Abortion should be Criminalized and Punishable under the law

[PRmerger]

Catholic Church most certainly has taught delayed ensoulment: (The concept of when a soul entered a fetus is one that was under development for over 1800 years until the church finally settled on ensoulment at conception)

Pope Innocent III (1161-1216):
He determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not “animated” at the time.
Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.

Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull (issued in 1588 by Pope Sixtus V which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty) and reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16 weeks).

It wasn’t until 1869 that the concept of the soul entering the pre embryos upon conception was taught, when Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the long held distinction between the “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus.”

religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

No, Aiyana. You need to separate the writings of priests and bishops with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

They are not one and the same.

 

[AiyanaS]

No, Aiyana. You need to separate the writings of priests and bishops with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

They are not one and the same.

And exactly how is a statement by the POPE, the guy who leads the church, writes and approves rules and doctrine/dogma and from when I was told growing up, 2nd to God, the closest to God a person can get in life, not one in the same with the teachings of the Catholic Church?

 

[PRmerger]

And exactly how is a statement by the POPE, the guy who leads the church, writes and approves rules and doctrine/dogma and from when I was told growing up, 2nd to God, the closest to God a person can get in life, not one in the same with the teachings of the Catholic Church?

You were taught incorrectly, then, Aiyana. Or you are remembering incorrectly.

 

[PRmerger]

And exactly how is a statement by the POPE, the guy who leads the church, writes and approves rules and doctrine/dogma and from when I was told growing up, 2nd to God, the closest to God a person can get in life, not one in the same with the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Here’s a great example of something the Pope writes not being “one in the same with the teachings of the Catholic Church”:

Pope Benedict XVI wrote “Jesus of Nazareth” and in the prologue he clarifies:

"It goes without saying that this book in no way is an exercise of the magisterium but is solely an expression of my personal search “for the face of the Lord (Psalm 27:8)”

Also, the “2nd to God” thing is just gaga, lala nonsense. The Church has never professed that the Pope is “2nd to God” and “closest to God a person can get in life”.

 

[AiyanaS]

You were taught incorrectly, then, Aiyana. Or you are remembering incorrectly.

I was taught, in the Catholic Church that the Pope are the closest a human can get to God, he is the holiest person on Earth. He is the leader of the Catholic Church and what he says when speaking about religious matters, is Gods word speaking through him. He is someone with absolute authority on matters and demands much respect. There is no incorrect memory on my part. That’s what I was taught.

 

[PRmerger]

I was taught, in the Catholic Church that the Pope are the closest a human can get to God, he is the holiest person on Earth. He is the leader of the Catholic Church and what he says when speaking about religious matters, is Gods word speaking through him. He is someone with absolute authority on matters and demands much respect. There is no incorrect memory on my part. That’s what I was taught.

Then, again, you were taught incorrectly.

If you want to assert that this is what the Catholic Church actually teaches, then you’ll have to offer some evidence for this.

I suggest you search the Catechism, or this website, for some documentation.

 

[AiyanaS]

Then, again, you were taught incorrectly.

If you want to assert that this is what the Catholic Church actually teaches, then you’ll have to offer some evidence for this.

I suggest you search the Catechism, or this website, for some documentation.

I never asserted anything. I just stated that was what I had been taught growing up and I’m pretty sure it’s origin comes from the Catholic teaching that the pope is infallible thus resulting in people calling him second too God because if someone’s teachings and words are infallible, how can they not be Gods intercede on Earth?

 

[PRmerger]

I never asserted anything. I just stated that was what I had been taught growing up

And if you were taught that, you were taught incorrectly.

and I’m pretty sure it’s origin comes from the Catholic teaching that the pope is infallible thus resulting in people calling him second too God because if someone’s teachings and words are infallible, how can they not be Gods intercede on Earth?

LOL!

You do realize that this means that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, all the bishops in union with the Pope, throughout the 2000 year history of the Church would then be “2nd to God” too, right?

And that means hundreds (if not thousands) of men are…“2nd to God”, which, is, mathematically, ridiculous.

 

[PRmerger]

I never asserted anything. I just stated that was what I had been taught growing up and I’m pretty sure it’s origin comes from the Catholic teaching that the pope is infallible thus resulting in people calling him second too God because if someone’s teachings and words are infallible, how can they not be Gods intercede on Earth?

