Abortion: When does life begin? Do you have a soul?
Let us first start with death. What is death? According to Wikipedia, "Death is the permanent end of the life of a biological organism." This definition only defines death from the "Physical World" perspective. This is an incomplete definition of death because the definition only focuses its study on the physical world through the senses. It cannot process and predict information reliably with the "Emotional World" or the "Inner Man" (see illustration below). Defining death from the world view gives an incomplete definition because it denies the soul and the spiritual realm.
In much the same way, to omit the emotional world and the inner man from the definition of "human" gives us an incomplete term. In dealing with people who view the world only in the physical world, we are forced to show ONLY empirical evidence from the physical world. To include the human soul or the spiritual experience into the term would be futile. That is why it is a difficult task to try to convince someone that abortion is wrong when he only sees the world from physical realm.
| THE RELEVANCE OF SCIENCE IN VARIOUS AREAS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE | |||
| Physical World | Emotional World | Inner Man | |
| External to Man |
Life Process |
Mind, Emotions, Will (the Soul) |
Realm of the heart (the Spirit) |
| Physics | Biology | Psychology | Extra Sensory Perception (ESP) |
| Astronomy | Botany | Sociology | Parapsychology |
| Geology | Medicine | Criminology | Metaphysics |
| Geography | Organic Chemistry | Social Sciences | Occult Sciences |
| Meteorology | Anthropology | Behavioral Sciences | |
| Chemistry | Genetics | ||
| Archaeology | |||
| Mathematics | |||
|
Decreasing Scientific Reliability ——–> |
|||
This essay will try to briefly evaluate abortion from both the physical, emotional and inner man conditions.
When does human life begin?
The answer should be obvious. It begins at conception. This is a fact and there is no evidence to discount it. However, abortion proponents do not want to focus our attention on when life began. If it did, it would mean they would be killing something that was once alive. Rather, they want to focus our attention on when the unborn started looking and acting like a fully functioning human being – a being with heartbeats, brainwaves, organs and so on. This is a scheme developed to elude us from the real issue of the origin of human life because it points to a time that occured weeks after life had already began to take form. In other words, to keep abortion legal, they have to believe that humanity does not begin at conception. But rather when the cells begin to arrange and look like one of us. If it does not look like one of us, then it is easier to see the unborn as not human. It simply ignores all the other earlier developments that took place prior. The deception wants to convince us that any thing that is sub-human is not human and is not worthy of life. To argue that something isn’t human, makes it much easier to exterminate them. In the last two centuries, we have used the same arguments for slavery, Nazi concentration camps, infanticide and just recently euthanasia for the elderly, the sick, and the unproductive in society.
When does human development begin according to leading experts?
Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics” and discoverer of the cause of Down’s Syndrome, stated, “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”
Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at Mayo Clinic, stated, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Sir William Liley, a key pioneer of fetal therapy, wrote a famous article in 1972, The Foetus as a Personality, in which he shows us why we have moved away from the view of the fetus as an inert, unformed passenger awaiting arrival at the destination of life, and have seen that the fetus is a splendidly functioning human, full of vigor and very much in command of the pregnancy.
Men and women of science might often approve of abortion, but that is a judgment about the value of human life, not about the scientific fact that human life exists. We present to you below some of the visual evidence that, indeed, we have a brother, a sister, in the womb. Those who are still NOT convinced that human development begins at conception are simply blind to the scientific and biological facts! As the saying goes “You can’t argue with a jackass!”
> Here’s the Diary of an Unborn Child
> Click here for pictures of the developing baby.
> This is the face of abortion.
What does it mean to be human?
To be human is a relative concept because it can defined differently by experts and non-experts alike. For example, a biologist might define a person and look at it from the lens of biology. An existential philosopher might claim that a person is human because of being aware of his existence through rational consciousness. Another might say it’s when a cell has an identifiable heartbeat. The point is: Everyone’s definition is different and relies on the instruments and measurements created by man. However, there are some things that cannot be measured. Abstract ideas like love, hatred and forgiveness are immeasurable concepts which are the products of the soul. To answer the question of whether abortion is moral or not, one should answer the question of whether we have a soul? If we are merely beasts without a soul, then we are nothing more than an animal incapable of knowing what is right or wrong. If we are composed of a body and soul, when does the soul infuse with the body?
