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...

[connermt]

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...

There will be a lot of 'answers' and 'proofs' supplied but the absolute truth is that we don't know - we don't know if a soul exists, what it is, or when its acquired.
I would submit that anyone who has ever worked closely with animals knows that, if souls do exists, there seems to be human souls and animals souls. In other words, the 'soul' isn't unique to the human species - if it exists at all.
But when do we 'get it' assuming it does exist? No one knows.
Though I would contend that the death of the body has no impact on the soul at all, so the question of 'when is abortion ok?'. In regards to when we get a soul, it doesn't matter since the death of the body has zero impact on the existence of the soul and thus, makes the question ultimately pointless in the abortion discussion.

[Zzyzx]

.

At what point does the human fetus acquire a soul?

There is absolutely no assurance that humans possess a "soul" as a fetus, a child or an adult.

The concept of a "soul" is a religious proposition that has not been shown to be anything other than imagination, conjecture, wishful thinking, or opinion (ancient or modern).

[dianaiad]

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...

The question is; when does the spirit enter the body, if one is a theist. Or...'when does life begin?' if one is not;

The answer is...we don't know.

That said, you are expressing an attitude that I have never been able to understand. Have you heard of 'Blackstone's formula?" It is one of the most important bases upon which our justice system rests:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

It is 'innocent until proven guilty." We, as a modern society, hold to the above ideal.

Yet when it comes to this issue, a literal matter of life and death, y'all have tuned it upside down: 'guilty until proven innocent,"

that is, you are finding excuses to kill off humans if it might possibly be argued that they aren't 'really' alive, or human, or 'have a soul,' or 'have brain function,' or whatever excuse you wish to use, as if it can be automatically assumed that unborn humans are not humans (and not worthy of life) until they can somehow prove that they are.

When in reality, the 'we don't know" should be a signal for the OPPOSITE view. It shouldn't be "we'll kill 'em off unless they can prove that they are alive," but "we shouldn't kill any of them for fear we will end the life of a human who is alive."

And this idea that it's OK to kill a fetus if it doesn't have brain function...when the only thing that will keep it from having brain function is killing it...is the most egregiously nasty piece of sophistry I have ever encountered. It is EXACTLY like the guy on trial for murdering his parents pleading for mercy from the court because he's an orphan.

Circular, and particularly nastily circular reasoning.

[Jashwell]

Actually, we're certain that foetus' don't and can't feel or think consciously at that stage.
You can say "there might be a soul" as much as you like, but it's no more evidenced than bacteria having souls, but we kill them in their millions.

Foetuses that undergo abortions do not have a developed brain and do not have developed pain sensors.

The pain system is generally developed at around 26 weeks.
And the actual experience of pain requires more than that - development of the brain and as importantly development of the mind. The mind only develops outside of the womb.

(Source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/)


As much as those believing in a soul would like to say the jury isn't out - it is. It is no more reasonable to believe that a human ever will have a soul or that a soul can exist then to believe that a car can have a soul.
It is an aberration of parsimony, and one that not only requires the existence of an unnecessary entity (like a car soul) but certainly violates the a portion of laws we know - and can only be made of stuff that itself has the same problem.

Even if a large religious majority believe in a soul, many developed western countries (the UK and America among others) are secular. Personal beliefs have no influence in the positions a secular state takes based on truths. If you are a religious majority within a secular state, you will have to accept that the current evidence suggests a soul does not exist. Hence the state doesn't need to address anything about souls because there is no reason to believe in them.

There are actually many reasons to believe a soul doesn't exist which are eminently reasonable to anyone without a confirmation bias - the large size of human brains (and hence skulls) is the main reason that more human mothers die in childbirth than other similar species. Yet those who believe in a soul think the brain is useless - redundant - or worse, have some kind of halfway "antennae" idea about it. If the brain does perform consciousness/emotion/calculation&logic/etc, then we can expect not to see those in the afterlife. If it doesn't, then the brain shouldn't have evolved - all it does is increase mortality rates and use up large supplies of water.
This is one of a few reasons - redundant brain, brain damage, split brain patients, unobservable multiplication of entities, effect of drugs on the mind, lack of context in which souls can exist.


