If we are to set a standard, then we must define conception, define human, and explain the moment the conceived human has a soul. That was the purpose for the questions in the previous article; to seek to establish a standard.
If we define conception as when egg & sperm unite, that this is the moment a human being is created, then I am forced to go back to “does the soul enter at conception?”
I was asked to prove the stance I took in my previous article with Biblical support. As stated in the previous article, I didn’t find the answers to those questions posed in the Bible.
But, I am reminded of Luke 11:19: “And I say unto you: ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you.”
How can I find answers unless questions are asked (even questions that some find objectionable)?
I am also reminded of James 1:5: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”
If no question is ever asked, or only questions everyone agrees should be asked, get asked, then are we really seeking wisdom?
Psalm 139:15 says, “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.”
Incidentally, the following passages in this above scripture are used by some to justify hatred of people from other religions.
Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
So, if we take this Biblical position, then the soul is created before birth and enters the womb by God’s hand. Some assume this means at moment of conception. I admit to being uncertain and get treated like a heretic for the admission. So be it.
I thought I was pretty clear in stating that the article was based on questions and not presented as answers, but it seems that wasn’t clear. Some have taken deep offense at concepts presented in the article, such as my OPINION that life begins when the soul enters the body. But said point was really not the point of the article.
It would seem that I was also unclear in my point that the soul and the body are two separate parts of the same whole being. I believe that the soul does in fact exist before, after, and independently of the body. I further believe that when the body dies, the soul departs. We have thousands of anecdotal and hundreds of scientifically based proofs that this is the case (I will not cite them all here).
So, what if organs or cells are manufactured without combining sperm and egg, completely bypassing conception? Is it still a life? This is a concept I present because I really feel that we must decide on this in order to establish a true standard of medical ethics.
And what if the cell is removed from an unfertilized egg? Do you see why these are questions and not answers?
Is it murder to take a single cell from a living human to keep another human alive? I don’t believe so.
Does the taking of a cell require killing the fertilized egg, or the fully formed fetus? We have science that says “no.”
Does the taking of a single cell kill the human or can it be done without such?
Do the processes used by some kill the egg? Yes. I neither condone nor defend that. But somehow people assume I do condone that because I speak of using cells from living donors or manufacturing cells synthetically. I’m confused as to how one leaps automatically to the other.
I thought I was clear in stating that I do not condone the harvesting of cells if it means that the one from whom they are harvested is to be put to death. I thought I was clear in stating that I simply feel that aborted fetuses, that are flushed down sinks every day, are wastes of more than one life since they also don’t bother to save anything that might be used to cure diseases. I also thought I was clear in stating that what I condone is a process whereby the cells are manufactured, bypassing the destruction of existent life. But, it seems I was unclear.
A specific point brought up was that the article made it seem as if I condoned the harvesting of cells if there is no soul present in the body. Well, that is open for debate. I believe that the cells wasted by abortions that already take place could be used, but that opens the door to harvesting for profit (to which I proposed a legislative solution in the article). I will also add, if a soul is present at conception, then only artificial means of creating cures is acceptable.
The presented line of questions that seems to really have a few people out there up in arms. I have been chastised for my “crass wording” in the first few paragraphs of the article, by three separate people taking the time to use crass wording to attack my character, attack my religious belief, and attack my mental capacity. I stated clearly in the article that the opinions expressed were my own and had nothing to do with the doctrines of my religion.
I’m taking a break from further debate, as it has made me irritable and a little indignant. As for the personal attacks, I’m used to them. Leftists, Statists, and Egotists attack me all the time. I’m constantly told how stupid and inferior I am for not thinking the exact way someone else thinks. Where this article is concerned, it is the same arrogance and divisiveness with a cross hanging around its neck.
The whole thing has also reminded me of 1 John 4:20 and Matthew 7:1-3. But, then, I’m just a guy who is considered a “cultist” and “not a real Christian.” And, it seems that I ask questions and put out ideas that are “offensive to God.” I guess I’ll answer for all of that in the hereafter.