Quickening

SPF · Dec 4, 2018

Archivist said:
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.”

The "ultimate" question is certainly not "when does a fetus become a person". The attempt to create a distinction between a human being and a human person is only done by those who want to permit some action that would otherwise be considered immoral against the non-person.

Personhood is an entirely subjective, arbitrary, and made up distinction that varies based upon the subjective notions of whoever is making the claim. That's why you'll find so many people disagreeing over when a human being becomes a human person - first trimester, second trimester, beating heart, feel pain, consciousness, etc etc... All subjective and arbitrary points during the development of the human being.

Archivist · Dec 4, 2018

SPF said:
The "ultimate" question is certainly not "when does a fetus become a person". The attempt to create a distinction between a human being and a human person is only done by those who want to permit some action that would otherwise be considered immoral against the non-person.

Personhood is an entirely subjective, arbitrary, and made up distinction that varies based upon the subjective notions of whoever is making the claim. That's why you'll find so many people disagreeing over when a human being becomes a human person - first trimester, second trimester, beating heart, feel pain, consciousness, etc etc... All subjective and arbitrary points during the development of the human being.

And given taht over half of all fertilized eggs will not even impant means that the point that you are providing--conception--is no less arbitrary and subjective.

SPF · Dec 4, 2018

Archivist said:
And given taht over half of all fertilized eggs will not even impant means that the point that you are providing--conception--is no less arbitrary and subjective.

I wouldn't expect such a blatant non-sequitur from you. At fertilization there exists a new and unique individual, a human being that is alive.

And we know that human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

Scripture does not support the idea that there is a difference between a human being and a human person and that only human persons possess moral worth and value.

And the fact that so many fertilized eggs don't implant is nothing less then a sad testimony to the consequences of sin entering the world. Just like its a sad Truth that Jesus reminded us in the small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Would you call God and Jesus a failure because more than 50% of the world is not going to be forgiven of their sins? Sin sucks, it has corrupted our world and is terrible. That's the take away from how difficult it is for a new human to actually make it out of the womb.

Heart2Soul · Dec 4, 2018

fhansen said:
If it makes sense to consider a fetus a non-human with no right to life or anything else at one moment in time, and then a human with full legal rights, worthy of protection by civil authority the next moment, then....

That's the absurdity of their argument about abortion....and even our justice system passed the bill into law allowing abortion but then on the flip side charges a man with 2 murders....his wife and the unborn fetus.....we really need to reconsider the whole concept of life before birth within the legal definitions because the law cannot justify itself for allowing the woman to murder her fetus but not anyone else.

Archivist · Dec 4, 2018

SPF said:
I wouldn't expect such a blatant non-sequitur from you. At fertilization there exists a new and unique individual, a human being that is alive.

And we know that human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

Scripture does not support the idea that there is a difference between a human being and a human person and that only human persons possess moral worth and value.

No, at fertilization there exists a potential human being that must pass several hurdles before it becomes a human person. Science proves that.

And the fact that so many fertilized eggs don't implant is nothing less then a sad testimony to the consequences of sin entering the world. Just like its a sad Truth that Jesus reminded us in the small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Would you call God and Jesus a failure because more than 50% of the world is not going to be forgiven of their sins? Sin sucks, it has corrupted our world and is terrible. That's the take away from how difficult it is for a new human to actually make it out of the womb.

So sin is the reason that fertilized eggs fail to implant? Interesting.

Archivist · Dec 4, 2018

Heart2Soul said:
That's the absurdity of their argument about abortion....and even our justice system passed the bill into law allowing abortion but then on the flip side charges a man with 2 murders....his wife and the unborn fetus.....we really need to reconsider the whole concept of life before birth within the legal definitions because the law cannot justify itself for allowing the woman to murder her fetus but not anyone else.

You don't see the difference between a woman having control over her own body and an assault by a criminal? Oh, and the woman wouldn't be murdering the fetus--murder is an illegal killing and abortion is legal.

SPF · Dec 4, 2018

Archivist said:
No, at fertilization there exists a potential human being that must pass several hurdles before it becomes a human person. Science proves that.

Ummm, no. There is no such thing as a difference between a human being and a human person. That distinction is a subjective, arbitrary, and made up fabrication by people who want to permit some action against the non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

Archivist said:
So sin is the reason that fertilized eggs fail to implant? Interesting.

