Quickening

[SPF]

There are too many posts going off on tangents one of which is equating a philosophical term such as person or personhood with biological development.

That was my point. The OP fails at this as well by mentioning "quickening" which was a 18th century term from English Common Law. The OP in effect was trying to link a legal term with a determined biological status and thus suggest such was ensoulment adding in philosophy.

My first two posts was to point out the biological understanding of quickening was proved scientifically false in the 19th century when medical technology increased during the industrial revolution. More doctors moved to conception as the beginning of human life. Not surprisingly the secular laws changed with that.

Fast forward to the 20th century and now 21st century and we know this is now fact and settled science that human life begins at conception.

Yes a soul does not need a mortal body. Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5 that when we are absent from these bodies we are present with the Lord. But a mortal body is dead without a soul by the same reasoning.

There is absolutely no evidence from Scriptures a mortal body develops and grows or has any animation without a soul. There is concrete evidence human beings are alive and developing from conception. We can do the math there and figure it out that God is intimately involved with us from our beginning.

And at the very least we know that John the Baptist, while still in his mother’s womb was filled with the Holy Spirit and lept for joy. So clearly humans do have souls while in the womb.

Can anyone point to anything in Scripture which would suggest a teaching where a living human did not have a soul?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Then they can wait until the end of the first trimester

and have the risker option? Most abortions are in the first trimester any now.

 

[zelosravioli]

And at the very least we know that John the Baptist, while still in his mother’s womb was filled with the Holy Spirit and lept for joy. So clearly humans do have souls while in the womb.

Can anyone point to anything in Scripture which would suggest a teaching where a living human did not have a soul?

When??? The verse does 'not' say Elizabeths baby was filled with either the Holy Spirit, or that John had a spirit or personhood 'at conception'. She was obviously well along in her pregnancy by then, this is the question, when? It is a question any thinking person would ask. Because the scripture does not say when.

(And note to previous argument: Jesus pre-existed His conception.. we do not, Unless your LDS)

 

[SPF]

When??? The verse does 'not' say Elizabeths baby was filled with either the Holy Spirit, or that John had a spirit or personhood 'at conception'. She was obviously well along in her pregnancy by then, this is the question, when? It is a question any thinking person would ask. Because the scripture does not say when.

(And note to previous argument: Jesus pre-existed His conception.. we do not, Unless your LDS)

“for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. “

So we know that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb. We also know that at the sound of Mary’s voice that he leaped for joy in his mother’s womb.

Based upon the above, is there anyone without some sort of agenda against the unborn that would try and assert that John somehow did not have a soul in his mother’s womb?

We know Biblically that humans are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization and begins a 25 year developmental period.

Why would we assume that at any point in a human beings life that they wouldn’t have a soul?

It sounds to me like the only reason someone would want to assert that there is a time in which a human being does not have a soul would be for the sole purpose of allowing some action to be performed against the soulless human that we would otherwise consider immoral.

Again I would ask, do we have any Biblical arguments that show a living human without a soul?

 

[zelosravioli]

The only scientific proof demonstrated here, is that it seems you neither read nor understood the opening post, my posts, nor what the scripture you quoted is saying.

(SPF wrote above) "... Why would we assume that at any point in a human beings life that they wouldn’t have a soul?
Over half of the article referenced in the OP, points out the number of different historical statements about the question of 'when' was the body of the fetus 'quickened. Quickening asks when, or whether or not: "... the infant took on a “soul”

“Quickening” referred to when the fetus actually began to move on its own inside the womb, which was anywhere from 15 to 20 weeks into the pregnancy. This was when an infant took on a “soul” as was believed.

"William Blackstone, an 18th Century British legal scholar, made these statements regarding “quickening,” “Life… begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb... Blackstone clearly believed abortion prior to the quickening or what is now understood to be roughly 20 weeks..."

"Even in 13th century Catholicism, Pope Innocent III stated, “the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of ‘quickening’ – when the woman first feels the movement of the fetus... before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life. From the 17thcentury through the 19th century, however, Popes have flip-flopped on this issue saying a fetus has a soul at conception, versus a fetus has a soul at quickening. ”

"... 23 states deem abortion illegal after 20 to 24 weeks. This is very closely in line with the “quickening” timeline of a pregnancy recognized throughout our human history..."

