When does a baby receive it's soul?

[Abba]

It is generally thought that the human soul is present at conception. The human soul can effect three stages of animation. It can exercise the vegetative animation, it can exercise the sentient animation, and it can exercise the rational animation. The vegetative animation is composed of mater, the sentient animation is composed of mater, the rational animation is spiritual. Since the human soul can accomplish all three functions, a problem arises. At what point does the human soul animate the human body. We certainly grow and live like a plant. We certainly have the senses of the animal, and we grow in the use of our rational powers. Does the baby go through separate stages of animation. When the body developes enough through the lower stages, vegetative, and sentient stages, and then the soul is infused, or is it infused at conception? Frankly it doesn’t really matter IMO, because the baby was conceived to a human mother, this is the way God planned it, therefore it is a human baby and to kill it at any stage is murder. The lower animations are carried out by external motion, one species can transfer motion, or life to another of the same species.by seed and external stimuli, Similarly the animal species can transfer life to it species, and humans do the same by sperm and ovum (human seed) But humans can not transfer Rational life to its own species because it is spiritual That is why we , even though we have animal like characteristic that we are rational being, homo-sapiens, human and not animals. If we quit treating humans like animal and act rationally we are acting the way God wills us to act. and leave insanity behind us. It is the human spiritual soul that gives us our autonomy, our personality, our individuality, our human identity That human babies are humans in the fetus stage of their existence is self-evident and shouldn’t have to be rationalized. Tell this to those of Supreme Court, who voted for abortion, self evident truth is not self evident to some, the Supreme court is not so supreme, and common sense is not so common.

Great post!

 

[JimG]

I agree that ensoulment arguments are useless in arguing about abortion, because nobody can see ensoulment. It is not something observable.

Yet many who raise the possibility of delayed ensoulment as an argument in favor of abortion do not actually believe in the existence of immaterial souls. In that case the argument is a mere smokescreen.

But the biological data is observable. Embryogenesis is observable. It is not disputable from a scientific standpoint that the newly conceived human being is (a) genetically distinct from mom and dad, and (b) a new and distinct individual of the human species. It is at that point that all of us had our beginnings as human beings.

Pro-abortionists will not argue those specific facts. They will, however, propose that this new individual is not a person, or even that we can’t designate it a human being until it has reached a further stage of development. This despite the fact that it is clearly of the human species, and genetically distinct from mom and dad, and in the process of developing into an adult.

The argument devolves, in other words, into something not about ensoulment, or when a new human being begins, but at what point in a human being’s development must we give it the legal protection accorded to others.

Peter Singer has proposed that we not confer full legal rights until six months following birth. In truth, using developmental markers, any point is purely arbitrary. Anyone can name a point at which they believe it’s okay to kill a new human being.

 

[vera_dicere]

While the church definitely teaches that human life begins at fertilization, I’m reasonably sure that it does not definitively teach as to exactly when humans receive their rational souls. See post #11 above.

---

If it’s true that 50% or more of human zygotes fail to implant, I can easily see how teaching that humans receive their rational souls at fertilization could lead to the conclusion that most eternally-existing human souls never even made it to the embryonic stage of development.

Well, why not then at say age 2 when the kid starts to develop self-awareness? What’s the purpose of an immortal soul if there’s no ability to truly rationalise? Same with animals, why bother ensouling them at all, even with a mortal soul?

Regardless, the teaching of a later in pregnancy soul reception stems more from lack of science and it was at the quickening that most women realised they really were pregnant. The ancients really had no way of knowing when conception took place, so some of the early teachers and saints taught that way, but officially the soul is there at conception, regardless of the outcome of that life.

Where that soul goes after death if they didn’t implant is really only known to them and God.

As a general stance I dislike the “soul at first breath” argument because Adam & Eve as being dug out of the dirt by God is a story used to express traits about God, its not literal. I end up over thinking, what if a baby is still born? Does that mean no soul for them? What if they’re born prem and go straight on a ventilator? Soul once outside of the womb? An artificial soul that’s not entirely human because their first breath was forced into them by a machine? Or when the machine is turned off when they recover later?

 

[ynotzap]

Well, why not then at say age 2 when the kid starts to develop self-awareness? What’s the purpose of an immortal soul if there’s no ability to truly rationalise? Same with animals, why bother ensouling them at all, even with a mortal soul?

