I’ve always wondered about this. There seems to be no evidence for it one way or the other in the Bible.

One way to look at it is that the majority of fetus' (don't know statistically, but would guess it to be 90% of fetus' grow into babies. by grow, i just mean develop naturally.

If it were a case that 90% of fetus' die, then maybe they wouldn't be considered babies.


It is a matter of perspective I guess. Does one look at an apple seed and see a seed or see what they seed will become?

Just an observation.

One way to look at it is that the majority of fetus' (don't know statistically, but would guess it to be 90% of fetus' grow into babies. by grow, i just mean develop naturally.

If it were a case that 90% of fetus' die, then maybe they wouldn't be considered babies.

It is estimated that 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion - usually before the woman is ever even aware that she was pregnant.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

It isn't considered a fetus until the 9th week and from your site:

rate of spontaneous abortion is approximately 10% and usually occurs between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy

So are we talking about fertilized eggs or fetus'?

That 50% stat is for fert. eggs.

Here is the actual quote from your site:
It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant

I guess I should change it to be “fertilized egg” instead of fetus. In fact, I will. Thanks for the correction.

Our belief is based on theology, not scripture, though we also find evidence in scripture.

One way to look at it is that the majority of fetus' (don't know statistically, but would guess it to be 90% of fetus' grow into babies. by grow, i just mean develop naturally.

If it were a case that 90% of fetus' die, then maybe they wouldn't be considered babies.


It is a matter of perspective I guess. Does one look at an apple seed and see a seed or see what they seed will become?

Just an observation.yes you see the seed.
but sorry, quigly your figures are wrong, approximately 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, most go unnoticed because most happen very early in the pregnancy, before a woman may know she is pregnant, however that which can be measured, found that 25% miscarry before the 6th week, the risk is far greater the old the woman at thirty 1 in 5 chance of a miscarriage, and forty a 1 in 4.
so you cant say with any certainty that 90% become babies, you can only say you dont know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Experience
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
it would seem this statement is more sensible. " If it were a case that 90% of fetus' die, then maybe they wouldn't be considered babies."

it seems you dont concider a fertilized egg a fetus, A consultant specialising in the care of pregnant women writes: "Life does not begin with birth. When born, we are already nine months old... we have a responsibility to learn how to study the life in utero, and how to care for it" http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/abortion/human-development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Experience
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

Our belief is based on theology, not scripture, though we also find evidence in scripture.
Ok, what is the theological basis for it?

what differences do your staticstics make to the child, the person in danger?

Again, 50% of fertilized eggs die. not 50% of fetus'. And the 90% was just a guess, It seems from that web site that 10% are more likely to die between week 7 through 12.

Again preacher. Fertilized egg is different than fetus. Get with the facts if you are going to argue.

it seems you dont concider a fertilized egg a fetus, A consultant specialising in the care of pregnant women writes: "Life does not begin with birth. When born, we are already nine months old... we have a responsibility to learn how to study the life in utero, and how to care for it" http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/abort...man-development
incidently I'm not a pro lifer just pointing out your facts are wrong.

individual human Life begins at the moment of conception. that is the fact.

Ok, what is the theological basis for it?
The theology is that God is the author of all life. God creates the human soul from nothing at the moment of conception. The soul is the life principle of the body. God is co-creator with the natural parents.
The human soul does not pre-exist before conception.

Personhood is an innate reality, a property not seperable from gender or the soul.
It is an invisible and spiritual reality, similar to the intellect, and is profoundly related God.

individual human Life begins at the moment of conception. that is the fact.
can you prove that? :rolleyes:

Science has already proven it.
unless you show me that its something other than human,
or something other than life,
than the pictures speak for themselves.

Science has already proven it.
unless you show me that its something other than human,
or something other than life,
than the pictures speak for themselves.
uhhh, you might want to cite a source :rolleyes:

Lawdog,
Why would god create a soul if 50% of the time it dies before even developing into a fetus? By your account, half of all souls are never even known to have existed. Are these souls up in heaven or something?

Science has already proven it.
unless you show me that its something other than human,
or something other than life,
than the pictures speak for themselves.

I was thinking of an embryo created for stem-cell research. A large blob of stem cells does not look especially like a person, so it's not clear to me how pictures could prove anything.

Lawdog,
Why would god create a soul if 50% of the time it dies before even developing into a fetus? By your account, half of all souls are never even known to have existed. Are these souls up in heaven or something?
They are in the hands of the loving God. Somehow they were so pleasing to our Lord that he spared them the evils of this terrestrial life.

