• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When does a baby recieve it's soul?

Godmode

Critical Thinker
Godmode
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
490
I had a conversation...I'd like your thoughts on it (this is condensed, but the major points are here)

Her: cloning is wrong, because it's wrong to create a baby without a soul
Me: Why wouldn't a clone have a soul?
Her: A baby gets a soul when it's born, that is part of the birthpains mothers feel
Me:So, babies not born naturally wouldn't have a soul?
Her: Exactly
Me: What about if it's born by cesarean?
Her: Um, yeah, I'm not sure about that
Me: But you are sure that the majority of time a baby is in the womb it is souless?
Her: Yes
Me: So abortion is ok then?
Her: Uh, no, that's murder
Me: Would killing a clone be murder?
Her: I'm not sure
Me: I think maybe you need to reconsider your thoughts.
Her: I don't know why you're being so difficult, everyone knows deep inside that it's wrong to play god, they just don't admit it.
Me: I don't think it's possable to "play god" because I don't think that really means anything.
Her: Are you telling me honestly you don't believe in god?
Me: Yes, that's what I'm telling you
Her: I don't believe you
Me: Well there it is.
 
Obviously, you cannot discuss when a baby receives a soul, since that is a question of belief.

What you can do, and what the transcript above illustrates, is discuss whether a given belief is logically consistent. The problem with the "her" position above is that she tries to argue logically based on her belief system, which then turns out to be logically inconsistent.

It is OK for a belief system to be logically inconsistent, since obviously you might beleive that things exist that defy logic, but then it is not OK to base logical arguments on it. All you can do is state: "This is what I choose to believe". ...Which sort of ends that discussion :rolleyes:.

Hans
 
Hans has it. You get to ignore logic, or you get to use it. You don't get to use it selectively. Well, you can, but it is to laugh.

I pity all the Caesarean babies without souls. On the other hand, you might tell her that even cloned babies are "born," so they should be okay soulwise.

~~ Paul
 
What about identical twins? Do they only get half a soul each? Or do they not get any at all on the grounds that they're clones?
 
If you ask me a baby doesn't get a soul at all, since there is no such thing as a soul. But you didn't ask me... :)
 
Whaaaaat?

My son has no soul?

What about premature babies? I was born premature... Do I have a soul? Or maybe half a soul?

In-vitro fertilization... These babies have a soul?

Now, seriously. That's a potentially dangerous ideology. "Real" people "with souls" and second-grade people "without souls". Not unlike the discussions if native americans and africans had a soul or not that happened centuries ago. If they had not, it would be OK to kill them and use them as slaves...
 
Ririon said:
If you ask me a baby doesn't get a soul at all, since there is no such thing as a soul. But you didn't ask me... :)
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I didn't want to get that deep into discussion with her...I didn't really want to have any discussion with her, but I could hardly let a statement like "Clones would have no souls" go by without enquiring further. It's like a car wreck...curiosity compells you to find out more.
 
Godmode said:
I agree with you, but I didn't want to get that deep into discussion with her...I didn't really want to have any discussion with her, but I could hardly let a statement like "Clones would have no souls" go by without enquiring further. It's like a car wreck...curiosity compells you to find out more.
Click to expand...
On the other hand: When does a foetus/baby/child aquire the capabilities some people associate with a soul? There's a complex question of gradual development for you. :) ...And the source of a multi-page thread if you manage to provoke a few people... ;)
 
Correa said:
Now, seriously. That's a potentially dangerous ideology. "Real" people "with souls" and second-grade people "without souls". Not unlike the discussions if native americans and africans had a soul or not that happened centuries ago. If they had not, it would be OK to kill them and use them as slaves...
Click to expand...
Yes, but how do we test for a soul? Perhaps if we toss the person in a lake, then watch whether they drown, ...

~~ Paul
 
Godmode said:
Her: A baby gets a soul when it's born, that is part of the birthpains mothers feel
Click to expand...

Not that I know anything about it, but I was under the impression that in this day and age, most mothers would opt to take painkillers.

Would that result in the baby getting no soiul, too? Or just a heavily sedated soul?

Aren't still births also painful? Where would the soul go to?

Rasmus.
 
Her: A baby gets a soul when it's born, that is part of the birthpains mothers feel
Click to expand...

You should have asked her if that means all babies. Baby cats, baby dogs, baby elephants, baby gorillas.....baby cows "Veal is murder!!" :yikes:
 
Rasmus said:
Not that I know anything about it, but I was under the impression that in this day and age, most mothers would opt to take painkillers.

Would that result in the baby getting no soiul, too? Or just a heavily sedated soul?

Aren't still births also painful? Where would the soul go to?

Rasmus.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "most". I did not have painkillers. And anyway, an epidural can't be given until a certain point in labor. Up until then, mom just has to suffer along.
 
There is no evidence for the existance of a human soul so therefore we cannot say such a thing exists.
 
Dcdrac said:
There is no evidence for the existance of a human soul so therefore we cannot say such a thing exists.
Click to expand...

Equally, there is no evidence that human souls do not exist, therefore we cannot say such a thing is impossible. I don't believe that they do, but neither can I prove it.
 
Oolon Colluphid said:
Equally, there is no evidence that human souls do not exist, therefore we cannot say such a thing is impossible. I don't believe that they do, but neither can I prove it.
Click to expand...

True. But then again I can't prove that there 'isn't' a purple kangaroo jumping around in the forrests of north east Minnesota either.
 
Correa Neto said:
Whaaaaat?

My son has no soul?

What about premature babies? I was born premature... Do I have a soul? Or maybe half a soul?

In-vitro fertilization... These babies have a soul?

Now, seriously. That's a potentially dangerous ideology. "Real" people "with souls" and second-grade people "without souls". Not unlike the discussions if native americans and africans had a soul or not that happened centuries ago. If they had not, it would be OK to kill them and use them as slaves...
Click to expand...

This must be where the p-zombies come from :rolleyes:
 
There are several avenues to use, since her position is based on misperceptions and faulty logic, but here's another. If we were to clone a human, the cloned embryo would be placed in a woman's uterus and she would carry it to term, at which point the baby could be delivered normally.

She apparently has the idea that a cloned baby would emerge fully formed, from a beaker.

Therefore, by her definition, a cloned baby would have a soul after all!
 
On skepchicks, someone posted a SNL-skit about cloning. Something about cloned babies having a hyphenated sign, like Leo-Aries.

Which would also lead one to ponder: since they were technically born twice, do they have two souls as well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom