- Status
R
R_C
Guest
A zygote is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. It’s a zygote for a very, very short time (4 days, I recall). And anyways it is already alive, because on its own it will initiate the development that, if all goes well, will lead to the birth of a baby.
What I can’t understand is the denial that the tiny living thing that is slowly becoming a human being is something special, something alive, something worth more respect than a tumor.
M
ManRay
Guest
Keep twisting the context creating an imaginary argument based off of something that I never implied - but here. I can accept the Websters dictionary to define what I’m saying.
nat·u·ral
a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
6 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
** a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural**
:** formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation **
existing in or produced by nature : not artificial
Please feel free to invent some things and attribute them to me so that you can have an argument with yourself.
nat·u·ral
a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
6 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
** a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural**
:** formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation **
existing in or produced by nature : not artificial
Please feel free to invent some things and attribute them to me so that you can have an argument with yourself.
M
ManRay
Guest
I made an attempt to switch from zygote to _fill in the blank, - but of course no one will acknowledge that because it would mess up their argument. If I missed a few spots here and there - my apologies. Call it what you want - a cell, zygote, blastocyst, it still doesn’t possess person hood. We’ll just have to disagree. Aquinas is continually mined arguing the existence for god, and he didn’t believe a soul entered the fill in the blank at conception. Good for him. I’ll use him and all his greatness to back me up…
Of course though this will be explained a way somehow by someone - I’m sure very eloquently. When you believe in the supernatural you can twist anything at any given moment to support your claims. It’s awesome. He even stated that terminating a pregnancy before ensoulment while a sin - was something less than homicide - Look at the big brain on Aquinas!!!
From a catholic website -
catholicsforchoice.org/pubs/cfc_archive/articles/TheHistoryofAbortion.asp
Most people believe that the Roman Catholic Church’s position on abortion has remained unchanged for two thousand years. Not true. Church teaching on abortion has varied continually over the course of its history.
There has been no unanimous opinion on abortion at any time. While there has been constant general agreement that abortion is almost always evil and sinful, the church has had difficulty in defining the nature of that evil. Members of the Catholic hierarchy have opposed abortion consistently as evidence of sexual sin, but they have not always seen early abortion as homicide. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the “right-to-life” argument is a relatively recent development in church teaching. The debate continues today.
St. Augustine (354-430) condemned abortion because it breaks the connection between sex and procreation.[1] However, in the Enchiridion, he says, “But who is not rather disposed to think that unformed fetuses perish like seeds which have not fructified”–clearly seeing hominization as beginning or occurring at some point after the fetus has begun to grow. He held that abortion was not an act of homicide. Most theologians of his era agreed with him.
circa 8th Century: Recognizing Women’s Circumstances
In the Penitential Ascribed by Albers to Bede, the idea of delayed hominization is again supported, and women’s circumstances acknowledged: "A mother who kills her child before the fortieth day shall do penance for one year. If it is after the child has become alive, [she shall do penance] as a murderess.
1140: Abortion of an Unformed Fetus Is Not Homicide
In 1140, Gratian compiled the first collection of canon law that was accepted as authoritative within the church. Gratian’s code included the canon Aliquando, which concluded that “abortion was homicide only when the fetus was formed.”[4] If the fetus was not yet a formed human being, abortion was not homicide.
1312: “Delayed Hominization” Confirmed
The Council of Vienne, still very influential in Catholic hierarchical teaching, confirmed the conception of man put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas. While Aquinas had opposed abortion – as a form of contraception and a sin against marriage – he had maintained that the sin in abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was ensouled, and thus, a human being.
1588: Abortion’s Penalty Becomes Excommunication
Concerned about prostitution in Rome, Pope Sixtus V issued the bull Effraenatam (Without Restraint) and applied to both contraception and abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, the penalty designated for homicide: excommunication. There was no exception for therapeutic abortion.[6]
1591: Rules Quickly Relaxed
Only three years after Pope Sixtus V issued Effraenatam, he died. His successor, Gregory XIV, felt Sixtus’s stand was too harsh and was in conflict with penitential practices and theological views on ensoulment. He issued Sedes Apostolica, which advised church officials, “where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does.”[7] This papal pronouncement lasted until 1869.
Of course though this will be explained a way somehow by someone - I’m sure very eloquently. When you believe in the supernatural you can twist anything at any given moment to support your claims. It’s awesome. He even stated that terminating a pregnancy before ensoulment while a sin - was something less than homicide - Look at the big brain on Aquinas!!!From a catholic website -
catholicsforchoice.org/pubs/cfc_archive/articles/TheHistoryofAbortion.asp
Most people believe that the Roman Catholic Church’s position on abortion has remained unchanged for two thousand years. Not true. Church teaching on abortion has varied continually over the course of its history.
There has been no unanimous opinion on abortion at any time. While there has been constant general agreement that abortion is almost always evil and sinful, the church has had difficulty in defining the nature of that evil. Members of the Catholic hierarchy have opposed abortion consistently as evidence of sexual sin, but they have not always seen early abortion as homicide. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the “right-to-life” argument is a relatively recent development in church teaching. The debate continues today.
