21 Comment(s)

1. I can’t get over the fact that there are children born that are stillborn. When did the spirits enter their bodies? Did spirits enter and then at some point before birth leave?

   Because we have not yet been able to actually visualize and recognize the separate entity we call the “spirit” of a human, we will never know when that separate entity actually joins with the physical body to form the human being we all know.

   My personal belief is that the spirit does not enter the body in the first trimester. The spirit takes up space. It is matter. It requires a certain amount of physical space to reside in. Or are our spirits microscopic in size? I don’t think they are.

   Comment # 1 by The Other Dan | Oct 25, 2007 | Reply

2. I believe that there’s no set time for a spirit to enter an embryo or fetus - perhaps each spirit makes its own decision, perhaps others are “assigned” in some way. I think the comments by Church leaders that abortion is “like unto” murder, but not murder, reflect this supposition. Some stillborn babies, who moved and had some form of sentience (even if it’s only to react to loud noise or the mother’s emotions) in their mothers’ wombs, may have had spirits and thus do not need to “come back” again. In other cases, maybe there was never any spirit at all. I had a miscarriage at 10 weeks gestation, and though I knew I was pregnant, I never felt any sort of connection or bond or anything with the fetus. I never felt that it was a baby and had a suspicion that I would not carry it to term, even before the ultrasound that showed it had no heartbeat (it had had one a week earlier). Maybe there was never a spirit in it. Other women I know who have had miscarriages have had very different experiences, however, even when the miscarriage occurred very early in the pregnancy. My mother loved to tell me that I “came to her” as a voice less than a week after she became pregnant. Each time I was pregnant with my three children, I had different experiences of feeling that they were separate entities from me, and at different times. Obviously, too, the process of birth or a disease or defect in the baby’s body can cause the spirit to leave it prematurely.

   That said, I have a gut feeling that manipulating stem cells is WRONG. I can’t put my finger on why, except that it seems unnatural to me to take reproductive tissues out of the body and mess with them. For the record, I also feel that in vitro fertilization and implanting eggs and embryos in women’s bodies are wrong, though I recognize that many would not be able to bear children without doing these things, and I respect their right to do so as a Libertarian and also as a woman. Nevertheless, regardless of whether a spirit is present in the blastocyst or does not enter until the moment of birth, it seems disrespectful to the process of reproduction and I can’t feel that God is pleased by it, especially the waste that occurs, with excess embryos being discarded, frozen indefinitely, or implanted and aborted, not to mention the alteration and disruption that occur in the embryo’s “body”, particularly in embryonic stem-cell research (as I understand it - I know there are lots of different types of this research). Like The Other Dan, I also doubt that spirits enter fetuses very early in the pregnancy (my mother’s experience notwithstanding), but any time a sperm meets an egg, there is potential for a human life to grow. Interfering with or disrupting that process (AFTER the sperm and egg have met - I thank the Lord each day for the relatively cheap and effective contraceptive methods we have in America that allow us to determine, to some extent, when and how many children we have) seems to me to be another form of like-unto murder, though not murder itself.

   Comment # 2 by Villate | Oct 25, 2007 | Reply

3. Rick,
   Glad to see this post! And that we may still have other things to grapple with. I’ve wanted to discuss this ensoulment issue since before having to miss your live presentation at the recent symposium, but then listening to it on the mp3. You say:

   “As far as I can determine, the crux of the matter is the moment of ensoulment–the beginning of human life. To a Mormon, that’s when the spirit enters the body. To other Christians, that’s often the moment that God creates the spirit in the body.”

   I’m still not sure why this is the crux of the matter for you, but for me it touches many additional life questions, including life after death, reincarnation, the nature of the soul, free will, eternal progression, etc., for openers. Questions about these issues evoke the passions of ideology, religion and science, especially when they get thrown onto the political battle ground as is the case at present. So, I suppose we need to be careful.

   Ken Wilber talks often of several kinds of bodies: gross (physical), subtle (spirit) and causal (creative and directing) in discussing the nature of us humans. This is a little different from the standard Mormon view. Even though he is a trained physical scientist, Wilber’s fundamental interest is in the general nature of consciousness and spirituality in particular. It seems to me your crux question addresses only gross and subtle body aspects of the total human being.

