![]() |
When the soul?
Over on this thread there are several people who are both very religious and pro-choice:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53946">The relationship between Iraq and say....abortion.</a> Personally I'm not religious, these people made me wonder about a few things. Many religions, and Christianity in particular, believe that human beings have some sort of a soul. For people who believe in the soul, it seems that a possible definition of murder would be the willfull killing of another being which possesses a soul. My first question to you religious people out there is whether that is a reasonable definition. My second question is: At what moment is a person endowed with a soul? Presumably there is no soul involved before fertilization, but there is one at birth. Sometime in between the soul must be introduced. When do you believe this happens? At fertilization? At viability? At birth? Clearly this discussion is closely related to the abortion debate (at least it is for certain religious folk), but I'd prefer to keep the focus on the particular issues I mentioned. Please try to keep your posts on topic. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Seems like a lot of extra work to assign souls to every zygote, when many might never make it to being a baby. NOTE: This is not to say I think abortion is ok up until birth, this is merely my take on the soul introduction issue. Personally, I think the current laws regarding the limit to first-trimester abortions are fine. In my eyes, that is not a baby yet, not by a long shot. If it can't survive outside the mother by itself, then it is simply a mass of cells still growing, and not a person. |
Some possible beliefs.
Soul shows up when brain waves do? Souls are not discreet eintities: some religious people believe in vitae, or life-energy, which can be more or less in different things. Murder is killing something with a soul while it is possibly in a state of damnation? (ie, you are removing the chance for them to save their soul) |
Classically, as with Aquinas for example, it was believed that the soul entered the body at 'quickening'; that is, the point of the pregnancy where the fetus began to move. However, I think the church has changed its position on this since we've learned more about how pregnancy works.
Personally, I don't believe in souls, at least not in the traditional sense. So I don't think your definition of murder is correct. So what do we say? Well, let's start with "murder=unjustified killing". It's a good place to start, but it's not enough. It's at least possible that some killings of animals are unjust, but I don't want to say that any killing of an animal is murder. So we could say "murder=unjustified killing of a human being", but that doesn't seem adequate either. Why not? Well, suppose we met an alien which had intelligence, i.e., an alien which was not merely an extra-terrestrial animal. It seems to me that the unjustified killing of such a creature would be murder. So, if we say preliminarily that "person"="creature with the relevant sort of intelligence" we can say "murder=the unjustified killing of a person". |
Very wonderful thread, indeed.
Quote:
I am not religious, although I accept & respect all. Quote:
Yes and no, because you are not killing off the soul. You are assisting the human form to cease living. Quote:
Quote:
|
I don't believe that souls are ever introduced into living beings, and should be left out of any kind of legal arguments (including but not limited to murder and abortion). So, IMO, souls should not be mentioned in a legal definition of murder, since it cannot be proved scientifically or used as evidence in a courtroom.
|
Well, some Buddhists have believed for centuries that a soul takes 49 (7 weeks) days to reincarnate into another body. The Book of the Dead or some such thing teaches this. Coincidentaly, the fetus at 49 days differentiates into a male or female by developing sex organs. The pineal gland is also formed and activated on the 49th day, wich is associated with perception and has alot to do with our state of conciousness. Draw your own conclusions as to what any of that means, if anything.
|
Re: When the soul?
Quote:
The two cell merging togehter are not a human being, but the baby is of course human, somewhere between this two points in time these two cells became a human being. And I think this is also true for the soul |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Regarding Occam's Razor, the way I see it, no it's not an unecessary step. Soul and fertilization as one (and the same) step, and birth as a second step. Two steps total. Fertilization, integration of soul immediately before birth, and birth are three steps. One more step than the other way. I wouldn't base an argument for or against abortion based off of this logic, it's just food for thought. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project