Abortion And Birth Control Wrong At Al Cases

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1394705' date='Sep 28 2007, 03:45 PM']I have also heard that studies have shown that the fetus dreams, that they feel pain and also that a mother’s stress and depression levels can also effect the development of the child but unfortunately I do have the same data or information for souls that behave or react in the same way.[/quote]

You are making no sense.

It's possible to conduct a medical study on a foetus. It is not possible to conduct a similar study on a soul. This 'data or information' is just another one of 'Carderro's thoughts' that you want us to accept as viable just because you falsely describe it as data rather than belief.

[carrdero]

[quote]Socrates writes: Any sound biologist will tell you that the baby (or "fetus") is fully alive prior to being born. It has has its own heart beat, brain waves, reacts to sounds and touch, etc[/quote]
But no sound biologist has come forward with the characteristics of the soul.

[quote]Socrates writes: Nothing mystical happens to the baby when it is being born. The only change is a change of location (inside the mother's womb to outside).[/quote]
This is a tremendous change in environment.

[quote]Socrates writes:In fact, a "fetus" carried late in the mother's womb is more developed than an infant born early.[/quote]
I am also on the understanding that an infant is more spiritually aware/evolved than their parents (one just has to realize where they recently came from) until they adapt and grow into their environment.

[quote]Socrates writes: A simple lesson in biology should cure you of your nonsensical beliefs, but you've never seemed one to let reality have much influence on your thoughts.[/quote]

And who shall provide the spiritual lesson? A biologist?

[quote]Socrates writes: As usual, all you do is spout off your own totally illogical ideas and beliefs without providing any basis for them whatsoever beyond your own authority - what "Carderro believes." (And seeming to also harbor the idea that odd capitalization practices will somehow make you be accepted as an authority.)

Honestly, why are wasting your time on here?[/quote]

I have some excess beliefs that I am trying to resolve.

Edited September 28, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1394709' date='Sep 28 2007, 09:53 AM']You are making no sense.

It's possible to conduct a medical study on a foetus. [color="#000080"]It is not possible to conduct a similar study on a soul.[/color]This 'data or information' is just another one of 'Carderro's thoughts' that you want us to accept as viable just because you falsely describe it as data rather than belief.[/quote]
[color="#000080"]So then my belief that the soul does not infuse with the infant until birth (or some other time) should still be valid.[/color]

Edited September 28, 2007 by carrdero

[prose]

[quote]I would be interested in knowing two things:
1) In what ways do these infants respond differently?
and
2) how do these responses differ from other infants in other women's wombs that are responding to voices?[/quote]

Well, the article I posted was from Source: Psychology Today, Sep/Oct98, Vol. 31 Issue 5, p44, 6p, 4c., they would definitely have more information about the studies that I had mentioned to you.

[Socrates]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1394713' date='Sep 28 2007, 08:57 AM']But no sound biologist has come forward with the characteristics of the soul.[/quote]
The soul is the life-principle of a living thing. Biology clearly shows the unborn child to be alive. It is not dead matter, and can be killed by abortion. You can't kill that which is not alive to begin with.

[quote]This is a tremendous change in environment.[/quote]
A human being is a human being, and has a soul, regardless of what environment it's in.
Are you arguing that the soul is a product of the environment?

[quote]I am also on the understanding that an infant is more spiritually aware/evolved than their parents (one just has to realize where they recently came from) until they adapt and grow into their environment.[/quote]
By that logic, a preborn baby should be even more "spiritually aware/evolved." Again, your statements defy logic and are contracdictory.

[quote]And who shall provide the spiritual lesson? A biologist?[/quote]
I'd recommend a good priest. You've certainly provided nothing here to show yourself a competent authority on the human soul.

