1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

When the death of the unborn is not a murder...

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by JohnJoeMittler, May 5, 2003.

  1. Killing a human person ("soul") is normally a murder -- unless it is done as self-defense against a violent attacker. However, letting a single gender cell die (in menstruation) is not a murder: the single gender apparently has no "soul" -- and it cannot be considered a person.

    The question is: when does a gender cell get a "soul" and become a person?

    The easy answer, often heard, is that when the gender cell is fertilized, it immediately gets a "soul" and becomes a fully independent human person. But this answer is far too easy to avoid great difficulties, when the case is studied more closely.

    Wearing a contraceptive spiral means that woman's gender cell GETS FERTILIZED and starts to develop normally, only dying when the next menstruation begins -- the "pre-fetus" being already one to three weeks of age. So, if the fertilized gender cell already has a "soul" and is a fully independent human person -- as the easy answer suggested -- then wearing a contraceptive spiral means A MURDER once a month. Great difficulties... yes, the answer was far TOO EASY to be true.

    So, is wearing a contraceptive spiral really A MURDER -- morally comparable to driving over a schoolgirl by car just for fun? I have the logical tendency to greatly doubt that this would be the case. A schoolgirl evidently is a "person" that has a "soul": thanks to her brain cells, she has emotions, an independent will, an ability to make moral choices, and even an abilility to realize God's existence. Thanks to NOT HAVING brain cells, the two-week-old "pre-fetus" swimming around the contraceptive spiral lacks all the aforementioned qualities, from which we recognize that the schoolgirl was a "person" with a "soul". Thanks to NOT HAVING brain cells, my fern looks like a mere plant to me -- not a person with a "soul". But thanks to her brain cells, my cat again has all the aforementioned characteristics of a personality and a "soul", only excluding the ability to realize God's existence. (The Old Testament speaks of the souls of animals... yet without giving them any religious significance.)

    In my personal opinion it is not a crime against God (lack of Christian love) to wear a contraceptive spiral -- and even less it is a crime against man (murder). This stance means that I consider the death of the two-week-old "pre-fetus" a morally insignificant issue -- and I would allow any wife to make such a decision when her family is numerous enough. I would never justify murder, however, so I need to logically explain why I regard the death of a two-week-old "pre-fetus" as morally less significant than the death of a schoolgirl.

    I have come to the conclusion that without brain cells there can be no "soul" or "personality" (in this present earthly reality). On the other hand, I have also come to the conclusion that whenever a creature of any kind has any amount of brain cells, it must have a "soul" with basically all the characteristics that my cat has -- even though the relative extent of these characteristics may vary greatky. And if the "soul" is a human being, he also has at least a developing capacity to realize God's existence.

    Having made these conclusions, I find some understanding for the doctors who unplug from hospital devices a brain-dead person -- whose body could still be maintained in life for months or even years. Where there is no potential capacity for brain activity, no "soul" is present, and no person is present. No matter how long the body lives after the death (or departure from this life) of the soul, what remains alive is only a mere plant -- morally comparable to my fern on the table here.

    If a live body without a "soul" and without personality can exist at the gates of death, then it can exist at the gates of birth as well. Who defines where the line exactly goes in these cases, indeed makes a decision of significant moral weight. Therefore I hope that whoever makes such decisions, is an expert not only of medicine, but also of theology, and understands of these things more than I ever will.
  2. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Oct 24, 2001
    Likes Received:
    The question is: when does a gender cell get a "soul" and become a person?

    Some say it's upon fertilization.
    Some say it's upon implantation.
    Some say it's upon the formation of the nervous system.

    If it was a clear cut answer, the debate would not exist. What we believe about the subject, we believe on faith.
  3. Wisdom Seeker

    Wisdom Seeker New Member

    Jul 17, 2002
    Likes Received:
    I believe that a baby doesn't "get "a soul. I believe that the soul prexists the body it's given. You can't kill a soul, but a body can die or can never have had the components for life. When a person dies, their body stays here...it's an empty vessel. Likewise before the components for life are complete, an incomplete human cell is an empty vessel.

    I think I understand what you are trying to ask. When does a body become a vessel for a soul? I don't know the answer for that question. I suppose when God puts it there. I tend to believe that life begins when the cells that carry the entire genetic makeup are present and they begin to create the being within that genetic makeup. I believe this to be at conception. Life begins, and the soul enters. The quickening I believe happens right from the very beginning. A mother can feel life within her womb sometimes at conception ( I did), likewise when the soul has left in the case of miscarriage or death of the child within the womb prior to birth, a mother can often feel this difference as well. (I did)

    Every mother has felt the life of her unborn child much earlier than society would like to admit when determining when life starts. I find it shocking that anyone could consider that life doesn't begin until the third trimester or birth. It's completly rediculous when considered from a mothers perspective.

    To explain further. When you touch a human being they give off a certain feeling, a life force an energy. When you touch a dead person that feeling is gone, their soul is no longer present. Have you ever touched a loved one that has passed away? This is the only thing I can offer to try to explain that feeling that a woman has when she is pregnant, we can feel that life force very often right from conception. (I did) Likewise when that child is no longer alive, their soul leaves and we can feel it's leaving. I hope this helped a little. I have a destinct perspective.

    [ May 05, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Wisdom Seeker ]
  4. PJ

    PJ Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Feb 20, 2003
    Likes Received:
    PJ [​IMG]