When the spirit enters the body


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I would be surprised if a sentient spirit that needed an experince in mortality missed out on that experience because of a decision to abort the body intended to house that spirit. I think its far more likely either that the spirits of those who are aborted did not need much in the way of a mortal experience, or that an alternative body is found. The works of God cannot be thwarted and His purposes will roll forth without significant impediment by the actions of His children.

Hmm.  Would that apply to a baby that died at 8.5 months of gestation?  A baby that died at two days old?  Two months?  Two years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Hmm.  Would that apply to a baby that died at 8.5 months of gestation?  A baby that died at two days old?  Two months?  Two years?

The answer might be closely related to how much mortality that spirit needed. Perhaps the brevity of some people's mortal duration raises questions as to if or how well the purposes of mortality can continue to be pursued in a post-mortal setting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm going to go ahead and throw a few things into the arena.  Some of them might surprise you if you're aware of my political preferences.  Maybe not. But here goes anyway.

I don't understand why we are looking to the scriptures for insight into when "life" begins. Biologically speaking, a fertilized ovum is a living organism. I don't see any room for debate on that, and it has nothing to do with a spirit entering the body. We could even argue that it was alive before fertilization.

So the whole discussion about when "life" begins doesn't have a lot of interest to me. In order to justify the line of inquiry, you are pretty much force to claim some kind of difference between "alive" and "life." Which brings up a lot of interesting academic discussions--somewhere along the line you have to make an arbitrary decision of what constitutes "life." Does that require permanent residence of a spirit? sentience? free thought? moral agency? Regardless of which arbitrary point you choose is going to come with myriad moral implications on how you treat other humans, animals, plants, etc. And to my knowledge, there's nothing in scripture that really guides where to draw that line.

More to the point, the demarcation between "alive" and "life" is wholly uninteresting to me (outside of speculative curiosity). In my life, I've only encountered a very few reasons to warrant pursuing the topic at all. First is people who have lost children to miscarriages and stillbirth.  My heart goes out to these people. They are seeking comfort following a tragedy. These I encourage to believe whatever brings them comfort.

The only other major reason I've encountered for pursuing  justification for their stance on abortion. Some wish to claim life as early as possible to justify bans against abortion. To these, I say "get lost" (but in a kind way). I don't have a favorable stance towards codifying religious dogma into civil law. To those that wish to use a later start to life to say that abortion is ok, I say "shut up" (but in a kind way).  Why should it be any more acceptable to extinguish something living simply because it hasn't yet started "life."  (It isn't, by the way)

I'd be interested in knowing if there are any other ways in which it would be impactful to know when a spirit enters a body. I can't really come up with any, although I'm sure there are some.

It is remarkable how much I agree with this entire post.  As an aside, I just realized that I have no idea if you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice (and what definitions you'd use to state such).

To your question about "life" vs "alive", I'm not sure where you're getting that as an argument from anyone.  The question is whether the fetus is a "human being" distinct from the mother.  Notice that I used the term "distinct" not "separate".  I don't buy the umbilical chord argument because that means a baby could be killed outside the womb for several minutes (as long as the chord is pumping) and still be considered acceptable.  I just don't agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 2:02 PM, askandanswer said:

As we develop a better understanding of why things are the way that they are, and why things have been set up to happen in the way that they do, we are more likely to gain a greater understanding and appreciation of He who sets things up. We can admire the power of a locomotive as it pulls a huge line of freight cars. When we understand the intricacies and mechanics that make up the operation of that loccomotive , we are likely to admire it even more.  

This analogy doesn't stand up to scrutiny for me.  I can study the process of a human being developing from embryo to blastocyst to child to adult and gain that same wonder without entertaining the question of when a spirit enters the body.

There isn't a similar question to be asked about a locomotive because, well, it never receives a spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 3:39 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Why not?  We codify religious dogmas condemning murder, rape, fraud, and theft.  Even if one comes back and say “well, it’s not really they those are morally wrong; it’s that they’re socially destabilizing”, it’s hard to argue that social destabilization is objectively bad unless you are starting with some presumptions to the effect that life (beyond my own) is good, pain (beyond my own) is bad, harmony (even if it inconveniences me personally) is desirable, etc.  Those presumptions are nearly impossible to sever from one’s religious/philosophical outlook.

One could argue we codify "moral philosophies" condemning murder, rape, fraud, and theft. I don't personally subscribe to the assumption that religious adherence is a prerequisite to moral behavior.

