Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion and Identical Twins

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear? Does Copenhagen know about this?

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.

Did I just create someone with a soul?

Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 10:00:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Interesting topic, but it falls down like so many quasi-religious arguments.

The concept of a "soul" is not a scientific one, it is largely religious (though not confined merely to Christianity) and, therefore, cannot be usefully discussed in a scientific context.

Religious doctrines are frequently at odds with science: in the 15th Century, Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church for espousing the Copernican view that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way round, but today, even the most fanatical of Christian fundamentalists would not argue that is the case.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 10:14:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why bother asking a question like that when it can't be confirmed? As Brian already stated, even supposing there is a soul, it's completely unknown to science, which means whether it's there or not we cannot definitively know either way.

The fundamental question wouldn't change though, and the fundamental question always boils down to what constitutes a human being. Until Pro-Lifer's and Pro-Choicer's can come to a consensus on that, the debate will continue with little to no headway as it's been for years.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 10:23:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with the observations of others.

"Souls" may not even exist. I have my doubts that they do exist.

One doesn't need to believe in God, souls or any of the other metaphysical aspects to acknowledge the biological fact that a human life begins at conception and is unjustly ended by most (elective) abortions.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:34:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear? Does Copenhagen know about this?

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.

Did I just create someone with a soul?



Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.

Since there is a rather surprising lack of people defending the idea of a soul, I'll make one little change.

In the above example, replace "soul" with some token that represents "an entity which now has a right to life."

Now, you can address my example without reference to metaphysics.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:38:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 10:23:36 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I agree with the observations of others.

"Souls" may not even exist. I have my doubts that they do exist.

One doesn't need to believe in God, souls or any of the other metaphysical aspects to acknowledge the biological fact that a human life begins at conception and is unjustly ended by most (elective) abortions.

In that case, when during the process of conception does a combined sperm/egg receive a right to life? Once the male DNA enters the egg nucleus? Once the calcium shocks subside?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 9:14:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 10:23:36 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I agree with the observations of others.

"Souls" may not even exist. I have my doubts that they do exist.

One doesn't need to believe in God, souls or any of the other metaphysical aspects to acknowledge the biological fact that a human life begins at conception and is unjustly ended by most (elective) abortions.

So, what is it about the biological facts that make it so that most elective abortions are unjust? Like it or not, your answer is going to be treading into metaphysics, buddy.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 9:16:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 10:14:39 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Why bother asking a question like that when it can't be confirmed? As Brian already stated, even supposing there is a soul, it's completely unknown to science, which means whether it's there or not we cannot definitively know either way.


Why suppose that the only way to confirm something is through science?

The fundamental question wouldn't change though, and the fundamental question always boils down to what constitutes a human being. Until Pro-Lifer's and Pro-Choicer's can come to a consensus on that, the debate will continue with little to no headway as it's been for years.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 9:35:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear? Does Copenhagen know about this?

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.

Did I just create someone with a soul?



Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.

The answer you get entirely depends on what kind of dualist you're talking to. You seem to have in mind some Cartesian conception of the soul which would have some issues with your questions but an emergent substance dualist like William Hasker or Timothy O'Connor would have no issues at all with the questions.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 9:48:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 9:35:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

The answer you get entirely depends on what kind of dualist you're talking to. You seem to have in mind some Cartesian conception of the soul which would have some issues with your questions but an emergent substance dualist like William Hasker or Timothy O'Connor would have no issues at all with the questions.

Or hylomorphic dualists either, I don't think.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 10:51:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear? Does Copenhagen know about this?

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.

Did I just create someone with a soul?



Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.

Interesting topic for discussion. I don't think anyone can give an accurate answer because there's no way to test it. Really, we can't even accurately limit the possibilities to the ones you mention. Easy answer is that soul also means life, and when life begins, the soul is there.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 5:20:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear? Does Copenhagen know about this?

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.

Did I just create someone with a soul?



Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.

You are simply confusing spirit with soul: The soul is comprised (to over simplify) of the intellect, the emotions and the will.
Obviously these are not present at conception but are developed over years.

The Spirit is only received by coming into relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ.
The Cross.. the Cross.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 5:36:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm glad to see new members like this. Doesn't matter that I agree with you. Great discussion starter here.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 4:39:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/21/2011 5:36:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm glad to see new members like this. Doesn't matter that I agree with you. Great discussion starter here.

It's FINISHING a discussion that counts.
The Cross.. the Cross.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 2:35:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

What about a 4th option?
4. An embryo that is conceived that will eventually divide into twins already has the mechanism in place to divide into twins and in fact will inevitably split into twins. In this scenario, it could be hypothesized that these are a different kind of embryo that is already destined to divide into twins, so at the moment of conception it already has 2 souls.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 3:26:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear? Does Copenhagen know about this?

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.

