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...

[dianaiad]

[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.

"because that's when life begins."

I actually agree with this, but you will get arguments from the pro-abortion crowd about how sperm and ova are also 'alive,'

I think that 'life begins at conception' because that's when the design becomes the designed. That is, that's when the DNA from each 'page' (sperm + ovum) come together to form one specific individual...or individuals if identical twins/triplets happen later.

The point is, as soon as conception happens, the individual is set; everything it is designed to be as an adult is all there, and the only thing that will prevent it from BECOMING that adult is death.

I think, then, that it is specious to argue that it's OK to kill a fetus because it's not an adult yet, when death is the only thing that will prevent that from happening. There is something very wrong with that sort of reasoning (not that you are engaging in it.)

I would like to emphasize; nothing in the above mentions anything at all about 'soul,' or 'spirit' or religion. My view on abortion actually has nothing to do with religion. I would feel exactly the same way I do now, about abortion, if it were absolutely proven to me that there is no deity of any sort.

I might even feel more strongly about it.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 61 by dianaiad]

I had a few responses typed up, but I'm just not sure what your arguments actually are. Here's some of the angles:

1) What do you mean by the "specific individual"?
The personality isn't set (in this sense). Their thoughts, memories, likes & dislikes. Who they will be isn't determined.
You could say that they probably will go on and become a individual, but not a specific one.

2) What do you mean "As soon as conception happens, the individual is set"?
Ignoring my determinism (we're operating in a different context anyway), saying "A is set from B" is fully transitive. If A definitely leads to B, and B definitely leads to C, then A definitely leads to C.

Conception itself could be said to be 'set' (in the same sense) before.
Wouldn't the ova and sperm pair, where the sperm is on a trajectory towards the ova also be "set" and carry the same value?

"The only thing that will prevent it from becoming that adult is death"
You mean an adult, not that adult. That implies it will become one specific individual, which it won't. And this almost seems a tautology. "The only thing that will stop it from continuing to live is it no longer living".

You seem to think that "because it's not an adult yet" is an intrinsic justification. It's not, it's a way of saying there isn't a reason to object to it now.


@AdHoc
Sacred means having religious purpose or connection.
This isn't a secular justification.
You also go on to say that your personal beliefs give you different views.
This is all understandable for your own behaviour. Not for others. Not for the state. Nor is it appropriate in a debate - unless you plan on convincing us of those beliefs.

[AdHoc]

"because that's when life begins."

I actually agree with this, but you will get arguments from the pro-abortion crowd about how sperm and ova are also 'alive,'

I would agree with the pro-choice crowd on this but I would go further and call it
human life. A sperm or ova are human life as much as an eye or an arm is. No one normal buries an arm they throw it in the trash can as medical waste. But human life is treated more sacredly then that except by the most hardened killers.

I think that 'life begins at conception' because that's when the design becomes the designed. That is, that's when the DNA from each 'page' (sperm + ovum) come together to form one specific individual...or individuals if identical twins/triplets happen later.

The point is, as soon as conception happens, the individual is set; everything it is designed to be as an adult is all there, and the only thing that will prevent it from BECOMING that adult is death.

I think, then, that it is specious to argue that it's OK to kill a fetus because it's not an adult yet, when death is the only thing that will prevent that from happening. There is something very wrong with that sort of reasoning (not that you are engaging in it.)

I would like to emphasize; nothing in the above mentions anything at all about 'soul,' or 'spirit' or religion.

I'm not sure when a child receives a soul, probably not at conception but I believe the spirit is given at conception.

My view on abortion actually has nothing to do with religion. I would feel exactly the same way I do now, about abortion, if it were absolutely proven to me that there is no deity of any sort.

I might even feel more strongly about it.

Now this interests me keenly... Why do you think this?

[AdHoc]

@AdHoc
Sacred means having religious purpose or connection.
This isn't a secular justification.
You also go on to say that your personal beliefs give you different views.
This is all understandable for your own behaviour. Not for others. Not for the state. Nor is it appropriate in a debate - unless you plan on convincing us of those beliefs.

Jashwell I agree with everything you have written above but I'm not sure what I could say other than my personal opinion. I do not plan on convincing you of my beliefs I'm more interested in understanding yours. Not because I don't want everyone in the world to agree with me but simply because I've reached the age where I know that I will never find one person on earth who agrees with me on everything.

