Abortion, Jewish Law, and the new Alabama law

[Aquinas11]

Why then, from a Catholic perspective, do the Jews not teach this?

Because as St Paul wrote, when they rejected Jesus , they rejected logos and as a result “they please not God, and are contrary to all men“ ( 1 Thessalonians 2)

Those Jews who accepted Jesus and Logos became the Catholic Church

 

[Ana_v]

Does the Jewish perspective really use Aristotle’s degrees/hierarchy of souls concept as an argument for abortion? If so, I would be rolling in my grave if I were Aristotle.

I will respond more later but for now,
the reason I brought Aristotle’s concept of soul into the discussion is because of Aristotle’s influence on Aquinas and Church’s language in the articulation of its teachings, e.g. Transubstantiation is based on the concepts of “substance” and “accidents” that Aristotle distinguishes between.

*Note: I am not saying that the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is based on Aristotle – it isn’t, it’s based in Scripture and Tradition – but rather, the the language the Church uses to try and explain the doctrine (known as Transubstantiation) uses Aristotle’s categories heavily.

I don’t know if Jewish authorities today incorporate the philosophy of Aristotle at all, or to what extent, in the explanation or elucidation of their teachings.

However, the medieval Jewish scholar and philosopher Maimonides, also known Rambam, did engage the work of Aristotle.

 

[Aquinas11]

What makes a human being, a person ?

Unique human genetic code formed at conception

 

[Ana_v]

The Jewish perspective suggesting abortion is justified because an unborn child is less of a person than the mother due to the less developed (or less “actualized”) state of their soul since it disqualifies them from full person-hood, would be akin to suggesting that infanticide is justified since an infant is less human than the parents due to the less actualized state of the infant’s body since it disqualifies them from full adult-hood. It’s non-sense and morally twisted.

I think it depends on what you mean by “morally twisted”.

If you mean that they are factually wrong in deeming an unborn child to have a lesser personhood status, or no personhood status, then the “twisted-ness” refers to an error of judgement on their part.

However, “morally twisted” can also refer to using one truth to try and subvert another truth, i.e. using truths against each other in order to contrive a desirable conclusion or result. That, I think, is the proper sense of “twisted”.

Let me give you an example:

Imagine a Christian, church-going family, in which a father sexually molests his 5 year-old son, and whenever the sons recoils or shows the slightest resistance, the father reminds him that he should “Obey his parents” because “Remember that God says honor your father and your mother”, all the while knowing that what he is doing to his son (molestation) is wrong, but he’s using one of the commandments to subvert or obscure the true nature of what he’s doing. That is twisted. But note, it is twisted precisely because the father knows the truth and is conspiring against it.

Do you think that everyone who says “abortion is sometimes justifiable” knows that it is never justifiable? Don’t you think that it is more likely that they are sincerely mistaken than they are just pretending to not know the truth?

A Catholic who believes that abortion is intrinsically evil is obviously going to think that the Jews are simply wrong in their opinion. But it’s one thing to think that they’re mistaken, it’s another to think that there is something sinister about their thought process.

But more importantly, the truth of whether or not abortion is murder is, in fact, contingent upon whether the unborn child is a person.

If it’s not a person, then it’s not murder. That wouldn’t necessarily mean that it’s morally permissible (after all, contraception isn’t murder, but it isn’t morally permissible). It could just mean that, “murder” isn’t the correct categorization of the type of evil it is.

 

[Ana_v]

What makes a human being, a person ?

I think that’s an insufficient answer. What makes a human corpse, a non-person, and a live human, a person, if both have human DNA?

And what distinguishes an organ, such as a kidney, from a person, if both contain human DNA?

DNA helps us to make species-distinctions (e.g. this a human being, that is a gorilla; this a human heart, that is a gorilla heart).

But by itself, I don’t think it establishes personhood.

What makes a human being, a person ?

Ahhh. Now we’ve come to the interesting part.

Aristotle thought that an animal receives its form (soul) from its parents; form is inherited. Therefore, offspring will be the same kind of thing as the parents. Horses beget horses, humans beget humans.

So far so good, right?

But now, we must remember that Aristotle was a pre-Christian philosopher.

Along came Christianity and all sorts of doctrines concerning God and man.

Among these doctrines: that men have an immortal soul that is separable from the body.

Say what?!?!?!

Well, how else can a man be judged after death and go onto the afterlife, while his body is still on earth, unless we believe that the soul can exist apart from the body, even if that’s not its natural state? It’s natural state is to be joined to the body.
The soul is the form of the body and all that bit. Human beings are a compound of soul and matter. Hylomorphism it’s called.

Wait…so was St. Augustine a human being when he was alive on earth and had a soul-body combo, or is he a human being right now in Heaven…having only a soul?

I’ll write some more tomorrow. But thus far, what are your thoughts given the considerations above?

 

[Aquinas11]

What makes a human corpse, a non-person, and a live human, a person, if both have human DNA?

You need to define “person” and “non-person” in order to even read this question, let alone answer it

 

[MiserereMei25]

I feel like abortion is banned in Orthodox Judaism. At least most Orthodox Jews I have heard from are staunchly prolife to a T. But I could be wrong.

 

[Lavenderson]

But thus far, what are your thoughts given the considerations above?

