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

[Slappo]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1265406100' post='2051720']
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
[/quote]


It actually wouldn't matter as to when the second soul became infused. If it became infused with the first soul since God knew the zygote would split, it is two persons that began at conception. If it became infused with the splitting of the zygote, then it was one person at conception, and a second person was conceived upon the splitting of the zygote.

You called it a human life that begins at conception. Life cannot be human if it is without a human soul. So if you believe that human life begins at conception, you also believe that ensoulment begins at conception.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='05 February 2010 - 03:52 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. 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.
[/quote]


[quote name='Slappo' date='05 February 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1265407438' post='2051736']
It actually wouldn't matter as to when the second soul became infused. If it became infused with the first soul since God knew the zygote would split, it is two persons that began at conception. If it became infused with the splitting of the zygote, then it was one person at conception, and a second person was conceived upon the splitting of the zygote.

You called it a human life that begins at conception. Life cannot be human if it is without a human soul. So if you believe that human life begins at conception, you also believe that ensoulment begins at conception.
[/quote]
I'm with you guys. My philosophical and theological opinion is that in the case of twins, two souls are 'present' (somehow) in a single zygote, and as the cells split into twins, the souls begin to inhabit their unique bodies. I don't think there's anything inconsistent about such a position, either in terms of philosophical identity or in terms of dignity of life.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='StMichael' date='05 February 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1265394505' post='2051637']
While this is true, that does not mean that me, Catholic tax payer, should be sharing in the sin of the abortion.

The solution isn't band aiding the result, but changing the cause.
[/quote]

Never said chemical abortion was good.

Now, I realize that you used the words "sharing in the sin," which does not imply sinning, but I want to be clear: You're not sinning by paying taxes of which a nickel goes to fund abortion any more than you're sinning by paying a robber $100, $10 of which will go to the sin of becoming drunk.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 6, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1265404454' post='2051702']
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
[/quote]

I am not speaking about the morning after pill here in specifics. I have been speaking all this time of Catholics that vote pro-choice and pro-non-negotiable when there are other viable candidates that could be more favorable on matters of life and other non-negotiable issues. That is where my original criticism was leveled at, I interpreted your initial post to be justifying Catholic votes for Obama in your response to my first post, and now we have gone completely off base here.

I grew up in a blue state and now live in Europe where classmates and colleagues make fun of me for even believing in God and I don't even know if there are any prominent politicians favorable to life at all, at least in the U.K. so I am more than aware of the social and political reality we are in. But it doesn't make that reality right, and it does not make it acceptable. I agree that education is critically important, but it also follows that some evils are so grave that they should also be fought politically when at all possible as well. That is part of educating people. People listen when your conviction is strong enough. Telling someone that you believe something is wrong and then voting or participating in a political movement that favors it when you could have voted otherwise sends a pretty watered down message. THAT is one of the reasons why we ended up in the political reality we are now in in the first place. No pro aborts wrung their hands and raised a white flag about the realities prior to legalized abortion -- so I don't see why people fighting against it should either. Maybe then we wouldn't have candidates like Obama...AND ones with mixed records like McCain! (And please, don't take this as being a big nasty bilious rant towards you specifically, it's just the issue itself that gets me worked up.)

Again, I am speaking of my original criticism that my dialogue with you started from directed specifically at Catholics that are passive and relativistic and think morality has limited relevance in the political arena and voting booth when the God they claim to believe in and Church they claim to be a part of tells us otherwise. Sooner or later we just have to put our foot down.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Ash Wednesday

[StMichael]

A robber steals, that is not payment.

The US government is at the mercy of the governed, not the other way around. I willingly pay the government and it is used to fund abortions. Therefore I am paying into a system whereby the collective shares in the sin.

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='05 February 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1265414441' post='2051788']
Never said chemical abortion was good.

Now, I realize that you used the words "sharing in the sin," which does not imply sinning, but I want to be clear: You're not sinning by paying taxes of which a nickel goes to fund abortion any more than you're sinning by paying a robber $100, $10 of which will go to the sin of becoming drunk.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='StMichael' date='05 February 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1265415551' post='2051795']
A robber steals, that is not payment.

[b]The US government is at the mercy of the governed,[/b] not the other way around. I willingly pay the government and it is used to fund abortions. Therefore I am paying into a system whereby the collective shares in the sin.


[/quote]

You sure about that? Cause if that is so, then why are abortions still legalized?

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1265405573' post='2051715']
Happy_Catholic'



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 think you misunderstood my post.

I made it clear that while the prevention of implantation is not abortion [b]it is still murder[/b] as it destroys an innocent human life.

[quote]And what should be the penalty for women who commit this act of murder?[/quote]

Whatever the penalty is for "normal" murder.

Of course, proving conception took place in this instance is difficult. So best to err on the side of caution and ban the ECP.

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

No. "Fertilized egg" is not a medical term. Its been labelled in such a way to be viewed as a medical term.

As for layman's terms, if we're going to have a serious discussion regarding science and biology then we can do ourselves a favour and use the correct terms. No place for laymens in science, thanks.

Harris, Nagy, Vardaxis. (2007). [i]Mosby's dictionary of medicine, nursing & health professions[/i] defines: [b]fertilisation[/b] the union of male and female gametes to form a zygote from which the embryo develops.

No where in this medical dictionary, or any of the others I"ve seen, and I've seen a lot, is the term "fertilized egg" used.

This sums it up nicely:

[url="http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10093"]http://www.all.org/a...le.php?id=10093[/url]

The pro-life movement has fallen for the usage of this term, it does us, nor the unborn, no favour.

[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.co...E2%80%99s-womb/[/url]


Jim
[/quote]

As I mentioned, the term is medically incorrect, another weapon of the pro-abortion movement, which unfortunately reached into our own ranks. The above link you posted, did you bother to read the bio of the author? No where can I see in his spiel that he's a "scientist". Just because its posted on a "sciencey" blog does not make an article established science. If I blow up my shed that does not make me a physicist or if I encourage maggots to grow that does not make me a biologist.

No offence to them or your research, but I don't take anything seriously unless its from a reputable source or journal and unless its been peer reviewed. I laud the efforts of any media that gives consideration to the human uterine entity, but we in the Pro-Life movement have to be truthful and accurate in our approach. Terms like "fertilized egg" are medically false and only further to damage our message by removing the humanity of the unborn. When I hear the term "fertilized egg" I, like most others, focus on the "egg" part, and the "egg" or "ovum" is not fully human, but when I hear the term "zygote" I think of a newly formed human being who has their whole life ahead of them if they are given the chance.

The pro-abortion movement won their prize with Roe, and 52 million humans have died because of it. They won with false semantics and pseudo science. We have to be better than that. We have to ensure we dont' fall into the trap they have laid. Because if enough pro-lifers start thinking its just an "egg" then that could lead to the mindset that it's not truly human nor worth our consideration.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Happy_Catholic

[Happy_Catholic]

[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'm curious as to where your'e getting your information.

In the case of monozygomatic twins, the splitting of the zygote begins early, but generally between 3 - 8 days. A current popular theory is that the split takes place after the blastocyst collapses. However, the process of implantation happens 7 - 12 days after conception. So the math you're using isn't quite spot on.

Clevage of the blastocyst can occur during or shortly after implantation, but this is rare, and this is when the highest chance of conjoined twins are formed.

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1265406100' post='2051720']

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
[/quote]

I'd really like to know how it was that so many people start arguing over when "human life" begins.

It begins at conception! This is not the belief of the church, or a few crazy fundie anti-choice zealots, this is scientific medical truth.

Life begins at conception.

This is one of the glaringly obvious things that proves the pro-aborts and those who don't think life begins at conception are a few sausages short of a BBQ. If life didn't begin at conception, then how does the zygote continue to split? You don't grow or develop if you're dead.

Are we to believe that we're some kind of zombie zygote?

If there's ever any doubt as to whether the human uterine entity is alive, just remember this little thing my secondary school science teacher taught me.

MRS. GREN.

This is what dictates whether an organism is alive.

Movement. Does the zygote/embryo/foetus move? Yes. Its movement do not have to be intentional.

Respiration. This is cellular respiration. Does the zygote do this? Yes.

Sensation. Does it sense? Yes. In a simple action and reaction sense. In the same way a bacterium senses and responds to anti-botic attack.

Growth. Does the zygote grow? Well, duh. Of course.

Reproduction. This is cellular reproduction. And the fact it starts as two cells and implants as a cluster of cells proves that.

Excretion. Does it excrete? Yes, again, this is based on a cellular wastes process as opposed to the excertion a larger animal may do.

Nutrition. Does the zygote take nutrition? Yes. It takes it from the proteins from material in the sperm and in the ovum and then takes nutrition from the mother once implatnation has taken place.

The zygote is alive. Life begins at conception. Argue about souls and "social lives" till you're blue in the face, but human life, in a biological sense, begins at conception.

[kamiller42]

Happy Catholic, you sound like you are in the medical field or well studied on the scientific angle of this issue.

And to whoever posted saying the military do what they do because they are stressed and have ape like manners and you understand but not condone the "emergency" contraception pill, boooooo!

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='StMichael' date='05 February 2010 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1265415551' post='2051795']
A robber steals, that is not payment.[/quote]

I'm unable to see the difference. Why is it robbery in the latter case? Would it be robbery if you handed me a loaf of bread, then took $5 as "payment?" Or if you made me sign a car insurance policy at gunpoint, thereby providing me with "services," then took $1200 from me every year?


[quote]The US government is at the mercy of the governed, not the other way around. I willingly pay the government and it is used to fund abortions. Therefore I am paying into a system whereby the collective shares in the sin.
[/quote]

Well, if you're paying to fund abortions willingly, that's your issue, not mine. But if you're unwilling to fund abortions, you're not sinning.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 6, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Slappo]

Paying taxes to a government that funds abortion is what is called in the moral field of theology material cooperation.


If it is unwilling material cooperation then it is not sinful unless there is a good alternative.

For instance... you work at a grocery store that sells condoms, this is material cooperation in contraception to sell a condom to a customer. The grocery store across the street pays the same or very very close wages but does not sell contraception. It would be within your duty as a Catholic to seek out the job at the other grocery store so as to not materially cooperate in contraception. If you did not get the job though, you could still keep the one you had.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Slappo' date='05 February 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1265430798' post='2051853']
Paying taxes to a government that funds abortion is what is called in the moral field of theology material cooperation.[/quote]

Not only is it material cooperation, it is [i]remote[/i] material cooperation. That makes all the difference.

[quote]If it is unwilling material cooperation then it is not sinful unless there is a good alternative.[/quote]

That is not entirely accurate. Proximate material cooperation in a grave evil is never permissible. Even if one is not subjectively culpable for cooperating under duress, the act is objectively evil, and one may not perform the act.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 6, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Slappo]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='05 February 2010 - 08:36 PM' timestamp='1265430978' post='2051854']
Not only is it material cooperation, it is [i]remote[/i] material cooperation. That makes all the difference.



That is not entirely accurate. Proximate material cooperation in a grave evil is never permissible. Even if one is not subjectively culpable for cooperating under duress, the act is objectively evil, and one may not perform the act.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


Good catch my mistake. I was thinking remote material cooperation. Material cooperation could actually be assisting in an abortion as a nurse etc.

[rhetoricfemme]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='05 February 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1265429348' post='2051846']
And to whoever posted saying the military do what they do because they are stressed and have ape like manners and you understand but not condone the "emergency" contraception pill, boooooo!
[/quote]
Apparently you've misread my comment entirely. Several times in that post I made it clear that I was not referring to the entire military. What part of my comment are you booing, exactly? Just because I offered a possible explanation for why some folks engage in pre-marital and/or casual relations doesn't mean I condone any of it. I'm not just making generalizations, either, but based my response off of conversations I've had with military people who, indeed, use sex as a means of de-stressing from an otherwise intense existence. It's not hard to understand where they're coming from, but since when does understanding equate to condoning that behavior? We can still empathize while expecting better of ourselves.

How does my empathy contradict the fact that I don't condone the morning after pill, or whatever they want to call it? It doesn't contradict it at all. Last I knew, there wasn't a vote I could cast on this particular issue that allowed me to tell the military or the president how I feel about their handing out the contraceptive. If there had been, I would have voted it down, whether or not I understand where someone wanting that pill is coming from.

So please feel free to clarify why you're booing me.