The OP and its article asks 'when' does an infant take on a soul?
So (again) this verse does 'not' say that John had a spirit or personhood 'at conception'.
“for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb“
No one here or in the article said that children in the womb don't eventually receive, or develop, a human spirit or soul. No one has implied that, so why use this verse to make your point?

You might note verse from Paul quoted in the article, and also the verse in Genesis that Paul may be referring to:
“The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.."
"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being"

 

[SPF]

The only scientific proof demonstrated here, is that it seems you neither read nor understood the opening post, my posts, nor what the scripture you quoted is saying.

(SPF wrote above) "... Why would we assume that at any point in a human beings life that they wouldn’t have a soul?
Over half of the article referenced in the OP, points out the number of different historical statements about the question of 'when' was the body of the fetus 'quickened. Quickening asks when, or whether or not: "... the infant took on a “soul”

“Quickening” referred to when the fetus actually began to move on its own inside the womb, which was anywhere from 15 to 20 weeks into the pregnancy. This was when an infant took on a “soul” as was believed.

"William Blackstone, an 18th Century British legal scholar, made these statements regarding “quickening,” “Life… begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb... Blackstone clearly believed abortion prior to the quickening or what is now understood to be roughly 20 weeks..."

"Even in 13th century Catholicism, Pope Innocent III stated, “the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of ‘quickening’ – when the woman first feels the movement of the fetus... before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life. From the 17thcentury through the 19th century, however, Popes have flip-flopped on this issue saying a fetus has a soul at conception, versus a fetus has a soul at quickening. ”

"... 23 states deem abortion illegal after 20 to 24 weeks. This is very closely in line with the “quickening” timeline of a pregnancy recognized throughout our human history..."

The OP and its article asks 'when' does an infant take on a soul?
So (again) this verse does 'not' say that John had a spirit or personhood 'at conception'.
“for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb“
No one here or in the article said that children in the womb don't eventually receive, or develop, a human spirit or soul. No one has implied that, so why use this verse to make your point?

You might note verse from Paul quoted in the article, and also the verse in Genesis that Paul may be referring to:
“The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.."
"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being"

The people you quoted did not have the benefit of the scientific knowledge that we have today.

Thanks to science, we know that at conception we have a new, unique human being. This new human being begins its life at fertilization and will continue to grow and develop for about 25 years.

P1. Human beings come into existence at fertilization.

We know Biblically that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. Our intrinsic moral worth is not determined or affected by our age, gender, race, location, or the how in which we came into existence.

P2. All human beings are equally morally valuable.

P3. All unborn human beings are innocent of any wrong doing.

Conclusion: At the very least, the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience reasons are immoral.

I don’t know of anywhere in Scripture that presents us with a living human being that does not have a soul. And now thanks to scientific advancements, we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

So unless someone wants to present a Biblically based argument to show that there can be living humans without souls, there’s no reason to believe we don’t have our soul at fertilization.

 

[zelosravioli]

 

[zelosravioli]

"The people you quoted did not have the benefit of the scientific knowledge that we have today" (SPF from above)
The 'quotes' are from the OPs article. The article there 'defines' the point of the OPs (Archivists) question.
The article also asks the second half of the question by quoting: “the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of ‘quickening’... Popes have flip-flopped on this issue saying a fetus has a soul at conception, versus a fetus has a soul at quickening.."
The debate then continues to today over when does the 'soul' enter the body? As pointed out in the article. Most Christians, Catholics, Christians, as well as 'any' person who believes that humans have souls, would say this is now the question.

Nobody I know is arguing with 'modern science' - that the human zygote is uniquely 'human' - and that it is 'alive' (this forever proves we will not develop into a rabbit or a chicken...). Science has proven that the parent cells become a 'human zygote' almost immediately. And you can 'define' the zygote cell as a 'living human', but 'that definition' is also simply saying a chicken egg is uniquely a chicken at conception. The 'scientific' definition excludes the definition of personhood and does not prove a soul is there at conception, or whenever.

