"No actual intelligent person in modern society can call themselves a Conservative or Liberal. If you call yourself either one, you're likely an idiot." Agree or Disagree?

submitted by Mcheetah from (self.AskSaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]YoMamma 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

There already is a soul.

There's no evidence of a soul in a fertilized egg. You can't prove that it has a soul. The first ideas for the location of the soul was that it resided in the heart, because one can hear a heart beat when a person is alive. For example, ancient Egyptians believed this, that the soul resided in the heart, which was evidence of life when it was beating. Ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the soul was in the center of the brain or cranium. Christians have always located the soul in the center of the cranium. Thus, a fetus can have a soul in two traditional manners: once its heart forms and starts beating, OR once it becomes aware of itself. Many in the secular and religious world see the latter - cognitive self awareness - as the first indication of LIFE of the fetus.

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I can prove it. You havent understood the argument. There is potential for a human there. There is none for sperm nor egg as they are. When the embryo is formed, there is. You have a soul there. Because it can be human, hence, it has a soul.

It has potential for life, therefore, soul. It has nothing to do with conscience, perception of pain, heartbeat. The point is that if you as a spermatozoon had no point in living until you fertilized an egg. You are just a cell. But once you do, then you become life. Greeks and Egyptians made their own empires, but did not build our civilization by themselves; what was good in them was maintained. And the CATHOLIC, not modern CHRISTIAN view, that shaped your world, is that once a woman is officially pregnant, she is carrying LIFE. Period.

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Because it can be human, hence, it has a soul. ...It has potential for life, therefore, soul.

False. You have nothing to backup your claim, no historical information, no factual evidence, and no other resource to back up your claim, and your argument about a potential to be human is illogical as well as impossible. It is impossible to prove that something with the POTENTIAL to be human has a soul. A 'potential' does not necessarily exist. It cannot be known if the 'potential' being will exist as a being. A soul can only be in an ACTUAL living body. When the body is NOT actually living, it does not have a soul. Something that has the POTENTIAL to be a human is ALSO an unfertalized egg, as well as a sperm. Those cannot actually have a soul, nor can a fertilized egg.

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

If potential does not exist, prove that a healthy embryo does not bring forth a human being. A soul is there, because otherwise God wouldnt bring it to our world.

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

You misunderstand what I wrote. I did not state that the potential to be human did not exist in the fertilized egg. I stated that "a 'potential' does not necessarily exist." You're conflating the possible and the actual. A soul is not in a thing that merely has the potential to be that thing. That would be impossible. A soul can ONLY be in a fetus who ACTUALLY exists. A fertilized egg is NOT alive and does NOT exist as a fetus

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

All fertilized eggs carry the potential to be life, and as such, have a soul. You may seem confused because I never stated it is in the same state as when you are a fetus. And yes, it is alive, if it carries a life. If it does not, then it isnt. Simple.

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

You're just repeating yourself, again. Re-read my responses. You're wrong, have no evidence, have no basis for the argument, and the assumption is obviously illogical.

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Claiming things does not make them true.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Exactly - this is what you've done, without providing evidence, a logical explanation, or a history of approaches to this issue. I've provided the latter two.

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I have two thousand years of history of the Church defending life from the time a woman discovers she is carrying a child. Good luck.