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

  • Thread starter Thread starter EthanBenjamin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
So when does a baby “acquire” a human soul. During late term abortions, the babies are often born alive and the doctor’s toss them in a bucket with other babies and let them die.

My son was born at 7 months. There were babies in the NICU who were born at 6 months 2 weeks.

In your opinion does a baby only acquire a soul during pregnancy if it is wanted?
 
So when does a baby “acquire” a human soul. During late term abortions, the babies are often born alive and the doctor’s toss them in a bucket with other babies and let them die.

My son was born at 7 months. There were babies in the NICU who were born at 6 months 2 weeks.

In your opinion does a baby only acquire a soul during pregnancy if it is wanted?
An apt observation. It would seem that it must be that the mother imparts the soul to the child by the act of allowing its birth!
 
You are confusing a fetus with something about which there is no dispute that all people regardless of skin color are equal. On the other hand a majority of the world does not believe a fetus is a human being at conception. And your belief does not count more than theirs and also is in a minority

The fetus may be alive, just as all cells within the pregnant woman are alive, that does not make it a human being. Everybody does not agree with your ‘definition’.

You can explain your reasoning to the Christ when he returns, about why you felt obliged to interfere with the pregnant woman’s life and try to make it miserable. I am sure he will listen to you.
Oh, so there was no dispute, that those who were being imported from Africa were human beings, and that is why we didn’t need a 3/5ths compromise, right?Or a civil war, or the civil rights movement? Or there is no dispute that women are human beings and enjoy full human rights in places like rural South America, Africa, or the Middle East?

What do you mean, “like the cells in a pregnant woman are alive?” Sure, my cells are “alive,” but they do not meet the definition of a life. But the fetus also has cells that are alive, but as a whole it constitutes “life” separate and genetically distinct from its parents. I am sorry, but it is not my definition, it is sciences definition. You seem to be mixing up science, with your personal definition of “personhood” or “ensoulment” neither of which can be proven, shown, or otherwise verified, and there could someday be a “majority” of people that do not believe people we consider to be human beings today are in fact human. We are merely pointing out that even by your nebulous definition of a “human being” you could be letting people kill innocent humans with souls, merely because you do not know, when the human organism gains the soul.

And I would take it kindly if you did not condescend to me. I am pregnant at his particular moment and you do not know me or what I have done, and do not know that I have ever “interfered with” a pregnant woman’s life or tried to make it “miserable.” I do believe that comes very close to prohibited “personal attacks” on this site.
 
It is worth to recognise the consequences, for a pro-abortion advocate, of them accepting that all human offspring are human beings from their beginning. It requires them to accept that they advocate for murder, or in some cases, have murdered their own offspring. They will struggle hard to never concede that which brings them to this horrible realization.
 
It is worth to recognise the consequences, for a pro-abortion advocate, of them accepting that all human offspring are human beings from their beginning. It requires them to accept that they advocate for murder, or in some cases, have murdered their own offspring. They will struggle hard to never concede that which brings them to this horrible realization.
They will never concede the obvious correlation to genocide and murder of any kind. The pro abort is cloaked in language of “care” and “rights”.
 
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
To your last sentence, I’m not sure I would use the word ‘destroy’ to describe what is a naturally occurring phenomenon within a woman’s reproductive system, but I get the gist of what you’re saying. And, yes, I do not believe that a woman is truly pregnant until implantation, as the fertilized egg may or may not implant. That’s just how biology works.
 
To your last sentence, I’m not sure I would use the word ‘destroy’ to describe what is a naturally occurring phenomenon within a woman’s reproductive system, but I get the gist of what you’re saying. And, yes, I do not believe that a woman is truly pregnant until implantation, as the fertilized egg may or may not implant. That’s just how biology works.
And the way biology works is that separate, distinct human life is present BEFORE implantation.
 
To your last sentence, I’m not sure I would use the word ‘destroy’ to describe what is a naturally occurring phenomenon within a woman’s reproductive system, but I get the gist of what you’re saying. And, yes, I do not believe that a woman is truly pregnant until implantation, as the fertilized egg may or may not implant. That’s just how biology works.
So let’s use a new expression. Rather than “truly pregnant”, let’s say “with child”. One is with child from conception, and truly pregnant from implantation. Sounds fair.

Note that the implanted embryo may not stay that way for long. That’s how biology works too.

The arbitrariness of the line you choose for “truly pregnant” can serve only one or both of these purposes:
  • to define a word “pregnant”;
  • to suggest that prior to “pregnancy” as you define it, there is no human life involved.
 
So let’s use a new expression. Rather than “truly pregnant”, let’s say “with child”. One is with child from conception, and truly pregnant from implantation. Sounds fair.

Note that the implanted embryo may not stay that way for long. That’s how biology works too.

The arbitrariness of the line you choose for “truly pregnant” can serve only one or both of these purposes:
  • to define a word “pregnant”;
  • to suggest that prior to “pregnancy” as you define it, there is no human life involved.
I like to add, that no fertilization, no implantation, no life. That’s biology too
 
So let’s use a new expression. Rather than “truly pregnant”, let’s say “with child”. One is with child from conception, and truly pregnant from implantation. Sounds fair.

Note that the implanted embryo may not stay that way for long. That’s how biology works too.

The arbitrariness of the line you choose for “truly pregnant” can serve only one or both of these purposes:
  • to define a word “pregnant”;
  • to suggest that prior to “pregnancy” as you define it, there is no human life involved.
You’re reading too much into my comments. I’m stating simple biology. You can use whatever terms you want, but it doesn’t change the actual biology involved.
 
You are confusing a fetus with something about which there is no dispute that all people regardless of skin color are equal. On the other hand a majority of the world does not believe a fetus is a human being at conception. And your belief does not count more than theirs and also is in a minority

The fetus may be alive, just as all cells within the pregnant woman are alive, that does not make it a human being. Everybody does not agree with your ‘definition’.

You can explain your reasoning to the Christ when he returns, about why you felt obliged to interfere with the pregnant woman’s life and try to make it miserable. I am sure he will listen to you.
I like to quote Bishop Fulton J Sheen, as another poster often quotes " a lie is still a lie if everybody believes it, and the truth is still the truth if no body believes it. Ones belief counts more than others if it is the truth, contrary to what others believe. God designed the plan for the propagation of the human race, He even instituted the Sacrament of Marriage, and He said that man and woman shall leave father and mother and cleave to each other., and the two shall become one in the flesh". And how does one propagate one of his own? It’s a no-brainer. To interfere with God’s plan is to go against His will, and that is called “sin” To abort a fetus, or to use contraception are sinful situations. When one advises another to avoid such situations, it is not interfering, it is only manifesting God’s will to those who may not be aware of it, so as to prevent one from doing wrong, and counseling out of concern and love. Too many see it as apposing “their will” and not necessarily “God’s will” and that’s the real problem.
 
You’re reading too much into my comments. I’m stating simple biology. You can use whatever terms you want, but it doesn’t change the actual biology involved.
And there is absolutely no dispute in biology that life begins at conception
 
And per our fellow poster, it is often “destroyed” by the simple fact that it fails to implant. 🤷
I don’t think that was what the poster was referring to, since the word “destroy” connotes a deliberate act or at least an overt action. Things happening as a biological or natural causes, say like natural death, are usually not referred to as the action of a third party other than nature or God. (People do say, that God destroyed, or nature has destroyed my hopes, dreams, etc.).
 
I like to quote Bishop Fulton J Sheen, as another poster often quotes " a lie is still a lie if everybody believes it, and the truth is still the truth if no body believes it. Ones belief counts more than others if it is the truth, contrary to what others believe. God designed the plan for the propagation of the human race, He even instituted the Sacrament of Marriage, and He said that man and woman shall leave father and mother and cleave to each other., and the two shall become one in the flesh". And how does one propagate one of his own? It’s a no-brainer. To interfere with God’s plan is to go against His will, and that is called “sin” To abort a fetus, or to use contraception are sinful situations. When one advises another to avoid such situations, it is not interfering, it is only manifesting God’s will to those who may not be aware of it, so as to prevent one from doing wrong, and counseling out of concern and love. Too many see it as apposing “their will” and not necessarily “God’s will” and that’s the real problem.
Of course a lie is a lie even if everyone believes, but neither does it mean that something is the truth merely because you believe it. When so many people (a majority) believe that a fetus is not a human being at conception, that it only acquires a soul much later in its development, only God or someone like the Christ can resolve the differences and tell us for sure what is the truth.

Too many people believe that they know the will of God or know what it is right or what is evil - and then they get very confused when the Pope praises someone like the Italian foreign minister. This means that the lines between good and evil are not that well understood - people should not be so sure that they know “God’s will”.

But all this will be resolved very soon when the Christ returns. We will understand the truth about abortion (as well as contraception) very clearly when he explains it to us. Those who have thus far tried to impose their own will, assuming it was “God’s will” will learn the truth - and they may be quite surprised.
 
Of course a lie is a lie even if everyone believes, but neither does it mean that something is the truth merely because you believe it. When so many people (a majority) believe that a fetus is not a human being at conception, that it only acquires a soul much later in its development, only God or someone like the Christ can resolve the differences and tell us for sure what is the truth.

Too many people believe that they know the will of God or know what it is right or what is evil - and then they get very confused when the Pope praises someone like the Italian foreign minister. This means that the lines between good and evil are not that well understood - people should not be so sure that they know “God’s will”.

But all this will be resolved very soon when the Christ returns. We will understand the truth about abortion (as well as contraception) very clearly when he explains it to us. Those who have thus far tried to impose their own will, assuming it was “God’s will” will learn the truth - and they may be quite surprised.
How do you know Christ returns “very soon”?
 
How do you know Christ returns “very soon”?
Many people in the world believe that and there are many signs/prophecies that indicate that it is imminent - both Christian and Islamic.

There is a separate thread in the forum which is talking about ‘The End times’ although they seem obsessed with apocalyptic prophesies. I trust that God and the Christ will be just and merciful, so there is absolutely nothing to fear. But it is good to be prepared.
 
The law does not punish adulterers at all, but we don’t have difficulty understanding the immorality of adultery as an independent question.

So should we able to understand the immorality of abortion, and separately consider the position the law can or should adopt.
Apples and oranges, my friend. Adulterers are not dangerous to the population at large. Murderers surely are. I trust you see the difference between these two “crimes.”

I might be able to accept this argument as something other than empty rhetoric if you would agree that abortion is not murder or child killing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top