Welcome to another installment of Professor Verway's answers to questions nobody is asking. Maybe in this case it is a question somebody should be asking, but no one seems to be. First I will pose the question followed by the assumptions which necessarily precede it. Then I will seek to answer to the apparently unasked question, and in the process hopefully make plain why I believe the question needs to be asked and answered.
When does a spirit become united with a human body? Assumptions abound. We must first agree that human spirits exist, and that they are in fact bound to human bodies. An underlying assumption is that the human spirit is somehow unique; only humans have human spirits. For my part, there is a further assumption that the term spirit refers to a singular and distinct element within the composition of that entity which we call the human being. I assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that no other life form has a human spirit. I would go so far as to say that no other physical life form has a spiritual component.
The assumptions mentioned so far reveal me to be tripartite in my understanding of the composition of human beings. For those unfamiliar with the term, I mean to say that I believe there is a clear distinction between the terms soul and spirit. To clarify I could say that whereas all mammals have souls, only humans have spirits. I suspect that all things living have something soul-ish about them, but the element I refer to as spirit is unique to humans. It is not my aim to defend that opinion here; it will stand as another assumption.
At least one more assumption occurs to me, which I will leave undebated. I will assume for the sake of this discussion that God creates or prepares a spirit for unification with a human body at some point in time. I say "point in time" carefully, because I also believe God exists in a dimension outside of what we call time. Therefore, when I use words that are time-related and involve an action by God, there is necessarily an imprecision. The time element in the question at hand involves our human, finite, time-centered awareness of events; as such, the question may be restated: "At what point does it become material or significant that a spirit inhabits a human body."
Two logically possible answers present themselves immediately. Either God imbues a fertilized egg (point of conception) or accompanies the first breath with a spirit. The latter seems to resonate with the language of the Genesis creation account. "God breathed into Adam, and he became a living soul," says Moses of the event. Three things argue against the idea that this refers to the giving of a spirit. First, the Hebrew word for "soul" is used throughout the Bible with reference to animals and humans alike, leaving little room for the uniqueness intended for humans. Second, the progressive nature of God's revelation to humans leaves many details of our existence hidden in His early interactions; perhaps He had no intention of explaining to Moses from whence the spirit comes. Third, Adam is a unique case in that he had no conception in the normal sense of the word; making broad generalizations from his experience is not safe.
I prefer the explanation that God places a spirit in the fertilized egg at the moment of conception. This seems to be the most satisfying conclusion both logically and theologically. First, if we assume that a baby, once delivered is human, then a full-term fetus in a mother's womb must be fully human. There is no significant difference between the two beings except in the method by which they receive oxygen and nourishment. A fetus inutero is no different than an adult human on a respirator and intravenous feeding aparatus. No one would claim that a person in the process of having open heart surgery is not human during the time he is on life support.
If it is logical to propose that a fetus is fully human, what can be said of the embryo? At what point dare we say that human-ness ceases to pertain to the fetus? There is only a vague distinction between the two terms, and no single point in time or development which demands the switch in terminology from embryo to fetus. A similar problem exists if we attempt to pinpoint a time during embryonic development when that which we call human comes into being. Some would postulate that the presence of a brain signifies human distinctiveness, yet even the lowest creatures have neural control centers that can be called brains in some sense. The other danger in using brain development as a signal for human-ness is that it opens the door for disqualifying certain living humans from the class of humanity.
So if the fetus is human, the embryo is human. If the embryo is human, the blastula and eventually the zygote (fertilized egg) is human. I can see no logical defense of any other position than this. Because I identify the presence of a human spirit as that which signifies human-ness, I must conclude that God places a spirit in the fertilized egg.
The same conclusion is well supported theologically. The beautiful Psalm 139 description of God's involvement in human pre-natal existence makes a good argument for full human-ness from the point of conception. Paul's argument for God's sovereignty in Romans 9 declaring that children not yet born had irresistible destinies insists that they were indivduals even at that nascent stage. Even the leaping of John in Elizabeth's womb at the presence of his Savior in Mary's womb betrays of a level of existence too human to be denied.
Now if you have read this far you are either a very dear friend and you wish to humor me, or you are so stubborn that you will not quit reading until you find out where in heaven this argument is going. I trust you will not think the reward too paltry, but it is firstly this: abortion is wrong because it takes a life, a human life, without just cause. (I do not oppose just war or capital punishment. This is not inconsistent, because the principle at hand is justice, not life.) Secondly, the presence of a human spirit at conception makes awkward the usual interpretation of Paul's teaching that we were all dead until we were made alive in Christ. That theological discussion can wait for another day.
The good news is that recently two states that I know of have passed laws that assign human-ness to fertilized eggs, or said another way, that human rights inhere from conception. Hooray! Dare we hope that Roe v. Wade may yet be challenged? Does this mean that state-sponsored slaughter of humans will be ended in the near future? Realistically one doubts that anything will be done on a national level anytime soon; there are too many liberals who hold abortion, excuse me, women's reproductive rights sacrosanct. This should not keep believers from praying zealously that more states will follow Kansas and North Dakota. If you are up to the challenge, get working on that very thing where you are. There could be a de facto reversal of Roe if all the states followed Kansas and North Dakota; the big question is whether enough of us will get involved to make it happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment