Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[WillieWonka]

See, you are relying on this to prove something to us… not sure what, but the document goes on to say: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, **it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable… in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, **not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

So the document is saying 1. that we do not know and science cannot tell us when the baby is ensouled; and 2. that we do know that there is a good chance that there is a soul already and that therefore abortion is running the very high risk of killing a body which has a soul.

I would also like to point out that science has moved along since the time of Sts Aquinas and Augustine, and even this document. We now *know *that the unborn child is alive from the moment of conception; that the child is human, and that the child is individual. And we know all this from science. So from a *scientific *point of view, the act of abortion takes a human life.

And from the Church’s point of view, abortion is and always has been condemned as an intrinsically evil act, preceding even these speculations about ensoulment, which means that this is an argument with no merit whatsoever.

1. I am demonstrating that the Church does not teach with certainty that ensoulment takes place at conception. Many people state the Church does teach this with certainty. They are mistaken. It is therefore acceptable for a Catholic to believe ensoulment takes place at any time during gestation. If this belief is acceptable for a Catholic, then it is certainly acceptable for anyone else.

2… I agree with your summary stated as, “So the document is saying 1. that we do not know and science cannot tell us when the baby is ensouled; and 2. that we do know that there is a good chance that there is a soul already and that therefore abortion is running the very high risk of killing a body which has a soul.” That’s what the document says.

1. In 1974 everyone knew the fertilized egg was alive. Nobody doubted it. Nobody denied it. That wasn’t a recent discovery.
2. Science does indeed tell us the fertiized egg is of the human species, just as it tells us another fertilized egg is of the feline species. That’s all it can tell us. It says nothing about a soul.
3. I’d say accurate knowledge of Church teaching does indeed have merit.

 

[WillieWonka]

So it is right and just for anyone to kill anyone as long as they do not recognize that person as a human worthy of life. Hmmmmmm.:newidea:? Or insanity?

It is not murder if one does not think the target is a person. What does Cathilic teaching say about that? Does it demand one believe they are killing a person?

 

[WillieWonka]

No, objectively, it is murder regardless of what the subjective perception may be.

Does the Church consider someone culpable for murder if they do not think they are killing a person?

 

[WillieWonka]

Militant sinfulness has become stock-in-trade these days, a flip answer to every moral question raised by people of good will.

Doesn’t stand against the Eternal Word, never has, never will.

You have no ‘right’ to go against the Ten Commandments.

For those who seek more than mere surface replies and/or teachings, Father Mitch Pacwa has a great series here:

Threshold of Hope

The page contains many links. Father speaks of many life issues, not just abortion; we would all do well to pay attention. The next Terri Schiavo could be you.

Let me help you out a bit.

Anyone can define murder, theft, or assault. However, only some can enforce their definition on everyone else. That is the distinction you didn’t make here.

We can see that many people here define killing the single cell fertilized egg as murder. However, many others don’t. So, we can clearly see two different definitions. Nothing stopped either group from formulating their definition. However, only one group has the power to force their definition on society. The other doesn’t.

The Ten Commandments don’t define murder.

 

[St_Francis]

1. I am demonstrating that the Church does not teach with certainty that ensoulment takes place at conception. Many people state the Church does teach this with certainty. They are mistaken. It is therefore acceptable for a Catholic to believe ensoulment takes place at any time during gestation. If this belief is acceptable for a Catholic, then it is certainly acceptable for anyone else.

I see what you are saying about ensoulment, but it is still irrelevant.

2… I agree with your summary stated as, “So the document is saying 1. that we do not know and science cannot tell us when the baby is ensouled; and 2. that we do know that there is a good chance that there is a soul already and that therefore abortion is running the very high risk of killing a body which has a soul.” That’s what the document says.

1. In 1974 everyone knew the fertilized egg was alive. Nobody doubted it. Nobody denied it. That wasn’t a recent discovery.

1. Science does indeed tell us the fertiized egg is of the human species, just as it tells us another fertilized egg is of the feline species. That’s all it can tell us. It says nothing about a soul.

1. I’d say accurate knowledge of Church teaching does indeed have merit.

OK, but what is your *point? *The document still says we cannot procure or perform abortions.

 

[St_Francis]

Let me help you out a bit.

Anyone can define murder, theft, or assault. However, only some can enforce their definition on everyone else. That is the distinction you didn’t make here.

We can see that many people here define killing the single cell fertilized egg as murder. However, many others don’t. So, we can clearly see two different definitions. Nothing stopped either group from formulating their definition. However, only one group has the power to force their definition on society. The other doesn’t.

The Ten Commandments don’t define murder.

You are proposing that anyone can decide what is right and what is wrong. This is incorrect.

I remember when “marital rape” became an issue. It was previously thought that a man could not rape his wife, since as his wife she was supposed to go along with his wishes at any time.

Now, a true marital rape would be wrong. It would be wrong no matter what the law said about it, or what people believed about it, or anything at all. This is because the wrongness of it occurs apart from legality or personal opinion. Our laws have since changed to reflect our understanding of the wrongness of marital rape, but that does not mean that before, it was moral and now it is immoral; it means that we have come to see and accept the wrongness of the act, which existed in the act all along.

The direct killing of an unborn human being is wrong, evil. This is true no matter what the law says, or what anyone’s personal opinion is, or what people define a human being to be, or anything else. There is simply no getting around the fact that abortion is totally wrong.

It is true that currently the government permits abortion; however, it is very wrong of the government to permit innocent human beings to be killed. However, the fact that the government does not recognize the wrongness of this situation does not mean that abortion is all right: abortion remains an intrinsic evil.

 

[limerick]

Do you support pro life education? I think in one of your posts you mentioned this. Or would this be “intervention”?

**I support education of children, adolescents and adults that does not demonstrate any evidence of bias toward either side: ideally it would be neither abortion-centric nor life or, more accurately, birth-centric. It would just give crisp, clean, clear facts, not opinions, not dogma or doctrine, not evangelizing, not radicalism or zealotry.

Who you gonna call?

Limerick**

 

[WillieWonka]

I see what you are saying about ensoulment, but it is still irrelevant.

OK, but what is your *point? *The document still says we cannot procure or perform abortions.

1. Irrelevant? I don’t think so. We see many anti-abortion people severely criticizing those who contend the fetus is not a person. They have said the Catholic Church agrees with them and supports their position. Well, that’s not true, and they are condemning a belief that is allowable under Catholic teaching. I think an accurate knowledge of the Church’s actual teaching is very relevant. Otherwise, as we have seen here, people elevate their own personal opinion to the status of official Church teaching.
2. My point is that the contention the fetus is not a person is allowable under Catholic teaching, and there is no reason to condemn that belief and position. Many apparently think Catholic teaching is very important since they repeatedly invoke it. Given the importance so many attach to their opinion that ensoulment happens at conception, it is surprising they don’t know what the Church really says about it.

 

[limerick]

Something I read clarified this issue of free will: you claim that because we have “free will” we have the “right” to do whatever we want.

But we don’t. Free will is a *capacity, *not a right.

So do please stop saying we have the *right *to this or that.

If you want to modify the glossary, that’s fine; but in the case of abortion, women do currently have a LEGAL RIGHT to pursue it, to endure it, to wrestle with it, to confess it, to celebrate it, to grieve it … at present this employment of the word “right” is not incorrect.

Limerick

 

[WillieWonka]

You are proposing that anyone can decide what is right and what is wrong. This is incorrect.

I remember when “marital rape” became an issue. It was previously thought that a man could not rape his wife, since as his wife she was supposed to go along with his wishes at any time.

Now, a true marital rape would be wrong. It would be wrong no matter what the law said about it, or what people believed about it, or anything at all. This is because the wrongness of it occurs apart from legality or personal opinion. Our laws have since changed to reflect our understanding of the wrongness of marital rape, but that does not mean that before, it was moral and now it is immoral; it means that we have come to see and accept the wrongness of the act, which existed in the act all along.

The direct killing of an unborn human being is wrong, evil. This is true no matter what the law says, or what anyone’s personal opinion is, or what people define a human being to be, or anything else. There is simply no getting around the fact that abortion is totally wrong.

It is true that currently the government permits abortion; however, it is very wrong of the government to permit innocent human beings to be killed. However, the fact that the government does not recognize the wrongness of this situation does not mean that abortion is all right: abortion remains an intrinsic evil.

Anybody can say what is right and wrong. It happens all the time. Nothing stops them. They do it. We can observe them doing it. You might not agree with what they say, but they still say it. What stops them?

