Abortion And Birth Control Wrong At Al Cases

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1394716' date='Sep 28 2007, 04:02 PM'][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][/quote]

No. It is not valid. Just because no scientific study can be carried out on the nature of the human soul does not mean that we can believe whatever we like about the soul - such as that it enters a child on their seventh birthday, or that it takes a month's absence from the body for spiritual renewal every year, or any other strange theory. You seem to think that in the absence of physical, scientific 'proof', people can believe whatever they like and it has all got to be valid - except for when you contradict your own definition of validity and try to use birth pains (the natural result of a woman trying to expel a 7lb baby) as 'proof' for your idea. The motor that powers that way of thinking is a form of atheism: a crude, primitive excuse for spirituality that is built on explanations - explanations that are always limited (because it's not possible to discover everything about the world through mere sensory experience) and that obfuscate the situation rather than clarifying it.

Wherever there is human life, there is soul. To say otherwise is to suggest that a person exists without God for a time. It's this kind of mentality that led Aristotle to declare that women had no souls, which is the next step up from saying that a foetus has no soul. When we start making abritrary distinctions about life, this is the trap that we fall into: valuing some people more than others, just because they correspond more closely to our idea - our subjective, biased, often downright sinful [i]idea[/i] - of what lookss human

[prose]

Well said.

[carrdero]

[quote]Catholic Anonymous writes: No. It is not valid. Just because no scientific study can be carried out on the nature of the human soul does not mean that we can believe whatever we like about the soul[/quote]

So am I to assume from this statement that the right and freedom of believing is not a valid concept for you and is something that you cannot uphold or respect?
[quote]Catholic Anonymous writes: You seem to think that in the absence of physical, scientific 'proof', people can believe whatever they like and it has all got to be valid - except for when you contradict your own definition of validity and try to use birth pains (the natural result of a woman trying to expel a 7lb baby) as 'proof' for your idea.[/quote]

If the possibility exists, then the belief is valid. I should stop pondering and reasoning my beliefs because the scientific community hasn’t provided evidence or interest in fetal ensoulment?
[quote]Catholic Anonymous writes: Wherever there is human life, there is soul.[/quote]

Wherever there is human life developing there is a genetically biological function in operation. The soul is not composed of physical matter and does not resemble a human and my belief is that it may not be necessary to this function.

[quote]Catholic Anonymous writes: It's this kind of mentality that led Aristotle to declare that women had no souls, which is the next step up from saying that a foetus has no soul. When we start making abritrary distinctions about life, this is the trap that we fall into: valuing some people more than others, just because they correspond more closely to our idea - our subjective, biased, often downright sinful idea - of what lookss human[/quote]
It is probably the same menatality that has kept woman from voting or holding certain positions in society. It is this mentality that has probably kept certain people enslaved. All this mentality that I mentioned to you was still evident in this last century. Stay tuned, we all have a lot to learn and a lot of time to think about it.

Edited October 4, 2007 by carrdero

[Socrates]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1396959' date='Oct 2 2007, 11:39 PM']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?[/quote]
The biological evidence is overwhelming that a human being is alive from conception. If it's alive, it has a soul (the soul being the principle which gives life to the body). Case closed.

[carrdero]

[quote]carrdero writes: 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?[/quote]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1397250' date='Oct 3 2007, 10:04 PM']The biological evidence is overwhelming that a human being is alive from conception. If it's alive, it has a soul (the soul being the principle which gives life to the body). Case closed.[/quote]
I will have to take this reaffirmation of your belief to my question as a "no" then.

[Socrates]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1397312' date='Oct 3 2007, 11:40 PM']I will have to take this reaffirmation of your belief to my question as a "no" then.[/quote]
Since you evidently have trouble understanding basic English and/or basic logic, the answer is a resounding "YES."
It is an undeniable scientific fact that an unborn child is alive. Since the soul is the life-principle of the body, if it is alive, it has a soul. Since the fetus is alive from conception, it has a soul from conception.

But since you apparently have no interest in actual debate, but insist on spouting contradictory nonsense where no means yes and right means wrong, you're going on "ignore."
Find some other way to amuse yourself.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1397765' date='Oct 4 2007, 10:47 PM']Since you evidently have trouble understanding basic English and/or basic logic, the answer is a resounding "YES."
It is an undeniable scientific fact that an unborn child is alive. [color="#000080"]Since the soul is the life-principle of the body, if it is alive, it has a soul. [/color]Since the fetus is alive from conception, it has a soul from conception.

