Abortion and Personhood

Gaunt · Post by **Gaunt** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:36 pm

Time and again you see the arguments that "abortion is murder!" or that one is "killing babies." These arguments, while great for emotional appeal, presuppose the issue of whether or not a fetus is a person.

Are there any anti abortion arguments that do not revolve around the fetus being a person on the same level as a child out of the womb? and if so, What are they?

keltzkroz · Post by **keltzkroz** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:21 pm

Amphigorey wrote:
Jose wrote: It is only in recent years that the definition of "personhood" has been extended all the way forward to fertilization of the egg. When I was growing up, it was well known that "personhood," or the entry of the soul, didn't occur until the third trimester.
Ensoulment at conception is an interesting subject. I would be interested in hearing people's explanations of zygotic twins, or for the case of separate zygotes combining into a single individual.

If I was to think of a response from a person who is taking into consideration the role of God in the ensoulment process, it would be pretty straightforward: 'God knows how many individuals will arise from a particular fertilization process so He knows how many souls to put in from the onset of fertilization'.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:43 pm

TQWcS wrote
If you do not believe the soul enters or is made at the moment of conception then when? How can we draw the line when and where it contains a soul and when it doesn't?

Why start at conception?
Why isn’t the soul in the sperm or the egg?
Why isn’t it completely logical to assume the soul is in the egg, therefore hysterectomies should be considered the same as abortion. As a matter of fact, why isn’t ovulation without fertilization the same as abortion? This is very near to the traditional Catholic position.
Of course if the soul is in the sperm, then masturbation is the same as abortion.
Please show me why an egg or sperm is less likely to contain the soul compared to a zygote.

Keltzkroz writes: If I was to think of a response from a person who is taking into consideration the role of God in the ensoulment process, it would be pretty straightforward: 'God knows how many individuals will arise from a particular fertilization process so He knows how many souls to put in from the onset of fertilization'.

That’s an excellent point Keltzkroz.
As a matter of fact, that’s great evidence to show that aborted fetuses do not have souls.
All knowing God realizes which fertilized eggs will be aborted and does not put a soul in that egg.
Well, that solves that problem.

keltzkroz · Post by **keltzkroz** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 12:37 pm

BeHereNow wrote:
Keltzkroz writes: If I was to think of a response from a person who is taking into consideration the role of God in the ensoulment process, it would be pretty straightforward: 'God knows how many individuals will arise from a particular fertilization process so He knows how many souls to put in from the onset of fertilization'.
That’s an excellent point Keltzkroz.
As a matter of fact, that’s great evidence to show that aborted fetuses do not have souls.
All knowing God realizes which fertilized eggs will be aborted and does not put a soul in that egg.
Well, that solves that problem.

Did you take into account the fact that Christians believe in Humans have a will of their own? A Christian would believe that God intended for an individual to result from the fertilization process, only to be be extinguished by the abortion process.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:08 pm

Did you take into account the fact that Christians believe in Humans have a will of their own? A Christian would believe that God intended for an individual to result from the fertilization process, only to be be extinguished by the abortion process.

Yes, I did.
I don’t see how that changes anything.
You will have to show me.

keltzkroz · Post by **keltzkroz** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:19 pm

BeHereNow wrote:
Did you take into account the fact that Christians believe in Humans have a will of their own? A Christian would believe that God intended for an individual to result from the fertilization process, only to be be extinguished by the abortion process.
Yes, I did.
I don’t see how that changes anything.
You will have to show me.

In what way does it not change? Do you believe in the idea that fate (or an Omniscient God) negates free will (I don't)? Please explain further how it does not change so I can respond properly.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:31 pm

In what way does it not change?

It does not change in any way.

Do you believe in the idea that fate (or an Omniscient God) negates free will (I don't)?

I agree with you.

Please explain further how it does not change so I can respond properly.

You’re putting the cart before the horse.
I made some statements.

As a matter of fact, that’s great evidence to show that aborted fetuses do not have souls.
All knowing God realizes which fertilized eggs will be aborted and does not put a soul in that egg.
Well, that solves that problem.

You made some unrelated statements as if to say you are showing me incorrect.

Did you take into account the fact that Christians believe in Humans have a will of their own? A Christian would believe that God intended for an individual to result from the fertilization process, only to be be extinguished by the abortion process.

How do your unrelated statements relate to what I said?
If they are not unrelated, show me the relationship.
I said nothing indicating free will, and yet you seem to think free will is somehow relevant. Please explain.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 2:59 pm

Maybe I can speed things up.

Keltzkroz writes: 'God knows how many individuals will arise from a particular fertilization process so He knows how many souls to put in from the onset of fertilization'.

BeHereNow replies: Good point.
Since God knows how many individuals will arise, he knows how many souls to put in each fertilized egg (zero, 1, 2, 3, etc).
So for those fertilized eggs which do not implant he knows to put in no soul.
Likewise, for those which do implant, but which (through no fault of any person) accidentally miscarry, no soul is put in.
Likewise, for those which are aborted due to the intervention of a person, no soul was put in.

At what point do you disagree with me agreeing with you?

keltzkroz · Post by **keltzkroz** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:02 pm

BeHereNow wrote: Since God knows how many individuals will arise, he knows how many souls to put in each fertilized egg (zero, 1, 2, 3, etc).
So for those fertilized eggs which do not implant he knows to put in no soul.
Likewise, for those which do implant, but which (through no fault of any person) accidentally miscarry, no soul is put in.
Likewise, for those which are aborted due to the intervention of a person, no soul was put in.

At what point do you disagree with me agreeing with you?

I do not disagree with you agreeing with me. I Just thought that maybe I should explain my opinion better before you decide if you agree with me or not.

Thanks for the examples you cited. I think it helps a lot. My opinion is that God (all knowing) puts in a soul (or souls) upon the onset of fertilization even though He knows that it will be aborted later, either by accident or on purpose. For me, the last example is different from the first two because there is a conscious effort of the intervening person involved in the abortion process. That is why I think free will is relevant. I hope I clarified my point of view on this matter.

keltzkroz · Post by **keltzkroz** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 11:40 pm

Sorry I got confused. This is the thread on abortion and personhood, not about abortion and right or wrong. Anyway, now I see why BeHereNow said that free will is not relevant.

I agree that free will is not relevant to ensoulment. Like I said in my previous post, my opinion is that God (all knowing) puts in a soul (or souls) upon the onset of fertilization even though He knows that it will be aborted later, either by accident or on purpose.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:23 am

Okay keltzkroz. I think I understand your position.
God puts one or more souls into a fertilized egg, but never zero.
It strikes me as odd that if more are needed he acts accordingly, but if none are needed he does not act accordingly.
Can you explain this? What leads you to believe this?

I don’t think I understand your thinking that there is a difference between fertilized eggs not carried to term due to natural causes and fertilized eggs not carried to term due to human intervention. In each case there is a soul whose “material existence” is ended. Are you suggesting that God treats the souls differently based on the cause of termination? I don’t think you are, so no explanation is necessary if I am right.
I suppose it is like someone dying from drowning. You would say if I pass out and drown accidentally, that is different than if someone holds me under water until I drown. So the issue is still when is there a soul, or human being and not just living cells.
Do you have a basis in believing that the soul is only introduced into a fertilized egg, and not the egg itself for example? I can find no Biblical writings to support this. To the contrary, Jeremiah 1:5 [Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.] suggests to me that the soul for each individual has existed from “the beginning”. Certainly before I was formed in the belly (womb).