Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[WillieWonka]

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.

1. The Church considers the soul to be the form of the person in the Aristotelian structure. Without the form, the person dos not exist. From the Catachism:

*365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature. *

1. Sure it’s a human life. It is of the human species and it’s alive. But lacking a soul, it lacks the form of a person. That “single nature” 362 speaks of does not yet exist because the union has not yet happened…

 

[WillieWonka]

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.”

See the answer to Steve just above.

1. I agree they are not saying the unborn child has no soul.
2. I agree they are saying they don’t know when ensoulment takes place.
3. I agree they imply the ensoulment takes place sometime.
4. The life is of the human species, but if it lacks a soul it does not have the requisite form of the person. They don’t know when that happens.

 

[WillieWonka]

Huh?

I don’t know how to ask the question in a clearer manner. Sorry.

 

[St_Francis]

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

First, only God can judge the state of someone’s soul.

Look at it legally. If I see something move in the woods and shoot, but have not made sure that the movement was not caused by a human, I could be convicted of reckless endangerment and/or manslaughter, right?

So it is with culpability in the matter of abortion. If a person through no fault of her own did not know this, then she would not be *guilty *of murder. But if a person just ignored all the information out there and did not educate herself, then that would be another story. But only God could judge in any *particular *situation.

However, the mitigation of guilt caused by ignorance in any sin in no way reduces the wrongness of the sin nor the wrongness which occurred. Just because I did not know or mean to break my neighbor’s window while practicing baseball does not mean that his window isn’t broken.

What Catholics are saying, or ought to be saying, is that abortion is a mortal sin, always and everywhere. However, in any *particular *instance, to be mortal a sin must be serious and performed with full knowledge and full consent. We can never know the full status of someone else’s knowledge and consent–however, it remains *a *mortal sin, just with a particular individual’s culpability reduced due to circumstances.

 

[WillieWonka]

First, only God can judge the state of someone’s soul.

Look at it legally. If I see something move in the woods and shoot, but have not made sure that the movement was not caused by a human, I could be convicted of reckless endangerment and/or manslaughter, right?

So it is with culpability in the matter of abortion. If a person through no fault of her own did not know this, then she would not be *guilty *of murder. But if a person just ignored all the information out there and did not educate herself, then that would be another story. But only God could judge in any *particular *situation.

However, the mitigation of guilt caused by ignorance in any sin in no way reduces the wrongness of the sin nor the wrongness which occurred. Just because I did not know or mean to break my neighbor’s window while practicing baseball does not mean that his window isn’t broken.

What Catholics are saying, or ought to be saying, is that abortion is a mortal sin, always and everywhere. However, in any *particular *instance, to be mortal a sin must be serious and performed with full knowledge and full consent. We can never know the full status of someone else’s knowledge and consent–however, it remains *a *mortal sin, just with a particular individual’s culpability reduced due to circumstances.

OK. She is informed and educated on the matter and does not think the fetus is a person.

In that case it is impossible to form the intention to kill a person.

 

[St_Francis]

OK. She is informed and educated on the matter and does not think the fetus is a person.

In that case it is impossible to form the intention to kill a person.

I cannot go further than I already have. We cannot judge individual instances because we are not God and cannot see the state of an individual’s soul. The person commits, objectively, a mortal sin, but his or her culpability may (or may not) be reduced by certain factors such as lack of understanding or compulsion. The act remains the same.

It’s like a person who shoots someone in his house whom he thinks is a burglar, but who turns out to be someone else who lives there. The law will adjudicate that case on an individual basis, but legally the culpability of the shooter is reduced because he didn’t know the identity of the person he killed. But the person is still dead, that cannot change.

 

[WillieWonka]

I cannot go further than I already have. We cannot judge individual instances because we are not God and cannot see the state of an individual’s soul. The person commits, objectively, a mortal sin, but his or her culpability may (or may not) be reduced by certain factors such as lack of understanding or compulsion. The act remains the same.

It’s like a person who shoots someone in his house whom he thinks is a burglar, but who turns out to be someone else who lives there. The law will adjudicate that case on an individual basis, but legally the culpability of the shooter is reduced because he didn’t know the identity of the person he killed. But the person is still dead, that cannot change.

I agree the target is dead and there has been a killing. The target is just as dead regardless of intention. And the target does not change as a function of the intention. Those are all measurable and observable phenomena.

