The Moderate Pro-Choicer’s Trade-off
Jul 27, 2011
Joe Carter
Recognizing that the abortion-on-demand position is becoming politically unpopular, many abortion-rights moderates are becoming increasingly more vocal about finding a middle path—at least rhetorically. The shift has been occurring for more than a decade, but it became more noticeable after the 2004 presidential campaign. By 2008 the solidly pro-abortion candidate Hillary Clinton felt comfortable arguing, 
There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances. [emphasis added]
It became clear that a significant shift in abortion politics had occurred when the leading contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination was willing to admit, albeit indirectly, that the ideal number of abortions is zero.
A year later, in a meeting at the Vatican, President Obama told Pope Benedict that he was committed to reducing the number of abortions in the United States. Despite being the most pro-abortion president in the history of America, Obama felt the need at least to pretend that he shares the abortion-reduction agenda. While it is not a substantive change in policy, it is notable that Obama felt the need to side with the moderates—at least rhetorically—over the more absolutist supporters of abortion. Even the president can sense the public’s shifting attitude away from abortion-on-demand.
This moderation of language is a welcome change, and those of us in the pro-life camp should use this as an opportunity to encourage pro-choice advocates who are serious about reducing the number of abortions in America. But we must also remember our primary goal is not to make abortion illegal but to make it—like slavery, female genital mutilation, and other moral horrors—unthinkable.
We are, of course, far from reaching that goal. Currently, the only aspect of the issue that is “unthinkable” is the idea that people should take responsibility for their sexual behavior. For those who blame society for not allowing them to have consequence-free sex, abortion will always be needed as a backup plan.
However, there are still a few moderate pro-choice Americans who believe in both personal responsibility and that a fetus has some moral worth. We should press these moderate pro-choicers to explain how many abortions would be too many.
The answer to that question will help reshape the debate over fetal life. In the past, hardcore abortion-rights supporters have tended to dominate the pro-choice side of the argument. But while they may still be the most vocal, they are now a statistical minority. While the political left still maintains a strict no-restrictions stance, there are few citizens who share their dogmatism.
As a recent Gallup poll shows, large majorities of Americans favor the broad intent of several types of abortion-restriction laws that are now common in many states:
Of seven abortion restrictions tested in a July 15-17 Gallup poll, informing women of certain risks of an abortion in advance of performing it is the most widely favored, at 87%. Seven in 10 Americans favor requiring parental consent for minors and establishing a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions. Nearly two-thirds favor making the specific procedure known as "partial birth abortion" illegal.
[. . .]
Partisan differences are much greater, although majorities of Democrats as well as most Republicans favor informed consent, parental consent, 24-hour waiting periods, and a ban on "partial birth abortion."
Unfortunately, polling also reveals that while majorities favor banning abortion in the second and third trimesters (71% and 86%, respectively), only 35% are in favor of making early abortions illegal.
Even those who are not in favor of banning first-trimester abortions, though, tend to recognize that there is something inherently immoral about the procedure. Almost no one outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic thinks that the early embryo has absolutely no inherent moral worth. As the liberal legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin has said, “The truth is that liberal opinion, like the conservative view, presupposes that human life has intrinsic moral significance, so that it is in principle wrong to terminate a life even when no one’s interests are at stake.” Like many supporters of abortion, Dworkin believes that the while the unborn does not necessarily have a right to life, killing an embryo or fetus is still intrinsically bad.
This sentiment may strike you—as it does me—as being arbitrary and illogical. After all, the entire premise of the pro-life/pro-choice debate is the incommensurability of life and non-life. If the fetus is a life, then it has moral worth; if it is not a life, than it has no intrinsic moral value. But while those of us in the pro-life camp may not agree, we can use this to gain allies for our side. For example, Leon Kass, the former chairman of President Bush’s bioethics council, is agnostic about the moral status of the embryo. Yet he believes early life is deserving of respect and has been a foe of embryo-destructive research.
Similarly, we may be able to win converts from the moderate pro-choice camp if we are able to get them to recognize what they are supporting. Polling shows that they think the percentage of abortion should neither be 0% nor 100% of its current rate. But what percentage do they think it should be? And how should they determine the number?
One approach is to press them to consider the moral value of early life vis-à-vis infants or adults. They could approach the task of quantifying the number of acceptable abortions using economic analysis. “Economists have a curious habit of affixing numbers to complicated transactions,” said economist Steven Levitt in his best-selling book, Freakanomics. Levitt applies this “curious habit” to the question, “What is the relative value between a fetus and a newborn?”:
For a person who is either resolutely pro-life or resolutely pro-choice, this is a simple calculation. The first, believing that life begins at conception, would likely consider the value of a newborn versus the value of a fetus to be 1:1. The second person, believing that a woman’s right to an abortion trumps any other factor, would likely argue that no number of fetuses can equal even one newborn.
But let’s consider a third person: This third person does not believe that a fetus is the 1:1 equivalent of a newborn, yet neither does he believe that a fetus has no relative value. Let’s say that he is forced, for the sake of argument, to affix a relative value, and he decides that 1 newborn is worth 100 fetuses.
There are roughly 1.5 million abortions in the United States every year. For a person who believes that 1 newborn is worth 100 fetuses, those 1.5 million abortions would translate—dividing 1.5 million by 100—into the equivalent of a loss of 15,000 human lives. Fifteen thousand lives: that happens to be about the same number of people who die in homicides in the United States every year.
Is the relative value of abortion worth the equivalent cost in lives lost to homicides? If not, then what equivalent number would be acceptable? What is the relative value of a fetus? That is a question that pro-choice moderates need to answer. They often walk up to the line, admitting that abortion is “tragic” and should be “rare.” But when pressed to quantify “rare” by putting an actual number to the abstract value, will they balk? It’s time we found out. It’s time we started asking them to directly answer: When it comes to abortions, what number is acceptable?
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Common State Abortion Restrictions Spark Mixed Reviews
Obama tells pope he wants to reduce abortions in U.S.
Joe Carter, Roe, Doe, DOA: How Abortion is Killing the Democratic Party
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.27.2011 | 7:10am
James R says:
I’ve been hearing about the doctor who was recently murdered for performing later term abortions, I realized for hundredth time how cleverly the self-proclaimed Pro-Life people have outwitted the Pro-Choice people when it comes to using language to advance their cause.
The other side of the abortion issue is still always referred to as the “pro-life” side, a cunning little phrase that in and of itself suggests that people who oppose their views are anti-life. Which if actually true, would mean that they probably wouldn’t exist, having killed themselves by virtue of being pro-death.
The other side of the abortion issue is still always referred to as the “pro-life” side, a cunning little phrase that in and of itself suggests that people who oppose their views are anti-life. Which if actually true, would mean that they probably wouldn’t exist, having killed themselves by virtue of being pro-death.
7.27.2011 | 7:51am
David Nickol says:
"When it comes to abortions, what number is acceptable?"
I would say the acceptable number of abortions would be the same as the acceptable number of traffic fatalities.
I would say the acceptable number of abortions would be the same as the acceptable number of traffic fatalities.
7.27.2011 | 9:40am
Ben says:
"Despite being the most pro-abortion president in the history of America, Obama felt the need at least to pretend that he shares the abortion-reduction agenda."
Wow; an evidence-free assertion followed by an accusation of deceit premised on the idea that you have some secret insight about what an opponent is thinking. It's this kind of charity of thought that makes politics so much fun, and is highly likely to win friends and influence people.
Wow; an evidence-free assertion followed by an accusation of deceit premised on the idea that you have some secret insight about what an opponent is thinking. It's this kind of charity of thought that makes politics so much fun, and is highly likely to win friends and influence people.
7.27.2011 | 9:48am
Charlie Collier says:
I believe that abortion on demand is horrible and one of many serious blights on American life.
However, I think Joe's goal of making abortion unthinkable points up a serious problem in the persuasiveness of his position. Neither slavery nor genital mutilation could ever be construed as life-saving practices, whereas in extreme circumstances abortion can be just that. The recent episode at St. Joseph Hospital in Phoenix is but one example—had "an abortion" not been performed, there would have been two deaths, not one ("abortion" is what it was deemed by conservative Catholic authorities, however I put it in scare quotes because I think Catholic moral theologian Therese Lysaught made a strong case for rejecting that description).
Situations where abortions might save life are increasingly rare, thank God, but they happen, and it used to happen much more frequently before numerous advances in modern medicine. Let us not forget that the death rate for women giving birth only plummeted in the 20th century.
Since Joe's whole position is about the obligation to love and preserve life, and since he here seeks to connect across the aisle, as it were, it does his cause no good to deny the life-saving desires of some who defend the practice. Let me be clear: I don't think those desires settle the debate in favor of abortion rights. But it's hard to respect a pro-life position that refuses to acknowledge how adhering to that position might at times entail the unintentional yet tragic loss of life.
This is a well worn path for someone like me, who believes that Jesus disarms his followers. There are many good reasons given in support of killing other human beings—to protect the innocent, to stop evil, to defend one's country, to liberate the oppressed, self-defense, etc. I believe Jesus manifests in his life and death an end to the need for such sacrifices of human life for higher causes. But he doesn't make it unthinkable to want to protect innocent life, to defend one's self or country, or to liberate the oppressed. You can save some lives by killing some people. And by refusing to kill, you have to acknowledge that some may die who could have been saved by the judicious application of lethal violence.
Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, "Let this cup pass from me." Surely that's a recognition that an alternative was thinkable for Jesus ("Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"), even if we must also always remember what ultimately came next: "Yet not as I will, but as you will."
However, I think Joe's goal of making abortion unthinkable points up a serious problem in the persuasiveness of his position. Neither slavery nor genital mutilation could ever be construed as life-saving practices, whereas in extreme circumstances abortion can be just that. The recent episode at St. Joseph Hospital in Phoenix is but one example—had "an abortion" not been performed, there would have been two deaths, not one ("abortion" is what it was deemed by conservative Catholic authorities, however I put it in scare quotes because I think Catholic moral theologian Therese Lysaught made a strong case for rejecting that description).
Situations where abortions might save life are increasingly rare, thank God, but they happen, and it used to happen much more frequently before numerous advances in modern medicine. Let us not forget that the death rate for women giving birth only plummeted in the 20th century.
Since Joe's whole position is about the obligation to love and preserve life, and since he here seeks to connect across the aisle, as it were, it does his cause no good to deny the life-saving desires of some who defend the practice. Let me be clear: I don't think those desires settle the debate in favor of abortion rights. But it's hard to respect a pro-life position that refuses to acknowledge how adhering to that position might at times entail the unintentional yet tragic loss of life.
This is a well worn path for someone like me, who believes that Jesus disarms his followers. There are many good reasons given in support of killing other human beings—to protect the innocent, to stop evil, to defend one's country, to liberate the oppressed, self-defense, etc. I believe Jesus manifests in his life and death an end to the need for such sacrifices of human life for higher causes. But he doesn't make it unthinkable to want to protect innocent life, to defend one's self or country, or to liberate the oppressed. You can save some lives by killing some people. And by refusing to kill, you have to acknowledge that some may die who could have been saved by the judicious application of lethal violence.
Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, "Let this cup pass from me." Surely that's a recognition that an alternative was thinkable for Jesus ("Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"), even if we must also always remember what ultimately came next: "Yet not as I will, but as you will."
7.27.2011 | 9:52am
Joe Carter says:
@David Nickol ***I would say the acceptable number of abortions would be the same as the acceptable number of traffic fatalities.***
So the acceptable number of intentional abortions should be the same as the acceptable number of unintentional traffic fatalities?
@Ben ***Wow; an evidence-free assertion followed by an accusation of deceit premised on the idea that you have some secret insight about what an opponent is thinking.***
I didn't realize Obama's claim to the title "most pro-abortion president" was in dispute. But if evidence is needed, see here: http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/
Also, there is no "secret insight" necessary, we just have to look at his record. He has done nothing at all to decrease the number of abortions in America and has taken steps to increase them. The Vatican has even rejected three ambassador nominees because of their positions in favor of abortion.
So the acceptable number of intentional abortions should be the same as the acceptable number of unintentional traffic fatalities?
@Ben ***Wow; an evidence-free assertion followed by an accusation of deceit premised on the idea that you have some secret insight about what an opponent is thinking.***
I didn't realize Obama's claim to the title "most pro-abortion president" was in dispute. But if evidence is needed, see here: http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/
Also, there is no "secret insight" necessary, we just have to look at his record. He has done nothing at all to decrease the number of abortions in America and has taken steps to increase them. The Vatican has even rejected three ambassador nominees because of their positions in favor of abortion.
7.27.2011 | 10:18am
Jane says:
To James R, it was actually the "Pro-Choice" terminology which was carefully created to focus the debate in the earlier post-Roe period away from the question of whether the unborn child deserved protection onto the rights of women to "choose." I attended a training course on strategic communications with a professor from Harvard who had participated in the focus groups, polling, and message development in this case. He presented this work as a case study to our group, offering upfront a caveat about the controversial nature of the core issue and his understanding that it could be disturbing or offensive to some class participants. The case was meant to be an illustration of the strong influence of how an issue is framed on public opinion. The course took place about 15 years ago, the message formation work a more than a decade earlier. I was a young woman in the 1980s when the "pro-choice" mantra seemed quite powerful, at least to other women I knew. The rise of sonograms seems to have had the opposite effect, providing real time images that people - especially pregnant women - experienced directly. So, please do not attribute all of the "message spin" to the pro-life side. Abortion rights supporters have also worked very hard to divert attention from issues of terminating unborn children and on to other aspects. Ultimately, communications strategies will go only so far in the face of actual facts and truth.
7.27.2011 | 10:19am
Mike Murray says:
Here in the rural Midwest abortion remains very unpoplar. Nevertheless, as a primary care physician I still have parents who make puplic pronouncements against abortion and then come in asking me to arrange abortions for their unfortunate daghters and sometimes even the mothers who have been surprised with an unwanted pregnancy later in life. I do not accede to their reqests but I do note the hypocrisy. "I know it is wrong, doctor, but we just cannot have this baby."
7.27.2011 | 10:35am
David Nickol says:
If there were a massive government program that would reduce abortions by 50% to 75%—I know it's very hypothetical, but accept the possibility for the sake of argument—how many would accept a 5% tax increase (graduated steeply so as not to be a burden on the poor) to support it? It is quite obvious that those who are opposed to abortion are opposed to the behavior of other people and not themselves. Now, I know many in the ant-abortion movement give both time and money to the cause, so I am not alleging that the anti-abortion movement is all talk. But what level of sacrifice would be acceptable to impose on everyone to make a serious dent in the abortion problem? I would certainly be willing to accept a 5% tax increase to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and to give pregnant women concrete alternatives to abortion.
7.27.2011 | 10:57am
Brian English says:
"I realized for hundredth time how cleverly the self-proclaimed Pro-Life people have outwitted the Pro-Choice people when it comes to using language to advance their cause."
We are a clever bunch, but I think you are on to us.
"Also, there is no "secret insight" necessary, we just have to look at his record."
And included in that should be his horrifying record as a state legislator in Illinois and his presidential campaign promises regarding FOCA.
"I still have parents who make puplic pronouncements against abortion and then come in asking me to arrange abortions for their unfortunate daghters and sometimes even the mothers who have been surprised with an unwanted pregnancy later in life."
Where do you see your patients making public pronouncements against abortion? And what percentage of your patients fall into this hypocrite category?
We are a clever bunch, but I think you are on to us.
"Also, there is no "secret insight" necessary, we just have to look at his record."
And included in that should be his horrifying record as a state legislator in Illinois and his presidential campaign promises regarding FOCA.
"I still have parents who make puplic pronouncements against abortion and then come in asking me to arrange abortions for their unfortunate daghters and sometimes even the mothers who have been surprised with an unwanted pregnancy later in life."
Where do you see your patients making public pronouncements against abortion? And what percentage of your patients fall into this hypocrite category?
7.27.2011 | 11:04am
David Nickol says:
Joe,
You say: "So the acceptable number of intentional abortions should be the same as the acceptable number of unintentional traffic fatalities?"
My thinking is that while traffic fatalities are unintentional, they are also preventable. I can't find statistics for this year and last year, but highway deaths in 2009 were lower than they had been since 1954 in absolute numbers, and they were the lowest ever viewed in terms of passenger miles. Of course, one wants the number of traffic fatalities and the number of abortions to be zero. But we do accept a certain level of traffic fatalities just as we accept a certain number of deaths caused by pollution.
In other words, there are ways of lowering the number of traffic fatalities and the number of abortions, but both would cost money. The question is how much money are we willing to spend?
You say: "So the acceptable number of intentional abortions should be the same as the acceptable number of unintentional traffic fatalities?"
My thinking is that while traffic fatalities are unintentional, they are also preventable. I can't find statistics for this year and last year, but highway deaths in 2009 were lower than they had been since 1954 in absolute numbers, and they were the lowest ever viewed in terms of passenger miles. Of course, one wants the number of traffic fatalities and the number of abortions to be zero. But we do accept a certain level of traffic fatalities just as we accept a certain number of deaths caused by pollution.
In other words, there are ways of lowering the number of traffic fatalities and the number of abortions, but both would cost money. The question is how much money are we willing to spend?
7.27.2011 | 11:15am
Kari S says:
David Nickol has hit upon an excellent goal. US traffic fatalities in 2009 were not quite 34,000, the lowest in decades - including the rate of deaths per miles driven. "The DOT attributes the drop in traffic fatalities to high-profile campaigns that encouraged wearing seat belts and discouraged drunk driving."
Let's imagine similar campaigns on TV and in schools, emotionally portraying the chaos, turmoil and guilt caused by irresponsible sexual behavior. Let's imagine parents relentlessly beating the drum of "Sex makes babies, and birth control fails often, especially among unmarried folks." Let's imagine teens saying to each other, "If you have sex with the wrong person, you ruin the life of your child - and you might even want to KILL your own child! Let's be smart!"
There are subcultures in this country (I belong to one) where this kind of thinking is common. It needs to spread.
Let's imagine similar campaigns on TV and in schools, emotionally portraying the chaos, turmoil and guilt caused by irresponsible sexual behavior. Let's imagine parents relentlessly beating the drum of "Sex makes babies, and birth control fails often, especially among unmarried folks." Let's imagine teens saying to each other, "If you have sex with the wrong person, you ruin the life of your child - and you might even want to KILL your own child! Let's be smart!"
There are subcultures in this country (I belong to one) where this kind of thinking is common. It needs to spread.
7.27.2011 | 11:21am
Joe Carter says:
Great comment, Kari S. I wonder if the pro-choice moderates would agree to those measures.
Also, it would be wonderful to see abortion drop from 1.2 million a year to 34,000. That's still 34,000 too many but it would be a good start.
Also, it would be wonderful to see abortion drop from 1.2 million a year to 34,000. That's still 34,000 too many but it would be a good start.
7.27.2011 | 11:25am
Carl says:
@ David Nickol ***It is quite obvious that those who are opposed to abortion are opposed to the behavior of other people and not themselves.*** Really?
7.27.2011 | 11:28am
bill bannon says:
In a previous essay, "What Evangelicals Owe Catholics: an Appreciation", Joe Carter wrote: " Although I do not always find myself in complete agreement with it, the Catholic perspective has caused me to rethink my views on such matters as contraception, in-vitro fertilization, just wages, and the death penalty."
As a cradle Catholic with 16 years of Catholic school, Dominican nuns 8 years and Jesuits 8 years, I see a problem with that in one area. Joe mentions above the "life from conception" aspect of the pro life movement which idea I think could be hurting them due to the scientific problem of identical twins being the division of the original cell mass as late as day 14... yet life from conception is an idea found in many Catholics in the movement but an idea which seems to many unscientific and does not fall under infallible teaching within Catholicism; and the later Jerome and the later Augustine and Aquinas did not hold that idea. They held ( two belatedly) for delayed ensoulement as did the Incarnation section of the Trent catechism which ascribed immediate ensoulement only to Christ in the Incarnation:
" That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time."
The Matrimony section of the very same catechism took Joe Carter's view however and contradicted its own Incarnation section since the Matrimony section implies life from conception in its denunciation of contraception as murder:
"It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder."
You can't commit murder with medicine in the literal sense if ensoulement is delayed as the Incarnation section said it was. Jerome and Augustine had the same odd bifurcation in their writings but it was time related i.e. at some point they became aware of the Septuagint version of a passage in Exodus which seems to consider a homicide of the preborn within a woman murder only if the preborn is formed rather than unformed. Prolifers have made the good case that the passage is a mistaken translation by the Septuagint. But it led Jerome and Augustine to have quotes on both sides of the fence: that contraception was murder and that abortion wasn't even murder til the preborn was formed.
Catholics now have abortion's condemnation as infallible in Evangelium Vitae section 62 but as one writer in the Jesuit periodical, "Theological Studies", pointed out: the front end of abortion remains in Catholicism undefined as to infallibility...when does it begin. The problem of the totipotential of the cell mass so that inter alia it can divide at day 14 and become two persons is one problem and the active pro life Catholics either don't know of such embryology problems or don't mention them. How could a cell mass be ensouled if it can split 14 days later into two beings. Yet the pro life movement among Catholics insist on life from conception because it seems they also want to condemn birth control as a secondary goal. The furtiveness of that two for one project causes distrust just because it is partly furtive. You are telling girls on the street that abortion is wrong without telling them you also think birth control is abortion. You're hoping you can eventually get them in that boat too....but certain problems in embryology like the cell division at day 14 means that you may be dragging down your good goal against abortion...with your questionable belief in human person from conception.
14 days after conception, there may be two or three identical persons. And according to Aquinas.....souls unlike cell masses do not divide.
As a cradle Catholic with 16 years of Catholic school, Dominican nuns 8 years and Jesuits 8 years, I see a problem with that in one area. Joe mentions above the "life from conception" aspect of the pro life movement which idea I think could be hurting them due to the scientific problem of identical twins being the division of the original cell mass as late as day 14... yet life from conception is an idea found in many Catholics in the movement but an idea which seems to many unscientific and does not fall under infallible teaching within Catholicism; and the later Jerome and the later Augustine and Aquinas did not hold that idea. They held ( two belatedly) for delayed ensoulement as did the Incarnation section of the Trent catechism which ascribed immediate ensoulement only to Christ in the Incarnation:
" That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time."
The Matrimony section of the very same catechism took Joe Carter's view however and contradicted its own Incarnation section since the Matrimony section implies life from conception in its denunciation of contraception as murder:
"It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder."
You can't commit murder with medicine in the literal sense if ensoulement is delayed as the Incarnation section said it was. Jerome and Augustine had the same odd bifurcation in their writings but it was time related i.e. at some point they became aware of the Septuagint version of a passage in Exodus which seems to consider a homicide of the preborn within a woman murder only if the preborn is formed rather than unformed. Prolifers have made the good case that the passage is a mistaken translation by the Septuagint. But it led Jerome and Augustine to have quotes on both sides of the fence: that contraception was murder and that abortion wasn't even murder til the preborn was formed.
Catholics now have abortion's condemnation as infallible in Evangelium Vitae section 62 but as one writer in the Jesuit periodical, "Theological Studies", pointed out: the front end of abortion remains in Catholicism undefined as to infallibility...when does it begin. The problem of the totipotential of the cell mass so that inter alia it can divide at day 14 and become two persons is one problem and the active pro life Catholics either don't know of such embryology problems or don't mention them. How could a cell mass be ensouled if it can split 14 days later into two beings. Yet the pro life movement among Catholics insist on life from conception because it seems they also want to condemn birth control as a secondary goal. The furtiveness of that two for one project causes distrust just because it is partly furtive. You are telling girls on the street that abortion is wrong without telling them you also think birth control is abortion. You're hoping you can eventually get them in that boat too....but certain problems in embryology like the cell division at day 14 means that you may be dragging down your good goal against abortion...with your questionable belief in human person from conception.
14 days after conception, there may be two or three identical persons. And according to Aquinas.....souls unlike cell masses do not divide.
7.27.2011 | 12:12pm
harry says:
There are no genuine moderates regarding this issue.
According to our Declaration of Independence, it is humanity that bestows and withdraws the right to exist on the state – not the other way around; recent Supreme Court decisions, like Roe v Wade, are diametrically opposed to our founding principles, in that they pretended to authorize the withdrawal of the protection of law (the withdrawal of the right to exist) from a vast segment of the human family, refusing to acknowledge their inalienable right to life.
The Declaration of Independence declares not only our independence as a nation, but also the inalienable rights of humanity, and that the very purpose of the state is to protect those rights. It further declares that when the state fails to do that, humanity has a right and a duty to alter or abolish the state. These principles were the basis of the abolition of slavery and the enactment of laws in all the states to protect human life in the womb.
The common, lame response to the above is that “The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.” Sorry. It is the primary legal document. A constitution is worth no more than the paper it is written on if it isn't backed up and authorized by a segment of humanity that has declared and is willing to forcefully assert and defend their independence as a nation. The constitution has no more authority than that bestowed upon it by the declaration of our independence.
The Declaration of Independence was used not only as a legal document, but as the primary legal document by John Quincy Adams in the Amistad case. This is because it is just that. If it is discarded the result is what we see currently – a Supreme Court disconnected from the source of its authentic authority, and becoming an authority and a law unto itself. This amounts to the deification of the state.
Considering that the sacred principles declared in our primary legal document were abruptly violated, rejected and trampled upon by the Supreme Court, resulting in the brutal dismemberment of fifty million innocent human beings, it seems to me like progress in rectifying this outrageous situation has little to do with working with “moderates.” Can there be a “moderate” position regarding cruel and blatant violations of human dignity on a massive scale? One may be moderately concerned about such a situation due to lack of education on the matter, or be willing to support or tolerate it due to the situation furthering their utterly selfish interests (that is not a moderate position). There really can be no genuinely “moderate” position on such matters. The polarization of the population on the matter indicates this. Those who still appear to be “moderate” or “undecided” are really those who have yet to learn the facts and then ask themselves “Is it wrong to deliberately take the life on an innocent human being?”
According to our Declaration of Independence, it is humanity that bestows and withdraws the right to exist on the state – not the other way around; recent Supreme Court decisions, like Roe v Wade, are diametrically opposed to our founding principles, in that they pretended to authorize the withdrawal of the protection of law (the withdrawal of the right to exist) from a vast segment of the human family, refusing to acknowledge their inalienable right to life.
The Declaration of Independence declares not only our independence as a nation, but also the inalienable rights of humanity, and that the very purpose of the state is to protect those rights. It further declares that when the state fails to do that, humanity has a right and a duty to alter or abolish the state. These principles were the basis of the abolition of slavery and the enactment of laws in all the states to protect human life in the womb.
The common, lame response to the above is that “The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.” Sorry. It is the primary legal document. A constitution is worth no more than the paper it is written on if it isn't backed up and authorized by a segment of humanity that has declared and is willing to forcefully assert and defend their independence as a nation. The constitution has no more authority than that bestowed upon it by the declaration of our independence.
The Declaration of Independence was used not only as a legal document, but as the primary legal document by John Quincy Adams in the Amistad case. This is because it is just that. If it is discarded the result is what we see currently – a Supreme Court disconnected from the source of its authentic authority, and becoming an authority and a law unto itself. This amounts to the deification of the state.
