Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[SteveGC]

The CC tells us a human has a soul. One can then conclude something without a soul is not a human being.

No, not really WW. A fertilized ovum, created by God, either has a soul right away…or is** inevitably destined **for one. Because of this, it is a human from the very start.

Sacred Congregation tells us they do not know when ensoulment takes place, and they allow for delayed ensoulment. One can then conclude, if delayed ensoulment is the case, prior to ensoulment there is no soul.

Yes and no. To be more specific, there ***may ***be a portion of time from conception onward wherein the soul is not adjoined to the fetus…but the soul, at the moment of conception, is at the very least “on the way” to join the fetus. Thus, the fetus is already human at the moment of conception. This is what the note in the document is verifying.

So, one can conclude, if deleyed ensoulment is the case, prior to ensoulment the is no soul, and the fetus is not a human being.

No, again you cannot derive that conclusion…

Let’s look at this more closely…

• the CC teaches a human person has a soul, and in fact, the soul is what makes a person human
• the Sacred Congregation document clearly states that human life begins at conception, regardless of the precise moment of ensoulment (animation). This is where you’re hung up…I think you’re not seeing the fact that the Church is not saying a fertilized ovum might not be a human being because it might not have a soul for some time. The Church is saying that the soul is either immediately present, or soon on the way, at the moment of conception…and in either case…the fertilized ovum is therefore a human being every step of the way. The document is essentially calling the ensoulment timing irrelevant to the declaration of the fertilized ovum as a bona fide human being.

 

[nordskoven]

Why have we let the “pro-choice” stance be hijacked by lecherous fiends who exploit women for cold, hard cash? God is pro-choice. Everybody has choice, that’s what defines our humanity. God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son to redeem the deadly aspect of Adam’s choice. God didn’t remove choice as inconvenient.

Murder is wrong because it destroys choice. New Agers, who actually promote genocide as “cleansing” the Earth, simply define their deadly proposal as “forcible evolution to a higher plane.” Well, why not kill inconvenient people? They will go to Heaven, right Christians? Killing destroys choice and that is precisely why it is wrong. We can’t say as Luther did during the peasant revolt, kill them all and let God sort them out. It’s either a Just War or it isn’t, and croaking babies in utero is manifestly unjust. Try this bumper sticker on: NO LIFE, NO CHOICE!

Back 'em into a corner. These phonies aren’t pro-choice. There’s no school choice, and the dumbing-down of America encourages bestial mobocracy, not informed choice. The restrictions on choice are tightening with the fascist overthrow of America, allying business with government to take over land development, insurance, health care, indoctrination of children, and dictating outcomes like state-sponsored abortion that kill choice. This is slow, seductive genocide.

There’s no choice without informed consent. Because I’m pro-choice, I’m for sonogram monitors for expectant mothers, recently made to lock faced away from the woman so she won’t have the information to help her chose, to be turned around. They faced monitors away from moms-to-be because too many women were chosing life to be good for business. Nobody is handing women abstracts of studies to show how abortion raises the risk of breast cancer, that would create informed consent, and that would enhance the life choice and cut the profit margin. “The love of money is the root of all evil.”

**Blessed Virgin Mary, pierced with a sword of sorrow that the “thoughts of all may be revealed,” expose all thoughts, cleansing them in the fire of love which is your Son, Jesus Christ’s Sacred Heart. AMEN **

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

‘You shall have no other gods before me.’

We are commanded to worship the true God and not this false prophet of abortion ‘rights.’

 

[Orogeny]

Wow, almost 1,400 posts and not closed yet. I’m surprised.

Peace

Tim

 

[WillieWonka]

No, not really WW. A fertilized ovum, created by God, either has a soul right away…or is** inevitably destined **for one. Because of this, it is a human from the very start.

Yes and no. To be more specific, there ***may ***be a portion of time from conception onward wherein the soul is not adjoined to the fetus…but the soul, at the moment of conception, is at the very least “on the way” to join the fetus. Thus, the fetus is already human at the moment of conception. This is what the note in the document is verifying.

No, again you cannot derive that conclusion…

Let’s look at this more closely…

• the CC teaches a human person has a soul, and in fact, the soul is what makes a person human
• the Sacred Congregation document clearly states that human life begins at conception, regardless of the precise moment of ensoulment (animation). This is where you’re hung up…I think you’re not seeing the fact that the Church is not saying a fertilized ovum might not be a human being because it might not have a soul for some time. The Church is saying that the soul is either immediately present, or soon on the way, at the moment of conception…and in either case…the fertilized ovum is therefore a human being every step of the way. The document is essentially calling the ensoulment timing irrelevant to the declaration of the fertilized ovum as a bona fide human being.

1. I agree the Sacred Congregation said a fertilized egg may or may not have a soul.
2. I agree all such cells are of the human species. However, the CC tells us a human being has a soul. That which lacks a soul may be of the human species, but is not the union of body and soul identified in the CC. Prior to ensoulment there is only the body (B) after ensoulment there is a union of body and soul (B/S). That which lacks a soul cannot form the B/S union the CC speaks of.
3. Does the soul exist prior to union with the body(B/S)? It can’t be “on the way” unless it exists. So, if delayed ensoulment is the case, does the Church teach the soul exists independent of the body? If instant ensoulment is the case, does the Church teach the soul exists independent of and prior to the existence of the body? In either case, the B/S union the CC refers to does not exist
4. If one cannot conclude that prior to ensoulment there is no soul, does the Church teach the soul exists independently prior to B/S union? Does the Church teach the soul exists before conception? Does the Church teach it doesn’t know when the soul comes into existence? What we can say, though, is that prior to ensoulment the B/S union of the CC does not exist.
5. If the fertilized egg lacks a soul, then the B/S union of the CC does not exist.
6. The CC makes it very clear the B/S is the essential human being. We can say a skin cell is human, too. But that does not mean it is a B/S.
7. The Sacred Congregation does not say the soul is soon on the way. It says ensoulment at conception is probable. That’s all.
8. Is a bona fide human being a B/S? Is a bona fide human being a B without a S? Is this in keeping with the CC?
9. What word do you use for the B/S union the CC speaks of? What word do you use for the fertilized egg (B) if delayed ensoulment is the case? What word do you use for the species of a skin cell from my arm?

 

[JimG]

Since the soul is the animating principle of the body, it must exist at conception.
Otherwise the body would be lifeless.

But the soul is really a non-issue with respect to abortion. The soul, being immaterial, cannot be discerned by scientific probing. From the perspective of the abortion debate, it is a non-issue; it doesn’t matter to the debate, since many don’t even believe in the existence of the soul.

The question is: when does a new individual of the human species begin? Biologically, we know the answer to that. A new human individual begins with the union of sperm and egg, forming a genetically distinct new individual of the human species. It is a new human being.

The only question to be addressed is: at what point in their existence do new human beings deserve legal protection?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I don’t understand why the left is still trying to convince faithful Catholics that we should accept abortion. Didn’t they already get everything they wanted from this administration and more?

Why are they still trying to do the fancy footwork of denying that a fertilized egg is human, and therefore deserving of protection?

 

[PapaSquash]

I can picture it now:

WW is working as a SWAT team sniper in a hostage situation. The hostage is wearing all blue. The perpetrator is wearing a red jacket and jeans.

Through the 'scope WW sees something blue inside the window.

The negotiator tells him that’s it’s probably the hostage. WW observes that “probably” means there is some possibility that it might not be the hostage.

He announces “I have a clear shot” and fires.

 

[djeter]

Why are they still trying to do the fancy footwork of denying that a fertilized egg is human, and therefore deserving of protection?

I think you need to update yourself on the current arguments. This is a link to a debate on the topic, “The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues? What is the Right Response by ‘Pro-Life” Citizens?” at Washington, D.C.’s National Press Club, Thursday, May 28, 2009.

Discussing their respective views was Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and the Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, and Douglas Kmiec, Professor of Constitutional Law and Caruso Family Chair in Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University School of Law and a Catholic Obama supporter – the latter a kind of walking contradiction in terms that emerged during the last election when 54% of American were able to turn their back on their faith and vote for the pro-choice Obama.

Moderating the exchange was Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former United States Ambassador to the Holy See, most recently a major actor in the Notre Dame fiasco with Obama. The debate explored different perspectives on current governmental policy regarding such issues as abortion and embryonic stem cell research and its impact on societal attitudes regarding the respect for human life.

The article also summarizes much of Prof George’ s position in the debate, which, if you are a pro-lif Catholic is absolutely essential to your understanding of the issue. Personhood and ensoulment are obfuscations in the debate.