[carrdero]

[quote]Socrates writes: The soul is the life-principle of a living thing.[/quote]
Well that is what are we debating. Is the human complete with the soul or not?
[quote]Socrates writes: Biology clearly shows the unborn child to be alive.[/quote]
But biology does not show that the soul is human or is even present during conception.
[quote]Socrates writes: It is not dead matter, and can be killed by abortion. You can't kill that which is not alive to begin with.[/quote]
Again no one is arguing that the growth inside the mother is dead or alive we are positioning the question on whether it is wrong or right depending on whether one believes that the soul arrives upon conception or during birth.
[quote]Socrates writes: A human being is a human being, and has a soul, regardless of what environment it's in.
Are you arguing that the soul is a product of the environment?[/quote]
I am arguing that the soul is a product of its individuality. Though Scientology promotes the sharing of souls, I do not believe that under the circumstances that one body can contain more than one soul. I personally do not believe that the parents have the ability to provide or create a soul for a human creation. I also do not personally believe that whoever it is who decides to impart a soul would be naïve enough to ship or send a soul that was intended for termination. Now the question I have for you is, do you believe that it is wrong to destroy a human shell (that is growing within a woman's own body) that does not contain a soul?
[quote]Socrates writes: By that logic, a preborn baby should be even more "spiritually aware/evolved." Again, your statements defy logic and are contracdictory.[/quote]
I do not believe that a baby has the intellectual means to express their spirituality to their parents but that they may still retain a great deal of this awareness when they are born. It is only when a baby grows and adopts their own parent’s spirituality that they forget about their own. Interesting documented accounts include children who maintain the relationship of “invisible friends” until they either outgrow it or are told to stop “pretending”.

[quote]Socrates writes: I'd recommend a good priest. You've certainly provided nothing here to show yourself a competent authority on the human soul.[/quote]
Socrates, do you believe that a priest holds the truth and the authority on the aspects of the soul? If so, I also would be curious as to the reasons why you would think that the rest of the population has not adopted and complied to this understanding.

Edited October 1, 2007 by carrdero

[Socrates]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1395949' date='Oct 1 2007, 08:58 AM']Well that is what are we debating. Is the human complete with the soul or not?[/quote]
No. A human being without a soul is a corpse. The human fetus is not a corpse or a dead shell but a living human being. You have given no evidence to the contrary.

[quote]But biology does not show that the soul is human or is even present during conception.[/quote]
Biology clearly shows the unborn human to be alive from conception.

[quote]Again no one is arguing that the growth inside the mother is dead or alive we are positioning the question on whether it is wrong or right depending on whether one believes that the soul arrives upon conception or during birth.[/quote]
If it's alive, it has a soul. You have provided no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that the soul "enters" the body at birth. One might as well argue that the soul enters at one year since birth, or two years, or twelve years. It all becomes arbitrary. There is absolutely no evidence that a living human being at some point suddenly becomes possessed of a soul it did not already have.

[quote]I am arguing that the soul is a product of its individuality. Though Scientology promotes the sharing of souls, I do not believe that under the circumstances that one body can contain more than one soul. I personally do not believe that the parents have the ability to provide or create a soul for a human creation. I also do not personally believe that whoever it is who decides to impart a soul would be naïve enough to ship or send a soul that was intended for termination. Now the question I have for you is, do you believe that it is wrong to destroy a human shell (that is growing within a woman's own body) that does not contain a soul?[/quote]
The preborn child lives inside the body of its mother. It still has its own body (own dna, own bloodtype, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc.) The location of the baby has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it has a soul. That's a silly argument.
And your assertion that the unborn baby has no soul because no one would "send a soul" to a body "intended for termination" is equally ludicrous. First of all, we are all "intended for termination" at one point or another. And why "send a soul" to someone who is brutally killed as a young infant? Or to someone born with a horrible and painful disease, or a born into famine to slowly starve to death? Or are all those who die early nasty deaths to be declared to a have never had a soul - to be mere "shells"?

[quote]Socrates, do you believe that a priest holds the truth and the authority on the aspects of the soul? If so, I also would be curious as to the reasons why you would think that the rest of the population has not adopted and complied to this understanding.[/quote]
I'd beleive only if the priest taught in conformity with the unchanging teaching of the Church as handed down from Christ for over 2000 years.

