Abortion Issue Hits The work Scene

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 11 2005, 12:19 PM']Telling isn't it...that you have given an answer five times and you can't get your point across....

Perhaps you need to revise you answer.  Or give a correct one.
[right][snapback]609277[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



It is unfortunate if some individual's belief systems don't even allow the accepatance of the Catholic definition of personhood.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 11 2005, 06:47 PM']It is unfortunate if some individual's belief systems don't even allow the accepatance of the Catholic definition of personhood.
[right][snapback]609431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote]The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. (CCC 364)[/quote]

Obliged to regard his body as good. No good can come from evil. In Vitro fertilization is not a good. Neither is any artificial means of conception or contraception. There is no justification of your position.

[quote]Human life, should be afforded ascending degrees of protection based upon it's status. A sperm or ova should not be needlessly destroyed, a fertilized zygote whether by IVF or natural should be afforded even higher protection, and an ensouled embryo even more. Last would be the infant.[/quote]

Your position is not at all consistent. What is your point? How is there a varying degree of ensoulment?

You ask:
[quote]The challenge stands: what is the definition of a person?[/quote]

The answer is above. Also, your understanding of Aquinas is very limited indeed. You have no concept of what Aquinas is getting at when he talks about the various souls and ensoulment. Perhaps it is you who need to study.

Your assumotion that ensoulment is brought about through biological nature is flawed. It is neither brought about by semen nor ova. This attempt at rationalization is strongly lacking.

Perhaps you should read [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html"]Humanae Vitae[/url] and [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html"]Evangelium Vitae[/url].

Oh, you can dispense with the party line and true believer remarks, I will simply assume them. However, I am a true believer. I accept what the Church teaches, not simply because the Church says so, but also because right reason and right thinking allow for nothing else.

[Keharitomeni Theotokos]

[quote name='KobeScott8' date='May 23 2005, 06:09 PM']Okay here is the deal

I just started working at a Pizza place about a month ago. Me and my best friend, who also works there are outsiders, at least when it comes to morals. Usually religion doesn't come up much in the conversations we have at work. Sometimes they have questions about religion so I answer them, and everything seemed to be cool. I mean they don't believe what I believe, but at least they respect what I believe, you know that sort of thing. Well last night my friend wasn't working and somehow the abortion issue came up, and it became a 9 against one war.I stood my ground, but after a while I couldn't even get a word in. I know this is kinda about nothing but I guess I just need to vent off anger you know??? But any advice could be useful.
[right][snapback]596888[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Keharitomeni Theotokos' date='Jun 11 2005, 09:04 PM']
[right][snapback]609493[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ummmmmmmm?????? Did you have a thought?

[Keharitomeni Theotokos]

If it is any conciliation, I have been in your situation before. When I was in college, I attempted to defend Life in one of my classes. The class and teacher were against me.
Scary isn’t it?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Keharitomeni Theotokos' date='Jun 11 2005, 09:10 PM']If it is any conciliation, I have been in your situation before.  When I was in college, I attempted to defend Life in one of my classes.  The class and teacher were against me. 
Scary isn’t it?
[right][snapback]609499[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, but not unheard of.....try going to a Catholic college and being ridiculed for being pro-life.....that is not fun...but that is what I was confronted with at my alma mater's sister school....not good.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 11 2005, 07:26 PM']Obliged to regard his body as good.  No good can come from evil.  In Vitro fertilization is not a good.  Neither is any artificial means of conception or contraception.  There is no justification of your position.
Your position is not at all consistent.  What is your point?  How is there a varying degree of ensoulment?

You ask:
The answer is above.  Also, your understanding of Aquinas is very limited indeed.  You have no concept of what Aquinas is getting at when he talks about the various souls and ensoulment.  Perhaps it is you who need to study.

Your assumotion that ensoulment is brought about through biological nature is flawed.  It is neither brought about by semen nor ova.  This attempt at rationalization is strongly lacking.

