Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does Abortion Destroy Souls?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 04:41 PM
Original message
Poll question: Does Abortion Destroy Souls?
(Full disclosure: I'm an atheist.)

I've recently had a thought that made me wonder why even fundamentalist Christians really have a problem with abortion. Please hear me out on this - it's not a fully-formed concept, and I'd like some honest, constructive feedback. This post is in no way intended to attack anyone's faith.

Okay. So, I think there is widespread belief that God places souls into the unborn at some point. If so, my question is this: if you believe that God does this, can he not also 'reroute' that soul if the woman decides to get an abortion for whatever (personal, none of my business why) reason?

I wonder sometimes if the reason many are vehemently against abortion (and who LOVES the process?) is not because of the issue of life - after all, many who oppose abortion eat meat, and they can't help but massacre millions of living germs by breathing - but because of this issue about souls. The belief is that these unborn are human due to their newly-placed souls. And if each soul only got one chance and could be destroyed forever by an abortion, I'd be with those anti-abortionists myself (as an atheist, I don't believe in the Christian concept of a soul, but I do believe we are beings of energy that have some separate consciousness apart from our bodies).

I guess the larger question I'm asking those of faith is this: does abortion destroy souls, and is that why you oppose it? Or can God place that soul within another unborn child?

Any answers to help me understand the views of others are very welcome. Let's try to keep this flame-free!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GeorgeBushytail Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't buy into the soul theory
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. That's fine. Obviously, the question is directed at those who do.
Do you oppose abortion on other grounds?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. what about those who don't oppose abortion at all?
soul or not.


as for me - abortion doesn't destroy soul, any more than death destroys soul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I was more looking to understand those who oppose it.
I don't share their views, likely never will (I'm with you on this), but understanding is crucial to finding common ground.

Of course, said common ground does NOT mean letting go of a woman's right to self-sovereignty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. Under clarify
The body is nothing, You cannot destroy a soul!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. A worse consideration
Warning this line of thought is particularly morbid. But it is the result of the particular belief at play and is just conjecture of them. They in no way reflect any desire on my or any other reasonable atheists part.

This notion derives from the argument made that babies that pass away before they can accept Jesus into their heart and imparted a special dispensation and are allowed into heaven. This is given a number of liturgical arguments but what it really boils down to is no mother could tolerate a belief system that condemned their baby to hell due to original sin with no chance of redemtion.

So babies that unfortunately pass away go to Heaven. The question then becomes why take the chance of eternal damnation? Why not kill all children of believers before they become of age to define their own outcome. There are atheists and other challenges out here in the world that could destroy their faith and doom them to an eternal damnation. Why take the chance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. GAH! Yes, that IS morbid, and dangerously logical.
Eeep. Quite a worrying argument, and I could imagine it actually being argued favorably by really out-there religious leaders.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Not just that...
...but miscarriages and eggs fertilized but not implanted, would also result in "condemnation of a soul" or "salvation of a soul" depending on how one viewed the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Actually, the movie "The Rapture" partially explores this very
idea. In it, during the end days, a Christian woman kills both her kids so they would automatically go to heaven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
48. Yup, That's The Slippery Slope That This
leads too...As a matter of fact, many of these fundie whackos who DO kill their children say they did it for similar reasons, IOW to SAVE them...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
76. There have been several people who have done just that.
This is not actually all that uncommon a motivation in cases where mothers are convicted of murdering their children. There have been several cases of an unstable mother killing her children to "spare" them the pain of life and usher them into heaven.

This is part of the flaw (I believe) in a theology that suggests "this life is not about this life" or in some other way attempts to detract from the relevance of life on earth. This is one of the reasons why I remain agnostic on the question of life after death (also because I don't believe we can either know or not know anything about that since by definition it is outside of our living experience).

As you all know I certainly don't take the staunch position that all religious beliefs are bad for all people, or that anyone with a personal faith is weaker or in someway failing to be everything that he or she could be. But I do hold a strong personal conviction that one's faith beliefs become dangerous and destructive when they become a kind of escapism and start to devalue and depersonalize living on this earth. It undercuts the kinds of healthy relational attitudes toward fellow creatures that are so often promoted in many if not most religious faiths. Promoted in theory, not always in practice.

I also believe that a persons' spiritual beliefs do not necessarily have to pull a person out of focus on this life, and love of this world, as many more humanistic interpretations of Christianity and many other faiths from East and West will certainly attest. Whatever a persons beliefs are - religious or otherwise - the should thrust that person deeper into active engagement of life and others all around. A question on all our hearts should be, "what ways large or small, are there in which I can make my world a better place?" If religious helps a person have that focus, I have no problem with that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
movonne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. All killings, kill souls.....death penalty, Iraqis, soldiers, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. "Yes" votes: is God not able to save that soul from destruction?
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. If one were to accept this argument...
...one could also quote scripture demonstrating that it's a persons responsibility to NOT have a child if they aren't capable of raising it to "fear god". Especially since these same evangelicals go to great lengths to make the issue of the state of salvation of the "un-witnessed" and "un-born" a gray issue. Otherwise you could use Scripture to justify holding fundamentalists to blame for every person who has lived and died since Christ that didn't have the "opportunity for salvation". It's a VERY grey area in theological studies, and rightly so, any logical "resolution" to these questions raises even more disturbing questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murray hill farm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
12. If one accepts the idea of a soul..and of a god..
then one cannot suggest that either could be destroyed. The question of can one destroy a soul would be the same as the question, can one destroy god? And the question would not be religion specific...so, i guess the real question would have to be...it is possible to destroy god?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwentyFive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
13. Something else to consider...
Regardless of what anybody believes about a soul or life energy...abortion has other costs associated with both sides of the issue.

For example, what about physical dangers and emotional consequences for the woman? i.e..Is the woman's life in danger? Will the child be severely handicapped? Where is the father? Do the parents WANT the child? Was there rape involved? Is the mother able to care for the child? etc, etc.