I was thinking of an embryo created for stem-cell research. A large blob of stem cells does not look especially like a person, so it's not clear to me how pictures could prove anything.

Thats just my point: you are not considering that there are invisible realities.
The fertilized egg looks no different than a modern art light show or something. Yet activity is a sign of life.
the end result, a baby, tell us what was going on.

Lawdog, do you consider masturbation a form of abortion or the natural cycle of a woman? Is it only when the two join that it is life?

Thats just my point: you are not considering that there are invisible realities.
The fertilized egg looks no different than a modern art light show or something. Yet activity is a sign of life.
the end result, a baby, tell us what was going on.

The sperm and the egg are both alive separately, yet most christians don't consider them to be a person. Indeed, if you put a sperm and an egg together in a piece of lab glassware there is a good chance (but it is not certain) that the sperm will swim into the egg and eventually developed into a human child. So it seems to me that claiming something constitutes a human simply because it is alive and has the potential to develope into a person is not very good reasoning.

They are in the hands of the loving God. Somehow they were so pleasing to our Lord that he spared them the evils of this terrestrial life.

You made that up, there is NO evidence to support that claim.

The Church gives enough room for speculation according to right reason in that area.

Lawdog, do you consider masturbation a form of abortion or the natural cycle of a woman? Is it only when the two join that it is life?
Only when the two join. Science has aided the Church, like it should, in this issue. Unfermented Seed is only potentially an individual.

The sperm and the egg are both alive separately, yet most christians don't consider them to be a person. Indeed, if you put a sperm and an egg together in a piece of lab glassware there is a good chance (but it is not certain) that the sperm will swim into the egg and eventually developed into a human child. So it seems to me that claiming something constitutes a human simply because it is alive and has the potential to develope into a person is not very good reasoning.

i did not say that, but I figured you would make that mistake, so I added the word: individual

i did not say that, but I figured you would make that mistake, so I added the word: individual
I don't follow you. Why is it that a separate sperm and egg are only potentially an individual, but suddenly become an individual after they join together? Neither a sperm and egg floating separately in a test tube nor an embryo floating in a test tube is recognizably human. Both are alive and have the potential to eventually develop into a human child, but Christians say that one constitutes a human being and the other doesn't. That's what I'm trying to understand.

because, its simple: Does an egg=brownie batter? No. does a chocolate and flour= brownie batter? No. Add the two together and you have a start.

An oversimple anaology, perhaps incorrect, but thats what first came to mind.

because, its simple: Does an egg=brownie batter? No. does a chocolate and flour= brownie batter? No. Add the two together and you have a start.

An oversimple anaology, perhaps incorrect, but thats what first came to mind.
You are simply repeating that you believe an embryo should be considered a human, not explaining why you believe that.

You are simply repeating that you believe an embryo should be considered a human, not explaining why you believe that.

In my opinion, an embryo should not be considered to be human... unless, of course, it is a human embryo. :D

I have one word: Ensoulment.

In my opinion, an embryo should not be considered to be human... unless, of course, it is a human embryo. :D

*************
M*W: Well, it wouldn't be "considered" human unless it "was" human! Actually, I've been approved for cardiac stem cell transplantation from my own bone marrow, so I'll get back to you on this one.

*************
M*W: Well, it wouldn't be "considered" human unless it "was" human! Actually, I've been approved for cardiac stem cell transplantation from my own bone marrow, so I'll get back to you on this one.

That's great! I wish you the best possible outcome!!

Christians believe a fetus is human because the bible says so. David makes this clear.

Besides that it can be logically deduced for a person that believes in God: If God is omnipotent then He knew who I was before I was born. He also knew how my whole life would unfold before I was born. Today, He knows how my life will end. All are quite logical conclusions based on the assumption that God exists.

Neither a sperm and egg floating separately in a test tube nor an embryo floating in a test tube is recognizably human. Both are alive and have the potential to eventually develop into a human child, but Christians say that one constitutes a human being and the other doesn't. That's what I'm trying to understand.
I believe the argument stems from recognizing a person's individual right to live, even if they aren't "recognizably human". That would depend too much on who does the recognizing. The so-called "elephant man" was barely recognizable as human, too... As for sperm and eggs, I think nature demonstrates quite convincingly that they're not "individuals", and are expendible in a way that viable embryos aren't. They both seem suicidally intent on becoming a viable embryo, and so we look where they're pointing.

