Prove To Me When God Gives A Child A Soul

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132597' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:29 AM']
I believe your boy is misinterpreting the meaning of a soul. he said it ws the life principle of the body.

While that may be true... Jesus said our body is our temple. Well how can the soul enter the body when the body isn't even finished? Hmmmm?
[/quote]


You misunderstand, he was stating that "Breath" is a biblical metaphor for one’s spirit or life, which is a "principle" translated the soul is a basic truth.

Edited December 1, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[Farsight one]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132606' date='Nov 30 2006, 11:36 PM']
What about to save the mother's life?
[/quote]Yes, provided her chance of survival changes significantly enough. Something like from no chance to a 75%.


[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132610' date='Nov 30 2006, 11:37 PM']
This is where I veer off. I in no way believe the mother should have to carry that burden. Being raped is torturous enough to be reminded of it every time she sees the full grown sperm of the assailant.
[/quote]Ever talked to a woman who was raped and kept the child? Try it sometime. There are a few who are tormented by such things, but adoption can be used in that case. The vast majority, however, look at their child and see it as a reminder of the trials that they have overcome - a source of immense joy, not pain.

[zeyeon]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1132612' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:39 AM']
Regardless of cause, a procured abortion is an active taking of a life in its natural development.

Removing oneself from artificial and extraordinary machines does not kill the footbal player. The kidney disease kills the footbal player.

An abortion ends the life of the unborn.
[/quote]

God gave the football player the desiese... and according to Pro Lifers... Expects you to hook yourself up to him inorder to give him life.

[Winchester]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132597' date='Nov 30 2006, 11:29 PM']
I believe your boy is misinterpreting the meaning of a soul. he said it ws the life principle of the body.

While that may be true... Jesus said our body is our temple. Well how can the soul enter the body when the body isn't even finished? Hmmmm?
[/quote]
body=material
soul=immaterial

The body deveops. At the moment of conception, the human body is in its proper state. The body does in fact exist, just not with the accidents present later in life.

At what point is a body "finished," anyway?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132615' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:40 AM']
I mean how would you fill the temple with people when the temple doesn't even have walls yet?
[/quote]

The soul is a spiritual temple do I have to explain why the soul does not have "walls"

[zeyeon]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1132621' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:43 AM']
Yes, provided her chance of survival changes significantly enough. Something like from no chance to a 75%.
Ever talked to a woman who was raped and kept the child? Try it sometime. There are a few who are tormented by such things, but adoption can be used in that case. The vast majority, however, look at their child and see it as a reminder of the trials that they have overcome - a source of immense joy, not pain.
[/quote]

Well then there is a major flaw with the right to life arguement then. I mean both the embryo and the mother have an equal right to life right? shouldn't we perhaps flip a coin? Or should we add to the mother's right to life her right to decide what happens in and to her body, which everybody seems to be ready to grant...the sum of her rights now outweighing the fetus's right to life?


[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1132626' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:47 AM']
The soul is a spiritual temple do I have to explain why the soul does not have "walls"
[/quote]

only if you expect me to explain why you didn't get the analogy

Edited December 1, 2006 by zeyeon

[Farsight one]

Dangerous? How exactly? With no abortion, there's no death in that regard. A life outweighs any amount of suffering. We are not required to go out of our way to save a life, but we cannot actively end one to save someone some suffering.

[Winchester]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132623' date='Nov 30 2006, 11:44 PM']
God gave the football player the desiese... and according to Pro Lifers... Expects you to hook yourself up to him inorder to give him life.
[/quote]
Really? So the football player and God were hanging out and it's contagious?

Seriously.

Whether or not God gave the football player the disease, removing oneself from the machines does not cause the football player's death. The kidney disease cause it.

A procured abortion directly causes death.

Pro-lifers do not require people to hook themselves up to other people to keep them from dying of diseases. They do expect that healthy people be alowed to continue to live. Being involuntariy impregnated is not the same as being hooked up to someone with a disease. It is a violation of a human right, certainly, but ending the pregnancy is another violation of another human right. We do not have the right to avoid natural death.

[zeyeon]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1132625' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:46 AM']
body=material
soul=immaterial

The body deveops. At the moment of conception, the human body is in its proper state. The body does in fact exist, just not with the accidents present later in life.

At what point is a body "finished," anyway?
[/quote]

that's not correct. the body lacks the necessary equipment to be tempted, to sin, to love... it's impossible for the body at that stage to perform any of the functions necessary.

I have no idea what god considers as finished. But I know that it's not as an embryo given the reasons in my previous statement.

[quote name='Winchester' post='1132637' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:53 AM']
Really? So the football player and God were hanging out and it's contagious?

Seriously.

Whether or not God gave the football player the disease, removing oneself from the machines does not cause the football player's death. The kidney disease cause it.

A procured abortion directly causes death.