I favor leaving the decision up to the individual. Outlawing abortion forces thousands of unwanted children to be born...or thousands of back alley abortions - and takes rights away from individuals, and gives them to the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastknowngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
14. Having unwanted children kills the souls of the kids and
parents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GraysonDave Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
16. Abortion kills a human, and that is wrong
My wife and I had a particularly difficult time conceiving and carrying a child to term. When I first saw my daughter's heart beat about six weeks after conception I knew with utter conviction that it was wrong to destroy that child. As I've watched her grow into a smart, vibrant, beautiful young lady of seventeen I'm even more convinced. Robbing her of life would have been legal, but oh so wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. If your daughter had a heart transplant
Would it still be her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GraysonDave Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Sure
Of course it would. And it would still be wrong to kill her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. But the question is
Where is she? If its not her heart then the death of her heart alone would not be the death of her. If she had recieved a heart transplant her heart would of course perish. Her new heart would take on the roll of pumping her blood.

The point I am trying to make without seeming too insensitive is that the thing you value about your daughter is not her heart. You (and I) are thankful for her heart. But the identity lies elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. Poster #1 isn't alone.
Even when I was a fundamentalist, didn't believe in a soul.

Or going to heaven. Or any of the usual stereotypical beliefs stuck on fundamentalists.

Still, I'd like to see the number of abortions drop to 0. Each fetus is a potential human, and I think humans are generally worth giving a chance to be something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-05 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I don't really understand that argument
Potential humans. What exactly does that mean? And how potential does it have to be?

My criteria is based on mind. If there is arguably a being present then I presume there is something worth defending.

See the problem I have I guess is that I do not see a break in the sequence of life. I do not see life arising out of nothing. The life that I posess is just a continuation of the life my father and mother had. And their lives are just continuations of the life that preceded them. This goes all the way back into the fog of history and beyond.

Life doesn't really start in our mother's womb. It just continues. The only thing that starts anew is a new mind. A new sentience. And while that is dependent on life it does not start at the moment of conception or even when the heart has developed.

It takes a brain to create a mind. No brain, no being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. The moral argument
Edited on Tue Feb-15-05 09:17 AM by Stunster
One starts off with the idea that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. Then you argue that human beings exist in the womb of their mothers before they are born, and that they are innocent. They don't exist before they are conceived. But conception is when they begin to exist.

One very simple argument which I remember reading was given by the Oxford philosopher Anthony Kenny. He writes it as a sophisticated philosophical paper, but the basic idea is very straightforward and intuitive and has to do with personal identity. If someone had killed you when you were a baby, they would have killed YOU. And likewise, if your mother had had an abortion when she was pregnant with you, she would have killed YOU.

Now one might object, oh, no, she wouldn't have killed YOU. She would have killed something that BECAME you. So now we have to ask, when did you begin to exist? Problem is, this has no medical meaning other than the fact that the life of a human being begins at conception.

A lot of people might say a foetus is not a 'person'. Even if true, I don't think this makes all that much difference. How much of a 'person' is a brain-damaged baby who goes into a coma within a few hours of being born? What is personhood? I think that is debatable. But what is not debatable is that the brain damaged baby in the coma is a human BEING, even if one wants to deny that it is a person. Might be a potential person. But it's not a POTENTIAL human being. It is an actual human being.

Is it ok to kill it? Nope. That would be murder under our laws.

Do you have to have a heart to be a human being? No. Some have artificial or mechanical hearts.

What about a brain? Well, some soldiers have most of their brains shot away, but remain alive. And there are some very deformed human beings, without legs, without arms, eyes, etc.

People in comas lack sentience. They lack the ability to do things. But it's still murder to kill them.

All you need to be a living human being is a living body of some sort. Doesn't have to be a certain minimum size or shape. Just some kind of living body. Might be very small, might be not full developed, might not be capable of living independently, might be on various kinds of life-support systems. But it's still murder to kill them especially if they have the potential of coming off the life-support system and then have some independent life going on. Same with children in the womb.

All you need to commit murder is a living substance that is human, whose life you terminate. It doesn't need to have a brain, heart, legs, eyes, arms, consciousness, since there are cases of adults who lack these things, or babies who have never had them, and whom, it is clear, it is murder to kill.

Notice that I haven't mentioned God or religion so far.

Anyway, there are lots of arguments out there, but the basic one is that it's wrong deliberately to kill innocent human beings, except perhaps in self-defence, where one's own life would be ended. (This is the only exception I personally would allow for abortion--to save the life of the mother).

There are even atheists who think abortion is morally wrong. So it's not that hard to think of moral arguments against abortion that don't rely on religious belief.

My sister once had an abortion, by the way. She knows she did wrong, and has repented of it. Even went to a monastery for years to seek spiritual counseling and healing.

However, it is one thing to say that the act of abortion is objectively wrong. It's another to say that the woman who has it is always and in every case guilty of sin. For that, you need not only the objectively morally wrong act, but also full understanding at the time that it is wrong, and full consent of one's free will.

Nothing follows from the above argument as regards what the law should be regarding abortion. It doesn't follow, for instance, that abortion should be made illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. You touched on it but then lost the thread
It is the brain. Even a moment of sentience constitutes something worth defending. But until that moment has arrived it is nothing more than conjecture. You can't simply skip past the necessity of a brain. A living body is not a being. You can maintain a body indefinately without a mind. An arm is not a being. A leg is not a being. True they are life, but then we sluff off millions of living cells every day with no thought.

I am not a cell. I am not a limb. I am not a combination of limbs. I am not a stomach. I am not a heart. I am that which arises in my brain. Take any part of me away or replace it with a substitute and I remain. All except my brain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Anencephaly
From http://www.anencephaly.net/anencephaly.html


Infants with this disorder are born without both a forebrain (the front part of the brain) and a cerebrum (the thinking and coordinating area of the brain). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed--not covered by bone or skin. The infant is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a rudimentary brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness. Reflex actions such as respiration (breathing) and responses to sound or touch may occur. The cause of anencephaly is unknown. Although it is believed that the mother's diet and vitamin intake may play a role, scientists believe that many other factors are also involved.

Is there any treatment?
There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly. Treatment is supportive.

What is the prognosis?
The prognosis for individuals with anencephaly is extremely poor. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth.


By your argument, it wouldn't be murder to kill an anencephalitic baby. But by the laws of the United States and most other countries, it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Not quite
Many of these laws came from a time when our understanding of identity was less developed. There have been cases where the parents of such births have actively decided to pull the plug on this form of existance with the cooperation of the law. They often are opposed by fundamentalist organizations.