Considering that the sacred principles declared in our primary legal document were abruptly violated, rejected and trampled upon by the Supreme Court, resulting in the brutal dismemberment of fifty million innocent human beings, it seems to me like progress in rectifying this outrageous situation has little to do with working with “moderates.” Can there be a “moderate” position regarding cruel and blatant violations of human dignity on a massive scale? One may be moderately concerned about such a situation due to lack of education on the matter, or be willing to support or tolerate it due to the situation furthering their utterly selfish interests (that is not a moderate position). There really can be no genuinely “moderate” position on such matters. The polarization of the population on the matter indicates this. Those who still appear to be “moderate” or “undecided” are really those who have yet to learn the facts and then ask themselves “Is it wrong to deliberately take the life on an innocent human being?”
7.27.2011 | 12:16pm
Michael PS says:
On the vexed question of “ensoulment,” in its 1987 Instruction, Donum Vitae the CDF says
“The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable”
You may find the same teaching in Tertullian (160-200) who says in his Apologeticum 9:8
With us, homicide being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even what is conceived in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood for its sustenance. To prevent a birth is to hasten homicide; nor does it matter whether you take away a life [animam] from one that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a human being which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.” [My translation]
This passage is so important, that I give the original:
Nobis vero semel homicidio interdicto etiam conceptum utero, dum adhuc sanguis in hominem delibatur, dissolvere non licet. Homicidii festinatio est prohibere nasci, nec refert natam quis eripiat animam an nascentem disturbet. Homo est et qui est futurus; etiam fructus omnis iam in semine est.
The first and last last sentences indicate that Tertullian and his contemporaries were prepared to take a very expansive view of "homicide."
NB “animam" here clearly has its normal Latin meaning of “life;” not “soul” in the philosophical sense. If "nasci" is given the expanded sense of "to come into being the position is beyond conjecture.
“The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable”
You may find the same teaching in Tertullian (160-200) who says in his Apologeticum 9:8
With us, homicide being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even what is conceived in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood for its sustenance. To prevent a birth is to hasten homicide; nor does it matter whether you take away a life [animam] from one that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a human being which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.” [My translation]
This passage is so important, that I give the original:
Nobis vero semel homicidio interdicto etiam conceptum utero, dum adhuc sanguis in hominem delibatur, dissolvere non licet. Homicidii festinatio est prohibere nasci, nec refert natam quis eripiat animam an nascentem disturbet. Homo est et qui est futurus; etiam fructus omnis iam in semine est.
The first and last last sentences indicate that Tertullian and his contemporaries were prepared to take a very expansive view of "homicide."
NB “animam" here clearly has its normal Latin meaning of “life;” not “soul” in the philosophical sense. If "nasci" is given the expanded sense of "to come into being the position is beyond conjecture.
7.27.2011 | 12:41pm
David Nickol says:
harry,
It is debatable whether the Founding Fathers were even including women when they referred to "all men," and it can hardly be argued that they were referring to the unborn. And if any five justices on the Supreme Court (six of whose nine members are Catholic) would interpret the word "person" in the 14th Amendment to apply to the unborn, abortion in the United States would be impermissible.
It is futile to make arguments about the founding documents and the constitution that the vast majority of legal scholars and practicing judges and lawyers would agree don't hold water.
It is debatable whether the Founding Fathers were even including women when they referred to "all men," and it can hardly be argued that they were referring to the unborn. And if any five justices on the Supreme Court (six of whose nine members are Catholic) would interpret the word "person" in the 14th Amendment to apply to the unborn, abortion in the United States would be impermissible.
It is futile to make arguments about the founding documents and the constitution that the vast majority of legal scholars and practicing judges and lawyers would agree don't hold water.
7.27.2011 | 1:07pm
harry says:
Hi, David Nickol,
You wrote:
"It is debatable whether the Founding Fathers were even including women when they referred to "all men," and it can hardly be argued that they were referring to the unborn"
If it is that far-fetched that they were speaking of humanity in general, why did we, while we were yet an infant nation, enact laws to protect the child in the womb? You seem to forget that the Supreme Court struck down laws protecting the life of the child in the womb that were put in place by the elected representatives of the people.
You should read John Quincy Adams' remarks in his successful use of the Declaration of Independence as our primary legal document before the Supreme Court in the Amistad case. His argument didn't restrict "all men" to only males or those who were born.
You wrote:
"And if any five justices on the Supreme Court (six of whose nine members are Catholic) would interpret the word "person" in the 14th Amendment to apply to the unborn, abortion in the United States would be impermissible."
A mouse in the cookie jar attempting to look like a cookie doesn't make him one.
Instead of insisting the Supreme Court declare that the child in the womb is a “legal person,” or that a human being is a “legal person” from conception, we need to insist that the Supreme Court acknowledge, not declare, that every human being is entitled to the protection of law. The difference is that if we play along with the Supreme Court’s false pretensions as though it actually has the authority to declare that some members of the human family are legal “persons,” then we have implicitly (and dishonestly) agreed that they have the authority to declare that other members of the human family are not legal persons.
The truth of the matter is that they simply do not have the authority to bestow the protection of law on any segment of humanity or to withdraw it. And they certainly can’t measure one’s “personhood” any better than they can tell if one has a “soul.”
Humanity preceded the state and brought it into existence. It is time for humanity to knock Caesar off his high horse and put him in his place, reminding him that it is not his to bestow or withdraw the inalienable rights of humanity; it is his only to protect them. That is, of course, because those rights are just that — inalienable — they didn’t come from the state, and the very reason humanity brought the state into being is to protect those rights.
You wrote:
"It is futile to make arguments about the founding documents and the constitution that the vast majority of legal scholars and practicing judges and lawyers would agree don't hold water."
I am sure the abolitionists heard that a lot.
You wrote:
"It is debatable whether the Founding Fathers were even including women when they referred to "all men," and it can hardly be argued that they were referring to the unborn"
If it is that far-fetched that they were speaking of humanity in general, why did we, while we were yet an infant nation, enact laws to protect the child in the womb? You seem to forget that the Supreme Court struck down laws protecting the life of the child in the womb that were put in place by the elected representatives of the people.
You should read John Quincy Adams' remarks in his successful use of the Declaration of Independence as our primary legal document before the Supreme Court in the Amistad case. His argument didn't restrict "all men" to only males or those who were born.
You wrote:
"And if any five justices on the Supreme Court (six of whose nine members are Catholic) would interpret the word "person" in the 14th Amendment to apply to the unborn, abortion in the United States would be impermissible."
A mouse in the cookie jar attempting to look like a cookie doesn't make him one.
Instead of insisting the Supreme Court declare that the child in the womb is a “legal person,” or that a human being is a “legal person” from conception, we need to insist that the Supreme Court acknowledge, not declare, that every human being is entitled to the protection of law. The difference is that if we play along with the Supreme Court’s false pretensions as though it actually has the authority to declare that some members of the human family are legal “persons,” then we have implicitly (and dishonestly) agreed that they have the authority to declare that other members of the human family are not legal persons.
The truth of the matter is that they simply do not have the authority to bestow the protection of law on any segment of humanity or to withdraw it. And they certainly can’t measure one’s “personhood” any better than they can tell if one has a “soul.”
Humanity preceded the state and brought it into existence. It is time for humanity to knock Caesar off his high horse and put him in his place, reminding him that it is not his to bestow or withdraw the inalienable rights of humanity; it is his only to protect them. That is, of course, because those rights are just that — inalienable — they didn’t come from the state, and the very reason humanity brought the state into being is to protect those rights.
You wrote:
"It is futile to make arguments about the founding documents and the constitution that the vast majority of legal scholars and practicing judges and lawyers would agree don't hold water."
I am sure the abolitionists heard that a lot.
7.27.2011 | 2:05pm
David Nickol says:
harry,
You seem to have a fairly unique take on abortion in America. I think the overwhelming majority of those who oppose abortion believe that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided because the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion. The political strategy is to get Roe overturned so the matter can be handled by each of the 50 states in its own way. I think your radical reinterpretation of the constitution and constitutional democracy is far more extreme than the thinking of the seven justices who decided Roe. Of course, none of this answers the questions Joe Carter posed in his post.
You seem to have a fairly unique take on abortion in America. I think the overwhelming majority of those who oppose abortion believe that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided because the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion. The political strategy is to get Roe overturned so the matter can be handled by each of the 50 states in its own way. I think your radical reinterpretation of the constitution and constitutional democracy is far more extreme than the thinking of the seven justices who decided Roe. Of course, none of this answers the questions Joe Carter posed in his post.
7.27.2011 | 2:25pm
habeas says:
For just a moment, assume the position that life begins at implantation instead of at the moment of conception. This position makes it possible for its holder to have no moral qualms about the use of most contraception within marriage, either barrier methods or those that prevent implantation, but to remain firmly against the practice of abortion since it is generally impossible to determine pregnancy until well after implantation has occurred. First: would this position be considered "pro-choice moderate" or "pro-life" by the readers of this blog? Second: Is there a Church document our readers could refer me to that refutes this assumption at the level of an infallible teaching?
7.27.2011 | 4:33pm
bill bannon says:
Habeas,
Some have used part of the Immaculate Conception encyclical to say that personhood begins at conception due to this phrase: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin..."
The reason they needed it at all is that it is the only encyclical on the matter that would qualify to satisfy canon 749-3 which reads:"§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.". The ordinary magisterium is evident on somethings like the existence of Satan but the ordinary magisterium is not manifestly evident herein due to massive dissent that included some respected theologians not just laxist theologians during the mid twentieth century.
Does the above phrasing from the Immaculate Conception encyclical settle it? No because one could point to the Trent catechism which said only Christ had immediate ensoulement and then reason that Trent should have included Mary as the other exception to delayed ensoulement. Others could reasonably say that the IC wording is a figure of speech as when we say we loved our spouse at first sight in
some cases. Under examination, that phrase has some hyperbole attached to it.
Some have used part of the Immaculate Conception encyclical to say that personhood begins at conception due to this phrase: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin..."
The reason they needed it at all is that it is the only encyclical on the matter that would qualify to satisfy canon 749-3 which reads:"§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.". The ordinary magisterium is evident on somethings like the existence of Satan but the ordinary magisterium is not manifestly evident herein due to massive dissent that included some respected theologians not just laxist theologians during the mid twentieth century.
Does the above phrasing from the Immaculate Conception encyclical settle it? No because one could point to the Trent catechism which said only Christ had immediate ensoulement and then reason that Trent should have included Mary as the other exception to delayed ensoulement. Others could reasonably say that the IC wording is a figure of speech as when we say we loved our spouse at first sight in
some cases. Under examination, that phrase has some hyperbole attached to it.
7.27.2011 | 4:43pm
David Nickol says:
habeas,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
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.
There are a few ways of reading that, but there's no way to read it as allowing the early embryo, even before implantation, to be treated other than as a person with a right to life.
Others will no doubt want to dispute this, but there is no solid evidence that the birth control pill or the morning-after pill prevents implantation, and so those who consider these kinds of contraceptives to be abortifacients are not on solid scientific ground. Drug manufacturers include on the labels that the drugs may interfere with implantation, but this does not mean that they *do.* It means it is possible that they do, not that it has been demonstrated that they do.
The Catholic Church prohibits all forms of "artificial" birth control (IUD, pill, barrier methods) and permits only abstinence or abstinence during the time a wife is fertile. I feel safe in saying that the Catholic Church would not say it is better to use contraceptives than to risk pregnancy and have an abortion if contraceptives fail. I believe, out of respect for Catholic teachings, most of the major anti-abortion groups (aside from specifically Catholic ones) take no position either for or against contraception.
Some feel Humanae Vitae (which prohibits contraception) is infallible, and some feel it isn't, but the teaching of the Church against contraception (as well as abortion) is extremely weighty, so no Catholic can say, "Well, it's not infallible, so I can make up my own mind." (This is not to say Catholics have no right of conscience, and of course the majority of married Catholics of childbearing age do use contraceptives. Whether they do so in good conscience is hotly debated.)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
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.
There are a few ways of reading that, but there's no way to read it as allowing the early embryo, even before implantation, to be treated other than as a person with a right to life.
Others will no doubt want to dispute this, but there is no solid evidence that the birth control pill or the morning-after pill prevents implantation, and so those who consider these kinds of contraceptives to be abortifacients are not on solid scientific ground. Drug manufacturers include on the labels that the drugs may interfere with implantation, but this does not mean that they *do.* It means it is possible that they do, not that it has been demonstrated that they do.
The Catholic Church prohibits all forms of "artificial" birth control (IUD, pill, barrier methods) and permits only abstinence or abstinence during the time a wife is fertile. I feel safe in saying that the Catholic Church would not say it is better to use contraceptives than to risk pregnancy and have an abortion if contraceptives fail. I believe, out of respect for Catholic teachings, most of the major anti-abortion groups (aside from specifically Catholic ones) take no position either for or against contraception.
Some feel Humanae Vitae (which prohibits contraception) is infallible, and some feel it isn't, but the teaching of the Church against contraception (as well as abortion) is extremely weighty, so no Catholic can say, "Well, it's not infallible, so I can make up my own mind." (This is not to say Catholics have no right of conscience, and of course the majority of married Catholics of childbearing age do use contraceptives. Whether they do so in good conscience is hotly debated.)
7.27.2011 | 4:54pm
Michael says:
“However, there are still a few moderate pro-choice Americans who believe in both personal responsibility and that a fetus has some moral worth. We should press these moderate pro-choicers to explain how many abortions would be too many”
It’s hard to imagine how this question would actually persuade a moderate pro-choice American to do anything differently from what he is doing. Like most questions posed by staunch pro-lifers, it is patently designed to badger the moderately pro-choice. The effect is to drive moderates closer to staunch pro-choicers.
What Joe really needs to ask is what exactly he wants moderates to do. Does he want them to agitate for making abortion illegal? Or does he want them to help pass sonogram laws and other restrictive measures? If he wants the former, then he’s barking up the wrong tree. And if he wants the latter, then he needs to respect the reasons why most Americans are moderate on abortion. And most Americans are moderate not because they take personal responsibility lightly or the moral worth of the fetus lightly. They are moderate because sex, pregnancy, and childrearing are complicated and because both positions offer highly valued goods.
And you really won’t get anywhere with moderates if you run around calling Obama the “most pro-abortion president.” The link provided illustrates the ludicrousness of the claim. Joe is way too far inside the pro-life factoid bubble to understand what ordinary Americans are thinking.
The question of how far abortion can be reduced is a good one. Zero is, of course, impossible. Most developed countries have abortion rates in the teens. As is usual for health statistics, the rate is higher for the US, in the low twenties. Four countries have rates below 10—Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. All of these countries have well developed national health care systems, which is off the table for people whose mantra is personal responsibility. I think the US should have at least as good a rate as that found in Northern Europe, but then I’m a moderate pro-lifer.
It’s hard to imagine how this question would actually persuade a moderate pro-choice American to do anything differently from what he is doing. Like most questions posed by staunch pro-lifers, it is patently designed to badger the moderately pro-choice. The effect is to drive moderates closer to staunch pro-choicers.
What Joe really needs to ask is what exactly he wants moderates to do. Does he want them to agitate for making abortion illegal? Or does he want them to help pass sonogram laws and other restrictive measures? If he wants the former, then he’s barking up the wrong tree. And if he wants the latter, then he needs to respect the reasons why most Americans are moderate on abortion. And most Americans are moderate not because they take personal responsibility lightly or the moral worth of the fetus lightly. They are moderate because sex, pregnancy, and childrearing are complicated and because both positions offer highly valued goods.
And you really won’t get anywhere with moderates if you run around calling Obama the “most pro-abortion president.” The link provided illustrates the ludicrousness of the claim. Joe is way too far inside the pro-life factoid bubble to understand what ordinary Americans are thinking.
The question of how far abortion can be reduced is a good one. Zero is, of course, impossible. Most developed countries have abortion rates in the teens. As is usual for health statistics, the rate is higher for the US, in the low twenties. Four countries have rates below 10—Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. All of these countries have well developed national health care systems, which is off the table for people whose mantra is personal responsibility. I think the US should have at least as good a rate as that found in Northern Europe, but then I’m a moderate pro-lifer.
7.27.2011 | 4:56pm
Stephen J. says:
Habeas,
1) Implantation vs. conception as a distinction is interesting, but I would suggest ultimately meaningless, as there's no practical method right now to know when one has occurred but not the other. I'm also not sure it's a factually accurate definition -- as I understand it, the zygote is considered a separate living human organism the moment cellular division begins, and if that happens pre-implantation, then it would not be a valid marker.
Myself I'd call someone who still saw purely preventative contraception (condoms, ovulation-interference) as licit, but considered any form of abortion (even implanation-prevention, e.g. RU-486 or the IUD) to be illicit, and -- this is the important part -- wanted to stigmatize or criminalize the latter, "pro-life". They would not be in conformity with Church teaching, but they could be validly called pro-life.
2) I don't know of a specific Church document that explicitly says implantation is not a valid dividing point for whether the zygote is to be considered alive and human or not, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Humanae Vitae both go into some detail about why artificial contraception is incompatible with Catholic teaching. This is the relevant section of the Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm
-- particularly paragraphs 2366 to 2372.
1) Implantation vs. conception as a distinction is interesting, but I would suggest ultimately meaningless, as there's no practical method right now to know when one has occurred but not the other. I'm also not sure it's a factually accurate definition -- as I understand it, the zygote is considered a separate living human organism the moment cellular division begins, and if that happens pre-implantation, then it would not be a valid marker.
Myself I'd call someone who still saw purely preventative contraception (condoms, ovulation-interference) as licit, but considered any form of abortion (even implanation-prevention, e.g. RU-486 or the IUD) to be illicit, and -- this is the important part -- wanted to stigmatize or criminalize the latter, "pro-life". They would not be in conformity with Church teaching, but they could be validly called pro-life.
2) I don't know of a specific Church document that explicitly says implantation is not a valid dividing point for whether the zygote is to be considered alive and human or not, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Humanae Vitae both go into some detail about why artificial contraception is incompatible with Catholic teaching. This is the relevant section of the Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm
-- particularly paragraphs 2366 to 2372.
7.27.2011 | 5:08pm
harry says:
Hi, David Nickol,
You wrote:
"I think your radical reinterpretation of the constitution and constitutional democracy is far more extreme than the thinking of the seven justices who decided Roe."
Far more extreme in terms of what? The number of fatalities brought about by that interpretation? The Supreme Court is ahead of me there fifty million to zero. Yet you don't seem to see anything radical in their thinking even though it blatantly contradicts our founding principles and is extremely dangerous to innocent human beings. You don't see it as radical for the Supreme Court to flippantly and arrogantly discard laws put on the books by the elected representatives of the people specifically to avoid the brutal injustice the Supreme Court now pretends to have the authority to authorize. Hmmm ..... Are you sure you and the Supreme Court and those who know full well what happens to a baby in an abortion aren't radical?
What I am saying is not radical. It is common sense. It only looks radical in the context created by media-manufactured bigotry that makes Joseph Goebbels look like an amateur. There may be other common sense ways to look at the situation. To deny, for all practical purposes, that this holocaust of innocent human life isn't taking place isn't one of them.
You wrote:
"I think your radical reinterpretation of the constitution and constitutional democracy is far more extreme than the thinking of the seven justices who decided Roe."
Far more extreme in terms of what? The number of fatalities brought about by that interpretation? The Supreme Court is ahead of me there fifty million to zero. Yet you don't seem to see anything radical in their thinking even though it blatantly contradicts our founding principles and is extremely dangerous to innocent human beings. You don't see it as radical for the Supreme Court to flippantly and arrogantly discard laws put on the books by the elected representatives of the people specifically to avoid the brutal injustice the Supreme Court now pretends to have the authority to authorize. Hmmm ..... Are you sure you and the Supreme Court and those who know full well what happens to a baby in an abortion aren't radical?
What I am saying is not radical. It is common sense. It only looks radical in the context created by media-manufactured bigotry that makes Joseph Goebbels look like an amateur. There may be other common sense ways to look at the situation. To deny, for all practical purposes, that this holocaust of innocent human life isn't taking place isn't one of them.
7.27.2011 | 5:35pm
Gail Finke says:
David Nickol said: "I think the overwhelming majority of those who oppose abortion believe that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided because the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion."
The majority of lawyers who think Roe v. Wade was wrong, including the current members of the Supreme Court who have come up with their own bizarre version for permitting it, think it is because the entire premise of "right to privacy" is loony.
I think Dr. Murray's comment is extremely telling. When it comes to their own lives, people experience an unexpected pregnancy as a calamity. It is not so much a case of hypocrisy (althouth it is that) but of panic. People will often, if not always, give THEMSELVES an exemption from a rule that they would not give others. That's one reason we have rules and laws -- to keep that from happening.
The majority of lawyers who think Roe v. Wade was wrong, including the current members of the Supreme Court who have come up with their own bizarre version for permitting it, think it is because the entire premise of "right to privacy" is loony.
I think Dr. Murray's comment is extremely telling. When it comes to their own lives, people experience an unexpected pregnancy as a calamity. It is not so much a case of hypocrisy (althouth it is that) but of panic. People will often, if not always, give THEMSELVES an exemption from a rule that they would not give others. That's one reason we have rules and laws -- to keep that from happening.
7.27.2011 | 6:16pm
Gail Finke says:
All this talk about ensoulment and implantation is, IMHO, often a smokescreen. It indicates an unwillingness to discuss the absurdity of the ultimate position people who are pro-abortion really hold: That a child is in some way inherently different before it is born than it is after it is born, and that difference means that it is okay to kill it.
This is an indefensible position. If it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, then it is wrong to kill an unborn baby. If you want to indulge in silliness about twins dividing at 14 days (before 14 days, it was one person -- after that it is two people -- either way an abortion would have killed either one or two PEOPLE) go right ahead, but don't let it distract you from the underlying issue. Abortion kills a person, and saying it doesn't is sophistry.
This is an indefensible position. If it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, then it is wrong to kill an unborn baby. If you want to indulge in silliness about twins dividing at 14 days (before 14 days, it was one person -- after that it is two people -- either way an abortion would have killed either one or two PEOPLE) go right ahead, but don't let it distract you from the underlying issue. Abortion kills a person, and saying it doesn't is sophistry.
7.27.2011 | 7:08pm
habeas says:
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I will consult the documents suggested. The position I'm proposing here is still fuzzy, but I want to continue to outline it. I agree with the difficulties Stephen J. outlines above in separating implantation from conception. For that reason, I want to suggest conflating the two.
One reason for considering implantation AS the moment of conception, rather than the moment of unity of sperm and egg, also involves the definition of abortion. Depending on which references you select as valid within the clinical literature, between 30% and 60% of fertilized eggs do not implant. Many are opposed to the idea of such losses being defined as "spontaneous abortion," because it is likely that the vast majority of sexually active women have thus had such involuntary abortions (for which they are obviously not morally culpable, similar to the church's teachings on miscarriage). Yet defining conception as the moment sperm joins egg means that the majority of conceived human beings are never born, and for reasons having nothing to do with human moral frailty.
Defining conception as the moment of sperm-joins-egg seems to raise the possibility that many, if not most, conceived humans are created to be destroyed before they can become full moral agents. Please don't flame me for "questioning the Divine plan"--I'm sincerely attempting to think this through, as it seems problematic for many reasons for this definition of conception and its larger implications to hold. By contrast, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines conception as taking place at implantation. I'm trying to determine if their medical definition could be of use in establishing a "moderate" position on the beginning of life that is still in keeping with Catholic moral teachings.
One reason for considering implantation AS the moment of conception, rather than the moment of unity of sperm and egg, also involves the definition of abortion. Depending on which references you select as valid within the clinical literature, between 30% and 60% of fertilized eggs do not implant. Many are opposed to the idea of such losses being defined as "spontaneous abortion," because it is likely that the vast majority of sexually active women have thus had such involuntary abortions (for which they are obviously not morally culpable, similar to the church's teachings on miscarriage). Yet defining conception as the moment sperm joins egg means that the majority of conceived human beings are never born, and for reasons having nothing to do with human moral frailty.
Defining conception as the moment of sperm-joins-egg seems to raise the possibility that many, if not most, conceived humans are created to be destroyed before they can become full moral agents. Please don't flame me for "questioning the Divine plan"--I'm sincerely attempting to think this through, as it seems problematic for many reasons for this definition of conception and its larger implications to hold. By contrast, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines conception as taking place at implantation. I'm trying to determine if their medical definition could be of use in establishing a "moderate" position on the beginning of life that is still in keeping with Catholic moral teachings.
7.27.2011 | 11:51pm
James Conway says:
I ask Mr. Carter if he opposes the government allowing people to make choices that result in the destruction of human life why he still feels it is not only moral, but mandated by Scripture, that the state must not only wash its hands of life destroying actions as it does by allowing abortion, but actively be the agent of homicide as it is in the death penalty? I agree with him on abortion, but an ethic of preserving human life must be consistent and apply across the spectrum including the prisoners and criminals who let us remember, were crucified next to our Lord and whom he blessed.
7.28.2011 | 12:35am
Richard says:
Wow. A doctor makes the most significant comment in this thread and it goes by without comment (I think...I scrolled through pretty quickly). It says most of what you need to know about this debate that people talk pro-life but at crunch time, talk is cheap. Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine....that is all people talk about here. There is a large amount of expertise about the doctrine, but not a sniff of a suggestion of anyone that has made a moral decision in a difficult situation. What this tells us is that along with the bishops the pro-life folks are largely comprised of the posturing experts bar none.
The subject involves the most fundamental and profound circumstance in life. And so few of the moralists actually face tough questions. I remember another doctor in another discussion of the bishop in Phoenix ending the Catholic affiliation with a prominent hospital after a pregnancy was terminated because of a threat to the life of the mother that he wished the bishop and his expert doctors could actually be in the room to tell the mother and her four children and her husband that terminating the pregnancy was not acceptable to the Church's moral theology and she should face the prospect of possibly dying. OMG!!!
The subject involves the most fundamental and profound circumstance in life. And so few of the moralists actually face tough questions. I remember another doctor in another discussion of the bishop in Phoenix ending the Catholic affiliation with a prominent hospital after a pregnancy was terminated because of a threat to the life of the mother that he wished the bishop and his expert doctors could actually be in the room to tell the mother and her four children and her husband that terminating the pregnancy was not acceptable to the Church's moral theology and she should face the prospect of possibly dying. OMG!!!
7.28.2011 | 6:16am
edmond says:
"In other words, there are ways of lowering the number of traffic fatalities and the number of abortions, but both would cost money. The question is how much money are we willing to spend?"
The best way and cheapest way to reduce abortions would be for the supreme court to reverse its ruling legalizing abortion.
The best way and cheapest way to reduce abortions would be for the supreme court to reverse its ruling legalizing abortion.
7.28.2011 | 10:40am
harry says:
I wrote:
To deny, for all practical purposes, that this holocaust of innocent human life isn't taking place isn't one of them.
I meant to write:
To deny, for all practical purposes, that this holocaust of innocent human life *IS* taking place isn't one of them.
To deny, for all practical purposes, that this holocaust of innocent human life isn't taking place isn't one of them.
I meant to write:
To deny, for all practical purposes, that this holocaust of innocent human life *IS* taking place isn't one of them.
7.28.2011 | 10:52am
David Nickol says:
edmond:
You say: "The best way and cheapest way to reduce abortions would be for the supreme court to reverse its ruling legalizing abortion."
