Is Answering To Pro Abortion/choice Poster Taking You Away From What You Need To Do About The Issue Of Abortion

[JDaniel]

LIFE does not begin with conception.
LIFE takes a new form with conception.

Why do you confuse “LIFE” with the “reception of a soul”?

Catholics do not argue the protection of the unborn from the concept of “life.”

The new living form is NOT created from non-living matter, but from living human matter, in the form of living human entities, namely, the spermatazoa and the oocites.

The Church is in partial disagreement with this. To us, you have supplanted a variation of the word, “form”. “Form” for us, in this matter, is that which God “applies” to “primary matter” (from our general science of “coming-to-be”) at the instant of creation of a “substantially” new being. It plus primary matter are, in fact, the “soul”.

That God “uses” means that are in keeping with (mother)-Nature, which He has created, is in conformance with His intention. (There are realities out there that can be preceived if you will only look up from that microscope )

This is the plain science.

But, it is pre-supposed by a “general science of nature”.

You, not being Catholic, probably have no idea of this.

Mother Church does not argue cases of science.

Mother Church has already argued this point, as per the above.

His Holiness Pope John Paul II expressed opinions in Evangelium Vitae, but these were not infallible teachings, but prudential opinions.

Because he knew all of what I have just reported to you.

This is a matter of FAITH.

Actually, this is not “from” faith; rather, it is “from” a General Science of Nature.

I never said that killing a human being was not involved.
Neither did I say it was not an act of evil.
I said, PLAINLY, that it was a SIN.

Sound thinking!

What I said was that there was, until there was some evidence of quickening, that there was no evidence that the foetus was a person.

ONLY to those unfamiliar with a General Science of Nature.

In LAW, in the majority of countries, homicide is the killing of a person, not the destruction of a glob of cells.

Thus, I would encourage you to burn toe-nail clippings! - but, not the immediately created child.

Because of this, there is THEREFORE, no case of homicide to be answered, as there is no proof that the foetus is a person.

Because of a knowledge of a General Science of Nature that pre-supposes specific sciences of nature, we have proof.

Again, it is not me who is twisting words, but by misrepresenting what I have posted, it is you who are twisting words.

I see this more as two people who, speaking different languages, are having a categorical difficulty of comprehension.
(I hate to keep using these things, but, I want us to be respectful towards each other.)

And where have I rationalized killing the innocent?

You haven’t; though you have misunderstood our understanding of
what is fully meant by an “innocent” (human being).

If you can still find one in print, I would suggest you find the short book called, (imagine that!) “The General Science of Nature”, by
Vincent Edward Smith, although you may now be able to read our Catechism and understand us a little better.

Respectfully,
JD

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I’m lost again - I though we threw out that quickening required a woman feeling it in her womb because some women never feel it at all and therefore quickening was actually coordinated movements by the embryo/fetus which is definitely existent at 8 weeks - why do people keep saying 16 weeks when it is scientifically proven to be 8 weeks?

Actually science suggests 20 weeks, but implies variation, so I suggest 16 weeks.
Reports of organised and co-ordinated movement at 8 weeks do not seem to be well supported in scientific publications.
A beheaded chicken can run over 25 yards without falling over.
That is co-ordinated, but is it organised?
No head, no brain.

I also object to people calling oocytes and spermatazoa humans. They are haploid - half human genetic material and incapable of turning into a human without fusing with another haploid.

But likewise, an adult human being is incapable of generating a new human being without combining in part with a member of the opposite sex.
The same argument applies.

I have yet to see an argument that makes them equal to a human being.

We are not talking about ‘imago’ human beings. I specifically said ‘larval’ form of human being. Does a caterpillar have wings?

Fertilization is obviously the first time something exists that is separate human tissue

NO! Both the oocites, and the spermatazoa, which are both COMPLETLY human, ie they are nothing but human, and they are alive, processing ATP to generate energy. You might not like to call them human beings, but they are living tissue, so they are bearers of LIFE. And as they are nothing but human, they are bearers of human life.
Yes, I agree, conception is a remarkable mile-post, but LIFE does not begin there. The LIFE was there before, and now just exists in a new PHYSICAL form.

completely unique from all other people on the planet (they can’t be identical twins right at fertilization so don’t bring that up). Does someone know of a haploid human walking around? If so I’d really like to see the evidence.

Have you seen a caterpillar with wings?
Your point is invalid.
The larval form exists only in a unicellular form.

Otherwise please stop saying they are human. You can make arguments, but it is all conjecture since there is no evidence of a haploid human and therefore not a person.

Have you seen a zygote walking around?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Why do you confuse “LIFE” with the “reception of a soul”?

Hi JD,
It is Mother Church who asserts that a soul is required to animate inanimate matter.
Since the new life form is the result of the combination of two existing life forms, then inanimate matter is not being animated, but rather the form of existing animated matter is being changed.
I deliberately tried to avoid using the concept of ‘soul’, as it is the source of some difficulty to the Church, and not relevant to science

Catholics do not argue the protection of the unborn from the concept of “life.”

Sorry! What other concept could the argument of protection be based on?

The Church is in partial disagreement with this. To us, you have supplanted a variation of the word, “form”. “Form” for us, in this matter, is that which God “applies” to “primary matter” (from our general science of “coming-to-be”) at the instant of creation of a “substantially” new being. It plus primary matter are, in fact, the “soul”.

This is a matter of religious philosophy. some of the concepts herein are too complex for me to fully understand. I actually doubt if anyone completely understands them.

That God “uses” means that are in keeping with (mother)-Nature, which He has created, is in conformance with His intention. (There are realities out there that can be preceived if you will only look up from that microscope )

But, it is pre-supposed by a “general science of nature”.
You, not being Catholic, probably have no idea of this.

I did actually google that title, but found only references.
It seems to be a treatise on pure philosophy.
That is, philosophy based purly upon logic.
Purely Aristotelian.
Nothing tested by experiment.
So it is not science.
Science is philosophy tested by experiment.
That is the difference between a postulate and a proof.
Mind you, some proofs have been invalidated by experiment, proving that the philosophical bases are defective.

[sign]Mother Church does not argue cases of science. [/sign]
Mother Church has already argued this point, as per the above.

Yes, but only as an aspect of philosophy, not of science.

[sign]His Holiness Pope John Paul II expressed opinions in Evangelium Vitae, but these were not infallible teachings, but prudential opinions.[/sign]Because he knew all of what I have just reported to you.

And again this is pure philosophy.
Not science.

Actually, this is not “from” faith; rather, it is “from” a General Science of Nature.

But as far as I can tell from googling that title, this is a book on pure philosophy.
This is not science, for it is untested with the fire of experiment.

[sign]I never said that killing a human being was not involved.
Neither did I say it was not an act of evil.
I said, PLAINLY, that it was a SIN. [/sign]
Sound thinking!

Good!

[sign]What I said was that there was, until there was some evidence of quickening, that there was no evidence that the foetus was a person. [/sign]
ONLY to those unfamiliar with a General Science of Nature.

Sorry, that is not science but philosophy.

Thus, I would encourage you to burn toe-nail clippings! - but, not the immediately created child.

Because of a knowledge of a General Science of Nature that pre-supposes specific sciences of nature, we have proof.

I see this more as two people who, speaking different languages, are having a categorical difficulty of comprehension.
(I hate to keep using these things, but, I want us to be respectful towards each other.)

You haven’t; though you have misunderstood our understanding of
what is fully meant by an “innocent” (human being).

If you can still find one in print, I would suggest you find the short book called, (imagine that!) “The General Science of Nature”, by
Vincent Edward Smith, although you may now be able to read our Catechism and understand us a little better.

Respectfully,
JD

I haven’t commented any further, for that would involve repetition and tautology.
The point is already made, that the title you quote holds pure philosophy above science.
That is a form of blind faith.
Even Our Lord accepted that faith may, even must be tested.

 

[JDaniel]

Hi JD,
It is Mother Church who asserts that a soul is required to animate inanimate matter.

