You Can’t Take the Back Alley Out of Abortion
Jul 19, 2010
Mary Rose Somarriba
Sunday’s New York Times Magazine features an optimistic cover story: “The New Abortion Providers” by Emily Bazelon. It recounts the decades-long struggle of abortion advocates to become more accepted by the medical profession, because at the moment, the vast majority of abortions are done in isolated, high-volume, abortion-specialized clinics. The new goal for abortion supporters is “to recast doctors, changing them from a weak link to abortion to a strong one . . . with the hope that, eventually, more and more doctors will use their training to bring abortion into their practices . . . to integrate abortion so that it’s a seamless part of health care for women—embraced rather than shunned.”
“This is the future,” writes Bazelon. “Or rather, one possible future. There’s a long way to go,” she exhorts.
But it’s not the future. And it won’t be—for the same reasons abortion hasn’t really become accepted in all these decades it’s been legal in America—indeed, for the very same reasons Bazelon cites in her article. Young OB-GYNs aren’t keeping up with their predecessors in performing abortions (“in a 1992 survey of OB-GYNs, 59 percent of those age 65 and older said they performed abortions, compared with 28 percent of those age 50 and younger”); fewer OB-GYN residencies are offering abortion training (“in 1995, the number . . . fell to a low 12 percent”); donors who fund abortion-training residency fellowships are scarce (two of the only main fellowship grants come “from one foundation and from one family [of which] the donor has chosen to remain anonymous”); the number of doctors providing abortions out of their offices has dropped significantly (“doctors’ offices now account for only 2 percent of the total number of procedures; hospitals account for barely 5 percent”); and the American public is more anti-abortion now than ever (“some poll numbers [show] that for the first time, more Americans call themselves pro-life than pro-choice—a shift that includes young people.”). Basically abortion supporters are growing old and aren’t being replaced as quickly by the younger generation. The dream to make abortion mainstream is dying.
With the facts as they are, the article’s optimism for increased abortion acceptance in mainstream America is at best wishful thinking, at worst willful delusion. The publication of the piece can’t help but seem a part of a pro-abortion agenda: trying to prop it up to be a successful, growing industry, supported by most of the public—despite the fact that it isn’t.
America and abortion have always been an uneasy match. Unlike in Europe, where abortion was legislated slowly over time democratically and with regulations built in from the start, abortion on demand in America was legalized overnight by a Supreme Court decision, which in part explains why it’s still such a volatile, unresolved issue in America today. Legalized abortion was rushed and forced from the start, and it’s been a hard, rocky road since. After a while the abortion supporters in this article start to sound like the infatuated person who’s in denial that her partner really isn’t right for her. She keeps thinking he’ll change, or somehow the road will smooth out and things will work, even though things have never gone smoothly with him. When it comes to widely accepted abortion, the shoe never quite fit for mainstream America, and, more than thirty years later, it doesn’t look like it ever will. Still, as this article reports, abortion providers are determined to keep trying desperately to make this relationship work.
But this is unfair, right? How can I say this? Well, really, because the abortion supporters say it themselves. They embody the single biggest indicator of delusion, which is this: In order to see things working out their way, they have to imagine the world different than it is. Bazelon describes one Planned Parenthood director who “looked out the window, at all the people who she wished could feel the urgency she does, and pointed out that change in medicine comes slowly.”
And abortion supporters need this to keep going—they need to keep looking forward to the vision they have in mind. But what they lose along the way is a deeper understanding of why abortion isn’t accepted in public and medical life. Rather than trying to understand why support for abortion dwindles, they turn away, they cover up, they try to hide the discomforting part of abortion from patients, from nurses, from themselves. As Bazelon reports, one woman who’s working to increase the reach of abortion training, asks residents when they’re done with her program,
how they feel about doing the procedure at seven or ten or thirteen weeks. “Some will say, ‘I’m perfectly okay going up to ten weeks, but after that I can see more of the fetus moving on an ultrasound, and I’m just not comfortable with that.’” She has set her own threshold at fourteen weeks. “I’m not an OB-GYN, and I’m not a surgeon, and that’s as far as I can safely go,” she said. “But to be honest with you, I haven’t seen a lot of terminations past nineteen weeks. There’s a part of me that’s almost grateful that it’s not even an option for me.”
This abortion provider acknowledges that some “nurses don’t want to assist her, and she tries to meet them halfway by doing abortions only up to nine weeks of pregnancy.” “The early threshold means that no one on staff has to contend with recognizable fetal parts,” explains Bazelon.
And there’s the story of University of Michigan professor, Lisa Harris, who wrote an academic article two years ago about performing an eighteen-week abortion while she was eighteen weeks pregnant. As Bazelon recounts it:
Harris described grasping the fetus’ leg with her forceps, feeling a kick in her own uterus and starting to cry. “It was an overwhelming feeling—a brutally visceral response—heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics,” she wrote. “It was one of the more raw moments in my life.”
Somewhere in these women’s stories lies the reason why abortion still causes hesitation for much of the American public; the reason why many women who support the availability of abortion in the abstract say they wouldn’t do it themselves; the reason why many doctors who support abortion in polls don’t perform them in their offices. But abortion supporters, like those quoted in Bazelon’s article, find it hard to look closer to understand these reasons and grapple with them. One abortion provider says, “We want to bring this discussion more to the forefront, but it’s a bit dangerous.” It could distract from the agenda; taking a closer look into what makes the American public hesitate about abortion could make them hesitate, and they don’t want to risk that.
When they do hesitate, when they do find a moment when they feel uncomfortable or conflicted, as the women Bazelon interviews seem to show, they stop, reboot, and remind themselves why they’re doing this: It’s all for the protection of women. Despite all the pain, mainstream abortion access is important, supporters insist, because without it women may risk their lives attempting illegal abortions, like the woman in Kenya one practitioner witnessed, who came for medical attention “with a stick hanging out of her.” Without access to legal abortions, we’re back to back-alley abortions.
At least in America, women can legally have an abortion and survive. But in many ways, it’s still in the back alley. The story Bazelon’s article really tells us is just how impossible it is to take the back alley out of abortion. Abortion still isn’t accepted in the American medical profession; it still isn’t widely accepted in the American community; there will always be nurses or office staff who are uncomfortable assisting in abortions; there will always be doctors who don’t feel comfortable having abortion providers in their medical group; there will always be the health risks that come with abortion that causes medical-malpractice insurance coverage to be so high that family practice doctors don’t want to afford it; there will always be protests by people who see fetuses as deserving the same protections by law as babies after birth. These are the things we still see, and in growing number, decades after abortion was made legal in this country. This issue is not about to be settled anytime soon, and abortion will never be mainstream.
The procedure may be legally available and it may be performed quickly, cleanly, and skillfully, but the hard fact that some abortion supporters have trouble seeing is this: In many ways, abortion will always be in the back alley of public life. For many post-abortive women, it remains in the back alley of their minds: It’s not a place they’re proud of, not a place they’d like to linger, not a memory they’d like to revisit. And who can blame them?
Mary Rose Somarriba is managing editor of First Things.
Comments:
7.19.2010 | 5:40am
Joe DeVet says:
A most interesting perspective.
However, there is one reason why those who favor the dark side, like the author cited here, can be "optimistic" that abortion will become more mainstream. That one reason is Obamacare. Watch--the next step in Obamacare, if it is not stopped, will be mandatory abortion "services" by every provider.
However, there is one reason why those who favor the dark side, like the author cited here, can be "optimistic" that abortion will become more mainstream. That one reason is Obamacare. Watch--the next step in Obamacare, if it is not stopped, will be mandatory abortion "services" by every provider.
7.19.2010 | 5:48am
brettongarcia says:
Your article - and the anti-abortion movement in general - seems to be from the Heart; but for that reason, it is wrong.
As America is more and more influenced by changing demographics, by its growing Hispanic population, America will increasingly experience the advantages – and the deficits – of the core of Hispanic culture: the “corazon,” or the “heart.” The life of over-sentimentality and emotionality. As opposed to the spirit that founded America: the more logical, rational, mental, logicality, of our overwhelmingly Protestant founders. Most of the signatories to the Constitution, all our presidents until Kennedy, were Protestants; and the original character of our nation therefore, was a rather rational Protestantism (as noted here in my responses to the First Things post on Protestant art). But now the foundational principle of our Democracy, is under assault; by the all-too-sentimental and easily-mislead, “heart.”
Your opposition to Abortion for example, like the Pro Life movement in general, is well-intentioned, and seemingly good-hearted; devoted to a seemingly natural attachment to the embryo. But it is logically, morally, and theologically, wrong. And the Bible itself warned about the “Heart.” As more and more women speak more and more prominently in the church – against the Bible itself (Paul, 1 Corin. 14.34) - their unreliable and easily-mislead “hearts,” will increasingly mislead not only themselves, but also the whole Church.
In Hispanic (and Italian?) and Catholic folk culture especially, the “heart” or “corazon,” is the very center of everything. The word “corazon” it sometimes seems, is in half of all Spanish-American songs; see also the “Sacred Heart of Jesus” etc.. But as it turns out, there are biblical and logical and even theological problems even with the heart itself. Among other things, it is prone to sentimentality. And even your “corazon,” the Bible warned, is often “deceived”; vain, too Proud, etc.. (Hos. 10.2; Ps. 12.2, 36.1, 73.7; Job 15.35; Gen. 6.5, Exd. 9.14; Isa. 59.13; Prov. 6.14-18; Mark 7.21, Rom. 16.18). Our out-of-control emotions, often mislead us. So that we need a firm, logical “mind,” to control our emotions, and sort things out.
In this case, there is considerable native sentiment among women, to assume that embryos are fully human beings or babies. So that many women to support pro life movements, out of sentiment. And they assume that this is reason doctors shy away from abortions: because of this inner sentiment. But this is not necessarily the reason. Actually, many doctors shy away from abortions – because anti-abortionists have put the emotion of fear into their hearts; through anti-abortion terrorism.
In part, many doctors today are shying away from abortions ... because of harassment and terrorism from anti-abortionists. Increasingly emotional Pro-Lifers are resorting to intimidation and even murder, to achieve their aims: on May 31, 2009 for example, abortion doctor Dr. Tiller was murdered, in his church, by an anti-abortion terrorist. ( And after having been shot in his arms and legs a few years before.)
Anti-abortionists and their “hearts” or emotionality therefore, are being mislead; even into evil deeds. Currently, they hate, and are even murdering, abortion doctors. This, even though of course, Christianity does not sanction murder. And even though the Pope himself, Joe Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, said that voting for Pro Choice politicians, "can be permitted" (Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," 2004 memo). Even though the central theologian of the Church, following the Bible, Ps. 139, said that the young embryo was not "formed" enough, to have a mind, spirit, or "soul."
For a fuller discussion of the issues involved here, see our discussion in the current First Things post, on the "Signpost" moment in abortion politics. For a 700-page book draft, noting 100 theological and practical problems with the Pro Life, anti-abortion position, see Brettongarcia's Blog@Wordpress.
The fact is, an entire generation was brought up by "conservative"/Republican lay "Catholics" to believe that the Church, God, absolutely oppose abortion. But today, a more careful study of the Bible, and Church doctrine and tradition, shows that the Church really said, no such thing. In fact, the Pope himself – a theologian who spoke often, not from the heart, but from the mind - told us firmly, that focusing too narrowly or exclusively just on the single issue of abortion is dis-“proportionate”ly narrow; and that voting for pro-abortion political candidates "can be permitted” (Card. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, “Worthiness,” 2004 memo).
The anti-abortion movement is well-intentioned; it is even from the heart. But for that very reason, it is a heresy.
As America is more and more influenced by changing demographics, by its growing Hispanic population, America will increasingly experience the advantages – and the deficits – of the core of Hispanic culture: the “corazon,” or the “heart.” The life of over-sentimentality and emotionality. As opposed to the spirit that founded America: the more logical, rational, mental, logicality, of our overwhelmingly Protestant founders. Most of the signatories to the Constitution, all our presidents until Kennedy, were Protestants; and the original character of our nation therefore, was a rather rational Protestantism (as noted here in my responses to the First Things post on Protestant art). But now the foundational principle of our Democracy, is under assault; by the all-too-sentimental and easily-mislead, “heart.”
Your opposition to Abortion for example, like the Pro Life movement in general, is well-intentioned, and seemingly good-hearted; devoted to a seemingly natural attachment to the embryo. But it is logically, morally, and theologically, wrong. And the Bible itself warned about the “Heart.” As more and more women speak more and more prominently in the church – against the Bible itself (Paul, 1 Corin. 14.34) - their unreliable and easily-mislead “hearts,” will increasingly mislead not only themselves, but also the whole Church.
In Hispanic (and Italian?) and Catholic folk culture especially, the “heart” or “corazon,” is the very center of everything. The word “corazon” it sometimes seems, is in half of all Spanish-American songs; see also the “Sacred Heart of Jesus” etc.. But as it turns out, there are biblical and logical and even theological problems even with the heart itself. Among other things, it is prone to sentimentality. And even your “corazon,” the Bible warned, is often “deceived”; vain, too Proud, etc.. (Hos. 10.2; Ps. 12.2, 36.1, 73.7; Job 15.35; Gen. 6.5, Exd. 9.14; Isa. 59.13; Prov. 6.14-18; Mark 7.21, Rom. 16.18). Our out-of-control emotions, often mislead us. So that we need a firm, logical “mind,” to control our emotions, and sort things out.
In this case, there is considerable native sentiment among women, to assume that embryos are fully human beings or babies. So that many women to support pro life movements, out of sentiment. And they assume that this is reason doctors shy away from abortions: because of this inner sentiment. But this is not necessarily the reason. Actually, many doctors shy away from abortions – because anti-abortionists have put the emotion of fear into their hearts; through anti-abortion terrorism.
In part, many doctors today are shying away from abortions ... because of harassment and terrorism from anti-abortionists. Increasingly emotional Pro-Lifers are resorting to intimidation and even murder, to achieve their aims: on May 31, 2009 for example, abortion doctor Dr. Tiller was murdered, in his church, by an anti-abortion terrorist. ( And after having been shot in his arms and legs a few years before.)
Anti-abortionists and their “hearts” or emotionality therefore, are being mislead; even into evil deeds. Currently, they hate, and are even murdering, abortion doctors. This, even though of course, Christianity does not sanction murder. And even though the Pope himself, Joe Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, said that voting for Pro Choice politicians, "can be permitted" (Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," 2004 memo). Even though the central theologian of the Church, following the Bible, Ps. 139, said that the young embryo was not "formed" enough, to have a mind, spirit, or "soul."
For a fuller discussion of the issues involved here, see our discussion in the current First Things post, on the "Signpost" moment in abortion politics. For a 700-page book draft, noting 100 theological and practical problems with the Pro Life, anti-abortion position, see Brettongarcia's Blog@Wordpress.
The fact is, an entire generation was brought up by "conservative"/Republican lay "Catholics" to believe that the Church, God, absolutely oppose abortion. But today, a more careful study of the Bible, and Church doctrine and tradition, shows that the Church really said, no such thing. In fact, the Pope himself – a theologian who spoke often, not from the heart, but from the mind - told us firmly, that focusing too narrowly or exclusively just on the single issue of abortion is dis-“proportionate”ly narrow; and that voting for pro-abortion political candidates "can be permitted” (Card. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, “Worthiness,” 2004 memo).
The anti-abortion movement is well-intentioned; it is even from the heart. But for that very reason, it is a heresy.
7.19.2010 | 6:33am
Joe Giardina says:
Abortion is the brutal killing of unborn children for money.... plain and simple. It's not about health, empowering women, choice, or family planning, It's all about dollars and Planned Parenthood profits. It's blood money.
7.19.2010 | 8:11am
Jeannine says:
From its beginning the Church has opposed abortion and infanticide. (The only reason that abortion was not more common in the ancient world was that it was frequently deadly to the mother as well as to the child. Infanticide was safer for the mother.) The ancients were struck by the fact that the Christians did not kill their children.
Since human beings do not come without emotions, of course pro-life people have feelings about the issue. But the opposition to abortion is not about sentimentality toward the unborn. It is about the hard logic that the unborn is a member of the human species and no other.
I might also mention that the idea that Jesus was incarnated as an unborn infant has a theological logic of its own in relation to this issue. The God-Man was so from his conception. Early Christians celebrated the Annunciation for this reason.
As I understand it, "the heart" as discussed in the Bible does not refer to sloppy sentiment and gushing feelings but to the core of the human person.
At the deepest level, people realize that abortion is wrong, even if they believe that it should be legal. Hence the emotion surrounding this issue, not just on the pro-life side, but on the pro-abortion side as well. I am often struck by the anger and bitterness from the pro-abortion side, even though in worldly terms they appear to have "won."
It is condescending to women and to Spanish and Italian culture to assume that "they" are not capable of reason.
It is also absurd to believe that a woman who has carried a baby has no idea of what--or who--that baby is.
Since human beings do not come without emotions, of course pro-life people have feelings about the issue. But the opposition to abortion is not about sentimentality toward the unborn. It is about the hard logic that the unborn is a member of the human species and no other.
I might also mention that the idea that Jesus was incarnated as an unborn infant has a theological logic of its own in relation to this issue. The God-Man was so from his conception. Early Christians celebrated the Annunciation for this reason.
As I understand it, "the heart" as discussed in the Bible does not refer to sloppy sentiment and gushing feelings but to the core of the human person.
At the deepest level, people realize that abortion is wrong, even if they believe that it should be legal. Hence the emotion surrounding this issue, not just on the pro-life side, but on the pro-abortion side as well. I am often struck by the anger and bitterness from the pro-abortion side, even though in worldly terms they appear to have "won."
It is condescending to women and to Spanish and Italian culture to assume that "they" are not capable of reason.
It is also absurd to believe that a woman who has carried a baby has no idea of what--or who--that baby is.
7.19.2010 | 8:42am
Joe says:
Jeannine etc.:
1) Regarding the argument that women have children in them, means they know for sure what an embryo is? By this argument, people who have a disease in them, know better than a doctor what it is. Let's use good logic here.
2) The Church has long opposed infanticide, and at times abortion. But how strongly? There was much logical evidence that the embryo was not really quite fully human. As noted around ther corner on this web site (the "Signpost at the Crossroads" prompt), there are good philosophical and religious reasons to say that the essence of a human being, is not our physical body or DNA, but our (immaterial?) mind or intelligence, or rational soul. Which however - as St. Thomas Aquinas said - does not appear until later in life. So that Aquinas implied, the young fetus, having no soul, was not a human being yet.
3) Regarding the status of Jesus? Does he prove we are human from conception? The example of Jesus is not always exactly typical, or generalizable. Not all of us are declared to be God himself, at conception. or I suggest, a human person either.
4) The "heart" in the bible, refers to essentially all our emotions; it a) can therefore include sentimentality. But in any case, b) the heart, the Bible said, can often deceive us. As noted in the Biblical citations above. Which, if you would read them, tell us that the hearts of many people often deceived them, or their heart itself was often evil: "the thoughts of his heart was only evil" (Gen. 6.5); "a base thought in your heart" (DEUT. 15.9); the evil "Absalom stole the hearts" (2 Sm. 15.6); "their heart prepares deceit" (Job 15.35).
If, rather than simply reacting emotionally, you had read the references, you would have found many warnings from God, about ... reacting emotionally, and trusting the heart too much.
1) Regarding the argument that women have children in them, means they know for sure what an embryo is? By this argument, people who have a disease in them, know better than a doctor what it is. Let's use good logic here.
2) The Church has long opposed infanticide, and at times abortion. But how strongly? There was much logical evidence that the embryo was not really quite fully human. As noted around ther corner on this web site (the "Signpost at the Crossroads" prompt), there are good philosophical and religious reasons to say that the essence of a human being, is not our physical body or DNA, but our (immaterial?) mind or intelligence, or rational soul. Which however - as St. Thomas Aquinas said - does not appear until later in life. So that Aquinas implied, the young fetus, having no soul, was not a human being yet.
3) Regarding the status of Jesus? Does he prove we are human from conception? The example of Jesus is not always exactly typical, or generalizable. Not all of us are declared to be God himself, at conception. or I suggest, a human person either.
4) The "heart" in the bible, refers to essentially all our emotions; it a) can therefore include sentimentality. But in any case, b) the heart, the Bible said, can often deceive us. As noted in the Biblical citations above. Which, if you would read them, tell us that the hearts of many people often deceived them, or their heart itself was often evil: "the thoughts of his heart was only evil" (Gen. 6.5); "a base thought in your heart" (DEUT. 15.9); the evil "Absalom stole the hearts" (2 Sm. 15.6); "their heart prepares deceit" (Job 15.35).
If, rather than simply reacting emotionally, you had read the references, you would have found many warnings from God, about ... reacting emotionally, and trusting the heart too much.
7.19.2010 | 9:20am
mcon says:
Living as an angry, disturbed individual that has been schooled in a cults false church teachings, must be a most miserable life to live. May the Lord heal your mind.
The First Church of the Pro-Choice cult "Bible, Ps. 139, said that the young embryo was not "formed" enough, to have a mind, spirit, or "soul." The quote is from a unique translation and is a lie. The Ps. 139 in Catholic and Protestant Bibles have nothing like that translation.
The First Church of the Pro-Choice cult "Bible, Ps. 139, said that the young embryo was not "formed" enough, to have a mind, spirit, or "soul." The quote is from a unique translation and is a lie. The Ps. 139 in Catholic and Protestant Bibles have nothing like that translation.
7.19.2010 | 9:20am
jason taylor says:
"It is condescending to women and to Spanish and Italian culture to assume that "they" are not capable of reason. "
Forget that. It is degrading to humanity to assume that reason is all that is worthy and that humans should be computers. And it is not clear that anglo-saxons are incapable of sentiment, or that those that are not are somehow better then those that are.
Forget that. It is degrading to humanity to assume that reason is all that is worthy and that humans should be computers. And it is not clear that anglo-saxons are incapable of sentiment, or that those that are not are somehow better then those that are.
7.19.2010 | 9:24am
Charles Sommer says:
Joe,
Actually, in the Old Testament, the "heart" was the seat of intelligence, not emotion. "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'" is one example from the Psalms. Another, Solomon, asks God "to give your servant a heart to understand..." (1 Kg 3:9). This is not emotion, but intelligence. Your reference to Job is also about intelligence not emotion as we would say. You could also look at Gn 6:5, which seems more about intelligence than emotion ("plans").
Using Aquinas, moreover, to argue about modern biological facts seems misplaced. There is no fundamental difference in the biological makeup (as we see it today) of a developing embryo that would make us point to one instance where we can argue that a "soul" is given. If biology cannot tell us when that happens, isn't it prudent to maintain that it comes at conception, when a unique human being is present (including a unique DNA fingerprint).
Actually, in the Old Testament, the "heart" was the seat of intelligence, not emotion. "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'" is one example from the Psalms. Another, Solomon, asks God "to give your servant a heart to understand..." (1 Kg 3:9). This is not emotion, but intelligence. Your reference to Job is also about intelligence not emotion as we would say. You could also look at Gn 6:5, which seems more about intelligence than emotion ("plans").
Using Aquinas, moreover, to argue about modern biological facts seems misplaced. There is no fundamental difference in the biological makeup (as we see it today) of a developing embryo that would make us point to one instance where we can argue that a "soul" is given. If biology cannot tell us when that happens, isn't it prudent to maintain that it comes at conception, when a unique human being is present (including a unique DNA fingerprint).
7.19.2010 | 9:38am
Jeannine says:
"Reacting emotionally"?!
Every species reproduces itself. A bird does not hatch a bear. A bear does not give birth to a duck.
When human beings reproduce, they give birth to human beings.
The embryo duck is not a bear. Nor is it a mere clump of cells. It is a duck that is very young.
The embryo human is not a fish or a bird. It is a human at a very young age.
It will not grow up to be a different species, and it is far from being just a disorganized cluster of cells.
A tumor may be a disorganized cluster of cells. An embryonic life form is not.
You were an embryo. I was an embryo. And yes, Jesus was an embryo.
Embryology books all agreed that human life began at conception until it became politically incorrect to say so. Even now, most say this.This is not an emotional or illogical statement. The human being right after conception has its own DNA. The embryo may, because of that genetic composition, have a different blood type from his or her mother. The mother (as Peter Kreeft likes to say) does not have two heads, four arms, and four legs because she is pregnant. When a couple goes to a fertility doctor for help, they are not trying to produce a disorganized clump of cells.
I just don't see anything emotional or illogical here.
Yes, the heart of man can be evil. I'm not seeing how that makes abortion ok. However, it does explain a lot about how abortion became the industry that it is today.
Every species reproduces itself. A bird does not hatch a bear. A bear does not give birth to a duck.
When human beings reproduce, they give birth to human beings.
The embryo duck is not a bear. Nor is it a mere clump of cells. It is a duck that is very young.
The embryo human is not a fish or a bird. It is a human at a very young age.
It will not grow up to be a different species, and it is far from being just a disorganized cluster of cells.
A tumor may be a disorganized cluster of cells. An embryonic life form is not.
You were an embryo. I was an embryo. And yes, Jesus was an embryo.
Embryology books all agreed that human life began at conception until it became politically incorrect to say so. Even now, most say this.This is not an emotional or illogical statement. The human being right after conception has its own DNA. The embryo may, because of that genetic composition, have a different blood type from his or her mother. The mother (as Peter Kreeft likes to say) does not have two heads, four arms, and four legs because she is pregnant. When a couple goes to a fertility doctor for help, they are not trying to produce a disorganized clump of cells.
I just don't see anything emotional or illogical here.
Yes, the heart of man can be evil. I'm not seeing how that makes abortion ok. However, it does explain a lot about how abortion became the industry that it is today.
7.19.2010 | 9:42am
Brian English says:
Well, it is impressive how many offensive statements brettongarcia manages to pack into one post.
First, the Didache, which has been dated to 100 AD, condemns abortion.
Second, Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 memo allows voting for a pro-choice politician under very limited circumstances. Archbishop Chaput has described those circumstances as being those you will feel confident explaining to aborted children when you come face-to-face with them in the next life. That is a pretty high standard to meet.
Third, regardless of how you come down on the voting for pro-choice politicians issue, Cardinal Ratzinger's memo is crystal clear that Catholics cannot disagree with the Church's condemnation of abortion and euthanasia as intrinsic evils and still consider themselves in good standing with the Church. He never indicates, as brettongarcia claims, that abortion is anything but an abomination.
Fourth, the "irrational, emotional pro-lifers vs. the rational pro-choicers" meme has the situation flipped on its head. Every embryology textbook confirms what the Church has known all along -- a unique human life is created at conception. On the other hand, the pro-choicers have to rely on St. Augustine, writing without the benefit of modern embryology, pondering the issue of "ensouling", or, as indicated in the article, whether the unborn child really "looks like a baby" when it is killed. The "looks like a baby" standard doesn't strike me as very scientific.
Finally, when you compare the number of pro-lifers in this country to the samll number of individuals who have engaged in violence against abortion providers, brettongarcia's assertions regarding the pro-life movement are shameful.
First, the Didache, which has been dated to 100 AD, condemns abortion.
Second, Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 memo allows voting for a pro-choice politician under very limited circumstances. Archbishop Chaput has described those circumstances as being those you will feel confident explaining to aborted children when you come face-to-face with them in the next life. That is a pretty high standard to meet.
Third, regardless of how you come down on the voting for pro-choice politicians issue, Cardinal Ratzinger's memo is crystal clear that Catholics cannot disagree with the Church's condemnation of abortion and euthanasia as intrinsic evils and still consider themselves in good standing with the Church. He never indicates, as brettongarcia claims, that abortion is anything but an abomination.
Fourth, the "irrational, emotional pro-lifers vs. the rational pro-choicers" meme has the situation flipped on its head. Every embryology textbook confirms what the Church has known all along -- a unique human life is created at conception. On the other hand, the pro-choicers have to rely on St. Augustine, writing without the benefit of modern embryology, pondering the issue of "ensouling", or, as indicated in the article, whether the unborn child really "looks like a baby" when it is killed. The "looks like a baby" standard doesn't strike me as very scientific.
Finally, when you compare the number of pro-lifers in this country to the samll number of individuals who have engaged in violence against abortion providers, brettongarcia's assertions regarding the pro-life movement are shameful.
7.19.2010 | 9:53am
anonymous says:
Abortion will be "Back Alley" because abortionists are creepy , non-skilled, 'usually men" who can't work elsewhere. They have raped, maimed, dismembered , and killed many a woman from "LEGAL ABORTION" Click here (Be sure to click 'older enties' ) to see some of the stellar "Abortionists" at work !http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/abortionist/
and do the same here (http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/pro-choice-violence/ ) for pro-choice violence in general !
and do the same here (http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/pro-choice-violence/ ) for pro-choice violence in general !
7.19.2010 | 10:05am
Ars Artium says:
Misinformation stated as settled fact, assertions stated with no underpinning of evidence or logical argumentation, are becoming common on the First Things blog. To respectfully unravel and refute wildly convoluted arguments requires time and effort. Thank you to Jeannine, Charles Sommer, and Brian English for their defense of the truth.
7.19.2010 | 10:11am
Bob G says:
Brettongarcia--your pro-abortion argument seems rather peculiar. Basically your argument is that opposition to abortion is from the "heart" while acceptance of it is from the head. Case closed. But how can you show, rather than just assume, that acceptance of abortion is not itself from the heart--maybe you accept abortion because you want to? In any case, it seems that most of the arguments against abortion are offered as reasoned arguments. So it appears a bit unfair of you to assume that, because they don't reach the conclusion you want (heart), they are instead from the heart. This is a rather facile kind of approach that cuts both ways.
7.19.2010 | 10:13am
txw says:
brettongarcia,
If one can pull a leg off a bab. . .no I guess it is a blob of tissue, in the womb, one can do do anything. Lifton's book Nazi Doctors describes the splitting behavior that doctors use and the same is inherent in OB-gyne who abort one minute and the next are
delivering. What ethnic corazon do they have? Hittite? Carthagian? Dr. Tiller killed a woman with Down's Syndrome (and her baby), a few years before he was murdered. You can hear the 911 call on the web. The huge prolife marches are ignored in the media, but the oddball vigilante makes headlines, that is well known. But focus on the vigilantes to keep the pity for the abortionists strong, that has been working pretty well so far to keep the industry afloat.
To look at an ultrasound and say "that's a baby" is a statement of logic, such a basic scientific statement that it is written in some hearts. From the logic comes the sentiment.
http://www.abortionviolence.com/
Check out the Elliot Institute work as well.
It could be that the decrease in abortionists follows the rise in females entering OB-GYN. brettongarcia could speculate on a woman's heart, perhaps in the next 700 pages of Ulyssean globtrap.
If one can pull a leg off a bab. . .no I guess it is a blob of tissue, in the womb, one can do do anything. Lifton's book Nazi Doctors describes the splitting behavior that doctors use and the same is inherent in OB-gyne who abort one minute and the next are
delivering. What ethnic corazon do they have? Hittite? Carthagian? Dr. Tiller killed a woman with Down's Syndrome (and her baby), a few years before he was murdered. You can hear the 911 call on the web. The huge prolife marches are ignored in the media, but the oddball vigilante makes headlines, that is well known. But focus on the vigilantes to keep the pity for the abortionists strong, that has been working pretty well so far to keep the industry afloat.
To look at an ultrasound and say "that's a baby" is a statement of logic, such a basic scientific statement that it is written in some hearts. From the logic comes the sentiment.
http://www.abortionviolence.com/
Check out the Elliot Institute work as well.
It could be that the decrease in abortionists follows the rise in females entering OB-GYN. brettongarcia could speculate on a woman's heart, perhaps in the next 700 pages of Ulyssean globtrap.
7.19.2010 | 10:13am
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia/joe:
Aquinas' position is hardly news, and his position - as well the similar positions of other theologians of the Middle Ages, who did not have at their disposal the knowledge about human embryos and their development that would be available - has been consistently cited in public declarations by the Church of its contrary position. For example, from the 1974 "Declaration on Procured Abortion":
"In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine [that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development] - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous."
The medieval and early modern view was that sexual reproduction involved the solidification and formation of menstrual fluid under the influence of the father as mediated by the semen. This led in due course to the production of a body to which a rational soul was then joined. This being the scientific/metaphysical view, a moral distinction could then be drawn between terminating a pregnancy before and after the point of rational ensoulment. Prior to this the act would be life-destroying but not homicidal; subsequent to it abortion would be the killing of a human being.
By stages, however, a change of view began to emerge. Two early 17th century theologians/doctors of medicine, Thomas Fieinus and Paulo Zacchia, argued that the soul is present from conception. Subsequent embryological studies led to a modern understanding of the ovum and the general process of fertilization. Inevitably, these influenced philosophical and theological thinking about the origin of individual life, and in the course of the 19th century the Church moved towards its current position. That new position was increasingly reflected in moral teaching and pastoral direction.
Further theoretical support for the position was offered by "De Animatione Foetus", published anonymously in Nouvelle Revue Theologique in 1879. The author argues in favor of immediate animation on the basis of biological and philosophical considerations. Citing Fienius and Zacchia in support, the writer develops the line of reasoning (though now put in terms of a fertilized ovum rather than of a preformed embryo) that if the principle of formative development is immanent then animation is immediate. He also shows that this is theologically acceptable, as arguments from Scripture and Tradition are in themselves inconclusive on the matter.
Subsequent Church documents have consolidated this position.
-------
The above is problematic for those who hold everything written by Thomas Aquinas to be infallible, and/or for those who do not understand the development of Church doctrine, as expounded upon by Newman and others.
As for what Pope Benedict wrote in 2004, here is what he said:
"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
The Pope forbids voting for a candidate because of their permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia, and requires "proportionate reasons" to vote for such a candidate in spite of their permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. He did not spell out what would qualify as "proportionate reasons".
If two candidates ran on the same platform except that one was pro-life and the other pro-"choice", which would you vote for? If the pro-life one, what difference(s) would be required between their platforms for you to be able to cite as "proportionate reasons" to vote for the pro-"choice" one?
Have a nice day,
GR
Aquinas' position is hardly news, and his position - as well the similar positions of other theologians of the Middle Ages, who did not have at their disposal the knowledge about human embryos and their development that would be available - has been consistently cited in public declarations by the Church of its contrary position. For example, from the 1974 "Declaration on Procured Abortion":
"In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine [that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development] - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous."
The medieval and early modern view was that sexual reproduction involved the solidification and formation of menstrual fluid under the influence of the father as mediated by the semen. This led in due course to the production of a body to which a rational soul was then joined. This being the scientific/metaphysical view, a moral distinction could then be drawn between terminating a pregnancy before and after the point of rational ensoulment. Prior to this the act would be life-destroying but not homicidal; subsequent to it abortion would be the killing of a human being.
By stages, however, a change of view began to emerge. Two early 17th century theologians/doctors of medicine, Thomas Fieinus and Paulo Zacchia, argued that the soul is present from conception. Subsequent embryological studies led to a modern understanding of the ovum and the general process of fertilization. Inevitably, these influenced philosophical and theological thinking about the origin of individual life, and in the course of the 19th century the Church moved towards its current position. That new position was increasingly reflected in moral teaching and pastoral direction.
Further theoretical support for the position was offered by "De Animatione Foetus", published anonymously in Nouvelle Revue Theologique in 1879. The author argues in favor of immediate animation on the basis of biological and philosophical considerations. Citing Fienius and Zacchia in support, the writer develops the line of reasoning (though now put in terms of a fertilized ovum rather than of a preformed embryo) that if the principle of formative development is immanent then animation is immediate. He also shows that this is theologically acceptable, as arguments from Scripture and Tradition are in themselves inconclusive on the matter.
Subsequent Church documents have consolidated this position.
-------
The above is problematic for those who hold everything written by Thomas Aquinas to be infallible, and/or for those who do not understand the development of Church doctrine, as expounded upon by Newman and others.
As for what Pope Benedict wrote in 2004, here is what he said:
"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
The Pope forbids voting for a candidate because of their permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia, and requires "proportionate reasons" to vote for such a candidate in spite of their permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. He did not spell out what would qualify as "proportionate reasons".
If two candidates ran on the same platform except that one was pro-life and the other pro-"choice", which would you vote for? If the pro-life one, what difference(s) would be required between their platforms for you to be able to cite as "proportionate reasons" to vote for the pro-"choice" one?
Have a nice day,
GR
7.19.2010 | 10:29am
Lenore Rae O'Jibway says:
#1) MORE WOMEN KILLED SINCE ABORTIONS WERE CONDUCTED IN THE BACK ALLEY THEN NOW - I tried to get the statistics on this from the Executive Office during the Bush administration and I was told that the Center for Disease Control stopped counting the number of women who died while seeking to ob tain legal abortions. WHILE THE GOVERNMENT HAD PLACED A GAG RULE ON THIS I HOPE AND PRAY THAT THE BOYFRIENDS/FATHERS/MOTHERS/SISTERS/BROTHERS OF THOSE WOMEN WHO AREN'T COUNTED BY OUR COUNTRY WILL FINALLY HAVE THE COURAGE TO SPEAK UP FOR THESE WOMEN -- SOME -- IF NOT MANY -- WHO MAY WELL HAVE DIED REGRETTING THEIR "CHOICE"...DO IT FOR YOUR LOVED ONE NOW....DO YOU DEAR ME ....NOW.
#2) IT IS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DO DENY THAT A PERSON IS A HUMAN AT CONCEPTION. Just as it would be malpractice to misdiagnose any ailment so do should the misdiagnoisis of something which is not an ailment or a disease to be acknowledged for what the human is -- a human. If it is medical malpractice then those who misdiagnosed should be SUED BIG TIME.
#3) ILLEGAL FUNDING OF MEDICAL TRAINING CENTERS WHO CONDUCT ABORTIONS as a matter of course in their residencies and the like --- If it is true that several medical centers have required abortions be conducted to obtain certification and if those centers obtained federal funding for their colleges/universities/or institutes while doing that -- then I believ e they violated federal law and should be taken to task...SUED BIG TIME.
#4) THOSE SEX EDUCATION PROVIDERS WHO INFILTRATED SCHOOLS WITH MISINFORMATION WHICH HAS LEAD TO SEXUAL DEVASTATION TO YOUTH --- should be SUED BIG TIME as some are attempting to do now with the handful of sexual predactors in the Catholic Church. Of course the VAST SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM AND THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF CHILDREN AND ADULTS AFFECTED WOULD OF COURSE DWARF any comparision to Catholic Church litigation.
Those are a few thoughts based on living in America and seeking Truth.
#2) IT IS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DO DENY THAT A PERSON IS A HUMAN AT CONCEPTION. Just as it would be malpractice to misdiagnose any ailment so do should the misdiagnoisis of something which is not an ailment or a disease to be acknowledged for what the human is -- a human. If it is medical malpractice then those who misdiagnosed should be SUED BIG TIME.
#3) ILLEGAL FUNDING OF MEDICAL TRAINING CENTERS WHO CONDUCT ABORTIONS as a matter of course in their residencies and the like --- If it is true that several medical centers have required abortions be conducted to obtain certification and if those centers obtained federal funding for their colleges/universities/or institutes while doing that -- then I believ e they violated federal law and should be taken to task...SUED BIG TIME.
#4) THOSE SEX EDUCATION PROVIDERS WHO INFILTRATED SCHOOLS WITH MISINFORMATION WHICH HAS LEAD TO SEXUAL DEVASTATION TO YOUTH --- should be SUED BIG TIME as some are attempting to do now with the handful of sexual predactors in the Catholic Church. Of course the VAST SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM AND THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF CHILDREN AND ADULTS AFFECTED WOULD OF COURSE DWARF any comparision to Catholic Church litigation.
Those are a few thoughts based on living in America and seeking Truth.
7.19.2010 | 10:58am
A Momney says:
Brettongarcia says that a more careful study of the Bible, and Church doctrine and tradition, shows that the Church really has not absolutely opposed abortion. Church documents are breeming with clear teaching on the absolute condemnation of procured abortion. I will cite only one of the multitude of examples, from Vatican II's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (no. 51): "Therefore from the moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes." Notice that it doesn't say that these are 'sometimes', or 'in certain circumstances', unspeakable crimes. It is an unqualified statement.
7.19.2010 | 11:24am
brettongarcia says:
The latest quotes above, suggests abortion is a "grave fault"; but 1) they do mention that there is a key moment, when the embryo acquires a spirit. And that 2) a certain leniancy regarding abortion was made, before that moment. While 3) ultimately, these quotes do not say that the embryo is fully a human being. 4) Nor do they even firmly say above, at least, when our life as a full human being, with a soul, begins; and from which point it should be protected. One source cited by the Catechism, is "Didache," by the way. Which was said to be quite ancient but which was curiously, only discovered in 1875; conventiently for the then-current pope. While this cursory evidence is far outweighed by the testimony of many others.
The embryo has a unique set of DNA programming; but that begs the question: is a lump of DNA a human being? Biology may (or may not) have said that our life as a Biological organism begins at conception. Rather the important moment, is not when we begin life as an "organism," or an ANIMAL; but when do we acquire a MIND, and become a human bein?.
We have long said the heart "knows" this or that; but it has only a kind of primitive intelligence; while the Bible distinguished that, from our "mind" etc...
And when does the human mind appear, finally? Not at conception.
Here's a standard translation of Ps. 139. Note that in it, it is everywhere assumed that the embryo is NOT COMPLETED, but is merely a) in the process of BEING "knit" or b) "formed"; in the meantime c)it is even an "unformed substance," not a human being. Indeed d) our "days" as a human being have clearly not yet begun, have not yet come "to be" when we are being knit there:
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.... when I was made in teh secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Ps. 139, NIV).
Not only is the Bible itself clear enough here; no less a central Catholic authority than a major St. and theologian - St. Thomas Aquinas - used this part of the Bible, for his own confirmation. That the embryo was not yet "formed" enough in the womb, to be a completed human.
Archbishop Chaput today, likes to "twist" around many words on many things and claim that there is no circumsance at all where other issues might be "proportionate"ly more important than abortion; but Chaput himself is a notoriously right-wing political figure, who has let conservative/Republican politics, form or twist and warp, his religion. Other bishops deliver a very very different message, from the heretical Chaput.
Anti-aboritionists call abortionists "baby killers" and "murderers." But teh fact is, all the evidence is that the embryo is not yet a human being; and so killing one is not murder.
The fact is, the essence of the pro-abortion argument, is an idea from teh very core of both Philosophy and Christianity itself: that the essence of being human, is the moment we get a human mind, spirit, or soul. But when is that moment? Tradiitonal sources disagree. And since that moment is invisible, ultrasound is essentially all but irrelevant. Burt ultimately, the serious academic journals essentially decide that the best arguments - from even Catholic greats like Aquinas - and science, confirm that the mind or spirit, is the product of the brain; and the brain is just not "formed" enough at an early age, not big enough, to sustain any recognizably human intelligence, or spirit or soul.
Though Pro Lifers cherry pick a few quotes from more modern, post 17th century times, that favored the appearance of a mind in a young embryo, more modern science eventually firmly confirmed that the mind is in effect the product of a larger brain; while the brain of an embryo - typically from one thousanth to one third the size of a one-year old or adult - is just not big enough, or developed enough, to sustain an intelligence that could even remotedly be called human intelligence or "reason."
Ultimately, surprisingly, REAL Science mostly confirmed Aquinas. Thus science and religion come together on a consensus position; one allowing abortion.
What does the real, core Tradition of teh Church REALLY say? For Catholics to now just reject this St. Aquinas, and doctor of the Church, is of course, hypocritical; the Church told us over and over (mostly) to revere the saints. So the Pro Life position is not only against 1) the Bible; Ps. 139; 2) the core Catholic Tradition that tells us to revere saints. For that matter is also 3) against the canon law of 1917, that made Aquinas the chief theologian of the seminaries (Code of Canon Law, 1917, sec. 589 & 1366). And 4) it is against REAL science; not the science that subjective Catholics who are not trained in science, like to quote for emotional reasons.
And worse finally 5) the rejection of the importance of the moment a mind or spirit or soul appears, is finally part of an inadvertant but evil, base attack, on intelligence, the mind, the soul, itself. In favor of a raw, animal, even murderous emotionalism.
There are of course, hundreds more arguments to answer; and I don't have time to answer them all here. For a 700-page book draft answering all your questions, consult my admittedly-rough draft on "The Conservative and Pro Life Heresies," on Brettongarcia's Blog, Wordpress. This draft is rough and a bit list-y; but it discusses and refutes all these objections, and a hundred more, to abortion.
Finally, what other issues are proportionately more important than abortion? First 1) since the embryo is "human" in the sense of being "human tissue," but not in the sense of being a human being, ANY issues that involve real human lives, are more important.
But 2) even if you assume embryos are human beings - which they are not - then note that the Bible itself constantly warned that other issues - like plagues and diseases/lack of health care, and unnecessary wars, have already historically killed millions. And one day will kill 1/3 of the population of the entire earth; BILLIONS of people. When and because, "believers" forgot what the real truth of teh Bible and of God really was; and started intermixing the "traditions of men," the ideas of right-wing politics, in with their religion.As all anti-abortion Catholics are doing, here and now. These are some of the issues, that are far, far more important than abortion; while neglect of them will kill BILLIONS of indisputably human beings.
But I don't have the time to reproduce all the argument, of my 700-page book against Pro Life antiabortionism; all these problems are more fully addressed, in adequate detail, in my rough-draft manuscript. Which systematically answers the top 100 or so religious, "Catholic" objections to abortion.
For now though: why don't you just keep reading Ps. 139, a few different translations of it, over and over? And pray over it?
That would be a good start, to a true understanding.
The embryo has a unique set of DNA programming; but that begs the question: is a lump of DNA a human being? Biology may (or may not) have said that our life as a Biological organism begins at conception. Rather the important moment, is not when we begin life as an "organism," or an ANIMAL; but when do we acquire a MIND, and become a human bein?.
We have long said the heart "knows" this or that; but it has only a kind of primitive intelligence; while the Bible distinguished that, from our "mind" etc...
And when does the human mind appear, finally? Not at conception.
Here's a standard translation of Ps. 139. Note that in it, it is everywhere assumed that the embryo is NOT COMPLETED, but is merely a) in the process of BEING "knit" or b) "formed"; in the meantime c)it is even an "unformed substance," not a human being. Indeed d) our "days" as a human being have clearly not yet begun, have not yet come "to be" when we are being knit there:
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.... when I was made in teh secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Ps. 139, NIV).
Not only is the Bible itself clear enough here; no less a central Catholic authority than a major St. and theologian - St. Thomas Aquinas - used this part of the Bible, for his own confirmation. That the embryo was not yet "formed" enough in the womb, to be a completed human.
Archbishop Chaput today, likes to "twist" around many words on many things and claim that there is no circumsance at all where other issues might be "proportionate"ly more important than abortion; but Chaput himself is a notoriously right-wing political figure, who has let conservative/Republican politics, form or twist and warp, his religion. Other bishops deliver a very very different message, from the heretical Chaput.
Anti-aboritionists call abortionists "baby killers" and "murderers." But teh fact is, all the evidence is that the embryo is not yet a human being; and so killing one is not murder.
The fact is, the essence of the pro-abortion argument, is an idea from teh very core of both Philosophy and Christianity itself: that the essence of being human, is the moment we get a human mind, spirit, or soul. But when is that moment? Tradiitonal sources disagree. And since that moment is invisible, ultrasound is essentially all but irrelevant. Burt ultimately, the serious academic journals essentially decide that the best arguments - from even Catholic greats like Aquinas - and science, confirm that the mind or spirit, is the product of the brain; and the brain is just not "formed" enough at an early age, not big enough, to sustain any recognizably human intelligence, or spirit or soul.
Though Pro Lifers cherry pick a few quotes from more modern, post 17th century times, that favored the appearance of a mind in a young embryo, more modern science eventually firmly confirmed that the mind is in effect the product of a larger brain; while the brain of an embryo - typically from one thousanth to one third the size of a one-year old or adult - is just not big enough, or developed enough, to sustain an intelligence that could even remotedly be called human intelligence or "reason."
Ultimately, surprisingly, REAL Science mostly confirmed Aquinas. Thus science and religion come together on a consensus position; one allowing abortion.
What does the real, core Tradition of teh Church REALLY say? For Catholics to now just reject this St. Aquinas, and doctor of the Church, is of course, hypocritical; the Church told us over and over (mostly) to revere the saints. So the Pro Life position is not only against 1) the Bible; Ps. 139; 2) the core Catholic Tradition that tells us to revere saints. For that matter is also 3) against the canon law of 1917, that made Aquinas the chief theologian of the seminaries (Code of Canon Law, 1917, sec. 589 & 1366). And 4) it is against REAL science; not the science that subjective Catholics who are not trained in science, like to quote for emotional reasons.
And worse finally 5) the rejection of the importance of the moment a mind or spirit or soul appears, is finally part of an inadvertant but evil, base attack, on intelligence, the mind, the soul, itself. In favor of a raw, animal, even murderous emotionalism.
There are of course, hundreds more arguments to answer; and I don't have time to answer them all here. For a 700-page book draft answering all your questions, consult my admittedly-rough draft on "The Conservative and Pro Life Heresies," on Brettongarcia's Blog, Wordpress. This draft is rough and a bit list-y; but it discusses and refutes all these objections, and a hundred more, to abortion.
Finally, what other issues are proportionately more important than abortion? First 1) since the embryo is "human" in the sense of being "human tissue," but not in the sense of being a human being, ANY issues that involve real human lives, are more important.
But 2) even if you assume embryos are human beings - which they are not - then note that the Bible itself constantly warned that other issues - like plagues and diseases/lack of health care, and unnecessary wars, have already historically killed millions. And one day will kill 1/3 of the population of the entire earth; BILLIONS of people. When and because, "believers" forgot what the real truth of teh Bible and of God really was; and started intermixing the "traditions of men," the ideas of right-wing politics, in with their religion.As all anti-abortion Catholics are doing, here and now. These are some of the issues, that are far, far more important than abortion; while neglect of them will kill BILLIONS of indisputably human beings.
But I don't have the time to reproduce all the argument, of my 700-page book against Pro Life antiabortionism; all these problems are more fully addressed, in adequate detail, in my rough-draft manuscript. Which systematically answers the top 100 or so religious, "Catholic" objections to abortion.
For now though: why don't you just keep reading Ps. 139, a few different translations of it, over and over? And pray over it?
That would be a good start, to a true understanding.
7.19.2010 | 11:33am
Fred says:
BG, I can't add much to what the others have said, except to say that your ignorance of logic is exceeded only by your ignorance of history. The Founding Fathers ranged from pious Protestants, to nominal Anglicans, to Deists, to whatever Ben Franklin's flaky religion can be called. There were even Catholics and at least one Jew involved. In addition, I suppose the two "Great Awakenings" (in the late 18th century and the 1830s and 40s) was the result of rigorous reasoning and suppression of sentiment. I'll give you one thing, though, you certainly are entertaining. I always know you'll say something stupid, but I'm constantly amazed at how intricate, even baroque, the stupidity is. It can't be easy to come up with assertions that ridiculous and support them with arguments that fallacious and sophistical. Keep up the good work!
7.19.2010 | 11:41am
Chris Brune says:
RE: Catholics voting for pro-choice candidates
I am a pro-life Catholic man and voted for Obama. I think Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict would agree with me.
In America, you never get everything you want in a politician. Clearly the election of Obama gave some solace to the pro-choice position. But Obama's election also held out the promise of a new, more humane health care system; the prospect of ending two wars; a more caring, less violent society. Also, I believe Mr. Obama is a decent man who is amenable to persuasion and genuinely wishes the best for the country as he sees it. Quite a contrast from Bush and the prospect that McCain held out. We could have elected McCain/Palin and seen an intensification of both unwinnable wars, no progress on healthcare, more perks for the rich at the expense of the rest of society, and a continuation of the mindset that says every man for himself and everybody else be damned -- but we would have had a pro-life president.
Personally, weighing all the pros and cons, I'll take Obama and continue trying to work on the abortion issue.
Chris
I am a pro-life Catholic man and voted for Obama. I think Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict would agree with me.
In America, you never get everything you want in a politician. Clearly the election of Obama gave some solace to the pro-choice position. But Obama's election also held out the promise of a new, more humane health care system; the prospect of ending two wars; a more caring, less violent society. Also, I believe Mr. Obama is a decent man who is amenable to persuasion and genuinely wishes the best for the country as he sees it. Quite a contrast from Bush and the prospect that McCain held out. We could have elected McCain/Palin and seen an intensification of both unwinnable wars, no progress on healthcare, more perks for the rich at the expense of the rest of society, and a continuation of the mindset that says every man for himself and everybody else be damned -- but we would have had a pro-life president.
Personally, weighing all the pros and cons, I'll take Obama and continue trying to work on the abortion issue.
Chris
7.19.2010 | 12:13pm
Brian English says:
"The embryo has a unique set of DNA programming; but that begs the question: is a lump of DNA a human being? Biology may (or may not) have said that our life as a Biological organism begins at conception. Rather the important moment, is not when we begin life as an "organism," or an ANIMAL; but when do we acquire a MIND, and become a human bein?."
A new member of our species is created at conception. That "lump of DNA" as you dismissively call it, is exactly what you, me, and everyone reading this board looked like at conception.
Why does the presence of a mind (and good luck trying to define that) mean that the killing of an "organism" is prohibited, when the day before that same "organism" could be killed without any problem in your view?
Beyond all of this, your position in no way reflects that of the Church, so I would be careful about throwing around accusations of heresy.
A new member of our species is created at conception. That "lump of DNA" as you dismissively call it, is exactly what you, me, and everyone reading this board looked like at conception.
Why does the presence of a mind (and good luck trying to define that) mean that the killing of an "organism" is prohibited, when the day before that same "organism" could be killed without any problem in your view?
Beyond all of this, your position in no way reflects that of the Church, so I would be careful about throwing around accusations of heresy.
7.19.2010 | 12:31pm
anonymous says:
Some questions for brettongarcia:
What constitutes a fully formed intellect? And when does that occur?
If one's status as a human being is dependent upon intellectual aptitude, do we now have a right to kill individuals with developmental disabilities? How about your aging grandmother who has developed Alzheimer's disease? Has she now lost the right to have her life preserved and protected? How about when one is not using their human capacity to reason, such as when one is sleeping or under the influence of a narcotic ... have they ceased to be human?
Are we not arbitrarily determining when one can be considered a human being? And who should be given the authority to bestow "humanity" upon an another? The scientists?
What constitutes a fully formed intellect? And when does that occur?
If one's status as a human being is dependent upon intellectual aptitude, do we now have a right to kill individuals with developmental disabilities? How about your aging grandmother who has developed Alzheimer's disease? Has she now lost the right to have her life preserved and protected? How about when one is not using their human capacity to reason, such as when one is sleeping or under the influence of a narcotic ... have they ceased to be human?
Are we not arbitrarily determining when one can be considered a human being? And who should be given the authority to bestow "humanity" upon an another? The scientists?
7.19.2010 | 12:33pm
Lenore R. O'Jibway says:
I regret the typos and errors that appeared in my above comments. I'd like to make some clarifications:
#1) SINCE 1988 THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL DISCONTINUED ITS PRACTICE OF TRACKING THE NUMBER OF WOMEN WHO DIED WHILE SEEKING LEGAL ABORTIONS:
I was told this by executive staff under a previous presidential administration while seeking to obtain the data. I wanted to compare that number with the number of women who died before abortion was legalized. The reason I wanted to compare those figures was because the legalization of abortion was often touted as "safer" for women who otherwise died at the hands of back alley abortionists. Because of the sheer number of innocent unborn children being systematically killed in this country, it stands to reason that there is undoubtedly a massive increase in the number of mothers who died or are dying while seeking abortions. Since these children and their mothers cannot speak on this issue, it is left to their loved ones -- the boyfriends, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, other relatives and friends to finally take a stand and speak up on behalf of them. I pray that some -- if not most --- of these women repented and appealed to God's mercy prior to their own deaths and the deaths of their children. I also pray that God will grant graces to soften the hearts of those who failed them in the past and give them courage in the present to make these women and their children count now by opposing this abomination.
#2) DENYING HUMAN LIFE AT CONCEPTION IS SIMPLE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH:
If a doctor, when seeing cancer cells, denied they were cancer cells --- and so pursued a course of action based on that fallacy that would be medical malpractice. Why is it any different when a doctor or other deny the medical fact that a person exists at conception...biologically. Isn't that also medical malpractice to kill rather than treat this young person and his or her mother.
#3) MEDICAL CENTERS WHO OBTAINED FEDERAL FUNDING WHILE REQUIRING ABORTIONS BE CONDUCTED AS PART OF MEDICAL TRAINING VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW:
During the recent healthcare debate, attention was drawn to a law which forebade federal funding of abortions. Yet, how is it that numerous medical personnel mention being required to conduct abortions as part of training. How is it also that the federal government funnels money to organizations such as Planned Parenthood who may practice "budget" reallocations to support clincial abortions. Don't both of these practices whether at the research or university levels or on the nonprofit level violate existing federal law? To not be in violation wouldn't 100% of their monies have to come from the private sector alone?
#4) LONG-TERM TRAUMA DAMAGE DUE TO SEXUAL INFORMATION AND MISINFORMATION CAUSED BY SEX EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS -
The priest sex scandals point out that sexual damage in childhood can have long-term consequences. Sadly the number of children traumatized under our public school system's sex education program far outstrips the harm done by the relatively few priests involved in scandals. These children and their families also deserve to be defended from evil...and not just by "opt-out" forms which lack means of enforcement by parents. Legal recourse can be taken for past harm and parents must simply take back with the government is seeking to strip away ---- namely parental rights.
#5) CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH WERE DEFINED AS WEAPONS USING CHEMICALS TO KILL HUMAN BEINGS WERE OUTLAWED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AFTER WORLD WAR I
-
THEN WHY ARE VARIOUS METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL WHICH SIMILARLY USE CHEMICALS TO KILL HUMAN LIFE OR TO MAKE AN ENVIRONMENT (THE WOMB) INHOSPITABLE TO HUMAN LIFE NOT ALSO BANNED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?
AREN"T THEY ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER EXISTING LAW? Their ill effects are direct - the killing of a human; the pollution of an environment (the womb and the woman's body); and the indirect effects of an increase in sex outside of marriage, adultery, and abortion. These are all the fruits of "BIRTH CONTROL" which is not control but really "WAYS OF TRANSFORMING BIRTH INTO DEATH.
#1) SINCE 1988 THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL DISCONTINUED ITS PRACTICE OF TRACKING THE NUMBER OF WOMEN WHO DIED WHILE SEEKING LEGAL ABORTIONS:
I was told this by executive staff under a previous presidential administration while seeking to obtain the data. I wanted to compare that number with the number of women who died before abortion was legalized. The reason I wanted to compare those figures was because the legalization of abortion was often touted as "safer" for women who otherwise died at the hands of back alley abortionists. Because of the sheer number of innocent unborn children being systematically killed in this country, it stands to reason that there is undoubtedly a massive increase in the number of mothers who died or are dying while seeking abortions. Since these children and their mothers cannot speak on this issue, it is left to their loved ones -- the boyfriends, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, other relatives and friends to finally take a stand and speak up on behalf of them. I pray that some -- if not most --- of these women repented and appealed to God's mercy prior to their own deaths and the deaths of their children. I also pray that God will grant graces to soften the hearts of those who failed them in the past and give them courage in the present to make these women and their children count now by opposing this abomination.
#2) DENYING HUMAN LIFE AT CONCEPTION IS SIMPLE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH:
If a doctor, when seeing cancer cells, denied they were cancer cells --- and so pursued a course of action based on that fallacy that would be medical malpractice. Why is it any different when a doctor or other deny the medical fact that a person exists at conception...biologically. Isn't that also medical malpractice to kill rather than treat this young person and his or her mother.
#3) MEDICAL CENTERS WHO OBTAINED FEDERAL FUNDING WHILE REQUIRING ABORTIONS BE CONDUCTED AS PART OF MEDICAL TRAINING VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW:
During the recent healthcare debate, attention was drawn to a law which forebade federal funding of abortions. Yet, how is it that numerous medical personnel mention being required to conduct abortions as part of training. How is it also that the federal government funnels money to organizations such as Planned Parenthood who may practice "budget" reallocations to support clincial abortions. Don't both of these practices whether at the research or university levels or on the nonprofit level violate existing federal law? To not be in violation wouldn't 100% of their monies have to come from the private sector alone?
#4) LONG-TERM TRAUMA DAMAGE DUE TO SEXUAL INFORMATION AND MISINFORMATION CAUSED BY SEX EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS -
The priest sex scandals point out that sexual damage in childhood can have long-term consequences. Sadly the number of children traumatized under our public school system's sex education program far outstrips the harm done by the relatively few priests involved in scandals. These children and their families also deserve to be defended from evil...and not just by "opt-out" forms which lack means of enforcement by parents. Legal recourse can be taken for past harm and parents must simply take back with the government is seeking to strip away ---- namely parental rights.
#5) CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH WERE DEFINED AS WEAPONS USING CHEMICALS TO KILL HUMAN BEINGS WERE OUTLAWED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AFTER WORLD WAR I
-
THEN WHY ARE VARIOUS METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL WHICH SIMILARLY USE CHEMICALS TO KILL HUMAN LIFE OR TO MAKE AN ENVIRONMENT (THE WOMB) INHOSPITABLE TO HUMAN LIFE NOT ALSO BANNED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?
AREN"T THEY ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER EXISTING LAW? Their ill effects are direct - the killing of a human; the pollution of an environment (the womb and the woman's body); and the indirect effects of an increase in sex outside of marriage, adultery, and abortion. These are all the fruits of "BIRTH CONTROL" which is not control but really "WAYS OF TRANSFORMING BIRTH INTO DEATH.
7.19.2010 | 12:34pm
cricket says:
Prochoicers are always classifying the most complex, beautiful, intricate, autonomously developing and self-directed creatures in existence as "lumps" ...
You want a lump? Take my brother in law.
You want a lump? Take my brother in law.
7.19.2010 | 12:46pm
MeToo says:
Hmmm... why didn't David try to abort the baby, instead of having the husband appear to get killed in battle?
Hmmm...why didn't they "perform a procedure" on Benjamin, and allow Rachel to live?
In both of these: the baby is recognized as being on its way, and for the adult who encounters life-threatening events, it is acknowledged that life will take its turns as it will, and we each will eventually die somehow - but surely not because our mother finds us inconvenient.
throughout the OT, children are always, and often, spoken of as a blessing.
it takes a lot of twisting to transform the Ecclesiastes' statement (11:5) that no one knows when life begins in the womb, or what the weather will be - to be a defense of abortion.
Hmmm...why didn't they "perform a procedure" on Benjamin, and allow Rachel to live?
In both of these: the baby is recognized as being on its way, and for the adult who encounters life-threatening events, it is acknowledged that life will take its turns as it will, and we each will eventually die somehow - but surely not because our mother finds us inconvenient.
throughout the OT, children are always, and often, spoken of as a blessing.
it takes a lot of twisting to transform the Ecclesiastes' statement (11:5) that no one knows when life begins in the womb, or what the weather will be - to be a defense of abortion.
7.19.2010 | 1:20pm
brettongarcia says:
Cricket:
Sorry about your brother-in-law.
Chris Brune:
Your position - that the Church allows us to vote even for Pro Choice candidates; vote Democratic - is the correct one.
Your position was confirmed by the Pope's memo, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," 2004 (Card. Ratzinger; Benedict XVI).
The major point of at least two major cardinals - Cardinals Ratzinger and McCarrick - was that there are "proportionate"ly more important sins, issues, than the "one issue" of abortion. Therefore, when voting, we can vote for a pro-abortion candidate; if we feel that his stand on other issues is more important.
This is what the Church REALLY said. But Pro Life Catholics ignore their own 1) BIbles (Ps. 139), 2) saints (Aquinas), 3) cardinals, like Ratzinger and 4) McCarrick; and 5) they ignore and disobey the Pope.
All of which proving that Pro Lifers are actually, not really good Catholics at all. Rather they are simply, a new kind of hypocrite, a new kind of heretic.
Sorry about your brother-in-law.
Chris Brune:
Your position - that the Church allows us to vote even for Pro Choice candidates; vote Democratic - is the correct one.
Your position was confirmed by the Pope's memo, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," 2004 (Card. Ratzinger; Benedict XVI).
The major point of at least two major cardinals - Cardinals Ratzinger and McCarrick - was that there are "proportionate"ly more important sins, issues, than the "one issue" of abortion. Therefore, when voting, we can vote for a pro-abortion candidate; if we feel that his stand on other issues is more important.
This is what the Church REALLY said. But Pro Life Catholics ignore their own 1) BIbles (Ps. 139), 2) saints (Aquinas), 3) cardinals, like Ratzinger and 4) McCarrick; and 5) they ignore and disobey the Pope.
All of which proving that Pro Lifers are actually, not really good Catholics at all. Rather they are simply, a new kind of hypocrite, a new kind of heretic.
7.19.2010 | 1:43pm
jkruofa says:
Since abortion was started as a form of "reverse eugenics", I don't know how any person can think it is ok, unless of course, one is determined to develop a master-race and get rid of what one would consider, a race of people unequal to oneself.
