Did John Kerry Lie About Abortion?

[IcePrincessKRS]

Oh, and MrsFrozen, I love you. :D I don't think you've made a single point I disagree with.

[God Conquers]

We need to use some proper terminology here. It is impossible to dispute the humanity of a conceptus, embryo or fetus. Humans have human DNA. Humans are humans are humans.

The main debate raging here seems to revolve around the definition of PERSONHOOD. Is an unborn baby a person?

I personally find it defies logic that anything that is human genetically could NOT be a person. There are no examples outside of the unborn where this is disputed. Any non-personness in a fetus has parallel examples outside of the womb which we would never agree is not a person.

If people choose to be completely illogical, that's their problem when they make it to the next life.

[littleflower+JMJ]

YUP katie! your right! that IS a baby! :wub: and those pictures prove it.

[Norseman82]

Dairygirl4u2c,

In addition to the pictures IcePrincessKRS posted, please look at Mrs. Frozen's avatar and dispute the humanity and personhood there.

[MrsFrozen]

Because with a born baby there is no dispute in my mind. If you want to think you are being denied your right to kill your born baby, in fhis philosophical context, I would agree with you. But don't expect me to back you up, because I don't think it is understandable for you to think the baby is not human.

Also to note I do think after the first trimester we should not allow abortion. It is arbitrary, but that's just the price we pay in order to value democracy and free will above life when it is reasonably disputed.

You sound like you prefer a society of anarchy. What exactly are our "philisophical rights?" Aren't you more concerned with what's morally right? Let's not become a society of heathens. I thought the barbaric era was over.

(Though on this last comment, let me just say that it is alive and well when my husband and his buddies get together to watch football. )

[MrsFrozen]

Oh, and MrsFrozen, I love you. :D I don't think you've made a single point I disagree with.

Thanks, Iceprincess! I love you, too! I love the picture of the 12 week baby you posted. There is no denying that is a human being.

God bless. :)

[MrsFrozen]

Also, Dairygirl, you might be interested in the book "A Child is Born" by Lennart Nilsson. It's a gorgeous book of photographs of the unborn baby, and tells of the developmental process. Your library may have it.

God bless. :)

[MrsFrozen]

Here's a picture of a baby at 8 weeks.

Who is the Embryo?

[IcePrincessKRS]

Here's a picture of a baby at 8 weeks.

Who is the Embryo?

Thanks so much for posting that! I was looking for a picture of a baby at about 8 weeks like that, but posted what I could find! I'd post them directly to this thread but the file extension is wrong. Grrrrr.

[PhatPhred]

Phat Phred, despite your explanation I still think you are wrong. The following is a long article, but I'm quoting the entire thing anyway. The bolded comments are what I think are particularly important to note. If you are going to maintain that position please provide some source to back you up.

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4295

Jimmy Akin is a great apologist, and I have nothing but respect for him. However, I don't see how his essay in any way contradicts what I said. He believes that ensoulment happens at conception, and provides some arguments in support of his position. As I said, this is perfectly permissible. (Just as it is permissible for those who support evolution and those who oppose evolution to argue on their respective sides.)

As far as the essay itself goes, the first two positions (ensoulment after birth and ensoulment at birth) are contrary to the magisterium. The latest that a faithful Catholic can believe ensoulment occurs is at "quickening", when the fetus starts "kicking", nominally at 116 days into the pregnancy.

I personally believe that ensoulment happens sometime around implantation. Karl Rahner, S.J., argues, based on the fact that fifty percent of all fertilized ova never succeed in becoming attached to the womb, that one consequence of the "ensoulment at conception" position is that 50 percent of all human beings -- that is, real human beings with immortal souls and an eternal destiny -- will never get beyond this first stage of human existence. I can't believe in a God that would design the human body to "naturally abort" so many ensouled human beings that it puts the U.S. abortion clinics to shame.

[MrsFrozen]

Thanks so much for posting that! I was looking for a picture of a baby at about 8 weeks like that, but posted what I could find! I'd post them directly to this thread but the file extension is wrong. Grrrrr.

You're welcome! It took some digging to find that one.

God bless. :)

[Dave]

Jimmy Akin is a great apologist, and I have nothing but respect for him. However, I don't see how his essay in any way contradicts what I said. He believes that ensoulment happens at conception, and provides some arguments in support of his position. As I said, this is perfectly permissible. (Just as it is permissible for those who support evolution and those who oppose evolution to argue on their respective sides.)

As far as the essay itself goes, the first two positions (ensoulment after birth and ensoulment at birth) are contrary to the magisterium. The latest that a faithful Catholic can believe ensoulment occurs is at "quickening", when the fetus starts "kicking", nominally at 116 days into the pregnancy.

I personally believe that ensoulment happens sometime around implantation. Karl Rahner, S.J., argues, based on the fact that fifty percent of all fertilized ova never succeed in becoming attached to the womb, that one consequence of the "ensoulment at conception" position is that 50 percent of all human beings -- that is, real human beings with immortal souls and an eternal destiny -- will never get beyond this first stage of human existence. I can't believe in a God that would design the human body to "naturally abort" so many ensouled human beings that it puts the U.S. abortion clinics to shame.

