Theological Considerations of Personhood

[redleghunter]

unfortunately, abortion was many times the only way for parents to prevent their unborn child from suffering in this world, and from this perspective abortion is not considered more sinful than the causation/infliction of harm/suffering to/on a human that was born in this world

Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 "If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.",

Luke 23:29 "behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."

Blessings

How do the verses you used support your claim?

 

[fhansen]

Title: Theological considerations of personhood

The abortion debate for Christians sometimes hinges on the term 'personhood.' We acknowledge the biology of a human life beginning at conception, however, is this human life a 'person' in the sense of having a soul?

If your view is 'yes we are human beings, a person, at conception with a soul' then please provide your Biblical, Church, and/or historic Christian positions for such.

If your view is 'no a human life is not a person with a soul at conception, then please provide your Biblical, Church, and/or historic Christian positions when this does occur.

OP parameters: Opinions are welcome of course as this is a forum discussion. I do ask if a claim is made to please substantiate the claim (provide either the historic, church, Biblical evidence).

Again, this is a thread to address the theological aspects of the pro-life and abortion debate.

Finally, as a Christian only area of the forum, I ask we all apply Christian charity and not personally attack a poster and not attack a particular Church or Denomination. We are all above this, or should be. Let's be respectful please.

It's pretty simple IMO. If we aren't persons at conception, then when are we? Where's the exact magical -or logically deduced- point where the unborn should then be rewarded the basic right to life?

The presiding judge in Roe vs Wade admitted that the point in time arrived at by the court was arbitrary. By arbitrarily determining that this human must live, while another, moments apart in age, can die, we cheapen human life, reducing its value to the whim of mere human judgment. Human life is sacred, and all humans are innately worthy of profound dignity and respect, even as the world steps all over that particular truth daily as well.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Life begins when the SPIRIT OF GOD breathes life into the SPIRIT of Man. The Body/Soul of man begins at conception.

Verses pointing to the 3 "parts" of Man...

1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NASB)
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you ENTIRELY;
and may your:

SPIRIT (pneuma) and

SOUL (psyche) and

BODY (sarx / corpus)

be preserved COMPLETE,
without blame at the (Second)coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4:12 (NASB)
For the "word of God" is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the DIVISION of:

SOUL and

SPIRIT,

of both joints and marrow, (BODY?)

and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the "heart". (Soul / Spirit?)

Job 32:8

"But it is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding.

Job 33:4

"The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Isaiah 42:5

Thus says God the Lord,

Who created the heavens and stretched them out,

Who spread out the earth and its offspring,

Who gives breath to the people on it (Body/Soul)

And spirit to those who walk in it,

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Hi ToF, St. Paul tells us things like this:

2 Corinthians 5
8 We are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.
9 Therefore also we have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him.

Philippians 1
21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
22 But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose.
23 But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better.​

We know that when we die our bodies remain here (as the Scriptures above attest), so if we don't have "souls", how can we die and immediately be "at home with the Lord"? Likewise, how could St. Paul possibly believe that, "to die is gain", or that we would be able to make anything our, "ambition", when we die if we have no souls and are simply sleeping in the ground with our dead bodies

*(if I am misunderstanding your meaning here, I certainly apologize, and if I have, please help me understand what you actually mean)

Thanks!

Yours in Christ,
David

Hi David,
Interesting that these passages do NOT mention "soul."

Do you suppose perhaps "soul" mostly means "SELF"?
I think it is used nowadays to mean that, and mostly not used at all.

BTW, I doubt (Thomisy?) anyone sleeps IN the ground ever, and certainly not for eternity. Why would there be any sleeping in eternity? "Jest askin."

Keep in mind, ALL IS FOR ETERNITY. And eternity includes all.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't see anything in Scripture that indicates a separation between a human being and a human person.

I agree with your position from Holy Scriptures. This is also the historic Christian position as well. Especially considering the Incarnation. Jesus Christ from conception was fully God and fully man---fully human. There is no separation of His Person.

