I doubt there is a scientific view regarding when the soul enters the body. Science does not usually deal with matters of the soul. The Jewish view is that the soul enters the body only after it is fully formed before birth. The unborn child is not accorded the equal status of personhood compared to the newborn. This belief is largely based on Genesis, in which G-d instilled the breath of life, interpreted as the soul, in Man after fashioning his body from the earth. That is one of the reasons (there are others) why, if the mother’s life is endangered, abortion is permitted, indeed required, even late in pregnancy. In most other cases, however, abortion is strictly forbidden.Probably it would be easier for everyone to understand abortion if we know when does the soul enter the body of unborn baby, for example, Islam claims that the soul enters the body after 120 days according to authentic hadith by Bukhari (Book 54, Volume 4, Number 430), therefore in Islam abortion is allowed in the first 120 days, after that it’s considered a mortal sin.
So it would be nice if we have a Christian, Jewish, or scientific view on when does the soul enter the baby body.
You view is what Peter Singer calls speciesism. You believe that simply being a genetic homo sapiens individual grants rights. In such view, a fertilized egg automatically gets rights, as a new, genetically distinct, homo sapiens individual. The corollary is that e.g. chimpanzees, not being homo sapiens, cannot have rights.I personally believe that cruelty for its own sake is evil and sinful, even when directed at animals, but I value human life much higher than any animal.
When God is removed from the equation, you end up without any real value or meaning, only that is which is assessed. That, naturally leads to relativism, and value is then subjected to individuals personal view! If that is true, then what one man may see as a subjective good, then another may see as a subjective bad. So it goes with the claim of speciesism. If all have a subjectively perceived value equally, then why put a dog above a fly or a hornet? Isn’t that speciesism to a degree? So then we redefine and redefine to the point that we are trying to assess an absolute value to a being, from our presupposed subjective worldview. Jews and Catholics together, both have deep teachings on moral theology, when dealing with God’s creatures.You view is what Peter Singer calls speciesism. You believe that simply being a genetic homo sapiens individual grants rights. In such view, a fertilized egg automatically gets rights, as a new, genetically distinct, homo sapiens individual. The corollary is that e.g. chimpanzees, not being homo sapiens, cannot have rights.
Singer et.al. essentially argue that having rights should be a product of having a sufficiently advanced intellectual capabilities (they phrase it differently, but it basically boils down to how advanced a brain is). What sufficiently advanced means varies between proponents of this worldview. Some say that it’s the capability to perceive pain; others say that it’s self-awareness. Let’s stick with self-awareness. If you apply a self-awareness criterion, then certain groups of animals (e.g. adult chimpanzees) are definitely self-aware, so they should have rights. At the same time, there are some groups of humans (notably fetuses, infants and people with advanced Alzheimer’s) that are not self-aware and thus have no rights.
It’s worth noting that both approaches have been used in the past to justify genocide. WWII Germans would exterminate both physically fit Jews (racism = genetic criteria) and crippled Germans (capability criteria).
Wow, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the biggest in the world, and all three are different in their views in this matter. It sure complicates things for all parties when we talk about freedom of religion and the right to practice one’s religion according to the confines of that religion.Originally Posted by Sam_777
Probably it would be easier for everyone to understand abortion if we know when does the soul enter the body of unborn baby, for example, Islam claims that the soul enters the body after 120 days according to authentic hadith by Bukhari (Book 54, Volume 4, Number 430), therefore in Islam abortion is allowed in the first 120 days, after that it’s considered a mortal sin.
He may call it what he wants. I simply call it the good sense that has guided the vast majority of humanity for thousands of years.You view is what Peter Singer calls speciesism.
Yes, I do. So does every single person I have ever met and every civil society that punishes the deliberate and unnecessary (to save lives) destruction of human beings more severely than any other trangression in the society.You believe that simply being a genetic homo sapiens individual grants rights.
The dominant human view, you mean…In such view,…
They certainly cannot have the rights the human being has…a fertilized egg automatically gets rights, as a new, genetically distinct, homo sapiens individual. The corollary is that e.g. chimpanzees, not being homo sapiens, cannot have rights.
Why should intelligence be the measuring yard stick? Who gets to decide what to attach them (rights) to? I will stick with the human tradition of attaching them to human beings.Singer et.al. essentially argue that having rights should be a product of having a sufficiently advanced intellectual capabilities (they phrase it differently, but it basically boils down to how advanced a brain is).
