https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfVPVeuouVE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwCw2Os805E
great videos God bless

Well, I guess I am equating the time when the soul enters the body with when human life begins, since the soul is the formal life principle of any organism and it thereby determines what species of life becomes present.

So, i would identify the beginning of genuinely human life with the time the soul enters the body. Now, biologically, one can argue that human life begins at conception, even on a theory of successive animation, wherein the first stage is merely a vegetative soul.

But, assuming we are talking about genuinely human intellective life, the time that soul appears is the same moment that a true human being is present.

This is the “mortality rate fallacy”, it’s as if unborn zygotes/fetuses/babies are not humans (that is, they have a soul) simply because they died in large numbers. With this reasoning you could just as easily say that 5 year olds were not human until recently since they also had a high mortality rate.

It seems to me that it would be more consistent for you to simply say “we should mind our own business” and not give your own opinion. But your consistent writing should be “everyone else mind their own business but I feel free to ignore that advice”

Can you prove your viewpoint that "none of us can prove" when human life is present?

But that is not what he said. He was talking about when the soul entered the body. And nobody can prove when that happens.

Since it is your own claim that no one can prove when human life and rights begin, what is so "humble" about your being willing to arrogate to yourself the right to tell others they should mind their own business and not be concerned about the possibility that abortion kills an unborn human being?

Can you prove your viewpoint that "none of us can prove" when human life is present?

Technically, the fetus is a parasite until it is born.

Why technically? Can you site a biologist or anyone else from the life science or medicine who would say that technically a fetus is a parasite?

Abortion is a very tough topic, and I often find myself challenging pro-lifers. But I think we all have to acknowledge that the process by which viviparous animals (including humans) conceive, nurture, and give birth is a unique and natural process, and a developing embryo is technically not a parasite. Also, in humans the process is made all the more morally fraught, because the developing offspring is at minimum a potential person, and the prohibitions against killing fellow human beings are almost universal. So asserting that an embryo or fetus is a parasite, and a woman should be able to kill it because she has control over her own body, is just far too simpleminded to take seriously. (I am not say that is your argument.)

I do think a case can be made for at least some abortions, but this is a fiercely difficult subject, and the phrase "the rights of a woman to control her own body" is just current shorthand for "women should be able to have abortions whenever they want." It is not really an argument.

Why does the fetus stop being a parasite at birth, it's still dependent upon the host for nutrition? Can you still kill it after birth?

Answer: I'm a Catholic and my faith does not have contradictions with my reasoning. A pregnant woman can control her body but not at the expense of ending the life of another's body.

Technically, the fetus is a parasite until it is born.
Question? Are you against the rights of a woman to control her own body for philosophical resons only, or are you also a Christian?

Art, at what point did you transition from being a parasite?