"Because we have modern science which tell us otherwise now? (from Redleg post #3)
"When we know now human life begins at conception. (from Redleg post #6)
"And now thanks to scientific advancements, we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization" ( from SPF above)
'Science' simply says that the zygote contains everything it needs to be 'biologically' human, but there is no science that proves a zygote has a 'soul'.
You are welcome to 'believe' there is a soul at conception, and you are welcome to believe 'human' can simply mean that we are biologically and purposed by God to be human - and in His image - but saying there is 'scientific' proof is highly misleading.

I am very pro-life, but we should consider and understand all the arguments for and against abortion, from the left, right, and center.

 

[redleghunter]

 

[SPF]

"The people you quoted did not have the benefit of the scientific knowledge that we have today" (SPF from above)
The 'quotes' are from the OPs article. The article there 'defines' the point of the OPs (Archivists) question.
The article also asks the second half of the question by quoting: “the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of ‘quickening’... Popes have flip-flopped on this issue saying a fetus has a soul at conception, versus a fetus has a soul at quickening.."
The debate then began over 'When' does the 'soul' enter the body', as pointed out in the article. Most Christians, Catholics, Christians, as well as 'any' person who believe humans have souls, would say this is now the question.
Nobody I know is arguing with 'modern science' - that the human zygote is uniquely 'human' and that it is 'alive' (it is certainly not a rabbit or a chicken...).
But that simply says that the zygote contains everything it needs to be biologically 'human', but there is no science that proves a zygote has a 'soul'.
Because we have modern science which tell us otherwise now? (Redleg post #3)
When we know now human life begins at conception. (Redleg post #6)

Yes, we've moved well past this recap. Enter the syllogism I put forth:

Premise 1: Human beings come into existence at fertilization.
Premise 2: All human beings are equally morally valuable.
Premise 3: All unborn human beings are innocent of any wrong doing.
Conclusion: At the very least, the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience reasons are immoral.

Support for P1 would be that thanks to the advancements of science we now know beyond any sort of reasonable doubt that a new and unique human being comes into existence and begins its roughly 25 years of development at fertilization.

Support for P2 would be that Scripture teaches that all human beings are created in the Image of God (we possess the Imago Dei), and therefore have inherent moral worth and value.

Support for P3 shouldn't be necessary and should be obviously true. Unborn children have not performed any deliberate actions that we would consider right or wrong.

The conclusion follows from the premises.

Now, I welcome anyone who disagrees with what I've written to demonstrate from Scripture that there can be living human beings without souls. I don't think it exists though, so that would definitely be a challenge. Especially since Luke 1 makes it clear that John the Baptist was not only filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb, but he actually experienced joy and "leaped" in his own mother's womb. So clearly, we can say with a high degree of certainty that the unborn do clearly have souls.

What someone would therefore need to argue is that the souls are not there at conception, but come in at a later point in time. And again, I don't know of anything in Scripture to support such an assertion. That leads me to conclude that those who want to assert such a claim are probably going to be the very ones that want to pass abortion off as morally acceptable.

Personally, I'm all for basing my beliefs on what Scripture teaches, not trying to make Scripture teach what I want to believe. So for me it's easy, show me from Scripture where we can get the idea that a living human being does not have a soul. Until that's done, I don't see how we can believe abortions are morally acceptable.

 

[zelosravioli]

You are still missing the point of 'when' does the soul enter the human fetus.
There is no question in this thread or in the OP, whether or not humans have souls, but there is the question of 'when'.

 

[SPF]

You are still missing the point of 'when' does the soul enter the human fetus.
There is no question in this thread or in the OP, whether or not humans have souls, but there is the question of 'when'.

I try not to insult people, but I'm questioning your reading comprehension. I'll try and break this down for you again.

People who are not Christians and are not concerned with Scripture who support abortion do so because they fabricate a subjective and arbitrary distinction between a human being and a human person. They assert that only human person's are morally valuable. This subjective and made up distinction permits them to excuse what would otherwise be considered an immoral action against the human.

It seems that we have the same line of argumentation but the "Christian version" of it here. Meaning, it is being suggested that there is a distinction between a living human being and a living human being with a soul. The following line of reasoning goes that only living human beings with souls possess inherent moral worth and value. Therefore, we may perform actions (abortion) against the human beings without souls because they do not possess moral worth and value.

