I'm pro-life...but that's my choice

[meltzerboy]

Where was the soul even talked about in her post? What about if my religion taught me that babies don’t have souls until they are at least 1 year old? Would it then be ok for me to kill that child based on a religious exemption? The law does not require someone to have a soul in order to be considered human and alive. Her statement stands that at the point of conception you have a human life that should be protected under the law, period.

What is the difference between a baby in the womb, and a severely mentally handicap, one year old baby in terms of dependence on their mother? The only difference is the woman doesn’t need to go find a doctor if she wants to get rid of the baby. Both babies are fully dependent on others to be taken care of.

The main point of my post is precisely that the previous poster was presenting a biological definition of life, not a religious definition (and not a legal definition either). I did not raise the issue of dependence on the mother: I raised the issue of the mother’s life being endangered if her pregnancy is not terminated. The mother’s life is not endangered by a severely mentally disabled child or by a one-year-old child, both of whom are already born. My religious exemption idea has a real-life basis, namely a probable threat to the mother’s life.

 

[meltzerboy]

This is not rational or logical. Is it your contention that from this viewpoint that Jews believe someone has to be “full grown” to receive a soul as Adam was? Granted I am not Jewish but I have never met one who would purpose as you have. I guess that is the advantage of having a Magisterium. I can tell you EXACTLY what Catholics should believe.

This is not my own idea! Yes, Adam is fully grown, but the point is that the soul does not enter his body at the start of his creation, but at the end. This is Orthodox Jewish teaching, part of Torah Law. The same reasoning would therefore apply to an unborn child: the soul enters their body after the body is formed, not at conception.

 

[Catholicpotato]

This is not my own idea! Yes, Adam is fully grown, but the point is that the soul does not enter his body at the start of his creation, but at the end. This is Orthodox Jewish teaching, part of Torah Law. The same reasoning would therefore apply to an unborn child: the soul enters their body after the body is formed, not at conception.

Again, the body is not formed at birth. This is basic knowledge…

 

[meltzerboy]

Again, the body is not formed at birth. This is basic knowledge…

I know the body, brain, and mind are not completely formed at birth; after all, I teach developmental psychology. But the physical essence is there.

 

[Catholicpotato]

I know the body, brain, and mind are not completely formed at birth; after all, I teach developmental psychology. But the physical essence is there.

As it is before birth as well.
There is no logical argument here. So, you will have to frame a theological one. Can you cite Jewish teaching on the subject?

 

[mark_a]

Am I wrong to think that we shouldn’t force faith and values on people who don’t want it?

Aren’t people who abort forcing their beliefs of their unborn?

Doesn’t it degrade their own humanity by not letting them choose freely, just as we all have *chosen freely *to accept Christ?

Are you kidding me?

 

[karebear92]

I’m giving you a rational theological argument in Orthodox Judaism that is based on the verse in Genesis describing G-d’s creation of Adam from the earth and His infusing Adam’s body with the breath of life (i.e. the soul) after his physical body is formed. You may have a different theological interpretation, and I respect that. But your example of a woman who has a miscarriage is an emotional strawman. The emergency C-section example is better and I would suppose that G-d does infuse the soul at that point, but I don’t know what Jewish teaching is on this. It might also be beneficial to either debate the scriptural passage in question from Genesis, present other passages which support your viewpoint, or simply acknowledge there are honest religious differences concerning when human life, consisting of body and soul, begins.

Before I post my theological response I first need to ask, as I don’t know Judaism very well (I am working on it): what are the Jewish interpretational limits regarding Genesis? Is it exactly as it happened (i.e. that God really took dust and created Adam, and then he created Eve from his rib)? Do you see it as literal?

 

[meltzerboy]

Before I post my theological response I first need to ask, as I don’t know Judaism very well (I am working on it): what are the Jewish interpretational limits regarding Genesis? Is it exactly as it happened (i.e. that God really took dust and created Adam, and then he created Eve from his rib)? Do you see it as literal?

