Did John Kerry Lie About Abortion?

[Aloysius]

i think ensoulment happens at conception only for those fertilized eggs that will not naturally, unopposed by human intervention, be destroyed. because if those were ensouled too, PhatPhred's ludicrus statement to make a point would be right, God would be an abortionist.

[Jake Huether]

God does not allow an egg to be fertilized and then naturally not grow into a baby. 

Why not? He allows new borns to die. Why limit this to babies..? Lets apply this logic to adults. What is the goal of life? If it is to make it to adulthood, then one could argue that even newborns who die do not have souls. Why would God allow that? Is the goal to make it "at least" to babyhood? NO!. But in reality, the purpose of our lives is to please God. And yet, in original sin, even a newborn is not a child of God.

If God reserves a soul for only the "fertilized eggs" that make it? What is the definition of "make it". Because technically, a newborn is a "fertilized egg". So, if a newborn doesn't "make it" did it have a soul? If you want percentages, lets look at each trimester. And then we can agrue about at which minimum "rate of success" God might choose in order for it to be "safe" to give the "fertilized egg" a soul.

This is rediculous. Sorry. The Church would not accept this.

the only thing that is ensouled is that which, if unaltered by man, WILL grow into a baby. 

And what is a "baby"? When is the difinitive time when the "fertilized egg" WILL grow into a baby? Otherwise, don't you think it unfair that even after birth some babies don't "make it"? Or do they not have souls either.

Am I missing something here.?

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

So, then abortion isn't wrong because it's murder. It's wrong because it is stoping a "potential human".

Think again.

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. 

Whow! Stop, right there. Are we to believe, then that an egg and a sperm do not "produce a child". A child is only produced if the fertilized egg makes it past a certain time? This is crazy! A spirm and an egg, when the come together, create a human baby. God created the biological sequences which happen. It has always been the case that the formula for a human sould is conception. It is mans participation with Gods plan for pro-creation.

and thus we cannot abort or contracept or use the morning after pill or anything of the like under both positions.

Yet, the one possition means the end to the life of a cluster of cells, while the other means the casting of an eternal soul to it's judgement.

I can't imagine that the Church would hold such an avid stance against abortion if it was simply the destruction of a "potential" human. The whole point of the Church's fight is that it is a HUMAN SOUL!

I am very sorry for even reading this thread. I am saddened by the fact that there are those who would deny that a newly concieved baby is really a human baby (body soul and spirit).

Lord, by your mercy, accept on my behalf the baptism of all unborn babies, newly concieved, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Edited March 1, 2004 by Jake Huether

[Jake Huether]

i think ensoulment happens at conception only for those fertilized eggs that will not naturally, unopposed by human intervention, be destroyed.  because if those were ensouled too, PhatPhred's ludicrus statement to make a point would be right, God would be an abortionist.

This statement is ludicrus.

By that logic, then even your ideal is flawed. Is God a murderer and sadist because he allows babies to be born and die within a few years? Or to be born with severe handicaps? NO! Death and disease came into the world by US not by God!

If a newly concieved baby dies even before implantation, its imortal soul has a destination (read the catechism - under baptism). God didn't abort the baby any more than he murders children (and adults who get cancer ect.). Death is a fact of life, not by the desire of God, but by the will of humanity - specifically Adam and Eve.

The fact that conception icludes ensoulment doesn't in the very least convict God of abortion when this baby naturally dies. Most people, pre- or post-birth naturally die sometime? It's silly to pin natural death on God.

Abortion isn't even a word. Lets stop using it, because it has a conotation that distinguishes an unborn human from a born human. It's either murder, or natural death. Both of which happen to adults also.

Abortion could be applied to, say, the stopping of sperm from meeting the egg. Because it "aborts" a process which hasn't yet been fulfilled. But conception is the fulfillment of that process. Human life has begun. There is no "aborting" it. It's already complete! Humans don't develope any more in there humanity. They are a complete human. Yes, an unborn baby developes physically, in the body. And adult humans continually develope in spirit - or degenerate. But there is no such thing as the "developement" of humanity of a human. A human is a human. Once the sperm has fertilized the egg, a human is present. It isn't abortion. It is murder. It isn't "naturla abortion". It is natural death.

Forget about the womb. There is nothing different about development once conception occurs. We are all nurtured. We all grow. We all change in appearance. We all shed and grow new cells. We all have a free will. We can be murdered. We can die naturally. From conception on.

God is just no matter what. It is not his "wish" that a newly concieved baby die (naturally or not) any more than it is his "wish" that a newly born baby dies or an adult for that matter. All death is attributed to US. Although God allows it, he does not like it.

Edited March 1, 2004 by Jake Huether

[PhatPhred]

Sorry PhatPhred, But if you don't accept that "ensoulment" happens upon conception, then you are gravely mistaken.

I could very well be mistaken. But the point that I have been tediously trying to make is that I am not outside the bounds of what a faithful Catholic is permitted to believe by the Church's magisterium.

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. 

This is in direct contradiction to the excerpts that I took from Evangelium Vitae, where Pope John Paul II explicitly states (and I paraphrase) that abortion is a very big stink regardless of when ensoulment occurs.

God giveth and he can taketh, at his will.

The flaw with reasoning behind this statement is that it ignores the difference between misfeasance and malfeasance. Just because an action (even by God) does not constitute malfeasance does not necessarily imply that it does not constitute misfeasance.

[PhatPhred]

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

I agree with everything that you've said. The idea about conditional ensoulment is very interesting. I don't see anything theologically wrong with it at all.

[Jake Huether]

Can you please respond to my last post?

Does the soul necessarily have to be given in the womb? Or have you reservations about this also, because God lets infants and adults die naturally too?

[Jake Huether]

I agree with everything that you've said. The idea about conditional ensoulment is very interesting. I don't see anything theologically wrong with it at all.

What about what I pointed out. If conditional ensoulment is "okay" theologically". Then wat is this "condition". Because both "fertilized eggs" and adult humans die naturally and unnaturally at times.

[Aloysius]

i'm dumb. whatever.

i was considering it murder. i was somehow thinking that His providence did not intend human life if it never begins to develope.

please don't freak out so much. neither me or PhatPhred were denying that it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg. there was just some confusion over when ensoulement takes place, but regardless

He who will one day be a man is a man already".

Evangelium Vitae seems to have the right point

... 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".

PhatPhred quoted it earlier... maybe it was overlooked due to me jumbling up everything.

the following statement seems to make PhatPhred's view acceptable

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.

he was never challenging the moral condemnation of abortion.

the point is, we don't know when the soul is given to the human, we do know it is wrong to destroy it if it has begun the process of developement.

honestly ppl, all of us are giving human dignity to the fertilized egg, i don't see why you're so adament against PhatPhred here. :wacko:

[PhatPhred]

He allows new borns to die.

There is a huge difference between God allowing a newborn baby to die because of the sins of others (who have abused the free will that God has given to them) versus God Himself abusing His power of life and death to terminate ensouled embryos at whim. The latter is simply not possible because God is good, not evil.

[PhatPhred]

Does the soul necessarily have to be given in the womb?

I already addressed this in my post on Feb 28 2004, 06:29 PM.

[Jake Huether]

There is a huge difference between God allowing a newborn baby to die because of the sins of others (who have abused the free will that God has given to them) versus God Himself abusing His power of life and death to terminate ensouled embryos at whim. The latter is simply not possible because God is good, not evil.

I don't see how that makes sense. Because it is the sins of others that causes the embryos to die also!. Niether is an abuse of God's power. It was the abuse of mans power.

What is the difference between a newborn baby and an "embryo"? Please don't say, "the womb". There is no difference.

According to that quote, then, a baby isn't "man" yet either. So, why is it not plausible according to your analysis that a new born or even a young child might not have a soul either.

The quite is missinterpreted. He's saying that even at conception it is a human, becasue the intent of conception is to create a "man".

But "man" isn't used to define a certain time that the "embryo" must reach in order for it to be completed as a human?

Doesn't anyone else see the folly in this?

There is no difference between a grown man and a newly concieved baby! We are nourished. We grow physically and spiritually. We have free will. We can be murdered and we can die naturally. No one has answered this point. Why are we making a "conditional" for a new embryo, when it lives and dies just like a grown up might. Yet no one contests the soul of a born baby? Why is God "bad" if we assume that He allows natural death in the womb, as apposed to natural death outside the womb. At conception we are given to original sin.