Well frankly, I can see you really like Aristotle. And who doesn’t, he’s was a smart guy. He influenced many Catholic thinkers, however you seem to be exalting his soul theories way too highly.

Along came Christianity and all sorts of doctrines concerning God and man.

Among these doctrines: that men have an immortal soul that is separable from the body .

Yes, the truth finally came to light and manifested fully in Christianity, not ancient Greece. There’s a reason why Catholics go to Church on Sunday, and not Aristotle’s Lyceum.

It’s natural state is to be joined to the body.

Perhaps, but that doesn’t necessarily mean separation is logically impossible. Union sounds preferable, sure, but separation of the human soul from body was never really the plan from the get-go, if I read Genesis correctly. If you’re claiming separation to be a logical impossibility, I need more than you simply asserting it.

Wait…so was St. Augustine a human being when he was alive on earth and had a soul-body combo, or is he a human being right now in Heaven…having only a soul?

He had a human soul/human body combo on earth, and right now exists in the after-life only as a human soul. The reunion of his human soul to his resurrected human body takes place in the future, as it will for you and me too.

 

[Lavenderson]

Do you think that everyone who says “abortion is sometimes justifiable” knows that it is never justifiable? Don’t you think that it is more likely that they are sincerely mistaken than they are just pretending to not know the truth?

No, I don’t. Pretending not to know the truth isn’t a sincere mistake, to me at least.

But it’s one thing to think that they’re mistaken, it’s another to think that there is something sinister about their thought process.

Ignoring the truth or trying to find reasons to support death instead of life for your own convenience, especially when the pro-life side provides a much more sound moral case, sounds like a very sinister thought process.

But more importantly, the truth of whether or not abortion is murder is, in fact, contingent upon whether the unborn child is a person.

The idea of the level of soul development being a qualifying factor for granting person-hood status, and then using that to argue in favor of abortion, is not a good argument. I still haven’t heard a remotely persuasive argument proving the unborn child is not a person. There is a human soul in the unborn child, there is a human soul in me. Killing either is murder.

 

[Ana_v]

Well frankly, I can see you really like Aristotle. And who doesn’t, he’s was a smart guy. He influenced many Catholic thinkers, however you seem to be exalting his soul theories way too highly.

While I have great admiration for Aristotle because he was very methodical, wrote with clarity, defined his terms, and when considering the views of his predecessors, was committed to retaining whatever was true and abandoning whatever was false, I am not beholden to his views beyond the ones I find compelling.

However, my opinion of Aristotle is not the reason why I am referring you to his views on the soul. I bring these up because Aristotle, and his commentator, Aquinas, have greatly influenced the Church in the West, especially after Thomism became the standard school of thought taught in seminaries.

I went to a Catholic college and one of the courses I took was called “Philosophy of the Human Person”, which was taught by a Dominican. Like a good Thomist, she based the majority of the course on the writings of Aristotle and Aquinas.

Furthermore, because this was a philosophy course, it was not based on doctrines accepted on faith. It was based on what it knowable through human reason.

While we were not forbidden from raising theological questions or making theological comments
(for example, I had a question about how Aristotle’s theory of the human soul would account for cases of demonic possession, but I think I asked this question after class…), we did not consult Catholic religious teachings to resolve questions or formulate views. Scripture, church councils, papal writings, etc. were not referenced.

Whereas, had this been a theology course, then we would have consulted such sources.

The point is, if Catholics wish to pursuade the public at large that it has correctly interpreted and applied moral principles, they will be more effective by appealing to reason (e.g. Aristotle’s ideas) than by pointing out the Church’s say-so on moral matters (e.g. JPII’s Evangelium Vitae).

 

[Ana_v]

Do you think that everyone who says “abortion is sometimes justifiable” knows that it is never justifiable? Don’t you think that it is more likely that they are sincerely mistaken than they are just pretending to not know the truth?

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I was not equating “sincere mistake” with “pretending to not know the truth”. I was doing the exact opposite and saying that these are different.

And applied to the Jewish-Catholic problem, I say that, if the Catholics are right and the Jews are wrong about abortion, then I am more inclined to believe that the Jews are sincerley mistaken than to believe that they are pretending to not know the truth.

Judaism is a law-centered religion.
Living the law is the very way of life for an observant Jew. Do you honestly think that they would dismiss a law against abortion if they knew/believed that God was absolutely clear that you are never to kill unborn life?

I think it’s much more likely that they believe God has not made this clear and has allowed for discretion.

I know that that offends Catholic sensibilities but, I’m just saying, I don’t think Jews are “pretending” to not know the truth while secretly believing that abortion is murder and supporting it anyway in certain cases.

 

[on_the_hill]

Thank you Rabbi. I’m scrolling though the thread to see your responses. Not that I don’t trust the others’ . . . .

 

[Ana_v]

Perhaps, but that doesn’t necessarily mean separation is logically impossible. Union sounds preferable, sure, but separation of the human soul from body was never really the plan from the get-go, if I read Genesis correctly. If you’re claiming separation to be a logical impossibility, I need more than you simply asserting it.

You’re right that it doesn’t necessarily mean that separation is impossible.

However to assert that it is possible, raises a question.

Precisely how, or on the basis of what facts, are the soul and body separable?

(We’re getting closer and closer to “getting at” the issue that directly relates to the fetal-personhood controversy).

 

[poche]

We in the Catholic Church have the magisterium to guide us.