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

[The_Smiter]

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?

Irrespective of your labeling prolife persons as being “antichoice” (let’s be positive - people are prolife if they are against abortion and prochoice, if you will, if they are in favor of abortion - the attempt to get people to rise to debate over semantics is juvenile - and telegraphs that you are not serious about any answer to your stated question),

I believe that the real issue is not ensoulment, but dignity. It is not about the soul entering or leaving the body - they are dependent on each other, as has been noted earlier in this thread. All dignity should be afforded to a person at the moment they become alive - and for prolife people - and I think God as well - that begins at the moment of conception. You can argue that if you like, but it would seem that life - whether viable or nascent - especially INNOCENT life - deserves all of the protection and dignity we can afford it. To argue any differently is really so much political haggling - a process for which I do have a great respect for, except when it comes to issues of life and how a human being should be treated, again, especially an INNOCENT. I am of course, using the word ‘innocent’ in a spiritual sense, and not a legal one - while we may be ‘innocent’ of a crime we might be accused of having committed, it is a very different situation than never having personally sinned yet at all, as would be the case with a human being from the moment of conception through birth.).

It is the same whne it comes to natural death. All dignity should be afforded the individual as long as death is not hastened by any actions of the individual or those around him. Life is precious - and suffering is a part of our lives - we made it so with our disobedience to God in the garden. However, great wisdom, clarity, knowledge, and compassion can be both offered and gardered during times of suffering. Much has been written on the subject and does not need to be presented here for purposes of this discussion. When physical death is determined, no matter by what means, it should simply be that death is certain in the particular instance and that dignity and comfort was given to the deceased. People make end of life decisions all of the time and it is a very different situation than deciding as to whether or not to end the life of an unborn child. The person facing end of life decisions has lived - even if for a short time, as in the case of a small child or baby - and has been part of our world and engaged in it with us and is subject to the sinful world we have created. An unborn child is safe and in the womb - spiritually growing and nesting with God and the angels before thier entrance into the world.

The issue is not an equating of beginning of physical life and its end. It is about the dignity that we offer and place on such life that is at issue. Is a human being at the point of conception only so much tissue mass that can be casually dismissed if its presence is inconvenient or unintended? Is a person at the end of their life to be hastened to their death because they become a burden to their families or society and are deleting their bank accounts? Are we to consider that human beings should be put down like animals in order to relieve their suffering? We release animals from their suffering because we are compassionate and since animals do not understand why they are suffering, we end thier lifes in lieu of having one of God’s creatures suffer needlessly. Humans never suffer needlessly. They are a part of God’s plan for this world and everything that they endure is something that will either reveal something to them or to those around them. We do not have the right to interrupt God’s plan either at the beginning of life or at its end because all human life is afforded the utmost dignity we can provide.

It is when we forget that we are special - that God created us all for a purpose - that we begin to talk in terms of ‘prolife’, ‘antichoice’, ‘proabortion’, or ‘antilife’. WE do not create babies - God does. We are simply His hands in the process. It is the ultimate vanity to think that we somehow have a say in the matter.

 

[JDaniel]

I’d put this a slightly different way: the derivative life of the sperm and egg are supervened upon by the life of the zygote, which is now ontologically its own entity.

Same meaning, different terms.

This is much better. It does not tell how, but, it does tell what happens.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

The soul doesn’t leave the body. The body suffers corruption and turns to dust leaving the soul. When the body can no longer be animated by the soul the human is dead.

But, then, considering the modern science of preserving dead bodies by funeral agencies, that could take months or even years. Perhaps we should choose cremation? That would seem to get us turned to dust rather rapidly.

jd

 

[Benadam]

But, then, considering the modern science of preserving dead bodies by funeral agencies, that could take months or even years. Perhaps we should choose cremation? That would seem to get us turned to dust rather rapidly.

jd

Why would that matter?

 

[Philthy]

When Does Human Life End?

It doesnt. Mortal life ends with natural death, human life never ends.

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.

You are correct.

 

[Philthy]

crowonsnow;:

I’m honestly trying to get a clear - or at least clearer - understanding of the abortion discussion and how people understand terms… So I thought that looking at the other end of the spectrum might help me understand the anti-choicer’s position better.

