L
laylow
Guest
This is interesting. How are you defining “soul?”
- Status
B
Bradskii
Guest
One is not the other. As you noted.
E
Elf01
Guest
Science can’t detect a soul. The law should be based on what can be scientifically verified.
G
goout
Guest
And yet all share a universal:TheLittleLady:
One is not the other. As you noted.
“human life”
sheesh.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Please don’t ignore the question.Bradskii:
Unborn child is a child.Sbee0:
Please give me an example from anywhere at any time where someone, outside of these type of discussions, has ever referred to a zygote as a child.Bradskii:
Nope. The child is always a child, nothing happens to make it become a child.Sbee0:
A clump of cells never becomes a child.
OK…
Thanks.
O
openmind77
Guest
This definition is as good as any: What Exactly Is a Soul? | Catholic Answers
B
Bradskii
Guest
If you don’t see the difference then you will never appreciate the arguments that those with other viewpoints are making.Bradskii:
And yet all share a universal:TheLittleLady:
One is not the other. As you noted.
“human life”
sheesh.
I’ve tried pointing that out. And failed again. Which is why I try never to involve myself with two types of discussion. Abortion and gun control.
Signing out…
E
Elf01
Guest
Sure they’re different. In the same way that child Bradskii is different to adult Bradskii.
L
laylow
Guest
Dismissing the religious aspects, the “soul” cannot exist without some level of brain activity. By using this section of the definition, "The spiritual principle of human beings. The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom; soul and body together form one unique human nature, " I would argue that the “soul” does not exist until birth, since that is when consciousness begins.
G
goout
Guest
Begs the obvious objection:
So the child just outside the birth canal is more conscious than the child in the birth canal?
So the child just outside the birth canal is more conscious than the child in the birth canal?
S
Sbee0
Guest
My point is I’m showing you how, where and why the whole “personhood” argument completely falls down in this debate, thus it is a non argument to say (as is commonly said) abortion is acceptable because X is not a person.
L
laylow
Guest
They are both exercises in futility.
L
laylow
Guest
I’m not sure, have any studies been done? How would it be studied?
O
openmind77
Guest
Good enough for me. BTW if you are really interested in examining these questions about birth-death-soul etc, you may want to read http://heaven-hell-back.com/openmind77:
Dismissing the religious aspects, the “soul” cannot exist without some level of brain activity. By using this section of the definition, "The spiritual principle of human beings. The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom; soul and body together form one unique human nature, " I would argue that the “soul” does not exist until birth, since that is when consciousness begins.
J
JMMJ
Guest
Not a tactic. It is the way they see things. Let’s not associate characteristics to a whole group of people when we don’t know enough about them to do so.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
You’re not saying that a woman typically refrains from referring to the child she is carrying as a child until it reaches a certain age? That women say “my zygote” and not “my baby”? When there is a miscarriage, women say, “I lost my zygote, but it wasn’t a child yet?” Yeah. Right. Sure they do.
How about people telling women not to use alcohol or drugs while they are pregnant? Then it is “you could harm your baby,” not “you could harm your zygote.” When the child is wanted, he or she is referred to as a child. The only times the child is referred to as a zygote is in a science textbook needing to be specifc about developmental age or in a discussion about why ending the pregnancy ought to be permissible. Then all of a sudden the child is a science project, not a person whose future will be impacted by the things happening to him or her right now, in the womb.
Last edited:
S
Sbee0
Guest
I guess I wasn’t clear enough or it didn’t come across as intended.
A child is a human being at one stage.
.
A zygote or an unborn child is a human being at another stage of growth.
They’re not comparable to a clump of cells. A clump of cells has no inherent ability to become an adult human being. An unborn child does.
So justifying abortion by equating the two is as disingenuous as it gets.
A child is a human being at one stage.
.
A zygote or an unborn child is a human being at another stage of growth.
They’re not comparable to a clump of cells. A clump of cells has no inherent ability to become an adult human being. An unborn child does.
So justifying abortion by equating the two is as disingenuous as it gets.
L
laylow
Guest
Why can’t you claim your unborn child on our tax returns? Why are death certificates not issued in all unborn cases? Legally they are not recognized in the same way. That is the current situation. You can argue for your opinion against that reality, but you can’t deny said reality.
S
Sbee0
Guest
But this kind of appeal to legality or the law is a fallacious argument. I think that’s the name of the fallacy actually.Sbee0:
Why can’t you claim your unborn child on our tax returns? Why are death certificates not issued in all unborn cases? Legally they are not recognized in the same way. That is the current situation. You can argue for your opinion against that reality, but you can’t deny said reality.
Last edited:
T
TheMortenBay
Guest
I never said that it was permitted. I’m 100% in favour and agreement with the Church’s teaching on this subject. Abortion is evil. However, I think my argument is something along the lines that the reasonings behind getting an abortion can be more or less moral and more or less complicated. Just like every other grave matter, there might be mitigating circumstances.
I’ve been working for almost 15 hours, so please forgive me of I make less than complete sense.
- Status