I genuinely don't hate you but I don't know what you want from this conversation. I'm not sure I'm willing to discuss philosophy for hours on end in how it relates to soul. If you don't believe in the soul you can believe anything. I post rather sporadically on this forum because I don't like it to take up much of my time. I've taken a couple years of philosophy at the college level but I learn far more on my own. Again, I don't like this forum to take up much of my time because I read philosophy mostly for myself and spend much of my time doing that

If someone spends years studying philosophy without knowing they have a soul then they've dug themselves into a deep hole. Philosophy can be very dangerous. You're not an authority on anything. As for flux and substance, there is Heidegger, Sartre, Hegel, and most phenomenology

If you can't feel your soul you can't know philosophy. I read Kant to Hegel, who were obviously atheists who COULD feel their souls and knew morality well. Most philosophy students are pretentious and don't know anything really. Asking where souls come from is like asking where matter comes from. Those are prerequisites for understanding and don't have a source. The ten weeks of substantial essence (soul) is what produces the brain and heart in ten week old child of the womb

Your first statement does not provide any grounds for accepting your second statement. — Herg

Babies have brain waves and heart beats by ten weeks, so that establishes (one would assume) that you can't kill them at that point. Knowing that the essence was there from conception takes knowing your own soul and how to do philosophy. Philosophy is a very dangerous practice if you have no idea how to do it right. Obviously you don't know how to even read my posts

Brains are not necessary for sentience. Like I have said many times on this forum, dividing the line between Christian philosophy and common materialism is false. You have to have proper philosophy and an understanding of your own soul and that things contain flux but also essence in them. There is no Prime Mover. Most people don't really understand anything about philosophy, apparently you included (after all, you asked for "proof" for the soul lol, gee)

All pro-lifers can do is indicate the way. Try debating an Islamic terrorist and you'll see how that is

That's a very wicked way to define autonomy. And you say suicide doesn't destroy the soul? Well there are messed up people poising as philosophers everywhere I know. You're on the road to a naraka you won't have the strength to get out of. I'm too bored with this conversation,

and good luck but I wouldn't help you

Sure it is

I had a thread on randomness and I think you making a joke lol, because you did participate with some great observation.

I don't know how they can rule out all non-local variables because with "many worlds" couldn't another world influence the entangled pair? And if the communicate faster than light, to save relativity they posit wormholes and these might be connected to other worlds and so there is then even more territory we have to rule out

What about the autonomy of the baby?

They pick random samples sometimes in physics but if our will is predetermined nothing we do is random like that. Non local variables are ones we can't detect in the system yet i think

It's weird how grown adults can be so ignorant of moral rules. But then again, considering how miserable everyone seems in this society it makes sense

Abortion isn't mercy killing firstly. Also, are you for suicide?

I've seen videos saying Bell's theorem is about randomness. Maybe it's too complex to explain to non-physicists. The PBS spacetime series said Bell himself thought fatalism was consistent with his theorem but didn't say anything about faster than light travel.

Babies have heart beats and brain waves by the tenth week. They are alive and sentient at conception.

It's not about insults. Your abortion stance is contrary to what your soul tells you.

If there is some way to save the embryos we must do it instead of taking away what we give to it for it to live

To that a pre-born entity is a person but that a mother can kill her offspring before birth shows no respect for motherhood or babies. I want to repeat that I don't come st this from a Christian perspective. My favorite philosopher is Hegel

You think fetuses are people yet we should let people kill them. So you got a big problem there bud.

Letting fertilized eggs die outside the womb is not killing them. Preventing a fertilized egg from going onto the wall of the uterus is different. I can't force you to see my the difference and I wouldn't want to force my belief on you. But I've given you some ideas and you can read more in many places if you want to understand pro-life philosophy better

If they are created outside the womb than they are human but they are outside the natural process so I think we can let them perish

The father and mother make the child at conception. Preventing it from getting unto the wall of the uterus is abortion. If it's outside the womb it is a different situation. Pro-choice people have zero natural law instincts

It is not the same thing, as I've explained.

Spooky action at a distance was proved in Einstein's day I thought. It all pretty confusing. Faster than light action can be explained, or explained away, by geometry and super-dimensions. But determinism would be hard to disprove given that people could subscribe to compatibilism if needed

If they can rule out any hidden variables, then Bell's theorem proves there is randomness in the universe. This makes sense with regard to entropy anyway

Pregnancy is the accepting of life within life.

People have brought up in vitro and contraception, but those aren't abortion and I'm not against those

You're trying to dissect pregnancy with a Nazi-like mind. It's not about logic but reality. You don't understand what pregnancy even is in its essence

Stopping a normal process while killing the live creature is abortion. If it's outside the mother the natural process has already stopped. You're trying to force something in your reasoning and your argument is stretched out nonsense

Maybe you're trying your best but I feel like the discussion has continued long enough. I don't quite understand how you can hold your position or if you can without seeing its flaw eventually, but thanks for your friendly contribution

The mother has the right and duty to be a mother and her offspring is her child not her enemy. Your reasoning is bizarre, but I can't work this out for you because people can always find ways to avoid what is for them a hard truth

Pro choice people debate when before birth a child can be aborted. All their reasonings on this are arbitrary though. No safer place should there be than in the womb, but pro-abortion folk don't even have the presence of mind to say "maybe it is a person so I won't support this". This issue can cause you to lose in life in general

It's there for everyone to understand. DNA is the activity of life. If you are disconnected to this, there is nowhere practical events won't lead you in taking away others' rights. Would you, I ask, if you had the proper know-how, perform a regular everyday abortion if you were asked?

It's not about logic on paper but real life reality (existential reality). Hitler said Jews weren't people. The president of Poland said gays aren't people. Pro choicers are doing the same thing with a group of individuals because the littler persons are invisible to the eye without ultrasounds, etc. Everyone is a person and deserves their human rights, including life. DNA is how life is encoded. Your opinions are dangerous not just for babies's rights but for everyone's

Self defense is not like abortion and even is Jesus used it as an example it's wrong. A person’s value is not defined by her abilities, by what she can or can’t do. The age of the being does not define whether they have the right to life. Everyone has different capabilities. A 3 year old is still developing but it has the right to life. An unborn entity always has active DNA, and it has a heart beat at 5-6 weeks, and brain waves brain waves at 5-6 weeks? You are being selective as to who is human

We can understand biology's relation to ethics through reason, but not pro-choice sterile reason

You had an example that has no bearing on abortion, fool. It's like your saying you'd kill a child if he invaded your house

Biology is not relative

Once a zygote is formed human DNA is activated as a human being. Morning after pills have been explained to me as killing the being once it's DNA is activated and so is truly a zygote. There really wouldn't be confusion on this issues if biologists all desired to understand when DNA is activated. But the abortion people try to misword things in order to cause confusion and more abortions. There will be debate about the details as long as people don't want to see the issue with clear conscience

I don't know how to solve all these problems in society, but proper principles about pregnancy are essential