Why do we as Catholics believe that life begins at conception?

[openmind77]

The question was not about was legal, it was about forcing beliefs. As we all agree, God’s will is not dependant on what it legal under human law.

But then again, these laws against slavery are enforcements of one belief on what constitutes human vs what constitutes being property.

Which IS rather similar to your arguments, is it not.

These laws against slavery are thus very much akin to laws against abortion. They carry the presumption that the ones being protected are actually human, even in the face of those who believe otherwise.

Your position is thus very telling.

That slavery is wrong is almost universally accepted, so you would not be forcing your beliefs on anyone.

Abortion is not considered wrong by most of world - that is the difference between the two.

 

[jilly4ski]

That slavery is wrong is almost universally accepted, so you would not be forcing your beliefs on anyone.

Abortion is not considered wrong by most of world - that is the difference between the two.

That is a rather large assumption, with no facts to back it up. Slavery of different kinds (sex or labor slavery) is practiced all over the world (last numbers I saw were over 20million people in slavery). Only in the West is it hidden and enforcement of law attempted with any success. It wasn’t much longer than 200 years ago when it was the majority’s opinion that slavery was moral. So, are you saying that now that slavers hide in the shadows it is wrong, but before when the majority of the world believed slavery was fine or that people should “mind their own business” slavery was ok. Morality changed? Truth changed?

My point is, that slavery has not always been universally condemned . I am trying to find out why you think the majority’s opinion on abortion should have any sway for anyone, unless you think the majority’s opinion on slavery 200+ years ago was correct.

 

[guanophore]

God definitely did not give anybody else the right to the woman’s body. So she is the only one (besides God) who has the right to control her body.

That is precisely the problem, openmind. It is not her body. The baby has his own body. The baby is completely at her mercy, defenseless.

As I said before I (along with the majority of the world ) do not believe the fetus is a human being.

You have made this assertion, but you have not shown any evidence to support it. I think you are just grasping at straws and inventing things like this to support yourself.

The Bible says many things I don't agree with, I only consider the words of Jesus as unquestionable truth. The rest is debatable.

How about this:

‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ 41"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;…Matt. 25:40

Would you have ripped Jesus from the womb, would you? If you were a pregnant woman and it was inconvenient (I assure you it was quite inconvenient for Mary) would you have asserted your “rights” over the life within you? Would you have murdered the Son of God?

Whatever we do to the least, we do to Him. And where do those go who do not treat all human beings with the dignity of Christ?

God will give the fetus all the rights as a human being after its birth. As long as it is inside the mother, she has control and speaks for both of them.

She does have control,a nd does speak for both of them, which is why it is so important that she treat that baby as if it were Christ Himself.

There is no point in going in circles with the same thing - I don’t believe (along with most the world) that the fetus is a human being.

I don’t think most of the world agrees with you, openmind. In fact, I think it is the opposite. I think the idea of treating the new life as “the byproducts of conception” was started by Planned Parenthood in the United States.

Ever listen to a woman who wants her child? She never calls it “the pregnancy” or “it”, she calls it “the baby”. It is natural and normal for a mother to think of herself as “with child”.

There is no way you will prove otherwise. Why not just say that you will wait till the Christ comes to prove how correct you are? I will believe anything he says.

Clearly not, since you don’t believe what He has already says.

Science has already proven that the Zygote is a human being.

And as I said before people who hurt anyone including the pregnant woman by making her life worse, will answer for it on Judgment Day.

It is hard to imagine what could make a woman’s life worse than murdering the innocent. What a horrible thing to have on your conscience.

 

[guanophore]

You keep saying “unfortunate women”… what makes an unfortunate woman??? How did she get to be unfortunate?

Haven’t you heard? Unwanted pregnancy is a disease!

Some women are victims of rape or incest. Others have husbands who force themselves on the women without contraception or using NFP etc. In these cases they are pretty blameless, so they are indeed unfortunate.

A small minority.

Even so, if a man breaks into a house and rapes a woman while her 2 year old watches, would you kill the two year old to punish the rapist? It makes no logical sense to create another innocent victim.

 In other cases, in is true that they may have willingly participated in intercourse, but who are we to pass judgment and assign blame?

No one has passed judgment or assigned any blame. Pregnancy is not some kind of punishment. It is a natural result of intimate relations between men and women.

Such an attitude is part of the culture of death.

Especially, in the case of unmarried teenagers, their entire life, education etc may be at stake. In all these cases the women are unfortunate, even if it is their own fault. Of course if the women are rich or at least have their own money, they have a lots of choices, it is the poor women who have no choice.

