Does God Put a Soul in a Petri Dish? Theological Questions About Embryonic Stem Cells

Does Every Fertilized Egg Have a Soul?

It appears as if the embryonic stem cell issue will be around for years.  It seems the crux of the argument has to do with the origin and definition of human life.  When I was in high school, our religion teacher really got us going with a theoretical debate about the definition
 of life as it relates to the soul.  A few critical questions popped up.

First, one wonders if it is okay to kill any living thing that has a degree of life.  As a Christian if it is theologically okay to harvest higher mammals, say, whales, and he is likely to answer yes, because whales don't have souls.   Based on such logic one is naturally led to a follow-up question: What exactly is the soul, then, and how does it get into the human animal as opposed to all other animals?  Theologians attribute the soul to a divine spark imparted by God.  Okay, let's say we agree with that the soul is a divine spark.  Next question? When exactly, then, does God ignite the human animal with said spark? At conception? At 3 months gestation? 7 months? 9 months? At birth? At 6 months of age, 12 months, 2 years? When exactly does this miracle of souldom take place?  Therein lies the rub.

Some who argue against embryonic stem cell research argue that fertilized cells in a petri dish are human beings.  The implication of their statement is that the soul pops in as an automatic response to fertilization, regardless of where that fertilization takes place.  In other words, the birthing of the soul is a done deal - when the egg is fertilized, even in a lab, in pops the soul, or thus blooms the soul, or however you wish to visualize it; the birth of the soul and the fertilization of the egg are simultaneous.

Unfortunately for the above argument, Genesis (Genesis 2:7) has a different set of rules. To my understanding, Adam was a biological entity first and then was endowed with a soul. The breath of God endowed Adam with a soul. "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."

Related information
  • Most theologians attribute the soul to a divine spark imparted by God.
  • Adam was a biological entity first and then was endowed with a soul.
 
Comments 1 - 4 of 4  
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

...notion of soul at conception. The baby is a life because it has a soul. I don't see where the Bible biologically states life, but this can be reasoned through the outcomes of our actions. What are we ultimately doing in this procedure? Destruction at any stage is still destruction. Looking from an atheistic point, natural order shows the protection, and not destruction, of young by the purpose of procreation. Overall and Personally, I think we are about to cross the line of considering ourselves God. We need to remember we do not create, and do not have the authority to destroy, life.

Posted on 10/14/2008 at 8:10:40 PM

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." Jeremiah 1:5 This directly states we are and pre-existent; how else could God know us before we are formed? Just because someone takes this statement literally does not mean they need to take the whole Bible literally. There really isn't any room to be symbolic. Also, the quote taken from the Bible doesn't have to be chronological. The sentence, I believe, says man was made concurrently with endowment of the Holy Spirit (often referred to as breath), giving him a living soul (an active soul in completion with the image of God, feeling compassion, and above other animals on Earth). The fact that the body is mentioned first is just accentuating the area where the soul is placed. But, I guess it would be easier to see precisely what is meant if the Bible didn't go through so many translations. Basically, the Bible doesn't have to be taken ALL literally or ALL symbolically. One main argument for life at conception is based off the

Posted on 10/14/2008 at 8:10:58 PM

I don't think you read carefully enough. I don't take the bible literally at all - my point is that those folks who ARE literal, should at least be consistent. If they believe that biological life begins at conception, they must also believe that the Bible tells us that the soul comes along sometime after the fact of conception, ie, the breath of life, which begets the soul, is separate and apart from biology and comes from the divine.

Posted on 10/10/2008 at 11:10:34 AM

First, in vitro means the embryos are fertilized in a dish, which you should probably know before arguing if it's acceptable. Second, whether or not the embryo is in the womb has nothing to do with your argument, and lastly, try not to take the Bible so literally because most of it is symbolic....

Posted on 10/08/2008 at 9:10:16 PM

Comments 1 - 4 of 4