The Supreme Court didn't exactly "legalize" abortion. Abortion was already legal in 17 states (I may be off by one or two). Roe v Wade did, of course, strike down abortion laws in states where abortion was illegal. My point is that overturning Roe will not make abortion illegal. It will allow states to outlaw abortion. Some definitely will, and some definitely won't. Exactly how many abortions would be prevented is difficult to calculate. As far as I know, there are no plans in the pro-life movement to restrict the freedom of women seeking abortion in any way, so women in states where abortion is illegal could travel to states where it was legal.
You say: "The best way and cheapest way to reduce abortions would be for the supreme court to reverse its ruling legalizing abortion."
The Supreme Court didn't exactly "legalize" abortion. Abortion was already legal in 17 states (I may be off by one or two). Roe v Wade did, of course, strike down abortion laws in states where abortion was illegal. My point is that overturning Roe will not make abortion illegal. It will allow states to outlaw abortion. Some definitely will, and some definitely won't. Exactly how many abortions would be prevented is difficult to calculate. As far as I know, there are no plans in the pro-life movement to restrict the freedom of women seeking abortion in any way, so women in states where abortion is illegal could travel to states where it was legal.
7.28.2011 | 11:15am
bill bannon says:
Gail Finke
You're dumbing down Catholicism and attributing bad motives when your paradigm is threatened with facts.... with good intentions. That will not convert secure people but you'll do well with insecure people. How do you solve the chimeric individual problem? Two fertilized fraternal twin eggs lie too close to each other in the first day after fertilization. They move closer and fuse into one cell mass and eventually produce one chimeric individual instead of producing fraternal twins. If both were human persons with souls at fertilization, how did two souls become one soul subsequently? You misstated the twin problem by the way and the twin problem and the chimeric problem is probably why Catholic Popes are much more silent on this whole area than zealous laity and priests are. What are they waiting for before denouncing anyone? I think they are waiting for the full development of embryology and the applicable genetics and cell understanding.
Show me one Pope who attributes bad motives to those presenting embryology problems related to ensoulement. You can't. It's lower jurisdictional level Catholicism that uses this issue for reading the secrets of hearts....minus Padre Pio's
charism.
You're dumbing down Catholicism and attributing bad motives when your paradigm is threatened with facts.... with good intentions. That will not convert secure people but you'll do well with insecure people. How do you solve the chimeric individual problem? Two fertilized fraternal twin eggs lie too close to each other in the first day after fertilization. They move closer and fuse into one cell mass and eventually produce one chimeric individual instead of producing fraternal twins. If both were human persons with souls at fertilization, how did two souls become one soul subsequently? You misstated the twin problem by the way and the twin problem and the chimeric problem is probably why Catholic Popes are much more silent on this whole area than zealous laity and priests are. What are they waiting for before denouncing anyone? I think they are waiting for the full development of embryology and the applicable genetics and cell understanding.
Show me one Pope who attributes bad motives to those presenting embryology problems related to ensoulement. You can't. It's lower jurisdictional level Catholicism that uses this issue for reading the secrets of hearts....minus Padre Pio's
charism.
7.28.2011 | 11:57am
David Nickol says:
habeas,
You say: "Defining conception as the moment of sperm-joins-egg seems to raise the possibility that many, if not most, conceived humans are created to be destroyed before they can become full moral agents."
Statistics I have read put the number of early embryos that die before implantation at 60% to 80%. If life (personhood) begins at conception, then the majority of persons ever conceived have lived only a few days. They never developed eyes, ears, hearts or brains. The Catholic Church used to consign infants who died without baptism to Limbo, but recently, although the Church cannot say for certain what their fate is, the thinking is that we can hope they will be saved. I have had discussions with some Christians who believe that baptism and explicit acknowledgment are absolutely essential for salvation, and if one accepts that viewpoint, if a true person is present at the moment of conception, the main purpose of human reproduction would seem to be to populate hell.
Many in the medical profession maintain (for various reasons) that pregnancy starts at the moment of implantation, not the moment of conception. In that view, even birth control pills and morning-after pills that may interfere with implantation cannot be considered abortifacients, because abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, and if implantation is prevented after conception, the woman is never pregnant.
So it may be that the vast majority of human beings who are conceived die within a few days. Also, there is a significant miscarriage rate in early pregnancy, and such miscarriages often occur before the woman knows she is pregnant. If one believes that a person comes into existence at conception, it is truly staggering to think that many more persons have been conceived and died without anyone being aware of it than have been conceived and been born.
But, there's a very important point to be made in a discussion of abortion, and that is that even if 99% of those conceived died of natural causes, that would not justify abortion. However, I think it is fair to speculate that the fate of those who die of natural causes before birth and the fate of aborted babies are the same. Whether they go to Limbo, Hell, or Heaven, it is difficult to imagine that they would not all share the same destiny. Still, no matter how much it may look to use like God "wastes" human lives, that cannot justify abortion.
But it is a valid question, in my opinion, to ask if God would have set up a system of human reproduction in which the majority of full-fledged human persons who are conceived are destined for something other than a life on earth. There is an old catechism question and answer that people of my generation (old folks!) learned in Catholic school.
Q. Why did God make me?
A. God made me to know, love, and serve him in this world and to be happy with him forever in Heaven.
We didn't know it at the time, but it seems possible that question and answer do not apply to the majority of human beings, because they could not know, love, or serve anything in this world, and we don't know with certainty that they go to heaven.
You say: "Defining conception as the moment of sperm-joins-egg seems to raise the possibility that many, if not most, conceived humans are created to be destroyed before they can become full moral agents."
Statistics I have read put the number of early embryos that die before implantation at 60% to 80%. If life (personhood) begins at conception, then the majority of persons ever conceived have lived only a few days. They never developed eyes, ears, hearts or brains. The Catholic Church used to consign infants who died without baptism to Limbo, but recently, although the Church cannot say for certain what their fate is, the thinking is that we can hope they will be saved. I have had discussions with some Christians who believe that baptism and explicit acknowledgment are absolutely essential for salvation, and if one accepts that viewpoint, if a true person is present at the moment of conception, the main purpose of human reproduction would seem to be to populate hell.
Many in the medical profession maintain (for various reasons) that pregnancy starts at the moment of implantation, not the moment of conception. In that view, even birth control pills and morning-after pills that may interfere with implantation cannot be considered abortifacients, because abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, and if implantation is prevented after conception, the woman is never pregnant.
So it may be that the vast majority of human beings who are conceived die within a few days. Also, there is a significant miscarriage rate in early pregnancy, and such miscarriages often occur before the woman knows she is pregnant. If one believes that a person comes into existence at conception, it is truly staggering to think that many more persons have been conceived and died without anyone being aware of it than have been conceived and been born.
But, there's a very important point to be made in a discussion of abortion, and that is that even if 99% of those conceived died of natural causes, that would not justify abortion. However, I think it is fair to speculate that the fate of those who die of natural causes before birth and the fate of aborted babies are the same. Whether they go to Limbo, Hell, or Heaven, it is difficult to imagine that they would not all share the same destiny. Still, no matter how much it may look to use like God "wastes" human lives, that cannot justify abortion.
But it is a valid question, in my opinion, to ask if God would have set up a system of human reproduction in which the majority of full-fledged human persons who are conceived are destined for something other than a life on earth. There is an old catechism question and answer that people of my generation (old folks!) learned in Catholic school.
Q. Why did God make me?
A. God made me to know, love, and serve him in this world and to be happy with him forever in Heaven.
We didn't know it at the time, but it seems possible that question and answer do not apply to the majority of human beings, because they could not know, love, or serve anything in this world, and we don't know with certainty that they go to heaven.
7.28.2011 | 12:03pm
edge says:
“What is the relative value between a fetus and a newborn?”
Roe Vs. Wade was an exercise in legal cowardice, whether you agree with the decision or not. No one is arguing against the rights of mothers (or fathers - what of them?). But such arguments only side-step the legal system's failure to decide once and for all at what point in our lives our rights begin. This was not explicitly defined in the Constitution because the concept of the value of a fetus was not even part of their thinking back then. At any one point during pregnancy, a fetus/embryo is either a human being with full rights, or it is an organ in the body. There is no in-between, no "sub human" (see the history of slavery for that definition). When we state that "all are created equal", let our courts and our people have the will and courage to define what "all" and "created" means.
Roe Vs. Wade was an exercise in legal cowardice, whether you agree with the decision or not. No one is arguing against the rights of mothers (or fathers - what of them?). But such arguments only side-step the legal system's failure to decide once and for all at what point in our lives our rights begin. This was not explicitly defined in the Constitution because the concept of the value of a fetus was not even part of their thinking back then. At any one point during pregnancy, a fetus/embryo is either a human being with full rights, or it is an organ in the body. There is no in-between, no "sub human" (see the history of slavery for that definition). When we state that "all are created equal", let our courts and our people have the will and courage to define what "all" and "created" means.
7.28.2011 | 12:40pm
David Nickol says:
edge
You say: "This was not explicitly defined in the Constitution because the concept of the value of a fetus was not even part of their thinking back then."
But the criticism of Roe v Wade is that the alleged "right to privacy" is not explicitly defined in the Constitution. It's part of a "penumbra" of rights. You seem to be advocating that the court do exactly what it was accused of doing by those who criticize Roe v Wade. You want the court to find something in the Constitution that is not there. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to decide what the Constitution would have said if the Framers knew something then that we know now. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to read new meanings into the Constitution. If you want the Constitution to define the unborn as legal persons, you will have to amend it, because there is nothing in the Constitution that implies the unborn are legal persons.
You say: "This was not explicitly defined in the Constitution because the concept of the value of a fetus was not even part of their thinking back then."
But the criticism of Roe v Wade is that the alleged "right to privacy" is not explicitly defined in the Constitution. It's part of a "penumbra" of rights. You seem to be advocating that the court do exactly what it was accused of doing by those who criticize Roe v Wade. You want the court to find something in the Constitution that is not there. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to decide what the Constitution would have said if the Framers knew something then that we know now. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to read new meanings into the Constitution. If you want the Constitution to define the unborn as legal persons, you will have to amend it, because there is nothing in the Constitution that implies the unborn are legal persons.
7.28.2011 | 12:48pm
harry says:
The problem with many of the comments here seems to me to be that people don't seem to have grasped the grisly reality of abortion. Yes, people may not have a firm grip of what it is like to face a crisis pregnancy, or to be told an abortion is necessary to save their life (which, considering the advances of modern medicine, ought to make obvious one needs to see another doctor, since there is a good chance the doctor telling them that doesn't know what he is talking about). OK. Fine. It may be difficult to imagine what those situations are like. Yet those making the "they don't know what it is like" point don't appear to have any grasp at all of what abortion does to a baby. Is the violent dismemberment of an innocent baby ever a solution to a problem? It is not like there are no other options. There are many. In what other situations is killing an innocent human being considered to be a valid solution to one's problem?
Face it. What we are dealing with is bigotry. The day will come when the pictures of what we have been doing to children by the millions will horrify and bewilder people as much as we are horrified and bewildered by photographs of Blacks with backs that have been shredded by the whip, or photographs of piles of bodies of dead Jews. The bigotry of our times is directed at the child in the womb. Many have been afflicted with it. If you doubt it is a matter of bigotry, then ask yourself why doing such things to children used to be against the law up until a few years ago? Why does the "First, do no harm" ethic of Hippocrates, the Oath of which was the ethical guide of the medical profession for thousands of years, explicitly prohibit abortion? The Hippocratic has been discarded by the medical profession only twice in modern history: in contemporary society and in Germany during the twelve years of the Third Reich.
For those who dare to face reality instead of blathering on and on according to their sanitized view of it, here are some *GRAPHIC* pictures of what abortion does to babies on the Priests for Life web site. You have been warned:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm
Face it. What we are dealing with is bigotry. The day will come when the pictures of what we have been doing to children by the millions will horrify and bewilder people as much as we are horrified and bewildered by photographs of Blacks with backs that have been shredded by the whip, or photographs of piles of bodies of dead Jews. The bigotry of our times is directed at the child in the womb. Many have been afflicted with it. If you doubt it is a matter of bigotry, then ask yourself why doing such things to children used to be against the law up until a few years ago? Why does the "First, do no harm" ethic of Hippocrates, the Oath of which was the ethical guide of the medical profession for thousands of years, explicitly prohibit abortion? The Hippocratic has been discarded by the medical profession only twice in modern history: in contemporary society and in Germany during the twelve years of the Third Reich.
For those who dare to face reality instead of blathering on and on according to their sanitized view of it, here are some *GRAPHIC* pictures of what abortion does to babies on the Priests for Life web site. You have been warned:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm
7.28.2011 | 1:55pm
Wendy says:
Michael:
It is odd that you so many anti-abortionists, rely heavily on Tertullian. Since of course, Tertullian was a heretic who left the church, after being condemned by it.
The fact is, the mageristerial foundation for anti-abortionism is bogus. And so to convince? Anti-abortionists must rely on sensationism: pictures of aborted embryos carefully posed to look human, phrases like "baby killers," and so forth.
Anti-abortionists quote heretics like Tertullian as Catholic authority. While regarding the dozens of legitimate key elements of the magisterium that would allow abortion? They are simply suppressed.
Are antiabortionists honest? Are they even Christian?
It is odd that you so many anti-abortionists, rely heavily on Tertullian. Since of course, Tertullian was a heretic who left the church, after being condemned by it.
The fact is, the mageristerial foundation for anti-abortionism is bogus. And so to convince? Anti-abortionists must rely on sensationism: pictures of aborted embryos carefully posed to look human, phrases like "baby killers," and so forth.
Anti-abortionists quote heretics like Tertullian as Catholic authority. While regarding the dozens of legitimate key elements of the magisterium that would allow abortion? They are simply suppressed.
Are antiabortionists honest? Are they even Christian?
7.28.2011 | 2:08pm
harry says:
Wendy wrote:
"... carefully posed to look human ..."
It is a scientific fact that they are human, and that fact is obvious without posing these children.
I don't know for sure where Wendy is coming from, but here on planet Earth the offspring of a given species are of that species. That holds for humans, too.
Good grief! The depths of irrational denial appear to be limitless.
"... carefully posed to look human ..."
It is a scientific fact that they are human, and that fact is obvious without posing these children.
I don't know for sure where Wendy is coming from, but here on planet Earth the offspring of a given species are of that species. That holds for humans, too.
Good grief! The depths of irrational denial appear to be limitless.
7.28.2011 | 2:13pm
bill bannon says:
Wendy
Actually abortion is infallibly condemned in section 62 of Evangelium Vitae wherein John Paul II polled the world's Bishops on the topic and was able thus to avoid the ex cathedra route. Here are the words in which he used a modification of the IC wording formula:
"
Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. 72 Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. "
..........................................................
What is not defined infallibly is the front end...when does abortion begin.....ie conception, implantation, prior to brain developement in third week ( which ironically Aquinas probably would have required for murder while regarding all interference as mortal sin but not murder since he followed Aristotle with the vegatative soul/ sensitive soul/ rational soul sequence...each stage incororating the previous).
Actually abortion is infallibly condemned in section 62 of Evangelium Vitae wherein John Paul II polled the world's Bishops on the topic and was able thus to avoid the ex cathedra route. Here are the words in which he used a modification of the IC wording formula:
"
Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. 72 Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. "
..........................................................
What is not defined infallibly is the front end...when does abortion begin.....ie conception, implantation, prior to brain developement in third week ( which ironically Aquinas probably would have required for murder while regarding all interference as mortal sin but not murder since he followed Aristotle with the vegatative soul/ sensitive soul/ rational soul sequence...each stage incororating the previous).
7.28.2011 | 2:30pm
David Nickol says:
bill bannon,
One would have to say, to be very clear, that although direct abortion is condemned by the Church as the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, and thus never permissible, there is disagreement as to what makes an abortion "direct." Probably the vast majority of abortions performed in the United States are clearly direct abortions, but there are important debates that are by no means settled involving hard cases (mainly, abortions where the mother's life is in danger). The "Phoenix abortion" is a prime example.
One would have to say, to be very clear, that although direct abortion is condemned by the Church as the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, and thus never permissible, there is disagreement as to what makes an abortion "direct." Probably the vast majority of abortions performed in the United States are clearly direct abortions, but there are important debates that are by no means settled involving hard cases (mainly, abortions where the mother's life is in danger). The "Phoenix abortion" is a prime example.
7.28.2011 | 2:47pm
Joseph Dooley says:
Obama said he wanted to reduce the number of abortions. No one ever asked him why. The answer is he wanted pro-lifers' votes, not that he agreed with them that abortion is murder.
7.28.2011 | 2:59pm
harry says:
Hello, bill bannon,
You made an excellent point.
I would just add that for anyone claiming to be Christian the issue should be a "no-brainer." Christ died for us 2000 years ago, before we were even fertilized eggs. Each of us was only a perfect idea in an eternal mind at the time, important enough to God to be worth His suffering a long, profoundly cruel and humiliating death so that we might be able to spend eternity with Him. When we finally arrived in this world in our mothers' wombs, God didn't then suddenly decide that His mighty love for us would be suspended until we were born. There is no nine month gap in the eternal love God has for each and every human being.
Every child killed by abortion or abortifacient contraception is someone precious to God who was killed in violation of His clear command, "Thou shalt do no murder." I think the culpability of many is practically non-existent given our current environment, but objectively speaking that is what the act of killing the child really was:
"The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved."
-- JP II in Evangelium Vitae
I realize the immeasurable worth of any and every human being, demonstrated to us by God allowing Himself to be nailed to a cross for our sakes long before we came into existence, makes no sense at all to the world. It should make perfect sense to any Christian, and should inform their understanding of the immorality of taking the life of any and every human being regardless of their stage of development from the very beginning of their existence. God's love is from all eternity and is never, ever suspended.
You made an excellent point.
I would just add that for anyone claiming to be Christian the issue should be a "no-brainer." Christ died for us 2000 years ago, before we were even fertilized eggs. Each of us was only a perfect idea in an eternal mind at the time, important enough to God to be worth His suffering a long, profoundly cruel and humiliating death so that we might be able to spend eternity with Him. When we finally arrived in this world in our mothers' wombs, God didn't then suddenly decide that His mighty love for us would be suspended until we were born. There is no nine month gap in the eternal love God has for each and every human being.
Every child killed by abortion or abortifacient contraception is someone precious to God who was killed in violation of His clear command, "Thou shalt do no murder." I think the culpability of many is practically non-existent given our current environment, but objectively speaking that is what the act of killing the child really was:
"The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved."
-- JP II in Evangelium Vitae
I realize the immeasurable worth of any and every human being, demonstrated to us by God allowing Himself to be nailed to a cross for our sakes long before we came into existence, makes no sense at all to the world. It should make perfect sense to any Christian, and should inform their understanding of the immorality of taking the life of any and every human being regardless of their stage of development from the very beginning of their existence. God's love is from all eternity and is never, ever suspended.
7.28.2011 | 2:59pm
bill bannon says:
David Nickol
Yes and I would lenghten that to "where the mother's life is in danger and the child will die regardless". That was a case that demonstrated that the Germain Grisez's of each country (top Catholic moral theologians) should literally be on call...and I mean on call to meet with the apposite Bishop by phone or skype etc.
Did we learn that lesson? I think not.
Yes and I would lenghten that to "where the mother's life is in danger and the child will die regardless". That was a case that demonstrated that the Germain Grisez's of each country (top Catholic moral theologians) should literally be on call...and I mean on call to meet with the apposite Bishop by phone or skype etc.
Did we learn that lesson? I think not.
7.28.2011 | 3:00pm
David Nickol says:
Joseph Dooley,
It is not necessary to believe that abortion is murder in order to want to reduce the number of abortions. And OF COURSE Obama does not believe abortion is murder. No one who is pro-choice does, and it seems to me a great many who are anti-abortion don't believe abortion is murder, either. If abortion is murder, then abortions in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother are murders, yet few advocate criminalizing an abortion to save a woman's life. And many who oppose abortion support embryonic stem-cell research. You can't logically maintain that abortion is murder and support embryonic stem-cell research or a great deal of what goes on in fertility clinics.
It is not necessary to believe that abortion is murder in order to want to reduce the number of abortions. And OF COURSE Obama does not believe abortion is murder. No one who is pro-choice does, and it seems to me a great many who are anti-abortion don't believe abortion is murder, either. If abortion is murder, then abortions in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother are murders, yet few advocate criminalizing an abortion to save a woman's life. And many who oppose abortion support embryonic stem-cell research. You can't logically maintain that abortion is murder and support embryonic stem-cell research or a great deal of what goes on in fertility clinics.
7.28.2011 | 4:19pm
bill bannon says:
harry
You are assuming what you can't prove on the preimplantation period and using guilt techniques regarding God's love to cover it up. You are free to believe that the cell mass is a little child from conception. People who have read the embryology problems are not going to agree with you regardless of the God's love sales technique. If the cell mass can divide at 14 days into 5 identical quintuplets, that means the cell mass was not a person. Persons don't split into five beings after 14 days. The more your group exaggerates the parameters, the more you will be contributing to your opponents' cause. And....the devil will rejoice.
You are assuming what you can't prove on the preimplantation period and using guilt techniques regarding God's love to cover it up. You are free to believe that the cell mass is a little child from conception. People who have read the embryology problems are not going to agree with you regardless of the God's love sales technique. If the cell mass can divide at 14 days into 5 identical quintuplets, that means the cell mass was not a person. Persons don't split into five beings after 14 days. The more your group exaggerates the parameters, the more you will be contributing to your opponents' cause. And....the devil will rejoice.
7.28.2011 | 4:53pm
harry says:
Hello Bill Bannon,
You wrote:
"If the cell mass can divide at 14 days into 5 identical quintuplets, that means the cell mass was not a person."
You don't know that it means that. You can't be certain of that. Do you have a "soul-o-meter" to check out whether there was just one soul created at conception? Or that can detect that there were providentially five souls created? Or that there weren't?
You are expressing what you obviously want very much to believe, but the honest truth is that we can't be certain how God deals with that situation and therefore cannot draw any conclusions from it. We are left with no choice but to respect the lives of all human beings from the very first instant of their existence. It is really not all that complicated.
You wrote:
"The more your group exaggerates the parameters, the more you will be contributing to your opponents' cause. And....the devil will rejoice."
So the devil is rejoicing over my proposition that we are obligated to respect any and every human life, regardless of what our mere, unprovable opinion is of how God deals with rare situations in terms of the number of souls He creates and at what point He creates them. .Hmmm .... The devil has changed quite a bit. I would think he would be for our making rash assumptions without any real basis and having that result in the destruction of one or more innocent human beings made in God's image, which he hates.
You wrote:
"If the cell mass can divide at 14 days into 5 identical quintuplets, that means the cell mass was not a person."
You don't know that it means that. You can't be certain of that. Do you have a "soul-o-meter" to check out whether there was just one soul created at conception? Or that can detect that there were providentially five souls created? Or that there weren't?
You are expressing what you obviously want very much to believe, but the honest truth is that we can't be certain how God deals with that situation and therefore cannot draw any conclusions from it. We are left with no choice but to respect the lives of all human beings from the very first instant of their existence. It is really not all that complicated.
You wrote:
"The more your group exaggerates the parameters, the more you will be contributing to your opponents' cause. And....the devil will rejoice."
So the devil is rejoicing over my proposition that we are obligated to respect any and every human life, regardless of what our mere, unprovable opinion is of how God deals with rare situations in terms of the number of souls He creates and at what point He creates them. .Hmmm .... The devil has changed quite a bit. I would think he would be for our making rash assumptions without any real basis and having that result in the destruction of one or more innocent human beings made in God's image, which he hates.
7.28.2011 | 11:30pm
Michael says:
David,
I have to take issue with your statement that no one who is pro-choice, including Obama, believes abortion is murder. I think most pro-choice people would agree that abortion in the 39th week is murder. They might not want to punish the mother the way they would a typical murderer, but no one standing over the corpse of a baby in its 39th week would say that a *type* of murder hadn’t been committed.
Most Americans are moderates because we recognize what pro-life and pro-choice extremists are at pains to blur. Moderates understand that abortion gets more and more like murder the older the baby gets. Sonograms and embryology have encouraged us to see the murderous nature of abortion at earlier and earlier stages of a baby’s development. At the same time, as you and habeas have argued, embryology has made it less and less easy to mark conception as the beginning of a unique or ensouled human life. Where moderates want to stake out some middle ground where prudence and sanity rule, extremists want to force us to confront complexity as if everything were simple.
Pro-life extremists know that if they admit that the beginning of unique or ensouled life is fuzzy, they will have to allow some abortions just as their Christian forbears once did. And pro-choice extremists know that if they admit that early in pregnancy abortion kills humans, they will have to restrict, prohibit, and even penalize women. They will have to think of abortion as not just a tragedy but as a largely preventable horror.
Unfortunately, our churches now resemble our political system, rewarding extreme positions rather than old fashioned virtues like prudence and wisdom.
I have to take issue with your statement that no one who is pro-choice, including Obama, believes abortion is murder. I think most pro-choice people would agree that abortion in the 39th week is murder. They might not want to punish the mother the way they would a typical murderer, but no one standing over the corpse of a baby in its 39th week would say that a *type* of murder hadn’t been committed.
Most Americans are moderates because we recognize what pro-life and pro-choice extremists are at pains to blur. Moderates understand that abortion gets more and more like murder the older the baby gets. Sonograms and embryology have encouraged us to see the murderous nature of abortion at earlier and earlier stages of a baby’s development. At the same time, as you and habeas have argued, embryology has made it less and less easy to mark conception as the beginning of a unique or ensouled human life. Where moderates want to stake out some middle ground where prudence and sanity rule, extremists want to force us to confront complexity as if everything were simple.
Pro-life extremists know that if they admit that the beginning of unique or ensouled life is fuzzy, they will have to allow some abortions just as their Christian forbears once did. And pro-choice extremists know that if they admit that early in pregnancy abortion kills humans, they will have to restrict, prohibit, and even penalize women. They will have to think of abortion as not just a tragedy but as a largely preventable horror.
Unfortunately, our churches now resemble our political system, rewarding extreme positions rather than old fashioned virtues like prudence and wisdom.
7.29.2011 | 3:54am
edmond says:
@ David-"We didn't know it at the time, but it seems possible that question and answer do not apply to the majority of human beings, because they could not know, love, or serve anything in this world, and we don't know with certainty that they go to heaven." How did you come to tha conclusion when knowing God does not necessarily come from formal education? Most of the apostles were unschooled and partly the reason why they were chosen in the first place so that the "dumb would shame the wise.
As for your inputs on the Supreme Court, your line of argument about abortion being legal in some states pre-dating Roe vs. Wade doesn't fall squarely if placed against slavery being legal in the confederacy before the civil war prior to its abolition. Nor does it sit well with the existence of segregation in the 50s and 60s before the Supreme Court intervention. Thus, in 1954 the Supreme Court acting through Chief Justice Warren launched desegregation. The Judiciary cut a huge chunk off from the rage of segregation, it can do the same with abortion.
As for your inputs on the Supreme Court, your line of argument about abortion being legal in some states pre-dating Roe vs. Wade doesn't fall squarely if placed against slavery being legal in the confederacy before the civil war prior to its abolition. Nor does it sit well with the existence of segregation in the 50s and 60s before the Supreme Court intervention. Thus, in 1954 the Supreme Court acting through Chief Justice Warren launched desegregation. The Judiciary cut a huge chunk off from the rage of segregation, it can do the same with abortion.
