Bless my soul! ... by Bob Nelson
"Life begins at conception!" That's nonsense, of course. Life began several billion years ago, at least. But let's be charitable: what this should be is "A 'new individual' begins at fertilization".
For quite some time, this "new individual" is indistinguishable from a "new individual" of any species of mammal.
So what makes a human zygote-embryo-fetus so special? Sure it is a potential person. And an acorn a potential oak tree... but nobody is going to say that an acorn is an oak tree! Nor would anyone claim that an egg the same thing as a chicken.
So... what makes a human different? Why do millions of people consider that tiny blob of cells to be -- morally -- the same as a born person? While they often dress their arguments in pseudo-scientific jargon, it seems to me that something else is going on.
Under American law, a human being doesn't gain full rights until the age of twenty-one, when they can buy a beer... So the law does not recognize any "moment of personhood" at all. Humans (and only humans) gradually accrue rights as they age... and then gradually lose them again when they get very old. Considering the gradual growth and development that we all go through... it's a pretty reasonable approach. Always approximate, but not absurd.
The "right to life" position is very different . Personhood is instantaneous . Before fertilization, there was nothing; an instant later there is a person. If that sounds magical... it is : instantaneous acquisition of personhood requires that something special happen at that instant -- something of a nature very different from the gradual development that will follow... and continue for some twenty years.
IMHO, the " magic of the instant of conception" is the acquisition of a soul .
Some of the people who oppose abortion may not realize that their movement is largely a religious one. Everyone adores babies -- caring for the very young is hard-coded into our genes. So lots of people hear "dead babies" and go bonkers, without expending any real thought. Once they have decided "abortion is evil"... they have to latch onto something, anything... to justify the anti-abortion position they are in fact taking for purely emotional reasons. These people parrot pseudo-science without understanding it, or simply shout "Because!!"
But many/most pro-lifers are persuaded that the zygote is a person because it has a soul from the instant of conception. The fact that they rarely let this argument come to the surface is downright shocking: duplicity in the name of God??
They don't speak openly of souls for two reasons. First, because they know that they would lose some of their more oblivious members if it became too apparent that they are ramming their religious beliefs down everyone's throats. Second, their religious justification is -- to say the least -- dubious .
Obviously, if a pro-life minister says, "The Bible says that life begins at conception!"... somebody is going to ask for chapter and verse. And that's where things get sticky. The Bible says nothing of the kind.
The little the Bible says about the unborn and the new-born shows that the ancient Hebrews did not consider a child to be a person until after birth... unless I'm mistaken, of course... which has happened, once or twice in the last 67 years. More than twice, actually...
So... Let's see if anyone on NT has a different look at all this.
-
Is there some other reason for considering fertilization to be a special moment, other than acquisition of a soul?
-
Is there any convincing Biblical (or other religious) text on precisely when a zygote-embryo-fetus-baby-child acquires a soul? (Subsidiary question: "What is a "soul" in the Bible? Beware, this is a trick question!)
-
Roughly half of all fertilized eggs do not implant. That means that (if a fertilized egg is a person) four times as many of these "babies" die from not implanting, than from abortions. Why is there no national campaign to save all those fertilized, non-implanted "babies"?
The law is NOT the subject of this conversation . Roe v. Wade is irrelevant .
The subject IS the justification for considering the instant of fertilization to be somehow "different" from all the dozens of other stages in the development of a person.
Tags
Who is online
97 visitors
The Hebrews did not understand "soul" as (most) Christians do. A soul was a life. As in "Springfield is a town of 5000 souls."
As far as life goes, BF has it right - the union of a sperm and an egg cannot produce anything unless those two entities are themselves alive. Dead sperm don't swim. On the other hand, every living person in history has one thing in common - they resulted from an event akin to winning a lottery of incredibly bad odds. Every sperm in the race would produce its own unique person, if given the chance.
To give legal personhood to fertilized human egg is patently absurd. That will never happen.To give legal personhood to a fetus halfway through gestation is another story. How many times have murderers been charged with double homicide after killing a late stage pregnant woman ?
Nope.
This is also patently absurd for obvious reasons.
I totally appreciate you bringing this up. As silly as some of they are, some of these issues will have to be legislated in the near future. It will be interesting to say the least.