   The late psychologist and hypnotherapist William Baldwin, in his magnum opus Spirit Releasement Therapy, speaks from research and clinical experience when he writes about what you call ensoulment. See if this makes sense to you:

   “The contracted spirit [i.e., rightful owner of the physical body] may not joint the body completely until after the birth, sometimes several weeks after the birth. However, the body consciousness, a portion of the total consciousness [gross, subtle and causal?], is connected with the body from the moment of conception…. “

   Comment # 3 by Eugene Kovalenko | Oct 25, 2007 | Reply

4. I don’t know when the spirit enters the body. I have no way of guessing either.

   However, for me that’s not the only question. Even if a fetus does not have a spirit, it is still a potential life. To me, that’s what makes abortion “like under murder,” and that’s also what allows there to be exceptions in extreme cases. But there is a limit to how far I can take this argument. You could argue that an unfertilized egg is also a potential for life, but I think that’s going too far. There are varying degrees of potential. I’m not sure where to draw the line.

   So with that in mind I’m not sure how I feel about stem-cell research. On one hand, each embreo has the potential for human life, regardless of whether it has a spirit. On the other hand, in reality the embreos would just be destroyed anyway, so why not put them to good use. So I’m split, but not because of the question you raised.

   I am grateful, however, that the church allows us to make up our own mind sometimes (the church has no official position on stem-cell research). I think something that is very wrong with some religions is how convinced they are they they have all the answers to everything. I think it’s ok sometimes to say, “We don’t know.”

   Comment # 4 by Mike the Horebite | Oct 25, 2007 | Reply

5. I think a human being becomes “a living soul” (that is, a combination of the spirit and the body) at birth–when the child can breathe and sustain it’s life on its own as an independent being. Religiously I base this on the Doctrine & Covenants definition of “soul” (body AND spirit) and on the meaning of the Hebrew word for spirit–which is the same as the Hebrew word for breath. (Thus in Genesis, Adam becomes a “living soul” when God breathes into him “the breath of life..”

   I strongly support stem cell research (also cloning) and see no conflict between this and my religious convictions as a Mormon.

   Comment # 5 by Rob Lauer | Oct 26, 2007 | Reply

6. Rob, I mention that view in the article, and there is some solid support from it in our ordinance work since stillborn babies aren’t sealed to the family and don’t have proxy ordinances performed. Still, at least theologicaly, I don’t think you can make a clear case that the spirit enters at birth. There really aren’t any solid proof texts of any kind on this issue.

   My own stand has been that I can’t make any theological determination. I don’t know when the magic moment happens. But I do feel that it can’t be prior to the beginning of gastrulation, which is around two weeks. Orrin Hatch would, I think, suggest the moment of implantation. Brigham Young would have said the moment that the mom first feels the baby. And D. O. McKay would have agreed with you that it’s not a soul until it’s taken its first breath of air.

   Interesting stuff.

   Comment # 6 by Rick Jepson | Oct 28, 2007 | Reply

7. Villate, I think there’s some contradiction in being oposed to stem cell research based on a gut feeling about reproductive issues and at the same time saying: ” I thank the Lord each day for the relatively cheap and effective contraceptive methods available.” To a whole, whole, whole lot of Latter-day Saints, that’s just another way to mess with the Lord’s plan for reproduction.

   I don’t mean this as a criticism (because I have my own inconsistencies). But I do wonder how you feel about comparing your gut feeling to their gut feeling (including several current GA’s who continue to disagree with birth control).

   Comment # 7 by Rick Jepson | Oct 28, 2007 | Reply

8. Mike, I agree with you in being grateful for not having every single thing spelled out. Although, as I quote in the article, Boyd K. Packer recently stated that the church hasn’t needed to make a specific stand on human cloning because it’s already so obviously wrong (as is abortion, birth control, homosexuality, etc.).

   I have never been moved by any argument for the “potential human life” of an embryo. It seems to me that it is or isn’t a human being, which may be ridiculous of me. And contrary to biology. There isn’t, for example, any such thing at all as a “moment of conception” since that’s a complex process that takes nearly a full day. So asking for concrete moments of identity may be really dumb.

