Abortion and the soul

[fnr]

I have posted elsewhere about how cognitive neuroscience has gone a long way toward proving that our consciousness is a property of our physical brains. I don’t want to argue about this thesis, but want to use it for a new thesis below.

I’ve also posted that the pro-life movement doesn’t use good science, but leans on poor theories. For example, the fetal pain hypothesis is almost totally undercut by most science journals’ articles about that stuff.

I will say that arguing about biology of consciousness is capturing the pro-life movement in the biological thesis used by many advocates for abortion: that the conceptus/embryo/fetus is just a “ball of cells.” That is, a physical thing lacking humanity, similar to a cluster of cells found in a petri dish.

Fundamentally, the reason that as Catholics we say that abortion is murder is that during conception, a new soul is also created. That new soul doesn’t have genes, it doesn’t have consciousness, it doesn’t have arms, heartbeat, or senses. And it never will: the soul is NOT the body, and its properties are spiritual, not physical. We will never measure a soul, because we can’t measure anything that’s simply spiritual.

However, if you believe that there is a soul, that itself has normative impact on your ethics. It’s not wrong to shoot a 16 year old in the head because their brain shuts down or their heart stops. It’s wrong because it rips a soul from a body. That’s why it’s wrong to kill someone in a permanent vegetative state. It’s not because their soul is conscious, it’s because their soul is still in their body.

To me, that’s the point that we should use in discussing the moral theology associated with abortion. Abortion isn’t wrong because being human is equal to being conscious. It’s wrong because being human is about being both body and soul, united.

There are many people who claim to be simply “spiritual, but not religious.” There are many Christians who dance around moral theology to allow themselves to sin. But for those people, asking them if they have a soul and what it is may also open the door to the issue about abortion. If you have a soul, and it’s wrong to kill you, isn’t it also wrong to kill a “conceptus/embryo/fetus”? If they reply with a biological issue, like saying that there’s no conscious, tell them they’re just saying that a soul is a product of biology. Fundamentally, it’s not. Confusing the two is exceptionally problematic, and it’s easy to get captured by that.

Everyone wants to believe that our loved ones are happily enjoying the afterlife, and after purgation, they are. But it’s not as full-fledged human persons. That has to wait. The Catechism says that it’s with “intuitive vision” that the soul enjoys the Beatific Vision… that’s not with eyes, ears, and senses.

If we think that our souls are where our consciousness is, then we think that science has killed the soul. It has not. I used to be afraid to look at what science tells us about consciousness, but that was before I studied the Bible and Catechism. To a Christian, our ultimate hope is not in Heaven, but in the New Creation on the Last Day, when our bodies are resurrected and reunited with our souls (i.e., 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 8). When we say the Nicene Creed in mass, and say that we believe in the resurrection of the dead, we’re not talking about Heaven, but in the physical resurrection of our bodies on the Last Day, reunited with a divinized soul. If free from mortal sin, our souls go to Heaven, but only as a stopover point on the way to our resurrection on the Last Day.

 

[CrossBro]

Let me make this simple comment about the preborn and it’s level of consciousness and ability to feel pain:

The mother does have a fully functioning brain and is conscious, if she kills that baby she is a murderer and nothing will ever change that fact.

I am not conscious when I am asleep, but if someone shoots me in the head during my nap they are still a murderer. If someone uses a date rape drug to make a person unaware and not conscious it is still rape.

The fact a developing human being cannot feel pain does not change the objectiveness of the act itself.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Fundamentally, the reason that as Catholics we say that abortion is murder is that during conception, a new soul is also created. That new soul doesn’t have genes, it doesn’t have consciousness, it doesn’t have arms, heartbeat, or senses. And it never will: the soul is NOT the body, and its properties are spiritual, not physical. We will never measure a soul, because we can’t measure anything that’s simply spiritual.

