Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[Eddie_Mac]

I can prove nothing about the soul. Can you? But the Sacred Congregation allows for the possibility of belated ensoulment. If one thinks a soul is necessary for a human being, I would suggest a fetus lacking a soul is not a human being.

Since you suggest that the fetus lacking a soul is not a human being, would you kill it? Would you consider it a sin? Would you confess it as a sin and ask for absolution?

It does not matter whether or not any fetus has a soul.

The Church holds emphatically that abortion is always wrong no matter at what stage after conception.

Your argument is far from professing anything close to the truth, regardless of your ramblings about the Sacred Congregation. When you use proper right teaching to support evil it is all evil.

You are not getting bored, your argument is tired. Give it up.

Eddie Mac

 

[WillieWonka]

Since you suggest that the fetus lacking a soul is not a human being, would you kill it? Would you consider it a sin? Would you confess it as a sin and ask for absolution?

It does not matter whether or not any fetus has a soul.

The Church holds emphatically that abortion is always wrong no matter at what stage after conception.

You are not getting bored, your argument is tired. Give it up.

Eddie Mac

Does it matter if a fetus has a soul? I’d say it’s a very interesting question, and the Sacred Congregation indicates there has been an ongoing conversation within the Church for hundreds of years. Apparently it matters to them.

(I was bored with the murder discussion. I find ensoulment fascinating.)

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Does it matter if a fetus has a soul? I’d say it’s a very interesting question, and the Sacred Congregation indicates there has been an ongoing conversation within the Church for hundreds of years. Apparently it matters to them.

(I was bored with the murder discussion. I find ensoulment fascinating.)

No, it does not matter. Never. Killing a fetus, aborting a baby, killing an unborn human, is always wrong. There has been ongoing discussions about abortion for thousands of years. It was murder then, it is murder now, it will always be murder, regardless whether anyone wants to converse about it as if the concept of whether or not the murdered human had a soul, as if it mattered.

Wannabe philosophers who delight in standing around sipping beaujolaise with their pinkie finger extrended as they ponder whether or not they can channel their inner Plato or Socrates out to bring out the finer points on when the murdered baby had a soul is beyond disgusting and just amplifies the right formed opinion of mine that such people really need to get in touch with a really good spiritual director as they need to focus their thoughts towards actually saving the unborn instead of arguing for philosophical reasons why killing them is justified.

Eddie Mac

 

[WillieWonka]

No, it does not matter. Never. Killing a fetus, aborting a baby, killing an unborn human, is always wrong. There has been ongoing discussions about abortion for thousands of years. It was murder then, it is murder now, it will always be murder, regardless whether anyone wants to converse about it as if the concept of whether or not the murdered human had a soul, as if it mattered.

Wannabe philosophers who delight in standing around sipping beaujolaise with their pinkie finger extrended as they ponder whether or not they can channel their inner Plato or Socrates out to bring out the finer points on when the murdered baby had a soul is beyond disgusting and just amplifies the right formed opinion of mine that such people really need to get in touch with a really good spiritual director as they need to focus their thoughts towards actually saving the unborn instead of arguing for philosophical reasons why killing them is justified.

Eddie Mac

OK. It doesn’t matter to you, it does matter to the Sacred Congregation. Lots of opinions.

Beaujolaise?

 

[Eddie_Mac]

OK. It doesn’t matter to you, it does matter to the Sacred Congregation. Lots of opinions.

Beaujolaise?

Opinions do not save the babies. Just because something is discussed in certain contexts by the Church does not mean you can use it in a forum thread on abortion and try to argue for abortion, because that is exactly what you are doing by all appearances sake. I am certain that the congregation did not do so in order to justify abortion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaujolais_(wine)

Eddie Mac

 

[St_Francis]

That’s an opinion and assumption allowable under what the Sacred Congregation said. However, I am asking about belated ensoulment. This means the fetus exists for some time prior to being united with a soul. In that period, lacking a soul, is it a human being?

You are twisting the words of the document in order to mess with our heads. The unborn human *may *or may not exist for a period of time without a soul, Let me ask you, are you willing to take that chance?

 

[allhers]

Does it matter if a fetus has a soul? I’d say it’s a very interesting question, and the Sacred Congregation indicates there has been an ongoing conversation within the Church for hundreds of years. Apparently it matters to them.

(I was bored with the murder discussion. I find ensoulment fascinating.)

Okay fine, you want to rehash it all again, try to get it right this time then.

