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]

That's the disconnect right there. How is a fetus NOT 'living?" It certainly fits any and all definitions of being a living, distinct, organism...a human being.

A living breathing human has more value than a clump of cells that has roughly a 30% chance of being born.

Define 'value."

"Living" is not the word you should be getting hung up on. Is E. Coli not living? Have you ever swatted a mosquito? I'm sure you are not arguing for protecting all living things. For this reason I acknowledge the disconnect, but reject you having a point just because we can call something "living".

Not even if they are Mormon. Next I fear you will also want to kill the Beatles over the topic of being able to choose to carry a fetus or not.

I'm sorry about what happened to some Mormons in the early 1800's, but I don't see what that has to do with my daughters for example having the ability to choose to carry a fetus to term or not.

That example wasn't about Mormons, just because it happened to Mormons. It was about the reason used to kill the nine year old. The killer took Sardius' life for exactly the same reason that abortions are done; to prevent him from 'becoming' what he was 'going to become."

I don't understand how that is relevant when the argument is to not allow a woman the choice to carry a fetus or not.

You don't feel that a woman carrying a fetus should be allowed to decide to not carry it, correct? What does a despicable hateful act done to Mormans in the early 1800's have to do with woman making this decision or not?

She absolutely has the right to decide not to carry a child.

Before she has the consensual sex that produces one.

Once that human exists, then her choice is made.

I also argue that Sardius was not killed simply because he would become a Mormon. There was a "war" after all.
For example:
In the eyes of many non-Mormon citizens (including Alexander Doniphan),[11] these settlements outside of Caldwell County were a violation of the compromise.[21] Mormons felt that the compromise only excluded major settlements in Clay County and Ray County, not Daviess County and Carroll County.[22]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with why this man killed this child.

The earlier settlers saw expansion of Mormon communities outside of Caldwell County as a political and economic threat.[1] In Daviess County, where Whigs and Democrats had been roughly evenly balanced, Mormon population reached a level where they could determine election results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War_(1838)

If I became an atheist, my views on abortion would be the same, and as for your daughters....I'd tell them the same thing I told mine. I raised MY daughters to understand how special a bond sex is, and that the reason for, and the product of, sex is children. If it's not for the direct production of children, it's for the cementing of the bond between parents.

And I would tell my daughters that I feel your statement is naive and site examples of people getting pregnant even though they used protection. I would of course encourage them to be smart about sex, but I will acknowledge that birth control can fail and pregnancies can happen without intercourse.

Birth control fails ONLY when the person using it is irresponsible and/or not paying attention and/or forgetting to use it.

The pill or an implant, plus a condom, used properly?

Ain't gonna fail. Period. Another immaculate conception is far more likely.

In other words, the 'birth control method' doesn't fail. The person failed to use the birth control method correctly.

I also told them what I would tell your daughters: you have the absolute right to decide whether you want to be pregnant. Your choice. Make it...and do what needs to be done about it...BEFORE you have sex.

Would you also tell them that birth control can fail? What would you tell them if they were using birth control and it failed and they became pregnant? Would you then change your stance?

No.

......and I'd get to be a grandmother, if their decision is the same as mine would be.

think not and therefore reject your claim above about it being an "absolute right". It cannot be absolute like you claim when birth control can fail and pregnancies can happen without intercourse.

"Pregancies can happen without intercourse?" Only when a deity gets involved...or modern science deliberately interfering.

If you mean that pregnancy can happen without complete penetration, OK, but that's being a bit silly, IMO....when you get that far, you'd better STILL be using birth control.

Once you have actually conceived...it's not all about you, then, is it? Someone else is there; someone you invited into being. Deal with it, and 'killing' that new being simply because you weren't careful enough with birth control is not an option.

I disagree, there is no "someone" yet. You also fail to address the times when the conception was not invited. You may be able to look past these scenarios, but they are glaring to me and I feel they should be considered.

If the sex is consensual, it was 'invited.'

The bold above is the dictating I keep referring to. I may agree with the statement on a personal level, but uttering such a thing to another human is stepping past their nose (where your rights end IMO).