As quoted from the Council of Chalcedon:

...one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.
Dogmatic Definition of the Council of Chalcedon

One of the many problems with this line of reasoning is that there is no objective way to distinguish between a human being and a human person. All arguments for when personhood arises are subjective and arbitrary. We can see this in that there is no consensus on the Pro-Choice side for this. For example, some will argue that abortions are acceptable up until the end of the first, second, or third trimester. Some are even in support of partial-birth abortions. The arguments for each of these differing times in which a human being becomes a human person are necessarily subjective and completely arbitrary.

Indeed a very valid point. Which addresses this portion of the OP:

If your view is 'no a human life is not a person with a soul at conception, then please provide your Biblical, Church, and/or historic Christian positions when this does occur.

Which I believe as you point out, such a view would need to establish their claim theologically within the scope of the OP.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hi David,
Interesting that these passages do NOT mention "soul."

Do you suppose perhaps "soul" mostly means "SELF"?
I think it is used nowadays to mean that, and mostly not used at all.

BTW, I doubt (Thomisy?) anyone sleeps IN the ground ever, and certainly not for eternity. Why would there be any sleeping in eternity? "Jest askin."

Keep in mind, ALL IS FOR ETERNITY. And eternity includes all.

I took him to mean what he posted. If we do not have souls, then in what sense can our body be in the ground yet we still be "with the Lord". It would be rather correct to think of soul as self, but not the complete self until resurrection. None the less, the OP clearly did not want to debate the existence of the soul, but rather when can we say God gives us a soul.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Life begins when the SPIRIT OF GOD breathes life into the SPIRIT of Man. The Body/Soul of man begins at conception.

Verses pointing to the 3 "parts" of Man...

1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NASB)
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you ENTIRELY;
and may your:

SPIRIT (pneuma) and

SOUL (psyche) and

BODY (sarx / corpus)

be preserved COMPLETE,
without blame at the (Second)coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4:12 (NASB)
For the "word of God" is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the DIVISION of:

SOUL and

SPIRIT,

of both joints and marrow, (BODY?)

and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the "heart". (Soul / Spirit?)

Job 32:8

"But it is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding.

Job 33:4

"The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Isaiah 42:5

Thus says God the Lord,

Who created the heavens and stretched them out,

Who spread out the earth and its offspring,

Who gives breath to the people on it (Body/Soul)

And spirit to those who walk in it,

So the person exists at conception, just not living in the sense not breathing yet. Is that correct?

 

[SPF]

Ron:

Life begins when the SPIRIT OF GOD breathes life into the SPIRIT of Man. The Body/Soul of man begins at conception.

I'm curious, do you have a position on when God breathes life into the spirit of man? That seems to be the most important thing to answer and I can't discern your answer on that question from your post.

 

[redleghunter]

I guess we could look at the conception of Jesus as an example. Did Jesus have a soul at conception when he was conceived from God's Spirit in Mary? It also begs to ask, since physical DNA is passed from parent to child, does that mean spiritual DNA is also passed from parent to child?

Very interesting and thought provoking post.

Perhaps there was a reason Luke's Gospel had a different kingly line genealogy than Matthew. Showing perhaps Mary's line from Kind David. Theologians have mixed views of this, but interesting you mention the DNA aspect. Since Christ Jesus is fully God and fully man (human), the human blood line comes from Mary. (Is Mary’s lineage in one of the Gospels?)

Now there were many early church views which separated the Divine Son of God Person from the human bodily Messiah Jesus Christ. Yes there was early church debate on this, but settled at the Council of Chalcedon. As I posted one up:

So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us. (Dogmatic Definition of the Council of Chalcedon)

This would address the historic Christian position as you presented the Biblical position.

 

[redleghunter]

'Soul' seems important here and several comments have been made that point to verses with the word soul. Some reduce the question of abortion to a question of when they believe that the soul is present.

This is problematic because "life" and "human being" are being equated with "soul".