7.19.2010 | 1:57pm
hportiers says:
It is easiest, in the work-a-day rush, to bypass the myriad questions begged by the jaundiced commentary of brettongarcia. But he needs prayers above all.
7.19.2010 | 2:07pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
You continue to ignore Aquinas’ actual position on the sinfulness of abortion.
"And that 2) a certain leniancy regarding abortion was made, before that moment. While 3) ultimately, these quotes do not say that the embryo is fully a human being. 4) Nor do they even firmly say above, at least, when our life as a full human being, with a soul, begins; and from which point it should be protected."
Aquinas did hold a theory of delayed animation. But the same saint held that NO direct abortion was morally licit, that ALL abortions were a grave sin (peccatum grave); among evil deeds (inter maleficia), and against nature (contra naturam); see his ''Commentary on Sentences,'' Bk. 4, dist. 1, art. 3, exposition of text. Medieval grades of animation could allow different and increasing grades of penalty (canonical and civil), but the grave immorality of all abortions was the same in every case.
Allowing that there may be some indeterminacy in best current accounts of when exactly a new human being begins to exist, the Church nevertheless teaches that this should be deemed to occur at conception. The point is stated clearly in 1974’s Declaration on Procured Abortion, in a later declaration of the Sacred Congregation, Donum Vitae , and every other Church document of the last century and a half that has addressed abortion.
"One source cited by the Catechism, is "Didache," by the way. Which was said to be quite ancient but which was curiously, only discovered in 1875; conventiently for the then-current pope."
The Didache was cited by Eusebius, Athanasius, Rufinus, and John Damascus. Thus, your implication of dishonesty on the part of the Church falls flat.
The assertion that to obtain an abortion is a great evil is also found in The Letter of Barnabas, Athenagoras in his “A Plea for the Christians”, multiple times by Tertullian, and also by Minucius Felix, Hippolytus, Lactantius, the Council of Ancyra, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and the Apostolic Constitutions. Good luck trying to imply that the Church manufactured those writings in the 19th century as well.
"So the Pro Life position is not only against 1) the Bible; Ps. 139…2) the core Catholic Tradition that tells us to revere saints. For that matter is also 3) against the canon law of 1917, that made Aquinas the chief theologian of the seminaries (Code of Canon Law, 1917, sec. 589 & 1366)."
You do realize that Psalm 139 is rather consistently cited by the Church in stating the evil of abortion, right? You do also realize, I’m sure, that not a single reference can be found where Thomas Aquinas cites Psalm 139 as approving abortion, right?
If you have a source where Thomas cites Psalm 139, please share it with the rest of the world. Or do you just link your interpretation of the Psalm 139 with Aquinas’ opinion on ensoulment, which has been been rather universally conceded as being based on a faulty understanding of human conception?
"2) the core Catholic Tradition that tells us to revere saints. For that matter is also 3) against the canon law of 1917, that made Aquinas the chief theologian of the seminaries (Code of Canon Law, 1917, sec. 589 & 1366)."
Revere a saint and recognize him as "chief theologian of the seminaries" most certainly does not entail viewing him as the final authority as to the interpretation of any passage of Scripture, nor viewing everything he wrote as infallible. St. Thomas himself wrote “"We must abide rather by the Pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be in the divine Scriptures." (Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibetum IX, Q.8, Quaest Quodlibetales)
It’s really baffling that you cannot grasp this.
"Ultimately, surprisingly, REAL Science mostly confirmed Aquinas. Thus science and religion come together on a consensus position; one allowing abortion."
I'll leave your bloviations about "Real" science for others to pick over. Your continued misstating of Aquinas’ actual position on the sinfulness of abortion - that it is always a grave sin - is enough of a travesty in itself.
GR
You continue to ignore Aquinas’ actual position on the sinfulness of abortion.
"And that 2) a certain leniancy regarding abortion was made, before that moment. While 3) ultimately, these quotes do not say that the embryo is fully a human being. 4) Nor do they even firmly say above, at least, when our life as a full human being, with a soul, begins; and from which point it should be protected."
Aquinas did hold a theory of delayed animation. But the same saint held that NO direct abortion was morally licit, that ALL abortions were a grave sin (peccatum grave); among evil deeds (inter maleficia), and against nature (contra naturam); see his ''Commentary on Sentences,'' Bk. 4, dist. 1, art. 3, exposition of text. Medieval grades of animation could allow different and increasing grades of penalty (canonical and civil), but the grave immorality of all abortions was the same in every case.
Allowing that there may be some indeterminacy in best current accounts of when exactly a new human being begins to exist, the Church nevertheless teaches that this should be deemed to occur at conception. The point is stated clearly in 1974’s Declaration on Procured Abortion, in a later declaration of the Sacred Congregation, Donum Vitae , and every other Church document of the last century and a half that has addressed abortion.
"One source cited by the Catechism, is "Didache," by the way. Which was said to be quite ancient but which was curiously, only discovered in 1875; conventiently for the then-current pope."
The Didache was cited by Eusebius, Athanasius, Rufinus, and John Damascus. Thus, your implication of dishonesty on the part of the Church falls flat.
The assertion that to obtain an abortion is a great evil is also found in The Letter of Barnabas, Athenagoras in his “A Plea for the Christians”, multiple times by Tertullian, and also by Minucius Felix, Hippolytus, Lactantius, the Council of Ancyra, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and the Apostolic Constitutions. Good luck trying to imply that the Church manufactured those writings in the 19th century as well.
"So the Pro Life position is not only against 1) the Bible; Ps. 139…2) the core Catholic Tradition that tells us to revere saints. For that matter is also 3) against the canon law of 1917, that made Aquinas the chief theologian of the seminaries (Code of Canon Law, 1917, sec. 589 & 1366)."
You do realize that Psalm 139 is rather consistently cited by the Church in stating the evil of abortion, right? You do also realize, I’m sure, that not a single reference can be found where Thomas Aquinas cites Psalm 139 as approving abortion, right?
If you have a source where Thomas cites Psalm 139, please share it with the rest of the world. Or do you just link your interpretation of the Psalm 139 with Aquinas’ opinion on ensoulment, which has been been rather universally conceded as being based on a faulty understanding of human conception?
"2) the core Catholic Tradition that tells us to revere saints. For that matter is also 3) against the canon law of 1917, that made Aquinas the chief theologian of the seminaries (Code of Canon Law, 1917, sec. 589 & 1366)."
Revere a saint and recognize him as "chief theologian of the seminaries" most certainly does not entail viewing him as the final authority as to the interpretation of any passage of Scripture, nor viewing everything he wrote as infallible. St. Thomas himself wrote “"We must abide rather by the Pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be in the divine Scriptures." (Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibetum IX, Q.8, Quaest Quodlibetales)
It’s really baffling that you cannot grasp this.
"Ultimately, surprisingly, REAL Science mostly confirmed Aquinas. Thus science and religion come together on a consensus position; one allowing abortion."
I'll leave your bloviations about "Real" science for others to pick over. Your continued misstating of Aquinas’ actual position on the sinfulness of abortion - that it is always a grave sin - is enough of a travesty in itself.
GR
7.19.2010 | 2:08pm
Billy Bean says:
Question for Brettongarcia: Are you a Catholic? It seems you must think you are, for you consider yourself qualified to define Church teaching on moral and doctrinal matters -- much like the Pope himself. Yet, you also seem enamored with the Protestant "supremacy of personal conscience over all" position. So I am confused. I would have thought Catholics should explain their own Church's teachings. But if you are Catholic, then that might help explain your audacity -- but then it still leaves you to explain your ignorance (best case scenario) or duplicity.
7.19.2010 | 2:27pm
Billy Bean says:
Jeannine: I once wrote a "letter to the editor" of our local newspaper in which I noted the odd juxtaposition of an article that claimed ignorance about when human life begins, while on the same page another article decried the plight of the bald eagle and reminded us that it is illegal to harm an eagle's egg. We know when "eagle life" begins, and protect it by law, but we cannot seem to figure out when human life commences. Among the indignant and abusive replies I received was one which denied my ability to comment on the matter of abortion, because I am a man. Thank you for vindicating my argument.
7.19.2010 | 2:45pm
Tim says:
I love it when liberal dissenters like brettongarcia, or Nancy Pelosi a while back, protest so loudly "We must listen to the teaching of Thomas Aquinas!!!" to defend their justification of murder of the innocents. Such sudden respect for an orthodox theologian! Funny how their adherence to his authority only seems to come up with this one particular issue...
It kind of reminds me of that one time: there was a group of people who wanted to have an innocent person murdered. So they all went to the occupying military power, which they loathed, and begged them to do the murder for them.
The local representative of that occupying power, a spineless bureaucrat, noticed the oddity of this newfound respect. He thought: Wait a minute - don't all of you completely reject our authority? Haven't you always protested against us from the minute we got here? Why the sudden change of heart?
Which only made them protest all the more loudly:
"We have no king but Ceasar!"
It kind of reminds me of that one time: there was a group of people who wanted to have an innocent person murdered. So they all went to the occupying military power, which they loathed, and begged them to do the murder for them.
The local representative of that occupying power, a spineless bureaucrat, noticed the oddity of this newfound respect. He thought: Wait a minute - don't all of you completely reject our authority? Haven't you always protested against us from the minute we got here? Why the sudden change of heart?
Which only made them protest all the more loudly:
"We have no king but Ceasar!"
7.19.2010 | 2:47pm
Richard says:
In 2004 Archbishop Chaput took a hard line on Catholics voting for Kerry. He was basically against it and suggested it would be morally wrong. And leaflets were distributed at Catholic churches on Sunday purporting to be a "voter guide" which was tantamount to calling Fox News news. Then Chaput had to back off of his hard line attitude in 2008.
When you read the Archdiocese's web page the headlines are often about "how to understand...." something, or "showing the way forward." Not all pro life people are hypocrites because I know many pro life decent people. Instead, they are mostly very naive or emotionally needy folks that have to cling to some form of truth. But the complete imbalance in the moral universe of abortion as compared to so many evils speaks volumes about the basic nature of this current debate. There have been some good historical points on this issue in this thread about even the Church's position in the past. And it continues to amaze how some can revise their arguments to fit any new information. In truth, most strident anti-abortion people are simply being led around by the nose ring by the bishops. Hmmmm, wonder if that has ever happened in the past?
When you read the Archdiocese's web page the headlines are often about "how to understand...." something, or "showing the way forward." Not all pro life people are hypocrites because I know many pro life decent people. Instead, they are mostly very naive or emotionally needy folks that have to cling to some form of truth. But the complete imbalance in the moral universe of abortion as compared to so many evils speaks volumes about the basic nature of this current debate. There have been some good historical points on this issue in this thread about even the Church's position in the past. And it continues to amaze how some can revise their arguments to fit any new information. In truth, most strident anti-abortion people are simply being led around by the nose ring by the bishops. Hmmmm, wonder if that has ever happened in the past?
7.19.2010 | 3:57pm
Richard (Prior) says:
Pope Benedict XVI:
Children truly are the family's greatest treasure and most precious good. Consequently, everyone must be helped to become aware of the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion. In attacking human life in its very first stages, it is also an aggression against society itself. Politicians and legislators, therefore, as servants of the common good, are duty bound to defend the fundamental right to life, the fruit of God's love.4
As far as the right to life is concerned, we must denounce its widespread violation in our society.... Abortion and embryonic experimentation constitute a direct denial of that attitude of acceptance of others which is indispensable for establishing lasting relationships of peace.5
[E]ven in the most difficult circumstances human freedom is capable of extraordinary acts of sacrifice and solidarity to welcome the life of a new human being.6
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Among important issues involving the dignity of human life with which the Church is concerned, abortion necessarily plays a central role. Abortion, the direct killing of an innocent human being, is always gravely immoral (The Gospel of Life, no. 57); its victims are the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human family. It is imperative that those who are called to serve the least among us give urgent attention and priority to this issue of justice.7
While at times human law may not fully articulate the moral imperative – full protection for the right to life – our legal system can and must be continually reformed so that it will increasingly fulfill its proper task of protecting the weak and preserving the right to life of every human being, born and unborn.8
Cited from: http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/popebquotes2008.shtml
Best,
Richard (The Pro Life One)
Children truly are the family's greatest treasure and most precious good. Consequently, everyone must be helped to become aware of the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion. In attacking human life in its very first stages, it is also an aggression against society itself. Politicians and legislators, therefore, as servants of the common good, are duty bound to defend the fundamental right to life, the fruit of God's love.4
As far as the right to life is concerned, we must denounce its widespread violation in our society.... Abortion and embryonic experimentation constitute a direct denial of that attitude of acceptance of others which is indispensable for establishing lasting relationships of peace.5
[E]ven in the most difficult circumstances human freedom is capable of extraordinary acts of sacrifice and solidarity to welcome the life of a new human being.6
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Among important issues involving the dignity of human life with which the Church is concerned, abortion necessarily plays a central role. Abortion, the direct killing of an innocent human being, is always gravely immoral (The Gospel of Life, no. 57); its victims are the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human family. It is imperative that those who are called to serve the least among us give urgent attention and priority to this issue of justice.7
While at times human law may not fully articulate the moral imperative – full protection for the right to life – our legal system can and must be continually reformed so that it will increasingly fulfill its proper task of protecting the weak and preserving the right to life of every human being, born and unborn.8
Cited from: http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/popebquotes2008.shtml
Best,
Richard (The Pro Life One)
7.19.2010 | 3:59pm
Billy Bean says:
Richard: "Not all pro life people are hypocrites." Well, that's mighty tolerant of you! Everyone knows that hypocrisy is the worst of all possible sins, so thank you for the -- er -- compliment, I guess. And now, since we are in fact so naive and emotionally needy, we should be content to withdraw from the public square and sit at the back of the public policy bus. Thank you, thank you, Massa Richard!
7.19.2010 | 4:29pm
brettongarcia says:
Pro Choicers; I'll allow your own words to condemn you:
"Allowing that there may be some indeterminacy in best current accounts of when exactly a new human being begins to exist, the Church nevertheless teaches that this should be deemed to occur at conception." In other words, though it knew better, the Church incorrectly put its foot down. All too arbitrarily.
What were the elements of "indeterminacy" that Church dogmatists might have looked at more closely? Among others, the Didache. The Didache WAS referred to in ancient texts; but a complete copy was not "discovered" until the 1870's. At the very moment when it was most convenient to Victorian moralists. By remarkable coincidence? In any case, I have read the entire Didache; there is not much in it indeed ... except the simplist summary of teh Bible, made simple; and to be sure an odd prohibition on abortion.
Note by teh way, that I acknowledge that the Church - if not the Bible - often opposed abortion SOMEWHAT. My position though, is that it never (until recent heresies?) firmly declared the embryo tobe a full human being; nor declared abortion to be killing a human being therefore. So that though the Church opposed abortion, it never meant to make it the major issue, that it is increasingly today, for millions of Catholics. Particularly, it was never supposed to be the "one issue," as Cardinal McCarrick and former USCCB head noted in 2007, that should determine our votes in elections.
Rumplestiltskin: I'm not presently sure where Aquinas explicitly cites Ps. 139;though his emphasis on the embryo not being completely "formed" - the word he used - exactly reflected the language, the same key words there in that Psalm. His reference to "form"ed always struck me as being obviously a reference to that word, in that psalm. Especially since the embryo is talked about more in that passage, than probably any other part of the Bible. Clearly, A. meant to invoke that concept. Why don't you get it, Rumplestiltskin? It's obvious enough.
Today, as foretold of the End, it seems there are many dishonest, hypocritical people in the Church; the Church often tells us to follow the saints - but then, when that is inconvenient, it reads to us the fine print ,that seems to give higher authority to whatever the Pope says. This is not admirable; but then how much should we admire a Church where the priests were molesting little boys; and all the bishops lied to cover it up? But if you insist on following these fearless leaders to the letter: by the way, at that, the Church itself said, that the Pope is not absolutely certain, "infallible," except when speaking in very restricted and unusual circumstances, "Ex Cathedra."
But finally, if you want to follow the curent Pope? Then so be it: the current Pope says that voting for pro-abortion candidates "can be permitted." ("Worthiness," 2004 memo). I've said this a dozen times, Rumple; why don't you get it?
Right! The current Catechism seems to suggest - at times - that Ps. 139 would imply that the embryo is human from conception; but the Catechism also entertained other, alternative notions and uncertainties, above, regarding the time of ensoulment, as you yourself just noted. While my reading would suggest those alternative understandings should be taken as more definitive; as Aquinas took them. It is for this reason, that I read his remarks on Abortion, in the Sentences?, as being more on the "LENIENT" and "INDETERMINATE" side your own quotes alluded to.
I 1) myself do not usually suggest that the saints, or Aquinas, or the Pope, are perfect; but those of you - who as Catholics often DID - are now being hypocritical. When you now put them down, or ignore them.
But for that matter, 2) in this case, I DO happen to support the saints like Aquinas, and the Pope; more than you do. And I find them to be fairly right, often, on this subject of abortion.
In this case, it would be better if our "conservative" Catholics were not so hypocritical, and actually followed the authorities they claim to follow.
As rightly noted here, radical, right-wing, First Thing/National Review "conservatives" like Chaput, have often been found to be inconsistent with REAL Church tradition and higher authority; and have had to back off their hard line on abortion and other issues. And in fact, so did Archbishop Burke. Who had been about to speak in a church in England, in 2009/10 - but was prevented by higher Catholic authorities, from doing so; in part because of HIS hard line on abortion. Which higher Catholic authorites, note, found excessive, and wrong.
Other abortion hard liners - like Karl Keating of EWTN/RN, "Catholic Answers," also ran afowl of REAL Catholic authorities.
Rumplestiltskin: I just don't understand why you didn't notice any of this. Why don't you follow the saints? The Cardinals? The Pope? Why don't you notice or take seriously, the Bible? Are you a Catholic, Rumple?
"Allowing that there may be some indeterminacy in best current accounts of when exactly a new human being begins to exist, the Church nevertheless teaches that this should be deemed to occur at conception." In other words, though it knew better, the Church incorrectly put its foot down. All too arbitrarily.
What were the elements of "indeterminacy" that Church dogmatists might have looked at more closely? Among others, the Didache. The Didache WAS referred to in ancient texts; but a complete copy was not "discovered" until the 1870's. At the very moment when it was most convenient to Victorian moralists. By remarkable coincidence? In any case, I have read the entire Didache; there is not much in it indeed ... except the simplist summary of teh Bible, made simple; and to be sure an odd prohibition on abortion.
Note by teh way, that I acknowledge that the Church - if not the Bible - often opposed abortion SOMEWHAT. My position though, is that it never (until recent heresies?) firmly declared the embryo tobe a full human being; nor declared abortion to be killing a human being therefore. So that though the Church opposed abortion, it never meant to make it the major issue, that it is increasingly today, for millions of Catholics. Particularly, it was never supposed to be the "one issue," as Cardinal McCarrick and former USCCB head noted in 2007, that should determine our votes in elections.
Rumplestiltskin: I'm not presently sure where Aquinas explicitly cites Ps. 139;though his emphasis on the embryo not being completely "formed" - the word he used - exactly reflected the language, the same key words there in that Psalm. His reference to "form"ed always struck me as being obviously a reference to that word, in that psalm. Especially since the embryo is talked about more in that passage, than probably any other part of the Bible. Clearly, A. meant to invoke that concept. Why don't you get it, Rumplestiltskin? It's obvious enough.
Today, as foretold of the End, it seems there are many dishonest, hypocritical people in the Church; the Church often tells us to follow the saints - but then, when that is inconvenient, it reads to us the fine print ,that seems to give higher authority to whatever the Pope says. This is not admirable; but then how much should we admire a Church where the priests were molesting little boys; and all the bishops lied to cover it up? But if you insist on following these fearless leaders to the letter: by the way, at that, the Church itself said, that the Pope is not absolutely certain, "infallible," except when speaking in very restricted and unusual circumstances, "Ex Cathedra."
But finally, if you want to follow the curent Pope? Then so be it: the current Pope says that voting for pro-abortion candidates "can be permitted." ("Worthiness," 2004 memo). I've said this a dozen times, Rumple; why don't you get it?
Right! The current Catechism seems to suggest - at times - that Ps. 139 would imply that the embryo is human from conception; but the Catechism also entertained other, alternative notions and uncertainties, above, regarding the time of ensoulment, as you yourself just noted. While my reading would suggest those alternative understandings should be taken as more definitive; as Aquinas took them. It is for this reason, that I read his remarks on Abortion, in the Sentences?, as being more on the "LENIENT" and "INDETERMINATE" side your own quotes alluded to.
I 1) myself do not usually suggest that the saints, or Aquinas, or the Pope, are perfect; but those of you - who as Catholics often DID - are now being hypocritical. When you now put them down, or ignore them.
But for that matter, 2) in this case, I DO happen to support the saints like Aquinas, and the Pope; more than you do. And I find them to be fairly right, often, on this subject of abortion.
In this case, it would be better if our "conservative" Catholics were not so hypocritical, and actually followed the authorities they claim to follow.
As rightly noted here, radical, right-wing, First Thing/National Review "conservatives" like Chaput, have often been found to be inconsistent with REAL Church tradition and higher authority; and have had to back off their hard line on abortion and other issues. And in fact, so did Archbishop Burke. Who had been about to speak in a church in England, in 2009/10 - but was prevented by higher Catholic authorities, from doing so; in part because of HIS hard line on abortion. Which higher Catholic authorites, note, found excessive, and wrong.
Other abortion hard liners - like Karl Keating of EWTN/RN, "Catholic Answers," also ran afowl of REAL Catholic authorities.
Rumplestiltskin: I just don't understand why you didn't notice any of this. Why don't you follow the saints? The Cardinals? The Pope? Why don't you notice or take seriously, the Bible? Are you a Catholic, Rumple?
7.19.2010 | 5:27pm
Pastor Bob says:
First, I am a Protestant so while I read Aquinas with interest and look for some guidance from him I don't have to believe he is the be all and end all of theology. And I thought Roman Catholics had given that up too. I hope we don't have to slavishly follow his idea (borrowed from Aristotle) that a baby comes entirely from the seed of the man and the woman is just a fertile field.
Second, one of the things the Church borrowed from Greek philosophy is that a person is a body with a mind and a spirit that can somehow be separated from the body. This is not what Hebrew thought says. The Hebrews believed that God created humans as unitive beings. You cannot separate the mind or spirit from body in Hebrew thought. I would suggest that the Church made a bad deal in borrowing this idea of humans as made up of three parts and should give it back to the Greeks.
Third, where did anyone get the idea that we Protestants (and we Calvinists in particular) are more rational that Roman Catholics and particularly more so than Hispanics and Italians? What a curious piece of prejudice against Hispanics, Italians AND Protestants! My Scottish/Protestant ancestors would rise up in anger! Before making such an assertion again I suggest people read the diaries of the Puritans who, while seeking salvation, believed that one had to go though a major spiritual/emotional crisis convinced that they were the object of the anger of God and were going to hell before they could accept the grace of God. Or check the outflow of emotions at a Scottish Presbyterian Communion season. Rational and emotionless indeed! You should read the sermons preached in Protestant pulpits against Roman Catholics if you want to see an outpouring of emotion. We protestants are NOT emotionless rational beings, thank God!
Fourth, as others have pointed out, the early Church Fathers never had any problem finding the Didache. I didn't know it had gone into hiding for a later pope to find it.
In any case, the Church when at its best (and too often we are not) follows the commands of the Torah and the prophets that tell us that we must protect the widow, the orphan and the fatherless. Somewhere in there the unborn need protection too.
Second, one of the things the Church borrowed from Greek philosophy is that a person is a body with a mind and a spirit that can somehow be separated from the body. This is not what Hebrew thought says. The Hebrews believed that God created humans as unitive beings. You cannot separate the mind or spirit from body in Hebrew thought. I would suggest that the Church made a bad deal in borrowing this idea of humans as made up of three parts and should give it back to the Greeks.
Third, where did anyone get the idea that we Protestants (and we Calvinists in particular) are more rational that Roman Catholics and particularly more so than Hispanics and Italians? What a curious piece of prejudice against Hispanics, Italians AND Protestants! My Scottish/Protestant ancestors would rise up in anger! Before making such an assertion again I suggest people read the diaries of the Puritans who, while seeking salvation, believed that one had to go though a major spiritual/emotional crisis convinced that they were the object of the anger of God and were going to hell before they could accept the grace of God. Or check the outflow of emotions at a Scottish Presbyterian Communion season. Rational and emotionless indeed! You should read the sermons preached in Protestant pulpits against Roman Catholics if you want to see an outpouring of emotion. We protestants are NOT emotionless rational beings, thank God!
Fourth, as others have pointed out, the early Church Fathers never had any problem finding the Didache. I didn't know it had gone into hiding for a later pope to find it.
In any case, the Church when at its best (and too often we are not) follows the commands of the Torah and the prophets that tell us that we must protect the widow, the orphan and the fatherless. Somewhere in there the unborn need protection too.
7.19.2010 | 5:35pm
IXLR8 says:
From Mother Theresa:
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?
By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching itspeople to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today — abortion which brings people to such blindness.
From John Paul II:
If it is not human in the womb, when does it become human?"
From Cardinal Egan, addressed to self-excommunicated Catholic Nancy Pelosi:
"We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?
By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching itspeople to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today — abortion which brings people to such blindness.
From John Paul II:
If it is not human in the womb, when does it become human?"
From Cardinal Egan, addressed to self-excommunicated Catholic Nancy Pelosi:
"We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.
7.19.2010 | 6:23pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
"His reference to "form"ed always struck me as being obviously a reference to that word, in that psalm. Especially since the embryo is talked about more in that passage, than probably any other part of the Bible. Clearly, A. meant to invoke that concept. Why don't you get it, Rumplestiltskin? It's obvious enough."
Obvious only to you, completely missed by every other Aquinas scholar who ever lived, and contradicted by the authority of the very Church you claim to speak for. Your invoking of Aquinas to justify abortion, while ignoring the fact that he wrote and taught that abortion is always a grave evil, is nothing less than dishonest.
"While my reading would suggest those alternative understandings should be taken as more definitive; as Aquinas took them."
Again, you ignore the development of the teaching over the last 800 years. Add "Development of Doctrine" to the list of concepts you clearly have no clue about.
"myself do not usually suggest that the saints, or Aquinas, or the Pope, are perfect; but those of you - who as Catholics often DID - are now being hypocritical."
Only according to you.
"When you now put them down, or ignore them. "
Asserting that Aquinas was working with a faulty view of human conception - as he did not possess the knowledge of embryology that would come to later theologians - amounts to "putting him down" only in your imagination.
"But for that matter, 2) in this case, I DO happen to support the saints like Aquinas, and the Pope; more than you do. And I find them to be fairly right, often, on this subject of abortion."
Both the Pope and Aquinas believe and have taught that abortion is a grave evil. The Pope saying that voting for a pro-choice candidate may be permitted if "proportional reasons" to do so exist does not remotely amount to a command to vote for a pro-choice candidate.....except in your imagination.
"First Thing/National Review "conservatives" like Chaput, have often been found to be inconsistent with REAL Church tradition and higher authority. "
Only as misstated by you.
"Rumplestiltskin: I just don't understand why you didn't notice any of this. Why don't you follow the saints? The Cardinals? The Pope? Why don't you notice or take seriously, the Bible? Are you a Catholic, Rumple?"
I find it amazing that you choose to taunt me, as you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are so fundamentally misinformed on every topic you have addressed on this site that it is stupefying that one can be so ignorant and yet so eager to flaunt that ignorance. But then again, that is the mark of a fool. You are what you are.
GR
"His reference to "form"ed always struck me as being obviously a reference to that word, in that psalm. Especially since the embryo is talked about more in that passage, than probably any other part of the Bible. Clearly, A. meant to invoke that concept. Why don't you get it, Rumplestiltskin? It's obvious enough."
Obvious only to you, completely missed by every other Aquinas scholar who ever lived, and contradicted by the authority of the very Church you claim to speak for. Your invoking of Aquinas to justify abortion, while ignoring the fact that he wrote and taught that abortion is always a grave evil, is nothing less than dishonest.
"While my reading would suggest those alternative understandings should be taken as more definitive; as Aquinas took them."
Again, you ignore the development of the teaching over the last 800 years. Add "Development of Doctrine" to the list of concepts you clearly have no clue about.
"myself do not usually suggest that the saints, or Aquinas, or the Pope, are perfect; but those of you - who as Catholics often DID - are now being hypocritical."
Only according to you.
"When you now put them down, or ignore them. "
Asserting that Aquinas was working with a faulty view of human conception - as he did not possess the knowledge of embryology that would come to later theologians - amounts to "putting him down" only in your imagination.
"But for that matter, 2) in this case, I DO happen to support the saints like Aquinas, and the Pope; more than you do. And I find them to be fairly right, often, on this subject of abortion."
Both the Pope and Aquinas believe and have taught that abortion is a grave evil. The Pope saying that voting for a pro-choice candidate may be permitted if "proportional reasons" to do so exist does not remotely amount to a command to vote for a pro-choice candidate.....except in your imagination.
"First Thing/National Review "conservatives" like Chaput, have often been found to be inconsistent with REAL Church tradition and higher authority. "
Only as misstated by you.
"Rumplestiltskin: I just don't understand why you didn't notice any of this. Why don't you follow the saints? The Cardinals? The Pope? Why don't you notice or take seriously, the Bible? Are you a Catholic, Rumple?"
I find it amazing that you choose to taunt me, as you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are so fundamentally misinformed on every topic you have addressed on this site that it is stupefying that one can be so ignorant and yet so eager to flaunt that ignorance. But then again, that is the mark of a fool. You are what you are.
GR
7.19.2010 | 6:39pm
Artemis3 says:
The whole thread of commentary regarding when it is permissible to vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion is off the topic, which is, I think, that people have an innate sense (perhaps the natural law implanted in the hearts of all created in God's image) that abortion is wrong and shameful. Nevertheless,l et's consider when voting for such a candidate might be permissible. If the two candidates in 2008 had been Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama, both of whom called themselves "pro-choice" but one of whom promised to nominate candidates to the Supreme Court who would represent the anti-abortion views of most of his party, it would have been permissible to vote for the one who would do the most to limit and perhaps even to abolish legalized abortion. If both candidates in a theoretical election were pro-choice but one supported significant restrictions on abortion while the other opposed them, it would be permissible to vote for the one who supported restrictions. If one candidate opposed abortion because he wanted to produce a master race, but promised to weed out any children that did not meet his criteria after three years of observation, while the other candidate accepted abortions only to safe the life of the mother, it might be morally acceptable to vote for the second candidate. Cardinal Ratzinger simply re-articulated the truth stated by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, that, when outlawing abortion is impossible, one must accept any measures to restrict its use and limit its availability. The implication that Ratzinger supports or ever supported legalized abortion is not supported by his career or any of his writings or statements.
7.19.2010 | 6:47pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
The empirical, scientific evidence, is simply beyond dispute, among educated people, that the unborn are just as human as you or me, except very small, and dependent, in a radical way, on other humans.
Now, why do people still accept the killing of the unborn? Clearly, since the facts are overwhelming of the fetus's humanity, one would expect all informed people to reject, completely abortion. I think the answer is the Will. The intellect, as Aquinas stated, should "lead'' the will in the right direction. But, the will often has a mind of its own. It wants what it wants.
It would be rather inconvienient to accept the legitimacy of the Pro-life side. It could cause some discomfort. One possible solution, is to make it as easy as possible, for those on the Pro-choice side, to make the tranition to the Pro-life side.
One of the best ways of doing this, is to not make the Pro-choice people feel like they're immoral.
Psychologically, people resist, if they have to accept that, the cause they've supported, (in this case, the pro-choice side), was evil. Because then they'll make the natural extrapolation, that they're evil too, and who wants to believe that? Consequently, they will dig their heels in deeper, to convince themselves that they were right all along, rather than face the disturbing guilt, that they accepted, previously, a frankly, murderous cause.
So we must gently, accept them, pointing out, as St. Paul said, we all look through a glass darkly, and no one can judge anyone else, and God forgives. We all are sinners. give an example, such as Dr. Bernard Nathansen, convert to Catholicism, former abortionist.
Now, why do people still accept the killing of the unborn? Clearly, since the facts are overwhelming of the fetus's humanity, one would expect all informed people to reject, completely abortion. I think the answer is the Will. The intellect, as Aquinas stated, should "lead'' the will in the right direction. But, the will often has a mind of its own. It wants what it wants.
It would be rather inconvienient to accept the legitimacy of the Pro-life side. It could cause some discomfort. One possible solution, is to make it as easy as possible, for those on the Pro-choice side, to make the tranition to the Pro-life side.
One of the best ways of doing this, is to not make the Pro-choice people feel like they're immoral.
Psychologically, people resist, if they have to accept that, the cause they've supported, (in this case, the pro-choice side), was evil. Because then they'll make the natural extrapolation, that they're evil too, and who wants to believe that? Consequently, they will dig their heels in deeper, to convince themselves that they were right all along, rather than face the disturbing guilt, that they accepted, previously, a frankly, murderous cause.
So we must gently, accept them, pointing out, as St. Paul said, we all look through a glass darkly, and no one can judge anyone else, and God forgives. We all are sinners. give an example, such as Dr. Bernard Nathansen, convert to Catholicism, former abortionist.
7.19.2010 | 6:59pm
pharmer says:
One can only hope that the author's prediction remains accurate (that there is enough human conscience to keep abortion unacceptable ).
Abortion removes much impetus for medical advancement as it is one of the means of eliminating ill health by killing those afflicted.
It is fascinating, in a nauseating sort of way, to see an appeal to reason from those who make baseless claims to know when a human has sufficient value to not be killed by the health care establishment.
Abortion removes much impetus for medical advancement as it is one of the means of eliminating ill health by killing those afflicted.
It is fascinating, in a nauseating sort of way, to see an appeal to reason from those who make baseless claims to know when a human has sufficient value to not be killed by the health care establishment.
7.19.2010 | 9:12pm
Sam. says:
Brettongarcia (sp?) in passing in an earlier spoke of embryos as 'not fully human'. Question: is it not the case that any given embroiled, if allowed to develop for nine months, will become what is easily recognized as a 'baby', and from there mature into a 'thinking individual' with the power of rational thought? Doesn't this mean that the embryo, even though it does not possess the faculty of rational thought, still possess the potential for rationality? Is not this potential for rationality enough to grant it equal status with those who possess reason in actuality?
Coupled with this is the fact that no one can define the moment in development when a human achieves rational thought. From reading Youtube comments alone it seems that many people never achieve it at all, but more seriously, if we are to accept that reason is the sole prereq for personhood, then it becomes morally legitimate to kill infants, the elderly and the handicapped. As not even Brettongarcia is positive as to when embryos attain 'full personhood', it seems safest morally to err on the side of caution and avoid the potential killing of fellow humans.
Also: your rose-tinted glasses have to be pretty much opaque if you truly believe that the teaching Church allows a plurality of opinions on direct abortion.
Coupled with this is the fact that no one can define the moment in development when a human achieves rational thought. From reading Youtube comments alone it seems that many people never achieve it at all, but more seriously, if we are to accept that reason is the sole prereq for personhood, then it becomes morally legitimate to kill infants, the elderly and the handicapped. As not even Brettongarcia is positive as to when embryos attain 'full personhood', it seems safest morally to err on the side of caution and avoid the potential killing of fellow humans.
Also: your rose-tinted glasses have to be pretty much opaque if you truly believe that the teaching Church allows a plurality of opinions on direct abortion.
7.19.2010 | 10:18pm
Sam. says:
*Did I say 'embroiled?' I meant 'embryo'. Excuse me. That's what happens when you let spellcheck be your proofreader.
7.19.2010 | 10:19pm
andrew says:
as a medical student, i once witnessed a baby murdered at 14 weeks. what i saw was unforgettable -- body parts strewn about on the floor of the operating room and inside a plastic bucket, a fragment of a skull with an eye still attached to it, a forearm with a hand and five fingers, pieces of legs, and blood. even the "experienced" ob/gyn attending was disgusted.
i had nightmares for 2 weeks.
abortion is a barbaric abomination. may God forgive me my habitual intellectualizing.... in reference to this demonic and heinous crime, i'm no longer a philosopher; i am a witness.
so let us not merely intellectually masturbate to titillating arguments and historical details. with utmost respect, i did the least i could do in that operating room. i prayed. i gave the little boy a name. his name is "joey."
his blood cries from the ground.
i had nightmares for 2 weeks.
abortion is a barbaric abomination. may God forgive me my habitual intellectualizing.... in reference to this demonic and heinous crime, i'm no longer a philosopher; i am a witness.
so let us not merely intellectually masturbate to titillating arguments and historical details. with utmost respect, i did the least i could do in that operating room. i prayed. i gave the little boy a name. his name is "joey."
his blood cries from the ground.
7.20.2010 | 2:53am
brettongarcia says:
It is manifestly not true that all educated, intelligent persons agree that the embryo is fully a human being; unless you, in a very unChristian way, want to call millions of Pro Choice professors and professional persons, "fools"; even though the Bible instructs you not to call an old man at least, a fool. But here, as usual, right-wing/conservative Catholics, do not really follow the Bible, or God either.
The fact is, all the Pro Life points here, have been addressed and answered elsewhere; haven't you read anything? Or do you only listen to the recommendations of priests who molest little boys? And Bishops who lied to cover that up? THAT is the authority you hold to?
Rumple: Catholic doctrines and the Bible, are always complex; and often contain many different, warring ideas. At times, 1) doctrine seems to be very strongly against abortion; but 2) other times, elements at the very core of the Tradition - Aquinas; the Bible - issue phrases that would allow abortion, as a minor evil.
As Catholic Doctrine "develops," in fact, there are signs within the Tradition, that it could - and should - increasingly, reject rabid anti-abortionism. While I might simply add frankly here, that if elements of Catholic tradtion DO finally fail to do this, then I will simply cease to support the Church, and Catholic tradition, because of differences with it on this and dozens of even larger issues. Though currently, this appears unncecessary; given the stance of the Pope, the Magisterium, etc.. Which at times seems to condemn abortion - but not to the point of saying it is murder; or saying that this "one issue" should determine our lives, our votes.
Aside from the Church, Reason supports allowing abortion. As do cardinals like McCarrick; who said in 2007 that Abortion should not be a major "issue" in voting. In large part, because much research says that the embryo does not have a significantly human conscious mind; and is not a human being.
Is something human, if it has the "Potential" to be human? Consider the matter of an embryo assumed to be "potentially" human. But think of this example: a pile of lumber on the ground, has the potential to be a house. But is this pile of lumber therefore, a house? Clearly not. So: mere potential to be a human being, does not mean that one is a human being; or should be treated as one.
Many Pro Lifers claim that it is not easy to determine if or when an embryo becomes human; and therefore, we should "err on the side of caution," and declare it human. But to err on the side of caution, after all, is still, to "err." And that can be disasterous.
Indeed in fact, focusing too much just on the "one issue" of abortion, as Bishops warned us not to, caused us to neglect other important things, like health care, and avoiding unnecessary wars. Evils that have historically killed HUNREDS OF MILLIONS of indisputably human adults; and that could kill even BILLIONS of people soon enough; even you yourself. Unless we continue to address other issues, beyond the embryo; like trying to create world peace and harmony. It is ignoring issues like this, that makes anti-abortionism extremely narrow, dangerous, and even evil.
Can we really firmly say, that the embryo is not a human being? To discover the exact moment when an embryo becomes a human being, to be sure, has been difficult. But after reviewing hundreds of ideas on this in my book, I finally conclude, for reasons too lengthy and numerous to even summarize there, that THE MOMENT OF NATURAL BIRTH IS THE MOST NATURAL, best, and most historically-recognized moment, when we should say that an embryo has made the transition. And has become a human being.
To date, to be sure, the Church itself has made arguments, on BOTH sides of the issue. Roughly, a balanced, realistic summary of its position, it that the Church seems to say that abortion is bad; but it falls short of saying that killing the embryo is murder; or that abortion should be the "one issue" that should occupy us in elections. Indeed, cardinals like McCarrick explicitly told us that one "issue" Catholicism, is to be rejected.
(Note too, that it is NOT that we should just chose the most anti-abortion candidate, proportionately; rather, the documents firmly indicate other issues entirely should be considered).
To be sure, Church doctrine on this subject, is debating both sides of this issue; support for either position, can find material to quote. But my argument is that finally, the weight of evidence, the most convincing arguments, would finally continue to allow abortion. And to firmly declare - with Cardinal McCarrick and many other bishops, in opposition to Chaput - that abortion should NOT be the "one issue" we are thinking about, when we vote.
So that God is not telling us we have to vote anti-abortion, vote Republican in every election.
But indeed, finally, the Bible itself is accepted by the Church as the word of God; and it should decide problematic cases.
That many do not accept the BIble's testimony here, is a testimony to the degree to which right-wing Republican, "conservative" political thought, has taken over much of Catholicism itself. Even when that thought contradicts, goes against, the Bible itself. Like especially, Psalm 139. Where the Bible itself, clearly speaks in a way that assumes that the embryo in the womb, is not yet a completed human being; but is only a "formless substance," in the process of being "knit." Into what will only one day later, begin its "days," as a human being.
(Rumple: I have been unable to find any passage where Aquinas said abortion is murder. Do you have a reference?)
The fact is, all the Pro Life points here, have been addressed and answered elsewhere; haven't you read anything? Or do you only listen to the recommendations of priests who molest little boys? And Bishops who lied to cover that up? THAT is the authority you hold to?
Rumple: Catholic doctrines and the Bible, are always complex; and often contain many different, warring ideas. At times, 1) doctrine seems to be very strongly against abortion; but 2) other times, elements at the very core of the Tradition - Aquinas; the Bible - issue phrases that would allow abortion, as a minor evil.
As Catholic Doctrine "develops," in fact, there are signs within the Tradition, that it could - and should - increasingly, reject rabid anti-abortionism. While I might simply add frankly here, that if elements of Catholic tradtion DO finally fail to do this, then I will simply cease to support the Church, and Catholic tradition, because of differences with it on this and dozens of even larger issues. Though currently, this appears unncecessary; given the stance of the Pope, the Magisterium, etc.. Which at times seems to condemn abortion - but not to the point of saying it is murder; or saying that this "one issue" should determine our lives, our votes.
Aside from the Church, Reason supports allowing abortion. As do cardinals like McCarrick; who said in 2007 that Abortion should not be a major "issue" in voting. In large part, because much research says that the embryo does not have a significantly human conscious mind; and is not a human being.
Is something human, if it has the "Potential" to be human? Consider the matter of an embryo assumed to be "potentially" human. But think of this example: a pile of lumber on the ground, has the potential to be a house. But is this pile of lumber therefore, a house? Clearly not. So: mere potential to be a human being, does not mean that one is a human being; or should be treated as one.
Many Pro Lifers claim that it is not easy to determine if or when an embryo becomes human; and therefore, we should "err on the side of caution," and declare it human. But to err on the side of caution, after all, is still, to "err." And that can be disasterous.
Indeed in fact, focusing too much just on the "one issue" of abortion, as Bishops warned us not to, caused us to neglect other important things, like health care, and avoiding unnecessary wars. Evils that have historically killed HUNREDS OF MILLIONS of indisputably human adults; and that could kill even BILLIONS of people soon enough; even you yourself. Unless we continue to address other issues, beyond the embryo; like trying to create world peace and harmony. It is ignoring issues like this, that makes anti-abortionism extremely narrow, dangerous, and even evil.
Can we really firmly say, that the embryo is not a human being? To discover the exact moment when an embryo becomes a human being, to be sure, has been difficult. But after reviewing hundreds of ideas on this in my book, I finally conclude, for reasons too lengthy and numerous to even summarize there, that THE MOMENT OF NATURAL BIRTH IS THE MOST NATURAL, best, and most historically-recognized moment, when we should say that an embryo has made the transition. And has become a human being.
To date, to be sure, the Church itself has made arguments, on BOTH sides of the issue. Roughly, a balanced, realistic summary of its position, it that the Church seems to say that abortion is bad; but it falls short of saying that killing the embryo is murder; or that abortion should be the "one issue" that should occupy us in elections. Indeed, cardinals like McCarrick explicitly told us that one "issue" Catholicism, is to be rejected.
(Note too, that it is NOT that we should just chose the most anti-abortion candidate, proportionately; rather, the documents firmly indicate other issues entirely should be considered).
To be sure, Church doctrine on this subject, is debating both sides of this issue; support for either position, can find material to quote. But my argument is that finally, the weight of evidence, the most convincing arguments, would finally continue to allow abortion. And to firmly declare - with Cardinal McCarrick and many other bishops, in opposition to Chaput - that abortion should NOT be the "one issue" we are thinking about, when we vote.
So that God is not telling us we have to vote anti-abortion, vote Republican in every election.
But indeed, finally, the Bible itself is accepted by the Church as the word of God; and it should decide problematic cases.
That many do not accept the BIble's testimony here, is a testimony to the degree to which right-wing Republican, "conservative" political thought, has taken over much of Catholicism itself. Even when that thought contradicts, goes against, the Bible itself. Like especially, Psalm 139. Where the Bible itself, clearly speaks in a way that assumes that the embryo in the womb, is not yet a completed human being; but is only a "formless substance," in the process of being "knit." Into what will only one day later, begin its "days," as a human being.
(Rumple: I have been unable to find any passage where Aquinas said abortion is murder. Do you have a reference?)
7.20.2010 | 3:31am
John Wickey says:
brettongarcia argues for barbarism and rationalizes it as Christianity. Does he also support the killing of oldsters, defectives and other non-productive persons? Reading his comments shakes me. God help us if our western culture accepts fully such a callous perspective toward those not able to take charge of their own lives.
7.20.2010 | 5:07am
NN says:
Oh. My. God. For all the carryon about the heart, I fear poor BrettonGarcia has lost their mind. I'll put money on that BrettonGarcia would have a hard time accepting Jesus' humanity, much less the Incarnation and Trinity.
7.20.2010 | 9:15am
pharmer says:
One of these people who claims to know which humans may, and which may not be killed, says that abortion killing should remain legal and acceptable in order to prevent other killing.
This person is apparently on the loose, walking the streets, and might be teaching your children, or have a high position with a governmental administration.
Some abortion apologists wish to deflect attention from their poor understanding of Biology, by muddying their own propensity for JUDGING THE VALUE of other humans with the data observed in science (thereby soiling the science).
Human is a species. Organisms do not change species during development. An organism takes on human form only because it is human, not the other way around.
No one so far has demonstrated a basis for assuming the moral authority to JUDGE which humans may or may not be willfully killed.
It is reasonable to assume that a person who thinks any such killing is OK, could kill humans at any stage of life. Those people will soon be running the health care system in the United States, as the rest of us leave it to avoid the practice of killing.
This person is apparently on the loose, walking the streets, and might be teaching your children, or have a high position with a governmental administration.
Some abortion apologists wish to deflect attention from their poor understanding of Biology, by muddying their own propensity for JUDGING THE VALUE of other humans with the data observed in science (thereby soiling the science).
Human is a species. Organisms do not change species during development. An organism takes on human form only because it is human, not the other way around.
No one so far has demonstrated a basis for assuming the moral authority to JUDGE which humans may or may not be willfully killed.
It is reasonable to assume that a person who thinks any such killing is OK, could kill humans at any stage of life. Those people will soon be running the health care system in the United States, as the rest of us leave it to avoid the practice of killing.
7.20.2010 | 9:57am
Anonymous says:
BG -If a fully formed intellect is the measure of becoming a human being, well, keep on trying! Someday you too can have a fully formed intellect! Just think! Then you can have an "I've become human" party and invite all your friends!
Valuing human life does not indicate a lack of logical capacities. And any pregnant woman can tell you that a child's (YES, I said child) personality is formed FAR before birth! My oldest used to play games with my husband, IN THE WOMB! If it was once -or even twice, it might be able to be written off as reflex or other involuntary behavior, but nearly every night? He would poke her, and she would find the place that he poked her and kick back. Then he would pick a different spot and she would poke back.
And if that does not convince you, every night when he was coming up the stairs from his 2nd shift job she would hear his footfall outside the door and kick me until I woke up. If it was once or twice, I could chalk it up to an involuntary reflex or something, but it was every night. Not only that, but he came home at a different time every night!
My second child was laid back in the womb, and laid back in life.
My youngest was TICKLISH in the womb, and clearly interacted with the outside world!
As for calling them a lump of DNA is a gross logical problem. Here is why. You can cut a lump of tissue out of a leg, or cut out an organ. Are those lumps of DNA a human being? No, they are only a PART of a human being. Now take the so-called lump of fetal DNA. They seem like the same thing to you, but you have ignored one enormous difference. The difference is that a lump of tissue does not GROW!!! Fetal DNA is a living human being! IT GROWS!
As to the idea that logic is all important, that is gross mistake, and will affect every relationship you have your entire life! The heart IS important! If you observe other people around you you will notice one very important fact: People do not make decisions based upon what they know, but on how they FEEL about what they know! You can give two people the same facts and they react in two different ways. Why? They FEEL differently about the facts that are presented to them. To assume that everyone who does not agree with you on your stance is simply illogical is foolish and obnoxious at best. Who are YOU to say that I am illogical? Only because I do not agree with you? What you fail to recognize is that YOU TOO react to the facts presented based on how you feel and not logic alone! So therefore under your terms of what is considered right (logic only) you also clearly do not qualify!
In one of your comments you said that the only reason doctors and other health professionals do not perform abortions is because they are afraid for their lives from the radical pro-life movement. This is ABSURD! To think that all doctors cannot think for themselves and are ruled completely by fear is insulting to the very doctor that you trust and go to for your medical needs! Do you honestly thing that everyone in the medical profession is basically pro-choice and simply live their lives ducking behind corners? Do you not think that there are doctors who are brave, and principled? What a slap in the face of the medical profession! If I were a medical service provider I would be INSULTED!
You make the assumption that everyone in the medical profession would come to the same conclusion as you -and MUST have, but simply allow their practice to be run by fear. So are you saying that all these pro-life doctors and other medical personnel know less than you about human anatomy? Are you saying that doctors who cringe at aborting babies on one floor of the hospital, while desperately working to save babies of the SAME GESTATION two floors up makes them bad doctors? You seem to think that they cannot be logical.
One last thing. Your interpretation of Psalm 139 is frightening. The idea with that psalm is VALUE! That God created us for a purpose. That He numbered our days! That He had potential in mind for the child being intricately formed. The idea is that the God of the entire universe, and beyond, watched and molded and PAID ATTENTION to the unborn child and took care in creating them. The idea is LOVE! That each and every child is loved -in the womb! This faulty interpretation is a gross stretch, and the Pharisees were warned time and again about how they were obeying the letter of the law but not spirit that the law was intended for. That is what you have done here! You have not found the Bible saying "Thou shalt not commit abortion" and have decided to stretch and twist the clearly pro-life message to make an argument that cannot be supported by scripture and stands on VERY precarious sediment! This is a problem for you too! Can you believe in a God that does not truly love you? You are denying that this passage means what it actually conveys -that God MEANT for YOU to be born! That God valued YOU and your life from the beginning. How sad.
Here is a thought to go on. Babies have shown signs of fingerprints as young as 10 weeks gestation. If they are human enough to be fingerprinted, they are human enough to be human.
Valuing human life does not indicate a lack of logical capacities. And any pregnant woman can tell you that a child's (YES, I said child) personality is formed FAR before birth! My oldest used to play games with my husband, IN THE WOMB! If it was once -or even twice, it might be able to be written off as reflex or other involuntary behavior, but nearly every night? He would poke her, and she would find the place that he poked her and kick back. Then he would pick a different spot and she would poke back.
And if that does not convince you, every night when he was coming up the stairs from his 2nd shift job she would hear his footfall outside the door and kick me until I woke up. If it was once or twice, I could chalk it up to an involuntary reflex or something, but it was every night. Not only that, but he came home at a different time every night!
My second child was laid back in the womb, and laid back in life.
My youngest was TICKLISH in the womb, and clearly interacted with the outside world!
As for calling them a lump of DNA is a gross logical problem. Here is why. You can cut a lump of tissue out of a leg, or cut out an organ. Are those lumps of DNA a human being? No, they are only a PART of a human being. Now take the so-called lump of fetal DNA. They seem like the same thing to you, but you have ignored one enormous difference. The difference is that a lump of tissue does not GROW!!! Fetal DNA is a living human being! IT GROWS!
As to the idea that logic is all important, that is gross mistake, and will affect every relationship you have your entire life! The heart IS important! If you observe other people around you you will notice one very important fact: People do not make decisions based upon what they know, but on how they FEEL about what they know! You can give two people the same facts and they react in two different ways. Why? They FEEL differently about the facts that are presented to them. To assume that everyone who does not agree with you on your stance is simply illogical is foolish and obnoxious at best. Who are YOU to say that I am illogical? Only because I do not agree with you? What you fail to recognize is that YOU TOO react to the facts presented based on how you feel and not logic alone! So therefore under your terms of what is considered right (logic only) you also clearly do not qualify!
In one of your comments you said that the only reason doctors and other health professionals do not perform abortions is because they are afraid for their lives from the radical pro-life movement. This is ABSURD! To think that all doctors cannot think for themselves and are ruled completely by fear is insulting to the very doctor that you trust and go to for your medical needs! Do you honestly thing that everyone in the medical profession is basically pro-choice and simply live their lives ducking behind corners? Do you not think that there are doctors who are brave, and principled? What a slap in the face of the medical profession! If I were a medical service provider I would be INSULTED!
You make the assumption that everyone in the medical profession would come to the same conclusion as you -and MUST have, but simply allow their practice to be run by fear. So are you saying that all these pro-life doctors and other medical personnel know less than you about human anatomy? Are you saying that doctors who cringe at aborting babies on one floor of the hospital, while desperately working to save babies of the SAME GESTATION two floors up makes them bad doctors? You seem to think that they cannot be logical.
One last thing. Your interpretation of Psalm 139 is frightening. The idea with that psalm is VALUE! That God created us for a purpose. That He numbered our days! That He had potential in mind for the child being intricately formed. The idea is that the God of the entire universe, and beyond, watched and molded and PAID ATTENTION to the unborn child and took care in creating them. The idea is LOVE! That each and every child is loved -in the womb! This faulty interpretation is a gross stretch, and the Pharisees were warned time and again about how they were obeying the letter of the law but not spirit that the law was intended for. That is what you have done here! You have not found the Bible saying "Thou shalt not commit abortion" and have decided to stretch and twist the clearly pro-life message to make an argument that cannot be supported by scripture and stands on VERY precarious sediment! This is a problem for you too! Can you believe in a God that does not truly love you? You are denying that this passage means what it actually conveys -that God MEANT for YOU to be born! That God valued YOU and your life from the beginning. How sad.
Here is a thought to go on. Babies have shown signs of fingerprints as young as 10 weeks gestation. If they are human enough to be fingerprinted, they are human enough to be human.
7.20.2010 | 10:25am
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
"Rumple: I have been unable to find any passage where Aquinas said abortion is murder. Do you have a reference?"
You (purposefully?) misstate what I wrote, presumably in order that you may (purposefully?) continue to misstate Aquinas' position.
Aquinas was working with a faulty understanding of human conception - the solidification and formation of menstrual fluid under the influence of the father as mediated by the semen. Once the semen had "formed" the body in the womb (generally thought of as taking a couple of weeks after copulation), the soul would then be conjoined to it. Therefore, Thomas (and other medieval theologians) drew a moral distinction between terminating a pregnancy before and after the point of rational ensoulment. Prior to this, the act would be life-destroying - a grave evil - but not homicidal; subsequent to it, abortion would be homicidal. Therefore, Thomas considered pre-ensoulment abortion to be a grave evil, and abortion afterwards to be an even greater evil.
No competent Aquinas scholar alive or dead would disagree with what I have just written.
To sum up, your argument is faulty in many aspects:
1. You continue to (willfully?) ignore the fact that Aquinas taught that abortion prior to ensoulment was a grave evil (though not homicidal).
2. You insist that Thomas based his opinion on your interpretation of Psalm 139, an insistence for which you provide neither citation nor evidence for other than "because brettongarcia thinks it's obvious". Hasn't an individual's insistence of "because it's obvious" been the impetus for the formation of enough Protestant denominations already?
3. With advancements in the understanding of human conception and embryology, the Church's teaching in regards to the life in the womb evolved towards "a human life is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception"; for you to argue that the magisterium must defer to Thomas' opinion, regardless of the fact that it is universally known to be based a faulty view of conception and embryology, is something Thomas himself would not endorse.
4. Your insistence that Catholics must defer to the opinion of even the greatest Catholic theologians over the teaching of the magisterium is also something Thomas himself would not endorse.
5. In citing Benedict's 2004 letter stating that Catholics "may be permitted to vote for a pro-choice candidate if proportional reasons exist", you interpret "may be permitted to" as "are obligated to", interpret "if" as "because", and have determined and proclaimed for all Catholics that proportional reasons definitely exist (unlike Benedict, who allowed for informed consciences to discern whether or not they exist), a determination and proclamation you supported with DNC talking points and apocalyptic visions.
Those are just the Top 5. I must admit that I am puzzled as to why you spend so much time commenting here, if not to promote your 700-page screed - a work suggesting that along with a patient psychiatrist and a handful of introductory classes in theology and Church history, you are badly in need of a literary editor.
Take care, and don't play with any sharp objects,
GR
"Rumple: I have been unable to find any passage where Aquinas said abortion is murder. Do you have a reference?"
You (purposefully?) misstate what I wrote, presumably in order that you may (purposefully?) continue to misstate Aquinas' position.
Aquinas was working with a faulty understanding of human conception - the solidification and formation of menstrual fluid under the influence of the father as mediated by the semen. Once the semen had "formed" the body in the womb (generally thought of as taking a couple of weeks after copulation), the soul would then be conjoined to it. Therefore, Thomas (and other medieval theologians) drew a moral distinction between terminating a pregnancy before and after the point of rational ensoulment. Prior to this, the act would be life-destroying - a grave evil - but not homicidal; subsequent to it, abortion would be homicidal. Therefore, Thomas considered pre-ensoulment abortion to be a grave evil, and abortion afterwards to be an even greater evil.
No competent Aquinas scholar alive or dead would disagree with what I have just written.
To sum up, your argument is faulty in many aspects:
1. You continue to (willfully?) ignore the fact that Aquinas taught that abortion prior to ensoulment was a grave evil (though not homicidal).
2. You insist that Thomas based his opinion on your interpretation of Psalm 139, an insistence for which you provide neither citation nor evidence for other than "because brettongarcia thinks it's obvious". Hasn't an individual's insistence of "because it's obvious" been the impetus for the formation of enough Protestant denominations already?
3. With advancements in the understanding of human conception and embryology, the Church's teaching in regards to the life in the womb evolved towards "a human life is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception"; for you to argue that the magisterium must defer to Thomas' opinion, regardless of the fact that it is universally known to be based a faulty view of conception and embryology, is something Thomas himself would not endorse.
4. Your insistence that Catholics must defer to the opinion of even the greatest Catholic theologians over the teaching of the magisterium is also something Thomas himself would not endorse.
5. In citing Benedict's 2004 letter stating that Catholics "may be permitted to vote for a pro-choice candidate if proportional reasons exist", you interpret "may be permitted to" as "are obligated to", interpret "if" as "because", and have determined and proclaimed for all Catholics that proportional reasons definitely exist (unlike Benedict, who allowed for informed consciences to discern whether or not they exist), a determination and proclamation you supported with DNC talking points and apocalyptic visions.
Those are just the Top 5. I must admit that I am puzzled as to why you spend so much time commenting here, if not to promote your 700-page screed - a work suggesting that along with a patient psychiatrist and a handful of introductory classes in theology and Church history, you are badly in need of a literary editor.
Take care, and don't play with any sharp objects,
GR
7.20.2010 | 10:29am
brettongarcia says:
NO need to be alarmed, readers; the line at which we and most philosophers say humanity starts, is set here quite low: a newborn child can meet it. There is no attempt here, to suggest old people, or undergraduates, don't meet it. All we are doing here is setting out the most basic, and minimal criteria. And following the Bible itself.
Real "Barbarism"? Is what declared mindless "flesh," a body without a mind, to be human. A headless, mindless, body. This worship of the DNA, of the body, the "flesh," is what most of the Bible fought AGAINST; telling us that it is the mind or "spirit" that matters; not the flesh or body.
So when does a mind show up in an embryo? For various reasons, conventionally, natural birth seems like the most natural law demarcation.
The Bible itself to be sure, seems to have set an even higher status; the Bible itself did not give equal status to all human beings, just because they are the same biological organism. Some human beings were said to have saved souls, and others, not. Some are said to be human; others irrational "beasts." For example. And they are to be rewarded or condemned on that basis, by God.
To be sure, God alone makes THAT determination. In the meantime, note that the Bible itself determined that in any case, the embryo in the womb, is NOT a completed human being. But only the "unformed" parts of a future human, being assembled or "knit":
"My frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the deapths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there as none of them. How precious to me are thy thoughts, O God!" (Ps. 139.15-17 RSV).
How precisous to us, should be not the body, but "thoughts" by the way. A young embryo to be sure, has rudimentary arms and legs. But arms, legs, are not the part of the body that are essential to be a human being. Frogs have arms and legs; horses do too. But they are not human beings. What makes us human, is our mind or SPIRIT; not our body or "FLESH," the Bible often insisted. While all the evidence is that this spirit, does not inhabit our body, until specifically our body is sufficiently complex or complete, or "formed." As Ps. 139 - God - said.
Arms, legs, don't make a human being. What counts, is larger brain size and/or structure; which an embryo hasn't got. That is why the Bible, God, firmly said that the embryo is not yet a completed human being.
If you become a medical doctor, you yourself may get used to even taking out bodily organs, and removing them. But grisly as this seems at first, one can find the mind to do this, when one remembers that after all, the real essence of humanity is not really the body or body parts; but rather, the soul or mind. As God said. And along as THAT is there, we have a human being.
"The flesh is to no avail"; what matters is the spirit or mind.
Real "Barbarism"? Is what declared mindless "flesh," a body without a mind, to be human. A headless, mindless, body. This worship of the DNA, of the body, the "flesh," is what most of the Bible fought AGAINST; telling us that it is the mind or "spirit" that matters; not the flesh or body.
So when does a mind show up in an embryo? For various reasons, conventionally, natural birth seems like the most natural law demarcation.
The Bible itself to be sure, seems to have set an even higher status; the Bible itself did not give equal status to all human beings, just because they are the same biological organism. Some human beings were said to have saved souls, and others, not. Some are said to be human; others irrational "beasts." For example. And they are to be rewarded or condemned on that basis, by God.
To be sure, God alone makes THAT determination. In the meantime, note that the Bible itself determined that in any case, the embryo in the womb, is NOT a completed human being. But only the "unformed" parts of a future human, being assembled or "knit":
"My frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the deapths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there as none of them. How precious to me are thy thoughts, O God!" (Ps. 139.15-17 RSV).
How precisous to us, should be not the body, but "thoughts" by the way. A young embryo to be sure, has rudimentary arms and legs. But arms, legs, are not the part of the body that are essential to be a human being. Frogs have arms and legs; horses do too. But they are not human beings. What makes us human, is our mind or SPIRIT; not our body or "FLESH," the Bible often insisted. While all the evidence is that this spirit, does not inhabit our body, until specifically our body is sufficiently complex or complete, or "formed." As Ps. 139 - God - said.
Arms, legs, don't make a human being. What counts, is larger brain size and/or structure; which an embryo hasn't got. That is why the Bible, God, firmly said that the embryo is not yet a completed human being.
If you become a medical doctor, you yourself may get used to even taking out bodily organs, and removing them. But grisly as this seems at first, one can find the mind to do this, when one remembers that after all, the real essence of humanity is not really the body or body parts; but rather, the soul or mind. As God said. And along as THAT is there, we have a human being.
"The flesh is to no avail"; what matters is the spirit or mind.
7.20.2010 | 10:58am
Tim says:
OK, First Things: time to 'fess up. You must have created this "brettongarcia" character yourselves, right? No way this is a real person. You just wanted to drum up long, exasperating responses to your threads to spike web traffic to this blog, right?
Or perhaps, it's a computer program -- maybe one of those things where you type in a bunch of text and it automatically generates a response? This one seems to be a simple "opposing" program -- you just plug in a bunch of Catholic teaching, Biblical passages, and Church leaders' statements, and then set the program to take all of them out of context, use them for the exact opposite purpose they were originally intended, and employ them in defense of indefensible positions.
No, wait -- I've got it now. You created him as a cleverly ironic parody! For surely, the characteristics evident in his posts -- condemning and judging all who disagree with him, using Scripture passages out of context as "proof texts", ignoring the evidence of modern science in favor of long-discredited medieval theories, and exhibiting a marked unfairness and lack of perspective in arguments -- why, these are all the usual ways that, according to the mainstream media, Christian conservatives act! But, in a stroke of genius, you have put all of these qualities in the mouth of a defiantly dissenting liberal!
Very clever indeed. For as I am sure we all know, there's no way an *actual* liberal could have such qualities -- no way they could ever be so ignorant, uncharitable, and so blindly wedded to their ideology -- for as we are constantly reminded, they are all about reason, love, tolerance, and fairness.
Bravo, First Things. You have my admiration for your excellent, clever creation. Just one request.
Can you please stop it now?
Or perhaps, it's a computer program -- maybe one of those things where you type in a bunch of text and it automatically generates a response? This one seems to be a simple "opposing" program -- you just plug in a bunch of Catholic teaching, Biblical passages, and Church leaders' statements, and then set the program to take all of them out of context, use them for the exact opposite purpose they were originally intended, and employ them in defense of indefensible positions.
No, wait -- I've got it now. You created him as a cleverly ironic parody! For surely, the characteristics evident in his posts -- condemning and judging all who disagree with him, using Scripture passages out of context as "proof texts", ignoring the evidence of modern science in favor of long-discredited medieval theories, and exhibiting a marked unfairness and lack of perspective in arguments -- why, these are all the usual ways that, according to the mainstream media, Christian conservatives act! But, in a stroke of genius, you have put all of these qualities in the mouth of a defiantly dissenting liberal!
Very clever indeed. For as I am sure we all know, there's no way an *actual* liberal could have such qualities -- no way they could ever be so ignorant, uncharitable, and so blindly wedded to their ideology -- for as we are constantly reminded, they are all about reason, love, tolerance, and fairness.
Bravo, First Things. You have my admiration for your excellent, clever creation. Just one request.
Can you please stop it now?
7.20.2010 | 11:01am
Sam. says:
@brettongarcia The difference between a logpile and an embryo is that although both have the potential to become something else, the embryo will always develop into a fetus, whereas the logpile cannot develop on its own, and can become potentially many things (not just a house). The embryo has from its conception DNA distinct from the mother and from the father, and it grows and divides of its own accord. As it will grow into nothing other than something easily recognized as "human", it is playing games to say that it is anything but. Your arguments, I hope you realize, are inadequate to convince those on the side of life who actually do use their heads.
As to birth being the definition of a human: that is as arbitrary as saying that a one-year-old baby is a human, or saying that life begins at age 18. There is no scientific basis for this claim. What fundamental change does a baby undergo from one side of the cervix to the other? Especially considering that half of the babies born at as little as 24 weeks will survive, one wonders whether your suggestion of birth as a prereq for personhood was pulled out of a magic hat.
---
Quickly: the people described as "beasts" in the Bible were called thus because they chose to be beasts. They chose to act differently, to give up the use of rational thought and give in to the pulls of the flesh, and thus merit the title of their own free will. Just saying.
Also: what makes us human is that we are spirits and flesh joined in an inseparable way. Our spirits are undoubtedly the higher of the two parts, but we cannot be human without our bodies. Cf. C.S. Lewis' novel "That Hideous Strength".
As to birth being the definition of a human: that is as arbitrary as saying that a one-year-old baby is a human, or saying that life begins at age 18. There is no scientific basis for this claim. What fundamental change does a baby undergo from one side of the cervix to the other? Especially considering that half of the babies born at as little as 24 weeks will survive, one wonders whether your suggestion of birth as a prereq for personhood was pulled out of a magic hat.
---
Quickly: the people described as "beasts" in the Bible were called thus because they chose to be beasts. They chose to act differently, to give up the use of rational thought and give in to the pulls of the flesh, and thus merit the title of their own free will. Just saying.
Also: what makes us human is that we are spirits and flesh joined in an inseparable way. Our spirits are undoubtedly the higher of the two parts, but we cannot be human without our bodies. Cf. C.S. Lewis' novel "That Hideous Strength".
7.20.2010 | 11:50am
Maria says:
" I have come to cast a fire on earth " is what Yeshua , our Lord said ..
Ours is a country dedicated to the Immaculate Conception and Our Lady of Guadalupe ...and every bit of pain or repentance a parent or any person for that matter has , about the demonic sacrifice , is a sign that the fire has not gone out ...it is doing its work of purification ...may such groanings rise up , to bring down mercy , for the unborn ( for God alone knows where they are ! ) and for every one who needs same !
Ours is a country dedicated to the Immaculate Conception and Our Lady of Guadalupe ...and every bit of pain or repentance a parent or any person for that matter has , about the demonic sacrifice , is a sign that the fire has not gone out ...it is doing its work of purification ...may such groanings rise up , to bring down mercy , for the unborn ( for God alone knows where they are ! ) and for every one who needs same !
7.20.2010 | 1:26pm
Robert Moody says:
Sam is right, bg's argument for birth as the defining moment is arbritrary and leads by a quick pathway to Peter Singer. I vote for ignoring his attempts to redefine the Catholic Church in his own image and allow him to get back to preparing for that big leap to high school as fall approaches.
7.20.2010 | 1:36pm
Billy Bean says:
Brettongarcia says,"'The flesh is to no avail'; what matters is the spirit or mind." I wonder: has he ever heard of "gnosticism"? His interpretations of Scripture and the Christian faith are often more like those of the ancient heretics than those of the apostolic church. Also, he seems to think it a comfort that he and some of his fellow "brights" set such a low bar for defining what is "human." The whole problem is that they are presuming to set a bar at all. If we cannot agree that every member of our species is "human" (fetal, infantile, prepubescent, adolescent, geriatric, and everyone in between), then we must subject ourselves and our neighbors to someone's arbitrary defintion of the term. Then, of course, we can start playing little games with the meaning of "person." Robert P. George ("The Clash of Orthodoxies") has exposed the nakedness of the secular orthodox emperor. We can pretend that we just don't know what a human person is. We can even talk ourselves into believing in our own ignorance. We can take public opinion polls and see if at least 51% will go along with us. Or we can admit the obvious and just confess that the heart wants what it wants. Who is really the obscurantist here?
7.20.2010 | 1:47pm
Brian Taber says:
I am a physician who would leave the medical profession if I was forced to perform a procedure that is objectionable. I was not trained in abortion and would have refused training.
It is very different thing to be politically in favor of abortion and actually performing the procedure. I am Pro-life but even the physician in the above article with "feminist pro-choice politics" had to grapple with the reality of what she was really doing. As a mother she could not deny the "brutally visceral response".
“It was an overwhelming feeling—a brutally visceral response—heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics,” she wrote. “It was one of the more raw moments in my life.”
It is very different thing to be politically in favor of abortion and actually performing the procedure. I am Pro-life but even the physician in the above article with "feminist pro-choice politics" had to grapple with the reality of what she was really doing. As a mother she could not deny the "brutally visceral response".
“It was an overwhelming feeling—a brutally visceral response—heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics,” she wrote. “It was one of the more raw moments in my life.”
7.20.2010 | 4:22pm
brettongarcia says:
Where do we set the bar at "human" vs. "inhuman"? Should we be liberal, or err on the side of caution? And never set it at all?
Well then: what do you do, when your daughter comes to you, and insists that her Barbie doll, really is a human person or human being. She has arms; she has legs; she looks human. And so accordingly, your daughter wants to bring Barbie three meals a day; and insists you save up for her college education in addition to your daughter's college fund.
What do you really do in real life? Do you really "err on the side of caution," and declare the Barbie doll a human being, a human person?
Or do YOU take that drastic step? And declare poor Barbie, not human?
Didn't you yourself draw the line between human and not human, somewhere, after all?
Well then: what do you do, when your daughter comes to you, and insists that her Barbie doll, really is a human person or human being. She has arms; she has legs; she looks human. And so accordingly, your daughter wants to bring Barbie three meals a day; and insists you save up for her college education in addition to your daughter's college fund.
What do you really do in real life? Do you really "err on the side of caution," and declare the Barbie doll a human being, a human person?
Or do YOU take that drastic step? And declare poor Barbie, not human?
Didn't you yourself draw the line between human and not human, somewhere, after all?
7.20.2010 | 5:52pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
Brettongarcia: I'm unsure what biology book you're reading from, but it clearly needs an update. The embryo, IS a human being. It has its own distinct DNA code, half derived from its mother, the other half from its father. To deny this, is to deny the findings of empirical science, a most irrational position.
Prior to conception, we have a sperm and an egg. But subsequent to theit union, we have a human being, because, as stated above, the embryo now has its distinct DNA, that will guide its develpoment for the rest of its life.
You state that the newborn is the demarcating point where humanity begins. What do you base this irrational, and completely arbitrary view?
Prior to conception, we have a sperm and an egg. But subsequent to theit union, we have a human being, because, as stated above, the embryo now has its distinct DNA, that will guide its develpoment for the rest of its life.
You state that the newborn is the demarcating point where humanity begins. What do you base this irrational, and completely arbitrary view?
7.20.2010 | 8:28pm
Sam. says:
Embryos develop into adults. Barbies develop into landfills. The embryo is alive, with human DNA and distinct from the parents. The Barbie doll is a piece of plastic. It will never grow into anything more or less. It has no potential for rational thought. Your argument is fallacious.
Question: Are you being willfully obtuse? I truly think (as Tim says) that someone at First Things is having a big laugh on us.
Question: Are you being willfully obtuse? I truly think (as Tim says) that someone at First Things is having a big laugh on us.
7.21.2010 | 12:12am
brettongarcia says:
An embryo has a complete set of individual DNA; but is it on that account, a human being? An average cheek cell, some say, has a complete set of DNA in it: is a cheek cell a human being?
A dead body has a complete set of individual DNA in it: is it therefore a human person? It is not - because it lacks the all-important thing that all of you are ignoring, denying, and even attacking: a human mind or soul.
Is a pile of lumber, that is going to be a house, a house, itself? Isn't the period and process of development, important? Doesn't that make a qualitative change? Doesn't the pile of lumber make a significant transition? Doesn't it become something different?
Why all this? It's all lead-in to the important point. That Religion and Philosophy both have said for millennia, since at least Socrates and God, that the really important thing about humans, the thing that makes us more than the animals, is not so much our body or flesh or DNA. But what DNA eventually generates: our superior, larger brain. With its Intelligence, reason, mind, "spirit," or soul. The sciences of Anthropology and Psychology confirm that it is our larger brain, and its superior intelligence, that makes us human.
For centuries, countless thinkers have agreed: it is ultimately our human mind or spirit, that is the essence of being human. But here is the problem then: it is obvious, that an embryo, does not have much of a mind. While Biology confirms Aquinas; saying that it's brain is not large enough, complicated enough, "form"ed enough, to sustain much human intelligence or spirit. Therefore, since it does not have much of a mind, the embryo, we must conclude, is not quite a human being.
Can we dare to say that a human body, with a complete set of DNA, but without a mind, is not a human being? In fact, religion said that every day. When the pastor at the funeral said that the body or flesh was left behind - but the real self, the mind or soul, had gone on, to Heaven.
Is everyone here "willfully obtuse"? No one here sees this simple point? That the essence of a human being, the thing that makes us a person, is not physical things like a body, like a complete set of DNA; but a developed mind or spirit or soul?
Nobody sees the importance of the "soul," over the "flesh," today?
Indeed, someone IS having a big laugh at you. Or WOULD laugh, if your ignorance of the supreme importance of the soul and the mind, was not so tragic. And ultimately, disastrous.
A dead body has a complete set of individual DNA in it: is it therefore a human person? It is not - because it lacks the all-important thing that all of you are ignoring, denying, and even attacking: a human mind or soul.
Is a pile of lumber, that is going to be a house, a house, itself? Isn't the period and process of development, important? Doesn't that make a qualitative change? Doesn't the pile of lumber make a significant transition? Doesn't it become something different?
Why all this? It's all lead-in to the important point. That Religion and Philosophy both have said for millennia, since at least Socrates and God, that the really important thing about humans, the thing that makes us more than the animals, is not so much our body or flesh or DNA. But what DNA eventually generates: our superior, larger brain. With its Intelligence, reason, mind, "spirit," or soul. The sciences of Anthropology and Psychology confirm that it is our larger brain, and its superior intelligence, that makes us human.
For centuries, countless thinkers have agreed: it is ultimately our human mind or spirit, that is the essence of being human. But here is the problem then: it is obvious, that an embryo, does not have much of a mind. While Biology confirms Aquinas; saying that it's brain is not large enough, complicated enough, "form"ed enough, to sustain much human intelligence or spirit. Therefore, since it does not have much of a mind, the embryo, we must conclude, is not quite a human being.
Can we dare to say that a human body, with a complete set of DNA, but without a mind, is not a human being? In fact, religion said that every day. When the pastor at the funeral said that the body or flesh was left behind - but the real self, the mind or soul, had gone on, to Heaven.
Is everyone here "willfully obtuse"? No one here sees this simple point? That the essence of a human being, the thing that makes us a person, is not physical things like a body, like a complete set of DNA; but a developed mind or spirit or soul?
Nobody sees the importance of the "soul," over the "flesh," today?
Indeed, someone IS having a big laugh at you. Or WOULD laugh, if your ignorance of the supreme importance of the soul and the mind, was not so tragic. And ultimately, disastrous.
7.21.2010 | 12:43am
MoonChild02 says:
brettongarcia,
Protestants may have founded the GOVERNMENT of this country. However, they did NOT found this country. ROMAN CATHOLIC Spanish explorers found and built this country LONG before the queen decided to STEAL it from them, like she did everything else she laid claim to. She had no real right to it. I'm surprised no one from that time converted back to Catholicism after splitting from england.
Also, Maryland was named after Mother Mary, and it's capital, Baltimore, was named after the Baltimore Catechism. So, one of the original 13 states WAS, in fact, Roman Catholic! In fact, every state had their own religion, which was why the First Amendment of the Constitution said that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof. It doesn't say the state governments, it says Congress.
Another thing, this country was not built by Protestants, but was built on the backs of slaves: Native Americans (who a many of had been converted to Catholicism), Irish Catholics, Catholic Scots who refused to convert to the queen's religion, and Africans.
As for Pope Benedict's "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", he DID say that it was a GRAVE sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate:
"The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74)."
Also, an embryo IS a human being because of her or his DNA. It's SCIENTIFIC FACT!
The people who made the laws against abortion in the US, such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were Protestants! So saying that our country should be ruled by Protestants, and therefore can't be pro-life, is BULL$#!T!
Oh, and claiming to be Christian, and claiming that protestants are in the right if they're pro-aborts, means you're not respecting God by saying any of that! To say that God made a mistake in making that child is complete and utter BLASPHEMY! God doesn't make mistakes! God loves each and every single one of His children, and we have NO right to say whether or not they live or die, even if they are in a woman's uterus. The Bible is clear: God knew us before He formed us in our mothers' wombs ("Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations." Jeremiah 1:5). The Bible condemns anyone who rips open a pregnant woman and steals the life from inside of her ("Thus saith the Lord: For three crimes of the children of Ammon, and for four I will not convert him: because he hath ripped up the women with child of Galaad to enlarge his border." Amos 1:13). Every child has a soul from the time of conception ("Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" Psalms 51:5). The Letter of James reminds us that, "...the body without the spirit is dead," (James 2:26). Being that an embryo must be living because she/he is growing, means that she/he is living, which means that she/he has a spirit! How would John the Baptist know The Lord if he weren't living? "And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb . . . 'For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.'" Luke 1:41,44.
Protestants may have founded the GOVERNMENT of this country. However, they did NOT found this country. ROMAN CATHOLIC Spanish explorers found and built this country LONG before the queen decided to STEAL it from them, like she did everything else she laid claim to. She had no real right to it. I'm surprised no one from that time converted back to Catholicism after splitting from england.
Also, Maryland was named after Mother Mary, and it's capital, Baltimore, was named after the Baltimore Catechism. So, one of the original 13 states WAS, in fact, Roman Catholic! In fact, every state had their own religion, which was why the First Amendment of the Constitution said that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof. It doesn't say the state governments, it says Congress.
Another thing, this country was not built by Protestants, but was built on the backs of slaves: Native Americans (who a many of had been converted to Catholicism), Irish Catholics, Catholic Scots who refused to convert to the queen's religion, and Africans.
As for Pope Benedict's "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", he DID say that it was a GRAVE sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate:
"The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74)."
Also, an embryo IS a human being because of her or his DNA. It's SCIENTIFIC FACT!
The people who made the laws against abortion in the US, such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were Protestants! So saying that our country should be ruled by Protestants, and therefore can't be pro-life, is BULL$#!T!
Oh, and claiming to be Christian, and claiming that protestants are in the right if they're pro-aborts, means you're not respecting God by saying any of that! To say that God made a mistake in making that child is complete and utter BLASPHEMY! God doesn't make mistakes! God loves each and every single one of His children, and we have NO right to say whether or not they live or die, even if they are in a woman's uterus. The Bible is clear: God knew us before He formed us in our mothers' wombs ("Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations." Jeremiah 1:5). The Bible condemns anyone who rips open a pregnant woman and steals the life from inside of her ("Thus saith the Lord: For three crimes of the children of Ammon, and for four I will not convert him: because he hath ripped up the women with child of Galaad to enlarge his border." Amos 1:13). Every child has a soul from the time of conception ("Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" Psalms 51:5). The Letter of James reminds us that, "...the body without the spirit is dead," (James 2:26). Being that an embryo must be living because she/he is growing, means that she/he is living, which means that she/he has a spirit! How would John the Baptist know The Lord if he weren't living? "And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb . . . 'For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.'" Luke 1:41,44.
7.21.2010 | 4:05am
Billy Bean says:
Brettongarcia: Albert Einstein was smarter than you and me put together. Therefore, he was more human and more worthy to live than you and me put together. Am I understanding you properly?
7.21.2010 | 7:16am
brettongarcia says:
Pro-Lifers are very, very self-righteous people; they are sure that only they are moral and good, and are following God, the Church, and the Bible. But the Bible warned us not to be too self-righteous. And it warned that many who think they are being very, very good, will be found to be following a "false spirit," a false idea of Christ. So let's not just pontificate, and spout emotional self-righteous phrases; let's look at what the Bible and the Church REALLY more fully said, about abortion, and the status of the embryo.
Psalm 139 notes that we are only in the PROCESS OF BEING "FORM"ED, in the womb; but it clearly says, we ourselves, as human beings, are not yet created; our "days" are not yet.
The point of that passage was to say that God knew us, even when (and even before) we ourselves existing; when we were merely "unformed substance" being formed, knit, in the womb. The wording in the Psalm is clear: God did not consider that our "days" as a human being had yet begun, in the womb. At that time, we are only under construction so to speak.
So when do we become human? Many indeed, following the babe in the womb kicking (Luke 1.41), suggested "quickening"; which was recognized when the Bible was written, to be at about 6 or 7 months. Suppose we take the Bible as definitive here.
In becoming a human being, the important moment is when we acquire a mind, or human intelligence; eventually consciousness. So what does the Bible say about our mind or spirit? Here the terminology is obscure. A body without a "spirit" meaning "air" ("pneuma") is literally dead; but this referred to only air, not what we would call a mind or spirit today. Or, after all, being "dead" adn then "alive" was often used metaphorically in the Bible; describing having a limited mind or spirit, vs. an enlightened, Christian one. But more modern science suggests the mind appears particularly as the brain is large enough - "form"ed enough, Ps. 139 and Aquinas said - to be close to the size of a child or adult. And/or when the child is born, and exposed to socialization.
For now, elements of the Church do indeed consider abortion a "grave sin." However, those elements are at odd with other elements of Church tradition and reasoning. So that finally, though abortion IS considered a sin, it is not for example, considered "murder"; since the embryo in fact is not provably human.
For these and other reasons, though Pro Life anti-abortion cultists today insist that abortion is the major issue that should concern us all today, in the voting booth, the real authority in the Church contradicts this. And says that we should not be dis "proportionat"ly fixed on one issue like abortion (Benedict XVI, "Worthiness," 2004); but consider the possiblity there are other "issues" that deserve more attention (Cardinal McCarrick, 2007).
Those anti-abortionists who quote "science" and "scientific facts" here, I suspect, are not usually, actually, qualified, PhD scientists at all. And they mischaracterize science, over and over; citing, creating, a pseudo-, para-, quasi-science of their own. The fact is, an embryo is "human" in the sense that it is a human ORGANISM, or animal; since it has human tissue in it. But beyond Biology, the sciences of Anthropology and Psychology (and Philosophy, and the Bible) suggest that we do not really become human BEINGS or PERSONS, until we develop a mind. While Biology confirms that the embryo brain is just too small and un"formed" enough, to have much of a mind at all.
To say that an embryo can be aborted, does not commit the "blasphemy" of saying God made a mistake in making a "child"; since the embryo is not a child. But to be sure, antiabortionists, who go against Ps. 139, and claim otherwise, ARE committing blasphemy; antiabortionists are heretics in fact. Since they are going against the Bible, and therefore, against God.
Did the Bible consider abortion murder? It approved abortion in Numbers 5. Regarding miscarriage? Causing it accidentially, is considered a minor sin. If Ps. 51 suggests that "surely" we had a soul from conception, remember that to say "surely" does not mean that something is "sure" or certain; it just means that one has difficulty believing something. ("Surely," the victim said to the criminal, "you are not going to steal from me!"). It expresses subjective disbelief; not the certainty of something.
For that matter, the Bible recognized several different kinds of mind, spirit, or soul; and the Church often considered that whatever soul we have before birth, was of undetermined status, in "Limbo." Until after birth, and Baptism. While much of Christianity suggested we were not really good humans, until we are saved; when our spirit accepts Jesus. Some suggested we only have an animal soul, until undergoing certain transformational changes in our mind or spirit.
God in fact "knew" us even before we were being formed; even in the womb. But this means that "we" did not exist yet in the womb. What is there, are only the rough materials, being assembled, grown, into what will only eventually become a human being; with a human mind.
The Pope himself said it is not a "grave sin" to vote for a pro-abortion candidate; it is considered "remote material cooperation" with sin; which "can be permitted" (Card. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, "Worthiness," 2004).
The Pope noted that there could potentially be, many, many other issues in our lives and in public life, that are "proportionate"ly far more important than abortion. And while the Pope suggests that say, "just" wars might not be more important, or just capital punishment, the Pope left open many, many other issues for our consideration, as being more important than abortion.
What issues are more important than abortion? Consider say, UN-just wars; or just but UNNECESSARY wars. Or Health Care. Neglect of these, have already killed HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF INDISPUTABLY HUMAN BEINGS. And continued, fixation just on the "one issue" of abortion, the neglect of these "proportionate"ly more important issue, the Cardinals and the Pope suggest, could lead to the End foretold in the Bible after all: hundreds of millions, dead from "plagues" or disease; lack of health care. BILLIONS dead from neglect of peacemaking efforts, to avoid wars.
Pro-Lifers are well-intentioned go-gooders. But do-gooders are often the most dangerous and destructive peole on earth. Today, anti-abortionists are narrowly fixated, demoniacally, monomaniacally, fetishistically, dis "proprotionate"ly obssessed, possessed, with the "one issue" of abortion. To the point that 1) they "twist" and disobey the Bible (Ps. 139; Numb. 5). They are 2) disobeying the saints like Aquinas; they are 3) disobeying the Cardinals, like Ratzinger and 4) McCarrick; they are disobeying 5) the Pope. And because of their well-intentioned but foolish disobedience, they are allowing huge numbers of hugely more important evils to flourish.
They THINK they are doing good; that they are better than everyone else in fact. But they are deceived; their Vanity and Pride and self-righteousness, have deceived their hearts.
The fact is, antiabortionism, is well-intentioned, but it is a heresy: people are calling it "The Pro Life Heresy."
Psalm 139 notes that we are only in the PROCESS OF BEING "FORM"ED, in the womb; but it clearly says, we ourselves, as human beings, are not yet created; our "days" are not yet.
The point of that passage was to say that God knew us, even when (and even before) we ourselves existing; when we were merely "unformed substance" being formed, knit, in the womb. The wording in the Psalm is clear: God did not consider that our "days" as a human being had yet begun, in the womb. At that time, we are only under construction so to speak.
So when do we become human? Many indeed, following the babe in the womb kicking (Luke 1.41), suggested "quickening"; which was recognized when the Bible was written, to be at about 6 or 7 months. Suppose we take the Bible as definitive here.
In becoming a human being, the important moment is when we acquire a mind, or human intelligence; eventually consciousness. So what does the Bible say about our mind or spirit? Here the terminology is obscure. A body without a "spirit" meaning "air" ("pneuma") is literally dead; but this referred to only air, not what we would call a mind or spirit today. Or, after all, being "dead" adn then "alive" was often used metaphorically in the Bible; describing having a limited mind or spirit, vs. an enlightened, Christian one. But more modern science suggests the mind appears particularly as the brain is large enough - "form"ed enough, Ps. 139 and Aquinas said - to be close to the size of a child or adult. And/or when the child is born, and exposed to socialization.
For now, elements of the Church do indeed consider abortion a "grave sin." However, those elements are at odd with other elements of Church tradition and reasoning. So that finally, though abortion IS considered a sin, it is not for example, considered "murder"; since the embryo in fact is not provably human.
For these and other reasons, though Pro Life anti-abortion cultists today insist that abortion is the major issue that should concern us all today, in the voting booth, the real authority in the Church contradicts this. And says that we should not be dis "proportionat"ly fixed on one issue like abortion (Benedict XVI, "Worthiness," 2004); but consider the possiblity there are other "issues" that deserve more attention (Cardinal McCarrick, 2007).
Those anti-abortionists who quote "science" and "scientific facts" here, I suspect, are not usually, actually, qualified, PhD scientists at all. And they mischaracterize science, over and over; citing, creating, a pseudo-, para-, quasi-science of their own. The fact is, an embryo is "human" in the sense that it is a human ORGANISM, or animal; since it has human tissue in it. But beyond Biology, the sciences of Anthropology and Psychology (and Philosophy, and the Bible) suggest that we do not really become human BEINGS or PERSONS, until we develop a mind. While Biology confirms that the embryo brain is just too small and un"formed" enough, to have much of a mind at all.
To say that an embryo can be aborted, does not commit the "blasphemy" of saying God made a mistake in making a "child"; since the embryo is not a child. But to be sure, antiabortionists, who go against Ps. 139, and claim otherwise, ARE committing blasphemy; antiabortionists are heretics in fact. Since they are going against the Bible, and therefore, against God.
Did the Bible consider abortion murder? It approved abortion in Numbers 5. Regarding miscarriage? Causing it accidentially, is considered a minor sin. If Ps. 51 suggests that "surely" we had a soul from conception, remember that to say "surely" does not mean that something is "sure" or certain; it just means that one has difficulty believing something. ("Surely," the victim said to the criminal, "you are not going to steal from me!"). It expresses subjective disbelief; not the certainty of something.
For that matter, the Bible recognized several different kinds of mind, spirit, or soul; and the Church often considered that whatever soul we have before birth, was of undetermined status, in "Limbo." Until after birth, and Baptism. While much of Christianity suggested we were not really good humans, until we are saved; when our spirit accepts Jesus. Some suggested we only have an animal soul, until undergoing certain transformational changes in our mind or spirit.
God in fact "knew" us even before we were being formed; even in the womb. But this means that "we" did not exist yet in the womb. What is there, are only the rough materials, being assembled, grown, into what will only eventually become a human being; with a human mind.
The Pope himself said it is not a "grave sin" to vote for a pro-abortion candidate; it is considered "remote material cooperation" with sin; which "can be permitted" (Card. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, "Worthiness," 2004).
The Pope noted that there could potentially be, many, many other issues in our lives and in public life, that are "proportionate"ly far more important than abortion. And while the Pope suggests that say, "just" wars might not be more important, or just capital punishment, the Pope left open many, many other issues for our consideration, as being more important than abortion.
What issues are more important than abortion? Consider say, UN-just wars; or just but UNNECESSARY wars. Or Health Care. Neglect of these, have already killed HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF INDISPUTABLY HUMAN BEINGS. And continued, fixation just on the "one issue" of abortion, the neglect of these "proportionate"ly more important issue, the Cardinals and the Pope suggest, could lead to the End foretold in the Bible after all: hundreds of millions, dead from "plagues" or disease; lack of health care. BILLIONS dead from neglect of peacemaking efforts, to avoid wars.
Pro-Lifers are well-intentioned go-gooders. But do-gooders are often the most dangerous and destructive peole on earth. Today, anti-abortionists are narrowly fixated, demoniacally, monomaniacally, fetishistically, dis "proprotionate"ly obssessed, possessed, with the "one issue" of abortion. To the point that 1) they "twist" and disobey the Bible (Ps. 139; Numb. 5). They are 2) disobeying the saints like Aquinas; they are 3) disobeying the Cardinals, like Ratzinger and 4) McCarrick; they are disobeying 5) the Pope. And because of their well-intentioned but foolish disobedience, they are allowing huge numbers of hugely more important evils to flourish.
They THINK they are doing good; that they are better than everyone else in fact. But they are deceived; their Vanity and Pride and self-righteousness, have deceived their hearts.
The fact is, antiabortionism, is well-intentioned, but it is a heresy: people are calling it "The Pro Life Heresy."
7.21.2010 | 9:34am
BillyBean says:
Brettongarcia: Your exegesis of Scripture and Christian tradition is a wonderful argument for the need of an authoritative magisterium in the Church. Your proof texts (Ps. 139; Numbers 5) simply cannot be tortured into saying what you want them to say. You ignore all counterarguments that expose the fallaciousness of your confident assertions and even twist the words of the Pope himself. I used to think you were simply ignorant. Now I fear that the ignorance might be willful. I hope I that my fears are unfounded.
7.21.2010 | 11:52am
Lenore R. O'Jibway says:
The back alley of abortion refers to the women who died while seeking abortions as well as to the children who were killed. Those who died then and those who ARE DYING AS WE DEBATE ABOUT "LIFE" NEED to stop it now.
1/3 of American children are aborted which means that we're all afffected. We need to look at our own sins and the sins of our families...to look at issues of modesty, chastity, training for marriage or single life (not by schools or outsourced to nonprofits with financial interests in abortion clinics)...natural family planning, adoption, and the like. We need to repent, pray, and get our collective act together.
As they say -- talk is cheap...we need to DO something to stop it now and to help men and women in crisis. Yes, contrary to popular believe, the women involved did not simply impregnate themselves. Men are also involved and are often SILENT or VERY LOUD AT JUSTIFYING THEIR OWN FAILURE TO HELP DEFEND THE LIVES OF OTHERS...because of what...graduate school, a car, a boat, another woman, what? Where are the FATHER PROTECTORS...WHERE ARE THEY???On the other hand, there are also valiant fathers who grieve over not being able to save the lives of their own chilldren...What of their rights? Was the crisis from a misguided sexual adventure in which case something like TRAINING IN THE THEOLOGY OF THE BODY (by Pope John Paul II) may be the answer. Is the problem a lack of finances? In which case the help of family, friends, and the community is the answer...NOT KILLING.
I'd like to thank the pregnant woman abortionist who shared her experience of having the TRUTH of this sin break through her "medical" experience of killing an unborn child...God bless her for responding to that truth and repenting of it...God bless also Andrew who spoke TRUTH about his experience of revulsion over seeing and participating in the killing first hand. God bless Maria for speaking the TRUTH about the need for purification. God bless those men and women who knew the TRUTH and stood/stand by it; as well as those of us who were ignorant of the TRUTH before but who now FACED with the TRUTH acknowledge this misguided practice for what it is --- a physical death sentence for a child, and a spiritual (unless repented of) and perhaps physical (if the mother's life is lost in the process) death for the mother; there is also the risk of spiritaul death for all involved in procuring the abortion and paying for it --- yes even for the nation whose tax dollars fund it....THE TRUTH IS THAT CHRIST IS BIG ENOUGH TO HANDLE THIS SIN IF WE ACKNOWLEDGE THIS TRUTH AND TURN TO HIM.
Personally, I grieve for my own ignorance, selfishness, and cowardess; and I beg God's mercy and forgiveness for myself and all who rightfully acknowledge the TRUTH about this SIN and the NEED TO STOP CONDONING IT. Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing a child does not make the circumstances around the sexual act that brought that life into being become "right" through that act. Killing the fruit does not justify the tree of sin from which it often springs ---- whether sexual sins or the sins of self-ishness or lack of charity.
I pray that God will give us all every grace needed to overcome this scourge once and for all in Jesus's name through Mary in union with St. Joseph and all the saints in heaven and holy souls in purgatory or limbo. Amen.
1/3 of American children are aborted which means that we're all afffected. We need to look at our own sins and the sins of our families...to look at issues of modesty, chastity, training for marriage or single life (not by schools or outsourced to nonprofits with financial interests in abortion clinics)...natural family planning, adoption, and the like. We need to repent, pray, and get our collective act together.
As they say -- talk is cheap...we need to DO something to stop it now and to help men and women in crisis. Yes, contrary to popular believe, the women involved did not simply impregnate themselves. Men are also involved and are often SILENT or VERY LOUD AT JUSTIFYING THEIR OWN FAILURE TO HELP DEFEND THE LIVES OF OTHERS...because of what...graduate school, a car, a boat, another woman, what? Where are the FATHER PROTECTORS...WHERE ARE THEY???On the other hand, there are also valiant fathers who grieve over not being able to save the lives of their own chilldren...What of their rights? Was the crisis from a misguided sexual adventure in which case something like TRAINING IN THE THEOLOGY OF THE BODY (by Pope John Paul II) may be the answer. Is the problem a lack of finances? In which case the help of family, friends, and the community is the answer...NOT KILLING.
I'd like to thank the pregnant woman abortionist who shared her experience of having the TRUTH of this sin break through her "medical" experience of killing an unborn child...God bless her for responding to that truth and repenting of it...God bless also Andrew who spoke TRUTH about his experience of revulsion over seeing and participating in the killing first hand. God bless Maria for speaking the TRUTH about the need for purification. God bless those men and women who knew the TRUTH and stood/stand by it; as well as those of us who were ignorant of the TRUTH before but who now FACED with the TRUTH acknowledge this misguided practice for what it is --- a physical death sentence for a child, and a spiritual (unless repented of) and perhaps physical (if the mother's life is lost in the process) death for the mother; there is also the risk of spiritaul death for all involved in procuring the abortion and paying for it --- yes even for the nation whose tax dollars fund it....THE TRUTH IS THAT CHRIST IS BIG ENOUGH TO HANDLE THIS SIN IF WE ACKNOWLEDGE THIS TRUTH AND TURN TO HIM.
Personally, I grieve for my own ignorance, selfishness, and cowardess; and I beg God's mercy and forgiveness for myself and all who rightfully acknowledge the TRUTH about this SIN and the NEED TO STOP CONDONING IT. Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing a child does not make the circumstances around the sexual act that brought that life into being become "right" through that act. Killing the fruit does not justify the tree of sin from which it often springs ---- whether sexual sins or the sins of self-ishness or lack of charity.
I pray that God will give us all every grace needed to overcome this scourge once and for all in Jesus's name through Mary in union with St. Joseph and all the saints in heaven and holy souls in purgatory or limbo. Amen.
7.21.2010 | 12:07pm
Sam. says:
@brettongarcia Let me just say this: a cheek cell will never develop into a fully-formed human being. Never has, never will. Only an embryo will continue to develop into a human being. You have provided no answer to the ceaselessly repeated question 'What determines a "full human being?"' Who decides where the line is drawn between killing and merely 'aborting' a 'lump of tissue'? From whence comes your suggestion that the birth canal is the differentiating factor between a non-human and a baby? Are a mother's labor contractions somehow squeezing personhood into the child even as they push the child out?
I would say that I and the other viewers of this blog would all agree that the soul is an objectively higher and greater part of a human being. It surely is more important. We agree there. However, you err in making it the only important part. A human is the union of soul and body--both are necessary. Your deemphasis of body is disturbing, and counter to the Catholic Church's true emphasis on the physical (such as the Sacraments, the physical manifestations and signs of grace, and sacramentals, outward devotions to God).
Further, you misspeak when you insinuate that the pro-life movement is in support of things like unjust warfare and capital punishment and in opposition to things like treatment of disease and providing healthcare to those who need it. A belief that abortion is the paramount issue of our time (~50 million in the US alone since 1973) does not cancel out a support for human life in all its stages.
Finally, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand what should be basic truths. Though you surely are an intelligent person, please don't conflate letters with brains. Not every pro-lifer out there is a fundamentalist raring at the bit to gun down all those 'damned demonic babykillers'. Abortionists' lives are worth just as much as yours or mine, even if solely for the fact that they too are human.
(For all your doctorate, one wonders why you quote books and works centered on teaching faith and morals (e.g., the Bible, the Summa) as being definitive on matters of empirics and science. Reason says that morals remain the same for all people across time, as there is nothing in them that suggests change, but the gathering of knowledge continuously grows over time, and later knowledge may contradict former scientific ideas. Why use out-of-date science to support your cause?)
I would say that I and the other viewers of this blog would all agree that the soul is an objectively higher and greater part of a human being. It surely is more important. We agree there. However, you err in making it the only important part. A human is the union of soul and body--both are necessary. Your deemphasis of body is disturbing, and counter to the Catholic Church's true emphasis on the physical (such as the Sacraments, the physical manifestations and signs of grace, and sacramentals, outward devotions to God).
Further, you misspeak when you insinuate that the pro-life movement is in support of things like unjust warfare and capital punishment and in opposition to things like treatment of disease and providing healthcare to those who need it. A belief that abortion is the paramount issue of our time (~50 million in the US alone since 1973) does not cancel out a support for human life in all its stages.
Finally, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand what should be basic truths. Though you surely are an intelligent person, please don't conflate letters with brains. Not every pro-lifer out there is a fundamentalist raring at the bit to gun down all those 'damned demonic babykillers'. Abortionists' lives are worth just as much as yours or mine, even if solely for the fact that they too are human.
(For all your doctorate, one wonders why you quote books and works centered on teaching faith and morals (e.g., the Bible, the Summa) as being definitive on matters of empirics and science. Reason says that morals remain the same for all people across time, as there is nothing in them that suggests change, but the gathering of knowledge continuously grows over time, and later knowledge may contradict former scientific ideas. Why use out-of-date science to support your cause?)
7.21.2010 | 4:14pm
Billy Bean says:
SAM.: Thank you for your comments. But please reconsider the body/soul dualism (with the "soul" being superior). This, I think, is Platonic philosophy, and not Christian theology. It plays right into the hands of the gnostic distortions of Brettongarcia. The Incarnation of God the Son, and the Resurrection of the body in Him, make it clear that the physical body is not ultimately separable from, nor inferior to, the nonphysical being of humanity. The whole cosmos is to be created anew. That is the Christian hope (e.g., Romans 8:18-21). I gladly acknowledge that our Lord said, "Life is more that food, and the body more than clothing" (Matthew 6:25), but He never suggested that the physical world could not contain and embody the Infinite and unseen realities. This is the sacramental theology of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. The orthodox Anglicans (e.g., bishop N.T. Wright and layman apologists C.S. Lewis and Dorothy Sayers) also insist on this truth. I offer this not to knit-pick, but to to strengthen the excellent points you made.
7.21.2010 | 4:22pm
Billy Bean says:
SAM: In reconsidering what you actually said, I think you and I are fully agreed on the matter of body/soul. I find no ultimate dualism in your remarks. And I again thank you for your post.
7.21.2010 | 4:59pm
Cbalducc says:
Brettongarcia has a rich vein of poisoned ore he can mine for his postings:
http://brettongarcia.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-conservative-pro-life-heresy/#comment-9
http://brettongarcia.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-conservative-pro-life-heresy/#comment-9
7.21.2010 | 5:19pm
Billy Bean says:
Brettongarcia and All faithful Catholic Readers: "For now, elements of the Church do indeed consider abortion a 'grave sin.' However, those elements are at odd with other elements of Church tradition and reasoning. So that finally, though abortion IS considered a sin, it is not for example, considered 'murder'; since the embryo in fact is not provably human." This is Brettongaricia's take on Catholic teaching. Since I am not at this time in communion with the Catholic Church, could someone (yes, YOU are "someone," Brettongarica) please enlighten me as to whether the Church differentiates between "abortion" and "murder." per se? And whether this differentiation is circumstantial or essential?
7.21.2010 | 5:48pm
rita says:
BG et al,
I lost my daughter to abortion many years ago & all your hot air about how that's was my right blah blah cannot bring her back to me. I made the decision to kill her but people who believe like you do served to obfuscate the reality of the life & death decision I made until it was too late. Even my minister at the time agreed with your "reasoning."
So, just for the record, those who continue to spew this rhetoric in the face of all the scientific evidence (i.e., ultrasound) to the contrary (never mind Church teaching) will have as much, if not more to answer for when you stand before the Lord than I will.
I lost my daughter to abortion many years ago & all your hot air about how that's was my right blah blah cannot bring her back to me. I made the decision to kill her but people who believe like you do served to obfuscate the reality of the life & death decision I made until it was too late. Even my minister at the time agreed with your "reasoning."
So, just for the record, those who continue to spew this rhetoric in the face of all the scientific evidence (i.e., ultrasound) to the contrary (never mind Church teaching) will have as much, if not more to answer for when you stand before the Lord than I will.
7.21.2010 | 5:56pm
Charles Cassil says:
My vote for best post above goes to Andrew, the medical student who witnessed an abortion up close and personal. I can't imagine how anyone could respond to that experience much differently than he did. I can easily see myself breaking down sobbing and fleeing the room, or throwing up reflexively before I could even start to leave, and then never being quite the same ever again.
I am glad Andrew brought up intellectualizing. A large part of any response to something this basic, this fundamental, must be visceral. Any attempt to deal with it as though it were something less is simply pointless. This brings me to an issue not touched in the article or in any of the posts so far: government power. The power of the government is, for all practical purposes, absolute; do we want it involved in abortion? Is anyone certain that giving government the power to say who CAN have a legal abortion--as it did until 1973--will not sooner or later lead to its having power to say who MUST have an abortion? The record of governments, from the dawn of recorded time to the present moment, makes it clear that, just as with abortion, each of us must bring every fiber of our being to this question.
I look forward to responses to this post, especially those that challenge my thinking and offer different perspectives.
brettongarcia: if you respond to this post, please limit your response to 50 words or less!
I am glad Andrew brought up intellectualizing. A large part of any response to something this basic, this fundamental, must be visceral. Any attempt to deal with it as though it were something less is simply pointless. This brings me to an issue not touched in the article or in any of the posts so far: government power. The power of the government is, for all practical purposes, absolute; do we want it involved in abortion? Is anyone certain that giving government the power to say who CAN have a legal abortion--as it did until 1973--will not sooner or later lead to its having power to say who MUST have an abortion? The record of governments, from the dawn of recorded time to the present moment, makes it clear that, just as with abortion, each of us must bring every fiber of our being to this question.
I look forward to responses to this post, especially those that challenge my thinking and offer different perspectives.
brettongarcia: if you respond to this post, please limit your response to 50 words or less!
7.21.2010 | 8:55pm
RJP says:
Sir,
I am not a scholar like so many here.
You have given me more direction toward the Light by the conversation you have caused with your involved response to the original article. May I offer a simple truth given to me by the God through His Word that requires very little faith and simple logic. The Father certainly wouldn't give the Word to only those of you with big words and the hours of time it must take to read like you do. Us common working folk needed the Truth also. A Father keeps it simple for children...
Jesus did not arrive on a chariot or a space ship. Jesus came to us through the birth canal.
Jesus came to a single mom who chose to be pregnant clearly before conception. Her famous response to the Angel states this.
In posing the choice to Jesus's then unwed mother, there was only discussion of child, not any biological matter.
There was no time period ever given to Jesus's mother for when she could reverse the decision. So, it was not reversible from the decision made before conception.
John recognizes Jesus while still in the womb. He jumps for joy. The writers of the Bible had no pictures of unborn babies but tell us that John jumped for joy. Recognizing another being and having a physical and emotional response to that other being, to me, is about a simple as my Lord could explain to me that there are absolutely two young persons existing in their Mother's wombs.
You can go on reading and writing and quoting all of your favorite human scholarly folks, Saints, Popes and so on. But my Father gave it to me as simply as a loving parent would. Any soul, sheep herder, car mechanic, nurse or professor, who has read these same Gospels over the past two thousand years would have to agree with what is given to us by the Word. Science will only continue to show me and others what we already know.
As for Father's opinion on abortion. I feel pretty clear about whether if it would be okay to harm Jesus or John in their mother's wombs by what he said about the harming of children. You know that part. That's all part of the Word.
This Word, by the way, that those Catholic folks carried through these two thousand years so that folks like you and I could read and reread them, same as Thomas did. Your Protestant heroes can tip their hats to those Heartfelt Catholics for that favor.
Your babbling on about perverted priests, and now equating the unborn to Barbie Dolls, pretty much reveals your true intellect. I've met guys lie you thoughout my life. Big words but when push comes to shove they go for the low blows . You make it impossible for someone like me, who has much to learn, to accept you as a real thinker when you let your heart feelings break through with such stuff.
As a dad myself, I am amazed at the thought of a man who has experienced child rearing to the fullest, being able to put together 700 pages of anything, let alone something so in depth, that is most likely meant to confuse folks just like me from the simple Truth. The hours it took you to put that much writing together might have been better spent hanging out with some simple guys like me and maybe geting down to some real Truths.
God Bless you, Brother,
RJ
I am not a scholar like so many here.
You have given me more direction toward the Light by the conversation you have caused with your involved response to the original article. May I offer a simple truth given to me by the God through His Word that requires very little faith and simple logic. The Father certainly wouldn't give the Word to only those of you with big words and the hours of time it must take to read like you do. Us common working folk needed the Truth also. A Father keeps it simple for children...
Jesus did not arrive on a chariot or a space ship. Jesus came to us through the birth canal.
Jesus came to a single mom who chose to be pregnant clearly before conception. Her famous response to the Angel states this.
In posing the choice to Jesus's then unwed mother, there was only discussion of child, not any biological matter.
There was no time period ever given to Jesus's mother for when she could reverse the decision. So, it was not reversible from the decision made before conception.
John recognizes Jesus while still in the womb. He jumps for joy. The writers of the Bible had no pictures of unborn babies but tell us that John jumped for joy. Recognizing another being and having a physical and emotional response to that other being, to me, is about a simple as my Lord could explain to me that there are absolutely two young persons existing in their Mother's wombs.
You can go on reading and writing and quoting all of your favorite human scholarly folks, Saints, Popes and so on. But my Father gave it to me as simply as a loving parent would. Any soul, sheep herder, car mechanic, nurse or professor, who has read these same Gospels over the past two thousand years would have to agree with what is given to us by the Word. Science will only continue to show me and others what we already know.
As for Father's opinion on abortion. I feel pretty clear about whether if it would be okay to harm Jesus or John in their mother's wombs by what he said about the harming of children. You know that part. That's all part of the Word.
This Word, by the way, that those Catholic folks carried through these two thousand years so that folks like you and I could read and reread them, same as Thomas did. Your Protestant heroes can tip their hats to those Heartfelt Catholics for that favor.
Your babbling on about perverted priests, and now equating the unborn to Barbie Dolls, pretty much reveals your true intellect. I've met guys lie you thoughout my life. Big words but when push comes to shove they go for the low blows . You make it impossible for someone like me, who has much to learn, to accept you as a real thinker when you let your heart feelings break through with such stuff.
As a dad myself, I am amazed at the thought of a man who has experienced child rearing to the fullest, being able to put together 700 pages of anything, let alone something so in depth, that is most likely meant to confuse folks just like me from the simple Truth. The hours it took you to put that much writing together might have been better spent hanging out with some simple guys like me and maybe geting down to some real Truths.
God Bless you, Brother,
RJ
7.21.2010 | 9:37pm
Sam. says:
@Billy Bean Thank you for your advice. I was doing a bit of my own theology (which isn't all that wise for a rising college freshman), reasoning that the soul is the part of man most like to God, and therefore more important. Scratch the 'more important' part.
7.22.2010 | 4:58am
brettongarcia says:
Sam!
Don't scratch off your soul so quickly! Look into other theologies. Granted, mind and matter work together. I am not a dualist, as I make clear eleswhere. But of the two, more important is the mind.
Reason suggests that morality changes, to fit changing circumstances, dispensations; so we consider the latest science here, beyond ultrasound. A Psychology which however confirms ancient ideas: the invisible spirit or soul is the most important thing we have. Though it is invisible, and does not appear in the outdated science, of ultrasound.
Don't scratch off your soul so quickly! Look into other theologies. Granted, mind and matter work together. I am not a dualist, as I make clear eleswhere. But of the two, more important is the mind.
Reason suggests that morality changes, to fit changing circumstances, dispensations; so we consider the latest science here, beyond ultrasound. A Psychology which however confirms ancient ideas: the invisible spirit or soul is the most important thing we have. Though it is invisible, and does not appear in the outdated science, of ultrasound.
7.22.2010 | 8:26am
pharmer says:
There is a feeling of relief that the JUDGEMENTAL One, who purports to be able to determine which humans may be killed willfully, is not practicing in health care, and appears, from the time spent on the forum, to be jobless.
Those who regularly peruse the prolife news are also relieved to know that so many abortionists cannot hold their practices. Another chain appears to be folding due to debts owed to the IRS.
One can hope that the dearth of health care providers willing to remain in the system after Obamacare will cause that monstrosity to crumble quickly.
Prayers in advance for the families of the innocents whose lives will be lost in the transition phases.
Prayers also that those misguided people, who had faith that a corrupt government could run a health care system , will grow some common sense soon.
Those who regularly peruse the prolife news are also relieved to know that so many abortionists cannot hold their practices. Another chain appears to be folding due to debts owed to the IRS.
One can hope that the dearth of health care providers willing to remain in the system after Obamacare will cause that monstrosity to crumble quickly.
Prayers in advance for the families of the innocents whose lives will be lost in the transition phases.
Prayers also that those misguided people, who had faith that a corrupt government could run a health care system , will grow some common sense soon.
7.22.2010 | 10:57am
Sam. says:
@Billy Bean Are you seeking re-entry to the Church? Know then that She welcomes you with open arms. You have a good head on your shoulders, from what I can tell. :)
To answer your question, the definition of a person is a distinct substance of a rational nature. By "rational nature" it is meant the potential for rationality. This is the definition of personhood that I learnt in religion senior year. Thus, embryos, distinct substances which have the potential for rationality, are persons, whereas log-piles and Barbie dolls, which have no such potential, are not. The definition of murder is the unjustified killing of another person. Thus the Church teaches that abortion is murder, and that the difference between them is indeed merely circumstantial--abortion is murder within the womb.
To answer your question, the definition of a person is a distinct substance of a rational nature. By "rational nature" it is meant the potential for rationality. This is the definition of personhood that I learnt in religion senior year. Thus, embryos, distinct substances which have the potential for rationality, are persons, whereas log-piles and Barbie dolls, which have no such potential, are not. The definition of murder is the unjustified killing of another person. Thus the Church teaches that abortion is murder, and that the difference between them is indeed merely circumstantial--abortion is murder within the womb.
7.22.2010 | 11:29am
brettongarcia says:
That might be the definition of a "person" you heard in "religion class." It is not the definition you will hear in any serious Ethics or Philosophy or Theology class. By "rational creature" is meant, by most of us, an ACTUAL, PRESENTLY rational creature; not something with the mere "potential" to be that. The Bible many say, said only those who accepted the spirit of God or Jesus were saved; not those with just the potential to do that.
Is a bad man good, because he has the "potential to be" good some day? Having the "potential" to be something, is not the same as being it.
Intelligent machines might some day be rational, potentially; but that doesn't mean your adding machine is a person, today.
I have yet to hear anyone here give an infallible, Ex Cathedra quote from the Church, firmly stipulating that abortion is "murder."
In any case, if the Church does so, then it errs. In the Catholic Church, priests were sexually molesting little boys; and essentially every single Bishop knew, but participated in the cover-up. Is this the organization you tell us is perfect and holy, and whose ideas should be followed to the letter of the law?
The Bible itself, Psalm 139, firmly says that "we," our "days," have not yet begun, in the embryo. The entity in the womb, God said, is not a person.
Pharmer: you are "judging" me, and the Bible, to be wrong. (I'm not jobless: semiretired; from the academic - college - teaching profession).
Is a bad man good, because he has the "potential to be" good some day? Having the "potential" to be something, is not the same as being it.
Intelligent machines might some day be rational, potentially; but that doesn't mean your adding machine is a person, today.
I have yet to hear anyone here give an infallible, Ex Cathedra quote from the Church, firmly stipulating that abortion is "murder."
In any case, if the Church does so, then it errs. In the Catholic Church, priests were sexually molesting little boys; and essentially every single Bishop knew, but participated in the cover-up. Is this the organization you tell us is perfect and holy, and whose ideas should be followed to the letter of the law?
The Bible itself, Psalm 139, firmly says that "we," our "days," have not yet begun, in the embryo. The entity in the womb, God said, is not a person.
Pharmer: you are "judging" me, and the Bible, to be wrong. (I'm not jobless: semiretired; from the academic - college - teaching profession).
7.22.2010 | 1:02pm
Sam. says:
@brettongarcia Bad men, precisely because of their potential for good, ought to be respected just the same as good men. Their evil acts do not negate their worth as human beings. Their actions ought to be punished, but that does not make them less human. All men have the potential to be saved, and so should be respected as children of God; not all will be saved, out of the consequences of their own actions. But those who are not saved are no less human. There is a fundamental difference lies between being and acting. All men, good and evil, are men, and thus merit equal dignity. But men can choose actions with their will that are good or evil. Thus a substance with the potential for rationality should be respected as much as one with rationality actualized.
By potential I do not mean that an embryo may gain it, hit or miss, as you seem to suggest, but rather I mean that if it is allowed to grow it is overwhelmingly likely to achieve use of reason. Adding machines do not, cannot, develop of their own accord into sentient machines. Like cheek cells, they have no potential for rationality. Every single one of your metaphors have been remarkably off-target.
The Church was promised, by Christ, that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' (Mt 16:18) So no matter how sinful the men who make up its hierarchy, it is still the beacon of truth in our world. The Apostles were weak and cowardly men. Does this mean that the Church was a failed institution from the beginning? Their personal weaknesses had no bearing on the organization that Christ Himself founded and made His mystical bride. Just the same with today's abuse scandal. However, the matter of abuse by the clergy, though serious, disgusting and reprehensible, is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Can you please answer why human life begins at birth, rather than right before, right after, or when full reason is achieved later in life? Can you also answer whether those without use of reason are persons as well?
Finally, I apologize for any personal insults I may have given you, as that is un-Christian and a bad witness to the faith.
By potential I do not mean that an embryo may gain it, hit or miss, as you seem to suggest, but rather I mean that if it is allowed to grow it is overwhelmingly likely to achieve use of reason. Adding machines do not, cannot, develop of their own accord into sentient machines. Like cheek cells, they have no potential for rationality. Every single one of your metaphors have been remarkably off-target.
The Church was promised, by Christ, that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' (Mt 16:18) So no matter how sinful the men who make up its hierarchy, it is still the beacon of truth in our world. The Apostles were weak and cowardly men. Does this mean that the Church was a failed institution from the beginning? Their personal weaknesses had no bearing on the organization that Christ Himself founded and made His mystical bride. Just the same with today's abuse scandal. However, the matter of abuse by the clergy, though serious, disgusting and reprehensible, is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Can you please answer why human life begins at birth, rather than right before, right after, or when full reason is achieved later in life? Can you also answer whether those without use of reason are persons as well?
Finally, I apologize for any personal insults I may have given you, as that is un-Christian and a bad witness to the faith.
7.22.2010 | 2:52pm
brettongarcia says:
Does science, ultrasound, prove the embryo is a human being? Ultrasound shows that the embryo has arms, legs, a beating heart. But an animal has all of these things too; that is not what makes us a human being. What makes us human, is the moment our mere animal body, is "form"ed enough, has a large enough brain, to sustain intelligence, a mind, a spirit.
When does that critical moment come? Ultrasound here is essentially irrelevant; what we are concerned with here, cannot be seen with ultrasound. It is invisible: it is the soul or mind.
The science of Psychology knows this well enough.
Therefore, REAL science does not say that an embryo is a human being. Specifically, REAL science NEVER SAID ultrasound confirms that the embryo is a human being, a human person.
The Church calls an abortion, not even a "grave sin" above; but says it is a "grave obligation" not to participate in one. The Church might consider abortion a sin. But how serious is it? There are worse sins. It does not call abortion "murder" because that would imply the Embryo is a human being; you cannot "murder" an animal, but only a human person. For this reason, the Pope said that voting for pro choice candidates in elections, "can be permitted" (Benedict XVI, "Worthiness," 2004 memo).
Unfortunately, anti-abortionists are obsessive; they only see this "one issue" as Cardinal McCarrick said; and they vote on the basis of this one issue. So that they have voted Republican, year after year. Thus ignoring Democratic issues, like peacemaking and diplomatic efforts to avoid unnecessary wars. In 2009/10, anti-abortionist Catholics opposed the Health Care plan; largely because that plan at the time, funded abortions. Thus indeed, the narrow concentration on the "one issue" of abortion, caused many Catholics to neglect, attack, and weaken, Health Care. While the nationalist/militarist Republican administrations Catholilcs elected, cheerfully got us into a number of probably unnecessary wars, right away.
Anti abortionism is well-intended; but it is narrowly obsessive and im"prudent." And so has ended up supporting a number of far more massive evils. Like letting millions die from lack of adequate Health Care; like causing millions to die, from unnecessary wars. "Other issues" the Cardinals told us to consider.
But anti-abortion Catholics just ignore their Cardinals. And they ignore the Bible. And the saints. And finally, anti-abortionists ignore God. Instead they go with their own obsessive and fallible "heart." But the heart, the Bible warned, often deceives us. But anti-abortionists don't know this; they don't really read their Bibles much.
No doubt, a bad man can become good. But IS a bad man, the moment WHEN he is bad, the same as a good one? If so, we would never try to stop bad men when they are bad. Or here's a better example: an acorn will grow into an oak tree; but is it the same as an oak tree? If you wanted enough oak wood to build a house, would you be satisfied if you were handed ten acorns? And should we regard acorns, with the same seriousness and attitudes we regard oak shade trees, say?
The fact is, the important thing about us is our mind or spirit; which develops eventually from our larger physcial brain. But until it develops THAT, the embryo is not yet human. As the Bible, Ps. 139 confirmed, the embryo's "days" as a human being have not yet begun.
Why suggest that it becomes human at say, 6 months to particularly, birth? There are dozens of reasons historically suggested. One is that a) the brain is significantly larger then; b) the body can move in an obviously, tradiitionally recognized way, or "quicken"; c) or at birth, the embryo finally breathes in air; while the word for "spirit" was often "air" or "pneuma"; or d) birth was traditionally when an embryo made a significant change, and emerged into the world, separate from the mother; or e) medicine called it an "embryo" before that, a "baby" after; or f) when the baby is born, it begins and new and more complex life, being exposed to the external environment, and socialized; which develops its brain or personhood exponentially.
Should we trust religious advisors on this subject? Religious persons often make serious mistakes; not just in their personal behavior, but also they misunderstand doctrines. Right after Jesus seemed to give St. Peter the "keys" to heaven, St. Peter misunderstood and reacted against Jesus' doctrine of the necessity of the resurrection, in Mat. 16.23; so that Jesus effectively retracted his confidence in Peter, and called Peter "Satan." And indeed, if the "gates of Hell" will never hold against the Church, then after all, all that means is that the Church can get into Hell.
Sam: I am not a dualist; body and soul both are important. Still of the two, many have said, the immortal soul is the MOST important. So ... don't scratch your soul off!
The Bible warned constantly of sins and errors, in all our holiest men and angels; "all have sinned." In them personally, and in their "scriptures," "oaths," "sayings" from the Lord, and doctrines. And the Bible says that one "day" God is supposed to reveal sins and deceits, in the religion, the Christianity, that has dominated even the whole earth (Rev. 13; cf. "false Christ"s).
So don't be surprised, to find some errors in traditional Christianity. But even if your traditional heaven should collapse around your ears, if you keep in mind the importance of the mind or spirit, and continue to develop it rationally, you should do well.
When does that critical moment come? Ultrasound here is essentially irrelevant; what we are concerned with here, cannot be seen with ultrasound. It is invisible: it is the soul or mind.
The science of Psychology knows this well enough.
Therefore, REAL science does not say that an embryo is a human being. Specifically, REAL science NEVER SAID ultrasound confirms that the embryo is a human being, a human person.
The Church calls an abortion, not even a "grave sin" above; but says it is a "grave obligation" not to participate in one. The Church might consider abortion a sin. But how serious is it? There are worse sins. It does not call abortion "murder" because that would imply the Embryo is a human being; you cannot "murder" an animal, but only a human person. For this reason, the Pope said that voting for pro choice candidates in elections, "can be permitted" (Benedict XVI, "Worthiness," 2004 memo).
Unfortunately, anti-abortionists are obsessive; they only see this "one issue" as Cardinal McCarrick said; and they vote on the basis of this one issue. So that they have voted Republican, year after year. Thus ignoring Democratic issues, like peacemaking and diplomatic efforts to avoid unnecessary wars. In 2009/10, anti-abortionist Catholics opposed the Health Care plan; largely because that plan at the time, funded abortions. Thus indeed, the narrow concentration on the "one issue" of abortion, caused many Catholics to neglect, attack, and weaken, Health Care. While the nationalist/militarist Republican administrations Catholilcs elected, cheerfully got us into a number of probably unnecessary wars, right away.
Anti abortionism is well-intended; but it is narrowly obsessive and im"prudent." And so has ended up supporting a number of far more massive evils. Like letting millions die from lack of adequate Health Care; like causing millions to die, from unnecessary wars. "Other issues" the Cardinals told us to consider.
But anti-abortion Catholics just ignore their Cardinals. And they ignore the Bible. And the saints. And finally, anti-abortionists ignore God. Instead they go with their own obsessive and fallible "heart." But the heart, the Bible warned, often deceives us. But anti-abortionists don't know this; they don't really read their Bibles much.
No doubt, a bad man can become good. But IS a bad man, the moment WHEN he is bad, the same as a good one? If so, we would never try to stop bad men when they are bad. Or here's a better example: an acorn will grow into an oak tree; but is it the same as an oak tree? If you wanted enough oak wood to build a house, would you be satisfied if you were handed ten acorns? And should we regard acorns, with the same seriousness and attitudes we regard oak shade trees, say?
The fact is, the important thing about us is our mind or spirit; which develops eventually from our larger physcial brain. But until it develops THAT, the embryo is not yet human. As the Bible, Ps. 139 confirmed, the embryo's "days" as a human being have not yet begun.
Why suggest that it becomes human at say, 6 months to particularly, birth? There are dozens of reasons historically suggested. One is that a) the brain is significantly larger then; b) the body can move in an obviously, tradiitionally recognized way, or "quicken"; c) or at birth, the embryo finally breathes in air; while the word for "spirit" was often "air" or "pneuma"; or d) birth was traditionally when an embryo made a significant change, and emerged into the world, separate from the mother; or e) medicine called it an "embryo" before that, a "baby" after; or f) when the baby is born, it begins and new and more complex life, being exposed to the external environment, and socialized; which develops its brain or personhood exponentially.
Should we trust religious advisors on this subject? Religious persons often make serious mistakes; not just in their personal behavior, but also they misunderstand doctrines. Right after Jesus seemed to give St. Peter the "keys" to heaven, St. Peter misunderstood and reacted against Jesus' doctrine of the necessity of the resurrection, in Mat. 16.23; so that Jesus effectively retracted his confidence in Peter, and called Peter "Satan." And indeed, if the "gates of Hell" will never hold against the Church, then after all, all that means is that the Church can get into Hell.
Sam: I am not a dualist; body and soul both are important. Still of the two, many have said, the immortal soul is the MOST important. So ... don't scratch your soul off!
The Bible warned constantly of sins and errors, in all our holiest men and angels; "all have sinned." In them personally, and in their "scriptures," "oaths," "sayings" from the Lord, and doctrines. And the Bible says that one "day" God is supposed to reveal sins and deceits, in the religion, the Christianity, that has dominated even the whole earth (Rev. 13; cf. "false Christ"s).
So don't be surprised, to find some errors in traditional Christianity. But even if your traditional heaven should collapse around your ears, if you keep in mind the importance of the mind or spirit, and continue to develop it rationally, you should do well.
7.22.2010 | 4:17pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
"I have yet to hear anyone here give an infallible, Ex Cathedra quote from the Church, firmly stipulating that abortion is "murder." "
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
"You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish." (the Didache, accepted as authentic by everyone but brettongarcia)
"God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. (Gaudium et spes)
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death." (Donum Vitae)
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights." (Donum Vitae)
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence." (Donum Vitae)
-----
It would hardly surprise me if someone as evasive and dishonest as yourself could twist these passages into something other than a direct condemnation of abortion at any time after conception, or could convince himself that these passages are somehow not delivered with the full authority of the magisterium behind them. Knock yourself out.
Your argument is faulty in many aspects:
1. You continue to (willfully?) ignore the fact that Aquinas taught that abortion prior to ensoulment was a grave evil (though not homicidal).
2. You insist that Thomas based his opinion on your interpretation of Psalm 139, an insistence for which you provide neither citation nor evidence for other than "because brettongarcia thinks it's obvious". Hasn't an individual's insistence of "because it's obvious" been the impetus for the formation of enough Protestant denominations already?
3. With advancements in the understanding of human conception and embryology, the Church's teaching in regards to the life in the womb evolved towards "a human life is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception", as Church teaching may legitimately do; for you to argue that the magisterium must defer to Thomas' opinion, regardless of the fact that it is universally known to be based a faulty view of conception and embryology, is something Thomas himself would not endorse.
4. Your insistence that Catholics must defer to the opinion of even the greatest Catholic theologians over the teaching of the magisterium is also something Thomas himself would not endorse.
5. In citing Benedict's 2004 letter stating that Catholics "may be permitted to vote for a pro-choice candidate if proportional reasons exist", you interpret "may be permitted to" as "are obligated to", interpret "if" as "because", and have determined and proclaimed for all Catholics that proportional reasons definitely exist (unlike Benedict, who allowed for informed consciences to discern whether or not they exist), a determination and proclamation you supported with DNC talking points and apocalyptic visions.
You may bloviate and dodge and misinterpret and create your own little magisterium of one to your heart's content - it will not change the fact that abortion is and has always been condemned by the Church as gravely and intrinsically evil, so much that so that to procure an abortion incurs automatic excommunication. Your ongoing claim that your twisted and self-serving interpretations of Scripture and the Pope's 2004 letter, along with the understood-to-be-outdated-and-faulty-by-everyone-but-you opinion of Thomas Aquinas in differentiating one abortion from another (and who nevertheless held that pre-ensoulment abortions were still gravely and intrinsically evil, a fact which you are so determined to ignore) are to be adhered to over the clear teachings and promulgations of the magisterium, continues to be a monumental act of buffoonery.
Enjoy cursing the darkness,
GR
"I have yet to hear anyone here give an infallible, Ex Cathedra quote from the Church, firmly stipulating that abortion is "murder." "
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
"You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish." (the Didache, accepted as authentic by everyone but brettongarcia)
"God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. (Gaudium et spes)
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death." (Donum Vitae)
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights." (Donum Vitae)
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence." (Donum Vitae)
-----
It would hardly surprise me if someone as evasive and dishonest as yourself could twist these passages into something other than a direct condemnation of abortion at any time after conception, or could convince himself that these passages are somehow not delivered with the full authority of the magisterium behind them. Knock yourself out.
Your argument is faulty in many aspects:
1. You continue to (willfully?) ignore the fact that Aquinas taught that abortion prior to ensoulment was a grave evil (though not homicidal).
2. You insist that Thomas based his opinion on your interpretation of Psalm 139, an insistence for which you provide neither citation nor evidence for other than "because brettongarcia thinks it's obvious". Hasn't an individual's insistence of "because it's obvious" been the impetus for the formation of enough Protestant denominations already?
3. With advancements in the understanding of human conception and embryology, the Church's teaching in regards to the life in the womb evolved towards "a human life is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception", as Church teaching may legitimately do; for you to argue that the magisterium must defer to Thomas' opinion, regardless of the fact that it is universally known to be based a faulty view of conception and embryology, is something Thomas himself would not endorse.
4. Your insistence that Catholics must defer to the opinion of even the greatest Catholic theologians over the teaching of the magisterium is also something Thomas himself would not endorse.
5. In citing Benedict's 2004 letter stating that Catholics "may be permitted to vote for a pro-choice candidate if proportional reasons exist", you interpret "may be permitted to" as "are obligated to", interpret "if" as "because", and have determined and proclaimed for all Catholics that proportional reasons definitely exist (unlike Benedict, who allowed for informed consciences to discern whether or not they exist), a determination and proclamation you supported with DNC talking points and apocalyptic visions.
You may bloviate and dodge and misinterpret and create your own little magisterium of one to your heart's content - it will not change the fact that abortion is and has always been condemned by the Church as gravely and intrinsically evil, so much that so that to procure an abortion incurs automatic excommunication. Your ongoing claim that your twisted and self-serving interpretations of Scripture and the Pope's 2004 letter, along with the understood-to-be-outdated-and-faulty-by-everyone-but-you opinion of Thomas Aquinas in differentiating one abortion from another (and who nevertheless held that pre-ensoulment abortions were still gravely and intrinsically evil, a fact which you are so determined to ignore) are to be adhered to over the clear teachings and promulgations of the magisterium, continues to be a monumental act of buffoonery.
Enjoy cursing the darkness,
GR
7.22.2010 | 5:10pm
Billy Bean says:
SAM: I am a baptized Catholic who embraced hedonism/"agnosticism" and reached the end of that rather short rope many years ago. I embraced Protestant Christianity because I was never "converted" (though indeed confirmed). I recognized in the Protestant message the Jesus I had loved as a child in the Gospel readings at Mass, and I received Him as "my personal Savior," which turned out later to be "the Jesus who will underwrite my agenda." (I am very adept at self deception. This is a big reason why I am even now so cautious.) Of course, Protestantism is only an option for those who do not delve too deeply into history (which I did). I became Eastern Orthodox because I wanted communion with the apostolic Church, but had a deeply ingrained antipathy toward the papacy. I no longer do, thanks to Brettongarcia and others. Finally, let me again thank you for your graciousness and articulate posts.
7.23.2010 | 12:05am
brettongarcia says:
Rumple:
My position is that the Church did often say abortion is bad; but it has stopped short of explitly calling it "murder," by name. And the Pope himself has even allowed that voting for pro-choice, pro-abortion candidates, "can be permitted."
My position on St. Aquinas, is that his ideas should not have been so casually junked by the Catholic Church; since his notion has stood up well over time. In fact Science today, beyond "ultrasound," confirms his idea. That the essence of a human being is our mind or rational spirit; and that the very young embryo's brain is not yet "form"ed or large enough, to sustain a significantly human intelligence.
Aquinas may or may not have opposed abortion; there are many different translations of his work. And many very different readings on what he said once or twice on related subjects; Haldane (of Steubenville?) and other's readings are dishonestly edited and presented. Though Aquinas seems to have suggested that if a pregancy threatens the life of the mother, then the embryo should be terminated; least we commit murder, by allowing the mother to be killed.
In any case, whatever Aquinas may have explicitly said on abortion itself - if ever - finally, the part of his work that holds up well, is the part we are concentrating on here. Where he correctly sees that the essence of being a person, is not our body or "flesh," but our invisible mind or rational spirit or "soul." And when he correctly found that a young embryo, did not have a body "form"ed enough (clearly echoing Ps. 139), to sustain Reason.
If you continue and deepen your research, you will find countless scholars who agree with the points that you think only I hold.
My position is that the Church did often say abortion is bad; but it has stopped short of explitly calling it "murder," by name. And the Pope himself has even allowed that voting for pro-choice, pro-abortion candidates, "can be permitted."
My position on St. Aquinas, is that his ideas should not have been so casually junked by the Catholic Church; since his notion has stood up well over time. In fact Science today, beyond "ultrasound," confirms his idea. That the essence of a human being is our mind or rational spirit; and that the very young embryo's brain is not yet "form"ed or large enough, to sustain a significantly human intelligence.
Aquinas may or may not have opposed abortion; there are many different translations of his work. And many very different readings on what he said once or twice on related subjects; Haldane (of Steubenville?) and other's readings are dishonestly edited and presented. Though Aquinas seems to have suggested that if a pregancy threatens the life of the mother, then the embryo should be terminated; least we commit murder, by allowing the mother to be killed.
In any case, whatever Aquinas may have explicitly said on abortion itself - if ever - finally, the part of his work that holds up well, is the part we are concentrating on here. Where he correctly sees that the essence of being a person, is not our body or "flesh," but our invisible mind or rational spirit or "soul." And when he correctly found that a young embryo, did not have a body "form"ed enough (clearly echoing Ps. 139), to sustain Reason.
If you continue and deepen your research, you will find countless scholars who agree with the points that you think only I hold.
7.23.2010 | 11:05am
Josh says:
Tim: Ha! Well said.
Everyone engaging brettongarcia: you're partaking in interminable arguments with someone who thinks Hispanic thinking--whatever that may be--is heretical. Save your sanity and slowly back away without making any quick intellectual movements.
(Although, I may be wrong. My wife is Cuban and I've seen evidence of bg's hypothesis. Hmmmm ...)
Everyone engaging brettongarcia: you're partaking in interminable arguments with someone who thinks Hispanic thinking--whatever that may be--is heretical. Save your sanity and slowly back away without making any quick intellectual movements.
(Although, I may be wrong. My wife is Cuban and I've seen evidence of bg's hypothesis. Hmmmm ...)
7.23.2010 | 11:34am
Sam. says:
@GeronimoRumplestiltskin Thanks for shining the light of the CCC upon this discussion. That's a big help.
@brettongarcia Seeing as the Catholic Catechism (as well as the Didache and Gaudium et Spes) state that abortion is a 'moral evil', 'gravely contrary to the moral law', an 'abominable crime' 'against human life' that merits the 'canonical penalty of excommunication', it seems like you're playing with semantics to say that the Church never called abortion 'murder' per se. The answer is in black and white--one must oppose abortion to consider oneself a Catholic. The PBXVI quote is, as I'm sure you know but didn't explain, is that it's acceptable to vote for a pro-abort candidate only for proportionate reasons--such as if the only option is more vehemently pro-abort, or if he supports massive unjustified warfare.
Also, consider the repercussions of your actions--especially since there is no one specific biological incident that occurs six months along in gestation to show that the baby now possesses personhood. Where exactly is the point of the endowment of rationality? Does it gain personhood slowly over the course of the last three months in utero, gradually gaining rights one by one as it becomes more and more a person? Who is to decide?
As to the acorn, it is as much an oak as the tree is--both are oaks, one is merely more developed. One cannot say that an acorn is not of the same substance as the oak tree.
Finally, let me close with a paragraph of yours that illustrates what several in this discussion find disturbing about your rhetoric. I changed it up a little, modified the issue discussed, but the reasoning and framework remain yours.
'Unfortunately, abolitionists are obsessive; they only see this "one issue" of slavery; and they vote on the basis of this one issue. So that they have voted Republican, year after year. Thus ignoring Democratic issues, like peacemaking and diplomatic efforts to avoid an unnecessary war. In 1820, abolitionists opposed the Missouri Compromise; largely because that plan at the time allowed slavery south of the 36 30, as well as in Missouri. Thus indeed, the narrow concentration on the "one issue" of slavery, caused many abolitionists to neglect, attack, and weaken, the state of the Union. While the nationalist/militarist Republican administrations abolitionists elected, cheerfully got us into a probably unnecessary war, the Civil War, right away.'
It's an important issue, as important to the pro-life movement as desegregation was and is to the black community, and suffrage was to the followers of Susan B. Anthony. Our view of personhood is more consistent (if it will develop into what we recognize as a human, then it must be human from the start), and we believe that this is today's most pressing civil rights issue. Social justice begins in the womb.
@brettongarcia Seeing as the Catholic Catechism (as well as the Didache and Gaudium et Spes) state that abortion is a 'moral evil', 'gravely contrary to the moral law', an 'abominable crime' 'against human life' that merits the 'canonical penalty of excommunication', it seems like you're playing with semantics to say that the Church never called abortion 'murder' per se. The answer is in black and white--one must oppose abortion to consider oneself a Catholic. The PBXVI quote is, as I'm sure you know but didn't explain, is that it's acceptable to vote for a pro-abort candidate only for proportionate reasons--such as if the only option is more vehemently pro-abort, or if he supports massive unjustified warfare.
Also, consider the repercussions of your actions--especially since there is no one specific biological incident that occurs six months along in gestation to show that the baby now possesses personhood. Where exactly is the point of the endowment of rationality? Does it gain personhood slowly over the course of the last three months in utero, gradually gaining rights one by one as it becomes more and more a person? Who is to decide?
As to the acorn, it is as much an oak as the tree is--both are oaks, one is merely more developed. One cannot say that an acorn is not of the same substance as the oak tree.
Finally, let me close with a paragraph of yours that illustrates what several in this discussion find disturbing about your rhetoric. I changed it up a little, modified the issue discussed, but the reasoning and framework remain yours.
'Unfortunately, abolitionists are obsessive; they only see this "one issue" of slavery; and they vote on the basis of this one issue. So that they have voted Republican, year after year. Thus ignoring Democratic issues, like peacemaking and diplomatic efforts to avoid an unnecessary war. In 1820, abolitionists opposed the Missouri Compromise; largely because that plan at the time allowed slavery south of the 36 30, as well as in Missouri. Thus indeed, the narrow concentration on the "one issue" of slavery, caused many abolitionists to neglect, attack, and weaken, the state of the Union. While the nationalist/militarist Republican administrations abolitionists elected, cheerfully got us into a probably unnecessary war, the Civil War, right away.'
It's an important issue, as important to the pro-life movement as desegregation was and is to the black community, and suffrage was to the followers of Susan B. Anthony. Our view of personhood is more consistent (if it will develop into what we recognize as a human, then it must be human from the start), and we believe that this is today's most pressing civil rights issue. Social justice begins in the womb.
7.23.2010 | 2:41pm
brettongarcia says:
You are mistaken to be following Rumplestiltskin. Ruplestiltskin is not even a Christian.
Nor should anyone be following First Things for that matter, it is not a religious authority; it is a polemical, political journal. One that passes off right-wing "conservative" politics as the word of God. But dishonestly, after all.
You follow Rumplestiltskin? From his constant attacks on a major saint - saint Thomas Aquinas - one of two things must be true. Either 1) Rumplestiltskin is not a Catholic; he does not believe in the saints. Or 2) the Catholic Church itself, has betrayed the popular ideals, it taught billions of Catholics in Church. At one time, every priest told us constantly in church, to revere and follow "the saints"; but now the Church points to the fine print, that it says always said something else? That we don't have to follow parts of St. Thomas Aquinas? If so, then obviously, here is another reason why we shouldn't be following the Church. Aside from the fact that its priests were sexually molesting little boys, and all its bishops lied about it: the Church has been misleading and inconsistent in what it taught us.
For that matter, 3) it is obvious from Rumplestiltskin's attitudes, that your hero is not even Christian. He has continually insulted people, and called them a "fool" for example; though the Bible commands us not to call someone a "fool." It is clear to me from his constant emotional invective, name-calling, his constant insults, that Rumple is very, very far from the spirit of Christ. In effect, maybe we have Rumplestiltskin's real name: it is not a good one.
The 4) current Catechism in fact, promulgated c. 1997-2000, is a rather extreme document, quite incompatible with the real core of Catholic tradition; its section on abortion was probably written under the influence of heretical anti-abortion extremists like Fr. Frank Pavone. It would be wise for the commission that writes catechisms, to reconsider what it wrote there. The Catechism in any case, is presented as a social "norm," only; not as Ex Cathedra infallible truth; as I'm sure you know.
In any case though, for whatever authority it has? The Catechism DID wisely, stop (albeit, just) short, of explicitly calling abortion "murder." Because, as I am showing here, it can't say that without going against too many core elements of Catholic Tradition. Like the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Specifically 5) what other issues did the Vatican CDF and the Pope himself elsewhere tell us might be "proportionately" more important than Abortion? The 2004 memo did not specify; it seemed possibly to rule out "just" wars and capital punishment; but it did not rule out UNJUST or UNNECESSARY WARS, or health care, DISEASE disasters, as being an more important issue than abortion. And in fact, these issues have ALREADY OUTWEIGHED ABORTION, in numbers killed. Historically, wars and diseases, plagues, have historically killed hundreds of millions of people aleady, historically; and Revelation suggested billions more. So that avoiding THESE deaths is a far, far greater priority, than ending abortion. Even more important than ending slavery, is saving billions of people; the bulk of the whole population of the earth. (Cf. also the potential of environmental disasters - floods, plagues, scientific accidents - destroying the entire earth).
And so for that matter, 6) should we trust this journal, First Things? Where the animated banner has George Weigel citing "Satan" as an authority? "Satan" validating the wonderfulness of Mary Eberstadt's writing: "Mary Eberstadt is one smark cookie. If you don't believe me, ask Satan" (George Weigel, First Things Web site banner for Letters for Losers?).
You know Sam, the signs are not good - indeed, they are awful - for the godliness and authority, of First Things, and its fans. And for the authority of Pro Life anti-abortionism. Do REAL religious authorities normally cite "Satan" as an authority?
I modestly suggest that First Things readers reconsider the reliablity of this publication, its issues, and its supporters.
7) "One cannot say the acorn is not the same substance as the oak tree"? What?!? Is a pile of wood that is going to be made into a house, have the same substance or essence, as a house? If you paid someone $10,000 for enough oak wood to build a house, and then they took your money, and gave you ten acorns, would you REALLY be satisfied? Would you really be satisfied that an acorn, was substantially the same as an oak tree? See some academic articles on this very subject. If you can't guess the obvious answer.
You know Sam, telling us not to follow a saint, like Saint Aquinas; then going against Psalm 139; and then finally explicitly citing "Satan" by name, as your authority, might begin to raise some red flags, for more cogent readers.
Would you like to withdraw your support for this institution and its creeds, Sam?
Nor should anyone be following First Things for that matter, it is not a religious authority; it is a polemical, political journal. One that passes off right-wing "conservative" politics as the word of God. But dishonestly, after all.
You follow Rumplestiltskin? From his constant attacks on a major saint - saint Thomas Aquinas - one of two things must be true. Either 1) Rumplestiltskin is not a Catholic; he does not believe in the saints. Or 2) the Catholic Church itself, has betrayed the popular ideals, it taught billions of Catholics in Church. At one time, every priest told us constantly in church, to revere and follow "the saints"; but now the Church points to the fine print, that it says always said something else? That we don't have to follow parts of St. Thomas Aquinas? If so, then obviously, here is another reason why we shouldn't be following the Church. Aside from the fact that its priests were sexually molesting little boys, and all its bishops lied about it: the Church has been misleading and inconsistent in what it taught us.
For that matter, 3) it is obvious from Rumplestiltskin's attitudes, that your hero is not even Christian. He has continually insulted people, and called them a "fool" for example; though the Bible commands us not to call someone a "fool." It is clear to me from his constant emotional invective, name-calling, his constant insults, that Rumple is very, very far from the spirit of Christ. In effect, maybe we have Rumplestiltskin's real name: it is not a good one.
The 4) current Catechism in fact, promulgated c. 1997-2000, is a rather extreme document, quite incompatible with the real core of Catholic tradition; its section on abortion was probably written under the influence of heretical anti-abortion extremists like Fr. Frank Pavone. It would be wise for the commission that writes catechisms, to reconsider what it wrote there. The Catechism in any case, is presented as a social "norm," only; not as Ex Cathedra infallible truth; as I'm sure you know.
In any case though, for whatever authority it has? The Catechism DID wisely, stop (albeit, just) short, of explicitly calling abortion "murder." Because, as I am showing here, it can't say that without going against too many core elements of Catholic Tradition. Like the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Specifically 5) what other issues did the Vatican CDF and the Pope himself elsewhere tell us might be "proportionately" more important than Abortion? The 2004 memo did not specify; it seemed possibly to rule out "just" wars and capital punishment; but it did not rule out UNJUST or UNNECESSARY WARS, or health care, DISEASE disasters, as being an more important issue than abortion. And in fact, these issues have ALREADY OUTWEIGHED ABORTION, in numbers killed. Historically, wars and diseases, plagues, have historically killed hundreds of millions of people aleady, historically; and Revelation suggested billions more. So that avoiding THESE deaths is a far, far greater priority, than ending abortion. Even more important than ending slavery, is saving billions of people; the bulk of the whole population of the earth. (Cf. also the potential of environmental disasters - floods, plagues, scientific accidents - destroying the entire earth).
And so for that matter, 6) should we trust this journal, First Things? Where the animated banner has George Weigel citing "Satan" as an authority? "Satan" validating the wonderfulness of Mary Eberstadt's writing: "Mary Eberstadt is one smark cookie. If you don't believe me, ask Satan" (George Weigel, First Things Web site banner for Letters for Losers?).
You know Sam, the signs are not good - indeed, they are awful - for the godliness and authority, of First Things, and its fans. And for the authority of Pro Life anti-abortionism. Do REAL religious authorities normally cite "Satan" as an authority?
I modestly suggest that First Things readers reconsider the reliablity of this publication, its issues, and its supporters.
7) "One cannot say the acorn is not the same substance as the oak tree"? What?!? Is a pile of wood that is going to be made into a house, have the same substance or essence, as a house? If you paid someone $10,000 for enough oak wood to build a house, and then they took your money, and gave you ten acorns, would you REALLY be satisfied? Would you really be satisfied that an acorn, was substantially the same as an oak tree? See some academic articles on this very subject. If you can't guess the obvious answer.
You know Sam, telling us not to follow a saint, like Saint Aquinas; then going against Psalm 139; and then finally explicitly citing "Satan" by name, as your authority, might begin to raise some red flags, for more cogent readers.
Would you like to withdraw your support for this institution and its creeds, Sam?
7.24.2010 | 6:12am
brettongarcia says:
Sam:
The antiabortion movement is not reliable; and out of keeping with many Catholic traditions. Rather, it intermixes and confuses "conservative" politics with its religion; mising the "traditions of men" with its religion. First Things for that matter, it is not a religious authority; it is a polemical, political journal. One that passes off right-wing "conservative" politics as the word of God.
Do you follow Rumplestiltskin? From his constant attacks on a major saint - saint Thomas Aquinas - one of two things must be true. Either 1) Rumplestiltskin is not a Catholic;since he does not really believe in the saints ... like saint Aquinas. Or 2) the Catholic Church itself has betrayed the popular ideals, the reverence for the saints, that it taught billions of Catholics in Church.
At one time, every priest told us constantly in church, to revere and follow "the saints"; but now the Church, with Rumplestiltskin, points to the fine print, that it says always said something else? That we don't have to follow parts of St. Thomas Aquinas? And his stress on moreover, "ensoulment"; the importance of the soul in making us human.
If so, then obviously, here is another reason why we shouldn't be following the Church. Aside from the fact that its priests were sexually molesting little boys, and all its bishops lied about it: the Church has been misleading and inconsistent in what it taught us. One minute it tells us the "saints" like St. Aquinas are sacred, and should be followed religiously; the next, it reads us some fine print, where Aqunias himself, tells us he defers to Popes, etc.. And we are told - informally? - we can safely ignore parts of Aquinas on the soul.
For that matter, 3) it is obvious from the extremely insulting, name-calling attitudes of many anti-abortionists here, that they are not even really Christians. Anti-abortion Catholics here, continually insulted people, and called them a "fool"s for example; though the Bible commands us not to call someone a "fool." It is clear to me from their constant emotional invective, name-calling, his constant insults, that many anti-abortionists are very, very far from the spirit of Christ. In effect, maybe we have Rumplestiltskin's real name: it is not a good one.
What did the Church really, finally say on abortion? I accept Aquinas over the current Catechism. The 4) current Catechism in fact, promulgated c. 1997-2000, is a rather extreme document, quite incompatible with the real core of Catholic tradition; its section on abortion was probably written under the influence of heretical anti-abortion extremists like Fr. Frank Pavone. It would be wise for the commission that writes catechisms, to reconsider what it wrote there. The Catechism in any case, is presented as a social "norm," only; not as Ex Cathedra infallible truth; as I'm sure you know.
In any case though, for whatever authority it has? The Catechism DID wisely, stop (albeit, just) short, of explicitly calling abortion "murder." Because, as I am showing here, it can't say that without going against too many core elements of Catholic Tradition. Like the thought of the great Catholic saint, Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Beyond the Catechism, specifically 5) what other issues did the Vatican CDF and the Pope himself elsewhere tell us might be "proportionately" more important than Abortion? The 2004 memo did not specify; it seemed possibly to rule out "just" wars and capital punishment; but it did not rule out UNJUST or UNNECESSARY WARS, or health care, DISEASE disasters, as being an more important issue than abortion. And in fact, these issues have ALREADY OUTWEIGHED ABORTION, in numbers killed. Historically, wars and diseases, plagues, have historically killed hundreds of millions of people aleady, historically; and Revelation suggested billions more. So that avoiding THESE deaths is a far, far greater priority, than ending abortion. Even more important than ending slavery, is saving billions of people; the bulk of the whole population of the earth. (Cf. also the potential of environmental disasters - floods, plagues, scientific accidents - destroying the entire earth).
So for that matter, 6) should we finally trust this journal, First Things? Where the docgtrines seem at variance with saints as prominent as Saint Thomas Aquinas? Where in fact, the animated banner on its web site, has George Weigel citing "Satan" as an authority? ("Satan" validating the wonderfulness of Mary Eberstadt's writing: "Mary Eberstadt is one smark cookie. If you don't believe me, ask Satan"; George Weigel, First Things Web site banner for Letters for Losers?).
You know Sam, the signs are not good - indeed, they are awful - for the godliness and authority, of First Things, and its fans. And for the authority of Pro Life anti-abortionism. Do REAL religious authorities normally rtell us to ignore the sainst ... and cite "Satan" as an authority?
I modestly suggest that First Things readers reconsider the reliablity of this publication, its issues, and its supporters.
7) "One cannot say the acorn is not the same substance as the oak tree"? What?!? Is a pile of wood that is going to be made into a house, have the same substance or essence, as a house? If you paid someone $10,000 for enough oak wood to build a house, and then they took your money, and gave you ten acorns, would you REALLY be satisfied? Would you really be satisfied that an acorn, was substantially the same as an oak tree? See some academic articles on this very subject. If you can't guess the obvious answer.
You know Sam, telling us not to follow a saint, like Saint Aquinas; then going against Psalm 139; and then finally explicitly citing "Satan" by name, as your authority, might begin to raise some red flags, for more cogent readers.
The antiabortion movement is not reliable; and out of keeping with many Catholic traditions. Rather, it intermixes and confuses "conservative" politics with its religion; mising the "traditions of men" with its religion. First Things for that matter, it is not a religious authority; it is a polemical, political journal. One that passes off right-wing "conservative" politics as the word of God.
Do you follow Rumplestiltskin? From his constant attacks on a major saint - saint Thomas Aquinas - one of two things must be true. Either 1) Rumplestiltskin is not a Catholic;since he does not really believe in the saints ... like saint Aquinas. Or 2) the Catholic Church itself has betrayed the popular ideals, the reverence for the saints, that it taught billions of Catholics in Church.
At one time, every priest told us constantly in church, to revere and follow "the saints"; but now the Church, with Rumplestiltskin, points to the fine print, that it says always said something else? That we don't have to follow parts of St. Thomas Aquinas? And his stress on moreover, "ensoulment"; the importance of the soul in making us human.
If so, then obviously, here is another reason why we shouldn't be following the Church. Aside from the fact that its priests were sexually molesting little boys, and all its bishops lied about it: the Church has been misleading and inconsistent in what it taught us. One minute it tells us the "saints" like St. Aquinas are sacred, and should be followed religiously; the next, it reads us some fine print, where Aqunias himself, tells us he defers to Popes, etc.. And we are told - informally? - we can safely ignore parts of Aquinas on the soul.
For that matter, 3) it is obvious from the extremely insulting, name-calling attitudes of many anti-abortionists here, that they are not even really Christians. Anti-abortion Catholics here, continually insulted people, and called them a "fool"s for example; though the Bible commands us not to call someone a "fool." It is clear to me from their constant emotional invective, name-calling, his constant insults, that many anti-abortionists are very, very far from the spirit of Christ. In effect, maybe we have Rumplestiltskin's real name: it is not a good one.
What did the Church really, finally say on abortion? I accept Aquinas over the current Catechism. The 4) current Catechism in fact, promulgated c. 1997-2000, is a rather extreme document, quite incompatible with the real core of Catholic tradition; its section on abortion was probably written under the influence of heretical anti-abortion extremists like Fr. Frank Pavone. It would be wise for the commission that writes catechisms, to reconsider what it wrote there. The Catechism in any case, is presented as a social "norm," only; not as Ex Cathedra infallible truth; as I'm sure you know.
In any case though, for whatever authority it has? The Catechism DID wisely, stop (albeit, just) short, of explicitly calling abortion "murder." Because, as I am showing here, it can't say that without going against too many core elements of Catholic Tradition. Like the thought of the great Catholic saint, Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Beyond the Catechism, specifically 5) what other issues did the Vatican CDF and the Pope himself elsewhere tell us might be "proportionately" more important than Abortion? The 2004 memo did not specify; it seemed possibly to rule out "just" wars and capital punishment; but it did not rule out UNJUST or UNNECESSARY WARS, or health care, DISEASE disasters, as being an more important issue than abortion. And in fact, these issues have ALREADY OUTWEIGHED ABORTION, in numbers killed. Historically, wars and diseases, plagues, have historically killed hundreds of millions of people aleady, historically; and Revelation suggested billions more. So that avoiding THESE deaths is a far, far greater priority, than ending abortion. Even more important than ending slavery, is saving billions of people; the bulk of the whole population of the earth. (Cf. also the potential of environmental disasters - floods, plagues, scientific accidents - destroying the entire earth).
So for that matter, 6) should we finally trust this journal, First Things? Where the docgtrines seem at variance with saints as prominent as Saint Thomas Aquinas? Where in fact, the animated banner on its web site, has George Weigel citing "Satan" as an authority? ("Satan" validating the wonderfulness of Mary Eberstadt's writing: "Mary Eberstadt is one smark cookie. If you don't believe me, ask Satan"; George Weigel, First Things Web site banner for Letters for Losers?).
You know Sam, the signs are not good - indeed, they are awful - for the godliness and authority, of First Things, and its fans. And for the authority of Pro Life anti-abortionism. Do REAL religious authorities normally rtell us to ignore the sainst ... and cite "Satan" as an authority?
I modestly suggest that First Things readers reconsider the reliablity of this publication, its issues, and its supporters.
7) "One cannot say the acorn is not the same substance as the oak tree"? What?!? Is a pile of wood that is going to be made into a house, have the same substance or essence, as a house? If you paid someone $10,000 for enough oak wood to build a house, and then they took your money, and gave you ten acorns, would you REALLY be satisfied? Would you really be satisfied that an acorn, was substantially the same as an oak tree? See some academic articles on this very subject. If you can't guess the obvious answer.
You know Sam, telling us not to follow a saint, like Saint Aquinas; then going against Psalm 139; and then finally explicitly citing "Satan" by name, as your authority, might begin to raise some red flags, for more cogent readers.
7.24.2010 | 6:37pm
Sam. says:
@brettongarcia First off, I have seen that banner ad where Weigel quotes Satan as a reference, and the meaning is entirely different. It is irony, as the book is written in the vein of CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters, and Weigel is showing that Satan can attest to the fact that the author is winning souls away from him. 'The devils also believe and tremble.' (Jas 2:19) Weigel, the biographer of John Paul II, is far from being an occultist, as was St. James who did much the same thing in his Epistle.
To answer your other points in order, to 'follow and revere the saints' does not mean that they are correct in every sphere of knowledge; they were human just like us, and so could make mistakes. Morality has never changed, for men are still men and have not changed substantially in spirit (as history can bloodily attest...) So we can and should trust the saints wholeheartedly when they comment on things of the spirit, like faith and morality. Thus we listen to people like Anselm who said "I do not understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand" and to people like Mother Theresa who loved the poor of India with a preternatural charity. Even here saints can be in error, though, like St. Cyprian and his belief that heretics who had been baptized in the Trinitarian formula needed rebaptism (he was rebuffed by Pope St. Stephen I).
However, it is an undeniable fact that the bulk of human knowledge has increased incredibly as humanity has progressed through the centuries. Humanity knows so much more about our natural world today than it did even fifty years ago, to say nothing of the long centuries between us and Aquinas. We should thus take saints' pronunciations on the science of their time with a grain of salt, much as we do not look to the Bible for scientific truth (cf. creationism). Leeuwenhoek invented the microscope--yet we do not rely on his crude ideas of cells; Mendel is the 'father of genetics', but we utilize modern genetics in our crusades against illness. St. Thomas Aquinas was going by the best science of the time, as he could only be expected to do. The Church never pretended to claim that her holy ones (or even She herself) is infallible on matters of empirics. I suggest that you reread GeronimoRumplestiltskin's post on the development of natural science concerning conception and ensoulment, posted on this comment stream at 10:13am on the 19th of July.
You confuse the personal holiness of the adherents of the faith with the faith itself. The Church as founded by Christ was promised that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' (Mt 16:18) and that '[Christ] will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever' (Jn 14:16). The Church cannot be anything but holy, as it was founded by God and God continues to guide it. However, the Church has always contained sinners. Look to the Middle Ages, or to the Apostles themselves, who were weak and cowardly.
As to the insults and invective, they are reprehensible, and not fitting for Christians to utter. On their behalf I apologize, and for my own part have tried my best to keep any anger or derision out of my comments. I too am sorry if I fail.
