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 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

When you can show me a cancer that, in and of itself, will eventually grow to be a sentient human with the ability to make decisions and live independently of its host, you can talk to me.

In the meantime, your argument is, especially given who you addressed this to, illogical in the extreme.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 118 by the_human_being]

"the answer is not "there may well be a soul" any more than "there may be dragons""
Post a link to where I say "science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt when an embryo gains its soul"

The fact is that modern theology does not think soul merely means living creature, nor do the majority of Christians.

The idea of a soul is unparsimonious, unnecessary and the way most people think of it contradicts with known facts about psychology, neurology and other fields.
Split brain patients for instance.

Though it's not unusual to see someone completely miss the point. Show where science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are no dragons.. Show where science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there aren't fairies that die when disebelief in them is expressed.

Souls have the same scientific grounding as such things as UFO abductions, dragons, faries, santa claus, the world being more or less flat when people aren't taking photographs or looking from high up, the world being hollow.
I happen to believe that it is reasonable to believe those things don't exist.

Not that my positive case matters - the more pressing issue is whether or not we know they exist - i.e. belief in them existing vs no belief in them existing. Not belief in them being entirely fictional vs no belief in that, and not belief vs belief.

It is unreasonable to believe in souls by which I mean contrary to good reason. Parsimony is good reason, for instance. Lack of expected observations is another.

Evolution isn't remotely related. It's not even the same branch of sciences.
If you want to explain that you don't believe in newly drug resistant bacteria, which would by definition prove the existence of evolution, then do it in one of the evolution topics in Science & Religion.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 121 by dianaiad]

Are you saying that all of your other arguments are unsound or that all of your other points are necessary qualifiers for that one single argument?

[dianaiad]

[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.

You are begging the question.

Besides, it is not for the 'pro-life' folks to show why it's wrong..."pro-life' is a position of 'let this human try to live and be born." It is the pro-abortion position that requires the justification, because it is the pro-abortion folks who want to actually do something; that is, kill that human. The 'positive' claim is always the one requiring support.

So I say...it is your job to show me why it is 'OK" to kill that human who is doing nothing but what his or her mother invited him or her to do; exist.

So...why is it OK to kill it? There are times when abortion is a tragic necessity, I'll concede; the same times for which it is permissible to kill a 'born' human; self defense, as when the life of the mother is at stake.

But...just 'because you can?" Please justify that position. Please justify it with something other than circular reasoning.

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 problem here is that the fetus DOES exist. A very real human life is ended...because whoever kills it doesn't want it to grow any more, or reach the state of development called 'infancy.'

I do not see that it is any more permissible to kill a fetus because you don't want it to become an infant than it is to kill an infant because you don't want it to become an adult.

So explain to me, using pure scientific methodology, why killing a fetus in the womb is ANY different from killing a newborn, and why it is acceptable to kill one and not the other.

[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.

You are begging the question.

I didn't mean it that way though I see why you'd think it.

I mean shown to be wrong, or that we don't assume it is wrong until proven otherwise.

Besides, it is not for the 'pro-life' folks to show why it's wrong..."pro-life' is a position of 'let this human try to live and be born." It is the pro-abortion position that requires the justification, because it is the pro-abortion folks who want to actually do something; that is, kill that human. The 'positive' claim is always the one requiring support.

No, this is not how the real world works - we don't seek justification for each and every action. We seek justification for regulations against actions.

Similarly, I don't ask someone to justify killing mosquitos, flies, or bacteria when they wash there hands.

So I say...it is your job to show me why it is 'OK" to kill that human who is doing nothing but what his or her mother invited him or her to do; exist.

Invite is the wrong word, and saying it like it's a punishment is also wrong.
You can say the same thing for cancer.

So...why is it OK to kill it? There are times when abortion is a tragic necessity, I'll concede; the same times for which it is permissible to kill a 'born' human; self defense, as when the life of the mother is at stake.

But...just 'because you can?" Please justify that position. Please justify it with something other than circular reasoning.

No. Because there aren't reasons to think it's wrong.
Killing a mosquito is justified. Killing a spider may be unjustified but is arguably not immoral, certainly not to the degree you hold killing an embryo.

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 problem here is that the fetus DOES exist. A very real human life is ended...because whoever kills it doesn't want it to grow any more, or reach the state of development called 'infancy.'

And the fetus' consciousness doesn't. In some stages, even it's sense of pain doesn't.
Killing a spider is seemingly less ethical than killing a three day old embryo.

I do not see that it is any more permissible to kill a fetus because you don't want it to become an infant than it is to kill an infant because you don't want it to become an adult.

So explain to me, using pure scientific methodology, why killing a fetus in the womb is ANY different from killing a newborn, and why it is acceptable to kill one and not the other.

A fetus isn't conscious, isn't currently capable of learning to the same degree, and it's going out of your way to kill a newborn.

Once again, you're taking your own argument (it will be an adult) and trying to turn it into an argument for our side that you can dissect.

It's not the mere fact that it will be an adult that justifies killing it - it's the fact that there aren't yet sufficiently good reasons to consider it immoral.