What, I don't have the right to attempt to convince others? I have to just SHUT UP about it, while those who are pro-abortion have the right to not only say what they want, but pressure those who become pregnant into HAVING one....as I was four out of my five pregnancies?

Again...nowadays there is NO excuse, especially in the USA where birth control is both easily obtained and cheap, for an unwanted pregnancy as a result of consensual sex.

Only if we forget failed birth control, rape or pregnancies that happen without full on intercourse.

I keep putting the word "consensual" in there. A Lot. What part of rape is consensual?

Birth control does not fail. People fail to use it correctly. Used correctly, and with multiple forms...it's not going to fail.

......and if anybody thinks that a woman's vagina can be anywhere within six inches of male ejaculate without some danger of pregnancy really needs some better education...and the use of decent birth control.

So I must reject your "NO excuse":
- if you or your partner have semen or pre-ejaculate on your fingers and touch your vagina.
- your partner ejaculates near your vagina.
- your partner’s erect penis comes into contact with your body near your vagina.
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/975.aspx?CategoryID=54

I cannot imagine that you are ignorant of this, so I'm left to wonder why you disregard it and claim "NO excuse" and then qualify it further with, "None".

Because there is no excuse.

I have felt this way for awhile, but now?

I am taking a form of thalidomide, every day. Remember that stuff? The stuff that causes such severe birth defects in children?

Now I'm 65 years old. I've been a widow for 20 years and trust me, I don't date. I STILL have to go through training, sign paperwork and promise, every six months, that I will use specific forme of birth control if I even consider having sex or am at risk for becoming pregnant.

The women who actually ARE at risk for pregnancy have even more restrictions. The forms of birth control that the lenalidomide people require, as 100% effective, are the pill plus condoms or implants plus condoms.

As in, really.

There is no excuse.

[Jashwell]

Whether or not the labels "human", "being", "living", apply is beyond the point. Would you seriously argue that species-ism is the reason for which we value humans the most? What is important is what part of the label conveys these values.
Why should we treat a bundle of cells both without conciousness and capability of moral learning one way, but different bundles of cells another, purely because of the DNA they contain?

You keep saying "but they will be an adult if they don't die beforehand", yes, by definition.
Just like a building about to be built will be built unless it's not built.
Does that statement convey any of the value the building will have?

There is not sufficient good reason to consider abortion immoral.

[Bust Nak]

I don't understand, really, how you CAN see it as just 'a blob of human tissue."

Right, but you could understand why we feel the way we do, had it been just a blob of human tissue?

To me, it is a devaluation of everything human; it's arbitrary. An excised appendix is a 'blob of human tissue,' but it will never become a grown up human adult.

Human is not valuable by default, I've personally thrown a bunch of human bits in the trash can just last night. You meant human being, so say human being, because the "being" (or personhood in the non-legal, moral sense) is what is significant, the species part is not being debated. Sure, birth is arbitrary point, but no more arbitrary as picking conception.

A conceptus will.

If it doesn't die/you don't kill it first.

Again, something that would happen naturally if you leave it alone, is not a justification for leaving it alone in itself. In fact, if that something that would eventually happen is undesirable, it is all the more reason to do something about it before it happens. Which incidently is why I found your Sardius comments so odd, what is objectionable with his killing, isn't the justification given, it is that a child was killed; the justification given didn't make the killing any better or worse.

......and while 'person' is a legal concept, "human' and 'being' are NOT legal concepts. There's no squishiness about either 'human' or 'being,'

No squashiness about 'human' sure, but 'being' is very squashy, sentience develop gradually, and according to science, aren't nearly operational until 3 years after birth. You want to appeal to science? You will push into infanticide territory.

There is no medical or scientific point at which everyone can look at and say 'here it is a human" and "here it isn't."

Exactly, science/medicine is silent on what makes a human being, so you are as much without scientific justification as we are.

From the time the egg and sperm meet and that human is on the path to adulthood, it is HUMAN. more, it is A human.

It is human at even before conception. Where it is A human, is debatable, and science is not on your side there.