Aiyana, I was remiss in not welcoming you to the CAFs.

I am happy to see you here and wish you to have a long and fruitful stay!

And I want to be clear that you are not the first (nor will you be the last) to come here and profess some very, very WRONG things about Catholicism with the pedigrees of

-I was an altar boy for 3 years!
-I went to daily Mass! In Latin!
-I was taught by Sister Mary McGillicuddy for 12 years!
-I could recite the Hail Mary in Aramaic!

Please, if you are going to assert some objection to Catholicism, please make sure that you are objecting to something the Church actually teaches.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Catholic Church most certainly has taught delayed ensoulment: (The concept of when a soul entered a fetus is one that was under development for over 1800 years until the church finally settled on ensoulment at conception)

Pope Innocent III (1161-1216):
He determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not “animated” at the time.
Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.

Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull (issued in 1588 by Pope Sixtus V which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty) and reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16 weeks).

It wasn’t until 1869 that the concept of the soul entering the pre embryos upon conception was taught, when Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the long held distinction between the “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus.”

religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Yes most people without an axe to grind would say numerous weighty documentary evidence has been provided that it is well over the bar of what qualifies for a “teaching”.

The difficulty for contributors who cannot accept this is they seem to believe we belong to a Church where no teaching evolves or is still in debate, where teachings have to be already settled to be called such and are therefore all implicitly infallible even though not formally defined.

Yet we all know a variety of Catholic teachings that have not yet risen to this level of purity that some here assume and demand. That Mary died, the existence of limbo, that Jesus did not pass thru his mother’s birth canal. These too are clear teachings of the Church but they have not yet been decided either way.

Delayed hominisation is one of them and the Church still has not ruled it out…though with the assistance of modern science it has prudentially observed that the 40 to 80 day period is likely far to late to justify … but the principles still possibly hold for the first week or so according to a number of Catholic philosophers.

 

[PRmerger]

Delayed hominisation is one of them and the Church still has not ruled it out…

Yes! This ^^, actually, is correct.

This is, curiously, in direct contrast with your original erroneous assertion that the Church taught delayed ensoulment.

She has never taught this.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes! This ^^, actually, is correct.

This is, curiously, in direct contrast with your original erroneous assertion that the Church taught delayed ensoulment.

She has never taught this.

And six isn’t half a dozen .

 

[pnewton]

I am not keen on imprisonment for* having* an abortion. We already are number one in the world on imprisoning our own people. I would prefer simply making it illegal and only criminalizing the promotion or performing and abortion.

 

[BornInMarch]

I am not keen on imprisonment for* having* an abortion. We already are number one in the world on imprisoning our own people. I would prefer simply making it illegal and only criminalizing the promotion or performing and abortion.

Growing prison population isn’t enough of a reason to let murderers go free. I also think that all the members of the Schutzstaffel (the Nazi SS) amd every Imperial Japanese Soldier who had a hand in the Massacre of Nanking should have been tried and imprisoned. It would have been expensive to imprison them, but they committed murders out of malice and therefore the price would have been worth it.

If we enshrine in law the idea that the unborn is a human life, than we need to enforce that by punishing those who end that life. Even if they are the biological parents of that life. If we allow women who voluntarily get abortions to go free, than the message we are sending is that we don’t *really *care about protecting the unborn and that their lives don’t *really *hold any value.

It’s important to think not only about practicalities, but also about what we say when we pass a law. The Founding Fathers knew that the 3/5ths compromise was a practical solution to ensure both northern and southern states are represented but they failed to consider that passing such a law was the same as saying that black people were literally less than human, that a black person was only 3/5ths of a person.

 

[pnewton]

Growing prison population isn’t enough of a reason to let murderers go free. I also think that all the members of the Schutzstaffel (the Nazi SS) amd every Imperial Japanese Soldier who had a hand in the Massacre of Nanking should have been tried and imprisoned

Ah, Nazis.

Well, we all have our opinions. I for one do not like that the United States is number one, or maybe number two, depending on North Korea, but ahead of China. We kind of lose the human rights moral high ground with our incarceration nation.