   Still, a fertilized embryo has—at best—a 50% chance of implanting and developing into a fetus. Given that nature (and, by argument, God) throws out half of these anyway, I don’t feel compelled to protect them like I would a neonate.

   Comment # 8 by Rick Jepson | Oct 28, 2007 | Reply

9. Euguene, good to hear from you, friend. I’ve felt like I need to maintain a particular context when I discuss this in order to foster discussion and true consideration. If, for example, I want my conservative parents to take a long, hard look at supporting stem cell research, the conversation will work best if it employs familiar terms.

   Primarily for that reason, the “crux” I’ve used is the “moment” of ensoulment. But I’m certainly not limited to that narrow idea. And, in fact, I’m pretty agnostic on the idea of a “spirit” anyway. This may make me seem disingenuous, but I’ve convinced myself that I’m being sincere (perhaps just by rationalization) because I do mean something when I say spirit, soul, ensoulment, etc. even if it’s not the exact same image that a traditional, conservative Mormon is going to think of when I say those words.

   For example, some people are honestly going to picture a scene from Saturday’s Warrior where you’ve got pre-existent spirits in colorful pajamas waiting for that magic moment when they take a whirlwind trip and land in their physical body. To a traditional Mormon with that image in mind, I think the easiest question to pose is “when does the spirit enter the body.” But what I’m really asking is, “when does a ball of cells the size of a printed period become a human being that merits protection, that has rights, etc.”

   I’m afraid I can’t find any good rules for that because they’re all so fraught with exceptions. And I’m equally perplexed when it comes to deciding when that quality of personhood ends. When does someone stop needing to be kept alive? I’m a big supporter of stem cell research on one end and euthenasia on the other, but damned if I can adequately define criteria to justify either. (And in the case of euthenasia I’ve guessed wrong several times…..thought that a patient should be let go just to have them bounce back and have another splendid year or two before they pass.)

   Anyway, the notion that you mentioned specifically is actually very, very workeable within Mormon theology. Several GA’s have expressed an opinion that the spirit does not enter the body until birth, but that it interacts with the fetus throughout the pregnancy. So that in a sense, while not complete or unified, the spirit and body are together. Very beautiful idea and very well put in the quote you offered.

   Comment # 9 by Rick Jepson | Oct 28, 2007 | Reply

10. Other Dan, the fact that mormons believe in a “physical” spirit is something I dont’ think I’ve considered nearly enough. Several journalists and members alike have tried to pin down just why it is that so many Mormons are anti-abortion and pro-stem cell research. And, in my opinion, their guesses consistently come up short.

    But I’ve not really seen anyone discuss the physical nature of the spirit as a factor in our theology about the beginning of life….and it seems to me like a promising line of thought. As you say, if it’s physical, it must by definition occupy space. But how much space? And, therefore, how big would an embryo or fetus need to be in order to accept it?

    I also can’t personally see how a spirit could occupy space in the body. Where would it be exactly? The pineal gland? (As Descartes argued). I’ve heard speculation that it’s an identical spirit version of the body that superimposes, but that seems fairly improbable as well.

    Theologically, I think that spirits–physical or not–are a horrible mess. Very hard for me to wrap my head around when it comes to the nuts and bolts.

    Comment # 10 by Rick Jepson | Oct 28, 2007 | Reply

11. Rick -

    It’s easy. I draw my line at the sperm meeting the egg. If that doesn’t happen, through whatever means, there’s no problem in my mind. I understand that many people think that preventing the sperm from contact with the egg is, as you put it, “another way to mess with the Lord’s plan for reproduction,” and I can see why they think this way, but I disagree with it. Every sperm is not sacred, and neither is every egg. If they were, our bodies would not have been created in such a way that the vast, vast majority of our reproductive functions and behaviors do not result in conception. And there wouldn’t be so many ways (not just chemical) to prevent it from happening. And every blastocyst would develop normally into a healthy baby. And pregnancy and birth would get easier each time. And women who bear as many children as physically possible wouldn’t die miserable, worn-out wretches at early ages. I guess what it comes down to for me is that what people do to or with their own bodies and tissues doesn’t concern me, but once those tissues form a new, unique (I almost used the word “independent,” but that’s not quite right) being, that being needs to go its own way, developmentally, without being interfered with or having its potential squandered by non-natural causes (i.e., not “natural” miscarriage). I use the word “being” to mean everything from the first split cells to the crying newborn, though, as I mentioned before, the “being” may not be “a living soul” at every point. To clarify, I think in utero surgery is fine to correct defects, etc., since that is not preventing the development of the fetus into an infant, but genetic manipulation, along with the other things we’ve already mentioned, is not. Pretty much anything that unnaturally removes the potential human from its mother’s body for whatever purpose before it’s ready to survive on its own. That’s my .02.

