|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:51 pm
You know, Captain, you have an uncanny way of saying what I'm thinking, but putting it into well-written words. About the spirit and whne it enters the body, I think it's probably around three or so for most people. I can only remember back to when I was two or three, and that's only about two memories. Since I can only remember that far back, that's probably when I got a spirit. As far when you can survive without your mother, I couldn't really live on my own yet (I'm 13) but I can live... So you'd have to define when you get your spirit.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:18 pm
Quote: You know, Captain, you have an uncanny way of saying what I'm thinking, but putting it into well-written words. About the spirit and whne it enters the body, I think it's probably around three or so for most people. I can only remember back to when I was two or three, and that's only about two memories. Since I can only remember that far back, that's probably when I got a spirit. As far when you can survive without your mother, I couldn't really live on my own yet (I'm 13) but I can live... So you'd have to define when you get your spirit. Thanks. sweatdrop I don't believe it's that late, because you'd be living for three whole years without having a soul. My mother says I was a very alert baby from the moment I was born my eyes were wide open I was examining everything. Three or four is about when your long term memory solidifies, I believe. I can't remember when I was three, only when I was four. But when I was two I could already live outside the womb (in fact I don't believe I could live inside the womb), I already had a personality, I already had concious thought, my dna was more than settled, and I was already alive. I don't think long term memory is a sign of your soul entering your body because when you get older it starts to deteroriate, and your soul doesn't deteroriate. I thought you were older than me, but I guess you're not. Heh. xd I'm on the younger side of fourteen. I'm always surprised by the age of people on the internet. There have been people I have sworn were brilliant and must have been much older than me and then it turns out they're ten years old. Judging based on age is silly, because age really has nothing to do with maturity level.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:35 pm
True. I guess three is a bit late... Birth is getting to be more and more probable. I don't really know how alert I was when I was little. I knew I cried a lot when I was born and could eat solid food early domokun . I think I started eating bananas at something like eighteen months. I'm not sure that's right... I'm also I was quite quiet as a baby. I still am. I don't complain much. As a result I'm often starving when pull myself away from the computer. sweatdrop
I figured you were a lot older than me... like... nineteen or something. You never on the 'net. People are usually surprised at my age on the web. Especially my *ahem* not-so-literate freinds. I'm on the young side of thirteen. My birthday happenms to be in July, so I'm still new to being thirteen. You're right, judging is pretty dumb, but it can be fun to be surprised.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:40 pm
Quote: True. I guess three is a bit late... Birth is getting to be more and more probable. I don't really know how alert I was when I was little. I knew I cried a lot when I was born and could eat solid food early . I think I started eating bananas at something like eighteen months. I'm not sure that's right... I'm also I was quite quiet as a baby. I still am. I don't complain much. As a result I'm often starving when pull myself away from the computer. I figured you were a lot older than me... like... nineteen or something. You never on the 'net. People are usually surprised at my age on the web. Especially my *ahem* not-so-literate freinds. I'm on the young side of thirteen. My birthday happenms to be in July, so I'm still new to being thirteen. You're right, judging is pretty dumb, but it can be fun to be surprised. I'm not sure exactly when the soul enters the body, but I'm still pro-choice until the point of viability. The Catholic Church in someteenth century's official position was that the soul entered much later than conception. I was starving today when I finally ripped my eyes off the screen and went to go get something to eat. All I had had all day was rice this morning, but of course I just finished eating dinner just now. My birthday was in June. What a coincedince. I have a tendancy to assume people on the internet are older than me, because most of them are. On Gaia at least. Most people on gaia are gay pagan teenagers. Or that's the way it seems. On a random side note, I don't think I could ever be pagan. It just doesn't seem like a very satisfying religion. ANYHOW, BACK TO ABORTION.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:15 pm