The Soul
If you argue that there is no such thing as a soul, then you are no more than an animal. It should not matter if you are killed at any moment. And if someone fails to kill you and causes you harm, you should not complain because you are simply a collection of complex molecules anyway. Humans are different from all other animals because we are the only life forms who are self aware. There are no other animals in the world, besides humans, aware of their existence.
If it is a valid argument that the soul leaves the body at the time of death, and the soul is eternal, then it is equally valid to say that the soul infuses with the body at the time of conception. It doesn’t make any sense to say that you need to have a brain to have a soul because most organisms for the most part have brains.
Conception begins when both egg and sperm unite to form a single DNA molecule composed of 46 chromosomes called a zygote. 23 chromosomes come from the mother and the other 23 come from the father. These two cells combine to form ALL the necessary DNA components to create a human being. Anyone with a basic biology education can tell you that you came into existence simply from the division of the zygote. The zygote molecules are no different in DNA structure as you are today. You only look different, but you are essentially the same as you were as a single-cell zygote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
If all the DNA molecules needed to create a human are contained from the union of the egg and sperm, and the soul is infused at the moment of conception, then there is no doubt ABORTION IS MURDER OF THE WORST DEGREE! Why is it? Because you are killing an innocent human. If there was a crime, its crime would be that it came into being at an inconvenient time for the mother or the state.
11 Responses to “Abortion: When does life begin? Do you have a soul?”
Leave a Reply
Then, my beutiful friend, what is a soul, and how come that the non-existance of it makes it right for you stab people down?
If you don’t have a soul and all you are is a collection of molecules, much like a zybote or an embryo are a collection of molecules, and you say that it’s ok to destroy (let’s call it what it really is MURDER) a collection of cells, then it should follow that it should be perfectly ok to MURDER you. You are simply a collection of molecules too – just more complex but made of of the same DNA molecules as a zygote. That’s why the FBI can trace an individual just from a single DNA.
Abortionists and likeminded people argue that zygotes are NOT human and that they are simply a collection of cells. The fact is, you too my friend are a collection of cells! You’re just more complex! What makes you any more special than a few cells if you don’t have a soul?
Let us not forget that slavery advocates said the same thing about blacks. That they we’re sub-human. The same thing is being said about the unborn!
I don’t belive in a immortal soul, I do, however, somehow, belive in human beings that deserves being treated with respect.
But i don’t subscribe t the idea that embryos are human beings. I believe them to be a collection of molecules with the potential of one ay become a human being. I belive that life evolves gradually and do not start with fertilization.
You should ask your self what constitutes equal treatment and to what degree and WHO deserves equal treatment? Are the lame, the mentally or physically retarded, and the elderly – Do they deserve equal treatment or is it only reserved for the perfectly productive indiviuals of society? You say you deserve equal treatment, but that’s because you’re speaking for your self. The unborn, no matter if they have a soul or not, DOES NOT HAVE A VOICE. In other words, they cannot tell you “Don’t kill me!” – unlike you!
If your reason for being is to simply exist and to die, then who are you (abortionist advocates) to decide that those cells should cease to exist? Maybe it’s small consolation to you, that because the unborn does not have a voice, that it makes it easier to kill them.
They have no developed brains and only the basics of what one one day will become organs.
No matter voice or not doesn’t mean they could use it. They are merely a collection cells slowly resembling a human, but before 10 weeks they are none of that.
Prove me wrong and I shall convert.
Let me ask you if you are a tree hugger, an animal rights activist, a water lover or a lover of mother earth? Do you love or have respect for these things because of what they can offer you? If so, then not to be uncheritable because I don’t mean to be, but that’s pretty shallow and selfish. There will never be anything of signicant importance a zygote or the unborn can offer you while they’re still in the mother’s womb. There is no argument strong enough to convert you if your argument stems from selfishness. The only thing I ask is “How can you respect and admire a tree or the droplets that form a river any more than a zygote – that has the potential to be a child?” Who know’s if this child may some day find the cure for cancer, if left alone to develop to its full potential?
Abortion activists would like to believe that they are doing the public good by simply saying that it’s a woman’s right to terminate the “Inconvenience” of having a child. Because someone is not ready to have a child for some reason or another (including rape), makes it perfectly ok to kill another human being for sake of inconvenience. I’m sorry but I find it really really hard to see how any one can say they love trees any more than they can love a human being.
