Pro-Life Dems: Does Abortion Destroy Souls?

[Zhade]

Poll question: Pro-Life Dems: Does Abortion Destroy Souls?

This is cross-posted from the Religion and Theology forum, because I think it's an interesting angle to the abortion discussion I haven't heard mentioned before. Original post here.

(Full disclosure: I'm an atheist.)

I've recently had a thought that made me wonder why even fundamentalist Christians really have a problem with abortion. Please hear me out on this - it's not a fully-formed concept, and I'd like some honest, constructive feedback. This post is in no way intended to attack anyone's faith.

Okay. So, I think there is widespread belief that God places souls into the unborn at some point. If so, my question is this: if you believe that God does this, can he not also 'reroute' that soul if the woman decides to get an abortion for whatever (personal, none of my business why) reason?

I wonder sometimes if the reason many are vehemently against abortion (and who LOVES the process?) is not because of the issue of life - after all, many who oppose abortion eat meat, and they can't help but massacre millions of living germs by breathing - but because of this issue about souls. The belief of many is that these unborn are human due to their newly-placed souls. And if each soul only got one chance and could be destroyed forever by an abortion, I'd be with those anti-abortionists myself (as an atheist, I don't believe in the Christian concept of a soul, but I do believe we are beings of energy that have some separate consciousness apart from our bodies).

I guess the larger question I'm asking those of faith is this: does abortion destroy souls, and is that why you oppose it? Or can God place that soul within another unborn child?

Any answers to help me understand the views of others are very welcome. Let's try to keep this flame-free!

[nashville_brook]

1. prana is the key. breath is life.

you don't breathe in your soul until you breathe.

hey, works for me.

[Zhade]

3. I am fascinated by this snippet. Do you have more?

I have not heard of prana before.

[nashville_brook]

29. you know, in yoga -- breath is pran -- prana energy

it's what gives you life. you focus on breathing b/c it's lifeforce. i've always imagined that souls use breath for distribution. that's why cats try to steal it. :)

[Radical Activist]

2. Mormons aren't evangelical, but

being a former Mormon I can tell you that they believe souls are eternal. They can't be destroyed at any time. Therefore, a soul may very well have another chance to live in some other body. Otherwise, the soul would finally be given a body at the last resurrection when all souls are given bodies again.

I believe it was Job that was told God knew him before he was formed in the womb. That lends credibility to the idea that all souls exist before conception.

[Zhade]

4. Yes, as a fellow ex-Mormon, I concur.

In fact, the practice of baptism of the dead further reinforces your statements.

[HereSince1628]

7. But Mormon's ARE evangelical. That's the whole point of having

armies of volunteer missionaries in the field around the world. Spreading the good news, news of the 2nd testimony of salvation through Christ.

Mormons may not seem like stark raving fundamentalists, but they certainly seem evangelical to me

[Radical Activist]

22. If you take a strict definition of

evangelicals as those who proselytize, then yes Mormons are evangelical. However, they are very distinct and separate from the conservative protestant evangelical dominations. They are separate movements. That's how I was using the term in that context.

[HereSince1628]

28. I agee the problem is confusing radical fundamentalism with

evangelicalism...but I think dictionaries would bear evidence in my favor...

[Momgonepostal]

9. It was Jeremiah, unless there's a Job passage too

Any I voted "Other," because I don't believe the soul is ever destroyed, AND while I would oppose abortion for myself, I think it should be safe, legal and left up to individuals and their doctors to decide.

Still Mormon, here.

[Radical Activist]

20. Jeremiah, there you go

I knew my memory was shacky on that verse. Thanks.

[Auntie Bush]

5. NO!!!!!!!!! Souls are immortal...they can't die.

If you believe a soul can go to heaven when someone is killed...Why can't the soul of an unborn child go to heaven if it dies?

[Zhade]

8. I agree. So why do some think aborting a shell that holds a soul so evil?

Can't any god with her salt simply transfer the soul to a different unoccupied vessel?

[expatriot]

16. I don't believe in souls but using your argument....

...what's wrong with murder? Can't a God worth her salt just transfer the soul to another shell?

[Zhade]

26. Hmmm, that's a point worth considering.

NT!

[KissMeKate]

6. one of my catholic friends says

if a fetus is aborted, the "soul" just goes back to wherever it came from and waits for another body.

[Zhade]

10. What are her views on abortion and borth control, if you can share?

NT!

[Auntie Bush]

11. I agree with that.

[expatriot]

17. Is that what happens to souls of the born too when they die?

Does it all depend on whether you have passed through the birth canal?

