well, if your theology happens to claim that aborted foetuses go to heaven, i guess you will still be claiming that killing them is murder, and thus a sin for those collaborating in it (mother, doctor, etc...)

on the other hand, most Catholicism i've ever come across require baptism to wash away the original sin.

That said, If there are any theologically minded inclined to post, might i ask when the soul attaches to the foetus? I think it's fairly important for the Christian idea of murder...

I'd also be curious as to from whence the soul comes...

Does it come at the moment of conception, as some say? If so...well, really, what is that which you're able to receive, before you're even fully you genetically?

If it's later...when does God decide to implant that fetus with the soul, as orathic asked...is there a formula?

well there are more difficult questions, like chimerism... if the soul is attached at conception, then the chimera is when two non-idential twins could be born, but instead one absorbs the other and they develop into one individual - albeit an individual with two different distinct genetic codes (that of siblings, but still different enough to confuse the results of a dna test)

so, does this person has two souls? one for each fertilised egg?

The biggest theological grounds for arguing for a soul in utero is when John the Baptist responds to the Holy Spirit and "leaps" inside his mother's womb when Mary tells Elizabeth she is pregnant with the Christ-child.

That plus the scripture "before I formed you in the womb I knew you" would imply that god imbues us with something recognizable before birth, soul or personality...hard to say.

The first scripture is more compelling in my opinion for an argument that the soul is within a person even before birth.

As for where do babies or the unborn go when they die...that is a tougher question. There aren't any scriptures that deal with this subject directly and that is why you get different opinions within the Christian world.

Oh please, Obiwan. You give up eating so you can think about philosophy and then you post stuff like this, which doesn't betray ten minutes' serious thought about all of western religion or ethics?

It's time to bring lunch back into your life.

Anyway, to answer the two specific questions which have been asked so far, Christian traditions differ as to exactly when the soul begins, but most would place it very early in a foetus's life. The verses Jacob cites are key, as is Psalm 51:5 ("[I was] sinful from the time my mother conceived me."), as well as the vaguer "From my mother's womb you have been my God."

Etc.

As for whether there's a formula -- there may or may not be, but as with so many things, we are not told it if so.

Conceptions of the soul also differ, of course -- whether it is an immaterial thing, or the sum of / information in material things, etc. In any case, "being you genetically" is not clearly relevant. How would we know how much of the genome has to be cemented to be associated with a soul? Seems an imponderable, to me.

As Jacob and orathaic have both pointed out, traditions differ on whether a foetus actually would go to heaven. I think there would be arguments for both ways in Catholic theology, while mainstream Baptist theology would say yes, and reformed theology no (in most cases). Not that that's relevant. There _are_ good responses to what the bishop (was he a bishop?) said, but the woman did not make any of them.

Oh, and you asked about chimeras. No idea here. Perhaps there were two souls and one of the infants "died." Perhaps only one was made. God would know what was going to happen after all. No telling.

See if there was only one then it would have been ok to kill one of they two fertilised zygotes (by the definition where we take the killing of animals to be ok because they don't have souls) - and yet it would have had the potential to develop into a full human person (i think the idea of personhood is useful)

now WE couldn't have known it would turn into a chimera, nor could we have known which zygote had the soul and was ok to kill...

i guess you could come up with some idea of mixing the two souls... but in the case where they simply merged (and genetic material from both continues to live) I don't really get the concept of saying one of them died.

I mean, cells descended from both original eggs make up part of the person who eventually grow up.

The reverse process which is a little less of an issue is that of forming an identical twin... here i assume you would just say that God, knowing it would split into two identical twins would imbue the zygote (or whatever stage you determine ensoulment to occur)

but what about identical twins who are conjoined? I mean they share one body... where in the body does the soul reside?

You asked, what do you do with aborted babies if you are Christian. Chimeras and conjoined twins are not a helpful topic to explore in my opinion.

I didn't ask that.

I asked about conjoined twins and chimeras, and i think it is helpful to understand your beliefs about souls and body and how the two are more complicated than the appear at first.

For the record, Dante places them before the gates to hell, so they aren't really IN hell, nor are they in purgatory... they do suffer, and have no hope, though, so may as well be in hell ;)

I have a different, but related, question:

Why does someone's religious beliefs matter at all when it comes to policy?

They're *beliefs* and everyone's are different. If the Norse Gods commanded I wear full battle armor at all times, even when boarding a plane, does that mean the TSA must respect my beliefs by allowing me to walk around the metal detector? No! So, why should anyone care what people's religious beliefs on abortion are?

I think there are some secular reasons to oppose abortion, but I don't think religious ones have any place in a proper discussion.

The prevailing doctrine in the church was Aristotle's idea that humans first had the souls of vegetables, then animals, then humans. Something like 40 days after conception the soul was complete.

Superstition is weird.

I've always wondered why, if abortion was "murder", the Bible does not prescribe the death penalty for a miscarriage due to violent assault? Exodus 21.

@ Abge.. I wasn't going to get involved in this, but here goes..

My religious beliefs inform my stance on a select few policy issues. Society agrees on a certain set of standards which are enforced as laws. Some of these laws rightly have a moral basis. Killing another human is against society's moral code (as well as my Christian religious code). We can agree on this secular law because our moral codes align on this issue. Thus having a moral basis for a law can be a good thing.

On the flip side, having a moral basis for a law isn't always a good thing. An aethiest could have a moral code that killing animals is wrong and therefore eating meat is just as bad as murdering a human, while a religious nut could have a moral code that anyone who doesn't believe as he does should be put to death. Laws in support of these examples would be outrageous as I'm sure we can both agree.

So having a moral basis for pursuing a policy decision is not in and of itself, inherently good or bad, would you agree? From a secular view of policy making, rejecting a policy stance simply because it has a moral basis, is ludicrious, just as accepting all policy stances based on a moral code is horrendous idea.

So the real question is how do you determine which policy stances are worth consideration?

I'll leave that question open ended...


Instead I'll simply address the particular case at hand, why my religious views are relavent to why I take a stand on this issue:

As a christian, my moral stance on abortion is tied to my moral stance on murder. Both of these are based on what the Bible says about God's stance toward, life, taking life, murder, the value of children, the oppressed, the helpless, and even in a select few cases, those yet unborn. As a case in point, Jesus and the Old Testament repeatedly talk about defending the fatherless and widows. The unborn are the least able to take care of themselves of any category of people. In addition, statistically, at least in my community, (I don't recall the national rate) the majority of abortions occur in situations where the to-be father is not present (the fatherless).

Because the unborn are defenseless and have no advocate, and because I also believe them to be human individuals from the time of conception (based on Scripture), that is why I take a policy stance on abortion. In this case, separating the two removes the heart of the issue for why I am taking a stand in the first place.

Because my religious beliefs include a basic belief about what a human life is, I can't set aside my worldview to keep a completely secular view of this issue when I believe it to be an issue of an individual having their right to live legally taken revoked by societal 'norms.'

@ Obi: Are you asking how a person's religious beliefs on heaven and hell (and where an aborted baby would end up based on those beliefs) would allow them to oppose abortion?

@Lief

I agree mostly with what you say.

I suppose the question isn't so much "is killing a human wrong" so much as "is a fetus a human". I can see how a person of religion would have a hard time answering that question without drawing on their beliefs.

However, would you agree that stating "the bible says life starts at conception" is not an appropriate standard to hold the rest of the country to, even though that is the basis for your beliefs?

@ Putin:

In the NASB (regarded by scholars to be the one of the best literal translations):

Exodus 21:22-23 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life..."

Looks like the death penalty to me if the child doesn't survive...

@ Abge:
"However, would you agree that stating "the bible says life starts at conception" is not an appropriate standard to hold the rest of the country to, even though that is the basis for your beliefs?"

My Christian beliefs call for me to stand up for the oppressed, the defenseless, orphans, the fatherless, and the widows, those who have no advocate and are suffering injustice. If I believe from a religious standpoint that the unborn are humans, then abortion is a terrible injustices to the most helpless of society and I have no sensible response other than to stand up and try to defend them. In my mind and worldview, the two are inseparable. I can't separate the belief from the action it demands of me. Does that make sense?

Yes, I suppose I can. But, I don't think we'll be able to come to any further agreement than that.