While no doubt you'll ridicule this assertion of authority, I don't believe you yourself are any position to put down the claims to authority of the Church, nor of any other religion for that matter. There are plenty of apologetics resources on here to explain why we believe the Church has such authority.
In the meantime, you might ask why you believe yourself to personally hold the truth and authority about the soul?
And why has the rest of the human population not adopted and complied to the tenants of your little personal religion of "Patrickism"?

[carrdero]

[quote]Socrates writes: Biology clearly shows the unborn human to be alive from conception.[/quote]

I will post it again since you may not have understood it before:
[quote]Carrdero writes: But biology does not show that the soul is human or is even present during conception.[/quote]
"Alive from conception" does not tell me there is a soul since I belieive the soul exists before a physical incarnation and survives after. A fetus that is evolving and dependant on an adult entity for life does not scream evidence of soul to me.

[quote]Socrates writes: If it's alive, it has a soul. [color="#006400"]You have provided no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that the soul "enters" the body at birth. [/color]There is absolutely no evidence that a living human being at some point suddenly becomes possessed of a soul it did not already have.[/quote]

[color="#000080"][b]THEOLOGIC OR RELIGIOUS FAITH BELIEF [/b]



[b]This is best explained by considering three people who might state their respective beliefs as follows:

a) I believe in God. I believe He creates a soul. I believe the soul is created at conception. Therefore, I believe that human Life begins at conception.

b) I also believe in God and a soul but I don’t believe the soul is created (poster's note: or infused) until birth (or some other time). Therefore, I believe that human life begins at birth (or some other time).

c) I don’t believe in God or a soul.



Comment

- The above are statements of religious faith or its absence.

[color="#FF0000"]- None of the above religious faith beliefs can be factually proven.[/color]

- Each individual has a right to his or her own religious beliefs.[/color][/b]

[color="#006400"]No one has any evidence for the soul that is why we are debating our beliefs.[/color]

[quote]Socrates writes: First of all, we are all "intended for termination" at one point or another.[/quote]
Yes but why would one own a car for travel if one never intends to take it out of the garage? What purpose would one enter the human race, if one never intended to step out of the starting gate? Why would one buy a video game that one always wanted to play and experience if they first do not own the video game console to play it on?

[quote]Socrates writes And why "send a soul" to someone who is brutally killed as a young infant? Or to someone born with a horrible and painful disease, or a born into famine to slowly starve to death?[/quote]

I do not ever remember receiving a contractual promise guaranteeing a life of peace and security. What purpose does a soul accomplish by existing in a womb?

[quote]Socrates writes: Or are all those who die early nasty deaths to be declared to a have never had a soul - to be mere "shells"?[/quote]

I’m not quite sure why you view death as a tragedy or why you define the value of life by the amount of time that someone exists.

[quote]Socrates writes: I'd beleive only if the priest taught in conformity with the unchanging teaching of the Church as handed down from Christ for over 2000 years.
In the meantime, you might ask why you believe yourself to personally hold the truth and authority about the soul?[/quote]
If you reread my posts, you will notice that I haven’t yet accepted anyones belief as Truth (even my own) and that my beliefs do not threaten any other beliefs. I am not passing myself off as an authority, just another person who has beliefs.

[quote]Socrates writes: And why has the rest of the human population not adopted and complied to the tenants of your little personal religion of "Patrickism"?[/quote]

Because one of the first things that Patrickism teaches is to believe everything, but accept nothing until you have proven this belief to be a truth or an untruth.

Edited October 2, 2007 by carrdero

[prose]

[quote]Yes but why would one own a car for travel if one never intends to take it out of the garage? What purpose would one enter the human race, if one never intended to step out of the starting gate? Why would one buy a video game that one always wanted to play and experience if they first do not own the video game console to play it on?[/quote]

Have you ever met someone who had a miscarriage? The reason I bring this up is to make a point about the fact that a baby can affect mankind without even having to "exit" the womb.

As for not being a life, you have yet to refute my proof that I showed you that a fetus reacts as a baby does. So, by your definition, this would mean it has a soul.

