Replies

You spouted: There is absolutely nothing modern science knows today that would help make a determination as to whether a fetus has a soul or not. That is the issue. If that is indeed the issue for you (this appears more and more, with each brassy posting by you, to be all about your stroking your ego since you continue to write of 'soul' but eshew any definition for us and thus allowing yourself the maximum parsing room): the organized cell division and tasking begun at conception and carrying a distinct DNA identity as different from both the Mother and the Father is indication enough that a new individual life is behaving just as that human life should at that age. And that gestational process continues even after the birthday of the individual into the air world.

That you prefer to set such truth aside in order to continue this obfuscation of truth into the mutated gray you prefer to support your perspective is quite telling of you and your need to create an alternate reality that allows you to feel good about the dehumanization process you prefer, for whatever reason you prefer it.

Your petty condescension is laughable, not having the dissonance effect you intended. But that was a good try, sport.

It is inevitable with the fundamentalists here. They paint themselves into a corner, cannot meet on an intellectually level playing field, and so resort to the only thing they really understand...the personal attack. You do it well. By the way, who is us you keep referring to. The rest on here who disagreed with me did so by specifying where they believed I was wrong...and attempted to set me straight.

Apparently your faith is insufficient for you. You must attack anyone not in agreement with you. This has nothing to do with me. But if it makes you feel better, by all means take your best shot.

As for your little "science" lesson in the middle of your tirade, I'm quite sure that Augustine knew that a life was growing from the moment of conception. As I have said several times, "that is not the point". Perhaps you can tell me exactly why the Church turned away from the concept of late ensoulment when it did? BTW, it had nothing to do with the fact that a "human" is devoloping, since that was common knowledge for a very long time.

As for my definition of a soul and its relevance, perhaps it's your turn to contribute something. Since different religions through the ages have had differing views of the "soul", why is my interpretation of any relevance?

As for my petty condescension, it is intended only for hypocrisy, not for faith. It is reserved for those who cling to "science" in an effort to "prove" a soul, while at the same time decrying "science" in an effort to "prove" creation. But obviously, since that's not you....

Take care, my friend.