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...

[Zzyzx]

.

Her choice, as well as the choice of her partner, needs to be made before consensual sex takes place.

That's it. Pretty simple, really.

In my opinion (and practice) a gentleman has a vasectomy to insure that he is not involved in placing a lady in danger of pregnancy.

As the urologist told me decades ago (and has proved true) "shooting blanks" is appreciated by most women. The vast majority of the time reproduction is NOT the objective of sexual activity.

[dianaiad]

.

Her choice, as well as the choice of her partner, needs to be made before consensual sex takes place.

That's it. Pretty simple, really.

In my opinion (and practice) a gentleman has a vasectomy to insure that he is not involved in placing a lady in danger of pregnancy.

As the urologist told me decades ago (and has proved true) "shooting blanks" is appreciated by most women. The vast majority of the time reproduction is NOT the objective of sexual activity.

.....and your point here is, what, exactly?

As it happens, if we go strictly on evolutionary grounds, sex is always about procreation. If not the actual production of off spring, it's about keeping the parents together long enough to care for the infant; cementing relationships.

A child raised by committed parents who love each other (and sex is a pretty big part of that) has a better chance of survival. This would hold true even for grandparents and great-grandparents.

Sex is so important a bonding agent that, once a couple is 'together,' it is seen as an incredible betrayal to go have sex with someone else without the knowledge and approval of one's partner.

But yes, if one is absolutely determined not to produce offspring, a vasectomy is a pretty good way to go.

But if I were a woman, I wouldn't trust that. I'd use birth control too, if I knew that a pregnancy is an impossible option. I'd make very, very sure I didn't get pregnant.

......and this is a woman's choice. It's one she CAN make before having sex, and one she should make before having sex. Especially if the purpose for having sex, in her mind, has nothing to do with producing a baby.

[Zzyzx]

.

.....and your point here is, what, exactly?

My point is exactly "a gentleman has a vasectomy to insure that he is not involved in placing a lady in danger of pregnancy." How could that be made any clearer?

As it happens, if we go strictly on evolutionary grounds, sex is always about procreation.

Very little in modern society is "strictly on evolutionary grounds."

If not the actual production of off spring, it's about keeping the parents together long enough to care for the infant; cementing relationships.

Evidently sex is not too effective in keeping parents together and cementing relationships – judging from high divorce rates in many societies.

A child raised by committed parents who love each other (and sex is a pretty big part of that) has a better chance of survival. This would hold true even for grandparents and great-grandparents.

That may be true if survival is in doubt. However, in modern society infants have high survival rates regardless of their parents and grandparents.

A better argument might be made for a child having greater likelihood of a successful or satisfying life when nurtured in a two-parent family with extended family supporting. However, that is not survival – AND there are no guarantees either way.

Sex is so important a bonding agent that, once a couple is 'together,' it is seen as an incredible betrayal to go have sex with someone else without the knowledge and approval of one's partner.

For SOME people sex is THAT bonding. For others it is more casual. To some extent the difference seems generational – with older people placing more emphasis on the bonding effectiveness.

But yes, if one is absolutely determined not to produce offspring, a vasectomy is a pretty good way to go.

I reached that conclusion almost forty years ago – with absolutely no regrets and only favorable reactions.

But if I were a woman, I wouldn't trust that. I'd use birth control too, if I knew that a pregnancy is an impossible option. I'd make very, very sure I didn't get pregnant.

I agree – good decision.

Addendum: A man can CLAIM that he has had a vasectomy when he has not – and believing untrue claims can pose difficulties.

......and this is a woman's choice. It's one she CAN make before having sex, and one she should make before having sex. Especially if the purpose for having sex, in her mind, has nothing to do with producing a baby.

If a person of either gender is sexually active for most of their adult life (that can total say fifty years) even if "sexually active" includes once per month, the total is 600 (and likely to be much more in many cases).