But since you apparently have no interest in actual debate, but insist on spouting contradictory nonsense where no means yes and right means wrong, you're going on "ignore."
Find some other way to amuse yourself.[/quote]
[color="#000080"]You seem to be having a little trouble understanding that this is not a scientific fact thus your logic only can only be supported if your belief is true. In my understanding, this belief has not been proven true, as I have continually outlined in posts #47, #94, #113.[/color]

[Anna]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1388508' date='Sep 19 2007, 07:35 AM']I would probably agree that homosexuality may fall into the catagory of being Unnatural but even though it may be Unnatural it does not mean (contrary to some people's beliefs or opinion) that it is wrong or in violation of Natural Law. A good example of this would be eye or sight correction. Eye glasses and contact lenses are very Unnatural, yet they exist and are permitted as normal (and in most cases necessary).[/quote]
Before I tear my hair out.
Where did you come from?!!!
Good grief.
Your illogic gives me a headache.
What is the purpose of eyes? SIGHT!
What is the purpose of sexuality? PROCREATION!
God creates things with a purpose in mind.
Man has been given freewill to use the gifts in keeping with God's design, or to THWART God's design and frustrate God's purpose.
Giving corrective lenses to a near-sighted person assists the person whose gift of sight is naturally in decline.
Using chemicals or devices to prevent sperm and egg from uniting and forming a new person is directly violating the design of God's plan.
We have free will. We choose to follow and support His plan, or to deny His plan and go our own way.
CONTRACEPTION, for whatever reason, is a rejection of God's procreative design, and is therefore, selfish and sinful.
This is NOT rocket science, and I am not shouting, btw. Just being a bit lazy with the keyboard...

[carrdero]

[quote]Anna writes: We have free will. We choose to follow and support His plan, or to deny His plan and go our own way.[/quote]
And what are the consequences when Nature denies His plan and goes its own way?

Edited October 8, 2007 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

carrederro, you want us to prove the existence of something we don't beleive in, the "soul" as you define it. we don't believe in souls as you define them, as some ghost that inhabits material beings and possesses them at some stage in their life and departs at some time after their death.

to us, "soul" is synonymous with "life". to prove something has a soul, you must prove that it is alive. to prove something has a human soul, you must prove that it is both human and alive.

it is you who must provide evidence for the existence of the type of "soul" you are defining, because we don't believe that such a thing even exists.

you're the one with mythologically religious based faith forming your conceptions of reality, with wild spiritual ghost beings floating into human bodies and possessing them upon birth causing a woman to have labor pains (that's mythology, that's superstition, that's religion, it is not philosophy, it is not reason, it is not science, in fact it runs contrary to reasosn, philosophy, and science.

we are not basing our conceptions of reality upon our faith here. we are looking at what can be proven: that it is human and it is alive, the classical philosophical definition of what a "soul" is. you ask who provides the soul, and we answer God, but this question is irrelevant. the question "who makes it be alive" is a synonymous question, and we would answer God, but whether or not we believed God caused it to be alive (thus having a soul), we would still have scientific evidence that it was human and alive.

thats what it comes down to. if we're talking a matter of policy and all that, let's take religious beleifs entirely out of the picture and look at the science: the embryo is alive, it is human, and it is unique (it has its own eye color, blood type, and everything else written right there in its genetic code from the moment of conception). therefore, it has a soul (it is alive), it is human (its soul is human), and it is unique (its soul is different than any other soul)

if you want to keep spinning stories about when some mythological ghost being goes into a human body to make it move from the state of being alive to the state of having a soul, that's your religious business. don't go trying to impose your unfounded religious beleifs upon a society which wants to base its policies on reason and science, though.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: carrederro, you want us to prove the existence of something we don't beleive in,[/quote]
Why would ask you to prove the existence of something that you do not believe in when you do not have the necessary evidence needed to prove the things you do believe in?

[quote]Aloysius writes: the "soul" as you define it. we don't believe in souls as you define them, as some ghost that inhabits material beings and possesses them at some stage in their life and departs at some time after their death.
to us, "soul" is synonymous with "life". to prove something has a soul, you must prove that it is alive. to prove something has a human soul, you must prove that it is both human and alive.[/quote]

Yes, this seems to be the only reason for this belief that I have been given (that and because Socrates says so).

I have given the following reasons for my beliefs.

[color="#000080"]That whether one believes that the individual chooses the physical incarnation or that God chooses the incarnation, that a soul does not incarnate into a physical shell that is planned for termination.

That the soul is self and that as long as the human shell is contained within the parent, that this individual self cannot be recognized and represented as such.

That the soul incarnates for purpose and that there is no purpose that can and needs to be effectively enacted in the womb.

That no two souls may occupy the same human body.

