Guest Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 1 hour ago, anatess2 said: Debates are actually great and doesn't need to be combative. So... to your question: What makes me assert that a human egg penetrated by a human sperm has a soul? My answer: Question is irrelevant to the issue. The question assumes that all Americans believe that you're human because you have a soul... an assumption that is not rooted in reality. It's not wise to legislate something not rooted in reality. Your turn. It hardly seems fair to respond to someone's question by telling them their question is irrelevant. It seems even less fair to tell a person what their question assumes something--it was a straightforward question sans assumption. Besides I didn't ask ask why any number of Americans believe, I asked only you. If I reciprocate in like fashion we can't even have a conversation let alone a debate. In any event and knowing I can't force you to give me what I think would be a straight answer, then in hope that you'll appreciate my attempt at turning the other cheek and cooperating with you as I would want to be cooperated with I'll take my turn as I think you offered it. In that spirit am I to tell you why I *don't* believe that a human egg penetrated by a human sperm has a soul, or is that question now off the table due to your sentencing it to irrelevance? And if so, then is it my turn to respond to some question you would like to put to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted April 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 Quite frankly, I've not encountered a serious, theologically-based, request to justify my view that life (we've added the term 'ensouled') begins at conception. In the circles I travel, this is a basic assumption. I reviewed my church's position paper on the subject. It suggests that pregnant women are said to be "with child," that fetuses are referred to with s/he pronouns, and that angelic messengers announce these pregnancies in ways that seem to imply personhood to the unborn child. Then too, the command to be fruitful and multiply is treated as on-going counsel, such that using contraceptives simply to avoid the duties and burdens of child-raising (in a permanent sense) is considered highly questionable. I'm back to wondering why it is wrong to protect unborn life. Why do we require young girls to "choose life," or not? Even those who are uncertain about when life becomes ensouled, I would think would want to be cautious, rather than going by feelings. Why risk killing an ensouled person? Chelsea Clinton said that a woman's right to abort is a core value. WHY? Who came up with this? Who slapped their forehead one day and said, "Women should be able to end their pregnancies?" I am bewildered at the fervency of pro-choice activists. unixknight 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unixknight Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 15 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said: I'm back to wondering why it is wrong to protect unborn life. Why do we require young girls to "choose life," or not? Even those who are uncertain about when life becomes ensouled, I would think would want to be cautious, rather than going by feelings. Why risk killing an ensouled person? Chelsea Clinton said that a woman's right to abort is a core value. WHY? Who came up with this? Who slapped their forehead one day and said, "Women should be able to end their pregnancies?" I am bewildered at the fervency of pro-choice activists. The only consistent answer I've come up with is that there's an expectation that people have a right to avoid the consequences of their choices if things turn out differently than planned. In other words, I was once told in no uncertain terms by a pro-choice debater that if a woman didn't choose to get pregnant, then that fact alone gives her the right to abort. They also compared pregnancy to a medical malady for which abortion is the treatment. I'm not sure which of the two arguments was the more absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) 41 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said: It hardly seems fair to respond to someone's question by telling them their question is irrelevant. It seems even less fair to tell a person what their question assumes something--it was a straightforward question sans assumption. Besides I didn't ask ask why any number of Americans believe, I asked only you. If I reciprocate in like fashion we can't even have a conversation let alone a debate. In any event and knowing I can't force you to give me what I think would be a straight answer, then in hope that you'll appreciate my attempt at turning the other cheek and cooperating with you as I would want to be cooperated with I'll take my turn as I think you offered it. In that spirit am I to tell you why I *don't* believe that a human egg penetrated by a human sperm has a soul, or is that question now off the table due to your sentencing it to irrelevance? And if so, then is it my turn to respond to some question you would like to put to me? Okay, I guess before we start discussing, we have to first establish WHAT we're discussing. I'm discussing the OP as it pertains to the pro-choice/pro-life LEGISLATIVE debate. There's really no other reason to debate abortion otherwise. If you want to convince somebody not to abort their babies outside of legislation, you don't debate them about abortion... you send the missionaries over. As far as my personal views and your personal views... I'm LDS. I believe what the Church says... that the spirit joins the body sometime before conception and birth... that means, it could be at the time the sperm meet the egg or it could be the second the baby exits the birth canal.... nobody knows for a certainty. So you're right and I'm right at the same time. Edited April 20, 2016 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 30 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said: Quite frankly, I've not encountered a serious, theologically-based, request to justify my view that life (we've added the term 'ensouled') begins at conception. In the circles I travel, this is a basic assumption. I reviewed my church's position paper on the subject. It suggests that pregnant women are said to be "with child," that fetuses are referred to with s/he pronouns, and that angelic messengers announce these pregnancies in ways that seem to imply personhood to the unborn child. Then too, the command to be fruitful and multiply is treated as on-going counsel, such that using contraceptives simply to avoid the duties and burdens of child-raising (in a permanent sense) is considered highly questionable. I'm back to wondering why it is wrong to protect unborn life. Why do we require young girls to "choose life," or not? Even those who are uncertain about when life becomes ensouled, I would think would want to be cautious, rather than going by