Souls

JLN, ever since reading an opinion piece in today's NYTimes, I have been thinking about "souls" and how they relate to the once-again upcoming hot-button issue of abortion. (What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born...)

The issue can be polarized neatly if one wishes to look at it that way. There are two points of view. One is that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception and has the right to life of a human being. The opposing view is that the early fetus is not yet a human being and that the mother's rights take precedence over any rights to life that the fetus might have. One could argue that "never the twain shall meet," regarding these views. The only way that one can discourse and dialogue about the abortion issue must be in the space between these two points of view.

One question is how and in what way will the defenders of each position support their view. Will they set down a first principle as a major premise, a statement that must be accepted as truth before the discussion can go forward? One side might say that "life begins at conception," and that is a given. The other side might say that "a woman's right to control over her own body is superior to anything else," and for them, that is a given. It seems to me that two such arguers or debaters are wasting their own and each other's time. They can never meet in the middle starting from totally different major premises.

The only hope I can see for any meeting of the minds is in the middle space, or in accepting parts of another's view while rejecting other parts.

Let's say, arguendo, that I am totally against abortion. I believe that a human life begins at conception and that one must not kill that fetus human being on purpose. However, what if I look at the large percentage of womankind in this country (and mankind, for that matter) who do not believe this statement to be true? What do I, as a citizen of a country ruled by laws, do about the fact that there are many people who do not agree with my viewpoint and who think that their rights are being trod upon if my viewpoint becomes law. After all, if Roe v. Wade continues as the law of the land, my viewpoint is not being ignored; I and anyone else can eschew abortion in accordance with our beliefs.

The problem arises when people despise the thought that the "choice" view is becoming public policy and "accepted." Well, I as an arguendo "lifer" hate to see that happen, but what if I decide that the law is there to allow people who believe in choice to have a choice? Perhaps I can live with that, even though I believe totally the opposite of what the "choicers" believe.

Many "lifers" believe that a soul is injected by God into the tiny mini-cellular clump of a few cells that will become a human being, and thus that one is killing a human being with a soul by aborting that fetus. So? There are weirder beliefs out there, believe me. The more difficult decision, on the part of the "choicers," is just when DOES that little clump become a human being and have a right to live.

Anyone want to weigh in here?

abortion rights
Kara, I like your notion of trying to dialog from a position between the two extremes. Let me present my position from a kind of middle space. I have no idea when life begins or when a person with rights begins. That's purely a matter of definition and therefore arbritary. I DO believe that the "life" of a person who is not even aware of his separate existence and who has not yet developed a fear of death or a set of values and interests is less important TO ME, at least, than that of an adult who has all of the above in spades. And who has a body that is more hers than anybody else's. I also believe that life itself is a precious thing and that it would be wonderful if every pregnant woman WANTED and could AFFORD to raise a child of her own body. But reality differs and that's what we must address. It seems that it will always be that some women will WANT to or NEED (according to their circumstances, values and interests) to abort fetuses, just as precontact eskimos used to HAVE TO leave elders to die in the winter for the sake of the lives of others in the family or band. Those who treat life as sacred, as ABSOLUTELY sacred, would have to aggressively--if they want my respect-- campaign for the elimination of capital punishment, malnourishment of people, especially children in our country and everywhere else, and the elimination of wars into which we send our youth to die for what are often the crassest of interests of people who do not fight. I've admitted that abortion may be evil, albeit a necessary evil, and I've maintained that if one is to push for prohibitions on the taking of fetal life, he must also do so for all life. Too often, I suspect, "lifers" feel, or claim to feel, great sympathy for "babies" in the abstract, but are indifferent to the suffering of born babies in poorer classes--not to mention the suffering of human beings of all ages and nationalities.

That's true... if you are pro-life, then you should be pro-all-life. IF you are pro-choice, you should pro-all-choice, right?

I am glad you added C.S. Lewis's quotation, Kara... I think it is a beautiful summation not just for Christians but for many others.

As to the animals having souls... How can it be said that an animal's spirit has been broken, which is frequently said of dogs and horses without hope, especially those animals that have been abused, unless it has a spirit, a soul, to begin with?

I think that the animal looking into one's eyes is a powerful anecdotal bit of evidence, possibly because most of us who believe in their soul or spirit or life force believe that their soul rests behind their eyes. It is said that some cultures have the belief that it rests in their heart, but most believe it is behind the eyes. There is also a quote, which will have to remain anonymous for now, "The eyes are the window to the soul."

JL,
Not attempting to be coy or anything, but to me, it is just easier to believe that man is not the highest power in the universe, and the higher power is something I choose to call God.

And forgive me, but it seems to me a little ridiculous for men to gaze through a telescopeinto the heavens, then conclude that since they see no God, there is none. That's about how much I value the wisdom of so called wise men's "evidence", and their interpretations of it.

We shall just have to agree to disagree

Kudos;
I simply have to comment here as to how delightful it is to hear the comments of Kara and JLN; it is so refreshing to experience the willingness to listen sensitively to the viewpoints of others, while forming their own opinions, and attitudes. Bodes well for the evolution of tollerance.

Other comments; Whether or not any animal, human or otherwise, has a soul (not a fan of "Souls", personally) is a matter of perception. If there is such a thing, it would be created by a life of sufficient "grace" to produce an "aura" of something beyond the "ordinaryness" of lives in general. While I would not use that word, I would suggest that there are many lives that have been lived, that have left behind them a kind of "soul" that is unmistakeable in our image of the impact of that life on humanity.
This is especially apparent in cultural contributions to our artistic heritage; is Mozart alive, or dead? .....Shakespear? .........?