If the intention is to kill a person, it is murder. If there is no intention to kill a person, it is not murder. Murder is a function of more than our own observation; it is also a function of the intention.

OK. I’m bored with murder, but will read with interest any subsequent comments.

 

[royal_archer]

Originally Posted by royal archer
I guess it is possible that someone is ignorant of the situation. This is where education needs to come in so the woman can have informed consent to the murder.

How about a law that on the paper work for a woman to get an abortion there is a read and innitial line that says something to the effect: I understand that I am pregnant with a human being and I am making a concious decision to have that person killed and I take full responsibility for this decision.

In my humble opinion, this wouldn’t work because much of the world believes the statement you would like signed to be YOUR OPINION. I believe you’re aware of this and I’m not trying to get some debate about what you or anyone else considers to be “truth” - because I’m sure you believe that your statement about the abortion being the killing of a person is what you truly believe to be a “absolute” truth - which is fine and your right to believe but at the same time the woman who wants this abortion truly believes that your “absolute truth” is just your opinion and she believes that the fetus she carries is not a person but just a jumble of cells and she believes this truth to be the “absolute” truth. But when we put it in this context someone standing back from the situation might say that both “truths” are relative to the person or indeed just an opinion. Truly if everyone believed that what you see as “truth” was the absolute truth then there wouldn 't be much debate left.

Is your being a person an opinion or a fact? Many arabs consider jews to be sub human. Nazis and other racist consider blacks to be less than human. For the first century of this countries existence blacks were considered less than human. Women took even longer to get full recognition. There is a good case to be made that those on welfare (habitualy) are less than human. I could say that anyone who is not of my ethnic background is not human. That is why we have to rely on the objective scientific criteria, not opinion. Bioligically speaking the life of an individual person begins at conception. This is not an opinion, it is a scientific fact.

What I believe it comes down to is that pro choice people believe that the pro lifers are attempting to force their beliefs and way of life on them amd until those beliefs are changed it won’t matter if abortion is legal or illegal - it will continue one way or the other - and if we go back to unqualified people giving abortions there will be more than just fetuses dying unnecessarily.

We are also forcing our beliefs on would be serial killers, bank robbers, etc. They ned to understand that there is sufficient secular rationale to protect babies. I do not think the (they are going to do it anyhow rationale is legitimate) do we make cars manufacturers design their cars so they can be driven by young children because we know young children will attempt to drive them? do we forbid banks from locking up their money because people will just rob them anyway? You should not forfiet one persons life so the killer can kill with less risk.

Also if abortion is completely made illegal then women who have had problems before may become less likely to try again due to the knowledge that if their life was in danger that the doctor would not be able to necessarily save it if it involved terminating the pregnancy regardless of the age of the fetus. I don’t believe we should ever call for ALL abortions to be illegal - the Church may say that it’s black and white and that there is never a reason for it but I know there are times when it is necessary to save a mother’s life.
God Bless
Rye

The health issue is a bogus arguement. Event he most ardent anti abortionist acknowledge that if a woman’s life is in danger you must do what is most minimally invasive to try to protect her. The point being you need to attempt to protect the baby as much as possible with out harming the mother.

 

[royal_archer]

Science does not deal with the person. The Catholic Church says it is beyond the competence of science to deal with the immortal soul*. Since a soul is necessary for a person to exist, we can rule science out of determining personhood.

Science tells us nothing more about humans than it tells us about animals. It has no way of observing and testing personhood. Person is a legal, philosophical, and religious idea.

Your notions of the personhood of a fetus are your personal opinions. You are certainly entitled to them, but others hold opposite opinions with the same sincerity and conviction.

• Paragraph 19 endnotes
  vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

So is it OK with you if someone deems individuals of a certain ethnic background to not be “persons” and starts killing them recreationally?

Keep in mind I did not bring the soul into the discussion because that is a fact of a non scientific nature and many people do not have the grace to accept it. My arguments are purely scientific on this issue. Using DNA as the mechanism that sepparates humans from other species and conception as the point in which that entity attains the DNA structure it will retain for the rest of its natural life we know that scientificaly speaking that entity is a human. (spiritual personhood is not a critical element of my arguement).

