Hi w.c.,

There is certainly mounting evidence that pre-born children register environmental stimuli. More than just sounds, voices, and songs, there's the deeper issue of the unborn picking up the emotional state of the mother.

And there's evidence for that too, at least some case studies. The MacNutts wrote "Praying for Your Unborn Child" because of their many experiences praying for inner healing which, for some, led to pre-birth emotional trauma. They quote some from Verney's earlier book The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, 1981. There's some remarkable tesimonies in there of adults who recall things during healing prayer of their womb experience that is confirmed by their mothers. Children's reports of what it was like in the womb can be their fantasies, obviously, unless their reports can be independently verified.

The good news is that in the MacNutt's "conception to birth" healing prayer many people experience relief from emotional pain absorbed in the womb. So there seems to be a very special, highly sensitive creature growing in the womb. However, this bit of research doesn't say anything for or against pre-existentianism (the spelling of that word will never make it into my long term memory store).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Shasha,

Shasha, there's a whole literature on therapy for prenatal trauma. You may already be familiar with it, but in case not, I'll mention just a few titles:

Elizabeth Noble. Primal Connections. Simon and Schuster, 1993.

Michael Gabriel. Remembering Your Life Before Birth. Aslan, 1995.

William R. Emerson. Pre- and Peri-Natal Regression Therapy. Emerson Training Seminars, 2000.

Sheila Linn, Dennis Linn, William Emerson, and Matthew Linn, SJ. Remembering Our Home. Paulist Press, 1999.

Given that the mainstream culture is so heavily invested in treating unborn children as simply lumps of flesh, I don't think these kinds of books will ever win a large audience. However, for those who want to read them, they're out there.

Shasha:

One of the research attempts to verify the credibility of these reports actually comes from newborns themselves. You may have heard of it, or seen it if you read Verny's second book. I'm trying to locate the paragraph or page number, but anyway . . . . the experiment went something like this:

Newborns, perhaps a few weeks or months old, were tested to see if they exhibited memory as far back as the last tri-mester of the pregnancy. During that last trimester the mothers sang to their babies one of two songs or rhymes. I believe one was a Dr. Seuss. Anyway, the mothers did this at least daily.

The trick was figuring out how to set the babies up to communicate their preferences, and therefore whether or not they demonstrated long-term memory from the womb. The researches set up a device which allowed the babies to suck on a bottle as a means of controlling which songs or rhymes were played (Don't we all enjoy a beverage while listening to our favorite music? .) Makes me want to run the fridge and link over to nfl.com!!

So these babies consistently picked the particular song their mothers had read to them, I think over just their mother's voice reading something that hadn't been heard yet. I'm not sure what other controls were built into the study, but the findings aren't well-explained except in terms of long-term memory from at least the last trimester.

Thank you, Derek, for those book titles. No, I haven't heard of any of those.

w.c., interesting baby studies. I just love good scientific methodology and have heard of sucking used as the dependent measure for baby's interest. I wonder if they control for mother's song versus another song.

Here's a good article on "Mysteries of Prenatal Consciousness."
- http://www.theosophy-nw.org/th...w/issues/sx-sbd2.htm

Hypnotic regression seems to be a valuable tool for retrieving prenatal memories. Of course, I have no idea how to explain experiences recounted before conception! Past-life regression is a whole other ball of wax, but not unrelated to this thread.

well what a topic
i can tell you from my own experience
there are souls existing both before and after
the bodily incarnation. furthermore, the Hebrews
and early church believed in reincarnation as well. though among this crowd many will dismiss such statements, there are some special points i will make for you, that may help clarify this tricky subject.

Firstly, is there a difference between soul, and spirit ? Yes.
The soul is eternal, and made of a fragment of God's Own Self.
The spirit, however, is temporal, and in modern day is called the ego. It does not reincarnate.

The soul reincarnates with every life as it journeys closer to Union- with the temporal spirit. A good way to understand this is through the metaphor of the sacred marriage.
When the soul and spirit are completely united, you have a truly enlightened person, whether Buddhist Christian or Muslim, whatever.

the spirit, is who you think you are, when you are ignorant of God / Christ within you, and do not identify yourself with That, but rather with your self, as opposed to Your Self.

--
Now about babies and fetuses:

as a baby is conceived, there is no spirit present. The spirit gradually grows as the mind develops.
On the 49th day of fetal development (7weeks) ,
the pineal gland is formed, DMT is released into the developing brain, and gateway for the soul's entry is opened. Until then the soul floats around the mothers body, encouraging her to eat or avoid certain foods, strange but true, and other behaviours for its benefit.
Now with the soul's entry into the body, the spirit begins to develop.

Hence abortion before this period of soul entry has different consequences, though still significant, then after. To perform abortion after this period inflicts grave negative karma/sin on a person, who will suffer terrifically for it.
--
Clarity on this topic, obviously unbelievable to many, could help change much of the squabble about it. Modern science has done significant research on fetal development, pineal gland activity, and DMT as a spiritual gateway chemical for soul travel. That's why there are brainwaves at 7 weeks and not before. look it up, and don't be a dogmatist. Your karma will catch up with you!

Jesus Rocks !

quote:

furthermore, the Hebrews
and early church believed in reincarnation as well. though among this crowd many will dismiss such statements

Greg, this is false. There's nothing about the Hebrew understanding of human nature that allowed for reincarnation; many (in Jesus' time) didn't even believe in a spiritual part of our nature that went on after death. And, contrary to the New Age philosophy that you espouse, the Church never endorsed reincarnation, nor did Jesus teach it to his disciples. You won't find anything in Paul or the early Fathers to corroborate your claim except a few musings by Origen, which were rejected. There never was any doctrine of reincarnation in Christianity struck down by Nicea or some "powerful pope" as New Agers are fond of saying.

quote:

Firstly, is there a difference between soul, and spirit ? Yes.
The soul is eternal, and made of a fragment of God's Own Self.

In Christianity, we believe that the soul is spiritual . . . is an embodied spirit, created (and, hence, not eternal) to realize its potential through exercising itself in a body. So there is no dichotomoy between spirit and soul. When, in the New Testament, Paul speaks of soul, he means "psyche," which is "contained" in our spiritual being, not separate from it.

quote:

The soul reincarnates with every life as it journeys closer to Union.

A Hindu/New Age belief. Christians believe that union happens through faith in Christ and the sanctification process which ensues from our relationship with him. There is absolutely no need for reincarnation to effect union with God, as "nothing can separate us from the love of God poured out in Jesus Christ." (Rm. 8:39-39).

As I mentioned in another response to you, it seems you have a very superficial understanding of Christianity, and that you project your New Age perspective onto Christian teaching, remaking it according to your own biases. Sadly, it often happens that there are many who grew up Christian who have little understanding of the Church's doctrines, and who may be influenced by your teaching. You have a duty as a spiritual teacher, then, to properly inform yourself concerning the matters you teach about, else you could be leading others astray, which is a serious matter indeed.