What I suggested with the argument I put forward is that there is absolutely no Biblical support for there actually being living human beings without souls. I can't find anything in Scripture that would suggest that, and I've yet to see anyone present something that would suggest that.

On the contrary, we do know that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value. We do know that the very least that babies in the womb do indeed possess a soul - again, would anyone assert that John the Baptist, being filled with the Holy Spirit and possessing emotions of joy while in the womb didn't have a soul?

If you would actually like to present some substance to respond to, that would be great. As of now, nobody has provided anything from Scripture to cause us to even consider the idea that there can be living human beings without souls. And if there is nothing in Scripture to indicate there are living humans without souls, and yet there is a specific story in Scripture demonstrating an unborn human being with a soul - why would we ever assume that there is such a thing as a living human being without a soul?

 

[zelosravioli]

Again for the 3rd time, at least: No one here has said that children in the womb don't have souls - eventually - but 'when' at 'what stage' in their development do they have a soul. Neither scripture nor science tells us there is a soul at conception, nor 'when' the human fetus takes on the soul.

Most Christians would agree that having a soul makes us actually human. If 'you want to believe' it happens immediately at conception, fine, but again you have not shown 'any' proofs either from science or scripture. So don't expect, or criticize, others for not seeing a reason to follow your 'reasoning'.

 

[SPF]

Agiain for the 3rd time, at least: No one has said that children in the womb don't have souls - eventually at some point - but 'when' at 'what stage' in their development do they have a soul, neither scripture nor science tell us 'when' the human fetus takes on the soul.

Most Christians would agree that having a soul makes us actually human. If 'you want to believe' it happens immediatly at conception, fine, but again you have not shown 'any' proofs either from science or scripture. So don't expect others to 'have' to agree with your 'reasoning'

Can you provide ANY sort of Biblical argument to suggest there is actually such a thing as a living human being without a soul?

I’ll give you a hint, you can’t.

There is not a single reason to even think that human beings don’t always have a soul. Again, if you think there is, provide the evidence.

I’ll give you a hint, you can’t.

 

[zelosravioli]

You're trying to argue a negative. There are plenty of people in the Bible with hands noses ears hearts, and souls but that doesn't suggest that anyone had any of these things at conception.

The burden of proof is on you, as no scripture explains or speaks of a fetus or zygote having or not having a soul.

Someone here said there was 'scientific' proof, where is that?

I already gave you 2 scriptures concerning 'a human without a soul'- it was Adam before God breathed life into him and he 'became' a living soul.

 

[SPF]

The burden of proof is on you, as no scripture explains or speaks of a fetus or zygote having or not having a soul.

Is your position that John the Baptist who was both filled with the Holy Spirit and experienced emotions of joy while still in his mother’s womb did not in fact have a soul?

If that’s your position, can you explain why?

 

[SPF]

I already gave you 2 scriptures concerning 'a human without a soul'- it was Adam before God breathed life into him and he 'became' a living soul.

The story of Adam's creation is a false analogy and not a proper comparison. First off, Adam never existed in a womb, so it isn't comparable from the beginning. Second, Adam wasn't "alive" until god "Breathed life into him", this is in contrast to an unborn child which becomes alive at fertilization.

So if you want to try and somehow make some comparison between the creation of Adam (which might not even be a literal story) and the rest of humanity, then we would probably say that when God "breathed life" into Adam would be equivalent to fertilization, since that's the moment both of them became living human beings.

This is one of those discussions where science is actually helpful. All the arguments from hundreds of years ago about "quickening" and whatnot were all formulated without the scientific knowledge we have today.

We could use the shape of the earth as another example. Early civilizations, and Christians, thought the earth was flat. But thanks to the advancements in science, we now know the earth is round.

So there is a fair amount of grace that we should extend on subjects like this towards our early church fathers.

When we combine what we know scientifically with what we know Biblically, the obvious conclusion is that human beings have souls at all points of their lives.

So let's again review what we know and what is universally agreed upon.

1. We know Biblically that humankind is unique among all God's creation. Humans alone are created with the Imago Dei. We alone are created in God's image. All human beings, regardless of their race, gender, age, and the how in which they came into existence are equally created in God's image and possess equal inherent moral worth and value.

2. We know scientifically that a new and unique living human being, with its own unique DNA comes into existence at fertilization, beginning about a 25 year journey of development.

We know the above 2, they are not debated at this point. So what logical conclusions can we draw from these 2 facts?

Well, given that there is not one single verse in all of Scripture that would suggest that there is ever such a thing as a living human being that does NOT possess a soul - the question has to be asked, why would anyone assume that such a thing is possible?

Scripture tells us that humans have both a body and a soul. There is disagreement over whether man is dichotomoy or trichotomy in terms of body/soul/spirit - but even in both of those positions, there is never the thought that there exists a living human without EITHER soul and/or spirit!

What we have then is the advancements of science really helping us on this topic.

If anyone reading this thinks that there is such a thing as a living human being without a soul, I more than welcome them to defend that position with Biblical support. I have no loyalty to my position other than it's what makes the most Biblical and scientific sense to me. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would love to see an argument for another position.

 

[zelosravioli]

Is your position that John the Baptist who was both filled with the Holy Spirit and experienced emotions of joy while still in his mother’s womb did not in fact have a soul?
If that’s your position, can you explain why? (SPF, from above)

Elizabeths baby was at least in her sixth month of pregnancy! Elizabeths baby was well along in her pregnancy when she met Mary, as the baby was able to move, or jump as it was.
And note that 'the spirit' the verse is speaking of was 'the Holy Spirit', the verse is not talking about Johns 'spirit'. It may have been the Holy Spirit which may have animated John in the womb, we don't know, because it does not say. There is no mention of John having a 'spirit' anywhere in the verse (and thats your proof text?).

Yet again, for the fourth time, no one here is saying John didn't have, receive, or develop a soul (or personhood) at some time in the womb - 'when' is the question, as outlined in the OP.

The Genesis verse is one verse against your zero verses.
The point of the Genesis verse is that there is a difference between a biological 'human' and a 'living human with a soul'. And that God is able to place a spirit into a body.

You have assumed I am arguing for abortion, and assuming I don't believe the human zygote has a human spirit (or the beginning of what develops into a human spirit). My 'personal belief' is that the seed of human spirit, as well as the biological, transfers to the child somehow. BUT as an apologist and philosopher of sorts, I have no evidence or proof of this whatsoever, from scripture or science, because I've seen none. If it is only a hypothesis, fine - but arguing as if you have proof, as you have, and presenting nothing, not good.
In an intelligent debate, you have to know if your arguing from evidence, or from hypothesis. A good debate helps you refine your points, or see the fallacies in them.

Zechariah 12:1
An oracle of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD, who stretches out the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth, who forms the spirit of man within him:

 

[Archivist]

The story of Adam's creation is a false analogy and not a proper comparison. First off, Adam never existed in a womb, so it isn't comparable from the beginning. Second, Adam wasn't "alive" until god "Breathed life into him", this is in contrast to an unborn child which becomes alive at fertilization.

So if you want to try and somehow make some comparison between the creation of Adam (which might not even be a literal story) and the rest of humanity, then we would probably say that when God "breathed life" into Adam would be equivalent to fertilization, since that's the moment both of them became living human beings.

This is one of those discussions where science is actually helpful. All the arguments from hundreds of years ago about "quickening" and whatnot were all formulated without the scientific knowledge we have today.

We could use the shape of the earth as another example. Early civilizations, and Christians, thought the earth was flat. But thanks to the advancements in science, we now know the earth is round.

So there is a fair amount of grace that we should extend on subjects like this towards our early church fathers.

When we combine what we know scientifically with what we know Biblically, the obvious conclusion is that human beings have souls at all points of their lives.

So let's again review what we know and what is universally agreed upon.

1. We know Biblically that humankind is unique among all God's creation. Humans alone are created with the Imago Dei. We alone are created in God's image. All human beings, regardless of their race, gender, age, and the how in which they came into existence are equally created in God's image and possess equal inherent moral worth and value.

2. We know scientifically that a new and unique living human being, with its own unique DNA comes into existence at fertilization, beginning about a 25 year journey of development.

We know the above 2, they are not debated at this point. So what logical conclusions can we draw from these 2 facts?

Well, given that there is not one single verse in all of Scripture that would suggest that there is ever such a thing as a living human being that does NOT possess a soul - the question has to be asked, why would anyone assume that such a thing is possible?

