I'm pro-life...but that's my choice

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aquila_Lucis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholicpotato said:
I think this is the problem with people just willy nilly saying things about a religion. I have heard it all. Jews dont believe in God, Jews drink baby blood, Buddhism isnt a religion, Mormons can fly, Jews dont believe in the afterlife… yadda yadda yadda. If you look hard enough I’m sure you can find Catholics that are pro choice;)
I’m sure some Jews could argue about when “mankind” first received a soul but I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that you wont find a practicing Jew that makes the assertion that one does not attain a soul until one reaches the age of development of Adam…
Click to expand...
That is true.

Although, for the sake of argument and as FAR AS I KNOW, Islam teaches that life does NOT begin at conception. So the using of abortion in certain circumstances is not as strict. So THERE’S an “example.”

The conversation may refuse. I’m rather enjoying it. :D:p
 
meltzerboy said:
Excuse me, Nate, but it was not I who was insinuating such, but you. I was saying that, based on Genesis, the soul is not imparted until after the body, while you were making the point that this means the baby would have to grow to be a man. The Jewish position is based on Adam in terms of time sequence: first the physical body is created, then the soul is infused. That doesn’t literally mean that the child must grow up to be the same age as Adam.
Click to expand...
Haha I think you meant Catholicpotato here. Anyways I would like to ask though on what basis do you use to determine what is “developed enough” to have a soul? I’m also curious as to Jewish teaching on whether all other living things have souls or not, even if they are not immortal souls. My point being that if a bacteria has a soul and the fact that it has life is attributed to that soul, how can you deny that a baby in any stage of life does not have a soul? And by virtue of being human that soul must be a human immortal soul correct?
 
meltzerboy brings up some very interesting points.

I’m not sure about the accuracy of this website, but I was surprised by some it – although I recognize I probably don’t understand the nuances.jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion
full human status in Judaism pertains only at the birth of a full-term baby. The Hellenistic position and that of the early church stand in opposition to the position which developed in the Land of Israel and which became normative Jewish law. Although there was some tendency to accept the Hellenistic position by ascribing levels of vitality to the fetus, it never attained full human status. Consequently, abortion was never considered homicide in Jewish law.
Click to expand...
The halakhic status of an embryo/fetus depends upon the stage of its development. From conception to the fortieth day, it is considered to be merely water. At three months the pregnancy is physically recognizable. Prior to labor the fetus is considered a “limb of its mother,” i.e. without independent legal status. During labor, before the head (or the majority of the body in a breech birth) is delivered, the fetus is considered a living being but one whose life is less valuable than the mother’s. After the head or the majority of the body is birthed, the fetus has a nearly equal status with the mother, especially if it is a full-term pregnancy. Only after a full-term pregnancy or survival of the premature fetus for thirty days does full human status adhere.
Click to expand...
And this was surprising as well:
A number of Talmudic discussions reflect** the unwillingness of certain sages to classify severely deformed and nonviable products of conception as human** (JT Niddah and BT Niddah 3, Mishnah Bekhorot 6, Mishnah Keritot 1). Consequently, in reference to some aspects of birth (such as birth impurity, obligation of the birth sacrifice, or days of the “blood of purity”), the product of conception was not considered human nor was the act of giving birth considered birth. This certainly opens the possibility that these products of conception, some of which can now be identified prenatally, may be aborted without halakhic objection.
Click to expand...
VC
 
meltzerboy said:
Biological life may begin at conception, but according to the Jewish interpretation of Genesis, the soul is not imparted to Man (beginning with Adam) until after the body is fully formed, shortly before birth. Science says nothing about the soul. This is why, if there is a conflict regarding saving the mother’s life and saving the life of her unborn child, the mother’s life takes precedence and an abortion has to be performed even late in pregnancy, according to Jewish teaching. Admittedly, this is a rare occurrence but an Orthodox Jewish woman, if she chooses to abide by Jewish Law, is nonetheless obliged to save her own life in this heartbreaking situation. I realize the Catholic perspective is quite different, involving I think the verse “I knew you before you were born” and other biblical interpretations. However, that is precisely the reason I believe there should be a religious exemption if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It is not a question of moral relativism, but rather theological differences in belief. We can all agree that abortion should never be on demand for frivolous reasons, but unfortunately there are painful circumstances (including medical anomalies, incest, and rape) when it may be justified on theological grounds other than that of Catholicism, and should therefore ultimately be left to the woman, her family, her doctor, and her religious or spiritual advisor. It is a most personal, often agonizing, decision and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, this was St. Thomas Aquinas’ view on the ensoulment of a child:
… He also held that, unlike the souls of brute animals, the human soul is directly created by God. In various places he argues that the rational soul has intellectual powers of conceptual thought that are independent of matter, and hence the operations of these powers are not performed with a bodily organ. Therefore, the rational soul must have its existence independently of matter. But what has existence independent of matter cannot come to be through the coming into existence of a matter-form (or body-soul) composite. Thus, Aquinas held that God immediately creates the human soul and (at the same time) infuses it into the body. That said, the human rational soul is created and infused into the body only when the human parents have, by their generative act, produced a material substance that is disposed to receive and to be informed by a human soul. In one place Aquinas follows Aristotle in saying that the rational soul is infused at 40 days for males, and at 90 days for females.
Click to expand...
www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm
 
Catholicpotato said:
True. But again. You can find 1 person in any faith that believes something but what does the actual faith teach?
Click to expand...
I just thought it was interesting-- that’s all. I’m still against abortion in all circumstances, and I have my reasons.
 
Anthony_V said:
Interestingly enough, this was St. Thomas Aquinas’ view on the ensoulment of a child:

www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm
Click to expand...
We must also remember that Thomas Aquinas was writing 450 years ago. His understanding of prenatal development was less than sufficient. I don’t know exactly what he knew scientifically regarding prenatal development, but with the 50 difference between male and female, one can reasonably conclude that he didn’t know much. Thomas was brilliant but he could bot predict the future, nor could he have invented the ultrasound.

I believe ensoulment occurs as soon as the potentiality for human life beings (conception). One must consider the duality of the human being as well, it is a body-soul relationship. We know that the soul continues to exist without the body but I do not believe that the body can exist without the soul.
 
karebear92 said:
We must also remember that Thomas Aquinas was writing 450 years ago. His understanding of prenatal development was less than sufficient. I don’t know exactly what he knew scientifically regarding prenatal development, but with the 50 difference between male and female, one can reasonably conclude that he didn’t know much. Thomas was brilliant but he could bot predict the future, nor could he have invented the ultrasound.

I believe ensoulment occurs as soon as the potentiality for human life beings (conception). One must consider the duality of the human being as well, it is a body-soul relationship. We know that the soul continues to exist without the body but I do not believe that the body can exist without the soul.
Click to expand...
I agree wit you, Karebear92. I also believe, with St. Thomas Aquinas, that the human soul is infused only when the body is already sufficiently disposed to receive it. However, my contention is that at conception the embryo of a human mother is already sufficiently disposed to receive a human soul. Its DNA structure already qualifies it as definitely human because it couldn’t possibly grow into anything else - not a fish, nor a bird, nor a mouse, nor anything else but a human being.

I have just one note to add. Sometimes the new organism can split into two, which makes me believe that, in that case, two souls would then be created, resulting into a twin.
 
Wait, what? It isn’t the 1700s? Are you sure?

I have no clue how I arrived at that number… I just don’t. I knew when he died, so I guess I don’t know when I live.

Looks like it is time to start editing all of my posts rather than just the long and more complicated ones.
 
karebear92 said:
Wait, what? It isn’t the 1700s? Are you sure?

