary whine.

Bust Nak gets it. See his reply previous to this.

You guys miss the forest for the trees and IMO are not thinking this through if you think the point of this argument is to justify abortions.

Reasons to justify abortions would be a woman's right to choose to do with her body as she sees fit and such things, which I have not been doing. Consider the facts again, but this time not from the standpoint of "justifying abortions". Consider the possible hypocrisy/irony from worshiping a god that creates a process that aborts 70% naturally, but would get bent out of shape, and for some believers will even send you to hell for eternity if you choose to abort a fetus (that might not come to term anyway due to the process he created ironically).

[AdHoc]

I'm tired of hearing the "murder" claims, or the "you are destroying a soul" claims when it comes from people that choose to believe in a god that created a process that aborts 70% naturally. Why is this so hard to understand and how does pointing that out equal killing survivors?

If aborting a fetus equals to murder, then surely the fact that God has allegedly created such a world where it happens naturally does not justify us doing it as well, does it? So why is this "point" that you are making even relevant to the question of whether abortion is justified?

The fact that you are tired of hearing something does not constitute an argument, frankly it's just an unnecessary whine.

Bust Nak gets it. See his reply previous to this.

You guys miss the forest for the trees and IMO are not thinking this through if you think the point of this argument is to justify abortions.

Reasons to justify abortions would be a woman's right to choose to do with her body as she sees fit and such things, which I have not been doing. Consider the facts again, but this time not from the standpoint of "justifying abortions". Consider the possible hypocrisy/irony from worshiping a god that creates a process that aborts 70% naturally, but would get bent out of shape, and for some believers will even send you to hell for eternity if you choose to abort a fetus (that might not come to term anyway due to the process he created ironically).

If that is hypocrisy then it is even more hypocritical to worship a God that creates a process that kills 95% of all humans naturally and 50% of all Beatles, but would get bent out of shape if you choose to kill a person that probably won't live forever anyway due to the process He created.

By your logic it would be ok to shoot John Lennon because half of the Beatles are going to die anyway... I don't agree that it is ok to shoot any Beatles and I also don't agree that it is ok to kill unborn children.

I submit the human conscience as evidence of that a priori fact.

[Peter]

At what point does the human fetus acquire a soul?...

At five months and it's called 'consciousness.'
Based on my own observations and discussions with other parents, somewhere around 5 months after birth babies seem to take a quantum leap of some kind, becoming 'people' and interacting in a new way.

Exactly. It's information like this that needs to inform the rights of 5 month old humans if we must have "one size fits all" laws on abortion. Personally, I'd leave abortion up to the parents.

Imagine, genes that caused a predisposition for parents to abort their young would slowly disappear from the gene pool if the parents were allowed to abort their progeny. If left to nature good parenting would increase and bad parenting would decrease. Ain't Evolution wonderful!

[Clownboat]

I'm tired of hearing the "murder" claims, or the "you are destroying a soul" claims when it comes from people that choose to believe in a god that created a process that aborts 70% naturally. Why is this so hard to understand and how does pointing that out equal killing survivors?

If aborting a fetus equals to murder, then surely the fact that God has allegedly created such a world where it happens naturally does not justify us doing it as well, does it? So why is this "point" that you are making even relevant to the question of whether abortion is justified?

The fact that you are tired of hearing something does not constitute an argument, frankly it's just an unnecessary whine.

Bust Nak gets it. See his reply previous to this.

You guys miss the forest for the trees and IMO are not thinking this through if you think the point of this argument is to justify abortions.

Reasons to justify abortions would be a woman's right to choose to do with her body as she sees fit and such things, which I have not been doing. Consider the facts again, but this time not from the standpoint of "justifying abortions". Consider the possible hypocrisy/irony from worshiping a god that creates a process that aborts 70% naturally, but would get bent out of shape, and for some believers will even send you to hell for eternity if you choose to abort a fetus (that might not come to term anyway due to the process he created ironically).

If that is hypocrisy then it is even more hypocritical to worship a God that creates a process that kills 95% of all humans naturally and 50% of all Beatles, but would get bent out of shape if you choose to kill a person that probably won't live forever anyway due to the process He created.

By your logic it would be ok to shoot John Lennon because half of the Beatles are going to die anyway... I don't agree that it is ok to shoot any Beatles and I also don't agree that it is ok to kill unborn children.

I submit the human conscience as evidence of that a priori fact.

I can probably say this until the cows come home, but I have not been trying to justify killing fetuses, John Lennon nor the rest of the Beatles. As I have said many times and has been noticed by others, I'm pointing out a hypocrisy.

You say you are not OK with killing unborn children. So I must ask...
Why are you OK with dictating to a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body in this instance?

Personally I don't know what I don't like more, the idea of abortions or the idea of you attempting to dictate what we can do with our own bodies. I accept that most fetuses don't make it to term whether aborted or not, but I have a hard time accepting someone trying to be a dictator in this instance.

