Life at Conception question

  • Thread starter Thread starter YinYangMom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YinYangMom

Guest
Second attempt to post this thread…my first one is in the black hole somewhere 😛

In conversations with other catholics and ex-catholics-turned-protestant on the pro-life position of the church I’m being confronted with the following statements/questions:

a) Old Testament/Jews today do not consider life beginning at conception.

b) The Catholic Church used to hold the same position as the Jews, when did it change? Is the change ‘infallible’ or ‘opinion’?

I get the sense they’re looking for me to say that the Pope declared the position as if he were Christ as opposed to declaring it after much reflection/study and thereby sharing his opinion on the matter.

Now I don’t even know if (a) is even true, and I don’t even know if (b) is even true (that the Church used to hold the same position as the Jews) so I’m at a loss on how to respond.

Many of you here are well versed and studied on the pro-life position of the Church so I’d appreciate any help.

Thank you.
 
Don’t let people like this define the argument for you!

YOU define it–life starts at conception. Period. Tell them to prove otherwise–regardless of popes or Jews or abortionists.

Does it start–when a baby takes a breath? That doesn’t make sense, or someone who was choking and not breathing wouldn’t be “alive”.

Does it start–when the heart starts beating? That doesn’t make sense, or we wouldn’t try to revive people whose hearts had stopped beating.

Does it start–when brain waves start? Because that’s pretty darn early in fetal development.

How about this?

A sperm has half of a DNA code. Not the same as the man who carries it.

An ovum has half of a DNA code. Not the same as the woman who carries it.

When that sperm and that ovum merge, that ONE CELL has its own DNA code. Not the same as the mother who carries it!! THAT–to me–is the definition of a new life. I don’t care how small it is, or that it doesn’t look like a person yet.

The code to say that she’ll be a girl is there, the code for the color of her eyes is there, the code for how tall she’ll be is there. She is NEW!! That’s a new human life, and it doesn’t matter who said what, that is the truth!!

DONT LET people corner you with their illogical arguments. You have the truth, you define the argument!!~
 
You would have to prove point B to me.

Point A has its own logic.

The Old Testament prescribes penalties for various crimes. If you beat a woman who is pregnant and she looses the child then you are to pay a sum of money to the father. The penalty is not the same as murder.

But then when you read through Exodus 21 there are all sorts of crimes where the listed penalty is some monetary damage for the death of a slave…

So ask this person… if the fetus is not a person by this logic should we also hold that slaves are not human?

-D
 
When that sperm and that ovum merge, that ONE CELL has its own DNA code. Not the same as the mother who carries it!! THAT–to me–is the definition of a new life.
Click to expand...
Good definition. It is also the definition shared by embryologists. orwhat.jesuschrist-atheist.com/bbs/html/emoticons/thk.gif

According to science, life occurs when an organism can metabolize. Human life occurs, according to scientific texts on embryology, at conception.

You don’t need a papal decree to state what Scripture makes quite clear. You simply need to point them to some standard science texts written by embryologists and to Sacred Scritpure. Observe,
“Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote.” (Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), p. 2., emphasis added.)
Click to expand...
From a theological viewpoint, the Catholic Church agreed with the Jews who wrote the Old Testament. You might ask them when the Jews changed their viewpoint and started disagreeing with the Catholic Church. 😉

“You knit me together in my mother’s womb” – Psalm 139:13

“… sinful from the time my mother conceived me” – Psalm 51:5

And from Matthew’s Gospel: “His mother Mary . . . was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit . . . [the angel said] ‘what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.’” (Matthew 1:18-20)

You might also ask why St. John the Baptist leaped for joy while still in the womb of St. Elizabeth. Wasn’t it because of knowing that that St. Mary had already conceived Jesus, the Son of God? Didn’t St. Elizabeth state that St. Mary was the mother of her Lord while Jesus was still just a zygote likely to be only a few days old?

Here’s some other useful links…

When does each human life begin: the answer of science
by Randy Alcorn
http://www.epm.org/articles/lifesci.html

When does each human life begin: the answer of Scripture
http://www.epm.org/articles/lifescrp.html
 
In fact, If I remember correctly, ancient Judaism (incorrectly) believed human life to be within the sperm or seed.

The Hebrew word for sperm (seed) is “Zera`” which is translated “seed” but is also translated “child.” Observe,

Gen 7:3 “… to keep seed (Heb “zera”) alive upon the face of all the earth”

Gen 9:9 “I establish my covenant with you, and with your **seed **after you” (see also 1 Sam 1:11; Psalm 105:6)

This is why in the Letter to the Hebrews, it states:

“One might even say that **Levi **himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for **he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.” **(Heb 7:9-10)
 
People, while I appreciate the arguments, it’s not what I’m looking for.

