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

[openmind77]

That citation was from a professor from (the fringe group of) Princeton University, and I mentioned it specifically in response to your assertion that “Nobody ever says that a person after birth is not a human being.…” Unlike your other assertions, this one was rather simple to rebut.

Actually universities are the safest places for people with fringe opinions (like this philosophy professor). If you said 40% or even 5% of academics said such things, then it may be of some significance

Given that those who would accept your belief about Christ could probably be counted on one hand, does that make it automatically wrong? If right and wrong are determined by how many believe something then this statement is obviously wrong. On the other hand, if truth is determined by something like, well…truth, then the number of people who accept something is irrelevant. So, which is it? Is your claim that billions think like you do irrelevant or are you simply wrong in your belief about Christ?

I never said something is right merely because many people believe in it. But the fact that billions of people believe in something does have significance - so it is not irrelevant.

Also I think at least thousands (maybe millions) of people believe that the Christ will return soon. Whether they understand his stance regarding abortion is another matter.

You don’t have to believe my opinion on what the Christ will do, but it is good to be aware that someone with unquestioned moral authority will be amongst us soon. When that happens, it will no longer be possible to condemn and persecute women who are in a unfortunate situation - it is best to learn to be more tolerant, kind and compassionate even before that event takes place. And actions that may have made life worse for these women will have to be answered for to him.

 

[Micosil]

I never said something is right merely because many people believe in it. But the fact that billions of people believe in something does have significance - so it is not irrelevant.

It has significance from a demographical, sociological point of view. Not from a moral point of view.

 

[KariBear]

Hello!
I am passionately and intensely pro-life, not just for religious but also secular reasons. In my advocacy, I’ve come across the question of why we as Catholics believe that life does begin at conception. I understand and accept the scientific reasoning for it, which is that at no other time does it make sense that life begins, but I was wondering what the theological argument was for life beginning at conception.
Thanks!

Not just Catholics, my friend, but all true Bible believeing Christians do too…even before we are born…

Jeremiah 1:5 says it all

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations

 

[Rau]

…There is no chance that such fringe beliefs will have influence or be accepted by many. My belief that a fetus does not have the same rights as a human being on the other hand, is accepted by literally billions.

You do lean quite a lot on your view of majority opinion…

My belief that a fetus does not have the same rights as a human being…

I would agree that a fetus does not have all the same rights that we adults have. The fetus can’t have a right to freedom of association, for example. That’s not a right that pertains to that stage of development. This is true for a toddler too, or even a young child. Some rights are attached to one’s stage of development. But it takes a different kind of “logic” to conclude that a human life does not have any right to be free of the threat of maternally enforced extinction.

 

[Porknpie]

These citations are fringe opinions.

I’m still waiting Openmind for an answer from you.

What is the difference the in development of a fetus that makes development before 6 months “Definitely” a “Something” (no soul) and not a “Someone” (with a soul) ?

You have a strong opinion here by the use of the word “definitely” so I would believe you have an insight as to why…and that you would share it.

Also, we can go to the hospital.

• A mother gives birth. I think you believe that the newborn baby is a “someone”, worth of having their life protected.
• 1 hour prior to birth, this life is inside the mother.

Do you believe an hour before birth, this life is a “Something” or “Someone”?

If a “Someone”…is their life worthy of protection from anyone who would harm them, include their mother? Does the mother still have an unalterable “right” to take that human life?

 

[openmind77]

I’m still waiting Openmind for an answer from you.

What is the difference the in development of a fetus that makes development before 6 months “Definitely” a “Something” (no soul) and not a “Someone” (with a soul) ?

You have a strong opinion here by the use of the word “definitely” so I would believe you have an insight as to why…and that you would share it.

Sorry to keep you waiting! But this ‘definite’ belief has to do with the nature of a human soul and what type body it would be comfortable inhabiting.

Also, we can go to the hospital.

• A mother gives birth. I think you believe that the newborn baby is a “someone”, worth of having their life protected.
• 1 hour prior to birth, this life is inside the mother.

Do you believe an hour before birth, this life is a “Something” or “Someone”?