Maybe I'm the one that is confused and your just telling us that you are not OK with killing unborn children for the fun of it and that your statement has nothing to do with whether the women on the planet should be able to decide for themselves or not. From where I sit, I get the impression you would make it illegal if you could.

Imagine it is illegal for a moment. Should those that choose to get abortions anyway get the death penalty for it? Why or why not?

[AdHoc]

I'm tired of hearing the "murder" claims, or the "you are destroying a soul" claims when it comes from people that choose to believe in a god that created a process that aborts 70% naturally. Why is this so hard to understand and how does pointing that out equal killing survivors?

If aborting a fetus equals to murder, then surely the fact that God has allegedly created such a world where it happens naturally does not justify us doing it as well, does it? So why is this "point" that you are making even relevant to the question of whether abortion is justified?

The fact that you are tired of hearing something does not constitute an argument, frankly it's just an unnecessary whine.

Bust Nak gets it. See his reply previous to this.

You guys miss the forest for the trees and IMO are not thinking this through if you think the point of this argument is to justify abortions.

Reasons to justify abortions would be a woman's right to choose to do with her body as she sees fit and such things, which I have not been doing. Consider the facts again, but this time not from the standpoint of "justifying abortions". Consider the possible hypocrisy/irony from worshiping a god that creates a process that aborts 70% naturally, but would get bent out of shape, and for some believers will even send you to hell for eternity if you choose to abort a fetus (that might not come to term anyway due to the process he created ironically).

If that is hypocrisy then it is even more hypocritical to worship a God that creates a process that kills 95% of all humans naturally and 50% of all Beatles, but would get bent out of shape if you choose to kill a person that probably won't live forever anyway due to the process He created.

By your logic it would be ok to shoot John Lennon because half of the Beatles are going to die anyway... I don't agree that it is ok to shoot any Beatles and I also don't agree that it is ok to kill unborn children.

I submit the human conscience as evidence of that a priori fact.

I can probably say this until the cows come home, but I have not been trying to justify killing fetuses, John Lennon nor the rest of the Beatles. As I have said many times and has been noticed by others, I'm pointing out a hypocrisy.

I take your point and I am definitely not trying to imply that you think it is OK to kill anyone least of all the remaining Beatles.

You say you are not OK with killing unborn children. So I must ask...
Why are you OK with dictating to a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body in this instance?

I have never and cannot imagine a situation where I would dictate to a woman what she can or cannot do to her own body. If a woman said she wanted to do something that I thought was immediately dangerous to human life or health I would try to do what I could to influence her but never dictate.

Personally I don't know what I don't like more, the idea of abortions or the idea of you attempting to dictate what we can do with our own bodies. I accept that most fetuses don't make it to term whether aborted or not, but I have a hard time accepting someone trying to be a dictator in this instance.

Maybe I'm the one that is confused and your just telling us that you are not OK with killing unborn children for the fun of it and that your statement has nothing to do with whether the women on the planet should be able to decide for themselves or not. From where I sit, I get the impression you would make it illegal if you could.

Imagine it is illegal for a moment. Should those that choose to get abortions anyway get the death penalty for it? Why or why not?

Not.

For one I don't believe two wrongs make a right and furthermore I think women have been told a lie.

"It's not really a human being is it?"

"It's better to end the pregnancy than raise an unwanted child right?"

"1 in 3 women will choose abortion."

"There will be no damage to your body or your reproductive health."

"The fetus won't feel any pain."

"Its a quick and painless procedure and you will feel much better afterwards."

"Its not usual to feel grief or sadness after an abortion but if you do its probably because someone important in your life is not supportive of your decision."

Here's a link to the reassuring video from planned parenthood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RQ3H2tnxfw

[Jashwell]

You do realise when people that aren't health professionals say things to people, often the things they say are their own opinion?

"Random friends of this woman have the wrong opinion and therefore abortion is wrong!"


"It's not really a human being is it?"
It's definitely human.
What difference does species itself make?
Are you suggesting our rights should be based on those who will in future be able to produce fertile offspring with other humans?


"It's better to end the pregnancy than raise an unwanted child right?"
That's a matter of opinion, though professionals and people who reference professionals in the UK aren't legally allowed to say that kind of thing, only to provide reference to it or explain the facts of it.

"1 in 3 women will choose abortion"
"• About half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy, [2] and nearly 3 in 10 will have an abortion, by age 45.[3]"
(guttmaccher, sourced from this)
That's roughly a third. 3.3*% off.
Never heard it mentioned by any health professionals.

"There will be no damage to your body or your reproductive health."
I'm aware that in 99%+ of cases there isn't any lasting problems, could you point out the <1% of cases that do go wrong?


"The fetus won't feel any pain."
It won't consciously feel pain, just like you don't feel pain during an operation under sleep. Only this time, because it doesn't have one.
At early stages it doesn't even have a sense of pain at all.