That souls do not come in flavors (animal, insect, plant or human).

I have also provided comfort for those concerned with the death of a fetus by offering the belief that a human BEing is not a human BEing without the soul and that even though the physical shell is destroyed, that there is the opportunity that the parents could conceive again or that the soul may just incarnate into another physical existence.

That there is a tremendous difference between an infant that is dependant on the internal biological functions of a parent as compared to one that has a birth and is separated fom the parent.

That the formation of physical life is a biological function that is genetically available to most humans and is a Law of Nature that will happen with or without the knowledge of knowing whether parents plan to abort a child or not.

That science has not proven or disproven the existence of the soul or that it infuses with the body during conception or at birth (or some other time) and that either one of our beliefs or none of these beliefs are correct.[/color]

Most of these beliefs have not been contended, addressed, recognized or reasoned yet in this discussion.

[quote]Aloysius writes: I do not believe that it does, you have proposed that it does with no substantial basis. it exists because you think it exists. It is you who must provide evidence for the existence of the type of "soul" you are defining, because we don't believe that such a thing even exists.

you're the one with mythologically religious based faith forming your conceptions of reality,[/quote]

And as I mentioned before you have the right to believe or not to believe. I can still believe in both your belief and my belief and the belief that no soul exists at all because all of them are presently unconfirmed and I do not have any preference to which one could be the Truth but that should not stop me from reasoning each theory until more evidence comes along.

[quote]Aloysius writes: we are not basing our conceptions of reality upon our faith here. we are looking at what can be proven: that it is human and it is alive, the classical philosophical definition of what a "soul" is.[/quote]

This is an example of someone who is desparately trying to hang their spiritual/philosophical theories on something that science has yet to conceptualize. The aspects and characteristics of the soul. Spaghetti thrown against the wall has a better chance of sticking,

[quote]Aloysius writes: you ask who provides the soul, and we answer God, but this question is irrelevant.[/quote]

The bigger question is why would GOD provide a soul that is knowingly designated for termination and the question is not irrelevant? It is one that will have to be confronted and addressed at some time.

[quote]Aloysius writes: thats what it comes down to. if we're talking a matter of policy and all that, let's take religious beleifs entirely out of the picture and look at the science: the embryo is alive, it is human, and it is unique (it has its own eye color, blood type, and everything else written right there in its genetic code from the moment of conception).[/quote]

The embryo is alive but I would not describe this as unique. The eye color, blood type and hair color all may represent the parents (as it should). The twitching, the movement, the kicking inside the womb, the barrage of tests to qualify its being alive and sentinent is not really unique, every infant should perform and pass these tests. These are not apt qualifications towards the existence of a soul.

[quote]Aloysius writes: if you want to keep spinning stories about when some mythological ghost being goes into a human body to make it move from the state of being alive to the state of having a soul, that's your religious business.[/quote]

Actually, I should correct you on that. The belief should read:

“when some mythological ghost being goes into a human body to make it move fron the state of a human becoming to the state of a human BEing.”

[quote]Aloysius writes:don't go trying to impose your unfounded religious beleifs upon a society which wants to base its policies on reason and science, though.[/quote]

Don't blame me for the unfounded religious and scientific beliefs of the soul, they were unproven before I got here, they are unproven now and they will most likely remain a quandary for humans after I pass.

Edited October 8, 2007 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

You still don't seem to understand: your beleif in "souls" is basically superstition and myth. It has no basis in a debate about public policy. your beleif in the human body as a "shell" is totally contrary to reality as it is experienced by the human senses; experience teaches us that the human body is directly connected to the human person; psychological studies of the human brain confirm this, showing the physical correspondance of every human action in the material brain. there can be no doubt that our "self" is inseperable from our brain, thus that our "soul" is necessarily united to our body.

our beleif about "life" DOES have a place in a debate about public policy, it's based directly

whereas you want to draw an unprovable line somewhere, we simply say "this is when it is human, scientifically, and this is when it is human, scientifically"

see, we're talking hard science, provable true concrete facts. you're making things up as you go along based on how you'd like things to be. please name some FACTS which are SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE. We can list the following:

An embryo has a unique human DNA code. From the moment of conception, it has a determined brain structure, its "self" will necessarily flow directly from the DNA instructions for the growth of the brain.
An embryo is alive.