Soul as separate from the body is a Greek idea, not a biblical one. My understanding is that the Jews had a non-dualistic view of body and spirit. I don't know what Paul meant by "absent from the body", but as a Pharisee he wouldn't have held to Greek ideas of dualism. Jesus said to not fear him who could only destroy the body (not the soul)--but this could reflect either rhetoric utilizing a new prevailing dualism or might simply mean that man cannot truly destroy what God has made. "Soul" in the KJV can mean spirit or simply a "living being". This second usage was prevalent into the early 20th century (100 souls perished at sea--certainly this did not mean that 100 spirits were destroyed).

Another issue has also not been mentioned. As mentioned the Didache speaks clearly against abortion. But, the practice of abortion in the 1st/2nd century was to examine the child at birth and if not pleasing to kill it.

Late pregnancy and miscarriage are known in the Biblical text, but as has been pointed out, reproductive biology was not understood in the same detail as today. The late medieval/reformation era view that life was in the sperm wrongly believed that a microscopic human was present in the seed (homoculus).

I take that John leapt in Elizabeth's womb as good support for a life being present in late pregnancy. But, despite the seemingly clear meaning of yeled
in OT law, I'm unaware of any modern (as opposed to ancient) law that views injury or death to an unborn fetus as homicide.

I have no way to know when life truly begins. I believe that no life that God creates can be taken away by Man. From a Biblical perspective, the question of abortion seems to require reduction to a question of whether a murder or wrongful death occurred. Certainly life outside the womb is life for the question of murder from the verses mentioned.

I don't see that any of what's been said provides a clear resolution to the modern questions surrounding abortion.

Elizabeth filled with the Holy Spirit called the fruit of Mary's womb, My Lord. We hear mention always of John leaping in the womb as support for a soul or personhood for the about 6 month pre-born John. However, very few ever mention at what stage in the pregnancy Mary was in when the fruit of her womb is called "My Lord."

As Christians, I believe, we need to take a hard look at the Incarnation when we consider the personhood of a pre-born human life. As Jesus Christ fully God and fully man (human), conceived sinless (what differs from us), His body started out just like we did as gestating in a mothers womb (Blessed Mary).

Of course such means little or nothing to non Christians, however, this OP is about us....Christians and our theological convictions on personhood.

As mentioned in two posts above, this Personhood of Christ I speak of can be referenced from the Council of Chalcedon (historic Christian view).

Dogmatic Definition of the Council of Chalcedon

 

[redleghunter]

It's pretty simple IMO. If we aren't persons at conception, then when are we? Where's the exact magical -or logically deduced- point where the unborn should then be rewarded the basic right to life?

The presiding judge in Roe vs Wade admitted that the point in time arrived at by the court was arbitrary. By arbitrarily determining that this human must live, while another, moments apart in age, can die, we cheapen human life, reducing its value to the whim of mere human judgment. Human life is sacred, and all humans are innately worthy of profound dignity and respect, even as the world steps all over that particular truth daily as well.

I agree with your position. It would be helpful for the discussion if you provided the Biblical and/or historical Christian evidence which supports your position. If anything this OP is not only to express our views but to explain to others the 'why.'

Thank you.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

'Soul' seems important here and several comments have been made that point to verses with the word soul. Some reduce the question of abortion to a question of when they believe that the soul is present.

This is problematic because "life" and "human being" are being equated with "soul".

Soul as separate from the body is a Greek idea, not a biblical one. My understanding is that the Jews had a non-dualistic view of body and spirit. I don't know what Paul meant by "absent from the body", but as a Pharisee he wouldn't have held to Greek ideas of dualism. Jesus said to not fear him who could only destroy the body (not the soul)--but this could reflect either rhetoric utilizing a new prevailing dualism or might simply mean that man cannot truly destroy what God has made. "Soul" in the KJV can mean spirit or simply a "living being". This second usage was prevalent into the early 20th century (100 souls perished at sea--certainly this did not mean that 100 spirits were destroyed).

