O
Why do we as Catholics believe that life begins at conception?
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Right. That is good to know.
A worry that remains for me (with your reasoning) is that we don’t know whether ensoulment occurs at or prior to birth either. Is it logically necessary that it occur then - could it occur sometime later, maybe much later, say, when the child is able to recognise right from wrong?
O
openmind77
Guest
If you have had children, you can easily tell that the baby has a soul right from birth. So I don’t think we need to overthink this.
But the point is until we know for sure - i.e. someone like the Christ tells us when the fetus becomes a human being with a soul, we can not condemn the woman or prohibit her from terminating the pregnancy. The other reason for not condemning or prohibiting the woman is her right to decide what she keeps or hosts inside her body. As I have said before, the Christ will return soon, so we don’t have to wait that long to know for sure.
B
Brendan
Guest
But we can also look at it scientifically.
The fetus is human if it is classified as a member of species homo sapiens.
Not only will any biologist tell you that the zygote or fetus is alive ( meeting the biological definition of ‘life’) but also that it is human ( meeting the biological definition of that species)
Any reliance on personal, theological definitions is problematic. See below.
I would disagree. A woman who is a member of a white supremist religion might not consider blacks to be human. But we can condemn her killing a black person.
That would be based on our beliefs on what constitutes being a human, does it not. If we ourselves do not consider a black person to be human, there would be no fault.
C
clem456
Guest
It is immoral whether or not she believes it is immoral. It is objectively immoral. The value of human life and the morality surrounding it are not subject to personal whim. Otherwise, there is no such thing as “morality”. Moral judgments always refer one to a standard of truth larger than and independent of one’s self. Using one’s self as the sole moral reference is tyranny of self not morality.
Christ is God’s fullest revelation of himself. He is just judge. Based on that revelation of himself, we as humans can align ourselves with him to make sound moral judgments. We participate with Christ in becoming fully free moral persons.
The fact that Christ is the font of morality does not abdicate our responsibility to make sound determinations
Christian morality is not a matter of condemnation.
Morality points a person to their beatitude, which is to say joy, peace, fulfillment, health, salvation…a person’s fullness of freedom and life.
Having good moral judgement is not a matter of condemnation.
U
Usagi
Guest
While I agree completely with this, there actually is an Important difference that we must acknowledge, one that is at the heart of the abortion debate. A zygote, embryo, or fetus, while indeed a living human, is dependent upon life in its mother’s body for some time, and its presence places strains on the mother’s body and can in unusual cases endanger her life. Just as we ask pro-choicers to acknowledge that a second person (the child) exists whose rights and welfare must be given some weight, we pro-lifers must be careful to acknowledge the presence and importance of the woman in the equation. Because the child is dependent on her, preserving its life means that she must remain pregnant for the full term or nearly so. While most mothers do so eagerly, even given the hardships of pregnancy, for others it is purely a burden and in a few cases a medical danger. We may believe that is still no reason to seek the child’s death, but we must still take that reality into account and treat every person involved with compassion. I know many of us do, but there are still those who brush aside all of a woman’s concerns, and even some who (God forbid) seem to regard pregnancy as a form of punishment or consequence for sexual misbehavior that a woman shouldn’t be able to “get out of.” That does not help our cause. There are two lives and two sets of rights to be balanced, and both sides need to remember that.Here’s the crux of the question. “The same” in what sense? If you mean functionality, of course not – but what about a person born with cerebral palsy? Can they also function the same as you and I in society? Or a person with mental disabilities?
Most people wouldn’t think of killing people with these disabilities if they’re already born. What then makes a fetus, which is most of the time, just temporarily not as functional as the rest of us, different?
Usagi
E
edwest2
Guest
Where is the father? The baby carries his genes as well. This isn’t about the right to kill the unborn, this is about the health and stability of three people. This is not about politics but doing what’s right.
Ed
H
HelenRose
Guest
Biology 101. Theology is also a matter of reality.
R
Rau
Guest
How do we tell the soul is there?
Y
ynotzap
Guest
We know a soul was there from conception, but what kind of soul, a vegetative soul (material soul) a sentient soul (a physical soul) or a spiritual soul (a rational soul) We also know that as the baby develops, he shows signs of intelligence (sense knowledge, animal knowledge?) or rational knowledge(spiritual knowledge, the knowledge of ideas) We do know at some point of development that rational activity takes place, and that is because rational intelligence is what differentiates a human from an animal, even humans are called rational animals. Intelligence (rational) is one of the faculties of a spiritual soul, the ability to understand, to know, and to know that we know, a spiritual act.
It becomes apparent that there is progressive development in humans from the union of sperm and the ovum, so no matter when the rational soul is infused, these preliminary steps must take place for the existence of a human. Since there is an orderly and intelligent progression in human development from conception to maturity, there is an ordering principle of activity, this principle is called “the soul” So to interfere with this order from conception on, is to kill or abort a human being in it’s stage of progression. Humans beget humans, not dogs, cats or some other animal, this is an empirical fact. Those that abort try to rationalize, or justify their acts by saying that the fetus, or conceptus is not fully human, or not human at all, but a parasite, or just an animal leaching life from its mother. Another favorite excuse used to justify abortion is that a baby is not human until it takes its first breadth, they confuse life with one of its functions (the cause is being confused with one of it’s effects)
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
I do not think it is possible for humans to know the answer to this question. I respect that many Catholics accept that life in the form of man+woman+God begins at conception because the Catholic Church tells them this is so.