Regardless, the teaching of a later in pregnancy soul reception stems more from lack of science and it was at the quickening that most women realised they really were pregnant. The ancients really had no way of knowing when conception took place, so some of the early teachers and saints taught that way, but officially the soul is there at conception, regardless of the outcome of that life.

Where that soul goes after death if they didn’t implant is really only known to them and God.

As a general stance I dislike the “soul at first breath” argument because Adam & Eve as being dug out of the dirt by God is a story used to express traits about God, its not literal. I end up over thinking, what if a baby is still born? Does that mean no soul for them? What if they’re born prem and go straight on a ventilator? Soul once outside of the womb? An artificial soul that’s not entirely human because their first breath was forced into them by a machine? Or when the machine is turned off when they recover later?

Reference to the argument of first breadth: Some make reference to the bible stating that life begins at birth when a baby draws it’s first breadth (life is defined as breadth) President Clinton was advised by his spiritual counselor, W.O.Vought that life is connected to the moment when one is born and takes his first breadth (Time issue, 5/93) Neither statement attributes life to that special immanent (coming from within) activity that manifests it’s real presence by the physical effects it is causing, eg.:the growth and developement of the conceptus (fertilized ovum) Why is life being confused with one of its functions, breathing. Why is the cause being confused with its effects? Human beings beget human beings, it is a self evident truth. It should go without saying, and shouldn’t have to be rationalized. A human being is not all that he can be at one time, he is a creature of time and change because he has a "becoming nature, he is not the “I Am who Am” Life perfects man’s existence by fulfilling his potentials for maturity Life does not change his nature at anytime. A human is complete in his nature. Any change that takes place in one of “degree” not one of “nature”

 

[mkoopman]

In current times and in this forum it appears that some posters wish to congratulate those who consider a zygote as nothing but a “mass of cells.” And so, this “satellite zygote” may then be considered as an “alien, parasite” when it adapts to the womb. In order to avoid any failure in Scripture this line of contention would lead to a belief that Christ was conceived as an implanted embryo. Interesting, but clearly not in keeping with the evidence of natural fertility. Aliens seek more sugar, we all learned of this from MIB.

Jesus was not a mutated cell formed in Mary’s womb. No church teaching reflects such a perverse view of Our Lord and Savior nor Mary’s great fiat.

Jesus is True God and True Man from the instant of conception.

It is instructive that we celebrate the Incarnation of the Lord on the same day as the Feat of the Annunciation. When Mary gave her “yes” to the angel Gabriel, Jesus was conceived in her womb. He took on a human nature. The date is celebrated March 25th, 9 months before Christmas.

In previous times there were arguments about ensoulment, but no one knew the facts of embryology. A new human individual has its beginning at conception.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Is there a time when a human is alive, that they do not have a soul?

 

[meltzerboy]

Is there a time when a human is alive, that they do not have a soul?

According to the teachings of both Judaism and Islam, when one is asleep the soul leaves the body and returns to G-d, Who is its Source. Judaism believes that G-d recharges or revitalizes the soul so that when we awake, we are ready to face the challenges of a new day. Islam states that this brief separation, akin to death, is a period of judgment during which the soul may or may not be returned to the body; if it is not, the person expires and the soul is kept by Allah. Upon arising, both faiths begin with morning prayers for renewing our lives and enabling us to worship G-d another day.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

According to the teachings of both Judaism and Islam, when one is asleep the soul leaves the body and returns to G-d, Who is its source. Judaism believes that G-d recharges or revitalizes the soul so that when we awake, we are ready to face the challenges of a new day. Islam states that this brief separation, akin to death, is a period of judgment during which the soul may or may not be returned to the body; if it is not, the person expires and the soul is kept by Allah. Upon arising, both faiths begin with morning prayers for renewing our lives and enabling us to worship G-d another day.

I would like to read more about that Judaism part. Where could I find that information?

 

[meltzerboy]

I would like to read more about that Judaism part. Where could I find that information?

There is a classic book by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto of the 18th century entitled “The Way of G-d,” which discusses this topic and several others. You might also browse Jewish Virtual Library on the Internet to find out what Judaism says about the soul and sleep. It is derived from Jewish law in the Talmud and the Torah.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

There is a classic book by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto of the 18th century entitled “The Way of G-d,” which discusses this topic and several others. You might also browse Jewish Virtual Library on the Internet to find out what Judaism says about the soul and sleep. It is derived from Jewish law in the Talmud and the Torah.

