Morals and abortion

[wanstronian]

wanstronian

**That said, what’s the point of an official church stance on something if its adherents are allowed to, well, not adhere when it suits them? Will this hospital’s adminstration be excommunicated, or whatever the process might be? **

The Church does not excommunicate officially without giving the sinner or heretic an opportunity to recant and repent. In this case the hospital reversed its position.

After having avoided a lawsuit. Jus’ sayin’.

 

[wanstronian]

wanstronian

**Again we see an insufficient answer. How do you know God’s will? Oh, that’s right, you don’t, you’re just guessing, and funnily enough your assertions magically reconcile the irreconcilable! **

Your contempt slip is showing.

Contempt is too strong. Playful mockery is all!

 

[Bakmoon]

I was reading a book today about ethics and it said the church has not always held the belief that abortion at the time of conception was sinful. It cited Summa Theologica where Aquinus agrees with Aristotle that the soul doesn’t enter the baby until some time after conception. Is this true?

The book you read was oversimplifying the issue. What Aquinas says in the Summa Theologica (in I-I 188) is that the embryo develops a soul in a series of stages, starting first with a nutritive soul (which is the type of soul a plant has) , then developing a sensitive soul (which is like the soul of an animal), and then finally, God creates the intellectual soul in the embryo.

So according to this view, aborting the fetus isn’t murder if it is preformed prior to this last stage when the embryo gains an intellectual soul. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t sinful, however, as it would still be the sin of contraception, which is of course, a Mortal Sin. Either way, it would be against Catholic teaching do do it.

 

[billcu1]

The book you read was oversimplifying the issue. What Aquinas says in the Summa Theologica (in I-I 188) is that the embryo develops a soul in a series of stages, starting first with a nutritive soul (which is the type of soul a plant has) , then developing a sensitive soul (which is like the soul of an animal), and then finally, God creates the intellectual soul in the embryo.

So according to this view, aborting the fetus isn’t murder if it is preformed prior to this last stage when the embryo gains an intellectual soul. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t sinful, however, as it would still be the sin of contraception, which is of course, a Mortal Sin. Either way, it would be against Catholic teaching do do it.

I see your a Theravadan. You must believe in the return of Arhats. I am not disagreeing with Aquinus at all but this sounds like a new soul is created for every fetus. There was one original soul Adam that shattered into so many other souls and continuing down. Would you happen to understand the difference in returning older souls and a new soul as Thomas describes. I know I’m leaning OT just a little.

Sorry I was speaking to Bakmoon.

 

[silentfactor80]

I was being facetious, of course. But I do find it rather convenient that the church can pass this moral judgement about terminations, while simultaneously preaching that nothing happens without it ultimately being God’s responsibility (given his oft-allocated omnimax attributes); yet he is somehow blameless for the miscarriages that occur.

Indeed, given his supposed omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence, why doesn’t he prevent the “death” of these “babies?”

It’s the same old question as to why God allows suffering and death of innocents. A question that has never yet been answered plausibly.

God allows suffering and death of innocents (like Christ) because sometimes that’s the only thing that moves HARDENED HEARTS! If a murderer is put to death many people will say “serves him/her right.” That attitude does not help one appreciate the sacred nature of human life. I do not mean to sound insensitive but when a child dies innocently sometimes that is the only thing that motivates people to make a change for the better. Let’s face it, people die every day of gun violence. It wasn’t until Sandy Hook that people actually decided to at least try and address the issue. We had many chances to do it sooner but people were more pre-occupied with other stuff like expanding access to contraceptive pills.

 

[sw85]

I was reading a book today about ethics and it said the church has not always held the belief that abortion at the time of conception was sinful. It cited Summa Theologica where Aquinus agrees with Aristotle that the soul doesn’t enter the baby until some time after conception. Is this true?

He still believed abortion was a grave mortal sin. He was wrong about ensoulment because he was wrong about the biologicla facts of how conception occurs; advances in science have fortified the pro-life position, not weakened it.

 

[Bakmoon]

He was wrong about ensoulment because he was wrong about the biologicla facts of how conception occurs; advances in science have fortified the pro-life position, not weakened it.

Could you explain how biology condradicts Aquinas’ understanding of ensoulment? If anything, I would say that biology confirms the idea of a development of the soul in the embryo.

 

[Evan]

Could you explain how biology condradicts Aquinas’ understanding of ensoulment? If anything, I would say that biology confirms the idea of a development of the soul in the embryo.

The soul animates a body. (hence the latin word for soul is anima). Aquinas did not know that the embryo is an active being, fully able to act and react to his environment. He may have had to wait until the child within was active enough that the mother reported activity.

Science has shown that the child is active within a second of the fertilization and so he becomes animated (it has anima=soul).

 

[Bakmoon]

The soul animates a body. (hence the latin word for soul is anima). Aquinas did not know that the embryo is an active being, fully able to act and react to his environment. He may have had to wait until the child within was active enough that the mother reported activity.

Science has shown that the child is active within a second of the fertilization and so he becomes animated (it has anima=soul).

Aquinas never said that the embryo didn’t have a soul from the beginning. What he would object to is the idea that the intellectual soul is present from the beginning. In his reckoning the embryo starts out with a nutritive soul, then develops into a sensitive soul, and then into an intellectual soul.

The activity in the zygote from the moment of conception could be cited as evidence for a nutritive soul, or even a sensitive soul, but I don’t see how it can be used as proof for the existance of the soul from the beginning.

 

[Evan]

Aquinas never said that the embryo didn’t have a soul from the beginning. What he would object to is the idea that the intellectual soul is present from the beginning. In his reckoning the embryo starts out with a nutritive soul, then develops into a sensitive soul, and then into an intellectual soul.

The activity in the zygote from the moment of conception could be cited as evidence for a nutritive soul, or even a sensitive soul, but I don’t see how it can be used as proof for the existance of the soul from the beginning.

So, there you go. Aquinas admits ensoulment occurred at the beginning.

I don’t think there is anyone who speaks of souls ‘growing or changing through life’. I know the church teaches that the human soul does not evolve and did not arrive from an evolution of lower animals but each one is created by God.

The church has always taught abortion is evil. Even if the child has not received a soul. That would only factor into how grave was the evil.

 

[Bakmoon]

So, there you go. Aquinas admits ensoulment occurred at the beginning.

I don’t think there is anyone who speaks of souls ‘growing or changing through life’. I know the church teaches that the human soul does not evolve and did not arrive from an evolution of lower animals but each one is created by God.

The church has always taught abortion is evil. Even if the child has not received a soul. That would only factor into how grave was the evil.

In general discussion, ensoulment refers to the gain of the intellectual soul which is the distinctive feature of human beings, rather than the nutritive soul that is possessed by all life and the sensitive soul which is peculiar to animal life.

Aquinas does speak of the development of the soul in the embryo through distinct stages. Most importantly, he says it here:

Some say that the vital functions observed in the embryo are not from its soul, but from the soul of the mother; or from the formative power of the semen. Both of these explanations are false; for vital functions such as feeling, nourishment, and growth cannot be from an extrinsic principle. Consequently it must be said that the soul is in the embryo; the nutritive soul from the beginning, then the sensitive, lastly the intellectual soul.
Sum I- 118 ii ad 2
josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/summa/FP/FP118.html#FPQ118A2THEP1

And I agree that the Church has always held abortion to be a mortal sin, whether by murder or by the sin of contraception.