But nature also eventually takes everybody's life, and we don't allow that to decide the worth of an adult's life - why an embyo? The intention is as far as we are able (and especially in recognition of our ignorance and personal biases) not to devalue something that God values.

But I see a lot of hypocrisy about the issue. Some who are up in arms about pro-life issues won't hesitate to devalue anyone who disagrees with them. And to a Christian, character assasination should fall under the same category as murder (Matt. 5:21-26). I don't know how or why someone could pretend to respect life that they're not even sure exists, if they can't even respect life that they're sure exists.

absolutely nothing can be logically deduced, regarding god/religion, logic and god/religion are mutually exclusive.

absolutely nothing can be logically deduced, regarding god/religion, logic and god/religion are mutually exclusive.
That's just illogical...

Logic is a tool that can be applied to any system of thought.

A belief in something undetectable, whilst belonging to an organised religion... whilst holding a 2,000 year old collection of books to such truth about this undetectable thing.... Logic?

A belief in something undetectable, whilst belonging to an organised religion... whilst holding a 2,000 year old collection of books to such truth about this undetectable thing.... Logic?
At the time of writing each one of those books were current, so that's irrelevant to the belief in something greater. What makes a religion "organized" is that it has a logical and therefore broadly recognized/recognizable structure, ordered around a unifying source.

That we can't detect God by the means we'd like or at the times convenient to us, hardly makes Him undetectable per se. He will make himself detectable how, when and where He wants to. But we've had this discussion before regarding evidence.

It's analogous to the belief in evolution. The "evidence" essentially consists of mute dry bones. They don't say anything, they require study and interpretation. But there is no living, universally apparent evidence of evolution - unless you presuppose the theory. And the theory (like organized religion) logically connects the authoritive interpretations of each separate piece of evidence, liberally strewn throughout history. The fact that fossils are ancient and sometimes incomplete doesn't invalidate them. On the contrary, that's why they're considered evidence. Their age is what makes them part of history, and their (often cryptic) (dis-)composition is consistent with it. Only when a theory that accounts for the evidence is accepted and life is interpreted accordingly, humans become "apparent" as living, breathing evidence. The Bible might be called a "fossil record" of people and events that testified to God at the time.

At the time of writing each one of those books were current, so that's irrelevant to the belief in something greater. What makes a religion "organized" is that it has a logical and therefore broadly recognized/recognizable structure, ordered around a unifying source.

So the formation is logical in the sense of how they persue their illusion. But since it is an illusion it is not logical. This means that the methods employed for Astrology are logical, but does not mean the belief in Astrology is logical.

That we can't detect God by the means we'd like or at the times convenient to us, hardly makes Him undetectable per se. He will make himself detectable how, when and where He wants to. But we've had this discussion before regarding evidence.

Interesting that you call this invisible entity a 'he'. Plus, in what way is he detectable? Santa clause is therefor detectable if I simply believe in him.

It's analogous to the belief in evolution. The "evidence" essentially consists of mute dry bones. They don't say anything, they require study and interpretation. But there is no living, universally apparent evidence of evolution - unless you presuppose the theory. And the theory (like organized religion) logically connects the authoritive interpretations of each separate piece of evidence, liberally strewn throughout history. The fact that fossils are ancient and sometimes incomplete doesn't invalidate them. On the contrary, that's why they're considered evidence. Their age is what makes them part of history, and their (often cryptic) (dis-)composition is consistent with it. Only when a theory that accounts for the evidence is accepted and life is interpreted accordingly, humans become "apparent" as living, breathing evidence. The Bible might be called a "fossil record" of people and events that testified to God.

Interesting again - I am not aware of a single religious person on here that accepts the evidence for evolution. Saying that evolution depends on dry bones is a bit like saying Einstein relied on a few equations.

Also interesting that religious moderates/apologists like yourself seem to always try to compare theists and atheists using vague analogies. Whilst the fundamentalists wants nothing to do with atheists, moderates seem to want to be like atheists by trying to steal their use of rational logic... while of course failing, like you have done. Your attempt to parallel organised religion and science was laughably pathetic.

way to shred your way off topic.

Religion has existed as long as man has in one form or another. Get over it. It will always exist.

Lawdog,

God creates the human soul from nothing at the moment of conception. What happens then when the fertilized egg later splits and two identical twins are the result? Which twin receives the soul? The split usually occurs within the first 14 days of embryo development.

If you say that one twin does not have a soul then how could that person live without a soul? And what are the implications for a person without a soul?

If you say that another soul is created then we can conclude that ensoulment does not have to occur at conception, and your assertion that it does would be inaccurate or incorrect.

