Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[WillieWonka]

Then your previous arguements are based on speculation about interpretations.

Of course they are interpretations. We read, analyze, interpret, and conclude.

The CC tells us a human has a soul. One can then conclude something without a soul is not a human being.

Sacred Congregation tells us they do not know when ensoulment takes place, and they allow for delayed ensoulment. One can then conclude, if delayed ensoulment is the case, prior to ensoulment there is no soul.

So, one can conclude, if deleyed ensoulment is the case, prior to ensoulment the is no soul, and the fetus is not a human being.

 

[WillieWonka]

The CC clearly states that human beings have souls and since human life is innitiated at conception, ensoulment happens at conception.

Is that an interpretation? Speculation?

The fetus is of the human species, however, the Sacred Congreegation does not know if it has a soul because they allow for delayed ensoulment.

 

[royal_archer]

Yes. I did post that quote from the CC. So, if delayed ensoulment is the case, then prior to ensoulment there is no human being. As you noted, the CC says the human being has a soul. So, no soul, no human being.

If delayed ensoulment is the case???

You are really grasping at straws with such hypothetical theories.

Have you ever discussed theorems with physicists? For instance it is a theory that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. This is a theorem and not a law because it can not be proven.

To acknowledge that such can not be proven in such cases does not discredit the innitial assertion.

 

[royal_archer]

Of course they are interpretations. We read, analyze, interpret, and conclude.

The CC tells us a human has a soul. One can then conclude something without a soul is not a human being.

Sacred Congregation tells us they do not know when ensoulment takes place, and they allow for delayed ensoulment. One can then conclude, if delayed ensoulment is the case, prior to ensoulment there is no soul.

So, one can conclude, if deleyed ensoulment is the case, prior to ensoulment the is no soul, and the fetus is not a human being.

What the Sacred Congegation has done is annotated the limmits of their knowledge/proof. This is a very common practice with dealing with issues that are not relevant to the discussion and whose burden of proof would be out of scope to the task at hand. For instance those doing research on the crash worthiness of a car might say they do not know how the color of the car impacted the results. They know there is no conceivable reason it would impact the results but disproving such silly notions is not feasible.

 

[WillieWonka]

If delayed ensoulment is the case???

You are really grasping at straws with such hypothetical theories.

Have you ever discussed theorems with physicists? For instance it is a theory that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. This is a theorem and not a law because it can not be proven.

To acknowledge that such can not be proven in such cases does not discredit the innitial assertion.

The Sacred Congregation dealt with the possibility of delayed ensoulment. It’s their idea.

 

[royal_archer]

Is that an interpretation? Speculation?

The fetus is of the human species, however, the Sacred Congreegation does not know if it has a soul because they allow for delayed ensoulment.

It is truth.

Can you provide evidence of delayed ensoulment?

 

[WillieWonka]

What the Sacred Congegation has done is annotated the limmits of their knowledge/proof. This is a very common practice with dealing with issues that are not relevant to the discussion and whose burden of proof would be out of scope to the task at hand. For instance those doing research on the crash worthiness of a car might say they do not know how the color of the car impacted the results. They know there is no conceivable reason it would impact the results but disproving such silly notions is not feasible.

Yes. The Sacred Congregation has acknowledged the limits of their knowledge of when ensoulment takes place. They don’t know. That’s their limit.

 

[WillieWonka]

It is truth.

Can you provide evidence of delayed ensoulment?

No.

 

[FanChan]

Yes. The Sacred Congregation has acknowledged the limits of their knowledge of when ensoulment takes place. They don’t know. That’s their limit.

So. What? Yeah, I’m starting to think this question will never be answered after all. It’ll just go on and on and on.

 

[royal_archer]

The Sacred Congregation dealt with the possibility of delayed ensoulment. It’s their idea.

Ok every body help me out here… there was a scene from Dumb and Dumber where either Dumb or Dumber asked if he had a chance with this beautiful woman and she said the chance was like one in a million (or was that billion?). With this he was so excited, exclaiming he had a chance. There are some similarities with this discussion where a comment that was meant to dismiss an implausible idea is being interpreted opening the door for the potential that that such an idea has merit.

 

[royal_archer]

Yes. The Sacred Congregation has acknowledged the limits of their knowledge of when ensoulment takes place. They don’t know. That’s their limit.

As such there comments are equivalent to silence on the issue. In this case you have to revert to the CC which is unambiguous on the matter.

 

[royal_archer]

No.

Then why are you so hung up on this?

 

[WillieWonka]

Ok every body help me out here… there was a scene from Dumb and Dumber where either Dumb or Dumber asked if he had a chance with this beautiful woman and she said the chance was like one in a million (or was that billion?). With this he was so excited, exclaiming he had a chance. There are some similarities with this discussion where a comment that was meant to dismiss an implausible idea is being interpreted opening the door for the potential that that such an idea has merit.

Sorry. I don’t understand. Can you elaborate?

 

[WillieWonka]

As such there comments are equivalent to silence on the issue. In this case you have to revert to the CC which is unambiguous on the matter.

Their comments are not silence. They allow for delayed ensoulment. They allow for instant ensoulment. They say instant ensoulment is probable. That means delayed ensoulment is possible.They do not assign a probabliity.

 

[royal_archer]

Sorry. I don’t understand. Can you elaborate?

There’s the theoretical possibility that I will.

 

[royal_archer]

Their comments are not silence. They allow for delayed ensoulment. They allow for instant ensoulment. They say instant ensoulment is probable. That means delayed ensoulment is possible.They do not assign a probabliity.

The only place where I have heard any discussion about ensoulment after conception is with the issue of twins. In such a case are multiple souls unite with the egg and conception or is only one with the second soul united at the moment the cells split to form two humans. This theory of the twins delay is the only challenge I am aware of with instant ensoulment. But even with this theory, there is a soul present at conception. This debate would have detracted from the discussion at hand and is likely why they brushed off the issue and did not rule on it.

 

[WillieWonka]

The only place where I have heard any discussion about ensoulment after conception is with the issue of twins. In such a case are multiple souls unite with the egg and conception or is only one with the second soul united at the moment the cells split to form two humans. This theory of the twins delay is the only challenge I am aware of with instant ensoulment. But even with this theory, there is a soul present at conception. This debate would have detracted from the discussion at hand and is likely why they brushed off the issue and did not rule on it.

Here’s another place .

*“19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (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 (and one can never prove the contrary) 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.”

“The Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974, has ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.”*

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION
June 28, 1974

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

 

[royal_archer]

Here’s another place .

*“19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (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 (and one can never prove the contrary) 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.”

“The Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974, has ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.”*

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION
June 28, 1974

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused.” means that they are not ruling on it. they are not making a judgement one way or another. They agree with those on this board who assert that such discussion is irrelevant to the question of abortion.

 

[WillieWonka]

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused.” means that they are not ruling on it. they are not making a judgement one way or another. They agree with those on this board who assert that such discussion is irrelevant to the question of abortion.

That is what they say in the first sentence, and they do not tell us the moment of soul infusion. Later in the para they discuss both delayed and instant ensoulment.

 

[FanChan]

That is what they say in the first sentence, and they do not tell us the moment of soul infusion. Later in the para they discuss both delayed and instant ensoulment.

And how does this topic weigh in on the topic of abortion?