I guess you have been reading all along
and finally commented? But you did not seem to notice that I've been asking for a good definition of "Soul"? We
need all facets of a definition for that concept, which relates to the medical
and ethical question but also is an entity itself.
There is no evidence that the soul is not present from conception. In fact, I maintain that body and soul are as one in newborns.
Response: need a scientific and/or legally precise definition for Soul.
I am wondering who is compelled to produce children, and why some people are so desperate to engage in reproductive-type activity that they are prepared to kill for it?
Surely such desparation to engage in such actions is not natural? There is a theory that people engage in such actions for misplaced purposes, to seek certain sensations that are but a poor substitute to other sensations. The theory is that if people regained the sensations of bodily aliveness and joie de vivre that they had as infants; they would not be so desparate to seek reproduction-associated sensations.
Genetic and environmental variability.
You presume to know what's "natural" and that "natural" is better than "artificial" or
someone's theological belief, but you haven't proven it. If you intend to dictate someone else's "thrill," the burden of proof is on you
to explain fully why the range of acceptable behaviors should be what you think. Already,
"killing" is considered a bad thing but you do it all the time through your proxies...for food, for oil and to keep the number of stray dogs and cats under control.
I think you have raced ahead and presumed
on "Soul" and "Natural" and "Killing" without carefully defining them.
What are your definitions?