Why make the choice to not have children?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
I SAID they were my opinions. I've continued to post because people have continued to say how wrong I am. I have maintained that they are opinions.

---

I agree that you have the right to state your opinion. That is what is great about a forum... you can state your beliefs.

HOWEVER, there are ways to say things that offers your opinion without insulting others. Its as simple as choice of phrase. A person can say the same thing in two different ways... one way will rile everyone up, another way will get people thinking.

I certainly don't want to insult you, your beliefs, or your intelligence. I just feel that with convictions as strong as yours, you need to temper what you say and how you say it or deal with the backlash that follows.

As for animals, I wholeheartedly feel they do have souls. I look into Nicki's eyes and see a soul as deep and beautiful as any human I've ever met. Pouncer's soul is so directly linked to my soul that I swear he reads my mind, and I his. I didn't hear him fall... I KNEW... how can you explain that? I honestly feel he called out to me with his soul to mine. Ok, ok, I'm getting deep here, but I steadfastly believe animals have souls.

DESCARTES AND THE ANIMAL MACHINE
Descartes's doctrine that animals are pure machines, while men are machines with minds, was in part a compromise between his scientific aims and his voluntaristic, Christian view of man. If biological phenomena could be included in the domain of his universal physics, then the boundary would no longer lie between inanimate and animate beings; physics would include all of nature except the mind of man. Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood encouraged Descartes to attempt a general mechanistic physiology in hydraulic terms. Descartes argued that most human motions do not depend on the mind and gave examples of physiological functions (such as digestion), reactions; (such as blinking, and feelings (such as passions) which occur independently of the will. In man, however, the mind could also direct the course of the fluid ("animal spirits") which controls movements.

However, to attribute minds to animals would threaten traditional religions beliefs, since the psychological concept of mind was conflated with the theological concept of soul. Descartes argued that it would be impious to imagine that animals have souls of the same order as men and that man has nothing more to hope for in the afterlife, than flies and ants have. Similarly, God could not allow sinless creatures to suffer; without souls, animals would not suffer, and man would be absolved from guilt for exploiting, killing and eating them. But he considered the most important reason for denying souls to animals to be their failure "to indicate either by voice or signs that which could be accounted for solely by thought and not by natural impulse" (letter to Henry More, February 1649). Thus, the use of language became the criterion of thought-"the true difference between man and beast." This argument has been accepted in much of the subsequent debate, and discussion has centered on the characteristics of a "true language."

It has often been suggested that Descartes was not consistent because occasionally he did ascribe mental functions to animals-sensation, imagination, passions, memory. Although some passages support this view, it seems clear that he attempted to maintain a rigid dualism by granting these functions to animals yet insisting that they were purely corporeal, while in man alone they had a mental counterpart; for instance, man had both corporeal and mental perceptions, and the dualism of mind and matter extended into his account of feelings. If attention is confined to the animal-machine hypothesis, it might therefore appear that there is little to choose between the Cartesian account and the views of his opponents, who did attribute mental functions to animals. The very extensive literature on the animal soul controversy lends support to this contention. However, the debate was not primarily about what animals could do but about the implications for man of various interpretations of their behavior. More generally, it concerned the adequacy of mechanistic explanation to account for biological and psychological phenomena.

Descartes excluded explanation by purpose (the "final causes" of the Aristotelian tradition) from physics and from biology. Yet mechanistic explanation was remarkably unsuccessful in accounting for biological phenomena without making some implicit or explicit appeal to concepts derived from mental intention or without postulating some intermediate substance or special vital force. The discontinuity in Cartesian metaphysics represented, then, a highly unstable compromise. The application of mechanism to animals and to the human body had considerable utility as an alternative to animistic explanation in physiology, but the demands of functional explanation in biology made it ultimately untenable. Science, the analogy between animals and men, and common sense called for a continuity which metaphysics and theology denied.
-------------------------------------------


I'm taking a chance by putting Descartes before the horse....

Sirrahbed --


I understand she is a part of your family and all.. but she was way harsh in how she expressed some of her opinions. I can't even respond to the thing about animals not having souls... I find that amazingly ironic and shocking to see on a Pet-Loving forum.

If she's able to dish such harshness out, she should be able to learn and recieve such as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahbed
You may not like her or what she says, but that is no reason to say things that sound angry and make her sad. I feel that some of you were rather harsh to her.

Do any of you want to knowingly hurt someone with your words??

---

Yes! I agree... I did think a few people were rather harsh. I think somethimes people forget to be polite here. I read and re-read all of my posts looking for anything that might be insulting. Sometimes I am successful and sometimes I'm not.

Devon, I am sorry that you are insulted. I think that it is admirable that you feel as stronlgly as you do. Whether you are right or wrong is something we'll never ever know. Religion has been argued for centuries and nobody has ever come up with the exact right answer.

this has been an interesting thread and I hate to see it digress now. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by trayi52
I want to say one thing about wheather animals have souls, an whether they go to heaven, and thats if God don't let our pets go with us to heaven, then it would be such a dull and unhappy place for me.

---

This thread has gone haywire - but while it still lives -I want to comment on this because we just talked about this (I started it in fact) on Cat General. I am a Christian and believe in the Bible. The scriptures are not really very clear about what heaven is like. But, God DID say it would be perfect and without sin. I read nowhere that says animals do *not* have souls. That is an interpretation. I read they are living things and were created separately from inamimate objects and on a separate day. I understand they do not need to have forgiveness from sin or salvation, so in that sense they would not have the same soul that a human has - but they are not like trees and rocks, etc. (pretty much like Pops said) I have every reason to believe I will be surrounded by many animals in heaven. They were created for our happiness. Why, if God created them for our happiness or earth, would they not be with us in heaven?? I believe they WILL be there! It is something I have been thinking about all week! I suppose some Christians would argue it would not be MY animals, but I choose to believe it will be. The Bible is not clear. We'll know when we get there and it will be *PERFECT*.

Debbie, I hope I did not hurt sirrahveds feelings, if I did, I certainly didn't mean to. Sirrahved, if I hurt your feeling I am deeply sorry, and hope you will accept my sincere apolgy. You too Debbie, I don't want to hurt any of your girls.

Willie

An observation....


We were all children at one time, What happened?;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RICHARD
An observation....

We were all children at one time, What happened?;)

---

Not much, we still fight on the playground, only now we call it *discussion*:rolleyes: We are still children, i think.
And your point is....

oh wait ..RICHARD!!!...no *point* necessary:D :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahbed


oh wait ..RICHARD!!!...no *point* necessary:D :p

---

Where would I put my hat then?:cool:

I feel exactly the way mom feels....

A soul is for humans only it is what is judged-- but animals may be in heaven. They just can't get damned.

And now that I've clarified, I don't need to say any more.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
I feel exactly the way mom feels....

A soul is for humans only it is what is judged-- but animals may be in heaven. They just can't get damned.

And now that I've clarified, I don't need to say any more.

---

Even though, I disagree, you have stated you opinions nicely, in a way that doesn't inflame or hurt feelings. I like you. :)

I refrain from comment, because I know my religious views, or lack thereof, would only add fuel to the fire, and I choose to disregard the religious turn this thread has taken.

Let's get back to the original topic, please...

Righto ILR!

I spoke to a few of my childfree teachers this week about their decisions not to have children, and one of them said something very touching to me. "By teaching, I get to touch and help shape the lives if THOUSANDS of children, rather than just one!"

She's one of my favorite teachers of all time, and hearing her say something like that was just icing on the cake! What an awesome lady! ^_^

WolfChan, isn't that the truth!!?? That is exactly what she is doing. What a great calling she has! She gets to help shape a human beings life.

Oh, thats good, WolfChan, very good, I could agree more. She certainly has a lot of children. Every year they change and more lives come in for her to shape and mold. Sometimes a teacher can get through to a child when the parent cannot.

Willie

Very true!! I was much more inclined to listen to a few teachers in particular when I was growing up, mostly because I DIDN'T have to spend every day with them!