Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NCSue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WillieWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
The issue of the timing of ensoulment is usually brought up by those who want to argue that because *some *theologians *proposed *centuries ago that ensoulment occcurred after conception that abortion should be legal. This is obviously a tactic used for centuries by those who were trying to justify the use of abortion since the Church has addressed it for quite a long time.

The sattement is the Church’s resolution of the issue. The Church states that we cannot know with certainty when ensoulment occurs, but the timing doesn’t matter and the issue is irrelevant.
 
St_Francis said:
The issue of the timing of ensoulment is usually brought up by those who want to argue that because *some *theologians *proposed *centuries ago that ensoulment occcurred after conception that abortion should be legal. This is obviously a tactic used for centuries by those who were trying to justify the use of abortion since the Church has addressed it for quite a long time.

The sattement is the Church’s resolution of the issue. The Church states that we cannot know with certainty when ensoulment occurs, but the timing doesn’t matter and the issue is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Irrelevancy is an opinion. We are free to choose to ignore it…

The Sacred Congregation’s opinion is it is relevant. Pope Paul’s opinion was it is relevant. Many in Catholic circles have an opinion it is revelant because they so often claim ensoulment takes place at conception. Many on these threads have an opinion it is relevant because they claim ensoulment takes place at conception. They offer this opinion as an argument against abortion.

Lots of different opinions.

(Catholic grammar question: What is the possesive of Pope Paul VI? Pope Paul VI’s? I punted above, but haven’t encountered it before.)
 
ryecroft said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is not potentially a human life, but one that will have much potential in life.

I was an RN and studied physiology. The medical terms are just that. They are not indications at to whether or not a human zygote, embryo, fetus (which means little one), etc. It is a method to ‘date’ so to speak the developmental stage of life. From the embryo to the full human development until that human dies. Period.

Just because it is helpless and little does not negate it’s right to live. Ever.
 
WillieWonka said:
Irrelevancy is an opinion. We are free to choose to ignore it…

The Sacred Congregation’s opinion is it is relevant. Pope Paul’s opinion was it is relevant. Many in Catholic circles have an opinion it is revelant because they so often claim ensoulment takes place at conception. Many on these threads have an opinion it is relevant because they claim ensoulment takes place at conception. They offer this opinion as an argument against abortion.

Lots of different opinions.

(Catholic grammar question: What is the possesive of Pope Paul VI? Pope Paul VI’s? I punted above, but haven’t encountered it before.)
Click to expand...
I am not in the medical field, but I do believe life begins at conception and ensoulment takes place at that time. Without a life force, we Catholics call it soul, nothing is alive. Is a child alive at the earliest point of it’s creation. How can one say no?

If you have ever seen someone die, this was discussed before on this thread, there is that indescribable something the body no longer has when one is declared dead. The body is inanimate after death. Is a child inanimate at it’s second of creation? How can one say no? S/he grows, moves and takes nutrients from it’s mother. Is s/he alive? Yes. Must s/he have a soul to be alive? Yes.

No medical textbook can support this because ensoulment is an unfathomable occurance to human understanding. You can look for proof for the rest of your life for the point in which a child becomes ensouled. You will never find it with your fallable mind.
 
elts1956 said:
I am not in the medical field, but I do believe life begins at conception and ensoulment takes place at that time. Without a life force, we Catholics call it soul, nothing is alive. Is a child alive at the earliest point of it’s creation. How can one say no?

If you have ever seen someone die, this was discussed before on this thread, there is that indescribable something the body no longer has when one is declared dead. The body is inanimate after death. Is a child inanimate at it’s second of creation? How can one say no? S/he grows, moves and takes nutrients from it’s mother. Is s/he alive? Yes. Must s/he have a soul to be alive? Yes.

No medical textbook can support this because ensoulment is an unfathomable occurance to human understanding. You can look for proof for the rest of your life for the point in which a child becomes ensouled. You will never find it with your fallable mind.
Click to expand...
Of course the fertilized egg is alive. The alterative is that it is dead. I think there is universal agreement on that.

Ensoulment at fertilization? That’s an opinion. I agree science can’t answer it, and the Sacred Congregation says it doesn’t know when it happens.

But that leaves an interesting question. If belated ensoulment takes place, just what are we dealing with prior to ensoulment?
 
WillieWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
You’re bored?

The intention to kill is there. The person is there. It’s not accident, not as though you were rounding a corner in your car, and someone jumped out in front of you, and you could not brake in time.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
You’re bored?

The intention to kill is there. The person is there. It’s not accident, not as though you were rounding a corner in your car, and someone jumped out in front of you, and you could not brake in time.
Click to expand...
Yes. I’m bored.
 
WillieWonka said:
OK.

If it is a human being before it has a soul, and a human being after it has a soul, then a soul is not necessary for a human being.

Does the Church say a human being has no soul?
Click to expand...
no

your getting sloppy with your logic I know you can do better and you know I won’t fall for such an obvious praseology trick.
 
royal_archer said:
no

your getting sloppy with your logic I know you can do better and you know I won’t fall for such an obvious praseology trick.
Click to expand...
No trick at all.

You identified something without a soul as a human being. You also identified something with a soul as a human being. Therefore, a soul is not necessary for a human being. It doesn’t matter.

However, the Church seems to disagree.

*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. *

How does that union the Church speaks of take place if there is no soul?
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
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.’
Click to expand...
**Parents, priests, pastors should all be participants in the sex and sexuality education of children. Of course parents want to impart their values and morals to their children. But I feel it is wrong to withhold information about the topic simply because we don’t endorse the facts.

You have remarked that “that side” is “still not happy” - happy with what? Who is unhappy and why do you think they should be?

Limerick**
 
WillieWonka said:
No trick at all.

You identified something without a soul as a human being. You also identified something with a soul as a human being. Therefore, a soul is not necessary for a human being. It doesn’t matter.

However, the Church seems to disagree.

*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. *

How does that union the Church speaks of take place if there is no soul?
Click to expand...
In the secular sense people are people with or with out the existence of a soul. This thread is about the “pro choice” movement which is a secular legal matter, not a moral one.

Whether someone has a soul, has been converted, is saved, has received the holy spirit or not is irrelevant.

Even if they don’t have any rythm they are still a human being. 😃

Instead of attacking the peripheral supplemental rationale, if you would like to defend the killing of babies, then state your case as to why you feel it is OK to kill them.

On the other hand I am starting to theorize that you know and agree that abortion is wrong but are just having fun in the challenge of trying to poke holes in the logic.
 
limerick said:
Parents, priests, pastors should all be participants in the sex and sexuality education of children. Of course parents want to impart their values and morals to their children. But I feel it is wrong to withhold information about the topic simply because we don’t endorse the facts.

You have remarked that “that side” is “still not happy” - happy with what? Who is unhappy and why do you think they should be?

Limerick
Click to expand...
As for not withholding…We should not withhold that:

Abortion is murder.

Honnest men and women are less likely to want to mary a person who has “been around”. ( I wish there were a way to discuss on this forum the type of language some men use to describe “wordly” women.)

Abstinance is 100% effective.

Birth control devices do not protect from deadly diseases.

Under Obama’s heath care power grab, current and past abortion records will likely be centralized and available to potential employers, hackers, and anti abortion activist.
 
WillieWonka said:
Of course the fertilized egg is alive. The alterative is that it is dead. I think there is universal agreement on that.

Ensoulment at fertilization? That’s an opinion. I agree science can’t answer it, and the Sacred Congregation says it doesn’t know when it happens.

But that leaves an interesting question. If belated ensoulment takes place, just what are we dealing with prior to ensoulment?
Click to expand...
As I said above, I believe ensoulment happens at conception. Without a life force/soul. there is no life. Soul/life force, whatever you choose to call it, cannot be explained unless you believe it is given to all living things by God, their creator. Lower species also have a life force which cannot be explained in human terms.
 
WillieWonka said:
Of course the fertilized egg is alive. The alterative is that it is dead. I think there is universal agreement on that.

Ensoulment at fertilization? That’s an opinion. I agree science can’t answer it, and the Sacred Congregation says it doesn’t know when it happens.

But that leaves an interesting question. If belated ensoulment takes place, just what are we dealing with prior to ensoulment?
Click to expand...
royal_archer said:
In the secular sense people are people with or with out the existence of a soul. This thread is about the “pro choice” movement which is a secular legal matter, not a moral one. ??? You have lost me here.

Whether someone has a soul, has been converted, is saved, has received the holy spirit or not is irrelevant. And here. Point me to the original statement???

Even if they don’t have any rythm they are still a human being. 😃

Instead of attacking the peripheral supplemental rationale, if you would like to defend the killing of babies, then state your case as to why you feel it is OK to kill them.

On the other hand I am starting to theorize that you know and agree that abortion is wrong but are just having fun in the challenge of trying to poke holes in the logic.
Click to expand...
 
limerick said:
**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**
Click to expand...
But no matter which mode we use for “education”, we still “intervene”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top