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

[openmind77]

You say definitely and than say you could be wrong. Clarify something for me. Those babies born before six months, according to you, have no souls. Does that mean babies that are born at 21 weeks souls are given to them when they reach a month after birth?

I believe I have already explained multiple times in this thread that at the time of birth the soul will enter the body if it has not already done so (regardless of when the birth occurs).

 

[adrift]

I believe I have already explained multiple times in this thread that at the time of birth the soul will enter the body if it has not already done so (regardless of when the birth occurs).

The post I quoted did not say that. What a strange idea. Life is present at conception otherwise there would be no development. A child will react to those voices that was heard in utero. I experienced this with my own children How do explain children that react to things that happened before birth?

 

[Porknpie]

Every person has a right to control their own body -

Openmind, this is an assumption that you have. Your assumption is based on what?

Who has the authority to declare that this is a “right” ?

 

[guanophore]

And we wonder why there are so many millenials leaving the Church. I might suggest that our young adults are more interested in social justice and helping others in lieu of spouting dogma.

I agree. We need to reach our young folks with current social issues and matters that affect their lives. Dogma is important, but more important is a relationship with Christ.

It sounds to me like guanophore was speaking of biology rather than spouting dogma. But in any case, advocating that unborn children not be killed does seem to be a form of social justice.

Yes, I am speaking about what science says, which is that it is a human being from the moment of conception.

But you are right, it is a huge matter of social justice. If we cannot protect the human person from slaughter in the one place that should be the safest place for them on the planet (their own mother’s wom) then is anything else we do of any value?

Some years ago some canvassers came to my door (about five years ago, I thiink it was!). I told them that I could not support a candidate that did not recognize human beings. They tried to switch the topic to other issues, and I told them “when your candidate is able to recognize and protect a human being, come back and we ewill talk aout the other issues.”

 

[JimG]

I believe I have already explained multiple times in this thread that at the time of birth the soul will enter the body if it has not already done so (regardless of when the birth occurs).

What a convenient theory of ensoulment: one which allows for the killing of the child at any time before birth because it can’t have a soul until someone else decides it does. The theory is impossible from a philosophical as well as a biological standpoint. The baby in the womb is genetically distinct from mom, probably has a different blood type, may be a different sex, different eye color, and has his or her own body and own set of organs. And so one should feel free to rip the child apart because of a wrongful theory that it does not have a soul? What utter nonsense.

 

[openmind77]

Openmind, this is an assumption that you have. Your assumption is based on what?

Who has the authority to declare that this is a “right” ?

I don’t even understand the question you are asking.

Are you saying you do not have the right to control your own body? If not, then who has rights over your body (other than God)?

Do you believe it is ok for another person to just select some random woman and do something to her body? After all if she does not have a right to control her own body, there is nothing stopping someone else from claiming it, is there?

The authority is the person or woman herself, nobody needs to give her such a right - it is even more fundamental than the right over personal possessions (like your toothbrush) or personal creations (like a painting you created).

Even if there is a wart (or tumor) growing on your face, it is your wart and no one else’s - we don’t need some authority to declare that. The very fact that you have a question about who gave you rights over the wart on your face, makes me wonder about your idea of right and wrong.

 

[guanophore]

 fail to see what is there to be explained here. Every person has a right to control their own body - a man or a woman.

It is very simple, Oh Closed Minded One. Where does this supposed “right” originate? In your fantasy life, or can you cite another source?

Where do you get the idea that everyone has a right to control her own body?

Where do you get that she has the right to control a body that is not hers?

No other person can dictate how the woman's body should be used - to house a fetus or for anything else.

Why not?

This idea of a woman “housing” a fetus seems to be the root of the problem. You seem to consider the fetus as some sort of parasite or cancerous tumor.

I believe I have already explained multiple times in this thread that at the time of birth the soul will enter the body if it has not already done so (regardless of when the birth occurs).

You have stated that this is your belief, but you cannot provide any evidence that the soul does not enter the body at the moment of conception. Since we have no way of knowing when ensoulment occurs, it is best to err on the side of safety, and protect the life from the moment it begins.

