I do not attempt to place when a soul might be present or not, because that is too similar to many of the pro-abortion arguments. I have seen many intellectual abortion advocates argue that because an unborn baby can’t live without its mother’s intervention, it does not deserve to live. Or, that because society has not invested any effort towards socializing/educating unborn babies, they really aren’t human and thus have no right to life. Those arguments and others like them all apply some exterior criterion in order to arbitrarily determine what is a person whose life deserves to be protected. I have a huge problem with that. Once you start picking and choosing what fits the definition of human, then you can justify killing at any stage of life—and, indeed, we have seen that occurring in the current debate about euthanasia.
I don’t see that arguing that a soul is present at one point, but not another, really helps things. There is no objective criterion by which one can determine if there is a soul; therefore, its presence is a matter of opinion. That then leaves the door open to justifying the extinction of human life at any stage—e.g., one could argue that the ability to talk is proof of a soul, and thus justify killing anyone who cannot talk.
That is why I choose to go with life, and not soul, as the defining factor. Life and humanity are both objective measures that can be determined by scientific methods. I also think that the ability to grow and develop as a human is necessary in the determination of whether the life should be protected. I’ve grown countless human cells in culture, which will never develop as human beings—I do not commit murder by killing them.
You’ve named a series of opinions from the pro-abortion crowd that even in our current moral degeneracy can be easily defeated in a politically acceptable manner. You then disagree with my opinion which you are perfectly free to do. You then give me your opinion. Where’s the objective science in that thinking?
At some point we all must choose. How can you objectively determine humanity when by your very own statements there are pro-abortion opinions diametrically opposed. You cannot discuss human life without mention of a soul. There is no such thing as a souless human life.
The sperm isn’t a human being, nor is the egg. There is something more and the debate continues. Everyone has to choose. I think mine is fairly objective. If the fertilized egg is attached to the uterine wall it is capable of sustaining life, though it can still die. Before that it is not. This occurs at about the first weeks of pregnancy. That’s objective.
If you don’t want to conceive it allows for great flexibility and maturity. If you want to have an abortion you have a tough decision to make. You will be killing a human life, that is a person with a soul.
The soul is the realm of theology and philosophy, not science. As to what was previously thought about this, it was that ‘ensoulment’ happened when the baby ‘quickened’ within the womb, as there would be nothing for a soul to do within the baby until then.