Snarf do you think it will make Sobaki's head explode to know that he is pretty much in agreement with us?

 

-----signature-----

That was not what you were referring too when talking about Aquinas, if so you would have made clear in your second post that you were in fact not talking about magic but actual physiology.

No medical journal out there or school would accept you using such a simplistic word to describe the complicated functions of our mind. They would also sneer at your attempt to insert your pseudo-scientific religious blather to have anything to do with the workings of the mind..

You're as usual doing your mental gymnastics to get your Harry Potter fantasy to fit into reality followed by your usual tirade of boring semantics.. I asked you to point out this soul to me, and you knew damn well what I meant by it and since you can't that leaves you high and dry, fail more at life Snarfie.

Dumbass.

 

-----signature-----

 

-----signature-----

I also happen to agree with you guys.. 8 weeks is more then enough to decide, after that it should only be done if it's a medical necessity.

 

-----signature-----

I am sorry you don't understand science, philosophy, or even religion. I clearly meant consciousness, which is evidenced by brain activity. Anything beyond that, YOU extrapolated and inferred. Some do call the mind the soul, there is nothing "harry potterish" about that, I suppose you like to use that euphemism about philosophical or theological principles you clearly do not understand. However the mind-body issue is not new and can never be settled by scientific observation and philosophers will continue the debate for the next thousand years. What time you have left in your shallow existence will continue to be spent in awe of shiny objects and likening philosophical issues to young adult fantasy literature.

In a medical discussion? I bet the The New England Journal of Medicine uses the word Soul all the time when talking about matters of the mind and brain.

Dude, save your defensive posturing your semantics and your boorish behaviour.





You're the one who brought religious idiocy into this thread, I merely asked you to point out this soul that Aquinas was talking about, you could not and then you had to defend yourself in this shoddy butthurt fashion, if I wanted to know more about the mind, the brain and consciousness I would have asked specifically about that..

I do not use the term soul to describe the mind, same as I don't feel a need to use Harry Potter magic to explain life or reality. Your appeal to authority and education arguments are inept and invalid.

Those learned philosophers of yours will be harking about the same subjects then as they are doing now, without having come to any conclusions.. Jesus won't come, nor will Ganesh or Thor. Science however will go on actually solving mysteries instead of shrouding it in magic and fanciful notions of super-human beings that there is no proof of.

What I have to say to all the Monks, philosophers and priests and other lazy wastes of air; get a real job.

 

-----signature-----

It is such a difficult subject.

I would imagine a woman who has made the choice of abortion has seperated her mind and heart to come to this decision. I am only trying to imagine how it would feel. I think logic, fear and love are juggled/seperated and a choice is made.


Even though I am strongly against abortion, I feel compassion for someone who has made this choice. Why? I have never had an abortion, I have had friends..co-workers, even strangers tell me they have. In fact, my best friend did when she was 18. She didn't tell me about it until after because she knew I would have talked her out of it. Long story..


From what I understand in all these cases..it is what they thought was the right choice at the time. It is something..no matter how many years have passed..that when they discuss it..they still cry, have sorrow. It seems like it is a pain that really never leaves them. I have heard this several times. Oddly enough..they never refer to it as a blob, they called it a baby.


To calmly answer the op, I would say from just a spiritual/moral standpoint we feel it's our duty to protect the unborn.

On the other side of that, It is not my place to judge..not my job. I know there is a law of man..and in my country it is legal, and the law of God. Within both of those laws the choice is free and consequences with either choice.

I also know God will forgive anything if someone is sincere.

~peace

I think my grandmother had 3 abortions.

Edit: or that was a mix of miscarriages and abortions. She still ended up with 7 children, i guess they didnt use birth control in her time.

You are so ignorant it is amazing. Yes the New England Journal of Medicine does often use the word soul when speaking of the mind, since you probably don't regularly read the journal as I do, here is quick counterpoint to your assertion that shows they do use the word soul: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200407013510124
and also http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200003233421218

All I did was go through a quick summary of the evidence science shows for when personhood starts and some philosophers propositions that coincide with different moments in the embryological timeline. It is hardly religious,I first mentioned Hippocrates for crying out loud. You seem to beeline towards key words and then extrapolate your idiotic assumptions from there. The fact that you think that philosophers haven't or can't speak to the most important questions that science can't touch demonstrates your astounding ignorance. It's no wonder you live for hedonism. The shallow end of the pool is all you can handle!

In none of those texts are soul used to describe the actual functions of consciousness. one talk about how we transitioned from defining the soul as part of our physiology in a historical sense.

The other talks about the title of a book, not our actual brain functions as being part of a soul, the word soul is actually used once in the text and it's for the name of the book, which is poetic prose at best.

I thought you would be smart enough to actually use the context of our discussion to fathom that I meant the functions of the brain being described as the soul by NEJM, it was pretty obvious, maybe not obvious enough I should start using crayons when I have to educate you.

Your argument is invalid.

Your latter ramblings, and attacks upon my intellect is also invalid since you fail to grasp the premise of our discussion. I simply asked you to point out this soul that your Christian saint was talking about you failed to do so and then you failed even more by starting this little semantics game that you're so fond of when your limited intellectual capacities fail you. And you have still failed to point out where this soul is, since you seem to believe it exists.

I don't care about philosophy; I don't believe in a life after this one there is no need for me to speculate or wonder. Some people can not face nothingness they need a crutch to lean on. To find reason in their brief existence; they need to pull at the thread and find more ways to justify their delusion; that something will come when it all goes dark and that something out there in the abyss actually cares, I'm simply devoid of such concerns.

What issues can't science touch? Modern science has had maybe 150 effective years to explain our reality. During that time it has solved more problems, mysteries and conundrums then philosophy and religion has the last 5000 years. Your dogma never changes, it stays the same it's unthinking, blind and static.. Science will however move on compound more knowledge and evolve.

Hedonistic? Not in the least, I enjoy life.. Something you Christians seem to hate. Suffering and crying is more in the line with you guys, lighten up Snarfie. And if it was totally hedonistic is there a shame in that? Do I really have to have a reason to exist? Existence is reason enough onto itself it's perfect, I'm a perfect biological machine.

 

-----signature-----