    On the question of stillborn children and ordinances (which was in someone else’s post), having been pregnant myself, I think I may have a little more insight into this than the men you quoted, none of whom I expect ever even witnessed a birth close up. Well, maybe Senator Hatch, but he’s not responsible for dictating Church policy. I personally believe that fetuses that die in utero after they’ve reached viability (I guess that would be around 30-32 weeks? I know it’s earlier now with medical intervention.) or at birth probably have spirits, and I suppose that in the Millennium or whenever, ordinance work will probably be done for them. I’m not sure, and like I mentioned before, it may vary from individual to individual. But having carried three babies to term, I can tell you that there comes a point, in my cases at various times in the third trimester, when that fetus is its own person, with its own basic likes and dislikes, and when that baby comes out, it’s aware of its surroundings and begins interacting with them immediately. I don’t see how anyone who has seen a newborn can claim, as that woman (woman!) you quoted in your article, Rick, that months can go by before the infant can be considered a person. Life can be in the body (heartbeat, brain function, etc.) without necessarily having a “spirit,” but I think that once the “personality” starts to emerge, that’s a pretty good sign that there’s a spirit in there at least some of the time. The current Church policy is, I think, a result more of male ignorance than revelation on the subject.

    On another topic, I can’t believe I’m the only woman to weigh in on this subject, or on the other most recent post. Is Jana the only other woman on here? I would think that both these topics would strike close to home, dealing as they do with “women’s issues.”

    Comment # 11 by Villate | Oct 28, 2007 | Reply

12. That was a lot to respond to, and all of it well put. I’ve just got a couple minutes now, so let me respond to the first few things that stuck out.

    1. I really wanted a female author for this Sunstone piece. And not only because I get sick of men sitting around dictating reproduction issues, but also because women are commonly underrepresented in science discussions generally. I actually recruited hard on one particular woman, but she ended up not coming through (just stopped returning e-mails and calls). Anyway, I’m glad you’re here and I hope that we get a more balanced conversation.

    2. I still think you can apply your same logic about sperm/egg not being sacred to embryos, since so few of them attach to the uterus and develop. 50% is apparently a generous estimate.

    3. I think that individuality, unique identity, is as good a criterion as any, but I’m not convinced that a day-old embryo has that. It does have a unique set of DNA that has never before existed, but it could still split into identical twins that would both have that same set of DNA. No one would argue that identical twins share a spirit or are the same “soul,” so I’m not sure that having a genome is a strong enough quality to be considered a human being. This is why I side with those who look at gastrulation as an important marker. Suddenly you have some form: front, back, left, right. And suddenly you are an individual. You can’t turn into twins or merge into a chimera.

    I don’t feel comfortable saying, “Aha, that’s when the spirit enters, that’s when human life begins.” But I do feel very confident that the magic moment couldn’t be prior to that developmental stage.

    –Rick

    Comment # 12 by Rick Jepson | Oct 29, 2007 | Reply

13. Rick,

    Any theological cae made for when the spirit enters the body is going to be subjective at best–and being faith-based can never be cited as objective proof of anything. After all, the very existence of the spirit itself (as commonly envisioned by most religions) is something that cannot be proven.

    Not being an LDS Mormon, I don’t take any statements by LDS Church presidents or authorities (past or present) as objective proof of anything. As a Reform Mormon, I accept the primacy of nature itself, and believe in a God (actually, Gods) who are limited beings–bound by the eternal laws which govern all existence. My faith is centered on acceptance of what I call “the Mormon Theological Paradigm”–which was summed up over a century ago in the famous statement “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.”

