Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[Sailor_Kenshin]

**
Yes … conveniently stacked on the side of the Church. Nuns make judgment calls about the intelligence of their students and dumb them down, never thinking that the message they carry to these kids stunts their growth rather than encouraging it.

I am honestly tired of it all. I have turned a thousand stones in my adult years looking for a party who is willing to say “We did the wrong thing, we’re sorry we spoke to you like a two-year-old, we didn’t know that children have minds and imaginations”. The Church is not responsible, the nuns and priests are not responsible, the lay teachers are not responsible - everybody has an airtight alibi for the days when such half-baked catechism was thrown at me.

I’m getting there. I’m getting to that place where I can finally rest, knowing that leaving the Catholic Church was the right thing for me. Being a Catholic has been the most unrewarding, fear-riddled, punishment-centric experience I never asked for. I’m grateful that I didn’t raise my daughter to be a Catholic so she can be truly ignorant of all this stuff so maybe at least she will have a shot at a happy life, a happy death, and a happy afterlife.

It permeates. It metastasizes. It’s over.

L **

Maybe you do need to understand about forgiving and letting go. I don’t know. You do not sound as though you are nearing ‘that place where you can finally rest.’

Becoming Catholic was and still is the toughest thing I’ve had to do so far. I would do it again because I knew it was the right thing.

I am sorrier than words can express.

 

[royal_archer]

I’m not aware of any Church teaching on aliens either, but it surely can be considered as a thought experiment.

Suppose aliens land in a ship far more advanced than anything we have. They roll out on their four legs and begin an intelligent conversation with us via computer screen. They teach us mathematics, science, history of other galactic races, etc.

But, we are lucky, because he Church has provided a teaching on ensoulment of the human species. They don’t know when it happens. Perhaps they won’t know about the aliens either.

miss the sarcastic eye roll?

 

[royal_archer]

I realize a petri dish is not a natural condition. But let’s say they are in a petri dish, as happens in fertility treatment. If the fertilized egg were implanted it would divide and gestate. Suppose the Korean skin cell in the next dish would divide and gestate in also implanted.

Can we discard both petri dishes?.

As I said before a conceived baby is human, skin cells are not If God allows the scientist to attain a human from skin cells the moment that God allows it is when the cells become human. Frankenstein and other evil scientist can not create life, they can only create a situation where life could exist if God wishes it.

 

[WillieWonka]

miss the sarcastic eye roll?

Not at all. But we shouldn’t shy from plausible situations.

 

[WillieWonka]

As I said before a conceived baby is human, skin cells are not If God allows the scientist to attain a human from skin cells the moment that God allows it is when the cells become human. Frankenstein and other evil scientist can not create life, they can only create a situation where life could exist if God wishes it.

The Koreans are not trying to cerate life. they are trying to get a living skin cell with a full compliment of DNA to divide and gestate when implanted in a uterus.

The skin cell is human, too, with a full compliment of DNA. Like the fertilized egg in the next petri dish, it wll divide and gestate when implanted. OK to throw out the skin cell in its petri dish? OK to throw out the fertilized egg in its petri dish?

 

[royal_archer]

The Koreans are not trying to cerate life. they are trying to get a living skin cell with a full compliment of DNA to divide and gestate when implanted in a uterus.

The skin cell is human, too, with a full compliment of DNA. Like the fertilized egg in the next petri dish, it wll divide and gestate when implanted. OK to throw out the skin cell in its petri dish? OK to throw out the fertilized egg in its petri dish?

Skin cells do not have a right to life outside of the rights inheritted from the possessing human. a fertilized egg is a human in and of itself.

 

[WillieWonka]

Skin cells do not have a right to life outside of the rights inheritted from the possessing human. a fertilized egg is a human in and of itself.

Dos the skin cell have a right to life when implanted in a uterus prior to dividing and gestating to birth?

 

[allhers]

Stop feeding the troll.

Eddie Mac

:thumbsup:Especially when its already been explained on this thread and many others, and with all kinds of documentation and STILL the troll doesn’t get it.

Another thing I just noticed, anyone know how to email the moderator to let them know that this thread has gone over 1000 posts, that is suppose to be the limtit for threads isn’t it? (I’d do it but I don’t know how and don’t know who the moderator of this thread is.)

 

[royal_archer]

Dos the skin cell have a right to life when implanted in a uterus prior to dividing and gestating to birth?

for the ~78th time. disembodied skin cells do not have the same rights as humans. :banghead:

 

[WillieWonka]

:thumbsup:Especially when its already been explained on this thread and many others, and with all kinds of documentation and STILL the troll doesn’t get it.

Another thing I just noticed, anyone know how to email the moderator to let them know that this thread has gone over 1000 posts, that is suppose to be the limtit for threads isn’t it? (I’d do it but I don’t know how and don’t know who the moderator of this thread is.)

The Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI do a fine job of speaking for themselves. They need no help. They don’t know when ensoulment takes place, and allow for belated ensoulment.

I suspect this has come as an unwelcome surprise to many people who disagree with the Sacred Congregatin and the pope.

 

[WillieWonka]

for the ~78th time. disembodied skin cells do not have the same rights as humans. :banghead:

So, we have two women.

One has been implanted with a fertilized egg which will divide, gestate, and be born as an eght pound baby.

The other has been implanted with a skin cell that will divide, gestate, and be born as an eight pound baby.

The woman with the fertilized egg is carrying an entity with a right to life, but the woman with the skin cell is carrying a cell with no right to life?

(Note: work on this is well underway.)

 

[allhers]

The Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI do a fine job of speaking for themselves. They need no help. They don’t know when ensoulment takes place, and allow for belated ensoulment.

I suspect this has come as an unwelcome surprise to many people who disagree with the Sacred Congregatin and the pope.

You are right, THEY do a fine job and no one needs your interpretation of what they say.
All they have to do is go to the Vatican web site and read all about it.

www.vatican.va

I didn’t notice anyone being surprised about anythng you had to say / probably just wondered, like I, why you even bother to go on and on and on when its clearly been explained to YOU over and over.

Have a good day.

 

[WillieWonka]

You are right, THEY do a fine job and no one needs your interpretation of what they say.
All they have to do is go to the Vatican web site and read all about it.

www.vatican.va

I didn’t notice anyone being surprised about anythng you had to say / probably just wondered, like I, why you even bother to go on and on and on when its clearly been explained to YOU over and over.

Have a good day.

So, let them speak.

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.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html*

Do you think the people who insisted for so long that the Church taught with certainty ensoulment happened at conception knew about this? I suspect they were listening to each other, and the error snowballed. That’s understandable. It happens all the time in many areas.

 

[royal_archer]

:thumbsup:Especially when its already been explained on this thread and many others, and with all kinds of documentation and STILL the troll doesn’t get it.

7 x 70? Have we gotten there yet?

Another thing I just noticed, anyone know how to email the moderator to let them know that this thread has gone over 1000 posts, that is suppose to be the limtit for threads isn’t it? (I’d do it but I don’t know how and don’t know who the moderator of this thread is.)

What? & start back at sqare one again in a new thread?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I was thinking about this question today, wondering who’s to blame for the widespread lack of basic decency, the widespread self-importance, and the eagerness to declare who’s worthy to live and who is not. And the readings during Mass seemed to contain the answers.

If the shepherds are weak, the sheep will stray. God’s mercy on us all.

 

[allhers]

So, let them speak.

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.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

Do you think the people who insisted for so long that the Church taught with certainty ensoulment happened at conception knew about this? I suspect they were listening to each other, and the error snowballed. That’s understandable. It happens all the time in many areas.

Yeah, yeah, we’ve been all through that, those are the footnotes for what #19 of the document itself says.

Try reading the footnote this way instead. (read what I underlined)

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.

As I explained to you BEFORE, and will again, nidation means implantation.

Now, as EVERYONE but you can clearly see, they are saying that even though some disagree WHEN it happens, it still happens, either right at conception or at the very least, it could not at least precede implantation.

Also, as I’ve already pointed out to you in the document, it said it was at the moment of conception but you said some stuff about (in your opinion) that it meant something else.
Remember??

Try reading the WHOLE DOCUMENT and not just the parts you want to try to mislead with.

(my bold)

 

[allhers]

I was thinking about this question today, wondering who’s to blame for the widespread lack of basic decency, the widespread self-importance, and the eagerness to declare who’s worthy to live and who is not. And the readings during Mass seemed to contain the answers.

If the shepherds are weak, the sheep will stray. God’s mercy on us all.

If the shepherds are weak, the Lord Himself will lead!

(we need to pray for all the shepherds.)

 

[WillieWonka]

Yeah, yeah, we’ve been all through that, those are the footnotes for what #19 of the document itself says.

Try reading the footnote this way instead. (read what I underlined)

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.

As I explained to you BEFORE, and will again, nidation means implantation.

Now, as EVERYONE but you can clearly see, they are saying that even though some disagree WHEN it happens, it still happens, either right at conception or at the very least, it could not at least precede implantation.

Also, as I’ve already pointed out to you in the document, it said it was at the moment of conception but you said some stuff about (in your opinion) that it meant something else.
Remember??

Try reading the WHOLE DOCUMENT and not just the parts you want to try to mislead with.

(my bold)

If something cannot precede nidation it cannot happen before nidation. That means ensoulment can happen at any time after nidation, but not before nidation. So, anytime.

*"(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."

Probable is not certain. I think that surprises many people.

 

[Duc_in_Altum]

In the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate I’m really surprised to see Catholics being pro-choice, always arguing the right of a woman over her own body. This argument always makes me wonder: if this is so, is it lawful for a woman to cut off one of her healthy limbs? I’d dare to say a leg or arm are really part of “her own body”. The baby on her womb definetely is not part of her body, although it happens to be "inside"of her body.

Thinking about all those millions of aborted babies reminds me some verses from Scripture that show God cares for each one of us even before the moment of our conception. Probably these verses have been quoted already, but here they are:

“13 You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you, so wonderfully you made me; wonderful are your works! My very self you knew; 15 my bones were not hidden from you, When I was being made in secret, fashioned as in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes foresaw my actions; in your book all are written down; my days were shaped, before one came to be.” (Ps 139:13-16)

May God in his infinite Mercy keep the souls of all those babies under the shadow of his wings.

God bless!

 

[WillieWonka]

In the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate I’m really surprised to see Catholics being pro-choice, always arguing the right of a woman over her own body. This argument always makes me wonder: if this is so, is it lawful for a woman to cut off one of her healthy limbs? I’d dare to say a leg or arm are really part of “her own body”. The baby on her womb definetely is not part of her body, although it happens to be "inside"of her body.

Thinking about all those millions of aborted babies reminds me some verses from Scripture that show God cares for each one of us even before the moment of our conception. Probably these verses have been quoted already, but here they are:

"13 You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you, so wonderfully you made me; wonderful are your works! My very self you knew; 15 my bones were not hidden from you, When I was being made in secret, fashioned as in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes foresaw my actions; in your book all are written down; my days were shaped, before one came to be." (Ps 139:13-16)

May God in his infinite Mercy keep the souls of all those babies under the shadow of his wings.

God bless!

It is lawful to cut off one’s limbs. There is a psychological condition where people submit to multiple amputations. Some women today are having their toes cut back so they can wear some kind of shoe.