ALL Souls in Creation have a right to LIVE, a STANDARD of LIFE and Continuity!

Life is NOT Cheap.. It is Dearer to God than anything except Creation itSelf?!.. The right to Life should be ABSOLUTE!.. This does Not, neceSsarily apply to Unborn Life, but Does apply to "Established" Souls?!.. In such a Case where a Soul has Sufficient "Value" then it has sufficient, "Claim" to Living Existence, RepreSentative of that Value AND More!.. Life must be allowed to have its doman of "Worth" at the Position it Requires?!.. AND Continuity to the limits of its "Extent"! This, Must remain as what amounts to "Commandment"!.. Any Opinions?!

I will begin by pointing out that this debate presupposes the existence of a soul which is unproven. Pro must first prove there is a soul.

Secondly, Pro must state where these rights are coming from. Who or what validates these rights.

Until Pro establishes these things, there is nothing to rebute. His first arguments are unsupported assertions.

Life is NOT Cheap.. It is Dearer to God than anything except Creation itSelf?!.. The right to Life should be ABSOLUTE!.. This does Not, neceSsarily apply to Unborn Life, but Does apply to "Established" Souls?!.. In such a Case where a Soul has Sufficient "Value" then it has sufficient, "Claim" to Living Existence, RepreSentative of that Value AND More!.. Life must be allowed to have its doman of "Worth" at the Position it Requires?!.. AND Continuity to the limits of its "Extent"! This, Must remain as what amounts to "Commandment"!.. Any Opinions?!

The Definition of "Soul" is Superfluous to Con's counter-claim.. Call it what you Like?!.. Basically, the "Premise" of Life, if you prefer is my reference to an absolute right for the "Owner" of a Span of Life to have its Value extend to the full limit of its Worth.. The argument here is Not about what a Soul, "Means".. It is about the basic, right for people not to be "Selected" or etc. etc. for Not-living but to Live the Full-span and Distance that their Life-right dictates.. The argument, simply states (once again) that Life is the "Soul's" birthright and is the Foremost Upholder in a Creation more than able to Sustain ALL such "Claims"?!.. If we need to talk semantics about "Soul" then ask a Kindergarten Kid to play the Year 2 exercise in what Soul is... No-one, alive cannot sense something that represents this definition... Round 2, simply states again that Life Must gain prevalence in an "Intelligent" "Universe" from Death and his "Weak" "Harvest".. That is the simplicity of a Universe that is 400bn Light-Years Wide?!.. Ok?!..

"Life is NOT Cheap"- Cheap? Since when does life have monetary value?

"It is Dearer to God than anything except Creation itSelf?!"- This presupposes the existence of God which is not proven. Also. how does Pro know God's opinion?

"The right to Life should be ABSOLUTE!.. This does Not, neceSsarily apply to Unborn Life, but Does apply to "Established" Souls?!"- First of all, Pro assertion that the right to life is absolute is unsupported. Next, Pro goes on to contradict himself by saying that the right to life does not apply to the unborn, making the right to life not absolute. Established souls? What makes an established soul? Who says a soul exists?

I honestly don't understand what the rest of his paragraph was saying.

"The Definition of "Soul" is Superfluous to Con's counter-claim.. Call it what you Like?!"- It certainly is not. Pro has not established what a soul is, its relevance to his argument, or proved the existence of a "soul."

" It is about the basic, right for people not to be "Selected""- What does Pro mean by 'selected' and where does this right come from? Who or what validates it?

"If we need to talk semantics about "Soul" then ask a Kindergarten Kid to play the Year 2 exercise in what Soul is... No-one, alive cannot sense something that represents this definition"- I do not sense a "soul" and neither do many others. Pro needs to prove the existence of a soul before he keeps ranting on about it.

I honestly don't understand what Pro's argument is....

Ok... Lets start over from "I Honestly Don't, understand what Pro's argument Is...".. The Debate here IS Simple.. It's, if you like, an extension of (but not including) the Abortion Debate.. The Mind-"Soul"-Body (and Con clearly, DOES accept from the inference that Soul is easily "defined") represent Life that has a right to the Full existence-extent of its Value. All I am stating is that people have a right to live On and (cheesy) "Prosper" to the Limit of what their "Statement" of Life allows.. I am merely stating that Life cannot be held as cheaply as some areas of mankind and Earth Hold it So. Life is an Absolute right from the moment of "Personal", "Existence" Creation of Life to the Vanishing Point at which Life has Exhausted its overall value. Other "Souls" (existences) may not hold Life in Contempt wherein the case is that the Life is to be, shall we say, "Terminated" against the run of its "Race". Heaven (etc.) will assure you that Life is Second to God ONLY from Creation itself; in fact what can, "God" define as Greater than Life although (of course) Less than Creation?!.. So once accepted that the FULL extent of Life-sustenance, MUST be "Upheld" then that sort of "Library Loan" MUST NOT be, casually, "Dismissed"?!.. That is all.. The argument is Clear?!..

"he Mind-"Soul"-Body (and Con clearly, DOES accept from the inference that Soul is easily "defined") represent Life that has a right to the Full existence-extent of its Value."- I didn't accept anything. The "soul" is not easily defined, nor is it proven to exist. What value does this "mind-body-soul" thing have? What gives it its value?

"I am merely stating that Life cannot be held as cheaply as some areas of mankind and Earth Hold it So."- But it is by some as you just stated, so therefore that statement contradicts itself. Maybe it SHOULD not but you have not supported that point.

"Life is an Absolute right from the moment of "Personal", "Existence" Creation of Life to the Vanishing Point at which Life has Exhausted its overall value."- As I keep asking Pro to explain, where does this absolute right come from? Who or what makes something an absolute right?

"Heaven (etc.) will assure you that Life is Second to God ONLY from Creation itself; in fact what can, "God" define as Greater than Life although (of course) Less than Creation?!.. So once accepted that the FULL extent of Life-sustenance, MUST be "Upheld" then that sort of "Library Loan" MUST NOT be, casually, "Dismissed"?!.. That is all.. The argument is Clear?!.."- I think so, but you have made it really convoluted. First of all you are presupposing the existence of God which you have not proven to exist, nor have you defined. You have also not proved the existence of heaven or defined heaven. You have also not shown why or how things such as life and creation are valued or where you are getting the information about these values.

Your points are completely unsupported assertions.