R
royal_archer
Guest
In your medical books does it give an alternate point at which life starts or are they silent on the matter since it controversial.
- Status
W
WillieWonka
Guest
Correct. But that in no way stopped anyone from defining whatever they chose as they chose.
R
royal_archer
Guest
I was assuming you are going somewhere productive with this line of exchange. >99% of the people on this plannet have a common understanding of what a human being or person is. They may want to create their own deffinition of who is good enough to be equal to the rest but in that we all have a common perception of in general what is a human. Now there may be some people out on the fringe who think their immaginary friend is a human, some people may consider some more intelligent annimals to be human but they are in an extreme minority. If someone wants to consider their furby a human that is perfectly fine as long as they don’t try to claim it as a dependent. On the other extreme, if someone wants to consider their mother in law a non human that is perfectly fine as long as they do not violate the law. But those fringe examples do not detract from the reality that the vast majority of the sane public understand what a human is. The only real controversy is when that human’s life begins and ends. Science and government have every right to define those point as it relates to laws of the land.
It is important that we err on the side of caution when determining these points. You don’t write someone off as dead because they are unresponsive. you consider them alive and treat them as alive as long as they have the capability of recovering. The same holds true at the start of life. The governments in the United States have said that life begins at conception. The fact that this has been altered by un-elected activist judges infringes on our ability to enforce these laws but this does not change the reality.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
I’m not going anywhere with this line of exchange. I am responding to people who address me.
We have already established that the Church does not know when ensoulment occurs, the Church considers the soul to be the form of the person, and without the soul there is no form and no person.
Therefore, it is acceptable under Church doctrine to believe a fetus lacks a soul, lacks the form of a person, and therefore is not a person. Hence, that is a reasonable position, allowed under Church doctrine. It’s reasonable for people who are Catholics, and reasonable for people who are not.
S
St_Francis
Guest
What are you saying is lacking for human life to be present? From the moment of conception, there is an living independent being which is human. Are you denying that a human being is conceived? Are you denying that the unborn human is alive? Or are you denying that the unborn child is a separate individual?
C
CMP2
Guest
Not when lives are at stake no. This is too important to joke about or to banter like an afternoon volley on the courts. No, “tongue in cheek” will not help anyone.
L
limerick
Guest
C
CMP2
Guest
youtube.com/watch?v=kxH7CUhHkug
This is amazing. An amazing witness by the subject being spoken of here. Words cannot describe the miracle taking place.
This is amazing. An amazing witness by the subject being spoken of here. Words cannot describe the miracle taking place.
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
Love it. Thank you
C
CMP2
Guest
You are welcome! 
Nice to meet you lil flower.
Nice to meet you lil flower.
R
ryecroft
Guest
I am not denying or supporting either side - what I am saying is that the closest any of my medical books come to saying there is a person present when a sperm and egg meet is that a “potential” embryo is then formed. ONe person has noted some medical texts - I assure you that I could note just as many texts that say there is the “potential” for human life at that time -
and to royal archer - some of those like the developmental biology that you mentioned go over the social views from the beginning of history b and some of what you quote at the end of your post actually make a case for those that would say that at conception there is not necessarily a person present (regarding the twinning etc saying that all of that can change up until about the 15th day after conception).
My point is that not all medical books agree that a human person is present at conception. I am not saying they are correct or incorrect, just stating what is currently present in my medical books circa 2005-2008 as used for nursing and some pre med.
R
royal_archer
Guest
But having proof of a soul is not a criteria for a human to have rights. Why do you insis in bringing in somthing that is irrelevant to the point at hand ensoulment is only critical to the moral aspect of abortion, not the legal aspect. The religious aspect of personhood which includes ensoulment is not relevant to the secular legal discussion. Pro- life is a secular position not a religious one, it just happens to have religious people on its side.
S
St_Francis
Guest
First of all, *as Catholics *we are supposed to be against abortion.