Since a little over two offspring per couple is typical and is adequate to maintain population levels, 598 of 600 incidents are non-reproductive = 0.0033

Thus, in the modern world of US society, perhaps one-third of one percent of sexual contacts is reproductive. Would anyone suggest it should be greater?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 108 by AdHoc]

I mean generally, not a specific embryo (ie your own).
The fact you're trying to conceive wouldn't mean you value someone else's embryo - you want your own.
Though even then it isn't quite the same as valuing a human life - though I accept that in late stages (i.e a few or several months in) that the parents may have done so much planning, and the mother's instinct might mean they subjectively value the foetus above other's.

Why should people value embryos in general?

How about...because every living person (legal definition) was once an embryo that survived that most dangerous time, the time in the womb.

Depending what you mean by once, I was also part of a rock and part of the air.
What we were doesn't affect current value.

Human embryos will become newborn infants who will become children who will become adolescents who will become adults.

the ONLY thing that will prevent a human conceptus from becoming that human adult is death.

The ONLY thing that will prevent a human embryo from becoming that dead human embryo is life.

Why would that matter?

I contend that a human conceptus has, from the instant of conception, one, single, right; the right not to be killed simply because its existence is not wanted.

Other rights may be assigned later, as that conceptus survives and develops, just as we allow civil rights to be assigned according to age after the child is born.

But that, one, single right is, and should remain, attached to a human, whether it is still a single, or double, celled bit of DNA mapping, or up through his or her entire living existence: the right not to be killed simply because someone else finds his or her simple existence to be inconvenient.

Should Cancer get the right to live? It's formerly human, it's currently 'human', it's going to grow if it's not killed, it's got the DNA of an 'individual'...

None of the arguments you've given:
Distinguish between humans and other species (if substituted)
Distinguish between conception and pre-conception - i.e. the moment the sperm is on a certain course for the egg
Use any features of the embryo

[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?

Why does it matter? If they don't get a second chance due to no fault of their own, I don't see how they could be held accountable by a fair and just God. If there are any issues to worry about in this case, it is the fate of the one, or ones, who chose to abort the fetus before the soul had a chance to be free will tested.

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.

[the_human_being]

[Replying to agnosticatheist]

Since your handle implies atheist, I marvel at your even asking the question.

The simple truth is that the only one actually capable of answering your question is God himself. Medical science cannot answer the "soul" question, it can only offer conjecture and argument. As is also the case of the clergy. Neither are anyone else qualified.

It appears to me that your real purpose, since you obviously are intelligent to know yourself that the very subject of "soul" is cause for much debate, is that you are seeking some form or excuse or justification for abortion.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 116 by the_human_being]

You don't need an excuse for something that isn't wrong.
Even if there are people who think it is.
They need to show why it's wrong.

I don't know about medical science, but science can answer the soul question, and the answer is not "there may well be a soul" any more than "there may be dragons". Even if it were plausible - it's not - so long as it is not demonstrated, it is not a valid objection.

It's like if you claimed that stating "I don't believe in faries" should be illegal on the off chance that it does in fact kill faries.

[the_human_being]

[Replying to post 116 by the_human_being]

You don't need an excuse for something that isn't wrong.
Even if there are people who think it is.
They need to show why it's wrong.

I don't know about medical science, but science can answer the soul question, and the answer is not "there may well be a soul" any more than "there may be dragons". Even if it were plausible - it's not - so long as it is not demonstrated, it is not a valid objection.

It's like if you claimed that stating "I don't believe in faries" should be illegal on the off chance that it does in fact kill faries.

Ok. I'm intrigued. Post a link whereby science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt when an embryo gains its soul.

The actual definition of a soul is a nephesh or "living creature" according to the Bible which gives the actual written account of creation, unlike the theory of evolution which is a theory and provides no written account whether factual or supposed. Even cattle, dogs, etc., are souls.

[the_human_being]

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 have already arrived at the answer to your question, why ask it?

[the_human_being]

[Replying to post 117 by Jashwell]

Why do people who believe it is wrong need to show you why they think it is wrong? It's your post. You brought it up, they didn't.