I have a theological question on abortion

[Prime Mover]

I've been arguing with a pro-choice relative of mine, and she made the following statement:

"If life begins at conception, do identical twins only have half a soul?"

I know the science of how "twinning" occurs. A single fertilized egg splits and then both halves implant in the uterus.

But since conception involved one egg and one sperm only, if life began at that moment, wouldn't that indicate only one soul?

I'm interested in any theological arguments that have been made in this area.

Thanks

[Mr. Brightside]

By her line of reasoning, a twin would need only half of the amount of faith to get to heaven.

And a triplet would need even less.

[steve8714]

Doesn’t matter. If there’s doubt, why take a chance?

[WayneS]

So, if I was one of a set of sextuplets, I MIGHT have a chance at getting into heaven...

;^)

[Hegemony Cricket]

Ping - any thoughts on this?

[Salamander]

Here’s a good, short answer:

“If it’s not a baby then you’re not pregnant”.

[Jibaholic]

Notice that the question begins with an equivocation: it starts by asking about a scientific question (when does life begin), and then it immediately shifts to a theological issue (do identical twins have half a soul). That is standard practice in abortion debates.

My advice is to stick to the science.

Twinning does not mean that embryos are not alive. Single celled organism and other more primitive life forms reproduce by twinning (budding). They are furthermore unquestionably members of the species Homo sapiens. That is the species of their parents, they are alive, so embryos are immature members of their parents species.

This establishes the point that twinning is a red herring. Do all immature human beings have a soul? That is equivalent to asking - do all immature human beings have a right to life? There is no scientific experiment that can find a soul in an embryo. But neither is there a scientific experiment that can find a soul in a newborn, but I’ll bet that your pro-choice friends are opposed to infanticide. There is no scientific experiment that can find a soul in an adult, but I’ll bet your pro-choice friends are opposed to killing adults.

The end result is that we can either divide members of the species Homo sapiens into those who have rights and those who can be legally killed, or we can defend the rights of all Homo sapiens. I find the second option far more morally commendable.

[Dutchboy88]

This is not a theological question. It is a demonstration that your acquaintance has a hardened heart and mind.

[therut]

She is using a scientific argument to argue a theological one. Apples an oranges. Scientifically it is a FACT that at conception human life begins. It is that simple. Theology does not matter. The question then is when is it legal to kill human life. Leave out all the legal mumbo jumbo of legal personhood. She can not win the scientific argument.

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

So, I guess twin “B” only has half a life. (After all, “life” only started once according to this foolish reasoning.)

Then again, half a life is better than no life at all.

(I’ll make sure I tell my twin grandsons that only one of them is really alive. Maybe that will save on diaper costs.)

[KarlInOhio]

One twin gets the soul and is the good one. The other twin is evil. (At least from what I learned from watching horror movies).

Seriously, here is an explanation I found on it: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=16880

[14erClimb]

Don't know if you'll get anywhere with her on this but you could talk about the verse in Psalms where David says, "You knit me together when I was in the womb."

You could go on to say that G-d knew those two souls would exist from the beginning of time. Making the embryo split was just a means to get to that end.

Again, don't know if she threw out the soul argument to throw you off or if she really wants to know.

[scory]

Body and spirit are separate entities. Spirit does not split itself up to inhabit multiple bodies in the womb. Each body is inhabited by a single individual.

By the tenets of my church this human life is a period of testing wherein each spirit is given the opportunity to live life in such a way as to return to God or not according to the choices made in mortality and a mortal body is vital to this test. To deny a body to a spirit is to deny that spirit it’s opportunity at salvation and eternal joy.

[sitetest]

Excellent post.

[farmer18th]

Okay, it's time to be insulting. Anyone who would posit the notion of "half a soul," is someone who desparately wants to be able to kill babies, or justify their own past, by concentrating on ridiculous side lights.

This would be like arguing the egg or the sperm each contain "half" a soul and that millions of "half-souls" are lost with each act of making love, or that a woman loses hundreds of "half-souls" as she ages without conceiving. The soul is irreducible to fractions and it is not created by the biological process. It is breathed by God into the whole human being, whether that human being results from a fertilized egg or a splitting embryo.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

That’s why there is always a good twin and an evil twin.

No, seriously, the infusion of a soul into human flesh is not something that can objectively studied. If faith is involved then we know that the Pslamist speaks of “while in my mother’s womb, you knew me”.

Since, as an issue of faith, we know that a person dwells in a mother’s womb, then we know that the soul, which is what a person is, exists before birth.

Add to that the science that at conception there is a new version of human DNA, and you have a fairly compelling argument that the death of even a fertalized egg is the destruction of an individual human body and, from a faith point of view, has a very good chance of the destruction of an individual human soul.