Captain_Theoretical Quote: Look it's not an opinion, abortion is killing lives and taking away the chance for that baby to grow up and maybe even make a difference in someone else's life. Face it, i don't care if u think it's an opinion, a fact is a fact. Indeed, abortion is killing a fetus, and taking away it's chance to grow up. Yes, that is fact. But it's your opinion that abortion should be made illegal. Quote: I only think that abortion should be done in the case of rape or incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. Then again, I'm a little tired of people using abortion as birth control. THAT makes me angry. A new life is growing, but will never have the chance to make something of that life. Human life, to me, is sacred, even if it's just a few cells when you first look at it. Killing anything that will grow into a baby, into another human being, is wrong to me. That doesn't mean I'm going to the nearest abortion clinic and damning the murderers to hell. My views differ from theirs, and pro-choice and pro-life will never quite see eye-to-eye. In fact, there's a big to-do going on in my state (South Dakota) over this very issue. *sigh* My personal idea on it: Make abortion clinics into places you go when referred by a doctor. For one, if it's not readily available as a walk-in, more people might have safer sex. For another, you'll need a legitimate reason to get rid of a child. Course, that would probably be protested too. I agree that you should need a legitimate reason, but I think the choice should be available to everyone. I hate the idea of someone getting an abortion on a whim, but you just can't restrict the people who can get abortions because it would make it harder for people who do have legitimate reasons and anyone can walk into an abortion clinic and say they were raped so I don't see this as a very good idea. Quote: Yep, supporting the deposing of ruthless dictators and terrorists just can't happen when you value innocent human life. If you're pro-war or pro-death penalty, you're not pro-life you're pro-innocent life. I'm pro-choice and I'm anti-war, and I most certainly don't support the death penalty. I'm pro-choice because I don't think the state has a right to control women's uteruses (uteri? I'm sorry I fail at spelling right now). I'm against the death penalty because I don't think the state has the right to decide who lives and who dies. And war is just stupid. People are murdered and tortured for nothing, because there really is no such thing as war for peace. Look at the Iraqi death toll, are all of those people ruthless dictators and terrorists? Quote: Do u know that ppl don't go to a pregnant woman and ask "How's ur fetus doing?" they ask her "How's ur baby doing?" or "did u feel the baby kick yet?", ppl use "fetus" when the baby is unwanted or when talking about abortion but when it's wanted it's called a baby, i wonder why ..... *wonders* Because when it's wanted it's going to become a baby, and fetus is the correct scientific term. The phrase 'unborn child' is an oxymoron, really. Either it's a child or it hasn't been born yet. Quote: We wont remeber, but that doesn't mean it does not think. The highest proof I find that a body does not live unless a spirit is in it is the jellyfish. With no brain, heart, blood, bones, or lungs, and yet it eats and moves. That shows living things need a soul to really live. The baby would not find a new "host" it would be dead. It would most likely be in Heaven. A soul must be there to live. When the soul is part of the flesh is a mystery to me. So you think animals have souls? Me too. -shakes hand- I can't imagine why a fetus would be sent to hell. And it's a scientific fact that we don't think during the early part of the pregnancy, there is no gray matter and therefore the fetus cannot acheive cognition until later. Just an idea I came up with about thirty seconds ago, maybe the soul enters the body when it comes to the point of viability when it can survive without the mother, when it becomes seperate from her. More likely is at the moment of conception, when the DNA plans are laid out. But it depends on what you believe a soul is. Is it the energy, the life force within us? Or is it like our DNA, what makes us--well--us? Or is it our mind (not brain, mind)? I suppose that would influence when you thought the soul enters the body, but if you said it was like a combination then we'd be back at square one. Quote: Supporting pro-choice and the death penalty? Kill off those innocent children, but let the murderer live. I resent that, not everyone who recieves the death penalty is guilty and everyone who recieves the death penalty is capable of concious thought. Yeah I believe animals have souls.*shakes hand* I think it is impossible to know the time of true birth, that is when the soul enters the body. First, we don't know what a soul is exactly. Just because a baby can't think is it souless? God knows, not us. I think if the body without the soul is dead, lets assume for now, then maybe......I don't know. I don't think life begins when one can think or has a heart beat. The Jellyfish and some other animals have neither and yet they live. So the scientifical version of life and death don't seem right. I love it when nature or God baffles scientists. The Godly version of life and death, the soul entering and leaving the body, seems like a better explaination. So science might classify the living as having a heart beat or brain waves, so according to science then abortion should not be killing anything at a certain time. According to God, well, we can probably never know that. neutral
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:42 pm
I'm pro-life all the way, no matter what the circumstances are. If you were raped, if the child was a product of incest or a one-night stand, that baby has a right to live. No child should die because of the inconvenience it would cause the parents. That's life- consequences happen.