So, if that soul is placed by God within that person before they implant (which is the word
nidation,) or after they implant we don’t know for sure is all. In any case, its a baby.

www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP960524.HTM

and this:

…While no experimental data can be sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a soul,
the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide valuable indication for
discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance
of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?

By Fr. Joseph C. Howard, Jr., M. Div.
Director of the American Bioethics Advisory Commission

www.all.org/abac/jch005.htm

Why don’t you try reading it with understanding this time?

 

[St_Francis]

Does it matter if a fetus has a soul? I’d say it’s a very interesting question, and the Sacred Congregation indicates there has been an ongoing conversation within the Church for hundreds of years. Apparently it matters to them.

(I was bored with the murder discussion. I find ensoulment fascinating.)

If you want to discuss ensoulment, then start another thread, because the issue of ensoulment, as stated by the Sacred Congregation, *is irrelevant *to the topic of this thread,

 

[limerick]

No, it does not matter. Never. Killing a fetus, aborting a baby, killing an unborn human, is always wrong. There has been ongoing discussions about abortion for thousands of years. It was murder then, it is murder now, it will always be murder, regardless whether anyone wants to converse about it as if the concept of whether or not the murdered human had a soul, as if it mattered.

Wannabe philosophers who delight in standing around sipping beaujolaise with their pinkie finger extrended as they ponder whether or not they can channel their inner Plato or Socrates out to bring out the finer points on when the murdered baby had a soul is beyond disgusting and just amplifies the right formed opinion of mine that such people really need to get in touch with a really good spiritual director as they need to focus their thoughts towards actually saving the unborn instead of arguing for philosophical reasons why killing them is justified.

Eddie Mac

Since lusting in the heart is just as vile a sin as entering into a lustful act with another individual, I have this question: if a pregnant woman considers having an abortion, makes the appointment, goes to the abortion clinic, fills out the paperwork, has her counseling session, changes clothes, goes to the surgery, lies down on the table, puts her feet in the stirrups, has her IV inserted, puts on her headphones playing lovely sounds of nature, puts on her nitrous oxide mask and then changes her mind and doesn’t proceed with the termination, but gets dressed and goes home, and 32 weeks later has a live birth, is she guilty of the sin of abortion?

Limerick

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Since lusting in the heart is just as vile a sin as entering into a lustful act with another individual, I have this question: if a pregnant woman considers having an abortion, makes the appointment, goes to the abortion clinic, fills out the paperwork, has her counseling session, changes clothes, goes to the surgery, lies down on the table, puts her feet in the stirrups, has her IV inserted, puts on her headphones playing lovely sounds of nature, puts on her nitrous oxide mask and then changes her mind and doesn’t proceed with the termination, but gets dressed and goes home, and 32 weeks later has a live birth, is she guilty of the sin of abortion?

Limerick

You tell us. You are the expert.

Eddie Mac

 

[limerick]

You tell us. You are the expert.

Eddie Mac

**This is a legitimate question. Shall I take is to someone who knows something about Catholic doctrine?

Limerick**

 

[Eddie_Mac]

**This is a legitimate question. Shall I take is to someone who knows something about Catholic doctrine?

Limerick**

Truthfully, I can’t answer. Maybe a priest could answer. For someone so adamantly in love with abortion rights and so knowledgeable in Church teaching I would really expect you to know. You are the one who questioned the lust/adultery and anger/murder post of mine.

If it was me on the table I would confess it. I can’t risk being estranged from the sacraments.

Eddie Mac

 

[limerick]

Truthfully, I can’t answer. Maybe a priest could answer. For someone so adamantly in love with abortion rights and so knowledgeable in Church teaching I would really expect you to know. You are the one who questioned the lust/adultery and anger/murder post of mine.

If it was me on the table I would confess it. I can’t risk being estranged from the sacraments.

Eddie Mac

**Now, this is a far better answer than your previous response! Good job!

Limerick**

 

[allhers]

Since lusting in the heart is just as vile a sin as entering into a lustful act with another individual, I have this question: if a pregnant woman considers having an abortion, makes the appointment, goes to the abortion clinic, fills out the paperwork, has her counseling session, changes clothes, goes to the surgery, lies down on the table, puts her feet in the stirrups, has her IV inserted, puts on her headphones playing lovely sounds of nature, puts on her nitrous oxide mask and then changes her mind and doesn’t proceed with the termination, but gets dressed and goes home, and 32 weeks later has a live birth, is she guilty of the sin of abortion?

Limerick

It certainly sounds like it, by her intent, that she needs to seek Sacramental Confession.

(It never ceases to amaze me how you’ve mentioned headphones playing lovely sounds of nature, in a few posts of yours.) They may block out the sounds of the aspirator, I believe you called it in an earlier post, but they sure don’t block out the effect it has on one’s heart, mind and soul though, do they?

I would suggest that anyone who wonders about choosing to abort their child, ought to first of all, go to Confession for even thinking it. Then show by their thoughts, words and actions that they are truly repentant. By that I mean, not thinking that way, not suggesting it to anyone else, or turning a blind eye to it as though it doesn’t matter one way or another (because they feel is it only a choice between them and God), and then living their life from now on in a manner that shows that.

You are certainly free to ask this question of the experts on this site.

 

[limerick]

It certainly sounds like it, by her intent, that she needs to seek Sacramental Confession.

(It never ceases to amaze me how you’ve mentioned headphones playing lovely sounds of nature, in a few posts of yours.) They may block out the sounds of the aspirator, I believe you called it in an earlier post, but they sure don’t block out the effect it has on one’s heart, mind and soul though, do they?

I would suggest that anyone who wonders about choosing to abort their child, ought to first of all, go to Confession for even thinking it. Then show by their thoughts, words and actions that they are truly repentant. By that I mean, not thinking that way, not suggesting it to anyone else, or turning a blind eye to it as though it doesn’t matter one way or another (because they feel is it only a choice between them and God), and then living their life from now on in a manner that shows that.

You are certainly free to ask this question of the experts on this site.

**About the headphones - that’s relatively new. All I got was a 10 mg. Valium that hadn’t even hit my gut yet when I got on the table.

Limerick**

 

[WillieWonka]

Opinions do not save the babies. Just because something is discussed in certain contexts by the Church does not mean you can use it in a forum thread on abortion and try to argue for abortion, because that is exactly what you are doing by all appearances sake. I am certain that the congregation did not do so in order to justify abortion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaujolais_(wine)

Eddie Mac

Opinions are necessary to accomplish anything. Ideas precede action, and opinions influence and form ideas. It appear both the pro-abortion forces and the anti-abortion forces are working very hard to influence opinion. Suppose five Supreme Court justices came to the opinion a right to privacy does not exist in the Constitution?

 

[WillieWonka]

You are twisting the words of the document in order to mess with our heads. The unborn human *may *or may not exist for a period of time without a soul, Let me ask you, are you willing to take that chance?

Here are the words. No need to twist them. It is very clear the Sacred Congregation allows for the possibility of beleted ensoulment.

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.

 

[WillieWonka]

Okay fine, you want to rehash it all again, try to get it right this time then.

So, if that soul is placed by God within that person before they implant (which is the word
nidation,) or after they implant we don’t know for sure is all. In any case, its a baby.

www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP960524.HTM

and this:

…While no experimental data can be sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a soul,
the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide valuable indication for
discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance
of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?

By Fr. Joseph C. Howard, Jr., M. Div.
Director of the American Bioethics Advisory Commission

www.all.org/abac/jch005.htm

Why don’t you try reading it with understanding this time?

Found that spark again?

OK. If there is belated ensoulment, is it a human being prior to uniting with a soul? If a human being has a soul, it’s difficult to say that which lacks a soul is a human being. Maybe this is why authors in Church tradition have found the topic so relevant for hundreds of years.

Dr. Howard asks, “how could a human individual not be a human person?”
Answer: Lacking a soul. A possibility allowed by the Sacred Congregation.

 

[WillieWonka]

If you want to discuss ensoulment, then start another thread, because the issue of ensoulment, as stated by the Sacred Congregation, *is irrelevant *to the topic of this thread,

The topic is “Anybody out there pro-choice?”

The OP asks about an article that says, “But there are many who would argue that a fetus at 21 weeks gestation – which is the point at which the picture of Samuel’s hand was taken – isn’t really a life.”

Nobody denies a 21 week old fetus is a life. That would imply it is dead. So examination and discussion of that life is certainly within the thread topic bounds.

 

[St_Francis]

Since lusting in the heart is just as vile a sin as entering into a lustful act with another individual, I have this question: if a pregnant woman considers having an abortion, makes the appointment, goes to the abortion clinic, fills out the paperwork, has her counseling session, changes clothes, goes to the surgery, lies down on the table, puts her feet in the stirrups, has her IV inserted, puts on her headphones playing lovely sounds of nature, puts on her nitrous oxide mask and then changes her mind and doesn’t proceed with the termination, but gets dressed and goes home, and 32 weeks later has a live birth, is she guilty of the sin of abortion?

Limerick

No.

Lusting is a different sort of thing.