Question for Religious Anti-Choicers: “When Does Human Life End?”

  • Thread starter Thread starter crowonsnow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crowonsnow

Guest
When Does Human Life End?

I thought it appropriate to ask this question as it will help me understand the religious anti-choice position. If I can understand the basis of the religious belief of when human life ends, maybe it will shed some light on the belief that human life begins at fertilization.

Is the end of human llife primarily a de-ensoulment issue? Is the end of human life de-ensoulment based on biology? Is de-ensoulment not involved, leaving it a biological issue entirely with de-ensoulment just tagging along?

Or is it just not a big deal? And if it’s not a big deal, why is it not a big deal? Are there any official teachings that Catholics, for example, adhere to concerning the end of human life?
 
Religion answers why death occurs, science answers how death occurs. Religion says the soul leaves the body. Science says the brain no longer functions.
 
I thought it appropriate to ask this question as it will help me understand the religious anti-choice position.
There is no anti-choice position as the issue has nothing to do with choice in the first place. If what you mean is opposition to abortion then say so; don’t resort to euphemisms.
If I can understand the basis of the religious belief of when human life ends, maybe it will shed some light on the belief that human life begins at fertilization.
The “belief” that human life begins at fertilization is not religious faith but scientific fact as five minutes of Googling on the internet will show you.
Is the end of human llife primarily a de-ensoulment issue? Is the end of human life de-ensoulment based on biology? Is de-ensoulment not involved, leaving it a biological issue entirely with de-ensoulment just tagging along?
The Church teaches that body and soul are one, that the soul is not a ghost in a machine. Death is a fact which science should be able to assertain.

Ender
 
Crowonsnow - It appears that you would like to learn more about souls. There’s a book called “The Science Before Science” which I read (but don’t remember much from) that explains souls from a philosophical and scientific perspective. You might pick up that book from the library and peruse it.
 
When Does Human Life End?

I thought it appropriate to ask this question as it will help me understand the religious anti-choice position. If I can understand the basis of the religious belief of when human life ends, maybe it will shed some light on the belief that human life begins at fertilization.
And, I have a question for an irrelious anti-Life person…you seem to have some thought on when life does begin other than at conception…when is that, and what actual scientific proof do you have that indicates same?

And to answer your question, human life does not end. It undergoes a transition from how we currently experience it. The human person is a body and soul…at some point, the body will die and the soul will leave it for awhile. At the end of time, God will re-unite our soul with our body in a glorified state and we go on living for all of eternity, whether it be in God’s presence in Heaven, or in eternal agony if we reject God and choose hell.
 
Religion answers why death occurs, science answers how death occurs. Religion says the soul leaves the body. Science says the brain no longer functions.
You may be wise in avoiding giving a scientific answer to a spiritual question. the problem with the abortion debate may be that religious people have tried to find a sceintific answer to the question of when a human being is endowed with a soul. I think that to point to any specific point in time was an error that results in the absurdity of single-celled people and the source of the abortion debate.

Best,
Leela
 
Very good answer…I would add also other body functions cease, heart beat, nervous system etc.
If antichoicers think that a single cell is a person at conception, then maybe you have to believe that the death of every cell rather than particular organs is required to consider a person dead.

Best,
Leela
 
Religion answers why death occurs, science answers how death occurs. Religion says the soul leaves the body. Science says the brain no longer functions.
But you are stating emphatically that life begins at fertilization, and not saying why?

To say that life begins at conception is to say that life begins at the beginning. But you are referring to fertilization as conception so I understand your position. And fertilization is a specific event.

I don’t know precisely how long it takes fertilization, your beginning, to totally occur, and we’d have to make some decisions as to exactly when to start the clock and when exactly to stop it. But at least we know can do that. And I’m assuming that even though the sperm and egg are already alive, what you really mean is that this is when a spirit you call a soul is absolutely known to have become involved.

So logically at some point a spirit called a soul is no longer involved with the human and I’m asking when exactly this occurs. Is it an event that takes time? Can we start a clock and say the soul has begun to leave? Or is there a specific set of circumstances that must be met?

Is it when the last cell dies due to a lack of oxygen? This would be a minute or two, depending on conditions, after oxygen flow ceases.