Perhaps you should read [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html"]Humanae Vitae[/url] and [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html"]Evangelium Vitae[/url].

Oh, you can dispense with the party line and true believer remarks, I will simply assume them.  However, I am a true believer.  I accept what the Church teaches, not simply because the Church says so, but also because right reason and right thinking allow for nothing else.
[right][snapback]609451[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The above is a bit of a ramble. But to restate my position, the presence of a complete genome in a human cell (be that a zygote or a somatic cell) does not establish that a person (or ensouled human being ) as yet exists.

If the life principle is defined as the presence of a soul, a material soul is present initially. When the body is ready to receive it, an immortal souls is infused by God.

But one of the conditions for personhood is individualization. One cannot have a person when an individual does not yet exist.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 12 2005, 06:58 AM']The above is a bit of a ramble. But to restate my position, the presence of a complete genome in a human cell (be that a zygote or a somatic cell) does not establish that a person  (or ensouled human being ) as yet exists.

If the life principle is defined as the presence of a soul, a material soul is present initially. When the body is ready to receive it, an immortal souls is infused by God.

But one of the conditions for personhood is individualization. One cannot have a person when an individual does not yet exist.
[right][snapback]609611[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Church teaches that life begins at conception....all your talk about zygotes and somatic cells is nice and scientific, but it is pointless. Science is a means to understand why and how God creates. Not to prove when.

[quote]Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence." (CCC 2274)[/quote]

and

[url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/donumvitae.htm"]Donum Vitae[/url].

[QUOTE]"From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence...modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the program is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time...to find its place and to be in a position to act." (DV 1)

[i]Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, nos. 12-13: AAS 66 (1974), 738.[/i]

So LittleLes, again, go back and read what the Church teaches. She is not wrong......

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 12 2005, 08:30 AM']
The Church teaches that life begins at conception....all your talk about zygotes and somatic cells is nice and scientific, but it is pointless. Science is a means to understand why and how God creates. Not to prove when.


Response:

Of course life begins at conception. That's not the issue. When that evolving cellular life becomes a person (or is ensouled) is the question we are considering.

If you have any evidence that the Church currently teaches that ensoulment (with an immaterial, immortal soul) occurs at the "moment" of conception, please present it.

I think you will find that the Church may have in the past, but currently doesn't make such a claim.

[Cam42]

[quote]The Church teaches that life begins at conception....all your talk about zygotes and somatic cells is nice and scientific, but it is pointless.  Science is a means to understand why and how God creates.  Not to prove when.
Response:

Of course life begins at conception. That's not the issue. When that evolving cellular life becomes a person  (or is ensouled) is the question we are considering.

If you have any evidence that the Church  currently teaches that ensoulment (with an immaterial, immortal soul) occurs at the "moment" of conception, please present it.

I think you will find that the Church may have in the past, but currently doesn't  make such a claim.
[right][snapback]609649[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Church's position has not changed. Regardless of what you might think. I am sorry that your belief system doesn't allow you to see that.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 12 2005, 11:21 AM']The Church's position has not changed.  Regardless of what you might think.  I am sorry that your belief system doesn't allow you to see that.
[right][snapback]609667[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response:

Surely you gest!

First established by Aristotle and then carried forward into Catholic scholastic philosophy by Aquinas was the theory that a male received his soul on forty days following conception and woman eighty days following conception.

It was only at the end of the 19th century that the change to a "simultaneous animation" teaching took hold.

Until this time, canon law distinguished between the "fetus inanimatus" and the "fetus animatus." The distinction was dropped by Pope Pius IX in 1869.

But now this is being rethought once again. As Rahner puts it:

"It cannot be inferred from the Church's dogmatic definitions that it would be contrary to faith to assume that the leap to spirit-person happens only during the course of the embryo's development. No theologian would claim the ability to prove that inturrupting pregnancy is in every case the murder of a human being"

So once again I ask that you supply a reference for your assertion that the Church currently teaches that ensoulment (with an immortal soul) occurs at the "moment of conceptiom."