    Envisioning Gods and humans as memebers of “the same species” (a phrase once used by Brigham Young), I look to physical existence and to biological natue for my knowledge of things–and for a system of ethics. If God was once human, then for me theology and biology become one and the same; my theologiy needn’t be based on faith, but can–like scientific theory–be deduced from a study of human nature and the natural world. In short, I will put scientific theory (enduced from observations of natue) above faith-based theological propositiions which might contradict or oppose said theories. For me to exercise belief in a theological proposition, then that proposition must be consitent with reason and with the physical evidence.

    While bilological life in present at conceptiion, I don’t view the embryo as a human being. Biiological ife is also present in each individual sperm–and it is the live of a sperm that continues with the fertilizaton of the egg. But I would hardly considered the life of that sperm to be the same as that of a human being. Like wise, that sperm was produced by a man, who is, in turn, a living thing (very human, indeed), and he developed from another embryo (which was living) which in in turn devleoped from a sperm (a living thing). My point is that there is little if any evidence that a sperm or an embryo (both biological living things) are intelligent beings in the way a baby is.

    That these things (sperm and embryo) may develope, evolve and progress to the state of being human, is only a statement of their biological potential. But the potential for human life is not the same thing as the current existence of a human life. If I view a poential for life as an actually life, then to be consistent, it seems that I should embrace the ancient Christian doctrine (now discarded by most Christians) that each sperm is an individual human life, and that any sex act to performed for the sole purpose of pregnancy is an act of infanticide; masturbation would be the murder–or the wasting–of human lives since preganancy is not the aim of that act. By this reasoning, birth control by any means other than abstinence would be viewed as a sin.

    So for me, human life is life which (when healthy) could sustain itself from moment without relying on the support of another human body. Human life would being when the child can physically seperate from the mother’s body, and his/her physical system can sustain its self.
    I would define life as self-sustaining action within an organism. Human life would be self-sustaining life with in a human organism.

    Comment # 13 by Rob Lauer | Oct 29, 2007 | Reply

14. Rob, interesting treatise. But I don’t gather that you’ve actually read the article yet, which might clarify our discussion a bit better since you’d know where I’m coming from and what the current status of the issue is in LDS theology and practice. The thesis of the article, for example, was that there isn’t any theological proof text to rely on and that science is the best reference for determining the beginning of human life. But you seem to be presenting this same conclusion as novel (or possibly even using it as a counter-argument against me).

    As for what you’ve written, I largely agree. There are some points of difference, though.

    While a sperm is a living cell, it’s not quite right to refer to it as having a “life” that “continues with the fertilization of the egg.” That sounds to me rather like the ancient idea that a sperm has a small human being in it and that the egg is just a house full of food for it to grow in.

    I also have a hard time with any definition of human life that is based on independence–self-sustainability. This is partly because in my work I deal exclusively with humans who have lost the ability to survive without extensive assistance. I’m becoming convinced that you can’t define the beginning of “personhood” without at the same time defining its end. So, as in the article, if the end of life is when the heart stops beating or when one stops breathing, or when the neurons stop firing……those criteria should also be used to define the beginning. You’ve excused yourself from that requirement by refering to “healthy” humans, but that seems inadequate to me.

    Also, I think it would be difficult to say when a human is trully self-sustaining. A neonate certainly isn’t. It’s still physically attached to its mother–via feeding–for months. And it’s not likely to be really self-sustaining for years. In my case, I still have to call mom to borrow money sometimes….does that mean I don’t have a spirit? : )

    There have been two main types of attempts to define the beginning of human life: quality and stage. Those who favor qualities mark things like reasoning, self-sustaining, use of language, etc. Those who favor stages focus instead on magic moments like conception, gastrulation, heart beating, the first breath, etc.

    I have to favor the latter group. And quite strongly. Any time you try to define “humannness” with qualities, there will always be too many exceptions to tolerate. Humans who don’t posess the qualities and chimps and dolphins that do.

    Anyway, I sure appreciate your presence on the board and your perspective as a non-LDS mormon. Though I’m not inclined to leave the church, per se, I agree with you fully that the central tenet of Mormonism is Snow’s couplet.