If souls do not have to occur at conception then what is to say that any souls are created at conception but are created when the fetus is formed, for example?

Does a soul have gender? Gender is determined later in development primarily due to hormones but with a strong genetic tendency. Since gender is unknown at conception we must conclude that souls cannot have gender, correct?

What are the properties and characteristics of a soul created at conception? Note that it will not have memory or ability to remember, it will not be self-aware (that occurs many months after birth), and it will not be able to think or experiences emotions (a brain is needed for these activities). What then is the purpose and role of a soul?

If a soul were to exist how would it communicate and interact with a physical body, or does it?

On the issue that 50% of fertilized eggs don’t progress any further, you state -

They are in the hands of the loving God. Somehow they were so pleasing to our Lord that he spared them the evils of this terrestrial life.Does this mean that all the souls that are added to surviving eggs were not pleasing to the lord that he felt they must be punished by allowing them to survive in this evil world?

If God is the designer and creator of souls why would he make some pleasing and others not pleasing? Does that mean he makes mistakes or that he is still practicing this technique?

Christians believe a fetus is human because the bible says so. David makes this clear.
How so? The only thing I'm aware of in David that would relate is the line "before you formed in the womb I knew you". But this does not seem like evidence that a embryo should be considered a person. After all, it says before you formed, not "from when you first started forming". And anyway, as you yourself said, god would have known about David from the beginning of time - long before he was concieved.


Besides that it can be logically deduced for a person that believes in God: If God is omnipotent then He knew who I was before I was born. He also knew how my whole life would unfold before I was born. Today, He knows how my life will end. All are quite logical conclusions based on the assumption that God exists.
Yeah, but god also knew all about you before the sperm joined with the egg.

I believe the argument stems from recognizing a person's individual right to live, even if they aren't "recognizably human".
I'm asking why christians believe that this right to live starts when an embryo forms, rather than at some earlier or later time. It seems arbitrary to me.

So the formation is logical in the sense of how they persue their illusion. But since it is an illusion it is not logical. This means that the methods employed for Astrology are logical, but does not mean the belief in Astrology is logical.
Yes. Isn't that what I said about logic? It can be applied to any system.

Interesting that you call this invisible entity a 'he'. Plus, in what way is he detectable? Santa clause is therefor detectable if I simply believe in him.
"He" is as good for the purpose of explanation as any other pronoun.

The American Santa is a fantasy, just like the hybrid Jack Frost-version he originates from. The person he is based on (http://www.thehollandring.com/sinterklaas.shtml) in many European countries isn't. Many countries even have a feast day commemorating his death (December 6). He may just be dry bones now, but that's enough to make him real and, at some point in time, detectable. If you don't want to make the distinction in your arguments, just be aware that it's a strawman that is perhaps best kept to American audiences.

Interesting again - I am not aware of a single religious person on here that accepts the evidence for evolution. Saying that evolution depends on dry bones is a bit like saying Einstein relied on a few equations.
There's plenty of evidence, and a number of ways to interpret it - one of them is evolution, as you probably have it in mind. Dinosaur bones would be interpreted differently depending on where you are in history, as I'm sure you know, and it's not because the bones were different. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was generally accepted only recently, for instance.

But since it's an analogy, I don't quite understand why you find it so important to point out the relative weights of words. In relation to the wide field of mathematics, Einstein did often rely on a few equations - the necessary ones. And compared to life on this planet, dry bones are dry bones, no matter what you make of them. Calling them "fossils" doesn't change what they look like.

Also interesting that religious moderates/apologists like yourself seem to always try to compare theists and atheists using vague analogies. Whilst the fundamentalists wants nothing to do with atheists, moderates seem to want to be like atheists by trying to steal their use of rational logic... while of course failing, like you have done. Your attempt to parallel organised religion and science was laughably pathetic.
Steal your logic? Are you listening to yourself?

Communication depends on language, and meaning can get lost between one language and another, even between different paradigms within a language. Therefore any attempt to make oneself understood involves finding common ground and equivalent meanings. You may feel uncomfortable about it, but theists and atheists are all people.

I'm asking why christians believe that this right to live starts when an embryo forms, rather than at some earlier or later time. It seems arbitrary to me.
Like I said, that's when a life might for first time be recognized as an individual.