Scripture tells us that humans have both a body and a soul. There is disagreement over whether man is dichotomoy or trichotomy in terms of body/soul/spirit - but even in both of those positions, there is never the thought that there exists a living human without EITHER soul and/or spirit!

What we have then is the advancements of science really helping us on this topic.

If anyone reading this thinks that there is such a thing as a living human being without a soul, I more than welcome them to defend that position with Biblical support. I have no loyalty to my position other than it's what makes the most Biblical and scientific sense to me. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would love to see an argument for another position.

Except science hasn't made it so clear as you seem to think when it comes to exactly when human life begins.

"The ultimate question is, when does a fetus become a person—at fertilization, at birth, or somewhere in between? Here, modern science offers no clarity. If anything, the past century of scientific advances have only made the answer more complicated. As scientists have peered into wombs with ultrasound and looked directly at sperm entering an egg, they’ve found that all the bright lines they thought existed dissolving." Why Science Can't Say When a Baby's Life Begins

Certainly a potential life begins at conception, but is that fertilized egg a person? Fifty to 80 percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant, and even some implanted embryos spontaneously abort. "Assuming that fertilization and implantation all go perfectly, scientists can reasonably disagree about when personhood begins, says Gilbert. An embryologist might say gastrulation, which is when an embryo can no longer divide to form identical twins. A neuroscientist might say when one can measure brainwaves."

Likewise, "“many scientists would say they don’t know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments,” said Arthur Caplan, professor and founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. “The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on.” That perspective, it turns out, has deep roots. It’s also one that resonates for many pregnant women who experience the embryo’s gradual passage to personhood on a visceral level." When Does Life Begin? Outside the Christian Right, the Answer Is “Over Time.”

 

[SPF]

Well, I would think as a couch philosopher of sorts you should at least be able to address the content of what I'm putting forth instead of speaking past everything I'm saying.

If someone were to come up to me and make the truth-claim that human beings begin life without souls, I would request some Biblical support. I've never seen any.

Adam doesn't work because his case was unique among humans and that our beginnings look absolutely nothing like his. Furthermore, he wasn't even alive until God breathed life into him, so even in his case there doesn't seem to be a period of a living human being without a soul. And perhaps most importantly, there's a good chance the Adam story isn't even literal. So not even a couch philosopher should be looking back to him as a credible example.

There are much more moral questions and situations that we experience today than are specifically addressed in Scripture. That's why we rely on principles to guide us towards our beliefs, as well as looking at Scripture as a whole in what it teaches to arrive at beliefs. The Trinity would be a good example. We know that God is Triune, yet there isn't a single verse that flatly states it. But we can look at Scripture as a whole to come to this conclusion.

Therefore, if someone asks the question when does a human being have a soul, we need to see what Scripture generally teaches on the subject.

Scientifically we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. So we know that a new human being is alive and living at fertilization. Then looking to Scripture, I would ask the question as to whether or not there are any examples of living human beings that do not possess a soul. To that question, I cannot find any.

I find it interesting that we are only questioning whether or not the unborn have a soul. The implication is that we all agree that humans existing outside the womb have a soul. That's interesting because it's not like once we are outside the womb we are fully developed humans. Development takes about 25 years. So why do we assume that a 1 year old has a soul? Why does a 1 year old have a soul?

The reason the John the Baptist example is important is because it demonstrates that while still in the womb a living human being was able to be both filled with the Holy Spirit and experience emotions of joy. Would we suggest that a human being outside the womb that was filled with the Holy Spirit and experienced emotions didn't have a soul? I don't think so, I've never heard anyone suggest so. So why would we question whether or not John the Baptist had a soul? On what basis would we?

So we can at the very least say that clearly we do have a soul in the womb. Then someone might point out that John was about 6 months old in his mother's womb, so what about children younger than him? Again I would ask, on what basis do we think that there is ever a living human being without a soul?

It seems to me that the only reason this was ever asked in the first place was because people were uneducated about the development of the unborn in the womb. But now we aren't. And just like we now understand that the earth is round, thanks to science - we should now be able to understand that human beings, which begin their lives at fertilization, have a soul.