Response to 1. There is no way to correctly respond to this since there is no empirical proof of the existence of a soul. Although I personally believe a soul is an actual entity, being unable to verify its existence, if "special moment" attribution to fertilization is predicated on the simultaneous beginning of a soul, the question is unanswerable. Same response to question 2. As for the "failure to implant," that is a biological phenomenon as opposed to abortion which is a social/medical decision.
I'm not sure what you mean... If you mean that there is no other answer... then you'll have to prove a negative, and that's always pretty tough... But I didn't get the feeling that you meant that. If you meant that the question was ill-posed, I don't understand either: it seems pretty clear to me. Could you reformulate, please.
Not a problem. Personally, I think it absurd to ask for "scientific evidence" of spiritual phenomena. One has faith or one does not, but by definition faith is not subject to physical evidence.
My question was about "textual evidence": chapter and verse from a Holy Book -- mainly the Bible, but maybe someone has something from some other source.
My purpose here is to learn what is the concrete basis for believing the something very special happens at fertilization. I suspect that in fact, there is no textual basis. "Life begins at conception" is a slogan based on the preacher'sconversationswith God...
I don't see what difference that makes. Those unimplanted "babies" are still dead, and there are four times as many of them as aborted "babies". I don't see why their dying of a natural phenomenon makes them any less dead.
(Thank you for having made a thoughtful response to the article, Mac...)
There is no concrete basis, it is subjective as is the qualifying term "special." I personally believe in thespecialnature of such things but do so knowing that taking something on faith is not synonymous with "knowing."
I think we have see throughout history and quite demonstrably at present, some of the inherent dangers of "faith," or possibly, more succinctly, acting on dogmas.
Ask a "pro-life" legislator, one who believes that life begins at conception, if he will introduce a bill allowing for a verified-pregnant woman to claim her embryo or fetus as a tax-deductible dependent in the tax year of conception rather than having to qualify in the tax year of her child's birth.
I've asked several legislators that question THEY DO EVERYTHING BUT ANSWER "YES" or "NO."
Disagree.
That fact is, when the egg is fertilized it remains initially "detached" from the mother - just a tiny, free-floating speck in the wide universe of the womb. Following fertilization, the incipient embryo (or blastocyst) is just a cluster of multiplying cells - and the blastocyst must develop and grow through a number of phases and stages before it is prepared to "hook up" with the mother. This hook up or connection is called "implantation".
John,
I am not "saying no", for pity's sake! I am asking what their basis is. I cannot have a valid opinion of their position until I understand what that position is.
I have expressed no opinion whatsoever on about abortion. I am asking about others' opinions, and more precisely, how they justify them.
Mac,
OK. We may be getting somewhere.
I believe in God. My faith in God is internal and inexplicable.
Are you saying that your belief that a zygote is a person is of the same nature? Pure "faith" with no contextual justification?
I agree with this, of course. It is textbook gestation. Perhaps I was not clear enough in exposing my quandary, so I'll reformulate.
The Right-to-life folks say that a fertilized egg is a person. (I have never heard anyone say, "Life begins at implantation!')
Once an egg is fertilized, it has one chance in two of not implanting, and therefore being evacuated at the woman's next menstruation. In has one chance in eight of being aborted.
That is to say, a fertilized egg (a "person" according to the Right-to-life folks) is four times more likely to "die" by (as you say) natural phenomena than by abortion.
Whatever the cause, the "baby" is still dead.
Four times as many "babies" die for lack of implantation than from abortion. But no one cares about those millions of dead "babies"! Why not?
Not exactly. I am saying that in contrast to the limitations of humanity, such phenomena as conception, birth and, an infinite number of others, are beyond our ability to create from "scratch" so-to-speak. Indeed we are vehicles and manifestations of whatever/whomever put the Cosmos in motion, but we are not that Whatever/Whomever.
Is a zygote a person define "person." Is it NOT-NOT-A-PERSON same question.
Define "baby." Pro-life and pro-birth are not necessarily synonymous.
Again I refer to you the pro-life legislators who won't stand by the very tenets the pander to. If conception is the start of a person, if it's the beginning of a life, then why isn't it a tax deduction/child tax credit?
I'll go you one better; how can an individual be simultaneously PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN, PRO-WAR, PRO-TORTURE, ANTI-HEALTH CARE, ANTI ENVIRONMENT?
It's one thing to say "I believe X,Y and Z," and quite another to make laws imposing "beliefs X,Y, and Z."
Back to implantation what if I believe the failure to implant is the manifestation of a decision made by the very "creator" that, on other occasions, permits implantation?
