Help with answering a contention against the Church's position on human life

[devonir]

One of my liberal professors made a worrisome accusation against the Catholic Church’s position on life in the womb and pregnancy. He contended that since the Church teaches that life begins at conception, before the being attaches itself to the wall of the uterus, those beings that do not attach themselves to the wall of the uterus are often literally flushed down the toilet. He was arguing against the idea of a soul being an actual thing, by alluding to how frequently souls are “flushed down the toilet.” How should I go about refuting his contention?
’
Thanks for reading,

 

[LeafByNiggle]

One of my liberal professors made a worrisome accusation against the Catholic Church’s position on life in the womb and pregnancy. He contended that since the Church teaches that life begins at conception, before the being attaches itself to the wall of the uterus, those beings that do not attach themselves to the wall of the uterus are often literally flushed down the toilet. He was arguing against the idea of a soul being an actual thing, by alluding to how frequently souls are “flushed down the toilet.” How should I go about refuting his contention?
’
Thanks for reading,

The Church does not have a position on exactly when a human life is infused with a soul. “life begins at conception” does not mean “a soul exists at conception”. Besides, even if a soul and body are “flushed down the toilet”, as long as it was done in ignorance and there was no reasonable way to save that fetus, the fact that it was “flushed down the toilet” does not in itself diminish the dignity of either the soul or the body. Who is to say that God does not make provisions for these?

 

[devonir]

Thanks for the answer, but the problem I would then have with this is that the other Catholic students in the class seem to agree that the Church’s position on when life begins is directly connected to the idea of a soul’s infusion into the body, I.e. once the soul is there the human being must be protected. They seemed pretty sure that the soul was infused from the moment of conception. Are they simply wrong, and are there any resources that I can turn to which would support the position that there is no official teaching regarding the time of the infusion of the soul? Would Humanae Vitae contain the answers that I seek? I haven’t read it in several years.

 

[mark_a]

Thanks for the answer, but the problem I would then have with this is that the other Catholic students in the class seem to agree that the Church’s position on when life begins is directly connected to the idea of a soul’s infusion into the body, I.e. once the soul is there the human being must be protected. They seemed pretty sure that the soul was infused from the moment of conception. Are they simply wrong, and are there any resources that I can turn to which would support the position that there is no official teaching regarding the time of the infusion of the soul? Would Humanae Vitae contain the answers that I seek? I haven’t read it in several years.

What is your professors point about the soul/toilet connection? If pressed, I’d bet he is pro abortion.

Anyways, the Church in her wisdom has always taught that abortion is intrinsically evil, even back when the nitty gritty details of human reproduction where unknown. Pro-lifers always address the question about life from an “abortion is intrinsically evil” position. Pro-aborts always address the question with another question- “yeah, but when does life begin”.

 

[JRKH]

One of my liberal professors made a worrisome accusation against the Catholic Church’s position on life in the womb and pregnancy. He contended that since the Church teaches that life begins at conception, before the being attaches itself to the wall of the uterus, those beings that do not attach themselves to the wall of the uterus are often literally flushed down the toilet. He was arguing against the idea of a soul being an actual thing, by alluding to how frequently souls are “flushed down the toilet.” How should I go about refuting his contention?
’
Thanks for reading,

I’m not sure what you are trying to refute here. The idea that the fertilized egg is a human being and has a soul?

Frankly I don’t have any concern over the matter he proposes. We all die at some point and whether that natural death occurs immediately after conception or 100 years after conception has no bearing on the issue. Neither does the specific disposal of the body - whether that is a single cell or many billions of cells.
The important thing is that the death, by whatever cause, be natural - not murder.

So - his attempt to make some point by trying to “shock” me would fail.

Peace
James

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Thanks for the answer, but the problem I would then have with this is that the other Catholic students in the class seem to agree that the Church’s position on when life begins is directly connected to the idea of a soul’s infusion into the body, I.e. once the soul is there the human being must be protected. They seemed pretty sure that the soul was infused from the moment of conception. Are they simply wrong, and are there any resources that I can turn to which would support the position that there is no official teaching regarding the time of the infusion of the soul? Would Humanae Vitae contain the answers that I seek? I haven’t read it in several years.

I would think the burden would be on those who claim there is such a teaching to provide a reference to that teaching. How can you demonstrate the lack of a teaching? Besides it is not necessary to refute the hypothesis of immediate infusion of the soul. They may be right. That still does not diminish the dignity of the soul or the human life. I don’t see the contradiction that the professor is claiming.