If a “Someone”…is their life worthy of protection from anyone who would harm them, include their mother? Does the mother still have an unalterable “right” to take that human life?

If a fetus is viable outside the mother’s body (ie it can survive and grow independently) , even with the help of an incubator, then it is someone whose life should be protected.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry to keep you waiting! But this ‘definite’ belief has to do with the nature of a human soul and what type body it would be comfortable inhabiting.

Well, this is a relief! Otherwise handicapped persons and those with imperfect “body types” that the soul might be uncomfortable inhabiting would have to be eliminated even after they were born!

If a fetus is viable outside the mother’s body (ie it can survive and grow independently) , even with the help of an incubator, then it is someone whose life should be protected.

This statement is self contradicting, openmind77. If the fetus needs an incubator, or any kind of other support for it’s life, then it is not “independent”. The infant relies upon the caregiver for everything! Food, shelter, clothing, affection…it does not “grow independently”.

There is no functional difference between the fetus being incubated in the womb, or incubated in a machine. In eather case, it is a human life that is growing.

Your arguments just continue to disintegrate.

 

[Porknpie]

Sorry to keep you waiting! But this ‘definite’ belief has to do with the nature of a human soul and what type body it would be comfortable inhabiting.

I’m not sure that I understand this… you believe the Soul picks what body it goes to, that it is has a choice? It can say “no” until it finds one that it likes: tall, slender, green eyes, blonde hair?

If a fetus is viable outside the mother’s body (ie it can survive and grow independently) , even with the help of an incubator, then it is someone whose life should be protected.

So I believe you are saying:

1. So…6 months is the earliest time that God would mate a soul to its body…a “something” becoming a “someone”
2. After 6 months, this is the absolutely earliest that this can happen (26 weeks)
3. Abortion is morally wrong if a human being can survive with medical assistance outside of the womb.
4. This human being, small as it is, deserves protection of it’s life, just like any other human being, even if the mother wanted to end its life.

Questions then…

a) How does this case fit in to your premise: ** Youtube video of 21 month old surviving** ?

b) Should you adjust your premise now to 5 months: “something” becomes a “someone”?

c) And who has the authority to infallibly state: God only places the soul into this “something” at 5 months or later?

 

[openmind77]

I’m not sure that I understand this… you believe the Soul picks what body it goes to, that it is has a choice? It can say “no” until it finds one that it likes: tall, slender, green eyes, blonde hair?

Not at all. The soul is already designated for a certain fetus (remember that I am a Hindu - we believe the soul is preexisting and has lived many lives before). The soul can choose when to enter and ensoul the fetus. It will definitely not want to enter a body consisting of a single or a few cells for instance and then stay confined there for nine months. Of course after birth, there is no such choice, if the soul is not present, the baby will not survive outside the mother.

So I believe you are saying:

1. So…6 months is the earliest time that God would mate a soul to its body…a “something” becoming a “someone”
2. After 6 months, this is the absolutely earliest that this can happen (26 weeks)
3. Abortion is morally wrong if a human being can survive with medical assistance outside of the womb.
4. This human being, small as it is, deserves protection of it’s life, just like any other human being, even if the mother wanted to end its life.

Questions then…

a) How does this case fit in to your premise: ** Youtube video of 21 month old surviving** ?

b) Should you adjust your premise now to 5 months: “something” becomes a “someone”?

c) And who has the authority to infallibly state: God only places the soul into this “something” at 5 months or later?

It is up to the doctor to decide whether the fetus will survive and can be saved. The mother has the right to ask that the fetus be removed at any time. The morality of whether to save the fetus or not is not her decision. Doctors make these decisions about other patients under their care all the time. The case of your video (which I did not watch), the doctors succeeded in saving the fetus - if they believe can do it every time, they should do so. But the pregnant woman still has the right to ask that it be removed from her body.

 

[Micosil]

I’m not sure that I understand this… you believe the Soul picks what body it goes to, that it is has a choice? It can say “no” until it finds one that it likes: tall, slender, green eyes, blonde hair?