"This one is not viable," decides the "creator," "I create the miracles and I decide the ones that give me second thoughts."
"My Cosmos, My call."
Mac,
That is MY question: What is the basis for declaring that a fertilized egg is a "baby"? That is the position of the Right-to-life folks, and I do not understand it. So I ask how they derive that equivalence...
I think we are missing a connection... I am not defining anything. I am taking the Pro-life definition ("Life begins at conception") and asking why they don't seem to care that far more "babies" (following their definition, not mine)die from not implanting than from abortion.
Personally, I cannot imagine God intervening in that level of affairs...
The same folks who tend to be "pro-life," are very likely to call any tragedy or grave disappointment, "God's will."
The one who gets the credit for success will often be the one who bears the blame.
My problem with Religion is its need to rationalize rather than to admit at times, "WE DON'T KNOW." Why is birth "a miracle" and untimely death a "tragedy" and at times, "God's Will"?
Reality is an insecure place NO MATTER HOW WE TRY TO APPLY MAN'S REASON TO IT. ETIOLOGY is a big business we all want to know "WHY" things happen but mostly WHY THE BAD THINGS.
During the happy times we usually don't question nor, say "thank you."
And when "fidelity" to "our way" is demonstrated, we get that but when someone goes "astray," he's an "infidel."
Be it religion, government, family, or, any institution in which humanity places its faith, when they fail to provide the security we wish for, we express anger, surprise, disappointment, disillusionment and then search for reason.
"The fault dear Brutus "
From a religious standpoint, I would say, that if a baby "dies" by lack of implantation, god moves in mysterious ways. When man does it, he or she has done so by choice. They would argue that the choice is murder.
That can be used to justify anything. If "life begins at conception", then millions of "babies" are dying every year for lack of implantation. Why aren't the Right-to-life folks clamoring for an urgent research program into the biological reasons for this hecatomb, and into means to "save the babies"?
Mac,
I'm having trouble following you. Let me repeat the question, directly: Do you know any text(s) justifying the notion that "life begins at conception"?
Biblical text, biological text, legal text or philosophical text?
That's exactly my point who defines it and who has the inside information?
Life certainly doesn't begin BEFORE CONCEPTION, SO THE QUESTION IS, DOES IT BEGIN AT THE MOMENT CONCEPTION OR SOMETIME AFTER?
If you're asking me personally, my answer is, "some aspects of life appear to begin just after the moment of conception." That's my opinion. My intellectual response is from philosopher/author Joseph Campbell
So... You've just been jerking my chain...
I'll keep that in mind, the next time.
Why is telling you "i don't have the definitive answer," "jerking your chain"?
I'm the only one in this discussion directly responding to questions that don't necessarily have definitive answers.
Or
Or
Or
06:14 PM ET
And why would you say this?
Because science already knows why, which is the irony of this discussion.
So given that science is known (and probably rejected by those who feel that fertilization means personhood), then you have to go back to the hand of god idea.
Mac...
The question is simple and straightforward (Do you have a religious text justifying conception as a "magic moment"?), deserving either a simple "No, I have no such text" or "Yes, my text is xxxxxxxxxxxx"...
You never answer that simple question, but instead all sorts of other questions that I did not ask.
I actually know a little bit about the Bible. I know any number of verses that seem to set personhood at or even after birth. But I also know that the Bible sometimes contradicts itself. Saying "one month after birth" in one place, does not preclude saying "at conception" somewhere else. So I ask if anyone has a text justifying "at conception".
Your Daily Kos link answers a question I did not ask. Granted, it states "So here it is, a full breakdown on how the bible very clearly states that life begins at breath, not at conception." But "not at conception" would require proving a negative... and that ain't happenin'...
After several repeated instances of someone answering beside the point... I come to suspect that it is being done on purpose -- yanking my chain...
Perrie,
Right-to-lifers pay no attention to science. They diddle in pseudo-science, but no more than that.
If the hand of God kills all those millions of innocent "babies"... then why are these people worshiping such an evil God?
And why not see the hand of God behind all abortions? End of problem...
My point is that there is a major incoherence in Right-to-life "reasoning".
There are religious texts in virtually every religion that reference "miraculous births." You chose the term "magic moment," -- I know of no such biblical reference.
The closest I could find to "magic" -- "Miraculous."