Another issue has also not been mentioned. As mentioned the Didache speaks clearly against abortion. But, the practice of abortion in the 1st/2nd century was to examine the child at birth and if not pleasing to kill it.

Late pregnancy and miscarriage are known in the Biblical text, but as has been pointed out, reproductive biology was not understood in the same detail as today. The late medieval/reformation era view that life was in the sperm wrongly believed that a microscopic human was present in the seed (homoculus).

I take that John leapt in Elizabeth's womb as good support for a life being present in late pregnancy. But, despite the seemingly clear meaning of yeled
in OT law, I'm unaware of any modern (as opposed to ancient) law that views injury or death to an unborn fetus as homicide.

I have no way to know when life truly begins. I believe that no life that God creates can be taken away by Man. From a Biblical perspective, the question of abortion seems to require reduction to a question of whether a murder or wrongful death occurred. Certainly life outside the womb is life for the question of murder from the verses mentioned.

I don't see that any of what's been said provides a clear resolution to the modern questions surrounding abortion.

Actually yes and no, on the Greeks seeing the soul separate from the body. The Greeks starting with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle first made a very good argument on the existence of a soul, but they were not in agreement in all aspects, especially not on the idea of a unity of body and spirit. Aristotle appears to have been the first to look at a soul and body in a united sense, not as independent or easily separable parts. Less like a hand fitting into a glove making the glove move, and more like the hand (soul) being the principal force driving every aspect of what any animated thing is, including what it becomes/is from conception. Saint Thomas refines such thought better from a Christian viewpoint, but the idea was already present before Christianity that a soul is always present in all living things (usually called just a spirit for lower animals) from conception because the "operations" of the spirit/soul include the formation of what a thing is to be. That is why so many ECFs appealed to Aristotle on this very subject. As such a very human soul must be present at birth to make that first division begin on a path toward a fully formed human child.

In that sense, you are correct. The presence of a human soul at conception means the life we are talking about in the womb is both human and a real person from the instant of conception. BTW, the soul comes from God alone, not from the parents (someone else mentioned "spirit dna" from the parents. So, yes that life is very much a "human life" from the point of conception as that is the point God gives life a soul (and animal life gets spirit at conception for same reasons).

To then jump to the claim of this being a problematic view of life needs explanations. None of these great philosophers postulated the absence of a soul during development and the last two mentioned including an ancient Greek predating Christianity, insist on the presence of the soul/animal spirit in every stage of development because of its function in forming from conception what a thing is to be. To suggest otherwise is to imagine a soul as something else all together and not giving it the functions these philosophers did.

Do not wish to derail this thread into discussions of some beliefs in trichotomy (body, soul & spirit). If there is interest in that we can start a new thread. For this thread it is sufficient to ask when does one agree there is a person in the womb. The traditional and consistent position of Christianity has been at conception.

As people were poking, prodding and giving potions to induce abortions long before Christianity, am unclear how anyone can offer evidence that the Didache was only speaking to infanticide post birth. The OT is clear a human life has value and it has always carried serious consequence for taking a life whether it is yet born or not, even if taken indirectly (from a fight say). This OT depiction is consistent with saying taking such a life is murder, and as Christianity springs from Judaism it is a twist to suggest the Didache would represent a radical departure of Christianity from a concept so serious as murder, which is clearly present even in the Law regarding the unborn. We also do still have both manslaughter and murder laws today regarding causing, even unintentionally, the death of the unborn.

The justification for taking a life has always been a serious matter and that indicated in the Bible as well. Self defense, including that which would call soldiers to justify taking life, has always been associated with such acts. We even have ancient Judaism discussing the idea of when taking the life of the unborn could be mitigated to manslaughter instead of murder. So it is not like we have no Scriptural precedence for the concept.

