Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[royal_archer]

I think your chances of finding anyone at the CAF site pro-choice about nill!

Good luck!

Blessings and peace.

I’m pro-choice on everything short of murder or harming another person. I think you will find several on this board with simmilar perspectives.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

It’s a good measure of how far we have plummeted into the abyss that so many people are still arguing in favor of killing unborn babies.

 

[royal_archer]

I very much doubt the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI intended their teaching for theologians only. Is this a topic that should be off limits to Catholics? Is there any other teaching from the Sacred Congregation and the pope that is off limits for Catholics to discuss? If so, I would be very surprised. The Church has a long tradition of robust intellectual discussion. Surely an educated and informed laity can only strengthen the Church.

Benedict just publshed a very interesting encyclical. Are Catholics to shy away from discussing both the encyclical and its implications? Is that something reserved for theologians?

I suppose some might consider this teaching to be inconvenient for their personal agenda. Some might even prefer Catholics remain ignorant of the truth. Some might think they cannot deal with it. But if an agenda cannot squarely face the truth of Church teachings, does it deserve much deference?

The laity being informed is good. However trying to take things out of context and manipulate them using false logic is wrong.

Here is how the logic tends to go for the supporter of evil:
-Humans have souls.
-It is extremely unlikely but theoretically possible for ensoulment to happen after conception.
-Therefore it is possible that a baby does not have a soul and is therefore not human.
-It is OK to kill a non human.
-It is OK to kill anyone until you can prove they have a soul.
-You can not prove the existence of a soul therefore it is OK to kill anyone.

 

[royal_archer]

Well, if a human being has a soul, and something does not have a soul, then it is not a human being.

The Sacred Congregation document in question does not say something lacking a soul is not a human being. But CC 365 tells us a human being has a soul. So, putting 365 together with the document from the Sacred Congregation, we can see that a human being has a soul. Therefore, if ensoulment has not happened, that which does not have a soul is not a human being.

*CC365: “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.” *

All you have shown is that while the sacred congregation opens the door for a theoreticall possibility but the CC does not open that door. You are again trying to draw a false conclusion.

 

[royal_archer]

Well, if a human being has a soul, and something does not have a soul, then it is not a human being.

The Sacred Congregation document in question does not say something lacking a soul is not a human being. But CC 365 tells us a human being has a soul. So, putting 365 together with the document from the Sacred Congregation, we can see that a human being has a soul. Therefore, if ensoulment has not happened, that which does not have a soul is not a human being.

*CC365: “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.” *

Where do they expresely say babies do not have souls???

 

[royal_archer]

That is certainly an acceptable belief under the teaching of the Sacred Congregation, but, nevertheless, the Sacred Congragation teaching tells us it doesn’t know if that tiny fragment has a soul. So, belief the tiny fragment has s soul is not a certain Churvh teaching.

Your contradicting yourself again. You even posted the quote from the CC where it states the human does have a soul.

The sacred congregation probably also does not know the wavelength of blue light but that does not mean it doesn’t exist.

 

[grampsc]

Yep I agree though one thing different for me I am a woman lol. Also I should note from what I understand at least I think this way. We do see the fetus as a life. The question is it a life worthy of personhood and protection under the law.? And at the stage mentioned in the article I find it to be a very grey area. But the fact of the matter is most abortions take place far far sooner.

In law, a fetus, or in some states, an unborn person, may be named as the receipient of goods named in a will, so it certainly appears that the law recognizes that as a human person just yet unborn, but not to be denied rights. Right?

 

[WillieWonka]

Importance is not the same as relevance. Because they left the door open to the theoretical possibility that a soul and body are united at a point immediately following conception instead of at the moment of conception is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

I note many have said ensoulment happens at conception. Many have said the Church teaches this. It is part of the record of this discussion. Is that also irrelevant? I don’t think so.

 

[WillieWonka]

The laity being informed is good. However trying to take things out of context and manipulate them using false logic is wrong.

Here is how the logic tends to go for the supporter of evil:
-Humans have souls.
-It is extremely unlikely but theoretically possible for ensoulment to happen after conception.
-Therefore it is possible that a baby does not have a soul and is therefore not human.
-It is OK to kill a non human.
-It is OK to kill anyone until you can prove they have a soul.
-You can not prove the existence of a soul therefore it is OK to kill anyone.

I did not make the case you propose here.

 

[WillieWonka]

All you have shown is that while the sacred congregation opens the door for a theoreticall possibility but the CC does not open that door. You are again trying to draw a false conclusion.

I don’t see where what I quoted from the CC deals with the door at all. It just shows us the Church says a human being has a soul. Are there other parts of the CC that do deal with that door?

 

[WillieWonka]

Where do they expresely say babies do not have souls???

They don’t expressly say that.

 

[WillieWonka]

Your contradicting yourself again. You even posted the quote from the CC where it states the human does have a soul.

The sacred congregation probably also does not know the wavelength of blue light but that does not mean it doesn’t exist.

Yes. I did post that quote from the CC. So, if delayed ensoulment is the case, then prior to ensoulment there is no human being. As you noted, the CC says the human being has a soul. So, no soul, no human being.

 

[FanChan]

Yes. I did post that quote from the CC. So, if delayed ensoulment is the case, then prior to ensoulment there is no human being. As you noted, the CC says the human being has a soul. So, no soul, no human being.

The point?

 

[Eddie_Mac]

The point?

WW is never going to say that WW thinks that it is acceptable to kill a fetus without a soul.

WW has hinted at it, beat around the bush, and inferred. WW is pro-abortion. WW is promoting abortion by promoting the notion that the SC says it is ok to think that fetuses do not have sould.

WW is an abortion promoter.

Prove me wrong, Willie. You have never answered the question. Would you, an abortion promoter, kill a fetus if it did not have a soul, even though Church Doctrine says it is human life and is sacred?

Eddie Mac

 

[distracted]

.

**I’m pro-choice…

and since “self-preservation is the first law of nature” (and etc, etc)

i say the baby should decide… **

 

[Eddie_Mac]

.

**I’m pro-choice…

and since “self-preservation is the first law of nature” (and etc, etc)

i say the baby should decide… **

Thank you, friend. You never beat around the bush and I respect you a great deal for that.

Eddie Mac

 

[royal_archer]

I did not make the case you propose here.

I said “Here is how the logic tends to go for the supporter of evil:” I did not say you. It is your choice whether or not you wish to ascribe yourself to that title/role.

Of the six steps of logic you have only addressed the first three. Are you going to renounce the final three steps as outlined in post 1357?

 

[royal_archer]

They don’t expressly say that.

Then your previous arguements are based on speculation about interpretations.

 

[WillieWonka]

I said “Here is how the logic tends to go for the supporter of evil:” I did not say you. It is your choice whether or not you wish to ascribe yourself to that title/role.

Of the six steps of logic you have only addressed the first three. Are you going to renounce the final three steps as outlined in post 1357?

I agree you did not attribute the sequence to me. And I simply reinforced that fact so readers would not be confused.

 

[royal_archer]

I don’t see where what I quoted from the CC deals with the door at all. It just shows us the Church says a human being has a soul. Are there other parts of the CC that do deal with that door?

The CC clearly states that human beings have souls and since human life is innitiated at conception, ensoulment happens at conception.