[Auntie Bush]

24. According to that thinking...babies born by Cesarean section don't

have souls.

[expatriot]

27. my point exactly... what decides on whether they have souls?

Is it like getting your hand stamped to get admission into a concert?

[HereSince1628]

12. So is having a soul a requirement for a H.sapiens to be a human

being????????????

Can a person be born without one?

[Zhade]

13. IMIO? Yes. But this is directed toward religious DUers.

Asking it from their viewpoint, to see why abortion is so evil if it doesn't destroy the souls they believe exist.

It's merely a facet for discussion.

EDIT: YIKES! The "Yes" refers to "yes you can be human without a soul", not "yes, you have to have a soul to be human".

[expatriot]

23. You are assuming you have to be religious to be pro-life...

I am borderline atheist, militant agnostic and would consider my gender politics to be "androgynist (which is a non-gender form of feminism) and I am pro-life for reasons I have posted elsewhere on this thread.

[Zhade]

25. Fair enough. That's a reasonable point.

This poll is hardly the conclusive abortion argument, merely thinking some things out with input from others.

[HereSince1628]

30. As a biologist I have trouble with "non-human H. sapiens."

I also have trouble with biological nonsense such as "life begins at conception"

Nonetheless I am pro-choice.

[davhill]

18. Yes

I can think of several examples from the current administration.

[expatriot]

14. All of my politics are progressive borderline radical except for this one

I am extremely sympathetic to the pro-choice movements because I believe that nature has placed the burden of human reproduction upon the female and women should be able to liberate themselves from this burden: but I am not comfortable with trying to draw a line in the sand at what point life begins.

I think the answer will be mass vasectomies of men at puberty, collect a sperm sample of every male and then letting them retrieve a sample when they are ready to reproduce.

[Az]

15. A more important question concerning the souls

Do aborted baby's souls go to heaven, limbo and then heaven, or hell? If its one of the first two then whats the problem? I mean based on that it seems like a fast ticket to heaven. And this is perhaps better considering there are things in this world (such as atheists) that can cause someone to lose their faith and thus be damned to hell.

[DerekG]

19. Actually, that thought has never plagued me

I believe the souls of the unborn return to God.

My stance: Though I consider myself reluctantly pro-choice--I support Roe v. Wade to protect the lives of women who would have the procedures performed anyway--I nonetheless perceive abortion to be a moral evil, part and parcel of the culture of death that is damn near omnipresent in this country (militarism, economic exploitation, racism, and capital punishment are its other components). Like it or not, there are others on the Christian Left who feel the same.

While I'm disgusted with the pro-life rightists, who ignore societal factors that should be elemental to the abortion debate, I am just as wary of the more strident pro-choicers, many of whom reduce this complex issue to a medical one (and those "I had an abortion" shirts, nixed last year, were indicative of said group's insensitivity).

[OneBlueSky]

21. if everything, including souls, is a form of energy . . .

then souls, like all other energy, can be neither created nor destroyed, but only transformed . . .

[Auntie Bush]

32. I agree with that statement.

[0rganism]

31. as an atheist, I do believe that abortion destroys the "soul" of a human

insofar as the "soul" is the organizing principle of that person, with its peculiar combination of DNA and random experience (even prenatal animals have them) and potential for action. I do not believe it will occur again. I do not believe that a deity (benevolent or otherwise) waits outside this universe to reincarnate this being. People get one shot at life, and that's it.

I consider myself pro-life. Abortion results in the death of a human being, however early it occurs. I support politicians who work towards a world in which abortion will become as uncommon as is humanly possible. Much of the reason for the increase of abortions under dubya is due to the spread of poverty: "exit polls" show that more women are having abortions because they feel financially incapable of providing the parental care required for an infant. This is a solvable problem, and it is ironic as all hell that those politicians who pander strongly to anti-abortion constituents are likely to be promoting the very policies which cause abortions. Further, these hypocrites will joyously advocate "aborting" the unborn children who happen to be living in the cities their policies require to be bombed.

Consequently, I support the boundaries established by Roe v. Wade, insofar as the consequences of criminalizing abortion would be far worse than what we have already. There is no indication that a legal ban on abortions would significantly decrease the per-capita abortion rate, and would likely make the procedures much more dangerous for those already economically disadvantaged. This will turn into another GOP war against the poorest and weakest among us, just as the "War On Drugs", "War On Crime", and "War On Terror" already have. The requisite intrusions into privacy alone call the "abolitionist" movement into question. IMHO, pro-choice is not incompatible with a truly pro-life position.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.