Cruelty should never be employed for any purpose. Harm/injury is inflicted only based on necessity- That’s my criterion for how to treat animals. My Father who has struggled with Alzheimers/Dementia for seven years is just as much human as you and has equal rights to you- He’s worthy of all my love and my greatest devotion (indeed his disability grants him MORE rights over me than other people in my life and should grant him extra consideration from the society in general). That is also very simple, straightfoward and clear to me. In my African society, the more helpless and vulnerable a person is, the more “rights” and considerations they get from the society at large, not less. To me, only an abnormal human mind (and society) will see things in the reverse.What sufficiently advanced means varies between proponents of this worldview. Some say that it’s the capability to perceive pain; others say that it’s self-awareness. Let’s stick with self-awareness. If you apply a self-awareness criterion, then certain groups of animals (e.g. adult chimpanzees) are definitely self-aware, so they should have rights. At the same time, there are some groups of humans (notably fetuses, infants and people with advanced Alzheimer’s) that are not self-aware and thus have no rights.
All those problems stemmed precisely from the failure to value human beings simply for their own sakes (your so called speciesism) and attempting to employ arbitrary yard sticks eg. race, tribe, religion (and so called advanced intelligence) etc to measure the immeasurable worth of human life and human rights.It’s worth noting that both approaches have been used in the past to justify genocide. WWII Germans would exterminate both physically fit Jews (racism = genetic criteria) and crippled Germans (capability criteria).
Rights predate the Declaration of independence. My African tribe had never heard of the USA or the Declaration of independence until a few years ago- That did not stop them from recognizing and prescribing and protecting the dignity of the members of its society. The Americans may have coined the term “rights” but they did not invent the reality of human rights- It had existed long before. That’s why virtually all societies protect each person’s life and properties- Those are rights recognized by that society. Human rights are not granted by the American Declaration of Independence, Constitution or Universal Declaration of Human Rights- NO human instrument grants human rights. They merely protect them by declaring them, enshrining them and putting measures in place to prevent and punish their violation.The crux of the issue is that one can distinguish four kinds of living creatures:
The presently dominant view which assigns rights to being human discriminates against sentient non-human beings. Singer et.al. believe that this is wrong and they have a point: why should one’s genetic makeup decide on rights? After all, this is basically what Nazi Germany did, except that the line is drawn in a different place.
- sentient humans
- non-sentient humans
- sentient non-humans
- non-sentient non-humans
On the other hand, their view which instead assigns rights to sentience discriminates against non-sentient human beings. Most people believe that is wrong and they have a good reason to believe so.
And does the Bible say anything about rights? No, it says Thou shalt not kill. The rights, as we understand them today, are a concept from the Enlightenment philosophy, and under such philosophy, they are determined through a social contract. Recall the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… We hold. We is the subject in this phrase, not God, and so we establish a social contact which defines these rights as we understand them. And that particular social contact was originally defined in such a way, that it would deprive a large class of people of their liberty. Thus if a society agrees to a social contract that discriminates the unborn, so be it.
I got this of somebody leaving a comment in the comment box on youtube. These are not my words, but I found it to be great, when speaking to the non-believing crowd!You view is what Peter Singer calls speciesism. You believe that simply being a genetic homo sapiens individual grants rights. In such view, a fertilized egg automatically gets rights, as a new, genetically distinct, homo sapiens individual. The corollary is that e.g. chimpanzees, not being homo sapiens, cannot have rights.
Singer et.al. essentially argue that having rights should be a product of having a sufficiently advanced intellectual capabilities (they phrase it differently, but it basically boils down to how advanced a brain is). What sufficiently advanced means varies between proponents of this worldview. Some say that it’s the capability to perceive pain; others say that it’s self-awareness. Let’s stick with self-awareness. If you apply a self-awareness criterion, then certain groups of animals (e.g. adult chimpanzees) are definitely self-aware, so they should have rights. At the same time, there are some groups of humans (notably fetuses, infants and people with advanced Alzheimer’s) that are not self-aware and thus have no rights.
It’s worth noting that both approaches have been used in the past to justify genocide. WWII Germans would exterminate both physically fit Jews (racism = genetic criteria) and crippled Germans (capability criteria).
