When does life start? The Problem of Identical Twins.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Many Christians teach that the life of each individual soul starts at conception.

But this presents a problem for identical twins. If life and creation of the soul began at conception, then what happens when the cell later splits into twins? Does God split the soul between the two? They each get half a soul? Or do they share one soul? Or does God give one soul to one of the twins and creates a new soul for the other twin?

Perhaps the Catholic tradition is a little better. They teach that the soul enters the fetus some time after conception. They call this the "quickening" of the fetus. Of course, a lot of their ideas are just made up - they say that males are quickened after 40 days while it takes 80 days for a girl (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm)! Despite the foolishness this unfounded theory based on a sexist tradition, the basic idea might be correct - the soul enters some time after conception.

Here's an interesting article I found when researching this: Inconsistency in the "life begins at conception" argument. (http://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/inconsistancy-in-the-life-begins-at-conception-argument/)

[Bob May]

Many Christians teach that the life of each individual soul starts at conception.

But this presents a problem for identical twins. If life and creation of the soul began at conception, then what happens when the cell later splits into twins? Does God split the soul between the two? They each get half a soul? Or do they share one soul? Or does God give one soul to one of the twins and creates a new soul for the other twin?

Perhaps the Catholic tradition is a little better. They teach that the soul enters the fetus some time after conception. They call this the "quickening" of the fetus. Of course, a lot of their ideas are just made up - they say that males are quickened after 40 days while it takes 80 days for a girl (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm)! Despite the foolishness this unfounded theory based on a sexist tradition, the basic idea might be correct - the soul enters some time after conception.

Here's an interesting article I found when researching this: Inconsistency in the "life begins at conception" argument. (http://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/inconsistancy-in-the-life-begins-at-conception-argument/)

Some say at the first breath.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Some say at the first breath.
I've always had a problem with that because there is no ontological change. The baby inside, five minutes before birth, seems identical to the baby five minutes after birth.

[The Homemommy]

Many Christians teach that the life of each individual soul starts at conception.

But this presents a problem for identical twins. If life and creation of the soul began at conception, then what happens when the cell later splits into twins? Does God split the soul between the two? They each get half a soul? Or do they share one soul? Or does God give one soul to one of the twins and creates a new soul for the other twin?

Perhaps the Catholic tradition is a little better. They teach that the soul enters the fetus some time after conception. They call this the "quickening" of the fetus. Of course, a lot of their ideas are just made up - they say that males are quickened after 40 days while it takes 80 days for a girl (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm)! Despite the foolishness this unfounded theory based on a sexist tradition, the basic idea might be correct - the soul enters some time after conception.

Here's an interesting article I found when researching this: Inconsistency in the "life begins at conception" argument. (http://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/inconsistancy-in-the-life-begins-at-conception-argument/)

Hi,

Very interesting topic. I don't know about the "quickening" part. Quickening is when the mother can first feel the baby move. The baby has been moving inside long before the mother actually feels it, only this time it is big enough the mother can feel it now. So I don't know where they get this is when the soul enters the baby. :confused: Dosen't make sense medically, but who knows? Could be. All I know is that the first time I felt it, it was amazing. Pregnancy is such a wonderful, magical time. Sigh......

Carrie

[Richard Amiel McGough]

All I know is that the first time I felt it, it was amazing. Pregnancy is such a wonderful, magical time. Sigh......

Carrie
Yep ... and that's what is so easily lost in the debate about when life begins.

The wonder, mystery, sacredness of pregnancy is something everyone should know, since that is where each and every life begins. Folks who forget this have forgotten their own origin.

[Bob May]

I've always had a problem with that because there is no ontological change. The baby inside, five minutes before birth, seems identical to the baby five minutes after birth.

I should have said the soul enters with the first breath. This would of course go back to;

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

From our point of view the whole process is a great miracle. We had all three boys at home (except the first we had to go to hospital after 30 hours of seeing the top of his head).

But from the child's point of view I would think the first breath is a big deal. Going from living in fluid to air.
Also when first opening their eyes.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I should have said the soul enters with the first breath. This would of course go back to;

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Actually, the word "soul" there is a mistranslation. Exactly the same phrase translated as "living soul" (nephesh chayah) is translated as "creature that hath life" and "living creature" in reference to the creation of living animals:


Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

There is nothing in Gen 2:7 that speaks of a "soul" in the sense of a spiritual essence that is separate from the living creature made of dirt called "Adam."



From our point of view the whole process is a great miracle. We had all three boys at home (except the first we had to go to hospital after 30 hours of seeing the top of his head).

Wow - 30 hours??? Incredible.



