Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[St_Francis]

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 wek 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.

Not every aspect of discussion about life is relevant to the discussion of abortion. The document you yourself cited said that the issue of ensoulment is irrelevant to the topic.

You seem to want to show that the fact that we do not know if ensoulment has occurred justifies abortion. You cannot take one part of the document and leave out the other part in order to make an argument; the two parts go together.

I tried to cut you some slack and assume that you just wanted to discuss ensoulment, but that’s not really what you want to do, is it?

 

[limerick]

No.

Lusting is a different sort of thing.

**
Why? I was taught by nuns in CCD that thinking about doing something is just as offensive to God as actually doing it.

Is that not doctrine today? Have things changed in the 200 years since I was a pre-teen?

Limerick**

 

[WillieWonka]

Not every aspect of discussion about life is relevant to the discussion of abortion. The document you yourself cited said that the issue of ensoulment is irrelevant to the topic.

You seem to want to show that the fact that we do not know if ensoulment has occurred justifies abortion. You cannot take one part of the document and leave out the other part in order to make an argument; the two parts go together.

I tried to cut you some slack and assume that you just wanted to discuss ensoulment, but that’s not really what you want to do, is it?

I agree not everything about life is pertinent. But it would seem the Church’s notion of the Aristotelian form of the human being is pertinent, especially given the number of people on this thread who have claimed the Church teaches ensoulment occurs at conception. They seemed to think it was relevant. The fact is, I only entered the discussion of ensoulment after it had been introduced by other thread participants.

I’d be delighted to discuss ensoulment. If belated ensoulment is the case, is the fetus a human being before it has a soul? By Church standards, I can’t see how it can be since the soul is necessary for the human being.

 

[St_Francis]

I agree not everything about life is pertinent. But it would seem the Church’s notion of the Aristotelian form of the human being is pertinent, especially given the number of people on this thread who have claimed the Church teaches ensoulment occurs at conception. They seemed to think it was relevant. The fact is, I only entered the discussion of ensoulment after it had been introduced by other thread participants.

I’d be delighted to discuss ensoulment. If belated ensoulment is the case, is the fetus a human being before it has a soul? By Church standards, I can’t see how it can be since the soul is necessary for the human being.

if you want to discuss ensoulment, you need to discuss it in a separate thread.

 

[St_Francis]

**
Why? I was taught by nuns in CCD that thinking about doing something is just as offensive to God as actually doing it.

Is that not doctrine today? Have things changed in the 200 years since I was a pre-teen?

Limerick**

Thinking about doing something is as bad as doing it, but repenting in either case is a good thing.

I once had a very similar question. One thing I didn’t understand was what was meant by lusting in the verse from which this is taken. It doesn’t mean a momentary reaction to something or a fleeting thought. Fantasizing would be a closer word, but fantasizing could apply to anything. Yearning might be better.

On the physical realm we see instances of how this living in a fantasy world can lead to harm, esp in cases of stalking. In the spiritual realm, the effects are apparent far earlier.

A person who has planned a sinful action who then changes his or her mind has acknowledged the wrongness of that action, a first step towards repentance, and so is in a different position than the person who continues in sin, no?

 

[limerick]

Thinking about doing something is as bad as doing it, but repenting in either case is a good thing.

I once had a very similar question. One thing I didn’t understand was what was meant by lusting in the verse from which this is taken. It doesn’t mean a momentary reaction to something or a fleeting thought. Fantasizing would be a closer word, but fantasizing could apply to anything. Yearning might be better.

On the physical realm we see instances of how this living in a fantasy world can lead to harm, esp in cases of stalking. In the spiritual realm, the effects are apparent far earlier.

A person who has planned a sinful action who then changes his or her mind has acknowledged the wrongness of that action, a first step towards repentance, and so is in a different position than the person who continues in sin, no?

**I’m asking.

L**

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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.

THe date is part of your problem. Revisionist historians have been at work for decades to destroy Truth, and judging by the quality of public ‘education,’ have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

 

[St_Francis]

**I’m asking.

L**

Consider the position of a person wallowing in sinful thoughts, and a person who has seen that whatever they were contemplating is wrong. The first continues to sin, the second is beginning to repent. They are in different positions.

Now, I am not saying that the woman wouldn’t need to confess the fact that she had gone so close to having an abortion, but I doubt that women “lust for” abortions, either.

 

[WillieWonka]

In the openning post of this thread, NCSue references an article and asks if someone can make sense of it for her. The main point of the article is as follows:

“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.”

At first glance, this seems a preposterous claim. Who would claim the fetus is not alive? Who would claim it is dead? When anti-abortion people make this claim about others, are they really saying those others consider the fetus to be dead?

I doubt it. So, what else might an anti-abortion advocate mean when they make a claim that others don’t consider the fetus to be a life?

