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

[ynotzap]

What you care about is your own privilege. However, when you condemn, harass, persecute and attempt to make life difficult for those who are exercising their right to control their own body, that becomes an issue.

The fact is no one knows the exact time the fetus becomes a human being. Only someone like the Christ can tell us with certainty when this occurs. I am not trying to specify that time. But it is definitely not at the time of conception (per my belief and that of the majority of the world). Since we don’t know, we should just wait until such a time as the Christ returns (will be soon) and not condemn or try to prevent a woman from exercising her rights.

When does a person have a right to do wrong? We have freedom to do wrong, but not the right. We have freedom to commit murder, but not the right. We don’t condemn anyone if we practice our faith, admittedly some do unjustly condemn, we do condemn the ACT, but not the person according to the truths of our Faith. You must understand this, or our arguments are useless. It doesn’t depend on when the spiritual soul is infused by God, but it remains the truth that the spiritual soul is infused at some point, it is from this soul we receive the powers of rational intelligence, and will power. The truth of these matters is only understood, and not perceived by the senses, except by understanding. We have great minds that understand these truths but how many people accept their teachings, or have the capacity to understand? As I stated before, ignorance is one of the effects or original sin, but of course this may not make sense to you because it’s not in your beliefs, or understanding, and that is acceptable, we can’t give what we do not have.

It is self evident, and doesn’t need to be rationalized, that humans beget humans from conception, this is proven scientifically, and theologically, you may not be familiar with these proofs, as so many are not, it is not just a matter of belief, it is backed up by objective reality. You have received some of this information in some of t;he posts. Even in the Declaration Of Independence of this nation it states "We hold these truths to be self -evident, endowed by nature, and the God of nature, that we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Does the conceptus (a human being in the initial stage of it’s existence) have this right given by God? If you can’t accept this, then that’s your choice, and we agree to disagree.

 

[Ender]

What you care about is your own privilege. However, when you condemn, harass, persecute and attempt to make life difficult for those who are exercising their right to control their own body, that becomes an issue.

If you can point to any comment I’ve made that constitutes condemnation, harassment, or persecution of someone you might have a point, but since I’ve never made such a statement…you don’t.

The fact is no one knows the exact time the fetus becomes a human being. Only someone like the Christ can tell us with certainty when this occurs. I am not trying to specify that time. But it is definitely not at the time of conception (per my belief and that of the majority of the world). Since we don’t know, we should just wait until such a time as the Christ returns (will be soon) and not condemn or try to prevent a woman from exercising her rights.

I asked a very simple question which you completely avoided. You believe that a human life can be terminated up to a certain point in its development, and I would just like you to identify what criterion you are using to determine what that point is. You support a woman’s right to have an abortion, and while you may claim that we don’t know when a fetus becomes a “human being”, there is simply no argument that it is at the very least a living human organism.

So, what is your criterion for deciding when a human life may be snuffed out?

Ender

 

[Brendan]

Only someone like the Christ gets to decide (or knows) the truth regarding such an issue. He will be returning very soon (probably in a couple of years). So it is best not to try to impose your own beliefs on someone else

So if a member of a white supremist religion feels that blacks are not humans, should society allow them to lynch blacks?

Or would that be forcing our beliefs on others?

 

[HelenRose]

Really? I hear a lot condemning and accusations of any one who believes in the right of a woman to control and have autonomy over her own body

As already stated above, many people, in fact a majority of the world, do not believe that a fetus is a human being. They also do not believe that the fetus has a soul at conception. If you chose to believe that it does, that is your privilege. But there is no evidence to support your belief.

When the Christ returns, we will know for certain at exactly point a fetus acquires a human soul and at exactly what point it needs to be accorded the same rights as a human being. I believe that the point is when the fetus is capable of living independently of the pregnant woman.

But until the Christ returns and tells us, there is no way to know for certain. Whatever your position, we should not be so sure that the Christ will agree with it.

I can say he or she will or will not go Hell all I want but that means absolutely nothing. There is no way one person and decide another’s soul fate.

What about the babies in neonatal wards of hospitals? Please explain to me the difference of a baby that is two maybe three months pre-mature being loved and cared for by nurses, doctors, mothers and fathers in a neonatal unit of a hospital and a baby the exact same age, weight and development that is only separated from the world by a thin layer of fat and muscle.

These tiny little babies in neonatal units feel pain and hunger. Can you imagine the horror of the parents and society if a crazed mad man came into the ward, pouring a strong saline solution over these babies thereby burning them to death and then cutting off their arms, legs and heads. Or do I am I imposing my belief on this man when I am horrified by his behavior.

This is exactly what I see happening by abortionists.

 

[HelenRose]

The difference between a crazed mad man and an abortionist is the man would not be held culpable because he would naturally be insane.

 

[openmind77]

…
So, what is your criterion for deciding when a human life may be snuffed out?

Ender

I thought I already explained this. A fetus is not a human being. So you are not ‘snuffing out’ a human life.

A human being is a person who has a human soul. The fetus does not acquire a human soul until much later. Definitely not at conception. Merely because you believe it has soul does not make it so.

 

[openmind77]

…
What about the babies in neonatal wards of hospitals? Please explain to me the difference of a baby that is two maybe three months pre-mature …

I thought I already explained. A fetus does not have a human soul. All babies have a human soul, however pre-mature they may be.

These tiny little babies in neonatal units feel pain and hunger…

All babies however tiny or in neonatal units have human souls. It is wonderful that all these people are taking care of them.

But a fetus does not have a human soul until much later in its development. Before it acquires a soul, it can not be considered to be a human person.

 

[jilly4ski]

I thought I already explained this. A fetus is not a human being. So you are not ‘snuffing out’ a human life.

A human being is a person who has a human soul. The fetus does not acquire a human soul until much later. Definitely not at conception. Merely because you believe it has soul does not make it so.

I thought I already explained. A fetus does not have a human soul. All babies have a human soul, however pre-mature they may be.

All babies however tiny or in neonatal units have human souls. It is wonderful that all these people are taking care of them.

But a fetus does not have a human soul until much later in its development. Before it acquires a soul, it can not be considered to be a human person.

How can you come to that definition of a Human Being? The scientific definition has nothing to do with a soul. A fetus is an organism of the homosapien species, meaning a human being.

So you know definitively that fetus does not have a human soul? That is an interesting proposition, since the soul can not be observed or verified. Somehow traveling through the birth canal magically gives a fetus a soul? And you seem to be contradicting yourself. How can a fetus not have a human soul, and also not have a soul until “much later in development” but babies of the same age outside the womb have a soul as a fetus inside the womb does not. Children born as young as 21 weeks have survived.

And you make another giant assumption, since we cannot know when a human gains a soul, you argue that we can’t treat a a member of our species as a “person” because you don’t believe they have a soul. But wouldn’t the correct method be, that you would treat every member of the species as a “person” because you could be killing a human being with a soul and not know it?

 

[Mulligan2]

The question of when life begins is answered by science, not theology. It is not a Catholic “belief” any more than it is doctrine that the Earth circles the sun. And science is not at all ambivalent on the matter.The development of a human being begins with fertilization… (Langman’s Medical Embryology)

Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.…(Human Embryology and Teratology)

*“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” *(Patten’s Foundations of Embryology)
Ender

This could seem like another “Who’s buried in Grant’s tomb” question, but it raises a point that should be addressed. Quite often debate on this subject is muddied by word games about just such questions. To me there is no difference at all between conception and fertilization, but it is possible there is a distinction to some.

I am aware there is some difference of opinion about when pregnancy occurs, whether it is at conception or later when the zygote attaches itself to the wall of the uterus. This distinction matters because the “morning after” pill is sold as a contraceptive, not an abortifacient. The pill works by preventing the zygote from attaching to the uterus, thus eliminating the problem. This particular “contraception not abortion” charade is based on defining the beginning of pregnancy to be implantation, and of an abortion as something that terminates a pregnancy.

Anyway, it is always necessary to understand the precise meaning of the words being used, especially on this subject where deception is such a large part of the debate.

Ender

Medical experts estimate that 30-50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant on the uterine wall. Until a fertilized egg has implanted on the uterine wall, pregnancy has not officially occurred.

 

[jilly4ski]

Medical experts estimate that 30-50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant on the uterine wall. Until a fertilized egg has implanted on the uterine wall, pregnancy has not officially occurred.

The medical definition of a “pregnancy” is not the same thing as a new differentiated human being, ie a new life.

The medical field also defines the age of the fetus as two weeks earlier than the actual existence of the blastocyst.

 

[Brendan]

I thought I already explained this. A fetus is not a human being. So you are not ‘snuffing out’ a human life. .

Scientifically it is.

 

[estesbob]

Medical experts estimate that 30-50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant on the uterine wall. Until a fertilized egg has implanted on the uterine wall, pregnancy has not officially occurred.

That definition of pregnancy was unheard of until the late 50s when the pharmaceutical companies first developed the IUD . Since he IUD prevented implantation they had to come up with the new improved definition of pregnancy so as not to be accused of developing an abortificant . Prior to changing the definition of pregnancy it is always been considered to start when the egg was fertilized. Since separate distinct human life is present from this moment on any other definition of pregnancy is purely subjective and always used to rationalize killing the child

 

[Brendan]

I thought I already explained. A fetus does not have a human soul. All babies have a human soul, however pre-mature they may be.