The laws of this land tend to try to err on the side of caution. Thus when it interferes with medical practice it does so erring to preserve what may seem to be existance. But to any in the medical field such a thing is not a being. Thus the doctors will typically opt to terminate such a thing while it must deal with outdated laws. In the end they should always defer to the parents wishes.

Life? Certainly. But there is no mind present. It is a living tragedy. Representing pain and loss to its parents. The sooner it is accepted the sooner the healing can begin.

Do not confuse abiding by the emotional desires of the parents for determining what is a being or not. The birth of such a thing is tramatic in the extreme. To rip something that appears to be a mother's child from her arms and simply dismiss it as a mindless carcass is heartless in the extreme. She will have to mourn the fact of the issue. And in our compassion we allow her time and closure before such a thing is terminated or allowed to cease on its own.

The moral responsibility here is to the mother and not to the baby. There is no person present there. Merely the shadow of one. An echo lost to the vagauries of biology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Are you really saying
that it would not be objectively morally wrong to kill an anencephalitic baby?

And are you really saying that it is scientifically possible for a human mother to give birth to something that isn't itself human?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. Clarity
It is our intervention that has preserved it. We only do so until we determine that it is not going to survive. I would not advocate killing it in a malicious manner. But I would also suggest that there is no moral impact if the mother determines she does not wish to continue medical intervenetion.

The question isn't whether she gave birth to something human or not. Its a question of whether she gave birth to a being or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. WTF are you on about?
The question isn't whether she gave birth to something human or not. Its a question of whether she gave birth to a being or not.

An anencephalitic baby is not a being?

Huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. You yourself said
there was no consciousness. No consciousness no being. Being is a verb. It implies a self aware entity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Seems an arbitrary definition of a being
Suppose someone is born unconscious. Shortly afterwards, that someone goes into a coma, and stays in a coma for 10 years.

You're saying this human being is not a human being? And not even a being of any sort?:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. You still need the material to achieve consciousness
And a baby born with no higher functions simply doesn't have it. My contention is from the first moment of potential consciousness we extend the consideration of being a sentient being. Any lapses or breaks in that consciousness are extended consideration even if arguably there is no being present at the moment. As the perception of a sentient being is based on the continuity of experience such a break will be unperecievable and should their consciousness return they would be able to proceed unaffected. Thus once a moment of mind is possible we extend the rights and considerations of a fellow being. Human or otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. I am trying to get clear on what you mean
Do you mean that an anencephalitic baby has no moral rights?

Do you mean that an anencephalitic baby is not a human being?

Do you mean that if one killed an anencephalitic baby, one wouldn't be killing a human being?

Do you mean that it is morally ok to kill anencephalitic babies?

I'm not at this point arguing with you. I'm just trying to get a clear picture of what you're saying.

I'd also like you to consider the case of soldiers who are severely brain-damaged as a result of combat injuries, but who manage to remain alive.

I'd also like you to consider a case in the news yesterday, about a woman who is severely disabled due to a car accident that happened 20 years ago. She had not spoken during that time---until now. She began to speak. Doctors were astonished, but hypothesized that her damaged brain had grown new tissue and made new neural connections--it had done some self-repair, it seems. Now she told her parents that she loved them. She did not know her correct age, thinking she was 22---she's actually 38.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. By my understanding
An anencephalitic baby has never achieved sentience. Therefor it have never been a human being. It has no rights persey other than the rights of posession by the mother. If you killed one the matter of morality would between you and the mother. As there is no human being present within the anencephalitic baby. There is no moral component to killing an anencephalitic baby other than the attachment and hopes that the mother extends onto it. This is akin to kicking an expecting mother in the stomach and causing her to miscarry early in the pregnancy. You did not kill a human being but you certainly struck a blow to the mothers intentions. And the emotional weight of that far out weighs the mere act of striking her.

To clarify an anencephalitic baby is not a human being by my understanding of the condition.

By my thinking protecting her was entirely appropriate. As I have said from the moment of the existance of a mind we extend the condiration of sentience even if there is a break in it. We have learned that instances of breaks in consciousness can be overcome. The body can heal itself and the mind can resurface. Thus it is our moral responsibility to protect the continuity of a mind once it has been established. Even if that establishment is brief in nature.

There are other emotional issues concerning this case. One must wonder what the woman must be going through having lost 20 years of her life. Furthermore the prospects for her future may be grim due to her injuries. But the value of that future is her's alone to assess. We can only struggle to provide her with the best options possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Disagree profoundly
To clarify an anencephalitic baby is not a human being by my understanding of the condition.

I don't think medical science would agree with you. When a human mother gives birth, she gives birth to a human being. It may be a very damaged and dysfunctional human being, but it's a human being. There is a national society for the families of anencephalitic children. Intentionally killing one would be deemed murder by the criminal law of ever advanced nation.

Now, you're entitled to your understanding of what a human being is and isn't.

I disagree profoundly with your understanding, and I don't think my disagreement is arbitrary.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. I suspect you will have trouble finding a doctor to agree with you
Most Doctors favor measuring the activity of the brain to determine whether someone is alive or dead. Now while there may be life present in the baby there is no identity or sense of self. And that is the issue we are discussing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. Taken from Wikipedia
In the United States, approximately 1,000 to 2,000 babies are born with anencephaly each year. The disorder affects females more often than males. About 95% of women who learn that they will have an anencephalic baby choose to have an abortion. Of the remaining 5%, about 55% are stillborn. The rest usually live only a few hours or days.

In almost all cases anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated since there is zero chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence. Instead, the usual clinical practice is to offer hydration, nutrition and comfort measures and to “let nature take its course.” Artificial ventilation, surgery (to fix any co-existing congenital defects), and drug therapy (such as antibiotics) are usually regarded as being pointless. Some clinicians see no point in even providing nutrition and hydration, arguing that withdrawal of nutrition and hydration is morally and clinically appropriate in such cases.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #28
64. "Merely the shadow of one." Tragic, and very true.
Quite eloquent, Az.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
63. "the fact that the life of a human being begins at conception."
This is your opinion, not a universally-accepted fact, and thus the rest of your argument is flawed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. When does life begin then?
When a woman finds out she's pregnant, doesn't that mean that she's pregnant with a human life---that she is carrying in her womb a living body, which is human?

It's simply a medical fact that there's a living organism in the womb of a pregnant woman. DNA, cell reproduction, etc.