[carrdero]

[quote name='prose' post='1396560' date='Oct 2 2007, 01:45 PM']Have you ever met someone who had a miscarriage? The reason I bring this up is to make a point about the fact that a baby can affect mankind without even having to "exit" the womb.[/quote]

But do you need a soul for this affect? I have known instances of people who have been shaken or regrettful of their decision to have a baby aborted but one must ask themselves, is the soul necessary for such a reaction?
[quote]prose writes: As for not being a life, you have yet to refute my proof that I showed you that a fetus reacts as a baby does. So, by your definition, this would mean it has a soul.[/quote]
And I have explained that all fetuses react like fetuses, with no measure or standard of individuality or personality that can only be expressed by a soul. A soul is not human, it was not previously human in the spiritual realm before incarnating to a physical existence and it will not be human after physical death. I believe there is no such thing as a baby or an adult soul and that goes the same for other lifeforms. The soul is not representative of the physical shell that it wants to incarnate into.

Edited October 2, 2007 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

carrderro, you have an illogical superstitious beleif with no basis. I simply do not believe in a soul as you define it. You must prove to me that such a thing exists. I do not believe that it does, you have proposed that it does with no substantial basis. it exists because you think it exists. I would side with an athiest against your conceptualization of a soul, because the athiest would be logical, you are here being illogical, beleiving in something with no proof, material, philosophical, or otherwise.

birth pains are scientifically explainable, they are not immaterial in origin. your point there is moot.

continued nerve spasms do not equate to unique life. it is the continuation of movements which were set into motion prior to the animal's death. is this creature still ensouled at that moment? one might say it is, if one understands the soul as the principal of life; every act the chicken does which is a result of its life was caused by its soul.a frenchman who was guillotined during the French Revolution used his own death as an experiment, saying that he would blink twice with his disembodied head. he did so. that was a result of his soul. whether it was a conscience present soul at that time? ehh... I don't know, it could have been set in motion by his brain so that the nerves were ready to carry out the order of the brain, but were on hold, when theere was no longer anything left holding them back, they carried out the initial order his brain had been ready to do for the whole period prior to the guillotining. but the situation is entirely unanalagous to the fetus, it is simply a moot comparison.

inside the womb, there is a unique operating body system. there is no physical control excercised by the mother's body over the fetus. this is simply scientific fact, the mother's brain does not control the organs in the fetus's body. the only thing the mother's body does is provide the fetus nourishment, there is no neuropathway from the mother's brain to the fetus's brain. every action within a fetus is regulated by the fetus's brain.

[Socrates]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1396444' date='Oct 2 2007, 02:05 AM']I will post it again since you may not have understood it before:

"Alive from conception" does not tell me there is a soul since I belieive the soul exists before a physical incarnation and survives after. A fetus that is evolving and dependant on an adult entity for life does not scream evidence of soul to me.[/quote]
As I've said before, the soul is the life principle of a living thing. The human fetus is alive; therefore it has a soul. Since it is a human fetus, what other kind of soul would it have other than human? The offspring of a human being is a human being; it is not a dog or cat or chicken.

A baby is "evolving" (growing) after it is born (a baby doesn't look much like an adult), and is dependent on "adult entities" for life for some time. (Thow an infant alone in the woods, and it won't last long.)
Does this mean young babies don't have souls? Your arguments are nonsensical.

[quote]- The above are statements of religious faith or its absence.

[color="#FF0000"]- None of the above religious faith beliefs can be factually proven.[/color]

- Each individual has a right to his or her own religious beliefs.[/color][/b]

[color="#006400"]No one has any evidence for the soul that is why we are debating our beliefs.[/color][/quote]
If you believe none of this can be proven one way or the other, then there can be no debate.
Making assertions with no evidence is not debating - it's just making assertions.
It becomes no more that saying "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" a la Monty Python.
I believe there is logical evidence for a soul (though not as you claim the soul is).
You claim there is no evidence one way or the other, yet keep asserting your claims.
That is nothing but a waste of everyone's time. We all no by now what you claim, yet you've failed to convince anyone, and admit yourself you have no evidence.

