Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I don’t know what life is. So, I sure don’t know how to be sure when it isn’t present. The body appears to carry the same life the egg had prior to conception.

Hmmm… the ability to decide is ‘above your pay grade…’ Now where have I heard that before?

 

[WillieWonka]

Hmmm… the ability to decide is ‘above your pay grade…’ Now where have I heard that before?

It’s not a question of deciding. It’s a question of knowledge.

Often in making a decision one has to choose among alternatives without having all the necessary knowledge. Making a decision doesn’t impart any knowledge.

Nor does pretending to have the knowledge.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Must be heartening to Satan when so many people on a Catholic web site can’t agree on when life begins.

 

[WillieWonka]

Must be heartening to Satan when so many people on a Catholic web site can’t agree on when life begins.

The Sacred Congregation acknowledges it doesn’t know when ensoulment takes place. Is that the Church teaching you think Satan finds heartening?

 

[SteveGC]

The Sacred Congregation acknowledges it doesn’t know when ensoulment takes place. Is that the Church teaching you think Satan finds heartening?

Willie, as I’ve pointed out before, the Church does not equate the precise moment of ensoulment with it’s declaration of when human life begins.

And so, human life - fully sacred and deserving of utmost protection - begins at conception, regardless of the absence of full consensus on the precise moment of ensoulment.

And no, CCC 365 does not contradict this.

 

[WillieWonka]

Willie, as I’ve pointed out before, the Church does not equate the precise moment of ensoulment with it’s declaration of when human life begins.

And so, human life - fully sacred and deserving of utmost protection - begins at conception, regardless of the absence of full consensus on the precise moment of ensoulment.

And no, CCC 365 does not contradict this.

You want to start all over again? I’m game.

 

[SteveGC]

You want to start all over again? I’m game.

LOL

No, not really my friend. We’ve certainly gone as far as we can go, I think.

The impasse, I suppose, is our disagreement on whether the Church contradicts Herself or not with the ambiguity of precise ensoulment timing, the teaching that a human is body and soul combined, and the official teaching that human life begins at conception.

You say “yes”

I say “no”

Does it really matter if we disagree? Perhaps. But your position, that the supposed contradiction allows Christians to decide for themselves when life begins, is ultimately erroneous…because true Catholics (who understand the finality of magisterial teaching) know without a doubt that human life begins at conception, and they are not at liberty to decide for themselves that it may begin later. This is because the Church has officially spoken on the matter…it is a matter of faith and morals…and it is final.

 

[WillieWonka]

LOL

No, not really my friend. We’ve certainly gone as far as we can go, I think.

The impasse, I suppose, is our disagreement on whether the Church contradicts Herself or not with the ambiguity of precise ensoulment timing, the teaching that a human is body and soul combined, and the official teaching that human life begins at conception.

You say “yes”

I say “no”

Does it really matter if we disagree? Perhaps. But your position, that the supposed contradiction allows Christians to decide for themselves when life begins, is ultimately erroneous…because true Catholics (who understand the finality of magisterial teaching) know without a doubt that human life begins at conception, and they are not at liberty to decide for themselves that it may begin later. This is because the Church has officially spoken on the matter…it is a matter of faith and morals…and it is final.

We don’t disagree. We both recognize the teaching for what it says. At this point, we simply use the word “human” differently. I think it should be banned because it lacks the precision necessary for the issue. Too many people base conclusions on the ambiguous use of the word.

I don’t see where the Church contradicts itself. I see it all as a very well constructed position that is not at all contradictory. These guys aren’t stupid. They would never contradict themselves.

I do see Catholics making incorrect claims about Church teaching, but that is not the same as the Church contradicting itself.

My position has always been the same: 1) The Church does not know when ensoulment takes place, and 2) the Church defines a unique body/soul unit where the Aristotelian form is the soul.

Many have tried to impute further positions to me that could be based on my stated position, but you will note I never took those positions myself.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The Sacred Congregation acknowledges it doesn’t know when ensoulment takes place. Is that the Church teaching you think Satan finds heartening?

Funny how those who can’t decide when life begins are usually all too eager to tell others when to end it.

 

[WillieWonka]

Funny how those who can’t decide when life begins are usually all too eager to tell others when to end it.

I’m not aware the Sacred Congregation does that. Can you elaborate?

