So is it or isn't it a human

[LittleSoldier]

I thought the “Holy Innocents” refers to Matthew 2 - those children who were killed by Herod.

How are you using it here?

Also, I’d like to point out that the Church does not say those infants who die before baptism will certainly go to heaven. Hopefully, but not certainty. You were ready to argue with Doc earlier about this until he pointed out that he wasn’t the one who suggested it. Then you seemed to agree. Now it seems like you’re once again disagreeing and insisting that they’re certainly saved.

I urge you to be careful not to mislead anyone about what the Church teaches.

Thank you for the warning. I never want to misrepresent Church teaching and I always bow to the authority of the Magisterium. I don’t think I was the one debating this with Doc Keele before. I’ll do some research on “Holy Innocents” and baptism and then post what I’ve found. It could very well be that I’m confused (I’ve been confused about the role of baptism for a very long time).

However, as Doc is a Carmelite Novice, he should know and accept Church teaching on aborted children and what happens to their souls. It doesn’t appear that he does.

Sancta Maria! Gratia plena, ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I thought the “Holy Innocents” refers to Matthew 2 - those children who were killed by Herod.

How are you using it here?

Also, I’d like to point out that the Church does not say those infants who die before baptism will certainly go to heaven. Hopefully, but not certainty. You were ready to argue with Doc earlier about this until he pointed out that he wasn’t the one who suggested it. Then you seemed to agree. Now it seems like you’re once again disagreeing and insisting that they’re certainly saved.

I urge you to be careful not to mislead anyone about what the Church teaches.

OK, I checked it out (rather quickly because the answer was easy to find) and you are absolutely correct.

My apologies to everyone for misrepresenting Church teaching ( ) and my thanks to you for pointing out my error. I read about the Holy Innocents on the New Advent website. I really didn’t know that “Holy Innocents” referred to them.

We don’t know what happens to the souls of aborted children; it is a mystery to us but we rely on the love of God. Please ignore that part of my post. I stand by everything else I stated.

Thanks again!

Sancta Maria! Sancta Maria,
ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

However, as Doc is a Carmelite Novice, he should know and accept Church teaching on aborted children and what happens to their souls. It doesn’t appear that he does.

Since apparently no one knows what happens to the souls of aborted children, what’s there to know and accept? Nothing.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Since apparently no one knows what happens to the souls of aborted children, what’s there to know and accept? Nothing.

Uh, no. That is not what I said. GOD KNOWS. Do you honestly think, as a Carmelite Novice, that unborn children do not have souls?

Your statement is so full of holes that a herd of elephants could go trampling through it. Just because we, as mortal human beings, are not aware of what happens in an eternal, divine sense, does not mean that there is nothing to know and accept.

What it means is that we should pray for wisdom and learn to rely on the love of God.

Sheesh!

Sancta Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Uh, no. That is not what I said. GOD KNOWS

Well obviously

Do you honestly think, as a Carmelite Novice, that unborn children do not have souls?

Where have I said this???

Your statement is so full of holes that a herd of elephants could go trampling through it. Just because we, as mortal human beings, are not aware of what happens in an eternal, divine sense, does not mean that there is nothing to know and accept

How can we know and accept something which we are not aware of? I would love to hear the explanation of this one.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well obviously

Where have I said this???

Please show me where I stated that you said this. I am asking you a question. If I ask you a question (that’s a sentence with a question mark at the end), I am requesting an answer. If I knew what you believed I wouldn’t be asking you what you believe. I would simply quote whatever you had stated and then respond to that quote.

How can we know and accept something which we are not aware of? I would love to hear the explanation of this one.

Let me try to explain. We KNOW by being given wisdom; WHAT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF we ACCEPT on F-A-I-T-H. We are not aware of what happens to the souls of aborted children. But we believe in a loving God and we put our faith in Him.

So we should pray for wisdom and learn to rely on the love of God.

Sancta Maria! Sancta Maria,
mater dei, ora pro nobis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

The way you phrased your question implied that I thought (and must have given you reason to believe I thought) that unborn children don’t have souls.

This whole thing is getting bogged down in this semantic nonsense.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The way you phrased your question implied that I thought (and must have given you reason to believe I thought) that unborn children don’t have souls.

This whole thing is getting bogged down in this semantic nonsense.

That’s what happens when people don’t give straight answers. It is semantic nonsense. And without inflections and body language it’s very difficult to determine if someone is being kind or sarcastic. It’s so difficult to read people.

I would much rather debate these subjects with people I can see and hear. This Internet system of debate has some serious drawbacks, IMHO. And emoticons don’t help much.

Most holy Mother,
please pray for me.

 

[Doc_Keele]

For sure, Little Soldier.

 

[grace_singh]

so the fact that the embryo goes through stages where it resembles different animals along the evolutionary ladder is irrelevant?

completely irrelevant.

it does not resemble certain animals. the human fetus develops, from looking more generically fetal, to looking more recognizably human.

its appearance at any stage does not change its humanity.