To admit the Bible clearly shows a "person" present in the womb, then muddle the thought with we can't say when that happens raises troubling questions that were not even addressed. It would seem before we shrug are shoulders and suggest we don't want to think about so we cannot say whether it would be right or wrong to take a life prior to some "unknowable" point, we should recognize the seriousness of what we are saying. If we are willing to just shrug at the question of when a human life is a "person", and thereby assign some right to life, how difficult would be to shrug when someone suggests some other human life is either not a person or no longer a person. So while these thoughts are deep and require some thinking, am not sure a shrug and refusal to think more about it rises to the appropriate level due a person's life. Certainly if someone was pointing at us as no longer "persons" we would hope people would do more than shrug.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

It's pretty simple IMO. If we aren't persons at conception, then when are we? Where's the exact magical -or logically deduced- point where the unborn should then be rewarded the basic right to life?

The presiding judge in Roe vs Wade admitted that the point in time arrived at by the court was arbitrary. By arbitrarily determining that this human must live, while another, moments apart in age, can die, we cheapen human life, reducing its value to the whim of mere human judgment. Human life is sacred, and all humans are innately worthy of profound dignity and respect, even as the world steps all over that particular truth daily as well.

It would be arbitrary if it was (prebirth). That is, there is NO defining point there.
BUT BIRTH CERTAINLY IS. We had better not notice that, of course. (This is strickly theological and I'm sure someone will be enforcing that presently.)

 

[DrBubbaLove]

unfortunately, abortion was many times the only way for parents to prevent their unborn child from suffering in this world, and from this perspective abortion is not considered more sinful than the causation/infliction of harm/suffering to/on a human that was born in this world

Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 "If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.",

Luke 23:29 "behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."

Blessings

Few are willing to render and understanding of Scripture to weight suffering against the value of a person's life. I agree we should be sympathetic to suffering, but that is a different question than how we are to view all human life. The Bible clearly forbids murder because God alone is the only One that can completely and Justly do so. The Bible clearly makes Him both giver and taker human life. Am not sure how to get around that in saying because life can be hard, we are justified in deciding ourselves who gets to experience life and who does not. We apply that thought equally to both those born and the unborn. Whereas the opposing thought need not end with just the unborn child, and clearly some of the family suicides today represent the completion of such thoughts. Suicide itself would then become a justifiable option to avoid suffering. No, God forbids us from taking any human life, including our own. I do not see how the existence of suffering is God advocating His Authority over human life to us.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I guess we could look at the conception of Jesus as an example. Did Jesus have a soul at conception when he was conceived from God's Spirit in Mary? It also begs to ask, since physical DNA is passed from parent to child, does that mean spiritual DNA is also passed from parent to child?

Spirit is not a physical thing. Spirits have origin ONLY in God. So our souls can only come from God, not our parents. Where did the idea that spirits have "dna" originate?

All spirits are without physical form, that including our souls. Having no form rather precludes any "parts", which the idea of a "spiritual dna" would represent a "part" of a soul. So the question is only begged by imagining spirits to be something even the ancients before Christians did not imagine it. I suspect this is a very modern notion.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It would be arbitrary if it was (prebirth). That is, there is NO defining point there.
BUT BIRTH CERTAINLY IS. We had better not notice that, of course. (This is strickly theological and I'm sure someone will be enforcing that presently.)

That is rather ignoring the NT Scriptural notice of life clearly before birth, so it is not so apparent that "birth certainly is" that point. The OT (and NT) treatment of all human life rather demands we respect the unborn as well, with no limit suggested on when that demands our attention, simply all human life. For this thread the posit is that our soul is present at conception, which rather forces the recognition of that life as both human life and a specific individual - IOW a person.

Adding -the idea anything before birth is "arbitrary" also assumes we ignore any discussion of what a soul/spirit does, it's functions and purpose. The need for pagans to first postulate the existence of spirits rather suggests a requirement that is not arbitrary at all as spirit was first seen as fundamental to animate life itself.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Is it possible the Exodus law considers the crime to be manslaughter? Negligently causing death without malice (and therefore satisfaction is made through payment rather than death).

