You are wrong.

[CCubed]

zz1000zz

CCubed

how is it a human? As i stated, it is of human origin, so it must be human

I hate having to point out the obvious, but this is completely absurd. Hair is of human origin, as is a corpse. Neither is a "human." What determines humanity is the existence of a soul, not some physical trait.

I hate to point out the obvious to you too. Hair is not a completely human thing. Dogs have hair, cats have hair, and humans have hair. They are not human, they just have human DNA, or canine DNA, or cat(i forget the scientific name) DNA. As for a corpse, a corpse is still whatever it's a corpse of. A dog that gets run over by a car and dies is still a dog. It's a corpse, but it's still a dog. Same goes for everything else. Also, babies or fetuses do have souls, and if you don't think so, give a good argument why they wouldn't.  

[zz1000zz]

CCubed

zz1000zz

CCubed

how is it a human? As i stated, it is of human origin, so it must be human

I hate having to point out the obvious, but this is completely absurd. Hair is of human origin, as is a corpse. Neither is a "human." What determines humanity is the existence of a soul, not some physical trait.

I hate to point out the obvious to you too. Hair is not a completely human thing. Dogs have hair, cats have hair, and humans have hair. They are not human, they just have human DNA, or canine DNA, or cat(i forget the scientific name) DNA. As for a corpse, a corpse is still whatever it's a corpse of. A dog that gets run over by a car and dies is still a dog. It's a corpse, but it's still a dog. Same goes for everything else.

Unless we are going to be discussing animal abortions, this is rather meaningless.

Quote:

Also, babies or fetuses do have souls, and if you don't think so, give a good argument why they wouldn't.

Um, no? I choose not to attempt to prove a negative.  

[CCubed]

zz1000zz

CCubed

zz1000zz

CCubed

how is it a human? As i stated, it is of human origin, so it must be human

I hate having to point out the obvious, but this is completely absurd. Hair is of human origin, as is a corpse. Neither is a "human." What determines humanity is the existence of a soul, not some physical trait.

I hate to point out the obvious to you too. Hair is not a completely human thing. Dogs have hair, cats have hair, and humans have hair. They are not human, they just have human DNA, or canine DNA, or cat(i forget the scientific name) DNA. As for a corpse, a corpse is still whatever it's a corpse of. A dog that gets run over by a car and dies is still a dog. It's a corpse, but it's still a dog. Same goes for everything else.

Unless we are going to be discussing animal abortions, this is rather meaningless.

Quote:

Also, babies or fetuses do have souls, and if you don't think so, give a good argument why they wouldn't.

Um, no? I choose not to attempt to prove a negative.

Okay then. It means that you would agree that (murder/killing) of a fetus is the (murder/killing) of a human being, and as such, wrong. I was simply presenting reason to those who chose not to believe faith. So, I'm not sure what we're debating now. xd  

[zz1000zz]

CCubed

zz1000zz

CCubed

zz1000zz

CCubed

how is it a human? As i stated, it is of human origin, so it must be human

I hate having to point out the obvious, but this is completely absurd. Hair is of human origin, as is a corpse. Neither is a "human." What determines humanity is the existence of a soul, not some physical trait.

I hate to point out the obvious to you too. Hair is not a completely human thing. Dogs have hair, cats have hair, and humans have hair. They are not human, they just have human DNA, or canine DNA, or cat(i forget the scientific name) DNA. As for a corpse, a corpse is still whatever it's a corpse of. A dog that gets run over by a car and dies is still a dog. It's a corpse, but it's still a dog. Same goes for everything else.

Unless we are going to be discussing animal abortions, this is rather meaningless.

Quote:

Also, babies or fetuses do have souls, and if you don't think so, give a good argument why they wouldn't.

Um, no? I choose not to attempt to prove a negative.

Okay then. It means that you would agree that (murder/killing) of a fetus is the (murder/killing) of a human being, and as such, wrong. I was simply presenting reason to those who chose not to believe faith. So, I'm not sure what we're debating now. xd

Choosing not to attempt to prove a negative does not somehow prove something. I do not attempt to prove a flying pink elephant rules the world with magical powers, but that does not mean i agree a flying pink elephant rules the world.

The issue we are debating, if there is one, is whether a fetus has a soul. You have done nothing to show it does, other than say it is human, because it is of human origin. I showed the obvious flaw of this point, as not all things of human origin are human. Therefore, your position has no merit.

The only purpose of this topic was to show people certain things are not sins, yet most people think they are. So far nobody has been able to contradict me, so i consider my position to still be correct.  

[CCubed]

zz1000zz

CCubed

zz1000zz

CCubed

zz1000zz

I hate having to point out the obvious, but this is completely absurd. Hair is of human origin, as is a corpse. Neither is a "human." What determines humanity is the existence of a soul, not some physical trait.

