I think one principle concerning how to conduct the ideal human society is sanctity of life. A dead body laying on the side of the road does not evoke the same response in all places or even in the same place at different times. I think there are negative consequences on society the less and less life is valued. I'm still trying to work out a better way to describe how exactly sanctity of life promotes a healthy society, but I'm fairly certain that legal abortion degrades sanctity of life in a society.
Then there is the question of euthanasia which is practiced here and sometimes I wonder if population pressures continue, if it will be presumed that people wish to be terminated when it was not specifically requested. Worst case scenario.
It seems the more of something there is, the less valued it is. So in a world projected to reach 10 billion I would not be surprised to see human life further disregarded. Perhaps wars to eliminate “useless eaters” I hope not.
Bah 10 billion is a drop in the bucket. Have faith that we will figure something out. Imo we have the potential to make the galaxy our home. Like I said, drop in the bucket.
Would you have also preferred to have been suffocated as a little child, if you had been one of those three? Or does the point of birth mark the point at which you would no longer have wanted to be terminated? And how handicapped are we talking about here? In a wheelchair? Having a deformed left hand? And seriously, you'd rather not be alive if you couldn't hear?? My grandpa would be shaking his head.
But again, most of the pro-choice side seems very inconsistent on that idea too when it comes to their support of unfettered immigration from foreign countries (foreign countries with out-of-control population growth that won't stop no matter how many people emigrate). Despite 1 in 10 pregnancies ending in abortion, and the overall birthrate being slightly below the replacement rate in all developed countries (which should by itself mean gradual population decrease), the population has only continued to increase.
BTW, I asked and asked to see the law and/or mandate or whatever that says women are obligated to give birth.....have you found it yet?
Pro-Lifers address the "Violinist analogy" Answering The Best Pro Choice Argument, Matt Fradd, June 24, 2019
What is this "violinists analogy"? Has someone tried to take away violinist's right to bodily autonomy ? BTW, I asked and asked to see the law and/or mandate or whatever that says women are obligated to give birth.....have you found it yet?
A woman has an obligation to give birth One of many things I've learned from over two decades of afterlife research is that women do have a tentative agreement with the incoming spirit of the fetus. But either the mother or the incoming soul have the right to back out of that agreement up until birth. If the soul of the embryo or fetus decides to withdraw, the mother experiences a miscarriage. If the mother decides to withdraw, she usually has an abortion. In either case, the soul of the expected child can, & often does, come later to the same mother as another pregnancy, so in the long run, nothing is lost. Just the timing is altered.
Of course one has to value life in order to be able to live. But, one cannot claim to be a champion of life if one opposes rational self-interest and individual happiness and in claiming the legalisation of abortion degrades the "sanctity of life", you are proving yourself to have no clue about what it means to live or even e what a life actually is. You are just saying that you are certain without telling why you are certain and you are too shy to admit that your opposition to abortion is rooted in religion.
There is awareness in a coma - and the machinery is still intact - but, this is an interesting line. "I think therefor I am" and is such a person really thinking .. we don't know .. but - like when one sleeps .. perhaps they need to check out a bit for repairs. but in any case - the question to you is - when does the soul arrive in the process - from the twinkle in daddy's eye through to Birth .. or perhaps later .. perhaps some would like to argue that at the age of 3 .. or some such ridiculous thing - but not too many.. think most of will settle on a different place. I will go first - My guess - hypothesis - or one of them - is that once in awhile - after 1000 years of "hail Mary's" folks want to have a vacation from Heaven.. live another life - having millions of worlds to choose from - one of the rules however being - you will not remember your past life.. until you return to heaven - assuming you have been a good boy and don't have to spend some time in ... You know where !! .. So you are all set to go .. no luggage required .. you are going to planet earth - and will be born of woman - When do you enter the fleshy abode. Remember - you will go to sleep - blank out and that is it - when you open our eyes the next time you will have no clue who you are.. My argument in this scenario is simply - "I think therefor I am" - and if the machinery of this fleshy vessel you are entering - the wiring of the brain is not yet completed - the eyes will open to nothing .. and in fact they won't open at all - because there is no thinking yet possible - prior to the wiring of the vessel being complete .. for the whole time you live in it... once back in heaven .. after you leave the fleshy vessel .. you will again remember - and the life you just lived but a distant memory - but a dream. Your turn .. and do explain the rational behind your choice.
A question: Is a car being assembled for the first time in an auto factory any less of a car than a car that has been temporarily taken apart in an auto garage for repairs? Does that fact that it formerly was something in its previous state of existence affect its current existence? Both a fetus and a sleeping individual have a future potentiality for consciousness - the sleeping person will wake up, and the fetus will sometime become aware. So, if we are not talking about the future potentiality here, we must be talking about the past, yes? Or will you admit that a car is a car, even though it's never been started? In that case, a fetus could be a person worthy of value even if consciousness has never been turned on.
Are you having trouble with the subject matter presented ? == we were talking about the soul .. and when it enters the vehicle, not the vehicle itself.. but interesting analogy in any case .. as clearly if the wiring of the car is not complete - the car will not start .. so there is no point in getting in and taking it for a test drive "Potential for Consciousness" - .. sure - but just like the car - the vessel has not actualized that potential as yet .. and so there is no point in taking it for a drive .. because it does not go.. does not work .. no conscious yet. Stumped this one has you - When does the soul arrive - and why ? Give rational for your answer and no more avoiding the question like you did in the above post.
I do not pretend to know. But consider this: It could be possible the soul enters the human body gradually, slowly, over a period of time. Who knows? Or it could be possible the soul enters very early on but is "sleeping". There was a boy in South Africa who suffered brain damage and had no consciousness whatsoever for 4 years. He then gradually began recovering consciousness in little bits. He wasn't able to say exactly when he realized he had regained consciousness, but it was some time over the next 3 years. This shows it's not necessarily an on/off yes/no thing. He remained trapped in his body for the next 6 years with no one realizing that he had regained consciousness. Until finally they noticed he could communicate by moving his eyes, and he began slowly recovering more until eventually he got to the point where he could communicate through a keyboard. A very intelligent individual, although he is still wheelchair bound and not able to speak with his voice.
If there was no consciousness in the past, there is no consciousness now, but there will be consciousness in the future, how is that different from consciousness existing in the past, no consciousness actually existing now, and potentiality for consciousness to exist in the future? It seems like you are saying the present state of things is dependent on a past state that no longer is. We all know that a brain-dead person, a person who was consciousness in the past, has no consciousness now, and has no potentiality of consciousness ever again in the future, that person has passed and is no longer with us. It would be okay to terminate them (theoretically). So we know that past consciousness is not an adequate enough basis on its own to claim personhood. Are you claiming that future potentiality for consciousness is not enough, that they need both past consciousness and future potentiality of consciousness to be considered a person? Let's try to logically examine this.
Some boy losing conscious has nothing to do with the question .. the boy had a soul previously - and had a soul when he woke up. The question we are addressing is when the soul enters - once again you avoid the question.
I am trying to logically examine this .. but you keep avoiding the question by bringing up brain dead people .. which has nothing to do with the issue. We are talking about the soul - and when it arrives in the body.. and giving logical rational for that choice. You are correct by saying "we don't know" - I suppose we leave it at that. Don't go supporting any abortion law on the basis of "we don't know" .. as that would be wandering down the dark path.
So are you claiming the soul was constantly in him? How do we know the soul did not temporarily leave him for some time? Or maybe the soul was "asleep". Maybe a soul enters a fetus in a state of "sleep".