"Its a quick and painless procedure and you will feel much better afterwards."
Quick? Probably.
Painless? There might be nausea in some cases.
"You will feel much better afterwards" Definitely something a health professional isn't allowed to say to a patient, also not something I've heard said.
Might be true for some people.


"Its not usual to feel grief or sadness after an abortion"
I have no idea whether that's true or not, it seems a reasonable null hypothesis. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?
Not that how they feel after the abortion relates to the morality of the abortion.

" but if you do its probably because someone important in your life is not supportive of your decision."
Seriously, are you talking about what random people are saying or just making this up?


I don't notice anything from what I saw in the video that has any message other than "we accommodate abortion and make it as quick and painless as possible".
I notice a lack of "Women! Abort now!" or something less exaggerated but in that direction.
They provide information on abortion, the procedure and the effects. Which is what they should do.


Is abortion justified in the first few days, when the embryo is literally just a countable cluster of cells? When the embryo is indistinguishable from any other embryo?

[AdHoc]

You do realise when people that aren't health professionals say things to people, often the things they say are their own opinion?

"Random friends of this woman have the wrong opinion and therefore abortion is wrong!"


"It's not really a human being is it?"
It's definitely human.
What difference does species itself make?
Are you suggesting our rights should be based on those who will in future be able to produce fertile offspring with other humans?


"It's better to end the pregnancy than raise an unwanted child right?"
That's a matter of opinion, though professionals and people who reference professionals in the UK aren't legally allowed to say that kind of thing, only to provide reference to it or explain the facts of it.

"1 in 3 women will choose abortion"
"• About half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy, [2] and nearly 3 in 10 will have an abortion, by age 45.[3]"
(guttmaccher, sourced from this)
That's roughly a third. 3.3*% off.
Never heard it mentioned by any health professionals.

"There will be no damage to your body or your reproductive health."
I'm aware that in 99%+ of cases there isn't any lasting problems, could you point out the <1% of cases that do go wrong?


"The fetus won't feel any pain."
It won't consciously feel pain, just like you don't feel pain during an operation under sleep. Only this time, because it doesn't have one.
At early stages it doesn't even have a sense of pain at all.

"Its a quick and painless procedure and you will feel much better afterwards."
Quick? Probably.
Painless? There might be nausea in some cases.
"You will feel much better afterwards" Definitely something a health professional isn't allowed to say to a patient, also not something I've heard said.
Might be true for some people.


"Its not usual to feel grief or sadness after an abortion"
I have no idea whether that's true or not, it seems a reasonable null hypothesis. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?
Not that how they feel after the abortion relates to the morality of the abortion.

" but if you do its probably because someone important in your life is not supportive of your decision."
Seriously, are you talking about what random people are saying or just making this up?


I don't notice anything from what I saw in the video that has any message other than "we accommodate abortion and make it as quick and painless as possible".
I notice a lack of "Women! Abort now!" or something less exaggerated but in that direction.
They provide information on abortion, the procedure and the effects. Which is what they should do.

Oh I'm definitely talking about what random people say. You and I may agree that the opinions of random people are probably the best argument against the validity of the arguments of random people. Sadly we also have to accept the strange and unfortunate fact of the effectiveness of the working of the aforementioned arguments on the majority of people.

The fact that people can be deceived by a beguiling argument causes me to feel sorry for them when they are woefully misled.

Is abortion justified in the first few days, when the embryo is literally just a countable cluster of cells? When the embryo is indistinguishable from any other embryo?

IMO life begins at conception and no man has the right to take a human life. Now its your turn... Is abortion justified in the third trimester? When the unborn baby is fully formed and other than the place of residence indistinguishable from a baby in a mother's arms?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 58 by AdHoc]


Why does "the value of life" begin at conception?
Why isn't it equally ethical to abort cow and human embryos at the stage when the only difference is genes?

I haven't thought about it, being that aborting in the third trimester isn't legal over here.

If the baby was endangering the mothers life, then I certainly think abortion should be an option. If it turns out that the baby is not yet conscious, then yes. If it turns out that the baby would be seriously diseased, then yes.
As for convenience abortion, I'm not sure though I imagine so.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 58 by AdHoc]


Why does "the value of life" begin at conception?

Because thats when life begins. The value of it depends on the beholder I guess. I view human life as sacred. Meaning God created the human race to be separate from animals and in a higher place. We are spiritual beings that He created to commune with Him and ultimately to become His children.

Why isn't it equally ethical to abort cow and human embryos at the stage when the only difference is genes?

I don't believe God creates our bodies I believe He creates our spirits. Of course this is only my opinion but perhaps you can see why I would view the differences between cattle and humans more significantly than mere phenotypical expression.

I haven't thought about it, being that aborting in the third trimester isn't legal over here.

If the baby was endangering the mothers life, then I certainly think abortion should be an option. If it turns out that the baby is not yet conscious, then yes. If it turns out that the baby would be seriously diseased, then yes.
As for convenience abortion, I'm not sure though I imagine so.

So it sounds like we're both very comfortable with the value we place on fetuses/unborn children.