Roe v Wade and Catholic Teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnowAngels
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SnowAngels

Guest
Hello everyone!

For school, I am writing a persuasive term paper on Roe v Wade. Presently, I am reading the notes of the actual court case. I am in the section where they are discussion when life actually starts. It says:

“It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes “viable,” that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of “mediate animation,” that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this “ensoulment” theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [410 U.S. 113, 161] the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a “process” over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the “morning-after” pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs.”

I am not quite sure what they are saying (in the bolded part). I included the whole paragraph so you know the context in which they are speaking. When the speak of ensoulment, are they referring to the belief that a human has a soul from the moment of conception? Has the Roman Catholic Church always held the view that life begins at conception? Any thoughts you have on my question, or this subject in general, are very welcome! Thank you for your time, and God bless!
 
I am not quite sure what they are saying (in the bolded part). I included the whole paragraph so you know the context in which they are speaking. When the speak of ensoulment, are they referring to the belief that a human has a soul from the moment of conception? Has the Roman Catholic Church always held the view that life begins at conception? Any thoughts you have on my question, or this subject in general, are very welcome! Thank you for your time, and God bless!
Ensoulment is that moment in time when a soul enters a body. The Church doesn’t know exactly when ensoulment occurs. Though the Church teaches that life begins at conception and that life beginning from conception onward must be protected: this was always a teaching of the Church.
 
Thank you both for your answers! I appreciate them!
@Rence, thank you for the link! I’ll read it right away! 🙂
 
Hello everyone!

For school, I am writing a persuasive term paper on Roe v Wade. Presently, I am reading the notes of the actual court case. I am in the section where they are discussion when life actually starts. It says:

“It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes “viable,” that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of “mediate animation,” that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this “ensoulment” theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [410 U.S. 113, 161] the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a “process” over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the “morning-after” pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs.”

I am not quite sure what they are saying (in the bolded part). I included the whole paragraph so you know the context in which they are speaking. When the speak of ensoulment, are they referring to the belief that a human has a soul from the moment of conception? Has the Roman Catholic Church always held the view that life begins at conception? Any thoughts you have on my question, or this subject in general, are very welcome! Thank you for your time, and God bless!
The author of this decision presented the above paragraph to create questionability about the beginning of life because that is all pro abortionists can ever hope, and all that they can possibly think when faced with the realistic possibilty that abortion is in fact murder of an innocent living human being. They unknowingly condemned themselves at this time by fully admitting that they do not know; and as everyone does know, in all cases involving an unknown, justice must protect life. In other words if in error the court must error on the side of protecting life, not destroying it.
 
The author of this decision presented the above paragraph to create questionability about the beginning of life because that is all pro abortionists can ever hope, and all that they can possibly think when faced with the realistic possibilty that abortion is in fact murder of an innocent living human being. They unknowingly condemned themselves at this time by fully admitting that they do not know; and as everyone does know, in all cases involving an unknown, justice must protect life. In other words if in error the court must error on the side of protecting life, not destroying it.
*The author of this decision presented the above paragraph to create questionability about the beginning of life because that is all pro abortionists can ever hope, and all that they can possibly think when faced with the realistic possibilty that abortion is in fact murder of an innocent living human being.
*

I couldn’t agree more.

I found it almost comical the they had just finished saying:

“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

What senselessness!
 
Thank you both for your answers! I appreciate them!
@Rence, thank you for the link! I’ll read it right away! 🙂
I believe you meant me 😛

And you’re welcome! It’s a long read, but very detailed. I like how it starts off by explaining the other side so one can get a really good understanding where they’re coming from and why they are mistaken.

Abortion is such a heated issue, that people easily let their passions get the better of them and start LOOKING for way to affirm their position in Church documents rather than being OPEN and allowing the Church to teach them.
 
I believe you meant me 😛

And you’re welcome! It’s a long read, but very detailed. I like how it starts off by explaining the other side so one can get a really good understanding where they’re coming from and why they are mistaken.