So I believe you are saying:

1. So…6 months is the earliest time that God would mate a soul to its body…a “something” becoming a “someone”
2. After 6 months, this is the absolutely earliest that this can happen (26 weeks)
3. Abortion is morally wrong if a human being can survive with medical assistance outside of the womb.
4. This human being, small as it is, deserves protection of it’s life, just like any other human being, even if the mother wanted to end its life.

Questions then…

a) How does this case fit in to your premise: ** Youtube video of 21 month old surviving** ?

b) Should you adjust your premise now to 5 months: “something” becomes a “someone”?

c) And who has the authority to infallibly state: God only places the soul into this “something” at 5 months or later?

The argument of viability is easily refuted. As technology advances, the viability period diminishes; there may even come a time when it may even be possible, for medical reasons, to take a fetus that is only 10-weeks-old, remove it from the mother and have it develop elsewhere. This 10-week-old fetus wasn’t a human being according to previous understanding, but it is now since technology allows it to be viable? How can something’s inherent nature be determined by the current technological and scientific progress.

That isn’t an ontological understanding of things, you see, but a functional or utilitarian understanding. And we all know who applied functional definitions, and what results they gave …

 

[Modern_Revert]

Whether animal or human, egg + sperm = Fertilized egg/conception.

 

[Porknpie]

The mother has the right to ask that the fetus be removed at any time.

So even though the “something” becomes a “someone” inside the mothers body, the mother can decide to end this life at any time prior to giving birth? I thought you professed this “someone” deserved protection?

The morality of whether to save the fetus or not is not her decision. Doctors make these decisions

So what is moral changes based on what a Dr. decides? What happens when two Dr.s disagree? Who then is morally right?

The case of your video (which I did not watch), the doctors succeeded in saving the fetus

Not fetus, it is a human being right? You believe that this very young, 21 week old baby had a soul since it survived?

This is inconsistent with your previous statement that prior to 6 months, it was absolutely not possible. Should your definitive statement now be changed?

“I don’t know exactly, but it definitely not within the first -]six/-] FIVE months after conception.”

 

[openmind77]

So even though the “something” becomes a “someone” inside the mothers body, the mother can decide to end this life at any time prior to giving birth? I thought you professed this “someone” deserved protection?

The pregnant woman has a right to control what is inside her body. She can ask that the fetus be removed from her body any time. Whether to try to save the fetus or not is the doctor’s decision. Such decisions are made by a doctor or a team of doctors all the time. They already have procedures for when two doctor’s disagree.

This is inconsistent with your previous statement that prior to 6 months, it was absolutely not possible. Should your definitive statement now be changed?

After birth, the soul has to enter the fetus - whether the birth happens at 4 months or 9 months. I doubt if the soul will enter a fetus while it is inside the woman’s body even at 6 months, it probably happens much later than that.

Only someone like the Christ can tell us exactly when that happens. He will be here soon so you don’t need to wait to long to find out. Those who have persecuted pregnant women who seek termination (as I described in a previous post) will have to answer for their actions to the Christ. But the Christ will stop this persecution. Soon after that, abortion will be safe and available all over the world.

 

[davidv]

The pregnant woman has a right to control what is inside her body.

Why?

She can ask that the fetus be removed from her body any time. Whether to try to save the fetus or not is the doctor’s decision. Such decisions are made by a doctor or a team of doctors all the time. They already have procedures for when two doctor’s disagree.

After birth, the soul has to enter the fetus - whether the birth happens at 4 months or 9 months. I doubt if the soul will enter a fetus while it is inside the woman’s body even at 6 months, it probably happens much later than that.

Only someone like the Christ can tell us exactly when that happens. He will be here soon so you don’t need to wait to long to find out. Those who have persecuted pregnant women who seek termination (as I described in a previous post) will have to answer for their actions to the Christ. But the Christ will stop this persecution. Soon after that, abortion will be safe and available all over the world.

Why are you using a different definition of soul than that is applicable to classical philosophy? Namely, a soul is the animating principle of a living being. What is your justification for not applying this definition to the case of an unborn child?