I did an internet search. Fascinating! Is this teaching prevalent today as well?

 

[meltzerboy]

I did an internet search. Fascinating! Is this teaching prevalent today as well?

Yes, it is, particularly among Orthodox Jews and those who study the Kabbalah.

 

[ynotzap]

According to the teachings of both Judaism and Islam, when one is asleep the soul leaves the body and returns to G-d, Who is its Source. Judaism believes that G-d recharges or revitalizes the soul so that when we awake, we are ready to face the challenges of a new day. Islam states that this brief separation, akin to death, is a period of judgment during which the soul may or may not be returned to the body; if it is not, the person expires and the soul is kept by Allah. Upon arising, both faiths begin with morning prayers for renewing our lives and enabling us to worship G-d another day.

Life is synonymous with activity and motion. It is easier to understand how inanimate objects are moved by something already in motion than to understand how animate objects are moved Animate entities have a source of immanent activity (coming from within) called soul. When a human is declared dead it means all vital activity ceases. Decomposition sets in. How can the soul leave the body while the person is asleep when science can detect activity still going on. The soul has for its faculties intellection and volition and if released from the limitations of the physical body it would be conscious of a new form of existence. It would intuit God. It is the body that experiences fatigue and it must regenerate itself through sleep and the activity of the soul which is the principle of activity. to keep it alive How do you justify the belief that the soul leaves the body and returns.? Also when one sees God than the soul would be incapable of returning because of its estatic uniion with God, in Divine Ecstacy. If this happened in physical life the soul would leave the body immediately. No one who sees the Face of God can live!

 

[meltzerboy]

Life is synonymous with activity and motion. It is easier to understand how inanimate objects are moved by something already in motion than to understand how animate objects are moved Animate entities have a source of immanent activity (coming from within) called soul. When a human is declared dead it means all vital activity ceases. Decomposition sets in. How can the soul leave the body while the person is asleep when science can detect activity still going on. The soul has for its faculties intellection and volition and if released from the limitations of the physical body it would be conscious of a new form of existence. It would intuit God. It is the body that experiences fatigue and it must regenerate itself through sleep and the activity of the soul which is the principle of activity. to keep it alive How do you justify the belief that the soul leaves the body and returns.? Also when one sees God than the soul would be incapable of returning because of its estatic uniion with God, in Divine Ecstacy. If this happened in physical life the soul would leave the body immediately. No one who sees the Face of God can live!

I am speaking from the perspective of both Jewish and Islamic teaching, not from a Catholic perspective. And I don’t think this teaching is, for Judaism, a required doctrine; it seems rather to be based on mystical Kabbalistic thought. Further, when one deals with the spiritual entity of the soul, it is nearly impossible to say what precisely happens during sleep or at death, for that matter. Even within a given religion such as Catholicism, I would expect more than one interpretation, and with regard to Judaism, there is no one exact teaching concerning what occurs to the soul after death: we are in fact discouraged from too much speculation about this.

 

[JimG]

In Catholic philosophical thought, the soul is considered the animating principle of the body. Without the soul, the body is dead; conversely anyone who is alive has a soul.

 

[rasa_ali]

Dr. Akoury is fellowship trained and certified in anti-aging functional and regenerative medicine, as well as having more than twenty years of accumulated experience in emergency medicine, pediatrics, and a master’s degree in public health. She has also served fellowships in pediatric hematology/oncology and has preformed research in leukemia and the effects of smoking.

 

[Abba]

You need to contact the admin to advertise.

Reported.

 

[Abba]

In Catholic philosophical thought, the soul is considered the animating principle of the body. Without the soul, the body is dead; conversely anyone who is alive has a soul.

Yes.

However, the situation is that for many centuries the fetus was not considered to be alive. Saint Thomas Aquinas considered it murder only if the fetus was animated. I am not sure if the Church in days gone by, considered the death of the fetus a mortal or venial sin - like the use of contraception ( is that a mortal sin?).

"Objection 2. Further, it is written (Exodus. 21:22): ‘If . . . one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed . . . if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life’. Yet this may happen without any intention of causing her death. Therefore one is guilty of murder through killing someone by chance.

