> I was pretty much nodding my head in agreement right up until this point. This whole soul thing just came out of left field. You talk science, then throw in the soul? If you believe in a "soul" like a Christian believes in a soul, then most likely you believe we get souls at conception. If you're not religious or your religion doesn't include a concept of a "soul", then there's no point in even including it in your argument--the argument for "brain activity defines human existance" is strong enough by itself.
>
> -- Dave

Hoo boy. This shows I should watch my vocabulary.

Okay, if, to you, the word "soul" means "weird spiritual material God ties to your molecular structure that hovers five feet above your head for your whole life and goes flying off to Heaven (which it does by vibrating at a higher frequency so it interacts with the purer cosmic radiation or some such nonsense) after your heart stops" (I'm grossly exaggerating here) then that's *not* what I mean by a soul. (Okay, I'm not exaggerating *that* grossly. I've never gotten over reading the original book version of _What Dreams May Come_ and how incredibly annoying it was.)

If, to you, the word "soul" means "the unique human essence of each individual that survives after death and has intrinsic, transcendent value because it reflects the nature of God" then that *is* what I mean by a soul.

If, to you, the word "soul" means "the combination of all thoughts, emotions, memories, etc. that make human beings conscious individuals", then that is *also* what I mean by a soul.

If you prefer not to use the word "soul" at all but the word "sentience", "consciousness", "humanity", "mind", or whatever, because your belief system doesn't encompass part a) of my definition of "soul", that's perfectly A-OK with me. (There *are* people who use the word soul only for part b), but I'm aware they're getting fewer and fewer, probably because the pro-life view of the soul has gained such media saturation.)

I'm just in the habit of using the word "soul" indiscriminately for parts a) and b), myself, because I believe they *are* the same thing; that's one of the quirks of my belief system. I'm trying to make the point that I *agree* with people who say humanity is defined by the existence of the soul, not by a being's usefulness to society or physical maturity; I just prefer not to use a definition of "soul" that doesn't truly reflect what I think most people mean by the word. (Like I said, few people would believe that a soul is capable of splitting in two to accomodate twinning, or that God lets one of the twins keep the "original" soul and pops in a new one at the point when the embryos separate, etc. Of course, pro-life supporters have ways of dealing with this, but to me they seem a little contrived. I don't see why it should be true that I would "probably" believe the soul is implanted at conception; many people who believe in part a) of the soul don't.)

On the other hand, I probably should've explained myself, given just how many meanings people have attached to that innocuous word now. (At least I didn't say "spirit", which might've made it worse. Here come the alcohol jokes...)

Ar"We apologize for the confusion"thur