How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itstymyguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would not advise running a red light, even in an emergency. Even ambulances slow down and look before crossing an intersection.

In the Catholic church there are sins that must be reconciled with God and the Church despite the circumstances involved. The motives do not change that it is a sin. The motives behind abortion do not change that it is a sin and must be confessed.
 
Last edited:
Erikaspirit16 said:
You’ve got that right, but it doesn’t answer my question at all. Again, this is science, not religion. I’m asking about individual DNA, not the beginning of a “process.” Try again.
Click to expand...
The moment occurs 13 hours and 47 seconds after the sperm enters the egg.

Is that the type of answer you want? I am not a scientist, so I do not even know if a scientist could be watching and see the moment the last connection is made, but we do know that we start with two half-sets of chromosomes and end up with one new combination set.

Ergo, the moment exists, even if we can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint when precisely it occurs.

We most certainly know that it happens long before the unborn human is born and is out of danger of being killed by born humans.
 
pnewton said:
This is a black and white issue, as are all moral issues. As Pope Francis asked, what morals are negotiable? This includes the moral imperative to the poor, social justice, the immigrant, the environment, birth control, civil divorce, etc. The issues are black and white. The political reaction is not.
Click to expand...
While the issues you mentioned are indeed very important and the Church does make them a priority, I don’t know about you but I place the protection of innocent, defenseless babies facing certain slaughter and death over those issues. This is not to say that I want to ignore those issues. Indeed, I certainly want address those issues appropriately as well—guided by my faith and the love of Christ.
 
Last edited:
I searched for it online. Whether they know and I can’t find it or if they do not yet know, I don’t know, although I suspect the latter.

We know it happens. Why is the timing so important to you?
 
Annie said:
I searched for it online. Whether they know and I can’t find it or if they do not yet know, I don’t know, although I suspect the latter.

We know it happens. Why is the timing so important to you?
Click to expand...
There are several articles in Wikipedia: “Human Fertilization,” “Zygote,” “Blastomere,” etc.

Before we even get to DNA, there are numerous steps in fertilization (see that article). Then the walls of the nuclei of the two cells have to dissolve, the DNA of each has to unravel, then be cut into pieces, and then re-assemble. None of this is instantaneous–it takes time.

Under the “Zygote” article: “After approximately 30 hours from the time of fertilization, fusion of the pronuclei and immediate mitotic division produce two 2n diploid daughter cells called blastomeres.”
[pronuclei come from the sperm and the egg, each with half the number of chromosomes necessary for new DNA to form.]

And of course this is biology, so timing depends on individuals. But 30 hours is probably a good estimate. Thus many Catholic hospitals have given “morning after” pills–although this has been very contentious.

So what? As you probably know many pro-life advocates use the argument that at conception a new, individual is formed with its own DNA. Well, yes, but that takes about 30 hours. And as you can see from the “human fertilization” article, there are a LOT of steps. At which step do you draw a line and say “OK, at this step we have conception.” And we haven’t even talked about the implantation of the new cells on the uterus wall, which takes a week or so, and the fact that up to 80% of the fertilized cells never implant and die. So that’s a huge number of deaths of persons–as they would be considered by anyone who believes human life begins at “conception” (whatever that means!). And we’re not talking miscarriages in the common use of the word here, which is what many pro-life advocates re-direct to. You most likely wouldn’t even be aware of the cells not implanting and dying.

All I’m trying to do here is simply point out that it’s complicated, with multiple steps over a fairly long period of time. None of which was known in 1869. Now of course you could avoid all the messiness and say “Conception begins at step #1, despite lack of individual DNA, etc. etc.” which is what the Church has done. And I’m NOT arguing that they’re wrong or can’t do that. But I would point out that if someone argues “Oh, it changed in 1869 because they followed the science…” then a logical deduction would be they should “follow the science” again and change again. But of course you don’t HAVE to make that argument–but many do.
 
As a bonus, here’s the answer to the other question: What’s so special about 1869? The Immaculate Conception in 1854. Because this opened up the whole issue–at what point was Mary sinless? After she was born? At “conception”? And exactly when would that be? Or you could argue from the Old Testament–“I knew you from before you were formed in your mother’s womb.” Or that inconvenient verse in Genesis “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.” So…if.man was formed first, and then got “the breath of life” at the point where he had nostrils…that sure doesn’t sound like it’s simultaneous, and it poses an issue for those who take Genesis literally. Again, it’s not so simple, and it opened up a a major issue that the Church had not really considered in detail before.
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
It probably varies and there is only a range of times but about 24 hours.
Click to expand...
Good enough for me. I would take issue with one statement in your article: “At the moment of fertilization, the baby’s genetic makeup is complete, including whether it’s a boy or girl.” That’s true, of course, because the DNA of both the male and female are present in the chromosomes, and the father’s chromosomes determine the sex of the baby. But by saying “genetic makeup is complete” it implies (at least to me) that the baby’s individual DNA is formed–it’s not.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
As a bonus, here’s the answer to the other question: What’s so special about 1869? The Immaculate Conception in 1854. Because this opened up the whole issue–at what point was Mary sinless? After she was born? At “conception”? And exactly when would that be?
Click to expand...
The immaculate conception didn’t “bring up” the issue of when was Mary sinless, it resolved that point. The Catholic Church had long believed that Mary became sinless at some point; the question was when it happened, i.e. at conception or later on. The declaration of the immaculate conception was a settling of the issue by stating that it was definitively at conception.
Or you could argue from the Old Testament–“I knew you from before you were formed in your mother’s womb.” Or that inconvenient verse in Genesis “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.” So…if.man was formed first, and then got “the breath of life” at the point where he had nostrils…that sure doesn’t sound like it’s simultaneous, and it poses an issue for those who take Genesis literally. Again, it’s not so simple, and it opened up a a major issue that the Church had not really considered in detail before.
Click to expand...
It’s unclear to me how that Genesis verse is supposed to refute anything, given that (if we take it fully literally) his and Eve’s creation was so dramatically different from that of any subsequent human that it has little relevance to the issue of life and conception, as it’s a different process altogether.

