Mormonism to Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lemuel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Canon Law does say that abortion is bad, an ex communicable action.

“Rapeseed”? It’s a human child. A life.
You Can’t guarantee a good life? You Can’t Do that with ANY child!
Ask any children conceived in rape if they’d prefer to have never been born or to have been born. I think I can tell you what they’d choose.

Abortion is a painful thing to a mother, if you want to talk about scarring someone’s psyche. To be raped then kill their child is something I don’t want any mother to go through.

Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
 
Last edited:
When Does Life Begin? Is it at Conception?

There is the medical and there is the spiritual aspect of this question. Medically, a zygote, a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells, or a blastocyst, having very little differentiation, is no different than the skin that sheds from your body regularly in terms of it’s anatomical significance. It is smaller than the size of your fingernail. It is not yet a body or anything resembling a human being.

A zygote and a blastocyst has a genetic code that says, “make a body”, which is like a blueprint for a house. The blueprint is not the house. It is something that tells the builder what to build. After the house is built, you can not say it is occupied until you move in. Until the spirit is joined to a body, it is not its dwelling so to speak.

As for the life potential of a zygote or blastocyst, it is no different than an un-fertilized egg evacuated from a woman’s body every month during child bearing years. An unfertilized egg has a genetic code. But it is not a human life. It is the potential for life. It is not a life until you consent, make a choice, and take action of your own free will and choice to become the giver of life. Until then, the egg is a genetic code that could become a life.

By the logic of “life begins at conception because there is the potential for life there”, you would be committing a sin in not fertilizing all 400 to 600 eggs produced in the ovaries in the short span of 25 to 30 years. No one has ever asserted such a preposterous thing as far as we know. Unused genetic material goes to the waste bin or is reabsorbed by the body and no one claims it is problematic. No one is harvesting your eggs and freezing them because it would be a sin not to fertilize every one that had the potential for life. Every celibate Catholic priest and nun would have to be classified a sinner if that were the case. No one is calling those who choose to be celibate or abstinent in marriage sinners, are they?

Giving life is a choice and a commitment you make, not an obligation to worship your gametes’ potential to become a new life form.
 
Medically speaking, humans do not give birth to a horse or a fly or a cow. Life begins at conception.
An egg is not fertilized. You’re drawing a weak parallel.

And as Catholics I believe it is defined life begins at conception. It is not worshipping gametes, but understanding and appreciating human life.
 
Last edited:
sisteradrianyearsley said:
When Does Life Begin? Is it at Conception?
Click to expand...
Yep.

This from Donum Vitae

The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the “Declaration on Procured Abortion”: “From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence … modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time … to find its place and to be in a position to act”. (25) This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted*. Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. (Donum Vitae I, 1)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...h_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

Blessings
 
If I understand your use of this passage, you’re consenting to a filthy
criminal raping or incesting someone, stealing her life, and robbing the
child so conceived of its rightful parentage without intervention. Christ
the Lord Omnipotent, I don’t support the actions of a thieving, violent
lunatic. No way would I say give life under horrific circumstances in a
fallen, depraved, and perverse world. I’m not taking up a habitation there
and I don’t expect anyone else to.
 
Last edited:
Capitalism, by its very nature, goes against the teachings of the church. Period. Greed is evil. End of discussion.
 
You know, I think I surprise people when I tell them that I’m against abortion in cases of rape and incest. Now, I’m not defending those acts, nor would I. But what I am saying, is that out of all of human history, I would imagine that at least one of my ancestors was the result of rape, it doesn’t make their actions right, but I wouldn’t exist if it didn’t happen. Now, why would you punish the child for someone else’s crime?
 
Last edited:
Precisely, there’s a clause in the Constitution against blood guilt, and indeed the Bible says the sins of the father do not take hold over the son.
It’s a life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top