7.29.2011 | 8:28am
Mary De Voe says:
The worth of a fetus is the value of Justice and sovereignty, and relates to every citizen. We as a nation are either Just and Sovereign or we are not. CHOOSE.
7.29.2011 | 8:40am
bill bannon says:
Harry
One can be certain that the cell mass is not a person due to what is occuring in scientific labs. The ordinary cell mass can now be teased by scientists into two cell masses in the laboratory resulting in twins. Those scientists cannot tease a later embryo with a primitive streak (what will become the central nervous system) into twinning because where there is a primitive streak, there is individuation....an individual, whereas prior, there was human matter but not an individual. And the human matter prior could be teased into twinning. Aquinas held that the soul permeated all parts of the body and was indivisible which could not be the case in a cell mass that was teasible into twinning.
One can be certain that the cell mass is not a person due to what is occuring in scientific labs. The ordinary cell mass can now be teased by scientists into two cell masses in the laboratory resulting in twins. Those scientists cannot tease a later embryo with a primitive streak (what will become the central nervous system) into twinning because where there is a primitive streak, there is individuation....an individual, whereas prior, there was human matter but not an individual. And the human matter prior could be teased into twinning. Aquinas held that the soul permeated all parts of the body and was indivisible which could not be the case in a cell mass that was teasible into twinning.
7.29.2011 | 9:19am
Wendy says:
How "infallibly" did JPII presume to condemn abortion?
1) In part, he relies on an alleged "unanimity" of bishops;but traditionally, and in the current CCC, only when "the whole church" agrees on something is it considered that firm.
2) Among other sources, Paul quotes "Tertullian"; an odd choice for a Pope to cite as authority. Since the Church excommunicated Tertullian as a heretic. Curiously, here the Church quotes its own heretics as authority. Will wonders never end.
3) THEN TOO? The major figures of the Magisterium - Augustine and Aquinas - differed with Paul, in suggesting that the very young embryo, does not have a rational soul, or mind, and is therefore, not a human being. Implying that abortion may be bad, but is not murder; since it does not kill a human person.
4) Then too? Most Protestant churches allow abortion;
5) Because the BIble itself allows it. PS. 139 clearly telling us that God considered us to0 not yet exist, in the womb; where we are regarded as mere "unformed substance."
For these reasons? The youn embryo not being a human being - having no spirit or soul or human mind? The BIble apparently allowing it? All that effrectively.. invalidate sEvangelicum Vitae.
1) In part, he relies on an alleged "unanimity" of bishops;but traditionally, and in the current CCC, only when "the whole church" agrees on something is it considered that firm.
2) Among other sources, Paul quotes "Tertullian"; an odd choice for a Pope to cite as authority. Since the Church excommunicated Tertullian as a heretic. Curiously, here the Church quotes its own heretics as authority. Will wonders never end.
3) THEN TOO? The major figures of the Magisterium - Augustine and Aquinas - differed with Paul, in suggesting that the very young embryo, does not have a rational soul, or mind, and is therefore, not a human being. Implying that abortion may be bad, but is not murder; since it does not kill a human person.
4) Then too? Most Protestant churches allow abortion;
5) Because the BIble itself allows it. PS. 139 clearly telling us that God considered us to0 not yet exist, in the womb; where we are regarded as mere "unformed substance."
For these reasons? The youn embryo not being a human being - having no spirit or soul or human mind? The BIble apparently allowing it? All that effrectively.. invalidate sEvangelicum Vitae.
7.29.2011 | 9:51am
bill bannon says:
Wendy
John Paul polled all the Bishops of the world by mail and email for the three infallible paragraphs.....that is the same as the Bishops being in a building together under a Pope. He used a variant of the ex cathedra wording. The rest of Evangelium Vitae aside from three infallible sections is fair game for criticism. I think the death penalty sections were something that would get a failing grade in any good university. But that is separate from his charism of infallibility which makes him radically different during the infallible passages. I accept his infallible condemnation of abortion but it leaves open by lack of definition... the front end of abortion as a question....when does both personhood and abortion begin and if a cell mass can be teased into twinning, a cell mass is not a person.
Aquinas and Augustine are far beneath infallibility. They were both wrong on the immaculate conception, on venial sin attending asking for the marriage debt without willing children, on sex as concupiscence when children are not intended, Aquinas....on killing heretics. They are influential but are not another magisterium.
Check psalm 139 again...no one will agree with you on that one....the psalmist is referring to two time periods not one....vs.14 is prenatal...vs.15 is mainly prior to history "written in your book".
John Paul polled all the Bishops of the world by mail and email for the three infallible paragraphs.....that is the same as the Bishops being in a building together under a Pope. He used a variant of the ex cathedra wording. The rest of Evangelium Vitae aside from three infallible sections is fair game for criticism. I think the death penalty sections were something that would get a failing grade in any good university. But that is separate from his charism of infallibility which makes him radically different during the infallible passages. I accept his infallible condemnation of abortion but it leaves open by lack of definition... the front end of abortion as a question....when does both personhood and abortion begin and if a cell mass can be teased into twinning, a cell mass is not a person.
Aquinas and Augustine are far beneath infallibility. They were both wrong on the immaculate conception, on venial sin attending asking for the marriage debt without willing children, on sex as concupiscence when children are not intended, Aquinas....on killing heretics. They are influential but are not another magisterium.
Check psalm 139 again...no one will agree with you on that one....the psalmist is referring to two time periods not one....vs.14 is prenatal...vs.15 is mainly prior to history "written in your book".
7.29.2011 | 10:41am
Michael PS says:
Gail Finke
In the case of monzygotic twins, you say that, before division, there was one person and, after division, two. But is either of these two identical with the one that existed before?
In other words, if we had A before division, do we now have A and B, or B and C? Obviously, B and C cannot both be identical with A, otherwise, by transivity of identity, B would be identical with C.
If neither is identical with A, then A (a person on your argument) has ceased to exist. If one of them is identical with A, the other (B) is not. So, B did not come into existence “at the moment of conception,” unless you define conception as a process that continues up to the moment of division.
There is a real, non-trivial question of identity involved here, regardless of the moral implications (if any) to be drawn from it.
Wendy
I quote Tertullian as a witness to the faith of the (immediately sub-apostolic) church of his day and, thus to the apostolic teaching itself. Wherever he can be corroborated by other authors, he proves to be a reliable witness, especially in a work like the Apologeticum, where he is explicitly defending Christian beliefs, not his own theological opinions.. I should use Origen (a writer of doubtful orthodoxy) and Eusebius (a Semi-Arian) in the same way. If we are to reject Tertullian, then, to take only one example, there is no other writer, before Nicea, who expressly affirms the numerical unity and co-equality of the three divine persons.
Tertullian, like St Jerome after him, was a traductionist, so the question of “ensoulment” did not arise for him. Origen famously believed in the pre-existence of the soul. The earliest Magisterial teaching that the rational soul is, of itself and essentially, the form of the body was the Ecumenical Council of Vienne in 1311/12, although remarks of the early fathers are compatible with it.
In the case of monzygotic twins, you say that, before division, there was one person and, after division, two. But is either of these two identical with the one that existed before?
In other words, if we had A before division, do we now have A and B, or B and C? Obviously, B and C cannot both be identical with A, otherwise, by transivity of identity, B would be identical with C.
If neither is identical with A, then A (a person on your argument) has ceased to exist. If one of them is identical with A, the other (B) is not. So, B did not come into existence “at the moment of conception,” unless you define conception as a process that continues up to the moment of division.
There is a real, non-trivial question of identity involved here, regardless of the moral implications (if any) to be drawn from it.
Wendy
I quote Tertullian as a witness to the faith of the (immediately sub-apostolic) church of his day and, thus to the apostolic teaching itself. Wherever he can be corroborated by other authors, he proves to be a reliable witness, especially in a work like the Apologeticum, where he is explicitly defending Christian beliefs, not his own theological opinions.. I should use Origen (a writer of doubtful orthodoxy) and Eusebius (a Semi-Arian) in the same way. If we are to reject Tertullian, then, to take only one example, there is no other writer, before Nicea, who expressly affirms the numerical unity and co-equality of the three divine persons.
Tertullian, like St Jerome after him, was a traductionist, so the question of “ensoulment” did not arise for him. Origen famously believed in the pre-existence of the soul. The earliest Magisterial teaching that the rational soul is, of itself and essentially, the form of the body was the Ecumenical Council of Vienne in 1311/12, although remarks of the early fathers are compatible with it.
7.29.2011 | 11:01am
harry says:
Hello, Bill Bannon,
You wrote:
"One can be certain that the cell mass is not a person due to what is occuring in scientific labs. ... Aquinas held that the soul permeated all parts of the body and was indivisible which could not be the case in a cell mass that was teasible into twinning."
What is happening in scientific labs in terms of a real understanding of life, especially human life, is something like smart but uneducated jungle savages experimenting with laptop PCs. The proclamations of modern scientists, as well as our hypothetical savage "scientists" are based upon a knowledge of the subject of their experimentation that is roughly the same. If anything, the savages will figure out how to build and program laptop PCs long before the scientists will figure out how to build a primitive, reproducing life form from scratch. In both cases the technology they are examining is light years beyond their own. The proclamations of both groups need to be take with a grain of salt. There is no legitimate basis for jumping to your conclusions considering the seriousness of their ramifications.
The savage "scientists" may proclaim to their savage admirers that the "life" of the PC is in its batteries without knowing the first thing about electricity, or hardware and software engineering. They would be right in some sense but still wouldn't really know what they were talking about.
Modern science's proclamations about what they perceive to be individuation aren't any better informed than our savage scientists. Sure, they may be right like the savages are "right" about the PC batteries -- but they still have no idea what is really going on, especially in terms of souls. The technology they are tinkering with is beyond them. And the workings of the soul and how it is integrated with the profoundly complicated functionality of a single human cell or group of cells is most certainly beyond them and will remain so. Aquinas' belief that the soul "permeates" the body is not something scientifically testable and shouldn't be used like it was scientific evidence.
It is not like we are discussing the lives of lab rats here. We are discussing human beings made in the image of God. The only reasonable approach is to always err on the side of life, respecting the inestimable worth of what we are dealing with, and humbly admitting our lack of understanding. As Christians we don't want to get anywhere near the situation where we are taking the lives of innocent human beings because we jumped to unfounded, uninformed conclusions.
You wrote:
"One can be certain that the cell mass is not a person due to what is occuring in scientific labs. ... Aquinas held that the soul permeated all parts of the body and was indivisible which could not be the case in a cell mass that was teasible into twinning."
What is happening in scientific labs in terms of a real understanding of life, especially human life, is something like smart but uneducated jungle savages experimenting with laptop PCs. The proclamations of modern scientists, as well as our hypothetical savage "scientists" are based upon a knowledge of the subject of their experimentation that is roughly the same. If anything, the savages will figure out how to build and program laptop PCs long before the scientists will figure out how to build a primitive, reproducing life form from scratch. In both cases the technology they are examining is light years beyond their own. The proclamations of both groups need to be take with a grain of salt. There is no legitimate basis for jumping to your conclusions considering the seriousness of their ramifications.
The savage "scientists" may proclaim to their savage admirers that the "life" of the PC is in its batteries without knowing the first thing about electricity, or hardware and software engineering. They would be right in some sense but still wouldn't really know what they were talking about.
Modern science's proclamations about what they perceive to be individuation aren't any better informed than our savage scientists. Sure, they may be right like the savages are "right" about the PC batteries -- but they still have no idea what is really going on, especially in terms of souls. The technology they are tinkering with is beyond them. And the workings of the soul and how it is integrated with the profoundly complicated functionality of a single human cell or group of cells is most certainly beyond them and will remain so. Aquinas' belief that the soul "permeates" the body is not something scientifically testable and shouldn't be used like it was scientific evidence.
It is not like we are discussing the lives of lab rats here. We are discussing human beings made in the image of God. The only reasonable approach is to always err on the side of life, respecting the inestimable worth of what we are dealing with, and humbly admitting our lack of understanding. As Christians we don't want to get anywhere near the situation where we are taking the lives of innocent human beings because we jumped to unfounded, uninformed conclusions.
7.29.2011 | 12:10pm
pentamom says:
Trying to chase down when, under what conditions, and how many, souls exist or come into being is not merely futile, but pointless.
All human beings should be granted the protections we believe due to human beings as such. To do less is to grant society the power to determine who among biological humanity is, and is not, "human," which is inhuman. The entire soul thing is a red herring, IMO.
All human beings should be granted the protections we believe due to human beings as such. To do less is to grant society the power to determine who among biological humanity is, and is not, "human," which is inhuman. The entire soul thing is a red herring, IMO.
7.29.2011 | 12:11pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
Before you used religious language and now you are using metaphors regarding savages to overcome the scientific community whose advances fill your house and your car and can save you in a hospital if they did not already save elder folk in your family.
It's simple...a person can't be teased into becoming twins....a cell mass can.
The Ecumenical Council of Vienne shortly after Aquinas included his position that the soul was the form of the body ( see Michael PS above).
You simply want a certain reality and you will use religious language or scientists as savage metaphors to get it. But raped Catholic women who've seen the limited infallible wording of EV....in the day immediate after their rape who do not want to give birth to someone who looks like a combination of themselves and their attacker are more likely to listen to the facts about cell masses twinning than metaphors of savages designed to make you good about your position. There are strong women who could give birth to someone who looked like their attacker. There are others who would have a breakdown....many others. Your quick disposal
of the facts about cell masses twinning is something they have no obligation to
consider and since the front end of abortion is undefined infallibly, the most rational choice is to terminate the cell mass. Regensburg was about Islam's tendency to let faith obscure reason. Why should a woman let you and your metaphors or a celibate clergy do just obscuring of reason by faith....in the days after her being raped when the front end of abortion is something no Pope will put in definitive form
infallibly?
Before you used religious language and now you are using metaphors regarding savages to overcome the scientific community whose advances fill your house and your car and can save you in a hospital if they did not already save elder folk in your family.
It's simple...a person can't be teased into becoming twins....a cell mass can.
The Ecumenical Council of Vienne shortly after Aquinas included his position that the soul was the form of the body ( see Michael PS above).
You simply want a certain reality and you will use religious language or scientists as savage metaphors to get it. But raped Catholic women who've seen the limited infallible wording of EV....in the day immediate after their rape who do not want to give birth to someone who looks like a combination of themselves and their attacker are more likely to listen to the facts about cell masses twinning than metaphors of savages designed to make you good about your position. There are strong women who could give birth to someone who looked like their attacker. There are others who would have a breakdown....many others. Your quick disposal
of the facts about cell masses twinning is something they have no obligation to
consider and since the front end of abortion is undefined infallibly, the most rational choice is to terminate the cell mass. Regensburg was about Islam's tendency to let faith obscure reason. Why should a woman let you and your metaphors or a celibate clergy do just obscuring of reason by faith....in the days after her being raped when the front end of abortion is something no Pope will put in definitive form
infallibly?
7.29.2011 | 12:45pm
harry says:
Hello, Bill Bannon,
There have only been a handful of infallible papal proclamations and even theologians argue about exactly how many there have been due to differing understandings of what constitutes an infallible statement. Most of the truths in the deposit of faith have not been the subject of an official infallible proclamation. That does not mean we have no access to most of the truths of the faith. Catholics look at the truths that the Holy Spirit led the Church to and preserved in it up to the present. They believe in the authority of the Church to proclaim them.
We can be sure of the inestimable worth of every human life, which is a belief that has been preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit from the beginning. The truth of this was infallibly proclaimed by God-made-Man hanging from a cross for the sake of each and every human being. This "official statement" has least the same, if not far more authority than the official infallible papal statement some require whenever they don't like the truths that have been preserved in the Church from the beginning by the Holy Spirit. "Well, that Church teaching" -- the one we don't like -- "has never been officially proclaimed infallibly" is a sorry excuse for a Catholic ignoring the teachings of the Church. Are you Catholic?
There have only been a handful of infallible papal proclamations and even theologians argue about exactly how many there have been due to differing understandings of what constitutes an infallible statement. Most of the truths in the deposit of faith have not been the subject of an official infallible proclamation. That does not mean we have no access to most of the truths of the faith. Catholics look at the truths that the Holy Spirit led the Church to and preserved in it up to the present. They believe in the authority of the Church to proclaim them.
We can be sure of the inestimable worth of every human life, which is a belief that has been preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit from the beginning. The truth of this was infallibly proclaimed by God-made-Man hanging from a cross for the sake of each and every human being. This "official statement" has least the same, if not far more authority than the official infallible papal statement some require whenever they don't like the truths that have been preserved in the Church from the beginning by the Holy Spirit. "Well, that Church teaching" -- the one we don't like -- "has never been officially proclaimed infallibly" is a sorry excuse for a Catholic ignoring the teachings of the Church. Are you Catholic?
7.29.2011 | 1:26pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
You must be accustomed to talking to teens at Church. You're now using the concept of the ordinary magisterium to make infallible the nebulous. Canon 749-3 is in the canons to protect Catholics from your private papacy; it reads:
"No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident."
Canon law knows there are things in the ordinary magisterium that are timeless and immemorial and true but it also knows there are things there that are old but questionable. Hence canon 749-3 is there to protect some Catholics from other Catholics as the latter think they know what is true infallibly.
In 1520, the ordinary magisterium supported the burning of heretics and since the Popes has supported it since 1253 and Ad Extirpanda, Pope Leo X was amazed in 1520 that Luther objected to it and therefore Pope Leo X issued Exsurge Domine
stating that Luther's position was against the Catholic Faith. You, Harry, like
99.99% of Catholics would have supported burning heretics which went on from
1253 til the 18th century and included from 6,000 victims (low figure of Will Durant)
to c. 31,000 victims ( high figure of Grand Inquisitor Llorente in the 18th century).
And you would have told me it was surely just....Frs. Corapi and Entenauer would have agreed with you and the three of you would say I was a non Catholic about burning heretics and now about the cell mass and the first 14 days....but lo....to my rescue comes several things:
canon 749-3 which says you three must prove it infallible in a manifestly evident manner....and secondly your two priests fade away as we're arguing because their days of calling people dissenters seemed to have faded with their fame. It's just you, Harry. And guess what? Now burning heretics, a torture, is an intrinsic evil according to section 80 of Splendor of the Truth, 1993 by John Paul II...ROFLOL.
Canon 749-3 Harry....memorize it. They'll be a quiz if I catch you throwing anyone out of the Church again based on that murky area....the ordinary
magisterium. You are Harry....a layman who can't throw anyone out of anything Churchy.
Because the ordinary magisterium is murky, we needed ex cathedra to un-murky it. That's
what ex cathedra is for: to un-murky the Ordinary Magisterium.
You must be accustomed to talking to teens at Church. You're now using the concept of the ordinary magisterium to make infallible the nebulous. Canon 749-3 is in the canons to protect Catholics from your private papacy; it reads:
"No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident."
Canon law knows there are things in the ordinary magisterium that are timeless and immemorial and true but it also knows there are things there that are old but questionable. Hence canon 749-3 is there to protect some Catholics from other Catholics as the latter think they know what is true infallibly.
In 1520, the ordinary magisterium supported the burning of heretics and since the Popes has supported it since 1253 and Ad Extirpanda, Pope Leo X was amazed in 1520 that Luther objected to it and therefore Pope Leo X issued Exsurge Domine
stating that Luther's position was against the Catholic Faith. You, Harry, like
99.99% of Catholics would have supported burning heretics which went on from
1253 til the 18th century and included from 6,000 victims (low figure of Will Durant)
to c. 31,000 victims ( high figure of Grand Inquisitor Llorente in the 18th century).
And you would have told me it was surely just....Frs. Corapi and Entenauer would have agreed with you and the three of you would say I was a non Catholic about burning heretics and now about the cell mass and the first 14 days....but lo....to my rescue comes several things:
canon 749-3 which says you three must prove it infallible in a manifestly evident manner....and secondly your two priests fade away as we're arguing because their days of calling people dissenters seemed to have faded with their fame. It's just you, Harry. And guess what? Now burning heretics, a torture, is an intrinsic evil according to section 80 of Splendor of the Truth, 1993 by John Paul II...ROFLOL.
Canon 749-3 Harry....memorize it. They'll be a quiz if I catch you throwing anyone out of the Church again based on that murky area....the ordinary
magisterium. You are Harry....a layman who can't throw anyone out of anything Churchy.
Because the ordinary magisterium is murky, we needed ex cathedra to un-murky it. That's
what ex cathedra is for: to un-murky the Ordinary Magisterium.
7.29.2011 | 2:07pm
harry says:
Hello, Bill Bannon,
Your anti-Catholicism is showing. Interestingly, you didn't answer my question: Are you Catholic?
As for the inquisition, a Pope declaring there are problems with Luther's view of the Inquisition is not dogmatically declaring torture is OK. You want to construe it that way, of course, but that conclusion just doesn't follow. You confuse Church practice with Church doctrine. Christ never promised us the leaders and members of the Church would be without sin. He had one out of twelve apostles He had hand-picked go bad on Him. We can't expect to do any better. Human beings had a fallen nature back then and still have a fallen nature. They succumbed to back than and still succumb to it. Being an apostle does not preserve one from that. What we can be sure of is that the Holy Spirit always has and will continue to animate the Body of Christ, the Church and protect its official doctrine. We have this on the promise of Christ: "He who hears you -- hears Me."
(A note to others reading this: Check out the works of Church historian Philip Hughes for a balanced portrayal of the Inquisition.)
"No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident."
That doesn't mean, as I pointed out, that every truth of the faith that has not been the subject of an infallible statement can be disregarded. We are still bound by the other truths in the deposit of faith. And it IS manifestly evident that the value of the life of every human being is inestimable. Again, God Himself made that manifestly evident.
As for your carrying on about Euteneuer and Corapi, that was too silly to merit a response.
Your anti-Catholicism is showing. Interestingly, you didn't answer my question: Are you Catholic?
As for the inquisition, a Pope declaring there are problems with Luther's view of the Inquisition is not dogmatically declaring torture is OK. You want to construe it that way, of course, but that conclusion just doesn't follow. You confuse Church practice with Church doctrine. Christ never promised us the leaders and members of the Church would be without sin. He had one out of twelve apostles He had hand-picked go bad on Him. We can't expect to do any better. Human beings had a fallen nature back then and still have a fallen nature. They succumbed to back than and still succumb to it. Being an apostle does not preserve one from that. What we can be sure of is that the Holy Spirit always has and will continue to animate the Body of Christ, the Church and protect its official doctrine. We have this on the promise of Christ: "He who hears you -- hears Me."
(A note to others reading this: Check out the works of Church historian Philip Hughes for a balanced portrayal of the Inquisition.)
"No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident."
That doesn't mean, as I pointed out, that every truth of the faith that has not been the subject of an infallible statement can be disregarded. We are still bound by the other truths in the deposit of faith. And it IS manifestly evident that the value of the life of every human being is inestimable. Again, God Himself made that manifestly evident.
As for your carrying on about Euteneuer and Corapi, that was too silly to merit a response.
7.29.2011 | 2:46pm
Judy says:
Bill Bannon
You go to great lengths, theological and scientific to justify however nothing you offer is solid or definitive. Given that there remains a great mystery, why not support the human hope and desire to let that be? Why automatically come down on the side of elimination through the more powerful human in the equation?
You go to great lengths, theological and scientific to justify however nothing you offer is solid or definitive. Given that there remains a great mystery, why not support the human hope and desire to let that be? Why automatically come down on the side of elimination through the more powerful human in the equation?
7.29.2011 | 3:11pm
bill bannon says:
Judy
You are pretending early embryology is mysterious in toto. Parts of it is. But what is crystal clear and simple is that a person can't be manipulated with instruments into twinning....a cell mass can up to day 14.
If you play the mystery card too much, you are doing what Benedict accused Islam of at Regensburg.....using faith to overcome reason rather than reconciling them.
You are pretending early embryology is mysterious in toto. Parts of it is. But what is crystal clear and simple is that a person can't be manipulated with instruments into twinning....a cell mass can up to day 14.
If you play the mystery card too much, you are doing what Benedict accused Islam of at Regensburg.....using faith to overcome reason rather than reconciling them.
7.29.2011 | 4:19pm
David Nickol says:
The concept of "quickening" was accepted by some of the greatest minds in the Church. It is frequently argued that because of advances in embryology, we now know those who believed in quickening were mistaken. However, how do we know that there will not be further advances in embryology in addition to the discovery of "twinning" that will not rehabilitate the concept of quickening or engender something very much like it? It is not at all unusual, especially in Catholicism, for an old concept to be updated with a new meaning based on contemporary knowledge.
7.29.2011 | 4:37pm
harry says:
Hi, Bill Bannon,
"But what is crystal clear and simple is that a person can't be manipulated with instruments into twinning....a cell mass can up to day 14."
And how do we measure "personhood"? It can't be measured scientifically. So, your argument is meaningless in scientific terms. There is no way to measure the results of the manipulation of a "person" in the lab any more than we can a soul. We have no knowledge, and can't, about how God deals with twinning in terms of the souls created and when they are created. Maybe there is one soul and if twinning occurs God creates another soul. Maybe not. Maybe God, since He would know the twinning would occur, created two souls at conception. Maybe not. The point is we don't and can't know that. What we do know is that the Church teaches that "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." (CCC 2270)
Why is this subject so important to you? Why do you want so much to claim there is certainty regarding a matter for which that is not possible?
"But what is crystal clear and simple is that a person can't be manipulated with instruments into twinning....a cell mass can up to day 14."
And how do we measure "personhood"? It can't be measured scientifically. So, your argument is meaningless in scientific terms. There is no way to measure the results of the manipulation of a "person" in the lab any more than we can a soul. We have no knowledge, and can't, about how God deals with twinning in terms of the souls created and when they are created. Maybe there is one soul and if twinning occurs God creates another soul. Maybe not. Maybe God, since He would know the twinning would occur, created two souls at conception. Maybe not. The point is we don't and can't know that. What we do know is that the Church teaches that "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." (CCC 2270)
Why is this subject so important to you? Why do you want so much to claim there is certainty regarding a matter for which that is not possible?
7.30.2011 | 10:12am
bill bannon says:
harry
You are choosing the very orientation of quotes "faith" and mystery over reason that Benedict blamed Islam for. You are eliminating the rational when it unsteadies the authoritarian. You'll notice the catechism used "Human life" not person. You and your fellow travelers do not have one bit of care for the raped woman who does not want to deliver a child who looks like her attacker. At the end of the 18th century, the Sulpician religious order sold a slave woman with only one of her children and a month later they sold the other child. The Jesuits who at the time were buying the land from the Sulpicians said that the profits should go to them in the land deal. Neither group even remarked on the disgusting act of selling the slave woman away from her child....no remarks in their journals of the time. The incident is in "The Church That Can and Cannot Change" by John Noonan...an excellent book for Catholics who are tired of used car salesmen apologetics....cover up apologetics....which ultimately led to the cover up of the sex abuse. Catholicism is the true Church but as Arnold Toynbee wrote, it has aspects of an arrested culture. Cover up defensiveness is one of those aspects. Read slowly the entire "Inquisition" article at new advent by Joseph Blotzer....he will show you that the burnings of 6K people were mandated by the Popes after 1252 in the canons....not by lone wolf Judas'. Aquinas shows that the slave status of a child born to a slave mother was in the canons or decretals and Aquinas gives the cites in his Supplement to the ST and therein on marriage of a slave. Noonan shows that the anti slavery Popes did nothing to stop the 4 exceptions for slavery that were in the Catholic Universities and canons. That only stopped in the 20th century completely.