Therefore, it is a unique human life with a unique self. It has an "anima" (translates to "soul") by definition of that word, ie the animating principal, that which causes something to be alive. But it also has a "self", determined in the structure of the DNA code from the very beginning (alterations to personality now begin with experience and growth, a continuous process throughout one's whole life, but the basic template of the psychological self is determined in the DNA code)

[Aloysius]

[quote]“when some mythological ghost being goes into a human body to make it move fron the state of a human becoming to the state of a human BEing.”[/quote]

okay, so then we come to the SCIENTIFIC question, when is it a "human BEing"

it clearly exists from the moment of conception. therefore, it is a being.
it is clearly human, and uniquely human at that, based upon its DNA.

you need something that sceintifically shows the material body turn human from a state of being non-human, or turn into a being from the state of being a non being.

but I don't think this will have any effect, because you have non-sensical definitions of words. but for what it's worth, that's what it means to be a "human being" no matter how much you incorrectly capitalize the letters.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: You still don't seem to understand: your beleif in "souls" is basically superstition and myth. It has no basis in a debate about public policy.[/quote]

I’m not sure you understand. When it comes to the subject of souls, everyone's belief is purely conjecture at this moment. It is open season on the subject of ensoulment. No one’s belief is any better reasoned nor better evidenced in the understanding of what one believes of the soul and it’s characteristics. In all my life I have never seen any media organization break open and expose the mystery of the soul and present any facts that are suitable and universal for human comprehension. Whether one believes that the subject of ensoulment is worth discussing or debating is up to the individual but the belief still exists; that ensoulment during birth (or some other time) is a valid belief that some people still uphold and endorse.

[quote]Aloysius writes: your beleif in the human body as a "shell" is totally contrary to reality as it is experienced by the human senses; experience teaches us that the human body is directly connected to the human person; psychological studies of the human brain confirm this, showing the physical correspondance of every human action in the material brain. there can be no doubt that our "self" is inseperable from our brain, thus that our "soul" is necessarily united to our body.

An embryo has a unique human DNA code. From the moment of conception, it has a determined brain structure, its "self" will necessarily flow directly from the DNA instructions for the growth of the brain.
An embryo is alive.[/quote]

Unfortunately this evidence may not lead one to the existence of the soul. This evidence of DNA code has been theorized for many years and it hasn’t led the scientific community to the public announcement of the reality of the soul or when it fuses to complete the human BEing and this is where you may be finding your frustration. You may believe that abortion is wrong and that the soul is evident during conception but the scientific community hasn’t found enough evidence to support your philosophy or the evidence necessary to possibly share in these beliefs.

Edited October 9, 2007 by carrdero

[Aloysius]

your beleif in "souls" has no basis in reality or science, and never will. it is a matter of conjecture, and thus not adequate to discuss issues of public policy.

my beleif about LIFE (which I define as soul, anima, the principal of life, but that does not matter) is entirely scientifica nd proveable.

you have no science on your side. my position is based entirely upon science and would not change even if all my religious faith was false, because it's based on reason.

you still keep talking about "ensoulment" and "souls".. I might as well introduce into a debate about gay marriage the fact that tiny little elves are casting spells causing people to be homosexuals.

I can very easily prove the existence of a "soul" as I have defined it (and my argument for the definition of the word comes straight from its historical use). It is evident, it is clear, it is definitive. Your definition of a "soul" is mythology, it is conjecture. It has no more place in this debate than invisible pink elephants do. Mine, on the other hand, is not conjecture, it is pure science. That I extend it to the traditional use of the word "soul" to mean "animating principal" does not extend me anywhere near a realm of conjecture, for I only say "it has a soul" to mean " it is alive"

your position ought to be ignored because it is based upon nothing but unprovable ridiculous concepts, it presupposes that a "soul" is a ghost-in-the-machine whereas that position is both scientifically and philosophically untenable.

my position has nothing to do with all that, it is not conjecture, it is not similar to yours in any way. I am merely going on the science: an embryo is a unique human which is alive. There is no question about "ensoulment" for a propeer philosophy when you've established those facts, those facts are synonymous with "ensoulment" and everywhere throughout history, that was the controversy of "ensoulment"... classical science held that it was not human at first, that it went through a plant stage, then an animal stage, then a human stage (human stage = ensoulment)... the only reason "ensoulment" could happen after the existence of the body was that the body was not yet human so it did not have a human soul.

This debate will go nowhere, because you do not hold your position accountable to facts or science or even philosophy, you just make up whatever you think makes most sense. There is tons of evidence for the existence of a soul as I define it, there is no evidence for the existence of the soul as you define it. Ipso facto, unless you have a compelling philosophical case, the soul as you define it DOES NOT EXIST anymore than an invisible pink elephant.

this makes me appreciate what it must be like to be an athiest debating a fundamentalist... banging your head against a wall with someone who simply proposes the existence of something without scientific or philosophical proof to back it up.