Ever heard the phrase, "If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it"? If a girl is raped and becomes pregnant (which is highly unlikely, but not impossible), yes, it's traumatic, and yes it seems cruel and wrong that she should have to live with the constant reminder of the terrible event, but a baby is a baby. If she gives her fear and her sorrow to God, He will bring her through it, and the baby will become a blessing rather than a curse. If incest is committed and a baby comes along (don't those normally end up dying? I don't remember confused ), again, God will handle that situation. In the case of choosing between the mother's life and the baby's life, I would definitely vote for the mother to die. Okay, that came out alot harsher than I'd intended. But really, the mother has lived, has had her experiences, and if it's God's will to take her, then it's His will to take her. Now it's the baby's turn to forge a life for itself, to be another bearer of God's Light to a broken world. The mother had her turn, and yes it seems untimely, but that's the way the world works.
And I think we're all pretty much in agreement that abortion as birth control is wrong on so many more levels than any of us could even name.
Now, as far as when the soul enters the body- I believe a baby has a soul at conception, as soon as the cells unite and start dividing.
And I don't believe animals have souls, but that's another discussion for another time. confused
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:50 pm
Fushigi na Butterfly I'm pro-life all the way, no matter what the circumstances are. If you were raped, if the child was a product of incest or a one-night stand, that baby has a right to live. No child should die because of the inconvenience it would cause the parents. That's life- consequences happen.
Ever heard the phrase, "If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it"? If a girl is raped and becomes pregnant (which is highly unlikely, but not impossible), yes, it's traumatic, and yes it seems cruel and wrong that she should have to live with the constant reminder of the terrible event, but a baby is a baby. If she gives her fear and her sorrow to God, He will bring her through it, and the baby will become a blessing rather than a curse. If incest is committed and a baby comes along (don't those normally end up dying? I don't remember confused ), again, God will handle that situation. In the case of choosing between the mother's life and the baby's life, I would definitely vote for the mother to die. Okay, that came out alot harsher than I'd intended. But really, the mother has lived, has had her experiences, and if it's God's will to take her, then it's His will to take her. Now it's the baby's turn to forge a life for itself, to be another bearer of God's Light to a broken world. The mother had her turn, and yes it seems untimely, but that's the way the world works.
And I think we're all pretty much in agreement that abortion as birth control is wrong on so many more levels than any of us could even name.
Now, as far as when the soul enters the body- I believe a baby has a soul at conception, as soon as the cells unite and start dividing.
