I suppose I don’t see it as backwards, if someone is trying to convince a fellow Christian who accepts Christ’s dignified status, but not every humans. I see it, in this instance, as analogy. More as symbiotic, than opposed. The fact that Christ became man dignifies our nature, too. This is my working understanding. But, I need to go read the CCC quotes that were so graciously provided. Is it wrong to think this way?
PS: Thanks for your contribution! I need different perspectives on this: I’m pretty helpless without context.
TCEL your original argument was based on the existence of a soul.
How do we know that humans have immortal souls (as opposed to animals that do not)?
Well we know this from philosophy (ie reason) because “soul” is primarily derived from philosophy in the Church’s understanding of that reality (eg the CCC) based on Aquinas, based on Aristotle.
So Jesus really has nothing to do with demonstrating that human’s have souls.
In fact, the only reason why we posit Jesus having a soul is because Church Doctrine says he was truly man. If he was truly man then he must have a human soul.
Now your argument below, as I understand it, is trying to demonstrate the reverse.
You seem to be saying that we can demonstrate that human’s from the moment of conception must have human souls … because Jesus had one from the moment of conception and we are all human like him. It doesn’t make a lot of sense because the argument just goes round in circles and you’ve cut away the true basis of how we know the human soul exists. It is by way of reason applied to creation not by way of Revelation.
If you want to justify the embryo’s right to life just argue it from Christian Tradition.
The Church has always regarded infanticide and intentional malice to the child in the womb with absolute abhorrence.
If you are trying to argue things from ensoulment (a human philosophy) then that militates against you alleged intent below to use the Bible instead as common ground.
And if you do go down the ensoulment path you are in trouble because the “inventor” said a fully human soul doesn’t come until after 40 days.
Personally, from a philosophy point of view, I believe the best argument is that it doesn’t matter whether the conceptus is a human person or not (and everybody disagrees over what a human person is). What matter is that we all know that if passive nature is left to run its course without interference the conceptus will grow and be born a human being and therefore should be treated as one right from the start even if we don’t know whether it acts plant or animal at its various stages!
Which is pretty much the Magisterium’s view.
