Body transplants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thinkandmull said:
Wow, I can’t believe John Paul II approved that. If science can’t say when someone is fully human, then surely philosophy can’t add anything. So what’s the big deal about abortion in the first few months then?
Click to expand...
Precisely because we can’t be sure, we better stay on the safe side? Just a guess.

If God knew us even before we were born, there is reason in thinking we have a soul while in the womb.
 
This idea of a soul in the sense that we cannot know when it is infused was troubling me. How do we know it is not infused once the baby is out of the birth canal? However, seeing things just from biology, one could start a cult in which some is not a person before the age of reason, and towards that belief the idea of a soul in infants and children would be a safeguard.

Anyway, when Pius IX made the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, did “Conception” mean the moment, whenever it was, that she become human? Was it speaking of conception before the egg attached to the uterus, or was it less than a scientific statement?
 
NovusFidem said:
Precisely because we can’t be sure, we better stay on the safe side? Just a guess.

If God knew us even before we were born, there is reason in thinking we have a soul while in the womb.
Click to expand...
There is more evidence as well in the gospels.
How can John leap for joy in the womb at the presence of our Lord unless he has a soul.
 
vz71 said:
There is more evidence as well in the gospels.
How can John leap for joy in the womb at the presence of our Lord unless he has a soul.
Click to expand...
Pro-abortion Protestants say that he was infused at that moment, probably early as well
 
Rau said:
See note 19 of this document:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

That document is referenced by the one you quote. Note it confirms that the Church does not teach the moment of ensoulment (which is the philosophical question) and that that has no bearing on the teaching regarding abortion.
Click to expand...
I am not convinced that John Paul II read the Notes in that document. Outside the notes, all I see it saying is “The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature”. That is rather vague
 
thinkandmull said:
I am not convinced that John Paul II read the Notes in that document. Outside the notes, all I see it saying is “The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature”. That is rather vague
Click to expand...
OMG…🤷
 
Something that the Pope approves is binding only in a limited sense. If its in the footnotes, its possible its not binding at all
 
thinkandmull said:
Something that the Pope approves is binding only in a limited sense. If its in the footnotes, its possible its not binding at all
Click to expand...
🤷

The point is that the Church does not teach anything specific about the moment of ensoilment. It is silent on that point.
 
Rau said:
In declaring abortion intrinsically evil. Endouled or awaiting ensoulment makes no difference. I believed that was written in one of the two documents we discussed.
Click to expand...
If you could find that, that would be helpful. I remember only one document in discussion
 
If something medically is wrong with a body part, there is no reason why it would be morally wrong to get it replaced.

The only Moral Problem I can think of with transplants is if the organ being planted (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun) was obtained illegally via the black market.
 
BornInMarch said:
If something medically is wrong with a body part, there is no reason why it would be morally wrong to get it replaced.

The only Moral Problem I can think of with transplants is if the organ being planted (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun) was obtained illegally via the black market.
Click to expand...
I disagree. An organ is a personal organic thing. It is given to each person by God. To take someone else’s is to play with God’s biological plan
 
thinkandmull said:
I disagree. An organ is a personal organic thing. It is given to each person by God. To take someone else’s is to play with God’s biological plan
Click to expand...
In much the same way as taking medicine?
Perhaps we should reject blood transfusions as well.
 
thinkandmull said:
I disagree. An organ is a personal organic thing. It is given to each person by God. To take someone else’s is to play with God’s biological plan
Click to expand...
What can you tell us about that plan? Do anti-biotics, which kill bacteria, offend the plan? Did God not intend bacteria to flourish here and there? Why else do they exist and find our “personal organic” stuff such a natural home?

Laying down one’s life for another is a great act of love (though not one we are obligated to do). Under your thinking, how much more must this offend God’s biological plan than a man gifting an organ to another after his own death (or even before)?

Note we speak of gifts, not “taking”.
 
Giving your life for someone is not the same as putting an organ in his body. You might as well argue that a husband eject somewhere where the wife wants it. Isn’t marriage about submitting to the others wishes?

An organ is different from blood. Society got use to the idea of organ transplants however by the stepping stone of blood transfusions. Without that stepping stone, I think many people would have seen it as immoral immediately.

An organ is a self regulating thing. Its is more than the sum of its parts. Its ironic to see Catholics comparing medicine to organs when they believe taking medicine simply to make someone infertile for a night is wrong.
 
thinkandmull said:
Giving your life for someone is not the same as putting an organ in his body. You might as well argue that a husband eject somewhere where the wife wants it. Isn’t marriage about submitting to the others wishes?

An organ is different from blood. Society got use to the idea of organ transplants however by the stepping stone of blood transfusions. Without that stepping stone, I think many people would have seen it as immoral immediately.

An organ is a self regulating thing. Its is more than the sum of its parts. Its ironic to see Catholics comparing medicine to organs when they believe taking medicine simply to make someone infertile for a night is wrong.
Click to expand...
Dispatching all one’s organs to dust in an act of total self-sacrifice is arguably more grievous than donating one organ for the life of another.

I am not familiar with your theology of “blood and organs” that draws a deep theological difference. Are you unaware of the self-regulating nature of blood?

Your remarks in this post are both scientifically and theologically without merit.

BTW - many people/theologians did see organ transplants as immoral initially. But they misapplied an existing theological principle erroneously. They failed to understand the nature of the act. Its moral object. Much as you do in your irrelevant reference to contraception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top