Pro-lifers do not require people to hook themselves up to other people to keep them from dying of diseases. They do expect that healthy people be alowed to continue to live. Being involuntariy impregnated is not the same as being hooked up to someone with a disease. It is a violation of a human right, certainly, but ending the pregnancy is another violation of another human right. We do not have the right to avoid natural death.
[/quote]

So then according to that logic... The abortion did not kill the embryo that was concieved during a rape.... The rape killed it.

[Winchester]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132638' date='Nov 30 2006, 11:55 PM']
that's not correct. the body lacks the necessary equipment to be tempted, to sin, to love... it's impossible for the body at that stage to perform any of the functions necessary.I have no idea what god considers as finished. But I know that it's not as an embryo given the reasons in my previous statement.
[/quote]
So you're putting forth the argument that it's not proper for the human body to begin as it does in the womb?


[quote]So then according to that logic... The abortion did not kill the embryo that was concieved during a rape.... The rape killed it.
[/quote]
Hang on, I'm dizzy.

You put that chain together for me and show how the logic of disease causing cellular death matches with impregnation (causing life) being innately tied to a separate decision to end that life.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132627' date='Nov 30 2006, 11:52 PM']
Well then there is a major flaw with the right to life arguement then. I mean both the embryo and the mother have an equal right to life right? shouldn't we perhaps flip a coin? Or should we add to the mother's right to life her right to decide what happens in and to her body, which everybody seems to be ready to grant...the sum of her rights now outweighing the fetus's right to life?
[/quote]One could flip a coin, but, at a fifty percent chance to live after an abortion, remember, that there's a fifty percent chance that BOTH will die. If the mother caries the baby to term, there is a 100% chance that someone(the child) will live(unrelated complications not withstanding). Therefore to properly compromise, in my mind, it would have to be a 75% chance.

How does her rights outweigh the fetus's rights? I know this is a wierd analagy, but the fetus' right to life is like the number zero to me. Multiply the fetus' right to live by the mothers right to what happens in her body, and you still get zero. The importance of the fetus' right to live outweighs the mother's convenience so much that in that particular situation, the mother's convenience doesn't exist in a way.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132627' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:52 AM']
Well then there is a major flaw with the right to life arguement then.[/quote]

No Sir, there is not, if the mother dies the child will also die, and if the child has a chance to live by being born, there is no reason to kill the child in the first place. However if the child is in one of the falopian tubes and can not be removed safely into the womb, the operation would not be to kill the child but the save the life of the mother.

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132627' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:52 AM']I mean both the embryo and the mother have an equal right to life right? [/quote]


Yes! Crazy is it not? Blacks and Whites also have equal right to life.

[Kosh]

strictly speaking you shouldn't even deliberately kill the baby to save the life of a mother. Farsight one, you are mistaken. Killing the baby to save the life of a mother is not right. Would you kill an innocent person to save another?

Edited December 1, 2006 by Kosh

[Socrates]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132638' date='Dec 1 2006, 12:55 AM']
that's not correct. the body lacks the necessary equipment to be tempted, to sin, to love... it's impossible for the body at that stage to perform any of the functions necessary.
[/quote]
One could make the same arguments about a newborn infant - I doubt most infants in their first year or so are capable of sin (Stewie from Family Guy to the contrary).
In fact, the Catholic Church traditionally considers seven the "age of reason" - age at which one is morally culpable for his actions.

In fact some pro-abortion philosophers, such as Dr. Peter Singer, use the lack of significant difference between a preborn fetus and an infant to argue for legalized feticide. At least he's constistant.

And human development is long process, bodies only being fully developed in the late teens or so.
Considering at which point a human being becomes a human being at point past conception (when a new human life begins) becomes purely arbitrary.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1132651' date='Dec 1 2006, 01:03 AM']
strictly speaking you shouldn't even deliberately kill the baby to save the life of a mother. Farsight one, you are mistaken. Killing the baby to save the life of a mother is not right. Would you kill an innocent person to save another?
[/quote]


That was what I was [i]trying[/i] to say...

[Kosh]

we agree!! Cool!!! XD XD XD

srry. Its late and I have physics and thus am random.

look, there are other medical procedures that are done where the death of the unborn is an unintended cause. In abortion the INTENT is to kill the baby. Thats wrong.



wow, nothing like me posting to destroy the conversation, eh? no one's said anything for like 10 minutes.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Kosh

[KnightofChrist]

I'm sorry...

I was posting my 1000th post in the Divine Mercy Chaplet Thread!

[Kosh]

XD That rox!

hey, where'd all the opposition go?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1132691' date='Dec 1 2006, 01:24 AM']
XD That rox!

hey, where'd all the opposition go?
[/quote]

Idk, his replys where getting shorter and shorter... beddy by time, I guess?

[Kosh]

no, he's still on..oh well. Well, Abortion is objectively wrong and God gives us a soul at the moment of conception and no, we can't prove it. Its a matter of faith. That 'bout sums it up, I think.