Lets say it were possible for a soul to leave the body but the body to continue to function. If such a human existed, they would still have all secular rights. It is not the existence of the soul but reality of a living person.

 

[royal_archer]

royal archer:

“If someone is not capable of understanding what they are doing when committing an abortion, they should not be allowed to do it.”

**Finally. At least educated, literate women should be allowed to have abortions.

Limerick **

I thought I was being ignored…Well you ignored the rest of the comment at least. putting the comment back into context. If someone is not able to realize that an abortion is the act of murdering an innocent human being and the abortion mill performs the “procedure” on them, they should be charged with conducting the abortion with out informed consent.

 

[WillieWonka]

So is it OK with you if someone deems individuals of a certain ethnic background to not be “persons” and starts killing them recreationally?

Keep in mind I did not bring the soul into the discussion because that is a fact of a non scientific nature and many people do not have the grace to accept it. My arguments are purely scientific on this issue. Using DNA as the mechanism that sepparates humans from other species and conception as the point in which that entity attains the DNA structure it will retain for the rest of its natural life we know that scientificaly speaking that entity is a human. (spiritual personhood is not a critical element of my arguement).

Lets say it were possible for a soul to leave the body but the body to continue to function. If such a human existed, they would still have all secular rights. It is not the existence of the soul but reality of a living person.

1. If someone does not believe the target is a person, they cannot formulate the intention to kill a person.
2. I agree you didn’t bring the soul into the discussion. The Sacred Congregation did.
3. Science tells us the fertilized egg is of the human species. Nothing more. Nobody disputes that. The Church says it may have a soul, and therefore may be a person. Others have opinions that the fetus is a person from conception. Still others have opinions it gains rights as it develops. Lots of opinions.
4. The Church says the soul is the form of the person. Without a soul, no form. Without that form, no person. Why care about a non-person with no soul?
5. Many have said the Church claims with certainty ensoulment occurs at conception. We have seen that it does not know when ensoulment takes place. Hence it does not know when it becomes a person according to its standard of Aristitelian form and substance.
6. I agree a living and functioning body with an absent travelling soul would have all kinds of secular rights. How could anyone know he’s a zombie?

 

[royal_archer]

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

So where is abortion listed in the constitution or elsewhere as a right?

Amendment 5 - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, **nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; **nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Ammendment 14. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And from the declaration of independance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…

 

[royal_archer]

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?

We the people.

 

[WillieWonka]

We the people.

The people stop them from enforcing their definitions on others. The people have no power to stop them from formulating the definitions.

For example, the Church defines artificial birth control to be unacceptable and forbids people from using it. Nobody stopped the Church from defining that. But the people do stop it from enforcing it on the population.

 

[St_Francis]

I agree the target is dead and there has been a killing. The target is just as dead regardless of intention. And the target does not change as a function of the intention. Those are all measurable and observable phenomena.

If the intention is to kill a person, it is murder. If there is no intention to kill a person, it is not murder. Murder is a function of more than our own observation; it is also a function of the intention.

OK. I’m bored with murder, but will read with interest any subsequent comments.

Well, you are playing around with the definition of murder. Yes, in a *legal *sense there are variations on the killing of human beings wrt intent, but that is not how we are using the word. We are using the word in a generic sense, without regard to specific instances, which precludes intent, since intent varies from case to case.

For example, was the killing of concentration camp prisoners murder? In a legal sense, no, because the law was that they were permitted to be killed. But in a generic sense, yes, because it was still the taking of innocent human life. It was not “unlawful” in terms of human laws, but it was still “unlawful” in terms of God’s laws.

 

[royal_archer]

1. If someone does not believe the target is a person, they cannot formulate the intention to kill a person.
2. I agree you didn’t bring the soul into the discussion. The Sacred Congregation did.
3. Science tells us the fertilized egg is of the human species. Nothing more. Nobody disputes that. The Church says it may have a soul, and therefore may be a person. Others have opinions that the fetus is a person from conception. Still others have opinions it gains rights as it develops. Lots of opinions.
4. The Church says the soul is the form of the person. Without a soul, no form. Without that form, no person. Why care about a non-person with no soul?
5. Many have said the Church claims with certainty ensoulment occurs at conception. We have seen that it does not know when ensoulment takes place. Hence it does not know when it becomes a person according to its standard of Aristitelian form and substance.
6. I agree a living and functioning body with an absent travelling soul would have all kinds of secular rights. How could anyone know he’s a zombie?