Bottom line....raped women should use the morning after pill because it is not a person for 14 days...if they would breakdown delivering a baby who looked like their attacker mixed with their looks: because the Church has a history of letting people get hurt rather than change Her mind on teaching....and then later She changed her mind completely on teaching after people were burned and millions died in the slave trade under Catholic Portugal and Spain....Spain who left us with the three leading cocaine trafficing countries and the two highest murder rate countries according to wiki....El Salvador and Honduras. Catholicism is the true Church and she gave God almost as much trouble as the Jewish people did. He...God....is always getting stuck. The license for slavery came from a Pope as Noonan's book will show you.
If you're short on cash, I'll buy the book for you.
Embryology is proving the Trent catechism correct about ensoulement....Incarnation section... it said only Christ had immediate ensoulement..." That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time."
You are choosing the very orientation of quotes "faith" and mystery over reason that Benedict blamed Islam for. You are eliminating the rational when it unsteadies the authoritarian. You'll notice the catechism used "Human life" not person. You and your fellow travelers do not have one bit of care for the raped woman who does not want to deliver a child who looks like her attacker. At the end of the 18th century, the Sulpician religious order sold a slave woman with only one of her children and a month later they sold the other child. The Jesuits who at the time were buying the land from the Sulpicians said that the profits should go to them in the land deal. Neither group even remarked on the disgusting act of selling the slave woman away from her child....no remarks in their journals of the time. The incident is in "The Church That Can and Cannot Change" by John Noonan...an excellent book for Catholics who are tired of used car salesmen apologetics....cover up apologetics....which ultimately led to the cover up of the sex abuse. Catholicism is the true Church but as Arnold Toynbee wrote, it has aspects of an arrested culture. Cover up defensiveness is one of those aspects. Read slowly the entire "Inquisition" article at new advent by Joseph Blotzer....he will show you that the burnings of 6K people were mandated by the Popes after 1252 in the canons....not by lone wolf Judas'. Aquinas shows that the slave status of a child born to a slave mother was in the canons or decretals and Aquinas gives the cites in his Supplement to the ST and therein on marriage of a slave. Noonan shows that the anti slavery Popes did nothing to stop the 4 exceptions for slavery that were in the Catholic Universities and canons. That only stopped in the 20th century completely.
Bottom line....raped women should use the morning after pill because it is not a person for 14 days...if they would breakdown delivering a baby who looked like their attacker mixed with their looks: because the Church has a history of letting people get hurt rather than change Her mind on teaching....and then later She changed her mind completely on teaching after people were burned and millions died in the slave trade under Catholic Portugal and Spain....Spain who left us with the three leading cocaine trafficing countries and the two highest murder rate countries according to wiki....El Salvador and Honduras. Catholicism is the true Church and she gave God almost as much trouble as the Jewish people did. He...God....is always getting stuck. The license for slavery came from a Pope as Noonan's book will show you.
If you're short on cash, I'll buy the book for you.
Embryology is proving the Trent catechism correct about ensoulement....Incarnation section... it said only Christ had immediate ensoulement..." That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time."
7.30.2011 | 7:45pm
harry says:
Hello, Bill Bannon,
You wrote:
“Embryology is proving the Trent catechism correct about ensoulement....Incarnation section... it said only Christ had immediate ensoulement...”
Here is what it says:
“... as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”
That only proves my point.
The Church doesn't claim to teach authoritatively on scientific matters – the “order of nature” – as they put it. According to the biology of the time it was commonly believed that human life started with quickening. We now know that human life begins with a spectacular “quickening” – even though Mom can't feel it – of astounding activity of utterly amazing functional complexity. It is the execution of nanotechnology light years beyond anything we know how to build.
They were not wrong in saying that “... this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost”. That was true for many reasons besides the one they gave, which incorporated an incorrect biological concept, but one that they quite understandably thought to be valid based on the science of the times. If anything, this demonstrates that the Church certainly ought to consider – but not put too much faith in – contemporary science.
Christ, in His humanity, was indeed exactly like us “in all things but sin.” It is an “If A = B then B = A” kind of thing. If Christ, from conception, was immediately united to a soul and in His humanity was exactly like us and we like Him in all things but sin, then we too are immediately united to a soul at our conception. We can see that the Catechism of the Council of Trent was more right than the realized they were – and that it is science we need to be a little leery of, not the Holy Spirit speaking authoritatively through the Body of Christ, the Church.
You wrote:
“Embryology is proving the Trent catechism correct about ensoulement....Incarnation section... it said only Christ had immediate ensoulement...”
Here is what it says:
“... as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”
That only proves my point.
The Church doesn't claim to teach authoritatively on scientific matters – the “order of nature” – as they put it. According to the biology of the time it was commonly believed that human life started with quickening. We now know that human life begins with a spectacular “quickening” – even though Mom can't feel it – of astounding activity of utterly amazing functional complexity. It is the execution of nanotechnology light years beyond anything we know how to build.
They were not wrong in saying that “... this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost”. That was true for many reasons besides the one they gave, which incorporated an incorrect biological concept, but one that they quite understandably thought to be valid based on the science of the times. If anything, this demonstrates that the Church certainly ought to consider – but not put too much faith in – contemporary science.
Christ, in His humanity, was indeed exactly like us “in all things but sin.” It is an “If A = B then B = A” kind of thing. If Christ, from conception, was immediately united to a soul and in His humanity was exactly like us and we like Him in all things but sin, then we too are immediately united to a soul at our conception. We can see that the Catechism of the Council of Trent was more right than the realized they were – and that it is science we need to be a little leery of, not the Holy Spirit speaking authoritatively through the Body of Christ, the Church.
7.30.2011 | 7:50pm
harry says:
Below is a corrected version of my previous post.
Hello, Bill Bannon,
You wrote:
“Embryology is proving the Trent catechism correct about ensoulement....Incarnation section... it said only Christ had immediate ensoulement...”
Here is what it says:
“... as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”
That only proves my point.
The Church doesn't claim to teach authoritatively on scientific matters – the “order of nature” – as they put it. According to the biology of the time it was commonly believed that human life started with quickening. We now know that human life begins at conception with a spectacular “quickening” – even though Mom can't feel it – of astounding activity of utterly amazing functional complexity. It is the execution of nanotechnology light years beyond anything we know how to build.
They were not wrong in saying that “... this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost”. That was true for many reasons besides the one they gave, which incorporated an incorrect biological concept, but one that they quite understandably thought to be valid based on the science of the times. If anything, this demonstrates that the Church certainly ought to consider – but not put too much faith in – contemporary science.
Christ, in His humanity, was indeed exactly like us “in all things but sin.” It is an “If A = B then B = A” kind of thing. If Christ, from conception, was immediately united to a soul and in His humanity was exactly like us and we like Him in all things but sin, then we too are immediately united to a soul at our conception. We can see that the Catechism of the Council of Trent was more right than they realized they were – and that it is science we need to be a little leery of, not the Holy Spirit speaking authoritatively through the Body of Christ, the Church.
Hello, Bill Bannon,
You wrote:
“Embryology is proving the Trent catechism correct about ensoulement....Incarnation section... it said only Christ had immediate ensoulement...”
Here is what it says:
“... as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”
That only proves my point.
The Church doesn't claim to teach authoritatively on scientific matters – the “order of nature” – as they put it. According to the biology of the time it was commonly believed that human life started with quickening. We now know that human life begins at conception with a spectacular “quickening” – even though Mom can't feel it – of astounding activity of utterly amazing functional complexity. It is the execution of nanotechnology light years beyond anything we know how to build.
They were not wrong in saying that “... this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost”. That was true for many reasons besides the one they gave, which incorporated an incorrect biological concept, but one that they quite understandably thought to be valid based on the science of the times. If anything, this demonstrates that the Church certainly ought to consider – but not put too much faith in – contemporary science.
Christ, in His humanity, was indeed exactly like us “in all things but sin.” It is an “If A = B then B = A” kind of thing. If Christ, from conception, was immediately united to a soul and in His humanity was exactly like us and we like Him in all things but sin, then we too are immediately united to a soul at our conception. We can see that the Catechism of the Council of Trent was more right than they realized they were – and that it is science we need to be a little leery of, not the Holy Spirit speaking authoritatively through the Body of Christ, the Church.
7.30.2011 | 8:09pm
harry says:
Hello, Bill Bannon,
You wrote:
“You and your fellow travelers do not have one bit of care for the raped woman who does not want to deliver a child who looks like her attacker.”
How do you know that? Isn't making a statement like that being very judgmental? Again, you are claiming certainty where it is not possible to be certain. Wanting something to be so doesn't make it so. And how does killing an innocent child undo the rape? The woman would be free to have the baby adopted – she doesn't have to examine the baby for resemblances to her attacker. She really doesn't have to ever see the child at all if she doesn't want to do so.
You wrote:
“You and your fellow travelers do not have one bit of care for the raped woman who does not want to deliver a child who looks like her attacker.”
How do you know that? Isn't making a statement like that being very judgmental? Again, you are claiming certainty where it is not possible to be certain. Wanting something to be so doesn't make it so. And how does killing an innocent child undo the rape? The woman would be free to have the baby adopted – she doesn't have to examine the baby for resemblances to her attacker. She really doesn't have to ever see the child at all if she doesn't want to do so.
7.30.2011 | 10:05pm
Michael says:
Bill and David,
You have been arguing for a later date for the beginning of a unique human life, and it sounds like you agree on fourteen days. Would you then support a move to make all or most abortions illegal after fourteen days? Or are there other elements of your thinking about this issue?
You have been arguing for a later date for the beginning of a unique human life, and it sounds like you agree on fourteen days. Would you then support a move to make all or most abortions illegal after fourteen days? Or are there other elements of your thinking about this issue?
7.30.2011 | 11:00pm
harry says:
Hello, Bill Bannon,
You brought up examples of sinfulness in the Church regarding slavery, the Inquisition and the sex abuse scandal.
I will say it again, even though you seem utterly closed minded about this: sinfulness in the Church will always be there because we have a fallen nature. Christ said He came for sinners – it shouldn't be surprising to find them in His Church.
What one has to do is keep things in their proper perspective.
You said, “Catholicism is the true Church.” I believe that is true. And if that is true then the essence of the Church's infallibility is rooted in the fact that the Church is the Body of Christ; that body is not a corpse; it is a living body; like any living body it is animated by a spirit; in the Church's case that spirit is the Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit Who is speaking through the Church when it is infallible, when what Christ said to His apostles applies: “He who hears you – hears Me.” That is it in a nutshell. For a technical, more precise analysis of when the Church teaches with the authority Christ promised it, see *Four Levels of the Church's Teaching,* by Fr. William Most
(and links to other articles on the Church's teaching authority) at:
http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/authority.asp
The cases of sinfulness you mention do not affect the Church's infallibility in any way. You and I possess the Spirit of Christ as baptized Christians. We have an understanding of the faith. When we express that understanding to others, its truthfulness is not affected by our sinfulness or lack thereof. If what we say (although we can't say it with the authority of the Church) is correct, it is correct whether or not we have sinned and need to make a good confession. So it is with the Church, only unlike us, it *does* have the promise of Christ that “He who hears you – hears Me” when it teaches officially.
Having said that, to put history's indictments of the Church in their proper perspective, there is something we need to remember: There are at least two sides to every story. Often secular historians paint the sinfulness of the Church in the worst light possible. It is amazing how enlightening another perspective on those same events can be. A good historian, while not whitewashing the sinfulness of the Church, will provide one the context in which to understand the events that often leads one to quite different conclusions than one had drawn before: An example of what I am talking about is *The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition* by Thomas Madden, which can be read at:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-truth-about-the-spanish-inquisition
Here is an excerpt:
“What about the dark dungeons and torture chambers? The Spanish Inquisition had jails, of course. But they were neither especially dark nor dungeon-like. Indeed, as far as prisons go, they were widely considered to be the best in Europe. There were even instances of criminals in Spain purposely blaspheming so as to be transferred to the Inquisition’s prisons. ...”
To the extent that the Church lets the world convert it, instead of it converting the world, it becomes a part of the problem instead of part of the solution. The Spanish Inquisition, it turns out, used the commonly accepted practices of the day – practices that are totally unacceptable by today's standards – only the Spanish Inquisition used them far less harshly and far less often than the world was using them. We need to get things in perspective. The Church shouldn't have used those practices at all, but it is still terribly unfair and dishonest to portray that era as though everybody was going by the standards of our times except the Church.
We see the tendency of secular history to amplify the sins of the Church while ignoring the sins of the world quite frequently. For example, maybe there was more Pious XII could have done to save the Jews. Maybe not. Yet the fact remains that he has already gone from being honored as a hero by the Jews after WWII to being “Hitler's Pope” according to contemporary historians. I suppose in another five hundred years naïve people will be asking themselves, “Did Hitler really do all he could to save the Jews from Pius XII?” after reading the work of some secular historian contemporary to them who has a beef with Catholicism.
So it will be with abortion and euthanasia. Those evil practices will eventually go the way of slavery and Jew-gassing. And in five-hundred years some historian will be digging up instances of these things taking place in Catholic health care facilities – which will undoubtedly be true – and portraying our times as though the world was horrified with the terrible things the Church was doing. This will be, of course, utter hogwash, but that is how it works. Again, to the extent that the Church lets the world convert it, instead of it attempting to convert the world (it has certainly attempted to convert the world regarding abortion and euthanasia), and fails to keep Catholic health care facilities functioning according to *its* standards, not the world's, it leaves the Church in a position to be unfairly discredited by future historians till the end of time. Which is reason enough, by the way, for it to get real serious about cleaning up any failures to operate by true Catholic standards in Catholic health care facilities.
You brought up examples of sinfulness in the Church regarding slavery, the Inquisition and the sex abuse scandal.
I will say it again, even though you seem utterly closed minded about this: sinfulness in the Church will always be there because we have a fallen nature. Christ said He came for sinners – it shouldn't be surprising to find them in His Church.
What one has to do is keep things in their proper perspective.
You said, “Catholicism is the true Church.” I believe that is true. And if that is true then the essence of the Church's infallibility is rooted in the fact that the Church is the Body of Christ; that body is not a corpse; it is a living body; like any living body it is animated by a spirit; in the Church's case that spirit is the Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit Who is speaking through the Church when it is infallible, when what Christ said to His apostles applies: “He who hears you – hears Me.” That is it in a nutshell. For a technical, more precise analysis of when the Church teaches with the authority Christ promised it, see *Four Levels of the Church's Teaching,* by Fr. William Most
(and links to other articles on the Church's teaching authority) at:
http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/authority.asp
The cases of sinfulness you mention do not affect the Church's infallibility in any way. You and I possess the Spirit of Christ as baptized Christians. We have an understanding of the faith. When we express that understanding to others, its truthfulness is not affected by our sinfulness or lack thereof. If what we say (although we can't say it with the authority of the Church) is correct, it is correct whether or not we have sinned and need to make a good confession. So it is with the Church, only unlike us, it *does* have the promise of Christ that “He who hears you – hears Me” when it teaches officially.
Having said that, to put history's indictments of the Church in their proper perspective, there is something we need to remember: There are at least two sides to every story. Often secular historians paint the sinfulness of the Church in the worst light possible. It is amazing how enlightening another perspective on those same events can be. A good historian, while not whitewashing the sinfulness of the Church, will provide one the context in which to understand the events that often leads one to quite different conclusions than one had drawn before: An example of what I am talking about is *The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition* by Thomas Madden, which can be read at:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-truth-about-the-spanish-inquisition
Here is an excerpt:
“What about the dark dungeons and torture chambers? The Spanish Inquisition had jails, of course. But they were neither especially dark nor dungeon-like. Indeed, as far as prisons go, they were widely considered to be the best in Europe. There were even instances of criminals in Spain purposely blaspheming so as to be transferred to the Inquisition’s prisons. ...”
To the extent that the Church lets the world convert it, instead of it converting the world, it becomes a part of the problem instead of part of the solution. The Spanish Inquisition, it turns out, used the commonly accepted practices of the day – practices that are totally unacceptable by today's standards – only the Spanish Inquisition used them far less harshly and far less often than the world was using them. We need to get things in perspective. The Church shouldn't have used those practices at all, but it is still terribly unfair and dishonest to portray that era as though everybody was going by the standards of our times except the Church.
We see the tendency of secular history to amplify the sins of the Church while ignoring the sins of the world quite frequently. For example, maybe there was more Pious XII could have done to save the Jews. Maybe not. Yet the fact remains that he has already gone from being honored as a hero by the Jews after WWII to being “Hitler's Pope” according to contemporary historians. I suppose in another five hundred years naïve people will be asking themselves, “Did Hitler really do all he could to save the Jews from Pius XII?” after reading the work of some secular historian contemporary to them who has a beef with Catholicism.
So it will be with abortion and euthanasia. Those evil practices will eventually go the way of slavery and Jew-gassing. And in five-hundred years some historian will be digging up instances of these things taking place in Catholic health care facilities – which will undoubtedly be true – and portraying our times as though the world was horrified with the terrible things the Church was doing. This will be, of course, utter hogwash, but that is how it works. Again, to the extent that the Church lets the world convert it, instead of it attempting to convert the world (it has certainly attempted to convert the world regarding abortion and euthanasia), and fails to keep Catholic health care facilities functioning according to *its* standards, not the world's, it leaves the Church in a position to be unfairly discredited by future historians till the end of time. Which is reason enough, by the way, for it to get real serious about cleaning up any failures to operate by true Catholic standards in Catholic health care facilities.
7.31.2011 | 7:49am
bill bannon says:
Harry
Well....we got you to say a catechism was wrong...lol...there's growth away from pan infallibility.
So Catholicism had wonderful jails. That's important when you're waiting to be burned alive. And under Church auspices and canon law (see Blotzer) she burned between 6,000 and 31,000 human beings for being Protestant from 1253 til almost 1800. But they waited in beautiful jails prior to being burned alive. Try lighting up a Protestant now and see firsthand how our prisons are.... as you pay phone tax to the Bloods street gang. But wait....what's next from the cosy Inquisition school is that Protestants burned people too. But to them I cite Scripture: " Do not allege the example of the many as an excuse for wrong doing."
Such apologetics people must have interesting confessions. "Father, I committed coveting my neighbor's wife....but everyone on the block including Protestants covet her."....Father, "Then it's ok apologetics guy.....we all know how that went down back in the day...with the burning hay."
Your immediate ensoulement school began in the 17th century not last year at MIT. It is 400 years old as developed in Catholic circles and was notbased on modern anything. By believing in immediate ensoulement you have God killing preborns when He commands the witnesses to kill the adulterous couple since there could be a fertilized egg inside the adulterous woman and they were to be stoned by the witnesses with the community joining in and quite soon not with the delay
that develops by Christ's time wherein the pharisees somehow get into the act.
Delayed ensoulement lasted at least from the 5th century til the 17th century in the Church and in its scenario of the woman caught in adultery and stoned, no person is killed within her by the stoning.
Well....we got you to say a catechism was wrong...lol...there's growth away from pan infallibility.
So Catholicism had wonderful jails. That's important when you're waiting to be burned alive. And under Church auspices and canon law (see Blotzer) she burned between 6,000 and 31,000 human beings for being Protestant from 1253 til almost 1800. But they waited in beautiful jails prior to being burned alive. Try lighting up a Protestant now and see firsthand how our prisons are.... as you pay phone tax to the Bloods street gang. But wait....what's next from the cosy Inquisition school is that Protestants burned people too. But to them I cite Scripture: " Do not allege the example of the many as an excuse for wrong doing."
Such apologetics people must have interesting confessions. "Father, I committed coveting my neighbor's wife....but everyone on the block including Protestants covet her."....Father, "Then it's ok apologetics guy.....we all know how that went down back in the day...with the burning hay."
Your immediate ensoulement school began in the 17th century not last year at MIT. It is 400 years old as developed in Catholic circles and was notbased on modern anything. By believing in immediate ensoulement you have God killing preborns when He commands the witnesses to kill the adulterous couple since there could be a fertilized egg inside the adulterous woman and they were to be stoned by the witnesses with the community joining in and quite soon not with the delay
that develops by Christ's time wherein the pharisees somehow get into the act.
Delayed ensoulement lasted at least from the 5th century til the 17th century in the Church and in its scenario of the woman caught in adultery and stoned, no person is killed within her by the stoning.
7.31.2011 | 7:57am
bill bannon says:
Michael
Yes I'd agree to a law roughly based on that.....given that science may have other surprises. The one ensoulement in the Bible is God breathing into a fully formed Adam....and that probably influenced the Church from the 5th cent. til the 17th. when delayed ensoulement reigned. Aquinas point seems to be that a rational soul cannot enter until the organ of reason, the brain, is present. It begins to emerge in week three. Notice how the word "rational" has vanished?
Yes I'd agree to a law roughly based on that.....given that science may have other surprises. The one ensoulement in the Bible is God breathing into a fully formed Adam....and that probably influenced the Church from the 5th cent. til the 17th. when delayed ensoulement reigned. Aquinas point seems to be that a rational soul cannot enter until the organ of reason, the brain, is present. It begins to emerge in week three. Notice how the word "rational" has vanished?
7.31.2011 | 9:19am
Wendy says:
The reasoning behing saying that an embryo is not a human person , is simple, and important: over the centuries, philosophy and psychology and anthropology and theology, have affirmed that the essence of being a human person, the thing that makes us more than one of the animals ... is that humans have a bigger cerebral cortex, and much higher intelligence; a rational soul. "Ensoulment" therefore is no small matter: it is the very essence and core of our humanity. It is strange that Catholics today no longer care about the soul.
In any case? The reasoning that allows abortion, says that since 1) the thing that makes us human, is our larger brain and so forth - and 2) en embryo does not yet have a brain that is sufficiently "formed" to do that - 3) therefore? The embryo is not a human person. And 4) aborting an embryo, though it might be bad, is not murder: it does not kill a human being or human person.
Did JP II really say anything else, "infallibly"? Notice that Bannon above says 1) the pope used a "variation" of the Ex Cathedra formula, at best; while 2) he did not find the unaniminity of "the entire church" in this matter. Therefore? The Pope did not make his proclamations in Evangelicum VIta absolutely firm. Indeed, 3) the very title of "evangelicum," alludes to the likelygood that this was intended as an informal guide to homelitic/evangelical rhetoric at most; not as a firm dogmatic position.
Then too of course? 4) Protestants do not believe the Pope is "infallible" in anything at all; indeed most often they thought of him as the "Anit-Christ." Therefore? Perhaps Catholics should think carefully, before proclaiming their favorite papal passages (selectively, at that ) to be "infallible."
Perhap[s 5) indeed, it would be useful for Catholics to read their BIbles, and to recal especially the passage where St. Peter, founder of the Church, disagreed with Jesus himself on some key dogmatic, doctrinal matters (the necessity of the crucifixion; the authroity of Jesus). So that Jesus himself, next, called St. Peter, "Satan." In Mat. 16.23.
How closely should be be following a Church, that is based on a man that Jesus once called Satan? A Church that now attacks and denies and therefore seriously weakens, the very essence of our humanity and divinity both: our intelligence, our rational soul?
If we must follow the Church at all, ever? Philosopher saints like Augustine and Aquinas, with their greater focus on the rational soul, seem far, far reliable, than the latest, instant McSaints. Like (soon?) JP II. And his writings; from Humanae Vitae to Evangelicum Vitae.
In any case? The reasoning that allows abortion, says that since 1) the thing that makes us human, is our larger brain and so forth - and 2) en embryo does not yet have a brain that is sufficiently "formed" to do that - 3) therefore? The embryo is not a human person. And 4) aborting an embryo, though it might be bad, is not murder: it does not kill a human being or human person.
Did JP II really say anything else, "infallibly"? Notice that Bannon above says 1) the pope used a "variation" of the Ex Cathedra formula, at best; while 2) he did not find the unaniminity of "the entire church" in this matter. Therefore? The Pope did not make his proclamations in Evangelicum VIta absolutely firm. Indeed, 3) the very title of "evangelicum," alludes to the likelygood that this was intended as an informal guide to homelitic/evangelical rhetoric at most; not as a firm dogmatic position.
Then too of course? 4) Protestants do not believe the Pope is "infallible" in anything at all; indeed most often they thought of him as the "Anit-Christ." Therefore? Perhaps Catholics should think carefully, before proclaiming their favorite papal passages (selectively, at that ) to be "infallible."
Perhap[s 5) indeed, it would be useful for Catholics to read their BIbles, and to recal especially the passage where St. Peter, founder of the Church, disagreed with Jesus himself on some key dogmatic, doctrinal matters (the necessity of the crucifixion; the authroity of Jesus). So that Jesus himself, next, called St. Peter, "Satan." In Mat. 16.23.
How closely should be be following a Church, that is based on a man that Jesus once called Satan? A Church that now attacks and denies and therefore seriously weakens, the very essence of our humanity and divinity both: our intelligence, our rational soul?
If we must follow the Church at all, ever? Philosopher saints like Augustine and Aquinas, with their greater focus on the rational soul, seem far, far reliable, than the latest, instant McSaints. Like (soon?) JP II. And his writings; from Humanae Vitae to Evangelicum Vitae.
7.31.2011 | 11:20am
bill bannon says:
Wendy
Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae not John Paul II. To be clear, for Catholics, Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II is infallibly against abortion but the infallible wording part does nothing to define the front end of abortion....when does it begin. I would say then that precisely embryology is holding up the Popes and Bishops in that were they sure of the beginning point, they would have defined that too.
Christ by the way rebuked Peter before a Church existed....way before Pentecost. Paul rebuked Peter after Pentecost on dissembling before the Judaizers not for declaring a truth for the whole Church. However against the Catholic milieu I would say this: we are a flatter the Pope no matter what...culture...and that weakens not strenghtens Catholicism. Popes should go before tough cross examining reporters on TV like CEO's And Presidents now do.....and they would be better Popes as a result. We now have recent sex abuse indiscipline in Philadelphia, Ireland, and Kansas City...and what is Benedict doing. Inter alia he is writing his third book on the New Testament. Popes do what they like....and few of them like the hard work of actually administrating this continuing debacle. Catholic writers let them hide behind subsidiarity if they do zilch about a major problem. Harry e.g. doesn't even ask why Popes are not closing down offending hospitals even though canon law gives Popes power that is supreme and "immediate" "over all the churches".
And paid Catholic writers will rarely hold Popes accountable in a deep way because then, their book sales to "faithful Catholics" would sink like a stone....like a stone. We then up with a culture drowning in praising itself and the Popes whereas Scripture says: " Do not praise thyself but let another's lips praise you."
Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae not John Paul II. To be clear, for Catholics, Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II is infallibly against abortion but the infallible wording part does nothing to define the front end of abortion....when does it begin. I would say then that precisely embryology is holding up the Popes and Bishops in that were they sure of the beginning point, they would have defined that too.