Quote

2.  I think you hint at it above:  if my wife and I, as Latter-day Saints, are struggling with a physically/emotionally/financially difficult pregnancy and we are wondering if we ought to let it run its course; it can be a game changer to know whether an abortion means that a sentient spirit basically misses out on nearly all of its mortal experience and goes straight to the afterlife.

I have mixed feelings about this as another category. At its core, it feels like the same problem, just looking at it prospectively rather than retrospectively. Ultimately, I think I'd advise that the answer to "when life begins" isn't needed in making this decision. I'd be prone to counsel that spiritual guidance and revelation is available and capable of guiding to the correct answer even without this knowledge. Indeed, spiritual guidance shines brightest when the answer isn't obvious. Regardless, a lot of my actions would fall in the same camp of "let them believe and feel what they need to believe and feel to endure the crap sandwich they are being fed." My job is to support and assist on the road to healing of all forms. And lectures on what we do and don't know about the beginning of life have no healing power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 7:22 PM, askandanswer said:

I think its fairly likely that you could plot a close relationship between the well-being, stability and prosperity of a society and the extent to which the actions and way of living of the members of that society is consistent with divine law. To the extent that civil law can influence the actions and way of life of the people who are governed by that law, I think it is close to imperitave that the civil law aligns as closely as possible with divinely revealed truth. Such an alignment would almost certainly exist in socities where the people were good and righteous. I suspect that every other basis for building an enduring, happy society, other than divine truth, is more prone to failure than a society whose laws are built on, or related to, divine truth. 

The way your statement is phrased makes it really hard to dive into without going really far off track for this thread. And it gets really complicated when you try to define "divine law."  Right off the bat, we're getting into a debate based on something that doesn't truly have an objectively factual standard. 

I will concede, however, that societies that have a strong and common moral philosophy are more likely to remain stable. In particular, when that moral philosophy seeks to balance personal rights and responsibilities with not seeking one's own pleasure and profit and the expense/extortion of another, stability is more likely. 

I have a serious reservations with this statement:

Quote

To the extent that civil law can influence the actions and way of life of the people who are governed by that law, I think it is close to imperitave that the civil law aligns as closely as possible with divinely revealed truth.

My reservations derive from the fact that, again, "divinely revealed truth" has no objective standard. Whose divinely revealed truth?  Is that the LDS truth? the Methodist truth? The Islamic truth?  The Buddhist truth?  As one example, I don't think we should be using civil law to prevent people from using recreational marijuana. Let people smoke it if they want to. We should be using persuasion to convince them to choose not to, rather than the force of law to make them afraid of doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 9:18 PM, Carborendum said:

It is remarkable how much I agree with this entire post.  As an aside, I just realized that I have no idea if you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice (and what definitions you'd use to state such).

To sum it up, as a matter of civil/social policy, I believe abortion should be legal and safe. I also believe people (usually) shouldn't do it, but it's my/our job to persuade them not to.

Quote

To your question about "life" vs "alive", I'm not sure where you're getting that as an argument from anyone. 

It came from me: To rephrase, I don't think the question makes any sense unless force a claim some difference between "alive" and "life."

So no, no one here was arguing that point. It was a necessary stepping stone into my rant.

Quote

The question is whether the fetus is a "human being" distinct from the mother.  Notice that I used the term "distinct" not "separate".  I don't buy the umbilical chord argument because that means a baby could be killed outside the womb for several minutes (as long as the chord is pumping) and still be considered acceptable.  I just don't agree with that.

I get where you're coming from. I think we're largely in agreement, if I'm understanding you correctly; as based on my discussion about "well duh it's a living thing." and any line of gestational age we choose to draw about when it is acceptable and when it isn't is arbitrary*.  So, please give me credit for doing my best to build on that common footing when I say this: I don't think it's relevant.

When you look at the Church's possible exceptions for when an abortion may not be an immediate and despicable evil (me?  dramatic?  what?)....well, let's look at them:

  • Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.

  • A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy

 

  • A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The most logical thing I can see that these have in common is that they are situations in which the mother's agency was not invoked. So when a mother didn't choose to have sex, imposing the consequences of pregnancy is not necessary. When the mother didn't choose a situation that puts her life at (acute) risk to continue the pregnancy, we need not condemn her for choosing to live another day. Women don't typically choose to have children with severe, life ending defects, and we don't need to condemn them for opting not to go through a tiring, painful, emotionally draining experience to deliver a dead child. I'm repeating a lot of things here, I know, but I really want to emphasize that from an LDS perspective, abortion is a valid and justifiable procedure to counteract the tragic moments when the conditions of a pregnancy violate the woman's agency. 

