When does life begin?

[mrsx]

^^^^^ <-- Pro-life athiest. We do exist.

Fine! I'm not an atheist but I respect your point of view. As a pro-life atheist, how do you explain an absolute ban on abortion or any embryonic stem cell research? What is your thinking? That's what I'm trying to learn.

 

[5stringJeff]

This thread has raised a couple of questions that maybe someone out there can answer. They have to do with when a human being acquires a soul.

1. Is a soul acquired at conception or at some time later in the pregnancy, or even after birth?

I would say, based on the Bible, that the earliest a person acquires a soul is at conception, and the latest that someone acquires a soul is at birth. I'm not sure anyone could answer with much more clarity. Therefore, I would argue that it is wisest to err on the side of caution, i.e. we assume that a person gains a sould at conception, and that we act accordingly.

2. If it's at conception and the embryo dies, if the soul goes to heaven does that person spend eternity in a fetal state? If not, what does it change into?

I don't think anyone knows at which 'age' we are in heaven.

3. If a fetus's soul changes when it gets to Heaven, does everyone's? Do you keep your sense of identity in Heaven?

Identity stays the same in heaven. In other words, all souls are not amalgamated into one massive super-mega-ultra-soul. But again, I have no idea what age people are in heaven, or if people age while they are there.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Fine! I'm not an atheist but I respect your point of view. As a pro-life atheist, how do you explain an absolute ban on abortion or any embryonic stem cell research? What is your thinking? That's what I'm trying to learn.

Fine! As a liberal wackjob how do you justify public schools giving little girls abortions without even notifying their parents? What is your thinking? I'm compiling a list of foolishness for public excoriation of the left.

 

[KarlMarx]

Excuse me while I derail the conversation

A priest, a minister and a rabbi were debating when the moment of life begins.

The priest said, "Life begins at conception"

"No, life begins at birth", responded the minister

"You're both wrong", said the rabbi, "Life begins when the kids pack up and go away to college".

OK.... I'm done

 

[mrsx]

I would say, based on the Bible, that the earliest a person acquires a soul is at conception, and the latest that someone acquires a soul is at birth. I'm not sure anyone could answer with much more clarity. Therefore, I would argue that it is wisest to err on the side of caution, i.e. we assume that a person gains a sould at conception, and that we act accordingly.



I don't think anyone knows at which 'age' we are in heaven.



Identity stays the same in heaven. In other words, all souls are not amalgamated into one massive super-mega-ultra-soul. But again, I have no idea what age people are in heaven, or if people age while they are there.

I'd say you make a lot of sense. Although we can't know most of this stuff with certainty, we ought to reject the option to the "err on the side of caution" for a couple of reasons. When the Bible tells us (in Gen 2:7) "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul," it seems to suggest that the inspiration of a soul occurs either late in or after the completion of the development of the body. After all, the Bible could have said something like "And the Lord God created the living soul of Adam and clothed it in a body formed of the dust of the ground," but it doesn't. The second reason is that to take the extreme view (at conception to err on the side of caution) would seem to produce situations hard to imagine for a Merciful God. Example: a twelve-year-old girl is raped by her brother. The doctors say that if she attempts to carry the embryo to term she will die. Would a Merciful God put her in such a pickle when the tragedy can be averted with a simple morning-after pill?

P.S. to rtwngAvenger: You have once again shown yourself incapable of contributing anything but name-calling. You were called out to state what you think on the topic and you couldn't do it. Not worthy of further response.

P.S. to KarlMarx: Much wisdom here and a much-needed sense of proportion. Thank you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'd say you make a lot of sense. Although we can't know most of this stuff with certainty, we ought to reject the option to the "err on the side of caution" for a couple of reasons. When the Bible tells us (in Gen 2:7) "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul," it seems to suggest that the inspiration of a soul occurs either late in or after the completion of the development of the body. After all, the Bible could have said something like "And the Lord God created the living soul of Adam and clothed it in a body formed of the dust of the ground," but it doesn't. The second reason is that to take the extreme view (at conception to err on the side of caution) would seem to produce situations hard to imagine for a Merciful God. Example: a twelve-year-old girl is raped by her brother. The doctors say that if she attempts to carry the embryo to term she will die. Would a Merciful God put her in such a pickle when the tragedy can be averted with a simple morning-after pill?

P.S. to rtwngAvenger: You have once again shown yourself incapable of contributing anything but name-calling. You were called out to state what you think on the topic and you couldn't do it. Not worthy of further response.

P.S. to KarlMarx: Much wisdom here and a much-needed sense of proportion. Thank you.

No mrsx. You have been called out on your poor logic and reasoning. Soul has never been involved with this discussion. Life is verifiable, soul is not; hence, in matters of public policy, soul should not be taken into account.

Another funny thing: We all know you're not really a christian and are just pulling new and ineffective arguments out your fanny, though you fancied them clever at first whiff.

 

[mrsx]

No mrsx. You have been called out on your poor logic and reasoning. Soul has never been involved with this discussion. Life is verifiable, soul is not; hence, in matters of public policy, soul should not be taken into account.

Another funny thing: We all know you're not really a christian and are just pulling new and ineffective arguments out your fanny, though you fancied them clever at first whiff.

Hey, Junior, check out who started this thread and how.
Your "we all know..." is just more paranoid raving by the guy who thinks I'm somebody named Wade. The first person plural is part of your desperate search for a confirming group identity; it fits well with your self-identified right wing affiliation and juvenile Avatar from a comic book.
Once again you have failed to advance any idea in support of your "avenging." Sad really, but every time you do it, you demonstrate the correctness of my characterization of your position, motivation, and maturity.
May St. Jude protect you - he is the patron saint of lost causes.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey, Junior, check out who started this thread and how.
Your "we all know..." is just more paranoid raving by the guy who thinks I'm somebody named Wade. The first person plural is part of your desperate search for a confirming group identity; it fits well with your self-identified right wing affiliation and juvenile Avatar from a comic book.
Once again you have failed to advance any idea in support of your "avenging." Sad really, but every time you do it, you demonstrate the correctness of my characterization of your position, motivation, and maturity.
May St. Jude protect you - he is the patron saint of lost causes.

Yep. no argument regarding the subject. It'll continuing thinking it's liberal jew arguments about the 'breath of life" and dust are something new. Sad. We've seen it all before, liberal automaton. Search for a user named ajwps for the endless screeding about the breath of life. We whipped him too.

 

[no1tovote4]

Agreeable to my beliefs...

All living things are bound together by the one unique gift we all share, life. To end the life of another creature, at any stage of development and solely for the convenience of those that are self-ambulent is not only an outrage but a selfish act that can only be tolerated and "explained" because this life form has no voice.

All living things are bound by the circle of life, a commonality which gives us all a responsibility toward all things that live, that we not take from another living creature life, in sacrifice to or for our own selfishness.

That we would not know that a zygote has a soul or not cannot justify the ending of the most innocent life...

 

[mrsx]

Agreeable to my beliefs...

All living things are bound together by the one unique gift we all share, life. To end the life of another creature, at any stage of development and solely for the convenience of those that are self-ambulent is not only an outrage but a selfish act that can only be tolerated and "explained" because this life form has no voice.

All living things are bound by the circle of life, a commonality which gives us all a responsibility toward all things that live, that we not take from another living creature life, in sacrifice to or for our own selfishness.

That we would not know that a zygote has a soul or not cannot justify the ending of the most innocent life...

This is a nobly altruistic creed, one to my knowlege that has been followed by only a few advanced yogis. In some ways this reminds me of the teachings of John Paul II in that it is logically consistent and there is no doubt in my mind that if everybody followed this teaching the world would be a far better place.
Where the idealism gets sticky is if we apply this doctrine selectively. We require the 12-year-old incest victim or the parents of a fetus with Tay-Sachs disease to bear the horrible consequences of protecting all life, while at the same time we execute mentally challenged criminals and bomb villages in order to save them. I think there are a lot of people who share your ideal but are sickened by the fact that some politicians seem concerned about the sanctity of human life only in utero.