This topic is spiritual, the soul is not material or action it is thought. Thought is spiritual in a non-religious sense, therefore a spiritual perspective in this thread is not completely out of line.

Are you simply asking me to move along?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 61 by dianaiad]

I had a few responses typed up, but I'm just not sure what your arguments actually are. Here's some of the angles:

1) What do you mean by the "specific individual"?

I mean; 'specific individual.' As in "this individual has this set of DNA instructions, and except for an identical twin, no other individual has that specific set of DNA instructions."

The personality isn't set (in this sense). Their thoughts, memories, likes & dislikes. Who they will be isn't determined.

Those things are not determined a birth, either, but I notice that killing a newborn isn't considered justifiable because those things aren't set yet.

You could say that they probably will go on and become a individual, but not a specific one.

They are individuals. Their individuality may change...that is, their likes and dislikes may change. Their health may change. Their height, their morals, their beliefs...but they remain individuals, none the less.

2) What do you mean "As soon as conception happens, the individual is set"?

I mean that their body's design is set in DNA. Whatever personality they will acquire, whatever accomplishments they achieve, whatever talents they have....they have to work with THAT DNA profile which will not change and is unique.

Ignoring my determinism (we're operating in a different context anyway), saying "A is set from B" is fully transitive. If A definitely leads to B, and B definitely leads to C, then A definitely leads to C.

Uh huh, and if DNA says "you have blue eyes and red hair, and will go grey when you are 35," then you will have blue eyes, and no matter what you do, your roots will be red until you are 35, at which point they will be grey. That's set.

Conception itself could be said to be 'set' (in the same sense) before.
Wouldn't the ova and sperm pair, where the sperm is on a trajectory towards the ova also be "set" and carry the same value?

No, because only half of a human is 'set' by a sperm cell, and unless it combines with an ovum, it will cease functioning. The same thing goes for the ova, and any human sperm can combine with any human ovum to make a, then, unique individual.

Unless that happens, sperm and ova die off.

Once conception happens, there is no other thing that must happen, intrinsically, for it to be a unique human; the 'go' button is pushed. Now all you can do is STOP it.

The only thing that will prevent it from becoming that adult is death"
You mean an adult, not that adult. That implies it will become one specific individual, which it won't.

Actually, it will. One. Unless by some division it becomes two. But it's not going to change its DNA and become a puppy.

And this almost seems a tautology. "The only thing that will stop it from continuing to live is it no longer living".

Not quite. The only thing that will stop it from becoming a human adult is death. It has to be stopped from becoming one.

You seem to think that "because it's not an adult yet" is an intrinsic justification. It's not, it's a way of saying there isn't a reason to object to it now.

No. I don't think it's an intrinsic justification. Quite the opposite. That is the argument the pro-abortion folks come up with; because it's not an adult yet...or rather, because he or she isn't born yet, (even though if he or she doesn't die, she..or he..WILL be born), it's acceptable to kill him or her.

@AdHoc
Sacred means having religious purpose or connection.
This isn't a secular justification.
You also go on to say that your personal beliefs give you different views.
This is all understandable for your own behaviour. Not for others. Not for the state. Nor is it appropriate in a debate - unless you plan on convincing us of those beliefs.

Let's see...if you saw a bunch of people hauling children across the street in order to kill them, and it happened to be LEGAL to do this, would you be quiet about it? Would you consider the argument of "well, you don't need to go kill children...it's not your business what we do" a good one?

[Clownboat]

I mean that their body's design is set in DNA. Whatever personality they will acquire, whatever accomplishments they achieve, whatever talents they have....they have to work with THAT DNA profile which will not change and is unique.

I hear your argument. Were you aware of this info that IMO renders it a bit less of an impact?

Mother's Diet at Time of Conception May Alter Baby's DNA
"Our results represent the first demonstration in humans that a mother's nutritional well-being at the time of conception can change how her child's genes will be interpreted, with a lifelong impact,"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... babys-dna/

To consider DNA as a "map to becoming a person" is not much of an argument against a woman's right to choose IMO due to DNA being affected by things such as diet. Especially if the arguments against being allowed to make the choice or not stem from religious reasons (which you are not alluding to here).

