Summations Only

This might be another direction entirely, and I'm happy to move it to another thread if needed, but the OP is about the start of life.If one assumes the soul is created during conception. Because if the soul exists, this seems to be the most logical position to me, because anything later would amount to a soulless clump of cells that magically gains a soul with a personality that also somehow bases itself on the DNA in regards of personality... That's just seems strange reasoning to me. Timing it at conception is still a bit odd ,to be honest, because of the unspecified role DNA then has in creating the personality. The only way to solve that would be to assume that a seed and a egg cell both carry some spiritual version of DNA. Not saying that I fully believe this, but otherwise I have to jump through strange logic hoops.But my main point here, and this may be off topic is: If the majority of zygotes, or any later stage, die before childbirth.. Souls are believed to transcend death, and Christians specifically believe them to go to heaven.. This would mean that if we count humans as everything from the conception on because they have a soul, never had a physical life on earth and gets a free ticket to heaven?Or, alternatively, they get another trail before heaven because they just began to exist, but that would still mean the majority of humans never has truly lived on Earth. This has huge theological implications, and I'm a bit puzzled why nobody pointed those out over 10 pages yet.This doesn't fully give a answer to the OP, but I think this does illustrate what happens if a zygote is already considered life complete with a soul.Or taking another approach, what about identical twins? If my limited knowledge is correct, they ARE based from the same zygote right? Does that mean that the ''soul'' splits as well?

So, Zygotes only receive a soul when they would mature anyway? And they do receive a soul when the would mature if not for the morning after pill, regardless of God knowing that this would happen as well. And what about Shadow's daughters miscarriage at 7 months? Did she not receive a soul either, because her biological body was fated to die in the womb? This strikes me as absurd. So where do you draw the line for fetuses that die receiving a soul?I personally am very doubtful over this ''soul receiving'' It seems more logical for me that either a human gets a soul right at the start of the conception, and it's somehow a ethereal cornerstone for all life(this ties in with my belief in evolution, but that's beyond the scope of this topic) or we simply lack a soul at all. Some ''life'' existing without a soul, and it may or may not receive one, just seems doesn't seem right. What would the theoretical result be if such a soulless zygote would just go through the pregnancy without ''receiving'' a soul? Would it lack humanity, emotions,morals, and free will, even if the brain functions that usually govern these functions? Dualism between body and soul already difficult enough to fit into modern neurology as is.So I conclude that the idea that the large amount of fetuses that do not survive pregnancy stay soulless, doesn't make a huge amount of sense. With all respect, I personally find it a rather easy way to escape the problem, which makes the meaning of life is even more complicated then it already was.Edited by WSW24, : No reason given.

It's fine to hold that position personally(which I don't mind), but how can I hold a meaningful discussion with you if you simply reply ''only God knows''. That's rather a discussion killer, while you not really have provided any logical answers to what life is, and what is the soul's part in the process?

It's a natural process, sure. But regarding those zygotes being full-fledged humans because there have a soul, and such a high death rate being natural... In order to defend the point even a zygote is a person , you also also mean you accept the point that either the majority of humans never had a human life on earth. This creates some theological problems, to say to to the least. Just being real only could answer this by moving the creation of the soul to a later date and making the zygotes that die early soulless, which also seems a bit weird to me, for reasons you did bring up yourself.I'm not really trying to derail the tread into this subject, but my point is that defining even a single cell as human does carry some implications if you try to justify it with a soul, in spite off the natural processes science has determined seem uncaring about making a zygote survive at all. Yet ending a pregnancy manually is seen as a huge injustice.I'm a bit uneasy on abortion myself, but even then the contrast between the pro-life picture of God loathing abortion, and the uncaring processes of nature are a bit glaring. Even aside from the topic of abortion the zygote death rate is a huge difficulty in determining life as ''it has a soul, so it's life'' terms in the Christian context. How do you harmonize all of this?