Under Pages on the site you will also find a link to reading selections from Prof George’s fine book, “The Clash of Orthodoxies.” It is a practically a handbook for Catholic teachings on the social issues of abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia etc. etc. Worth spending some time with it. Bookmark it so you can copy and paste later.

You can find it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/06/the-intellectual-chops-communication-skills-charisma-and-savvy/

Regards

dj

 

[Eddie_Mac]

I told you he would never answer if he would kill it. He is pro-abortion.

Eddie Mac

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I think you need to update yourself on the current arguments. This is a link to a debate on the topic, “The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues? What is the Right Response by ‘Pro-Life” Citizens?” at Washington, D.C.’s National Press Club, Thursday, May 28, 2009.

dj

This is not a rhetorical question. Links may be fine but I am asking the pro-abortion people here:

Why are you still arguing? You have the president you wanted. You seem to have won the battle. So who are you really trying to convince?

 

[SteveGC]

1. I agree the Sacred Congregation said a fertilized egg may or may not have a soul.
2. I agree all such cells are of the human species. However, the CC tells us a human being has a soul. That which lacks a soul may be of the human species, but is not the union of body and soul identified in the CC. Prior to ensoulment there is only the body (B) after ensoulment there is a union of body and soul (B/S). That which lacks a soul cannot form the B/S union the CC speaks of.
3. Does the soul exist prior to union with the body(B/S)? It can’t be “on the way” unless it exists. So, if delayed ensoulment is the case, does the Church teach the soul exists independent of the body? If instant ensoulment is the case, does the Church teach the soul exists independent of and prior to the existence of the body? In either case, the B/S union the CC refers to does not exist
4. If one cannot conclude that prior to ensoulment there is no soul, does the Church teach the soul exists independently prior to B/S union? Does the Church teach the soul exists before conception? Does the Church teach it doesn’t know when the soul comes into existence? What we can say, though, is that prior to ensoulment the B/S union of the CC does not exist.
5. If the fertilized egg lacks a soul, then the B/S union of the CC does not exist.
6. The CC makes it very clear the B/S is the essential human being. We can say a skin cell is human, too. But that does not mean it is a B/S.
7. The Sacred Congregation does not say the soul is soon on the way. It says ensoulment at conception is probable. That’s all.
8. Is a bona fide human being a B/S? Is a bona fide human being a B without a S? Is this in keeping with the CC?
9. What word do you use for the B/S union the CC speaks of? What word do you use for the fertilized egg (B) if delayed ensoulment is the case? What word do you use for the species of a skin cell from my arm?

You make my brain hurt, WW.

This whole line of questioning has as its motivation your suggestion that since Catholics can’t agree on when a human is a human, that it should be acceptable and tolerable that the rest of society be equally as unsure.

First of all, the premise is erroneous. Catholics are NOT divided on when a human is a human…you can argue your “delayed ensoulment” rationale until the cows come home, but you won’t find a single faithful and loyal Catholic in the world who will tell you that a human being may not be a human being until some point after conception. Not one. Again, I’m trying to help you absorb the fact that the Church infallibly teaches that a human being exists instantaneously at the precise moment of conception. You are creating a red herring when you argue the Sacred Congregation ensoulment issue against that truth. I suppose I’m done trying to help you see that the possibility of delayed ensoulment affects the declaration of ‘human being at conception’ in no way at all.

Secondly, I would ask you to expand the argument a bit. You acknowledge that the Church teaches human life begins at conception. Let’s suppose I grant you the notion that some in the Church disagree that human life begins at conception (which is not the case, but I’ll humor you)…what then? What does it mean really? Does that mean abortion is now OK immediately after conception…because some Catholics believe it may not yet be a bona fide human being (even though the Church declares it to be so)? I mean, what is your precise point?

 

[WillieWonka]

You make my brain hurt, WW.

This whole line of questioning has as its motivation your suggestion that since Catholics can’t agree on when a human is a human, that it should be acceptable and tolerable that the rest of society be equally as unsure.

First of all, the premise is erroneous. Catholics are NOT divided on when a human is a human…you can argue your “delayed ensoulment” rationale until the cows come home, but you won’t find a single faithful and loyal Catholic in the world who will tell you that a human being may not be a human being until some point after conception. Not one. Again, I’m trying to help you absorb the fact that the Church infallibly teaches that a human being exists instantaneously at the precise moment of conception. You are creating a red herring when you argue the Sacred Congregation ensoulment issue against that truth. I suppose I’m done trying to help you see that the possibility of delayed ensoulment affects the declaration of ‘human being at conception’ in no way at all.