 

[no1tovote4]

This is a nobly altruistic creed, one to my knowlege that has been followed by only a few advanced yogis. In some ways this reminds me of the teachings of John Paul II in that it is logically consistent and there is no doubt in my mind that if everybody followed this teaching the world would be a far better place.

Now that is inane, your argument was that it was okay to kill the innocent for the convenience of others because you don't know when a soul is assigned.

I simply gave you what I believed and told you why it is not a matter of simplified morality. That it doesn't matter when the soul is "assigned" and that if we don't know justifying it by "I don't know" is simply not a rational argument at all.

Where the idealism gets sticky is if we apply this doctrine selectively. We require the 12-year-old incest victim or the parents of a fetus with Tay-Sachs disease to bear the horrible consequences of protecting all life, while at the same time we execute mentally challenged criminals and bomb villages in order to save them. I think there are a lot of people who share your ideal but are sickened by the fact that some politicians seem concerned about the sanctity of human life only in utero.

Where the idealism doesn't get sticky is with the 12 year old incest victim. First of all there is a danger to a child so young carrying a child to term, therefore it is not convenience to end the pregnancy but a need, your analogy is in need of help. However if we take your "point" here to the extreme then the innocent must die because of who their parents are and what crime their parent must have committed, regardless of their innocence.

Many people become annoyed at the defense of the execution of the innocent wholesale for convenience, while the lefty politicians may argue the guilty should live, just as much as they might be upset at the whole "protection" for only in utero life...

 

[mrsx]

First of all there is a danger to a child so young carrying a child to term, therefore it is not convenience to end the pregnancy but a need, your analogy is in need of help. .

Well, in your thrashing around you've come to a very different position from where you started. Now it's down to need = good but convenience = bad. I'll let you re-think that one before I demolish it as a basis for ethics or public policy because I don't think even you will wish to defend such a watery, weasley criterion. You might want to retreat to the old Utilitarian standard of the greatest good for the greatest number - you'd have to stop all that smarmy drivel about "standing up for life," but at least you'd have something that makes sense.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We require the 12-year-old incest victim or the parents of a fetus with Tay-Sachs disease to bear the horrible consequences of protecting all life, while at the same time we execute mentally challenged criminals and bomb villages in order to save them. I think there are a lot of people who share your ideal but are sickened by the fact that some politicians seem concerned about the sanctity of human life only in utero.

Your problem is you don't understand the difference between guilt and innocence, friend, or foe, good or evil. You're a moral relativist; obviously you don't get it.

 

[no1tovote4]

Well, in your thrashing around you've come to a very different position from where you started. Now it's down to need = good but convenience = bad. I'll let you re-think that one before I demolish it as a basis for ethics or public policy because I don't think even you will wish to defend such a watery, weasley criterion. You might want to retreat to the old Utilitarian standard of the greatest good for the greatest number - you'd have to stop all that smarmy drivel about "standing up for life," but at least you'd have something that makes sense.

You will be unable to "demolish" it, it is a standard of right that can be applied to all life. We need to eat, no matter what we eat we must kill to do so. Such as plant life, animal life, etc. This is a need, not a convenience...

If the only reason to kill is convenience, then you are simply sacrificing life to your own selfishness.

If you are attempting to say that Buddhist beliefs are indefensible, or are "watery and weasely" you will be sorely mistaken and will begin a losing battle based on ignorance.

The "we don't know so it's okay defense" will not hold water, you began on a weak footing and are attempting to redefine ethics according to this indefensible position.

Not only that but your "soundbyte" type of post did nothing to answer the whole of my post, you know the part that explained the belief.

 

[mrsx]

You will be unable to "demolish" it, it is a standard of right that can be applied to all life. We need to eat, no matter what we eat we must kill to do so. Such as plant life, animal life, etc. This is a need, not a convenience...

If the only reason to kill is convenience, then you are simply sacrificing life to your own selfishness.

If you are attempting to say that Buddhist beliefs are indefensible, or are "watery and weasely" you will be sorely mistaken and will begin a losing battle based on ignorance.