I hate to point out the obvious to you too. Hair is not a completely human thing. Dogs have hair, cats have hair, and humans have hair. They are not human, they just have human DNA, or canine DNA, or cat(i forget the scientific name) DNA. As for a corpse, a corpse is still whatever it's a corpse of. A dog that gets run over by a car and dies is still a dog. It's a corpse, but it's still a dog. Same goes for everything else.

Unless we are going to be discussing animal abortions, this is rather meaningless.

Quote:

Also, babies or fetuses do have souls, and if you don't think so, give a good argument why they wouldn't.

Um, no? I choose not to attempt to prove a negative.

Okay then. It means that you would agree that (murder/killing) of a fetus is the (murder/killing) of a human being, and as such, wrong. I was simply presenting reason to those who chose not to believe faith. So, I'm not sure what we're debating now. xd

Choosing not to attempt to prove a negative does not somehow prove something. I do not attempt to prove a flying pink elephant rules the world with magical powers, but that does not mean i agree a flying pink elephant rules the world.

The issue we are debating, if there is one, is whether a fetus has a soul. You have done nothing to show it does, other than say it is human, because it is of human origin. I showed the obvious flaw of this point, as not all things of human origin are human. Therefore, your position has no merit.

The only purpose of this topic was to show people certain things are not sins, yet most people think they are. So far nobody has been able to contradict me, so i consider my position to still be correct.

Okay, once more.

One, A babies soul exists before they are even conceived, as the bible says that he has known us since before we were born.

Two, all humans have souls, as it says in genesis.

source: Gen 2:7 - "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Three, if you want to say that fetuses don't have souls, have proof. I at least have some proof, where's yours?  

[zz1000zz]

CCubed

zz1000zz

CCubed

zz1000zz

CCubed

I hate to point out the obvious to you too. Hair is not a completely human thing. Dogs have hair, cats have hair, and humans have hair. They are not human, they just have human DNA, or canine DNA, or cat(i forget the scientific name) DNA. As for a corpse, a corpse is still whatever it's a corpse of. A dog that gets run over by a car and dies is still a dog. It's a corpse, but it's still a dog. Same goes for everything else.

Unless we are going to be discussing animal abortions, this is rather meaningless.

Quote:

Also, babies or fetuses do have souls, and if you don't think so, give a good argument why they wouldn't.

Um, no? I choose not to attempt to prove a negative.

Okay then. It means that you would agree that (murder/killing) of a fetus is the (murder/killing) of a human being, and as such, wrong. I was simply presenting reason to those who chose not to believe faith. So, I'm not sure what we're debating now. xd

Choosing not to attempt to prove a negative does not somehow prove something. I do not attempt to prove a flying pink elephant rules the world with magical powers, but that does not mean i agree a flying pink elephant rules the world.

The issue we are debating, if there is one, is whether a fetus has a soul. You have done nothing to show it does, other than say it is human, because it is of human origin. I showed the obvious flaw of this point, as not all things of human origin are human. Therefore, your position has no merit.

The only purpose of this topic was to show people certain things are not sins, yet most people think they are. So far nobody has been able to contradict me, so i consider my position to still be correct.

Okay, once more.

One, A babies soul exists before they are even conceived, as the bible says that he has known us since before we were born.

So a fetus has a soul, because God knows the fetus before it exists? How does that work? I mean, God knows every animal before they are born, but that does not mean they have souls.

Really, from what you are implying, that means every time i use protection i am killing a soul...

Quote:

Two, all humans have souls, as it says in genesis.

source: Gen 2:7 - "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Notice man did not become a living being until God gave him breath? Yeah, that is the reason Jews believe a baby does not have a soul until it is out of the womb. Honestly, this verse does nothing to prove your point.

Quote:

Three, if you want to say that fetuses don't have souls, have proof. I at least have some proof, where's yours?

First, you do not have proof. You have verses you cite, which do not prove your point. Second, i do not need proof of a negative. You are the one making a claim, so you are the one with the burden of proof.  

[CCubed]

zz1000zz

CCubed

zz1000zz

CCubed

zz1000zz

Unless we are going to be discussing animal abortions, this is rather meaningless.



Um, no? I choose not to attempt to prove a negative.

Okay then. It means that you would agree that (murder/killing) of a fetus is the (murder/killing) of a human being, and as such, wrong. I was simply presenting reason to those who chose not to believe faith. So, I'm not sure what we're debating now. xd

Choosing not to attempt to prove a negative does not somehow prove something. I do not attempt to prove a flying pink elephant rules the world with magical powers, but that does not mean i agree a flying pink elephant rules the world.

The issue we are debating, if there is one, is whether a fetus has a soul. You have done nothing to show it does, other than say it is human, because it is of human origin. I showed the obvious flaw of this point, as not all things of human origin are human. Therefore, your position has no merit.