 

[Doc_Keele]

completely irrelevant.

it does not resemble certain animals. the human fetus develops, from looking more generically fetal, to looking more recognizably human.

its appearance at any stage does not change its humanity.

It doesn’t? Many people would beg to differ.

“generically fetal” is obfuscation - the human foetus looks almost identical to the foetuses of different animals along the evolutionary chain!

 

[jmcrae]

It doesn’t? Many people would beg to differ.

Okay - but when you break it down to the smallest component - that single fertilized cell - what is the DNA of that cell?

Human, right?

So, from a rational, scientific point of view, what is there to “differ” with? Even that single cell is a human zygote - it may *look *like the zygotes of every other animal on the planet, but it isn’t going to develop into any of them, nor does it even have any potential to do so - the only thing it’s going to develop into, is a specific human person.

The zygote that you were when you were a single cell could only have developed into you - there is no other animal that it could have developed into, and indeed, there is not even any other human being that it could have developed into - it was specifically designed and programmed to become the fully grown you.

 

[grace_singh]

It doesn’t? Many people would beg to differ.

“generically fetal” is obfuscation - the human foetus looks almost identical to the foetuses of different animals along the evolutionary chain!

that’s what i’m saying. the human fetus doesn’t resemble different creatures. it goes from looking generically fetal (not too different from the fetus of a chicken, fish, or dog) to looking more recognizably human.

there’s nothing lizard-like or ape-like about a human fetus as it develops, nor does the development of a fetus mirror any evolutionary scheme. a fetus develops over a period of months, but never stops being human, no matter what it looks like.

and those “gills” on a fetus? external ear structures which become internalized as the fetus grows.

 

[Doc_Keele]

LOL - straw man argument!
Mentioning particular animals the foetus doesn’t look like is a smokescreen.
It’s an observation that been made and agreed with by many embryologists, so your opinion counts for precious little, I’m afraid.
And yes, I know what branchial arches are and what they develop into thanks, it comes from studying medicine. Not just external ear structures, for your information:thumbsup:
Any more about the sucking of eggs you want to tell granny???

 

[jmcrae]

LOL - straw man argument!
Mentioning particular animals the foetus doesn’t look like is a smokescreen.
It’s an observation that been made and agreed with by many embryologists, so your opinion counts for precious little, I’m afraid.

So, they “look like” whatever - there is still absolutely no possible way that they could ever develop into anything other than a specific human being. (Male with red hair and blue eyes, or female with brown hair and brown eyes, etc.)

 

[twb1621]

It doesn’t? Many people would beg to differ.

“generically fetal” is obfuscation - the human foetus looks almost identical to the foetuses of different animals along the evolutionary chain!

Man’s argument as to when an embryo becomes human or possesses a soul… Every living entity came from dust. Not female or male dust, not mammal or crustacean or reptile dust… dust.

But in response to the question raised, for those who believe in God as our Creator, the answer is and always has been in front of us. It is human when God intends its existence, not when man determines its viability.

“…I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens; when I spread out the earth, who was with me?” (Isaiah Ch 44: 24)
**

5 “…For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life.” (Genesis CH 9: 5)

 

[Doc_Keele]

So, they “look like” whatever - there is still absolutely no possible way that they could ever develop into anything other than a specific human being. (Male with red hair and blue eyes, or female with brown hair and brown eyes, etc.)

but a few (very few changes) in the DNA and development gets arrested during the chicken stage for example
look at the similarities between all mammals - quite amazing

 

[St_Francis]

but a few (very few changes) in the DNA and development gets arrested during the chicken stage for example look at the similarities between all mammals - quite amazing

This is a totally ridiculous thing to say. Gee, if there were just a few minor changes in DNA, and a human being would be a chicken.

For conception, the human embryo is *human. *All that embyro means is young animal or fruit of the womb, and derives from the Greek for “in” and “full.” It is not some separate being any more than “children” are separate from adults.

The human conceived of human parents goes through certain stages of development, and the passing similarity of human embryos to the embryos of other species in no way reduces the essential humanity of the unborn child. In its very cellular structure, it is human, as seen through its DNA.

 

[Doc_Keele]

This is a totally ridiculous thing to say. Gee, if there were just a few minor changes in DNA, and a human being would be a chicken

It’s not ridiculous (if you know the science), but I would be interested to know on what basis you say it is?

In its very cellular structure, it is human, as seen through its DNA.

Which is very similar to other mammals and especially to the higher primates.

 

[St_Francis]

It’s not ridiculous (if you know the science), but I would be interested to know on what basis you say it is?

I was not denying the similarity but the conclusion you draw from it. The fact that something is *similar *to something else does not mean that they are the same.

Thus, positing that human DNA is very close to chicken DNA does not in any way show that an unborn child is more like a chicken than an adult is, because the fact is that it is the very differences you are trying to ignore that make an unborn child human rather than fowl.

Which is very similar to other mammals and especially to the higher primates.

Again, the differences exist and it is those differences which make us human and them not human. And those same differences exist between their unborn and our unborn.