[Vanders9]

Why should identical twins have only half a soul? They do not, after all, have half a body...

At the instant of fertilisation, a zygote is created. The new cell has all the genetic material (and the genetic wherewithal) to make a Human being. We do not know what that Human being will turn out to be like, because we are not completely the construct of our genes. Environmental factors do count, and one of them is whether the embryo will split (and also when it does). Actually, even twinning is at least partially genetically controlled (it does seem to “run” in families).

[murron]

They wouldn’t have half a soul any more than they would have half a brain, half a heart, half a kidney, etc. It was just a flippant question to throw you off your game.

[Rightly Biased]

If life doesn’t begin at conception then why wear a condom or take birth control

[Invictus]

Above my pay grade....but I do know that abortion is MURDER.

[RobinOfKingston]

Friend, you are in a philosophical discussion. Not theological or scientific. Your relative is trying to play “gotcha.” Some things are simply unknowable. Were it not so we would be god. “We” swerve to miss little animals on the highway. “They” go in with knives flashing. There are nearly 40,000,000 souls who never drew breath in America who would argue eloquently against her position.

[Mr. Brightside]

Maybe twins only will enjoy heaven for HALF of eternity.

[MEGoody]

But since conception involved one egg and one sperm only, if life began at that moment, wouldn't that indicate only one soul?

No reason to think it would only indicate one soul. The phyiscal process of conception isn't what creates the soul. The soul is not physical.

God gives the soul, and He would certainly know that a single sperm/egg was going to result in indentical twins.

Me thinks your relative is grasping at straws at best.

[Prime Mover]

Thanks for all your answers, everyone.

Good stuff.

[ml/nj]

"If life begins at conception, do identical twins only have half a soul?"

Do they have half a heart?

ML/NJ

[new cruelty]

You both acknowledge how life begins. Why bother trying to pinpoint when your friend thinks it is okay to murder a baby?

[taxcontrol]

An all powerful God is not limited by man’s meager attempt to understand biology.

[Between the Lines]

Each twins has a unique soul, just like they each have two separate set of fingerprints. We may not understand how God does it, but we know that those 2 souls were planned long before the two identical twins were conceived.

At the moment of conception the zygote is 100% human being, all that it needs is a friendly environment and nourishment to survive into adulthood. Why do the pro abortionists talk of a soul when they don’t believe in one? Why not stick to science? Every area of science, whether biology, anatomy or chemistry knows that at conception life begins.

[Salvation]

Every human has a soul.

[heartwood]

If you really want a trick question, what happens when embryos merge? Fraternal twin embryos have done that, leading to a normally formed, genetically chimeric human being. There was a woman in England whose ovaries were formed from her merged twin sister’s cell line - discovered when her children were tested to be organ donors for her - she had given birth to her nephews, genetically speaking.

Or just how separate do conjoined twins have to be to have two souls? Two heads and two hearts, okay, two souls - but there are other variations.

Answer - That is above my pay grade - I let God worry about that one - but we should play it safe and take care.

[Salvation]

And no two are alike, even identical twins have differences!

I have a friend who has identical twins, now aged 12, very different personalities, very different in their belief systems. One outgoing, one more shy.

I truly believe that one of them will become a priest.

[applpie]

WWSPD?

:-) i couldn’t resist.

Didn’t Calvin say something about “foolish questions lead to silly arguments”....

Obviously this pro-choice person is not a spiritual person...why then would you argue with her on this matter? does anyone know the split nanosecond (moment) the soul/spirit is quickened in relation to physical processes—nor do we know the exact moment the soul/spirit leaves the body to join with the Lord (or that other guy).

sounds like a pointless argument which is a smokescreen for more important matters.

[Raymann]

That is a very interesting question.

Another way to put it is asking if the human individual begins life at conception? The zygote can exist as a single entity for several days before splitting.

Logic presents us with 4 possibilities:

1. There is one soul at conception and the other comes later after the split. This of course raises the issue that a 2nd soul comes after conception.

2. There are two souls at conception but they aren’t ‘allocated’ until after the split. Strange.

3. There are two (or more) souls with the zygote at conception that are later split. I don’t know of any theological justification for that though.

4. A fetus isn’t given a soul until the ‘quickening’ which by that time the issue of twining has been settled for a while.

5. There is no such thing as a soul and we’re just having a fun debate.

[MozarkDawg]

There is no scientific experiment that can find a soul in an embryo. But neither is there a scientific experiment that can find a soul in a newborn, but I’ll bet that your pro-choice friends are opposed to infanticide. There is no scientific experiment that can find a soul in an adult, but I’ll bet your pro-choice friends are opposed to killing adults.