If there is no specific teaching or religious position on this issue that is okay. I’m not trying to pin anyone. But I would find it odd that this would just be left in religious limbo considering the attention given at the other end.
 
If antichoicers think that a single cell is a person at conception, then maybe you have to believe that the death of every cell rather than particular organs is required to consider a person dead.

Best,
Leela
There is a complete set of DNA in every one of those cells so the unique DNA that began at fertilization is still alive and obviously human so we would still have a human life. At least I would think.

And I know that certain religions believe in human parthenogenesis, where there was no fertilization. So is fertilization not really an issue? If it isn’t really an issue, where is this “conception,” this beginning?

More importantly, however, where is deconception?

Religious people who spend time on this issue aren’t saying that human life begins at the beginning and ends at the end. There must be more. But maybe there isn’t! I’m open to their (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
There is a complete set of DNA in every one of those cells so the unique DNA that began at fertilization is still alive and obviously human so we would still have a human life. At least I would think.

And I know that certain religions believe in human parthenogenesis, where there was no fertilization. So is fertilization not really an issue? If it isn’t really an issue, where is this “conception,” this beginning?

More importantly, however, where is deconception?

Religious people who spend time on this issue aren’t saying that human life begins at the beginning and ends at the end. There must be more. But maybe there isn’t! I’m open to their (name removed by moderator)ut.
Hi Crow,

As I said before, I think these problems come up when people try to give scientific answers to spiritual questions. There is the fear of giving an arbitrary answer to the question of when life begins or ends, so people look to science to give such answers, but science can only give data to interpret. cience can’t tell us whether to consider a human being dead at the point of one organ or another failing or a combination of organs or parts of organd or complete cell death. Coroners check for “vital signs”, signs of life. (Such vital signs obviously are not available for embryos.) The question of what signs to look for is always going to be a human decision. Who else could decide for us when to draw the line between life and death? Believers say that God could, but as far as I know, even if God exists, God is silent on this and every other subject.

Best,
Leela
 
If antichoicers think that a single cell is a person at conception, then maybe you have to believe that the death of every cell rather than particular organs is required to consider a person dead.
The issue of when life begins has been scientifically determined; there is simply no more debate on that point than there is on whether the earth circles the sun. It does appear that there is scientific debate on when life ends but there is none at all on when it begins - unless you count the question of how many seconds it takes for a sperm to complete the fertilization of an egg. On the question of when life begins, truth is on the side of the antichoicers, not the antisciencers, who appear to believe that the right to accept or ignore facts is just another choice.

Ender
 
To say that life begins at conception is to say that life begins at the beginning. But you are referring to fertilization as conception so I understand your position. And fertilization is a specific event.

I don’t know precisely how long it takes fertilization, your beginning, to totally occur, and we’d have to make some decisions as to exactly when to start the clock and when exactly to stop it. But at least we know can do that. And I’m assuming that even though the sperm and egg are already alive, what you really mean is that this is when a spirit you call a soul is absolutely known to have become involved.
That’s an assumption not an accurate description of Catholic teaching. You are mixing up two very different concepts: life, and ensoulment.

Physical life begins at fertilization. This is a scentific concept, not a religious one. A basic biology text will explain it. There is an instant within the moment of fertilization where the two strands of DNA combine and the division of cells is triggered. That’s a new life. The Church teaches that that life is valuable,to be protected from that moment on and deserving of the dignity of a human person. Theoretically, at least, you could stop the joining of DNA, even after the egg and sperm join. I doubt the Church has spoken about that but IMHO, that wouldn’t be life yet. (It would probably be wrong for many other reasons but not the taking of life)

Ensoulment is the beginning of the eternal life of the individual human life. I don’t think that the Church has ever definitively defined the moment when a soul enters the body of the new human life. But the Catechism strongly implies that it is at the moment of conception. This doesn’t mean that fertilization and ensoulment are the same event, only that they take place at the same time.
CCC1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul,5 the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.
So logically at some point a spirit called a soul is no longer involved with the human and I’m asking when exactly this occurs. Is it an event that takes time? Can we start a clock and say the soul has begun to leave? Or is there a specific set of circumstances that must be met?
The soul does not “begin to leave”. It is joined to the body or released. The Church has not defined exactly when the soul leaves the body. It is broadly defined as the moment of death. That moment might not even be the same in every situation.
If there is no specific teaching or religious position on this issue that is okay. I’m not trying to pin anyone. But I would find it odd that this would just be left in religious limbo considering the attention given at the other end.
The Church has spent enormous attention on end of life issues. There is no “religious limbo” since the soul and its immortal character and destiny is not dependant on defining the moment it ceases to be joined to the body. The Church’s respect for life is not dependant on the continuing ensoulment at the end of life any more than it is defined by ensoulment at the beginning of life.
 