And I don't believe animals have souls, but that's another discussion for another time. confused Yay! Another pro-life.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:14 am
Captain_Theoretical Quote: Yep, supporting the deposing of ruthless dictators and terrorists just can't happen when you value innocent human life. If you're pro-war or pro-death penalty, you're not pro-life you're pro-innocent life. I'm pro-choice and I'm anti-war, and I most certainly don't support the death penalty. Dear, pro-choice and pro-life are just bullsh*t monikers cooked up by some underpaid beaurocrat designed to demonize the other side. EVERYONE is pro-choice and EVERYONE is pro-life. Quote: I'm pro-choice because I don't think the state has a right to control women's uteruses (uteri? I'm sorry I fail at spelling right now). And I'm pro-choice because I think that it's the state's responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves (fetuses, mentally retarded, those in comas). Quote: I'm against the death penalty because I don't think the state has the right to decide who lives and who dies. I'm for the death penatly because life, just like liberty and the persuit of happiness, and, when someone, say, murders, they give up that right right just as much as they give up the right to freedom and their persuit of happiness. Stupid, but unfourtunatly necessary. Quote: People are murdered and tortured for nothing, And that's what justifies a war. Quote: because there really is no such thing as war for peace. Look at the Iraqi death toll, are all of those people ruthless dictators and terrorists? And look who's killing those innocent folks. Yeah, the people the U.S. is trying to stop.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:26 am
Quote: Yeah I believe animals have souls.*shakes hand* I think it is impossible to know the time of true birth, that is when the soul enters the body. First, we don't know what a soul is exactly. Just because a baby can't think is it souless? God knows, not us. I think if the body without the soul is dead, lets assume for now, then maybe......I don't know. I don't think life begins when one can think or has a heart beat. The Jellyfish and some other animals have neither and yet they live. So the scientifical version of life and death don't seem right. I love it when nature or God baffles scientists. The Godly version of life and death, the soul entering and leaving the body, seems like a better explaination. So science might classify the living as having a heart beat or brain waves, so according to science then abortion should not be killing anything at a certain time. Brain death actually occurs after the heart stops. The heart is not as all-powerful as it's made out to be. It's just a pump. It pumps blood through your body. It's essential because the blood is essential. If the blood isn't pumped, your other organs die because they aren't getting blood pumped to them. If our bodies were cars, the heart would be a gas station. The car needs gas to run, and if we didn't have the gas station the gas would not be pumped into our cars, but without the gas station the car can still run for a little while. The brain would be the driver, of course. And this analogy isn't going any further so I'll stop now. A living creature must take in something to survive, and leave waste. A living creature must respirate, for humans that's breathing, but it can really just be gasses/liquid permeating through a membrane. And it must be able to reproduce somehow. I think those are all the life-signs. Viruses are a big mystery, because they're not alive. No one knows where they came from. -twilight zone theme- Anyway the fetus/zygote, whatever you want to call it at the clump of cells stage, is alive from the moment of conception. Both the egg and the sperm are alive, therefore the fetus is alive. If a soul enters the body the moment life starts, conception would be the moment it entered. It sounds pretty likely. Quote: According to God, well, we can probably never know that. Yeah. Sometimes I just want to go outside and shout at the sky "HEY GOD, MIND TELLING ME WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT?" Quote: I'm pro-life all the way, no matter what the circumstances are. If you were raped, if the child was a product of incest or a one-night stand, that baby has a right to live. No child should die because of the inconvenience it would cause the parents. That's life- consequences happen. Whoops. Fushigi said that. I accidentally copied and pasted it without quoting it. I'm pro-choice. Quote: Ever heard the phrase, "If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it"? If a girl is raped and becomes pregnant (which is highly unlikely, but not impossible), yes, it's traumatic, and yes it seems cruel and wrong that she should have to live with the constant reminder of the terrible event, but a baby is a baby. If she gives her fear and her sorrow to God, He will bring her through it, and the baby will become a blessing rather than a curse. If incest is committed and a baby comes along (don't those normally end up dying? I don't remember ), again, God will handle that situation. In the case of choosing between the mother's life and the baby's life, I would definitely vote for the mother to die. Okay, that came out alot harsher than I'd intended. But really, the mother has lived, has had her experiences, and if it's God's will to take her, then it's His will to take her. Now it's the baby's turn to forge a life for itself, to be another bearer of God's Light to a broken world. The mother had her turn, and yes it seems untimely, but that's the way the world works. If I was raped, I'd really want to keep the baby. That's just me. But if I were somebody else, and the baby were a constant reminder that I was violated so cruelly, there is always the option of adoption. I mean if you've already had the baby, and you can't even stand to look at it because it reminds of you of how it was concieved in the first place, it wouldn't be so horrible to give it up for adoption. I know this is going to sound pro-choicey and not very nice, but I can't tell if you mean she's pregnant or has already had the kid when you just use the word 'baby' all the time. Because when I hear baby, I think infant. But you may be reffering to a fetus. I don't mean to be cruel, it would just be easier to understand if you specified whether you meant born or not born. Anyway, if the mother would die in labor, but the baby would survive I would vote for abortion. Or C-section obviously if she wanted to have the baby but was then informed she would die if she gave birth. Yeah, I know, it does seem cruel that I never gave the kid a chance, but you know the mother would be aware of her death, and so would every body else. People would miss her. No one would miss the fetus. I would rather have been aborted than have my mother die because of me. confused If both the baby and the mother would die if she had the baby, then I'm sure everyone can agree that abortion would be an okay option. I mean that's one person not getting the chance to live, rather than two people. If the baby were already born, I'd have to say I'd rather have the mother die and the baby live. Most mothers would give their lives for their children anyway. As for rape/incest, yes I think that the mother should be able to abort. Regardless of my own personal beliefs on abortion, I will always be for keeping abortion an open option. Quote: And I think we're all pretty much in agreement that abortion as birth control is wrong on so many more levels than any of us could even name. Abortion is always birth control because it controls birth, but I know what you mean. It would be very wrong just to sleep around and not care about getting pregnant because they could always have an abortion. That is wrong. Quote: Now, as far as when the soul enters the body- I believe a baby has a soul at conception, as soon as the cells unite and start dividing. I think it's likely, but it doesn't change my position. Quote: And I don't believe animals have souls, but that's another discussion for another time. I believe everything alive has a soul. I think bacteria have souls, I think the trees have souls. I think humans give themselves waayyyy too much credit.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:32 am
Fushigi na Butterfly I'm pro-life all the way, no matter what the circumstances are. If you were raped, if the child was a product of incest or a one-night stand, that baby has a right to live. No child should die because of the inconvenience it would cause the parents. That's life- consequences happen.
Ever heard the phrase, "If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it"? If a girl is raped and becomes pregnant (which is highly unlikely, but not impossible), yes, it's traumatic, and yes it seems cruel and wrong that she should have to live with the constant reminder of the terrible event, but a baby is a baby. If she gives her fear and her sorrow to God, He will bring her through it, and the baby will become a blessing rather than a curse. If incest is committed and a baby comes along (don't those normally end up dying? I don't remember confused ), again, God will handle that situation. Okay, I agree with you up to here. My previous post was for the practicality of trying to live in the US. But you said what I FEEL so much bettter than I could. I have to disagree with letting a mother die so the baby can live. Unfortunately, a lot of the time if the mother dies, so does the child, especially if they're doing natural childbirth (no drugs of any kind administered to the mother) or an at-home delivery. It also doesn't seem fair that a woman who wants kids but has too small a frame to safely concieve (which could end up endangering the child as well) shouldn't be allowed to live a life. But a man losing his wife AND his child? I'm not just talking about abortion here. These things, despite all our technology and care, still happen. And I really don't like the idea of newborns being blamed for their mother's death by angry relatives. That seems more cruel than allowing them to die. Okay, yes it doesn't always happen, but it happens enough.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:30 pm
Captain_Theoretical Quote: Yeah I believe animals have souls.*shakes hand* I think it is impossible to know the time of true birth, that is when the soul enters the body. First, we don't know what a soul is exactly. Just because a baby can't think is it souless? God knows, not us. I think if the body without the soul is dead, lets assume for now, then maybe......I don't know. I don't think life begins when one can think or has a heart beat. The Jellyfish and some other animals have neither and yet they live. So the scientifical version of life and death don't seem right. I love it when nature or God baffles scientists. The Godly version of life and death, the soul entering and leaving the body, seems like a better explaination. So science might classify the living as having a heart beat or brain waves, so according to science then abortion should not be killing anything at a certain time. Brain death actually occurs after the heart stops. The heart is not as all-powerful as it's made out to be. It's just a pump. It pumps blood through your body. It's essential because the blood is essential. If the blood isn't pumped, your other organs die because they aren't getting blood pumped to them. If our bodies were cars, the heart would be a gas station. The car needs gas to run, and if we didn't have the gas station the gas would not be pumped into our cars, but without the gas station the car can still run for a little while. The brain would be the driver, of course. And this analogy isn't going any further so I'll stop now. A living creature must take in something to survive, and leave waste. A living creature must respirate, for humans that's breathing, but it can really just be gasses/liquid permeating through a membrane. And it must be able to reproduce somehow. I think those are all the life-signs. Viruses are a big mystery, because they're not alive. No one knows where they came from. -twilight zone theme- Anyway the fetus/zygote, whatever you want to call it at the clump of cells stage, is alive from the moment of conception. Both the egg and the sperm are alive, therefore the fetus is alive. If a soul enters the body the moment life starts, conception would be the moment it entered. It sounds pretty likely. Quote: According to God, well, we can probably never know that. Yeah. Sometimes I just want to go outside and shout at the sky "HEY GOD, MIND TELLING ME WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT?" I'm pro-life all the way, no matter what the circumstances are. If you were raped, if the child was a product of incest or a one-night stand, that baby has a right to live. No child should die because of the inconvenience it would cause the parents. That's life- consequences happen. Quote: Ever heard the phrase, "If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it"? If a girl is raped and becomes pregnant (which is highly unlikely, but not impossible), yes, it's traumatic, and yes it seems cruel and wrong that she should have to live with the constant reminder of the terrible event, but a baby is a baby. If she gives her fear and her sorrow to God, He will bring her through it, and the baby will become a blessing rather than a curse. If incest is committed and a baby comes along (don't those normally end up dying? I don't remember ), again, God will handle that situation. In the case of choosing between the mother's life and the baby's life, I would definitely vote for the mother to die. Okay, that came out alot harsher than I'd intended. But really, the mother has lived, has had her experiences, and if it's God's will to take her, then it's His will to take her. Now it's the baby's turn to forge a life for itself, to be another bearer of God's Light to a broken world. The mother had her turn, and yes it seems untimely, but that's the way the world works. If I was raped, I'd really want to keep the baby. That's just me. But if I were somebody else, and the baby were a constant reminder that I was violated so cruelly, there is always the option of adoption. I mean if you've already had the baby, and you can't even stand to look at it because it reminds of you of how it was concieved in the first place, it wouldn't be so horrible to give it up for adoption. I know this is going to sound pro-choicey and not very nice, but I can't tell if you mean she's pregnant or has already had the kid when you just use the word 'baby' all the time. Because when I hear baby, I think infant. But you may be reffering to a fetus. I don't mean to be cruel, it would just be easier to understand if you specified whether you meant born or not born. Anyway, if the mother would die in labor, but the baby would survive I would vote for abortion. Or C-section obviously if she wanted to have the baby but was then informed she would die if she gave birth. Yeah, I know, it does seem cruel that I never gave the kid a chance, but you know the mother would be aware of her death, and so would every body else. People would miss her. No one would miss the fetus. I would rather have been aborted than have my mother die because of me. confused If both the baby and the mother would die if she had the baby, then I'm sure everyone can agree that abortion would be an okay option. I mean that's one person not getting the chance to live, rather than two people. If the baby were already born, I'd have to say I'd rather have the mother die and the baby live. Most mothers would give their lives for their children anyway. As for rape/incest, yes I think that the mother should be able to abort. Regardless of my own personal beliefs on abortion, I will always be for keeping abortion an open option. Quote: And I think we're all pretty much in agreement that abortion as birth control is wrong on so many more levels than any of us could even name. Abortion is always birth control because it controls birth, but I know what you mean. It would be very wrong just to sleep around and not care about getting pregnant because they could always have an abortion. That is wrong. Quote: Now, as far as when the soul enters the body- I believe a baby has a soul at conception, as soon as the cells unite and start dividing. I think it's likely, but it doesn't change my position. Quote: And I don't believe animals have souls, but that's another discussion for another time. I believe everything alive has a soul. I think bacteria have souls, I think the trees have souls. I think humans give themselves waayyyy too much credit. Viruses are strange because they are dead when they are not in contact with a living organism, then they are alive when they come in contact. The moment of conception would be the most likely time the soul enters the body. I think one of the qualifications for life is it has to move. Even trees and flowers move slightly.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:03 pm
Imotoku The moment of conception would be the most likely time the soul enters the body. I think one of the qualifications for life is it has to move. Even trees and flowers move slightly. If it helps... Leviticus 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:26 pm
Cometh The Inquisitor Imotoku The moment of conception would be the most likely time the soul enters the body. I think one of the qualifications for life is it has to move. Even trees and flowers move slightly. If it helps... Leviticus 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Yes, but true life is in the soul because blood does not inherit the Kingdom of God.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:35 am
Fushigi na Butterfly I'm pro-life all the way, no matter what the circumstances are. If you were raped, if the child was a product of incest or a one-night stand, that baby has a right to live. No child should die because of the inconvenience it would cause the parents. That's life- consequences happen.
