Quickening

[SPF]

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

I'm not sure why the connection is so difficult for you to make. It's there, and it's obvious. I'll try a simple syllogism that a couch philosopher ought to be able to follow.

P1: Scripture teaches that all living humans have a soul.
P2: A new living human being comes into existence at fertilization.
Conclusion: Human beings have souls at fertilization.

This is a valid, logically sound syllogism with the premises pointing towards the conclusion. If you want to prove the argument false, you need to demonstrate that one of the premises are false. And given that there are 0 Scriptural passages that talk about there being living human beings without souls, I do not see how it can be done. But I more than welcome it.

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.

What I'm saying is that Scripture assumes that all living human beings have souls. The fact that I can't find anywhere in Scripture that indicates otherwise is a great testament to this fact.

Let's say I made the claim to you that "all boys have brown hair" How would you go about proving me wrong? To prove me wrong all you would need to do is find a boy without brown hair. Easy, right? Likewise, what I'm saying is that Scripture teaches and assumes that all living human beings have souls. To prove me wrong all you need do is show me one passage where we have a living human being without a soul. I can't find one. I don't think there is one. I think Scripture teaches that all living humans have a soul.

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!

Humans take 25 years to fully form. Why would we assume that a human has to develop x amount before they get a soul? Where does this idea even originate from? It's not Scripture. That is important.

A human zygote is 'living' but it has nothing other than a code of information to develop into a human

This is wrong. Humans take 25 years to develop, yet they are still a human being at every level of development. You're actually begging the question here because you're assuming that humans aren't humans at fertilization to make this statement, and the very point that is being argued is that we are living human beings at fertilization.

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.

I'm not, and I'm not sure why you aren't getting this. According to the more than likely allegorical and not literal story of Adam, there is nothing in Scripture that says his heart was beating, his brain was working, or that he was alive by any standards we consider alive, until God breathed life into him. Interestingly, it doesn't even say that God put a soul in Adam, it says that he "became a living soul". That would indicate that life and soul for a human are always together.

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.

The picture provided here is that Adam was a "shell" so to speak, and when God gave him the "breath of life", two things happened simultaneously - First, his body began working, and second, he had a soul.

We can take this and now apply it to the scientific advancements about human life. Since we now know that a new and unique human being is alive and comes into existence at fertilization, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to think that we don't have a soul at fertilization.

 

[Archivist]

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.

No, an “intelligent discussion” means that we use correct facts. If you say something that is wrong I will correct you. I would expect that you will correct me if I misstate the facts. That isn’t trying to “score imaginary pride points.” Why can’t you just admit that you were wrong and move on?

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.

There is no inconsistency. One involves illegal actions by a third party, the other involves legal actions by the women involving her bodily integrity

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.

Again, no inconsistency.

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.

Perhaps you need to take a break and do some deep breathing. You said something that was wrong, I corrected you. Can’t you just admit that you were wrong instead wanting to use words that you”can’t say without being reported?”

 

[SPF]

No, an “intelligent discussion” means that we use correct facts. If you say something that is wrong I will correct you. I would expect that you will correct me if I misstate the facts. That isn’t trying to “score imaginary pride points.” Why can’t you just admit that you were wrong and move on?



There is no inconsistency. One involves illegal actions by a third party, the other involves legal actions by the women involving her bodily integrity



Again, no inconsistency.



Perhaps you need to take a break and do some deep breathing. You said something that was wrong, I corrected you. Can’t you just admit that you were wrong instead wanting to use words that you”can’t say without being reported?”

I’ll correct the paragraph here for you:

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.

There, paragraph corrected. And my point, which is obvious is that instead of discussing the content of what I said, you chose to only address the last sentence. But apparently avoiding the meat and potatoes of a topic seems to be your M.O. at this point so it’s probsbly not worth responding.

The bottom line is that the treatment of the unborn is inconsistent, and you’re simply stating it’s not doesn’t make it so.

We can see how obviously true this fact is with the hypothetical situation I gave.

The fact is that the law treats the value of born people consistently, yet it does not treat the value of the unborn consistently, as my previous example demonstrated.

 

[Heart2Soul]

I'm not sure why the connection is so difficult for you to make. It's there, and it's obvious. I'll try a simple syllogism that a couch philosopher ought to be able to follow.

P1: Scripture teaches that all living humans have a soul.
P2: A new living human being comes into existence at fertilization.
Conclusion: Human beings have souls at fertilization.

