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...
Abortion and the "soul"
Moderator: Moderators
-
agnosticatheist
- Banned
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm
-
enaidealukal
- Apprentice
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:25 pm
- Location: US
Re: Abortion and the "soul"
Post #22[Replying to post 1 by agnosticatheist]
My view,
I believe *the soul* has more to do with the concept of "individuality" than it does some spiritual aspect of what we may or may not consist of in a metaphysical sense. The scriptures say "... and God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul...".
To me this says that man is dust without the breath of God and that the soul is non existent until the breath is added. Consequently when the breath departs at death the soul becomes once again non-existent. In other words, as one lives and breathes he IS (not has) a soul. At death the man returns to the dust from which he came and the breath returns to God who gave it.
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. 2) There exists methods of preventing pregnancy. If the methods are practiced pregnancy in most cases would be prevented and the abortion question becomes irrelevant. In the case where the methods fail then I would defer back to the clear intent of nature, or nature's God which in my mind would trump the wishes of the mother.
This is my view when it comes to the majority of circumstances that result in pregnancies whether they are wanted or not. Of course there are certain rare instances in which this question becomes extremely hard...like when it is TRULY a choice between life of mother and life of child. Too hard for me, in fact. Hope that's a bridge I never have to cross.
My view,
I believe *the soul* has more to do with the concept of "individuality" than it does some spiritual aspect of what we may or may not consist of in a metaphysical sense. The scriptures say "... and God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul...".
To me this says that man is dust without the breath of God and that the soul is non existent until the breath is added. Consequently when the breath departs at death the soul becomes once again non-existent. In other words, as one lives and breathes he IS (not has) a soul. At death the man returns to the dust from which he came and the breath returns to God who gave it.
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. 2) There exists methods of preventing pregnancy. If the methods are practiced pregnancy in most cases would be prevented and the abortion question becomes irrelevant. In the case where the methods fail then I would defer back to the clear intent of nature, or nature's God which in my mind would trump the wishes of the mother.
This is my view when it comes to the majority of circumstances that result in pregnancies whether they are wanted or not. Of course there are certain rare instances in which this question becomes extremely hard...like when it is TRULY a choice between life of mother and life of child. Too hard for me, in fact. Hope that's a bridge I never have to cross.
-
dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Post #23
No. I'm not joking. It is the only difference. The DNA 'map' is the same for both. The only thing...and I do mean the ONLY thing that keeps a freshly conceived human being from becoming a human adult is the death of that individual. It's not going to turn into a duck.enaidealukal wrote:dianaiad wrote: After all, that IS the only difference between a freshly conceived human and a human adult; age.
You're joking, right?
It doesn't matter whether that death occurs in the womb when this individual is only 2 cells along, or whether it occurs the night before puberty, it's still the death of THAT individual.
All other 'differences' are simply descriptions of the stage of development and have absolutely nothing to do with the basic status of that individual AS the unique being he or she is.
Re: Abortion and the "soul"
Post #24My answer would depend on what your definition of "soul" is. I define the soul as mind, will and emotions. In that context I would say it is fully received at approximately 21 years of age when the pre-frontal cortex is fully developed.agnosticatheist wrote: 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...
If you mean "spirit" I would say it is at the moment of conception but that is just my opinion.
What does interest me is the people who think murder is defined as merely illegal killing. I find this scary and hope it is not a widely held opinion. History has demonstrated that educated, reasonable, western societies have walked this dark path before.
Then again this might explain why millions of unborn children are being killed today.