The only difference between a blastocyst and the human adult it will become (unless it dies first) is development and time. There's no point after that in which the ultimate result might change, so that this specific human will become something else...like a guppy. It is, and will always be, a human. The only thing that will stop it from being an adult human is death....

Sure, I get that, but you never explained why that is significant. I am sure you heard the counter-argument that the only difference between an egg and the human adult it will become (unless it dies first) is development and time. There is no point which the this egg will become something like a guppy. Why is that particular bit of development involving 23 extra chromosomes so special when sentience is what we actually care about in any other occasions?

And that is the deciding line for me. Any point along that line that you draw to say 'here it is ok to kill it, and there it isn't' is purely arbitrary, without any scientific or ethical justification.

You say that as if your deciding line isn't purely arbitrary or had scientific justification. I would argue an ethical justification based on sentient is stronger than one based on a genome. See how we deal with the brain dead for example, I assume you have no qualms about turning life support off for the brain dead.

[instantc]

You keep saying "but they will be an adult if they don't die beforehand"

I also think that's a weak argument. It's one thing to kill a person and another thing to prevent a fetus from becoming a person. If one argues that abortion is wrong on the basis that it prevents a fetus from growing into a conscious person, then they should also object to contraception on the same grounds. If one does not buy into the argument that preventing something from becoming a person is wrong, then we should focus on what the fetus is at the time of the abortion instead of what it is going to be some day.

[Clownboat]

Define 'value."

This should explain it:
I value my daughters now more than I did when they were a clump of cells. If I had to choose between saving one of my daughters, or 100's of blastocysts in my wife (for example), I would choose either one of my daughters without question.

Who would you choose in this scenario?
Dodge incoming in, 3, 2, 1 ???

She absolutely has the right to decide not to carry a child.

In your world, only before any intimacy takes place. But when an accidental pregnancy takes place, how is that having a right to not carry a fetus.

Before she has the consensual sex that produces one.

You continue to disregard the examples of pregnancies that happen without sex.
I will not ignore information just to maintain a view.

Once that human exists, then her choice is made.

I find your use of human here to be purposely misleading and disagree that her choice should be removed (I could probably get on board for term limit abortions, but to disallow a women the ability to make the decision altogether is going to far IMO).

Which has absolutely nothing to do with why this man killed this child.

I listed a couple of the given other reasons. On what grounds do you reject them?
Once again: The earlier settlers saw expansion of Mormon communities outside of Caldwell County as a political and economic threat.

Birth control fails ONLY when the person using it is irresponsible and/or not paying attention and/or forgetting to use it.

Thank you for admitting that birth control can fail. Do you not understand that humans will be irresponsible from time to time? I must assume you have failed to make perfect decisions at some time in your life? Why would you expect some humans to not be irresponsible when it comes to birth control? Or do you expect it like I do, but just have the "too bad for them attitude"? No empathy for the irresponsible in this case? I don't understand this hard line approach against people that will be irresponsible.

Either way, you only address failed birth control here. Nothing about pregnancies that happen without intercourse. (One of my closest friends has a 19 year old son now that was conceived this very way. Didn't know about the boy until he was 3 because the mother never thought it could have been his because there was zero penetration).

The pill or an implant, plus a condom, used properly?

How about we just tell these biological creatures that reproduce via sex to just not have sex and expect them all to listen. Seems about as likely as expecting them all to use numerous forms of birth control.

Ain't gonna fail. Period. Another immaculate conception is far more likely.

In other words, the 'birth control method' doesn't fail. The person failed to use the birth control method correctly.

Addressed already, but you still ignore pregnancies that happen without sex.

I also told them what I would tell your daughters: you have the absolute right to decide whether you want to be pregnant. Your choice. Make it...and do what needs to be done about it...BEFORE you have sex.

Would you also tell them that birth control can fail? What would you tell them if they were using birth control and it failed and they became pregnant? Would you then change your stance?

"Pregancies can happen without intercourse?" Only when a deity gets involved...or modern science deliberately interfering.

You are factually wrong on this point. You ignore that they happen, yet ironically allude to them being possible if something that there is no evidence for (deity) gets involved.

