When did CC emphatically affirm human life starts at conception esp. regarding abortion?

[z0wb13]

Jesus never condemns the intentional slaughter of BORN children either. Are you going to defend that too? Some things just don’t need saying once you recognize what they are. But humans, being creatures of amazing rationalizing potential, often intentionally confuse themselves about what things are.

right, like when people intentionally confuse the words embryo with fetus with baby.

Take slavery. For centuries, otherwise decent people managed to see no evil in treating other human beings are mere chattle property.

those otherwise decent people included jesus (luke 12).

And I’m not sure what you think the encyclical link proves.

it answers the OP’s question. it’s a fair question, as there is no mention of abortion in the bible, even though there were methods of inducing miscarriage that were well-known and widely practiced. i was rather curious myself, so i found out the answer.

 

[davidv]

right, like when people intentionally confuse the words embryo with fetus with baby.

Who here defending human life from conception to natural death have confused these terms? Each terms refers to a unique human person at various stages of development who deserves respect.

those otherwise decent people included jesus (luke 12).

it answers the OP’s question. it’s a fair question, as there is no mention of abortion in the bible, even though there were methods of inducing miscarriage that were well-known and widely practiced. i was rather curious myself, so i found out the answer.

Why do you think the Bible contains the exhaustive list of morals?

 

[z0wb13]

Why do you think the Bible contains the exhaustive list of morals?

religions where people’s first attempts at making sense of the the world. so if you look at the morality of the OT, you get all the stuff about inspecting the walls for mildew and what to do, and what foods to eat so you don’t get sick and die. the morality in the NT was rather different from that of the time, but a lot of it still reflected local customs.

anyway, why? solidarity, i guess. trying to establish a community. but i think that morality was already there, for at least 150,000 years, and people wrote it down because they thought it was important. so this is different from the view that god invented morality 6000 years ago (i realize most of the people here aren’t young earthers so don’t take offense;p).

but i think this topic is probably better discussed on another thread. the OP was specific, and none of what i said has anything to do with it. but to confusing terms, when people say that abortion is baby killing, well only if there is a baby, like something that looks like a baby that you would get in the 3rd trimester. 1st trimester abortions aren’t baby killings. it’s a sin, i get it. but it’s not baby killing, it’s fetus killing. see what i’m saying?

 

[davidv]

religions where people’s first attempts at making sense of the the world. so if you look at the morality of the OT, you get all the stuff about inspecting the walls for mildew and what to do, and what foods to eat so you don’t get sick and die. the morality in the NT was rather different from that of the time, but a lot of it still reflected local customs.

anyway, why? solidarity, i guess. trying to establish a community. but i think that morality was already there, for at least 150,000 years, and people wrote it down because they thought it was important. so this is different from the view that god invented morality 6000 years ago (i realize most of the people here aren’t young earthers so don’t take offense;p).

but i think this topic is probably better discussed on another thread. the OP was specific, and none of what i said has anything to do with it. but to confusing terms, when people say that abortion is baby killing, well only if there is a baby, like something that looks like a baby that you would get in the 3rd trimester. 1st trimester abortions aren’t baby killings. it’s a sin, i get it. but it’s not baby killing, it’s fetus killing. see what i’m saying?

Yes I see what you are saying. Its just semantic gamesmanship to avoid the obvious. No matter what name is given to them, a living human innocent person is unjustly killed.

 

[allyl]

Jesus never condemns the intentional slaughter of BORN children either. Are you going to defend that too? Some things just don’t need saying once you recognize what they are. But humans, being creatures of amazing rationalizing potential, often intentionally confuse themselves about what things are.

The intentional slaughter of born children would be considered death of an actual human being seeing as the person has a soul which is not debatable so it would be classified as homicide. What is debatable is whether a fetus has a soul and thus whether abortion is a sin…

I think that taking away the potential of what that fetus could become is a sin. That is, we’re not treating the potential person that this baby could become equally as we do not know what it could do after birth and this uncertainty is enough, in my books, to let the fetus live.

 

[JimG]

The Church’s teaching has remained the same: no innocent human being can be killed.

The only thing that’s changed is knowledge of embryology. In previous times, the definitive evidence of life in the womb was when the mother felt the child kick–“quickening.” Since that was evidence of a living being, abortion past quickening was deemed mortally sinful.

Every human individual does have a beginning. And we know now, from embryology, when a new human individual has its beginning–it is at conception. And it’s wrong to kill a human being, whether 1 day old or 100 years old.

A soul is the life principle of the body. Every living being, by definition, has a soul. Since we know when a new human being begins, we also know that it has a soul from the beginning. It is not even a philosophical possibility for a new and genetically distinct human individual to exist for some period of time without a soul.

 

[z0wb13]

Yes I see what you are saying. Its just semantic gamesmanship to avoid the obvious. No matter what name is given to them, a living human innocent person is unjustly killed.

i don’t think you do quite follow me, because now you are introducing even more equivocations. a person is different from a baby too. these distinctions are real. i see that it doesn’t matter with regard to sin. the CC teaching precludes the use of contraceptives, why? it’s not because life starts at conception, it’s because every sexual act must be open to procreation. so following that logic, i see why abortion is also prohibited. but an embryo, fetus, baby and (adult) person are all significantly different things, legally and morally.

the business that the soul enters the body at conception is an anachronism. the people that wrote the bible didn’t know about how the biology of procreation worked, so they didn’t think that life began at conception, or that it was the moment that the soul entered the body. those people thought that the soul entered the body during “quickening,” which occurs, typically, during the 2nd trimester. so, it’s just your opinion, but you are going back in time and saying “those people, that are long dead, agreed with me. and because they’re dead, they can’t clarify their meaning.” that’s convenient for you, but their is no scriptural support for your position.