Re: Abortion and the "soul"
Post #25[Replying to post 24 by AdHoc]
In what ways is a spirit distinguishable from nothing (what is a spirit), & murder IS illegal killing. (If you think a certain killing is wrong, calling it murder is the wrong thing to do)
In what ways is a spirit distinguishable from nothing (what is a spirit), & murder IS illegal killing. (If you think a certain killing is wrong, calling it murder is the wrong thing to do)
Re: Abortion and the "soul"
Post #26In no way is a spirit distinguishable from nothing. A spirit is immaterial just like a mind or a thought or an idea.Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 24 by AdHoc]
In what ways is a spirit distinguishable from nothing (what is a spirit),
Really? So the people who killed the Jews and Slavs and homosexuals in Nazi Germany weren't murdering? These people were labeled "subhuman" and it was legal to kill them.Jashwell wrote:& murder IS illegal killing. (If you think a certain killing is wrong, calling it murder is the wrong thing to do)
That's really the key to get around murder for these people. Call the certain group of people you want to legally kill "not human" and then its not murder.
I'm going to have to disagree.
Re: Abortion and the "soul"
Post #27[Replying to post 26 by AdHoc]
Killing people can be bad, it doesn't need to be murder to be bad.
In Nazi Germany, the holocaust was not murder, it was execution. This is a fact that needs to be got over - any implications you wish "murder" to have fall short of its definition.
Yes, the holocaust was utterly terrible. No, the holocaust in Nazi Germany wasn't murder.
What you are doing is like calling the murder of two people a massacre. Yes, a massacre is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean if it's not a massacre that it isn't still a bad thing
Killing people can be bad, it doesn't need to be murder to be bad.
In Nazi Germany, the holocaust was not murder, it was execution. This is a fact that needs to be got over - any implications you wish "murder" to have fall short of its definition.
Yes, the holocaust was utterly terrible. No, the holocaust in Nazi Germany wasn't murder.
What you are doing is like calling the murder of two people a massacre. Yes, a massacre is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean if it's not a massacre that it isn't still a bad thing
Re: Abortion and the "soul"
Post #28[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?
If you actually think a spirit is nothing, then a spirit demonstrably doesn't exist.
Something exists, therefore nothing does not exist.
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?
If you actually think a spirit is nothing, then a spirit demonstrably doesn't exist.
Something exists, therefore nothing does not exist.
Re: Abortion and the "soul"
Post #29Wow you're going to dig in on that hlll and try to actually defend it?Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 26 by AdHoc]
Killing people can be bad, it doesn't need to be murder to be bad.
In Nazi Germany, the holocaust was not murder, it was execution. This is a fact that needs to be got over - any implications you wish "murder" to have fall short of its definition.
Ok so you don't think it was murder it was "execution". What is the moral difference in your opinion? Is that like saying "killing the unborn isn't murder its abortion"? When some states execute murderers are they committing a similar act as Hitler and his SS?
This really isn't a question or arithmetic its a question of conscience.Jashwell wrote: Yes, the holocaust was utterly terrible. No, the holocaust in Nazi Germany wasn't murder.
What you are doing is like calling the murder of two people a massacre. Yes, a massacre is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean if it's not a massacre that it isn't still a bad thing
Deep down I think we all know its murder and I submit thats why we don't want to talk about it.
-
agnosticatheist
- Banned
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm
Re: Abortion and the "soul"
Post #30I think it is best to keep murder as a law-related/focused word. Murder is the act of illegally killing someone.AdHoc wrote:What does interest me is the people who think murder is defined as merely illegal killing. I find this scary and hope it is not a widely held opinion. History has demonstrated that educated, reasonable, western societies have walked this dark path before.
Then again this might explain why millions of unborn children are being killed today.
Some would argue that there is a moral standard that is a greater/higher authority than the legal system of any given location in the universe.
Maybe there is a word that refers to immoral killing that I am not thinking of. Or, maybe, we need to invent a word that refers to immoral killing. Either way, we need to keep illegal killing and immoral killing separate, because they are not one and the same.
There are 4 categories of killing when considering legality and morality:
1: Legal killing
2: Illegal killing
3: Moral killing
4: Immoral killing
-There can be legal killing that is moral
-There can be legal killing that is immoral
-There can be illegal killing that is moral
-There can be illegal killing that is immoral