But from the child's point of view I would think the first breath is a big deal. Going from living in fluid to air.
Also when first opening their eyes.
I agree that it is a "big deal." I just don't think it is the "beginning of life" for the child, or the point at which the "soul" enters the body. Of course, I don't really have any reason for that latter opinion - I suppose we could imagine that the soul enters with the first breath. Can't imagine how we could ever test that theory ....

All the best,

Richard

[CWH]

I should have said the soul enters with the first breath. This would of course go back to;

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

From our point of view the whole process is a great miracle. We had all three boys at home (except the first we had to go to hospital after 30 hours of seeing the top of his head).

But from the child's point of view I would think the first breath is a big deal. Going from living in fluid to air.
Also when first opening their eyes.

See Jeremiah:

Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." NIV

"Before I formed you in the womb" seems to mean that before a fetus is formed, God already knew about you i.e. about 8 weeks before the fetus is formed, the spirit already enters it. It is during the 8th week after fertilization ,the embryo turns into a "recognizable" human fetus.

Many dictionaries define fetus as:

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

I believe that cloning a human being may be a way to understand about the spirit. Since the original spirit have returned back to God when one dies, God will not return back the original spirit to that same cloned person as a person can not go back to his mother's womb to be born again. That cloned person will most probably don't behave like the original person since it is not the same original spirit even though he may look and sound exactly the same as the original person. To use an analogy, it's like changing the programming software in a computer so that the original computer is the same original hardware but the capabilities and functions of the computer is now changed into something different from the original one.

Many Blessings.

[Bob May]

Hi Richard and all,


Actually, the word "soul" there is a mistranslation. Exactly the same phrase translated as "living soul" (nephesh chayah) is translated as "creature that hath life" and "living creature" in reference to the creation of living animals:


Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

There is nothing in Gen 2:7 that speaks of a "soul" in the sense of a spiritual essence that is separate from the living creature made of dirt called "Adam."
Richard

http://s478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/BobMay2008/?action=view&current=Analogytosouls.jpg&newest=1

In the Qabalah, which I'm sure you know, the soul is not considered such a simple thing. Nepesh as you can see above in the chart is the lower "animal soul". But there is also the Neschamah. This would fit with the idea that man had already been "created" earlier in this chapter. A soul could be considered a form or vehicle appropriate to the environment it is functioning within. In that case mankind (Adam) is not losing that which is above,(Neschamah),...it is merely being clothed, (Nepesh). Kind of like a diving suit.



Wow - 30 hours??? Incredible.
Richard

Correction, the entire labor was about 30 hours. We saw the top of his head for over 10. My wife is way tougher than me.




I agree that it is a "big deal." I just don't think it is the "beginning of life" for the child, or the point at which the "soul" enters the body. Of course, I don't really have any reason for that latter opinion - I suppose we could imagine that the soul enters with the first breath. Can't imagine how we could ever test that theory ....
Richard

If you are looking for a scientific test, I don't believe there is one. A kirlian photo before and after the first breath might show that something happens at first breath. But that is all that it could show.

I don't believe it is the beginning of life of the child either. I look at things as more of a continuum.
I believe God knew us from before the beginning. I just can't fathom it. We came from God and will return to Him. That is our inheritance.

But it's like trying to take a rainbow apart. Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. Where do you get all one color without it also having something of the next?

Science likes to catagorize things in order to be able to talk about them. To study them. But sometimes something is lost in the process.

I read an interesting article not too long ago in which they had recently observed crows dropping pebbles into a container of water that was too narrow for their beaks to fit into. The water level was too far down to reach.
By dropping the pebbles into the water it raised the water level to a point where the crows could drink it. If I'm not mistaken Aesop had a parable very similar to that.
Maybe he came up with it by observing crows. Maybe there was no need for a moral to that particular story.

There are human beings who could not have figured that one out. It goes beyond the use of tools which at one time was the "line drawn in the sand" separating humans from animals.

Good talking to you,
Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard and all,

http://s478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/BobMay2008/?action=view&current=Analogytosouls.jpg&newest=1

In the Qabalah, which I'm sure you know, the soul is not considered such a simple thing. Nepesh as you can see above in the chart is the lower "animal soul". This would fit with the idea that man had already been "created" earlier in this chapter. A soul could be considered a form or vehicle appropriate to the environment it is functioning within. In that case mankind (Adam) is not losing that which is above,...it is merely being clothed. Kind of like a diving suit.

Thanks for the link - here is the pic it points to:

http://biblewheel.com/images/Analogytosouls.jpg

This shows how fun it can be to invent metaphysical representations. I used to do it a lot. But now ... I don't feel I have any reason to think that the structures based on roughly synonymous words gives reliable insight into reality.

For example, who chose "Chiah" to be the highest expression of the soul associated with Aztiluth? What gave them such authority? And why Chiah anyway, since it is the lowest form in the sense that it describes any "living" creature like an ant or a zebra?

And on I could go - metaphysical systems are a lot of fun, but they sure are filled with speculative invention!

On the other hand, there are many archetypal insights buried in them because their inventors were operating on a very symbolic level. So they do have value. They just need to be "cleaned up" a bit to remove the subjective speculative from the objective symbolic.



Correction, the entire labor was about 30 hours. We saw the top of his head for over 10. My wife is way tougher than me.

That still sounds pretty dangerous. Ten hours of crowning - I would have been very worried for both mother and child. Did you have a professional midwife in attendance? My sister gave birth at home and the baby had a little trouble breathing at first so the midwife gave him a hint of oxygen (she came prepared with basic medical supplies). The whole thing was so intense - it's amazing to watch a soul enter the world, but it is so bloody and painful and visceral (literally!).



If you are looking for a scientific test, I don't believe there is one. A kirlian photo before and after the first breath might show that something happens at first breath. But that is all that it could show.

I don't believe it is the beginning of life of the child either. I look at things as more of a continuum.
I believe God knew us from before the beginning. I just can't fathom it. We came from God and will return to Him. That is our inheritance.

But it's like trying to take a rainbow apart. Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. Where do you get all one color without it also having something of the next?

Science likes to catagorize things in order to be able to talk about them. To study them. But sometimes something is lost in the process.

I read an interesting article not too long ago in which they had recently observed crows dropping pebbles into a container of water that was too narrow for their beaks to fit into. The water level was too far down to reach.
By dropping the pebbles into the water it raised the water level to a point where the crows could drink it. If I'm not mistaken Aesop had a parable very similar to that.
Maybe he came up with it by observing crows. Maybe there was no need for a moral to that particular story.

There are human beings who could not have figured that one out. It goes beyond the use of tools which at one time was the "line drawn in the sand" separating humans from animals.

Good talking to you,
Bob
Excellent insights and observations. Thanks!

I agree, it is a continuum. And I believe that abortion as birth control or mere convenience is a profound degradation of the dignity of life. But I don't think it is simply "murder" since no one mourns for a month old miscarriage in the way we would mourn the death of a child already born. Something mysterious happens somewhere between conception and birth. Of course, one reason we mourn less is just because we have much less invested in the miscarriage.

Concerning science - yes, there is much "lost" if we make the false assumption that science is supposed to span all reality! There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your science, Einstein!

On the other hand, since "science" is merely "knowledge" then it is reasonable to believe that ultimately science will encompass all that can be known. But that is a future science - not the modern study about "how physical stuff works." It is the science that we will have when what we call the "natural" encompasses what is now called the "supernatural." That is, when we achieve a unified view of all Reality. Don't hold your breath!

You know - given the reality of evolution and the fact that all living creatures have descended from a common ancestor, I find it very difficult to draw a "line in the sand" between humans and our less evolved cousins. This is something that really has me stumped right now. I recently began to study evolution after years of just ignoring this area and I find that the evidence is overwhelming. A good read is Francis Collins "The Language of God" - he is a Christian and director of the Human Genome Project. The fact that we have been able to map the entire human genome provided a HUGE volume of extremely convincing evidence of common descent. So what no? Where is the "line in the sand?" How does the idea of a soul relate to us? It's odd, but the Biblical description of Adam as a "living creature" - same as all the other animals - supports the idea that there is no fundamental distinction.

Now I've opened up a can of worms .... :lmbo:

Richard

[Bob May]

Thanks for the link - here is the pic it points to:

http://biblewheel.com/images/Analogytosouls.jpg

This shows how fun it can be to invent metaphysical representations. I used to do it a lot. But now ... I don't feel I have any reason to think that the structures based on roughly synonymous words gives reliable insight into reality.

For example, who chose "Chiah" to be the highest expression of the soul associated with Aztiluth? What gave them such authority? And why Chiah anyway, since it is the lowest form in the sense that it describes any "living" creature like an ant or a zebra?

And on I could go - metaphysical systems are a lot of fun, but they sure are filled with speculative invention!

On the other hand, there are many archetypal insights buried in them because their inventors were operating on a very symbolic level. So they do have value. They just need to be "cleaned up" a bit to remove the subjective speculative from the objective symbolic.
Richard

I take the bible as the final "Word" in these matters, but I also find many interesting crossovers in symbolism. This particular chart is from the Qabalah unveiled by Mathers.
My point is that we are more than we appear to be and the soul/Nepesh a lower part of our being.

Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

We can tune either to this higher part or lower part of ourselves.



That still sounds pretty dangerous. Ten hours of crowning - I would have been very worried for both mother and child. Did you have a professional midwife in attendance? My sister gave birth at home and the baby had a little trouble breathing at first so the midwife gave him a hint of oxygen (she came prepared with basic medical supplies). The whole thing was so intense - it's amazing to watch a soul enter the world, but it is so bloody and painful and visceral (literally!).
Richard

Yes we had two midwives and a doctor. And yes it was intense. I actually passed out while answering a phone call from someone. I handed the phone to someone on my way to the floor. Exhaustion and stress and lack of sleep I guess. (And I had the easy part)




Excellent insights and observations. Thanks!

I agree, it is a continuum. And I believe that abortion as birth control or mere convenience is a profound degradation of the dignity of life. But I don't think it is simply "murder" since no one mourns for a month old miscarriage in the way we would mourn the death of a child already born. Something mysterious happens somewhere between conception and birth. Of course, one reason we mourn less is just because we have much less invested in the miscarriage.

Concerning science - yes, there is much "lost" if we make the false assumption that science is supposed to span all reality! There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your science, Einstein!

On the other hand, since "science" is merely "knowledge" then it is reasonable to believe that ultimately science will encompass all that can be known. But that is a future science - not the modern study about "how physical stuff works." It is the science that we will have when what we call the "natural" encompasses what is now called the "supernatural." That is, when we achieve a unified view of all Reality. Don't hold your breath!

You know - given the reality of evolution and the fact that all living creatures have descended from a common ancestor, I find it very difficult to draw a "line in the sand" between humans and our less evolved cousins. This is something that really has me stumped right now. I recently began to study evolution after years of just ignoring this area and I find that the evidence is overwhelming. A good read is Francis Collins "The Language of God" - he is a Christian and director of the Human Genome Project. The fact that we have been able to map the entire human genome provided a HUGE volume of extremely convincing evidence of common descent. So what no? Where is the "line in the sand?" How does the idea of a soul relate to us? It's odd, but the Biblical description of Adam as a "living creature" - same as all the other animals - supports the idea that there is no fundamental distinction.
Now I've opened up a can of worms .... :lmbo:

Richard

It only supports the idea that there is no fundamental distinction if that is all the evidence you are looking at.
If mankind has an animal soul just as animals do, we also have a choice to operate from not only that position but also from a higher one as Paul points out in the verse quoted above.
When we were cast out of the garden we were given coats of skins (plural).
Peal one off and there is something deeper underneath.

Some people live their entire lives for no other purpose than making money, eating, drinking, mating, procreating. Just to produce another generation that does the same things.

What would be the point of that? It has always seemed odd to me.

Bob

[alec cotton]

The question has been asked 'where does life start?' We don't even know what life is so it must be a matter of speculation. We can observe, think , judge and draw conclusions. Life does not begin at conception. There was already life in the sperm and the eggs. Only a microscopic proportion of these become viable. The vast majority die. A more reasonable question might be : When does awareness begin?. Man is composed of two elements and a compound . Body , soul and mind ,or body mind and spirit whichever label you choose. The brain is part of the body. It is not the mind. That can be demonstrated under laboratory controlled conditions. The body (including the brain )can be kept functioning indefinitely without the soul(life force) or spirit. The mind also being absent.On the other hand , the body and soul can remain intact without the mind The person is then said to be in a vegetative state or comatose. The brain is simply the central processing unit. It receives input from the five senses and reacts accordingly.Quote / Given the reality of evolution and the fact that and all living creatures have evolved from a common ancestor I find it difficult to draw a line in the sand.
I have no difficulty at all because evolution ( by the selection of the species . Charles Darwen) is a myth and not a reality. Only a moron would accept such a notion for one minute. Every avenue of inquiry leads in the opposite direction. The fossil record proves conclusively that at the end of each geological period , vast numbers of species were made extinct. : Only to be replaced by huge numbers of new species. These changes are so sudden and distinct that the rocks of any era can be identified by the fossil remains in them. From the dim and distant past to the present day it can be clearly seen that every creature has been designed for a specific purpose. That is why God said ' ask the beasts of the field and they will tell you of me. You only have to look at the ear to know that only a madman like Darwen would propose such a preposterous notion.. The ear could not possibly evolve by increments. For the ear to have any value at all ( survival or any other) it must be complete and functional .Ignoring the protozoa and the tiny creatures which are hard to observe : let us look at the larger animals. Not one could stand up without the semicircular canals in the ear. The rest of the ear also demonstrates the miracle of engineering . The lug is designed to funnel the smallest sound into a tunnel, at the end of which there is a membrane . Tiny bones then take over to transmit the sound . The stirrup, the hammer and the anvil. The sensations are passed to the cochlea which is coiled up tight for the sake of economy of space. The sensations are then passed to the brain along nerve fibres especially designed for that purpose. The brain processes the information and sends out messages to the particular part of the body to perform the appropriate action. The eye is another miracle ot creation. It could not possibly evolve by the rules proposed by that moron Charles Darwin. For the eye to have any survival value at all , it must be complete and functional. Half an eye has no value at all. You can go back to the very earliest period and if you are lucky enough to find a fragment of fossil resin with a fly in it , you will find that the eye is complete and just the same as it is to-day. The God whom I serve created all these things but the most stupendous miracle of all is the fact that he condescended to have his plans and purposes written so that even one such as I can understand it. He had it placed within my reach. Some people stand and stare at the great cathedrals or the ancient monuments . I sit and look with absolute amazement at the bible and wonder why others are unable to see it.
Alec

[CWH]

Well said alec,

I understand what you are talking about regarding cochlea, the stirrup, the hammer and the anvil, protozoa etc. I am from this line. Looking at all these engineering, it's impossible for evolution to generate such marvels. I never believe in evolution. God created everything as said in the BIble and the theory of evolution is a scam that tries to explain away that everything is not created by God. This is satanic. Did bus, trucks and lorries evolved from cars just because they got almost everything similar in the car....engine, boot, brake, bonnet etc.? Or did laptops evolved from desktops since they all looked the same and have keyboard, an LCD screen, a CPU, USB port etc.....obviously they are created by man each with its own brands and models.

Agree, Charles Darwin was a moron. And life is created with the spirit entering the fetus a few months before conception when a fetus started developing the organs, including the brain otherwise and before that, it is nothing but a lump of cells. It's just marvellous and profound about how did the spirit enters into the fetus.

If I am not mistaken, Charles Darwin renounce evolution as false during his dying days:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend

Many Blessings to you my friend.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there guys (Cheow and Alec),

I'm totally confused. Darwin (and independently, Wallace) founded the theory of Evolution which is one of the most successful and thoroughly verified branches of modern science. It is accepted by the vast majority of working biologists. Doctors use the theory every day to identify and isolate mutations that cause diseases. It is the center piece of modern biology which is one of the most challenging fields in science, well beyond the abilities of any "moron."

So what do you mean when you say he was a moron? Have either of you read his books? If so, then please cite and refute the specific part of his theory that you think is moronic.

If you have not read his books, then you might want to educate yourself before throwing unjustified insults at him. Such behavior is neither scientific nor Christian. I get the impression you guys are just repeating propaganda without any real understanding. Almost all who oppose it have religious doctrinal motivations and are not qualified in the field.
Are either of you biologists or evolutionary scientists? Can either of you explain how DNA and RNA work?

I think it would be very interesting to discuss the evidence. We should probably begin with common descent. The completion of the Human Genome Project, led by Christian scientist Francis Collins, has provided a huge amount of seemingly irrefutable evidence for common descent. This is the conclusion Collins explains in his book "The Language of God."

All the very best,

Richard

[CWH]

Richard,

Perhaps we could start a new thread call Evolution versus Creation. I think it will be a hot debate among the readers here. You may want to make the first move. I would rather let others response first so as to get a feel of what the majority thinks.

BTW as Christians, I would expect Christians to support Creation rather than Evolution which is the reverse of what you just said.


If you have not read his books, then you might want to educate yourself before throwing unjustified insults at him. Such behavior is neither scientific nor Christian.

Thank You and God Blessed.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

Perhaps we could start a new thread call Evolution versus Creation. I think it will be a hot debate among the readers here. You may want to make the first move. I would rather let others response first so as to get a feel of what the majority thinks.

BTW as Christians, I would expect Christians to support Creation rather than Evolution which is the reverse of what you just said.

Hey there my friend, :yo:

I think that would be a great idea to start a thread. I'll do it tomorrow, unless you want to start it.

I know you would expect Christians to support Creation but I think that is because you have been misinformed by anti-science fundamentalism. There are many Christians who believe that science reveals the glory of God. And I would not any Christian accept the verified results of Science? I mean, God is not glorified by folks who claim the earth is a flat square with four literal corners, right? Christ commanded that each of us to "love God" with "all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy [I]mind."

God created the universe. No problem there. And apparently he used Evolution to create complex creatures like us. What's the problem with that?

All the very best,

Richard