Cold callous comments like the above greatly grieve my spirit.
[snip]
What would they have lost? Their lives. Their entire lives and the world would have missed out on two very special boys who just may come up with a cure for a disease that might be taking your own life someday.
Since my comment is apparently being interpreted as "cold and callous", I'd like to clarify.
I'm well aware of the tragedy of a lost life. That wasn't my point.
My point was only in response to someone who stated:
When they understand that the eternal information (Spirit) for a life is contained in the embryo, at the point of conception, maybe then they will know why we fight like zealots to protect those children.The point he was making seemed to be, "over and above the usual 'earthly' loss, it's *more* of a tragedy if you consider that babies have eternal souls".
My *only* point was to scratch my head and ask why the consideration of an eternal soul would somehow make it *more* of a tragedy? If anything, it could be argued that it would make it at least marginally *less* a tragedy, since at least the child would then have the consolation of an eternal afterlife, versus a final dead end (in the case of no souls).
It was a philosophical question only, and was meant to prompt bondserv to explain his reasoning on that particular point.