Stu Levitan wrote:Yeah, you said it was disingenuous. Don't pretend otherwise.
Are you sure? Can you give me a link? I'm not saying I didn't say it, it's just that it doesn't sound like me. I usually don't use such an overused pussycat word. If I think you're dishonest, I usually just come out and say it. Unless I think you're lying, in which case I'll just plain call you a liar.
Stu Levitan wrote:Yes, I believe in an immortal soul. One to a customer.
I also believe in Heaven and Hell, but that's for another discussion.
Now answer my question.
Okay. Here is my answer: That's above my pay grade. In other words, I honestly don't know. But if I'm going to err, I reckon I'll err on the side of identical twins sharing the same soul until they become two separately animated bodies.
Stu Levitan wrote:The question you pose is so poorly drafted, hard to know exactly what it is asking. No reference to viability? When is "choice" determined? Can you reframe so I know exactly what you're asking?
Choice is determined when the woman says it is determined. I am not asking about viability. We're not talking about taking it out of the body of the mother and asking it to live. I mean, if you take the entity outside of the mother and it lives, you have a problem, don't you? You'll need to give it some medical care, won't you? If you're choosing to have an abortion, you're intention is not to have the entity live, you're intention is to have it not
Stu, if viability is where you want to draw the line, as the Supreme Court has done, that's fine. But that is not what I was asking.
By the way, Stu, when do you believe the soul - one to a customer - enters the body? When the body becomes wanted by the mother? Or later - when the body becomes "viable"?