Any biologist can show you a diagram of the life-cycle of a human – from conception to death. If you really think about it, we enter life at all stages. There’s never a stage where we are always the same. You are not the same now as you were 10 yrs ago. Nor will you be the same now as you will be in 20 yrs. But your DNA remains the same. The same as it was when you were born. The same as it was when you were zygote (sperm and egg). A cell at conception is just another stage in life and to terminate your existence at any point in your life-cycle is an injustice and is murder. The bottom line is because it’s inconvenient for a woman or a state to have a child – then it’s perfectly ok to kill it. This is a grave injustice.
What it boiles down to is this.
Life does not go through different stages, it developes gradually, and then ages, untill it dies.
If you look at what makes a human being, and then what makes a fetus, you will see that there’s a significant difference.
I think what you’re arguing are semantics. You call it gradual, while others call it stages. True, you can’t quite pinpoint the exact time a stage begins; except for when it begins and or ends. For example, in some cultures a girl becomes a woman when she’s 16. In others, its when she first has a period. In others, it’s when she turns 18 y/o. Womanhood is relative. However, we know that the zygote was the first step in the development of a human. Every thing else is just a gradual or sudden change toward death. We humans like to use markers, and a stage is just another word for marker. Call it what you want, but the initial step into human progression is the zygote. And the last step into human progression is death. Any thing else are artificial and relative place markers used to help us identify if we’re talking about a child, adult, ederly, fetus, or embryo. They’re all one and the same human and one and the same DNA molecule.
Let me leave you with this. Would you be alive today if your mother and father’s sperm never united to form a zygote? Would you be alive today if for some reason your development was never allowed to progress? What makes you or the State so much better than a zygote, fetus or the unborn that you feel it’s your right or duty take it upon your self to decide who should live or who should die?
Let’s look at the facts.
A fertilized egg developes under nine months untill the babies birht, and then from that the cells in the body degenerates, untill death.
It’s not different stages of life, it’s different stages towards life. If you stop building a car when you are halfway down and throws it away, would you have thrown away a car then? No.
An other thing is that it is activity in the brain that makes a human. Or something that is a counciousness. If you manage to construct a councious self aware computer it would be, maybe not a human, but a being, and pulling out the plug for ever would be killing it.
An embryo has no activity in the brain what so ever. After a coulpe a weeks, yes, but abortion isn’t legal after a couple of weeks.
abortion isn’t legal after 2 weeks? because I’m pretty sure most women don’t even know that they are pregnant until then. I still don’t care though.
And… I do believe all living things have souls, just less evolved souls…
The fertilized egg develops at ALL stages in life and only stops at death. Just because we look different at one point in life doesn’t make us any less human. A zygote is a human because it contains every single DNA molecule necessary to help us develop. The zygote is infused with the soul at conception. From a molecular level we are the same now as we were when we were a zygote.
If you claim that we are human when we have a developed brain, then who or what caused the brain to develop? Who or what caused the organs to develop? Who or what caused the molecules to divide?
The example about the car is a poor one. Why? Because you claim that a car is only a car when it’s assembled. In your definition, a human is only a human if it was born. Therefore, according to your definition, it makes perfect sense to kill a baby when it hasn’t been born because it does not fit your personal and relative definiton of “human.” The problem with this argument is it validates murder with word play. This is erronous reasoning because anyone can redefine a word and twist it to make it look good.
You can try to convince your self that since not all the parts have been assembled that it’s not a car. My response would be “What if all you had was a head and torso? Would that still make you human? What if all you had was a head and an artificial lung and heart? Would that still make you human? What if you had was limited brain function and no body parts? Would you still be human? What if you lost 99% of your brain? Would you still be human? What if you had all the working body parts and not a functioning brainwave? Would you still be human? Your argument is poor because you try to draw the line to where humanity begins from a physical perspective; while neglecting holistically that a human is the sum of all parts – body and soul. The burden of proof lies with you to try to prove that humanity doesn’t begin at birth. The truth is: life begins at conception and ends in death and to see otherwise is blind to the facts.
Can you honestly say that the human body stops developing at any point in life? It’s a fact that there’s no one in the world who can prevent their body from ever staying the same at any point in time. For you to claim that the body becomes human at birth is to be ignorant of this fact. You’re merely stating that to be human is to enter life when one exits the birth canal or some other artificial method. There’s no one who can suspend development at any point in life. That’s why there’s so many creams, pills, exercises, diets and medicines being invented to prevent the body from imminent death.