Abortion is such a heated issue, that people easily let their passions get the better of them and start LOOKING for way to affirm their position in Church documents rather than being OPEN and allowing the Church to teach them.
Ugh! Sorry! Running on little sleep! I love arguments like that. You have to know be able to argue the other side better than they can if you wish to win an argument. Wow! You made a great point there! You also just gave me an idea for my paper, so thank you! 😛
 
It’s interesting how Norma Mccorvey (Roe) later became a Catholic and pro life.
 
*The author of this decision presented the above paragraph to create questionability about the beginning of life because that is all pro abortionists can ever hope, and all that they can possibly think when faced with the realistic possibilty that abortion is in fact murder of an innocent living human being.
*

I couldn’t agree more.

I found it almost comical the they had just finished saying:

“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

What senselessness!
I couldn’t agree more, and keep in mind also it has always been known that at conception an individual living human organism is present in existence and must have the essential right to live that is guaranteed by the constitution to the people for all time, not granted or withdrawn at anytime by any official body or any private party or parties at all, least of all the supreme court of the united states could do such a thing. So the thing that they did in roevwade is totally void, it is in clear and direct violation to the letter, the context and the spirit of the constitution and the people rightly and dutifully must hold this, aberration of law, in the vileness of contempt which it greatly deserves.

sorry to get carried away, i suggest you focus on the results evident after roewade: partial birth abortion, infanticide, the physical and emotional trauma thousands of women have suffered in so called “safe places to have their abortion” the emaciation of an entire generation of americans…

best wishes…
 
The church has always condemned abortion as gravely sinful. There are more than just a few quotes to that end from ancient sources.

What abortion apologists often do is to try to muddy the waters with references to past theological speculation on ensoulment (when does the unborn child receive a soul) that arose from building philosophical reasoning on the faulty scientific understanding of earlier eras.

Not all THAT long ago, even educated people understood human reproduction in a manner that suggested that the man planted a “seed” in the fertile soil of the woman’s womb. The sperm and egg situation was not known of. Based on this faulty understanding, it’s easy to see why people would wonder when the “seed” became a person by receiving a soul. Clearly it’s not a person while still inside the man! Nothing substantially changes about a regular seed the moment you plant it in the ground. They lacked any observable moment when a physically demonstrable change occurred which might be an indicator of ensoulment, so they theorized about it. But this theorizing NEVER suggested that abortion would not be gravely immoral if it occurred before ensoulment happened. Abortion apologists never get around to admitting that fact of the historic record. Their goal is to muddy the waters, not to get to the truth.

If you explained to Augustine or Aquinas the scientific reality of sperm and egg, it would take either of them under 3 seconds to recognize the personhood of the newly conceived child. It’s just that moral theology rests on reasoning from known facts and if the science is faulty, the reasoning can’t come to fruition until the scientific basis is corrected.

In short, it’s really dishonest to claim that the catholic church only recently adopted the position that life begins at conception. The moral teaching of the church has always implied it, but the authoritative position had to wait until it had a firm grounding in the facts. That’s how theology and philosophy work. The church didn’t change it’s position, science did.
 
What they are talking here is about the frequently used pro choice argument that st Augustine and st Thomas Aquinas viewed abortion in the early stages as morally permissive. That is an argument that takes things out of context and fails to look at the particular circunstances and particular knowledge st Augustine had at the time. What st Augustine did was basically speculate as to when ensoulment occurs and the reading of his writings must be done very carefully, keeping in mind he is just trying to figure out biology out and that in reality he is limited by the scientific knowledge he had at the time. I heavily disagree on the statement that he viewed abortion as acceptable as that is NOT what he is saying and he is not talking about abortion. the argument is a misinterpretation of what he says (st Augustine is commonly misinterpreted) and is highly probable that if he had lived in our. Current society he would have agreed that life starts at conception.
 
It’s interesting how Norma Mccorvey (Roe) later became a Catholic and pro life.
She also later admitted that she told lies while under oath during the court cases that lead to the ruling; should this not have thus rendered it invalid?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top