Pope Francis will not say Fetus is a Person

[Didacus]

On 11/29/2022 at 1:49 PM, dUSt said:

I think Pope Francis is just stating the obvious. He didn't say the fetus is not a person, he just said it's debated, which it is. I think anyone who approaches the abortion argument from a theological or religious perspective is making a mistake, because, unless you just love preaching to the choir, non-religious people don't care.

I think the pope likes to approach issues this way. I think he likes to use language that is accessible to the non-religious. By using "human being" instead of person, he's making it very black and white and science based.

Indeed - he did not say his opinion was a fetus is not a person, nor affirmed it.  He just laid aside the issue in order to emphasize his point.

My take on laws concerning abortion is that I will support them, however, in the words of our Lord; for the world to change, hearts must change.

The true battle is in the heart, not in written laws.

[fides' Jack]

On 11/29/2022 at 12:33 PM, Nunsuch said:

some people here seem to imply

On 11/29/2022 at 12:33 PM, Nunsuch said:

I find that troubling, and highly presumptuous.

You find that people seem to imply something, and you find that highly presumptuous of them?

17 hours ago, mommas_boy said:

In short, the Pope's educational choice here was pedagogically brilliant -- the mark of a master teacher. It got the devout Catholics talking about it. It got everyone else to pay attention.

It caused scandal.

Is there a mic-drop emoji?

16 hours ago, mommas_boy said:

I will tell you this: when I am practicing apologetics on the subject of abortion, I do so from the same perspective adopted by the Pope here.

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[fides' Jack]

3 hours ago, Didacus said:

The true battle is in the heart, not in written laws.

Clearly written laws are ignored by the godless now, anyway.  It has never been more obvious that those who do not have faith are incapable of remaining moral people.

I agree - the true battle is in the heart.

[dUSt]

19 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

What do base your position on that Catholics who accept church teaching aren't his target audience in his interview with America? 

Uh, because it’s Catholics who read America? 😂 

[little2add]

Therefore, there is a living human being. I do not say a person, because this is debated, but a living human being. 

Pope Francis 

————————————————————

What’s the difference between a living human being and a person? 

Isn’t living human being and a person, one and the same?   What’s the diff?

Edited December 2, 2022 by little2add

[MIKolbe]

maybe he's talking more scientifically and less philosophically???

[dUSt]

6 hours ago, little2add said:

Therefore, there is a living human being. I do not say a person, because this is debated, but a living human being. 

Pope Francis 

————————————————————

What’s the difference between a living human being and a person? 

Isn’t living human being and a person, one and the same?   What’s the diff?

A human being is based on science and biology.

A person is based on social definitions or laws recognizing a human being as an individual with rights.

I think it's safe to assume, if you read the catechism or any of the statements about abortion from the church over the years, you SHOULD believe a human being and a person are one in the same.

I personally don't think the pope was denying this. I think he was speaking at a very fundamental level so that doubting Catholics, non-Catholics, non-believers, can start on the same page by at least acknowledging that a fetus is a "living human being".

Ending the life of a human living being, regardless of whether or not society has defined that human being as a person or not, is wrong. I think this was his point, when I read it at least.

[truthfinder]

9 minutes ago, dUSt said:

A human being is based on science and biology.

A person is based on social definitions or laws recognizing a human being as an individual with rights.

Canada had a landmark legal case called the "Person's Case" of 1929 which specifically revolved around the question about whether women are "persons" under the law. 

[dUSt]

2 minutes ago, truthfinder said:

Canada had a landmark legal case called the "Person's Case" of 1929 which specifically revolved around the question about whether women are "persons" under the law. 

Exactly. If the pope were around back then to comment on this case, he would be silly to argue "you should not kill women because they are persons". No, you should not kill women because they are human beings. Your concern whether or not Canada calls them persons or not is irrelevant.

This is how I read the pope's current comments about persons being debated. I guess people read what they want to read. I suppose I'm a bit ultramontane. Lol.

 

[Luigi]

7 minutes ago, dUSt said:

I guess people read what they want to read. 

 

Indeed, people very often project their own meanings into a text (written or spoken) both when they decode the text (read or listen) and when they critique it. When literary critics review or interpret a work, they're actually telling us more about their own concerns than they are about the source text. 

[Anomaly]

Excellent points @dUSt   I felt the Popywas avoiding getting cat up in legal definitions of personage, and addressing it from philosophical principle of caring about a human being. 
 

people argue against animal testing because they are a living creature.  They don’t argue with the their legal status.   
It’s appealing to fundamental principles.   

[KnightofChrist]

On 12/1/2022 at 10:45 AM, Hna.Caridad said:

 

Oh, Pope Francis is just SOOOOOOOOO confusing, isn't he @KnightofChrist?

 

Enjoy your new church that you're creating.

 

Did you read the interview? The Pope seems to embrace causing confusion. He states in the interview (and elsewhere) that he believes the Holy Spirit caused 'confusion and a mess' on Pentecost morning. Confusion he believes is (can be) a sign of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not creating any new Church. 

[KnightofChrist]

11 hours ago, little2add said:

Therefore, there is a living human being. I do not say a person, because this is debated, but a living human being. 

Pope Francis 

————————————————————

What’s the difference between a living human being and a person? 

Isn’t living human being and a person, one and the same?   What’s the diff?

There is no real difference of course. We cannot actually separate the two. A human being is a person, a person is a human being. Even when the State denies a human being is a person. Even when a Pope for whatever reason will not say a human being is a person. 

It is confusing for the Pope to state he will not say a child is a person because that is debated. Because the humanity of preborn children is debated, denied and attacked at every level. The existence of their souls, the existence of their lives, the existence of their membership in the Homo sapien species, and the existence of their fundamental inalienable rights as persons. 

I get the point of wanting to focus on a certain aspect of the humanity of children. But for the Pope to state 'I will say a child is a person', that I don't get. Especially when the attack on the personhood of children is the source of the greatest attacks. 

[KnightofChrist]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

people argue against animal testing because they are a living creature.  They don’t argue with the their legal status.   
It’s appealing to fundamental principles

But when legal non-person human beings are the subject of 'animal testing' many do argue their legal status in addition to appealing to other fundamental principles. 

I can't see Pius XII saying "the Jews who are subjected to forced medical experiments are human beings. I will not say person because that is debated." Perhaps John Cornwell could... 

Nor can I see anyone making similar defenses in his favor had he made such a comment.

Edited December 3, 2022 by KnightofChrist

[Hna.Caridad]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Did you read the interview? The Pope seems to embrace causing confusion. He states in the interview (and elsewhere) that he believes the Holy Spirit caused 'confusion and a mess' on Pentecost morning. Confusion he believes is (can be) a sign of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not creating any new Church. 

Yes, I read the interview and I'm definitely not confused.  You're "confused" because you want to be and no amount of explaining by anyone on Phatmass is going to unconfuse you.

Your disdain for Pope Francis has been evident on this phorum throughout his papacy.  And yes, you are part of a movement pulling followers away from the Roman Catholic Church.  Enjoy the new church you're creating, and please stop phishing Phatmass for adherents.