No. Mother Church says that “form” (Primary matter and Soul combined) is the source of anima, not the other way around.

Since the new life form is the result of the combination of two existing life forms, then inanimate matter is not being animated, but rather the form of existing animated matter is being changed.

Again, you are so tied to the “science” of a thing, you won’t see the pre-suppositions. It is immaterial that the sperm and the oocyte have life. God uses this process to add “form” to “primary matter”, which, at this point is in the metaphysical realm.

The sperm and the oocyte are two independent, living entities in themselves, as you have properly indicated. They are capable of two types of change: (1) accidental change, and (2) substantial change. Accidental change is, for example, their motions within the fallopian tubes, or the uterus. “Substantial” change is the merging of the two into a zygote (or, choose whatever earlier-in-time discriptive term you want).

The “substantial” change is the coming to be of the living soul.

I deliberately tried to avoid using the concept of ‘soul’, as it is the source of some difficulty to the Church,

Absurd. It is simply difficult to define in sound bites. Once it is understood, through studying a portion of the reams of the Churches’ writings on the subject, it is understood. The soul is not a “source” of difficulty - that is due to deficiency of knowledge.

and not relevant to science

And science, in this instance, is not relevant to the metaphysics of coming to be.

Sorry! What other concept could the argument of protection be based on?

That it is the destruction of God’s highest creation! Just as contraception is destructive of the human beings’ participation in God’s highest creation, which is the reason that it is a sin.

This is a matter of religious philosophy. some of the concepts herein are too complex for me to fully understand. I actually doubt if anyone completely understands them.

Well, it’s not. St. Thomas understood it. Aristotle understood it. And, they passed it on to others.

I did actually google that title, but found only references.
It seems to be a treatise on pure philosophy.
That is, philosophy based purly upon logic.
Purely Aristotelian.

It is actually not a treatise on pure philosophy. It is a science that is more general and is apriori to the specific sciences, pre-supposing them. The book excellently describes what it is in the first few chapters. It derives directly from our observation of the universe from outside of the magnifying glass.

Nothing tested by experiment.
So it is not science.
Science is philosophy tested by experiment.

It is metaphysics drawn from physics. It is tested by observation.
From “motion” in its widest sense. From “change”. From “growth”. From most forms of “creation”.

That is the difference between a postulate and a proof.

I agree.

Mind you, some proofs have been invalidated by experiment, proving that the philosophical bases are defective.Yes, but only as an aspect of philosophy, not of science.

I’m not sure what you mean, specifically. Please give me an example.

And again this is pure philosophy.
Not science.

(See above.)

I haven’t commented any further, for that would involve repetition and tautology.
The point is already made, that the title you quote holds pure philosophy above science.
That is a form of blind faith.
Even Our Lord accepted that faith may, even must be tested.

(Ditto.)

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dear Sally,
I am not opposed to Catholic teaching, I am not even arguing against that.
What I am trying to do, is to present, at least, a partial case, which can be supported by science and tradition.
The problem with the extreme pro-life position is that they push their case beyond what can be scientifically supported.
You cannot call a zygote a person, neither can you call preventing the implantation of a blastocyst murder.
You can call a zygote a potential human being, or even a human being under construction.
Further, by pushing your definitions beyond normal usage, you might even call a zygote simply a human being, because it is alive, hence a being, and it is certainly human.
However, under that extended definition, also human beings are the spermatazoan and the oocite.
I do not deny that a new life form begins with conception, but that is very different from saying that there is a new life where there was none. This is NOT a case of life formed from the unliving, it is life formed from life, so the life is not new, it is only in a new form. That is simple science.
As science, it is NOT contrary to Church teaching, since the Church does not teach in matters of science.
I do not argue that abortion is not a sin.
I do not argue that contraception is not a sin.
What I argue is that prior to some evidence of quickening, there is no case of homicide to answer, as there is no proof that the foetus is a person, hence no proof of the fact of homicide. Even here I do not believe I am contradicting INFALLIBLE Church teaching.
I accept that I am arguing against some opinions expressed in Evangelium Vitae, but though extracts thereoff are included in the Catechism, Evangelium Vitae is NOT per se infallible teaching, and is freely denied by right-wing ‘Christians’ who support the death penalty, as prudential.
It is by over-presenting your case, that you destroy your own case.
It may be that Satan is at your own elbow urging you into this unconscious sabotage.
As for my religious background, I have been completely open in my profile.
Any may look and judge.