Christ by the way rebuked Peter before a Church existed....way before Pentecost. Paul rebuked Peter after Pentecost on dissembling before the Judaizers not for declaring a truth for the whole Church. However against the Catholic milieu I would say this: we are a flatter the Pope no matter what...culture...and that weakens not strenghtens Catholicism. Popes should go before tough cross examining reporters on TV like CEO's And Presidents now do.....and they would be better Popes as a result. We now have recent sex abuse indiscipline in Philadelphia, Ireland, and Kansas City...and what is Benedict doing. Inter alia he is writing his third book on the New Testament. Popes do what they like....and few of them like the hard work of actually administrating this continuing debacle. Catholic writers let them hide behind subsidiarity if they do zilch about a major problem. Harry e.g. doesn't even ask why Popes are not closing down offending hospitals even though canon law gives Popes power that is supreme and "immediate" "over all the churches".
And paid Catholic writers will rarely hold Popes accountable in a deep way because then, their book sales to "faithful Catholics" would sink like a stone....like a stone. We then up with a culture drowning in praising itself and the Popes whereas Scripture says: " Do not praise thyself but let another's lips praise you."
7.31.2011 | 1:31pm
harry says:
Hello, Bill Bannon,
You wrote:
"Well....we got you to say a catechism was wrong...lol...there's growth away from pan infallibility."
The statement “That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted” is true. The statement that the “... body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul; … and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man.” is also true. The statement “for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.” is the Church citing a mistaken notion of the science of that time. It is science that makes pronouncements on “the order of nature.” The Church was not making a statement regarding faith and morals there. That the science of the time was mistaken does not make their true statements regarding faith and morals false. So, the Trent Catechism was “wrong” only in assuming the science of its time was right. The Catechism of the Council of Trent providentially affirmed for our benefit that a soul is united to a human body at its conception, since that was the case with Christ and He was like us and we like Him in all things except our sinfulness.
You wrote:
"Well....we got you to say a catechism was wrong...lol...there's growth away from pan infallibility."
The statement “That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted” is true. The statement that the “... body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul; … and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man.” is also true. The statement “for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.” is the Church citing a mistaken notion of the science of that time. It is science that makes pronouncements on “the order of nature.” The Church was not making a statement regarding faith and morals there. That the science of the time was mistaken does not make their true statements regarding faith and morals false. So, the Trent Catechism was “wrong” only in assuming the science of its time was right. The Catechism of the Council of Trent providentially affirmed for our benefit that a soul is united to a human body at its conception, since that was the case with Christ and He was like us and we like Him in all things except our sinfulness.
7.31.2011 | 1:49pm
harry says:
Hello, Bill Bannon,
You wrote:
“Your immediate ensoulement school began in the 17th century not last year at MIT. It is 400 years old as developed in Catholic circles and was notbased on modern anything … Delayed ensoulement lasted at least from the 5th century til the 17th century in the Church.”
Exactly. The Church was citing the science of its time, and the science previous to that time, which we now know was wrong. On matters regarding faith and morals the Church was and is consistently right. This does not surprise those who believe in the promises of Christ to the Church regarding His sending it the Holy Spirit to guide it in its teaching.
You wrote:
“Your immediate ensoulement school began in the 17th century not last year at MIT. It is 400 years old as developed in Catholic circles and was notbased on modern anything … Delayed ensoulement lasted at least from the 5th century til the 17th century in the Church.”
Exactly. The Church was citing the science of its time, and the science previous to that time, which we now know was wrong. On matters regarding faith and morals the Church was and is consistently right. This does not surprise those who believe in the promises of Christ to the Church regarding His sending it the Holy Spirit to guide it in its teaching.
7.31.2011 | 2:11pm
harry says:
Hello Bill Bannon,
You wrote:
“So Catholicism had wonderful jails. That's important when you're waiting to be burned alive. And under Church auspices and canon law (see Blotzer) she burned between 6,000 and 31,000 human beings for being Protestant from 1253 til almost 1800. But they waited in beautiful jails prior to being burned alive. Try lighting up a Protestant now ...”
You only make my point. Some future historian with your apparent hatred of the Church will dig up some instance of abortions/euthanasia taking place in a Catholic health care facility and be writing something like:
“So Catholicism taught the sanctity of life. Did they teach this while they ripped the arms and legs off of a helpless, wiggling, kicking baby during a “Catholic” abortion or did they wait until they were done? Did they speak out against euthanasia while they turned up the morphine and turned off the hydration on Grandma, or did they wait until they were done?”
While those things happening in a Catholic health care facility would be terribly sinful, an honest history of the Church would have to point out that Catholics began the fight against abortion. It was called a “Catholic issue” for years after Roe v Wade. The Catholics responded immediately to Roe because, being the ones still connected to the teachings the Holy Spirit had preserved in the Church from the beginning, they knew immediately Roe was a disaster. No institution on Earth has been more outspoken or consistent it its teaching against abortion and euthanasia – but that won't come through in the history written by people such as yourself in the future. Thanks for proving my point.
You wrote:
“So Catholicism had wonderful jails. That's important when you're waiting to be burned alive. And under Church auspices and canon law (see Blotzer) she burned between 6,000 and 31,000 human beings for being Protestant from 1253 til almost 1800. But they waited in beautiful jails prior to being burned alive. Try lighting up a Protestant now ...”
You only make my point. Some future historian with your apparent hatred of the Church will dig up some instance of abortions/euthanasia taking place in a Catholic health care facility and be writing something like:
“So Catholicism taught the sanctity of life. Did they teach this while they ripped the arms and legs off of a helpless, wiggling, kicking baby during a “Catholic” abortion or did they wait until they were done? Did they speak out against euthanasia while they turned up the morphine and turned off the hydration on Grandma, or did they wait until they were done?”
While those things happening in a Catholic health care facility would be terribly sinful, an honest history of the Church would have to point out that Catholics began the fight against abortion. It was called a “Catholic issue” for years after Roe v Wade. The Catholics responded immediately to Roe because, being the ones still connected to the teachings the Holy Spirit had preserved in the Church from the beginning, they knew immediately Roe was a disaster. No institution on Earth has been more outspoken or consistent it its teaching against abortion and euthanasia – but that won't come through in the history written by people such as yourself in the future. Thanks for proving my point.
7.31.2011 | 3:00pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
The Holy Spirit only perfectly attends morals when infallibility is used. Here is Ludwig Ott, THE dogmatics source for priests and grad students in the mid 20th century. Notice how he says the Church can err in morals but not in an infallible context....this is from his Intro online of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
"
With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error."
....................
His first sentence....moral teachings can be revocable which means the Holy Spirit is not present in those. The current death penalty position is ludicrous e.g. since lifers are murdering in prison with little to worry about in non death penalty states.... Fr. Geoghan and Jeffrey Dahmer were killed by lifers and last night had a convict on msnbc bragging how he strangled another prisoner to death....and add to that that half the top twenty murderous countries in the world are heavily Catholic
and have no death penalties according to wiki's list.
The Holy Spirit only perfectly attends morals when infallibility is used. Here is Ludwig Ott, THE dogmatics source for priests and grad students in the mid 20th century. Notice how he says the Church can err in morals but not in an infallible context....this is from his Intro online of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
"
With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error."
....................
His first sentence....moral teachings can be revocable which means the Holy Spirit is not present in those. The current death penalty position is ludicrous e.g. since lifers are murdering in prison with little to worry about in non death penalty states.... Fr. Geoghan and Jeffrey Dahmer were killed by lifers and last night had a convict on msnbc bragging how he strangled another prisoner to death....and add to that that half the top twenty murderous countries in the world are heavily Catholic
and have no death penalties according to wiki's list.
7.31.2011 | 3:15pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
Trent's catechism says zero about sourcing the science of the time. Just because your author Madden makes statements without sourcing footnotes doesn't mean you, his fan, can create footnotes at Trent. The delayed ensoulement of both Jerome and Augustine had zero to do with science but rather with the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus.
And Trent is not breakable into your three pieces because doing that voids it's overriding whole message that only Christ of all creatures was ensouled immediately. That is a theological statement regardless of science.
Trent's catechism says zero about sourcing the science of the time. Just because your author Madden makes statements without sourcing footnotes doesn't mean you, his fan, can create footnotes at Trent. The delayed ensoulement of both Jerome and Augustine had zero to do with science but rather with the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus.
And Trent is not breakable into your three pieces because doing that voids it's overriding whole message that only Christ of all creatures was ensouled immediately. That is a theological statement regardless of science.
7.31.2011 | 8:46pm
Michael says:
Bill,
I'm glad to hear that you would accept laws restricting abortion after the second week. If such restrictions were enacted, they would save millions of lives a year. But would Carter see your position as moderate and a victory, or would he see it as failure?
I'm glad to hear that you would accept laws restricting abortion after the second week. If such restrictions were enacted, they would save millions of lives a year. But would Carter see your position as moderate and a victory, or would he see it as failure?
7.31.2011 | 10:04pm
harry says:
Hello, Bill Bannon,
Life beginning at quickening, or when the woman felt the motions of the fetus, was the basis of the idea that life began a long time after the sexual act. So why should there be a soul before there was life? The idea that the ensoulment was delayed (until there was life to be ensouled) made perfect sense. This idea was based on a mistaken notion of early science. The Trent Catechism refers to this mistaken notion. Yet in spite of this it correctly states that the body of Christ was united to His soul immediately without the delay. Hmmm ... That looks like the guidance of the Holy Spirit to me.
We now know that the activity of human life begins at conception and is a spectacular execution of nanotechnology vastly superior to anything we know how to build. The new human life is definitely alive from the very beginning of its existence -- even though Mom can't feel it. The Church has updated its teaching according this new scientific knowledge as it should.
Again, Christ in His humanity was exactly like us and we like Him except for our sinfulness. So, if Christ's ensoulment was immediate so was ours -- from conception. Get used to it.
Even if you could prove on theological or scientific grounds -- which you can't -- that a human life could begin and not be ensouled, we would still have an obligation to protect it. It is not like we have soul-o-meters to use to be sure we weren't killing an ensouled human life. Besides, soul or no soul, human life is basically all that you or I are, and whenever we deny any segment of the human family its inalienable rights, we are sewing the seeds of our own eventual destruction -- spiritually if not physically.
Life beginning at quickening, or when the woman felt the motions of the fetus, was the basis of the idea that life began a long time after the sexual act. So why should there be a soul before there was life? The idea that the ensoulment was delayed (until there was life to be ensouled) made perfect sense. This idea was based on a mistaken notion of early science. The Trent Catechism refers to this mistaken notion. Yet in spite of this it correctly states that the body of Christ was united to His soul immediately without the delay. Hmmm ... That looks like the guidance of the Holy Spirit to me.
We now know that the activity of human life begins at conception and is a spectacular execution of nanotechnology vastly superior to anything we know how to build. The new human life is definitely alive from the very beginning of its existence -- even though Mom can't feel it. The Church has updated its teaching according this new scientific knowledge as it should.
Again, Christ in His humanity was exactly like us and we like Him except for our sinfulness. So, if Christ's ensoulment was immediate so was ours -- from conception. Get used to it.
Even if you could prove on theological or scientific grounds -- which you can't -- that a human life could begin and not be ensouled, we would still have an obligation to protect it. It is not like we have soul-o-meters to use to be sure we weren't killing an ensouled human life. Besides, soul or no soul, human life is basically all that you or I are, and whenever we deny any segment of the human family its inalienable rights, we are sewing the seeds of our own eventual destruction -- spiritually if not physically.
8.1.2011 | 4:50am
edmond says:
@ Wendy "3) therefore? The embryo is not a human person." Let me guess... it is either animal or plant?... Sperm and egg cells used to be appended to the male and female glands, and when they were not yet released from those glands were the cells already non-human? Did the sperm cell loose its humanship when it was ejected into the uterus? If the sperm cell that fertilized the egg became non-human when did it become human after the embryo stage? I suggest you think very carefully about your answer because you may admit that a tone point in your life, you were not human! What were you when you had no brain? Could you have been a protozoan between fertilization and quickening?
8.1.2011 | 8:05am
bill bannon says:
Harry
The real Catholic updating is not the 17th century and Thomas Fienus saying ensoulement happened at day three because the soul has to organize the body which influenced canon law until recently.
The twinning til day 14 shows that he and the Church's appreciation of him were the best they could while not knowing about the totipotentiality of the cell mass....ie that it has no definite organization until twinning can no longer happen.
The Pope knows exactly the problem....that's why he is doing nothing about the hundreds of millions of Catholics who use birth control. Under your schema, they are murdering ensouled cell masses and a Pope is ignoring that constant murder. Under the day 14 schema, they are intervening against human cells that are as yet totipotential and clearly unensouled. Under the 14 day schema, the Pope is not negligent. Under your schema, he is negligent and should be calling a Council to stop the murders by hundreds of millions of Catholics.....which he would do if hundreds of millions of Catholics were robbing banks each week. Will Benedict say what he thinks about twinning? No....because then he'd have the extreme right schisming as is their tendency.
I'm done. PS.....I save Chinese babies from abortion every month now for years. If you want to help, go here:
http://www.chinalittleflower.org/index.html
The real Catholic updating is not the 17th century and Thomas Fienus saying ensoulement happened at day three because the soul has to organize the body which influenced canon law until recently.
The twinning til day 14 shows that he and the Church's appreciation of him were the best they could while not knowing about the totipotentiality of the cell mass....ie that it has no definite organization until twinning can no longer happen.
The Pope knows exactly the problem....that's why he is doing nothing about the hundreds of millions of Catholics who use birth control. Under your schema, they are murdering ensouled cell masses and a Pope is ignoring that constant murder. Under the day 14 schema, they are intervening against human cells that are as yet totipotential and clearly unensouled. Under the 14 day schema, the Pope is not negligent. Under your schema, he is negligent and should be calling a Council to stop the murders by hundreds of millions of Catholics.....which he would do if hundreds of millions of Catholics were robbing banks each week. Will Benedict say what he thinks about twinning? No....because then he'd have the extreme right schisming as is their tendency.
I'm done. PS.....I save Chinese babies from abortion every month now for years. If you want to help, go here:
http://www.chinalittleflower.org/index.html
8.1.2011 | 9:16am
Wendy says:
The essence of the human soul or spirit, almost all anthropologists, philosophers agree, is Reason. Embryos cannot talk - and cannot reason. Embryos therefore do not have a rational soul or spirit - and are not human. Not until after birth, obviously.
How can we know? There are many ways. Do any of you have many rational memories of yourself, as an embryo? Before birth? There is much evidence like this, that in the end prove that an embryo is not a human person with a rational spirit. Christ, indeed, is the exception, not the rule. Many say Christ is typical: but how many of the rest of us say, know that we are God?
Bill Bannon? Might re-check Ps. 139; even in the first part, God considers that we are not yet formed; we are only "Being" formed in the womb. While the rest of the psalm confirms that. The whole point of Psalm 139 is that God knew us before we existed; and the statment assumes that "we" do not exist in the embryo, in the womb. But Catholics never read their Bibles well enough.
How reliable is the Roman Catholic Church currently, on this matter? One minute the priests tell us to honor the saints as holy and perfect. BUt the next, they tell us to read the fine print: even saints make mistakes. One minute the Church burns heretics at the stake; the next, the Church quoted one of the people it declared to be a heretic, Tertullian, as it's chief authority on abortion. The Church in general, has never been as reliable as it proudly, vainly declares itself to be; and it is especially unreliable, in its latest Pro Life speculations.
Today, there is a vast lobby of Pro-life anti-abortionists, organizations like Fr. Frank Pavone's "Priests for Life," that are eager to "twist" the Magisterium, to support their position. They are constantly pressuring the Bishops to support them too. Today for example? In Bill Bannon's statement, we hear that in fact, bishops and popes often make mistakes; but in Evangelicum Vitae, there is one and one section only that is infallible: the section that seems to disapprove of abortion.
Today, abortion is the only issue that many political "Catholics" honor, indeed. But how relaible is making this "one issue" the center and core, the only truth thing, in Catholicism? Finally, the more we look at what the Magisterium has said on the subject in the past, the more sure we are that radical modern anti-abortionism, that asserts that the embryo is a fully ensouled human, is simply a personal/political opinion. Such opinions are not supported by the Bible; indeed, if anything, God orders a priest to perform an act which, if performed on a pregnant woman, would amount to an abortion. In Num. (5?).
Ridiculing the soul, and "soul-o-meters," gives us an idea of where the current over-physicalistic definition of humans, is leading: to defining humans by DNA and bodily, "flesh"ly characteristics; while utterly denying and attacking the very essence of humanity: the human intelligence, the rational spirit.
Embryos move and they have beating hearts. But so do frogs: does that make them human? The important thing, is the moment that the body, the brain, is developed - or "formed"- enough, to sustain intelligence. Which does not happen at conception.
Indeed, science now suggests ensoulment happens not at "quickening" either. But at birth.
How can we know? There are many ways. Do any of you have many rational memories of yourself, as an embryo? Before birth? There is much evidence like this, that in the end prove that an embryo is not a human person with a rational spirit. Christ, indeed, is the exception, not the rule. Many say Christ is typical: but how many of the rest of us say, know that we are God?
Bill Bannon? Might re-check Ps. 139; even in the first part, God considers that we are not yet formed; we are only "Being" formed in the womb. While the rest of the psalm confirms that. The whole point of Psalm 139 is that God knew us before we existed; and the statment assumes that "we" do not exist in the embryo, in the womb. But Catholics never read their Bibles well enough.
How reliable is the Roman Catholic Church currently, on this matter? One minute the priests tell us to honor the saints as holy and perfect. BUt the next, they tell us to read the fine print: even saints make mistakes. One minute the Church burns heretics at the stake; the next, the Church quoted one of the people it declared to be a heretic, Tertullian, as it's chief authority on abortion. The Church in general, has never been as reliable as it proudly, vainly declares itself to be; and it is especially unreliable, in its latest Pro Life speculations.
Today, there is a vast lobby of Pro-life anti-abortionists, organizations like Fr. Frank Pavone's "Priests for Life," that are eager to "twist" the Magisterium, to support their position. They are constantly pressuring the Bishops to support them too. Today for example? In Bill Bannon's statement, we hear that in fact, bishops and popes often make mistakes; but in Evangelicum Vitae, there is one and one section only that is infallible: the section that seems to disapprove of abortion.
Today, abortion is the only issue that many political "Catholics" honor, indeed. But how relaible is making this "one issue" the center and core, the only truth thing, in Catholicism? Finally, the more we look at what the Magisterium has said on the subject in the past, the more sure we are that radical modern anti-abortionism, that asserts that the embryo is a fully ensouled human, is simply a personal/political opinion. Such opinions are not supported by the Bible; indeed, if anything, God orders a priest to perform an act which, if performed on a pregnant woman, would amount to an abortion. In Num. (5?).
Ridiculing the soul, and "soul-o-meters," gives us an idea of where the current over-physicalistic definition of humans, is leading: to defining humans by DNA and bodily, "flesh"ly characteristics; while utterly denying and attacking the very essence of humanity: the human intelligence, the rational spirit.
Embryos move and they have beating hearts. But so do frogs: does that make them human? The important thing, is the moment that the body, the brain, is developed - or "formed"- enough, to sustain intelligence. Which does not happen at conception.
Indeed, science now suggests ensoulment happens not at "quickening" either. But at birth.
8.1.2011 | 9:39am
bill bannon says:
Wendy
If you knew the Bible, you'd know that John the Baptist, in his 6th prenatal month, jumped in recognition of Christ within his mother, Elizabeth, at the approach of Mary who had Christ within her. (Luke 1). There goes your reason only at birth theory.
Luk 1:41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
If you knew the Bible, you'd know that John the Baptist, in his 6th prenatal month, jumped in recognition of Christ within his mother, Elizabeth, at the approach of Mary who had Christ within her. (Luke 1). There goes your reason only at birth theory.
Luk 1:41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
8.1.2011 | 10:44am
Wendy says:
Billy: when DOES the soul enter the human embryo, and make it a human person?
The embryo that was to become known as John the Baptist ,kicked at a sound. But indeed, 1) frogs and the embryos of animals, react to noises; it does not mean they are fully human. While then too? 2) The voice of God works many unusual effects, that are not typical. God no doubt could yell at a stone, and make it jump: that doesn't make a stone a human person.
There goes YOUR theory.
Got any more?
The embryo that was to become known as John the Baptist ,kicked at a sound. But indeed, 1) frogs and the embryos of animals, react to noises; it does not mean they are fully human. While then too? 2) The voice of God works many unusual effects, that are not typical. God no doubt could yell at a stone, and make it jump: that doesn't make a stone a human person.
There goes YOUR theory.
Got any more?
8.1.2011 | 10:48am
harry says:
Hello, Bill Bannon,
You wrote:
"I'm done. PS.....I save Chinese babies from abortion every month now for years."
God bless you for that!
It has been thoroughly enjoyable discussing these matters with you.
As for the Pope knowing that "hundreds of millions of Catholics ... use [abortifacient] birth control," and doing nothing about it, He is relying on the local Bishops to make it the priority it should be. Some Bishops, like those in Mexico for example, do far better than others on this. This is indicated by the Mexican states passing "Personhood" amendments, which are usually doomed in the U.S. as soon as the opposition mentions that the amendment would outlaw some forms of artificial contraception (the opposition is forced to admit that "the pill" is often an abortifacient when they do this -- they hate that).
God bless you. I am confident you will see the light on ensoulment eventually. ;o)
You wrote:
"I'm done. PS.....I save Chinese babies from abortion every month now for years."
God bless you for that!
It has been thoroughly enjoyable discussing these matters with you.
As for the Pope knowing that "hundreds of millions of Catholics ... use [abortifacient] birth control," and doing nothing about it, He is relying on the local Bishops to make it the priority it should be. Some Bishops, like those in Mexico for example, do far better than others on this. This is indicated by the Mexican states passing "Personhood" amendments, which are usually doomed in the U.S. as soon as the opposition mentions that the amendment would outlaw some forms of artificial contraception (the opposition is forced to admit that "the pill" is often an abortifacient when they do this -- they hate that).
God bless you. I am confident you will see the light on ensoulment eventually. ;o)
8.1.2011 | 11:51am
bill bannon says:
harry
Subsidiarity and Bishops is the constant explanation in the Catholic milieu for Popes not acting. It does not make sense at all were this real murder as to birth control. The ruler must act when after a reasonable time, bishops don't or the ruler would be gravely negligent for not ruling the Bishops. Yes...it's been a good debate.
Wendy is here by Providence so that we pray for her. Do it up....I will.
Subsidiarity and Bishops is the constant explanation in the Catholic milieu for Popes not acting. It does not make sense at all were this real murder as to birth control. The ruler must act when after a reasonable time, bishops don't or the ruler would be gravely negligent for not ruling the Bishops. Yes...it's been a good debate.
Wendy is here by Providence so that we pray for her. Do it up....I will.
8.1.2011 | 5:39pm
Wendy says:
For my own part? I will pray that anti-abortion Catholics eventually see the crucial centrality of the rational soul. And thus be finally, actually, saved.
8.1.2011 | 6:35pm
harry says:
Hi, Wendy,
God bless you!
Keep thinking about all this. And praying about it.
Harry
God bless you!
Keep thinking about all this. And praying about it.
Harry
8.1.2011 | 7:16pm
Judy says:
Again ensoulment with rational soul is a mysterious construct but since we haven't much definitive on it to really make the contours crisp to make ethical decisions when dealing with human life the better discernment would be to permit life to live. It seems that the science does confirm the existence of fetal pain and since humans are capable of empathy that would make this concept (as also physicians ascribe to already to first do no harm) the one that should inform our ethics as to how to treat an embryo.
8.1.2011 | 9:55pm
edmond says:
"How reliable is the Roman Catholic Church currently, on this matter?"
For that matter how reliable are your philosophers? Your question on the reliability of the Church can only be answered through an in depth scholarly study of the church and on the issue of faith, which science adherents have a problem with.
"Embryos therefore do not have a rational soul or spirit - and are not human. Not until after birth, obviously."
If you say they were not human before birth, what were they? Are you saying that birth confers rational spirit to the infant? What about still births? What about special children who go through life bereft of rational thinking? Are they non-humans?
"There is much evidence like this, that in the end prove that an embryo is not a human person with a rational spirit."
Please cite some of this "much evidence".
"Indeed, science now suggests ensoulment happens not at "quickening" either. But at birth."
What is the scientific explanation for this "suggestion"? Which scientists have made these suggestions?
Can scientists even theorize about a soul which they cannot even touch or see and thereby conduct experiments which bring hypotheses to conclusion based on evidence? Perhaps scientists are overstepping their bounds by postulating on things that cannot be observed or are they finally accepting the existence of souls by faith?
For that matter how reliable are your philosophers? Your question on the reliability of the Church can only be answered through an in depth scholarly study of the church and on the issue of faith, which science adherents have a problem with.
"Embryos therefore do not have a rational soul or spirit - and are not human. Not until after birth, obviously."
If you say they were not human before birth, what were they? Are you saying that birth confers rational spirit to the infant? What about still births? What about special children who go through life bereft of rational thinking? Are they non-humans?
"There is much evidence like this, that in the end prove that an embryo is not a human person with a rational spirit."
Please cite some of this "much evidence".
"Indeed, science now suggests ensoulment happens not at "quickening" either. But at birth."
What is the scientific explanation for this "suggestion"? Which scientists have made these suggestions?
Can scientists even theorize about a soul which they cannot even touch or see and thereby conduct experiments which bring hypotheses to conclusion based on evidence? Perhaps scientists are overstepping their bounds by postulating on things that cannot be observed or are they finally accepting the existence of souls by faith?
8.2.2011 | 10:40am
Judy says:
Wendy, There is much that you misstate or seem to not have comprehended about what the Church teaches. For example with regard to saints. The Church has never taught and still does not teach that saints are perfect. To say that holiness is some sort of perfection which does not exist is really so very far from the teaching and there is simply no truth or evidence for that statement at all.
Further though since Roe and the science known to the Supreme Court at the time and on which the entire apparatus is based, the science as we all know has evolved. There is no science to show as you state that with birth a soul exists and your assignment of that time seems quite arbitrary.
Of course a fetus has a personality even in the womb which many mothers observe in their behavior and can be recorded via scientific means.
Further we are aware of fetal pain. If science has advanced to the capabilities now possessed, then science will only continue to reveal the humanity and personhood of embryo as science has revealed the personhood of the fetus even at the trimester framework assigned by the Supreme Court using the science then available.
If in our ethics we are able to sacrifice in communitarian way for one greater good or another, then there is no reason why the refusal to sacrifice for the greater good of an individual person should be automatically rejected, on the basis of when a soul forms as a construct merely because of the timeline of the lifestage and circumstances when then developing, or even merely because it speaks of potentiality not yet fully lived out in an effective way in the world (though of course effective in other ways less observed or given credit for). We are never truly fully developed. Science shows we develop every second of life through the lifespan.
Why discriminate against a developing child in terms of collectively refraining from perpetuating harm that would exploit our environment and deprive others and future generations from its gifts?
Further though since Roe and the science known to the Supreme Court at the time and on which the entire apparatus is based, the science as we all know has evolved. There is no science to show as you state that with birth a soul exists and your assignment of that time seems quite arbitrary.
Of course a fetus has a personality even in the womb which many mothers observe in their behavior and can be recorded via scientific means.
Further we are aware of fetal pain. If science has advanced to the capabilities now possessed, then science will only continue to reveal the humanity and personhood of embryo as science has revealed the personhood of the fetus even at the trimester framework assigned by the Supreme Court using the science then available.
If in our ethics we are able to sacrifice in communitarian way for one greater good or another, then there is no reason why the refusal to sacrifice for the greater good of an individual person should be automatically rejected, on the basis of when a soul forms as a construct merely because of the timeline of the lifestage and circumstances when then developing, or even merely because it speaks of potentiality not yet fully lived out in an effective way in the world (though of course effective in other ways less observed or given credit for). We are never truly fully developed. Science shows we develop every second of life through the lifespan.
Why discriminate against a developing child in terms of collectively refraining from perpetuating harm that would exploit our environment and deprive others and future generations from its gifts?
8.2.2011 | 11:37am
Judy says:
Wendy,
Additionally it is hard to fathom your inability (and others seem to be laboring under this difficulty as well) to argue in favor of abortion as a good while refraining from vilifying the Catholic Church with numerous off-topic and some untruthful assertions.
It is no secret that there are reasoned voices in every world religion and faith tradition, as well as atheists, as well as secularists, articulating the ethical good for society in permitting life to develop unharmed.
I should think that in argument supposedly based upon science and ethical principles one would wish to avoid displaying a particular animus towards one religious group. If you are convinced that you cannot argue in favor of abortion as a good in and of itself without also attacking the Catholic Church and the adherents of that belief system then reason would dictate that you would also have to do the same with respect to those who are opposed to abortion from the frameworks of the other belief systems including all of the major world religions, various Christian denominations included, as well as atheist and secular presentations. Otherwise your arguments about abortion are not credible due to religious hostility you express. I should think that most people would be unconvinced to follow your reasoning, that simply because you have an animus towards the Catholic Church one should agree with you that abortion in the choice of it and its effects is a good. I think for persons who have neutral feelings towards religious belief or the choice of unbelief more rational argument would be required on this.
Additionally it is hard to fathom your inability (and others seem to be laboring under this difficulty as well) to argue in favor of abortion as a good while refraining from vilifying the Catholic Church with numerous off-topic and some untruthful assertions.
It is no secret that there are reasoned voices in every world religion and faith tradition, as well as atheists, as well as secularists, articulating the ethical good for society in permitting life to develop unharmed.
I should think that in argument supposedly based upon science and ethical principles one would wish to avoid displaying a particular animus towards one religious group. If you are convinced that you cannot argue in favor of abortion as a good in and of itself without also attacking the Catholic Church and the adherents of that belief system then reason would dictate that you would also have to do the same with respect to those who are opposed to abortion from the frameworks of the other belief systems including all of the major world religions, various Christian denominations included, as well as atheist and secular presentations. Otherwise your arguments about abortion are not credible due to religious hostility you express. I should think that most people would be unconvinced to follow your reasoning, that simply because you have an animus towards the Catholic Church one should agree with you that abortion in the choice of it and its effects is a good. I think for persons who have neutral feelings towards religious belief or the choice of unbelief more rational argument would be required on this.
8.2.2011 | 12:46pm
Wendy says:
Judy: Augustine and/or Aquinas identified our soul explicitly and by name, with Reason. Many philosophers and even religious leaders, saints, did also. God himself, in the Bible, is sometimes called the "Word"; but the original Greek was "Logos," which is identified largely with Logic. Or reason. While philosophy and science confirm the idea that the thing that makes us human, more than the animals, is our intelligence ... and Reason. Which is both the essence of our humanity, but also Divine too.
And? It is not that hard to tell when Reason, consciousness, come to a being; and it is clear that embryos don't have much there.
Ed:
There is nothing magical or arbitrary about the importance of birth, in lighting up our Reason and making us human: at birth, the embryo is at last exposed to the fuller information of the world, given by our senses; the sights and smells of the world. Which give the mind at last, enough material to work with ... to form. Then too? With birth, the relative separation of the embryo from the mother, natural law tells us that Nature and God have decided that it is at this moment, that the embryo is capable of appearing as an at least semi-independent being. A person.
What were embryos, before birth? Is personhood somehow aquired? Indeed, it is. Before birth, embryos are human tissue; but not having developed minds, they are not human beings or "persons," most scholars now agree.
Can scientists talk about "souls"? They can, if the "soul" is actually, more or less, our rational/conscious "mind." Psychology can indeed, talk about the invisible mind. While the core theologicans of Catholic tradition confirm the identity of our mind or soul or spirit, with in large part, Reason.
Judy:
Why is it necessary to question the Church itself here? Because it is, by far, specifically the Catholic Church that is behind anti-abortionism. Most Protestant churches allow abortion. So that? It is necessary at times to address Catholicism, itself.
My argument to be sure, is usually that the Church itself, the Magisterium, is not as opposed to abortion, as conservatives assert. Evidence to that effect, is cited above and in earlier related articles. Indeed, it was the two major doctors of the church - Aquinas and Augustine - that supposed (after Aristotle, and Psalm 139) that the very young embryo was not "formed" enough to have a rational soul; and who clearly implied that therefore,t he young embryo was not a human being.
And? It is not that hard to tell when Reason, consciousness, come to a being; and it is clear that embryos don't have much there.
Ed:
There is nothing magical or arbitrary about the importance of birth, in lighting up our Reason and making us human: at birth, the embryo is at last exposed to the fuller information of the world, given by our senses; the sights and smells of the world. Which give the mind at last, enough material to work with ... to form. Then too? With birth, the relative separation of the embryo from the mother, natural law tells us that Nature and God have decided that it is at this moment, that the embryo is capable of appearing as an at least semi-independent being. A person.
What were embryos, before birth? Is personhood somehow aquired? Indeed, it is. Before birth, embryos are human tissue; but not having developed minds, they are not human beings or "persons," most scholars now agree.
Can scientists talk about "souls"? They can, if the "soul" is actually, more or less, our rational/conscious "mind." Psychology can indeed, talk about the invisible mind. While the core theologicans of Catholic tradition confirm the identity of our mind or soul or spirit, with in large part, Reason.
Judy:
Why is it necessary to question the Church itself here? Because it is, by far, specifically the Catholic Church that is behind anti-abortionism. Most Protestant churches allow abortion. So that? It is necessary at times to address Catholicism, itself.
My argument to be sure, is usually that the Church itself, the Magisterium, is not as opposed to abortion, as conservatives assert. Evidence to that effect, is cited above and in earlier related articles. Indeed, it was the two major doctors of the church - Aquinas and Augustine - that supposed (after Aristotle, and Psalm 139) that the very young embryo was not "formed" enough to have a rational soul; and who clearly implied that therefore,t he young embryo was not a human being.
8.2.2011 | 1:00pm
Judy says:
Of course since Wendy and others here make this assertion (which is also heard in other places), namely that because it occurs that adherents of the Catholic faith may be guilty of mistakes or bad actions, that all adherents of Catholicism are therefore disqualified from advocacy on behalf of the human persons.
As support Wendy cites selectively from scripture with respect to Peter. If we are going to use scripture then we would have to of course not arbitrarily limit as to one or two lines and be careful to read in context for apart from the context one or two lines may be rendered with no meaning at all.
However be that as it may we may readily concede as to the imperfections and mistake of various figures found in scripture, the saints and the adherents of the Catholic faith.
Systematically analyzing Wendy's argument will necessarily include all of the implications, which would be that persons of no faith lead more morally exemplary lives and are therefore more entitled or ought to be favored by society in terms of the arguments made for an ethical society.
Now one must concede that it is certainly true that among persons who ascribe to no practice of religion, there may be readily encountered persons as guilty of bad actions. And it is also true that unfortunately whole dictatorships or governmental systems have oppressed the humanity of others through state-enforced atheism or atheistic secularism. So that argument as a whole is null.
But if we make an honest acknowledgment of the possibility that persons may overstep and exploit rights in order to dominate others or even interfere or deny others' rights to their own humanity, whether by various systems of dysfunction or via means of governmental power (as we see occurring in some places ranging from the horror that occurred in our own country and regulatory system with the Gosnell crimes with which some cooperated for profit and state entities looked the other way, or as the case in China where families are threatened with criminal penalty for having more than one child to a household) then many would agree that giving life room and space to develop unhindered in a peaceful way is the overall better path for a society than the alternative proposed.
As support Wendy cites selectively from scripture with respect to Peter. If we are going to use scripture then we would have to of course not arbitrarily limit as to one or two lines and be careful to read in context for apart from the context one or two lines may be rendered with no meaning at all.
However be that as it may we may readily concede as to the imperfections and mistake of various figures found in scripture, the saints and the adherents of the Catholic faith.
Systematically analyzing Wendy's argument will necessarily include all of the implications, which would be that persons of no faith lead more morally exemplary lives and are therefore more entitled or ought to be favored by society in terms of the arguments made for an ethical society.
Now one must concede that it is certainly true that among persons who ascribe to no practice of religion, there may be readily encountered persons as guilty of bad actions. And it is also true that unfortunately whole dictatorships or governmental systems have oppressed the humanity of others through state-enforced atheism or atheistic secularism. So that argument as a whole is null.
But if we make an honest acknowledgment of the possibility that persons may overstep and exploit rights in order to dominate others or even interfere or deny others' rights to their own humanity, whether by various systems of dysfunction or via means of governmental power (as we see occurring in some places ranging from the horror that occurred in our own country and regulatory system with the Gosnell crimes with which some cooperated for profit and state entities looked the other way, or as the case in China where families are threatened with criminal penalty for having more than one child to a household) then many would agree that giving life room and space to develop unhindered in a peaceful way is the overall better path for a society than the alternative proposed.
8.2.2011 | 1:40pm
harry says:
The Bible's Teaching Against Abortion:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html
This has much material on the Early Church Fathers condemning abortion:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp
The intellectual "Dark Ages" brought about by what is mistakenly referred to as the "Enlightenment" and its militant atheism has resulted in the return of the deification of the state. It required the blood of Christ and many martyrs to end rule by a deified state in the first place. It will most certainly require the blood of martyrs to be rid of it once again.
Silence and complacency regarding Caesar's overruling of God's command, "Thou shalt not kill" is the same as burning incense to Caesar. It is idolatry.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html
This has much material on the Early Church Fathers condemning abortion:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp
The intellectual "Dark Ages" brought about by what is mistakenly referred to as the "Enlightenment" and its militant atheism has resulted in the return of the deification of the state. It required the blood of Christ and many martyrs to end rule by a deified state in the first place. It will most certainly require the blood of martyrs to be rid of it once again.
Silence and complacency regarding Caesar's overruling of God's command, "Thou shalt not kill" is the same as burning incense to Caesar. It is idolatry.
8.2.2011 | 10:10pm
Judy says:
Wendy, Would Augustine/Aquinas argued on those same terms today in favor of what is now termed the culture of death, or as contraception, in the area of tens of millions? Or was it merely a philosophical debate or speculation about the origins of life in the tradition of classicism. Also I believe you again misstate the teaching of the Church with regard to magisterium. A more enlightened view recognizes that the Catholic Church's teachings are always spoken in light of the times situated while also confirming that which believers everywhere have always believed. Given the longer view, it is sensible that the overall doctrine of the Church, including Augustine and Aquinas read in entirety and not selectively parsing, supports life at every stage especially when the more powerful in the equation may exploit or arbitrarily deny the right to exist.
Surely scripture including the old testament with the gospels overwhelmingly supports life. There is nothing found in scripture which would support what has happened.
Again, since these are all constructs and none definitive, the ethical superior route is to do no harm since it is simply not known.
Other than Augustine's and Aquinas' speculation (with the scientific knowledge those hypotheses as framed in those times) about ensoulment or consciousness, and your refusal to acknowledge the science of fetal pain and interaction and relationship in the womb with parents, personality and effectiveness, are you in a position to finally argue in terms of denying life as an overall good for society?
Additionally the idea of pitting a woman against her child is a deeply flawed one for society and for women's dignity and human rights generally.
Surely scripture including the old testament with the gospels overwhelmingly supports life. There is nothing found in scripture which would support what has happened.
Again, since these are all constructs and none definitive, the ethical superior route is to do no harm since it is simply not known.
Other than Augustine's and Aquinas' speculation (with the scientific knowledge those hypotheses as framed in those times) about ensoulment or consciousness, and your refusal to acknowledge the science of fetal pain and interaction and relationship in the womb with parents, personality and effectiveness, are you in a position to finally argue in terms of denying life as an overall good for society?
Additionally the idea of pitting a woman against her child is a deeply flawed one for society and for women's dignity and human rights generally.
8.3.2011 | 6:23am
bill bannon says:
Judy
Yes...but no....on the first two weeks of life developing; keep theological history accurate as it faces new science. No Pope or saint or Theologian had any idea til the late 20th century that a cell mass of constantly dividing cells could be teased in a laboratory dish into twinning for the first two weeks after fertilization which fact excludes an individual being present.
Nor did they know that half or most fertilized eggs fail to implant and thus self abort (does half of mankind never see the light of day?). Some are hydatidiform moles but some of those do implant and can cause bleeding or cancer. But other failed implantations are viable cell masses and we know this because pregnancy rates can be improved in some women by optimizing endometrial receptivity for implantation....so that previously her body was rejecting implantation to what you are picturing as tiny persons and I am seeing as pre- person cell masses. Yet the Church does not mourn these great numbers of unimplanted cell masses in her liturgy. No one is sad about them which aligns with my view of them.
Nor did Popes and saints know that two fertilized fraternal twin eggs could fuse into one cell mass and produce one chimeric person instead of fraternal twins which again excludes the two originals from having been persons.
Remember Regensburg and our chiding Islam that it lets doctrine override reason. Exaggerate the person reality of the first two weeks and abortion mills will easily discredit to young girls all you say that actually is correct about the post two week reality. First two week embryology will return us to the delayed ensoulement position of Trent's catechism in the section on the Incarnation wherein it held that only Christ had immediate ensoulement and that by a special act of the Holy Spirit.
Yes...but no....on the first two weeks of life developing; keep theological history accurate as it faces new science. No Pope or saint or Theologian had any idea til the late 20th century that a cell mass of constantly dividing cells could be teased in a laboratory dish into twinning for the first two weeks after fertilization which fact excludes an individual being present.
Nor did they know that half or most fertilized eggs fail to implant and thus self abort (does half of mankind never see the light of day?). Some are hydatidiform moles but some of those do implant and can cause bleeding or cancer. But other failed implantations are viable cell masses and we know this because pregnancy rates can be improved in some women by optimizing endometrial receptivity for implantation....so that previously her body was rejecting implantation to what you are picturing as tiny persons and I am seeing as pre- person cell masses. Yet the Church does not mourn these great numbers of unimplanted cell masses in her liturgy. No one is sad about them which aligns with my view of them.
Nor did Popes and saints know that two fertilized fraternal twin eggs could fuse into one cell mass and produce one chimeric person instead of fraternal twins which again excludes the two originals from having been persons.
Remember Regensburg and our chiding Islam that it lets doctrine override reason. Exaggerate the person reality of the first two weeks and abortion mills will easily discredit to young girls all you say that actually is correct about the post two week reality. First two week embryology will return us to the delayed ensoulement position of Trent's catechism in the section on the Incarnation wherein it held that only Christ had immediate ensoulement and that by a special act of the Holy Spirit.
8.3.2011 | 9:43am
Judy says:
Actually Bill Bannon women grieve miscarriage deeply. As to liturgies that does not amount to a pronouncement that no soul was present of course.
Again you are the one citing doctrine and construct of ensoulment according to hypothetical discussion based upon science as then known. Of course first do no harm would have been a leading principle to inform those discussions.
You simply cannot say with any amount of certainty at what point God assigns value to a life. The better and more ethical view would be to say that human life has inherent value and that human life as a right ought not be rendered dependent in laws upon the material circumstances in which the parents may find herself in, nor dependent upon her labels for that life, nor dependent upon her desire that it live or aim that it be eliminated, or further as to the attributes noticed by scientific means about that life, whether male or female, or whether a government determines as a policy that children are undesired. Whereas people are quite right to say that they wish that others stay out of their bedrooms, lives are also quite justified in their right to not be subjected to elimination for various arbitrary reasons relative to others' ability to be permitted to live simply by virtue of the circumstances particularly material but also possibly due to cultural or governmental hatred of children. Due process if it means anything at all must mean that each is treated equally despite the circumstances into which they come into existence.
Again you are the one citing doctrine and construct of ensoulment according to hypothetical discussion based upon science as then known. Of course first do no harm would have been a leading principle to inform those discussions.
You simply cannot say with any amount of certainty at what point God assigns value to a life. The better and more ethical view would be to say that human life has inherent value and that human life as a right ought not be rendered dependent in laws upon the material circumstances in which the parents may find herself in, nor dependent upon her labels for that life, nor dependent upon her desire that it live or aim that it be eliminated, or further as to the attributes noticed by scientific means about that life, whether male or female, or whether a government determines as a policy that children are undesired. Whereas people are quite right to say that they wish that others stay out of their bedrooms, lives are also quite justified in their right to not be subjected to elimination for various arbitrary reasons relative to others' ability to be permitted to live simply by virtue of the circumstances particularly material but also possibly due to cultural or governmental hatred of children. Due process if it means anything at all must mean that each is treated equally despite the circumstances into which they come into existence.
8.3.2011 | 10:53am
bill bannon says:
Judy
What woman or liturgy grieves non implantation? Please. If the prolifer tells other women than herself that birth control pills murder through maybe...maybe nonimplantation, then that prolifer had better be optimizing her endometrial receptivity through a medical doctor. Non optimizing might be causing non implantations just as birth control pills might be causing non implantations...omission and commission. One cannot be murder without the other being murder. But neither is murder because a person cannot be teased into being two persons. The primitive streak appears when twinning is impossible.
Hold your position as is and you then have a grave obligation to optimize your endometrial receptivity. The scribe who burdens another's shoulders must burden their own shoulders or they are playing a game that touches their conscience not at
all beneath all the sermonizing.
What woman or liturgy grieves non implantation? Please. If the prolifer tells other women than herself that birth control pills murder through maybe...maybe nonimplantation, then that prolifer had better be optimizing her endometrial receptivity through a medical doctor. Non optimizing might be causing non implantations just as birth control pills might be causing non implantations...omission and commission. One cannot be murder without the other being murder. But neither is murder because a person cannot be teased into being two persons. The primitive streak appears when twinning is impossible.
Hold your position as is and you then have a grave obligation to optimize your endometrial receptivity. The scribe who burdens another's shoulders must burden their own shoulders or they are playing a game that touches their conscience not at
all beneath all the sermonizing.
8.3.2011 | 11:19am
harry says:
Hi again, Bill,
"No Pope or saint or Theologian had any idea til the late 20th century that a cell mass of constantly dividing cells could be teased in a laboratory dish into twinning for the first two weeks after fertilization **which fact excludes an individual being present.**"
That does **NOT** exclude an individual being present. Why should it? You have no way of knowing, and can't have any way of knowing, what has occurred in terms of souls. How do you know there wasn't already one soul, and then God created another one after the twinning? How do you know God didn't providentially create two souls at conception, knowing from all eternity that some people would be tinkering with one of His beloved children like they were a lab rat, proudly and stupidly proclaiming the results of their experimentation like a jungle savage proclaiming to the tribe all the "brilliant" conclusions he has drawn from his experiments on laptop PCs, and not really having the slightest idea what he is talking about.
You don't seem to have grasped how far beyond us the nanotechnology of life actually is. It is light years beyond anything we know how to build. The comparison to jungle savages experimenting with laptop PCs does not sufficiently convey just how far beyond modern science the technology of life is, and how silly and irresponsible it is to proclaim that it is OK to kill a child at conception because we can be "sure" it isn't yet a person, or an individual, or whatever you want to call it. It *IS* in fact, a vibrantly living, innocent, biological human being, and it is immoral and always has been immoral, to take the life of an innocent human being, regardless of one's opinion of its "personhood" or of the state of its "ensoulment" or for any other reason. The scientific fact is that it is a living, biological human being. Get used to it: It is wrong to kill innocent human beings at any stage of their development, regardless of how fiercely one holds the unprovable opinion that they really don't matter. That is just old, tired bigotry in a novel disguise.
"No Pope or saint or Theologian had any idea til the late 20th century that a cell mass of constantly dividing cells could be teased in a laboratory dish into twinning for the first two weeks after fertilization **which fact excludes an individual being present.**"
That does **NOT** exclude an individual being present. Why should it? You have no way of knowing, and can't have any way of knowing, what has occurred in terms of souls. How do you know there wasn't already one soul, and then God created another one after the twinning? How do you know God didn't providentially create two souls at conception, knowing from all eternity that some people would be tinkering with one of His beloved children like they were a lab rat, proudly and stupidly proclaiming the results of their experimentation like a jungle savage proclaiming to the tribe all the "brilliant" conclusions he has drawn from his experiments on laptop PCs, and not really having the slightest idea what he is talking about.
You don't seem to have grasped how far beyond us the nanotechnology of life actually is. It is light years beyond anything we know how to build. The comparison to jungle savages experimenting with laptop PCs does not sufficiently convey just how far beyond modern science the technology of life is, and how silly and irresponsible it is to proclaim that it is OK to kill a child at conception because we can be "sure" it isn't yet a person, or an individual, or whatever you want to call it. It *IS* in fact, a vibrantly living, innocent, biological human being, and it is immoral and always has been immoral, to take the life of an innocent human being, regardless of one's opinion of its "personhood" or of the state of its "ensoulment" or for any other reason. The scientific fact is that it is a living, biological human being. Get used to it: It is wrong to kill innocent human beings at any stage of their development, regardless of how fiercely one holds the unprovable opinion that they really don't matter. That is just old, tired bigotry in a novel disguise.
8.3.2011 | 12:44pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
You wrote: " How do you know there wasn't already one soul, and then God created another one after the twinning?
Because if the cell mass were a person, both it nor its soul could suffer division or subtraction and that is because of a decree of the Council of Vienne,1311:
" we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic."
The Pope is using the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas who wrote just prior to the
Council on that topic.
Go to the Summa T. (Part I/Question 76/ article 8) here:
" But since the soul is united to the body as its form, it must necessarily be in the whole body, and in each part thereof. For it is not an accidental form, but the substantial form of the body. Now the substantial form perfects not only the whole, but each part of the whole. For since a whole consists of parts, a form of the whole which does not give existence to each of the parts of the body, is a form consisting in composition and order, such as the form of a house; and such a form is accidental. But the soul is a substantial form; and therefore it must be the form and the act, not only of the whole, but also of each part.... on the withdrawal of the soul, no part of the body retains its proper action..."
Ergo....a cell mass informed with a soul would be killed by division since the soul must permeate the entire cell mass. You Harry were seeing the soul as an accidental form of the body rather than as a substantial form.
And if you continue your position despite all the above, then you must logically warn the women in your family that they are murdering cell masses if they are not optimizing endometrial receptivity which is absurd but it follows from your position.
Readers will note all that you skipped in my posts: the problem of the chimeric/ and the natural non implantation of perhaps a majority of fertilized eggs/ and the problems of the Church not mourning failed implantations/...nor a woman mourning them.
You wrote: " How do you know there wasn't already one soul, and then God created another one after the twinning?
Because if the cell mass were a person, both it nor its soul could suffer division or subtraction and that is because of a decree of the Council of Vienne,1311:
" we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic."
The Pope is using the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas who wrote just prior to the
Council on that topic.
Go to the Summa T. (Part I/Question 76/ article 8) here:
" But since the soul is united to the body as its form, it must necessarily be in the whole body, and in each part thereof. For it is not an accidental form, but the substantial form of the body. Now the substantial form perfects not only the whole, but each part of the whole. For since a whole consists of parts, a form of the whole which does not give existence to each of the parts of the body, is a form consisting in composition and order, such as the form of a house; and such a form is accidental. But the soul is a substantial form; and therefore it must be the form and the act, not only of the whole, but also of each part.... on the withdrawal of the soul, no part of the body retains its proper action..."
Ergo....a cell mass informed with a soul would be killed by division since the soul must permeate the entire cell mass. You Harry were seeing the soul as an accidental form of the body rather than as a substantial form.
And if you continue your position despite all the above, then you must logically warn the women in your family that they are murdering cell masses if they are not optimizing endometrial receptivity which is absurd but it follows from your position.
Readers will note all that you skipped in my posts: the problem of the chimeric/ and the natural non implantation of perhaps a majority of fertilized eggs/ and the problems of the Church not mourning failed implantations/...nor a woman mourning them.
8.3.2011 | 1:24pm
harry says:
" we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic."
That does not substantiate in any way the unwarranted conclusions you have drawn.
" But since the soul is united to the body as its form, it must necessarily be in the whole body, and in each part thereof. For it is not an accidental form, but the substantial form of the body. Now the substantial form perfects not only the whole, but each part of the whole. For since a whole consists of parts, a form of the whole which does not give existence to each of the parts of the body, is a form consisting in composition and order, such as the form of a house; and such a form is accidental. But the soul is a substantial form; and therefore it must be the form and the act, not only of the whole, but also of each part.... on the withdrawal of the soul, no part of the body retains its proper action..."
Neither does that.
Let's say my leg is amputated and disposed of. What happens to the soul that was permeating it? Or the part of the soul that was permeating it? Does a soul have "parts"? Does the rest of my body have "more" soul permeating it than before? If another human being is cloned from a cell in my body, does it have a soul? Or is my original soul permeating both bodies, each body now having "less" soul? Or is a new soul created for my clone? How can the answer to any of those questions be proven? They can't. Neither can we know what is going on when twinning occurs.
Admit it, you are drawing unwarranted, unsubstantiated conclusions.
Of course, upon "the withdrawal of the soul no part of the body retains its proper action." One is dead at that point. Neither of your citations substantiate your conclusions in any way.
That does not substantiate in any way the unwarranted conclusions you have drawn.
" But since the soul is united to the body as its form, it must necessarily be in the whole body, and in each part thereof. For it is not an accidental form, but the substantial form of the body. Now the substantial form perfects not only the whole, but each part of the whole. For since a whole consists of parts, a form of the whole which does not give existence to each of the parts of the body, is a form consisting in composition and order, such as the form of a house; and such a form is accidental. But the soul is a substantial form; and therefore it must be the form and the act, not only of the whole, but also of each part.... on the withdrawal of the soul, no part of the body retains its proper action..."
Neither does that.
Let's say my leg is amputated and disposed of. What happens to the soul that was permeating it? Or the part of the soul that was permeating it? Does a soul have "parts"? Does the rest of my body have "more" soul permeating it than before? If another human being is cloned from a cell in my body, does it have a soul? Or is my original soul permeating both bodies, each body now having "less" soul? Or is a new soul created for my clone? How can the answer to any of those questions be proven? They can't. Neither can we know what is going on when twinning occurs.
Admit it, you are drawing unwarranted, unsubstantiated conclusions.
Of course, upon "the withdrawal of the soul no part of the body retains its proper action." One is dead at that point. Neither of your citations substantiate your conclusions in any way.
8.3.2011 | 1:56pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
None of your examples parallel a whole cell mass being teased into twinning since all your examples avoid a whole being divided into two equals....but rather involve parts being used. I'm sure Aquinas felt that Samson remained Samson after losing his hair.
That leaves you your original position which means you have to exhort all anti abc women you know to optimize their endometrial receptivity lest they be murdering a cell mass....if you are going to burden pill women with the same deduction.
None of your examples parallel a whole cell mass being teased into twinning since all your examples avoid a whole being divided into two equals....but rather involve parts being used. I'm sure Aquinas felt that Samson remained Samson after losing his hair.
That leaves you your original position which means you have to exhort all anti abc women you know to optimize their endometrial receptivity lest they be murdering a cell mass....if you are going to burden pill women with the same deduction.