    Comment # 14 by Rick Jepson | Oct 29, 2007 | Reply

15. Rick -

    In response:

    1. I’m sorry that more women don’t take part in these sorts of discussions. It seems that a lot of the controversy over reproductive issues has been co-opted by men, maybe as a remnant of the old property mindset that men used to have over women, but more likely because women have other things on their minds (well, except the abortion activists). We have so many opportunities to make our voices heard, but we usually just ignore those opportunities because we have other, possibly better things to do.

    2. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I just draw the line further forward than you do, as many people draw the line further forward than I do in believing that eggs and sperm should not be wasted. I don’t know about that 50% thing (how can that possibly be measured?), but it doesn’t sound unreasonable. Miscarriage in the early months of pregnancy (as opposed to non-implantation of an embryo) is extremely common. I’ve heard an estimate that 30-40% of pregnancies end this way. Purely anecdotally, nearly every woman I know well who has been pregnant has had at least one, some as many as six or seven. I’ve had one myself. That’s not a scientific count, of course, but it speaks to the prevalence. I think that the process of the sperm and egg combining marks the beginning of the development of what becomes a human being, regardless of whether natural or biological accidents cause it to end prematurely. Your mileage may vary. By the way, my husband agrees with you, Rick. I don’t know if that’s a male-female thing or just our particular situation.

    3. See above. Also, Church policy and the small amount of doctrine that exist on this subject lead me to believe that God hasn’t given any specific knowledge on this topic of when “life” begins because there are too many variables to make a hard and fast statement, even for God. John the Baptist may indeed have leaped in his mother’s womb at six months gestation because his spirit was already in his fetal body and knew what was going on, while Jesus’ spirit may well have “left” or not ever have been in His fetal body the day before His birth so He could speak to Nephi (I expect He had plenty going on while His little body was developing - I never liked Elder McConkie’s explanation about “transferred authority” or whatever he said to justify this passage). Premature babies born at 21 or 22 weeks regularly survive now - maybe their spirits were already in them in anticipation of their early arrivals, or maybe their early arrivals forced the spirt to join the body before it was supposed to. The fetus aborted at 14 or 26 weeks’ gestation may or may not have a spirit - that’s why it’s “like unto murder,” since we just don’t know, and it may be different for each individual.

    This is a very interesting discussion and it’s caused me to think a lot about what it means to be human and alive. It’s actually added quite a bit to my enjoyment of Frank Herbert’s Dune series, in which this is a big theme and which I am reading currently.

    Comment # 15 by Villate | Oct 30, 2007 | Reply

16. I’m not sure when the soul enters/leaves the body (although I will say that I don’t consider children fully human until they’re at least 10 and start acting human…but that doesn’t mean I want to kill them…usually…lemmie rephrase that: that doesn’t mean I think it’s okay to kill them) but I like the concept of “quickening”. If the fetus is pre-quickening, you’re in the clear; if it has already quickened, you’re treading on shaky ground. What do people on this thread think of the ensouled status of in vitro fertilized embryos? (There’s another distinction: an embryo is not a fetus, maybe that could be a scientific delineation.)

    Comment # 16 by Reg-o-rama | Nov 10, 2007 | Reply

17. 1. Although you’re using different semantics, it’s still the basically same question. So…..when is the “quickening” in your opinion?

    2. My five and three year old certainly behave “fully human.” What human attributes does a 10 year old have that a five year old doesn’t? Or a six-month-old? (Also, can you list what you accept as human attributes? In my experience, these lists are always problematic since you’ll always have two kinds of exceptions: humans who don’t posess them and smart non-humans that do.)

    3. From the Catholic point of view, frozen embryos at a IVF clinic are fully human beings with spirits. Once someone has genetic uniqueness, they are a human being. Therefore, disposing of extra embryos is murder. And this stand is shared by a lot of Christians. At snowflakes.org you can adopt and implant embryos that were headed for destruction. And President Bush has highly publicized birthday parties for the kids. 134 have been been born so far. I know many Mormons who likewise believe that life–personhood–begins at the “moment” of conception. Since there is not any structure or guaranteed individuality yet, I personally reject that view and believe that you can’t be a human being (or be ensouled) until you’re at least two weeks along. But I don’t claim necessarily that this is the magic moment—only that it must be at least that far along. (And therefore I have no problem with embryonic stem cell research, human cloning for research, IVF, morning after pills, etc.)