Excellent response to have at hand. I myself am Roman Catholic but never came to the conclusion (oh so long ago) that abortion is murder because *my church told me so*, but due to the logic that life begins at conception because it can begin at no other time. Regardless your religious beliefs, soul or no soul, when the soul enters, etc., pro-abortion folks are attempting to absolve themselves of their guilt over killing a child, no matter the point in life he is at. "It's okay, 'cause it doesn't *look* like a baby yet," is the lie they cling to, desperately.

[Salvation]

What about twins St. Scholastica and St. Benedict? Both had souls, both were similar, both were different.

February 10

St. Scholastica

(480-542?)

Twins often share the same interests and ideas with an equal intensity. Therefore, it is no surprise that Scholastica and her twin brother, Benedict, both established religious communities within a few miles from each other.

Born in 480 of wealthy parents, Scholastica and Benedict were brought up together until he left for Rome to continue his studies.

Little is known of Scholastica’s early life. She founded a religious community for women near Monte Cassino at Plombariola, five miles from where her brother governed a monastery.

The twins visited each other once a year in a farmhouse because Scholastica was not permitted inside the monastery. They spent these times discussing spiritual matters.

According to the Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great, the brother and sister spent their last day together in prayer and conversation. Scholastica sensed her death was close at hand and she begged Benedict to stay with her until the next day.

He refused her request because he did not want to spend a night outside the monastery, thus breaking his own Rule. Scholastica asked God to let her brother remain and a severe thunderstorm broke out, preventing Benedict and his monks from returning to the abbey.

Benedict cried out, “God forgive you, Sister. What have you done?” Scholastica replied, “I asked a favor of you and you refused. I asked it of God and he granted it.”

Brother and sister parted the next morning after their long discussion. Three days later, Benedict was praying in his monastery and saw the soul of his sister rising heavenward in the form of a white dove. Benedict then announced the death of his sister to the monks and later buried her in the tomb he had prepared for himself.

Comment:

Scholastica and Benedict gave themselves totally to God and gave top priority to deepening their friendship with him through prayer. They sacrificed some of the opportunities they would have had to be together as brother and sister in order better to fulfill their vocation to the religious life. In coming closer to Christ, however, they found they were also closer to each other. In joining a religious community, they did not forget or forsake their family but rather found more brothers and sisters.

Quote:

“All religious are under an obligation, in accordance with the particular vocation of each, to work zealously and diligently for the building up and growth of the whole mystical body of Christ and for the good of the particular churches. It is their duty to foster these objectives primarily by means of prayer, works of penance, and by the example of their own lives” (Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops, 33, Austin Flannery translation).

 

 

July 11

St. Benedict

(480?-543)

It is unfortunate that no contemporary biography was written of a man who has exercised measureless influence on monasticism in the West. Benedict is well recognized in the later Dialogues of St. Gregory, but these are sketches to illustrate miraculous elements of his career.

Benedict was born of a distinguished family in central Italy, studied at Rome and early in life was drawn to the monastic life. At first he became a hermit, leaving a depressing world—pagan armies on the march, the Church torn by schism, people suffering from war, morality at a low ebb.

He soon realized that he could not live a hidden life in a small town any better than in a large city, so he withdrew to a cave high in the mountains for three years. Some monks chose him as their leader for a while, but found his strictness not to their taste. Still, the shift from hermit to community life had begun for him. He had an idea of gathering various families of monks into one “Grand Monastery” to give them the benefit of unity, fraternity, permanent worship in one house. Finally he began to build what was to become one of the most famous monasteries in the world—Monte Cassino, commanding three narrow valleys running toward the mountain.

The Rule that gradually developed prescribed a life of liturgical prayer, study, manual labor and living together in community under a common father (abbot). Benedictine asceticism is known for its moderation, and Benedictine charity has always shown concern for the people in the surrounding countryside. In the course of the Middle Ages, all monasticism in the West was gradually brought under the Rule of St. Benedict.

Today the Benedictine family is represented by two branches: the Benedictine Federation and the Cistercians.

Comment:

The Church has been blessed through Benedictine devotion to the liturgy, not only in its actual celebration with rich and proper ceremony in the great abbeys, but also through the scholarly studies of many of its members. Liturgy is sometimes confused with guitars or choirs, Latin or Bach. We should be grateful to those who both preserve and adapt the genuine tradition of worship in the Church.

Quote:

“Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of man is manifested by signs perceptible to the senses...; in the liturgy full public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and his members.

“From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of his Body the Church, is a sacred action, surpassing all others” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 7).

[jwparkerjr]

To start with the reasoning behind the question is faulty. Not all twins come from the same egg. Medical history is replete with cases of superfundication, twins with different biological fathers.

Does it matter how the fetus came to be, from one egg and one sperm, or an egg that divides, or whatever? It’s the fetus that counts. There is nothing half-anything about a twin, or one third anything about a triplet.

[DungeonMaster]

That brings to mind the idea of all living souls, as in individual blood cells. So what happens with the soul of any normal cell when it splits? There are suddenly 2 souls.

[kidd]

All that any pro-life advocate has claimed is that human life begins at conception. We never claimed how many human lives begin at a single act of conception.

However, I would argue that there is one soul for each individual.

Each individual has a unique DNA “fingerprint”.

An unborn child’s DNA is distinct from its mother. One twin’s DNA is distinct from the other twin.

If your friend is so interested in fractions, let your friend know that in the area of souls, God works in whole numbers...if God wants twins, God may very well give two souls to the fertilized egg in the brief time before it divides.

[Rippin]

If you are asking a policy question, the answer is that there is no objective secular definition of a soul so the question is meaningless.

But there is no objective secular definition of humanity that can exclude the pre- or post divided twins from our race.

But even if there were an agreed definition of soul, who cares? Do we not afford siamese twins any rights because we aren’t sure exactly how to separate their bodies?

[Jibaholic]

I think you make a good point that leads to one of the great ironies of the abortion debate. Pro-choices sometimes claim to be on the side of science, but science is pro-life: embryology textbooks and honest abortion defenders like Peter Singer concede that life begins at conception. People who are pro-choice are the ones who constantly change the subject to theological issues like when ensoulment takes place.

[Deut28]

To pull a Chesterton, human logic can’t answer every question. Math, especially, has shortcomings.

I have one child. I love her with all my heart.

Does this mean I don’t love my wife, brother, sister, mom, dad, etc.?

I agree with many others here, it’s a diversion from the fact that this person has recognized that life begins at conception (scientifically irrefutable) and is now looking for another “out” to maintain their position on abortion.

[Owl_Eagle]

Notice that the question begins with an equivocation: it starts by asking about a scientific question (when does life begin), and then it immediately shifts to a theological issue (do identical twins have half a soul). That is standard practice in abortion debates.

Well, I think any of us who've known identical twins knows that there's no way they have souls.

Owl_Eagle

If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.

[count-your-change]

Since a theological question is being asked, Genesis the second chapter says God formed the man (formed as the potter forms his wares) but that Adam BECAME a living soul with the breath being blown into him.
The babies ARE souls just as Adam was.

[redangus]

The first answer to your question is both babies share a unique set of genetic material different from the mother's thus making them unique human beings and not an appendage of the mother's body as your friend probably thinks. If allowed to go full term they will be born human beings, not turnips or puppies, but human beings. That makes them unborn children not undifferentiated fetal tissue to use PPH’s terms.

As for the soul question, Buddhists believe that the soul chooses the body it will inhabit based on the lessons it needs to learn during each incarnation and enters it at conception. If there are twins that would just mean that two souls would have bodies to inhabit, nothing more. Your friend is incorrectly mixing biology and spirituality. The twins share the same DNA not the same soul.

Bottom line is the mother is carrying two babies with DNA unique to them and unlike her’s. Spiritually the babies each possess their own souls. If you remove an appendix it has the same DNA coding as every other organ in the mother's body, an unborn child does not. Appendices and other organs do not have souls, unborn children do. It is sad your friend does not understand the difference.

[beaversmom]

I think your post is spot on.

[mojito]

Your relative’s question is a classic non sequitur.

Indeed life begins at conception; if this were not so, twins would not have life, since their lives had to have begun at conception. To argue otherwise is an absurdity.

God in his grace grants a soul to each individual human life. A soul is not some finite substance that is somehow divided up when identical twins come into being, half to one and half to the other. To argue this is to be a materialist and to believe that the soul is some measurable, quantifiable thing, like an amino acid on a chromosome.

Science has done many things, but measuring the soul is not one of them.

[amihow]

It would seem logically to mean that at conception two souls informed the sperm and egg when they met, setting in motion the splitting.

[iacovatx]

This is such a childish argument, that is, to suggest something like a soul is allocated in a quantifiable amount that can be mathematically divided, linearly, into halves.

It is like saying a good mood, once spread to another person, is half as pleasant.

The argument is something I expect to hear from a pre-teen but not from an adult. But, let’s not forget the people who make such arguments are also fooled into thinking a simple renaming of something from “pro-choice” to “pro-abortion” makes it a better thing.

[xzins]

The soul is the life force. It hasn’t halved. It has doubled.

[wayne_b24]

agreed - i tend to try to stick with the book definition...

Jeremiah 1:5

not fallible man’s interpretation of the unknown