All babies however tiny or in neonatal units have human souls. It is wonderful that all these people are taking care of them.

But a fetus does not have a human soul until much later in its development. Before it acquires a soul, it can not be considered to be a human person.

If a person belonged to a religion that thought that a person only had a soul when they achieved puperty, would you think that society should allow them to kill toddlers?

Or would you wish to force your definition of ‘human person’ on them and legally forbid them?

 

[Mulligan2]

That definition of pregnancy was unheard of until the late 50s when the pharmaceutical companies first developed the IUD . Since he IUD prevented implantation they had to come up with the new improved definition of pregnancy so as not to be accused of developing an abortificant . Prior to changing the definition of pregnancy it is always been considered to start when the egg was fertilized. Since separate distinct human life is present from this moment on any other definition of pregnancy is purely subjective and always used to rationalize killing the child

Do you disagree with the medical experts who state that 30-50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant? You can say that “life” begins at conception/fertilization, but then that same life would end when the egg simply fails to implant. That’s the way the female body functions - not every fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Surely you don’t believe that women are killers because they fail to achieve implantation? The many couples who suffer from infertility would find that insensitive at best. So I’m not sure what your point is.

 

[jilly4ski]

Do you disagree with the medical experts who state that 30-50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant? You can say that “life” begins at conception/fertilization, but then that same life would end when the egg simply fails to implant. That’s the way the female body functions - not every fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Surely you don’t believe that women are killers because they fail to achieve implantation? The many couples who suffer from infertility would find that insensitive at best. So I’m not sure what your point is.

There are approximately 3500, sudden unexpected deaths in infants younger than one year the US each year. Are you suggesting that parents and caregivers are killers, because their children die from potentially natural causes? That seems highly offensive to parents who have lost children from unexpected death.

 

[Mulligan2]

There are approximately 3500, sudden unexpected deaths in infants younger than one year the US each year. Are you suggesting that parents and caregivers are killers, because their children die from potentially natural causes? That seems highly offensive to parents who have lost children from unexpected death.

I want to stay on topic on this thread, so please excuse my non-reply.

 

[Rau]

Do you disagree with the medical experts who state that 30-50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant? You can say that “life” begins at conception/fertilization, but then that same life would end when the egg simply fails to implant. That’s the way the female body functions - not every fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Surely you don’t believe that women are killers because they fail to achieve implantation? The many couples who suffer from infertility would find that insensitive at best. So I’m not sure what your point is.

Not every fertilised egg implants, and not every fertilised eggs remains attached to see its way through to birth. On what basis could you call a woman a killer as a consequence of the quite natural occurrence of these very early (pre-implantation) miscarriages, or spontaneous abortions (if either of those is the medically correct term)? And likewise for those suffering a high miscarriage rate in the first several weeks after conception?

But none of those natural events call into question the existence of human life from conception.

 

[Ender]

I thought I already explained this. A fetus is not a human being. So you are not ‘snuffing out’ a human life.

I was very careful how I phrased my question. A fetus may not be a “human being”, which is a purely arbitrary characterization, but it is undeniably a human life. It is alive, it is human, and its life is surely being snuffed

A human being is a person who has a human soul. The fetus does not acquire a human soul until much later. Definitely not at conception. Merely because you believe it has soul does not make it so.

It appears then that your criterion is that a human life may be destroyed before it receives its soul and becomes a human being. Since different people have different theories about when ensoulment occurs, how should it be decided who’s time line sets the standard? Do we vote on it? Is it different for each of us? What about those people who don’t believe there is such a thing as a soul? Merely because you believe it exists doesn’t make it so.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Medical experts estimate that 30-50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant on the uterine wall. Until a fertilized egg has implanted on the uterine wall, pregnancy has not officially occurred.

Perhaps - it seems the definition of the term is itself somewhat up in the air. Yes, I am familiar with that definition, but it isn’t clear that it’s accurate. Over at MedicineNet.com they define it this way: “The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body.” The disagreement over the exact definition is so that Plan B drugs (morning after pills, and apparently IUDs) can be described as contraceptive rather than abortifacient, given that they work primarily by preventing implantation.

You may not choose to call a woman pregnant after fertilization but before implantation, but the effect is the same. The embryo, which is a new human life, is destroyed.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Do you disagree with the medical experts who state that 30-50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant? You can say that “life” begins at conception/fertilization, but then that same life would end when the egg simply fails to implant. That’s the way the female body functions - not every fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Surely you don’t believe that women are killers because they fail to achieve implantation? The many couples who suffer from infertility would find that insensitive at best. So I’m not sure what your point is.

No I don’t disagree that 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant. So what? All human beings die. Does that mean life never really begins?And the idea that stating the obvious, that life begins at conception, is insensitive to women who have miscarriages is absolutely absurd