Abortion Issue Hits The work Scene

[Cam42]

[quote]Thus CAMS' claim that the Church "always taught" that there was an immortal soul present from the moment of conception is pure nonsense.[/quote]

It is not nonsense.....you need to prove your position.....you can't do that.

[Aloysius]

wait, who recognizes it's an animal soul? see my last post. according to the philosophy that drove Aquinas and Aristotle, i.e. as soon as the entity is uniquely human it is ensouled, it must have a human soul at conception.

the Church doesn't teach science. thus, she never taught that we started out as plants. the teaching holds that if we started out as plants, we wouldn't be ensouled until we became a uniquely human entity. through advanced scientific knowledge, we see at conception there is a uniquely human entity.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 12 2005, 02:17 PM']Aristotle was Catholic??????  WOW!!!!!!

And Rahner has been silenced.....I don't hear him.

As far as proof is concerned....I would ask you to refer to [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html"]Evangelium Vitae[/url] again.  What you are looking for is in there.....do you expect me to do your work for you?  I think not.

This is made clear.
As far as the distinction that you make about Pius IX.  That is merely a legal distinction.  There is not a moral nor is there a faithful distinction made.  The reasoning behind the idea of  "delayed ensoulment" is clearly made in order to distinguish between the legal penalties of early and late abortion. But all abortion was still considered a grave evil.
[right][snapback]609767[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response:

I don't see any claim that an immortal , immaterial, rational human soul (hence a spirit) is present from the moment of conception in Evangelium Vitae.

Perhaps you can point it out to me if you assert that such is the case.
The task of proving an assertion falls on the one making the assertion.

[LittleLes]

This from Scott Gilbert's Developmental Biology:

Throughout history, even the Catholic Church has held varying declarations about the beginning of human life. For most of the history of the Catholic Church, its thinkers viewed immediate animation/ensoulment as impossible, and under the traditional Catholic doctrine, a male fetus became animated—infused with a soul at forty days after conception, and the female fetus became animated at eighty days after conception (Tribe 1990). In 1588, Pope Sixtus V mandated that the penalty for abortion (or contraception) was excommunication from the Church. However, his successor, Pope Gregory IX, returned the Church to the view that abortion of an unformed embryo was not homicide. This was largely the view until 1869, when Pope Pius IX again declared that the punishment for abortion was excommunication

[Aloysius]

your point being? I already knew all that. at some times in the history of the Church, abortion was viewed as a sexual sin. at other times, it was viewed as murder. there was great mystery as to what really began and developed within a woman's uturus, they had no way of figuring it out.

that is not a response to my argument. respond to my last argument or I will cease discussing with you.

[LittleLes]

An summarizing the positions of Shannon and Wolter (see Bioethics, 4th Edition, Paulist Press):

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

Proponents of this view often propose the following hypothetical situation: Suppose that an egg is fertilized. At that moment a new life begins; the zygote gains a "soul," in the Catholic line of thought, or "personhood" in a secular line of thought. Then suppose that the zygote splits to form twins. Does the soul of the zygote split as well? No, this is impossible. Yet no one would argue that twins share the same "soul" or the same "personhood." Thus, supporters of this view maintain that the quality of "soul" or "personhood" must be conferred after there is no longer any potential for twinning. (Shannon and Wolter 1990)

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 12 2005, 02:39 PM']your point being?  I already knew all that.  at some times in the history of the Church, abortion was viewed as a sexual sin.  at other times, it was viewed as murder.  there was great mystery as to what really began and developed within a woman's uturus, they had no way of figuring it out. 

that is not a response to my argument.  respond to my last argument or I will cease discussing with you.
[right][snapback]609781[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Since you are not making any argument, obviously I can't respond to it. It is always wise to withdraw from the field when one have no assertion which one can prove. []

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 12 2005, 02:30 PM']Response:

I don't see any claim that an immortal , immaterial, rational human soul  (hence a spirit) is present from the moment of conception in Evangelium Vitae.