Trying to converse about 'souls' is a tricky subject, somewhat similar to discussing 'god.' c.i.

PoWoGo and c.i., the fun thing, to me, is tossing out ideas and listening to ideas from others. I have passed through so many belief patterns and semi-convinced positions in my life that I wonder if or when I will ever reach a point of stasis. I think of myself as having moved beyond organized religion, but is that an arrogant thought?

I read in a recent article that Europe is considered Post-Religious because of the few citizens who describe themselves as religious and as attending any services, while the US is considered a very religious society because of the high percentage of people who believe in God and who attend services weekly.

Kara, I do not believe you are arrogant about religion. The arrogant people of religion are those that profess their belief in a god, but live a life of many sins against their fellow man/woman. A very good example of this arrogance is reflected by our president. He claims to believe in god, but his political actions do not reflect any teachings found in the bible. His tax cuts favors the rich, not the poor, the people without medical care, the disabled, the hungry and the homeless. He ignores our environment while favoring the energy companies, drilling for oil in ecologically fragile land, and doing nothing to reduce the demand on oil. GWBush drives for a war with Iraq, while most people in this world disapproves of this action. He's willing to start a war with Iraq that will kill untold hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. He represents the arrogant christian. c.i.

I think that "soul" is total lack of ego. And a part of an experiential reality. It isn't something that is "out there". It is what we live and is energy being.

I've always been really interested in comparing all the different religions and trying to find the common thread that begins the path to spirit living in our souls being.

I can't get to this forum as often as some and at times there are so many issues to answer. But...

To kara, I don't think "God" would inject a soul (or spirit?) into a fetus at conception. Free will is total, so I would think that a soul must "choose" to enter a body. The soul, or spirit, could then also leave. I've heard it said that some souls, according to their own karma, could learn from the death of a young child. Who, really, is to say? - although, yes, it is interesting to talk about and hear opinions of others.

I suppose if anyone asked and I were honest that my answer regarding abortion would be it is right for some, wrong for others. So, "choice" might be the right answer even if "life" is the ideal.

P & L, you're right, and animals don't seem to have an ego. Else, how can they just show all that love? How come they aren't afraid to make themselves so, so vulnerable, as are some humans?

c.i., thank God for religions. Keeps people busy who also must need them. I guess if we don't like the heat in the kitchen we can get out. Regarding George Bush, politicians say this and that but really just want votes. For a little while the republican party fought like hell to keep from being identified with the "religious right." Bush, it seems, is trying to attract (who? would know) with the connection between welfare and religion. (Can't right now recall the phrase for that).

Tex, Shouldn't that be "thank religions for god(s)? c.i.

I think of religions, at their best, as fundamental institutions without which societies would be less altruistic, less community minded, less moral. So where does that leave someone like me, who thinks that religion is a good thing, a necessary thing, but not something, in its dogmas and creeds, in which I can believe? I go to church sometimes just to feel a part of a community, part of something comforting and supporting. Perhaps that is the reason many people go to church, or to a football game, and maybe most parishioners don't believe the party line, either.

Kara, The "group" inclusion atmosphere of anything is a human/animal desire. We are, after all, social animals. c.i.

If there are souls, my guess is that any animal which has a brain capable of feeling emotion has one. Definitely primates, dogs, and other intelligent mammals. Probably not reptiles or anything lower. I don't know about birds.

I would like to believe that we have immortal souls, but I suspect that what we think of as a soul is nothing more than the mind, which is a product of an organic brain and cannot exist independently of it.


Kara, life begins long before conception, but I do not think that fertilized eggs or even embryos can possibly have souls because they do not have a brain that can record sensations. And since 2/3 of them die of natural causes, it would be rather pointless for God to endow them with a soul that would never experience the world or learn anything. My guess is that ensoulment would not occur before 24 weeks gestation, when the fetal brain has developed to the point that regular brain wave patterns can be detected and awareness might be possible.

After 24 weeks, I think that the rights to life and health of a woman, whose fully-formed soul indisputably exists, should be given precedence over the debatable "right to life" of her fetus whether or not it has a rudimentary soul.


If we do have immortal souls, presumably gazillions of aliens in civilizations all over the universe have souls also. Do you suppose that we all end up together? Should be interesting.

Terry:

Yeast cells don't have a brain adn yet, they still have a soul.

New Haven, what makes you think that yeast cells have a soul?

As a newspaper reporter I often called ministers and others who "manage" or whatever, churches. There are many differing programs that take place in churches. One church holds group sessions for teens, another may hold AA meetings, some dozens of support group meetings.. There's also Sunday School for kids. Then, of course, all kinds of off-shoots are created from this small sampling of what occurs in a "church." It can be a place to serve those in need. I happen to think one should be able to go to their "church" for help but that doesn't happen much in ordinary churches. Some have a service where the elderly are driven to hospitals and doctors. And, there are the shelters for the homeless, boy and girl scouts, prison outreach.

When our churches stop providing these services, I think maybe they should just close their doors. But, I think it prudent to provide these services through churches and charities rather than from government. Think how much lower the overhead!

I have to write all this down because I rarely attend ANY church anymore. Heretodate, what would people have done without churches? The future? I just hope churches stop being political, suggesting how people should vote for God's sake. And, don't brainwash the kids, they belong to their parents who should be better teachers.

Tex-Star

It may just be "all soul" for how can something without a soul be perceived by a soul?

How can a mind perceive something that is not a thought, idea or mental image?

How would some mere human KNOW whether or not lizards, snakes, even rocks and trees are learning?

We don't, but we don't know whether other humans are learning either, although we can guess.

I just don't think the mind is confined to the brain nor any "soul" to the body.