What the embryo will be doesn't affect what it is.

[Clownboat]

[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.

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.

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.

That's it.

That does not remove a woman's right to choose; she just has to make her choice a bit earlier in the process, and recognize the risks and possible consequences if she chooses to have sex.

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.

Why do you continue to disregard failed birth control and pregnancies that happen without consensual sex and sometimes without sex at all?

On top of it all, you claim it's pretty simple.

These people should have a voice, and you seem to not hear it. Because you must ignore these people in order to call it simple, I reject your claim that it is "simple" due to the fact it isn't by example.

Person A) If you don't want to drown, don't take a breath underwater.
Person B) But what if I have been thrown to the bottom of a lake with cement blocks around my legs?
Person A) Only people that breath underwater drown. If you don't want to drown, then don't breath while underwater! It's simple!
Person B) But.... never mind, you are obviously ignoring me and every person that has ever drown while trapped in their car at the bottom of a lake or river etc...

[the_human_being]

[Replying to post 6 by dianaiad]

You're just rambling on and on. You're the one who said science could prove a soul exists. Then post a link supporting it by your own definition of a soul. I presented you with my definition of a soul which is "a living creature". Since you are obviously an atheist, I should have thought you did not believe in a soul by your definition or in a "spirit" by my definition.

Had you been honest in your OP and simply stated that your purpose was simply only to begin an abortion debate I would not have responded to your OP in the beginning.

[Clownboat]

Besides, it is not for the 'pro-life' folks to show why it's wrong..."pro-life' is a position of 'let this human try to live and be born."

Pro life? I think you mean anti woman's right to choose.

This may not reflect you personally, but in my experience, the religious are not involved for pro life reasons. If they were, they need to take issue with their chosen god for creating a process that aborts nearly 70% of conceptions. Most of these are wanted conceptions. What I hear them fighting for is the unwanted conceptions where a mother decides to not carry a fetus. Then they claim to be pro life.

Does pro life mean fighting for unwanted fetuses to possibly be born? I don't think so, so anti woman's choice might be the actual better term to go by sense that seems to be the real issue.

It is the pro-abortion position that requires the justification, because it is the pro-abortion folks who want to actually do something; that is, kill that human. The 'positive' claim is always the one requiring support.

I am pro woman being able to choose to carry a fetus to term or not. If your claim is true, you should be able to tell me what it is that I actually want to do. Do you think my goal is to abort as many fetuses as possible, or can you see it for what it is to me, and that is a woman's right issue?

So I say...it is your job to show me why it is 'OK" to kill that human who is doing nothing but what his or her mother invited him or her to do; exist.

How is failed birth control or pregnancies without intercourse "inviting" a human?
Show us just how "simple" this is.

So...why is it OK to kill it? There are times when abortion is a tragic necessity, I'll concede; the same times for which it is permissible to kill a 'born' human; self defense, as when the life of the mother is at stake.

Why is it OK to kill a clump of cells? For the same reason it is not a crime to masturbate.

But...just 'because you can?" Please justify that position. Please justify it with something other than circular reasoning.

Do we really need to justify that we should be able to do what we want with our own bodies.
- Should I be allowed to get a tattoo?
- Should I be allowed to get a piercing?
- Should I be allowed to masturbate?
- Should I be allowed to remove an unwanted clump of cells from my own body?

The problem here is that the fetus DOES exist. A very real human life is ended...because whoever kills it doesn't want it to grow any more, or reach the state of development called 'infancy.'

You obviously want it to live, but what you want should not affect a woman's right to do to her body as she sees fit. Even when the topic is abortion, something I am not a personal fan of either.

I do not see that it is any more permissible to kill a fetus because you don't want it to become an infant than it is to kill an infant because you don't want it to become an adult.

Because you refuse to acknowledge the value difference that has been established. You also fail to acknowledge failed birth control and pregnancies without intercourse, so should we be surprised?

So explain to me, using pure scientific methodology, why killing a fetus in the womb is ANY different from killing a newborn, and why it is acceptable to kill one and not the other.

For the same reason we are allowed to masturbate. Your argument could be used against masturbation. "You're just moving the line as to when it's human" (paraphrased). Sperm and eggs die all the time, literally by the billions. Yet you don't seem to bat an eye because of where you have decided that the "line" has been placed.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 6 by dianaiad]

You're just rambling on and on. You're the one who said science could prove a soul exists. Then post a link supporting it by your own definition of a soul. I presented you with my definition of a soul which is "a living creature". Since you are obviously an atheist, I should have thought you did not believe in a soul by your definition or in a "spirit" by my definition.

Had you been honest in your OP and simply stated that your purpose was simply only to begin an abortion debate I would not have responded to your OP in the beginning.

If you were being honest, I would think you would not both call a soul a "living creature" and a "spirit" in the same breadth.

[the_human_being]

[Replying to post 1 by Clownboat]

Goodness! Have I just committed the unpardonable sin. Were you to read the post and try to understand, I pointed out that what he termed to be a "soul", I termed to be a "spirit". What is wrong with saying that in the same breath? Try saying it fast. LOL!