 

[SteveGC]

If you want to modify the glossary, that’s fine; but in the case of abortion, women do currently have a LEGAL RIGHT to pursue it, to endure it, to wrestle with it, to confess it, to celebrate it, to grieve it … at present this employment of the word “right” is not incorrect.

Limerick

L,

This is mixing divine law and civil law - I think alot of us on this thread are bouncing back and forth between them too much, causing confusion and quite unnecessary arguments.

“free will” is not a civil concept…but a divine one (it comes from God, not the courts)…and it is not a “right”.

A “right” can come from either parties. Legal rights are not necessarily divine ones, and vice versa.

The courts declare “rights” for people by making laws. The Church declare “rights” based on the teaching of Christ, and divine inspiration from The Spirit.

Free will is not a right, but a capacity…as StF rightly expressed above.

I actually think you know all this. I’m just clarifying for everyone, hopefully emphasizing the fact that we ALL should be clear what we’re talking about…God’s laws or man-made laws. When we mix them in an argument, chaos ensues.

 

[SteveGC]

1. Irrelevant? I don’t think so. We see many anti-abortion people severely criticizing those who contend the fetus is not a person. They have said the Catholic Church agrees with them and supports their position. Well, that’s not true, and they are condemning a belief that is allowable under Catholic teaching. I think an accurate knowledge of the Church’s actual teaching is very relevant. Otherwise, as we have seen here, people elevate their own personal opinion to the status of official Church teaching.
2. My point is that the contention the fetus is not a person is allowable under Catholic teaching, and there is no reason to condemn that belief and position. Many apparently think Catholic teaching is very important since they repeatedly invoke it. Given the importance so many attach to their opinion that ensoulment happens at conception, it is surprising they don’t know what the Church really says about it.

WW, I don’t know about others, but I don’t argue against the belief and position by claiming the Church teaches that the soul is in a cell at the moment of conception. I argue against the belief and position because the Church infallibly teaches that abortion at any stage is immoral and gravely sinful.

If Catholics are condemning positions based on an “ensoulment” claim, then they’re missing the thrust of their arsenal to make a valid argument. It has nothing to do with ensoulment…the Church may NEVER come up with a definitive agreement about it…and even if they do, it may be wrong. But what is NEVER wrong is their infallible proclamations, in this case that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is always wrong.

So, the crux of the issue is actually…who believes and follows the Church (which is Christ)…and who doesn’t. And of course…why?

 

[WillieWonka]

WW, I don’t know about others, but I don’t argue against the belief and position by claiming the Church teaches that the soul is in a cell at the moment of conception. I argue against the belief and position because the Church infallibly teaches that abortion at any stage is immoral and gravely sinful.

If Catholics are condemning positions based on an “ensoulment” claim, then they’re missing the thrust of their arsenal to make a valid argument. It has nothing to do with ensoulment…the Church may NEVER come up with a definitive agreement about it…and even if they do, it may be wrong. But what is NEVER wrong is their infallible proclamations, in this case that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is always wrong.

So, the crux of the issue is actually…who believes and follows the Church (which is Christ)…and who doesn’t. And of course…why?

The Sacred Congregation makes it quite clear in the quoted para that abortion is unacceptable regardless of the ensoulment status.

I’d think your argument about infallibility would be effective with Catholics, but ineffective with anyone else. 85% of the earth’s population ignores the infallibility claim.

I actually see the Sacred Congregation’s position outlined in the para to be a secular argument. They are saying somehting that has no soul, and is not a person, must be respected. So, the question comes down to why safeguard or respect something that is not person and has no soul? That seems awfully close to that proverbial “clump of cells.”

 

[St_Francis]

If you want to modify the glossary, that’s fine; but in the case of abortion, women do currently have a LEGAL RIGHT to pursue it, to endure it, to wrestle with it, to confess it, to celebrate it, to grieve it … at present this employment of the word “right” is not incorrect.

Limerick

No, you are not understanding what I am responding to. You are saying that people can do *whatever *they want to, not only procure or perform abortions, because they have free will which you claim gives them the “right” to choose to do anything they want to do.

You are applying this reasoning to the issue of abortion apart from the current legal situation, and what I am saying is that you can’t do that because the original premise is wrong.