Yes, however, when discussing abortion with others who do not believe in the concept of a “soul,” to make it a fruitful discussion, you would have to first prove that the soul does indeed exist before moving on to its relevance in the argument against abortion. You have just greatly magnified your burden of proof.

Since, the soul is, as you say, “not physical,” it would seem very difficult to show evidence for its existence without appealing to an entire set of metaphysical principles, a la Aquinas.

I think it can be more easily shown that a human being is an entity that endures in time and must be seen as a totality from conception to death in order for any moral principles to apply consistently and that is where the pro-abortion argument can be and should be defeated.

 

[fnr]

Yes, however, when discussing abortion with others who do not believe in the concept of a “soul,” to make it a fruitful discussion, you would have to first prove that the soul does indeed exist before moving on to its relevance in the argument against abortion. You have just greatly magnified your burden of proof.

Since, the soul is, as you say, “not physical,” it would seem very difficult to show evidence for its existence without appealing to an entire set of metaphysical principles, a la Aquinas.

I guess I’m assuming that the vast majority of people, at least in the U.S., believe in a soul. That’s just based on pubic surveys that indicate those who are atheist to be a small fraction of overall population.

I think it can be more easily shown that a human being is an entity that endures in time and must be seen as a totality from conception to death in order for any moral principles to apply consistently and that is where the pro-abortion argument can be and should be defeated.

Well, just take a Kantian or Millian view of humanity as requiring free will and consciousness, and you’re back to square one. Those ontologically assume that humans must be conscious. In many ways the civil law rests on such assumptions. I’m trying to get past the reliance on consciousness.

I think in a lot of ways, your “conception to death” argument is largely the same as mine about the soul. However, I think that it has become easy to deconstruct “humanity” into biological bits. For me, the normative value of the soul is separate from any attempt to define humanity in any way other than Catholic.

 

[GEddie]

If an inability to hold consciousness made a being not human, then anybody under anesthetic, or after a head knock, or passed-out drunk, could be killed without moral issues.

For that matter, babies are not that much more conscious than fetuses, so that argument opens the door to infanticide as well.

The fetus is alive, and it is genotypically human. Even before it has a recognizable body, its genes can only form a human body, never a cat or oak tree; therefore it is human life.

And if one holds that the “soul” is the life, then by definition it has a soul.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Peter_Plato]

I guess I’m assuming that the vast majority of people, at least in the U.S., believe in a soul. That’s just based on pubic surveys that indicate those who are atheist to be a small fraction of overall population.

Well, just take a Kantian or Millian view of humanity as requiring free will and consciousness, and you’re back to square one. Those ontologically assume that humans must be conscious. In many ways the civil law rests on such assumptions. I’m trying to get past the reliance on consciousness.

I think in a lot of ways, your “conception to death” argument is largely the same as mine about the soul. However, I think that it has become easy to deconstruct “humanity” into biological bits. For me, the normative value of the soul is separate from any attempt to define humanity in any way other than Catholic.

There are huge issues with grounding any kind of ethical system within a strictly materialistic world view. Any system of values, worthy of the name, would seem to presuppose a framework that transcends a strictly material conception of the universe. The difficulty comes in trying to explicate a transcendent view of reality in a complete and cogent way to individuals who are not interested. It’s like trying to convince a grub or maggot that flight is exhilarating, when its only interest is feeding on compost.

Thomism would seem the most well-worked out metaphysics for grounding ethical values, yet it seems very easy for many who simply want their own way regarding morals to be disinclined to hear, understand and engage with the depth of Thomism. I think the old saying applies here… You can lead a horse to water, etc.

Most ethical issues today come down to individuals simply stopping short of a complete and coherent “system” of ethics precisely because their moral state (or lack thereof) acts as the prime motive for stopping short of grasping the complete truth. If the truth leads to where I don’t want to go, I simply stop listening and rationalize the rest away.