If you mean that pregnancy can happen without complete penetration, OK, but that's being a bit silly, IMO....when you get that far, you'd better STILL be using birth control.

It is not reasonable IMO to tell our children to not have sex, expect them to not have sex, but when they do experiment a little bit, they should be using birth control. Do you not realize that it is this unplanned experimenting that leads to some of the unwanted pregnancies?

If the sex is consensual, it was 'invited.'

Your point would only be relevant if sex was always consensual, if birth control never failed and if accidental pregnancies did not occur. It's not always consensual, birth control will not guarantee not getting pregnant and accidental pregnancies do occur. Just ask Mary.

The bold above is the dictating I keep referring to. I may agree with the statement on a personal level, but uttering such a thing to another human is stepping past their nose (where your rights end IMO).

What, I don't have the right to attempt to convince others? I have to just SHUT UP about it, while those who are pro-abortion have the right to not only say what they want, but pressure those who become pregnant into HAVING one....as I was four out of my five pregnancies?

Emotions run strong in this one.
Let's turn this around a bit. "What, I don't have the right to show you examples of the dictating I have referred to in this very thread? I have to just SHUT UP about it?"

It's odd that you jumped to this conclusion right after I said:
"I may agree with the statement on a personal level, but uttering such a thing to another human is stepping past their nose (where your rights end IMO)."

Ya, Dianaiad, that's me telling you to SHUT UP.

Birth control does not fail. People fail to use it correctly. Used correctly, and with multiple forms...it's not going to fail.

"Hey kids, don't have sex before marriage, but if you get within 6 inches of a vagina, make sure you are using multiple forms of birth control". Does this really seem like a reasonable expectation to you?

......and if anybody thinks that a woman's vagina can be anywhere within six inches of male ejaculate without some danger of pregnancy really needs some better education...and the use of decent birth control.

Do you not agree that there are plenty of people out there that don't have this six inch rule education? There are said people and you disregard them IMO. This observation should not be ignored when discussing this topic.

Because there is no excuse.

Why do you think that all sexually mature people know about this six inch rule? I see no reason to accept your claim that there is "no excuse".

I am taking a form of thalidomide, every day. Remember that stuff? The stuff that causes such severe birth defects in children?

Now I'm 65 years old. I've been a widow for 20 years and trust me, I don't date. I STILL have to go through training, sign paperwork and promise, every six months, that I will use specific forme of birth control if I even consider having sex or am at risk for becoming pregnant.

The women who actually ARE at risk for pregnancy have even more restrictions. The forms of birth control that the lenalidomide people require, as 100% effective, are the pill plus condoms or implants plus condoms.

As in, really.

There is no excuse.

Do you disagree that there are teens out there that are not aware of preseminal fluid?
I went to a Christian school. We were not educated about preseminal fluid.

Therefore, your claim that there is no excuse remains false.

[agnosticatheist]

If you insist that God (if He is the creator of all things) is responsible for everything, then what could any bad thing be BUT 'punishment?"

A: The result of God's ineptitude

B: The result of God's lack of complete control

C: The result of God's malevolent personality

D: The result of God's punishment

E: The result of God's lack of foresight

F: The result of God's lack of intelligence

G: The result of God's lack of knowledge

H, I, J, K, L, etc: Any combination of the above possibilities

No. I think we only get one go around...but I also think that...maybe...it's like someone ordering up a new car. There might be a few screwups before he gets a good one, but he still only gets one.

If a soul gets a body, the body is destroyed due to an abortion, and then the soul gets a new body, isn't that reincarnation?

Now THAT is speculation of the wildest sort

You think? Haha

I'm certainly not going to base my decisions regarding 'right to life' on it.

Good idea. What don't you apply the same idea to the other aspects of spirituality and religion?

What if that's not how it works, and each conceptus does indeed 'have a spirit' that doesn't get a second chance?

What if we really ARE ending a fully formed soul when we abort?

Ending it as in wiping it from all forms of existence, across all realities (Our universe, Heaven, etc)? Speaking from personal experience, we would be doing them a favor. I wish that I had never existed. The story behind why I wish this is complicated. It's not your typical "I hate life" rant.

