How can pro-choice Catholics seriously call themselves practicing Catholics?

[Thorolfr]

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.

I have no problem seeing commonality between myself and a person of another race. But I have a difficult time imagining commonality between myself and a one celled zygote. A zygote has no brain, no heart, no conciousness, no memories. It is not a sentient being.

 

[Elf01]

I have no problem seeing commonality between myself and a person of another race. But I have a difficult time imagining commonality between myself and a one celled zygote. A zygote has no brain, no heart, no conciousness, no memories. It is not a sentient being.

If your mother had murdered you at the zygote stage would you be posting here?

 

[goout]

goout:

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.

I have no problem seeing commonality between myself and a person of another race. But I have a difficult time imagining commonality between myself and a one celled zygote. A zygote has no brain, no heart, no conciousness, no memories. It is not a sentient being.

And you as a human being developed exactly… how???

You can’t make the case for common humanity between races if you don’t even recognize where you have been, who you have been, and how you became who you are.
Does that make sense?

Part of being human is to be united in diversity. Unique stages of development, unique differentiation in various traits, all one humanity.

I’d like to hear how you can deny humanity in one breath and pretend to affirm it in the next. Can you connect those dots please?

 

[phil19034]

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.

We are talking about 2 to 6 days. By the time the mother learns that she’s pregnant, there are already twins. Perhaps you can use your argument for when ensoulment takes place, but you cannot use it to claim the zygote isn’t fundamentally human. It would be like arguing that one molecule of water isn’t water. Or that one atom of gold isn’t gold.

The fundamental building block of each life form is the DNA molecule. Just like the fundamental building block of water is the H2O molecule & the fundamental building block of gold is the gold atom.

When are identical twins actually formed?​

Though all identical twins are formed very early in pregnancy, there is some variation in exactly how early the fertilised egg splits into two. This can happen at the two cell stage on Day 2, the early blastocyst stage on Day 4, or in the late blastocyst stage on Day 6. The stage when the egg splits into two will determine where the fertilised eggs will implant in the uterine wall. Once the embryo gets to the 8 cells stage the foetal DNA takes over.

https://www.huggies.com.au/childbirth/multiple-births/twins/identical

Deoxyribonucleic acid - DNA is a molecule composed of two chains that coil around each other to form a double helix carrying the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning, and reproduction of all known organisms and many viruses.

DNA - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

I have no problem seeing commonality between myself and a person of another race. But I have a difficult time imagining commonality between myself and a one celled zygote. A zygote has no brain, no heart, no conciousness, no memories. It is not a sentient being.

If your mother had murdered you at the zygote stage would you be posting here?

I wouldn’t be here, but I wouldn’t know that I wasn’t here, either. That’s like saying, “if your parents had never met, would you be posting here”? I would never have been a conscious living being and the person that I am would never have existed. In my opinion, our DNA is not who we are. I am not simply my DNA. My consciousness, my memories, my personality are also vitally important. And if I had been in an accident and was in a permanent vegatative state and there was no possibility of recovery, I wouldn’t consider the collection of unconscious DNA that remained to be the person that I am. It would be nothing but an empty shell. I would want them to pull the plug because remaining in that state would only cause continuing pain for my loved ones who survived.

 

[phil19034]

goout:

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.

I have no problem seeing commonality between myself and a person of another race. But I have a difficult time imagining commonality between myself and a one celled zygote. A zygote has no brain, no heart, no conciousness, no memories. It is not a sentient being.

Hello Thorolfr,

The irony of this statement is that you have FAR more in common with the one celled zygote version of yourself than you do with any other human who has ever lived (unless you are an identical twin.

When you were a zygote, you may not have had a brain, heart, memories, etc.; but how do you know you didn’t have a human soul (which is the root of all consciousness and sentience?

We DO NOT know when the human takes root, but what the Church has taught us is that the process starts at conception. Perhaps it takes place after 6 days when there are 8 cells and twins are not longer possible?

We don’t know. But what we do know, is the process begins at conception.