8.3.2011 | 2:19pm
harry says:
Another thought: If no part of the body retains is proper action" without the soul, how is it that from conception we obviously have vibrant life in the execution of the amazing nanotechnology that is life? That "proper action" couldn't happen without a soul according to your own citation, which only further indicates a soul is present from conception.
8.3.2011 | 2:39pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
Both Aristotle and Aquinas believed the human first has a vegetative soul which later is incorporated into it's successor, the sensitive soul, which is finally incorporated into the rational soul. For them were they to see the cell mass, that would be the vegetative soul and later when there are nerves, there would be the sensitive soul....and when there would be a functioning brain, there would be the rational soul subsuming the previous sensitive soul which had subsumed the vegetative.
Both Aristotle and Aquinas believed the human first has a vegetative soul which later is incorporated into it's successor, the sensitive soul, which is finally incorporated into the rational soul. For them were they to see the cell mass, that would be the vegetative soul and later when there are nerves, there would be the sensitive soul....and when there would be a functioning brain, there would be the rational soul subsuming the previous sensitive soul which had subsumed the vegetative.
8.3.2011 | 3:09pm
harry says:
"Both Aristotle and Aquinas believed the human first has a vegetative soul ..."
Oh, so now you finally agree it has a soul. Well, I have news for you, whatever state a human life is in, it is never "vegetative," it can only be in a human state. So it is with its soul; whatever state a human soul is in, that state can only be a human state, not a vegetative state. Aquinas and Aristotle have a right to their opinions, but a human soul is always a human soul, never a vegetative soul. Whether that human soul is sensitive or rational obviously has nothing to do with it. If sensitivity and rationality were the criteria for having human life protected most people would not make it past their teenage years.
Oh, so now you finally agree it has a soul. Well, I have news for you, whatever state a human life is in, it is never "vegetative," it can only be in a human state. So it is with its soul; whatever state a human soul is in, that state can only be a human state, not a vegetative state. Aquinas and Aristotle have a right to their opinions, but a human soul is always a human soul, never a vegetative soul. Whether that human soul is sensitive or rational obviously has nothing to do with it. If sensitivity and rationality were the criteria for having human life protected most people would not make it past their teenage years.
8.3.2011 | 8:05pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
You're jumping to take their word "vegetative" at its worst rather than its best.
I believe they are using the word vegetative to denote the first state as having a lack of feeling and lack of thought which interpretation their next two words ...sensitive and rational....confirms. They are not linking the early human life to the garden tomato.
Adios. I must pay attention to something that has come up.
You're jumping to take their word "vegetative" at its worst rather than its best.
I believe they are using the word vegetative to denote the first state as having a lack of feeling and lack of thought which interpretation their next two words ...sensitive and rational....confirms. They are not linking the early human life to the garden tomato.
Adios. I must pay attention to something that has come up.
8.3.2011 | 11:36pm
edmond says:
"Can scientists talk about "souls"? They can, if the "soul" is actually, more or less, our rational/conscious "mind." Psychology"
Mind you Wendy there are a lot of soulless minds lingering around. As in "what profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul? So your take on the soul being the mind (more or less) is inaccurate, the soul is seaprate from the mind. On the reverse where one loses his mind but still has a soul e.g. mental patientsc, catatonics, comatose? And Bill Bannon just disagreed with you.
Mind you Wendy there are a lot of soulless minds lingering around. As in "what profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul? So your take on the soul being the mind (more or less) is inaccurate, the soul is seaprate from the mind. On the reverse where one loses his mind but still has a soul e.g. mental patientsc, catatonics, comatose? And Bill Bannon just disagreed with you.
8.4.2011 | 11:56am
harry says:
Hi, Bill,
"You're jumping to take their word "vegetative" at its worst rather than its best. I believe they are using the word vegetative to denote the first state as having a lack of feeling and lack of thought which interpretation their next two words ...sensitive and rational....confirms."
The word "vegetative" never applies at all to human beings. One should talk about a human soul lacking feeling and thought if that is what they mean.
The point is that from conception the child has a soul, and it is animating the body, enabling it to perform its "proper action." That "proper action," from conception, is an astounding display of highly ordered functional complexity, which, to those capable of objectivity, makes it clear that it is the work of a divine orderer and designer. Rather than taking the outdated macroscopic view and form the opinion that the tiny speck a human being is at conception can't really matter, one should take the realistic microscopic view and be filled with with awe and reverence for the mighty work of God we now know that newly conceived human being to be.
"BEFORE I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
-- Jeremiah 1:5
As I have stated previously, God knew and loved every newly conceived human being from all eternity. We cannot know God's plan for that child of His -- but He has one and we should respect that, not write the child off as a "speck" that doesn't matter.
"You're jumping to take their word "vegetative" at its worst rather than its best. I believe they are using the word vegetative to denote the first state as having a lack of feeling and lack of thought which interpretation their next two words ...sensitive and rational....confirms."
The word "vegetative" never applies at all to human beings. One should talk about a human soul lacking feeling and thought if that is what they mean.
The point is that from conception the child has a soul, and it is animating the body, enabling it to perform its "proper action." That "proper action," from conception, is an astounding display of highly ordered functional complexity, which, to those capable of objectivity, makes it clear that it is the work of a divine orderer and designer. Rather than taking the outdated macroscopic view and form the opinion that the tiny speck a human being is at conception can't really matter, one should take the realistic microscopic view and be filled with with awe and reverence for the mighty work of God we now know that newly conceived human being to be.
"BEFORE I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
-- Jeremiah 1:5
As I have stated previously, God knew and loved every newly conceived human being from all eternity. We cannot know God's plan for that child of His -- but He has one and we should respect that, not write the child off as a "speck" that doesn't matter.
8.4.2011 | 1:43pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
Except that the "mighty work" is resulting in c.60% failed implantations by nature and except that if an eternal soul permeated such cell masses, then a minority of human beings live past pre-implantation and die without hearing the gospel....brain emerges at three weeks. Absurd. But you are an a priori person...which means new facts bounce off. But since you still are in the same position, you now have a new obligation....to tell the women of your mindset that they must optimize endometrial receptivity because not to... is to have a similar result to the birth control pill.....the maybe of failed implantation. Enteneuer and Corapi never noticed that while they were excoriating dissenters.
Except that the "mighty work" is resulting in c.60% failed implantations by nature and except that if an eternal soul permeated such cell masses, then a minority of human beings live past pre-implantation and die without hearing the gospel....brain emerges at three weeks. Absurd. But you are an a priori person...which means new facts bounce off. But since you still are in the same position, you now have a new obligation....to tell the women of your mindset that they must optimize endometrial receptivity because not to... is to have a similar result to the birth control pill.....the maybe of failed implantation. Enteneuer and Corapi never noticed that while they were excoriating dissenters.
8.4.2011 | 2:26pm
harry says:
Hello, Bill,
God knows what He is doing. It is not for us to question why He set things up the way He did.
"'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways', declares the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.'"
-- Isaiah 55:8-9
God is not going to hold us accountable for those things over which we had no control. He will hold those who knew better -- who knew "the pill" can be an abortifacient -- accountable for using it, or for using any form of artificial contraception they knew to be abortifacient, if they had a properly formed conscience and acted contrary to it.
Christ asked us to take up our cross and follow Him. Those Christian couples who used any form of artificial contraception, abortifacient or not, are demonstrating an unwillingness to remain open to God's plan for them and for the children He intends to bring forth from their union. They are basically telling God, "I'll take up my cross, but you follow me, according to MY plan, I won't follow you according to YOUR plan."
I have always been the sole provider for our single income family. We have ten children. That has never made any sense at all in today's world. Common sense says you can't raise ten kids on a single income. It has worked anyway, by God's providence. If we only live by what the world considers to be common sense, we are not living by the faith Christ asked us to live by. Time and time again in the gospels He explains that a mighty work of His was done because of someone's faith. If the mighty works of Jesus are missing in one's life, maybe it is because one is not living by faith in Him, remaining open to HIS plan rather than one's own.
My fifth child is a Catholic priest. How many fifth children were to be Catholic priests but never came to be at all due to a lack of faith? How many children of God never got to demonstrate His love to others in the unique way they and only they could have done so? Countless numbers of them, due to a lack of faith, I am afraid.
"When the Son of man comes, will He find any faith on earth?"
-- Luke 18:8
God knows what He is doing. It is not for us to question why He set things up the way He did.
"'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways', declares the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.'"
-- Isaiah 55:8-9
God is not going to hold us accountable for those things over which we had no control. He will hold those who knew better -- who knew "the pill" can be an abortifacient -- accountable for using it, or for using any form of artificial contraception they knew to be abortifacient, if they had a properly formed conscience and acted contrary to it.
Christ asked us to take up our cross and follow Him. Those Christian couples who used any form of artificial contraception, abortifacient or not, are demonstrating an unwillingness to remain open to God's plan for them and for the children He intends to bring forth from their union. They are basically telling God, "I'll take up my cross, but you follow me, according to MY plan, I won't follow you according to YOUR plan."
I have always been the sole provider for our single income family. We have ten children. That has never made any sense at all in today's world. Common sense says you can't raise ten kids on a single income. It has worked anyway, by God's providence. If we only live by what the world considers to be common sense, we are not living by the faith Christ asked us to live by. Time and time again in the gospels He explains that a mighty work of His was done because of someone's faith. If the mighty works of Jesus are missing in one's life, maybe it is because one is not living by faith in Him, remaining open to HIS plan rather than one's own.
My fifth child is a Catholic priest. How many fifth children were to be Catholic priests but never came to be at all due to a lack of faith? How many children of God never got to demonstrate His love to others in the unique way they and only they could have done so? Countless numbers of them, due to a lack of faith, I am afraid.
"When the Son of man comes, will He find any faith on earth?"
-- Luke 18:8
8.4.2011 | 3:33pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
Your ten children are a wonderful thing and they have no bearing on the birth control issue.
Augustine, Jerome and Chrysostom all saw the large family as Jewish not Christian ("Against Jovinianus" Bk.I sect.37/Jerome; and "The Good of Marriage" sect.19/ Augustine). It was the Pope's Pius's who were large family people. Out of the eight or so Popes out of 265 who wrote on birth control at all, most are crowded into the last century. But about 255 or more wrote zilch on the topic....do the research.
A young couple with one child in the US even who has severe autism ( therapy uncovered by insurance) where the husband only works and as a taxi driver....they can't have one more child unless they intend to defraud on their therapy bills that they will owe forever. Ergo it is God's will that they make sure they have no other children.
Catholic East Timor, Catholic Brazil, Catholic Uruguay and Catholic Phillipines all have bad street urchin problems from families not having your income or safety net per USA...but having your number of children. You having ten children in the US is irrelevant to their plight. Is it God taking care of you only and not taking care of them?....or is it that the US in the 20th century was a good place to raise children for you due to social security for widows and orphans and tax deductions for having children.
Now imagine your family in India where I sent money to a woman whose husband died and she had to give her four children to orphanges and work as a maid near them just to see them.....just to see her own children. Is God taking care of you and not her? Or is it the countries and their safety nets that also are relevant but never mentioned by NFP speakers because the a priori must be guarded like the ark.
You and your wife in mainland China would have lived a nightmare...not a life....a nightmare as nine of your children were ripped from her body by the state and your fines would again be something you couldn't pay. NFP for China contradicts I Cor.7:5..... so does the Josephite marriage contradict I Cor.7:5 for many. Is Benedict in turmoil over their plight? No I think he is working on his third NT book.
You and your wife in parts of Africa would have lost half your children to starvation.....about six million people starve per year in the world....but not where you live. Is God watching over you and not them? Never sell me the simple simon version of Catholicism. But worry not. Many in the US will always buy into it....and the TV priests will be ready to make them feel like the last 8 just people on the ark....until the TV priests hit on other insecure people romantically and lose the game.
Your ten children are a wonderful thing and they have no bearing on the birth control issue.
Augustine, Jerome and Chrysostom all saw the large family as Jewish not Christian ("Against Jovinianus" Bk.I sect.37/Jerome; and "The Good of Marriage" sect.19/ Augustine). It was the Pope's Pius's who were large family people. Out of the eight or so Popes out of 265 who wrote on birth control at all, most are crowded into the last century. But about 255 or more wrote zilch on the topic....do the research.
A young couple with one child in the US even who has severe autism ( therapy uncovered by insurance) where the husband only works and as a taxi driver....they can't have one more child unless they intend to defraud on their therapy bills that they will owe forever. Ergo it is God's will that they make sure they have no other children.
Catholic East Timor, Catholic Brazil, Catholic Uruguay and Catholic Phillipines all have bad street urchin problems from families not having your income or safety net per USA...but having your number of children. You having ten children in the US is irrelevant to their plight. Is it God taking care of you only and not taking care of them?....or is it that the US in the 20th century was a good place to raise children for you due to social security for widows and orphans and tax deductions for having children.
Now imagine your family in India where I sent money to a woman whose husband died and she had to give her four children to orphanges and work as a maid near them just to see them.....just to see her own children. Is God taking care of you and not her? Or is it the countries and their safety nets that also are relevant but never mentioned by NFP speakers because the a priori must be guarded like the ark.
You and your wife in mainland China would have lived a nightmare...not a life....a nightmare as nine of your children were ripped from her body by the state and your fines would again be something you couldn't pay. NFP for China contradicts I Cor.7:5..... so does the Josephite marriage contradict I Cor.7:5 for many. Is Benedict in turmoil over their plight? No I think he is working on his third NT book.
You and your wife in parts of Africa would have lost half your children to starvation.....about six million people starve per year in the world....but not where you live. Is God watching over you and not them? Never sell me the simple simon version of Catholicism. But worry not. Many in the US will always buy into it....and the TV priests will be ready to make them feel like the last 8 just people on the ark....until the TV priests hit on other insecure people romantically and lose the game.
8.4.2011 | 4:16pm
harry says:
Hello, Bill,
God made the Earth bountiful enough for everybody He planned on living on it. The extreme poverty that exists is due most often to greed and unjust economic policy -- sinfulness -- not God's lack of planning.
Yes there many instances where one can justly and morally limit the size of one's family -- one may even have an obligation to do so. One can do that without using abortifacient contraception. NFP (natural family planning) can be easily taught and can be used to regulate the number of children one has without recourse to any kind of artificial contraception. It is more effective than "the pill" if used properly. And it doesn't have any of the bad side effects of the pill. One can also use NFP to have children if they want. It a means for the woman to know when she is fertile and when she is not.
The instances where one may have an obligation to limit the size of one's family do not include, in my opinion, not having children because we are saving up for a new -- insert whatever luxury item you want here -- and wouldn't be able to afford it if we had another child. Besides, luxury items and vacations don't love you back. Children love you back. Nothing will provide one with more meaning and fulfillment in life than children. They will bring you more joy than any luxury item or vacation ever could.
I think it is fair to say that a Christian couple in most industrialized nations can afford to have many more children than they typically do. Sometimes couples want children and just don't seem to be able to conceive one. Being open to God's plan doesn't necessarily mean one is going to have ten kids. It could mean being open to adopting children needing a good home.
God owns us twice. Once for creating us in the first place and again for redeeming us. When we remain open to His plan we are only giving Him His due. And yes that will include carrying a cross. Christ made that perfectly clear.
God made the Earth bountiful enough for everybody He planned on living on it. The extreme poverty that exists is due most often to greed and unjust economic policy -- sinfulness -- not God's lack of planning.
Yes there many instances where one can justly and morally limit the size of one's family -- one may even have an obligation to do so. One can do that without using abortifacient contraception. NFP (natural family planning) can be easily taught and can be used to regulate the number of children one has without recourse to any kind of artificial contraception. It is more effective than "the pill" if used properly. And it doesn't have any of the bad side effects of the pill. One can also use NFP to have children if they want. It a means for the woman to know when she is fertile and when she is not.
The instances where one may have an obligation to limit the size of one's family do not include, in my opinion, not having children because we are saving up for a new -- insert whatever luxury item you want here -- and wouldn't be able to afford it if we had another child. Besides, luxury items and vacations don't love you back. Children love you back. Nothing will provide one with more meaning and fulfillment in life than children. They will bring you more joy than any luxury item or vacation ever could.
I think it is fair to say that a Christian couple in most industrialized nations can afford to have many more children than they typically do. Sometimes couples want children and just don't seem to be able to conceive one. Being open to God's plan doesn't necessarily mean one is going to have ten kids. It could mean being open to adopting children needing a good home.
God owns us twice. Once for creating us in the first place and again for redeeming us. When we remain open to His plan we are only giving Him His due. And yes that will include carrying a cross. Christ made that perfectly clear.
8.4.2011 | 5:02pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
So God made a bountiful earth knowing full well that it would be of no avail?
Or....He didn't know men would cause starvation? You left out drought which is from God not men and is now threatening many. OK....I've stared at the Thomas Kinkaid painting long enough....the cosy village that has everything sweet. How can there be dappled sunlight on paths, bright flowers, sunset and evening candles in the windows....all at the same time? It's called giving them all of what they want. They won't have multiple children unless you give them a bonus....reading hearts. There ya go.
So God made a bountiful earth knowing full well that it would be of no avail?
Or....He didn't know men would cause starvation? You left out drought which is from God not men and is now threatening many. OK....I've stared at the Thomas Kinkaid painting long enough....the cosy village that has everything sweet. How can there be dappled sunlight on paths, bright flowers, sunset and evening candles in the windows....all at the same time? It's called giving them all of what they want. They won't have multiple children unless you give them a bonus....reading hearts. There ya go.
8.4.2011 | 6:39pm
harry says:
Hi, Bill,
"You left out drought which is from God not men and is now threatening many."
Yes there are natural disasters. So what? They are in God's providence. Again, God knows what He is doing. For all we know everybody who dies in a natural disaster died at the time that was best for their eternal salvation. His thoughts are above our thoughts, remember? Everybody who is happily spending eternity in heaven could care less about whatever happened to them on Earth due to natural disasters or anything else they might have suffered. You forget this has a happy ending/eternal joyous beginning if we hang in there with God and do the right thing. God-made-man suffered more than any of us will. He is not asking us to accept the cross after He avoided it. He didn't avoid it. He embraced it for your sake.
Do you believe in God? And if so, do you believe in His goodness?
"You left out drought which is from God not men and is now threatening many."
Yes there are natural disasters. So what? They are in God's providence. Again, God knows what He is doing. For all we know everybody who dies in a natural disaster died at the time that was best for their eternal salvation. His thoughts are above our thoughts, remember? Everybody who is happily spending eternity in heaven could care less about whatever happened to them on Earth due to natural disasters or anything else they might have suffered. You forget this has a happy ending/eternal joyous beginning if we hang in there with God and do the right thing. God-made-man suffered more than any of us will. He is not asking us to accept the cross after He avoided it. He didn't avoid it. He embraced it for your sake.
Do you believe in God? And if so, do you believe in His goodness?
8.4.2011 | 10:46pm
bill bannon says:
Harry
So when Christ sweated blood and said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"....had you been nearby Harry, you would have jumped out of the bushes and told Him this was the best day of His life....that it was Providence....and you would have quizzed Him whether He really believed in God and His goodness. Words fail me just imagining it.
So when Christ sweated blood and said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"....had you been nearby Harry, you would have jumped out of the bushes and told Him this was the best day of His life....that it was Providence....and you would have quizzed Him whether He really believed in God and His goodness. Words fail me just imagining it.
8.4.2011 | 11:29pm
harry says:
Hi, Bill,
You said:
"So God made a bountiful earth knowing full well that it would be of no avail?
Or....He didn't know men would cause starvation? You left out drought which is from God not men and is now threatening many."
That sounds like the words of one doubting God's goodness. That is why I asked.
God knew from all eternity the evil men would do to Him in His own life on Earth, and to Him through what is done to the least of His brothers and sisters. He created the Universe in spite of that. Love makes itself vulnerable. There is going to be suffering in this life. We can endure it with Him if we choose to do so.
As for Christ in His agony in the garden, I like how St. Luke relates that an angel came to console Him. We are present at that scene at every Mass. One should ask the angel to thank Him for them.
You said:
"So God made a bountiful earth knowing full well that it would be of no avail?
Or....He didn't know men would cause starvation? You left out drought which is from God not men and is now threatening many."
That sounds like the words of one doubting God's goodness. That is why I asked.
God knew from all eternity the evil men would do to Him in His own life on Earth, and to Him through what is done to the least of His brothers and sisters. He created the Universe in spite of that. Love makes itself vulnerable. There is going to be suffering in this life. We can endure it with Him if we choose to do so.
As for Christ in His agony in the garden, I like how St. Luke relates that an angel came to console Him. We are present at that scene at every Mass. One should ask the angel to thank Him for them.
8.6.2011 | 10:11am
Judy says:
Still it is not clear that because Bill Bannon says so that God thinks less valuable certain human persons as compared to other by virtue of their comparative lack of material resources. This criteria which is man-made and not God's as the one with the power is to be feared and resisted.
Also Bill I am sorry but I do not appreciate your tone towards me ("please"). You simply do not know what I know and have experienced and indeed women do mourn that very occurrence and it has nothing to do with what prolifers as you call people so snidely may do or say.
I note that you and others have backed away from your ensoulment construct at this point.
But since we are able as a societal good to decide that animal torture ought to be discouraged and criminalized, and that individuals must sacrifice in order to offset the climate change that will plague coming generations, I see no reason why in America (because after all we do not vote in China) where resources are relatively prodigious why we cannot take the high road towards permitting life to live. When in China one may decide against all of these things, and, if permitted there by the government regime, vote accordingly. It seems that we in this society are able to form consciences somewhat differently for various reasons. How is abortion in our present context a "good" given your acknowledgment of God? There are of course atheists who conclude that ethics support that life be permitted to live.
Also Bill I am sorry but I do not appreciate your tone towards me ("please"). You simply do not know what I know and have experienced and indeed women do mourn that very occurrence and it has nothing to do with what prolifers as you call people so snidely may do or say.
I note that you and others have backed away from your ensoulment construct at this point.
But since we are able as a societal good to decide that animal torture ought to be discouraged and criminalized, and that individuals must sacrifice in order to offset the climate change that will plague coming generations, I see no reason why in America (because after all we do not vote in China) where resources are relatively prodigious why we cannot take the high road towards permitting life to live. When in China one may decide against all of these things, and, if permitted there by the government regime, vote accordingly. It seems that we in this society are able to form consciences somewhat differently for various reasons. How is abortion in our present context a "good" given your acknowledgment of God? There are of course atheists who conclude that ethics support that life be permitted to live.
8.6.2011 | 1:01pm
Judy says:
Also Bill Bannon I am not sure what to make of your assertion or idea that wherever the sacraments or liturgy of the Church are not available or being celebrated or conferred, that somehow that indicates a pronouncement that God is not present or even that God condemns life. Of course that is a very strange and novel idea that you have but it is not what the Church teaches or believes of course.
8.7.2011 | 11:41am
Judy says:
With respect to Wendy's reply. She has without explanation discontinued her argument regarding stereotype of Catholics themselves. Now she asserts that it is the one "primarily" opposed to abortion. Interestingly statistics of persons who identify as Catholic, overlayed with statistics showing a now majority of citizens in general who regard abortion as wrong, do not really add up. Further I think a careful inquiry into those she lumps as "Protestant churches" will find that there is not the agreement she wishes to portray here. Certainly among Protestant churches there is no consensus of abortion as a "good".
Still both she and Bill Bannon like to occupy their time with theological constructs (and debates that were informed by science in Augustine's time) but are unable to establish abortion as a good. In relying on theological constructs there is the presupposition of the existence of God. If we are proceeding as is their choice to debate on those terms, then the simple truth is that there is no basis for concluding that God would support arbitrarily annihilating one person as compared to another as a result of a comparison of material circumstances or further as to the current scientific technology and what it reflects as far as consciousness or memory or other notions which are still yet unscientific constructs. By the observation that one being is in a different stage of development, vulnerability, dependency, it seems absurd by this to conclude that God would support abortion by these facts alone.
If we are to discuss prominent persons who are in favor or not in favor as is apparently Wendy's favored tack in debate, then also we will have to acknowledge that many including first now Secretary of State as well as the President of the United States have stated publicly and despite lobbying threat of backlash that the occurrence of abortion ought to be rarely resorted to. This in and of itself acknowledges that abortion is an inherent evil.
Still both she and Bill Bannon like to occupy their time with theological constructs (and debates that were informed by science in Augustine's time) but are unable to establish abortion as a good. In relying on theological constructs there is the presupposition of the existence of God. If we are proceeding as is their choice to debate on those terms, then the simple truth is that there is no basis for concluding that God would support arbitrarily annihilating one person as compared to another as a result of a comparison of material circumstances or further as to the current scientific technology and what it reflects as far as consciousness or memory or other notions which are still yet unscientific constructs. By the observation that one being is in a different stage of development, vulnerability, dependency, it seems absurd by this to conclude that God would support abortion by these facts alone.
If we are to discuss prominent persons who are in favor or not in favor as is apparently Wendy's favored tack in debate, then also we will have to acknowledge that many including first now Secretary of State as well as the President of the United States have stated publicly and despite lobbying threat of backlash that the occurrence of abortion ought to be rarely resorted to. This in and of itself acknowledges that abortion is an inherent evil.
8.8.2011 | 9:43am
Judy says:
For Bill Bannon, Wendy and others, I wonder, what would be the number as to the rare, are we at that number now or should that number be decreased? Seeing as how 30 million since Roe would be a number which comprises more deaths through wars, would the same number in the same amount of years be considered, 'rare' or does the use of the word 'rare' mean, a decreased number.
The Chinese government has apparently concluded that abortion has not been overall a good and has not served societal interest collectively. From today's AP:
BEIJING (AP) — China is vowing to strengthen enforcement to prevent sex-selective abortions and close a yawning gender gap in a country that already has tens of millions more boys than girls.
The Chinese government has apparently concluded that abortion has not been overall a good and has not served societal interest collectively. From today's AP:
BEIJING (AP) — China is vowing to strengthen enforcement to prevent sex-selective abortions and close a yawning gender gap in a country that already has tens of millions more boys than girls.
8.12.2011 | 5:39pm
Trifero Tomika says:
"One can be certain that the cell mass is not a person due to what is occuring in scientific labs. ... Aquinas held that the soul permeated all parts of the body and was indivisible which could not be the case in a cell mass that was teasible into twinning." @Ben ***Wow; an evidence-free assertion followed by an accusation of deceit premised on the idea that you have some secret insight about what an opponent is thinking.***
8.17.2011 | 1:37am
Poloskey Yuonne says:
Ive been hearing about the doctor who was recently murdered for performing later term abortions, I realized for hundredth time how cleverly the self-proclaimed Pro-Life people have outwitted the Pro-Choice people when it comes to using language to advance their cause. The Chinese government has apparently concluded that abortion has not been overall a good and has not served societal interest collectively. From today's AP:
The demographic profile of these women in general was middle class with reasonable education and information on health issues. These were not poor teens or rape victims or drug addicts, that is, women in very disenfranchised and oppressive contexts.
I think one way to put pressure on this aforementioned category of privileged women, given their profound lack of concern for conception and everything it entails, is to push a button they do care about: money. Perhaps they should be made to pay a great deal of money for an abortion, perhaps do community service, things like that. The money they paid could be then used to help disenfranchised children or for public education concerning less promiscuity, porn, prostitution, etc.