 

[edward_george]

I would ask your professor to back up the supposed biological facts here–I’ve never heard of that which he says happening, at least with any great frequency. The only time I’ve heard anything of the sort is when a woman is on birth control and thus the uterine lining will not allow for implantation; at times this can lead to the fertilized egg being discarded in this way. This is why we say that the pill is abortofacient–it can cause an abortion at that very early stage of fetal development and the mother is none the wiser.

-ACEGC

 

[marymary1975]

If he is referring to a natural miscarriage his comment is actually pretty ignorant as the miscarriage cigote, fetus or embryo is death. Death equals no sould. If the cigote doesn’t implant dies. Is like saying that by burying corpses we are trapping “souls” in a grave. No sense at all.

 

[Della]

Thanks for the answer, but the problem I would then have with this is that the other Catholic students in the class seem to agree that the Church’s position on when life begins is directly connected to the idea of a soul’s infusion into the body, I.e. once the soul is there the human being must be protected. They seemed pretty sure that the soul was infused from the moment of conception. Are they simply wrong, and are there any resources that I can turn to which would support the position that there is no official teaching regarding the time of the infusion of the soul? Would Humanae Vitae contain the answers that I seek? I haven’t read it in several years.

You can’t find a negative, I’m afraid. The Church remains silent on matters which God has not revealed to her. We have to look to science for the answer of when human life begins.

It seems pretty apparent that it begins at conception, even if it never completes its full development into an adult human being. I’d ask the professor if a child who dies at three or 17 is less human because he never became an adult. The answer is that of course he was human until he died.

Simply because some embryos pass from the mother’s body without attaching to the womb doesn’t make them any less human, whether their bodies went through the sewage system or not. What does he think happens to an adult’s body when he dies? Does it stay fresh and viable or does it rot whether it’s buried decently or is tossed on the garbage heap. He’s really just fishing for excuses for deliberate abortion, plain and simple.

 

[JRKH]

What is your professors point about the soul/toilet connection? If pressed, I’d bet he is pro abortion.

Anyways, the Church in her wisdom has always taught that abortion is intrinsically evil, even back when the nitty gritty details of human reproduction where unknown. Pro-lifers always address the question about life from an “abortion is intrinsically evil” position. Pro-aborts always address the question with another question- “yeah, but when does life begin”.

And the answer to this is simple…human life begins when there exists the proper number of chromosomes in the egg…AT this point, that thing which makes an entity distinctly human exists…and will grow and develop continuously from that point forward until the point of corporeal death.

Peace
James

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What is your professors point about the soul/toilet connection?.

Just as a totally hypothetical thought experiment, suppose a marvelous device was invented which screened the contents of the toilet bowl and captured any expelled fetuses. And suppose this device was capable of immediately providing that fetus with a warm and nurturing environment until that fetus could be returned to the womb for implantation and full-term normal development. And suppose this device costs less than $5 and is easily installed on any toilet. And suppose the implantation process was similarly enhanced to be safe, effective, and cheap. Under those conditions, what would be the moral implications of deciding for or against using such a device on your toilet? Wouldn’t the decision not to use this invention be something akin to child neglect? Sort of like forgetting to feed your baby?

 

[R_C]

One of my liberal professors made a worrisome accusation against the Catholic Church’s position on life in the womb and pregnancy. He contended that since the Church teaches that life begins at conception, before the being attaches itself to the wall of the uterus, those beings that do not attach themselves to the wall of the uterus are often literally flushed down the toilet. He was arguing against the idea of a soul being an actual thing, by alluding to how frequently souls are “flushed down the toilet.” How should I go about refuting his contention?
’
Thanks for reading,

He does not understand what the Church means by “conception”. He probably believes that “conception” means the marital embrace, or something around those lines.

I will paraphrase from Catholic Encyclopedia:

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by our parents. Our body is formed in the womb of our mother, and our father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the generative activity of our parents or the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body.

From a purely scientific point of view, I will quote this:

There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed.

Since we know as a wonderful truth that “faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth”, we could be bold enough to presume that the rational soul would not be created and infused prior to the wonderful communion of chromosomes described above.

In any case, his weird argument does not seem to address the fundamental fact that the Church dignifies the humanity of that soul-body person without tracing arbitrary lines, while he (or those whose arguments he supports) certainly trace that line, and they trace it, here in the US, at the 9 months.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If he is referring to a natural miscarriage his comment is actually pretty ignorant as the miscarriage cigote, fetus or embryo is death. Death equals no sould. If the cigote doesn’t implant dies. Is like saying that by burying corpses we are trapping “souls” in a grave. No sense at all.

Do you have any evidence that the only fetuses that fail to implant are fetuses that were already dead? Implantation is a risky process. It seems much more reasonable that some otherwise totally healthy fetuses just miss their chance to hold on.

