Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NCSue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WillieWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
That something you refer to happens to be a baby, like I said, read the WHOLE document.
You don’t understand what to implant means either, obviously.

[SIGN]Sorry, will no longer be feeding the troll.[/SIGN]
 
allhers said:
That something you refer to happens to be a baby, like I said, read the WHOLE document.
You don’t understand what to implant means either, obviously.

[SIGN]Sorry, will no longer be feeding the troll.[/SIGN]
Click to expand...
Actually the something I refer to is ensoulment.

Note the words the Sacred Congregation uses:

“For some** it **dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation.”

In the above quote, the Sacred Congragation uses the word, “it,” to refer to ensoulment. Our usage is similar.
 
allhers said:
That something you refer to happens to be a baby, like I said, read the WHOLE document.
You don’t understand what to implant means either, obviously.

[SIGN]Sorry, will no longer be feeding the troll.[/SIGN]
Click to expand...
Please stop with the ad hominems.
 
WillieWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that this sort of bodily mutilation is permissible only for a proportionate reason. Just because something is lawful doesn’t make it moral.
 
St_Francis said:
The Church teaches that this sort of bodily mutilation is permissible only for a proportionate reason. Just because something is lawful doesn’t make it moral.
Click to expand...
The Church says lots of things that are not part of the legal code.
 
For Abortionists:
Dear Lord, we pray that you continue to implore abortionists in their ears and in their hearts, to quickly make an about-face and turn from their gruesome work. “Open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light.” Show them the true choice between your infinite forgiveness and the eternal imprisonment that is offered by evil. We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen

For Babies:
Lord, protect all babies, the unborn and the born. Protect them at every stage of development, from conception to infancy. You have said, dear Lord, that even if a woman forgets the infant of her womb, “I will never forget you…Upon the palms of my hands I have written your name.” Christ warned, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones,” whose “angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father”, adding, “It is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of these little ones be lost.” Keep them, O Lord, “as the apple of your eye; hide them in the shadow of your wings.” We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen
 
limerick said:
**I have writtten many times on this forum about the responsibility of the parents to educate, so there is no “intervention” there. And anyone else who has asked for assistance or elucidation on the matters of sex and sexuality have opened the door with their request. There is no intervention here, either.

Limerick**
Click to expand...
Who has asked for this assistance, or elucidation on matters of sex and sexuality? Liberals?
 
limerick said:
**I have writtten many times on this forum about the responsibility of the parents to educate, so there is no “intervention” there. And anyone else who has asked for assistance or elucidation on the matters of sex and sexuality have opened the door with their request. There is no intervention here, either.

Limerick**
Click to expand...
WillieWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
Being human and having a soul are inseparable. No life without a life force, the Soul.
 
WillieWonka said:
Therefore, if delayed ensoulment is the case, the fetus lacks a soul before ensoulment and is not human.
Click to expand...
Alright, so let’s say that it is true that the fetus before, say, six weeks, does not have a soul, and then by definition is not human. If this could be proven, would you advocate that women be allowed to have an abortion up to six weeks gestation? That is the point of this ‘excercise’, isn’t it? If it’s not, then please, do tell us what the point is. You haven’t as of yet. You go on and on about it being ‘important’, but never say why it is important. I’d really like to know that one, because it’s getting very boring otherwise.
 
FanChan said:
Alright, so let’s say that it is true that the fetus before, say, six weeks, does not have a soul, and then by definition is not human. If this could be proven, would you advocate that women be allowed to have an abortion up to six weeks gestation? That is the point of this ‘excercise’, isn’t it? If it’s not, then please, do tell us what the point is. You haven’t as of yet. You go on and on about it being ‘important’, but never say why it is important. I’d really like to know that one, because it’s getting very boring otherwise.
Click to expand...
It’s not my point. My point is that the Church allows for delayed ensoulment, and prior to ensoulment the fetus is not a human being because the Church says a human being has a soul.

Apparently very few here were aware of this teaching by the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI.

Importance is a function of each individual. Some find some thigs important. Some don’t. I think it is important to have accurate knowledge of Church teachings when claiming the Church teaches something.

If one insists the Church has always taught with certainly the soul is present at conception, it is important to know one is passing on false information. However, I grant some may not think it is important.
 
WillieWonka said:
It’s not my point. My point is that the Church allows for delayed ensoulment, and prior to ensoulment the fetus is not a human being because the Church says a human being has a soul.

Apparently very few here were aware of this teaching by the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI.

Importance is a function of each individual. Some find some thigs important. Some don’t. I think it is important to have accurate knowledge of Church teachings when claiming the Church teaches something.

If one insists the Church has always taught with certainly the soul is present at conception, it is important to know one is passing on false information. However, I grant some may not think it is important.
Click to expand...
Alright, great, then you made your point with your first post on this topic. Some of us don’t think it’s important, the Sacred Congregation said whether or not the fetus had a soul played no part in whether or not it’s right to abort, which is good enough for me, and apparently most everyone else here. Seems to me the issue can be put to rest on this thread, then.
 
FanChan said:
Alright, great, then you made your point with your first post on this topic. Some of us don’t think it’s important, the Sacred Congregation said whether or not the fetus had a soul played no part in whether or not it’s right to abort, which is good enough for me, and apparently most everyone else here. Seems to me the issue can be put to rest on this thread, then.
Click to expand...
I have detected a certain resistance to this teaching from the Sacred Congregation. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is a general impression I get. Are Catholics obliged to accept this teaching as correct? And if they are obliged to accept the teaching, are they further obliged to pass on correct information about this Church teachings? If so, are they obliged to refrain from claiming the Church teaches with certainty that a soul is present at conception? Some may find that important

I note it is perfectly acceptable under the Sacred Congregation’s tecahing to contend a soul is present at conception. But that is a personal opinion, not a Church teaching.
 
WillieWonka said:
I have detected a certain resistance to this teaching from the Sacred Congregation. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is a general impression I get. Are Catholics obliged to accept this teaching as correct? And if they are obliged to accept the teaching, are they further obliged to pass on correct information about this Church teachings? If so, are they obliged to refrain from claiming the Church teaches with certainty that a soul is present at conception? Some may find that important

I note it is perfectly acceptable under the Sacred Congregation’s tecahing to contend a soul is present at conception. But that is a personal opinion, not a Church teaching.
Click to expand...
sigh Yeah, you’re just going to keep on going whether or not your point’s been made, aren’t you?
 
FanChan said:
sigh Yeah, you’re just going to keep on going whether or not your point’s been made, aren’t you?
Click to expand...
The Sacred Congregation says this discussion has been going on for a long time, and it continues today. They must think it is important. Should they stop?

I don’t think the door closes on any of these issues.
 
WillieWonka said:
The Sacred Congregation says this discussion has been going on for a long time, and it continues today. They must think it is important. Should they stop?

I don’t think the door closes on any of these issues.
Click to expand...
They said it is important to continue to ponder when ensoulment takes place. They said it is NOT important in the topic of abortion, which is important to say in a paper on the topic of abortion. Ergo, it no long needs to be discussed in this thread.

Yes, some people thought the Church taught that the soul was created at fertilization. Yes, you’ve pointed out that this isn’t the way it is, and so it shouldn’t be used as an argument. There. Done. No need to go on and on and on and ON about it.
 
FanChan said:
They said it is important to continue to ponder when ensoulment takes place. They said it is NOT important in the topic of abortion, which is important to say in a paper on the topic of abortion. Ergo, it no long needs to be discussed in this thread.

Yes, some people thought the Church taught that the soul was created at fertilization. Yes, you’ve pointed out that this isn’t the way it is, and so it shouldn’t be used as an argument. There. Done. No need to go on and on and on and ON about it.
Click to expand...
Did you note how many people on this thread said the Church teaches with certainty that the soul is present at conception? That seemed like a pertinent comment for the thread. In fact, I have seen that claim many places. Many actually based their arguments on that claim. Certainly an examination of that claim and a discussion of the implications are just as in order as the initial claims.

As I noted before, people have different interests and find different things important. Given all the responses I have had dealing with the topic, I’d duggest there is a great deal of interest. Of course, I presume the uninterested will not pay attention.
 
WillieWonka said:
Did you note how many people on this thread said the Church teaches with certainty that the soul is present at conception? That seemed like a pertinent comment for the thread. In fact, I have seen that claim many places. Many actually based their arguments on that claim. Certainly an examination of that claim and a discussion of the implications are just as in order as the initial claims.

As I noted before, people have different interests and find different things important. Given all the responses I have had dealing with the topic, I’d duggest there is a great deal of interest. Of course, I presume the uninterested will not pay attention.
Click to expand...
What would you have done, then? Every single person who used it as an argument to step forward, apologize, and swear never to use it again? You’ve made your point. I haven’t seen anyone on this thread who actually cares about debating the topic of ensoulment when no scientific conclusion will ever be made here. The fact that it cannot be proven one way or another means that it is better to find other proof and to just leave the topic alone for the more qualified theologians to battle it out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top