Report if you like, you are the one who called me a liar on this thread and I proved you wrong. Calling people "liar" is not allowed on the site either, especially when the victim presents the proof of their veracity.
I don't know about you, but this looks like it's on topic:
Interesting discussion, isn't it? One of the issues that has been overlooked is "soul". Now the Pale Num Chip all claim to be non-religiously motivated, but Dr. Who admits to a Christian leaning. No life but human is considered sacred to any of these gentlemen (I'm using the term quite loosely here). They are all eaters of the dead and have no problem decorating themselves with the skins of murdered beings. So they won't address the issue of souls because it would "out" them and undermine their scientific arguments.
When does the soul inhabit the body? From the beginning with only two cells? Is a body without a soul a "human"? The argument is that animals don't have souls so their lives are not sacred. For the majority of Christian history the Church's position was that the soul entered the body at birth, but that doesn't seem right now in light of the fact that the child is viable outside the mother's body some time earlier than that. Can we scientifically prove when the soul inhabits the body? No, I don't think so since science cannot even prove the existence of "souls".
The mechanics of the growth of a fetus are fairly well documented, but when the soul enters the picture is never addressed. Like a car on an assembly line, a fetus lacks a driver until the car is completed enough to drive on it's own power, until then the fetus is a potential person with nobody home. Of course that's just my opinion because I can't prove the existence of "souls" either.