Most Orthodox Jews do not take everything in Genesis literally, but a minority do, including the whole story of the Creation and Adam and Eve. In other, less orthodox branches of Judaism–Conservative Judaism and especially Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism–Genesis is not taken literally for the most part, and the Torah Law may not even be considered the inspired Word of G-d. Interpretation differs between branches of Judaism and within branches of Judaism. As another poster remarked, there is no Magisterium of dogma and doctrine in Judaism (despite certain basic articles of faith) as there is present in Catholicism. Nonetheless, there is the Law as well as authoritative interpretations of the Law. Judaism has always encouraged debate and questioning based on reasonable arguments. Good questions are esteemed more than answers. It has little dogma compared to Catholicism, but instead focuses on moral behavior first and faith deriving from that behavior second. IOW, it is more orthoprax than orthodox. With respect to individual interpretation without a final authority, Judaism resembles Protestantism; however, in other respects–such as the importance of Oral Law and traditional rituals–Judaism is closer to Catholicism. In reality, I think all religions, no matter what their connections and mutual influences, stand (or fall) on their own.

 

[Senior_Pal]

Well, ya can’t be both pro choice and catholic.

 

[soccerdad57]

I believe that life starts at conception, because, you’re right, there is unique DNA that has been created. But as far a science is concerned, that’s not a functioning human, and here we have the juxtaposition of beliefs:

A) Life–humanity–begins at conception (my personal belief, if I didn’t make that clear)

B) Life–humanity–begins when the fetus is capable of living outside the womb. Bacteria is a fully formed, independant life form; removed from a laboratory (or simply one that’s on your kitchen counter) the bacteria is able to exist without support. A child removed from the womb immediately following conception is not able to do so.

I apologize if someone already addressed this point but simply removing the child from the support it is on (the mother’s womb) and letting it die of exposure is not any different than
removing a baby in the ICU who is hooked up to various life support machines and letting it languish to death. The differences are location and possibly the developmental stage of the human life involved. Since location (inside or outside the mothers womb) can not determine “personhood” - (a baby is a baby you never ask well where is it located right now?) and developmental stage - embryo, fetus, baby, pre-adolescent, adolescent or adult does not determine the personhood or “humanness” of a human being" then to support abortion abortion because the mother’s body supports the life of the baby - to be consistent- one must also support allowing babies to die that require life support from machines in a hospital environment. Just trying to keep the discussion on track-

 

[karebear92]

Most Orthodox Jews do not take everything in Genesis literally, but a minority do, including the whole story of the Creation and Adam and Eve. In other, less orthodox branches of Judaism–Conservative Judaism and especially Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism–Genesis is not taken literally for the most part, and the Torah Law may not even be considered the inspired Word of G-d. Interpretation differs between branches of Judaism and within branches of Judaism. As another poster remarked, there is no Magisterium of dogma and doctrine in Judaism (despite certain basic articles of faith) as there is present in Catholicism. Nonetheless, there is the Law as well as authoritative interpretations of the Law. Judaism has always encouraged debate and questioning based on reasonable arguments. Good questions are esteemed more than answers. It has little dogma compared to Catholicism, but instead focuses on moral behavior first and faith deriving from that behavior second. IOW, it is more orthoprax than orthodox. With respect to individual interpretation without a final authority, Judaism resembles Protestantism; however, in other respects–such as the importance of Oral Law and traditional rituals–Judaism is closer to Catholicism. In reality, I think all religions, no matter what their connections and mutual influences, stand (or fall) on their own.

The problem I have with using the creation of Adam and Eve is that Adam was not born in the story, so it really doesn’t hold water in my opinion. For example, Adam was created, presumably from the earth, so it wasn’t that Adam’s body was needed to be formed but that Adam’s body didn’t exist (one can’t be human without a body).

I don’t think that is the case with infants. Although a zygote or embryo etc. aren’t entirely formed (in the physical appearance of a human) it is entirely formed in the substance of another human in that a zygote should only be developed to the level of a zygote, an embryo as an embryo etc. For example, when an infant is born, they are born with a brain, but the neural connections in their brain still do not exist (it is the function of the brain to develop the connections). So in the same way it is the early cells of a zygote or an embryo’s function to continue to develop into the rest of the body. Although it physically may not look like it has a fully formed body, it does in that it is fully formed to the level it should be formed, and it is performing the function that it should in its level of prenatal development.