 

[Porknpie]

After birth, the soul has to enter the fetus - whether the birth happens at 4 months or 9 months. I doubt if the soul will enter a fetus while it is inside the woman’s body even at 6 months, it probably happens much later than that. .

It’s very problematic Openmind that you simply do not know.

Since you are fallible, you could be wrong.

The soul could enter the body at 4 months, 2 months, or 2 days or even the moment of conception. kpeople:

And as you state, that “something” becomes “someone” worthy of having their life protected. Even if the one carrying that life inside of her wants to end it.

You have an unstated premise: one human being has the “right” to kill another

Where does the “Right” for the mother come from, to kill her unborn “Someone” ?

Does not the most defenseless “someone” similarly have a “Right” to live a long life?

And not to have it’s arms and legs pulled off their body and their skull crushed?

That’s what you are saying: One human being, has the “right” to kill another without ever asking … and to do so in the most horrible and painful way.

Just who is the one being persecuted?

 

[jilly4ski]

After birth, the soul has to enter the fetus - whether the birth happens at 4 months or 9 months. I doubt if the soul will enter a fetus while it is inside the woman’s body even at 6 months, it probably happens much later than that.

Only someone like the Christ can tell us exactly when that happens. He will be here soon so you don’t need to wait to long to find out. Those who have persecuted pregnant women who seek termination (as I described in a previous post) will have to answer for their actions to the Christ. But the Christ will stop this persecution. Soon after that, abortion will be safe and available all over the world.

So a soul enters the body at a completely random, subjective, impossible to determine time, is that the point you are trying to make?

LOL, I think it is funny that the fetus inside me, driving me crazy, kicking and rolling around in my uterus, occasionally getting hiccups, doesn’t have a soul. I am certainly not directing it to kick me in the bladder, it is after all very uncomfortable. And it has been doing this since well before 26weeks, in fact I saw the fetus make the very same movements that it is making now at 12 weeks, I just couldn’t feel it then, and based on experience from other children, it will make the same movements after birth.

 

[guanophore]

The morality of whether to save the fetus or not is not her decision. … But the pregnant woman still has the right to ask that it be removed from her body.

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbvi...rporate-announcement-expressed-with-humor.jpg

:ehh: :doh2: :hypno:

Honestly, this gets more and more bizarre daily!

 

[openmind77]

Openmind that you simply do not know.

Since you are fallible, you could be wrong.

The soul could enter the body at 4 months, 2 months, or 2 days or even the moment of conception.

The soul definitely does not enter the fetus before 6 months, that is what I believe. I could be wrong and so could you. So the decision is up to the pregnant woman. Neither you (or I) should impose your beliefs on her.

…
Where does the “Right” for the mother come from, to kill her unborn “Someone” ?

The pregnant woman is not killing anyone. She is just asking that the fetus be removed from her body, which belongs to her and no one else. (Maybe God’s but not yours)

Just who is the one being persecuted?

The pregnant woman who seeks to terminate her pregnancy. But it does not matter what I think or what you think. Those people who have made her life difficult and made her suffer will answer for it to the Christ, regardless of what anyone else thinks. He will be here soon, so you won’t have all these problems about not knowing (or you could just go about your own business and not interfere with the woman’s life - then you won’t have any problems either)

 

[jilly4ski]

The soul definitely does not enter the fetus before 6 months, that is what I believe. I could be wrong and so could you. So the decision is up to the pregnant woman. Neither you (or I) should impose your beliefs on her.

Except, if you are wrong you are advocating for the killing of a person, and if we are wrong, all we are asking is for a woman to be slightly inconvenienced for a few months, before she gives the baby up, to be cared for by someone else.

 

[Rau]

Except, if you are wrong you are advocating for the killing of a person, and if we are wrong, all we are asking is for a woman to be slightly inconvenienced for a few months, before she gives the baby up, to be cared for by someone else.

That’s true, but it gets worse. He believes that any fetus, even one he agrees is an unborn human being, is ALWAYS subject to summary “removal” by virtue of his presence within the womb. Womb’s are frightfully dangerous places in his world! And to think, everyone one of us runs that gauntlet.