Perhaps they mean others don’t consider the fetus to be a human life? That’s unlikely since everyone agrees a human sperm and a human egg combined and formed a fetus of the human species. There is no denial there.

Where does that leave us? Perhaps the anti-abortion advocate means others don’t consider the fetus to be a human being? That makes more sense, since we have heard pro-abortion advocates say the fetus is just a “clump of cells.” And since they don’t accord the fetus the rights of a human being, it is reasonable to suspect they don’t consider it to be a human being.

So, does this make sense? We might ask what a human being is. The Church tells us a human being has a soul, so maybe that’s something to look for. However, science can’t detect thngs like a soul, so our search would be in vain.

What does the Church say? The Sacred Congregtion says it does not know when ensoulment takes place. That would mean it does not know when the fetus becomes a human being. This is probably closer to the idea the anti-abortion advocate is trying to ascribe to others. Those others are probably denying the 21 week fetus is a human being.

They are going further than the Sacred Congregation goes. The Sacred Congregation says it doesn’t know, but if someone says 21 weeks is not a human being, then they are claiming more knowledge than the Sacred Congregation.

So, I think the best we can tell NCSue is the people who claim a 21 week fetus is not a life mean it is not a human being at 21 weeks. And this is a position allowed under the Sacred Congregation’s teaching.

 

[limerick]

Consider the position of a person wallowing in sinful thoughts, and a person who has seen that whatever they were contemplating is wrong. The first continues to sin, the second is beginning to repent. They are in different positions.

Now, I am not saying that the woman wouldn’t need to confess the fact that she had gone so close to having an abortion, but I doubt that women “lust for” abortions, either.

**Lusting isn’t the point. I was taught that thinking about committing a particular sin makes us equally guilty as if we had actually committed that sin. It has nothing to do with a time frame, how long we pondered it, or whether we thought we could get away with it. The thought of robbing a 7-11 is as serious a sin as actually robbing a 7-11. Now, this is what I was taught by nuns in Northern Virginia in the early 1960s.

So, guilty or not guilty?

Limerick **

 

[allhers]

In the openning post of this thread, NCSue references an article and asks if someone can make sense of it for her. The main point of the article is as follows:

“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.”

At first glance, this seems a preposterous claim. Who would claim the fetus is not alive? Who would claim it is dead? When anti-abortion people make this claim about others, are they really saying those others consider the fetus to be dead?

I doubt it. So, what else might an anti-abortion advocate mean when they make a claim that others don’t consider the fetus to be a life?

Perhaps they mean others don’t consider the fetus to be a human life? That’s unlikely since everyone agrees a human sperm and a human egg combined and formed a fetus of the human species. There is no denial there.

Where does that leave us? Perhaps the anti-abortion advocate means others don’t consider the fetus to be a human being? That makes more sense, since we have heard pro-abortion advocates say the fetus is just a “clump of cells.” And since they don’t accord the fetus the rights of a human being, it is reasonable to suspect they don’t consider it to be a human being.

So, does this make sense? We might ask what a human being is. The Church tells us a human being has a soul, so maybe that’s something to look for. However, science can’t detect thngs like a soul, so our search would be in vain.

What does the Church say? The Sacred Congregtion says it does not know when ensoulment takes place. That would mean it does not know when the fetus becomes a human being. This is probably closer to the idea the anti-abortion advocate is trying to ascribe to others. Those others are probably denying the 21 week fetus is a human being.

They are going further than the Sacred Congregation goes. The Sacred Congregation says it doesn’t know, but if someone says 21 weeks is not a human being, then they are claiming more knowledge than the Sacred Congregation.

So, I think the best we can tell NCSue is the people who claim a 21 week fetus is not a life mean it is not a human being at 21 weeks. And this is a position allowed under the Sacred Congregation’s teaching.

But then as we read further, we find we can’t come to your conclusions.

"The human being", as the Instruction Donum vitae recalls and as the Encyclical
Evangelium vitae confirms, “is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life” (Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, n. 60: AAS 87 [1995], 469; cf. Instruction Donum vitae, n. 1: AAS 80 [1988], 79).

EVANGELIUM VITAE - (on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life)

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM

(my bold)

 

[ixolite]

Sorry, didn’t read the whole thread.

If so, perhaps you can explain something to me. (Understand that I’m gonna be hard to convince… I’m pro-life in every circumstance…)

Can you please clear up a mystery for me, and tell me what makes sense about this?
acts17verse28.blogspot.com/2009/05/wheres-sense-in-that.html.

Um…that’s a hoax.

However, the surgeon later stated that Samuel and his mother, Julie, were under anesthesia and could not move.“ “The baby did not reach out,” Dr Bruner said. “The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on.”.

He also stated, “Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it’s me pulling his hand out of the uterus … which is what I did.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Armas

It would be a bit cruel for a surgeon to operate on someone (pregnant woman + fetus well enough developed to “reach out”) without anesthesia, don’t you think?

 

[St_Francis]

**Lusting isn’t the point. I was taught that thinking about committing a particular sin makes us equally guilty as if we had actually committed that sin. It has nothing to do with a time frame, how long we pondered it, or whether we thought we could get away with it. The thought of robbing a 7-11 is as serious a sin as actually robbing a 7-11. Now, this is what I was taught by nuns in Northern Virginia in the early 1960s.

So, guilty or not guilty?

Limerick **

The Church teaches in general, but you are asking about the particular. People who drive 90 mph get tickets, right? they are doing a bad thing, right? So if your driver’s ed teacher tells you, Driving at 90 mph is wrong, against the law, and will get you into trouble, then what do you think?

But if you are an emergency vehicles driver, you might drive at 90 mph. What the teacher told you in your class will not apply.

Those teaching your catechism classes did not have time to outline every possible conceivable deviation from the general notions of moral theology which they needed to teach you. To teach you that thinking about committing a mortal sin is as bad as committing it is what a very general teaching of the Church is. This ought to keep the students from thinking a great deal about committing mortal sins, and if they students do not refrain from thinking about committing mortal sins, when they confess, the confessor will be able to deal with the *particular *scenario presented to him.

But those students would not have known that they needed to confess their thoughts had the nuns not taught them the general rule.

Honestly, once a person is in a state of mortal sin, there’s not a *worse *situation he can be in, but there are levels of mortal sin from God’s point of view.

But the solution to all of this is very simple: the person has only to go to a confessor and have their sins absolved. It’s not like the Church proposes a problem and then keeps the solution a secret.

 

[royal_archer]

In discussing legislation or proposed legislation, morality is obviously allowed. There is no standard of admission. Look at the current discussion of torture. People are standing up and saying, “Its just wrong.” People have said legalized abortion is wrong for thirty-six years. They have agitated for legislation and Constitutional amendments using morality as a justification.

Saying something is wrong has nothing to do with the First Amendment. What stops a legislator from saying a law should be passed because “it’s the right thing to do?” Nothing. He can say whatever he wants. What stops editorial writers from saying the same thing? Nothing. What stops 64 million Catholics from vocally supporting or opposing legislation on moral grounds? Nothing. We can all say anything we want in support or opposition to legislation.

Is there one single example of someone being stopped from saying anything about legislation in the US? Congressmen are even exempt from prosecution for anything they say on the floor of the Congress. Every session of Congress opens with a prayer.

Does a human being have a soul?

Morality as a set of right and wrong based on religious values should not be entered into the legal discussion. If we were to do that we would have to give credence to the wiccan, satanic, and protestant views of morality. The vegans believe it is immoral to eat meat and I do not want them to have a venue to push their skewed view of morality on me

The right thing to do can also be based on other factors such as ethical conduct, social norms, and agreed to ground rules for the stable conduct of society. Issues like theft, murder are immoral but are also violations of ethical conduct, social norms, and the rules for conduct of a stable society.

So While I do believe that right and wrong should be considered, religious morality should not be considered.

 

[royal_archer]

OK. Does a human being have a soul?

Yes, and hair and arms and legs and eyes, and ears… but the lack of one of those things does make someone non human in a legal sense.

 

[royal_archer]

The Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI allow for belated ensoulment. Poor rationality?

Allowing for the theoretical possibility is different than believing or stating such as fact.

 

[royal_archer]

Right, but if one is coaxed into dividing in a uterus and growing through full gestation and birth? The Koreans are working hard on just that.

At some point the structure of the cell will change where it is no longer a skin cell voiding your arguement.

 

[royal_archer]

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?

Then that would overturn many things such as the patriot act and even the vast majority of law enforcement.

 

[WillieWonka]

But then as we read further, we find we can’t come to your conclusions.

"The human being", as the Instruction Donum vitae recalls and as the Encyclical
Evangelium vitae confirms, “is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life” (Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, n. 60: AAS 87 [1995], 469; cf. Instruction Donum vitae, n. 1: AAS 80 [1988], 79).

EVANGELIUM VITAE - (on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life)

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM

(my bold)

My conclusion is that the Sacred Congregation doesn’t know when ensoulment takes place, and allows for belated ensoulment. Therefore, it is acceptable to contend ensoulment takes place at anytime in the gestation period. Your cite from Donum Vitae does not addres that issue.

Something does not have to be a person to be treated as a person.

 

[WillieWonka]

Sorry, didn’t read the whole thread.

Um…that’s a hoax.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Armas

It would be a bit cruel for a surgeon to operate on someone (pregnant woman + fetus well enough developed to “reach out”) without anesthesia, don’t you think?

But, what a great picture.