Actually, PhatPhred, maybe only those fertilized eggs that were meant to be implanted were infused with a soul at conception, while those that were not meant to be implanted were never given one. But who knows?

[PhatPhred]

Actually, PhatPhred, maybe only those fertilized eggs that were meant to be implanted were infused with a soul at conception, while those that were not meant to be implanted were never given one.

Could be. This would imply that the soul could be detected physically, and thus perhaps proved scientifically. Edited to add: This is assuming that it is the presence of the soul that causes implantation to occur or not. Another possibility is that God uses His omniscience to only implant souls in those fertilized eggs that will end up being implanted.

But who knows?

This is my point exactly. The only thing I'm sure of is that God is just and merciful, whatever the answer.

Edited February 29, 2004 by PhatPhred

[Aloysius]

okay, i'll admit that.

however, it IS a sin to destroy a fertilized egg, regardless of when you think ensoulment happens when it's there in the womb it's God's beloved,,, if it's meant to exist God knew it before it was created, and He knows it before He gives it its soul. Once the egg and the sperm meet, there is no tampering with them, it's a deeper and more physical level of "what God has joined together, let no man break apart"

if there's something there preparing for God to breath into it an immortal human soul, humans have no right to demolish it. it's destruction of life, life which you do not know if God intended to be human or not, and thus you cannot destroy it.

[PhatPhred]

however, it IS a sin to destroy a fertilized egg, regardless of when you think ensoulment happens when it's there in the womb it's God's beloved,,, if it's meant to exist God knew it before it was created, and He knows it before He gives it its soul.  Once the egg and the sperm meet, there is no tampering with them, it's a deeper and more physical level of "what God has joined together, let no man break apart" 

if there's something there preparing for God to breath into it an immortal human soul, humans have no right to demolish it.  it's destruction of life, life which you do not know if God intended to be human or not, and thus you cannot destroy it.

Agreed. Definitely.

[cmotherofpirl]

Jimmy Akin is a great apologist, and I have nothing but respect for him. However, I don't see how his essay in any way contradicts what I said. He believes that ensoulment happens at conception, and provides some arguments in support of his position. As I said, this is perfectly permissible. (Just as it is permissible for those who support evolution and those who oppose evolution to argue on their respective sides.)

As far as the essay itself goes, the first two positions (ensoulment after birth and ensoulment at birth) are contrary to the magisterium. The latest that a faithful Catholic can believe ensoulment occurs is at "quickening", when the fetus starts "kicking", nominally at 116 days into the pregnancy.

I personally believe that ensoulment happens sometime around implantation. Karl Rahner, S.J., argues, based on the fact that fifty percent of all fertilized ova never succeed in becoming attached to the womb, that one consequence of the "ensoulment at conception" position is that 50 percent of all human beings -- that is, real human beings with immortal souls and an eternal destiny -- will never get beyond this first stage of human existence. I can't believe in a God that would design the human body to "naturally abort" so many ensouled human beings that it puts the U.S. abortion clinics to shame.

I always though the ensoulment at kicking is a silly argument. Babies are kicking long before you feel them. Some moms who are really heavy don't feel the kicking for the longest time. I know one (who was a paramedic, go figure) who didn't realize she was pregnant til she went into labor.

Catholics have always considered the pill is an abortificant becauase it stops the implantation of a fertilized egg. Jimmy's theory would find that permissible.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Thats exactly what I was going to say Cmom!

[PhatPhred]

Catholics have always considered the pill is an abortificant becauase it stops the implantation of a fertilized egg. Jimmy's theory would find that permissible.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you meant to say that my theory would find that permissible, as Jimmy's theory is that ensoulment happens at conception.

However, this is an incorrect deduction, as Aloysius points out. An unensouled fetus is still a vessel being prepared by God for the reception of an enternal soul, and is thus a human being with the full rights of a person.

Your statement that my theory would make abortificants permissible is not logical. It's as if I pointed out that committing adultery was a betrayal of one's spouse, with you then concluding that I think fornication is acceptable because no spouse is being betrayed.

[God Conquers]

The medievals argued about when ensoulment took place because they knew next to nothing (compared to us) about biology. Why would God allow a human to exist without a soul? He wouldn't because our soul is what defines our humanity.

Our soul is also bound indivisibly to our flesh. They are one and indivisible. It only makes sense that ensoulment would take place at conception, because this is when we come into being. God must act at that point, to create who we are.

Arguing that ensoulment takes place later on, but that what precedes ensoulment is human is ridiculous. An unensouled human would the worth and dignity which is present in us only because of the soul.

We are made in the image and likeness of God. It is our free choice and intellect which define this, and these faculties are linked with the soul. No human is created who is NOT in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, at our biological creation (conception) we MUST be endowed with a soul in order for us to be human, children of God.

[Aloysius]

i think PhatPhred has an acceptable view. as long as he believes that to destroy a fertilized egg is murder by nature of the fact that that was being prepared to receive a soul. i think we don't quite know when ensoulment happens, but we do know that from the point of conception human dignity must be appointed it because either it already has a soul or it is being prepared for a soul.