...........whether you wonder 'what if it really is a human being,' or 'what if it really has a spirit,' the logic is the same; I choose to err on the side of 'just in case we might be killing a human being...or one with a spirit, whatever, it's best not to kill it. "

Ok. Let me ask you this: Assuming the fetus does get a soul at conception, so what if one aborts the fetus? What's the worst that could happen to the spirit? The spirit gets to bypass the cluster**** that is this universe and go straight to Heaven? Or it gets blinked out of existence and it doesn't even matter because it doesn't even exist anymore?

Y'know, if a SWAT team is about to enter a building, unless they absolutely KNOW that there are no innocent children in there, they don't go in shooting. Why? Because there might be. They don't shrug it off with 'well, there might not be any children in there, so let's go ahead and shoot the place up."

This probably depends on circumstances. Still, I see your point if we assume a soul exists, and assume that a soul has value. With that said, I will refer you to my last paragraph.

We don't KNOW about the spirit/soul connection; when it happens or why things are the way they are, spiritually. Because we don't know, we can't assume that it's OK to abort because those tiny humans don't have one; what if they do?

WE can't assume that they do, either....we can't assume anything at all here.

All we can do, from my POV, is work to give them the best chance possible, and not make their existence, once started, utterly impossible.

Again, "they" haven't begun to exist yet. The part of the human that supposedly gives them value, according to many different religions, isn't even present yet. And that's talking about the noticeable, provable stuff, which is the only potential indicator of there being a soul, at least according to the contentions of theists.

Good grief. What ARE the 'physical indicators' of having a spirit? Most non-believers don't see any physical indicators of that in fully grown adults, for crying out loud!

From the OP:

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.

You keep saying your position isn't based on religious reasoning, but I think your position probably can still be traced to religious reasoning.

No, actually, it can't. Indeed, my position on abortion is a bit more strict than that of my church.

I do apologize if I have missed what your position is based on/can be traced to. Could you explain what your reasoning is?

Why MUST my position on abortion be religious? Why can't it not be?

Because, it *seems* that you are arguing that abortion is wrong. While morality is becoming increasingly possible to be discussed in a secular context, questions of right and wrong are still primarily the realm of religion.

That depends entirely on her belief system. I'm concerned about what her baby has to lose; his or her life.

Fair enough, but until the fetus has stuff that people claim make humans valuable, it's just another organism.

Again, what 'indicators" would those be?

Refer to my comment above about the OP.

A housefly, crocodile, etc., are not humans.

A human fetus is. A human, that is. Of course, if you are one of those who don't feel that humans have any more value than crocodiles, then the argument is moot.

Are you serious?

We haven't been talking about the fetus being a human in the biological sense. This whole debate is over the spiritual aspect of a human, i.e. the soul.

Let's go back to basics here.

If you ask a theist why it is wrong to kill a human, there's several different ways that might go in order to answer your question. They might tell you it's because the human has objective worth. If you ask them why this is, they would tell you it's because the human has a soul. If you ask them what indicates that the human has a soul, they would list stuff like personality, awareness/consciousness, self-awareness, emotions, memory, moral reasoning, deciding to love God or reject God, etc.

None of that stuff is possible at least until brain activity starts in the fetus. And even then, a lot of the stuff I listed in the last paragraph don't show up until later on in the development of the human.

So, until at least one of those components is present, from a value standpoint, the fetus has no more worth than a housefly, crocodile, etc.

It could have more worth one day. But it technically does not have more worth if one contends that:

A: Humans have worth
B: Humans have worth because they have a soul
C: The indicators for the presence of a soul include stuff like personality, awareness/consciousness, self-awareness, emotions, memory, moral reasoning, deciding to love God or reject God, etc.

Again: what are the 'indicators for a soul?" I have never mentioned any.

Personality, awareness/consciousness, self-awareness, emotions, memory, moral reasoning, deciding to love God or reject God, etc.

Personally, I suspect that the spirit of a person becomes at least INTERESTED upon conception.

Why do you suspect that?

Don't you see...this is exactly the same argument as "if you kill a child before it can speak/ walk/ be weaned off of breast milk/ make his or her own considered decisions/ enter puberty, where is the crime?"