The "we don't know so it's okay defense" will not hold water, you began on a weak footing and are attempting to redefine ethics according to this indefensible position.

Don't get your karma into a knot. You're the one who switched position. I never said it was OK to abort an embryo etc. just for convenience. Beating up that straw man doesn't take much skill. Now, I suppose, we need to differentiate between "need" and "convenience." Who does that and how? Then we will move on to some quantification of need in order to determine when the need is sufficient to justify the killing. Ho hum... This is J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism, not the teaching of the Compassionate One.

 

[mrsx]

Your problem is you don't understand the difference between guilt and innocence, friend, or foe, good or evil. You're a moral relativist; obviously you don't get it.

Aren't you the foul-mouthed little skinhead who called me a "liberal jew"?

 

[no1tovote4]

Don't get your karma into a knot. You're the one who switched position. I never said it was OK to abort an embryo etc. just for convenience. Beating up that straw man doesn't take much skill. Now, I suppose, we need to differentiate between "need" and "convenience." Who does that and how? Then we will move on to some quantification of need in order to determine when the need is sufficient to justify the killing. Ho hum... This is J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism, not the teaching of the Compassionate One.

I did not switch any position at all, you are simply attempting to read something into my belief that is not there. I spoke only of Convenience in my first post, you wrote of something entirely different than can be defined by "convenience" I simply pointed that out. Then I pointed out that there is a difference between Convenience and Need.

The difference between "Need" and "Convenience" is easy to define. We'll begin with my own words: If you do something to preserve your life, such as eat, that is a need, if you do something because you do not want to be bothered with the responsibility, or simply to decorate, that is Convenience.

Much like killing Buffalo for only the tongue, that was Convenience, killing a Buffalo that is attacking you or others, that is need.

It doesn't even take much of an imagination to define it, amazingly there have been billions following such ethics for centuries.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'd say you make a lot of sense. Although we can't know most of this stuff with certainty, we ought to reject the option to the "err on the side of caution" for a couple of reasons. When the Bible tells us (in Gen 2:7) "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul," it seems to suggest that the inspiration of a soul occurs either late in or after the completion of the development of the body. After all, the Bible could have said something like "And the Lord God created the living soul of Adam and clothed it in a body formed of the dust of the ground," but it doesn't.

I certainly understand your point, but because the creation of Adam (being created as a man, presumably full-grown) is different than the creation/formation of human babies (being formed in the womb), I don't think we can use Gen 2:7 as a direct corelation.

The second reason is that to take the extreme view (at conception to err on the side of caution) would seem to produce situations hard to imagine for a Merciful God. Example: a twelve-year-old girl is raped by her brother. The doctors say that if she attempts to carry the embryo to term she will die. Would a Merciful God put her in such a pickle when the tragedy can be averted with a simple morning-after pill?

So because a baby is the product of incestual rape, God shouldn't give it a soul at the same time as other babies? I don't agree. God loves all of us equally, regardless of the manner of our conception.
But to your specific situation, I think 99.9% of people, including pro-lifers, would say that an abortion would be permissible, since the (young) mother's life is endangered.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Aren't you the foul-mouthed little skinhead who called me a "liberal jew"?

No, I said you were using liberal jew arguments. Got a problem?

 

[mrsx]

I did not switch any position at all, you are simply attempting to read something into my belief that is not there. I spoke only of Convenience in my first post, you wrote of something entirely different than can be defined by "convenience" I simply pointed that out. Then I pointed out that there is a difference between Convenience and Need.

The difference between "Need" and "Convenience" is easy to define. We'll begin with my own words: If you do something to preserve your life, such as eat, that is a need, if you do something because you do not want to be bothered with the responsibility, or simply to decorate, that is Convenience.

Much like killing Buffalo for only the tongue, that was Convenience, killing a Buffalo that is attacking you or others, that is need.

It doesn't even take much of an imagination to define it, amazingly there have been billions following such ethics for centuries.

How about scientific research to cure diseases that now kill millions?
The 12-year-old girl raped by her father should carry the baby to term because it won't kill her?