You're saying that's just my opinion and that it's false?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Not at all. Your second paragraph is accurate medical science.
However, that differs from the opinion you expressed in the earlier post.

This ties in with my OP - the question of if "souls" are destroyed by abortion. When those alleged souls enter the body is another topic for discussion.

"Life" does not not necessarily equal "human life".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. What's the medical definition of a soul?
There isn't one, is there?

Ok, let me compare the phrase you originally objected to

So now we have to ask, when did you begin to exist? Problem is, this has no medical meaning other than the fact that the life of a human being begins at conception. the fact that the life of a human being begins at conception."

with the passage you found unobjectionable:

It's simply a medical fact that there's a living organism in the womb of a pregnant woman. DNA, cell reproduction, etc.

From this comparison I infer that your position is that although there is a living organism in the mother's womb from the time of conception, it only becomes the living body of a human being at some subsequent point.

Now, I'm not sure if you would put this by saying that though life begins at conception, human ensoulment takes place later. But let's suppose that is what you'd say. My point would be that ensoulment is not a medical concept. From a medical point of view that idea has no meaning. What is medically meaningful is that there is a living organism in the womb, complete with DNA, cell reproduction, etc. Moreover, it's human DNA, and it's human cells that are being reproduced. It's not elephant DNA or monkey cells. The DNA is human, the cells are human. And this DNA-and-reproducing-cell thing is living. So, from a strictly medical point of view, human life begins at conception.

Notice the phrasing---'human life', not 'human being' or 'human person'. But whose life is it that begins with conception? Well, from a medical point of view, my life began with my conception in my mother's womb. There's a physical, organic continuity connecting the living organism that began to engage in cellular reproduction in my mother's womb, and the living organism that is now my body. There's no medically decisive moment along the way at which the original living organism became my body.

One could say that ensoulment of my body---making that body 'mine'---took place at some intervening stage, but this is not a medically validated or meaningful statement or concept.

I wonder whether you think that anencephalitic babies have souls or not. Some are born alive. And of course, there are plenty of human beings who are brain damaged in various ways, rendering them incapable of higher mental functioning or even independent physical functioning. But it is generally regarded as murder to kill them, just as it is legally murder to kill an anencephalitic baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
41. Let's see if I can explain my beliefs. Never had to before.
Singer argued that sentience, the "mind", was the basis of being human. He concluded that anything with a human genome and no mind can be terminated; it's no different than killing a mouse or a bacillus.

A newborn is no more sentient the day after birth than the day before birth, it has no more mind than a fetus. It can't process visual signals, does no better with with sound; neither has a short term memory, but things can seem "familiar". In fact, Singer extended his "human = sentient" argument to people in comas, those with extensive brain damage, and the severely mentally retarded.

Post-partum abortions are logically no different than pre-partum ones if sentience is invoked as the guiding criterion.

The difference between a newborn human and mouse pup is that one will become sentient while the other won't. It boils down to potentiality. But if I take that to its logical conclusion, potentiality extends pre-birth (just as the sentience argument leads to concluding abortions are fine post-birth).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. "Potential human"
Yes, and you do realize that millions of "potential humans" (i.e., fertilized eggs) fail to implant in the uterus, making God the #1 all-time abortionist due to his "design" of the human reproductive system.

Not to mention later miscarriages due to fetal abnormalities, injury, etc.

A sperm hooking up with an egg is FAR from a guarantee that a living, breathing human being will result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Technically anything is a potential human
But that takes us away from the issue they are trying to get at. I suspect it is the nearness of the potential that makes it a more critical notion to them. The fear that in our rush to declare it not a person we may overstep and harm something that is.

I recommend we focus on what we can determine is necissary to be in existance to declare the presense of a human being and then think things out from there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. So true.
And look at how complicated it gets with medical advances. Do we define a fetus to be a human being when it is capable of surviving outside the womb? Well, science has allowed that point to slide back WAAAAY earlier than it used to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #27
33. Are you suggesting
that God ought to have made human bodies immortal?

If you're not suggesting that, then your argument collapses.

If you are suggesting that, then Christians have an answer for you: the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

But would you infer from that answer that Christians ought to kill everyone?

Personally, I wouldn't make that inference, because it doesn't follow from the truth of those Christian doctrines that this life has no purpose, nor that it should not be reverenced.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Um, we are not suggesting anything about god
We don't believe in god.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. No, Trotsky suggested that if....
God exists, then God is an abortionist par excellence

I rebutted the suggestion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Ah, my bad
statement withdrawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #42
78. "God is an abortionist par excellence"
Why couldn't it be looked at that way?

All those conceived fetuses... all those natural abortions.... :shrug:



The only difference when people choose to abort is just that - it is a person's choice - not a natural occurrence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
22. No
Edited on Tue Feb-15-05 09:02 AM by Stunster
It destroys living human bodies.

Souls, by nature, are indestructible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #22
36. How do you deal with increases in population?
There are more people today than there were in the past. How do you account for the additional people? They all need souls, don't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Well he did say indestrucible
Not uncreatible. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. That's what I was wondering.
I'm not familiar with this stuff, so I may be missing some basic tenets. But that's why one asks questions, right?



By the way - the thread in GD on gender/sexuality was locked, but I responded to your post. Did you see it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #38
49. I think so
I did PM another about the issue. Were you talking about how its 2 dimensional rather than linear? That makes sense and I think I have heard of thate before as well. Though it may make more sense to break it to the flatlanders one dimension at a time. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Yes - 2d vs. 1d
It's interesting stuff, but like I said - not really my area. I only know enough to get in trouble, much like this forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. I'm not sure I understand the question
How do I deal with increases in population?

I recognize it as a fact. What else is there to your question?

There are more people today than there were in the past.

Undoubtedly true.

How do you account for the additional people?
Their parents had sex, I presume.

They all need souls, don't they?

Yes. Souls are created. Once created, they're indestructible.

What's the problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. I wasn't very clear, was I?
I should have more caffeine before posting in the AM, I think.

So the souls are created when they are needed - they are not "recycled" or pulled from sort of "soul warehouse" - and then they are sent to the afterlife when they are done here. Do I have this right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #43
50. Yes, that's it
Souls are created.

They inform human bodies.

Human bodies change over time. They start out small and tiny, then grow, then grow a bit more, and undergo various other changes. Then they cease to be alive.

