[jas3]

If a person doesn't need a soul to be protected, then why does a blastosphere need a soul to be protected?

It doesn't. It could be protected without a soul. Piping Plovers are proteted, and they don't have souls. The question we are debating is not whether a blastosphere CAN be protected. It is whether a blastosphere SHOULD be protected.

jas3

[syriacus]

t doesn't. It could be protected without a soul. Piping Plovers are proteted, and they don't have souls. The question we are debating is not whether a blastosphere CAN be protected. It is whether a blastosphere SHOULD be protected.

Please bear with me as I try to restate your position---

If someone can prove to you that a blastosphere has a soul, you will agree that it should be protected.

But you do not demand that "persons" should have souls, in order to be protected.

And you recognize that plovers are protected, even though they don't have souls.

Am I "hearing" you correctly?