On Thomas vs the CCC, I have yet to see any proof that any practicing Catholic, lay or ordained, holds your view that pro-lifers are a heretical offshoot of 'true' Catholicism. In fact, were you to ask an average priest or bishop, is he more likely to say that abortion is morally permissible, or is he more likely to say that it is a crime against God and man? The 'sensus fidei', and the teaching of the Church on the subject wherever you look for it, is that abortion is a serious crime. Whether it is considered 'murder' is a matter of semantics, for it is always considered a serious sin and a grave offense against man. So even be it not murder, you still are in the odd position of defending a mortal sin, as considered by Aquinas, the CCC (which is accepted by the current pope and hierarchy as the definitive collection of Catholic doctrine) and pretty much any Catholic, lay or ordained, who's worth his salt.
By putting yourself outside of the Church, by making your beliefs your own personal 'Magisterium', by propounding your unique exegesis of Psalm 139 (which by the way says nothing of a 'development' of the embryo over a lengthy period of time--as God works outside of time, He could perfectly easily knit together a soul and body at the precise moment of conception while holding in His perfect intellect an image of the unformed body) and St. Thomas, you in essence create an 'orthodoxy of one' which is entirely at odds with the thousands of years of revealed doctrine of the Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. As such, your credibility on matters of faith and morals is seriously compromised.
Unjust wars have killed hundreds of millions over the centuries, granted. At the present time, however, there are thousands dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus many thousands more in other world conflicts. Since we are dealing with the present time, consider that there ~1.3 million abortions in the US alone each year. This is several orders of magnitude greater than the deaths in present conflicts. Old wars, where most of the casualties lie, are over and done with, whereas abortion is still a pressing issue. And though unjust warfare, torture and unwarranted capital punishment are all injustices to which man subjects his fellowman, illness and disease are not--though it is important to combat mortality from illness and likewise from other natural causes, these are not injustices caused by man, and thus have not the moral impetus that abortion possesses. The culture of life's top priority, as it well should be, is to stop man's injustice to man, and then work to improve man's lot in life.
As to the question of acorn vs tree, I would say that both are oaken in nature. You could not say of the acorn that it is not of an oaken nature, as it came from an oak tree and will grow into an oak tree. They may be different in substance, granted, but you cannot have one without the other. The same with an embryo. It and an adult are not the same, as they are separated by different levels of development. But they are both human in nature, as humans create the embryo and the embryo will grow to adulthood. Indeed, it seems that the degree of development is all that separates an embryo from an adult, as both the body and the faculty of reason are not fully formed in the womb. However, I do not understand why this difference is a difference of kind, rather than of degree.
I would add that the definition I gave for personhood was the definition the philosopher Boethius gave in 'De persona et duabus naturis'.
Can you please show us exactly where a human being develops intellect enough to be considered a person, and what the repercussions are for those without use of their reason?? Consider the implications of your position! I would go further on this, but Godwin's Law prevents me from doing so.
To answer your other points in order, to 'follow and revere the saints' does not mean that they are correct in every sphere of knowledge; they were human just like us, and so could make mistakes. Morality has never changed, for men are still men and have not changed substantially in spirit (as history can bloodily attest...) So we can and should trust the saints wholeheartedly when they comment on things of the spirit, like faith and morality. Thus we listen to people like Anselm who said "I do not understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand" and to people like Mother Theresa who loved the poor of India with a preternatural charity. Even here saints can be in error, though, like St. Cyprian and his belief that heretics who had been baptized in the Trinitarian formula needed rebaptism (he was rebuffed by Pope St. Stephen I).
However, it is an undeniable fact that the bulk of human knowledge has increased incredibly as humanity has progressed through the centuries. Humanity knows so much more about our natural world today than it did even fifty years ago, to say nothing of the long centuries between us and Aquinas. We should thus take saints' pronunciations on the science of their time with a grain of salt, much as we do not look to the Bible for scientific truth (cf. creationism). Leeuwenhoek invented the microscope--yet we do not rely on his crude ideas of cells; Mendel is the 'father of genetics', but we utilize modern genetics in our crusades against illness. St. Thomas Aquinas was going by the best science of the time, as he could only be expected to do. The Church never pretended to claim that her holy ones (or even She herself) is infallible on matters of empirics. I suggest that you reread GeronimoRumplestiltskin's post on the development of natural science concerning conception and ensoulment, posted on this comment stream at 10:13am on the 19th of July.
You confuse the personal holiness of the adherents of the faith with the faith itself. The Church as founded by Christ was promised that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' (Mt 16:18) and that '[Christ] will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever' (Jn 14:16). The Church cannot be anything but holy, as it was founded by God and God continues to guide it. However, the Church has always contained sinners. Look to the Middle Ages, or to the Apostles themselves, who were weak and cowardly.
As to the insults and invective, they are reprehensible, and not fitting for Christians to utter. On their behalf I apologize, and for my own part have tried my best to keep any anger or derision out of my comments. I too am sorry if I fail.
On Thomas vs the CCC, I have yet to see any proof that any practicing Catholic, lay or ordained, holds your view that pro-lifers are a heretical offshoot of 'true' Catholicism. In fact, were you to ask an average priest or bishop, is he more likely to say that abortion is morally permissible, or is he more likely to say that it is a crime against God and man? The 'sensus fidei', and the teaching of the Church on the subject wherever you look for it, is that abortion is a serious crime. Whether it is considered 'murder' is a matter of semantics, for it is always considered a serious sin and a grave offense against man. So even be it not murder, you still are in the odd position of defending a mortal sin, as considered by Aquinas, the CCC (which is accepted by the current pope and hierarchy as the definitive collection of Catholic doctrine) and pretty much any Catholic, lay or ordained, who's worth his salt.
By putting yourself outside of the Church, by making your beliefs your own personal 'Magisterium', by propounding your unique exegesis of Psalm 139 (which by the way says nothing of a 'development' of the embryo over a lengthy period of time--as God works outside of time, He could perfectly easily knit together a soul and body at the precise moment of conception while holding in His perfect intellect an image of the unformed body) and St. Thomas, you in essence create an 'orthodoxy of one' which is entirely at odds with the thousands of years of revealed doctrine of the Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. As such, your credibility on matters of faith and morals is seriously compromised.
Unjust wars have killed hundreds of millions over the centuries, granted. At the present time, however, there are thousands dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus many thousands more in other world conflicts. Since we are dealing with the present time, consider that there ~1.3 million abortions in the US alone each year. This is several orders of magnitude greater than the deaths in present conflicts. Old wars, where most of the casualties lie, are over and done with, whereas abortion is still a pressing issue. And though unjust warfare, torture and unwarranted capital punishment are all injustices to which man subjects his fellowman, illness and disease are not--though it is important to combat mortality from illness and likewise from other natural causes, these are not injustices caused by man, and thus have not the moral impetus that abortion possesses. The culture of life's top priority, as it well should be, is to stop man's injustice to man, and then work to improve man's lot in life.
As to the question of acorn vs tree, I would say that both are oaken in nature. You could not say of the acorn that it is not of an oaken nature, as it came from an oak tree and will grow into an oak tree. They may be different in substance, granted, but you cannot have one without the other. The same with an embryo. It and an adult are not the same, as they are separated by different levels of development. But they are both human in nature, as humans create the embryo and the embryo will grow to adulthood. Indeed, it seems that the degree of development is all that separates an embryo from an adult, as both the body and the faculty of reason are not fully formed in the womb. However, I do not understand why this difference is a difference of kind, rather than of degree.
I would add that the definition I gave for personhood was the definition the philosopher Boethius gave in 'De persona et duabus naturis'.
Can you please show us exactly where a human being develops intellect enough to be considered a person, and what the repercussions are for those without use of their reason?? Consider the implications of your position! I would go further on this, but Godwin's Law prevents me from doing so.
7.25.2010 | 3:15pm
catharine says:
Brettongarcia's "reasoning" if one can call it that reminds me of nothing so much as the Unabomber Manifesto. To cut to the chase: this is a person who sees nothing wrong with ramming a sharp instrument into the skull of a full-term fetus and sucking his/her brains out, based solely upon the "whimsy" of the mother.
This kind of "logic" is sort of like Josef Mengele in the concentration camps: since he hels Jews, gypsies, etc., to be less than human, it did not bother him in the slightest to, say, skin one 3-year-old child alive and sew it to its identical twin to see if he could get the two children to grow together. Or to inject acid directly into the eyebals of a brown- or black-eyed child to see if he could get its eyebals to turn blue.
Perhaps when Brettongarcia reaches retirement age, or becomes disabled due to age or illness, he will find himself at the tender mercies of a death panel whose quota for euthanasia has not been filled.
Heaven save us from this twisted logic!
This kind of "logic" is sort of like Josef Mengele in the concentration camps: since he hels Jews, gypsies, etc., to be less than human, it did not bother him in the slightest to, say, skin one 3-year-old child alive and sew it to its identical twin to see if he could get the two children to grow together. Or to inject acid directly into the eyebals of a brown- or black-eyed child to see if he could get its eyebals to turn blue.
Perhaps when Brettongarcia reaches retirement age, or becomes disabled due to age or illness, he will find himself at the tender mercies of a death panel whose quota for euthanasia has not been filled.
Heaven save us from this twisted logic!
7.26.2010 | 5:35am
brettongarcia says:
There are more important issues than abortion. For example, avoiding nuclear wars. Today, N. Korea is threatening such a war; and this would cause tens of millions of horribly painful deaths, in Seoul and elsewhere.
These moreover, are horribly painful deaths. Radiation kills by extremely painful burns; where the burned flesh peels off the bones of the still-living victims.
And this is only the first, initial stage of a nuclear confrontation. Which could eventually kill BILLIONS of indisputably human beings, men women and children; painfully, and slowly.
But our anti-abortionists don't care about this. They don't care about the horribly painful deaths of billions of human beings; and even the collapse of civilization itself.
Heaven preserve us from their "logic"!
Could we avoid the incendiary logic and emotionalism? And just discuss things rationally?
These moreover, are horribly painful deaths. Radiation kills by extremely painful burns; where the burned flesh peels off the bones of the still-living victims.
And this is only the first, initial stage of a nuclear confrontation. Which could eventually kill BILLIONS of indisputably human beings, men women and children; painfully, and slowly.
But our anti-abortionists don't care about this. They don't care about the horribly painful deaths of billions of human beings; and even the collapse of civilization itself.
Heaven preserve us from their "logic"!
Could we avoid the incendiary logic and emotionalism? And just discuss things rationally?
7.26.2010 | 8:59pm
Sam. says:
@brettongarcia Yeah, I really couldn't care less about the lives of innocents taken by nuclear warfare. It really doesn't matter to me that this is horribly cruel, terribly unjust, and indescribably painful. Of course pro-lifers care about these things! The culture of life would be hypocritical if it only stood for life before birth. The difference here is that as of yet Korea hasn't dropped a warhead, whereas there are thousands of abortions performed each day in our country alone. Pro-lifers can oppose nuclear war while fighting for justice for the youngest humans at the same time--this is 'both/and', rather than 'either/or'.
And I thought I was having a rational discussion...shows how much I know (or don't)...
By the way, my repeated question has still been left unanswered.
And I thought I was having a rational discussion...shows how much I know (or don't)...
By the way, my repeated question has still been left unanswered.
7.28.2010 | 5:36am
brettongarcia says:
Sam:
My 1)remarks on emotionality were directed more to Catharine and some others.
My 2) definition of where and when personhood starts? Can be found above, and in my comments in the current (and earlier) "Signpost as the Crossroads" discussion here on this forum. As I've noted repeatedly. See my support to hominization/"ensoulment" at birth. As the beginning of socialization, etc.
3) Since the embryo is not a human person, emotional invocations of grisly deaths therefore, are prejudicial and irrelevant;the embryo is not a human being.
Futhermore, 4) thus calling abortion "murder" not only a) does not reflect teh language of the Church; b) this rhetoric as been deadly in actual practice. It has been inflamatory, and has precipitated murderous violence; whenever Frank Pavone and others started calling abortion "murder," Pro Life activists decided that therefore, they were mortally justified in responding to abortion providers as indeed, precisely, "murders"; it was right after an increase in such language from Fr. PAVONE, that one Pro Life activist therefore found it in his heart to find Dr. Teller, abortion provider, and to assassinate him in his church, May 31, 2009. Thus the Pro Life movement progressed from countless terroristic threats, and bombings of abortion centers over the last 30 years; to actual killings.
Finally - again - I also hold that 5) even IF the embryos WERE human - which they are not - then still, the projections for HUGE disasters from other causes - Nuclear War; environmental diasters; and from the Bible and the Apocalyptic - are SO large, that even the "mere" as-yet unrealized possibility of THESE disasters outweighs actual deaths of embryos. The reality of this possiblity, is verified historically: already, on record, are hundreds of millions of deaths from environmental-related disasters. Like droughts, famines, floods; and the diseased related to these. While the Bible - Revelation - assures us that such disasters are in our future as well; unless we behave.
Because environment and war have already had a horrible record, since they have already provably killed hundreds of millions, and because the Bible itself predicts even billions more, I regard event their "mere" (biblical!) potential as exceeding in importance the record of abortions. Environment and war have already killed vastly more people than abortion. And will kill even more - unless we attend to these other "issues" as the cardinals and the Pope have called them.
As I have said here, repeatedly. And 6) in an associated discussion, in "Signpost at the Crossroads" discussions.
Since I'm repeating myself a lot here, I may not be participating much more; I'd like to just refer readers to my earlier remarks, here, and in the First Things section on "Signpost" at the "Crossroad."
Especially, I invite 7) those who want to know more, to scan my (admittedly rough, but systematic) 700-page book draft, on this subject: on the "Conservative and Pro Life Heresies," Brettongarcia's Blog @ Wordpress. Which systematically outlines and 100 biblical and Christian and Catholic arguments, against pro Life antiabortionism.
My 1)remarks on emotionality were directed more to Catharine and some others.
My 2) definition of where and when personhood starts? Can be found above, and in my comments in the current (and earlier) "Signpost as the Crossroads" discussion here on this forum. As I've noted repeatedly. See my support to hominization/"ensoulment" at birth. As the beginning of socialization, etc.
3) Since the embryo is not a human person, emotional invocations of grisly deaths therefore, are prejudicial and irrelevant;the embryo is not a human being.
Futhermore, 4) thus calling abortion "murder" not only a) does not reflect teh language of the Church; b) this rhetoric as been deadly in actual practice. It has been inflamatory, and has precipitated murderous violence; whenever Frank Pavone and others started calling abortion "murder," Pro Life activists decided that therefore, they were mortally justified in responding to abortion providers as indeed, precisely, "murders"; it was right after an increase in such language from Fr. PAVONE, that one Pro Life activist therefore found it in his heart to find Dr. Teller, abortion provider, and to assassinate him in his church, May 31, 2009. Thus the Pro Life movement progressed from countless terroristic threats, and bombings of abortion centers over the last 30 years; to actual killings.
Finally - again - I also hold that 5) even IF the embryos WERE human - which they are not - then still, the projections for HUGE disasters from other causes - Nuclear War; environmental diasters; and from the Bible and the Apocalyptic - are SO large, that even the "mere" as-yet unrealized possibility of THESE disasters outweighs actual deaths of embryos. The reality of this possiblity, is verified historically: already, on record, are hundreds of millions of deaths from environmental-related disasters. Like droughts, famines, floods; and the diseased related to these. While the Bible - Revelation - assures us that such disasters are in our future as well; unless we behave.
Because environment and war have already had a horrible record, since they have already provably killed hundreds of millions, and because the Bible itself predicts even billions more, I regard event their "mere" (biblical!) potential as exceeding in importance the record of abortions. Environment and war have already killed vastly more people than abortion. And will kill even more - unless we attend to these other "issues" as the cardinals and the Pope have called them.
As I have said here, repeatedly. And 6) in an associated discussion, in "Signpost at the Crossroads" discussions.
Since I'm repeating myself a lot here, I may not be participating much more; I'd like to just refer readers to my earlier remarks, here, and in the First Things section on "Signpost" at the "Crossroad."
Especially, I invite 7) those who want to know more, to scan my (admittedly rough, but systematic) 700-page book draft, on this subject: on the "Conservative and Pro Life Heresies," Brettongarcia's Blog @ Wordpress. Which systematically outlines and 100 biblical and Christian and Catholic arguments, against pro Life antiabortionism.
7.28.2010 | 10:27am
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
Just a couple of questions/observations this time, as I am quite weary of your dishonesty, disingenuousness, and all-around buffoonery:
"Haldane (of Steubenville?) and other's readings are dishonestly edited and presented."
Would those "other's" include Ralph McInerny (who served on the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas for more than three decades) or Alfred Freddoso of the U. of Notre Dame, both of whom taught me at ND, and both of whom would shake their heads in disgust at your insistence that Aquinas "may or may not have opposed abortion" or that Aquinas considered abortion before the point of when he thought animation to have taken place to be a grave evil?
Of course, from your point of view, Aquinas is "dishonestly edited and presented" only by those who fail to offer support for your plainly erroneous and consistently dishonest interpretation of the Angelic Doctor's position on abortion.
---
"...but now the Church, with Rumplestiltskin..."
That would be "...but now Rumplestiltskin, with the Church...". I follow her teachings, she does not follow mine. This relationship between the Church and the individual Catholic is not one you seem to embrace, as you have written on more than one occasion that should the Church fail to teach what you require her to teach, you will be done with her.
----
"though the Bible commands us not to call someone a "fool."
Someone forgot to tell Jesus:
Matthew 23:19 - [Jesus speaking]: "You fools and blind men: for which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?"
Matthew 7:26 - [Jesus speaking]: "And every one that hears these my words and does them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand..."
Luke 12:20 - [Jesus speaking]: "But God said to him: 'You fool, this night do they require your soul of you. And whose shall those things be which you have provided?'"
They also forgot to tell the author of Psalm 14 and numerous passages from Proverbs. Oh, well. I looks like I'm in good company.
Of course, a reasonable person would interpret Jesus' teaching of Matthew 5:22 as being an injunction against insulting another's character out of unrighteous and/or unjustified anger. Given your consistent dishonesty and determined ignorance as to the position of St. Thomas Aquinas in regards to the morality of abortion - all in service of justifying your support for the termination of over a million innocent human lives a year - my anger towards you is anything but unrighteous and unjustified.
You are truly an unhinged individual, and attempting to talk reason and truth to you is a waste of time, so committed are you to justifying abortion even to the point of abandoning the Church should you be unable to twist her words to your advantage. As such, I will heed the words of various passages of Proverbs and leave a fool such as yourself to your folly.
After all, as I wrote previously, you are what you are.
GR
Just a couple of questions/observations this time, as I am quite weary of your dishonesty, disingenuousness, and all-around buffoonery:
"Haldane (of Steubenville?) and other's readings are dishonestly edited and presented."
Would those "other's" include Ralph McInerny (who served on the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas for more than three decades) or Alfred Freddoso of the U. of Notre Dame, both of whom taught me at ND, and both of whom would shake their heads in disgust at your insistence that Aquinas "may or may not have opposed abortion" or that Aquinas considered abortion before the point of when he thought animation to have taken place to be a grave evil?
Of course, from your point of view, Aquinas is "dishonestly edited and presented" only by those who fail to offer support for your plainly erroneous and consistently dishonest interpretation of the Angelic Doctor's position on abortion.
---
"...but now the Church, with Rumplestiltskin..."
That would be "...but now Rumplestiltskin, with the Church...". I follow her teachings, she does not follow mine. This relationship between the Church and the individual Catholic is not one you seem to embrace, as you have written on more than one occasion that should the Church fail to teach what you require her to teach, you will be done with her.
----
"though the Bible commands us not to call someone a "fool."
Someone forgot to tell Jesus:
Matthew 23:19 - [Jesus speaking]: "You fools and blind men: for which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?"
Matthew 7:26 - [Jesus speaking]: "And every one that hears these my words and does them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand..."
Luke 12:20 - [Jesus speaking]: "But God said to him: 'You fool, this night do they require your soul of you. And whose shall those things be which you have provided?'"
They also forgot to tell the author of Psalm 14 and numerous passages from Proverbs. Oh, well. I looks like I'm in good company.
Of course, a reasonable person would interpret Jesus' teaching of Matthew 5:22 as being an injunction against insulting another's character out of unrighteous and/or unjustified anger. Given your consistent dishonesty and determined ignorance as to the position of St. Thomas Aquinas in regards to the morality of abortion - all in service of justifying your support for the termination of over a million innocent human lives a year - my anger towards you is anything but unrighteous and unjustified.
You are truly an unhinged individual, and attempting to talk reason and truth to you is a waste of time, so committed are you to justifying abortion even to the point of abandoning the Church should you be unable to twist her words to your advantage. As such, I will heed the words of various passages of Proverbs and leave a fool such as yourself to your folly.
After all, as I wrote previously, you are what you are.
GR
7.28.2010 | 2:30pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
FT readers:
By the way....
If brettongarcia had bothered to even google Professor Haldane, he would know that Haldane is not "of [Franciscan University of] Steubenville" but is
-- Director of the Center for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland
-- considered one of the foremost authorities on Thomas Aquinas, credited with the genesis of the philosophical approach (and the coining of the term) of "Analytical Thomism"
-- Papal Adviser to the Vatican
-- recipient of a PhD in Philosophy from the University of London in 1984
-- holder of honorary degrees from Saint Anselm College, NH and the University of Glasgow, Scotland
-- past holder of the Royden Davis Chair of Humanities at Georgetown University, deliverer of the Gifford Lectures (about Aquinas) at the University of Aberdeen in 2003-04, the Joseph Lectures at the Gregorian University in Rome, and a visiting lecturer at the Thomistic Institute at the University of Notre Dame.
-- named one of Scotland's 'Brights'[1] in a list of the 50 top Scottish intellectuals, artists, lawyers, scientists, etc. (Herald Magazine, 2001)
However, brettongarcia finds his reading of Thomas to be "dishonest", an opinion that he provides neither support nor citation for.
Performing a quick search, it would appear that he is cribbing from University of Colorado[2] philosophy professor Robert Pasnau's "Thomas Aquinas on Human Nature: A Philosophical Study of Summa Theologiae 1a 75-89". Pasnau detests what he refers to as the Church's "noxious social agenda - especially on homosexuality, contraception, and abortion" (gee, no agenda in his reading of Aquinas, huh?), and is therefore eager to employ Aquinas' opinion on the moral evil of pre-ensoulment abortion (which is universally recognized to be based on an erroneous view of human conception and embryology) as being a grave evil but not homicide as support for his assertion that abortion "at any time during a pregnancy should be considered a grave loss, but that it should be considered murder only after roughly the middle of the second trimester". It should be noted that brettongarcia does not give any indication as to what - if any - stage of pregnancy he considers abortion to be murder.
Haldane & Patrick Lee (who is a professor at Steubenville) reply to Pasnau here:
http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm
Pasnau replies to the above here:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~pasnau/inprint/reply.pdf
Haldane & Lee reply to that here:
http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/rational_souls_and_the_beginning.htm#_edn1
In my quick search, I was unable to locate any other philosopher who has charged Haldane with a "dishonest" reading of Aquinas. Only a fool would confidently assert Haldane's (and others') reading of Aquinas to be "dishonest" based on the opinion of one rather minor scholar who admits an animus against Church teaching on abortion; but, then again, brettongarcia is what he is.
Take care all,
GR
___________
[1] - "Bright" is an ironic honorific term for Haldane, given that "bright" is a term coined in March 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell of Sacramento, California to denote those whose worldview is "free from supernatural and mystical elements", i.e. an atheist.
[2] - The University of Colorado's philosophy department employs Victor Stenger - physicist, "new" atheist, and verbose in his claim that science has proved the non-existence of God - as an adjunct professor of philosophy, despite Stenger holding no degree in philosophy or any related field at any academic level. Great standards they've got there, huh?
By the way....
If brettongarcia had bothered to even google Professor Haldane, he would know that Haldane is not "of [Franciscan University of] Steubenville" but is
-- Director of the Center for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland
-- considered one of the foremost authorities on Thomas Aquinas, credited with the genesis of the philosophical approach (and the coining of the term) of "Analytical Thomism"
-- Papal Adviser to the Vatican
-- recipient of a PhD in Philosophy from the University of London in 1984
-- holder of honorary degrees from Saint Anselm College, NH and the University of Glasgow, Scotland
-- past holder of the Royden Davis Chair of Humanities at Georgetown University, deliverer of the Gifford Lectures (about Aquinas) at the University of Aberdeen in 2003-04, the Joseph Lectures at the Gregorian University in Rome, and a visiting lecturer at the Thomistic Institute at the University of Notre Dame.
-- named one of Scotland's 'Brights'[1] in a list of the 50 top Scottish intellectuals, artists, lawyers, scientists, etc. (Herald Magazine, 2001)
However, brettongarcia finds his reading of Thomas to be "dishonest", an opinion that he provides neither support nor citation for.
Performing a quick search, it would appear that he is cribbing from University of Colorado[2] philosophy professor Robert Pasnau's "Thomas Aquinas on Human Nature: A Philosophical Study of Summa Theologiae 1a 75-89". Pasnau detests what he refers to as the Church's "noxious social agenda - especially on homosexuality, contraception, and abortion" (gee, no agenda in his reading of Aquinas, huh?), and is therefore eager to employ Aquinas' opinion on the moral evil of pre-ensoulment abortion (which is universally recognized to be based on an erroneous view of human conception and embryology) as being a grave evil but not homicide as support for his assertion that abortion "at any time during a pregnancy should be considered a grave loss, but that it should be considered murder only after roughly the middle of the second trimester". It should be noted that brettongarcia does not give any indication as to what - if any - stage of pregnancy he considers abortion to be murder.
Haldane & Patrick Lee (who is a professor at Steubenville) reply to Pasnau here:
http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm
Pasnau replies to the above here:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~pasnau/inprint/reply.pdf
Haldane & Lee reply to that here:
http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/rational_souls_and_the_beginning.htm#_edn1
In my quick search, I was unable to locate any other philosopher who has charged Haldane with a "dishonest" reading of Aquinas. Only a fool would confidently assert Haldane's (and others') reading of Aquinas to be "dishonest" based on the opinion of one rather minor scholar who admits an animus against Church teaching on abortion; but, then again, brettongarcia is what he is.
Take care all,
GR
___________
[1] - "Bright" is an ironic honorific term for Haldane, given that "bright" is a term coined in March 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell of Sacramento, California to denote those whose worldview is "free from supernatural and mystical elements", i.e. an atheist.
[2] - The University of Colorado's philosophy department employs Victor Stenger - physicist, "new" atheist, and verbose in his claim that science has proved the non-existence of God - as an adjunct professor of philosophy, despite Stenger holding no degree in philosophy or any related field at any academic level. Great standards they've got there, huh?
7.29.2010 | 7:31am
brettongarcia says:
Rumple:
As usual, your posts are mostly name-dropping, and invocation of worldly authority and insults; but without real arguments.
By the way, even the highest and best professors are often wrong. Haldane's dishonesty can be seen in the excerpt from Aquinas; which implies A. opposed abortion, while in fact, he is merely presenting that thesis, momentarily. Compare the Haldane excerpt, to the original.
I don't have time for this. Those who want more, can read my 700-page book draft, "The Conservative and Pro Life Heresies: 100 and more arguments against Pro Life Anti-Abortionism," on Brettongarcia's Blog@Wordpress. This is a draft; but it systematically addresses the top 100 arguments against abortion - and refutes them.
By the way: is what I am saying here, contrary to what you understand the Church to be saying historically? I argue that the Church is really saying something different than the conservative right-wing of the Church today asserts.
In any case: note that the Bible told us that one day, we are supposed to discover that the whole earth has been deceived, even in what it "worship"s (Rev. 13); even the "Christ" it follows is a "False Christ."
By the way: it DOES almost seem that Jesus (and you) did not hear the earlier part of the Bible (Proverbs? Ecclesiastes?) that told us not to call an older man a "fool."
Are you really a Christian? Do priests often call people "fools"?
YOu WILL often be unable to find other scholars who say what I am saying; I am doing original research.
But why continue talking to a person who calls me a "fool"?
- Dr. Brettongarcia, PhD
As usual, your posts are mostly name-dropping, and invocation of worldly authority and insults; but without real arguments.
By the way, even the highest and best professors are often wrong. Haldane's dishonesty can be seen in the excerpt from Aquinas; which implies A. opposed abortion, while in fact, he is merely presenting that thesis, momentarily. Compare the Haldane excerpt, to the original.
I don't have time for this. Those who want more, can read my 700-page book draft, "The Conservative and Pro Life Heresies: 100 and more arguments against Pro Life Anti-Abortionism," on Brettongarcia's Blog@Wordpress. This is a draft; but it systematically addresses the top 100 arguments against abortion - and refutes them.
By the way: is what I am saying here, contrary to what you understand the Church to be saying historically? I argue that the Church is really saying something different than the conservative right-wing of the Church today asserts.
In any case: note that the Bible told us that one day, we are supposed to discover that the whole earth has been deceived, even in what it "worship"s (Rev. 13); even the "Christ" it follows is a "False Christ."
By the way: it DOES almost seem that Jesus (and you) did not hear the earlier part of the Bible (Proverbs? Ecclesiastes?) that told us not to call an older man a "fool."
Are you really a Christian? Do priests often call people "fools"?
YOu WILL often be unable to find other scholars who say what I am saying; I am doing original research.
But why continue talking to a person who calls me a "fool"?
- Dr. Brettongarcia, PhD
7.29.2010 | 8:49am
Sam. says:
@GeronimoRumplestiltskin I'd be careful on the matter of calling people 'fool'. Jesus was omniscient--the people He called fools really and truly were fools. We cannot know like He does, so it is for us a judgmental act.
@brettongarcia I will be sure to examine this other discussion.
@brettongarcia I will be sure to examine this other discussion.
7.29.2010 | 8:53am
brettongarcia says:
Regarding Rumplestiltskin's extreme, obviously un-Christian rudeness, and vanity:
Am I a "fool" as Rumple asserts?
"Mat. 5.22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
1Cr 3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
2Cr 11:16 I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little.
2Cr 11:17 (What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority but as a fool, in this boastful confidence;
2Cr 11:21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! But whatever any one dares to boast of--I am speaking as a fool--I also dare to boast of that."
I particularly like the part of the Bible, in Matthew, where it says that those who call others a "fool" is liable to Hell.
- Dr. Brettongarcia, PhD
Am I a "fool" as Rumple asserts?
"Mat. 5.22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
1Cr 3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
2Cr 11:16 I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little.
2Cr 11:17 (What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority but as a fool, in this boastful confidence;
2Cr 11:21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! But whatever any one dares to boast of--I am speaking as a fool--I also dare to boast of that."
I particularly like the part of the Bible, in Matthew, where it says that those who call others a "fool" is liable to Hell.
- Dr. Brettongarcia, PhD
7.30.2010 | 10:55am
Brettongarcia says:
Grammatical correction: Jesus clearly says that anyone who calls someone else a "fool," is liable to Hell; from Mat. 5.22.
10.16.2010 | 4:16am
Willow Nowlen says:
No, wait -- I've got it now. You created him as a cleverly ironic parody! For surely, the characteristics evident in his posts -- condemning and judging all who disagree with him, using Scripture passages out of context as "proof texts", ignoring the evidence of modern science in favor of long-discredited medieval theories, and exhibiting a marked unfairness and lack of perspective in arguments -- why, these are all the usual ways that, according to the mainstream media, Christian conservatives act! But, in a stroke of genius, you have put all of these qualities in the mouth of a defiantly dissenting liberal! 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
But there is no doubt in my mind that most Americans (and most people worldwide) are very confused.
Earlier this year, my wife and I had a somewhat heated discussion with my (economically) conservative, well-educated brother and sister-in-law, and her mother. (Self-excommunicated Catholics, it took some convincing to get them to attend Mass on Easter Sunday.) They seemed troubled that I took my young kids to a pro-life march (in SF, where the hecklers were few but weirldy entertaining, at least to the degree one could avoid thinking about the likely reality of their lives, and where the news media mostly ignored the event, in which tens of thousands participated peacefully) . They kept coming back to the "extreme cases," e.g., those involving rape. They did not seem open to my contention that, in a country that is by many measures the richest in the history of the world, 99% of abortions are done for what is essentially convenience.
Even in extreme cases, "two wrongs do not make a right." The rape is a terrible sin (may the unrepentant rapist go, "dumbfounded, to Sheol"); to destroy the innocent baby is (arguably, and certainly in my opinion) worse. It's like nuking a city to win a war, w/o regard for the fact that tens of thousands of innocents will be fried.
While we all too often cannot enter into the private lives of people to stop them from doing themselves and others irrevocable harm, we should as a society not have any doubt about the morality, or lack thereof, of something so obvious as killing babies who happen to be at a stage where they are totally dependent on their mothers. Only intense self interest, combined with our impressive human imagination, allow such horrors to be rationalized. Science (e.g., ultrasound images, and an understanding of how unique DNA defines the start of new life) is ignored. Ancient teaching is ignored. Intuition is ignored. All in the name of convenience.
God help America.