Well, he does, because he believes even a single cell zygote having a soul, which by Christian definition would make it human.There's a huge split in thought about life and abortion because this, and this makes it almost impossible to debate abortion between the two groupsIf there's no soul, well, a real ''person'' does not exist yet as a single cell The only secular argument against early abortion one could bring up, before the brain has formed, is that a zygote is now starting the long road to develop into a human, and it's immoral to abort this process. as has been stated in this topic. The definitions and morals are still up for debate , but at least the facts are mostly clear in this route, and a single cell is not a person yet, more like a acorn for a tree, like the image pointed out quite clearly.However, most of the pro-life defenders believe in a soul. Even if it's not ''aware'' yet, a person must exist, because the most important component, the soul, also already exists, regardless of the development of the body. Or that the brain that mostly governs everyday personality has yet to be formed... Yeah, dualism is murky, and the origin of the dualisticsoul/body symbiosis is murky as well. Yet, it's vital to Christianity, so this point will only be conceded if a Christian deconverts. And because there's no evidence for it, it's hard to convince somebody a soul doesn't exist.Because of of this large contrast of beliefs, getting a agreement about abortion is pretty much a futile effort. Not when the stakes are so high for Christians, because they believe in the soul,which creates personhood, while not exactly knowing how it works, or if it even exists.
I'm currently in confusion about the existence of the soul, and by extension, abortion itself, I admit this.However... This is off topic, but there are plenty of troubles defending dualism, which I won't go in depth about. I'm happy to post in a topic about dualism proper though.And also,after reading that 60% of zygotes die, how can I as a critical thinker, not see the glaring troubles in claiming a Zygote already has a soul? It got me thinking quite a bit.If you allow me to be a blunt jerk a moment, ''nature'' pretty much treats zygotes like thrash. The majority just dies because of large imperfections in the pregnancy process in the body. And why would it even matter? It'll be only a month before the second chance arises, which will surely be taken, considering our natural strong desire for sex. If you view it like this, in the workings of nature zygotes are pretty much ''replaceable'', failure being compensated by our desire for sex making sure couples keep trying, even if they don't really want a baby in the first place.(I just noted in a bit of dark irony contributes the typical ''young careless couple gets pregnant and wants to abort'' situation) If God creates nature and crafted our bodies to perfection, then WHY do so many zygotes die? I don't really like the way nature works, but fact is that is does.I've got nothing against the idea that the souls go to heaven, but I and others already have pointed out this creates the question why we, the minority, do have to go through life, and the''lucky'' zygote majority , or, if I open a nasty can of dark reasoning I don't really endorse, but it must be noted, abortions(especially those who didn't suffer due only consisting of a few cells), get a free ticket to heaven. What's the point of earthy life then?The second option is that zygotes don't gain a soul if they would die, because God knows in advance It's a quick way to patch the problem , but this doesn't really make sense to me, what it life then anyway?What is a soulless zygote? 55% of morning after pills merely kills a clump of cells then? And a person in 45% of the other cases? Also, this would make the soul a optional infusion later on, and then you need to be consistent in this belief forever in order to support this solution..And finally, the third option I can think of, is.. We don't have soul at all, and zygotes dying.. It's just as much part of nature as the millions of seed cells that die after not reaching the egg cell. Sound harsh, is harsh. Nature is not nice.In conclusion, I consider the facts to be problematic for the ''God created humanity'' and ''zygotes already have souls'' standpoints.I'm sorry to put you under stress Shadow, but this topic will be going in circles between ''there is a soul'' and ''there's only a body'' logic being applied at the same until it this this rate. Do you have some sort of explanation for this?Maybe only God knows, as JBR eventually decided , but that would make it difficult to go on discussing the topic. And besides, I don't think any more options then the 3 I provided exist. Always a soul, sometimes a soul, no soul. That's it.(Also, I started as a reply, but it turned out mostly a general post, sorry)Edited by WSW24, : patching up errors

There isn't found one yet, and at this point it's unlikely such a part exists. I've seen no argument that proves we absolutely NEED a soul, aside from making the soul's role and influence very vague and pulling the ''you can't disprove..'' card.Believe me, I've read some things on the subject, I know that all things the soul is attributed to do already has a part of the brain dedicated to it. I also know things can go terribly wrong if parts of the brain malfunction, including morality,emotional decision-making,memory(not gaining any new memories for a few DECADES),etc. I could go on for a while. I'm pretty skeptical of dualism, which especially the latter part of my previous post should highlight.''So why do you act so ambiguous about it?'' you're going to ask now? The first reason is being friendly in debate, I've been raised Christian, so I understand Shadow's confusion on the matter. I just wrote my post neutrally, while working to a somewhat skeptical conclusion, because that's where my logic lead me.Second reason, well, I'm not going to repeat my personal story here, but I'm still very young(19), and I'm was raised Christian, deconverted, and due to circumstances(see my recent topic on this subforum), I moved back to agnostic. I'm a bit skeptical, but still easily swayed in my views, so I'm on this forum mostly to learn. To cut back to your question, I'm been raised to believe in a soul, so it's kind of hard to mentally disregard it, even with the problems with the dualism standpoint, so I'm using this topic partially for my own ends to explore the issue and gather evidence and logic.This might be to long of a answer, you asked for honesty, so you got it. Since I answered partially off topic, let's keep it at this, but at least this should explain my viewpoints on the issue.