Your argument is resting on something that is affected by what the mother eats. I find it fair to point this out even though it does not refute your argument.

To cut you off ahead of time...
I am not arguing that because of what a mother eats affects a fetuses DNA, that we should be allowed to kill fetuses nor the Beatles.

I am pointing out to those that it applies to that:
- I find it hypocritical to believe in a god concept that created the mechanism that aborts nearly 70% of conceptions (then argue against a woman right to choose for religious reasons).
- And that arguing from a DNA standpoint loses a bit of its credibility considering that something such as eating affects said DNA. Seriously, I hear the blueprint argument, I just wonder if people even know that this precious blueprint is so easily altered. How much impact should we assign to the DNA point of view when DNA is so easily altered prior to conception? If DNA was not affected so easily, this argument would have more meaning IMO.

Nothing I have said here is meant to "refute" anything you have said, but when considering this topic, I think they should be out in the air.

[dianaiad]

I mean that their body's design is set in DNA. Whatever personality they will acquire, whatever accomplishments they achieve, whatever talents they have....they have to work with THAT DNA profile which will not change and is unique.

I hear your argument. Were you aware of this info that IMO renders it a bit less of an impact?

Mother's Diet at Time of Conception May Alter Baby's DNA
"Our results represent the first demonstration in humans that a mother's nutritional well-being at the time of conception can change how her child's genes will be interpreted, with a lifelong impact,"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... babys-dna/

To consider DNA as a "map to becoming a person" is not much of an argument against a woman's right to choose IMO due to DNA being affected by things such as diet. Especially if the arguments against being allowed to make the choice or not stem from religious reasons (which you are not alluding to here).

Your argument is resting on something that is affected by what the mother eats. I find it fair to point this out even though it does not refute your argument.

To cut you off ahead of time...
I am not arguing that because of what a mother eats affects a fetuses DNA, that we should be allowed to kill fetuses nor the Beatles.

I am pointing out to those that it applies to that:
- I find it hypocritical to believe in a god concept that created the mechanism that aborts nearly 70% of conceptions (then argue against a woman right to choose for religious reasons).
- And that arguing from a DNA standpoint loses a bit of its credibility considering that something such as eating affects said DNA. Seriously, I hear the blueprint argument, I just wonder if people even know that this precious blueprint is so easily altered. How much impact should we assign to the DNA point of view when DNA is so easily altered prior to conception? If DNA was not affected so easily, this argument would have more meaning IMO.

Nothing I have said here is meant to "refute" anything you have said, but when considering this topic, I think they should be out in the air.

1. I am not arguing against abortion from a religious POV. As in, yes, I believe that fetuses have spirits, and no, I have no idea when they get 'em. I imagine that it might be at conception, but I can't know, and it doesn't matter.

However, if I were arguing from a religious POV and the idea that unborn humans have spirits and so we shouldn't abort them, the argument that seems to be made here is that since we don't know when or if a fetus gains a spirit, that it is permissible to kill it...after all, it might not have one yet.

I would rather err on the side of 'innocence' in this; we should NOT kill a fetus...because it's possible that it does indeed have a spirit.

However, as I said, my personal objection to abortion has nothing to do with when, or if, the spirit shows up.

2. So a mother's diet may alter DNA. lots of things can alter DNA. Shoot, I have a condition right now that has altered my DNA rather substantially, to my detriment, and it did so after I turned 60. Tell me; does that make it permissible to kill people after birth, because it's possible for their DNA to be altered?

As well, in order for DNA to be 'altered,' it must be 'set,' or established, in the first place. any alterations may change the individual a little...but it won't give that kid different colored eyes, or curly hair if it is 'designed' to be straight, or

wait. perhaps that one was wrong...(looking at the amazingly curly hair I see in the mirror every morning, a sort of 'apology,' perhaps, for the way the chemo took it right the way away last year).

OK, so perhaps the hair might change. Who knows? But that individual is still THAT individual.

I am still me, curly hair when I used to have merely wavy hair, bone marrow that puts out all the wrong blood cells when it put out really good ones for most of my life, I'm still me, bright eyed, bushy headed, grinning, me.

The me who can remember being three, and seven, and twelve, through high school, college, parenthood, more college....you know, me. In individual, unique. Nobody like me.

