I think you are largely right but even the forming of the soul at the moment of conception is subject to inconsistencies of logic in the light of biological evidence.
Any pro lifer whose basis is the formation of a human soul should consider the following - (I am no biologist so anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong in terms of the details)
There is no moment of conception. Several sperm can in fact penetrate the outer membrane of the egg and the excess ones will be ejected over a period of time (up to 24 hours). What is the status of the soul during this period?
Even when the single sperm does fertilise the egg it does not mix genes with the egg straight away and when it does it still takes time for the fully formed genome to take control of the cell. A period of a couple of days in total. So at what point is the soul formed during all of this?
Then less than half of these zygotes actually implant in the uterus. So does that mean over half of all the souls formed never actually become people??
Even if formed this cell can go on to produce identical twins. Do they share a soul?
Each cell of an embryo is capable of splitting off and forming a whole person. Does each cell have a soul?
On rare occasions two seperate embryos will join together to form one which then develops into a single person. Does this person have two souls?
The whole idea of being anti abortion on the basis and definition of of the soul just becomes as difficult as defining human life in terms of sentience or any other graduated process.
Actually, I think a lot of the inconsistencies probably stem from the attempt to explain the position to nonbelievers rather than from the position itself.
Those of the soul merchant position have as many physical inconsistencies in their view as any other arbitary position whether they realise it or not.
I guess I was only referring to normal people who enjoy the simple joys of children and congratulate their friends and family on their pregnancy. My apologies for the confusion.
May God continue to let you live in this bubble of your own making, absent any uncertainty and continued normality.
For me, a good friend of mine had gotten unintentionally pregnant and she was unsure how she felt about it. I, too, was unsure and told her that I did not know the appropriate sentiment to express ("congratulations" or "that sucks"). She was so relieved that I, too, felt uncertainty when so many others simply mouthed an empty "congratulations" without considering what this pregnancy meant for her.
After seeing the repeated response another good friend of mine gets when she tells people she's decided not to have children, my first response to the news of a pregnancy is now, "Why?"
And I enjoy the simple joys of children, thank you.
Those that oppose abortion are generally the same people who oppose contraception, sex education, publicly funded healthcare and liberalised adoption laws.
I understand the birth control part, and the two wrongs don't make a right idealogy. Sex ed seems a matter of personal preference; should the parent be the educator?, or the schools?, that type of thing...but I have absolutely no clue why a pro-life stance would affect the other two items. Well, maybe the publically funded healthcare is providing services that the tax-payer finds disturbing...but I can't picture any other reason.
I wouldn't worry about it, at least not to the extent that Crashfrog says this partly caused him to change his stance. I think we all can do a better job at reducing the number of abortions. Sex ed is great, but face it, the world is so filled with images that scream to young people about how to dress, etc...and honestly women don't see many role models who make modesty or anything close to it look desirable.
As an anti abortionist for what I presume to be religious reasons (??) I would be interested in your take on the points raised in post 151 above?
If you ever get time, and assuming you have access, I think it would be easier to give you my views in chat...basically it is going to be hard, no matter what to deal with the issues of abortion, but I don't think over-analyzing the embryo is a real answer to the problem of 'soul'. It's more than that when it comes to an anti-abortion stance. It is more about respect for life than actual concern for the soul. If it were only about the soul, we could happily kill the embryo and baptize it somewhere on the way out...but quite clearly that does not make the fact that we were responsible for the death any easier on the conscience of the religious parent. Basically, if a thing has human life, it has been 'conceived'. It did not just come alive by accident. So, at the moment in which human life is started, the soul of a human is immanant. At the very least, human life is there, and this would still count as destruction of life.
Where do you get all this information about me from?
From your posts. When you tell me that abortion is about women behaving selfishly, and you're not interested in promoting contraception; that's ironclad proof that your opposition to abortion is to ensure that God's punishment for being slutty isn't interfered with, not in saving "unborn lives."
Look, I can read, Ana. Your posts are very clear. When people talk about "selfish women", that's a not-so-secret code for "sluts." And when people talk about "personal responsibility", that's a not-so-secret code for "punishing the sluts."
Don't forget that I was once pro-life, conservative, and Christian. I know the codes, Ana.
Basically, if a thing has human life, it has been 'conceived'. It did not just come alive by accident. So, at the moment in which human life is started, the soul of a human is immanant. At the very least, human life is there, and this would still count as destruction of life.
But the whole point is that there is no "moment" of conception. There is no "moment" at which human life is started. It is a graduated process. There is no instant at which something non-human becomes human no matter how morally convenient this would be it is just not the case.
If you think there is a moment when is it exactly?
So "respect for human life" (which pro choice people absolutely have too don't forget) whatever your view of abortion ALL depends upon the arbitary point that you decide something is actually a human life.
You choose very early on in the process. Crash chooses much later. I choose somewhere between the two. None of us consider ourelves to be killing humans.
I could equally validly claim that human life does not start until a child is able to communicate and that we are all blessed with souls at the stroke of midnight on our third birthday.
Utterly arbitary but equally valid and with equally as much physical evidence (i.e. none - there is no evidence for the soul in a zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, adolescent or fully formed adult)
It did not just come alive by accident.
I am afraid that the evidence is against you there as well. The randomness of a particular sperm fertilising a particualr egg (never mind the random events that lead to those two people copulating at that exact time anyway) is pretty astronomical.
It also did not "just come alive" by intent. It also did not "just come alive" by action. It did not "just come alive" at all - there is no life from non-life here: both sperm and egg are already alive. You have "living" cell matter before and you have "living" cell matter after.
They are no different than a cell of "living" cell matter that you can scrape off your arm.
And just as likely to survive on it's own to keep living.