Sin is the reason for death entering the world. Sin is the reason there are wars, sickness, and all manner of evil. The very hope of Christianity is the real return of Jesus and the setting right of all things.

fhansen · Dec 4, 2018

Archivist said:
You don't see the difference between a woman having control over her own body and an assault by a criminal?

Should she control her body if she wants to use it in the course of and for the purpose of murdering some other human being, who successfully made it out of the birth canal alive? Either way a human life is taken.

Archivist · Dec 4, 2018

fhansen said:
Should she control her body if she wants to use it in the course of and for the purpose of murdering some other human being, who successfully made it out of the birth canal alive? Either way a human life is taken.

Once born a baby is no longer dependent on her body.

fhansen · Dec 4, 2018

Heart2Soul said:
That's the absurdity of their argument about abortion....and even our justice system passed the bill into law allowing abortion but then on the flip side charges a man with 2 murders....his wife and the unborn fetus.....we really need to reconsider the whole concept of life before birth within the legal definitions because the law cannot justify itself for allowing the woman to murder her fetus but not anyone else.

And Blackmun, the judge who wrote the opinion on Roe vs Wade, admitted that the method the court used for determining the stage when taking the life of the baby was legal was strictly arbitrary. One moment the life has value, with full protection of the law, the next it does not.

fhansen · Dec 4, 2018

Archivist said:
Once born a baby is no longer dependent on her body.

And yet still very dependent. Mothers should protect their babies either way.

SPF · Dec 4, 2018

Archivist said:
Once born a baby is no longer dependent on her body.

Only if you switch immediately to formula!

Heart2Soul · Dec 4, 2018

Archivist said:
You don't see the difference between a woman having control over her own body and an assault by a criminal? Oh, and the woman wouldn't be murdering the fetus--murder is an illegal killing and abortion is legal.

I don't see the difference of when it is called murder and when it isn't

Archivist · Dec 4, 2018

Heart2Soul said:
I don't see the difference of when it is called murder and when it isn't

In one case the pregnant woman wants to carry the fetus to term, in the other that choice is taken from her. You can’t see the difference?

SPF · Dec 4, 2018

Archivist said:
In one case the pregnant woman wants to carry the fetus to term, in the other that choice is taken from her. You can’t see the difference?

You’re not being very charitable here Archivist. Surely you recognize the inconsistency in the law considering the fetus to be less than a person when the woman wants to kill it and then equal to a person when the woman wants to keep it.

A woman’s opinion on the nature of the unborn has no bearing on whether or not God considers the unborn a human or not.

Archivist · Dec 4, 2018

SPF said:
You’re not being very charitable here Archivist. Surely you recognize the inconsistency in the law considering the fetus to be less than a person when the woman wants to kill it and then equal to a person when the woman wants to keep it.

A woman’s opinion on the nature of the unborn has no bearing on whether or not God considers the unborn a human or not.

But there is no inconsistency in the law. It doesn’t take much thought to see that.

SPF · Dec 5, 2018

Archivist said:
But there is no inconsistency in the law. It doesn’t take much thought to see that.

The inconsistency lies within the status of the unborn. It can change based upon the circumstances of its death. This would be in contrast to how the law views humans that are already born.

For instance, let's say a husband/wife became pregnant, but for whatever reason secretly decided to have an abortion. The husband is driving the wife to the abortion clinic to terminate the pregnancy when a drunk driver hits and kills the wife/child. The husband, who is devastated and wants to see the maximum sentence imposed on the drunk driver could very easily say that he and his wife were so excited about the child, but that this man destroyed everything and killed two people. The court would agree and charge the man with 2 counts of murder. Thus, one minute the value of the human life is zero, the next the value is equal. That is inconsistent.

The closest example would be assisted suicide, which is illegal in almost all states. It's of course not a perfect example anymore because assisted suicide has become legal in a couple of states, which again just reinforces that there is inconsistency in the law regarding the sanctity of life. But most states would say that even though a living person has decided they want to die, it's wrong for someone to help them. Suicide has also itself been classified as a felony.

Archivist · Dec 5, 2018

SPF said:
The inconsistency lies within the status of the unborn. It can change based upon the circumstances of its death. This would be in contrast to how the law views humans that are already born.

Again there is no inconsistency.