feelings. Why risk killing an ensouled person? Chelsea Clinton said that a woman's right to abort is a core value. WHY? Who came up with this? Who slapped their forehead one day and said, "Women should be able to end their pregnancies?" I am bewildered at the fervency of pro-choice activists. See... here's exhibit #1 of my post above to UTstarscoper. You can argue with Chelsea Clinton that we must protect unborn life. That's not going anywhere until you FIRST come to a consensus on WHEN life begins. And that is not something you can use Biblical support for because I doubt Chelsea cares about the Bible when it pertains to abortion... if she even believes in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 12 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said: Quite frankly, I've not encountered a serious, theologically-based, request to justify my view that life (we've added the term 'ensouled') begins at conception. In the circles I travel, this is a basic assumption. I reviewed my church's position paper on the subject. It suggests that pregnant women are said to be "with child," that fetuses are referred to with s/he pronouns, and that angelic messengers announce these pregnancies in ways that seem to imply personhood to the unborn child. Then too, the command to be fruitful and multiply is treated as on-going counsel, such that using contraceptives simply to avoid the duties and burdens of child-raising (in a permanent sense) is considered highly questionable. I'm back to wondering why it is wrong to protect unborn life. Why do we require young girls to "choose life," or not? Even those who are uncertain about when life becomes ensouled, I would think would want to be cautious, rather than going by feelings. Why risk killing an ensouled person? Chelsea Clinton said that a woman's right to abort is a core value. WHY? Who came up with this? Who slapped their forehead one day and said, "Women should be able to end their pregnancies?" I am bewildered at the fervency of pro-choice activists. I appreciate your frankness, and I appreciate if talking with me about abortion is a new experience for you. But I think you misunderstand me (or I've been clumsy at my attempts on this thread). I am not asking you to prove anything to me, nor to even prove that your views are reasonable. I'm only asking you to explain your views and I'm taking the liberty since this is a forum of explaining where I see things differently than you see them. If it boils down to you believe what you believe because that's what you've been taught, then that's fine. You don't have to justify anything. Moreover, if I have given you the impression that I think life and ensoulment are synonymous, then I apologize. If I said it, then I said it inadvertently and I retract it. To clarify further I think that a fertilized human egg is a form of life in the the same sense that a heart is a form of life. I have been using the word ensoul (and it's derived adjectives, verbs, etc.) to describe the event at which whatever we were (as alluded to in the two scripture verses we mentioned) is placed here into this sphere. I think you are making unwarranted assumptions or at least mischaracterizing when you say you wonder why it is wrong to protect unborn life, or why we require young girls to choose. I say unwarranted assumptions because I don't believe I've said it is wrong, and the girls you refer to are not being required to choose as I see it. I can't speak for Ms. Clinton or explain her viewpoint. But you talk about this topic as if it is only 50 or so years old when in reality (I believe) women have been having abortions for thousands of years. Perhaps Ms. Clinton thinks of choice as a core value, but perhaps that's another topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 28 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Okay, I guess before we start discussing, we have to first establish WHAT we're discussing. I'm discussing the OP as it pertains to the pro-choice/pro-life LEGISLATIVE debate. There's really no other reason to debate abortion otherwise. If you want to convince somebody not to abort their babies outside of legislation, you don't debate them about abortion... you send the missionaries over. As far as my personal views and your personal views... I'm LDS. I believe what the Church says... that the spirit joins the body sometime before conception and birth... that means, it could be at the time the sperm meet the egg or it could be the second the baby exits the birth canal.... nobody knows for a certainty. So you're right and I'm right at the same time. My apologies. It appears I've taken this thread in directions that the OP and you did not wish. All my best and best wishes for future debates that may interest you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 9 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said: My apologies. It appears I've taken this thread in directions that the OP and you did not wish. All my best and best wishes for future debates that may interest you. You can take it anywhere you want... I just need to catch up on where you are so I know what we're discussing. Did I tell you I have an opinion on everything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightSG Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) 52 minutes ago, anatess2 said: the spirit joins the body sometime before conception That's a neat trick. Is it in the sperm or the egg, or half in each? Edited April 20, 2016 by NightSG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted April 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 UT, in my posts, I'm not just addressing you (even though they have mostly been in response to yours). I'm also wondering aloud about broader society--especially those lobbying for the pro-choice position. If you have some answers, that's great. However, I don't expect you to know what drives the younger Clinton's thinking. I'm used to thinking out loud in my posts. What I see you doing, thus far, is prodding me to express the rationale behind my beliefs. I understand and appreciate your efforts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 1 hour ago, NightSG said: That's a neat trick. Is it in the sperm or the egg, or half in each? I like this. Not in the spirit of making fun, but in terms of trying to think about things critically. (Not that I'm always successful, hahaha). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 1 hour ago, NightSG said: That's a neat trick. Is it in the sperm or the egg, or half in each? Hey! I'm Filipino... I have an excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 9 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Hey! I'm Filipino... I have an excuse. Are you going to tell us what the excuse is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 18 minutes ago, zil said: Are you going to tell us what the excuse is? zil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.