Secondly, I would ask you to expand the argument a bit. You acknowledge that the Church teaches human life begins at conception. Let’s suppose I grant you the notion that some in the Church disagree that human life begins at conception (which is not the case, but I’ll humor you)…what then? What does it mean really? Does that mean abortion is now OK immediately after conception…because some Catholics believe it may not yet be a bona fide human being (even though the Church declares it to be so)? I mean, what is your precise point?

1. I have dealt with what the Sacred Congregation says, what Pope Paul VI endorsed, and what the Catholic Catechism says. I have not said anything about what the vast bulk of Catholics think.

2a. My premise is not that Catholics are divided. My premise is that delayed ensoulment is an acceptable belief under the teachings of the Sacred Congregation, Pope Paul VI, and the Catechism. Hence, the premise you suggest may be false, but it’s not mine.

2b. I observe that the vast bulk of Catholics appear to believe the Church teaches instant ensoulment with certainty. However, this is antecdotal and not based on polling. I observe they are wrong in believing it is a certain teaching.

2c. I am not taking a poll. I may not find a single Catholic who will tell me, “a human being may not be a human being until some point after conception.” But I will find a Sacred Congregation that will tell me instant ensoulment is probable. It will also allow for delayed ensoulment.

1. I ackowledge the Church teaches a human species lives at the moment of conception. I think we can say that is a universally held idea, with no controversy. I asked about your terminology because it becomes confusing to refer to everything as human. A skin cell is human. A fertilized egg lacking a soul (B) is human. A fetus representing the union of body and soul (B/S) the CC speaks of is human. At this stage, simply saying something is human does not distnguish between the various types of life the Sacred Congregation allows for. Nor is it specific to the body and soul union (B/S) the CC defines.

4a. The CC 365 says, “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.”

4b. Note the CC says, “it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body.”

4c. The Sacred Congregation allows for delayed ensoulment. If this is the case, that union of body and soul (B/S) the CC speaks of cannot exist. Hence, the fetus is body only (B).

4d. CC 365 says the soul is the “form of the body.” If delayed ensoulment is the case, and there is no soul united with a body (B/S), what is the form of the body?

4e. CC 365 sepaks of the body and soul union (B/S) forming a single nature. If there is no soul, this union (B/S) cannot exist, and the nature the CC speaks of cannot exist.

1. As I said earlier, nobody denies a living instance of the human species exists at conception. No infallible teaching is necessary. However, I would ask you to show an infallible tecahing where the Church says the body and soul union CC365 defines (B/S) is present at conception.

6a. Is it your contention the body and soul union (B/S) the CC speaks of exists at conception?

6b. Is it your contention the Church infallibly teaches that the body and soul union (B/S) the CC365 speaks of exists at conception?

6c. If the answer to 6b is yes, can you point us to that infallible teaching? Can you suggest why the Sacred Congregation says that idea is probable rather than certain? Wouldn’t that be a denial of an infallible teaching?

1. There is no need to humor me when the Sacred Congregation allows for delayed ensoulment and says instant ensoulment is probable.
2. I have no interest in expanding the issue when we have no common basis for expansion. Perhaps you can engage some of the ideas I have listed above, and we can move closer to a common base from which we can expand.

9.Does the Church teach a soul can exists prior to conception? If so, how long before? Seconds? Minutes? Years? Eternity?

 

[limerick]

Why have we let the “pro-choice” stance be hijacked by lecherous fiends who exploit women for cold, hard cash? God is pro-choice. Everybody has choice, that’s what defines our humanity. God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son to redeem the deadly aspect of Adam’s choice. God didn’t remove choice as inconvenient.

Murder is wrong because it destroys choice. New Agers, who actually promote genocide as “cleansing” the Earth, simply define their deadly proposal as “forcible evolution to a higher plane.” Well, why not kill inconvenient people? They will go to Heaven, right Christians? Killing destroys choice and that is precisely why it is wrong. We can’t say as Luther did during the peasant revolt, kill them all and let God sort them out. It’s either a Just War or it isn’t, and croaking babies in utero is manifestly unjust. Try this bumper sticker on: NO LIFE, NO CHOICE!