This is a valid, logically sound syllogism with the premises pointing towards the conclusion. If you want to prove the argument false, you need to demonstrate that one of the premises are false. And given that there are 0 Scriptural passages that talk about there being living human beings without souls, I do not see how it can be done. But I more than welcome it.

What I'm saying is that Scripture assumes that all living human beings have souls. The fact that I can't find anywhere in Scripture that indicates otherwise is a great testament to this fact.

Let's say I made the claim to you that "all boys have brown hair" How would you go about proving me wrong? To prove me wrong all you would need to do is find a boy without brown hair. Easy, right? Likewise, what I'm saying is that Scripture teaches and assumes that all living human beings have souls. To prove me wrong all you need do is show me one passage where we have a living human being without a soul. I can't find one. I don't think there is one. I think Scripture teaches that all living humans have a soul.

Humans take 25 years to fully form. Why would we assume that a human has to develop x amount before they get a soul? Where does this idea even originate from? It's not Scripture. That is important.

This is wrong. Humans take 25 years to develop, yet they are still a human being at every level of development. You're actually begging the question here because you're assuming that humans aren't humans at fertilization to make this statement, and the very point that is being argued is that we are living human beings at fertilization.

I'm not, and I'm not sure why you aren't getting this. According to the more than likely allegorical and not literal story of Adam, there is nothing in Scripture that says his heart was beating, his brain was working, or that he was alive by any standards we consider alive, until God breathed life into him. Interestingly, it doesn't even say that God put a soul in Adam, it says that he "became a living soul". That would indicate that life and soul for a human are always together.

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.

The picture provided here is that Adam was a "shell" so to speak, and when God gave him the "breath of life", two things happened simultaneously - First, his body began working, and second, he had a soul.

We can take this and now apply it to the scientific advancements about human life. Since we now know that a new and unique human being is alive and comes into existence at fertilization, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to think that we don't have a soul at fertilization.

I agree with you....and ponder this as well.....when Elizabeth (Mary's cousin) was pregnant and met with Mary (who was now pregnant with Jesus) the baby in Elizabeth's womb immediately leapt in her presence….Luke 1:41

Mary Visits Elizabeth
…40where she entered the home of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!…

she was supposedly in her 27th or 28th week of pregnancy....now if a baby inside a mother's womb can discern it's Lord before it is born then doesn't that indicate it has a soul/spirit?

 

[SPF]

I agree with you....and ponder this as well.....when Elizabeth (Mary's cousin) was pregnant and met with Mary (who was now pregnant with Jesus) the baby in Elizabeth's womb immediately leapt in her presence….Luke 1:41

Mary Visits Elizabeth
…40where she entered the home of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!…

she was supposedly in her 27th or 28th week of pregnancy....now if a baby inside a mother's womb can discern it's Lord before it is born then doesn't that indicate it has a soul/spirit?

Great point. We are told that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while in the womb AND experienced the emotion of joy. Would anyone think that someone who was filled with the HS and felt joy wouldn’t have a soul?

 

[zelosravioli]

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. (post 78)

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? (post 65)

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. (post 68)

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'. (post 71)

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. (post 73)

 

[SPF]

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? (post 65)

The point is obvious, and I'm still surprised you haven't made the connection. The point is that at the very least the story of John the Baptist demonstrates that at the very latest, a human has a soul somewhere around 24 weeks. What's of note with that time frame of course is that 24 weeks used to be still considered a time when the unborn was not viable.

And then as my Post 101 explains, there really is no good reason not to take the time in which a human has a soul all the way back to fertilization.

 

[zelosravioli]

I'm surprised 'you' finally made the connection:
The point is that at the very least the story of John the Baptist demonstrates that at the very latest, a human has a soul somewhere around 24 weeks. (SPF, above)
You finally grasped why your verse in Luke doesn't relate to the question. Mary was pregnant for 6 months before this point in the story. Thats the question 'when', at what early stage do we assume this is a person? And what 'defines' a person? That is the point of the OP, and of the whole abortion controversy.

The "ultimate" question is certainly not "when does a fetus become a person".
That is the question presented in the OP. It is not an ultimate question, but it is a question.

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. (SPF, post #81)
You are accusing 'everyone' who has this honest theological, philosophical, metaphysical and scientific question of only wanting to permit or harm persons.

