Prove To Me When God Gives A Child A Soul

[dairygirl4u2c]

To clarify.

Picking the point when abortion is wrong is arbitrary, no one would dispute.
Objectively, when abortion kills a human life is not in dispute. I think we can't really know when the human life begins.

Pointing out that the choice of when is arbitrary doesn't prove that human life begins at conception, or that it should be banned.

Arguments like erring on the side of life is where the discussion should be heading.

And admitting what we cannot know would be big of those who can. (i mean those who can who are not bound to say abortion is murder by doctrinal requirement)

Edited December 5, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[MichaelFilo]

We can tell when life begins.. it's pretty dumb to continue to argue otherwise.

A better arguement: Oftentimes, we may kill people who are weaker, more defenseless, if it brings about a desired result.
For instance, we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and took out countless civilians. we could have invaded the island and fought only against their military units. however, it was decided that killing people who were defenesless against an atom bomb was better than attempting to kill those who could fight back.

Something along those lines. Arguing life doesn't begin at conception leaves the question at "when does it begin then, if it doesn't begin where it seems it would make sense that it begins, and the chromosmes and all are met for a human being to exist". Answering "I don't know, but that is why I give women the choice" is saying I allow possible murder because I'm not sure. The correct response would be to not allow it until you are sure.

The only arguement that cna be made is that that life is not worth as much as some other life. And to that end, all that can be said is if you choose a life of amorality and apathy towards others, then maybe you can make a reasonable arguement that it doesn't matter if any life is taken, including your own. Otherwise, values of lives cannot be compared.

[got2luvjc]

I didn't feel like reading all 6 pages, but I'm sorry of someone already said this or something like it.

you want concrete proof of when a soul enters the child? it's called Faith in my opinion. You can't hand me concrete proof that the Holy Spirit exists, but I know it still does.. you can't say "Lisa, hold out your hand, I want to give you a cut-out of the Holy Spirit." I know it through Faith. I have Faith that Jesus actually existed and that we're all not just part of a bigger version of The Truman Show.

Edited December 7, 2006 by got2luvjc

[uruviel]

[quote name='BurkeFan' post='1132950' date='Dec 1 2006, 01:11 PM']
Before the thread is locked, I just wanted to add that strictly speaking, the soul is the from of the body. It is what organizes the structures and substructures, and activates everything. Our bodies are not "shells" for our souls in any way, shape or form. There is an absolute indissoluble unity. We are not "our souls". We are our bodies, though not *just* our bodies.
[/quote]

You make a good point, but my point is when God creates a human, at the instant of conception it has a soul.

[quote name='got2luvjc' post='1137144' date='Dec 6 2006, 11:43 PM']
I didn't feel like reading all 6 pages, but I'm sorry of someone already said this or something like it.

you want concrete proof of when a soul enters the child? it's called Faith in my opinion. You can't hand me concrete proof that the Holy Spirit exists, but I know it still does.. you can't say "Lisa, hold out your hand, I want to give you a cut-out of the Holy Spirit." I know it through Faith. I have Faith that Jesus actually existed and that we're all not just part of a bigger version of The Truman Show.
[/quote]

got2luvjc, I think your absolutely right. You can't prove something that's imaterial, you can't prove to me that I have a soul. It all boils down to faith, just as we may not be able to understand the Blessed Trinity, we believe it because God revealed it. I believe I have a soul because God says I do, basically. But there's not 'proof' of my soul.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1133017' date='Dec 1 2006, 03:22 PM']
You do a good job showing that it's probably arbitrary if it's not a human the whole time. The problem is that not everyone espouses Singer's views. Some people will say "it's obvioisly murder at point X" (pick your poison), say 3 weeks. It's obviously not murder the first week (to them). So they err "conservatively" and say it should be illegal after one week.

Of course, you'd say to be truly "conservative" you should err on that it "might" be a human, so you have to ban it comepletely. Then again, you might be so conservative that you'd say there's no doubt it's human and so it's banned.

But simply pounding your foot and pointing out how it's arbibtary otherwise, you don't prove that it's a human.

I think a Christian could say "abortion might be murder" and think it should be banned, and not be obviously wrong.
I think a Christian could even say "abortion might be murder" and don't think it should be banned. (though I wonder about how they choose to err as they do. i know arguments, but I'd like to see others)

Can you say abortion at some stages might not be murder?
I suppose if you're Catholic you can't, as it's a matter of faith, such as you'd never say Jesus might be Lord. But it's something to think about if it's not a binding doctrine to you.
[/quote]
Just thought I'd point out that I mistyped in my earlier post - it should say that Peter Singer argued that [i]infanticide[/i] should be legal. Feticide, of course, is already currently legal.

I think the facts are clear that a new human life does indeed begin at conception. Any other time is arbitrary. And Singer does say that killing a (normal) three-year-old should be illegal, but at exactly what point a human "gains personhood" is arbitrary.
His philosophy is built on the idea that there is nothing intirinsically sacred or worth protecting about human life. He argues that living creatures should be protected based on mental ability, and that not all human beings are "persons".


Do you believe the life of all human beings should be protected by law?

If so, what makes something a human being?

[got2luvjc]

[quote name='uruviel' post='1137843' date='Dec 7 2006, 11:18 PM']
You make a good point, but my point is when God creates a human, at the instant of conception it has a soul.
got2luvjc, I think your absolutely right. You can't prove something that's imaterial, you can't prove to me that I have a soul. It all boils down to faith, just as we may not be able to understand the Blessed Trinity, we believe it because God revealed it. I believe I have a soul because God says I do, basically. But there's not 'proof' of my soul.
[/quote]

oh how I love PM. I was talking to my boyfriend not too long ago, and I referenced this thread! yay! we were talking about faith & reason verses science, which has to do with what I wrote below:

I told him that I love him, and he asked me how could he know that. And I said that I can't physically hand you a chunk of love, it's a feeling, it's a soul thing, it's in our hearts and minds. But if we take the scientific standpoint, love cannot exist because it cannot be proven scientifically. Now, maybe I'm just a silly goose, but but I believe 100% that love exists, and 100% that from conception it's a human life.