Even if foetuses were conscious, and could feel pain, it would still be the right of the mother to abort. The mother is providing life support for the foetus, and it is her right to decide she doesn't want to. Certainly in cases where the foetus' development could harm or kill the mother, the mother should have the right to abort. That much shouldn't be so much as disputed.

[dianaiad]

.....

Your list of claims regarding when a fetus can feel pain, or have brain function, or anything else, though possibly accurate, is also irrelevant to my argument.

It doesn't matter when such things happen. If the only thing preventing brain function and pain receptors is death, then arguing that it is acceptable to kill BECAUSE there is no brain function..yet...or pain receptors...yet...is circular and specious.

As well, the argument I am making is this: just as it is better to allow ten guilty men to go free than it is to convict one innocent man (a principle upon which our justice system is founded) it is better to allow ten fetuses without souls to live than to kill even one that has one. (substitute 'brain function' or 'pain receptors' or whatever you want here for 'soul')

The only difference here is that with fetuses, whatever excuse you use to excuse killing them (no brain function, etc.) disappears with time. A fetus WILL have brain function...if it doesn't die first.

Even if foetuses were conscious, and could feel pain, it would still be the right of the mother to abort. The mother is providing life support for the foetus, and it is her right to decide she doesn't want to. Certainly cases where the foetus' development could harm or kill the mother, the mother should have the right to abort.

Uh huh...

The mother had the absolute right to not get pregnant in the first place. There is very, very little excuse for an unwanted pregnancy, not with the state of contraception available now. In every single case of consensual sex, the woman voluntarily and willingly takes an action that nature has designed for the production of babies...and it's not the fault of the fetus that it was conceived. Why give that new human the death penalty for something his or her mother did?

As well, yes, Mom is providing 'life support...' but she CHOSE that. SHE chose to take the gamble, and the consequences of that gamble. I refuse to believe that her right to her jollies is more important than her child's right to exist, when she invited that existence herself.

BTW....such an argument is dangerous...and has been used, in almost precisely those words, to justify the right of a parent to kill his or her children after their births...up to whatever their society considered to be adulthood. I rather doubt that this would be an argument you would wish to make...except that you just did.

As for the life and health of the mother? That's different. When the choice is to lose the baby or both the mother AND the baby, it's a tragedy, not a choice. To include such a situation in the 'she has the right to abort just because' is to dismiss the very real suffering mothers who must make that particular choice go through. For them it's not 'pro-choice.' It's a heart breaking necessity.

And not the same situation at all.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 5 by Jashwell]

All parents provide life support to their children. Ergo all children and dependants can be aborted.the state provides for everyone so it can kill anyone as well. Yuck.

Honestly life begins at conception and ends at death. When did that get complicated?

Assuming we have souls then I think conception is about the time we get them.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 7 by Wootah]

Of course children can live without their parents.
Adoption, for instance.
Not only do they not need their specific parents - which is the point I was making (not allowing abortion is similar to forcing adoption) - but what they need is not parents at all, but what their parents provide. (Though a parent is apparently more conducive to a better life)
Killing a child isn't the same as removing the support you give for them. To make such a bad emotionally conductive analogy just makes it seem like there aren't many good arguments on your side.

Foetus' literally need their mothers to survive in most cases.
I wouldn't complain if there was a painless and equally cost effective procedure that instead removed the foetus and supported it with a machine until it was adopted.

"Honestly life begins at conception and ends at death. When did that get complicated? "
.. what about the sperm and the egg?
Are they not alive?
Do they die in the process?
Do they get souls?



What about split brain patients? Do they get two souls? Does one personality not get a soul?

[enaidealukal]

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...

It sounds like you're asking for a reasoned explanation/defense of a belief that is fundamentally unreasonable.

[Zzyzx]

.
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." That ancient religion promoters may have expressed opinions and told stories, and that some religious doctrine, tradition and dogma assumes / presupposes a "soul" does not establish any truth in the matter.

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