H
heidi_storage
Guest
At the cost of taking away a human’s entire future. Too heavy a cost. Autonomy is not absolute.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
More than that they are generally very interested in enforcing traditional gender roles that amount to women being tied to the home and family. This is clearly true for the Catholic pro-life movement.
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
I don’t believe so, although some probably do. Pro-choicers mostly feel that pro-lifers are trying to take their autonomy away from them.
M
Monica83
Guest
Thats true…Peter Singer I believe, thinks that infants have less rights than adults because they contribute less. Many secularists like him even go towards hedonistic utilitarianism.
Interestingly enough, he makes the same arguments for infanticide as prochoice do for feticide minus bodily autonomy. That a human infant is not a person because “they have no rationality, autonomy, or self-awareness”.
Interestingly enough, he makes the same arguments for infanticide as prochoice do for feticide minus bodily autonomy. That a human infant is not a person because “they have no rationality, autonomy, or self-awareness”.
Last edited:
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life, and for the lives of all my brothers and sisters. I know there is nothing that destroys more life than abortion, yet I rejoice that You have conquered death by the Resurrection of Your Son. I am ready to do my part in ending abortion.
A
anon98328916
Guest
I went to Knock today, I did not want to be anywhere else after Friday and being close to Our Lady helped me realise to not give up and keep praying because this is in reality a battle between Satan and the church.
Last edited:
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Yes, I am a man. But what I have seen with women who are pregnant are proud expectant mothers, bringing in their scans to show to friends and colleagues at work. How would a pregnant mother react if someone said to her, “I see you have some human tissue growing inside you, are you going to keep it or have it removed?” Or looked at the scan she brought in to show and said, “Interesting looking collection of cells there, it looks shaped like a baby, even though we know its not a baby, but just human tissue”?I am assuming you are a man. That may be why you can’t imagine these things.
I can tell you, when I was pregnant with my child, she was a planned and wanted pregnancy. However, I really had no attachment to her, emotionally speaking, until I was mid-pregnancy and knew her gender.
I think there is a real cognitive dissonance going on with many women between what they feel about their own children and what they think they ought to feel about abortion in general.
Last edited:
B
brian_custer
Guest
wow, great post…
Yeah. Same in my local church. A few Bishops and priests have already been in the media for saying people who voted yes should go to confession.There was stunned silence in our church at Mass this morning as a result of this vote. So many Catholics are deluding themselves in supporting the ‘Pro Choice’ side.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Though I am pro-life, I admit that the ensoulement issue is important and cannot simply be skirted around, as we tend to do unfortunately.
The Church has never defined, officially or dogmatically, when the foetus becomes ensouled - and thus the question of when abortion becomes de facto homicide of a human person rather than termination of a life in being with the potential of becoming a person, is an open and undetermined issue as far as our doctrine is concerned. And that’s a big omission, insofar as the abortion debate is concerned.
It has no bearing on the morality of abortion for the Church. Even when the church did accept the Aristotelian understanding of gestation, until the 1917 change in canon law or the 1869 excommunication extension, and therefore distinguished between the fetus inanimatus (the unformed, inanimate fetus) and the fetus animatus (the formed, animate fetus), the wilful abortion of an unforned and inanimate foetus prior to its infusion with a rational soul had still been regarded as a sinful act because it was still a human life.
However, penitentials and canon law prescribed lesser penances and ecclesiastical punishments for it than they did abortion of a formed and animate foetus, which was classed as murder. It is thus hugely important whether or not one views the life in being in the womb as a person or not, and church doctrine - revealed, infallible doctrine - is silent on this, given the lack of an objective scientific test.
(continued…)
The Church has never defined, officially or dogmatically, when the foetus becomes ensouled - and thus the question of when abortion becomes de facto homicide of a human person rather than termination of a life in being with the potential of becoming a person, is an open and undetermined issue as far as our doctrine is concerned. And that’s a big omission, insofar as the abortion debate is concerned.
It has no bearing on the morality of abortion for the Church. Even when the church did accept the Aristotelian understanding of gestation, until the 1917 change in canon law or the 1869 excommunication extension, and therefore distinguished between the fetus inanimatus (the unformed, inanimate fetus) and the fetus animatus (the formed, animate fetus), the wilful abortion of an unforned and inanimate foetus prior to its infusion with a rational soul had still been regarded as a sinful act because it was still a human life.
However, penitentials and canon law prescribed lesser penances and ecclesiastical punishments for it than they did abortion of a formed and animate foetus, which was classed as murder. It is thus hugely important whether or not one views the life in being in the womb as a person or not, and church doctrine - revealed, infallible doctrine - is silent on this, given the lack of an objective scientific test.
(continued…)
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), dismisses the idea that the soul is infused at conception and uses the supernatural nature of Jesus’s conception to clarify this:
THE CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Creed - Article III
It assumes the distinction between an “unensouled” fetus at conception and an “ensouled” fetus after a ‘certain lapse of time’.
Jesus was thought to have been the only human animated at conception courtesy of a miracle of the Holy Spirit, whereas everyone else started out as unensouled fetal tissue until a certain lapse of time in which the fetus became ‘quickened’ in the womb (capable of sensation and movement).
The Church didn’t define the length of the time lapse from conception. Generally, however, the quickening was long thought by theologians to occur at the time the woman first felt movement in her womb. If talking about specific time periods, it thus ranged from 40 - 80 days after conception but there was no completely agreed definition.
Even today though, the Church does not teach that we can be sure that the embryo is animated at the point of conception. The stance goes that probabilism may not be used where human life may be at stake, thus the 1992 Catholic Catechism notes that the embryo must be treated from conception “tamquam, “as if” a human person”. It further states that: “the church has not determined officially when human life [i.e. personhood] actually begins” and respect for life at all stages, even potential personhood, is generally the context of church documents.
Consider this Vatican document:
(Donum Vitae 1987)
The insistence thus was, and remains, that the embryo should be treated as a person even if the Church is unwilling to definitively say that the embryo is a person.
THE CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Creed - Article III
_"What surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel…the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason… _
That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time."
It assumes the distinction between an “unensouled” fetus at conception and an “ensouled” fetus after a ‘certain lapse of time’.
Jesus was thought to have been the only human animated at conception courtesy of a miracle of the Holy Spirit, whereas everyone else started out as unensouled fetal tissue until a certain lapse of time in which the fetus became ‘quickened’ in the womb (capable of sensation and movement).
The Church didn’t define the length of the time lapse from conception. Generally, however, the quickening was long thought by theologians to occur at the time the woman first felt movement in her womb. If talking about specific time periods, it thus ranged from 40 - 80 days after conception but there was no completely agreed definition.
Even today though, the Church does not teach that we can be sure that the embryo is animated at the point of conception. The stance goes that probabilism may not be used where human life may be at stake, thus the 1992 Catholic Catechism notes that the embryo must be treated from conception “tamquam, “as if” a human person”. It further states that: “the church has not determined officially when human life [i.e. personhood] actually begins” and respect for life at all stages, even potential personhood, is generally the context of church documents.
Consider this Vatican document:
(Donum Vitae 1987)
So the Congregation here refrained from directly affirming the moment of ensoulement and by extension ‘personhood’. It nevertheless opined that the existence of a unique genetic/DNA program from fertilization onwards, however, provided “a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life”.**This Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person… **
Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul…The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion.
The insistence thus was, and remains, that the embryo should be treated as a person even if the Church is unwilling to definitively say that the embryo is a person.
Last edited:
I
IsaiahSpirit
Guest
“1. The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death.”a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life
D
Dhc8_Type
Guest
Her death was directly caused by the unability of her to receive a life saving medical procedure. Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
I remember when this happened. Tragic, and so unnecessary.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The mostly Republican Appointed 1973 SC ruled in favor of Roe by a 7-2 vote.
D
deMontfort
Guest
So basically the vast majority of “Catholics” in Ireland are really Catholics-in-name-only who reject the church’s teaching on practically everything.
G
Gordong
Guest
Could people here please get informed and read about the Savita hallappanavar case
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
I think many feel that it is the beauty of the way the reproductive system works. It is sort of between the woman and what is going on in her body, and God if she believes in god. It is private, and by all indications it is meant to be private by the way it is designed. Otherwise, we would lay eggs.I think there is a real cognitive dissonance going on with many women between what they feel about their own children and what they think they ought to feel about abortion in general.
That is just my thought though on how many of the women I know feel about it.
M
Monica83
Guest
Privacy never gives one an excuse to kill a human being in all other circumstances.
M
Monica83
Guest
Yes that is a very sad and unfortunate case. From the inquest it sounds like she was not given a very effective antibiotic. Having had a high fever, chills, and retained placenta myself a few days after the birth if my 1st child, I can tell you, effective antibiotics cured me pretty much instantly.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.