 

[SteveGC]

The Sacred Congregation makes it quite clear in the quoted para that abortion is unacceptable regardless of the ensoulment status.

I’d think your argument about infallibility would be effective with Catholics, but ineffective with anyone else. 85% of the earth’s population ignores the infallibility claim.

I actually see the Sacred Congregation’s position outlined in the para to be a secular argument. They are saying somehting that has no soul, and is not a person, must be respected. So, the question comes down to why safeguard or respect something that is not person and has no soul? That seems awfully close to that proverbial “clump of cells.”

I’m not sure where you’re surmising the notion that the Church agrees that there is “not a person” since there is not a soul. Is that in a different source document somewhere? Perhaps I missed your reference to it.

In this particular document, the phrase “supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed”…with emphasis added by me on the part about human life…it seems clear the Church affirms that a person (human life) exists at the moment of conception, not at some point later. Unless you are arguing that “human life” is not the same as “person”?

And yes, indeed…most of the world does not care what the Church declares regarding abortion. No argument there. A tragic, but nonetheless accurate, observation.

 

[St_Francis]

The Sacred Congregation makes it quite clear in the quoted para that abortion is unacceptable regardless of the ensoulment status.

I’d think your argument about infallibility would be effective with Catholics, but ineffective with anyone else. 85% of the earth’s population ignores the infallibility claim.

I actually see the Sacred Congregation’s position outlined in the para to be a secular argument. They are saying somehting that has no soul, and is not a person, must be respected. So, the question comes down to why safeguard or respect something that is not person and has no soul? That seems awfully close to that proverbial “clump of cells.”

Well, you are the one who is saying “something that has no soul and is not a person.” That is not at all what they are saying, which is “it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable,” and that even "supposing a belated animation, **there is still nothing less than a human life."

So they are *not *saying that the unborn child has no soul, they are saying that we do not know for sure *at what point *the unborn child is ensouled. That the child is ensouled at some point is obvious. That they are saying that the unborn child “has no soul” is to twist their words.

And to say that they are saying that the unborn child is not a person is the exact *opposite *of what they are saying when they use the phrase “nothing less than a human life.”

 

[St_Francis]

The Sacred Congregation makes it quite clear in the quoted para that abortion is unacceptable regardless of the ensoulment status.

I’d think your argument about infallibility would be effective with Catholics, but ineffective with anyone else. 85% of the earth’s population ignores the infallibility claim. …

We are on a Catholic board; therefore, we make Catholic arguments.

If I were on a train somewhere discussing this with someone who had indicated no interest in Catholicism, I would use completely different arguments, arguments which did not rely on Church teaching. I think that most of those here would do the same.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

It is not murder if one does not think the target is a person. What does Cathilic teaching say about that? Does it demand one believe they are killing a person?

Huh?

 

[limerick]

L,

This is mixing divine law and civil law - I think alot of us on this thread are bouncing back and forth between them too much, causing confusion and quite unnecessary arguments.

“free will” is not a civil concept…but a divine one (it comes from God, not the courts)…and it is not a “right”.

A “right” can come from either parties. Legal rights are not necessarily divine ones, and vice versa.

The courts declare “rights” for people by making laws. The Church declare “rights” based on the teaching of Christ, and divine inspiration from The Spirit.

Free will is not a right, but a capacity…as StF rightly expressed above.

I actually think you know all this. I’m just clarifying for everyone, hopefully emphasizing the fact that we ALL should be clear what we’re talking about…God’s laws or man-made laws. When we mix them in an argument, chaos ensues.

**
Even so, through free will human beings have the** capacity **to make moral or immoral choices, sound or unsound choices, selfish or selfless choices - I stand by what I’ve written earlier. Whether anyone considers it a right or a privilege or a capacity or a responsibility - it makes no difference. We have choices, whether everyone approves of which direction we proceed or not.

Limerick**

 

[SteveGC]

**
Even so, through free will human beings have the** capacity **to make moral or immoral choices, sound or unsound choices, selfish or selfless choices - I stand by what I’ve written earlier. Whether anyone considers it a right or a privilege or a capacity or a responsibility - it makes no difference. We have choices, whether everyone approves of which direction we proceed or not.

Limerick**

Indeed you are right, L.

I think perhaps we were ensuring that no one inferred that by “right”, it was suggested that it is “approved” by God.

Again, I know you already know this.