Did I just create someone with a soul?



Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.

Would it be ok to necro this discussion and have it moved to the 'science' forums?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 3:27:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/4/2013 3:26:05 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear? Does Copenhagen know about this?

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.

Did I just create someone with a soul?



Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.

Would it be ok to necro this discussion and have it moved to the 'science' forums?

Disregard. I just realized how heavily weighted it is on the religious aspects of "souls."
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 4:06:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear? Does Copenhagen know about this?

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.

Did I just create someone with a soul?



Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.

First, the general pro-life argument has nothing to do with "ensoulment." The only people trying to make this a religious issue are pro-choice advocates, because it's easier to dismiss pro-life arguments rather than engage them intellectually. Our government can make murder illegal without taking an official position on a soul, it can do the same (and has) in regards to abortion.

My position is that the soul is created at fertilization with the new human organism. However, this is not required to be pro-life, as I know many Atheists who are pro-life.

This means that once an identical twin is created, the twin has a soul created at the same point she was.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 4:35:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.
I see where you're going with this a mile away...

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.
You get A soul...

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
Naw, don't think so.

2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
Maybe...

3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)
Yeah, I like that one better.

You forgot a 4th option though:
4. If the embryo(s) are ginger, then they don't get a soul!

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.
Well, I'd throw out the Evil Twin, but I rather like your Horcrux Hypotheses...

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear?
I think the Horcrux Hypotheses explains this better.

Does Copenhagen know about this?
No, but once he finds out then the superposition of answers will coalesce into one!

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"
I think the Horcrux Hypotheses explains this better.

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.
Nope, they would actually lack souls!

Did I just create someone with a soul?
Nah haw.

Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."
Well, if they can't take the heat...

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.
Me too!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 5:10:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/4/2013 4:06:29 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear? Does Copenhagen know about this?

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.

Did I just create someone with a soul?



Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.

First, the general pro-life argument has nothing to do with "ensoulment." The only people trying to make this a religious issue are pro-choice advocates, because it's easier to dismiss pro-life arguments rather than engage them intellectually. Our government can make murder illegal without taking an official position on a soul, it can do the same (and has) in regards to abortion.

My position is that the soul is created at fertilization with the new human organism. However, this is not required to be pro-life, as I know many Atheists who are pro-life.

This means that once an identical twin is created, the twin has a soul created at the same point she was.

So there are two souls in one embryo? And what happens when one of the twins dies and gets absorbed into the other twin?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 6:48:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/4/2013 4:06:29 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear? Does Copenhagen know about this?

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.

Did I just create someone with a soul?



Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.

First, the general pro-life argument has nothing to do with "ensoulment." The only people trying to make this a religious issue are pro-choice advocates, because it's easier to dismiss pro-life arguments rather than engage them intellectually. Our government can make murder illegal without taking an official position on a soul, it can do the same (and has) in regards to abortion.


I love this part ^^^ and couldn't agree more!
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 6:48:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Alright, so two more possible options to solve the problem:

1. Evil Twin Hypothesis - soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul
2. - Double Conception Hypothesis- A second soul enters the second embryo after the first act of "conception"
3. Horcrux Hypothesis The soul is divided between the two
4. Ginger Hypothesis- Neither twin has a soul
5. Doublemint Hypothesis - one embryo, two souls, and determinism
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 7:29:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Don't forget about the 6th option:

6. Soul baby hypothesis: black people are conceived with more soul(s) then typical human beings.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 7:34:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/4/2013 6:48:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
Alright, so two more possible options to solve the problem:

1. Evil Twin Hypothesis - soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul
2. - Double Conception Hypothesis- A second soul enters the second embryo after the first act of "conception"
3. Horcrux Hypothesis The soul is divided between the two
4. Ginger Hypothesis- Neither twin has a soul
5. Doublemint Hypothesis - one embryo, two souls, and determinism

Not that i believe in souls.... but

Why can it not be said that a new 'soul' comes into being upon the emergence of each new being regardless of how they come into being?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Dogknox
Posts: 5,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 8:34:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2011 7:03:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering:

The general pro-life argument is that during the process of conception (that's correct, it is a process, not an instantaneous event), the combined sperm/egg gains a "right to life." More specifically, they gain a soul.

If they do not gain or receive a soul at this point, then when? Is it transferred via sperm? Was it already in the egg?

For the heck of it, let's also assume you only get one soul in each fertilized embryo.

To get identical twins, you start with the fertilized ball of cells. One or two cells break off, and they act as though they were individual embryos. Thus, identical DNA.

When it comes to identical twins and souls, I see three options:

1. The soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul (Evil Twin Hypothesis)
2. A second soul enters the second embryo once it has split off from the first (Two Soul Hypothesis).
3. The soul is divided between the two (Horcrux Hypothesis)

Giving identical twins benefit of the doubt, we'll pass over the Evil Twin and Horcrux Hypotheses.