Don’t be ridiculous. Unwanted pregnancies have been happening since the dawn of mankind. If a woman is not ready to commit to raising the child then the baby can be given up for adoption. There are plenty of couples longing for a child that can’t have one. They are even willing to pay the expenses until the baby is brought to term.

There are no rewards in heaven for persecuting poor unfortunate women and making their lives harder.

You are right, and nothing will be harder on a woman than the soul wound that is created by taking an innocent life for her own convenience.

That slavery is wrong is almost universally accepted, so you would not be forcing your beliefs on anyone.

Abortion is not considered wrong by most of world - that is the difference between the two.

Lets see the evidence. Where are you getting your data?

 

[Brendan]

That slavery is wrong is almost universally accepted, so you would not be forcing your beliefs on anyone.

That was not always so. Historically, it was quite common, even considered to be a normal state of affairs.

So was slavery a moral act, say in the 1760’s, when most of the world practiced it, and the majority of the world considered it to be normal

Abortion is not considered wrong by most of world - that is the difference between the two.

So what you are saying then, IS that it acceptable to force moral beliefs on others IF the moral beliefs are the majority vote. That your only objection to forcing moral beliefs is based on how popular those beliefs are.

 

[Porknpie]

A right to control ones own body seems so basic that I am not sure a determination needs to be made.

This is an assumption that you have made Openmind without being able to articulate where this right comes from.

If you were convinced that an embryo is a human life, a human being, would you then be consistent and apply your assertion to this human being?

As they are defenseless, wouldn’t they need to depend on others to defend their right to live?

Did you think you had a right to do something to somebody else’s body?

At times yes. Raising children, I’ve had to take care of them as babies and infants, often taking care of them in ways that they were unable to do so on their own. And in the case of preventing abortion, one doesn’t “Do” anything to another’s body, rather, one let’s nature takes its course.

The perverse extreme of course, is the mother having the right to kill her unborn (a life / body within her)

“Nobody should be able to force a woman to carry something inside her body against her will.”

That’s just it isn’t it? This “something”. You argue that it is not a human life. If I give birth at 3pm today to a baby boy, was he still only a “Something” :

• an hour before at 2pm?
• a day before?
• a month before?
• 3 months before?

When does this “something” become “someone” : A male human being worthy of having a right to life?

“Whoever persecutes an unfortunate pregnant woman by forcing her to do so, making her life harder, making her suffer”

So… your alternative, in many cases of abortion, is to pull the arms and legs off this “something” and crush its skull in the belief that another will suffer if it is not done?

Do answer when this “something” becomes “someone”.

Does having a heart beat count as “something” becoming “someone”?

 

[Micosil]

Scientists are the people who fertilize human eggs in a petri dish and then flush them if they are not happy with the results. And you claim the scientists believe that the fertilized eggs are human beings? Where did you find these scientists - on Fox news?

Oh, is that right? What about all the abortion doctors who have since gone on to refuse to perform more abortions because they recognize what it is that they’re doing?

He switches arguments routinely from among these:

1. Woman can do anything to anyone or thing inside her body.
2. Soul does not come along till well after conception (perhaps not till birth) and prior to that, the human life is not a human being;
3. Because timing of ensoulment not clear - the woman is the only one to “make the call” - (ie. to take the risk with her offspring’s life), because her “right” under point 1 prevails anyway.

Note: Pro-abortion Atheists would need to stick with Point 1.

The soul argument is bad; the soul is the animating principle of life. And it is objective science that establishes without a shred of doubt that a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus is alive and belongs to the Homo sapiens sapiens subspecies. It is human life, so anyone that says that a fetus is ensouled at birth has no idea what a soul is and/or what life is.

 

[guanophore]

The soul argument is bad; the soul is the animating principle of life. And it is objective science that establishes without a shred of doubt that a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus is alive and belongs to the Homo sapiens sapiens subspecies. It is human life, so anyone that says that a fetus is ensouled at birth has no idea what a soul is and/or what life is.

It is the same argument used to support slavery. Negroes were not considered to have a soul, and to belong to a lesser subspecies of Homo Sapients more like apes, and that thinkig justified taking control of their bodies adn using them against their will.

It also contradicts what the Scriptures say about cases such as John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit when Jesus visited him three months before he was born. Can the “byproducts of human oonception” leap for joy when the Mother of God comes calling?