Openmind, this is an assumption that you have. Your assumption is based on what?

Who has the authority to declare that this is a “right” ?

It is an assumption with a moving target. His assertion has changed viable dates several times during the thread.

I think that he has declared the right himself, based on his own authority! He appeas to “the Christ” but he describes this entity with terms that are more fitting to the one we understand to be a “liar and murderer from the beginning”.

 

[Porknpie]

I don’t even understand the question you are asking.

Are you saying you do not have the right to control your own body?

Yes, I’m asking WHERE this “right” comes from?

You are arguing that one has a unrestrained right to control their body, to act with their body as they desire. In the US, one does not have a have right to do everything and anything with their body. For example, by law, one does not have a “right” to end their life by suicide. Nor do Catholic’s believe that they have this right from God to do so.

So I would argue that the premise that one has a “right” to do anything to their body from the suicide example alone is unfounded.

Do you believe Openmind, that one has a “Right” to end their life, whenever they choose?

The authority is the person or woman herself, nobody needs to give her such a right - it is even more fundamental than the right over personal possessions (like your toothbrush) or personal creations (like a painting you created).

OK… I see your answer above. Catholics reject the idea that authority comes from oneself (“I declare by myself, a fundamental right: to end the human life growing inside me”).

Rather, - and you already know the Catholic Answer - the human life growing within the mother has a “fundamental right” to live, to be protected from harm … including anyone that would pull apart its arms, legs and head.

We believe that this “fundamental right” comes not from the Mother, not from Civil Law, but from Our Creator.

 

[Porknpie]

I really don’t see how the passages you quote from the Bible apply to abortion.

Jesus was merely saying that children should be allowed to come to him (apparently some disciples were trying to stop the children), there is really nothing more to read in there

There are more than one sense of interpreting scripture Openmind.

There is the Literal Sense: what the author meant to convey.

But also the Spiritual Sense :

Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs
Link here to the Catholic Catechism that explains more:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

So both can apply to the same scripture passage. God’s Written Word speaks not only to a specific event in the bible, but to a greater reality that we need to be attentive to.

 

[jilly4ski]

What a convenient theory of ensoulment: one which allows for the killing of the child at any time before birth because it can’t have a soul until someone else decides it does. The theory is impossible from a philosophical as well as a biological standpoint. The baby in the womb is genetically distinct from mom, probably has a different blood type, may be a different sex, different eye color, and has his or her own body and own set of organs. And so one should feel free to rip the child apart because of a wrongful theory that it does not have a soul? What utter nonsense.

Convenient indeed. I really want to know how this non-human being inside me can kick with such force to make me run to the bathroom, or get the hiccups, and suck it’s thumb without a soul?

 

[openmind77]

Yes, I’m asking WHERE this “right” comes from?

You are arguing that one has a unrestrained right to control their body, to act with their body as they desire. In the US, one does not have a have right to do everything and anything with their body. For example, by law, one does not have a “right” to end their life by suicide. …

If for whatever reason you have difficulty understanding that each individual has a right to control their own body, at least you can probably agree that no other person has the right to control that individual’s body.

(Btw, this is besides the point, but I don’t believe suicide is illegal in most states of the US).

…
Do you believe Openmind, that one has a “Right” to end their life, whenever they choose?

Controlling their own body, means being able to protect it from intrusion by others, not ending it yourself.

…
Rather, - and you already know the Catholic Answer - the human life growing within the mother has a “fundamental right” to live, to be protected from harm …

Of course, I realize that Catholics believe this. The point is billions of people don’t agree with it (just adding China and India, probably gives two billion - there is no big pro-life movement in either country).

But I submit, that even the Christ does not think other people have the right to interfere in the life of the women who seek abortion. He does not think that people should appoint themselves as moral guardians of the world and dictate to these unfortunate women what they should do with their bodies.

We will of course know for sure what the Christ thinks pretty soon, when he returns. And those who have spent their time making life difficult for these women will have to answer for the actions (whether they were well meaning or not).