Once the cell containing the identical twin splits off, it has already developed past the biological point that pro-lifers term the "moment of conception."

Do all the cells in the blastocyst have potential souls which are "actualized" in case an embryo breaks off? When do the potentiality of souls disappear? Does Copenhagen know about this?

If there are no potential souls in waiting, at what point during the separation process would you say the embryo gains a "soul?"

Finally, let's say I scoop a ball of cells from your arm. I treat them in some chemicals and term them into embryonic stem cells.

They would eventually reach the developmental stage at which identical twins gain their soul.

Did I just create someone with a soul?



Oh, and before you say this is "nit-picky" or "semantics," tell that to the women whose lives are permanently altered due to public opinion about these "semantics."

Granted, I am open to the Horcrux Hypothesis.
Wnope The Catholic Church says, "Test Tube Babies" have souls!
The person would not be denied salvation, because of the actions of others completely out of their control!

The Evil of your scenario is, you are taking "LOVE" out of creation of life! When a husband and wife bring a baby into the world they are as close as man can get to being "As God"; Creating Life out of LOVE!

The evil is taking God out of creation... God is LOVE!
Exactly what Satan wants, attacking marriage and family!

Dogknox
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 9:18:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/4/2013 7:34:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/4/2013 6:48:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
Alright, so two more possible options to solve the problem:

1. Evil Twin Hypothesis - soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul
2. - Double Conception Hypothesis- A second soul enters the second embryo after the first act of "conception"
3. Horcrux Hypothesis The soul is divided between the two
4. Ginger Hypothesis- Neither twin has a soul
5. Doublemint Hypothesis - one embryo, two souls, and determinism

Not that i believe in souls.... but

Why can it not be said that a new 'soul' comes into being upon the emergence of each new being regardless of how they come into being?

That technically falls under "double conception" which covers the soul entering anytime after the initial conception (sex).
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 10:28:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/4/2013 9:18:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/4/2013 7:34:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/4/2013 6:48:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
Alright, so two more possible options to solve the problem:

1. Evil Twin Hypothesis - soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul
2. - Double Conception Hypothesis- A second soul enters the second embryo after the first act of "conception"
3. Horcrux Hypothesis The soul is divided between the two
4. Ginger Hypothesis- Neither twin has a soul
5. Doublemint Hypothesis - one embryo, two souls, and determinism

Not that i believe in souls.... but

Why can it not be said that a new 'soul' comes into being upon the emergence of each new being regardless of how they come into being?

That technically falls under "double conception" which covers the soul entering anytime after the initial conception (sex).

Great. Now if we can just prove that souls exist we will really be onto something.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Dogknox
Posts: 5,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 12:35:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/4/2013 10:28:39 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/4/2013 9:18:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/4/2013 7:34:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/4/2013 6:48:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
Alright, so two more possible options to solve the problem:

1. Evil Twin Hypothesis - soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul
2. - Double Conception Hypothesis- A second soul enters the second embryo after the first act of "conception"
3. Horcrux Hypothesis The soul is divided between the two
4. Ginger Hypothesis- Neither twin has a soul
5. Doublemint Hypothesis - one embryo, two souls, and determinism

Not that i believe in souls.... but

Why can it not be said that a new 'soul' comes into being upon the emergence of each new being regardless of how they come into being?

That technically falls under "double conception" which covers the soul entering anytime after the initial conception (sex).

Great. Now if we can just prove that souls exist we will really be onto something.
Chuz-Life "Soul" is found in scriptures in various places! It is scriptural!!
1 Peter 2:11
Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul.

Dogknox
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 1:05:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/5/2013 12:35:28 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 1/4/2013 10:28:39 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/4/2013 9:18:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/4/2013 7:34:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/4/2013 6:48:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
Alright, so two more possible options to solve the problem:

1. Evil Twin Hypothesis - soul remains in one twin while the other twin lacks a soul
2. - Double Conception Hypothesis- A second soul enters the second embryo after the first act of "conception"
3. Horcrux Hypothesis The soul is divided between the two
4. Ginger Hypothesis- Neither twin has a soul
5. Doublemint Hypothesis - one embryo, two souls, and determinism

Not that i believe in souls.... but

Why can it not be said that a new 'soul' comes into being upon the emergence of each new being regardless of how they come into being?

That technically falls under "double conception" which covers the soul entering anytime after the initial conception (sex).

Great. Now if we can just prove that souls exist we will really be onto something.
Chuz-Life "Soul" is found in scriptures in various places! It is scriptural!!
1 Peter 2:11
Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul.

Dogknox

Right, Dog. So, how does the Bible prove that souls actually exist?

I understand that people believe they exist. But that is not the same thing as proof.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...