"A little baby becomes an old man"---what does that mean? To me it means that though the body changes dramatically over time, there is a human self or soul that persist through those changes.

The soul, however, does not cease to be at the death of the body. It continues to exist and, in Christian doctrine at any rate, it is given a resurrected body to inform.

I don't know what resurrected bodies are like in any detail, but it would appear that they inhabit either a different universe, or different spatio-temporal dimensions. String physics is showing how multiple dimensionality and parallel dimensionality might be scientifically possible. I'm not sure if this is connected to the possibility of resurrection in the Christian sense, but it strikes me that it could be.

An actual physical account of how the resurrection of Jesus may have happened is given by Mark Antonacci in his really excellent book on the Shroud of Turin.

Antonacci has a proposal for a series of scientific tests of the
Shroud, which you can download from his website,
http://www.resurrectionoftheshroud.com/

Click on the Proposal section and you'll be able to download a 33 page
Word document, entitled:

THE RESURRECTION OF THE SHROUD
Tests That Could Prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Samples
Already Removed from the Shroud

Part of the document reads as follows:


The recent book, The Resurrection of the Shroud, (1) states that we
stand at a unique moment in history. For the first time ever the world
may very well have new, independent and empirical evidence of what
would arguably be the most important events in history. For the first
time in history, the world may very well have an extensive amount of
medical, scientific and archaeological evidence for the crucifixion
and resurrection of the historical Jesus Christ.
A great deal of established and relatively recent evidence
(documented at length in this and other books) clearly indicates that
the Shroud wrapped a real human male; who was a Jew; who was crucified
and killed; by the Romans; in Jerusalem; after having been beaten;
scourged; crowned with thorns; endured falls; received a post-mortem
wound in the side; from which blood and a watery fluid flowed;
received an individual burial; by those possessing a detailed
knowledge of Jewish burial customs; in the 1st century; in the same
rock shelf in which Jesus was buried; who left the cloth in a
mysterious manner; within 2-3 days; during the Spring. Furthermore,
some event caused an unprecedented pair of frontal and dorsal images
to develop over time, containing almost 20 different primary and
secondary features, many of which have never been seen before in
history or until scientific technology had evolved to the point that
it could see or discover these features. This burial shroud also
contains more than 130 different and unique markings of real human
blood that formed, flowed and coagulated in the same shape and form as
when they congealed on the body.
While the vast majority of these body image and blood mark features
have only been discovered by 20th and 21st century scientific
technology, they have never been duplicated by scientists, physicians,
artists or people of any kind despite extensive efforts throughout the
last two centuries. While some of the evidence may be debatable, such
as the faint images of a coin or flowers, these secondary features and
especially the primary blood mark and body image features, not only
appear to be unfakeable, but mutually exclusive. Furthermore, if a
medieval forger encoded these numerous features, it would have
required his knowledge of their existence, yet almost all of these
unique features were not even visible or known until the advent of
20th century technology.
Recently, a growing body of evidence documented in The Resurrection
of the Shroud indicates that radiation caused the images on the Shroud
of Turin. Interestingly, this radiation appears to have come from the
length, width and depth of the above dead body wrapped in the Shroud.
Moreover, the type of radiation that seems to match or account for all
of the various chemical and physical features of the body images,
blood marks, possible secondary image features, and non-image features
is particle radiation, such as protons, alpha particles and neutrons,
which humans could not produce until the Manhattan Project. (2) This
paper states that particle radiation emanated from the dead body
wrapped within the Shroud, along with many other significant facts,
which could easily be proven from samples already removed from the Shroud.
The Resurrection of the Shroud documents the important experimental
results obtained by Dr. Jean-Baptiste Rinaudo, a biophysicist, and Dr.
Kitty Little, a nuclear physicist, by irradiating linen cloth with
protons and/or alpha particles at the Grenoble Nuclear Center in
France and the Atomic Energy Research Establishment in Harwell,
England. (3) When Dr. Rinaudo's experimental linen was irradiated with
proton beams with energies of 1.4 MeV or less, the cloth's natural
fluorescence disappeared, as is the case with the Shroud's body image.
He and his colleagues were also able to duplicate the microchemistry
results of dehydrated, oxidized and degraded cellulose as is also
found with the Shroud's body image. They also produced straw-yellow
coloration on the topmost two or three fibers (approximately 30
microns deep) of test linen like that found on the Shroud. Its fibers
and threads lack any cementation or added pigments or other materials.
Furthermore, Rinaudo's straw-yellow color also resulted from
conjugated carbonyl groups within the molecular structure of the
cellulose, as is found with the image fibers on the Shroud. This means
that many of the carbon atoms are double-bonded with other atoms.
These groups absorb light and reflect it as the straw-yellow color
that is visible to us. Carbon
occurs naturally in cellulose, but only as single bonded atoms. In
order to become double bonded, something must break the bonds within
these groups, causing them to reattach and reunite in other
arrangements. Protons could certainly comprise one of the most
effective candidates to accomplish this since they do not penetrate
deeply and their damage would be concentrated at the topmost two to
three fibers of the cloth. In fact, Rinaudo's proton irradiated
fibers, consisting of conjugated carbonyls, are also more friable than
the non-imaged fibers, just like the imaged fibers found on the Shroud.

......When the scientific, medical and archaeological evidence derived
from the Shroud of Turin is combined with the historical evidence, a
comprehensive and corroborating case for the literal occurrence of the
resurrection of the historic Jesus Christ can be made. Much of this
evidence exists now and future testing in Jesus' tomb and on the
previously removed above samples can further establish:

1. That radiation emanated from the dead body wrapped within the Shroud.
2. That this radiation came from the length, width and depth of the
dead body.
3. That this radiation consisted of charged particles, such as
protons, neutrons, and alpha particles.
4. That this event occurred to a Jewish victim, in the 1st century, in
Jesus' burial tomb.
5. That the body disappeared from the cloth in the process.
6. That it did so within 2-3 days of being wrapped inside of it.
7. That the cloth could not have been separated from the body by any
human or mechanical means without smearing or breaking the numerous
bloodstains, and only the body's disappearance can explain how wounds
that formed and flowed on human skin can become embedded into the cloth.
8. That particle radiation emanating from the length, width, and depth
of a dead body that disappeared is the only method that has ever
accounted for all the unprecedented features of the body images and
blood marks, which cannot be forged or occur naturally.
9. That the Gospels state that beginning with and immediately after
Jesus' resurrection, his body could pass through objects and vanish,
and that a similar type of radiation also emanated from Jesus at his
Transfiguration.
10. That on Easter Sunday Jesus' body was not described as having any
of the numerous blood marks that it received from his numerous
pre-crucifixion, crucifixion and post-mortem wounds.
11.That the Gospels state that the historical Jesus Christ was also
scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified and killed, by the same
executioners, with the same weapons, in the same manner, and was
buried in the same location, at the same time, by the same buriers,
and then disappeared and resurrected from his shroud under all the
same circumstances.....

