human, cucumber, whatever… life exists from the seed of it, the only question to discuss is human vs other, if you seek an answer that involves a human soul that is a religious question. If you simply want to distinguish human from other it’s a scientific question.
The only reason to want to quantify the issue of when the soul exists is a need to satisfy religious belief and absolve ones self of wrong-doing. The old “no
mommy I did not take the cookie”.
Please I’m just saying “the soul” is a religious construct. If you want religion out of the abortion question you must let go of that concept when discussing it.
Otherwise you discussing religious morality and all of it comes into play.
Generally, as an individual sacrifice, it has to be able to survive outside the womb. Dual sacrifices of the “a woman with child” type are far less clear, indeed it’s assumed by some that any time after conception is sufficient, although a clearly obvious pregnancy is better.
I am not christian, and I believe that life begins when the conceptus is able to breath and process food without an umbilicle cord.
If it cant be pushed out of the womb and survive alive without major life support, it isnt alive.
monavis said:
The topic of this column is not when humans became humans, but rather when individuals become persons.
geniios said:
It also doesn’t require faith and belief in a Supreme Being to be moral.
SeanArenas said:
We allow religious motivations behind laws because we allow individuals to have individual motivations. A person’s religious beliefs influence their positions and actions. There is a difference between a collection of individuals each being motivated by their own beliefs and coming to an agreed plan of action and a central authority dictating that laws must be such because of a religious belief. The fuzzy gray line is how much authority the religious group leaderships have over the actions of the individuals.
**geniios ** said:
I suspect different things for different people, but largely the following issues:
-
Independence of the woman, and security of her autonomy. The right of the woman to choose her own reproductive outcomes, whether or not to get pregnant independent of sex. Allowing sex as a choice not mandating reproduction.
-
Evaluation of when a developing embryo becomes a distinct individual with individual rights that balance or supercede the rights of the woman. If the status of separate sperm and egg cells is considered “not a person” and a newborn baby is definitely “a person”, where is the transition? And more importantly, why is that transition point chosen? Because there is a measurable quantity of distinction? Because is sounds good? Because it makes people feel better?
And that’s exactly my point. When we’re talking about making laws (which are enforced by the state) that control how people live their lives, they shouldn’t be made based on religion. So when someone says, “abortions should be outlawed because you’re killing a soul,” that sounds to me like a religious argument for creating a law which restricts other people who may not be in your religion.
I think if your religion dictates action to you and other people within your religion, you should seek for your church to enforce the action through a church imperative. Asking the state to enforce a law against other people who do not share your religious beliefs doesn’t seem right, to me.
I agree quit making laws that dictate for and against religion.
Mine was a rhetorical question in response to condescending manner the first question was presented in. Didn’t require an answer thank you.
trying to answer each question not sure how you all do it so if this looks screwy …yeah I did it wrong
Like you, I assumed that extra body parts neccessarily meant conjoined twins, but I learned a couple years ago that this isn’t always the case. It’s possible that an extra limb or ear etc comes from an error in DNA instead. I’m sure someone can offer the technical explaination, but it seems as though the “blueprint” DNA gives to constuct a fetus can go wrong and a duplicate limb results.
Even in the cases like you mention, though, the twin is dead. Do dead things still have souls in conventional consideration?
So God breathed breath into the first man, giving him a soul, how so does that equate to individuals gaining souls on their first breath of air?