You have just put the line in a slightly different point of development.

But it's the same argument, and if it isn't a good one when the line is at walking or talking, it's not a good one for 'brain function,' either.

I somewhat see the point you are making here. However, by the time a child reaches the age to where they can walk, talk, etc, they have already started to display characteristics that would indicate that they have a soul. That's not the case with a fetus that hasn't yet started producing brain activity.

If one wants to argue that:

A: Humans have worth
B: Humans have worth because they have a soul
C: The indicators for the presence of a soul include stuff like personality, awareness/consciousness, self-awareness, emotions, memory, moral reasoning, deciding to love God or reject God, etc

They would be justified in arguing that killing a child before it starts talking would be wrong if the child has started to develop a personality.

It's not "potential," when the only other option is 'dead."

Come on now, this is logic 101.

Yes, it is potential.

Before the fetus starts developing a personality, it could either:

A: Die due to natural causes before it can start producing brain activity
B: Die due to unnatural causes before it can start producing brain activity
C: Live long enough to start producing brain activity, which then allows the development of personality.

Any one of those outcomes could potentially happen. We live in a universe where events unfold uncertainly (unless you buy into determinism/pre-destination), so as long as an event is possible given the parameters provided in a certain scenario, that event can be said to have the potential to occur.

That example only applies to culture and religion. My objection to abortion has nothing to do with the validity of either to decide this matter.

Then why are you even debating in this topic?

This topic is precisely about religion.

Here was the idea in the OP:

I was assuming to be true the theist contention that humans have souls.

I was assuming to be true the theist contention that humans have worth because they have souls.

I was assuming to be true the theist contention that characteristics such as a personality, awareness/consciousness, self-awareness, emotions, memory, moral reasoning, deciding to love God or reject God, etc, can be traced to the functioning of the soul.

If the soul gives us worth/value, and characteristics which cannot be present without a brain can be traced to the soul, then there is no way of knowing if a fetus that does not produce brain activity has a soul or not.

As an add-on here, let's take the soul issue out of the debate and focus on the worth issue.

Person A: We shouldn't kill humans because they have worth.

Person B: What gives them worth?

Person A: Their humanity.

Person B: What "makes them human"? What makes them special?

Person A: Personality, awareness/consciousness, self-awareness, emotions, memory, moral reasoning, deciding to love God or reject God, etc.

Person B: If the fetus does not have at least one of the above characteristics, it doesn't have worth, and it isn't special.

[99percentatheism]

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...

What happens to the fertilized ovum IF someone does not end its growing life?

[Danmark]

What happens to the fertilized ovum IF someone does not end its growing life?

It may die of natural causes. It may may survive to birth in a condition anywhere between hideously deformed and non sentient, to normal. In any case there is no evidence it has a 'soul' under any circumstances. "Soul" is a non scientific religious concept that cannot be addressed objectively.

[99percentatheism]

What happens to the fertilized ovum IF someone does not end its growing life?

It may die of natural causes. It may may survive to birth in a condition anywhere between hideously deformed and non sentient, to normal. In any case there is no evidence it has a 'soul' under any circumstances. "Soul" is a non scientific religious concept that cannot be addressed objectively.

Yes, I am well aware of the eugenics programs and the reasoning for them.

But I wonder why a couple "grieves the loss" of a mass of cells when their baby dies in the womb?

Sorry, but many of us do not hail from your worldview.

[Danmark]

What happens to the fertilized ovum IF someone does not end its growing life?

It may die of natural causes. It may may survive to birth in a condition anywhere between hideously deformed and non sentient, to normal. In any case there is no evidence it has a 'soul' under any circumstances. "Soul" is a non scientific religious concept that cannot be addressed objectively.

Yes, I am well aware of the eugenics programs and the reasoning for them.

But I wonder why a couple "grieves the loss" of a mass of cells when their baby dies in the womb?

Sorry, but many of us do not hail from your worldview.

You are the one who brought up "eugenics."
"Grieving" a loss is something many folks do re: a football game; the fact someone 'grieves' does not mean what they grieve for has universal value.