"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 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.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You don't 'have' that, as you've provided no evidence. Again, your argument is baseless, illogical and ahistorical. Let's look at the HOLY BIBLE:

Genesis 2:7, KJV: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Also consider that the Holy Spirit is a 'Pneuma Hagion' (holy air)

By those standards, there is no life or soul in a person who is not breathing.

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The New came to replace the Old.

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart.".

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That's in the Old Testament.

It's also NOT a reference to a soul.

God merely indicates that "he" thinks about people before they are born.

You're obviously not serious about your claim.

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Excellent, you then have an even better reference for your own argument.

The fact you say "he" when you reference God tells me all I need to know about you.