Hi Crow,

As I said before, I think these problems come up when people try to give scientific answers to spiritual questions. There is the fear of giving an arbitrary answer to the question of when life begins or ends, so people look to science to give such answers, but science can only give data to interpret. cience can’t tell us whether to consider a human being dead at the point of one organ or another failing or a combination of organs or parts of organd or complete cell death. Coroners check for “vital signs”, signs of life. (Such vital signs obviously are not available for embryos.) The question of what signs to look for is always going to be a human decision. Who else could decide for us when to draw the line between life and death? Believers say that God could, but as far as I know, even if God exists, God is silent on this and every other subject.

Best,
Leela
I’m thinking about the Catholic Immaculate Conception. What does this phrase really mean? I’ve thought it meant that this person didn’t have any original sin.

And then there is the Jesus figure, who if we say that life begins at fertilization, obviously never was the result of fertilization. So the Jesus figure raises the question of whether conception and fertilization really are the same thing in Catholic religious-speak. I’m beginning to think they are not and that this is the root of the problem. Religious anti-choicers are essentially conflating scientific and religious language, or at least imposing their religious bias on scientific data.

Very interesting. Thank-you for that.
 
But the Catechism strongly implies that it is at the moment of conception. This doesn’t mean that fertilization and ensoulment are the same event, only that they take place at the same time.
You used the words ensoulment, fertilization and conception. Are you saying that fertilization and conception are the same thing within official Catholic teaching or not? You said “implies.” If the teaching only implies this then in fact conception and fertilization are different within catholic teaching. That would be my understanding.

So when I discuss the phrase “human life begins at conception” with a religious antichoicer, at least a catholic one, conception to them means something more than fertilization because they include ensoulment in “conception.” That would make sense if that’s what they mean.
 
You used the words ensoulment, fertilization and conception. Are you saying that fertilization and conception are the same thing within official Catholic teaching or not? You said “implies.” If the teaching only implies this then in fact conception and fertilization are different within catholic teaching. That would be my understanding.
Yes, fertilization and conception are the same thing. Not only for Catholics, it was always the same thing scientifically too until very recently. The definition of conception was recently changed in the medical community to be synonymous with implantation. The Church uses the classsic understanding that fertilization and conception are the same thing. This is not implied. It is clear. What is implied is that ensoulment and conception happen at the same time.
So when I discuss the phrase “human life begins at conception” with a religious antichoicer, at least a catholic one, conception to them means something more than fertilization because they include ensoulment in “conception.” That would make sense if that’s what they mean
Nope. Because human life is not dependant on ensoulment. Human life, from conception to natural death, is what us “antichoicers” are committed to protect. It is not because of ensoulment. We are not, strictly speaking, protecting the soul but protecting the physical human life.
 
Personal question for Crowonsnow: From interacting with you on other threads, I know you are intelligent. On this thread, however, you appear to be either: (1) honestly confused, or (2) trying to confuse others by clouding the issues involved.

So my question is, which is it? 🍿
 
When Does Human Life End?

I thought it appropriate to ask this question as it will help me understand the religious anti-choice position.
im not aware that we have an anti-choice position, we do have a anti-murdering-innocent-defenseless-infants-position, here after referred to as the ‘amidi’ position
If I can understand the basis of the religious belief of when human life ends, maybe it will shed some light on the belief that human life begins at fertilization.
how about when there is no longer any anti-entropic activity occuring?
Is the end of human llife primarily a de-ensoulment issue? Is the end of human life deensoulment based on biology? Is de-ensoulment not involved, leaving it a biological issue entirely with de-ensoulment just tagging along?
i didn’t know de ensoulment matters, but i think the anti-entropic activity is a good place to go with it.
Or is it just not a big deal? And if it’s not a big deal, why is it not a big deal? Are there any official teachings that Catholics, for example, adhere to concerning the end of human life?
i dont think so, may be im wrong.

but life begins at conception, there is no other point in developement where one could be considered anymore alive than any other.
 