I think part of the law does, another part suggests intentionally it would be equivalent to murder. Which rather makes the whole point that the Bible clearly recognizes the unborn as human life. God is said to have proclaimed His Knowledge of us, not in a per-existence sense but a Knowledge of our entire life, before He formed us in the womb. Clearly we know biologically speaking that cannot be talking about our bodies, so it can only be a reference to His giving us a soul while we are in our mother's womb. So the only question remaining is when.

The ancients clearly forming a concept of spirit/soul eventually argued it is rather required for a thing to become what it will become. That is why the ECFs so frequently appeal to those thoughts, especially to Aristotle who was closest to an acceptable Christian concept of and necessity for a human soul at conception.

 

[Florin Lăiu]

Title: Theological considerations of personhood
The abortion debate for Christians sometimes hinges on the term 'personhood.' We acknowledge the biology of a human life beginning at conception, however, is this human life a 'person' in the sense of having a soul?
If your view is 'yes we are human beings, a person, at conception with a soul' then please provide your Biblical, Church, and/or historic Christian positions for such.
If your view is 'no a human life is not a person with a soul at conception, then please provide your Biblical, Church, and/or historic Christian positions when this does occur.
OP parameters: Opinions are welcome of course as this is a forum discussion. I do ask if a claim is made to please substantiate the claim (provide either the historic, church, Biblical evidence).
Again, this is a thread to address the theological aspects of the pro-life and abortion debate.
Finally, as a Christian only area of the forum, I ask we all apply Christian charity and not personally attack a poster and not attack a particular Church or Denomination. We are all above this, or should be. Let's be respectful please.

If the „soul” is an incarnate ghost, which at death is discarnated, then we do not receive such a ”soul” at conception, or at birth or any time later. If ”soul” means only the psychological activity, then animals also have soul. If ”soul” means life breath, then every living thing has soul, including the genital cells, even before combining to become an embryo. The human soul, in a psychological sense is a dynamic reality, since it develops to become a complete human psyche.

I didn’t find any Biblical evidence in behalf of an inherrent immortal soul. The notion of soul has no technical or scientific meaning in Scripture. According to every lexicon of Biblical languages, the „soul” has various, contextual meanings, such as: breath, life, being, person, self, affectivity, desire, etc. Nowhere it means „a ghost” or „a consciousness dwelling temporary in a human body”.

To my opinion, the pro-life mission must search for another basis than the „soul”, because the human being is ”like a mere breath”...”like a passing shadow” (Psalms 144:4 NAS). In death there is no kind of consciousness / soul (Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18-19; Isaiah 63:16; Ecclesiastes 3:19-21; Ecclesiastes 9:4-6). From a Biblical perspective, we must refer to God’s commandment (”You shall not murder!” Exodus 20:13), to God’s Creation (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6), to the wonder of maternity (NJB Psalms 139:16 ”Your eyes could see my embryo. In your book all my days were inscribed, every one that was fixed is there.”), and the legal seriousness of injuring a pregnant woman (Exodus 21:22-25). In addition, every human being is responsible to God regarding his or her own body, which is God’s temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

This is surely a religious matter. But I do not believe that it should be made a political one. It is wrong to commit suicide, but tell me, what punishment deserves someone who attempted suicide? My understanding is that abortion is more like a suicide (”assisted”!), like cutting your own fingers, your hand or taking out your own eye. It is a mutilation of your body and soul, and it is dangerous anyway. However, since that embryo / foetus, in any stage, is part of the woman’s body, as long as it is not yet born, aborting women should not be punished, since abortion is in itself a self-infliction, like suicide. At the same time, there are alternative solutions, like give in adoption the new born child, if the woman cannot rear it.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The immortal soul. Yes, that does clear that up.

I would say that a person is not a person without a soul and a spirit.

1Th 5:23 and the God of the peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved unblameably in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ;

So what was it that leaped in Elizabeth's womb if not a human person?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

If the „soul” is an incarnate ghost, which at death is discarnated, then we do not receive such a ”soul” at conception, or at birth or any time later. If ”soul” means only the psychological activity, then animals also have soul. If ”soul” means life breath, then every living thing has soul, including the genital cells, even before combining to become an embryo. The human soul, in a psychological sense is a dynamic reality, since it develops to become a complete human psyche.