......Another of the many interesting consistencies between the
Historically Consistent Method and the historical accounts of the
crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ can be found from the
energetic effects of the radiation under this method. The very
superficial and small amount of protons and alpha particles that would
be absorbed on the Shroud under this method would not cause an
explosion, however, the small amount of penetrating neutrons and gamma
rays also left behind would distribute their energy between the
surface of and several feet within the limestone walls of the tomb.
This would not cause an explosion or a hole in the tomb, but this
distributed compressionable shock might cause something analogous to
an earthquake. While the accounts at the end of Mathew 27 and the
beginning of 28 are vaguely worded, they do indicate that an
earthquake may have occurred at Jesus' resurrection.
These same historical accounts also state that beginning with Jesus'
resurrection and, thereafter, his body could disappear, and pass
through objects. Following the accounts of Jesus' resurrection, he is
described as suddenly vanishing from the disciples with whom he broke
bread on the road to Emmaus, with his body reappearing later to his
followers at a different location. In two other instances, these
historical sources also describe Jesus as passing through walls. These
features are consistent with those of the Historically Consistent
Method. Such similarities cannot be considered as criticisms of the
method, but only as additional strengths that all other image forming
methods lack. Again, if the man in the Shroud was Jesus, his body
would have necessarily disappeared after he was wrapped within his
burial shroud. He would, necessarily, also have reappeared.
The Gospels do not describe where Jesus' body went or how he
disappeared and reappeared. The Historically Consistent Method does
not state where or how the man's body disappeared during the event
that caused the body images, blood marks, and the various other
primary and secondary image and non-image features on the Shroud.
However, it does offer a
possible explanation, which, interestingly, could also explain where,
and how Jesus' body disappeared and reappeared in the Gospels.
One possible explanation as to what happened to the man in the Shroud
under the Historically Consistent or a related method, and/or to the
historical Jesus Christ, was first introduced in a highly respected
scientific journal in 1935 by Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen, in
"The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity", Physical
Review 48 <1935>: 73-77. These scientists first devised the concept of
a shortcut in space time-travel based on Einstein's theory of general
relativity that allows a person or object to pass through a bridge or
"wormhole" in space and time. According to modern physicists,
mathematical theories of space-time travel are not only possible under
Einstein's theory of general relativity, but these "wormholes" are
completely consistent with tested theories of gravity and would allow
travel between two points in different universes or two points within
the same universe. This form of travel could circumvent the speed of
light barrier and may even permit travel to past or future times. The
famous British physicist Steven Hawking has published and lectured on
wormholes, and his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, devotes
whole chapters to this subject. At this time the science of wormholes
is not only mature, but in the words of physicist Matt Visser in
Lortenzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking, "…the theoretical
analysis of Lortenzian wormholes is `merely' an extension of known
physics---no new physical principles of fundamentally new physical
theories are involved." (Woodbury, N.Y.: American Institute of
Physics, 1996) p. 369. NASA also has an interest in wormholes for
space travel as evidenced by its hosting a workshop at Caltech's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory entitled, "Advanced Quantum/Relativity Theory
Propulsion Workshop" in May, 1994, where wormholes were a major topic
of discussion.
A key element of this theory is that, as matter passes through the
wormhole, the entrance mouth gains mass and the exit mouth loses mass.
If the unexplained disappearance of the man in the Shroud, or the
historical Jesus Christ, was connected or related to this theory, the
entrance mouth to the wormhole would be the point of the body's
departure. The Shroud itself would have been right at the mouth of the
entrance and may have received some of the increase in mass in the
form of the basic building blocks of matter---protons, neutrons,
electrons and alpha particles. Many experts in this field think
space-time travel is possible without the traveling object being
harmed as it enters and exits the
wormhole. Space-time travel could even be said to be a possible means
for Jesus to have traveled between heaven and earth (and even Hades).
It is important to remember that all of the evidence in this paper and
The Resurrection of the Shroud is indicative of and consistent with
reliable written contemporary accounts of historical events. Just
because absolute scientific proof of an historical event is lacking
certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact, no events in history
prior to the advent of film or photography has absolute proof of their
occurrence, or possesses as extensive evidence as the events depicted
on and derived from the Shroud, whose images and blood marks were
encoded in a far more sophisticated manner than mere film or photography.
Scientists often dismiss the evidence on the Shroud for the
crucifixion and resurrection of the historical Jesus Christ because
the resurrection or image encoding event is not a scientific
proposition which they are able to perform. Yet no event that has ever
occurred in history can be identically performed again, and even if it
could, it would not prove that it once occurred. Almost all events
that have occurred in history lack the extensive evidence that now
exists and would exist for the crucifixion and resurrection, yet we
don't doubt their occurrence. Moreover, we cannot come close to
absolutely proving the Big Bang or the existence of Black Holes, nor
are they scientific propositions that can be recreated or performed,
yet scientists extensively discuss their occurrence and existence.
Almost all matters that we consider and decide in life are based on
relative evidence. We don't have anything close to absolute proof of
the identities of people we meet and know in everyday life. In fact,
we have far more evidence of the identity of the man in the Shroud,
and of the tragic and unprecedented events that occurred to him, than
we do for people we meet everyday or have known for many years.
Moreover, these events would have more significance and importance
than any events that ever occurred in history. Since these events
would necessarily relate to every person alive and who will ever live,
and could fundamentally affect their present lives, and, even their
lives after death, we are compelled by the highest professional and
individual obligations in history to conduct these tests.
We stand at a unique moment in history.