Since you have thus far failed to do so, I think we can infer that you know of no such teaching. []

[Aloysius]

FETUS INANIMATUS is a PLANT in a woman's uturus!!!! at least according to Aristotle and Aquinas. Now that we know there is never a plant in a woman's uturus that will eventually become an animal and then a human, we can drop the distinction.

you seem to have the memory-span of a goldfish. we've been through this before.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 12 2005, 12:00 PM']Response:

Surely you gest! 

First established by Aristotle and then carried forward into Catholic scholastic philosophy  by Aquinas was the theory that a male received his soul on forty days following conception and woman eighty days following conception.  

It was only at the end of the 19th century that the change to a "simultaneous animation" teaching took hold.

Until this time, canon law distinguished between the "fetus inanimatus" and the "fetus animatus." The distinction was dropped by Pope  Pius IX in 1869.

But now this is being rethought once again. As Rahner puts it:

"It cannot be inferred from the Church's dogmatic definitions that it would be contrary to faith to assume that the leap to spirit-person happens only during the course of the embryo's development. No theologian would claim the ability to prove that inturrupting pregnancy is in every case the murder of a human being"

So once again I ask that you supply a reference for your assertion that the Church currently teaches that ensoulment (with an immortal soul) occurs at the "moment of conceptiom."

Since you have thus far failed to do so, I think we can infer that you know of no such teaching. []
[right][snapback]609702[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Aristotle was Catholic?????? WOW!!!!!!

And Rahner has been silenced.....I don't hear him.

As far as proof is concerned....I would ask you to refer to [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html"]Evangelium Vitae[/url] again. What you are looking for is in there.....do you expect me to do your work for you? I think not.

This is made clear.

[quote]"The first right of the human person is his life . . . It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others; all discrimination is evil. . . Any discrimination based on the various stages of life is no more justified any other discrimination. . . . [b]In reality, respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth."[/b]  (Declaration on Procured Abortion, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1974), paragraphs 11-12.)[/quote]

As far as the distinction that you make about Pius IX. That is merely a legal distinction. There is not a moral nor is there a faithful distinction made. The reasoning behind the idea of "delayed ensoulment" is clearly made in order to distinguish between the legal penalties of early and late abortion. But all abortion was still considered a grave evil.

[Aloysius]

Aquinas was Catholic... and Aristotle was considered to be someone who would have been Catholic if given the oppurtunitry... I forget what the medievals called those people...

anyway, that's beside the point. they both taught that ensoulment came as soon as the entity turned human. they both believed that the entity started out as a PLANT, turned into an ANIMAL, and then became human. eliminate their erroneous scientific beliefs and hold on to the philosophy that drove it, as soon as the entity is human it is ensouled... well, we see a newly formed very individual 46 chromosome entity with all the genetic data to be a completely distinct and individual human being... it is in human form and thus ensouled.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 12 2005, 12:09 PM']FETUS INANIMATUS is a PLANT in a woman's uturus!!!! at least according to Aristotle and Aquinas.  Now that we know there is never a plant in a woman's uturus that will eventually become an animal and then a human, we can drop the distinction.

you seem to have the memory-span of a goldfish.  we've been through this before.
[right][snapback]609709[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes indeed. According to Aristotlian biology which became Church teaching via scholastic philosophy, following conception, the plant soul was followed by the animal soul, and finally the rational soul (at 40 days for the male, and 80 days for the female).

This teaching was contained in canon law up though Pius IX's 1869 change which deleted the terms fetus inanimatus and fetus animatus.

Thus CAMS' claim that the Church "always taught" that there was an immortal soul present from the moment of conception is pure nonsense.

Thank you for adding your comment to the argument.

Most now recognize that there is only an animal soul present at "the moment of conception." But the question is when is an immaterial, immortal, rational soul added. Obviously ,later. []