The only purpose of this topic was to show people certain things are not sins, yet most people think they are. So far nobody has been able to contradict me, so i consider my position to still be correct.

Okay, once more.

One, A babies soul exists before they are even conceived, as the bible says that he has known us since before we were born.

So a fetus has a soul, because God knows the fetus before it exists? How does that work? I mean, God knows every animal before they are born, but that does not mean they have souls.

Really, from what you are implying, that means every time i use protection i am killing a soul...

Quote:

Two, all humans have souls, as it says in genesis.

source: Gen 2:7 - "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Notice man did not become a living being until God gave him breath? Yeah, that is the reason Jews believe a baby does not have a soul until it is out of the womb. Honestly, this verse does nothing to prove your point.

Quote:

Three, if you want to say that fetuses don't have souls, have proof. I at least have some proof, where's yours?

First, you do not have proof. You have verses you cite, which do not prove your point. Second, i do not need proof of a negative. You are the one making a claim, so you are the one with the burden of proof.

One, to your question about protection, yes. Have you ever heard of Onan's Sin? The one where he pulled out of the woman before his seed was planted. So basically, that's a form of protection, as such, i can infer that all forms of protection are wrong.

Two, you are not referencing a negative, and even if you were, you have to answer with proof. In philosophy, everything must have proof, this is especially true in debate. I cannot say that half of America is red skinned without proof, just as you cannot hide behind your shield that you don't have to prove a negative. Either way, if your really have proof, what is it going to hurt you to say it? Or do you not have proof?

Three, I don't know about you, but I'm not an animal. As i remember, God made us separate from the animals, so obviously, we must not be animals.

Four, your reference to my verse, unfortunately, you cannot make the statement that because Adam and Eve had to be given the breath of life, that all life doesn't start until they are out of the womb. Adam and Eve were the first humans, there was no womb involved, as there were no humans to have babies yet.  

[zz1000zz]

CCubed

One, to your question about protection, yes. Have you ever heard of Onan's Sin? The one where he pulled out of the woman before his seed was planted. So basically, that's a form of protection, as such, i can infer that all forms of protection are wrong.

Two, you are not referencing a negative, and even if you were, you have to answer with proof. In philosophy, everything must have proof, this is especially true in debate. I cannot say that half of America is red skinned without proof, just as you cannot hide behind your shield that you don't have to prove a negative. Either way, if your really have proof, what is it going to hurt you to say it? Or do you not have proof?

Three, I don't know about you, but I'm not an animal. As i remember, God made us separate from the animals, so obviously, we must not be animals.

Four, your reference to my verse, unfortunately, you cannot make the statement that because Adam and Eve had to be given the breath of life, that all life doesn't start until they are out of the womb. Adam and Eve were the first humans, there was no womb involved, as there were no humans to have babies yet.

1) Onan's sin was not that he "used protection," but that he disobeyed God. There can be no doubt his action was contrary to what God told him, so there is no reason to look beyond that.

2) When it comes to the question of souls, my stance is that of a negative. You say fetuses have souls, i say they do not. I need offer no proof, save that required to contradict any you offer.

3/4) Just as Adam and Eve's creation does nothing to prove my point as there were no wombs involved, it also does nothing to prove your point.

Conclusion: The Bible says nothing which clearly shows a fetus has a soul. Therefore, no legitimate basis exists to say abortion is a sin.  

[Kittey-chan]

If you accept the Bible as the word of God, then the verses that speaks of God knowing someone before they are born would indicate that, at some point before delivery, the fetus has a soul. Note, however, that it does not say *at what point* the fetus has a soul.

Second, "Onan's Sin" was a sin not because it was contraception, but because he was being disobedient. See, in jewish belief at the time, if someone was to die before having any children, then it was like murdering all their possible children and grandchildren because the line would die out. This was considered a terrible thing. To prevent this a living brother was able to have the children his dead brother was 'supposed' to have. So because Onan was refusing to have his brothers children, he was not only using his wife for her body, but also murdering all the children that might have come from that.

*However* this does not proove that all contraception is bad per se. If you have already continued your line, then you wouldn't be murdering the future children, would you? For an example. OR if the woman has a disease that would make bearing children a signifigant threat to her health? OR simply a young couple that would have difficulty providing a child with the food, medical care it would need.  

[zz1000zz]

that_fairy

If you accept the Bible as the word of God, then the verses that speaks of God knowing someone before they are born would indicate that, at some point before delivery, the fetus has a soul. Note, however, that it does not say *at what point* the fetus has a soul.

God knows everything. Everything includes the future existence of individuals. Ergo, God knows individuals before they are born.

None of this involves a soul. This means these verses have no bearing on the topic.  

[Kittey-chan]

zz1000zz

that_fairy

If you accept the Bible as the word of God, then the verses that speaks of God knowing someone before they are born would indicate that, at some point before delivery, the fetus has a soul. Note, however, that it does not say *at what point* the fetus has a soul.