Perhaps you can point it out to me if you assert that such is the case.
The task of proving an assertion falls on the one making the assertion.
[right][snapback]609776[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Again....I will not do your work for you. Perhaps you will read. I doubt it though, because you "don't do links." Until you do, I will assume you acquiesce.

You are right the task of proving an assertion does fall on the one making the assertion. I have given the source text....Go find it.

Again, science is merely a means, it is not an end. While your belief system doesn't allow for that, it most certainly is the case. Nothing that you have provided shows that ensoulment doesn't take place at conception.

Hasta la vista.....prove your assertion.

[Aloysius]

[quote]The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

Proponents of this view often propose the following hypothetical situation: Suppose that an egg is fertilized. At that moment a new life begins; the zygote gains a "soul," in the Catholic line of thought, or "personhood" in a secular line of thought. Then suppose that the zygote splits to form twins. Does the soul of the zygote split as well? No, this is impossible. Yet no one would argue that twins share the same "soul" or the same "personhood." Thus, supporters of this view maintain that the quality of "soul" or "personhood" must be conferred after there is no longer any potential for twinning. (Shannon and Wolter 1990)[/quote]
okay, that's a response to my point. I've seen that argument before.

I theorized that the cells are already pre-ordained to be in each individual human being, and that the metaphysical attachment of both souls is there one to those cells which will be in one of the persons, the other in the cells that will be in the other of the persons. i.e. this glob is two people, some of those cells belong to one of the persons and another to another of the persons. just as a siamese twin is connected in one entity but has two souls.

we hit an area of science that is unknown. does the genetic information pre-ordain the split into two people? it would seem it must, where else does this come from (unless it is by random chance). science doesn't know, but it is most likely that the genetic information contained within the fertilized egg from the moment of conception contains the order to split. it developes into the zygote, some cells being formed for one of the individuals and another for the other individual... all connected in one apparent entity. when they split, it has already been designated which person is which, where one group of cells will go and where the other will go... and those two groupings of cells are each ensouled from the very start of it.

anyway, we've hit a scientific unknown... because science cannot explain why some split and some don't. I propose as the most plausible that the genetic information must contain the plans to split into two seperate entities. IF this is true, then it is very clear that from the moment of conception there are two distinct persons there.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 12 2005, 02:47 PM']Again....I will not do your work for you.  Perhaps you will read.  I doubt it though, because you "don't do links."  Until you do, I will assume you acquiesce.

You are right the task of proving an assertion does fall on the one making the assertion.  I have given the source text....Go find it.

Again, science is merely a means, it is not an end.  While your belief system doesn't allow for that, it most certainly is the case.  Nothing that you have provided shows that ensoulment doesn't take place at conception.

Hasta la vista.....prove your assertion.
[right][snapback]609785[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No. It's not there. Why dodn't you just cite the entire Catholic Encyclopedia as a reference and then claim that the "answer is there, go read it."

If you now realize that Evangelicum makes no such claim as you tried to evidence by quoting it, just admit it. Or give a more precise reference.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 12 2005, 02:55 PM']No. It's not there. Why dodn't you just cite the entire Catholic Encyclopedia as a reference and then claim that the "answer is there, go read it."

If you now realize that Evangelicum makes no such claim as you tried to evidence by quoting it, just admit it. Or give a more precise reference.
[right][snapback]609790[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have given a source that is germaine to the converstation. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not. IF you choose not to deal with the source text, then I assume you acquiesce. Thanks for the concession.

Moving on....

[God Conquers]

[quote name='Littleles']I don't see any claim that an immortal , immaterial, rational human soul (hence a spirit) is present from the moment of conception in Evangelium Vitae.[/quote]

I'm going to assume you think the same of all Church teaching.

Are you sure?

By your own definition it does.

Paraphrase
[quote name='Littleles'] A person is an ensouled human being[/quote]


Let's check out the Catechism again....

[quote name='The Catechism AKA What you MUST beleive in order to be a CATHOLIC']Since it must be treated from conception as a [b]person[/b], 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 safe guarding 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." (CCC 2274)[/quote]