Back 'em into a corner. These phonies aren’t pro-choice. There’s no school choice, and the dumbing-down of America encourages bestial mobocracy, not informed choice. The restrictions on choice are tightening with the fascist overthrow of America, allying business with government to take over land development, insurance, health care, indoctrination of children, and dictating outcomes like state-sponsored abortion that kill choice. This is slow, seductive genocide.

There’s no choice without informed consent. Because I’m pro-choice, I’m for sonogram monitors for expectant mothers, recently made to lock faced away from the woman so she won’t have the information to help her chose, to be turned around. They faced monitors away from moms-to-be because too many women were chosing life to be good for business. Nobody is handing women abstracts of studies to show how abortion raises the risk of breast cancer, that would create informed consent, and that would enhance the life choice and cut the profit margin. “The love of money is the root of all evil.”

**Blessed Virgin Mary, pierced with a sword of sorrow that the “thoughts of all may be revealed,” expose all thoughts, cleansing them in the fire of love which is your Son, Jesus Christ’s Sacred Heart. AMEN **

***“Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers.” ***

~ Boonstra HD et al., Abortion in Women’s Lives, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006.

Limerick

 

[Eddie_Mac]

***“Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments ***have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers.”

~ Boonstra HD et al., Abortion in Women’s Lives, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006.

Limerick

Anyone here expect governments that want to keep killing babies to publish anything different? That is proof of nothing. That is from the same government that now wants to counsel the elderly so they can euthanize them.

Please stop.

Eddie Mac

 

[limerick]

Anyone here expect governments that want to keep killing babies to publish anything different? That is proof of nothing. That is from the same government that now wants to counsel the elderly so they can euthanize them.

Please stop.

Eddie Mac

The government never came to my door in West Virginia and handed down some edict proclaiming that I must have an abortion on June 1, 1971. It was my decision, Eddie. So now, sir, you can stop. YOU STOP!

What are your sources? Abortion.org? LifeIsFabDon’tThrowItAway.org? Some surly doctor who cannot allow himself to perform abortions and secretly harbors a giant resentment about lost revenue and the death of his dream to buy a summer home in the Hamptons?

L

 

[Eddie_Mac]

The government never came to my door in West Virginia and handed down some edict proclaiming that I must have an abortion on June 1, 1971. It was my decision, Eddie. So now, sir, you can stop. YOU STOP!

Nope. Won’t do it. Won’t stop. Not until the babies stop dying. Our future as a civilization, as a society depends on it. We are spiraling downward into the dark pit, killing our children by the millions. Human sacrifice. Sacrificing our babies to the idol of humanism, the worship of self.

Eddie Mac

 

[limerick]

**It’s perfectly acceptable to spread untruths and half-truths with no documentation or corroboration, just so long as you get your opinion in.

The important thing is: pontificate!

Limerick**

 

[Eddie_Mac]

**It’s perfectly acceptable to spread untruths and half-truths with no documentation or corroboration, just so long as you get your opinion in.

The important thing is: pontificate!

Limerick**

It is not perfectly acceptable to spread untruths and half-truths if your intent is to continue to support murdering babies.

Lies are the pro-abortionist favorite tool. Just ask planned parenthood.

The gospel according to L holds that any truth is pontificating.

Eddie Mac

 

[SteveGC]

WW, can you comment of this part of the Sacred Congregation document:

…“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”

My point about this statement is that it provides clarification that the B/S union the CCC 365 describes for human life is satisfied by a fertilized ovum, EVEN IF its soul is belated. A fertilized ovum awaiting ensoulment is not a different kind of human life than a fertilized ovum with a soul intact, and I don’t find the Church trying to suggest that difference anywhere.
You say this:

CC 365 speaks of the body and soul union (B/S) forming a single nature. If there is no soul, this union (B/S) cannot exist, and the nature the CC speaks of cannot exist.

But the ensoulment note from the document does not say the union and the nature of B/S does not exist, it just says it’s possible that the body is awaiting its soul…you are the one defining “union” as a soul already joined to the body, and not “on the way” to the body. The Congregation note affirms the soul is, at the very least, on the way, and further clarifies that in that case, the body is still human life…just as much as it will be when the soul arrives. So it seems to me that the unity of B/S is satisfied because it is inevitable that the already existing body will receive the soul.

I’ll look into more official teaching on this for you. There indeed may be something I’m missing from Church teaching since 1974 about delayed ensoulment which affirms that since the fertilized egg at conception is animated, it has a soul then and there, and there is no other soul it can have than a human one.