This is why I believe abortion must be a private matter between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her spiritual advisor, rather than constantly politicized by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates and politicians. I feel the same about gay marriage. In particular, Republicans, whose ideology so strongly supports states’ rights and less government regulation, should also know enough to stay out of people’s personal lives.Wow, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the biggest in the world, and all three are different in their views in this matter. It sure complicates things for all parties when we talk about freedom of religion and the right to practice one’s religion according to the confines of that religion.
I’m sure the same argument could be used about abusive spouses, incestual relations, prejudice, slavery… - “have the government stay out of people’s personal lives” Oh wait, all of a sudden things are a lot clearer. Those are obvious that there is more than one person involved.This is why I believe abortion must be a private matter between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her spiritual advisor, rather than constantly politicized by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates and politicians. I feel the same about gay marriage. In particular, Republicans, whose ideology so strongly supports states’ rights and less government regulation, should also know enough to stay out of people’s personal lives.
Totally disagree. I know what a human baby is. It’s being split from limb to limb or jabbed in the back of it’s tiny head is far more evil than any slaughter of an animal. I hate animal cruelty and I think only disturbed humans engage in it- but nothing of the sort compares to the same horrors you described being inflicted on tiny human babies.I think it takes a far more evil heart to torture a living, breathing, animal continuously and eventually murder it, then it does to perform an abortion.
…As or more innocent than our unborn babies in our wombs?Animals, on the other hand, are truly innocents.
Absolutely agree. We kill animals only as a matter of necessity and in the most humane manner possible. Any deliberate infliction of suffering on beings which we know very well can and do suffer, just for its own sake, for sport or even out of carelessness betrays a cold, cold heart.I do eat meat though, God put them here for us to consume, but he did not put them here for us to torture and be malicious to.
I wonder what would have happened if the Old Americans had emplyed this thought process to the slavery matter. “Since we all disagree about the personhood or lack thereof of these slaves, why not let each family, slave-owner, and their pastor each make their own choice about whether or not to keep. kill, otherwise mistreat slaves?” What if the same had been left to the Germans to decide for themselves regarding the humanity of the Jews of Eastern Europe in the early 20th Century? While I might agree with you as regards gay marriage, abortion is a question of whether an individual being denied all rights, including life/existence, simply based on other peoples’ judgment that he is not “fully” or “truly” human should be protected. Since science cannot tell us when humanity can be said to be fully extant in a baby, the law ought to protect the entire life of a baby, from conception to senility. No arbitrary categories should be placed at any point in between to determine what we humans cannot.This is why I believe abortion must be a private matter between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her spiritual advisor, rather than constantly politicized by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates and politicians.
I do care that they are not killed in inhumane ways, or even when it 's not necessary to kill them. And I do eat meat. I simply do not equate human and animal value. I believe that the world was created for man, not the other way around. Based on this, I am not for torturing animals- but using them for food? I am. I am a thorough environmentalist (care deeply for the protection of the natural world and the Earth), but this is because I believe that the world must be preserved for future generations and not destroyed and depleted greedily by present ones. But I most certainly do not equate animals or the environment to human life. Human life is immeasurably more valuable, and in my world-view, it’s the fact of their being the home of humanity that gives them even more value.So weird you ask this…because someone today asked me the exact reverse: how can people who are pro-life eat animals and also, not even care if they are killed in a humane way?!
What you are proposing, Bob, I think is a semi-strawman. My post was in response to another poster’s reply to my previous post. In the latter, I partially explained the Jewish view on abortion, compared to the Muslim view and also the Catholic view. There are three different religious viewpoints regarding the status of the unborn child. Your references to slavery, abusive spouses, and incestual relations, on the other hand, do not derive from any legitimate religious perspective, but rather from either distortions of religion or individual or group prejudices.I’m sure the same argument could be used about abusive spouses, incestual relations, prejudice, slavery… - “have the government stay out of people’s personal lives” Oh wait, all of a sudden things are a lot clearer. Those are obvious that there is more than one person involved.
Abortion is not a personal matter. If it were a personal matter, only one would be involved. But two are involved. One dead, and another wounded. It also causes breast cancer, is done by unlicensed, untrained, and dangerous staff, and is NOT health care in any sense of the word! It kills health!
Imagine a society where nobody has any human rights whatsoever, unless they get permission from one person. What would that say about the society? We have that in our society.