The only problem with my own theory is that by appearance I am wrong, as typically we think of a human as a human being with arms and legs etc. But that brings up another question, If one bases the human substance or identity on functionality and appearance, what about those who are born not functional in some way. For example, if a child were born without a fully developed digestive or reproductive system, and then they are fully human without the typical appearance or functionality. So the only way to rationalize these cases would be that its human life (spiritually) either begins after a particular function or after consciousness, but then another question arises when an infant is born unconscious.

Of course, then one must consider evolution. If a human species, in Adam and Eve, developed from a different species and at one point they became a new species of their own, they had the DNA of the new species and the capability to develop into the new species at conception. So then they were an animal in the womb until after birth when they became human, in that the human species must have a soul. Of course, to accept that one has to accept my first premise.

I am thinking as I write this, so I am sure I will read it later and find flaws, so everyone feel free to correct anything.

 

[Catholicpotato]

The problem I have with using the creation of Adam and Eve is that Adam was not born in the story, so it really doesn’t hold water in my opinion. For example, Adam was created, presumably from the earth, so it wasn’t that Adam’s body was needed to be formed but that Adam’s body didn’t exist (one can’t be human without a body).

I don’t think that is the case with infants. Although a zygote or embryo etc. aren’t entirely formed (in the physical appearance of a human) it is entirely formed in the substance of another human in that a zygote should only be developed to the level of a zygote, an embryo as an embryo etc. For example, when an infant is born, they are born with a brain, but the neural connections in their brain still do not exist (it is the function of the brain to develop the connections). So in the same way it is the early cells of a zygote or an embryo’s function to continue to develop into the rest of the body. Although it physically may not look like it has a fully formed body, it does in that it is fully formed to the level it should be formed, and it is performing the function that it should in its level of prenatal development.

The only problem with my own theory is that by appearance I am wrong, as typically we think of a human as a human being with arms and legs etc. But that brings up another question, If one bases the human substance or identity on functionality and appearance, what about those who are born not functional in some way. For example, if a child were born without a fully developed digestive or reproductive system, and then they are fully human without the typical appearance or functionality. So the only way to rationalize these cases would be that its human life (spiritually) either begins after a particular function or after consciousness, but then another question arises when an infant is born unconscious.

Of course, then one must consider evolution. If a human species, in Adam and Eve, developed from a different species and at one point they became a new species of their own, they had the DNA of the new species and the capability to develop into the new species at conception. So then they were an animal in the womb until after birth when they became human, in that the human species must have a soul. Of course, to accept that one has to accept my first premise.

I am thinking as I write this, so I am sure I will read it later and find flaws, so everyone feel free to correct anything.

I think this is the problem with people just willy nilly saying things about a religion. I have heard it all. Jews dont believe in God, Jews drink baby blood, Buddhism isnt a religion, Mormons can fly, Jews dont believe in the afterlife… yadda yadda yadda. If you look hard enough I’m sure you can find Catholics that are pro choice
I’m sure some Jews could argue about when “mankind” first received a soul but I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that you wont find a practicing Jew that makes the assertion that one does not attain a soul until one reaches the age of development of Adam…

 

[Nate13]

The main point of my post is precisely that the previous poster was presenting a biological definition of life, not a religious definition (and not a legal definition either). I did not raise the issue of dependence on the mother: I raised the issue of the mother’s life being endangered if her pregnancy is not terminated. The mother’s life is not endangered by a severely mentally disabled child or by a one-year-old child, both of whom are already born. My religious exemption idea has a real-life basis, namely a probable threat to the mother’s life.

Are there not some fates people might consider worse than death though? What about if it is psychologically draining on the mother to have to raise a child with health issues and is causing her to have thoughts of suicide? Wouldn’t killing the baby be saving her life then? Why is society would call that woman a whole slew of horrible things if she killed her child in the name of saving herself, but if a woman goes in and gets an abortion she is just making a smart decision? This is just a game of semantics and wordplay.