For instance, let's say a husband/wife became pregnant, but for whatever reason secretly decided to have an abortion. The husband is driving the wife to the abortion clinic to terminate the pregnancy when a drunk driver hits and kills the wife/child. The husband, who is devastated and wants to see the maximum sentence imposed on the drunk driver could very easily say that he and his wife were so excited about the child, but that this man destroyed everything and killed two people. The court would agree and charge the man with 2 counts of murder. Thus, one minute the value of the human life is zero, the next the value is equal. That is inconsistent.

First, murder is a criminal offense. The decision to charge a drunk driver with murder rests with the DA, not with the husband.

Second, this wouldn’t be murder on the part of the drunk driver. Homicide by vehicle or manslaughter perhaps.

Third, you can’t see the difference between the actions of a third party killing a fetus and a woman excoriating her bodily integrity? There is a difference.

The closest example would be assisted suicide, which is illegal in almost all states. It's of course not a perfect example anymore because assisted suicide has become legal in a couple of states, which again just reinforces that there is inconsistency in the law regarding the sanctity of life. But most states would say that even though a living person has decided they want to die, it's wrong for someone to help them. Suicide has also itself been classified as a felony.

Actually suicide is not illegal. If you successfully kill yourself you will not be punished under the criminal law. Attempted suicide, in the other hand, is illegal.

SPF · Dec 5, 2018

Archivist said:
First, murder is a criminal offense. The decision to charge a drunk driver with murder rests with the DA, not with the husband.

Second, this wouldn’t be murder on the part of the drunk driver. Homicide by vehicle or manslaughter perhaps.

Third, you can’t see the difference between the actions of a third party killing a fetus and a woman excoriating her bodily integrity? There is a difference.

This is the problem with discussing things with people on the internet. You're clearly not interested in having an intelligent discussion and just nitpicking and trying to score some imaginary pride points.

Let's use another example then. The husband and wife are out in the neighborhood going for a long walk where they discuss the upcoming abortion they will be driving to in an hour. Someone walks up with a gun and shoots the wife, killing her and the unborn child.

Based upon the current laws, there is a good chance that the man is going to be charged with two counts of murder. That is where the inconsistency lies.

The moral worth and value of the unborn is not consistently treated by the law. This is in contrast to those of us who live outside a womb. We are treated consistently by the law.

Archivist said:
Actually suicide is not illegal. If you successfully kill yourself you will not be punished under the criminal law. Attempted suicide, in the other hand, is illegal.

Again, you're just being something I can't say without being reported. Obviously people aren't charged with a crime if they kill themselves. They're dead. But you're only demonstrating my point in acknowledging that the law views attempted suicide as illegal.

zelosravioli · Dec 5, 2018

SPF said:
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?
I often lead and participate in actual debates in philosophy and apologetics, so I am no couch philosopher.

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.

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. (SPF from above)
Humans 'begin' without arms, legs, eyes, brain, heart, toes, etc. so why do we have to assume they 'begin' with a soul?

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. (SPF from above #80)
Like before, you are arguing from a negative, there are 'no verses' that speak of what humans do or don't have in the early periods of pregnancy.
You are missing that we are talking about 'while a human is forming', no one is talking about adult humans - and your right, scripture has a lot of fully formed humans! Point taken!
A human zygote is 'living' but it has nothing other than a code of information to develop into a human, it has yet to develop 'any' recognizable parts (say a soul for instance). The zygote has yet to sub divide into the smaller separate cells and has yet to develop anything other than to subdivide. A zygote is not even in the 'womb' until the fifth day or so. The zygote enters the embryo stage then the fetus stage, organs do not start developing till the third week or so... and your argument is that "no one in the bible doesn't have a soul" (?) (Lots of people in scripture have no souls, the dead, but I'm not actually using that as an argument, because it makes as much sense as your argument)

Adam doesn't work because his case was unique among humans and that our beginnings look absolutely nothing like his. (SPF from above #80)
True - because we look like zygotes.
Genesis is not my 'proof text' but I might point out that at least Adam seemed to have a fully 'formed' 'human' body, without a soul.

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. (SPF from above #80)
True, Adam was not alive until he had a soul, you are making my point, for me.

First off, Adam never existed in a womb, so it isn't comparable from the beginning. (SPF from #77)
Adam was not in a womb, sure, but neither are we until the fifth day.

Quickening

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Senior Veteran

Oldbie

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Believer

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency