And There You Have It. We All Are Paying For The "morning After&#3

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1265392722' post='2051613']
You're trying to tell us that McCain would've opposed this when he voted to fund health clinics on Indian Reservations, which included abortions and contraception?

BTW, not every one sees this pill as an abortion. For the most part it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb and being such, Jews, Muslims and others don't consider this to be an abortion, nor do
they see it as immoral.

We of course disagree, but this isn't a Catholic nation.

Jim
[/quote]

Its not a matter of not viewing it as an abortion, as prevention of implantation is not abortion. Abortion is the ending or a pregnancy, not the ending of the human uterine life form.

Technically, pregnancy doesn't start till implantation. That's how the pro-aborts get away with saying its not an abortion. There was an abortionist on a radio show once who when asked when life began. Instead of answering the question correctly, she said pregnancy started at implantation. Every scientist and doctor knows life begins at conception.

I'm not lessening the gravity of the sin of taking ECP, its still the killing of a human being, and it still murder.

And the other thing "fertilized egg" is a pro-abortion term. Its also medically incorrect and a sort of a redundant statement. An egg is no longer an egg when its fertilized, its a zygote. Some idiot in the pro-abortion movement cooked up this term to attack the humanity of the zygote by comparing it to an egg, which has only half the genetic requirement for that new human being.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='05 February 2010 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1265399473' post='2051674']
Jim, matters of abortion go beyond being just a theological issue, though. Application of natural law also comes into play and there are certain universal human rights that should be adhered to regardless of what form of government it is.


Ugh, guys, I thought last year was the election year. Peace out. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img]
[/quote]


We as Catholics believe that human life begins at conception, and must be protected from that point on.

However, its not what Jews, Muslims and others believe.

Understanding this, how does a secular government go about writing legislation that we collectively as society accept?

That being said, the morning after pill is not seen as an abortive measure and even if it were, its in the stage of pregnancy that many people do not accept as being an immoral act if terminated.

We will never see legislation against this. The best we can do, is educate women to the reality of when human life begins and why it should be protected.

I don't like it, but I'm aware of the politcal reality we're in.

Jim

[HisChildForever]

[quote] [b]365[/b] The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.[/quote]

If life begins at conception, and soul and body are a "single nature", then the soul must enter the human person at conception.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='05 February 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1265404779' post='2051705']
If life begins at conception, and soul and body are a "single nature", then the soul must enter the human person at conception.
[/quote]


But twining doesn't happen until implantation. So were there two souls or one, that entered the fertilized egg at conception?


Jim

[StMichael]

OK. Aside from this country being based on Judeo-Christian basics, lets look into how the ruling of Roe V. Wade violates the Constitution (which is the law of our land regardless of what some, including our President believe).

The Supreme Court allowance for abortion is based on the 14th amendment, which came into being after the Civil War, giving a broad definition of CITIZENSHIP. The Court mangled the due process clause claiming "right to privacy" based on the 14th Amendment.

Furthermore, the Federal Government ripped away the rights of the States on this single matter. This court, made abortion a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

The dissent tells us far more than the hocus-pocus of the ruling.

"[i]I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[/i]" - Justices White & Rehnquist

This flawed ruling has found other arguments built upon it, referencing the 13th Amendment (abolished slavery and involuntary servitude), whereby banning or limiting abortions would force mothers who want to abort into involuntary servitude.

You do not have to be Roman Catholic to believe that life begins at conception, because without it none of us would be here.

That said, it has not stopped at the first trimester (12 weeks) but has extended all the way to 9 months. We have amazing technology today that you can see in the very 1st trimester, a fetus responding to sound and touch.

Where we stand as a society, and killing off over 50 million children since this ruling, is more barbaric than the Ottoman Empire was to Catholics.

The rights of these unborn are stolen as it says in the Declaration of Independence, "[i]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their [u]Creator[/u] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are [u]Life[/u], Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/i]"

And their Creator knew them before they were in the womb.

This also violates our rights by having us participate in government sanctioned and tax payer funded abortions, regardless of the stage, venue and performance.

As for country, 93% + are Christian, whether practiced or not, therefore the New Testament applies where we were told He knew us before we were formed in the womb.

Up until roughly the 16th Century, there was no distinction between Child and Fetus, an unborn was called a child. This fetus nonsense does nothing to change that we are denying a life that God has granted.

We are not Jewish, as Jesus is the Messiah and their laws do not apply, previously, Jews adhered to Exodus 21:22 which says "[i]And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise[/i]." They believed that the personhood would not take place until the head of the child exited the mothers womb. They also taught and eye for an eye, do we subscribe to that as well?

Muslims, who I have zero use for, allow for any and all prevention of pregnancy (contraception) but that abortion is a crime, except where the life of the mother is in danger and their law would need to rule that as such otherwise it is a crime.

So, who is for this? What religion? Combine these 3 and you are at roughly 98% of the US population and have a Constitution that had to be violated to allow this to take place.


[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1265398061' post='2051660']
The Church doesn't teach when a soul enters, but only that human life begins at conception.

Most of the time, conception happens in the fallopian tube. When the fertilized egg implants
into the womb, with in six days, it can twin. So now you have two zygotes. If the first egg
was the person with the soul, where did the second one come from?

The Catholic Church teaches that human life begins at conception, and must be protected regardless of when
ensoulment takes place.

This is what we believe, but its not what many members of other main stream religions believe.
Jews and Muslims believe that a fetus is not a person until ensoulment takes place, and this they
believe happens until viability, or after 20 weeks.

So how does a secular government legislate while not forcing a particular religious belief onto them?


Jim
[/quote]

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1265405150' post='2051709']
But twining doesn't happen until implantation. So were there two souls or one, that entered the fertilized egg at conception?

Jim
[/quote]

I would think that there is one soul since there is one fertilized egg, but when the fertilized egg splits a second soul is infused into the second (brand new) fertilized egg.

Edited February 5, 2010 by HisChildForever

[JimR-OCDS]

Happy_Catholic'

[quote]
Its not a matter of not viewing it as an abortion, as prevention of implantation is not abortion. Abortion is the ending or a pregnancy, not the ending of the human uterine life form.

Technically, pregnancy doesn't start till implantation. That's how the pro-aborts get away with saying its not an abortion. There was an abortionist on a radio show once who when asked when life began. Instead of answering the question correctly, she said pregnancy started at implantation. Every scientist and doctor knows life begins at conception.
[/quote]

Well if pregnancy technically doesn't start until implantation, how can preventing implatation be an abortion being pregnancy hasn't taken place? Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy as you stated.

[quote]
I'm not lessening the gravity of the sin of taking ECP, its still the killing of a human being, and it still murder.
[/quote]

Realy? And what should be the penalty for women who commit this act of murder?

[quote]
And the other thing "fertilized egg" is a pro-abortion term. Its also medically incorrect and a sort of a redundant statement. An egg is no longer an egg when its fertilized, its a zygote.
[/quote]

Its actually both, one is the medical term, ther is a layman's term, but they essentially mean the same thing.

[quote]
Some idiot in the pro-abortion movement cooked up this term to attack the humanity of the zygote by comparing it to an egg, which has only half the genetic requirement for that new human being.
[/quote]

Really, you know that it was some one that you refer to as an idiot in the pro-abortion movement who cooked this term up?

Maybe you better take it up with scientist who have described how sperm meets an egg to fertilize it.

[url="http://scienceray.com/biology/human-biology/how-sperm-meets-an-egg-to-fertilize-a-fetus-in-the-mother%E2%80%99s-womb/"]http://scienceray.com/biology/human-biology/how-sperm-meets-an-egg-to-fertilize-a-fetus-in-the-mother%E2%80%99s-womb/[/url]


Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='05 February 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1265405466' post='2051713']
I would think that there is one soul since there is one fertilized egg, but when the fertilized egg splits a second soul is infused into the second (brand new) fertilized egg.
[/quote]


Perhaps, but we don't know for sure, neither does the Church.

For one, they don't split into two fertilized eggs. Rather, one fertilized egg becomes a zygote, which implants into the womb. That zygote then divides into another, and this can take place six days after implantation.

Now regardless of when ensoulment occurs, from the Church's standpoint, human life began at conception.
That being the case however, we have to see the political social reality in that not all people accept that a at conception a human person exist.

I'm not challenging Church teaching, don't misunderstand me.

I'm merely pointing out the political and social reality and how its practically impossible for a secular representative form of government, to legislate laws concerning morality that isn't accepted by the
general populace.



Jim

[Veridicus]

Yes I'll assent that we live in a pluralistic society and abortion is one of those issues where we disagree with the other major monotheistic religions. I am of the opinion that two souls are infused into the single zygote which will later twin. The soul is the animating force which manifests life within matter; I think you are chiseling an un-declared separation between when human life begins and when ensoulment begins. The soul is what give life to the body. If it is human life I think there is a soul.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1265406100' post='2051720']
Perhaps, but we don't know for sure, neither does the Church.
[/quote]

From what I understand, the Church teaches that the soul is infused at conception. A Church Scholar can correct me if I'm wrong, of course. Or if you have any Church documents to back up your claim that would be appreciated.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='05 February 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1265406755' post='2051725']
Yes I'll assent that we live in a pluralistic society and abortion is one of those issues where we disagree with the other major monotheistic religions. I am of the opinion that two souls are infused into the single zygote which will later twin. [b]The soul is the animating force which manifests life within matter; I think you are chiseling an un-declared separation between when human life begins and when ensoulment begins. The soul is what give life to the body. If it is human life I think there is a soul.[/b]
[/quote]

Yes, which is what CCC 365 affirms.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='05 February 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1265406772' post='2051726']
From what I understand, the Church teaches that the soul is infused at conception. A Church Scholar can correct me if I'm wrong, of course. Or if you have any Church documents to back up your claim that would be appreciated.
[/quote]

I would think the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception would imply this strongly. At the very moment of her conception Mary was preserved body and soul from the effect of Original Sin, right?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='05 February 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1265406982' post='2051729']
I would think the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception would imply this strongly. At the very moment of her conception Mary was preserved body and soul from the effect of Original Sin, right?
[/quote]

Yes, good call.

[KeenanParkerII]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v173/dolo_amber/poopcorn.gif[/img]

[HisChildForever]

To make such a firm statement that the Church does NOT know when the soul is infused without any documentation to back up said statement makes me very wary.