I have no clue how I arrived at that number… I just don’t. I knew when he died, so I guess I don’t know when I live.

Looks like it is time to start editing all of my posts rather than just the long and more complicated ones.
Click to expand...
LOL. And I agreed with you, so that makes me the greater fool? Ha ha ha.

Well, I wasn’t paying attention with the math, but I was agreeing with your statement that St. Thomas knowledge of biological science was insufficient at that time.
 
But, as an American, I also know and understand that my values are not the same values that everyone else has. God gave us the freedom of choice–and the responsibility of the consequences that go with those choices. Not everyone feels that abortion is morally objectionable; for example, my athiest brother; Islam even recognizes circumstances in which abortion is–to them, at least–permissible. So, how can we legislate our faith, codify it into law?
Forgive me, I didn’t use the quote feature properly. The above is from the OP. The text below is my response.

Not everyone feels that child marriage & sexual relations with minors is morally objectionable; not everyone feels that dog fighting is morally objectionable; not everyone feels that plural marriage is morally objectionable; not everyone feels that beating your spouse is morally objectionable!!! Are you getting my drift!! Yet, we have laws against all of these things. Because they are wrong. Killing a person is wrong. How is it that if I kill my baby the day before it is born it’s legal (in some states) but the day after it is born it is illegal? I’m against sex with minors, but that’s my choice! It might be someone else’s choice to engage in that activity. Do you see how flawed your rationale is? My prayers are with you. Pax
 
Verbum_Caro said:
meltzerboy brings up some very interesting points.

I’m not sure about the accuracy of this website, but I was surprised by some it – although I recognize I probably don’t understand the nuances.jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion

And this was surprising as well:

VC
Click to expand...
The second paragraph concerning deformed unborn children, which is purportedly taken from Talmudic discussion, I’m not familiar with. However, I’m sure there is much left out regarding how these ideas were shaped. One must pay attention to all the intricacies of the debate when dealing with Talmudic interpretation, as well as dissenting opinions.

With respect to the first paragraph, there is, to my knowledge, an inaccuracy, namely that once the head of the baby is birthed, the baby’s life is NEARLY equal to that of the mother. That should read EXACTLY equal. In such a case, one is NOT permitted to sacrifice one life to save another. The reasoning here is that the neonate is no longer FULLY BIOLOGICALLY dependent on the mother for their existence, even though one can make the argument that the infant cannot live very long without immediate and constant care. The Jewish notion of what is called the “pursuer” comes into play when the infant is still in the womb. This means that the unborn child’s life is totally dependent on the mother AND, at the same time, is literally threatening the mother’s life. In this case, G-d Himself is believed to have predestined the death of such an unborn child and it is permissible (and, as stated previously, mandated) to “assist” G-d in taking the unborn child’s life provided this will save the mother’s life. According to this interpretation, which is an alternative to the one I had discussed before involving the time sequence of the soul (though not necessarily mutually exclusive), the soul of the unborn child returns to Heaven and may prepare the path for the coming of the Messiah.

One must also realize that, in Judaism, there is the Law–both the Written Law, or Torah, and the Oral Law, or Talmud–and various interpretations and applications of the Law to appropriately moral behaviors in often challenging life situations. While Judaism does have certain general moral principles to begin with, it is more concerned with how these moral principles translate to real-life problems. IOW, the faith of the religion is illustrated and clarified by means of specific behavioral examples. In a sense, one can argue that Catholicism is more of a top-down religion, while Judaism is more of a bottom-up religion. Those outside of Judaism may not realize this, believing that Judaism always follows the letter of the Law–as opposed to its spirit–as depicted in Torah (Mosaic Law).
 
Aquila_Lucis said:
But, as an American, I also know and understand that my values are not the same values that everyone else has. God gave us the freedom of choice–and the responsibility of the consequences that go with those choices. Not everyone feels that abortion is morally objectionable; for example, my athiest brother; Islam even recognizes circumstances in which abortion is–to them, at least–permissible. So, how can we legislate our faith, codify it into law?
Click to expand...
Legal protection for unborn human beings is not “legislating our faith.” Not in any way. That’s an evil falsehood; don’t be deceived by it.
Aquila_Lucis said:
In my heart, I feel that to force everyone to choose life, to remove their rights as humans and as citizens to choose for themselves between right or wrong would be the same as forcing my athiest brother to come to Mass every day.
Click to expand...
Recently, a man whom an older woman owed some money ambushed her in an elevator and set her on fire. She burned to death, trapped in the elevator. Here’s the news link.

What this man did was illegal, and he has since been arrested. But by your logic, the fact that what he did was illegal is a violation of his right to choose good or evil.

The fact is, everyone agrees that the law should restrict some freedoms. A basic principle compatible with even the most stringent libertarianism is that the choices the law should prohibit are only those that infringe upon the rights of other human beings.

For instance, that man’s choice to burn his debtor to death in an elevator is illegal. The law does not grant him the freedom to do that, because it infringes on the right to life of his debtor.

Abortion involves the destruction of life just as much. Every day thousands of unborn human beings are ripped limb from limb or burned alive. This is a violation of their basic human rights, which require no religious belief whatsoever to recognize.

Don’t let yourself be brainwashed by the pro-abortion ideologues. Abortion is as much a violation of another human being’s inherent rights as that elevator attack, and that is why its legality is a disgrace and a horror to be rectified at the soonest possible moment.
Aquila_Lucis said:
A) Life–humanity–begins at conception (my personal belief, if I didn’t make that clear)

“A” is faith.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. Don’t be deceived.

It is a demonstrable biological fact of science that even a single-celled human zygote is alive. Furthermore, it is human (obviously… it’s not going to be a goat, or a platypus, or an archaea).

So yes, it is in fact a living human being, which no one can empirically deny. If abortion should be legal, then not all human beings get to have human rights.
Aquila_Lucis said:
So, then, here are my true questions: doesn’t God offer us all opportunities, all the time, to choose between right and wrong? And won’t He judge us Himself for those choices?
Click to expand...
If I saw off your limbs and throw the pieces of your dismembered corpse in a dumpster, God will indeed judge me Himself for this choice.

Does that mean that it should be legal for me to do so? No, of course not. Wake up.
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
It is a demonstrable biological fact of science that even a single-celled human zygote is alive. Furthermore, it is human (obviously… it’s not going to be a goat, or a platypus, or a…
Click to expand...
This is a misreading of the science. The sense in which science declares the zygote to be alive is not the same sense in which moral theology declares that cell to be alive. All the scientific sense means is that if given the proper conditions this cell will develop into a recognizable human being. The same could be said of a sperm and an egg in close proximity but before conception.

Unfortunately our language was developed before much of the details of conception were known. Therefore we tend to use the same words to describe different things. Sure, we have scientific terms like zygote and fetus that do make distinctions, but when talking about the moral implications of these things we tend to simplify and older, less specific terminology. There is nothing that science has learned about the reproductive process that bears on the moral question involved. These questions must always be answered as they always have been - morally. Invoking the term “science” is a cop out.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This is a misreading of the science. The sense in which science declares the zygote to be alive is not the same sense in which moral theology declares that cell to be alive. All the scientific sense means is that if given the proper conditions this cell will develop into a recognizable human being. The same could be said of a sperm and an egg in close proximity but before conception.

Unfortunately our language was developed before much of the details of conception were known. Therefore we tend to use the same words to describe different things. Sure, we have scientific terms like zygote and fetus that do make distinctions, but when talking about the moral implications of these things we tend to simplify and older, less specific terminology. There is nothing that science has learned about the reproductive process that bears on the moral question involved. These questions must always be answered as they always have been - morally. Invoking the term “science” is a cop out.
Click to expand...
Why are you bringing moral theology into it? Theology is irrelevant to what is in fact a secular ethical question: should abortion be legal?

Interesting fact: you won’t find anywhere an official Catholic teaching that declares that ensoulment happens at conception. Why? Because the Church knows that such theological matters - including when life “begins” according to theology - don’t matter for an ethical debate that transcends religion.

So forget theology. It’s a red herring on this matter. This is not a religious issue at all. Don’t make it one.

It is a simple question with secular and ethical implications: should direct abortion be legal?

The fact is, an abortion kills a living human being. If we decide it should be legal, we have given ourselves as a society the right to decide which human beings have rights that ought to be defended and protected… and which don’t.

Are you comfortable with that? Some pro-choice people, like Princeton professor Peter Singer, are. He fully acknowledges it; he actually advocates the legalization of infanticide.

Most ethically sane people, however, recognize the morally troubling implications of a society’s assigning to itself the right to decide which human beings have rights and which do not.

Killing a human being is a violation of his or her basic human rights, which ought to be protected by law, just as they are for every born human being.
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
Why are you bringing moral theology into it? Theology is irrelevant to what is in fact a secular ethical question: should abortion be legal?

Interesting fact: you won’t find anywhere an official Catholic teaching that declares that ensoulment happens at conception. Why? Because the Church knows that such theological matters - including when life “begins” according to theology - don’t matter for an ethical debate that transcends religion.

So forget theology. It’s a red herring on this matter. This is not a religious issue at all. Don’t make it one.

It is a simple question with secular and ethical implications: should direct abortion be legal?

The fact is, an abortion kills a living human being. If we decide it should be legal, we have given ourselves as a society the right to decide which human beings have rights that ought to be defended and protected… and which don’t.

Are you comfortable with that? Some pro-choice people, like Princeton professor Peter Singer, are. He fully acknowledges it; he actually advocates the legalization of infanticide.

Most ethically sane people, however, recognize the morally troubling implications of a society’s assigning to itself the right to decide which human beings have rights and which do not.

Killing a human being is a violation of his or her basic human rights, which ought to be protected by law, just as they are for every born human being.
Click to expand...
You can say that ethics and religion are totally separate, but that does not make it so. I admit that people without religion can and do have ethics. However people derive their ethics from different sources. An atheist might derive his ethics from purely pragmatic considerations of what will make society prosper; or he might derive his ethics from some mystic sense of human dignity. But a Christian informs his sense of ethics from his understanding of God as the author of all ethics. A Christian would never say “I have my ethics and I have my religion and they have nothing to do with each other.”

Another reason I am reluctant to place too much emphasis on secular science as the basis for my opposition to abortion is that science can cut both ways. Today you have some scientific findings that seem to support our ethical and moral beliefs. Tomorrow there may be some results that say the opposite. For example, consider the purely hypothetical case where someone discovers a previously unknown connection between mother and baby where some additional DNA gets incorporated into the fetus 3 weeks after conception. If such a thing were to happen, would you be ready to revise your morality (or ethics, if you will) and say that abortion in the first 3 weeks is OK because the fetus is not yet fully alive? I would not want to leave myself open to having to say that. There are plenty of good moral reasons for opposition abortion. Relying on “science” to be the basis for this opposition is both dangerous and distracting to the effort to convince others of what we believe.
 
I am personally opposed to slavery… but I am pro-choice on the issue. If others want to have slaves that is their issue, I will not impose my morality on them.

Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, wrote with both wit and hint of sarcasm:

I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go so far as to support mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even nonjudgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately pro-choice.
 
Not_Sure said:
I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go so far as to support mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even nonjudgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately pro-choice.
Click to expand...
I thought an abortionist is a person who performs abortion. We are not talking here of the legality of killing abortionists or doctors (who usually are the ones that perform abortion); we are talking of the legality of killing unborn human beings.

Can you clarify?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top