And there was nobody like me from the instant of my conception. Now, had I not made it to birth, either naturally or purposefully aborted, the world would never have known me. Wouldn't have cared, either, but I can't help but wonder: how many wonderful, talented and unique people have we missed, because we stopped them from becoming?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 61 by dianaiad]

I had a few responses typed up, but I'm just not sure what your arguments actually are. Here's some of the angles:

1) What do you mean by the "specific individual"?

I mean; 'specific individual.' As in "this individual has this set of DNA instructions, and except for an identical twin, no other individual has that specific set of DNA instructions."

... why are DNA instructions important?

The personality isn't set (in this sense). Their thoughts, memories, likes & dislikes. Who they will be isn't determined.

Those things are not determined a birth, either, but I notice that killing a newborn isn't considered justifiable because those things aren't set yet.

Once again, you're looking at this the wrong way.
When someone says abortion is justified because they aren't yet developed in this, they mean there isn't yet a justification to object to it.

I consider consciousness and personality to be valuable.
I have seen no grounds for thinking there could be reason to object to an embryo being killed.

You could say that they probably will go on and become a individual, but not a specific one.

They are individuals. Their individuality may change...that is, their likes and dislikes may change. Their health may change. Their height, their morals, their beliefs...but they remain individuals, none the less.

Well, they aren't individuals yet and they won't become 'that individual' they'll become 'an individual'. Saying 'that individual' has two connotations - one that it is set and two that it is already there. It isn't.

2) What do you mean "As soon as conception happens, the individual is set"?

I mean that their body's design is set in DNA. Whatever personality they will acquire, whatever accomplishments they achieve, whatever talents they have....they have to work with THAT DNA profile which will not change and is unique.

DNA will influence all of those things but not control it.

Why is the the DNA profile valuable?

Ignoring my determinism (we're operating in a different context anyway), saying "A is set from B" is fully transitive. If A definitely leads to B, and B definitely leads to C, then A definitely leads to C.

Uh huh, and if DNA says "you have blue eyes and red hair, and will go grey when you are 35," then you will have blue eyes, and no matter what you do, your roots will be red until you are 35, at which point they will be grey. That's set.

Conception itself could be said to be 'set' (in the same sense) before.
Wouldn't the ova and sperm pair, where the sperm is on a trajectory towards the ova also be "set" and carry the same value?

No, because only half of a human is 'set' by a sperm cell, and unless it combines with an ovum, it will cease functioning. The same thing goes for the ova, and any human sperm can combine with any human ovum to make a, then, unique individual.

That's not what I mean.

I mean, once the sperm is on a collision course for the ova, it's effectively certain (to the same degree) what the DNA will be. If you had a supercomputer and we had a complete understanding of chemistry and could simulate all the particles involved, aside from negligible quantum effects (which would happen either way), you could work out what the DNA would be.

Do you just mean that the DNA isn't there yet?
... but if that were the case, then why is it a problem when I say "no, the embryo isn't valuable because the consciousness isn't there yet"

The only thing that will prevent it from becoming that adult is death"
You mean an adult, not that adult. That implies it will become one specific individual, which it won't.

Actually, it will. One. Unless by some division it becomes two. But it's not going to change its DNA and become a puppy.

I didn't object to adult, I didn't object to "one", as you'll notice, I said
"An, not That".
Once again, if you say "That", it connotes that the adult is already there in some form. They aren't. Their DNA might be, but not them.

And this almost seems a tautology. "The only thing that will stop it from continuing to live is it no longer living".

Not quite. The only thing that will stop it from becoming a human adult is death. It has to be stopped from becoming one.

As I said, almost a tautology.
Death is the end of life.
Becoming an adult is a continuation of life.

"The only thing that'll stop you continuing to live [to adulthood] is you ceasing to live"

You seem to think that "because it's not an adult yet" is an intrinsic justification. It's not, it's a way of saying there isn't a reason to object to it now.

No. I don't think it's an intrinsic justification. Quite the opposite. That is the argument the pro-abortion folks come up with; because it's not an adult yet...or rather, because he or she isn't born yet, (even though if he or she doesn't die, she..or he..WILL be born), it's acceptable to kill him or her.

No, it's not like that.