what the heck is quickening,

why isnt a blastocyst a person?

it aint gonna come out donkey

has its own genetic code,

fits all the legal definitions of a person used in the legal system

what up wit’ dat’?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

what the heck is quickening,

When you listen to a launch count-down, you will hear, fairly early in the count, the phrases: “Switching to internals”, and shortly after that, the umbilical becomes de-activated.
This closely reflects the quickening.
At this point in the pregnancy, the brain of the foetus takes over the management of further development, which up to that point had been controlled by hormonal changes in the mother.

why isnt a blastocyst a person?

There is a tendency to misuse words, even to redefine them to suit purpose.
There is also a tendency to collapse definitions to destroy real stages of development, even to the point of calling an acorn an oak tree.
I grant that the common dictionary definition blurs to indistinction, the difference between person and human being, and I consider that an error.
The reason behind this error is that in common usage, the dictionary concerns itself with a born person, in which case, the indistinction is valid.
However, if we are going outside this context, then we must search for the roots of the words.
Person comes from the Latin ‘Persona _ ae’
My Collins gives the following:-
persona, -ae f mask; character, part; person; personality.
A glob of cells does not have any of these properties, except in potentiality, in the same way that an acorn might become an oak tree.
For a person to exist, there must exist a sufficiently developed CNS to support independent brain function of the major hemispheres.
Human being, on the other hand simply refers to a creature of the genus ‘Homo Sapiens’ in any stage of development, including, as early as the zygote, and I insist that the same reasoning also includes the spermatazoa and oocites.
I accept absolutely that the blastocyst is a human being, but is not yet a person.

it ain’t gonna come out donkey

This misunderstanding shows that either you do not understand technically correct English, or that you have gone off at half cock.

has its own genetic code,

ditto

fits all the legal definitions of a person used in the legal system

Obviously not, else all abortions would be de facto homicides.

what up wit’ dat’?

Your language, in its understanding, and use is clearly muddled by imprecission.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

JDaniel:
Hi JD,
I’ll try to clear things up.

[sign] Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
Hi JD,
It is Mother Church who asserts that a soul is required to animate inanimate matter.[/sign]
No. Mother Church says that “form” (Primary matter and Soul combined) is the source of anima, not the other way around.

As I understand English, the two above are identical in meaning.
Viz:
Primary matter = inanimate matter ( = A),
Soul = animating principle ( = B).
Form = animated matter ( = C).
A + B = C.

Again, you are so tied to the “science” of a thing, you won’t see the pre-suppositions. It is immaterial that the sperm and the oocyte have life. God uses this process to add “form” to “primary matter”, which, at this point is in the metaphysical realm.

This is pure metaphysics, but I can accept the pictorial argument. Whether it reflects the actual physical processes is another story.
Whether the animating principles of the two gammetes are combined to form the animating principle of the zygote, or whether they are terminated and replaced by a single principle, is a moot point. The scientist would favour the former, as I do.

The sperm and the oocyte are two independent, living entities in themselves, as you have properly indicated. They are capable of two types of change: (1) accidental change, and (2) substantial change. Accidental change is, for example, their motions within the fallopian tubes, or the uterus. “Substantial” change is the merging of the two into a zygote (or, choose whatever earlier-in-time discriptive term you want).

The “substantial” change is the coming to be of the living soul.

This is the Aristotelian idea, based upon the fallacious assumption that the gametes are inanimate.
The fact that both gametes are animate, or in your vocabulary, already have form, all that is required is for that form to change by merging.

Absurd. It is simply difficult to define in sound bites. Once it is understood, through studying a portion of the reams of the Churches’ writings on the subject, it is understood. The soul is not a “source” of difficulty - that is due to deficiency of knowledge.