Secondly, medical books are written by people who live in an extremely PC world. I know, for example, that in the 1990s there were college-level textbooks which included Haeckel’s ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny theory–one which Haeckel himself said that he had faked the pictures for *back in the 1800s. *So the fact that some information about an extremely controversial issue is not found in medical textbooks doesn’t really surprise me.
Did you see the PP ad from the 1960s which said that abortion took a human life?
W
WillieWonka
Guest
I think we have a long tradition of developing moral principles, then incorporating them in law.
There probably are those who think the pro-life movement is secular. There probably are those who think it is religious. And there probably are those who think it is both. All three probably exist at the same time. In any case, I fail to see how that should limit discussion or consideration of ideas.
S
St_Francis
Guest
The issue of ensoulment is a complete red herring and so why should we discuss it? If we were discussing cars, why would we bring in rockets? If we were discussing health care, why would we bring in shamanism?
W
WillieWonka
Guest
I don’t know. It’s your choice. The Sacred Congregation must have thought it was important enough to be included in their document entitled, “Declaration On Procured Abortion.”
S
St_Francis
Guest
In the issue of abortion *within Catholic circles, *certain elements of the issue need to be defined, but the document itself says that the issue of ensoulment is irrelevant to the issue of abortion.
E
ExDeoVita
Guest
I will be praying for you as well Limerick. Sometimes this is lost as the arguments heat up: but we are here reaching out with truth for the sake & ultimate well-being of those who we do not see eye to eye with. I doubt very many Catholics sign up in these forums to argue for the pure sake of argument, we show up not because we are searching for truth, meaning, happiness… but because we want to share what we already have found (a pearl of great price) with others. We do this because we want what is best for others (ultimately eternal life in union with God our Father)… we do this for their betterment.
I know Limerick has highlighted certain less-than-charitable responses to her comments, even alluding to the fact that the Catholic Church must not be the church for her in lieu of such responses.
I would like to further what user *St. Francis * has spoken of in light of the charity we should show those whom we disagree with. The charity and posture we present to those who we profoundly disagree with is just as important as the Truth conveyed. Very few people come back to the Church because of empirical logic or apologetics, though some do. Most come back because the see the Christian ideal lived out by devout Catholics and they know that these individuals have something profound - argument does not bring them back to Truth, example does.
I would like to extend a hand to Limerick to re-visit the Catholic Church on your own time, and re-ponder the meaning of Christs promise within your own heart, away form the verbal judo found within these forums. It is there within the stillness and silence that God will speak to you, unbeknown to any of us.
If my faith and participation in the body of Christ in His domestic church were dependent on other Catholics than their is a good change I too may not be in the Church. The Truth found within Christs Church cannot be tainted by those who do not live up to the ideal of the Precepts. Ones reservation to see the Church as the fullness of Truth, based on the examples shown by those within the Church is not a good reason. If anybody’s participation in something rested on the actions of others, than nobody would ever be a part of anything - that type of reasoning assumes a group of people with flawless qualities. Nobody would be pro-life or Catholic if the bad examples of a few were expressive of the whole. You would not be ‘pro-choice’ either as their are many who convey very hateful behavior towards others (aside from the 'doctors-themselves), you need only bear silent, peaceful witness outside an abortion mill with only your rosary beeds to experience this behavior. Please remember: the Catholic Church is not an institution of Saints, but a hospital for sinners. And my brothers and sisters in faith who do not live up to its ideals do not make me lose my faith or obstruct my peace, as it is not dependent on them.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
I agree it says no abortion at any time.
I note the Sacred Congregation considered it important enough to discuss. It indicates it’s important enough to have been discussed for hundreds of years, and important enough that the discussion continues. I also note many people in Catholic circles say ensoulment takes place at conception. They also mistakenly claim that is a certain teaching of the Church. We can find some on this thread. The discussion started after people in Catholic circles made the claim. Apparently they, too, must think it’s important. It looks like both the Sacred Congregation, many people in Catholic circles, and some on this board think discussion of ensoulment is important.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
In other words, morals-less and Godless.
That side got what they wanted and more with this last election. One has to ask why they are still not ‘happy.’
- Status