Still you are pointing to ensoulment which is not a basis of my arguement and saying that since you disagree with the point of ensoulment it discredits my arguement. Obviously it does not discredit my arguement.

Keep in mind the abortion debate is not within the Church, it is withing the secular government. (The Church has been fairly unambiguous about it). This is about the legal definition of a human being who is entitled to protections of law. And with law intent does play a part but that is why we have multiple categories of murder including negligent homicide and criminal neglect. However when roe vs wade is corrected the “i didn’t know” excuse will be completely irradicated.

 

[royal_archer]

The people stop them from enforcing their definitions on others. The people have no power to stop them from formulating the definitions.

For example, the Church defines artificial birth control to be unacceptable and forbids people from using it. Nobody stopped the Church from defining that. But the people do stop it from enforcing it on the population.

more importantly we the people passed laws that forbade the abortionist from forcing their definition on the innocent children.

 

[ryecroft]

It is being said that it is “scientific fact” that there is a human being at the point of conception - I have yet to find this “fact” in any of my medical books - in some of my Catholic books, yes, but medical books, no. Which non Catholic based medical book do you find it said that when the sperm and egg meet that a human being is present - if it’s in one of my medical books, I have yet to find it and they are 2008 publication.

 

[royal_archer]

It is being said that it is “scientific fact” that there is a human being at the point of conception - I have yet to find this “fact” in any of my medical books - in some of my Catholic books, yes, but medical books, no. Which non Catholic based medical book do you find it said that when the sperm and egg meet that a human being is present - if it’s in one of my medical books, I have yet to find it and they are 2008 publication.

from Princeton:

The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:

princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

From Pregnantpause.org

pregnantpause.org/develop/when.htm

and from development Biology:

8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

Genetic View:
The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no “moment of fertilization” at all. Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the “twinning argument.” The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

Proponents of this view often propose the following hypothetical situation: Suppose that an egg is fertilized. At that moment a new life begins; the zygote gains a “soul,” in the Catholic line of thought, or “personhood” in a secular line of thought. Then suppose that the zygote splits to form twins. Does the soul of the zygote split as well? No, this is impossible. Yet no one would argue that twins share the same “soul” or the same “personhood.” Thus, supporters of this view maintain that the quality of “soul” or “personhood” must be conferred after there is no longer any potential for twinning. (Shannon and Wolter 1990)

The argument that human life begins at the moment that chromosomes of the sperm meet the chromosomes of the egg to form a genetically unique individual is also endangered by the twinning argument because genetic uniqueness is not a requirement for an individual human life. “Genetic uniqueness” can be shared by multiple individuals, particularly indentical twins. Thus, this argument continues, the moment at which a unique individual human forms is the not the moment when its genetic code is determined, but rather the moment when the zygote can no longer split into multiple individuals.

In addition to twinning, there are other complexities that further confound the idea of the moment of conception. Just as it is possible for a zygote to form two or more individuals before it is implanted in the uterus, it is also possible for it to not continue to develop at all, but rather just become a part of the placenta. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). It is estimated that more than 50% of fertilized eggs abort spontaneously and never become children (Gilbert 2002). Or, if the zygote splits into multiple zygotes, it is also possible for these to recombine before implantation. All of these possibilities are examples of the ways in which the individuation of the zygote is incomplete until it has been implanted in the uterus.

 

[WillieWonka]

Still you are pointing to ensoulment which is not a basis of my arguement and saying that since you disagree with the point of ensoulment it discredits my arguement. Obviously it does not discredit my arguement.

Keep in mind the abortion debate is not within the Church, it is withing the secular government. (The Church has been fairly unambiguous about it). This is about the legal definition of a human being who is entitled to protections of law. And with law intent does play a part but that is why we have multiple categories of murder including negligent homicide and criminal neglect. However when roe vs wade is corrected the “i didn’t know” excuse will be completely irradicated.

1. I have neither addressed nor discredited your argument. What is it?
2. I agree the Church authorities condemn abortion and there is no disagreement there. There is disagreement among self-identified Catholics. And to the extent that one considers ABC to be abortion, there is huge disagreement between the self-identified Catholics and Church authorities. Do the rank and file count as the Church?