Read the full Proposal for details of the scientific experiments which
Antonacci wishes to see performed on existing segments of the Shroud,
and which would back up his theory of what caused the Shroud image.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Thank you.
Your post raises another question, though - are you suggesting that the resurrection of Jesus is similar to the resurrection that occurs when anyone dies, except that he was resurrected here instead of where the rest of the people go?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. Nearly
I am suggesting that the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of everyone else are the same type of event.

But I would not say one happened here and the other happens 'where the rest of the people go'. That suggests some kind of spatial distance between the two. The difference I would suggest is temporal. (Of course, space and time are closely linked, as Einsteinian Relativity tells us).

I would say that the general resurrection of the dead is a future event, (that is, future from our temporal perspective), and the resurrection of Jesus is a past event (that is, past from our temporal perspective), and his resurrection typifies and anticipates the future general resurrection.

St. Paul implies this when he writes: "But as it is, Christ has risen from the dead, the FIRST-FRUITS OF THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN ASLEEP. For since by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. 15:20-31).

The first-fruits is the way St. Paul describes the resurrected Christ. But the first-fruits are the same as the "second-fruits and the third-fruits," except that they are first. So as Christ arose, so shall we. As He arose in a glorified body, so shall we. St. Paul develops this thought of Christ being the first to come forth from the grave in his epistle to the Colossians (1:18): "Again, he is the head of his body, the Church; he, who is the beginning, the FIRST-BORN FROM THE DEAD, that in all things he may have the first place."

http://www.cin.org/kc58-5.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Again - thank you.
For someone not raised in this stuff it can be difficult to grasp at times. Thanks for answering my questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
69. So if that's your belief...
...why is abortion such a problem to you? After all, we're just "souls" (energy, consciousness, whatever) in a mortal shell, right? Why is destroying the shell (especially when horribly deformed or missing a brain) a horror when it doesn't destroy that which makes us human? Can't your god simply reroute the soul to another shell?

Or is it that abortion "challenges god's divine will" or some other esoteric argument?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. WTF gave you that idea?
Are you suggesting that it follows from my beliefs that I should not regard killing human beings as wrong?

Your argument seems to be that if human souls are immortal, then destroying their bodies doesn't matter or ought not to matter. But how would that follow?

I can't see how it would follow unless our bodies and/or our life in those bodies had no value, meaning, or purpose. But I don't believe that our bodies, and our life in these bodies, have no value, meaning, or purpose.

Nor does it seem to me to follow just from the fact that our souls are immortal that our bodies and bodily life have no value, meaning, or purpose. The enjoyment of the afterlife by our souls may be very valuable. But it doesn't follow that that is the only valuable thing there is. And indeed, Christianity tends to connect our prospects in the afterlife with how well we use the bodies we've been given in this life.

Your argument would be a bit like saying that because you only lived in a house for 25 years and then moved to a new house, the house you lived in before your move had no value to you, and hence that it would not have mattered if someone had demolished it while you still resided there, since you could always live somewhere else.

In other words, it's a lousy argument.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. "Are you suggesting that it follows from my beliefs..."
No, not at all! And it's not an argument, but an attempt (obviously a poor one) to understand why religious DUers oppose abortion intellectually.

Sorry if I caused you to think otherwise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #72
74. The question is based on
the notion that Heaven is supposed to be superior to this life. From this the conjecture can be made (and sometimes tragically is made) that all this turmoil and risk is not worth whatever value it may have and it becomes superior to simply advance to the next stage. Of course codes against suicide keep most from taking the matter into their own hands. But the occaisional tradgedy of a mother sending her own children straight to god has occurred. If they can come to this twisted reasoning what is the logic against it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. The logic is fairly simple
Edited on Thu Feb-17-05 02:22 PM by Stunster
Many people believe in God, in heaven, and that both abortion and suicide are wrong. Indeed, these are all official teachings of the Catholic Church.

The two great Christian commandments are to love God and love one's neighbor. I suppose the idea you're presenting is that killing people is a loving thing to do.

If this life has a God-given purpose, then deliberately destroying it would seem not to be a loving act towards God, since it acts against God's purpose. And if this life has value, then deliberately depriving someone of life would seem not to be a loving act towards that person.

In other words, what is genuinely loving towards God and neighbor will depend upon what God's purposes are, and whether this life has value, and if so, what kind of value it has.

It is part of Christian teaching that this life has the purpose of being an arena of morally autonomous human choice, and that there has to be an arena of morally autonomous choice for any rational creature to attain heaven. This is because heaven is constituted by a perfectly loving union with God, freely willed by rational creatures and assisted by divine grace. This entails that it cannot be attained involuntarily, for involuntary love isn't love, and it is in the most perfect love that the highest moral value, and ultimately heavenly beatitude itself, primarily consist. Christians have traditionally held that not only humans, but also angels, cannot attain heaven (i.e. perfect loving union with God) involuntarily. Both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions generally hold that angels are not immediately in heaven at their creation, but must exercize some autonomous choice.

Hence, in order to attain the highest good, there has to be an arena of autonomous willing and choice. That arena is therefore instrumentally good, and ought to be respected as such by rational creatures.

This life also has intrinsic goods. Though these are not as good as the highest good for rational creatures, they are nonetheless genuine goods. Deliberately to deprive other rational creatures of these goods is not a loving thing to do, since love consists in willing of the beloved's good. The good of a human beloved will include, though not be exhausted by, the goods intrinsic to their earthly life. Since these goods are also God's gifts and intended by God to be enjoyed by human creatures, depriving someone of these goods is also contrary to God's will, and hence would not constitute a loving act towards God either.

There remains the question of what happens to infants who are aborted or die before they can exercize autonomous choice. No definite teaching is given about this question. One theological opinion is that they are given a post-mortem arena of choice akin to that of angels. Another is that they are not given supernatural beatitude, but only a state of natural joy and blessedness (this is the doctrine that went by the name of Limbo, but it was never an official doctrine, merely a theological opinion that was current for a time). A hybrid view is that this Limbo state of 'natural' joy is actually a participation in heavenly bliss, and that the latter has various degrees, corresponding to each creature's capacity to enjoy God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. Problem
You said:
It is part of Christian teaching that this life has the purpose of being an arena of morally autonomous human choice, and that there has to be an arena of morally autonomous choice for any rational creature to attain heaven. This is because heaven is constituted by a perfectly loving union with God, freely willed by rational creatures and assisted by divine grace.