 

[SteveGC]

We don’t disagree. We both recognize the teaching for what it says. At this point, we simply use the word “human” differently. I think it should be banned because it lacks the precision necessary for the issue. Too many people base conclusions on the ambiguous use of the word.

I don’t see where the Church contradicts itself. I see it all as a very well constructed position that is not at all contradictory. These guys aren’t stupid. They would never contradict themselves.

I do see Catholics making incorrect claims about Church teaching, but that is not the same as the Church contradicting itself.

My position has always been the same: 1) The Church does not know when ensoulment takes place, and 2) the Church defines a unique body/soul unit where the Aristotelian form is the soul.

Many have tried to impute further positions to me that could be based on my stated position, but you will note I never took those positions myself.

the problem is, Willie, that no one here really knows what your position actually IS.

You emphasize the ambiguity of ensoulment timing, but you stop there. So all we know that we should infer from you is that the Church doesn’t teach precisely when ensoulment takes place…and that the Church does not contradict Herself.

If your goal is just to state observations, but draw no conclusions (or state your beliefs based on those observations), then how can we really get any meat out of this dialogue?

In the meantime, I have attempted (apparently erroneously) to presume your conclusions based on past things you have revealed to us. As I recall, one of those things was that you felt that it should be understandable to Catholics that society makes their own decisions about when life begins, since Catholics themselves aren’t taught precisely when it begins. I’ve refuted that, and you agreed with me on it. Then your argument is that some Catholics emphatically tell you that ensoulment takes places instantaneously, and you show them (correctly) that the Church makes no such precise claim. But again, the fact that some Catholics are unaware of this ensoulment ambiguity, but fully aware of the official teaching of life beginning at conception, does not bring you to declare any conclusion you make…nor to even offer us a glimpse into what your argument really is.

I may be off-base…I do enjoy dialogue with you, but clarity of your position…not just your “observations” is what I’m striving to bring out of you.

 

[YeyeTom]

Am I going to be kicked out when I say I’m pro-choice?
First of all: why do we - the christians - have the power to decide over people who have a different religion or belief?

Protection (condoms, pills etc) is by far the best way to prohibit unwanted babies. But I have to draw the line somewhere. I don’t want to grow up in a world where moms and dads do not appreciate the miracle of children.

God bless.

 

[SteveGC]

Am I going to be kicked out when I say I’m pro-choice?

kicked out of where? the forums? no.

YeyeTom:

First of all: why do we - the christians - have the power to decide over people who have a different religion or belief?

we don’t have the power to “decide” for anyone. We have the power, and in fact, the responsibility, to stand up for justice for the innocent. That is what “pro-life” means. We make a voice to make up for their lack of one.

YeyeTom:

Protection (condoms, pills etc) is by far the best way to prohibit unwanted babies.

Perhaps by far the best way for YOU…but God designed a natural method into our bodies wherein life is to be created…and wherein life may not be created. Artificial blocking of the divine life-creating process is not of God, as it mocks the design. In effect, we are saying, “I am not open to life, God…I choose to block your divine design of the human body in it’s potential to create life as You see fit.” Working with the human body in it’s naturally created state allows us to cooperate with the will of God while maintaining our gift and use of our free will. Condoms and pills take the will of God out of the equation, and this is why it is one of the worst ways (along with abortion) to “prohibit unwanted babies” (don’t really like that phraseology).

YeyeTom:

I don’t want to grow up in a world where moms and dads do not appreciate the miracle of children.

Amen.

YeyeTom:

God bless.

And God Bless you.

 

[WillieWonka]

the problem is, Willie, that no one here really knows what your position actually IS.

You emphasize the ambiguity of ensoulment timing, but you stop there. So all we know that we should infer from you is that the Church doesn’t teach precisely when ensoulment takes place…and that the Church does not contradict Herself.

If your goal is just to state observations, but draw no conclusions (or state your beliefs based on those observations), then how can we really get any meat out of this dialogue?

