It is true that the very ancient Hebrews had a different idea of "soul" than we do. It isn't that they didn't have a word for soul, they did; however, like you pointed out, to them it was not a thing wholly separapable from the body, and, consequently, it wasn't necessarily even immortal. "It came about that as her soul was departing (for she died) that she called him Benoni . . . ." Genesis 35:18. The idea of a distinct and immortal spirit did come through the Greeks, I think. The Greek word "psyche" means "life" or "self" which isn't much different than the Hebrew word as far as I know. It is just a matter of adding another idea, a Greek one, "pneuma" to the mix which gives us an immortal part. I do not understand yet the distinction between "spirit" and "soul" sometimes found in the New Testament. One passage from Hebrews reads: "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12. To my mind, from this passage we can safely deduce two things: first, that behind the words soul and spirit are two different things, and second, that these two things are somehow bound very tightly together. Of course, from this passage alone we shouldn't assume that the body is itself distinct from these two things. But in Matthew we read the words of our Lord Himself: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell." Surely from these words we can believe that the soul and the body are separable, at least ultimately, if not in this life. Christ was speaking to His disciples when He said this; since all of the disciples were Hebrew, if it safe to assume that they at least had heard of immortality and were willing to believe Him.

The problem with your idea, I think, has two parts, one which isn't such a big deal maybe, and one which is. The first problem I see is that it is simply primitive in the sense that it ignores the whole revelation of the New Testament regarding this subject. The letter of Paul to the Romans and the two letters to the Corinthians are filled with implications of a soul distinct from the body. Your idea strikes me as being something like a guy who is content to ride a unicycle when he could have a bike.

The second problem is bigger and makes me think of Jon's syllogism. If the soul and body just mean the same thing, that is, a person, or a person's life, then what becomes of that life when it is extinguished? What would Freud say? "Nil", that's what. You rightly say that life is not "totally extinguishable", but if we are standing there looking down at a corpse in a casket, what exactly is it that hasn't extinguished? I'm looking at Uncle Fred and saying to myself, "Sure looks like he's been extinguished to me." So, whether or not the spirit or soul is separate from the body at creation-time, it is clear that the two things are separable at death. But I don't think taking this view would be a huge leap for you.

I see what you are trying to do as far as how this idea informs the abortion debate. Avoid the question of when the thing gets its soul. Like I told Jon I think that is a wise move. Again, the issue is what is a fetus. Is it a person or is it not a person? But just for you, why not think of the life/death cycle you mentioned backwards? The immortal soul departs the body at death. When would it make sense that the soul goes into the body, is "breathed" into it by God? Doesn't that sound a lot like the event in Genesis concerning the first man? The Hebrews knew that God breathed life into Adam. St. Paul went further telling us (by implication) that that life contains an immortal part which is bound up with and yet distinct from the body. On Jon's syllogism, the conclusion that losing my hair = losing some of my soul from the premise that the soul arrives as soon as new DNA appears is a sound argument, but not necessarily true. That conclusion assumes that the soul and the DNA are the same thing, which they aren't if we believe Socrates as refined by St. Paul.

Maybe we should abandon the abortion problem and talk about "snakes and snails and puppy dog tails". Or better yet, "sugar and spice and everything nice".

Also, we can edit our own posts, just not our comments. Isn't that right?

P.S. Next time I see you, Kelly, you MUST tell me which pathologies you are thinking of. I have to know, for my own well-being.