I’ve studied a lot about what the Catholic Church has to say about it - as well as what other religions and philosophies and scientists have to say. I do not personally find the Catholic Church’s position on the issue to be sound or persuasive and, clearly, I’m not the only one - else our current US laws would call abortion murder.
This question is at the very heart of the mystery of life. I do not believe any of us have the answer. We all simply try to do our best in the face of a great unknown. I am all about creating a world where all life is wanted, welcomed and nurtured.
I’ve studied a lot about what the Catholic Church has to say about it - as well as what other religions and philosophies and scientists have to say. I do not personally find the Catholic Church’s position on the issue to be sound or persuasive and, clearly, I’m not the only one - else our current US laws would call abortion murder.
This question is at the very heart of the mystery of life. I do not believe any of us have the answer. We all simply try to do our best in the face of a great unknown. I am all about creating a world where all life is wanted, welcomed and nurtured.
R
Rau
Guest
I may agree with you, but I refer you to the argument of openmind77 who asserts we know nothing about the timing of ensoulment, and thus this grants the mother freedom of action toward the child (at least within the constraints of her own beliefs about ensoulment). Thus my last question to openmind77.
R
Rau
Guest
What is the “quickening”? How do we know when ensoulment occurs? Who is to say it is not later than at birth?
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
No one can say that, Rau, because no one knows. Certainly some people believe that ensoulment happens when the first breath occurs.
Have you not ever heard of the quickening? Maybe you are young and I date myself!
Google it. It’s when a mom first feels the baby move in her belly, which is a pretty intense moment for a mom.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Ah yes, and pray tell when does “quickening” happen?
I happen to be pregnant right now. In this current pregnancy I felt the baby move at about 20 weeks, But I saw the baby move much earlier on ultrasound, in fact at a 12 week appointment, I saw a fully formed, baby kick and move, is that quickening? With previous pregnancies, I could not feel my babies move until 24 weeks. So, does that mean that some of my children were ensouled at 24weeks while my current child at 20weeks? I know some ladies who say they have felt movement at early as 10 weeks. That seems like quite a variation considering fetal development is relatively consistent. It is also a subjective standard “when does the mother feel the baby move,” limited by the mother physical condition. Often women who are overweight, have a misshapen uterus, or have a paralytic condition, (my mother had polio as a child and her uterus was still partially paralyzed), don’t feel movement as early, as other women.
The definition of quickening is to spring to life, become animated. But with ultrasound technology we can see the baby move much earlier than traditional quickening. Back then, feeling movement was the first sign that there was a living organism present as they lacked the technology and science to discover more (they also had some strange ideas about blood and disease too, but no one argues that disease is caused be ill humors).
J
JimG
Guest
No. I do not believe that a new human being begins at conception because the Catholic Church tells me so. I believe that a new human being begins at conception because the facts of embryology tell me so.
New human beings have a beginning. It is at conception. The sperm cell is a specialized cell of the father. The ovum is a specialized cell of the mother. When they unite to form a zygote, a new and distinct individual of the human species is formed, with its own DNA, distinct from both mother and father, and who begins on a unique individual development, a development which continues past birth, into infancy, into youth and adulthood. It is how every one of us started.
If we are killed before birth, it is a unique human being who dies. Does a baby have a soul at two months post birth? At two years? Do teenagers have souls? Do 96 year old codgers have souls? Maybe a mom might wish to kill her two year old infant because she does not believe he has a soul. Or her 96 year old dad because she does not believe that he has a soul. It’s all nonsense. Every human being has a soul, and every human being begins his individual existence as a new member of the human species at conception.
R
Rau
Guest
I speculated earlier (following the line of reasoning offered by openmind77) that ensoulment could perhaps happen when a child is capable of distinguishing right from wrong (or choose any other time-point). Were someone to believe that, they would be unable to discern immorality in killing a 6 month old baby equivalent to that attaching to killing an older (ensouled) innocent. This is what I find bizarre in what openmind77 asserts. The idea that the morality of killing an innocent human is a function of the timing of ensoulment - this fails to make sense to me. I see how it can be utilitarian - but it does not make sense.No one can say that, Rau, because no one knows. Certainly some people believe that ensoulment happens when the first breath occurs.
Have you not ever heard of the quickening? Maybe you are young and I date myself!
E
estesbob
Guest
Separate distinct human life is present from the moment of conception. The only people who dispute that are those looking for an excuse to justify killing the childNo one can say that, Rau, because no one knows. Certainly some people believe that ensoulment happens when the first breath occurs.
Have you not ever heard of the quickening? Maybe you are young and I date myself!
C
Crown_of_Stars
Guest
“Before I formed you, I knew you.” God, talking about knitting together a child in the womb.
Life begins at existence, and the first instance of existence is at conception, when God breathed life into her and gave her a soul.
There is no doubt in my mind over this. I am strong enough in my Catholic faith (if you only need to be Catholic to believe that a child does not deserve such harm)
Those who support this vileness want to keep the debate perpetual, so that there is always the benefit of the doubt and the neverending excuse to kill.
Also to add, if this were about a fetus of any other species besides the human race, there would never have been such debate. Really, I think it’s just ridiculous and makes people look plain stupid.
Life begins at existence, and the first instance of existence is at conception, when God breathed life into her and gave her a soul.
There is no doubt in my mind over this. I am strong enough in my Catholic faith (if you only need to be Catholic to believe that a child does not deserve such harm)
Those who support this vileness want to keep the debate perpetual, so that there is always the benefit of the doubt and the neverending excuse to kill.
Also to add, if this were about a fetus of any other species besides the human race, there would never have been such debate. Really, I think it’s just ridiculous and makes people look plain stupid.
- Status