 

[Lapey]

The Church does not have a position on exactly when a human life is infused with a soul. “life begins at conception” does not mean “a soul exists at conception”. Besides, even if a soul and body are “flushed down the toilet”, as long as it was done in ignorance and there was no reasonable way to save that fetus, the fact that it was “flushed down the toilet” does not in itself diminish the dignity of either the soul or the body. Who is to say that God does not make provisions for these?

The CCC disagrees with the premise that the Church does not teach on this; She does.

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body; 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.

366 **The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection. **

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.

Mary is right on the idea of flushing a deceased embryo, if the created body is now deceased, the should would not be present. Only at the final resurrection would the body and soul be united again.

 

[Lapey]

Do you have any evidence that the only fetuses that fail to implant are fetuses that were already dead? Implantation is a risky process. It seems much more reasonable that some otherwise totally healthy fetuses just miss their chance to hold on.

I’m not sure what you mean. Is it only considered a miscarriage if the fertilized egg implants and then passes? The Church states that the life begins at conception, a fertilized egg is life, if it fails to implant it is a miscarriage; this is my understanding from classes on morality teachings of the Church. Once the life ceases the soul leaves the body, no matter how small.

I believe you misunderstand Mary’s point.

 

[Della]

The CCC disagrees with the premise that the Church does not teach on this; She does.

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body; 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.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.

Mary is right on the idea of flushing a deceased embryo, if the created body is now deceased, the should would not be present. Only at the final resurrection would the body and soul be united again.

In all that the Church states, she does not state that life begins at conception–the joining of egg and sperm–not that I doubt that it does. Rather, the Church uses less scientific language to say that we are God’s creation with both bodies and souls. It is science that tells us when conception takes place. In matters of science the Church lets science speak. In matters of faith and morals, the Church speaks. It is enough for us to know that once a new human life begins s/he is God’s own special creation whom we are to honor as such.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Church states that the life begins at conception, a fertilized egg is life, if it fails to implant it is a miscarriage; this is my understanding from classes on morality teachings of the Church. Once the life ceases the soul leaves the body, no matter how small.

But does life end when the fertilized egg exits the womb without implanting? That is hard to believe because, even if it is not practical, it is at least conceivable that such an egg could be quickly returned to the womb and given another chance to implant. That would not be a dead fetus. So if it not dead in that circumstance, then it is not yet dead in the case where no such “rescue” is possible. Of course it will be dead shortly. But not immediately. At least some of those fetuses are exiting the mother in a state where they could in principle live a full life if returned to the womb.

 

[Lapey]

But does life end when the fertilized egg exits the womb without implanting? That is hard to believe because, even if it is not practical, it is at least conceivable that such an egg could be quickly returned to the womb and given another chance to implant. That would not be a dead fetus. So if it not dead in that circumstance, then it is not yet dead in the case where no such “rescue” is possible. Of course it will be dead shortly. But not immediately. At least some of those fetuses are exiting the mother in a state where they could in principle live a full life if returned to the womb.

I’m no medical expert but what happens to an unfertilized egg? Isn’t that the minstrel cycle? Wouldn’t the same thing happen with a fertilized egg and therefore no longer live while being expelled from the body? This is way over my pay grade…

 

[Brendan]

But does life end when the fertilized egg exits the womb without implanting? That is hard to believe because, even if it is not practical, it is at least conceivable that such an egg could be quickly returned to the womb and given another chance to implant. That would not be a dead fetus. So if it not dead in that circumstance, then it is not yet dead in the case where no such “rescue” is possible. Of course it will be dead shortly. But not immediately. At least some of those fetuses are exiting the mother in a state where they could in principle live a full life if returned to the womb.

An egg that fails to implant is a natural death. A natural death is what should happen to everyone. We feel sorrow at that happening, but we also recognize that it is the natural course of Life as designed by God.

Catholic DO object to when an innocent person is, with deliberation, caused to die. That is true at any point in the life of a human.

Thus there is no contradiction in Catholic teaching at any point.

 

[Lapey]

In all that the Church states, she does not state that life begins at conception–the joining of egg and sperm–not that I doubt that it does. Rather, the Church uses less scientific language to say that we are God’s creation with both bodies and souls. It is science that tells us when conception takes place. In matters of science the Church lets science speak. In matters of faith and morals, the Church speaks. It is enough for us to know that once a new human life begins s/he is God’s own special creation whom we are to honor as such.

I am sorry Della, but I didn’t say that the Church has definitivly stated when life begins, I did state that She states when the body and soul are created. I did this by posting directly from the CCC. Are you disagreeing with this?

However, I will say this. The Church says we defend life, from conception to natural death. She very strongly defends life from conception; so by Her actions and statements we can see that She believes that life begins with conception.