Prove To Me When God Gives A Child A Soul

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132786' date='Dec 1 2006, 04:43 AM']
I shouldn't have brought my friend into this.. you're absolutley right. So I'm done with this thread out of respect for her.

thanks for the linked articles and to those who responded decently.
[/quote]


I believe last night I may have let my emotion get to me, so if I offend you and the your dear friend I do deeply apologize, I should have shown more compassion but as stated I probably let my emotions get to me. The only reason I ever even replied to you was because I care for the livelihood of your soul. I care for the livelihood of every soul. Which is why I care for the unborn so very much.

I think of often the nearly 50 million people that could have been if fact where, but are not because they have been sniffed out before they we're even born. 50 million, so many souls, so many people lost.

Think of how many great men and woman that will never get the chance to be great, how many doctors, policemen, priest, nuns, firemen and hero's that could have been, but are not. How many lives could they have saved? Just one may have been able to prevented the murder of another, or even somehow prevented 9/11. Some even may have even been able to stop the ones we care about from being raped, we'll never know.

And Abortion just doesn't kill one person, it kills countless generations of people that would have been because of that person, and effects everyone that those people would have touched.

I deeply pray you will come back to the love of Christ, which is for all His children both born and unborn.

Peace in Christ!

Edited December 1, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[dairygirl4u2c]

[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.[/quote]

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.

[BurkeFan]

[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]

The problem with functionalism (the view espoused by Singer, Mary Anne Warren, Michael Tooley, etc etc) is that it confuses what a thing *is* with what a thing *does*. A person isn't a person because it acts like a person, rather, a person acts like a person because it already IS a person.

[Anthony]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132522' date='Nov 30 2006, 10:21 PM']
I never said I don't care. But I'll be honest I do care more about a fully developed human than an emrbyo. I care about the embryo as far as stemcell research goes in order to save someone from suffering. If the mother decides to go through with pregnancy, then I will care about the child. To me an embryo is not a child. it can't recognize me, it cant touch me... and most importantly... it's not my sperm. If it was my kid BET YOUR LIFE I will be fighting for it... but as for other embryo's... where are thier fathers?!

Most of you guys are opposed to it philisophically, and the lack of proof of when a child becomes a child is proof of that. you're not in the womans situation.

i'm not going to deny the ability of a woman to do what she wants to her body, based on a rough idea. The mother is capable of cognizant thought. I mean if the mother is even CONSIDERING abortion... do you really think it's best for the child to have her as a mother anyway?
[/quote]


Read Evangelium Vitae. In his encyclical letter, Pope John Paul II explains the importance of human life at conception until natural death. I believe that it would have everything you are looking for.

[Noeyez]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1133003' date='Dec 1 2006, 02:55 PM']
I believe last night I may have let my emotion get to me, so if I offend you and the your dear friend I do deeply apologize, I should have shown more compassion but as stated I probably let my emotions get to me. The only reason I ever even replied to you was because I care for the livelihood of your soul. I care for the livelihood of every soul. Which is why I care for the unborn so very much.

I think of often the nearly 50 million people that could have been if fact where, but are not because they have been sniffed out before they we're even born. 50 million, so many souls, so many people lost.

Think of how many great men and woman that will never get the chance to be great, how many doctors, policemen, priest, nuns, firemen and hero's that could have been, but are not. How many lives could they have saved? Just one may have been able to prevented the murder of another, or even somehow prevented 9/11. Some even may have even been able to stop the ones we care about from being raped, we'll never know.

And Abortion just doesn't kill one person, it kills countless generations of people that would have been because of that person, and effects everyone that those people would have touched.

I deeply pray you will come back to the love of Christ, which is for all His children both born and unborn.

Peace in Christ!
[/quote]

That's peace man I ain't mad atcha. I was pretty emotionally charged over the topic too. Sorry for the new name, but some Child that called me a troll... got my other username suspended for 7 days stating I "personally attacked him"

I'm just glad most catholics are able to debate without resorting to such childish tactics to compinsate for thier lack of intellect.

[rollingcatholic]

[quote name='Noeyez' post='1133227' date='Dec 1 2006, 05:46 PM']
That's peace man I ain't mad atcha. I was pretty emotionally charged over the topic too. Sorry for the new name, but some Child that called me a troll... got my other username suspended for 7 days stating I "personally attacked him"

I'm just glad most catholics are able to debate without resorting to such childish tactics to compinsate for thier lack of intellect.
[/quote]

Why the new screen name?

[Noeyez]

[quote name='RC _' post='1133231' date='Dec 1 2006, 06:49 PM']
Why the new screen name?
[/quote]

-shruggs-

Edited December 1, 2006 by Noeyez

[rollingcatholic]

[mod]Keep it civil and respectful, please. --Era Might[/mod]

[Winchester]

Wow.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1132491' date='Nov 30 2006, 10:40 PM']
lol @ quoting the declaration of independance. do me a favor and go read the definition of a "person" as far as this country is concerned... then get back to me.
but it is scientifically. Pro choice proponnents will argue, and provide proof, that the embryo is not aware during the first trimester.
[/quote]

Just because someone won't really feel pain while they're being killed gives no one the right to kill them. And lack of consciousness doesn't either, because that means my doctor could kill me while I'm in surgery.

As for ensoulment, there are those who believe that the soul does not exist, period. Does that mean we can kill anyone we want to kill? The fetus or embryo, depending on the stage of pregnancy is alive and human physically if not spiritually. Besides, it has completely different DNA from the mother and a different gender half the time.

[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?