I don’t need convincing.

I just need to know the answers to their questions:

Does Judaism regard the beginning of life other than conception?

Doe the Old Testament regard the beginning of life at conception or at a later stage of development, even birth?

Did the Catholic Church once hold the belief that life began at a later stage than conception?

If so, when did it change?
Who changed it?
If it was the Pope - was it an opinion or one of those ‘infallible’ statements?

We can start with simple yes or nos, please, then follow with links perhaps of where I can go to pull the references (it would help to have them on hand in hard copy form the next time I have the encounter).

Thank you again for your help.
 
Dave,

Your responses are a good start, thanks.

I still need the good ol’ yes or no answer to their positions though.

Did the Catholic Church (not scriptures this time) once hold the belief that life began at a later stage than conception?

If so, when did it change?

Who changed it?
If it was the Pope - was it an opinion or one of those ‘infallible’ statements?

Thank you again for your help.

I’ve pretty much gotten them to concede that the fetus line which used to be drawn is really knitpicking - because who ever really knows when that third month actually begins?? A day or two on either end - perhaps a week? Once you go back those few days why not carry it all the way to conception? (That usually works).

So then they get into the Church’s position…trying to say that the church changed it’s mind and therefore the new position could be taken as advisement - unless the Pope spoke infallibly on the matter. If that was the case it would really help to sway them more so I’m hoping there is evidence out here to show that the position can and should be taken as Truth.

They aren’t interesting in debating the life at conception bit as much as they are wanting proof that the Church’s position is** not **just a position paper or ‘the theory of the day’ which can be changed yet again should another Pope share a different interpretation, etc.

This is where I believe we lost these Catholics - they do not understand how much of the teachings of the church, and which, are set in stone - never to be reversed (they understand how it can be expanded)…and so with the ‘changes’ they get discouraged.
 
As far as I know, the Church has always taught that life begins at conception.

"Before I formed you in your mother’s womb, I knew you."
 
I think, in earlier centuries (and I don’t know when it changed, it probably came w/ the developement of science), the Church conceded (like everyone else at the time), that it didn’t know exactly when life began, so they speculated (not “taught”, just speculated) that the soul entered the body at “quickening” (when you can feel the baby move). HOWEVER, the Church as ALWAYS taught that abortion is a sin, no matter at what stage of developement (in fact, the whole “quickening” thing is a mute point now, b/c we now know that the baby moves around pretty much from the beginning, way b/f the mother can feel it). This is backed up in Scripture, whether jews ever believed otherwise or not.

In fact, the whole “jews held this once so so did the Catholic Church” argument is ridiculous, anyhow. The Jews disagreed amongst themselves on many issues. Remember in Jesus’ time there were those who believed in eternal life, and those that didn’t; and those who only believed in the pentatuch, others the prophets, and others the entire septuagint. Even today, Orthodox jews (Ben Stein, Michael Medved, and, until recently, Dr. Laura, to name a few) DO hold that life begins at conception and abortion is murder. So that means nothing.

Ask them why protestants now accept contraception when until 1930 they didn’t? In fact, put the whole ball in their court. They are making the assertion that the Church once taught differently, and a Pope changed it. Make them give you the dates and the Pope that did it. I would simply tell them “that’s incorrect. The Church has always held that abortion is a sin, it’s never been allowed at any stage of pregnancy,” and make them prove otherwise. Good luck.
 
Did the Catholic Church (not scriptures this time) once hold the belief that life began at a later stage than conception?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. 😉 So, when Scripture speaks of Jesus being “my Lord” only a few days after conception, then it speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit as testified to by the Catholic Church.

As to whether the Church EVER believed that life began at a later stage than conception, I highly doubt it. I would say the answer is “no.” Perhaps your antagonists can provide evidence to the contrary, since they are the one’s making this assertion. I’m betting they will not be able to do so. It is my understanding that Church has always held that at least by conception, human life begins, and I’ve read much on this topic.

The best comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching on this in my opinion is, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (Belknap Press) by John T., Jr. Noonan. This book gives a detailed summary of the historical Church teachings regarding contraception and other related topics (such as when human life begins). I do not believe the Church has ever officially asserted life did not begin until some time after conception.
If so, when did it change?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe it ever did. You are presuming your friend is correct and the Jews have always held that sometime after contraception, life begins. It seems quite evident from the 1st century letter to the Hebrews that the Hebrews at that time at least (erroneously) believed life began even prior to conception, while still in the “loins” of the father. If the Jews do believe that life does not begin until after contraception (and I doubt this premise is correct also), then it would be the Jews that have changed their beliefs, not the Catholics.

What your antagonists are probably asserting is that since the Talmud asserts that prior to a certain stage (forty days), the embryo is considered merely “liquid,” that the Catholic Church must have held a similar belief. If that is their argument, I don’t believe it is very convincing. Have them produce what the Catholic magisterium has taught on the subject. Does it contradict what it now teaches? Question their unsupported premise before accepting that the Church has changed its view. It is my understanding that it has never taught that life begins sometime between conception and some other later stage as some seem to assert the Talmud teaches.

Some conflicting Jewish scholarship may help clarify what Jews believe about the seriousness of the sin of spilling one’s seed, conception, and life. Jewish scholarship on the matter is far from unanimous, so saying “the Jews believe …” as if to state it was a universally held belief within Judaism today, let alone universally held by 1st century Judaism is a bit misleading.

According to one source vbm-torah.org/halakha/abortion.htm, abortion would fall under a category similar to “improper emission of seed,” an act which is viewed by the Talmud (Nidda 13a) as tantamount to “the shedding of blood” and one about which Maimonides (Hilkhot Issurei Biah 21:18) writes,
“Not only is it a grave prohibition, but he who acts in this manner should sit in a state of excommunication; of him Scripture says: ‘Your hands are full of blood’ and it is as if he had killed a human being.”
Click to expand...
 
Ah, that’s probably their angle … delayed ensoulment.

As I understand it, “whether the rational soul is infused into the organism at conception, as the modern opinion holds, or some weeks subsequently, as the Scholastics suppose (St. Thomas, Q. i a. 2, ad 2), is an open question with theologians” (Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) - “Creationism” newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm )

Yet, this is a red herring with regard to the issue of abortion.

see description of Red Herring Fallacy, here:
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

That the Church has yet to dogmatically define when God creates a human soul and infuses it into the body is irrelevant as to whether the Church had always considered abortion to be the killing of human life.

That the Church speculated upon various theological opinions regarding ensoulment does not prove the Church changed its mind, either. For example, the Church speculated upon the theological doctrine of the Trinity for many centuries. It cannot be accurately said that the Church “changed it’s mind” on the Trinity, can it? I don’t think many Protestants would assert such a thing, unless they also happen to reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

I suggest you bring them back to the topic at hand … abortion.

Early church fathers unanimously condemned abortion as the killing of innocent human life, even if they had less than unanimous opinions regarding ensoulment. For example, Tertullian subscribed to the ensoulment doctrine of Traducianism as opposed to Creationism. Yet, Tertullian, still taught that abortion was murder.

Here’s some early Church evidence regarding abortion:

“You shall not kill either the fetus by abortion or the new born” (Letter of Barnabas, ca. AD 125)

*“We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God.” *(**Athenagoras, **Petition to Emperor Marcus Aurelius, ca. AD 150 )

*"…we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy …the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth." (***Tertullian, ***Apology *9:7-8, ca. AD 155 - 225)

*“Some women take medicines to destroy the germ of future life in their own bodies. They commit infanticide before they have given birth to the infant” *(Minutius Felix, Octavious 30, 2, ca. AD 180 - 225)

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on abortion:
newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
The early Christians are the first on record as having pronounced abortion to be the murder of human beings, for their public apologists, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix (Eschbach, “Disp. Phys.”, Disp. iii) … appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the Church unanimously maintained the same doctrine. … The Sixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers.
Click to expand...
 
I’m not exactly well versed in who believed what and when regarding life at conception.
I do know that the Church is infallible in areas pertaining to faith and morals.
Science does not fall into these categories.
SCIENCE has proven that life begins at conception. This is when the new person first attains their very own DNA sequence and begins the process of cell division WITH this new sequence that is SEPARATE and UNIQUE from the mother and father.
So it doesn’t really matter who believed what or when - now we KNOW when it begins!
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
a) Old Testament/Jews today do not consider life beginning at conception.

b) The Catholic Church used to hold the same position as the Jews, when did it change? Is the change ‘infallible’ or ‘opinion’?
QUOTE]

(a) First, we’re not Jews so what they believe currently is irrelevant. Secondly, which Jews is she referring to? Orthodox Jews hold the same belief as Catholics. Reform and Conservative Jews hold varying opinions. There is not now, nor has there ever been a final authority in Judaism (ie, Pope) so there has never been a definitive Jewish teaching on this subject. Third, have her produce where the bible says life does NOT begin at conception. There are many references that lean towards the opposite: Jer 1-- before I formed you in the womb, I knew you…before you were born I dedicated you… – Psalm 139:14-16 For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb… my frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place… from the NT, Luke 1:44 the infant leaped in my womb for joy.

(b) This is complete bunk. The Church has never changed its teaching on abortion. First century documents such as the Didache explicitly teach against abortion as do others up to our own current time. The Church has always taught abortion is a mortal sin, intrinsically evil.
Click to expand...
 