 

[Rau]

…Controlling their own body, means being able to protect it from intrusion by others

LOL the foetus is not an intruder! An invited guest would be a better metaphor, residing precisely where s/he needs to be and as nature intended!

An unfettered “right to control one’s body” is a very convenient right to manufacture in order to make the pro-abortion case. Of course the woman’s offspring must have this right too - so survival of the fittest resolves the matter.

 

[openmind77]

LOL the foetus is not an intruder! An invited guest would be a better metaphor, residing precisely where s/he needs to be and as nature intended!

An unfettered “right to control one’s body” is a very convenient right to manufacture in order to make the pro-abortion case. Of course the woman’s offspring must have this right too - so survival of the fittest resolves the matter.

I meant the intrusion of other persons who would stop the woman from terminating her pregnancy. The fetus is not intruding of course, but it is still not a person or a child, until probably a few days or weeks before birth.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I’m asking WHERE this “right” comes from?

You are arguing that one has a unrestrained right to control their body, to act with their body as they desire. In the US, one does not have a have right to do everything and anything with their body. For example, by law, one does not have a “right” to end their life by suicide.

Actually, I think that suicide is usually not against the law. But you are right, we all have limits around what we can do with our bodies. It is illegal to go into a crowded theater with explosives strapped to one’s body and threaten to blow up the place.

the Closed Minded One is talking about having a human life removed from the body as though it were a tumor or a parasite.

Nor do Catholic's believe that they have this right from God to do so.

I guess if you believe in reincarnation it does cheapen life quite a bit. The reason that Mother Teresa was able to do so much in Calcutta is because the people that lived there just ignored the suffering of the sick and dying, so they would just waste away on the street into they finally succumbed to death. If you think all that suffering is somehow beneficial, then there is no use trying to shield anyone from it.

What is odd, though, is that the basis of terminating the life of the innocent is because it is making the mother suffer so much to keep it. We are accused of persecuting and torturing the woman by expecting her to carry the pregnancy to term. If all suffering is supposed to be beneficial, why is the suffering of an unwanted pregnancy not beneficial?
Who are we to say that the mother did not come here specifically to suffer such an experience, and by taking the life of the innocent, just wracking up more karmic debt?

and you already know the Catholic Answer - the human life growing within the mother has a “fundamental right” to live, to be protected from harm … including anyone that would pull apart its arms, legs and head.

We believe that this “fundamental right” comes not from the Mother, not from Civil Law, but from Our Creator.

Do Hindus believe in a Creator?

 

[Rau]

I meant the intrusion of other persons who would stop the woman from terminating her pregnancy. The fetus is not intruding of course, but it is still not a person or a child, until probably a few days or weeks before birth.

Science disagrees with you. Billions of people disagree with you. More importantly, mothers disagree with you.

 

[openmind77]

Science disagrees with you. Billions of people disagree with you. More importantly, mothers disagree with you.

Abortion is funded by governments of India, China, most of Western Europe, UK, Canada and a majority of people of these countries support this policy. So where do those billions of people who disagree with me live?

 

[guanophore]

Abortion is funded by governments of India, China, most of Western Europe, UK, Canada and a majority of people of these countries support this policy. So where do those billions of people who disagree with me live?

It is not accurate to equate govt. funding of terminating the life of the baby to people believing it is not a life. Certainly there are some who are ignorant, and do not understand the basic science that human life begins are conception.

But most women who have abortions know full well they are terminating the life of the baby growing within them. This is why the results are so traumatizing.

 

[Rau]

Abortion is funded by governments of India, China, most of Western Europe, UK, Canada and a majority of people of these countries support this policy. So where do those billions of people who disagree with me live?

Those aborting their children do not dispute the scientific realities. They have eyes to see the arms, legs, the heartbeat. They assert that it is their right to choose to end the life of their child.

 

[petra22]

LOL the foetus is not an intruder! An invited guest would be a better metaphor, residing precisely where s/he needs to be and as nature intended!

This is so right. An invited guest!!!

 

[estesbob]

This is so right. An invited guest!!!

Listening to the rhetoric of those you support abortion you would swear the child sneaks into the womb and takes up residence there illegally.