Could you justify being allowed to wear different coloured socks?
Should you have to bother responding to that, even other than to say "I don't need to"?

The point is there is insufficient moral reason to prevent abortion. "It isn't developed yet" isn't a justification in and of itself, it's saying "There isn't a justification for banning it".

@AdHoc
Sacred means having religious purpose or connection.
This isn't a secular justification.
You also go on to say that your personal beliefs give you different views.
This is all understandable for your own behaviour. Not for others. Not for the state. Nor is it appropriate in a debate - unless you plan on convincing us of those beliefs.

Let's see...if you saw a bunch of people hauling children across the street in order to kill them, and it happened to be LEGAL to do this, would you be quiet about it? Would you consider the argument of "well, you don't need to go kill children...it's not your business what we do" a good one?

I could give counterexamples.
"Let's see.. if you saw a bunch of Jews living in your town, how dare they, LEGALLY no less, would you be quiet about it?"
Would this example justify an anti-semetic killing Jews? No. Of course not, it'd still be morally absurd.

Whether or not someone should haul and kill children is a separate matter to one's individual beliefs. It is something that can be shown to be bad without appealing to any individual's beliefs and is entirely secular and based on known facts. Not saying "I believe that this tree has a soul, therefore you may not cut it down".

What if you believed it was right? (in either scenario)
Would that change anything and make anyone justified? Of course not.

[1213]

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.

Allegedly Nickolas Coke lived three years without brain. What do you think, did he have soul? What do you think his parents would answer?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -life.html

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 61 by dianaiad]

I had a few responses typed up, but I'm just not sure what your arguments actually are. Here's some of the angles:

1) What do you mean by the "specific individual"?

I mean; 'specific individual.' As in "this individual has this set of DNA instructions, and except for an identical twin, no other individual has that specific set of DNA instructions."

... why are DNA instructions important?

The personality isn't set (in this sense). Their thoughts, memories, likes & dislikes. Who they will be isn't determined.

Those things are not determined a birth, either, but I notice that killing a newborn isn't considered justifiable because those things aren't set yet.

Once again, you're looking at this the wrong way.
When someone says abortion is justified because they aren't yet developed in this, they mean there isn't yet a justification to object to it.

I consider consciousness and personality to be valuable.
I have seen no grounds for thinking there could be reason to object to an embryo being killed.

Here is an anecdote: a true story, as it happens, that I think completely explains both my attitude and my objections to the cynicism and sophistry involved in the position your post reflects.

This happened in 1838, at a place called Haun's Mill, immediately after Governor Boggs of Missourri issued his Extermination Order (hey, don't look at me, HE called it that) against the Mormons. The incident I'm going to tell you about happened at a little place called Haun's Mill.

A group of armed men attacked the small town and killed nineteen men and boys, shooting through the chinks of the blacksmith's shop where they were hiding. The women hid in the woods while the men drew the fire, not that this helped all the women...but again, that's beside the point.

One of the nineteen killed was a nine year old named Sardius Smith. He was dragged out from under the forge, where he had been hiding after he saw his father killed and a brother shot through the hip. The man who got him put a gun to his head and, quite literally, blew his brains out, saying that 'nits make lice, and if he'd have lived he'd have become a damned Mormon."

That was excuse enough.

I think exactly the same thing about those who figure that it's OK to abort fetuses because they aren't born yet, or breathe yet, or whatever developmental milestone it is that has been arbitrarily set in order to say 'well, this fetus hasn't got here yet, so we can kill it."

Nits make lice, after all.

The reality is, the REASON those fetuses are killed is so they will NOT be born and become adults, eventually.

Nits make lice.

If you want to call this a tautology...well, yes, I suppose it is. But the fallacy isn't on the part of those who point out that a fetus WILL become an adult unless it dies first. It's on the part of those who use 'but they aren't adults yet, so it's permissible to kill them"

Or as you put it 'there is no objection to killing them."

Well, there are a few objections, and one of them is the sheer fallacious nature of the 'but they don't have....(insert some milestone that they WILL reach if they aren't killed) so it's OK to kill them now, since once they reach that milestone it won't be."

The thing is, if it is not permissible to kill a human child, newborn or adult simply because that person is inconvenient to those responsible for his or her care and feeding, than it is not permissible to kill that individual at any point on the developmental journey.