The only worthwhile thing I ever heard Rush Limbaugh say is: Life begins at conception because it can’t begin anywhere else.
 
40.png
Ellen:
I think, in earlier centuries (and I don’t know when it changed, it probably came w/ the developement of science), the Church conceded (like everyone else at the time), that it didn’t know exactly when life began, so they speculated (not “taught”, just speculated) that the soul entered the body at “quickening” (when you can feel the baby move). HOWEVER, the Church as ALWAYS taught that abortion is a sin, no matter at what stage of developement (in fact, the whole “quickening” thing is a mute point now, b/c we now know that the baby moves around pretty much from the beginning, way b/f the mother can feel it). This is backed up in Scripture, whether jews ever believed otherwise or not.

In fact, the whole “jews held this once so so did the Catholic Church” argument is ridiculous, anyhow. The Jews disagreed amongst themselves on many issues. Remember in Jesus’ time there were those who believed in eternal life, and those that didn’t; and those who only believed in the pentatuch, others the prophets, and others the entire septuagint. Even today, Orthodox jews (Ben Stein, Michael Medved, and, until recently, Dr. Laura, to name a few) DO hold that life begins at conception and abortion is murder. So that means nothing.

Ask them why protestants now accept contraception when until 1930 they didn’t? In fact, put the whole ball in their court. They are making the assertion that the Church once taught differently, and a Pope changed it. Make them give you the dates and the Pope that did it. I would simply tell them “that’s incorrect. The Church has always held that abortion is a sin, it’s never been allowed at any stage of pregnancy,” and make them prove otherwise. Good luck.
Click to expand...
That’s quite helpful, too, thanks.
No need to argue with them about abortion being wrong, they concede that. I mean, in that it’s wrong from the church’s perspective. It gets to be more an argument about the church getting involved with US politics and why they won’t allow it for special circumstances (rape, the health of the mother).
I’m not looking to fight with them over abortion as much as I am looking for the opportunity to help them understand the Truth of the Church so they can at least respect its position.
I get irritated with ex-Catholics using the Pope and the Church as excuses for their lack of faith so I’d like to steer them back home. That’s why I’m not looking for a fight, just an opportunity.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
The best comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching on this in my opinion is, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (Belknap Press) by John T., Jr. Noonan. This book gives a detailed summary of the historical Church teachings regarding contraception and other related topics (such as when human life begins).

You are presuming your friend is correct and the Jews have always held that sometime after contraception, life begins. It seems quite evident from the 1st century letter to the Hebrews that the Hebrews at that time at least (erroneously) believed life began even prior to conception, while still in the “loins” of the father. If the Jews do believe that life does not begin until after contraception (and I doubt this premise is correct also), then it would be the Jews that have changed their beliefs, not the Catholics.

According to one source vbm-torah.org/halakha/abortion.htm, abortion would fall under a category similar to “improper emission of seed,” an act which is viewed by the Talmud (Nidda 13a) as tantamount to “the shedding of blood” and one about which Maimonides (Hilkhot Issurei Biah 21:18) writes,
Click to expand...
Thanks again, Dave. Most helpful.
I don’t want to presume their positions are right, in fact, I suspected they were wrong, just didn’t know how best to prove it to them.
I do believe the next time they raise the complaint I will ask them to show me where they got that impression.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
That the Church speculated upon various theological opinions regarding ensoulment does not prove the Church changed its mind, either. For example, the Church speculated upon the theological doctrine of the Trinity for many centuries. It cannot be accurately said that the Church “changed it’s mind” on the Trinity, can it? I don’t think many Protestants would assert such a thing, unless they also happen to reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

That reminds me about the next thing they throw out in the debate - that the Church once taught that the world was flat. 😛
Bugs me when they do that. But I like how you suggest I reassert the church’s position on ensoulment does not take away from it’s position on abortion. That’s a good approach.

I suggest you bring them back to the topic at hand … abortion.

Except that’s not the real topic at hand, instead it is their disillusionment with the Church. This comes up whenever politics come into play. They use the pro-choice/gay marriage issue to vent about the Church changing positions over time and I know inherently that what they’re saying is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation but I don’t know how to show them that. I’m hoping to someday be able to do it so they will look of the references I provide and perhaps get that little ‘a-ha!’ moment which opens the door to taking a second look at the church.

Love all the other references you provided. Thanks again!
Click to expand...
 
mark a:
The only worthwhile thing I ever heard Rush Limbaugh say is: Life begins at conception because it can’t begin anywhere else.
Click to expand...
and nowadays that’s true in the womb or in a petrie dish, which is an entirely different debate! :whacky:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top