My Choice (moral relativism gone mad)

Hartford Courant ^ | 2/19/2006 | Rev. Donna Shaper

[garjog]

OK, I would like to quote this women in an academic article but I am afraid it is a parody. Can any one out there confirm that this woman is really saying and meaning this stuff? Is this real? I am pretty sure that it is, but confirmation by one of your who say it in the paper or know this fine pastor would help.

[Neville72]

A suggestion: email or, better yet, call the Hartford Courant's editor for confirmation.

[garjog]

"Here's why: Identical twins. They start out as one fertilized egg (conception), but that egg doesn't divide until several days later."

Actually the DNA of twins is programed from when the cell is single to develop into two persons at conception. It isn't a random event for the cells to form two people as it grows, but is actually in the genetic blueprint from conception. The split occurs very early. There is no reason why the single cell can't have two souls at this point since it is set to develop that way as it grows. Think of it this way: the twins share the same cell in the same way that they later share the same womb.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I think abortion is murder. The point you make is interesting and worthy of more thought, but I'm not sure we can say a cell with a "genetic blueprint" possesses a soul. If so, then our bodies are full of millions of souls. Any one of our cells can be made to grow a new human, it doesn't need egg and sperm anymore. In some ways this level of the debate is starting to sound like the proverbial "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" arguments!

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

The "soul" means the principle of being a unified, living organism.

I consulted my unabridged Webster's and I couldn't find this meaning for "soul". However, it is similar to the 1st definition of "The immaterial essence or substance, animating principle, or actuating cause of life or the individual life." Which could then apply to even plants. But, what I believe most of us think about in the human abortion debate is the third definition: "The immortal part of man having permanent individual existence" and implied is consciousness and self-awareness. Without these, we are nothing better than plants, no matter how many cells we have! I think the definition you used plays into the hands of the pro-abortion crowd, by devaluing the meaning of the word "soul." "We all kill many souls a day, what's the big deal about the one in my belly?"
Up to a point they're right; the point is the indwelling of the conscious immortal soul given by God. Now before you go ballistic, and think me wicked; that indwelling or quickening we now know comes much earlier in the gestation than we once thought, usually before the woman even knows she's pregnant. Therefore, once a pregnancy is confirmed, an abortion is killing a conscious human being.

All Hail the Brave Legislators of South Dakota!!!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hi Rolf,

I'm sure not going to "go ballistic" about somebody's definition of "soul." ;o) Actually, I think the word is troublesome and ambiguous,and gets even worse when you go to other languages (try Greek vs Hebrew: a real headache.)

I don't see why prolifers, who are basically human rights advocates, necessarily have to invoke the concept of "soul" at all. Why not just say that human rights begin where human life begins? And that would be, of course, with the single-cell human zygote.

[garjog]

"Any one of our cells can be made to grow a new human, it doesn't need egg and sperm anymore. "

Since you started the debate on angel penheads, your statement above is in theory only. It has never been done with humans. But, if it were it would be exactly like procreation of a new baby -- which would have a soul like any person. The DNA in one of your skin cells in not programed to grow into a baby. It would take a lot of work to do that.