Please don't feel as though I'm cutting you short, Lief. But, I have absolutely no interest in starting a religious debate with someone I'm about to play diplomacy with : )

Really, you Christians need to pick a language and stick with it.

""When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Revised Standard Version - a most Catholic bible. Odd that they'd translate it with the miscarriage language and not "premature birth", eh?

Elsewhere in the Bible monetary values are given to children based on their age, children under one month are given no monetary value whatsoever.

Leviticus 27:6

"those who have no advocate and are suffering injustice"

No offense, but this whole passage of yours rings a bit hollow considering your staunch defenses of the rich against the poor. The 'unborn' surely have plenty of advocates, including rich Evangelicals and the very powerful RCC. The poor and average workers? Not so much.

I understand that I am asking other people to live to my moral standard in this instance, and that is asking much for people to accept. However once I am through graduate school (and have the money), I am preparing to support my policy stance by working with local groups that help sponsor adoptions fees so that some of the babies destined for abortion by their unmarried pregnant teen mothers in my community will be adopted instead.

I recognize that people won't want to, and just plain won't live by my christian standards, but I am seeking to allow myself and others who feel as I do, to have a chance to save the lives that would otherwise be taken, and to spare the teen mothers the anguish of having made such a terrible decision that they will regret later.

As an adoptee, I resent pro-life groups who have worked to make it really difficult for adoptees to get access to their own records. They abuse adoption and adoptees for their own purposes. It'd be great if they actually bothered investing in pre-natal care and women's health clinics, instead of constantly opposing them and harassing women who go into clinics to get basic tests done. Their so-called tenderness to the unborn would be a lot easier to take if they showed any amount of compassion or consideration for actually born children and the reproductive health of women.

Instead it's just a mechanism for control.

@ Putin,

Take your foot out of your mouth before you choke on it.

Show me the quote you refer to that makes my position look hollow...

@Putin - You do know that your quotes or from the Old Testament and apply to Judaism as well. Not just Christianity, right? Of course, we've had the discussion that not all of Christianity takes every single passage in the OT at face value, but that is irrelavent for the discussion at hand. Jewish law of this nature is no more. We have developed as a people to move into a more civilized law. As a people meaning on the whole. You will find specific groups that still believe in an eye for an eye and who don't follow the teachings of forgiveness.

If people are going to use Scripture as their weapon of choice against the reproductive rights of women, they can't selectively ignore that their own Scripture when it's not convenient. Naturally, we've become more civilized than the Bible, which is why it should not be used as the basis for law.

"Show me the quote you refer to that makes my position look hollow..."

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=791950#791950

How about all the drivel you posted in this thread? Attacking welfare recipients. Defending inheritance. You're really sticking up for the oppressed there, boss.

On that we definitely can agree. OT Scripture especially can have some rather barbaric laws in it. I much prefer laws based on NT scripture like "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "why remove the mote from your brother's eye when you have a beam in your own". Both of those are paraphrased of course.

As a rule I don't give money to any political group ever. A political group seeks power over a situation and those trapped in it, rather I favor supporting a doctor in my community who will give those free health screenings, provide both the pre-natal and the women's health care free or at reduce rates or find someone who will sponsor that care so that it is free to the pregnant teen mother, and who will counsel and support that teen not to seek an abortion.

I don't have a stance on opening adoption records, though I see valid arguments from both sides, that's a hard issue that is complicated by politics. Politics as it is currently practiced hurts the situation, and by no means does it help the individuals in the situations.

As an avowed communist, Putin, I would have though you'd be in favor of mechanisms for control. If the Pro-life stance is just a front for controlling people's behavior, what's your issue? Didn't communist russia exert control over many aspects of the individual's daily life?

"and who will counsel and support that teen not to seek an abortion. "

Funding groups that set up fake "crisis centers" that do nothing but propagandize and terrify women who are already in a vulnerable position. There are more of these fake "crisis centers" than actual clinics who provide care, and don't propagandize and intimidate women into doing their bidding.

http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/fake.htm

"Didn't communist russia exert control over many aspects of the individual's daily life?"

No, you voice for the voiceless, they did not. One of the first things they did was grant autonomy to women over their right to marry, as in China. Freed them from prostitution. And gave them reproductive rights. They put an end to the livestock view of women put forth by superstitious zealots who had no regard for them as people.