[quote]Yes but why would one own a car for travel if one never intends to take it out of the garage? What purpose would one enter the human race, if one never intended to step out of the starting gate? Why would one buy a video game that one always wanted to play and experience if they first do not own the video game console to play it on?[/quote]
A car is still a car, whether it leaves the garage or not. A human being is a human being whether he leaves the womb. It would be wrong for me to smash your new car which has not left the lot, and it is much worse for one to kill an unborn child. You've proven nothing with this.

[quote]I do not ever remember receiving a contractual promise guaranteeing a life of peace and security. What purpose does a soul accomplish by existing in a womb?

I’m not quite sure why you view death as a tragedy or why you define the value of life by the amount of time that someone exists.[/quote]
You (probably deliberately) miss the point of my posts. I do not define the value of life by the amount of time that someone exists, yet this is exactly what you do when you say an unborn human cannot have a soul because a life spent in the womb (according to you) can serve no purpose.
I was pointing out that by your own logic this would rule out souls for any who die brutally and prematurely.
What purpose does a soul accomplish by existing in the intensive care unit of a hospital from birth to death?
What purpose does a soul accomplish that is thrown in the garbage can by the mother immediately after being born?

Yes, these things happen in life. You've done nothing to prove that an preborn child should have a soul any less than an infant already born.

[quote]If you reread my posts, you will notice that I haven’t yet accepted anyones belief as Truth (even my own) and that my beliefs do not threaten any other beliefs. I am not passing myself off as an authority, just another person who has beliefs.
Because one of the first things that Patrickism teaches is to believe everything, but accept nothing until you have proven this belief to be a truth or an untruth.[/quote]
Again, if you believe no belief is true or false there is no point in debating. You might as well be arguing whether flying pigs have pink or green wings.

And in practice you believe and accept only your own claims, rejecting everything that contradicts them.
Until you are ready to actually debate, I see no point in further indulging your childish games.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Socrates

[carrdero]

[quote]Socrates writes; If you believe none of this can be proven one way or the other, then there can be no debate. Making assertions with no evidence is not debating - it's just making assertions.[/quote]

Do you or do you not possess the proof necessary to truthfully evidence the existence of the soul or that the soul emerges during conception rather than birth?

Edited October 3, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: carrderro, you have an illogical superstitious beleif with no basis. I simply do not believe in a soul as you define it.[/quote]
You have used these terms before to describe my beliefs. Are you sure that illogical and superstitious are the appropriate words that you want to use to describe my beliefs Aloysius?
[quote]Aloysius writes: I simply do not believe in a soul as you define it.[/quote]
And as far as beliefs go, that is your right.
[quote]Aloysius writes: You must prove to me that such a thing exists. I do not believe that it does, you have proposed that it does with no substantial basis.[/quote]
As I explained to Socrates, these are just beliefs and if I had the means to demonstrate proof than I would no longer need to encourage the belief. No one yet has the proof that is required to substantiate the aspects or existence of the soul. As a curious side query, I would be interested in what proof would be required for you to take notice of soul qualities.
[quote]Aloysius writes: it exists because you think it exists.[/quote]
Many things would not exist without thought.
[quote]Aloysius writes: birth pains are scientifically explainable, they are not immaterial in origin. your point there is moot.[/quote]
The scientific explanation of birth pain does not negate the arrival of the soul anymore than a doctor’s diagnosis of death explains the departure of the soul.
[quote]Aloysius writes: inside the womb, there is a unique operating body system. there is no physical control excercised by the mother's body over the fetus. this is simply scientific fact, the mother's brain does not control the organs in the fetus's body. the only thing the mother's body does is provide the fetus nourishment, there is no neuropathway from the mother's brain to the fetus's brain. every action within a fetus is regulated by the fetus's brain.[/quote]
Who do you believe provides the soul?

[Hashbrowns]

"Many things would not exist without thought." - Could you provide an example, please? And I'm hoping you don't mean things like cars and space stations and things like that of human invention.

"Who do you believe provides the soul?" - God, who else?