Fair enough.

The mindset(of prochoice individuals) is that once fertilization occurs now here’s a “little baby,” which of course there isn’t.

Actually the opinion is that “a new human life has begun” - which, of course, is the truest position both scientifically and theologically. There now exists a new, unique living entity with a unique human DNA code, lacking nothing which is required to develop into a what every other living human once was, is now and can be.

My personal position is certainly that a zygote is not a “baby” or a “person,” and I see no reason to change that opinion.

Again, it is a unique human life. A zygote is a human life, a baby is a human life, a toddler is a human life, a teenager is a human life, an adult is a human life. They all represent various stages of development of the same human life. It’s really very simple.
What is completely unscientific is to pretend that we can “define” when human life begins at some arbitrary time after conception.

I also feel that the religious idea that we all have these invisible things in our bodies called souls and that we’re all immortal that way doesn’t help the discussion.

I suppose it would depend on one’s preconceived notion of where the end of the discussion should go. If you have the preconceived notion that there is no such thing as a soul or an after-life, then of course you would feel that it doesnt “help” arrive at the end you wish to arrive at. Others will have different opinions.

 

[Benadam]

since when is species defined by a stage of developement rather than .…what species it is.

It’s ironic that support for laws that are the result of acts that lacked the freedom to avoid bad consequences are called 'freedom of choice acts.:whacky: The people who support freedom that is committed to acts free eneogh to choose what avoids those consequences is called 'anti-choiceuch:

 

[crowonsnow]

The sperm and egg are not considered as distinct persons with souls any more than a strand of hair, a clipped toenail, a tooth, or a leg that is amputated.

What parts are necessary for a soul to be present?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hello crowonsnow,

I believe it happens at conception.

But, scientifically, to prove life you don’t need to believe in a soul at all. A sperm cell is a cell originating from a man. It has 23 chromosomes, men create millions of sperm. Obviously not all fertilize an egg. An egg cell has 23 chromosomes, a woman is born with about 400 eggs that she will use up from puberty until menopause. Not all egg cells are destined to be fertilized, obviously.

When the egg and sperm meet, than an entirely new organism is formed, with a genetic code that is unique to the organism. Future traits such as hair color, eye color, gender, height are all determined at the one cell stage.

This isn’t true just for humans, but for all creatures that produce sexually.

I also believe that the soul leaves the body at death. There isn’t any religious test that is administered to see if the soul is still in the body. We trust that death has occurred by physical cues…lack of heart function, lack of brain function, etc.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

The old philosophic notion of the soul as the form of the body is useful. Aristotle thought of the soul as ending with the body. Christians think of the human person as a “creation,” which Aristotle did not.

 

[RobbyS]

What parts are necessary for a soul to be present?

The union of sperm and ovum must occur for a new individual to come into existence. If we think that soul and body are inseparable, then it would seem to be in that moment.

 

[RobbyS]

Hello crowonsnow,

I believe it happens at conception.

But, scientifically, to prove life you don’t need to believe in a soul at all. A sperm cell is a cell originating from a man. It has 23 chromosomes, men create millions of sperm. Obviously not all fertilize an egg. An egg cell has 23 chromosomes, a woman is born with about 400 eggs that she will use up from puberty until menopause. Not all egg cells are destined to be fertilized, obviously.

When the egg and sperm meet, than an entirely new organism is formed, with a genetic code that is unique to the organism. Future traits such as hair color, eye color, gender, height are all determined at the one cell stage.

This isn’t true just for humans, but for all creatures that produce sexually.

I also believe that the soul leaves the body at death. There isn’t any religious test that is administered to see if the soul is still in the body. We trust that death has occurred by physical cues…lack of heart function, lack of brain function, etc.

St. Thomas says after death, corruption begins and the matter of the body begins to assume a new form.

 

[Benadam]

The old philosophic notion of the soul as the form of the body is useful. Aristotle thought of the soul as ending with the body. Christians think of the human person as a “creation,” which Aristotle did not.

That notion could be realized in light of the wounds Christ allowed St Thomas to touch.