I would also assert that I believe it is in error to claim that the immaculate conception led to more explicit statements of abortion being murder at any point after conception, because it seems far more logical to me to trace them both back to an earlier event: The confirmation of how conception works. For a good period of human history, people were in the dark as to exactly how conception works, because they didn’t know about the ovum, and thought the sperm interfaced somehow with the menstrual blood. One of the objections to the idea of the immaculate conception, in fact, was that it didn’t seem to work right with how they thought conception worked. Starting in the 17th century, there was increased speculation about the existence of the ovum, but it wasn’t until the 19th century that we really got the proof this was the case, and that conception occurred when the sperm fertilized the egg. This discovery thereby dispelled one of the theological arguments against the immaculate conception (giving it greater credence), and simultaneously giving much stronger evidence to the claim that life proper begins at conception, thereby giving credence to those who view abortion at any point after conception to be murder.

Or at least, that is my understanding of the timeline.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
A party that has “no chance” of winning this year may very well have a chance in some later year. And racking up votes now is the main way in which parties get noticed.
Click to expand...
A De,mocrat argument we saw in the last election, the purpose of which is to induce prolife voters to throw away their votes instead of voting against the abortion candidate. You should have found the argument wanting last time and rejected it, and it’s even more deceptive this time.
LeafByNiggle said:
As I just showed, your vote determines not only who wins today, but who has a chance of winning in the next election.
Click to expand...
I’m sure those who supported “no chance” candidates in the past thought the same thing. Where is the “Bull Moose Party” today? Where is Ross Perot’s party? Where is Ralph Nader’s?

You should not have fallen for this. Please think it over again.
Erikaspirit16 said:
So let’s amend what you said: Law must be based on truths that are generally accepted by everyone.
Click to expand...
So the British were wrong in ending “Suttee” in India. The U.S. was wrong in ending Bushido in Japan. And we’re wrong today in opposing the Communist Chinese Party. There are a lot more people who accept that than accept our constitution.
Erikaspirit16 said:
You BELIEVE you know when a new human being begins. Others believe differently.
Click to expand...
Just as I may BELIEVE shooting blindly into a crowded stadium is wrong but others might believe differently.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I’m sure those who supported “no chance” candidates in the past thought the same thing. Where is the “Bull Moose Party” today? Where is Ross Perot’s party? Where is Ralph Nader’s?
Click to expand...
The Republican party started out as a minor party in the time of the Whigs and Democrats. So it does happen on occasion. If you had been around in 1854, would you have advised the nascent Republican Party that they should instead decide support one of the existing major parties? It is easy to answer that question with the benefit of hindsight. It is not so easy to answer today for what will be popular tomorrow.
 
I think we both know none of the existing minor parties has a chance of defeating the abortion candidate. They are totally unlike the Repub party, which was a coalition of segments of existing parties, backed by almost the entire northeast and the big moneyed interests. The Whig party was already falling apart and largely joined the new party en masse.

Nothing similar in these parties one never hears of.
 
After thinking it over and weighing the options, I’ve decided I’m voting third party. It’s between the Green Party or the American Solidarity Party for me.
 
JSRG said:
the question was when it happened, i.e. at conception or later on.
Click to expand...
That was my point. And I’ve read that about 10% of the bishops disagreed with the idea, along with Orthodox, all (?) the Protestants, etc. And there was an issue that previous dogmas were based in long tradition or scripture, and this was not quite the same. Again, I’m not taking sides here, I’m just trying to bring in some history and perspective.
JSRG said:
his and Eve’s creation was so dramatically different from that of any subsequent human
Click to expand...
That’s one interpretation. Others would interpret it differently.
JSRG said:
I believe it is in error to claim that the immaculate conception led to more explicit statements of abortion being murder at any point after conception, because it seems far more logical to me to trace them both back to an earlier event: The confirmation of how conception works. For a good period of human history, people were in the dark as to exactly how conception works, because they didn’t know about the ovum, and thought the sperm interfaced somehow with the menstrual blood.
Click to expand...
You’re right, but…my point is that yes, by 1869 they had the concept of sperm and egg down, but that’s as far as it went. They certainly didn’t “know exactly how conception works” in 1869. They had no concept of genes, chromosomes, DNA, various proteins and chemicals involved, and how it all worked and in what order and in what time frame. All that came later, much later. My point is that for about 1800 years, although certainly there was speculation and different people came to different conclusions, no one came along to successfully challenge the accepted notions of the time. But within a short time span you had the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (1854), Lourdes (1858), and a new definition of all abortion = murder (1869). All I’m saying is that this topic was on the minds of Church leaders in a way it hadn’t been before. Could it all have been coincidence? Possibly. You would have to look at letters, Church records, reports, etc. to see where all the cross references were (if they were anywhere). But without writing a PhD thesis on the subject, it seems reasonable to conclude that the issue of when human life began was being thought about in a way it hadn’t been before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top