The first reply made an important point:

Are you asking this question from a purely religious perspective or from a scientific perspective ?

Also, are you also wondering what Jesus meant by His statement in John 17,
"When Jesus had said this, he raised his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your son, so that your son may glorify you, 2 just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave him. 3 Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”

So there are a number of angles in response to your question:
  1. Are you asking if as a Christian, I believe the medical concept of “death” which is
    the absence of brain and heart activity ?
  2. Are you asking how is it that I do not believe “choice” as in a woman terminating a pregnancy called an “abortion” is not “death” because of a Christian’s belief in “everlasting life.” ?
In basing my position against the right of a woman to terminate a child’s life at any point of existence, I base it on scientifc, medical, and religious reasoning as follows:

a) A simple definition of death is the absence of heart activity. A infants heart begins beating at approximately 24 days after conception. Thus it is medically alive

b) Before developing its own heart a child is dependent upon the mother’s heart.

c) At conception the defing DNA for a human being which the Supreme Court ruled is unique and can be used as evidence of a person’s innocence such as if the DNA at a crime scene does not match that of the accused, this can be grounds for the innocence of the accused. Thus from conception to death the DNA identifies a unique human being.

d) From conception to the end of heart and brain activity a human being is “alive” as long as it is still “growing”. One of the symptoms of approaching termination is a human being “stops growing.” This can be along physical, emotional or intellectual “growth.”

e) Scripture supports the reality of what science has defined as truth:
DNA and an individuals uniqueness:
Psalms: 139:13-17; It was you that created my inmost self, and put me together in my mother’s womb; for all these mysteries I thank you; for the wonder of myself, for the wonder of your works. You know me through and through, from having watched my bones take shape when I was being formed in secret, knitted together in the limbo of the womb. You had scrutinized my every action, all were recorded in your book, my days listed and determined, even before the first of them occurred.

A pregnancy is the fruits of the love of a man and a woman:
Wisdom: 7:1-2; Like all the others, I (Solomon) too am a mortal man, descendant of the first being fashioned from the earth, I was modeled in flesh within my mother’s womb, for ten months taking shape in her blood.

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

From the book “Medical Ethics” by Kevin D. O’Rourke, Philip Boyle:
“the procreation of a new person, whereby the man and the woman collaborate with the power of the Creator, must be the fruit and the sign of the mutual self-giving of the spouses, of their love and their fidelity.”
(Medical Ethics: Sources of Catholic Teachings, By Kevin D. O’Rourke, Philip Boyle
Edition: 3, revised Published by Georgetown University Press, 1999
ISBN 0878407227, 9780878407224 442 pages)

I also believe that a child is entitled to the same rights inside the womb as outside of the womb. It is just that while in the womb, the child from conception is dependent upon the mother and it seems to me the responsibility of the mother is to acknowledge and care for that child in her womb.

From the time of conception until the grave, a child is moving farther and farther from reliance upon its mother. This begins at creation. Changes at birth, when the child has
begun to live independent from the mother and moves forward towards marriage: “for this reason a man and a woman shall leave father and mother and the two shall become one flesh” thus continuing to “be fruitful and multiply.”

For these reasons, I believe abortion is wrong and an attack aimed at God.

Regards,
 
If antichoicers think that a single cell is a person at conception, then maybe you have to believe that the death of every cell rather than particular organs is required to consider a person dead.

Best,
Leela
After fertilization / conception, the fertilized egg will normally grow into what even anti-life people have to admit is a human being.

At the other end - when our cells start to die, they do not normally grow into human beings, even though the DNA is all there.

In general, don’t you think it wise at both the beginning and the end to give the benefit of the doubt to life? If someone gave you a gun and told you to shoot at a “shadowy figure that sort of looks like it might be human”, would you feel justified pulling the trigger based on the assumption that it might not be human?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top