As to the definition of soul that I rely upon, well it is the behavior mechanism that proves life is present. There are three basic manifestational variables of thaqt mechanism, with higher life forms exhibiting more and lesser organisms exhibiting less, but all exhibiting the most fundamental, that of the will to live. The other two variables are emotion and mind, the reasoning manifestation. Even my cats exhibit all three; an amoeba exhibits at least one and perhaps all three, albeit primitive manifestation. With humans we have another aspect that is linked to the behavior mechanism --the spirit-- but is not soul, though soul is the expression gateway for spirit. When I gave you a rudimentary picture of the new life exhibiting the first aspect of soul --the will to live and expression of that will in cell division and tasking-- I mistakenly believed you would 'get it', the science I mean. You did, but you did your usual and tried to ignore that morsel so as to prevent it entering into the discussion the way you have condescended to dabble in it and define the debate. You're a joke at FR ... we aren't as backward here as you must be use to at other forums.
Had you read anything I actually wrote on this thread, you would know what you just said was ridiculous. I don't at all reject modern science. I merely pointed out that those who believe that a fetus cannot be aborted at any stage because the soul (however you wish to define it) is present at conception, are at odds with what the Church and most of its scientific community believed for well over a thousand years. And I further said that when the Church decreed that no abortion is permissible (in 1869), it had nothing to do with any new science. Those are facts whether you like them or not.
As to the definition of soul that I rely upon, well it is the behavior mechanism that proves life is present.
It's nice to know you at least have a definition, especially if you believe it is determinative with respect to abortion. Others would disagree with you, and no court should consider it.
With humans we have another aspect that is linked to the behavior mechanism --the spirit-- but is not soul, though soul is the expression gateway for spirit.
Again, a nice concept, but since metaphysical issues are by definition provable only by faith, they cannot play into legal arenas, especially in this area.
This is why my definition of either soul or spirit was irrelevant.
When I gave you a rudimentary picture of the new life exhibiting the first aspect of soul --the will to live and expression of that will in cell division and tasking-- I mistakenly believed you would 'get it', the science I mean.
As you pointed out, all living things have a will to live. But that rudimentary beginnings for even humans are just that...rudimentary. There is no reason, rationality, sentience...nothing but growth. To be sure, one day it will, but the issue from a constitutional perspective is when does that growth become a person with all of the rights of the Constitution? You may be certain, but many are not. Nor do I reject science...just metaphysics, as a basis for legal determinations.
You're a joke at FR ... we aren't as backward here as you must be use to at other forums.
Yes, I'm sure you and the FR crowd all gather around the table and chat about how MACVSOG is a joke. As for my other forums, I seriously doubt you would fit in. They insist on rational debate, not inane insults, given simply to make the poster feel like he has contributed something.
By the way, you always know where the abuse button is...I have little doubt.