The answer to your question, as asked, is "No," I know of no such religious text using the term "magic". But, such a question warrants a response in terms of references to the moment of conception as interpreted by other entities lest it appear implied that "religion" is the first and last word.
No one can viably address "the magic moment of conception," nor, "life" for that matter without first defining them. And even then, both defy definitive discourse.
Bob
I wouldn't agree... too broad a brush.
Why do nice people get terriblediseases? Evil god?
Because god gave us freewill. Says so in the good book. Which is also why we are judged.
I agree, but then again, none of this is about reasoning, nor could it be. The good book says be fruitful and multiply and don't spill your seed. There is nothing in there that saysThoushall not get an abortion. That is why the Jewishinterpretationis that you don't get a soul till you take your first breath. Yet having hadpreemies, I would argueagainst that, too. But then again, I taught biology, so you know which camp I lie in.
True. Disparate understandings is one of the great risks of conversation. I put "magic" in quotation marks to indicate that it should be taken as broadly as possible. I didn't want to lock the question down to the too-specific "acquisition of a soul". Perhaps some Right-to-lifers consider some other special event to justify their considering a two-cell fertilized egg to be essentially the same thing as an adult person.
My problem is that I am trying to ask the most open question possible. If we interpret the absurd "life begins at conception" to mean a less absurd "a new person begins at fertilization", then I must wonder just what is meant by "new person". It does not mean "potential person" because just as an acorn is not an oak tree, a "potential person" is -- by definition -- not a "person". And yet, the Right-to-lifers consider the fertilized egg to be a person.
So... in the thinking of a Right-to-lifer, the fertilized egg is NOT like an acorn: "potential, but not yet realized". The fertilized egg is something more.
Since biologically speaking, the contrary is true -- the acorn is in fact much more advanced in its gestation -- the difference cannot be found in biology. The difference is not scientific.
It the event that justifies (for the Right-to-lifers) considering a fertilized egg to be a person cannot be found in by science, the event must be of the spiritual world. (I consider two worlds, physical and spiritual. God is of the spiritual world. Science is of the physical world. God and science never meet.)
So... I keep asking if someone knows of a text justifying ... etc etc etc...
Is my question clearer now?
Please?
Perrie,
Much simpler: God has nothing to do with it.
There has to be reasoning at some level. Unless the Right-to-lifers are willing to say, "A fertilized egg is a person because I say so!", they must invoke some greater proof.
There is no such greater proof in the physical world of science. A fertilized egg is a "potential person", far far less advanced than an acorn, which is a "potential oak tree" but certainly not a full oak tree!
That's the (very simple) science of the subject.
And yet the Right-to-lifers claim that the fertilized egg is a full person. So... what is the "magical event" and what religious text (or whatever) justifies having faith in that magical event.
I personally think that, whether they admit/know it or not, the magical event is the acquisition of a soul. And their problem is that there is no text to justify having faith in that event occuring at fertilization.
The only real-world justification is, "The preacher says so!"
So by that logic, maybe god has nothing to do with why an egg doesn't get implanted, which is in opposition to what you said earlier:
Actually no. There is no line in any text that says that. So it all comes down to interpretation, and not logic.
As said by you here:
It is just that. They have combined the fruitful and multiply with the spilling of sperm and the thou shall not kill and came to that conclusion.
The thing here is you are hoping to get people who believe blindly to use logic... which is illogical. They won't. I had to deal with this when I taught evolution. What I ended up having to do (and wrote my MS thesis on) was take evolution down to their level... now this is called intelligent design.. but when I wrote my thesis. that was not a concept yet.
You can't get people who follow blindly to one preacher to believe something that is contradictory to their beliefs. The only way that happens is if some personal event happens that rocks their world.
Worth is a funny word.. because it means there is an intrinsic value to an item... in this case a zygote. To some there is a huge value... like people who have struggled to get pregnant. To others, it is their worst nightmare come true. The value is hard to define.
If you mean where does life begin... science can tell you when the fetus has a viable nervous system. It can tell you what is the threshold of viability. These are some of the ways we measure the criteria of when abortion becomes unethical.
But I agree with Bob that a zygote is only the potential of a human and not a human yet. I agree with is acorn analogy.
BTW Bob... you need a by line in the future. I just added it in for you.
Is this a rule? I always provide a link to seeded articles. If there's no link... it should be obvious that I am the author, no?
Perrie,
Please note, "If"...
Not really. I hope to force them to see that their preacher is pulling this BS out of...