Lawdog,

What happens then when the fertilized egg later splits and two identical twins are the result? Which twin receives the soul? The split usually occurs within the first 14 days of embryo development.

good question. remember, the soul is the life force. in a fetus, the rational soul is not yet developed, it still exists only in potential, as the leaves exist only in potential in an acorn. same goes with the sensitive soul, which develops in the fetus. if a split occurs in the physical/vegitative soul at an early stage, than there is no problem. God creates a second vegitative soul with sensitive and rational potential.

just like the leaves that recieve light in a tree, the rational soul recieves the light of God. Sin has darkened much of the leaf.


If you say that another soul is created then we can conclude that ensoulment does not have to occur at conception, and your assertion that it does would be inaccurate or incorrect. true, ensoulment does not have to occur at conception. ensoulment occurs in at conception as a general rule, but God the Creator is not bound to it, just as an artist painting in oils is not bound to stick to his usual methods.


Does a soul have gender? Gender is determined later in development primarily due to hormones but with a strong genetic tendency. Since gender is unknown at conception we must conclude that souls cannot have gender, correct? Gender makes itself evident when the sensitive soul develops in the fetus. otherwise it is in the DNA, as you of course know.

What are the properties and characteristics of a soul created at conception? Note that it will not have memory or ability to remember, it will not be self-aware (that occurs many months after birth), and it will not be able to think or experiences emotions (a brain is needed for these activities). What then is the purpose and role of a soul? Memory is part of the sensitive soul, but its operation in a human can be governed by the rational and invisible powers of the soul, and it can represent from logical principles and mathematic axioms. It can work in tandem with a spirit. That means that memory has a spiritual component, since it can be governed by a spirit: ie, an invisible reasoning power. If Memory has a spiritual receptor, it must somehow be linked to the invisible, indivisible, indestructable soul.

This soul is eternal and cannot be destroyed, even by God. the rational aspect of the soul is closely tied to its eternal being and God. perhaps reason exists in potentia in a fetus.

only God has the right to destroy what he has planted, no matter how insignifigant it may seem to humans.

If a soul were to exist how would it communicate and interact with a physical body, or does it? the soul is the life source. it is the power that is able to recieve the spirit of God. all life is from God. the soul is the being that God upholds. The body is an expression of this much greater thing.


Does this mean that all the souls that are added to surviving eggs were not pleasing to the lord that he felt they must be punished by allowing them to survive in this evil world?
No, everything from God is a gift, even chastizement. Even mutated babies.

So upon the millions of fetuses aborted... the billions of zygotes and fetuses naturally aborted from the mother's body also ahve a soul. The Church, as I have recently read, unless it was a fake, stated that all unbaptized aborted babies go to a higher level of purgatory, but are not granted Heaven.

Well thats not fair...

Yes. Isn't that what I said about logic? It can be applied to any system.

Since your version of 'logic' is based upon a superstitious concept, you have contradicted yourself:

Superstition: An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.


"He" is as good for the purpose of explanation as any other pronoun.

Or it is just a guess. The Bible is one huge guess, for example.

The American Santa is a fantasy, just like the hybrid Jack Frost-version he originates from. The person he is based on (http://www.thehollandring.com/sinterklaas.shtml) in many European countries isn't. Many countries even have a feast day commemorating his death (December 6). He may just be dry bones now, but that's enough to make him real and, at some point in time, detectable. If you don't want to make the distinction in your arguments, just be aware that it's a strawman that is perhaps best kept to American audiences.

I believe in the Santa with the reindeer that delivers presents to all of the children in the world. This is far more likely than your God in heaven as at least we know children, reindeer, presents and fat old jolly men exist.

There's plenty of evidence, and a number of ways to interpret it - one of them is evolution, as you probably have it in mind. Dinosaur bones would be interpreted differently depending on where you are in history, as I'm sure you know, and it's not because the bones were different. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was generally accepted only recently, for instance.

So pray tell... What other explanation (based on evidence) contradicts that of life evolving based on the passage of time and environmental pressures?

So upon the millions of fetuses aborted... the billions of zygotes and fetuses naturally aborted from the mother's body also ahve a soul. The Church, as I have recently read, unless it was a fake, stated that all unbaptized aborted babies go to a higher level of purgatory, but are not granted Heaven.

Well thats not fair...

fair? who ever said anything about fair? Reality is not fair. The Devil plays dirty poker. The Church forbids the killing of fetus for several reasons, one being that we are uncertain as to what happens to their souls.

I’ve always wondered about this. There seems to be no evidence for it one way or the other in the Bible.
Wrong. The Bible evidence you're looking for is Genesis 2:7. That's why the ancient astrologers based their charts on the moment the person took their first breath.