Wibble: ‘To say it is "human life" or "human" is unsatisfactory. What makes it human?’

How do you know that the unborn young of any species belong to them? Because the parents of a species will produce progeny of the same species...simple logic.

No Bosk, I can see no other logical time for a body to be ‘ensouled’… no other point in human life is so dramatically, irrevocably and instantly altered as at conception.

To say that other forms of life are also created from a certain point is correct, but other species do not have the same thought processes and ‘free will’…other beings act from instinct…that difference is indisputable.

‘First we MUST prove that the soul exists. So what evidence do you have that a soul exists Meg?’

If you have experienced being revived from ‘near-death’ (for want of a better description), as I have, you would need no more proof. You have no proof of other intangibles like love, lust, hatred, peace, etc. or the air you breathe. You see the results or feel a breeze and so you believe they exist. There is as much ‘scientific’ proof of the existence of a soul as there is of any of these intangibles…

US Doctors have done studies on the power of prayer in medical cures…the results have been dramatic. If you or I believe or disbelieve that power, doesn’t make it more or less real.

Whether we accept it or not doesn’t change reality…human life exists from conception, if we do not defend innocent life then we condemn society to an acceptance that some lives are ‘more equal than others…a dangerous scenario.

’Other than conception, at what other point can a human ‘body’ (life extinguished) commence growing and developing even if provided with sustenance, genetic material, anything necessary to sustain life?

It can be suspended, and survive, but it cannot have life extinguished (soul left) at any stage from conception and then revive to grow and develop.’

tbc

(Cont...)

Bosk,

My post clearly indicated: ‘Infallible decrees made ONLY by the Popes through the ages…are documented and remain so.’

Not: ‘…in encyclicals or papal bulls...doctrine...only proclaimed in the 19th century...’

No, the original proclamation was made by Christ himself – reputable word has it. (Refer: Bible for confirmation if you wish) –

Infallibility rests ONLY with the Pope…when speaking accordingly.

‘…quickening…refers to the first time a baby moves…’

Yes it does, my apologies, however, as I suggested, the Church's ministers (as distinct to an infallible statement from the Pope) would have used the best evidence of the day in a language readily used at the time.

For all the reasons I outlined, the issues remain the same.

‘’would seem to imply that the soul was linked in the churche's conception with movement.’

I have seen my own children on scans from four weeks…moving. Bernard Nathanson (former US abortionist – now pro-life) held a tiny sac with a baby the size of a thumbnail inside and the baby was making swimming motions inside the sac…at approx. 5-6 weeks old. (Time Life)

Modern science will inevitably extend our knowledge, accordingly the Church's stand will be further proven ...

Yabby: ‘it just stops that little sperm meeting the egg’ – NO, it stops the fertilized ovum from implanting in the lining of the vagina…i.e., an abortion.

Your 85k not 100k comment was made BEFORE mine, not in answer to mine, check your own marbles are around…

And… ‘To me, any abortion in the first tremester is acceptable Meg.’

Me: ‘If it’s your view that those who aren’t the mother should butt out, then why should it matter when you consider it acceptable?’

Who’s lost those marbles, Yabby?

Questions re: my love-life and dignity in suffering/dying – re-read my posts…you may pick up the actual message by reading each post ten times or so…it will save me saying the same thing to you that many times or more…

RE: Paranoia on Catholic hospitals, Te and Me. Yabby, your obsessions are unhealthy especially in the proportions displayed.

"doctrine...only proclaimed in the 19th century"

Bosk I think I know where the confusion is arising. I have to concur with Meg that the above quote is incorrect. Apart from the biblical derivation writers from the early Church proclaimed the same doctrine so it wasn't a 19th century proclamation. For example, in about 256 AD Cyprian of Carthage's observation "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" clearly expresses the doctrine.

Having said that, terms like "Trinity", "Papal Infallibility" or "Purgatory" are not stated in the bible and I do not know when the term "Papal Infallibility" arose but it could have been considerably later. Catholics have accepted all these doctrines for the last 2000 years even if they haven't always used the jargon. Further, since the 16th Century, the Catholic Church has retained all three of the above doctrines but most Christian denominations have only accepted one out of three of the above doctrines being the "Trinity". The corollary of this is centuries of rejection of the Papal Infallibility doctrine in all but the Catholic Church. Accordingly, the variablity of Christian belief and the comparatively late commencement of the jargon describing the doctrine must lead to much confusion about commencement dates.

I hope this helps.

Meg, the morning after pill is legally seen as a contraceptive pill, not an abortion pill. It can work in various ways;-
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/morningafterpill.htm

Mind you that should really be irrelevant to the abortion statistics apart for Catholics and their holy sperms dogma. To the rest of us that dogma is irrelevant.

Regarding the order of the questioning, its there for anyone to read,
so they can decide for themselves whose marbles are missing :)

No magic in near death experpiences either Meg, most likely your brain chemistry fooled you, but the religious are known to be a bit gullible. Anyway, read this if you want :-
http://skepdic.com/nde.html

The concept of a soul is an old philosphical concept going back to the Greeks and before. The Xtians stole the idea from there.
No evidence of a soul, the worms will eat you just like me Meg :)
Heaven is here and now so remember to enjoy!

It doesent matter how many times I reread your posts, its still just
old tiered Catholic dogma from medievil times. We live in a pluralistic society now. People have, want and demand their rights.

We've already been through the right to divorce, the right to contraception, the right to abortions. Next will be the right to euthanasia in Australia, as is happening elsewhere in the world.

If the Catholic Church fights it politically again, then they can be accused of being responsible for the unneeded suffering of tens of thousands. Suffering is accepted under Catholic dogma. They are free to suffer, but should respect the rights of the rest of us,
who think their belief is gobbledygook, to make our own choices and
decisions about our lives.

I have no obsession with the Catholics, just an insistance on mine and others human rights. If Bin Laden or the Pope are in the way
and take a political stand, I will point out ther flawed politics and theology.

Yabby - if you are right and there is no Heaven ("Heaven is here and now so remember to enjoy!" - your response to Meg1) NO ONE will know you are right as there will be nothing after death.
However, if you are wrong, Meg1 will be proved right FOREVER AND FOREVER AND FOREVER and you will have to put up with that for all eternity.

Cheers - :-))

Te, not sure how serious you were but I'll take your post at face value.

Remember that serious discussion of an afterlife has more than two alternatives. It's not the christain heaven or nothing.

Probably no such thing as an afterlife but if there is there have been an amazing lot of ideas put forward as to what it could be and what the deciding factors are about how it is spent.

Just to start with plenty of christain based groups would exclude all the christians who are not part of their group from their heaven let alone all of the ideas that have come from other religions.

Then you could add in the possibility that the nature of the afterlife (if it exists) has not been revealed to mankind.

One possibility I like is the idea that we all get what we believe in (but not quite). Imagine all the fundy christains when they find themselves stuck with each other for eternity - priceless.

R0bert