Did John Kerry Lie About Abortion?

[PhatPhred]

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.

Exactly my view.

The medievals argued about when ensoulment took place because they knew next to nothing (compared to us) about biology.

Just as we know next to nothing compared to what science five hundred years from now will discover. The Church respects the teachings of Pope Innocent III, the Ecumenical Council of Vienne, and Pope Gregory XIV not because medieval science was accurate, but because they were guided by the Holy Spirit who knows all there is to know about biology and ensoulment.

Why would God allow a human to exist without a soul?

Why would the Holy Spirit allow the above Popes to promulgate laws (which the Church then faithfully observed) pertaining to the abortion of unensouled fetuses if in fact there were no such thing?

You can make all sorts of arguments for and against many different positions. Each Catholic has to determine for himself or herself which to believe.

[God Conquers]

Although I respect your right to your own opinion, I believe that your opinion is a dangerous one.

There are no humans who do not have souls. If you don't have a soul, you're not human, ergo, you can't argue that it has dignity as being in the image and likeness of God.

If you have a "thing" (not human, no soul) being "prepared" for ensoulment, that thing is not protected in the plan of Salvation. It doesn't have a soul, so why would it matter if it was killed or not?Why would we need to be "prepared" for a soul? It just doesn't make sense.

What happens if this being being prepared to recieve a soul dies before the point of "ensoulment"? It can't go to heaven or hell... it has no soul, and therefore no eternal life whatsoever. Its just another animal.

Souls are what make us human. No soul, no humanity, no eternal life, no dignity deserved of an eternal being.

Your view allows for oral contraceptive and birth control, and also possibly for early term abortion.

[PhatPhred]

Your view allows for oral contraceptive and birth control, and also possibly for early term abortion.

This is where I disagree. The Church is very clear that these are quite sinful, just as fornication is quite sinful even though there is no spouse being betrayed. (This last is a reference back to the analogy in my post at Feb 29 2004, 01:48 PM.)

I view the issue of ensoulment as similar to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's kind of interesting, and it would be nice if the Church had a definite teaching on the matter, but the most important thing is that the Church does have definite teachings as regards all the real-world consequences, e.g., the gravely sinful early-term abortion that you mention above. We will find out where all the fertilized ova that don't implant end up when we get to heaven.

[ironmonk]

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.

Wrong. A faithful Catholic believes that ensoulment happens at conception. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

I personally believe that ensoulment happens sometime around implantation.

That would be a false belief. What reason causes for this belief? Is it to calm a conscience that has used the death "pill"? I cannot think of any theological reaons. Please enlighten me.

The Church teaches that ensoulment begins at conception.

Christ was with Mary at conception.... St. Luke 1.

If you do favor some form of birth control, you might like to know that the Church teaches that it is intrinsically evil.

2370

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

--------------------

2273

The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274

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

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safeguarding 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."82

2275

"One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

-----------------------

A faithful Catholic must and will believe that life/ensoulment begins at conception.

There is no theological or scientific reason to believe otherwise.

For Christ,

ironmonk

[PhatPhred]

Wrong. A faithful Catholic believes that ensoulment happens at conception. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

It's good to know that Pope Gregory XIV wasn't a faithful Catholic then. Maybe you can have Catholic Culture add him to their "unapproved" list. Seeing how that list already includes several members of the Church's magisterium, they shouldn't have a problem with adding one more.

That would be a false belief. What reason causes for this belief? Is it to calm a conscience that has used the death "pill"? I cannot think of any theological reaons. Please enlighten me.

As I've already stated, I find Karl Rahner's argument the most convincing.

The Church teaches that ensoulment begins at conception.

You might want to read canon law number 227 over again. The Church has never repudiated its teachings from the middle ages.

If you do favor some form of birth control, you might like to know that the Church teaches that it is intrinsically evil.

At least we are agreed on one thing.

[ironmonk]

The Catechism I posted shows that you are wrong.

You might want to read 227 again.

-ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

It's good to know that Pope Gregory XIV wasn't a faithful Catholic then. Maybe you can have Catholic Culture add him to their "unapproved" list. Seeing how that list already includes several members of the Church's magisterium, they shouldn't have a problem with adding one more.

As I've already stated, I find Karl Rahner's argument the most convincing.

You might want to read canon law number 227 over again. The Church has never repudiated its teachings from the middle ages.

At least we are agreed on one thing.

Yep.

Catholic Culture is a great site , isn't it.

[God Conquers]

PhatPhred,

We're not saying Pope Gregory is wrong. What we're saying is that the Church's teachings have bee ELABORATED since he was pope in 1591.

There was no abortion, there was no oral contraceptive or birth control pill or widespread belief that babies are not worth protecting in the 16th century.

What makes someone human is their soul.

There are no humans without souls.

Because of their souls, humans have intrinsic dignity as the Image and Likeness of God.

If something doesn't have a soul, it is not human.

If the embryo has no soul it is not human.

If the embryo has no soul it is not made in the image and likeness of God.

Therefore the embryo does not deserve to be protected.

Times change, the Church elaborates and develops its doctrine in order to defend life and encourage salvation.

No teachings from the middle ages have been repudiated, but some of the teachings have been developed further, with deeper understanding of how God works through nature and revelation.

If our bodies are a reflection of our soul, the sould must exist at the time of conception.

If our bodies are inextricably linked to the soul, this is also the case.

Again, to believe that ensoulment takes place at some "point" after conception is playing right into the hands of the Culture of Death. It takes value away from the human person at the departure point of their life.

[PhatPhred]

The Catechism I posted shows that you are wrong.

What the Catechism said (your highlighted part):

Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.

...

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.

What I said:

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.

They look pretty consistent to me.

[PhatPhred]

We're not saying Pope Gregory is wrong.

Thus as long as I'm saying the same thing as Pope Gregory, then I cannot be wrong either. Yet you seem to be saying that I am wrong. What am I missing?

What makes someone human is their soul.

There are no humans without souls.

Because of their souls, humans have intrinsic dignity as the Image and Likeness of God.

If something doesn't have a soul, it is not human.

If the embryo has no soul it is not human.

If the embryo has no soul it is not made in the image and likeness of God.

This is a perfectly reasonable logical progression, and as I have said it is consistent with the magisterium. However, it is not, in and of itself, a teaching of the magisterium. (Unless you are secretly a Bishop.)

[PhatPhred]

Again, to believe that ensoulment takes place at some "point" after conception is playing right into the hands of the Culture of Death. It takes value away from the human person at the departure point of their life.

My position is that believing that ensoulment takes place at conception plays right into the hands of the Culture of Death. Why should anybody be concerned about the measly 1,300,000 babies killed by medical doctors each year when God is the biggest abortionist of them all?

[frozencell]

What has this man NOT lied about???!!!

That's all I have to say.

Offensive mudslinging is the first sign of guilt.

[frozencell]

My position is that believing that ensoulment takes place at conception plays right into the hands of the Culture of Death. Why should anybody be concerned about the measly 1,300,000 babies killed by medical doctors each year when God is the biggest abortionist of them all?

What are you talking about? I'm not sure if I'm egotistical enough to call the Creator an abortionist. That's pretty bold, and I hope that I'm misunderstanding.

[PhatPhred]

What are you talking about? I'm not sure if I'm egotistical enough to call the Creator an abortionist. That's pretty bold, and I hope that I'm misunderstanding.

I'm referring to my earlier post:

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.

[frozencell]

I see. God is the giver (and withholder) of life. He reserves that right especially for Himself, not man, because He sees the whole picture and knows what is best and what to do according to His will. God obviously did not intend that baby to be there at that particular time and is acting in the best interest of Himself and man alike, whether we know it or not. I'm sure a lot of these "natural abortions" take place in the bodies of women who are not married yet are sexually active. This is the wrong context for a baby to be conceived in the first place. All I know is that ugly things start happening when man starts taking things he shouldn't into his own hands. And, besides, I don't think God is pulling them out limb from limb with cold metal forceps either.

[God Conquers]

MY GOD!!!

By your reasoning it's OK TO ABORT EARLY TERM!!!!

There is no reason to protect an unensouled being inside the woman, it's theologically untenable!

God chooses to return to Him WHOEVER HE LIKES AT ANY POINT IN THEIR LIVES! He is not an abortionist!

Everyone dies.

Gregory was correct. YOU are wrong.

The doctrine of the Church is developed now. It was an acceptable belief then, it is not one now.

[PhatPhred]

By your reasoning it's OK TO ABORT EARLY TERM!!!!

I've already explained twice now why this is not so.

There is no reason to protect an unensouled being inside the woman, it's theologically untenable!

Pope John Paul II thinks otherwise. If you won't listen to me, maybe you will listen to him.

... Among the Latin authors, Tertullian affirms: "It is anticipated murder to prevent someone from being born; it makes little difference whether one kills a soul already born or puts it to death at birth. He who will one day be a man is a man already".

Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors. Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.

...

... Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?".

Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life".

God chooses to return to Him WHOEVER HE LIKES AT ANY POINT IN THEIR LIVES! He is not an abortionist!

It is unthinkable that God is an abortionist. Nor does he capriciously kill human souls. This is why I believe that ensoulment happens after conception.

Gregory was correct. YOU are wrong.

The statements "ensoulment happens at conception" and "ensoulment happens after conception" have a truth-value that is independent of who is making the particular statement. This is basic logic.

The doctrine of the Church is developed now. It was an acceptable belief then, it is not one now.

This (acceptable belief -> not) is not development of doctrine, this is repudiation of doctrine. Which would be acceptable, as the middle age statements were not infallible. But it hasn't happened yet.

[Jake Huether]

Sorry PhatPhred, But if you don't accept that "ensoulment" happens upon conception, then you are gravely mistaken. A human is a human preciesly because it has a soul. If it has not an imortal soul, then it is nothing more than an animal. And the Church would not make such a stink about the killing of an animal.

A famous talkshow host on a news radio station once made the ignorant claim that ensoulment happend when the baby took it's first breath outside the womb (when the doctor spanked it).

If the soul isn't a part of the miracle of life at conception, then there is no difinitive evidence of a point in time when one "gets" a soul. And for all we no, there might be adults running around without souls (which seems the case, nonetheless, at times).

Furthermore, should we believe that a newborn baby doesn't yet have a soul, even if 90% of babies die after the first hour of birth? God giveth and he can taketh, at his will.

Death is a result of sin. If death did not exist, even natural abortions wouldn't occur. And so it is illogical to connect this with God's desire. He has warned us about contraception, about premarital sex. Yet we continue in this devistation. Our sins effect even the unborn.

Edited March 1, 2004 by Jake Huether

[Aloysius]

i've tried to explain PhatPhred's position, and he's said i'm right. simple:

God knows when he ensouls a baby. God does not allow an egg to be fertilized and then naturally not grow into a baby. the only thing that is ensouled is that which, if unaltered by man, WILL grow into a baby. Abortificient contraception is altering it by man, abortion is altering by man. MAN IS NOT ALLOWED TO INTERFERE 1nce THE EGG HAS BEEN FERTILIZED, regardless of whether it has a soul at that point or is preparing to have a soul

honestly, you both agree you must protect these fertilized eggs. if PhatPhred wants to say they're being prepared for a soul and you wanna say they already have a soul and i wanna say only God knows when they have a soul, it doesn't matter. it's still a man because it's going to have a soul. PhatPhred's point about the fertilized eggs that naturally don't grow into a full size baby makes a lot of sense, and therefore my position is God ensouls those who He is going to see to the developement of, if an egg is fertilized God only ensouls it if it is meant to produce a child. man cannot interfere with this, if it is going to grow into a child without our intervention it's meant to be a child, and thus we cannot abort or contracept or use the morning after pill or anything of the like under both positions.

[foundsheep]

A famous talkshow host on a news radio station once made the ignorant claim that ensoulment happend when the baby took it's first breath outside the womb (when the doctor spanked it).

Going along with this. My wife is about four months pregnant, That baby punching and kicking definately has a soul. That baby that caused her to have morning sickness when she was just a month pregnant has a soul.