    4. The transition from embryo to fetus is a scientific delineation. I’m not sure what you mean here.

    Comment # 17 by Rick Jepson | Nov 10, 2007 | Reply

18. 1. having never been pregnant, I really can’t answer this, but it’s basically the moment that the mother first feels movement. It is also often the case that, if a pregnancy is going to miscarry, it will happen before it “quickens”. But as you say, different semantics, same basic assumption.

    2. “you’ll always have two kinds of exceptions: humans who don’t posess them and smart non-humans that do” inarguably. Or, as my brother says: “throw a brick, hit an idiot”. Classifications of this type are useful for choosing associates, friends, and so forth but not really for doing much else.

    3. Do most people on this thread agree with the Catholic position on frozen embryos? I understand what the religious positions are but often adherents to major religions hold or practice a position not necessarily enshrined in Canon Law. In practice, many Christians receive IVF treatments; either the admonition to “be fruitful & multiply” trumps “thou shalt not kill” or there are other beliefs at work. I’d like to understand some of those on a better level.

    4. I apologize. I meant that, perhaps the scientific delineation between “embryo” and “fetus” can be used more actively in this kind of a moral debate. Here we have measurable milestones (much more measurable than “quickening” could ever be), perhaps they can be of use.

    I’d also like to explore the concept of “soul”. Does every human have a soul? Do no animals have souls? What part about having a soul makes the act of killing that being better or worse because of it? When does the soul leave? Is it tied to the body, the mind, or something else?

    Comment # 18 by Reg-o-rama | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

19. The concept of “quickening” stems from olden times, when folks didn’t realize that the little creature inside the mother’s belly wasn’t a fully-formed baby just waiting until it’s grown enough to be born. Embryos have heartbeats within a few weeks after implantation in the womb, and they begin moving as soon as their various parts are differentiated enough to allow it. Most mothers don’t feel this movement until well into the fourth or even fifth month of pregnancy because the fetus is too small for her to feel it. However, the movement is still there, so “quickening” doesn’t mean anything in the argument about when the soul enters unless you equate movement with having a spirit, in which case you would have to believe that “ensoulment” occurs within just a few weeks after “conception.”

    Comment # 19 by Villate | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

20. Here’s something interesting. This topic has been in the news lately because of the “new” discovery, but this is the first article that I’ve seen that is somewhat understandable. It’s from a conservative magazine (I got the link from realclearpolitics.com), so there’s some political spin on it, but it also contains some good information. I guess this whole discussion was unnecessary ha ha.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/387asfnv.asp?pg=1

    Comment # 20 by Villate | Nov 24, 2007 | Reply

21. I can tell you that I’ve been beating my head against the wall that a big news story like this would come out just after the sunstone article went to press. I’m thinking about asking Dan to run an addendum that addresses the new breakthrough.

    this is a very big deal, but it doesn’t change the central ethics question–which was the focus of the article and this discussion. And, of course, its coverage in the popular media has spun it a bit more positively than warranted so that now a lot of readers are walking away saying “geeze, I guess we don’t need embryonic stem cells at all.” I’m sure this also won’t help any legislative progress on using the discarded embryos from IVF clinics.

    The bottom line, though, is that until any single method of harvesting and using stem cells is perfected, we should feel bound to pursue all ethical means and approaches. And that requires us to really think about what we mean when we refer to an entity as a “human being” with all the rights and protections of other human beings. My only hope in bringing the matter up through Sunstone has been to help people realize that there is not a standing policy to rely on and that we’re all responsible to sort the matter out on our own.

    At the end of the day, I don’t care at all if someone disagrees with my own stand so long as they’ve taken the time to think it out and not just mistakenly assumed something like, “Since I’m a Mormon, I need to be against (or for) embryonic stem cell harvest.”

    Either way, this has been a frustrating week for me because I don’t feel like I framed those central themes well enough given the recent coverage and hightened awareness of somatic stem cells as a realistic alternative that’s not encumbered with ethical and political concerns.

    Comment # 21 by Rick Jepson | Nov 25, 2007 | Reply

Post a Comment