In the meantime, I have attempted (apparently erroneously) to presume your conclusions based on past things you have revealed to us. As I recall, one of those things was that you felt that it should be understandable to Catholics that society makes their own decisions about when life begins, since Catholics themselves aren’t taught precisely when it begins. I’ve refuted that, and you agreed with me on it. Then your argument is that some Catholics emphatically tell you that ensoulment takes places instantaneously, and you show them (correctly) that the Church makes no such precise claim. But again, the fact that some Catholics are unaware of this ensoulment ambiguity, but fully aware of the official teaching of life beginning at conception, does not bring you to declare any conclusion you make…nor to even offer us a glimpse into what your argument really is.

I may be off-base…I do enjoy dialogue with you, but clarity of your position…not just your “observations” is what I’m striving to bring out of you.

Sorry. I don’t see a problem. We have discussed a limited issue and I have confined my comments to that issue.

You don’t have to infer anything. My position is very clear. 1) The Church doesn’t teach when ensoulment happens, 2) The Church teaches a unique body/soul union exists in which the soul is the Aristotelian form of the body.

We made great progress in this dialog. When we started, it appeared nobody was aware of the real Church teaching on ensoulment, and many incorrectly stated the Church taught it happened at conception. I think we have demonstarted the Church has a very consistent tecahing on the body/soul union, ensoulment, and how that effects the Church’s teaching on abortion. We have seen the abortion prohibition is based on more than the presence of an immortal soul. Given the Church developed this position over hundreds of years, our short detour has been amazingly productive.

The only conclusion I have stated from the above is that it is reasonable to hold that a fetus lacks a soul at any given moment of gestation, and this notion is not deserving of condemnation for being contrary to Church teaching.

 

[elts1956]

It’s not a question of deciding. It’s a question of knowledge.

Often in making a decision one has to choose among alternatives without having all the necessary knowledge. Making a decision doesn’t impart any knowledge.

Nor does pretending to have the knowledge.

Primacy of Conscience permits seeking, but it doesn’t always lead to TRUTH.

 

[WillieWonka]

Am I going to be kicked out when I say I’m pro-choice?
First of all: why do we - the christians - have the power to decide over people who have a different religion or belief?

Protection (condoms, pills etc) is by far the best way to prohibit unwanted babies. But I have to draw the line somewhere. I don’t want to grow up in a world where moms and dads do not appreciate the miracle of children.

God bless.

Christians don’t have the power to decide for others. If they did, abortion would be illegal. They are striving to amass that power. That is how democracy works.

 

[WillieWonka]

Primacy of Conscience permits seeking, but it doesn’t always lead to TRUTH.

I don’t know what that means.

 

[royal_archer]

Am I going to be kicked out when I say I’m pro-choice?
First of all: why do we - the christians - have the power to decide over people who have a different religion or belief?

Protection (condoms, pills etc) is by far the best way to prohibit unwanted babies. But I have to draw the line somewhere. I don’t want to grow up in a world where moms and dads do not appreciate the miracle of children.

God bless.

Were all pro choice here Its just a question of whether an orderly society can allow members to make choices that harm others with out reprocussions.

You have a strong case that artificial birth control is a moral issue. but conversely the advocacy of those is also a moral (actually immoral) issue. Abstinance prior to marriage is the only form of birth control that is accepted as moral by nearly every major religion. As such it should be lesson one in public schools that wish to breach the topic.

As for children being a miracle, they are and we should protect them.

 

[elts1956]

Am I going to be kicked out when I say I’m pro-choice?
First of all: why do we - the christians - have the power to decide over people who have a different religion or belief?

Protection (condoms, pills etc) is by far the best way to prohibit unwanted babies. But I have to draw the line somewhere. I don’t want to grow up in a world where moms and dads do not appreciate the miracle of children.

God bless.

We as Christians don’t have the power to decide what other people believe and don’t believe. But we have the responsibility from God to make sure we believe what His Church has taught. If we don’t search for all the answers, even after we think we have them, then we are in serious trouble, such as being guilty of the sin of Pride. In all humility we must approach our teachings of the Church with an open mind and the intention of overcoming our doubts through prayer and following the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[elts1956]

Am I going to be kicked out when I say I’m pro-choice?
First of all: why do we - the christians - have the power to decide over people who have a different religion or belief?

Protection (condoms, pills etc) is by far the best way to prohibit unwanted babies. But I have to draw the line somewhere. I don’t want to grow up in a world where moms and dads do not appreciate the miracle of children.

God bless.

I don’t know what that means.

That is very apparent.