This seems to comport with the direct reading of the doctrine. But most denominations have in practice modified this to an extent. The problem is those that die before they have grown enough to accept god into their heart. Children. Babies. These indidividuals simply don't have the experience and understanding to understand these issues. And as the doctrine and your comments suggest should such a person die before they have accepted god into their heart they are unable to enter into heaven.

This notion creates a very dangerous concept. If mothers were told that this was what awaits their lost children the grief would never end. This concept would turn the heart of every grieving mother against the teachings and the doctrine that created such a fate.

It is interesting to note that most sects have adopted a modification of the literal doctrine and find a way to explain things such that lost children find a way to heaven and their mother's side once again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stunster Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-18-05 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. I go with Julian of Norwich
In one of her divine revelations, it was communicated to her that "All will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of thing will be well".

Babies can experience love, and they can respond joyously to it. Since they are babies, they can neither love nor sin. If they remain babies in the afterlife, they can still experience love and respond joyously to it. So I don't see that as something bad.

But perhaps more is possible. It seems fitting that their souls be given special graces, from a Catholic perspective. Catholics hold that Mary the mother of Jesus was given special grace from the first moment of her conception (this, not the virginal conception of Jesus, is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception). Aborted babies and other deceased infants may receive a similar grace, though subsequent to their conception.

"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:15-16).

"Who is of greatest importance in the kingdom of God?" He called a little child over and stood him in their midst and said: "I assure you, unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of God.... See that you never despise one of these little ones. I assure you, their angels in Heaven constantly behold my heavenly Father's face.... Just so, it is no part of your heavenly Father's plan that a single one of these little ones shall ever come to grief" (Matt. 18:1-2, 10, 14).

Other renderings of this last line are that none of these little ones should ever "perish" or be "lost." These passages suggest a promise of universal salvation for the innocents, for (1) they are numbered among those of greatest importance in God's kingdom, (2) their angels pray for them before the Father, and (3) the Father wills that none of them should be lost. Notice also that the small child standing before Christ, to whom He pointed as an example, was unbaptized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
26. I'm having a hard time grasping some of the statements here...
Some posts here hint at a vague notion of a soul within the fetus. But, the larger issue of when that occurs and what God does with that soul goes unanswered. The Bible and the Koran aren't built to answer your question so ultimately the individual has to form their own conclusion.

Also, if this is an automatic process at the time of initial conception, what "kind" of soul goes on to heaven if the fetus doesn't reach maturity (whether through spontaneous or deliberate abortion)? I see a lot of incomplete souls in heaven.

And if we take the Python ("every sperm is sacred") point of view into consideration -- then there be a lot of squiggly souls in heaven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Judaic custom suggests ensoulment occurs at the first breath
Christian custom is largely nondeclared on the matter. But there is an oft refered to passage that a child was known by an angel even when in the womb. Suggesting that identity already existed prior to birth. This seems to be the primary argument against abortion for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #30
59. Catholics, at least, did once have a custom.
Some pope in the 13th century decreed that abortion was OK up until the "quickening" (the first detected fetal movement). It was at that time that ensoulment was thought to occur.

Just one of those things that the bible never defines - leaving those folks who point to it as a source of all morality grasping for a definitive answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
55. show me some validation souls exist, and Christian souls are not able to
be destroyed, but god can burn them in hell for ever and it seems to give him a hard-on doing it too. jealous revenge involves a perverted sexual gratification.. sounds sorta 'mental' to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justjones Donating Member (596 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
62. If abortion destroys souls, it isn't the souls of the unborn....
that is in question, but the soul of the woman who aborts.

Wait, don't jump conclusions. I am vehemently Pro-Choice rather than Anti-abortion AND proclaim myself a Christian, although these days that's a contradiction.

But I don't think the souls of the unborn are in question, it's the souls of the women who choose to abort. I think it's a measure of her connection to God, yet I don't mean it in a way where if she aborts she will be hurled down into the depths of hell. In fact, I'm not sure if I even believe in the Christian concept of hell. I think abortion is like any other choice we make that isn't exactly in the best interest of what God intends for us in this life, but I truly believe in her right to make that choice.

I don't believe forcing women to go through with an unwanted pregnancy is going to "save her soul" either. In fact, I think it creates a whole different and more complicated set of circumstances that will cloud the way towards being saved by the grace of God. If I didn't believe in God and were forced to have a child by not having access to an abortion, I'm not going to believe in God any more at the end of the day. In fact, I think I would curse God for being forced to bring a new baby into the mix.

Perhaps I shouldn't even be participating in this conversation because I don't fit the typical "Christian" mold and I don't have this worked out completely in my head. Although I know in my heart abortion is wrong, equally I know in my heart it's wrong to deny women the right to choose. I'm a Christian now, but I haven't always been and I'd be nothing but a hypocrit to sit in judgement of anyone who decides to abort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-15-05 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
65. My belief is that
the soul enters the body at the first independent breath. So an abortion is not destroying a soul.

On a larger issue, no souls , nothing can be destroyed, just changed in form--I believe this goes along with one of Newton's laws, though in my way of thinking, the 'stuff' from which all matter and energy comes is God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
66. Do you mean destroy as make it cease to exist or do you mean damnation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
71. Souls cannot be "destroyed"....
when an adult dies...his soul is not "destroyed"...when someone is murdered, their soul is not "destroyed" and if that soul has perchance already entered an unborn child or fetus that is aborted...that soul is not "destroyed".

Souls transcend time...it may decide to drop in & inhabit a body for a short time but upon the death/cessation of that physical body, the soul continues on....just not in physical embodiment...just as was before it chose to be embodied.

I don't understand why some get so upset ...if they sincerely believe that "child" will end up hanging out with God...isn't that what so many religions teach as the ultimate happy ending- hanging out in heaven with god?? So what is the big deal if they get there sooner...with out having to "suffer" all things physical here on earth??....and isn't god the ultimate judge of how we lived our lives??...and whose business is it anyway if a woman choses to abort??

:shrug:
DR

I am coming from no particular religion but more from a deep spiritual connection to what is beyond this earthly reality....perhaps you could say a higher perspective
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
75. Apparently you assume that if you're religious you must be pro-life...
...otherwise why would there not be "I support reporductive rights" options along with the two "I oppose it" choices? "Other" doesn't cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 17th 2024, 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC