• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Underlying Psychological Motivations Of Pro-Lifers

Blue Donkey said:
On topic: Biologically, aborting a human fetus is no different from aborting any other mammalian fetus would be. If abortion is going to be illegal all forms of killing unborn non-human animals must also be outlawed. Naturally pro-lifers will always tell you no animals except homo sapiens have souls and deny homo sapiens is an animal species if they are not non-human animal lovers.
Click to expand...




Scrabaholic said:
I agree with them that animals do not have souls. But yes, we humans are an animal species.
Click to expand...

The Jewish religion and many pro choice religions sincerely believe that humans become living souls with live birth.

Therefore no living souls are lost before birth.

Actually the Hebrew interpretation of the Bible distinguishes a difference.

Animals have souls but a human becomes “ a living soul” when it takes its first breath known as “ the breath of Life.

God breathed into Adam the breath of life and Adam became a living soul.

According to the Bible humans do not become living souls until after birth when they take their first breath.

This Wiki link helps explain about a living soul.

Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible. The word refers to the aspects of sentience, and human beings and other animals are both described as having nephesh.[1][2] Plants, as an example of live organisms, are not referred in the Bible as having nephesh. The term נפש‎ is literally 'soul', although it is commonly rendered as "life" in English translations.[3] A view is that nephesh relates to 'sentient being' without the idea of life and that, rather than having a nephesh, a sentient creation of God is a nephesh. In Genesis 2:7 the text is that Adam was not given a nephesh but "became a living nephesh." Nephesh then is better understood as 'person', seeing that Leviticus 21:11 and Numbers 6:6 speak of a 'dead body', which in Hebrew is a nép̄eš mêṯ, a dead nephesh. [4] Nephesh when put with another word can detail aspects related to the concept of nephesh; with רוּחַ‎ rûach "spirit" it describes a part of mankind that is immaterial, like one's mind, emotions, will, intellect, personality and conscience, as in Job 7:11. [5][6]
Click to expand...

Nephesh - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
Non human animals do not have souls. If they did, God would prohibit us from eating them.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Is there any evidence that God regards a given creature having a soul to entail that humans are not allowed to eat them?

And aside from a religious approach, let’s look at a philosophical approach to the soul, as well. Traditionally, in philosophy, the soul has often been equated with the mind, or consciousness. Therefore, if any non-human animals are conscious, then I would regard them as having souls in the traditional philosophical sense. And intriguingly, there may be some biblical evidence pointing to the conclusion that the biblical definition of the soul might not be all that different from this traditional philosophical definition. In the New Testament, the original Greek word that is translated into “soul” in English is “pzuche” or “psyche”. And the psyche is another term for the mind, and is the root of the English word “psychology”, meaning the scientific study of the mind. So if this line of reasoning holds any water, it may very well be that non-human animals would turn out to have souls in the biblical sense, as well.
 
minnie616 said:
The Jewish religion and many pro choice religions sincerely believe that humans become living souls with live birth.

Therefore no living souls are lost before birth.

Actually the Hebrew interpretation of the Bible distinguishes a difference.

Animals have souls but a human becomes “ a living soul” when it takes its first breath known as “ the breath of Life.

God breathed into Adam the breath of life and Adam became a living soul.

According to the Bible humans do not become living souls until after birth when they take their first breath.
Click to expand...

I'm Anglican and was taught in Sunday School that animals do not have souls and do not go to Heaven (or Hell).
 
Scrabaholic said:
Non human animals do not have souls.
Click to expand...

Then you should have stated " non " human animals do not have souls instead of the contradictory concoction you posted imo
 
Scrabaholic said:
Non human animals do not have souls. If they did, God would prohibit us from eating them.
Click to expand...

In your opinion they don't have souls , just like in your opinion there is a God
 
Scrabaholic said:
I'm Anglican and was taught in Sunday School that animals do not have souls and do not go to Heaven (or Hell).
Click to expand...

According to Bible humans have living souls that are everlasting.

Others animals have souls ( awareness that only lasts their lifetime.
Nephesh then is better understood as 'person', seeing that Leviticus 21:11 and Numbers 6:6 speak of a 'dead body', which in Hebrew is a nép̄eš mêṯ, a dead nephesh. [4] Nephesh when put with another word can detail aspects related to the concept of nephesh; with רוּחַ‎ rûach "spirit" it describes a part of mankind that is immaterial, like one's mind, emotions, will, intellect, personality and conscience, as in Job 7:11. [5][6]
Click to expand...

Nephesh - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
soylentgreen said:
That is what i would call an armchair philosophy. In other words it is easy to say you support both a womans right to decide and the right to a childs life because the problem is not yours.

But in reality there is no equality here. If the woman gets an abortion the life growing within her dies. A decision needs be made. On that basis then you should make a decision on where you stand.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is unreasonable for people to support the right of women to have an abortion but feel completely uneasy about the subsequent death of the unborn child that is the result. That's what I got from the OP which I thought was sensitively written and , if we are being honest here ,there are many areas where we are all guilty of " armchair philosophy " about things that effect others and not ourselves only.
 
minnie616 said:
According to Bible humans have living souls that are everlasting.

Others animals have souls ( awareness that lasts their lifetime.
Click to expand...

We wrote the book so is it unreasonable to think we wouldn't put ourselves in a higher order ? It's like the history according to the winners stuff imo
 
oneworld2 said:
I don't think it is unreasonable for people to support the right of women to have an abortion but feel completely uneasy about the subsequent death of the unborn child that is the result. That's what I got from the OP which I thought was sensitively written and , if we are being honest here ,there are many areas where we are all guilty of " armchair philosophy " about things that effect others and not ourselves only.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is definitely unreasonable. Anyone trying to pretend there is equality here is only fooling themselves. If a woman decides on an abortion them a life dies. To say you are for the woman being able to exercise a right to decide as well as claim to be a pro lifer is an unreasonable stance. It contradicts itself. Women can find themselves in a position where they must make a decision one way or the other, not both. For a man to appear here and say they can pick both is a little bit condescending.
 
oneworld2 said:
Then you should have stated " non " human animals do not have souls instead of the contradictory concoction you posted imo
Click to expand...


Well, excuse me for making a mistake.... It should have been obvious what I meant.
 
Scrabaholic said:
If there is no god, then there are no souls.
Click to expand...

That's what you choose to believe , I think that the life force within a creature indicates a soul regardless of whether their is a God or not
 
soylentgreen said:
Yes, it is definitely unreasonable. Anyone trying to pretend there is equality here is only fooling themselves. If a woman decides on an abortion them a life dies. To say you are for the woman being able to exercise a right to decide as well as claim to be a pro lifer is an unreasonable stance. It contradicts itself. Women can find themselves in a position where they must make a decision one way or the other, not both. For a man to appear here and say they can pick both is a little bit condescending.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying it is not the womans call and nobody is saying their right to decide should be taken away, which is a recognition that there is no equality of rights between the mother and the unborn child. What they are displaying , imo , is a grave uneasiness about the whole situation and I think that shows a greater sense of empathy towards the unborn than the heartless dismisal of the demise of the rightless and voiceless. If you think that's somehow off I would wonder about your own ability to empathize. Empathy with the mother and empathy for the aborted are not mutually exclusive in my book
 
Troodon Roar said:
I suspect I am not at all a typical pro-lifer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are. Not hardly mill's worth of difference between you and the typical screaming religious hypocrite apart from your ridiculous attempt to pre-deny it just because you're not for forced pregnancy. That's the lowest bar you could have set for yourself to claim not to be one of them.
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
No. I did not say there were.
Click to expand...

You said animals can be eaten because God says they have no souls ( nice of him btw ) Then I see this exchange


BlueDonkey " God did prohibit eating most animals."

and then your response to it " But not all. "

And this after you told me that God told you only humans have souls

Seeing as I am not a God botherer and will have to take your words on what he is saying about animals but the above appears confusing , no ?
 
oneworld2 said:
Nobody is saying it is not the womans call and nobody is saying their right to decide should be taken away, which is a recognition that there is no equality of rights between the mother and the unborn child. What they are displaying , imo , is a grave uneasiness about the whole situation and I think that shows a greater sense of empathy towards the unborn than the heartless dismisal of the demise of the rightless and voiceless. If you think that's somehow off I would wonder about your own ability to empathize. Empathy with the mother and empathy for the aborted are not mutually exclusive in my book
Click to expand...

Empathy? Why do you choose to empathize more with something unaware, that suffers nothing than with the woman who actually suffers?

And if you choose the former, how does that demonstrate any moral High Ground?
 
Lursa said:
Empathy? Why do you choose to empathize more with something unaware, that suffers nothing than with the woman who actually suffers?

And if you choose the former, how does that demonstrate any moral High Ground?
Click to expand...

Who said I empathize more with the fetus than with the mother ? Have I not been clear enough for you in supporting a womans right to have the autonomy to control what happens to her ?

How about you can empathize with both seeing as every single one of us alive today was at one time at that stage of development. Having sympathy for the death of an unborn creature is not a crime but you might be forgiven for thinking so by the way you are reacting to it.

And they do " suffer " something contrary to your claim , they suffer the loss of a chance for life having progressed way past the egg/ sperm stage which I have no issue with preventing as hypocritical as that is.

The second sentence is not worthy of a response because both of your points are based on nothing I have said here like

A Me thinking it in the first place

B Me mentioning anything regarding any " moral highground "

both of which are your own introductions presumeably to serve as straw men :roll:
 
oneworld2 said:
Who said I empathize more with the fetus than with the mother ? Have I not been clear enough for you in supporting a womans right to have the autonomy to control what happens to her ?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the bolded statement below. How would you interpret that other than major concern about greater empathy for the unborn..which means valuing/empathizing with the woman less?

oneworld2 said:
Nobody is saying it is not the womans call and nobody is saying their right to decide should be taken away, which is a recognition that there is no equality of rights between the mother and the unborn child. What they are displaying , imo , is a grave uneasiness about the whole situation and I think that shows a greater sense of empathy towards the unborn than the heartless dismisal of the demise of the rightless and voiceless. If you think that's somehow off I would wonder about your own ability to empathize. Empathy with the mother and empathy for the aborted are not mutually exclusive in my book
Click to expand...

I value the unborn but I value all born people more.

And I dont empathize with something that has no ability to think or feel. That's not even rational.

And once the unborn reach that stage, women no longer have elective abortions.

And there is no equality of rights, it's not even possible. The unborn dont even have any rights. If you believe they do, under what authority?

Born and unborn cannot be treated equally under the law...if you know of a way, please explain.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom