Pro-Life, Pro-Science

Eloy Craft said:

You forget who is doing the soul infusing? God knows what's going to happen before it happens. Souls are created and the body or bodies receive the soul or souls in accordance to the organization of the body or bodies. The body isn't going to fool God into making some kind of soul mess.

Click to expand...

Souls infusing? Souls are INFUSED ? What is that?

SOULS are created? Must come after their infusing, right?

Sounds like a soul mess.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Souls infusing? Souls are INFUSED ? What is that?

SOULS are created? Must come after their infusing, right?

Sounds like a soul mess.

Click to expand...

To be "infused" the soul would have to exist prior to being infused into a body and this implies that the body was in existence prior to being infused with a soul. This would seem to imply that the soul must be created at the instant the body comes into existence (conception?). All of this presumes that there actually is such an entity as a soul.

JackRT said:

To be "infused" the soul would have to exist prior to being infused into a body and this implies that the body was in existence prior to being infused with a soul. This would seem to imply that the soul must be created at the instant the body comes into existence (conception?). All of this presumes that there actually is such an entity as a soul.

Click to expand...

It also presumes the soul is something that is virtually nothing, like the single cell invisible zygote.

NOTE that a single cell invisible zygote neither has a body nor is a body. Body of FLESH, that is.

Which presumably is the only kind of body a human being ever has, and the only kind ever "associated with a soul."

Douglas Hendrickson said:

NOTE that a single cell invisible zygote neither has a body nor is a body. Body of FLESH, that is.

Which presumably is the only kind of body a human being ever has, and the only kind ever "associated with a soul."

Click to expand...

A zygote is not invisible. It can be seen. And our body is simply our physical self. We wouldn’t say an amputee has less of a body, or an infant has less of a body as an adult.

You’re mistaken on both assertions.

SPF said:

A zygote is not invisible. It can be seen. And our body is simply our physical self. We wouldn’t say an amputee has less of a body, or an infant has less of a body as an adult.

You’re mistaken on both assertions.

Click to expand...

The single cell zygote cannot be seen with the naked eye.
That's what I say.
No further quibbling required.

Our body is indeed our physical self, but it is a real body made of flesh and blood and the zygote is none of that.
Like I already said.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

NOTE that a single cell invisible zygote neither has a body nor is a body. Body of FLESH, that is.

Which presumably is the only kind of body a human being ever has, and the only kind ever "associated with a soul."

Click to expand...

NOTE every person who ever lived started out as a one celled zygote. For some people, if it's out of sight it's out of mind.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

It also presumes the soul is something that is virtually nothing, like the single cell invisible zygote.

Click to expand...

Again, out of sight out of mind

JackRT said:

To be "infused" the soul would have to exist prior to being infused into a body and this implies that the body was in existence prior to being infused with a soul. This would seem to imply that the soul must be created at the instant the body comes into existence (conception?). All of this presumes that there actually is such an entity as a soul.

Click to expand...

well, you being a Christian one would assume you presume there is an actual entity as a soul.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

The single cell zygote cannot be seen with the naked eye.
That's what I say.
No further quibbling required.

Our body is indeed our physical self, but it is a real body made of flesh and blood and the zygote is none of that.
Like I already said.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you’re discriminating against humans based upon size and physical appearance. I don’t know why either of these would play a role in what constitutes a human being.

Once again the development of a human being lasts about 25 years. Humans look different and have different capabilities at the different stages of development. But we don’t discriminate against the human being and say they actually aren’t a human being just because they aren’t a certain size. Next thing we know you’ll be asserting dwarfs or amputees aren’t human beings.

Eloy Craft said:

well, you being a Christian one would assume you presume there is an actual entity as a soul.

Click to expand...

I have been a Christian for over 70 years and I now am convinced that presumptions are a poor way to live your faith.

SPF said:

Sounds like you’re discriminating against humans based upon size and physical appearance. I don’t know why either of these would play a role in what constitutes a human being.

Click to expand...

That happens, it may seem to sound that way to some people, if the only differences they can notice between what is in the womb and what is an actually born person are those of size.

It was certainly pointed out the immense difference between a mere invisible single cell and real human flesh of a real human being body. Seems pretty easy to see that is much more than a mere difference in SIZE.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

That happens, it may seem to sound that way to some people, if the only differences they can notice between what is in the womb and what is an actually born person are those of size.

It was certainly pointed out the immense difference between a mere invisible single cell and real human flesh of a real human being body. Seems pretty easy to see that is much more than a mere difference in SIZE.

Click to expand...

Again, what constitutes a "real human being body" is going to look different at the different levels of development. You're attempt to separate the body of an unborn human being and that of a born human being is fallacious and begging the question.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

That happens, it may seem to sound that way to some people, if the only differences they can notice between what is in the womb and what is an actually born person are those of size.

It was certainly pointed out the immense difference between a mere invisible single cell and real human flesh of a real human being body. Seems pretty easy to see that is much more than a mere difference in SIZE.

Click to expand...

"The law does not provide that the act of abortion pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation..."--St Augustine

"The intellective soul i.e., true person is created by God at the completion of man's coming into being." -- St Thomas Aquinas

"To admit that the human fetus receives the intellectual soul from the moment of its conception, when matter is in no way ready for it, sounds to me like a philosophical absurdity. It is as absurd as to call a fertilized ovum a baby." --Jacques Maritain

A zygote is certainly alive and human but it is not yet a human person, a process that normally takes nine months. Even though it is not yet a human person, it is of value because it has the potential to be a human person. However, I do not consider that value to compare to the value of the mother's physical or mental health.

SPF said:

Again, what constitutes a "real human being body" is going to look different at the different levels of development. You're attempt to separate the body of an unborn human being and that of a born human being is fallacious and begging the question.

Click to expand...

One either understands that a real human body consists of REAL HUMAN FLESH. Or not.

JackRT said:

"The law does not provide that the act of abortion pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation..."--St Augustine

"The intellective soul i.e., true person is created by God at the completion of man's coming into being." -- St Thomas Aquinas

"To admit that the human fetus receives the intellectual soul from the moment of its conception, when matter is in no way ready for it, sounds to me like a philosophical absurdity. It is as absurd as to call a fertilized ovum a baby." --Jacques Maritain

Click to expand...

I think we can excuse the ignorance of men who were born in the 300s, 1200s and 1800s and did not benefit from the scientific and medical knowledge about human biology that we have now.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

One either understands that a real human body consists of REAL HUMAN FLESH. Or not.

Click to expand...

I feel bad for the poor guy that has prosthetic limbs because Douglas probably doesn't consider them human beings any longer as according to him they no longer truly have a human body. Yikes!

SPF said:

I feel bad for the poor guy that has prosthetic limbs because Douglas probably doesn't consider them human beings any longer as according to him they no longer truly have a human body. Yikes!

Click to expand...

Has no relation to the point made.

Should be rather easy to see that someone without limbs STILL HAS A REAL HUMAN BEING BODY MADE OF REAL HUMAN BEING FLESH. Just lacking limbs, that's all.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Has no relation to the point made.

Should be rather easy to see that someone without limbs STILL HAS A REAL HUMAN BEING BODY MADE OF REAL HUMAN BEING FLESH. Just lacking limbs, that's all.

Click to expand...

Yet as a thought experiment we can easily imagine a person in a terrible car accident in which their body is burned and broken, and a doctor performing a life saving surgical procedure where he transplants the brain into an entirely prosthetic body. I wonder, when that person woke up from surgery would we no longer consider them a human being? Would they lose all the rights they previously had? If so, where do we define the line between a human being with prosthetic limbs and a living being that is no longer human?

Bottom line in case you missed it is this: We don't discriminate against human beings based upon how developed their body is. Human development takes roughly 25 years, a human is not more of a human being because their body is more developed. The development of our body has zero impact upon whether or not we are a human being.

SPF said:

We don't discriminate against human beings based upon how developed their body is.
The development of our body has zero impact upon whether or not we are a human being.

Click to expand...

Both statements are true, are about things in the real world. (The real world of human beings.)
YES, we do not discriminate against human beings based upon how developed their body is.
BUT, we certainly do discriminate against fetuses, killing them in many cases.
That in itself would indicate talking about, "we don't discriminate," can prove nothing about the issue.