Assuming that asking the question implies we have an immoral agenda, is one of your many faulty presuppositions. Your premise2 is far too simplistic, the biology here is far more complicated than this, and most thinking people are aware of how the question is more complex, as is the biology.
P1: Scripture teaches that all living humans have a soul.
P2: A new living human being comes into existence at fertilization.
Conclusion: Human beings have souls at fertilization. (SPF, post #101)

.. This is a valid, logically sound syllogism with the premises pointing towards the conclusion. If you want to prove the argument false, you need to demonstrate that one of the premises are false. (SPF, post #101)
I would remind you that your argument is not really a 'syllogism'. A syllogism would look like this:
P1: Scripture teaches that all living humans have a soul.
P2: All souls are living humans.
Or:
P1. Scripture teaches all living humans have a body bones, brains, and a heart.
P2. A new living human being comes into existence at fertilization.
Conclusion: human beings have body's, bones, brains, and a heart at fertilization.

Thats the problem with your argument.

Let's say I made the claim to you that "all boys have brown hair" How would you go about proving me wrong? To prove me wrong all you would need to do is find a boy without brown hair. Easy, right? (SPF, post #101)
P1. All boys have brown hair
P2. Boys with brown hair come into existence at fertilization.
Conclusion: All boys have brown hair at fertilization.

Thats the problem with your syllogisms, false premises, and manipulation of categories.

 

[Archivist]

I’ll correct the paragraph here for you:

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.

Not necessary to post a corrected paragraph since I thought we had already agreed that your earlier post was incorrect.

There, paragraph corrected. And my point, which is obvious is that instead of discussing the content of what I said, you chose to only address the last sentence. But apparently avoiding the meat and potatoes of a topic seems to be your M.O. at this point so it’s probsbly not worth responding.

But I did address your point. The attacker is a third party. The fetus is not inside of his body. It is illegal for him to commit murder. The fetus is inside of the pregnant wonan’s body. It is not murder if she has a legal abortion.

The bottom line is that the treatment of the unborn is inconsistent, and you’re simply stating it’s not doesn’t make it so.

We can see how obviously true this fact is with the hypothetical situation I gave.

The fact is that the law treats the value of born people consistently, yet it does not treat the value of the unborn consistently, as my previous example demonstrated.

Now you are talking about the inconsistency of the treatment of the unborn. That isn’t what you said before. The kittens nborn have historically been treated differently. At Common Law abortion was legal until quickening. A fetus can inherent, but only if it survives and is born. In the US citizenship begins not at conception, but at birth. That isn’t any more inconsistent people than age limits for driving, voting or being President.

 

[SPF]

The fact that the law treats the value of the life of the unborn in some circumstances as worthless (abortion), and then at other times as possessing the same worth as a born human (homicide), is indeed inconsistent.

 

[Archivist]

The fact that the law treats the value of the life of the unborn in some circumstances as worthless (abortion), and then at other times as possessing the same worth as a born human (homicide), is indeed inconsistent.

And you are entitled to your opinion, but that is all you are providing. Is the law inconsistant because you have to be at least 35 to be president? Of course not.

Your statement that life of the fetus is treated as worthless in cases of abortion is incorrect. If you have read Roe and Casey you know that isn’t true. Roe held that states could actually prohibit abortion during the third trimester so long as certain exceptions were allowed. Casey creates the undue burden test. So the fetus is not treated as being “worthless” under the law.

 

[SPF]

I'll try another example as an analogy and let's see if this helps.

In Georgia you can drive a car unsupervised at 16 years old. In New Jersey, you have to be 17 years old to drive unsupervised. Each state is consistent in how they treat the driving laws. However, if someone was to ask the big picture question of whether or not driving laws are consistent across the country, the answer would be no, they are in fact inconsistent.

In a similar way, the treatment of the fetus is inconsistent. In some circumstances it is treated as worthless (abortion), and in other circumstances it is treated as having the same rights as another living human (homicide). So if someone asks the big picture question as to whether or not the law, in principle, carries the same view of the moral worth and value of a fetus in deriving its practices - the answer would have to be no.

 

[Archivist]

I'll try another example as an analogy and let's see if this helps.

In Georgia you can drive a car unsupervised at 16 years old. In New Jersey, you have to be 17 years old to drive unsupervised. Each state is consistent in how they treat the driving laws. However, if someone was to ask the big picture question of whether or not driving laws are consistent across the country, the answer would be no, they are in fact inconsistent.