I answer that: According to the Philosopher (Phys. ii, 6) ‘chance is a cause that acts beside one’s intention’. Hence chance happenings, strictly speaking, are neither intended nor voluntary. And since every sin is voluntary, according to Augustine (De Vera Relig. xiv) it follows that chance happenings, as such, are not sins. . . .

Reply to Objection. 2. He that strikes a woman with child does something unlawful: wherefore if there results the death either of the woman or of the animated fetus, he will not be excused from homicide, especially seeing that death is the natural result of such a blow."
Summa Theologiae, IIa, IIae, q. 64, a 8

The medical terminology that we use today is not helpful. If a baby dies 20 weeks after conception it is called a ‘stillbirth’ but if less than 20 weeks it is a ‘miscarriage’. On is considered a ‘birth’ (and maybe registered) but not if it happens before the 20th week. Why twenty weeks? At twenty weeks it still can not survive on it’s own.

+++

Wow! The ovum was ‘discovered’ in 1827 by Karl Ernst von Baer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryology

+++

Beginning of human personhood, wiki provides a nice overview of the different proposed ideas for the determining ‘personhood’. On person suggest the use of determining when the brain can be said to be ‘alive’ in the fetus, as now the idea is accepted of determining death by (claiming - my insert) a person is 'brain dead".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood

Here is an excellent article about how the notion of declaring a person ‘brain dead’ came to be. It sent chills up my spine. What I have learned and witnessed of the medical community these past years has made me leery of doctors, nurses et al. I have come to recognize the wisdom of Hippocrates when he required in the oath that doctors.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7952
+++
The Hippocratic Oath

I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art; and that by my teaching, I will impart a knowledge of this art to my own sons, and to my teacher’s sons, and to disciples bound by an indenture and oath according to the medical laws, and no others.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practise my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life.

If the medical professionals keep it up, we are going to start coming up with our own treatments and fearing for our lives stay away from them. Hippocrates was a wise man.

 

[ynotzap]

The same rationalizing based on objective observation that we use for proving the Existence of God, is basically the same system of thought we use to prove the existence of the human soul. We come to logical conclusions based upon cause and effect. There is only one way we can know of spiritual existence without supernatural intervention (and we have that too) and thats by thought process, reasoning., and it must be objective, based on the truth that is apart from our own interpretation and based on the facts outside ourselves. We have the spiritual faculty that can do just that. It takes a spiritual power to see a spiritual entity. This seeing is not physical as our ability of seeing with our eyes. This seeing is called UNDERSTANDING the faculty to understand is call “the intellect, not the brain which records sense stimuli and impressions.” There is the process of abstracting the nature of things from sense impressions, and the abstraction process can go to different levels. Some Scientists can’t see the trees for the forest. They really need “enlightenment” as the world does. I know of only one source of enlightenment, and that comes through the acceptance of Jesus Christ who give the source of enlightenment, the Holy Spirit. This is why it is said by St.John “the light came into the world, but the world preferred darkness…” and for a reason, guess what it is.

 

[mkoopman]

We often celebrate a Eucharistic meal with intention for souls in purgatory. There is in this “more than one” interpretation. However, through this belief there is not speculation on the matter but the fullness found in the communion of saints.

It may be noted that 2 Maccabees: 42 is most definite regarding prayers for the dead.

“Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be blotted out.”

Were the reasons the Protestants gave for denying the continuity of prophesy among God’s Chosen People in exile anti-semitic at the root?

… Even within a given religion such as Catholicism, I would expect more than one interpretation, and with regard to Judaism, there is no one exact teaching concerning what occurs to the soul after death: we are in fact discouraged from too much speculation about this.

 

[Anna_Mia]

Please help me know what The Church teaches. I’ve always believed that each baby receives it’s soul at conception – isn’t that what we are taught?
I just walked out of my Franciscan gathering because my leader and main members believe that female babies do not receive a soul until 40 days after conception. They got that from a book by Mary something I forget. They say there is no discrepancy between believing this and still being pro-life, believing that life is sacred from conception to grave, etc. But this just makes no sense. They say males receive their soul at conception, just not females. This seems to mean though that abortion of female babies before 40 days past conception should be fine since with no soul, it can’t really be a human can it???
Anyone - can you help me out here???

I was once told what I’m about to write and I believe it 100%
We are all souls with a body…no matter what the age. Our body is the vessel our soul uses in this life and once God calls us home we (souls) leave the vessel (body) and return to God!