So, from a religious perspective, I just don't think it's relevant when the spirit enters the body. 

 

* that's a really incomplete sentence, but I don't want to fix......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

"well duh it's a living thing."

I think we agree here.  But I don't think we're on the same page.

We agree it is a living thing. But we seem to disagree on where to draw the line.  And my reasoning may surprise you because it kinda goes all over the board.

5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

and any line of gestational age we choose to draw about when it is acceptable and when it isn't is arbitrary*. 

The line I draw isn't arbitrary, it is completely scientific.  I'll get to that a bit later.

5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

So, please give me credit for doing my best to build on that common footing when I say this: I don't think it's relevant.

When you look at the Church's possible exceptions for when an abortion may not be an immediate and despicable evil (me?  dramatic?  what?)....well, let's look at them:

  • Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.

  • A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy

  • A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The most logical thing I can see that these have in common is that they are situations in which the mother's agency was not invoked.

I put those into different categories.  (both the relevancy and the three exceptions).  Let me explain.

From a legal standpoint, the only question is whether it is a living human being distinct from the mother.  If so, then it deserves the right to life as any human would. If not, then what the heck are we even arguing about?

Ask any abortion activist or Planned Parenthood worker (I choose the extreme end of the spectrum for a reason, not just to push buttons).  Do they think it is a living human being whose life they are snuffing out?  There was a time when some would say yes.  I heard a very prolific abortion doctor say, "Well, of course we're killing babies!  What did you think we were doing?"  That was a long time ago.

Today, the tired mantra of "it's just a clump of cells!" keeps getting repeated.  And "women's rights" trumps all.  Don't even mention the baby.  Regardless of what individual pro-choice people say in private, that is what gets repeated in all the public debates.  Nowhere in any law that protects abortion does it even mention the baby as a person or a living being distinct from the mother.  Why is that, do you think?

5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

So, from a religious perspective, I just don't think it's relevant when the spirit enters the body. 

Now we go to the other school of thought.  See, legally, we have to look at it from one perspective and one perspective only.  Anything else is just noise.  Religiously, we have to look at it through a different lens.  From a religious perspective, we look at it from one primary criterion and several secondary ones.

To Latter-day Saints, murder is second only to denying the Holy Ghost.  So, we want to make sure that we stay away from murder as much as possible.  That is pretty darned important.  So, the first question on this issue would be "Are we murdering?"

Theologically, life is defined as the union of spirit and body.  So, the only way to answer the murder question is "does that body have a spirit?".  If so, we're extinguishing that life.  If not, we're not extinguishing a life.  That, to me is the primary concern.

The problem is that the prophets have told us that we simply don't know when the spirit enters the body.  We've also been told that regardless, abortion is still one of the gravest of sins of this dispensation.  But since it has thus far not been revealed, we're walking a thin line.  If we are committing murder, we do it ignorantly.  But because it is so similar, and there is a high probability, we need to do it only under dire circumstances.

Now, let's address the three exceptions:

1) Mother's life is threatened.  This is not necessarily about agency.  To me this is just self-defense.  This should be a no-brainer for everyone.  I see it as a different category.

2) Rape/incest. Is certainly about agency.  We're on the same page here.

3) Survivabilty of the fetus beyond  birth.  I don't see how this is about agency.  Is it the fact that something unexpected may happen?  Well, welcome to life.  So, this one I see as something quite different.  To me, it is more like euthanasia.  And that is a whole different discussion.

************

So, what would I believe legally about abortion (in case you're interested).

Medicine already has a definition of death: either the heart stops beating or the brain stops working or both.  These come with the idea "cannot be resuscitated".  If that is the definition of the "end" of human life, doesn't it make sense that the definition of the beginning of human life would be the converse?

When does the brain start working?  When does the heart carry its own beat distinct from the mother?  This is the reasoning behind the "heartbeat laws" we have seen.  But for me, the brain is the more important thing.  When I was younger, they said that we had no way of knowing when the brain starts working.  But lately, I've been hearing that we now can.  I havn't been able to look at it to see where our technology stands.

But to me, that seems like a very fact-based, scientific, logical, consistent way to go about it.  Yet, it still doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people on either side of the aisle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share