 

[karebear92]

I think this is the problem with people just willy nilly saying things about a religion. I have heard it all. Jews dont believe in God, Jews drink baby blood, Buddhism isnt a religion, Mormons can fly, Jews dont believe in the afterlife… yadda yadda yadda. If you look hard enough I’m sure you can find Catholics that are pro choice
I’m sure some Jews could argue about when “mankind” first received a soul but I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that you wont find a practicing Jew that makes the assertion that one does not attain a soul until one reaches the age of development of Adam…

Hi, Catholicpotato

I have no idea what you are talking about or how your post relates to mine. I wasn’t saying that at all. It was simply a theological discussion about Genesis in relation to the soul/human relationship. He mentioned the jewish perspective earlier and why and I simply expressed my reasons why it doesn’t hold water in my opinion, but nowhere in there did I say Jews believe they don’t receive a human soul until the developmental stage of Adam.

 

[Catholicpotato]

Hi, Catholicpotato

I have no idea what you are talking about or how your post relates to mine. I wasn’t saying that at all. It was simply a theological discussion about Genesis in relation to the soul/human relationship. He mentioned the jewish perspective earlier and why and I simply expressed my reasons why it doesn’t hold water in my opinion, but nowhere in there did I say Jews believe they don’t receive a human soul until the developmental stage of Adam.

A couple of pages ago he was insinuating such. I was in no way accusing you of that but only continuing a conversation.

 

[karebear92]

A couple of pages ago he was insinuating such. I was in no way accusing you of that but only continuing a conversation.

Oh, okay!

 

[rom422]

Biological life may begin at conception, but according to the Jewish interpretation of Genesis, the soul is not imparted to Man (beginning with Adam) until after the body is fully formed, shortly before birth.

I’ll tell you why the Jewish interpretation of Genesis fails in this case. In creating Adam God had to form the clay first into a reasonably complete human body before giving it a human soul because left to itself the clay will not develop into a human body. It was just a piece of inert matter. But the human embryo is not a piece of dead matter. Since its DNA structure is already complete, it is already a definite living human organism. Left to itself it will grow into a baby, then a child, then an adolescent, then an adult human being. One does not have to wait for the organs and the limbs to develop, and for the whole body to be physically formed, before it can receive a human soul. The truth is, it already has a human soul - a life principle - that it received from the moment of conception.

Because this new organism is truly a new human being, although still in its embryonic or fetal stage, it is precious before God and has a basic right to life. One may not use a religious exemption in this case, and kill this organism intentionally or directly even if its presence in the womb endangers the life of the mother. The mother may not allow this new organism to be killed in the name of “self-defense” because the fetus is not an unjust aggressor in this case. The fetus is completely innocent, and it is only living and growing in the one and only place where it can and has a right to grow.

 

[meltzerboy]

A couple of pages ago he was insinuating such. I was in no way accusing you of that but only continuing a conversation.

Excuse me, Nate, but it was not I who was insinuating such, but you. I was saying that, based on Genesis, the soul is not imparted until after the body, while you were making the point that this means the baby would have to grow to be a man. The Jewish position is based on Adam in terms of time sequence: first the physical body is created, then the soul is infused. That doesn’t literally mean that the child must grow up to be the same age as Adam.

 

[Journey322]

That would be a very difficult way to define life, as it’s subject to change as our technology improves. A fetus at 6 months in the early 1900s wouldn’t have had much of a shot, but today it’s possible for a baby born at just 22 weeks to survive. Would that mean life begins sooner now than it did a hundred years ago?

Good point!

 

[Catholicpotato]

Excuse me, Nate, but it was not I who was insinuating such, but you. I was saying that, based on Genesis, the soul is not imparted until after the body, while you were making the point that this means the baby would have to grow to be a man. The Jewish position is based on Adam in terms of time sequence: first the physical body is created, then the soul is infused. That doesn’t literally mean that the child must grow up to be the same age as Adam.

In your logic people would not be capable of anything until the body was fully formed. In Genesis Man did not need to urinate until fully formed as Adam was. We know that is not the case. I am still waiting for your proof that Jews hold to the belief that one does not receive a soul until fully formed. Any sort of citation will do.