Ever heard the phrase, "If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it"? If a girl is raped and becomes pregnant (which is highly unlikely, but not impossible), yes, it's traumatic, and yes it seems cruel and wrong that she should have to live with the constant reminder of the terrible event, but a baby is a baby. If she gives her fear and her sorrow to God, He will bring her through it, and the baby will become a blessing rather than a curse. If incest is committed and a baby comes along (don't those normally end up dying? I don't remember confused ), again, God will handle that situation. In the case of choosing between the mother's life and the baby's life, I would definitely vote for the mother to die. Okay, that came out alot harsher than I'd intended. But really, the mother has lived, has had her experiences, and if it's God's will to take her, then it's His will to take her. Now it's the baby's turn to forge a life for itself, to be another bearer of God's Light to a broken world. The mother had her turn, and yes it seems untimely, but that's the way the world works.
And I think we're all pretty much in agreement that abortion as birth control is wrong on so many more levels than any of us could even name.
Now, as far as when the soul enters the body- I believe a baby has a soul at conception, as soon as the cells unite and start dividing.
And I don't believe animals have souls, but that's another discussion for another time. confused I have to disagree with you. The babay is a little mess cells supported by the mother. It doesn't care if it dies. However, if a girl/woman is forced to give birth, it can throw her whole life off. She could run out of money, end up on teh street with her kid and maybe die there. Same goes for the kid. Some people simply can't deal with a child. Consequences happen, yes, however, we can make them less often and easier to deal with. People shouldn't have to deal with a child that they don't want. The kid and parents could both end up with a bad life. A point you serem to be missing is that not everyone believes in your high-and-mighty God. More and more people are becoming atheistic and agnostic. Yes a raped woman could learn to love her child, with or without the help of "God" As for the mother or baby decision, I would say, let the mother live. The baby doesn't have a life yet, it can barely think and without a mother, it could miss out majorly. The mother on the other hand has family, freinds, intrests and a life. Now, if the mother was already going to die, like through some kind of disease, the baby should live. Even if it is a hard decision, I think the mother has more a of a right to live. I don't agree that abortion and birth control are wrong. I've been agruing debating that abortion is right. I don't think there's anything wrong with birth control. It's much better than abortion. So, do I not count into "all" or what? If you get into just bad decisions and you don't use a condom or whatever, it enters a grey area. So, I'm not really decided about that yet...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:35 pm
Quote: Viruses are strange because they are dead when they are not in contact with a living organism, then they are alive when they come in contact. Well, not exactly. They just go dormant when they don't have a host. Viruses can't die because they're not alive. They have to have a host to reproduce, they are like little packets of genetic material. Once they have entered a host cell, they reproduce like crazy until the cell ruptures and sends the viruses off to new cells to reproduce. Viruses can be taken apart, but they can never really 'die' per se. You can take a toaster apart so it doesn't work anymore, but you can't really kill a toaster.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|