JimG: The Church’s teaching has remained the same: no innocent human being can be killed.

unless the person in question is a witch, or a heretic, or an amalekite or their children;p although, i suppose these people weren’t innocent according to scripture. i guess it just depends on who is sitting in judgment. because witches (the ones that tear around on broomsticks and turn people into toads) are pretend, it would be reasonable to conclude that people accused of that crime were probably innocent, but then i have the benefit of hindsight.

JimG: A soul is the life principle of the body. Every living being, by definition, has a soul… It is not even a philosophical possibility for a new and genetically distinct human individual to exist for some period of time without a soul.

or it is entirely possible. but according to scripture, not every living thing has a soul, at least not an indelible “spiritual” soul. plants and non-human animals do not.

but your claim that it is philosophically impossible is a little misleading. it is impossible in your personal philosophy, but there are materialistic philosophical constructs in which the cosmos would continue functioning, blissfully ignorant of the nature of the christian soul. so i can’t just take it for granted that souls, or any other metaphysical entities, exist; i need data.

 

[z0wb13]

I think that taking away the potential of what that fetus could become is a sin. That is, we’re not treating the potential person that this baby could become equally as we do not know what it could do after birth and this uncertainty is enough, in my books, to let the fetus live.

i think that if you want to use this argument, you need to show other cases of when something’s potential is given the same regard as what it actually is.

i don’t think i made that clear, though. but imagine instead of using oak to build a piece of furniture, you used a bunch of acorns laminated together. it wouldn’t be the same, although the potential for an acorn to grow into an oak tree exists. or take weather systems. just because there is a low pressure front over the atlantic, you wouldn’t start boarding up windows and stockpiling water and other supplies in anticipation of a hurricane.

i’m not saying there is a clear distinction between the different stages of human development. but there are different stages.

 

[davidv]

i don’t think you do quite follow me, because now you are introducing even more equivocations. a person is different from a baby too. these distinctions are real. i see that it doesn’t matter with regard to sin. the CC teaching precludes the use of contraceptives, why? it’s not because life starts at conception, it’s because every sexual act must be open to procreation. so following that logic, i see why abortion is also prohibited. but an embryo, fetus, baby and (adult) person are all significantly different things, legally and morally.

Dictionary.com defines person = human being. How is a baby not a person? All these “things” are human beings. They are not substantially different, they are only differ in appearance.

the business that the soul enters the body at conception is an anachronism. the people that wrote the bible didn’t know about how the biology of procreation worked, so they didn’t think that life began at conception, or that it was the moment that the soul entered the body. those people thought that the soul entered the body during “quickening,” which occurs, typically, during the 2nd trimester. so, it’s just your opinion, but you are going back in time and saying “those people, that are long dead, agreed with me. and because they’re dead, they can’t clarify their meaning.” that’s convenient for you, but their is no scriptural support for your position.

How is any of this relevant?

unless the person in question is a witch, or a heretic, or an amalekite or their children;p although, i suppose these people weren’t innocent according to scripture. i guess it just depends on who is sitting in judgment. because witches (the ones that tear around on broomsticks and turn people into toads) are pretend, it would be reasonable to conclude that people accused of that crime were probably innocent, but then i have the benefit of hindsight.

Relevance?

or it is entirely possible. but according to scripture, not every living thing has a soul, at least not an indelible “spiritual” soul. plants and non-human animals do not.

but your claim that it is philosophically impossible is a little misleading.

Where did I make this claim and how is this relevant to the stages of physical development of a human being?

it is impossible in your personal philosophy, but there are materialistic philosophical constructs in which the cosmos would continue functioning, blissfully ignorant of the nature of the christian soul. so i can’t just take it for granted that souls, or any other metaphysical entities, exist; i need data.

Obviously you don’t have to believe anything, whether true or not. This is a gift given to you by God. I hope and pray you don’t abuse this gift.

 

[JimG]

but your claim that it is philosophically impossible is a little misleading. it is impossible in your personal philosophy, but there are materialistic philosophical constructs in which the cosmos would continue functioning, blissfully ignorant of the nature of the christian soul. so i can’t just take it for granted that souls, or any other metaphysical entities, exist; i need data.

Not really my personal philosophy. Aquinas was before me, and before him Aristotle. But your last sentence is my point exactly. In fact, most people who make the pro-choice case from arguing about when the soul enters the body do not actually believe in the existence of an immortal soul, so the argument is pointless and misleading, and incapable of resolution from a physical standpoint, since no one can see a soul enter a body. (We notice when it leaves, certainly, because then the person is undoubtedly dead.)

We do know biologically however, when a new individual of the human species has its beginning. A new individual of the human species, distinct physically and genetically from both mother and father, has its beginning at conception. The only argument is: at what point are we no longer allowed to kill this new human being.

Those advocating for life believe that no human being should be killed at any stage of its life, from the very beginning to the end. Embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, adult, elderly person–It’s all the same person. We all started the same way and will go through all those same stages. Is the adult stage the only one at which we are fully protected from killing? It is, after already being argued in academic circles that infants ought not to be protected from abortion just because they are born. The sick, the disabled, and the elderly may be next.