Followup--what about those born lacking, essentially, a head?  How about a parasitic twin or a molar pregnancy?  

Sorry if this is disturbing but we have to be able to counter the arguments of those whose beliefs are anti-life.

Do babies who are born without a brain have a soul?



NOTE:  I do not under any circuмstances support ANY medical treatments that would cause the death of a baby.  Period.

The principle fact at the root of this question is that we do not think with
our brain.  That one proposition gets 'evolutionists' (who are not scientists)
all tied up in knots.  They HATE it.  But it's true, nonetheless.  We do not
think with our brain.  

And it's easy to prove.  

So, since we don't think with our brain, what difference does it make
for a baby born without a brain?  

Something else to think about (even if you don't have any brain!) is, that
there are no babies ever born without a heart.  In fact, a beating heart
is one of the first distinguishable features that modern technology can
be used to detect, such as a sonogram by way of ultrasound.

34And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this
child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and
for a sign which shall be contradicted; 35And thy own soul a sword shall
pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed (Lk. ii).

Now, why didn't Simeon say, "out of many brains, thoughts may be
revealed?"  Well, maybe Simeon understood something that modern day
imbecile 'evolutionists' don't seem to grasp, namely, that we don't think
with our brain.

Therefore, it is not difficult to recognize that a baby born without a brain
(but with a heart) does indeed have a soul.  And this brainless child should
be baptized immediately, since he is in obvious danger of death, and most
likely has been born alive JUST SO THAT HE CAN BE BAPTIZED.  

In fact, the mere presence of his being alive without a brain (and no
brain-waves) is proof that "brain-dead" is an oxymoron, and is only used
to make money for the organ harvesting industry.

The principle fact at the root of this question is that we do not think with
our brain.  That one proposition gets 'evolutionists' (who are not scientists)
all tied up in knots.  They HATE it.  But it's true, nonetheless.  We do not
think with our brain.  

And it's easy to prove.  

Neil - I've never heard this before.  At the risk of derailing this thread would you elaborate please?

Marsha

Quote from: Neil Obstat

The principle fact at the root of this question is that we do not think with
our brain.  That one proposition gets 'evolutionists' (who are not scientists)
all tied up in knots.  They HATE it.  But it's true, nonetheless.  We do not
think with our brain.  

And it's easy to prove.  

Neil - I've never heard this before.  At the risk of derailing this thread would you elaborate please?

Marsha

The thread is  «The Soul of Babies with Severe Congenital Conditions»
why would this derail it?  

Sure, "Congenital" is misspelled in the thread title.  Should we be discussing
the topic "Congential Conditions" instead?  What good would that do? What
product of right reason could result by insisting on "Congential?"

What WOULD derail this thread is starting with the error that we do think with
our brain.  Then you go off into all manner of falsehood, unnecessarily.  That
would be derailed.

Do you see that? Much like our present state of education in public schools,
and also many private schools are "DERIAILED" because they teach the
error of so-called evolution, which they presume from the start to be
"scientific fact" when it is not science at all, number one, and number two,
it is not fact but fiction.  So it's a double error.  And schools teach it
anyway, this horrendous double error.

Do you understand this?

And so too, even in medical schools, they teach with the fundamental erroneous
presumption that we think with our brains, when we don't.  So all of their
teaching is then tainted.  

Someone might inject the criticism that this is "splitting hairs" or something
like that.  Are you aware that the Arian heresy raged for over 400 years
in the early Church, all based on the insertion of the letter "i" in one word?

One Iota: Homoiousios and Homoousios - Xefer - that one letter, the first
"i" in Homoiousios (in Greek) meant that the substance of Our Lord
Jesus Christ could either be the substance of God, or, ambiguously, it could
equally be "LIKE" the substance of God.  That was all it was, one letter.  For
if they had stuck to Homoousios, then the substance of Our Lord
would only have been one and the same as the substance of God.  And then,
there would have been no Arian heresy.  It's that simple.  The Arian heresy
denied the divinity of Christ.

How many people today have you met who call themselves «Catholic» but
deny the divinity of Christ?  Are they liars?  Are they truly Catholic? Are
they even Christian?  It all begins with a root error.

Protestants teach that the 7 books of the Bible that the Catholic Church
accepts (and always has) as canonical (but most Jєωs and most Protestants
claim they should not be called Scripture) are "apocryphal" but that is a lie.  
They seem to not know the meaning of the word.  But based on that error
they proceed anyway, and all manner of erroneous product is evoked, all
based on that principal untruth from the beginning.

It is ONLY when you correct the root falsehood at the start, that you can
ever expect to have truth as a product later.  If you begin a journey by
taking a wrong turn, how can you expect to ever arrive at your destination?
The only way is to correct your initial error to get "back on track" otherwise
your journey will be "derailed."

Or take this new nonsense of "dialogue" with unbelievers. What good is it?
Newchurch acts as though it's virtuous.  I know prominent actors who
proclaim about recent popes who have championed this "dialogue" that
"at least they recognize the value of other religions."  All manner of error
is consequent to that.  Do you understand this?

What is the foundational lie there?  It is that they presume from the start
that no one has the truth, and we are all getting together to "discover" it.