Of course abortion is killing another human being.
Of course abortion is an extension of birth control.
Of course abortion is simply the logical consequence of misconstruing sex as the summum bonum. If sex is the highest good, then the life of a child must, ipso facto, be of less worth.

To effectively discuss an issue such as abortion it is necessary to engage with a human faculty capable of untainted reason, the problem is that many believe that the source of the human rational faculty is located elsewhere than the brain.

 

[fnr]

If an inability to hold consciousness made a being not human, then anybody under anesthetic, or after a head knock, or passed-out drunk, could be killed without moral issues.

For that matter, babies are not that much more conscious than fetuses, so that argument opens the door to infanticide as well.

Precisely one reason I suggest that we shouldn’t use consciousness or assumed subjectivity to argue the case. Consciousness in infants and the elderly have both been argued by people like Peter Singer who suggests that they’re not a human with rights. To me, the soul gets around that argument.

The fetus is alive, and it is genotypically human. Even before it has a recognizable body, its genes can only form a human body, never a cat or oak tree; therefore it is human life.

But in biological development, the genome is necessary but not sufficient. Gene expression differs across cells in the body. It is impossible to argue teleology from one cell in a Petri dish. However, if we use the assumption of most US citizens have that humans possess a soul, which is a de fide meme, that assumption allows for the teleological conclusion.

To me, saying that a unique genome makes a human being is problematic. In fact, I’d rather say that development is necessarily and wholly contingent on the woman’s body. The sin of abortion comes from not only the end of development of a embryo/fetus, but the rejection of the teleology of pregnancy, which is also based on the teleology of sexual behavior. Fundamentally, we’re not making a biological argument, but a normative argument based on the human ontology.

 

[fnr]

There are huge issues with grounding any kind of ethical system within a strictly materialistic world view. Any system of values, worthy of the name, would seem to presuppose a framework that transcends a strictly material conception of the universe. The difficulty comes in trying to explicate a transcendent view of reality in a complete and cogent way to individuals who are not interested. It’s like trying to convince a grub or maggot that flight is exhilarating, when its only interest is feeding on compost.

And here, I’m relying on the assumption that most residents in the US believe that they themselves possess an immortal soul. While many people have left their churches, there are a lot of people who are “spiritual but not religious,” and in that unexplored type of theism, the soul is one of the most important and long-lived beliefs.

Thomism would seem the most well-worked out metaphysics for grounding ethical values, yet it seems very easy for many who simply want their own way regarding morals to be disinclined to hear, understand and engage with the depth of Thomism. I think the old saying applies here… You can lead a horse to water, etc.

I’m actually relying a lot on Summa Theologica’s descriptions of the soul’s actions (many of which are based on Aristole). To me, 21st century science updates some of those conclusions, particularly in the notion that the “rational soul” is not contingent on material organs (which the “sensory soul” is described as doing).

Most ethical issues today come down to individuals simply stopping short of a complete and coherent “system” of ethics precisely because their moral state (or lack thereof) acts as the prime motive for stopping short of grasping the complete truth. If the truth leads to where I don’t want to go, I simply stop listening and rationalize the rest away.

And I agree. I’m not talking about presenting a de novo ethical system, but a strategy based on preexisting assumptions that a person has a soul.

Here’s an example of how I’d use the argument with someone arguing for abortion on the basis that “it’s just a ball of cells.”

1. Do you believe that you have a soul?
2. Do you believe that your soul will exist after you die?
3. Do you believe the soul is affected by Alzheimer’s Disease, or brain damage?
4. If answers to 1-3 are yes, yes, no, then say: “So your continued existence after death is not contingent on your brain staying alive or even healthy. So how can you say that a conceptus early in pregnancy is not also possessing of a soul as worthy as your own?”

To effectively discuss an issue such as abortion it is necessary to engage with a human faculty capable of untainted reason, the problem is that many believe that the source of the human rational faculty is located elsewhere than the brain.

That’s why I think that arguing for a totally spiritual soul is essential.