But if one ties the existence of the soul to the brain... First of all, many intrinsic qualities and mechanisms of the brain are not exactly..Christian. Examples abound. Why do we instinctively trust attractive people with charisma more? Some basic science and brain knowledge explains this, but it doesn't always make sense with the soul. And this is only a mild example, if one starts digging there's lots more. It get worse if we take natural mutations of the brain, of damage done to it.Sadly, the sky is the limit for this, and it can lead to extremely inhuman results. The soul is helpless to stop this. It's problematic to synchronize the status of the soul and the brain because of this. The way to maintain believing in it is make the role of the soul more abstract. A sort of life force intrinsic to living things. I seem to be the most comfortable with a all-or-nothing stance regarding the soul. Either all forms of life have it, or it becomes even more illogical to me.I mean, if the soul is only created when the brain it created, and it's helpless to stop mutations and damage to the brain making somebody inhuman, it's role of ''holding the strings'' becomes difficult to maintain. But like I just said, the only alternative is some of vague life force.. which makes no sense to be created later.To summarize, the soul has has never been detected, and trying to make sense out what it does, or it's apparent failure to do so, results in a mess. And the orgin of the soul is vague, and a mess logically, and because of the zygote death rate, a difficult issue theologically. I pretty much only hold on to considering the existence of the soul myself as a relic of my upbringing, and because of certain things I haven't really figured out yet,, instead of finding it logical..So, I pretty much am to the end my currently ''built'' road of logic now. Going to stay neutral on abortion as long I haven't settled on the dualism vs monism issue, which is vital for defining life and personhood, and that's in turn a vital question for the morality of abortion.(Although, a other reason why I somewhat dislike abortion regardless of the preceding is that the removal of the fetus in later stages is... not pretty, and I rather avoid such a action if I could, although as a male I don't get to make the ultimate decision anyways. This is a invalid sentimental argument ,I'm aware of that, and it's not intended for debating. I just like to be honest about it.)

You misread the second quote, I'll clarify. It doesn't stop the brain being damaged, I agree. However, after the damage is done, sometimes a personality changes, and a person may get a worse temper, inability to create memories, or he may become devoid of empathy. I meant that the soul doesn't do anything to stop that. Which raises the question what the soul exactly is needed for. Or does a person, with a birth defect that makes him a sociopath,actually posses a nice personality with his soul? And what does God think of his sinful actions when he, lacking empathy, is not above murder and deceit? It doesn't make sense right? You don't seem to believe in a soul, you know exactly what I mean with these illogical things I point out. I cling to it for other reasons, and my beliefs are subject to change from this contradictory limbo I currently uphold, whatever side that may be, although I'm curious how the soul would ever work if it turns out to exist.Edited by WSW24, : spelling error

Regarding me bring up brain defects, and lack of morality, it's because we hold on the now rather improbable soon only because it's needed in our supernatural worldview. You can't 100% disprove it, because it's unseen, it can only be extremely improbable and proven to be unnessecary. The result is that Christians will never concede, no matter what neurology has proved. The only way to sway most Christians to prove the soul is ineffectual, and does nothing to change morality, until they can no longer manage to logically hold it in the Christian context. I'm a strange case that I attempt to do it against myself. I've seen your post in my faith healing topic, so you have read it, and know my motivation for doing so.

I presume he doesn't define something a full person until it gains sentience. Which is why he brought that birth defect in which baby's don't develop a brain up, since they never gain true sentience, at least not in a biological manner.This tread seems to be in a bit of a slump. Several critical points have been made in regard to life and personhood. The zygote soul problem, sentience, and some parring about definitions. Can you make any conclusions with the discussed matter Shadow? In which phase do you define personhood and sentience? And if the soul is part of the answers, the problem of the zygote death rate arises once again. Or do you solely base your stance against abortion on the fact a zygote may develop into a human.It's a complex matter.. I must admit it's hard to keep track of it, especially since the question dualism also remains a important factor.

Oh, summation mode.. (one side nudge, isn't it better if the mods activate it, then the topic being forced to end?)Um.. If I am going to summarize, let's repeat my main contribution again.Even if it's not a ''scientific'' idea to include the soul in the abortion debate, it often is by the pro-life stance, in the manner even a zygote has a soul, and so it's a human.
There are numerous problems with this stance. The huge death rate of zygotes, and in extension, the general way nature operates in pregnancy, do not mix well with the general pro-life way of arguing.
This was acknowledged by Shadow, but he has not found a solution of the problem.Because of the argument going into circles around the existence of the soul, this topic has not reached a definitive conclusion, and it may never reached one. However,personally, the arguments against the soul seem to hold ground, and the only counterargument used is that ''the soul'' is not physical, which for me, doesn't dismantle the counterarguments that well.