God knows everything. Everything includes the future existence of individuals. Ergo, God knows individuals before they are born.

None of this involves a soul. This means these verses have no bearing on the topic.

I think perhaps you are forgetting the part where it specifies 'in the womb', not merely 'before birth'. The qualifier 'in the womb' specifies a specific time as well as place. Place? In the mother's womb. Time? While in the womb.
If you don't accept the bible as the irrefutable word of God, then you can ignore that part of the bible; lots of good Christians do. However if you want us to debate with you using the bible as our resource as to God's will and such, then you have to follow the same rules we do. You cannot use part of the bible an not others.  

[CCubed]

zz1000zz

that_fairy

If you accept the Bible as the word of God, then the verses that speaks of God knowing someone before they are born would indicate that, at some point before delivery, the fetus has a soul. Note, however, that it does not say *at what point* the fetus has a soul.

God knows everything. Everything includes the future existence of individuals. Ergo, God knows individuals before they are born.

None of this involves a soul. This means these verses have no bearing on the topic.

In going with that_fairy, you also have to realize that if we knew God before we were born, we were in some sort of state in heaven or something in between. Regardless, because he knew us, and because we didn't yet have a physical existence, it would imply that he knew our spiritual existence, thus, our soul.  

[zz1000zz]

that_fairy

zz1000zz

that_fairy

If you accept the Bible as the word of God, then the verses that speaks of God knowing someone before they are born would indicate that, at some point before delivery, the fetus has a soul. Note, however, that it does not say *at what point* the fetus has a soul.

God knows everything. Everything includes the future existence of individuals. Ergo, God knows individuals before they are born.

None of this involves a soul. This means these verses have no bearing on the topic.

I think perhaps you are forgetting the part where it specifies 'in the womb', not merely 'before birth'. The qualifier 'in the womb' specifies a specific time as well as place. Place? In the mother's womb. Time? While in the womb.

Forgetting? Not at all. I know fully well what the Bible states. I also know what it does not state. From the Bible may be able to surmize God knows us in the womb. While i could argue on that point alone, i think this point is stronger and more relevant.

That God knows a "person" in a womb does not mean the "person" has a soul. After all, God knows everything. God knew you when you were in the womb, God knew you before you were conceived. God knew you before he created this world. God knowing you does not mean you have a soul. God knowing you means that God knows everything, nothing more.

Quote:

If you don't accept the bible as the irrefutable word of God, then you can ignore that part of the bible; lots of good Christians do. However if you want us to debate with you using the bible as our resource as to God's will and such, then you have to follow the same rules we do. You cannot use part of the bible an not others.

Before you imply someone is contradicting themselves, it is best to reconsider what they have said. In this case i only accept the Bible as a credible source for this discussion. You have implied i have somehow contradicted myself, yet you have shown no flaw in my position. I try my best to be fair and honest in debates, yet here you seem to impeach my honor. I honestly do not understand.

CCubed

In going with that_fairy, you also have to realize that if we knew God before we were born, we were in some sort of state in heaven or something in between. Regardless, because he knew us, and because we didn't yet have a physical existence, it would imply that he knew our spiritual existence, thus, our soul.

If *we* knew God before we were born, then yes we must have some form of existence (such as a soul). However, the Bible never said that was the case. God knowing us is radically different from us knowing God.  

[zz1000zz]

Just to clarify where this discussion is at the moment. Here are the two possibilities in debate, and the reasoning for each:

Quote:

Abortion is a Sin
1) A fetus has a soul.
2) Anything with a soul is a human.
3) A fetus is a human.
4) Murder is wrong.
5) Abortions kill the fetus.
6) Abortions kill humans.
7) Abortions are wrong.

Abortion is Not a Sin
1) A fetus has no soul.
2) Anything with a soul is a human.
3) A fetus is not a human.
4) Abortions are not murder.

Since the only true source of disagreement seems to be in the first claim, the debate can be simplified to this.

Quote:

If a fetus has a soul, abortion is wrong. If a fetus has no soul, abortion is not wrong.

Simple really. It all comes down to the answer to a single question. Can you *prove* the Bible says a fetus has a soul? If we cannot prove with certainty the Bible says a fetus has a soul, there is no basis to say abortions are sinful.  

[Monergism]

zz1000zz

Quote:

If a fetus has a soul, abortion is wrong. If a fetus has no soul, abortion is not wrong.

Simple really. It all comes down to the answer to a single question. Can you *prove* the Bible says a fetus has a soul? If we cannot prove with certainty the Bible says a fetus has a soul, there is no basis to say abortions are sinful.

I would be careful here if I were you. Just because the text doesn't mention about a growing child in the womb having a soul does not make abortion alright. So far, both theories barley have any support so, its neutral.