I didn’t find any Biblical evidence in behalf of an inherrent immortal soul. The notion of soul has no technical or scientific meaning in Scripture. According to every lexicon of Biblical languages, the „soul” has various, contextual meanings, such as: breath, life, being, person, self, affectivity, desire, etc. Nowhere it means „a ghost” or „a consciousness dwelling temporary in a human body”.

To my opinion, the pro-life mission must search for another basis than the „soul”, because the human being is ”like a mere breath”...”like a passing shadow” (Psalms 144:4 NAS). In death there is no kind of consciousness / soul (Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18-19; Isaiah 63:16; Ecclesiastes 3:19-21; Ecclesiastes 9:4-6). From a Biblical perspective, we must refer to God’s commandment (”You shall not murder!” Exodus 20:13), to God’s Creation (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6), to the wonder of maternity (NJB Psalms 139:16 ”Your eyes could see my embryo. In your book all my days were inscribed, every one that was fixed is there.”), and the legal seriousness of injuring a pregnant woman (Exodus 21:22-25). In addition, every human being is responsible to God regarding his or her own body, which is God’s temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

This is surely a religious matter. But I do not believe that it should be made a political one. It is wrong to commit suicide, but tell me, what punishment deserves someone who attempted suicide? My understanding is that abortion is more like a suicide (”assisted”!), like cutting your own fingers, your hand or taking out your own eye. It is a mutilation of your body and soul, and it is dangerous anyway. However, since that embryo / foetus, in any stage, is part of the woman’s body, as long as it is not yet born, aborting women should not be punished, since abortion is in itself a self-infliction, like suicide. At the same time, there are alternative solutions, like give in adoption the new born child, if the woman cannot rear it.

The idea of a soul being a ghost, like a hand in a glove is rather like the first pagan (Greek version) postulated the soul. Aristotle (also Greek) argued against that understanding, which is why the ECFs appealed to him in explaining the Christian view. So the idea of a spirit in all animate life, with a human's spirit called a soul, is not the idea of incarnating something which already existed. In fact God is said to create our souls at the moment of conception is the basis of the ancient Church's stand against abortion.

So yes, in that understanding animals also have spirits given to them, but our spirits are unique in that there are higher functions/operations in our spirits which all other animals on earth lack. The idea of self is not complete without a body, even in Aristotle's view of the soul. The soul would be the principal behind the formation of self as that develops with the developing body. There is a unity in that understanding of a soul that is absent with an incomplete union approaching what one could consider a "possession" by a spirit. Traditional Christianity rejects such a notion of soul (also strongly objects (heresy) to that idea as it might apply to The Incarnation with Jesus).

The idea of permanence of the soul after God forms us in the womb at conception is rather required to make sense of both the ancient Judaic view of the afterlife and Scripture. We see it present in stories like the one Jesus told about Lazarus with the rich man both already in the next life at the moment He told that story (but obviously without bodies). A soul's permanence would also be a part too, of what it means to have been created as a reflection of Him, which in traditional Christian theology can only apply to aspects of our souls since God has no form/body.

Again the concept of breathing and associating that with a third thing said to be part of our nature makes us a trichotomy instead of a dichotomy, which was not part of this discussion. People holding this view and wanting to debate it vs a dichotomy could do so in another thread. For this thread a dichotomy is assumed, but people holding to a "breath of life" concept of spirit could still participate in declaring at what point they feel the life in the womb is a person.

In that an abortion necessarily involves removal of tissue which is a part of the mother we could agree, but not to ignore some of the tissue being removed belongs to someone else entirely. In that sense, it is not just mutilating one's own body but also taking the life of another person. In the Bible that is at the least considered manslaughter if the action was indirectly the cause of taking that unborn life, and murder otherwise. Which rather declares the value placed on that life by Scripture is the same value given those already born.