St. Augustine (354-430) condemned abortion because it breaks the connection between sex and procreation.[1] However, in the Enchiridion, he says, “But who is not rather disposed to think that unformed fetuses perish like seeds which have not fructified”–clearly seeing hominization as beginning or occurring at some point after the fetus has begun to grow. He held that abortion was not an act of homicide. Most theologians of his era agreed with him.
circa 8th Century: Recognizing Women’s Circumstances
In the Penitential Ascribed by Albers to Bede, the idea of delayed hominization is again supported, and women’s circumstances acknowledged: "A mother who kills her child before the fortieth day shall do penance for one year. If it is after the child has become alive, [she shall do penance] as a murderess.
1140: Abortion of an Unformed Fetus Is Not Homicide
In 1140, Gratian compiled the first collection of canon law that was accepted as authoritative within the church. Gratian’s code included the canon Aliquando, which concluded that “abortion was homicide only when the fetus was formed.”[4] If the fetus was not yet a formed human being, abortion was not homicide.
1312: “Delayed Hominization” Confirmed
The Council of Vienne, still very influential in Catholic hierarchical teaching, confirmed the conception of man put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas. While Aquinas had opposed abortion – as a form of contraception and a sin against marriage – he had maintained that the sin in abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was ensouled, and thus, a human being.
1588: Abortion’s Penalty Becomes Excommunication
Concerned about prostitution in Rome, Pope Sixtus V issued the bull Effraenatam (Without Restraint) and applied to both contraception and abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, the penalty designated for homicide: excommunication. There was no exception for therapeutic abortion.[6]
1591: Rules Quickly Relaxed
Only three years after Pope Sixtus V issued Effraenatam, he died. His successor, Gregory XIV, felt Sixtus’s stand was too harsh and was in conflict with penitential practices and theological views on ensoulment. He issued Sedes Apostolica, which advised church officials, “where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does.”[7] This papal pronouncement lasted until 1869.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
In the USA the definition of “murder” in a legal context varies from one state to another. Whether or not some one is charged with a murder can be influenced by where the person happen to be standing and whether or not the taking of the life was intentional, a consequence of another offense, or an accident of a person acting within “reasonable” constraints. In the USA a little over half of the 50 states have laws that recognize unborn children as potential homicide victims[1]. For some states a certain stage of development must be reached before these laws apply (so a zygote might not be covered in some cases). If this person were not in one of those states then that would be a significant factor in getting the answer to your question.
[1] - State Homicide Laws that Recognize Unborn Victims
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Are you serious? Aquinas did not believe that ensoulment occured after conception-he believed that conception didn’t occur until later in the developmental process. A scientific error since corrected.I made an attempt to switch from zygote to _fill in the blank, - but of course no one will acknowledge that because it would mess up their argument. If I missed a few spots here and there - my apologies. Call it what you want - a cell, zygote, blastocyst, it still doesn’t possess person hood. We’ll just have to disagree. Aquinas is continually mined arguing the existence for god, and he didn’t believe a soul entered the fill in the blank at conception. Good for him. I’ll use him and all his greatness to back me up…
And you say you don’t twist arguments.
EDIT: In fact, every single quote you’ve posted makes the same scientific error. None of them ever claim that ensoulment occurs after conception.
J
JDaniel
Guest
MR:
I dont’t support arguments without authoritative backing. I can’t go out there and encounter everything, so, I need authority on those things I can’t encounter, as well as on those things that are nothing more than your personal whim.
I do, every time I look at a baby!
What if the moon came so close to the Earth that all of the Earth’s water was sucked into space? I’m not sure whose hypothetical is the more ridiculous. Remember, the Catholic Church has an Ethics body that wrestles with such questions almost continuously, as such questions come up.
I’m going to try this argument out on my attorney friends.
It’s not ridiculous. Your position is the ridiculous position: you want to legislate from a position of rarity. If a country intersection, with a two-way stop, has never had an incidence of an accident, but has had a rare ticket given out, you want to put up a four-way red light! That is ridiculous.
This is not an industrial process. It IS a natural process that works 99.999% of the time.
Not if my understanding of an oak tree is limited to “tree-ness” only. If that were the case, precisely where and when does tree-ness start? When it is at the acorn stage, or at the one foot tall stage, or the four foot tall stage, or the nine foot tall stage, or the twenty foot tall stage? If you said any one of them, that would be nothing more than your personal exquisite whim.
How absurd.
Your arguments are becoming more and more absurd.
I don’t have problems with authority.
God bless,
jd
F
Farsight001
Guest
What a wonderfully cogent and well thought out response.
M
ManRay
Guest
Reeeeaaaaaddddiiiiiinnnggggg iiiiisssssss ffffuuuuuunnnnnddddeeeeemmmmeeenttttalllllllAre you serious? Aquinas did not believe that ensoulment occured after conception-he believed that conception didn’t occur until later in the developmental process. A scientific error since corrected.
And you say you don’t twist arguments.
EDIT: In fact, every single quote you’ve posted makes the same scientific error. None of them ever claim that ensoulment occurs after conception.
The Council of Vienne, still very influential in Catholic hierarchical teaching, confirmed the conception of man put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas. While Aquinas had opposed abortion – as a form of contraception and a sin against marriage – he had maintained that the sin in abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was ensouled, and thus, a human being.
F
Farsight001
Guest
None of that quote suggests that Aquinas thought the fetus was not ensouled. As you said, reading is fundamental.
R
R_C
Guest
Sorry, I think you meant from an excommunicated-catholic website.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Read what you just said. Contraception is PREVENTING CONCEPTION. Aquinas opposed abortion because it PREVENTED conception. However, he had the SCIENTIFIC error that at a later point the child was conceived-and then it turned into murder. A scientific error since corrected.
R
R_C
Guest
I guess I can do the same:
un-nat-u-ral
1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with** a normal course of events**
2
a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse
b : lacking ease and naturalness : contrived
c :** inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected **
M
ManRay
Guest
When you’re right. You’re excommunicated. Makes sense. Hasn’t the church kind of always been like this? No offense, but people constantly state - yea the gates of hell have never prevailed against the church, and when something has been done wrong they’ve corrected it - but it doesn’t seem to be true.
n 1982, CFC sponsored a briefing of Catholic members of Congress, highlighting the majority of American Catholic opinion that dissented with the Catholic Church on the topic of abortion.[11] Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro wrote an introduction to the briefing, and endorsements were also received from Congressmen Tom Daschle and Leon Panetta. Ferraro wrote that responses varied to the problem of abortion, and that “the Catholic position on abortion is not monolithic…”[11]
During the 1984 presidential campaign, Ferraro was chosen as the vice-presidential running mate of Walter Mondale. Cardinal John Joseph O’Connor, Archbishop of New York, sharply criticized Ferraro’s pro-choice position, and in October 1984 Kissling responded to O’Connor by placing an advertisement** signed by 97 prominent Catholics, including leading theologians, lay persons, priests and nuns, in The New York Times**.[1][11] The advertisement, entitled “A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion”, stated that “direct abortion …can sometimes be a moral choice” and that “responsible moral decisions can only be made in an atmosphere of freedom from fear of coercion.”[21]
The ad directly challenged Church authority. The Catholic Church took disciplinary measures against some of the nuns who signed the statement, sparking controversy among American Catholics, and intra-Catholic conflict on the abortion issue remained news for at least two years.[21] In the end, CFC was seen to gain credibility and status by the advertisement, while the Church hierarchy was unable to advance their political goals on the topic of abortion.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Okay, let’s get something straight. Catholic Thomistic philosopher Dr. Edward Feser on what Thomists (and by extension Catholics) mean when they use the term “natural”.
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/whose-nature-which-law.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/whose-nature-which-law.html
So murder is most definitely unnatural.
M
ManRay
Guest
Then show me an earth where murder has never existed. I REASONABLY EXPECT PEOPLE TO KILL EACHOTHER. It will happen - over and over again.
Murder is the supreme manifestation of bad feeling -greed, envy, anger, hate, etc…etc…
So Murder is not in accordance with these normal human feelings? Nahhh - you’re wrong.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
This is silly. This is obviously not official teaching.
R
R_C
Guest
Speak for yourself. Not all human beings are that. Those are the lack of something - namely the lack of goodness and charity.
Catechism 101 (or Elementary Mathematics, whichever you prefer): negative things are nothing of themselves, rather, they are the absence of something. Which is why we put a - sign, but then on computers, when we “get real” and need to represent negative (or absence) we cannot, since we have either “nothing” (or emptiness) or “something” (or fullness)…so we have to employ all sorts of clever techniques such as 2s complements, etc.
If, as I grow, I lose my charity towards my neighbor, I stop loving others, and I start forgetting what life truly means, then I start acting in ways that are selfish, envious, hateful. If, once I learn what richness is, I make of money the end rather than a means, then I may become greedy.
But nobody is born intrinsically greedy, selfish, or hateful.
By the way, I also expect to keep seeing unnatural things in the world, both from the positive standpoint and from the negative standpoint.
No. When you stubbornly refuse to understand and reject the teachings and continue to persevere in your error despite the fact that you have been told by someone who cannot be wrong (due to centuries of going over the same stuff to dissect all that is right and wrong), then you are excommunicated. And by the way, that does not apply to all things: only to a handful of very specific topics.
It’s like this: a child thinks he’s right, but mom or dad tell him he’s wrong. Since it is most natural that a child lacks wisdom, he will stubbornly insists that he’s right. So their parents first admonish him, and if he insists, they discipline him, for his own good, that he may be more humble and then finally be able to realize that he was, after all, wrong.
M
ManRay
Guest
I see no evidence that anyone is infallible. You’ll argue all day about what is natural and unnatural, but if I bring up the problem of evil then all of a sudden it BECOMES NECESSARY…the lack of consistency, the lack of logic, the shear contradictory stances that rear their ugly head over, and over is scary. Love is natural, evil is unnatural - so you’re arguing that there is this mason dixon line of human reality where one enters into some space time vaccuum of fantasy and fairy dust -BUT all of the emotions and acts come from the same place- the human mind. Awesome.
- Status