My mistake. I meant to quote another one of your posts: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11216681&postcount=15. I’m sure you didn’t mean to misstate the Church’s teaching.
I only mention it for the sake of clarity. 
I gotcha, that would fit with my statement on the post you linked. I think you just questioned the wrong post, no biggie. Some of these threads can be confusing to say the least.My mistake. I meant to quote another one of your posts: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11216681&postcount=15. I’m sure you didn’t mean to misstate the Church’s teaching.
Well, I’m no medical expert either. But I am trying to focus on the morality of the issue without relying too much on medical facts. We are taught that life begins at conception. And a lot has been written about when life ends (morally speaking). But those writings focus mostly on determining when a fully formed life ends - things like looking at brain waves, or seeing if the heart is still beating. Those criteria do not apply to determining when a fetus has died - a fetus that does not yet have a heart or a brain. So what could the criteria be for such human lives? It seems reasonable to me (although someone with more medical knowledge could prove me wrong) that there is no reason to declare a fetus “dead” merely because it has prematurely (and only briefly) moved outside the uterus.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…
Very well spoken.
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72My mistake. I meant to quote another one of your posts: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11216681&postcount=15. I’m sure you didn’t mean to misstate the Church’s teaching.
That is my point…it will not be expelled until after the woman goes through her regular cycle. I would think by this time the fertilized egg, zygote or whatever it is called, would surely be deceased and be expelled in the form of blood during the period. But again, I’m no OBGYN.
I don’t understand your post at all and don’t know what are you referring to. Between conception and birth if the baby fails to be born there are only two possibilities: abortion which is not the OP is talking about, and miscarriage/stillbirth when death occurs naturally. The OP is talking about not implanting, which means a cigote did not implant in the uterus which is a very early miscarriage (called by pro choicers chemical pregnancy but I am not pro choice so I don’t use that word). If the cigote implants and turns into and embryo and that embryo dies as the result of natural causes (not abortion) is a miscarriage too. A fetus doesn’t implant, a fetus is the term given to the baby after the end of the first trimester so you need to correct your terminology…fetuses that die naturally (depending on the length of pregnancy) are either miscarriages or stillbirth. If there is a fetus is obviously because implantion was successful. So again I don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
??? I think you are just completely lost on the process of conception to birth… first let’s fix the wording as fertilized egg is again a pro choice wording. A cigote doesn’t “exit” the womb. The cigote doesn’t have legs or arms and doesn’t walk. During the monthlycycle the uterus prepares for possible implantion. After the conception the cigote is moved to the uterus for implantion. What is meant by no implantion means is that all that “preparation” done for the cigote is unsuccessful many times due to genetic reasons, maybe the cigote lacks something that is required to allow it to be kept alive, or contraception has interfered with the process. The cigote cannot survive by itself and needs to be attached to something. If it fails to attach to the womb the cigote dies and when it dies the entire “preparation” is expelled by the body as blood. Usually the woman will never know that she is having a miscarriage as it comes as your typical period. No you can’t return it to the womb it is impossible and as I said, it is death and you can’t revive something that is death.Well it is not her menstrual cycle what happens is that the woman has no way to know as the bleeding will start very close to the time of het regular cycle. If the miscarriage happens let’s say 6 days after then you can suspect but it is still hard to know for sure. Yes as I said it is death already and it gets expelled together with all the linen of the uterus which to the human eye would be seen as blood.
Indeed. Besides me no longer being a young gal.
Well, the Church doesn’t use that expression because it does not want to make a scientific statement. Rather, it states our formation as humans as it does it so as to lead one to come to the conclusion that life begins at conception–not in a deceptive way, of course, but rather in more philosophical and theological terms. The reason it doesn’t use the scientific term(s) is because science may find that conception happens earlier or even later (not that it necessarily will). In any case, the Church’s realm of expertise is not science, and she doesn’t wish anyone to think that she is speaking about that area of knowledge.
Me and the CCC disagree with you. Furthermore, the Church and science work quite well together. For most of Church history, especially the second millennium, the most learned and therefore most scientists were in fact Catholic priests.Indeed. Besides no longer being a young gal.
Well, the Church doesn’t use that expression because it does not want to make a scientific statement. Rather, it states our formation as humans as it does it so as to lead one to come to the conclusion that life begins at conception–not in a deceptive way, of course, but rather in more philosophical and theological terms. The reason it doesn’t use the scientific term(s) is because science may find that conception happens earlier or even later (not that it necessarily will). In any case, the Church’s realm of expertise is not science, and she doesn’t wish anyone to think that she is speaking about that area of knowledge.
Sorry to confuse the issue by using the wrong terminology. How about if I just say “fertilized egg”?
I think you are misunderstanding me here or something. I’ll take all the blame for that, though. I’m merely talking about definitions and their limits–what the Church will state and what she won’t. I’m not at all disagreeing that life begins at conception or that the Church has this in mind, it’s just that she doesn’t state it in those terms for the reasons I stated.
The statement that 'Life begins at Conception" is not a scientific statement. As you noted, the definition of the word conception is a scientific one, but it does not follow that the statement itself is a scientific one.Indeed. Besides me no longer being a young gal.
Well, the Church doesn’t use that expression because it does not want to make a scientific statement.
I don’t disagree that the Church is saying so, only that it doesn’t use that expression because it does not believe it the right one to use for theological understanding. Conception is a scientific term for the implanting of sperm into egg thus creating new life. Since the Church chooses not to use it, I just think we should be careful about saying the Church uses that term when it doesn’t. That’s all. Truly. :tiphat:
Okay, lets keep this simple. The Church teaches that life begins at conception. I could not care less what the scientists believe or how they say it.I think you are misunderstanding me here or something. I’ll take all the blame for that, though. I’m merely talking about definitions and their limits–what the Church will state and what she won’t. I’m not at all disagreeing that life begins at conception or that the Church has this in mind, it’s just that she doesn’t state it in those terms for the reasons I stated.
And I know many of our priests and religious have been scientists, and great ones, as well. Still, science is not under the purview of the Church’s authority, therefore she doesn’t make statements about its findings in scientific terms but rather speaks to such matters in philosophical and theological terms that are within her area of expertise and responsibility.
Me too.
Please see my last post.The Church does choose to use the term…please read the CCC I posted!!!
You are again confused over medical stuff. Let me try to explain better, a zygote which had a failed implantion is death. Zygote comes First and implantation after. IVF creates a cigote that gets frozen, it comes first. That zygot has a period of.life from 6 to 10 days naturally to.implant. if implantion fails, dies. With IVF they freeze it right away and then the doctors do the implantation by flushing them into the uterus and if they don’t implant they also die and no they can’t be “put back.”