Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is not what science says. Please debate honestly.
What scripture specifically states that ensoulment takes place at conception?
There is another aspect to think about, regardless of one's position on the personhood of the new life beginning to form.
Consider me as an organ doner. I have two kidneys, a liver, and a heart. Suppose four people, young and otherwise healthy, were in desperate need of organ donation, and I lived in a country where a despot ruled, who came up to me and told me I was going to have my organs harvested, because that would save four lives that would otherwise die, and my own life, being only one, could not morally be left to live . . . four lives saved versus one life saved seems to be a compelling argument. Is it moral for the ruler to have my organs harvested against my will?
Of course not. We recognize I have a right to the integrity of my own body, regardless of the life saving potential for the others. Indeed, if I were to propose committing suicide that the others might live, many participants in this forum would be horrified at that idea, you would argue against my doing that, in spite of the math, four lives being saved at the cost of the one.
Isn't it the same for the pregnant woman? Doesn't she have the final say as to the use of her body?
Interesting that human being established by scientific fact 'is a worthless term because it is too vague.' What makes your estimation of 'personhood' more valid than science? Please enlighten us with the supreme infallible opinion of some philosopher you obviously adhere to. I already posited up thread the opinions of bioethicist Peter Singer who believes personhood does not begin even with birth or the months after.
So what is your definition of 'personhood?'
Are we switching to religion now? I thought we were discussing scientific and philosophical claims. You can go back quite a few pages where I presented the Biblical case for life beginning at conception.
1. "Human being" is vague because it's used colloquially to describe two different things (biology and personhood). In your use of the term, you yourself are an example of this.
2. Science did not define "human being" since the phrase has been around since the late 1600's.
3. Personhood is used to establish rights rather than biology.
5. It's logical to take the position that brain dead bodies aren't persons. Therefore, it's also logical to hold the position that brain functions should be used in determining personhood.
6. First semester fetuses don't display the higher brain functions that we associate with personhood. Therefore, first trimester fetuses aren't persons.
I wasn't responding to you, and the beginning of life doesn't necessarily correspond with ensoulment. Jews believed ensoulment didn't happen until the baby took it's first breath.
So, what scriptures specifically state that ensoulment takes place at conception?
Why would you separate a soul from a life? SOME Jews believe what you posted above. The Hebrews of TaNaKh knew better from YHWH revealing his Mind on the matter:
As YHWH reveals:
Jeremiah 1: Lexham English Bible (LEB)
4 And the word of Yahweh came to me, saying
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you came out from the womb I consecrated you;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
As Hebrews perceived:
Psalm 139:13 Lexham English Bible (LEB)
13 Indeed you created my inward parts
you wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you, because I am fearfully
and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works,
and my soul knows it well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was created secretly
and intricately woven
in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my embryo
and in your book they all were written—
days fashioned for me when there was not one of them.
No not the same. Those organs are truly your own organs. They won't live on their own and they do not develop into a separate human being. A conceived life in the womb is a distinct human being and that is not opinion but scientific fact.
It's like you're not even reading what I write. Let me try and make it simpler for you...
. . . . ..
None of those verses are inconsistent with personhood coming along with adequate brain development.
I am puzzled by how those who think personhood begins at conception use the verse "Before you were formed in the womb I knew you" because clearly that refers to a time BEFORE conception, so how can it be used for that?
That whooshing sound is the point going over your head. Why is it immoral to sacrifice my one life for harvesting organs to save four other lives? Please answer that. Nobody is saying the organs would live on their own. But they could save lives.
It is exactly what embryologists state so please read the entire thread as I will not post the same links and quotes from scientists for a 21st time.
Some of these discussions are like trying to reason with a tape recorder.
I have read your links, but they dont say what you want them to say. As several others have noted, your argument isnt scientific. You just start with a conclusion and twist science to fit that conclusion. Its not an honest tactic.
-snip a lot of links-
I have read your links, but they dont say what you want them to say. As several others have noted, your argument isnt scientific. You just start with a conclusion and twist science to fit that conclusion. Its not an honest tactic.
Exactly, you think that embryo and zygote equals a "human being" and therefore --> abortion is imoral. That is not what the links say. Your inability to understand the science and philosophy hinders your ability to debate honestly.
As I just posited in the previous post my argument is scientific and absolute.
You have it twisted. You and others are arguing from a subjective opinion of 'personhood.' That approach is nebulous and has thousands of opinions.
The science is settled. We have a new distinct human being at conception. Proving such human life of the human being is not a person is speculation. Take your pick of various philosophies. The burden of proof on the science deniers.
Exactly, you think that embryo and zygote equals a "human being" and therefore --> abortion is imoral. That is not what the links say. Your inability to understand the science and philosophy hinders your ability to debate honestly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?