B
Benjinho
Guest
What if it’s in Latin and the person doesn’t understand most of it
That may soften the blow?
That may soften the blow?
How can pro-choice Catholics seriously call themselves practicing Catholics?
- Status
P
phil19034
Guest
This is because they didn’t understand the science. Once science showed that life began at conception, that changed.
The Church has ALWAYS taught that the soul is what gives us life. Without a soul, we are not alive. Every living organism has a soul, not just humans. Plants, animals, bacteria, etc. all have souls. The only difference is that only the Human soul is immortal.
In regards to the “quickening,” this was not a Catholic invention. The theologians who supported the quickening theory did so because they believed the “science” at the time (which was not correct).
Quickening - which is when the mother starts to feel the baby kicking the womb - is scientifically the incorrect time a fetus becomes “animated.” We know this because via science & technology, we can now see babies moving around in the womb as early as 7 weeks.
Therefore, quickening cannot be the time of “ensoulment” as the “science” of the time believed. What science taught the church is that “ensoulment” happens much earlier because the embryo is alive. Plus, we do NOT have a revelation from our Lord that humans first receive an animal soul and then later a human/immortal soul. So we have to assume that we always have the human/immortal soul.
Finally, science has also taught the Church that we cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact moment of ensoulment because things start happening right away once the sperm penetrates the egg.
Therefore, the Church has to philosophy assume that ensoulment happens at conception.
Finally, I would like to make these notes:
- The Church (esp in the scholasticism of the West) has always relied upon Greek Philosophy and “science,” in addition to the Natural & Divine Law to develop social teaching.
- Philosophy and Science used to be the same thing until the scientific method was developed. So a lot of “science” before the 16th century was really pseudoscience and far more susceptible to error.
- so while “quickening was used” it was only used because they thought that was a good measure to figure out when ensoulment happened. But now, thanks to science, the Church knows that ensoulment happens right around conception (if not at the exact moment of conception).
Last edited:
P
prayerrider
Guest
Doesn’t strike me as a TLM adherent but, anything is possible.
Last edited:
P
prayerrider
Guest
Excellent post. “Ensoulment at quickening” is long gone. Like this kind of thinking:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
So this was canon law from the 12th c. to 1917. So if you say “Catholic teaching on abortion has never changed,” you’re wrong. It has.
P
prayerrider
Guest
Never said Catholic teaching hasn’t changed. I will say, it now accords perfectly with embryology. The zygote is a human being, endowed with a human soul. De fide.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
A magic moment. We agree on everything you wrote. I might quibble here and there, but on the whole, I agree.
But I’m not totally sure you understand my point. Yes, the people who believed in “quickening” were probably wrong in a scientific sense. This is an arbitrary step in development, and of course we can’t determine precisely when it occurs (it could be while the mother is sleeping, for example). And I’m certainly not saying the Church can’t change it’s mind on certain things–it does all the time. And this is an example. What this means for the sake of this discussion is that if you hold the position that “the Church’s teaching on abortion has never changed” you’ve got a problem–history says otherwise. But frankly, so what? The Church changed it’s mind about the earth being the center of the universe, too.
But the other point is that there are a LOT of arbitrary milestones (including in the initial days of “conception,” which I keep pointing out is NOT an instantaneous event). And it is perfectly logical and scientific to say that a human being needs to be viable outside the mother’s body; or needs to have a brain and a nervous system; or needs to have unique DNA; or needs to have a heart; and so on. And most other religions (Judaism, Islam, a lot of Protestant religions, etc.) have stuck with the old “quickening” definition of when human life begins. Pro-life supporters are often very quick to demonize these people, although they are just as religious (maybe more so!) as Catholics and believe they also have “the truth.” We need to respect their opinions, even if we think they are wrong, and it would be wrong to make their beliefs illegal.
But I’m not totally sure you understand my point. Yes, the people who believed in “quickening” were probably wrong in a scientific sense. This is an arbitrary step in development, and of course we can’t determine precisely when it occurs (it could be while the mother is sleeping, for example). And I’m certainly not saying the Church can’t change it’s mind on certain things–it does all the time. And this is an example. What this means for the sake of this discussion is that if you hold the position that “the Church’s teaching on abortion has never changed” you’ve got a problem–history says otherwise. But frankly, so what? The Church changed it’s mind about the earth being the center of the universe, too.
But the other point is that there are a LOT of arbitrary milestones (including in the initial days of “conception,” which I keep pointing out is NOT an instantaneous event). And it is perfectly logical and scientific to say that a human being needs to be viable outside the mother’s body; or needs to have a brain and a nervous system; or needs to have unique DNA; or needs to have a heart; and so on. And most other religions (Judaism, Islam, a lot of Protestant religions, etc.) have stuck with the old “quickening” definition of when human life begins. Pro-life supporters are often very quick to demonize these people, although they are just as religious (maybe more so!) as Catholics and believe they also have “the truth.” We need to respect their opinions, even if we think they are wrong, and it would be wrong to make their beliefs illegal.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
OK, my final thought of the evening. I go up to a rental car counter. The clerk informs me that the car I reserved isn’t available. The only available car is a much more expensive one. But I will have to wait two hours until that one is ready. Then he tells me that they don’t accept the credit card I was going to use. Then he makes me prove my age. And on and on. And at the end of all this he says “Have a good day.” Are you kidding me?
In the same way if someone totally misunderstands what I have written, misquotes me, tells me I am evil and a bad Catholic, tells me that I am intentionally deceptive, etc. etc. and then ends with “God bless…” Well, excuse me, but I interpret that more along the lines of 4-letter word + three letter word. That’s how it comes off to me. And now some people seem to be telling me I can’t feel how I feel! Think about that for a while.
M
Moose
Guest
Seems like MURDER was of the Big Ten, huh.
You arguments are ludicrous. So much so that it seems intentional.
MURDER - once and every. You cannot change that - no matter how much poppycock you spew!!!
You arguments are ludicrous. So much so that it seems intentional.
MURDER - once and every. You cannot change that - no matter how much poppycock you spew!!!
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Ite missa est. No problem. Or should I say “non forsit”?
I go to Latin Mass as often as I can, even though I have to drive 35 miles each way.
Once again, pro-choice (or perhaps more accurately “pro abortion rights”) simply means you think everyone should be able to make their own moral choice about abortion. It doesn’t mean you approve of it.
Last edited:
B
Benjinho
Guest
Why do you bother being Catholic if you ignore the principles of the religion issued by the central authority of the Vatican and use other religions to justify your thinking? Is it more comfortable to go through the motions of how you were raised (assuming you are a cradle Catholic) rather than being honest with yourself and leaving the Church for a religion that fits better with your true beliefs?
The Church is 100% clear about its position on abortion - it is considered objectively immoral and equivalent to in utero murder from conception until birth. It doesn’t matter what canon law was over 100 years ago - it matters what canon law is now. And saying pro-abortion rights, following this moral compass, is like what Cardinal Arinze said - saying you’re pro-murder rights (but not for it individually!).
J
JMMJ
Guest
But it is just a matter of time. Medical science will develop an in home test for detecting pregnancy immediately after conception? Probably won’t rely on hormones.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
But the one celled zygote from which I developed is still, in my opinion, fundamentally different from the human being that I am now. If I had had an identical twin, we would not yet have been separate entities at the zygote stage. So, would we have been the same human being at that stage that then became two different human beings later on? It seems to me that the thing that would make identical twins into true distinct human beings is what happens in the months after conception such as slightly different environmental influences in the womb and different experiences after birth. I don’t think that human DNA by itself makes a human being.Thorolfr:
Of course a conceived embryo is not “the same” as 7 month old baby. The latter is 7 months older.
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Yes because “separate entities” in this context means a unique genetic code distinct from the mother. They don’t have distinct genetic code from each other.
Last edited:
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
What you feel or what you see doesn’t change the reality of what IS. The child, regardless of the stage of it’s development, IS a human being, and as such should be protected from being willfully killed. That’s the crux point.
Yes, natural deaths occur all the time, but those are categorically different from the willfully decision to kill a child in the womb.
Yes, natural deaths occur all the time, but those are categorically different from the willfully decision to kill a child in the womb.
P
phil19034
Guest
Erika,
OK, now I’m taking issue with what you wrote.
- I NEVER misquoted you (and if I did, it was an honest mistake)
- I NEVER said you were evil,
- I NEVER said you were a bad Catholic
- I NEVER said you were intentionally deceptive, etc.
I have plenty of people in my life that disagree with the Catholic Church and whom I RESPECTFULLY argue with but still love them and respect them as people.
Just like my view of your positions, I simply think they are wrong or misunderstand the Church position somewhere.
If we were having this discussion in person, instead of the on the internet, I would not be yelling. And if I started to get frustrated, I would ask for a coffee or beer break.
In regards to your example with the rental car, if the person behind the counter told me “Have a good day,” that wouldn’t bother me unless his/her tone was nasty. If they sounded sincere, I would take it as they were being sincere. Voice infection is what matters here.
Over the internet, you cannot hear my voice inflection. So you are assuming that I am having a condescending or nasty voice inflection while I write. I promise you that I don’t - if I did, it would be an one line answer. This is an online forum. I don’t waste my time getting upset by researching and responding to posts with long answers to people.
I do it for ministry.
NOTE: this is why I don’t do sidewalk ministry. That’s a forum that I would most likely get mad IF someone (like Rep Ben Sims) came up to me and starting attacking me. I would not be able to avoid blowing up because I can’t “walk away” in that situation. But here, I can walk away and make sure I only respond from a calm place.
May God bless us ALL with faith, wisdom, patience & health.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
The inability to see continuous stages of development in a human being allows for any sort of injustice.Aquinas11:
But the one celled zygote from which I developed is still, in my opinion, fundamentally different from the human being that I am now. If I had had an identical twin, we would not yet have been separate entities at the zygote stage. So, would we have been the same human being at that stage that then became two different human beings later on? It seems to me that the thing that would make identical twins into true distinct human beings is what happens in the months after conception such as slightly different environmental influences in the womb and different experiences after birth. I don’t think that human DNA by itself makes a human being.Thorolfr:
Of course a conceived embryo is not “the same” as 7 month old baby. The latter is 7 months older.
“you are not one of us!!” based on race, age, disability, religion, etc…And so this gives false justification for not recognizing full humanity.
It allows things like the 3/5 rule imposed on the black community, which conveniently parses out stages of lesser humanity rather than finding full commonality.
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Not only is there no separate genetic code from each other, there’s also no “each other” at the earliest stage of development for identical twins since there is no “other” yet.Thorolfr:
Yes because “separate entities” in this context means a unique genetic code distinct from the mother. They don’t have distinct genetic code from each other.
Also, it’s probably only a matter of time before a human being is cloned from the cells of another human being. Cloning has already been done with animals. In that case, when would life begin for the clone and would it be a separate human being from the person from which it was cloned?
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
It’s not “fundamentally different” because we are fundamentally a product of our DNA. Yes, environmental factors and our experiences round us out, but fundamentally - we are who are DNA says we are going to be.
The argument you are using about the zygote is the same argument one can make between a 2 day old baby compared to a 32 year old man. Or a 32 year old man compared to a 102 year old man.
The human body is ALWAYS changing. Sometimes faster than at others, but we are constantly changing.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Yes there is - if there wasn’t then the cells would have mothers DNA, which they don’t.
- Status