As I understand it, Aristotelian logic requires an animating principle from conception, but this was, and in some quarters still is seen as different from the rational soul, so the argument gets muddled with concepts of potentiality being confused with reality.
Some opinions have been formed, but the answer is still not definitive.

And science, in this instance, is not relevant to the metaphysics of coming to be.

Agreed.

That it is the destruction of God’s highest creation! Just as contraception is destructive of the human beings’ participation in God’s highest creation, which is the reason that it is a sin.

Slipping into thev realms of faith.

Well, it’s not. St. Thomas understood it. Aristotle understood it. And, they passed it on to others.

Actually both Aristotle and Aquinas postulated two souls, the animating principle, and distinctly separate, the rational soul.

It is actually not a treatise on pure philosophy. It is a science that is more general and is apriori to the specific sciences, pre-supposing them. The book excellently describes what it is in the first few chapters. It derives directly from our observation of the universe from outside of the magnifying glass.

This is pushing language outside the accepted box.
In as much as this philosophy is tested only by logic, it is pure philosophy.

It is metaphysics drawn from physics. It is tested by observation.
From “motion” in its widest sense. From “change”. From “growth”. From most forms of “creation”.

These observations for thousands of years confirmed that the earth was flat, and the sun and stars rotated about the earth.

[sign]Mind you, some proofs have been invalidated by experiment, proving that the philosophical bases are defective.[/sign]
I’m not sure what you mean, specifically. Please give me an example.

One apple plus one apple equals two apples.
One car crashing head on at 30mph into another car at 30mph gives a closing speed of 60mph.
That is pure mathematical logic.
However, one photon travelling at the speed of light, crashing head-on into another, has the closing velocity of not twice the speed of light, but just the speed of light.
This Einsteinian discovery proved that simple geometrical concepts were of limited use in this universe, and postulates based upon them could be false.

 

[averheyen]

Voco, I think you should just quit. You’re arrogant, at best, and you lost the debate a long time ago.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

off at half cock. ditto Obviously not, else all abortions would be de facto homicides.
Your language, in its understanding, and use is clearly muddled by imprecission.

are we eugenicists to begin deciding what a person is? we all know where that leads,

as such one must be protected from conception, on, there is no point at which one can point to a “glob of cells” and say “now this is a person”

we are all globs of cells, the difference being only in our size

quickening is an arbitrary starting point, having no relation to personhood. potentiality is as applicable from conception until death

when does one go from ‘potential’ to ‘actual’?

any intended abortions, from birth control to surgical. are indeed homicides.

as to your attacks on my language and use thereof,
how does that support your argument?

i could be a total tard, but that doesn’t make you right.

 

[Gamera]

A review of this thread seems to suggest the answer to the titular question: “Is Answering To Pro Abortion/choice Poster Taking You Away From What You Need To Do About The Issue Of Abortion?”

 

[StAnastasia]

As I understand it, Aristotelian logic requires an animating principle from conception, but this was, and in some quarters still is seen as different from the rational soul, so the argument gets muddled with concepts of potentiality being confused with reality…

Dave, your reflections are very interesting, and raise a number of questions in my mind. Let me begin with a first one. Is it even possible to begin with the question “when is the moment of conception?” Could there be multiple such moments, as in multiple stages of conception?

StAnastasia

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dave, your reflections are very interesting, and raise a number of questions in my mind. Let me begin with a first one. Is it even possible to begin with the question “when is the moment of conception?” Could there be multiple such moments, as in multiple stages of conception?

StAnastasia

Hi,
As I understand the process, the fusion of the sperm and the oocite is very much a matter of unicellular mating.
So, as on the macro scale, it is not the moment of penetration that counts, but the merging of the essence.
That is, when two sets of 23 chromosomes become one set of 46.
Again, the thing to remember is that the zygote so formed, contains nothing which was not pre-existing.
It is not new living matter.
It is just pre-existing living matter, re-arranged.
Just like in the macro scale, where in marriage, two become one, in the mating of these unicellular gametes, two become one.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

A review of this thread seems to suggest the answer to the titular question: “Is Answering To Pro Abortion/choice Poster Taking You Away From What You Need To Do About The Issue Of Abortion?”

Precisely!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

off at half cock. ditto Obviously not, else all abortions would be de facto homicides.
Your language, in its understanding, and use is clearly muddled by imprecission.

Sadly, I feel the imprecission lies in your understanding of precise language.

are we eugenicists to begin deciding what a person is? we all know where that leads,

I gave a very precise definition of what a person is, your failure to understand this shows your painful lack of understanding.

as such one must be protected from conception, on, there is no point at which one can point to a “glob of cells” and say “now this is a person”

On the basis of the above, this is arrant nonsense.

we are all globs of cells, the difference being only in our size

If you cannot tell the difference between a blastocyst and a born human being, then your perception is sadly lacking.

quickening is an arbitrary starting point, having no relation to personhood.

All points are arbitrary.
What quickening proves though is that what once was a glob of cells is now an organised and co-ordinated system, beginning to exhibit an independent mind. In that sense, it qualifies as a person.

potentiality is as applicable from conception until death

I really would like to see you trying to ride a potential bicycle!

when does one go from ‘potential’ to ‘actual’?

Quite clearly, when the potential bicycle which you foolishly tried to ride becomes a rideable machine!

any intended abortions, from birth control to surgical. are indeed homicides.

In the sense that they are killing of human beings, = homo occidere, yes, but in Law, this is not the case, else we would not be here arguing.

as to your attacks on my language and use thereof,
how does that support your argument?

Out of your own mouth, you stand condemned.

i could be a total tard, but that doesn’t make you right.

I may be at fault, but if you want to shoot me down, you need to shoot straight.
You could start by reading and writing more carefully.

 

[StAnastasia]

Hi,
As I understand the process, the fusion of the sperm and the oocite is very much a matter of unicellular mating.
So, as on the macro scale, it is not the moment of penetration that counts, but the merging of the essence.
That is, when two sets of 23 chromosomes become one set of 46.
Again, the thing to remember is that the zygote so formed, contains nothing which was not pre-existing.
It is not new living matter.
It is just pre-existing living matter, re-arranged.
Just like in the macro scale, where in marriage, two become one, in the mating of these unicellular gametes, two become one.

So if there is a moment of “infusion” of a soul, that would take place not when sperm penetrates egg, but when the 46-strong chromosomal set is complete?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

So if there is a moment of “infusion” of a soul, that would take place not when sperm penetrates egg, but when the 46-strong chromosomal set is complete?

You might say that, but that is based upon the Aristotelian error that the zygote is formed from inanimate matter.
We have already established that the zygote is formed from the fusion of two animated gametes, so a new soul is not then needed, as it is already present in the gametes.

It is clear that a rational soul cannot exist where there is no vehicle for rationality.
You cannot ride a potential bicycle!
Science cannot make definitive arguments about the soul.
Science does not recognize the necessity for the soul.
Science can though, illuminate errors in philosophy, by pointing out logical errors.

The early Church Fathers postulated that there were at least two levels of ensoulment, first, at conception, when the animating soul enlivened tha base matter into living form, and a later one, when the immortal rational soul became present.

Mother Church has grown disaffected with the idea of two stages of ensoulment, and has thus become hoist by her own petard. There is much empty argument still carried out in this subject, and all of it is vain.

 

[StAnastasia]

Mother Church has grown disaffected with the idea of two stages of ensoulment, and has thus become hoist by her own petard. There is much empty argument still carried out in this subject, and all of it is vain.

I agree, but what’s theologically wrong with progressive ensoulment? And there are, after all, circumstances in which the soul might be said to be withdrawn, as in the case of parasitic twins.

StAnastasia

 

[JDaniel]

Hi JD,
I’ll try to clear things up.
As I understand English, the two above are identical in meaning.
Viz:
Primary matter = inanimate matter ( = A),
Soul = animating principle ( = B).
Form = animated matter ( = C).
A + B = C.