Driving laws are a matter of state regulation (see the 10th Amendment) so it isn’t inconsistent if they vary from state to state.

In a similar way, the treatment of the fetus is inconsistent. In some circumstances it is treated as worthless (abortion), and in other circumstances it is treated as having the same rights as another living human (homicide). So if someone asks the big picture question as to whether or not the law, in principle, carries the same view of the moral worth and value of a fetus in deriving its practices - the answer would have to be no.

If everyone should have the same rights, that means we let 5 year olds drive cars and 10 year olds serve in combat. Age has always been a deciding factor. That is not inconsistent.

 

[SPF]

Inconsistent: not staying the same throughout.

State A permits drivers to drive unsupervised at age 16.
State B permits drivers to drive unsupervised at age 17.

Question: Is the legal driving age consistent or inconsistent in America?
Answer: The legal driving age is inconsistent in America due to the fact that it varies between states.

The same applies to the legal treatment of the fetus. It is inconsistent in that in some situations the fetus is considered worthless (abortion), while in other situations it is considered to have the same rights as born humans (homicide).

 

[Archivist]

Inconsistent: not staying the same throughout.

State A permits drivers to drive unsupervised at age 16.
State B permits drivers to drive unsupervised at age 17.

Question: Is the legal driving age consistent or inconsistent in America?
Answer: The legal driving age is inconsistent in America due to the fact that it varies between states.

Under the Constitution, driving age is regulated by the states. It is consistent in that each states sets its own driving age.

The same applies to the legal treatment of the fetus. It is inconsistent in that in some situations the fetus is considered worthless (abortion), while in other situations it is considered to have the same rights as born humans (homicide).

You haven’t bothered answering my question—should sux year olds be permitted to drive. It isn’t inconsistent to have siggetent rules for different ages.

 

[SPF]

Under the Constitution, driving age is regulated by the states. It is consistent in that each states sets its own driving age.

I never said otherwise. However, because the driving age is set differently by the states, we can say that the driving age between them is inconsistent.

Inconsistent means "not staying the same throughout"

Is the driving age the same throughout the country? No, it is different. Or put another way, it is inconsistent.

Let it go man, let it go.

 

[Archivist]

I never said otherwise. However, because the driving age is set differently by the states, we can say that the driving age between them is inconsistent.

Inconsistent means "not staying the same throughout"

Is the driving age the same throughout the country? No, it is different. Or put another way, it is inconsistent.

It is consistent in that each state follows to 10th Amendment in setting their own laws. They are consistent in that they are following the Constitution. The law is consistent even if driving requirements vary.

Now I have asked you several questions that you have ignored. I presume that your failure to answer means that you cannot do so.

Let it go man, let it go.

I’m the OP in this thread. Do not tell me to “let it go.” If you don’t like the answers you are receiving go start your own thread.

 

[SPF]

It is consistent in that each state follows to 10th Amendment in setting their own laws. They are consistent in that they are following the Constitution. The law is consistent even if driving requirements vary.

Correct. Yet, when The question is whether the driving age the law settles on is consistent among the states, the answer will be no, the driving age between the states is inconsistent.

They may use similar methodology in determining the age, but what the actual age is when they make the law is inconsistent, or different, between the states.

 

[Archivist]

Correct. Yet, when The question is whether the driving age the law settles on is consistent among the states, the answer will be no, the driving age between the states is inconsistent.

They may use similar methodology in determining the age, but what the actual age is when they make the law is inconsistent, or different, between the states.

Incorrect. The driving age laws are perfectly consistent. They are all adopted pursuant to the 10th Amendment, which provides that all powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. That is not inconsistent, even if it yields different results from state to state.

I believe that the term you are after is “uniform.” No doubt, there is no uniformity in driving age laws. There isn’t supposed to be.

Now, please get the discussion back on abortion. What is your point?

 

[SPF]

I believe that the term you are after is “uniform.” No doubt, there is no uniformity in driving age laws. There isn’t supposed to be.

If you go to thesaurus.com you’ll find that the very first synonym listed for “uniform” is “consistent”. If you continue down to the antonyms for “uniform” you will find “inconsistent”.

So instead of “No doubt, there is no uniformity in driving age laws”, we could easily and correctly say, “No doubt, there is no consistency in driving age laws.”