Which brings this point to the fact that Mary was immaculatly CONCIEVED. It is a doctrine. Why immaculate? Because her SOUL was without sin. Oh, but she was destined to become a "woman" so conditionally speaking, she was given a soul at conception. But the POINT was that original sin enters at conception - wich necessitates a soul at conception!

Then defend the point that a newly born baby destined to die a natural death has a soul? Why? Is God mean because He allows this? Certainly NOT! Same with the embryo. It dies naturally not because of a mean God, but because of the sin of man.

If you answer any of this, answer this: At which point can we say for sure a baby has a soul? Must it occur in the womb and why?

Why would it be God's fault in the womb, but mans fault outside the womb?

According to what I've read from your quotes, one cannot be sure to have a soul until he has reached "manhood"?

Am I the only one that is totally and utterly dumbfounded at how this logic is skewed?

[ironmonk]

The idea about conditional ensoulment is very interesting. I don't see anything theologically wrong with it at all.

The Church does... and most of all God does.

Proverbs 16:25

Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death!

For the Love of Christ,

ironmonk

[Jake Huether]

The Church does... and most of all God does.

Proverbs 16:25

Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death!

For the Love of Christ,

ironmonk

Thank you!

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

Okay, so where's the documentation for this?

I need some Church docs to specify the time frame within which one is a faithful Catholic and can believe that a baby doesn't have a soul.

[God Conquers]

Jake, I'm right with you.

By the way, your quotes from Evangelium Vitae support my position.

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?".

That bolded sentence indicates the presence of a "person"(ensouled human) at conception.

The rest say that regardless of the arguments human life must be protected as if it had a soul.

The Pope is talking here about popular arguments of PERSONHOOD not ensoulment.

You still don't understand my argument. Something without a soul isn't a human and never can be.

Plus, I think you should stop calling God an abortionist. If a pre-born baby dies, its the same thing as any other born human dying. By your logic God is also a murderer.

Also, God can't "abuse His powers". He's God.

[ironmonk]

My guess is that he's pulling it off of www.Cath4Choice.com

It dates back to Aristotles theory.

What Cath4Choice fails to realize that individuals within the Church can be wrong about some things.

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Aloysius]

#1 everyone does realize he's ANTI-ABORTION right?

#2 my position is ensoulment at conception.

[God Conquers]

I definately realize both those things Al.

I'm heavy into this debate though because to believe ensoulment happens after conception, although maybe an allowable position, is dangerous from a social point of view.

Someone can easily make the argument, as Jake and I have, that abortion is allowable if the soul is not present.

He may be personally opposed to this, as he has pointed out, but his position allows for these consequences.

[PhatPhred]

You still don't understand my argument. Something without a soul isn't a human and never can be.

Tertullian disagrees with this position. So do I.

Plus, I think you should stop calling God an abortionist.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GOD IS AN ABORTIONIST. I believe that you are implicitly calling God an abortionist by insisting on the prior ensoulment of billions of "naturally aborted" embryos.

If a pre-born baby dies, its the same thing as any other born human dying. By your logic God is also a murderer.

As I have repeatedly (and apparently pointlessly) explained, this is your logic, not my logic.

Also, God can't "abuse His powers". He's God.

I don't quite know what you are trying to say here. I know God can't abuse His powers. That was an essential point of my argument.

[PhatPhred]

#1 everyone does realize he's ANTI-ABORTION right?

#2 my position is ensoulment at conception.

Thanks, Aloysius.

[PhatPhred]

Okay, so where's the documentation for this?

I need some Church docs to specify the time frame within which one is a faithful Catholic and can believe that a baby doesn't have a soul.

Finally, a reasonable question!

I found the basic information on the web, from about half a dozen different sites, none of them official. I've looked in Denzinger-Schoenmetzer, but none of the cited documents are there. I'm still looking, because I think going back to the official Church documents is essential.

It looks to me like all this debating isn't getting anywhere. There are eminent Catholic theologians on both sides of this issue, and I don't see us discovering any arguments they haven't already thought of.