in other words as phoenix flyer has said even if that story your dad told you actually occurred it doesnt prove anything, especially not the existance of a soul, what it does do is raise questions, when you get an answer to those questions you have proven something (basically, though its near impossible to ever prove some things 100%)

Kazoobie64 wrote:

Sure, anything can be considered murder if you look at it that way. Popping a wart is murder because you're killing cells. Having an abortion before 3 months into a pregnancy is murder because you're killing some cells that haven't even developed to be considered a baby! If you think it's wrong to mess with mother nature or destroy the POSSIBILITY of a baby, that's cool with me, but calling that sort of thing "baby killing" has always baffled me.

Yes your killing cells but its cells...Cells die all the time but the real debate in this matter is on the Soul itself of a living being. Stem cells are cells that could become anything... Technecly if they still havent been decided apon what they going to make then they are nothing but a blob of cells. We still dont know when a body gets its soul, but we know that when the body stops functioning its soul is able to leave therfour it is dead. A body is nothing but a capsole for a soul. The capsole takes damage but the soul only feels it.

Stem Cells are just Cells. Its only the life of the cells untill they are decided till then maybe thats when the Cells gain a soul they bound around.

i think thebig question should be is the term "soul" separable from the term "mind"

a soul is generally considered (in my experience) to be the essence of a human being that continues to exist in the afterlife, and its also often attributed to being the source of emotions, personality and conscience... so pretty much everything that makes us individuals

the problem is, we now know that emotions are caused by hormones and personality/conscience is a combination of hormones and the way we are raised, in other words, it all comes back to the brain or "mind"

so if the 2, soul and mind, are in fact the same thing, how can we say that a fertilised egg, which hasnt developped enough to have a brain/mind, has a soul

Sure, anything can be considered murder if you look at it that way. Popping a wart is murder because you're killing cells. Having an abortion before 3 months into a pregnancy is murder because you're killing some cells that haven't even developed to be considered a baby! If you think it's wrong to mess with mother nature or destroy the POSSIBILITY of a baby, that's cool with me, but calling that sort of thing "baby killing" has always baffled me.

Yes your killing cells but its cells...Cells die all the time but the real debate in this matter is on the Soul itself of a living being. Stem cells are cells that could become anything... Technecly if they still havent been decided apon what they going to make then they are nothing but a blob of cells. We still dont know when a body gets its soul, but we know that when the body stops functioning its soul is able to leave therfour it is dead. A body is nothing but a capsole for a soul. The capsole takes damage but the soul only feels it.

Stem Cells are just Cells. Its only the life of the cells untill they are decided till then maybe thats when the Cells gain a soul they bound around.

[sub]You have to be realistic here. With all the millions of cells, every single one couldn't possibly become a baby. However, once it's fertilized, it has a very good chance.

In any case, you could apply the same logic to men and their millions of sperm. -_____-

Seriously, there has to be some kind of limit as to what's considered a potential baby and what isn't. Single cells, no. Fertilized eggs, yes. [/sub]

its funny you should say that

there are 2 christian beliefs im thinking of right now, a belief that contraception is wrong and a belief that *bleep* is wrong (if you dont know what *bleep* is ask your parents, just dont tell them you heard it on these forums because youll likely be banned from coming back)

now to my knowledge, the whole reason *bleep* is considered wrong is that its a waste of potential human life, and i would assume the same reasoning applies to contraception, so apparently if sperm isnt being used to get a woman preggers then its a waste and therefore youre killing potential human life and therefore you can go to hell for it

all this despite the fact that as ratchet has said, women dispose of unused sex cells frequently, and males sex cells are constantly dying and being replenished just as god made us

in other words i agree with you stormy, it is ridiculous to claim that the death of unfertilised sex cells is murder

as for fertilised cells, yes there is a very good chance itll grow into a human being, but why should that then be considered the same thing as being a child, some might argue that the cluster of cells, that "would be human" has a soul, but i cant imagine something without a mind, having a soul, but thats just my point of view

Stormy wrote:

Well it's technically murder either way if you're going with the "potential life" argument.

[sub]Yes, that's what I mean. I'm trying to illustrate to ratchet how ridiculous his statement was.[/sub]

and he was arguing how ridiculous the "this embryo may someday be a doctor ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"

[sub]Well yeah. But I'm saying there has to be a middle ground in there somewhere. You can oppose abortion without considering a woman having her period "murder". [/sub]

Well it's technically murder either way if you're going with the "potential life" argument.

[sub]Yes, that's what I mean. I'm trying to illustrate to ratchet how ridiculous his statement was.[/sub]

and he was arguing how ridiculous the "this embryo may someday be a doctor ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"

Well it's technically murder either way if you're going with the "potential life" argument.

[sub]Yes, that's what I mean. I'm trying to illustrate to ratchet how ridiculous his statement was, one, because he mentioned only women, and two, because not every cell can possibly become a baby.

I guess you have a point about the adoption thing, but the question then would be if it's better to not live at all. [/sub]