Hi Dave:
Please allow me to try to clear this up for you:

First, the Soul is firstly, the Individuating Principle - that which determines WHO the new child is. In addition, it brings with it the requisite property of life, the anima, which is secondary.

Also, Aristotle did not err, calling Primary Matter inanimate matter. These two exigencies are on two different levels, metaphysical and physical. One cannot possibly define the other.

This is pure metaphysics, but I can accept the pictorial argument.

Yes, you are right. But, if you admit of metaphysics at all, then you must admit that the metaphysics of this is, at the very least, possible.

Whether it reflects the actual physical processes is another story.

This metaphysics does not do.

Whether the animating principles of the two gammetes are combined to form the animating principle of the zygote, or whether they are terminated and replaced by a single principle, is a moot point. The scientist would favour the former, as I do.
This is the Aristotelian idea, based upon the fallacious assumption that the gametes are inanimate.

As I stated above, somehow Aristotle’s ideas have been misunderstood. And, I’m not sure at what entry point this occured.

The fact that both gametes are animate, or in your vocabulary, already have form, all that is required is for that form to change by merging.

Yes, the gametes do have Form, but it is their own individual Form and a very different Form at that (which has not been discussed).

Yes, the “merging” starts an event of change that is Substantial, as opposed to Insubstantial.

As I understand it, Aristotelian logic requires an animating principle from conception, but this was, and in some quarters still is seen as different from the rational soul, so the argument gets muddled with concepts of potentiality being confused with reality.
Some opinions have been formed, but the answer is still not definitive.

Agreed. This would provide another great thread, wouldn’t it?

Actually both Aristotle and Aquinas postulated two souls, the animating principle, and distinctly separate, the rational soul.

Neither of them did this. The Soul has always been conceived as
“containing” individuation, anima and reason.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

Neither of them did this. The Soul has always been conceived as"containing" individuation, anima and reason.

I spoke too quickly. After a bit more consideration, the Soul has been thought of as Form, consisting of individuation and life.

The Soul is our “connection”, if you will, with God. God can directly inform our Souls, as He does with knowledge of the Natural Law.

“Reason” is what the mind is the vessel for.

Sorry.

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sadly, I feel the imprecission lies in your understanding of precise language.

I gave a very precise definition of what a person is, your failure to understand this shows your painful lack of understanding.
On the basis of the above, this is arrant nonsense.If you cannot tell the difference between a blastocyst and a born human being, then your perception is sadly lacking.
All points are arbitrary.
What quickening proves though is that what once was a glob of cells is now an organised and co-ordinated system, beginning to exhibit an independent mind. In that sense, it qualifies as a person.
I really would like to see you trying to ride a potential bicycle! Quite clearly, when the potential bicycle which you foolishly tried to ride becomes a rideable machine!
In the sense that they are killing of human beings, = homo occidere, yes, but in Law, this is not the case, else we would not be here arguing.
Out of your own mouth, you stand condemned.
I may be at fault, but if you want to shoot me down, you need to shoot straight.
You could start by reading and writing more carefully.

1. yall’s definition of a person ain’t got no bearin’ on what a person really is.
2. alot of us thinks there aint no difference in a blasto-whatsit and a bigger blaso-whatsit, namely me and you didnt give no reason other than my lack of understandin’ your version of the truth. where this high falutin logic ya got? at least i offered a reason
3. even if all points are arbitrary, that dont make it right, it still just makes it arbitrary
4. in high school biology they had a pretty picture of a cell on a wall, looked purty organized to me, all by its lonesome, but i am curious as to how yall talked to a blasty-dealy to figure it had an independent mind, heck even a tumor has got itself some organization.
5. i did ride a potential bicycle, i call that there a tricycle, but aint that one of them there false analogies, bikes aint organic.
6. i still aint seen no reason that everything from chemical birth control to surgical baby killin aint homocide.
7. i happen to be whats known colloquially as yer common north american redneck, i got a little money so i live in a double wide trailer, i got me an old pickup truck to ride around in, i wear bib overalls, and drink moonshine.
8. now aint you ashamed that some wrong talkin’ good ol’ boy like me, just whupped up on you like that?