Anyway, zygote you has more fundamentally in common with current you than either of your parents

God Bless

 

[goout]

Elf01:

Thorolfr:

I have no problem seeing commonality between myself and a person of another race. But I have a difficult time imagining commonality between myself and a one celled zygote. A zygote has no brain, no heart, no conciousness, no memories. It is not a sentient being.

If your mother had murdered you at the zygote stage would you be posting here?

I wouldn’t be here, but I wouldn’t know that I wasn’t here, either.
…

I’d like to point out a disconnect to you.

You are basing your moral paradigm on hypothetical speculation, and Christian morality is not based on speculation, it’s based on “the real”.

Christ is in-carnate, not “he who is speculated”.

Please consider:
the fact is, you exist, and this statement

I wouldn’t be here, but I wouldn’t know that I wasn’t here, either.

is no foundation for moral decision making or human living in general.
You can’t speculate yourself out of existence, and your speculations don’t negate your “zygoteness”.

You as a human being were in fact a small multicelled human being at one time, and in your later years you may be a drooling invalid who is unrecognizable.
And so? All of it is you.

.

 

[Elf01]

I wouldn’t be here, but I wouldn’t know that I wasn’t here, either.

I think the same would be true if you were murdered as a newborn.

 

[phil19034]

I wouldn’t be here, but I wouldn’t know that I wasn’t here, either. That’s like saying, “if your parents had never met, would you be posting here”? I would never have been a conscious living being and the person that I am would never have existed. In my opinion, our DNA is not who we are. I am not simply my DNA. My consciousness, my memories, my personality are also vitally important. And if I had been in an accident and was in a permanent vegatative state and there was no possibility of recovery, I wouldn’t consider the collection of unconscious DNA that remained to be the person that I am. It would be nothing but an empty shell. I would want them to pull the plug because remaining in that state would only cause continuing pain for my loved ones who survived.

Hello Thorolfr,

Are we humans MORE than just our DNA, sure. That’s what separates us from the animals, plants and non-living things. We are body and soul. So yes, our consciousness, memories and personality (aka our soul) are EQUALLY important.

However, the Church teaches us that we are made up of BOTH body & soul. The fundamental building block of our body is our DNA molecule.

A vegetative version of yourself (with working organs - not where your organs are artificially being ran by a machine because your brain is dead) is still you. Just a different version of yourself. Your soul and body are still there.

*** Needing help to eat (aka a feeding tube) is not the same as needing a machine to keep your organs running because the brain is dead.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

Thorolfr:

I wouldn’t be here, but I wouldn’t know that I wasn’t here, either.

I think the same would be true if you were murdered as a newborn.

@Thorolfr

It would also be true if you were murdered last week. (yes, the soul would know once you met God, but the body wouldn’t know.)

Thoughts?

 

[blackforest]

I was pro-life my whole life. I still am from a personal standpoint.

I still don’t understand this. How can you be opposed to a human rights violation “from a personal standpoint?” Human rights concerns by their very definition aren’t “personal.”

But I’ve learned - and seen - that the so-called “pro-life” movement is anything but.

Just because you find hypocrites within a group doesn’t mean you can’t be a genuine member of it. If you truly wish to avoid hypocrites, never leave the house and cancel your Internet connection.

Unlike most people in this forum, I can stand proud in what I have done to help the unborn and those born and undervalued.

Oh my! Submit your review for canonization to the Vatican, not to CAF.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Erika,
OK, now I’m taking issue with what you wrote.

1. I NEVER misquoted you (and if I did, it was an honest mistake)
2. I NEVER said you were evil,
3. I NEVER said you were a bad Catholic
4. I NEVER said you were intentionally deceptive, etc.

I wrote “If SOMEONE…” I did NOT say “If Phi19034…” I was talking in general terms, not directing my comments specifically to you. Note I was replying to prayerrider, not to you. You’re not the only one who ends comments with “God bless…”

However, I’ll apologize for not being explicit. The numbered points you listed from my post are all actual attacks on me in this thread, but none were by you. I do get frustrated, and of course it’s my own fault for getting drawn into these threads–it’s always the same little group of people, and I know perfectly well none of them are going to change their minds. I really do it for myself (for example if someone had asked me about the Decretam of Gratian or Innocent III’s ruling on abortion 6 months ago, I wouldn’t have had a clue.) And I also do it for the random people who may read these posts but not actively take part. If it gets someone to ask themselves a question or read a poll, an article, or a section of a vatican document, then I’ve accomplished something.

As always, when I begin to repeat myself over and over, I bow out of a thread. I will make one more reply, below, and then I’ll leave you all to it.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Erika,
OK, now I’m taking issue with what you wrote.

1. I NEVER misquoted you (and if I did, it was an honest mistake)
2. I NEVER said you were evil,
3. I NEVER said you were a bad Catholic
4. I NEVER said you were intentionally deceptive, etc.

I wrote “If SOMEONE…” I did NOT say “If Phi19034…” I was talking in general terms, not directing my comments specifically to you. Note I was replying to prayerrider, not to you. You’re not the only one who ends comments with “God bless…”

However, I’ll apologize for not being explicit. The numbered points you listed from my post are all actual attacks on me in this thread, but none were by you. I do get frustrated, and of course it’s my own fault for getting drawn into these threads–it’s always the same little group of people, and I know perfectly well none of them are going to change their minds. I really do it for myself (for example if someone had asked me about the Decretam of Gratian or Innocent III’s ruling on abortion 6 months ago, I wouldn’t have had a clue.) And I also do it for the random people who may read these posts but not actively take part. If it gets someone to ask themselves a question or read a poll, an article, or a section of a vatican document, then I’ve accomplished something.

As always, when I begin to repeat myself over and over, I bow out of a thread. I will make one more reply, below, and then I’ll leave you all to it.

Thank you Erika! Apology accepted and I too apologize for assuming that you were talking mostly about me.

I hope we can continue our spirited debates. I do learn a lot from them, even if I disagree.

And please always know, when I spar with you, it is always coming from a place of friendship in Christ.

Yours in Christ,
Phil

 

[Thorolfr]

Are we humans MORE than just our DNA, sure. That’s what separates us from the animals, plants and non-living things. We are body and soul. So yes, our consciousness, memories and personality (aka our soul) are EQUALLY important.

However, the Church teaches us that we are made up of BOTH body & soul. The fundamental building block of our body is our DNA molecule.

I know that this is part of Catholic teaching, but I don’t really believe that there is an ontological difference between humans and the rest of the natural world. I’ve been reading a new book about emotions in animals by the well known Dutch primatologist, Fran’s de Waal, and what separates us from our closest primate relatives is not nearly as great as what many of us imagine. In my opinion, it’s only an accident of evolution that humans ended up with some unique characteristics that chimpanzees and other primates don’t have. And I have no doubt that we share a common ancestor five or six million years ago and share most of our DNA with Chimpanzees and other great apes or hominids.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

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?

Ah, I love the smell of toleration in the morning! I’ll give you the honor of being the recipient of my final post on this thread.

First, I would like to clear up one major thing: Exactly WHO is ignoring the principles of the Catholic Church?

I’ll refer everyone once again to section 1738 of the Catechsim:

“Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.”

Please note several key passages:

1. There is a duty of respect to all human beings.
2. “The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement…” Not optional. Inalienable. Everyone–even those you disagree with–has the right to exercise their freedom in “moral and religious matters.”
3. “This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority…” Laws. Making something legal or illegal.

These are key teachings of the Catholic Church. Yet you accuse ME of ignoring “the principles of the religion issued by the central authority of the Vatican…” I think you (and this goes for most of you here) need to take an honest look at your position vis a vis “duty of respect” and the “inalienable” right to exercise freedom in moral and religious matters.

I have pointed out several times (in this thread alone) that the “extreme” (in the sense of being at one end of the continuum) position held by the Catholic Church is supported by only 18% of the US population in the latest (2018) Gallup poll. I have also pointed out that this annual poll shows clearly that the anti-abortion rights side has actually lost public opinion since 1976. Meanwhile, the opposite group, the abortion rights side, has GAINED 7% in public opinion. If this were a business, you would hold a meeting, realize that whatever you were doing wasn’t working, and adopt a new strategy. l would advise you to do so.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2…

Part of that “new strategy” is following section #1738 of the Catechism. The 82% of the US population you demonize are not evil people. They are quite often very religious people who simply have their own beliefs, mistaken as you may think they are. I have given a (partial!) list above of the religions who disagree with the current Catholic position. I’m not saying they’re right; I’m saying they deserve respect and the freedom to make their own “moral and religious” choices.

If you think abortion at any stage is murder (as the Catholic Church does), you are free to do so. If others disagree, they should be free to do so as well. And of course the disagreement is NOT about the morality of murder, it’s about whether or not a fetus at some stage is a human being or not. And despite what most of you think, this is NOT a scientific matter, it is a religious / philosophical matter.

Please analyze your goal. What IS your goal? If it is to reduce or eliminate abortions, as I have pointed out (with data…), simply making abortion illegal has no overall effect. I believe only one other person in this thread has even mentioned the causes of abortion. They are well known through multiple polls. Attack the causes of abortion and fewer women will have abortions. It’s just that simple.

Finally, on a personal note, I’ll state once again that I am a lifelong practicing Catholic who takes communion every Sunday and who loves the Latin Mass. I personally believe exactly what you do: life begins at conception and abortion is murder. But those are my personal beliefs. I also believe I have no right to impose my beliefs on other people–as clearly stated in section 1738 of the Catechism.

 

[Elf01]

Finally, on a personal note, I’ll state once again that I am a lifelong practicing Catholic who takes communion every Sunday and who loves the Latin Mass. I personally believe exactly what you do: life begins at conception and abortion is murder. But those are my personal beliefs. I also believe I have no right to impose my beliefs on other people–as clearly stated in section 1738 of the Catechism.

Right. Lets repeal all laws.

 

[Sbee0]

Life is biological. At no point after conception is the unborn not alive or a human being. Prochoicers in the past have used the term “potential human” to justify abortion but that label has no foundation in science, clearly there is no such thing. They’ve also compared the unborn to a clump of cells like a tumor. Again… no foundation in science or in reality. And to me a “human being” is completely synonymous with the human species, it does not mean human person.

PERSONHOOD is not scientific, it is philosophical. This is where prochoicers have moved the goalposts and debate - most likely because they lost the first one as science has advanced - now the question is when does personhood begin and thus when does a right to life begin? To date there has been a total of 0 prochoicers who have been able to give me a credible argument that I’m wrong when I say both life and personhood begins at conception. Interesting huh?

 

[Sbee0]

prayerrider:

If Catholic, why the outrage? Mass must be a real trial, especially the final blessing.

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.

Nobody has attacked you personally, I certainly haven’t and I haven’t read anyone who has. We’ve attacked your argument only. As it should be per the forum TOS.

 

[blackforest]

And despite what most of you think, this is NOT a scientific matter, it is a religious / philosophical matter.

While I’m strangely impressed with your mental gymnastics to justify abortion, I can’t think of a single embryologist, (or dictionary definition, frankly), who would agree with you.

Human being is a species. To what species does an unborn organism (gestating within an adult human being), belong?

If your religion or philosophy allow you to set apart an entire class of our species aside for elective killing, it’s high time you re-think your religion or philosophy. Any history book will warn you that using arbitrary or woo-woo designations to define who’s worthy of basic human rights is dangerous stuff.

I also believe I have no right to impose my beliefs on other people

You realize that’s exactly what you’re doing, right?

as clearly stated in section 1738 of the Catechism.

You’re begging the question. Your logical fallacy is begging the question

You’re simply assuming (without proving) that abortion is ethically acceptable and the unborn are non-human entities. The Church doesn’t permit us to use 1738 to abduct children into slavery, physically assault LGBTQ people, rape women, kill human beings in a prenatal state of development, or commit any other human rights violation.