Well, no, the Catholic Church has the truth.  False religions do not have
the truth.  So we should presume from the start that they are wrong.  But
then they won't want to have any "dialogue."  Shucks.  

Like the Menzingen-denizens today, want to "dialogue" with modernist
Rome. They have even entertained the possibility of making a 'deal'
with modernist Rome.  Why?  What good could possibly come of that?  

Do you understand this?  




This thread is:  

«The Soul of Babies with Severe Congenital Conditions»




Is there any way of arriving at a sound conclusion if, from the start, an
erroneous presumption is made, such as "Congential" or that we think
with our brain?  

Quote from: Marlelar

Quote from: Neil Obstat

The principle fact at the root of this question is that we do not think with
our brain.  That one proposition gets 'evolutionists' (who are not scientists)
all tied up in knots.  They HATE it.  But it's true, nonetheless.  We do not
think with our brain.  

And it's easy to prove.  

Neil - I've never heard this before.  At the risk of derailing this thread would you elaborate please?

Marsha

The thread is  «The Soul of Babies with Severe Congenital Conditions»
why would this derail it?  

Sure, "Congenital" is misspelled in the thread title.  Should we be discussing
the topic "Congential Conditions" instead?  What good would that do? What
product of right reason could result by insisting on "Congential?"

What WOULD derail this thread is starting with the error that we do think with
our brain.  Then you go off into all manner of falsehood, unnecessarily.  That
would be derailed.

Do you see that? Much like our present state of education in public schools,
and also many private schools are "DERIAILED" because they teach the
error of so-called evolution, which they presume from the start to be
"scientific fact" when it is not science at all, number one, and number two,
it is not fact but fiction.  So it's a double error.  And schools teach it
anyway, this horrendous double error.

Do you understand this?

And so too, even in medical schools, they teach with the fundamental erroneous
presumption that we think with our brains, when we don't.  So all of their
teaching is then tainted.  

Someone might inject the criticism that this is "splitting hairs" or something
like that.  Are you aware that the Arian heresy raged for over 400 years
in the early Church, all based on the insertion of the letter "i" in one word?

One Iota: Homoiousios and Homoousios - Xefer - that one letter, the first
"i" in Homoiousios (in Greek) meant that the substance of Our Lord
Jesus Christ could either be the substance of God, or, ambiguously, it could
equally be "LIKE" the substance of God.  That was all it was, one letter.  For
if they had stuck to Homoousios, then the substance of Our Lord
would only have been one and the same as the substance of God.  And then,
there would have been no Arian heresy.  It's that simple.  The Arian heresy
denied the divinity of Christ.

How many people today have you met who call themselves «Catholic» but
deny the divinity of Christ?  Are they liars?  Are they truly Catholic? Are
they even Christian?  It all begins with a root error.

Protestants teach that the 7 books of the Bible that the Catholic Church
accepts (and always has) as canonical (but most Jєωs and most Protestants
claim they should not be called Scripture) are "apocryphal" but that is a lie.  
They seem to not know the meaning of the word.  But based on that error
they proceed anyway, and all manner of erroneous product is evoked, all
based on that principal untruth from the beginning.

It is ONLY when you correct the root falsehood at the start, that you can
ever expect to have truth as a product later.  If you begin a journey by
taking a wrong turn, how can you expect to ever arrive at your destination?
The only way is to correct your initial error to get "back on track" otherwise
your journey will be "derailed."

Or take this new nonsense of "dialogue" with unbelievers. What good is it?
Newchurch acts as though it's virtuous.  I know prominent actors who
proclaim about recent popes who have championed this "dialogue" that
"at least they recognize the value of other religions."  All manner of error
is consequent to that.  Do you understand this?

What is the foundational lie there?  It is that they presume from the start
that no one has the truth, and we are all getting together to "discover" it.

Well, no, the Catholic Church has the truth.  False religions do not have
the truth.  So we should presume from the start that they are wrong.  But
then they won't want to have any "dialogue."  Shucks.  

Like the Menzingen-denizens today, want to "dialogue" with modernist
Rome. They have even entertained the possibility of making a 'deal'
with modernist Rome.  Why?  What good could possibly come of that?  

Do you understand this?  




This thread is:  

«The Soul of Babies with Severe Congenital Conditions»




Is there any way of arriving at a sound conclusion if, from the start, an
erroneous presumption is made, such as "Congential" or that we think
with our brain?  

Hey, totally unnecessary to flip out like that. She asked a perfectly reasonable question, which you didn't answer or even address. I too have never heard that we think with our heart rather than our brain.

Technically of course, true human thought originates with the intellect, which is part of the soul. The brain is merely the vehicle by which we express our thought by words, actions etc.

A child born without a brain doesn't seem possible. It wouldn't be alive since the central nervous system would be completely gone, non-functional. Such a child would be dead long before it was born, I would think.

This makes perfect sense that the soul is in the heart and not the brain because it develops in the embryo long before the brain does.   And we know that the soul is present from conception.

Thanks for everyone clearing this up for me.  I really do appreciate it.  

My concern about derailing this thread was because the OP was a specific question and mine was more general.  I didn't want anyone to run w/my question at the expense of the OP.

Marsha