 

[Ender]

It seems ironic to me that the anti-abortion side uses scientific arguments while the pro-abortion side relies entirely on philosophical musings about the definition of a person or attempts to force the discussion onto religious turf and get it tangled up so that no progress can be made.

The presence of a soul is irrelevant to the discussion of abortion.

Abortion is wrong for the same reason murder is wrong: it is the intended destruction of an innocent human being. A debate about the soul is irrelevant in knowing that murder is wrong and it is just as irrelevant in a discussion about abortion. There are two rather simple questions to address regarding abortion and neither involve the soul:

• When is it allowable to intentionally destroy innocent human life?
• Is what is to be destroyed an innocent human life?

Ender

 

[JDaniel]

Why would that matter?

You said the soul doesn’t leave the body until we turn to dust. I don’t want to be in that cold, dark casket that long!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

It seems ironic to me that the anti-abortion side uses scientific arguments while the pro-abortion side relies entirely on philosophical musings about the definition of a person or attempts to force the discussion onto religious turf and get it tangled up so that no progress can be made.

The presence of a soul is irrelevant to the discussion of abortion.

Abortion is wrong for the same reason murder is wrong: it is the intended destruction of an innocent human being. A debate about the soul is irrelevant in knowing that murder is wrong and it is just as irrelevant in a discussion about abortion. There are two rather simple questions to address regarding abortion and neither involve the soul:

• When is it allowable to intentionally destroy innocent human life?
• Is what is to be destroyed an innocent human life?

Ender

Ender:

Answer # 1: As some herein have said, up to the quickening, or, about 11 - 13 weeks from conception, I believe. See, it’s as human as a finger nail, and we toss out finger nail clippings don’t we?

Answer # 2" No; it’s an embryo, then it’s a zygote; then it’s a blastula; then it’s a gastrula. See, it’s even called by different names. So, it can’t be a fill human being.

jd

 

[limerick]

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.

Why would we even want our old bodies after all that time, and all that freedom from the encumbrance of humanness? To go on living in this body for all of eternity . . . what are my options?

Limerick

 

[limerick]

Your question is bizarre, insulting and deliberately misrepresenitive .
Anti-choicer’s are those who don’t respect the choice of God and murder the unborn.

What choice did the child have? de-ensoulment? Please be serious. Physical death is not a contested or religious issue and to suggest it is is insulting.

As far as when life begins an atheist said it as well as I can. It is not a question of when life begins, life is a continuous process, life begets life. One cannot restart life , one passes it on. The question is when does a new person begin and the only possible answer is at conception.

An “anti-choicer” would also be considered a pro-lifer, no? So how is it that an pro-lifer** is one who does not respect the choice of God and murders the unborn??

And why is this question, or set of questions, insulting? Do we not have the right to ask and learn?

The judgment-meter on this thread is really peaking.

Limerick

 

[Benadam]

You said the soul doesn’t leave the body until we turn to dust. I don’t want to be in that cold, dark casket that long!

jd

…well, you know the old saying…where IS my mind? Your soul isn’t and never was in a place yet IS you with your body. Your body is and always was in a place and IS you with a soul.

 

[Ender]

Answer # 1: As some herein have said, up to the quickening, or, about 11 - 13 weeks from conception, I believe. See, it’s as human as a finger nail, and we toss out finger nail clippings don’t we?

Question one was “When is it allowable to intentionally destroy innocent human life.” Your answer is that it is allowable to destroy human life up until 11-13 weeks. Perhaps that’s not what you actually meant to say - based on your answer to question two - so clarify: did you mean to assert that there is a time when we are justified in intentionally destroying innocent human life or were you ignoring this question and just reasserting that an embryo is not a human until 11-13 weeks of gestation … which is really question two?

Answer # 2" No; it’s an embryo, then it’s a zygote; then it’s a blastula; then it’s a gastrula. See, it’s even called by different names. So, it can’t be a fill human being.

I see. So, if we call it a preemie, an infant, a toddler, or a pre-schooler does that mean it’s still not human? Can you explain exactly what quickening means? Is that a medical term? Precisely what is it that happens that turns an embryo into a human being and can you cite any scientific paper to support your contention?

Ender