 

[petra22]

It sounds as if you are a religious person. You are mentioning Christ, and His return. Do you honestly believe, in your heart of hearts, that those fellow religious persons who pray for the unborn babies and their mothers have more to answer for at the judgement than those who hired people to go inside their own bodies to stop the heart and crush the head of their own sons and daughters? Speaking personally, I have much to answer for in this life, and God will be just in His judgement of me. I am sorry for many things I have done in this life. Loving unborn life, and praying for them publically and privately, and standing up for their God given right to exist is not one of things I’m particularly troubled about having examined at the judgement.

I enjoyed all your responses. They were very thoughtful and insightful. This last response brought tears to my eyes as I think about the sins I have to answer for and God looking at me while I do…

 

[petra22]

Some women are victims of rape or incest. Others have husbands who force themselves on the women without contraception or using NFP etc. In these cases they are pretty blameless, so they are indeed unfortunate.

In other cases, in is true that they may have willingly participated in intercourse, but who are we to pass judgment and assign blame? Especially, in the case of unmarried teenagers, their entire life, education etc may be at stake. In all these cases the women are unfortunate, even if it is their own fault. Of course if the women are rich or at least have their own money, they have a lots of choices, it is the poor women who have no choice.

There are no rewards in heaven for persecuting poor unfortunate women and making their lives harder.

Then I think we all have a big problem when the Lord comes and asks us how we allowed our children to go so far astray (and many of the parents with them) that they became so promiscuous to have so many sexual partners and often not even know who the father of their offspring is… but still is that the fault of the offspring? They must be denied life because the mother is poor, uneducated, uninstructed, and should not be saddled with a child because of her behavior? This seems wrong to NOT tell our children what they are doing is going to create a new human life. To tell them it’s ok to kill this one and wait to have another one when they are older and able to handle it… it’s the fault of the elders… and to Not tell them–sin on US as the elders!

 

[petra22]

That slavery is wrong is almost universally accepted, so you would not be forcing your beliefs on anyone.

Abortion is not considered wrong by most of world - that is the difference between the two.

Don’t you wonder WHO is telling women that the thing growing inside them is NOT a human being? Is it the doctors performing the abortions? I have read some very descriptive accounts of doctors and nurses who assisted or performed abortions. These accounts I read told me doctors and nurses KNOW what they are doing… sometimes the little fetus is kicking and breathing and put into a waste can, sometimes taken out in pieces and thrown away…

Is it the pharmacists who make birth control agents and medicines? To me it seems these people are in the business to make money.

The people who want to tell the women the other side of the story only want to support life. They don’t get any money for it. But they pray and give assistance and money to help the women… we don’t want to condemn the women–just tell them the truth. I heard the truth will set us free…

 

[Ender]

Scientists are the people who fertilize human eggs in a petri dish and then flush them if they are not happy with the results.

Scientists are no more immune to rationalizations than you are. Doctors are surely aware of the true nature of the “product of conception” inside the mother. They could hardly be otherwise when they extract an arm here, and a leg there, but they somehow justify their actions to themselves. The fact that they can continue to perform such procedures cannot be taken as an indication that they reject the idea that they are dismembering children. It is a mark of their callousness that they know what they do and continue nonetheless.

And you claim the scientists believe that the fertilized eggs are human beings? Where did you find these scientists - on Fox news?

No actual scientist would try to make a distinction between a human life and a human being. Such distinctions are utterly unscientific, and are raised only by people like yourself who need artificial distinctions to justify their treatment of “non” human beings. There is absolutely no scientific support for your position; it is purely your own.

Ender

 

[petra22]

That is exactly what I mean - the test is too subtle for even reasonably intelligent people. It is test of compassion over self righteousness, where the apparently guilty person’s actions seem too indefensible to resist condemnation.

The urge is to condemn, rather than be merciful and compassionate. Many will fail this test - Judgment day will as merciful or as indicting to them as they have been to the women who have a difficult choice to make. That day will happen pretty soon, the Christ is getting ready even as we discuss this.

YOU have the pro-life movement wrong. We do not just want to condemn. We don’t want to condemn at all. That is not for us. Even Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery–but he did educate her and tell her that was a sin because he told her to go and sin no more…

 

[openmind77]

That was not always so. Historically, it was quite common, even considered to be a normal state of affairs.

So was slavery a moral act, say in the 1760’s, when most of the world practiced it, and the majority of the world considered it to be normal

I doubt if a majority ever accepted it - not if you count the slaves (I would count them)

So what you are saying then, IS that it acceptable to force moral beliefs on others IF the moral beliefs are the majority vote. That your only objection to forcing moral beliefs is based on how popular those beliefs are.

It is not a question of acceptable. In a democracy, the majority vote will inevitably enforce its views on morality on everyone, we just have to live with that (which is why abortion is illegal in countries like Brazil).

But as we said before, the Christ is not concerned with legality. If you knowingly hurt some one, made their lives difficult and unbearable, you will have to answer for your actions. Those whose job it is to enforce the law (like the police, the courts) - they may be exempt from judgment, but others who persecute these women will be judged.

 

[openmind77]

… There is absolutely no scientific support for your position; it is purely your own.

Ender

I did not say that scientists believed that the fetus is not a human being on the basis of the absence of a soul, They have their own reasons on the basis of the stage of development of the fetus.

But I am not alone in my rationale about the absence of a soul on conception - you can read this wiki page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment

 

[David_Alexander]

The Visitation, the Rosary’s 2nd Joyful Mystery, is also of course a wonderful encounter between two unborn babies – one of whom is our Lord.

 

[guanophore]

I doubt if a majority ever accepted it - not if you count the slaves (I would count them)

I would too, but that just lends credence to the fact that those who are in political power make the decisions about what is right and wrong and they may not be good or moral choices.

You have still not provided any support for your assertion that “most countries” don’t believe the fetus is a person.

It is not a question of acceptable. In a democracy, the majority vote will inevitably enforce its views on morality on everyone, we just have to live with that (which is why abortion is illegal in countries like Brazil).

No, openmind, it is the opposite. If we stand by and do nothing while the “majority” commits grave sins, we will be held accountable. It is true that the majority will enforce its laws on everyone, but we don’t “just have to live with that”. We can protest, educate, and try to rescue the victims of the culture of death in which we live.

But as we said before, the Christ is not concerned with legality.

Who is this royal “we” ?!?

Are you now claiming to speak for Christ as well as yourself?!

If you knowingly hurt some one, made their lives difficult and unbearable, you will have to answer for your actions. Those whose job it is to enforce the law (like the police, the courts) - they may be exempt from judgment, but others who persecute these women will be judged.

You are right that making the lives of others miserable should be avoided, but the fetus has no one to protect them from the difficult and the painful. They are innocent victims being butchered. So, it is the lesser of the two evils, the woman to bear a temporary discomfort and hurt compared to the life of a humab being.

Protecting women from committing murder is not “persecuting” them. You have no idea how much women suffer for this crime after it is committed. Women intuitively know that the life within them is theirs to protect and cherish.

 

[Brendan]

I doubt if a majority ever accepted it - not if you count the slaves (I would count them)

In was legal in the vast majority of countries. Even in the countries that produced the slaves

It is not a question of acceptable. In a democracy, the majority vote will inevitably enforce its views on morality on everyone, we just have to live with that (which is why abortion is illegal in countries like Brazil).

But as we said before, the Christ is not concerned with legality. If you knowingly hurt some one,

Like the child in the womb?

made their lives difficult and unbearable,

like the child in the womb?

you will have to answer for your actions.

like the action of killing the child in the womb?

Those whose job it is to enforce the law (like the police, the courts) - they may be exempt from judgment, but others who persecute these women will be judged.

Why would they be exempt from judgement?

 

[clem456]

I doubt if a majority ever accepted it - not if you count the slaves (I would count them)

It is not a question of acceptable. In a democracy, the majority vote will inevitably enforce its views on morality on everyone, we just have to live with that (which is why abortion is illegal in countries like Brazil).

But as we said before, the Christ is not concerned with legality. If you knowingly hurt some one, made their lives difficult and unbearable, you will have to answer for your actions. Those whose job it is to enforce the law (like the police, the courts) - they may be exempt from judgment, but others who persecute these women will be judged.

And that includes the persecution of unborn female human beings.

**A question that you have avoided:
**
Since you believe that popular opinion determines morality:
It was a popular belief that black people were less than full human beings.

**Do you, or do you not believe, that it was or is acceptable to kill them based on that popular belief?

**

 

[openmind77]

…
Like the child in the womb? like the child in the womb? like the action of killing the child in the womb?

Whether you agree or not, I (along with many others) do not consider the fetus a child or a human being - we have already been over this. The persecution of women who seek termination will have to answered for on the Day of Judgment. The fact that the fetus is also affected will not absolve the perpetrators of their actions - in any case this is not up to me (or up to you), so arguing with me about it will not change this.

Why would they be exempt from judgement?

Those whose job it is to enforce laws can not be held responsible for merely doing their job (even though the laws may be unjust). As I said before, a few years after the Christ returns, abortion will be legal and freely available in all countries. Then we won’t have this problem.