Did John Kerry Lie About Abortion?

[ironmonk]

As Catholics, we are allowed to believe that a child receives a soul (or souls in the case of future multiple births) at conception, but we are not required to believe that this is when ensoulment occurs.

Yes we are.

Jesus was with Mary at conception... recieving a soul is ensoulment.

Dairy,

As for you, the majority of the US believe that abortion is murder and that it should be outlawed....

It is not democracy that protect abortion, it is a minority forcing their views on the rest of us.

ironmonk

[Jake Huether]

I will not deny a mother her right to decide if she thinks a baby is human or not just because of someone's faith.

We aren't arguing the validity of abortion on the basis of faith. It's a scientific FACT.

A mother should decide if her BABY is a human or not? What? You are crazy. Sorry, but that's just silly.

So, for how long is the Baby NOT human? If you say, "until it recieves a soul", than show us when a "human" recieves a soul. Unless it's at conception, you can't prove that you yourself have a soul. What is a soul?

Sheesh.

Abortion is murder. And these people woud cry bloody murder if they saw an unborn puppy torn up.

Give me a break.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Gallup Finds Two-Thirds of Americans Believe Abortion is Morally Wrong

WASHINGTON, June 3, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The annual Gallup survey on abortion, which was conducted from May 5-7, 2003, shows again that most Americans believe abortion to be "morally wrong" and prepared to accept it as legal only under certain circumstances. Asked whether they consider themselves on the issue of abortion, 48% say they are "pro-choice" and 45% say "pro-life."

There are lots of stats out there.. it's hard to tell what's what.. but this seems reputable.

It appears that people agree with me.

But if the majority of the people agree with you, that is the way it should be. But that doesn't mean I will stop believing what I do.

Edited February 27, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[PhatPhred]

Yes we are.

Jesus was with Mary at conception... recieving a soul is ensoulment.

I was referring to non-Virgin births. For these, it is perfectly consistent with the Church's magisterium to believe that male fetuses are ensouled on the 40th day after conception, and female fetuses are ensouled on the 80th day after conception.

[Aloysius]

PhatPhred.... with all due respect....

:toilet:

EDIT: errr.. i guess i should make some content for this post. i think it is LUDICRIS to believe that ensoulment happens so and so days from conception, but regardless it is an offense against God to go into that sacred place where, in PhatPhred's scenario of it not having a soul yet, a vessel is being prepared for a soul. If it does not have a soul yet, it still has a purpose to receive a soul, and it is a GRAVE OFFENSE AGAINST GOD to even attempt to thwart that plan.

Anyway, science has taught us that it is a human at the moment of conception, so where before there was no authoritative thing deciding now we have received a gift from science (yeah, that's right, science can be a gift of the light of human reason to areas of uncertainty) and now know that it is human at that point, and all things human have immortal souls.

Edited February 27, 2004 by Aloysius

[IcePrincessKRS]

Phat Phred, despite your explanation I still think you are wrong. The following is a long article, but I'm quoting the entire thing anyway. The bolded comments are what I think are particularly important to note. If you are going to maintain that position please provide some source to back you up.

When Babies Get Their Souls

By James Akin

One of the arguments used by pro-abortion individuals is that it is permissible to kill an unborn child because nobody knows when the child gets a soul. Prior to this point, the unborn would not be a human being, and so killing it would not be homicide.

A parallel argument is sometimes made in the case of euthanasia. Some individuals confronted with a loved one who is comatose are counseled that the person's soul is no longer present, that it has "already gone home to God," and so it is okay to kill the body that is left.

Both of these arguments are wrong for a variety of reasons. To see why, let's begin by looking at when the child gets a soul — i.e., at the point of ensoulment. There are four basic possibilities for the time this can occur: at conception, between conception and birth, at birth, and after birth. Let's look at them in reverse order.

After Birth

This idea is so far out of Judeo-Christian tradition that it has always been recognized as an impossibility. It is, however, held in a small number of New Age circles. Some New Agers state that some children do not get their souls until several days after birth. This harmonizes with a common New Age idea that souls get to choose the body in which they reincarnate. The idea in this case would be that there is no magic point where a child has to get a soul; it just depends on what soul chooses the body first.

Needless to say, this is a bizarre idea and is not likely to have much traction outside New Age circles. It may become somewhat more common as abortion and euthanasia lead to a greater push for infanticide and thus a greater desire to rationalize away the humanity of a newly born child.

At Birth

Scarcely less bizarre than the post-birth hypothesis is the assertion made by some, supposedly based on Genesis 2:7, that one receives a soul and becomes a human when one draws one's first breath. This fails to appreciate the Bible's use of metaphor. Breath is a biblical metaphor for one's spirit or life-principle — since the only living humans in everyday life are breathing humans — but breath and spirit are not the same thing.

The idea that one inhales a soul at birth would suggest that souls are made out of oxygen molecules and that we inhale them and exhale them all the time, two notions incompatible with biblical anthropology. Furthermore, modern science reveals that the unborn have been already "breathing" through the placenta (the pre-birth organ equivalent in function to the mouth), which has been taking oxygen and nutrients from the mother's bloodstream.

Today the at-birth view is most often found among pro-abortion Christians. However, from a biblical point of view, it is clear that a child is human before birth. When Mary's greeting reached Elizabeth's ears in Luke's Gospel, the unborn John the Baptist leapt for joy in his mother's womb (1:44); we are also told that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (1:15). The unborn John the Baptist is also described as a brephos (Luke 1:41, 44), this being a Greek term meaning a babe, an infant, a newborn child. These indicate the humanity of the unborn John the Baptist, who was then in the third trimester (1:36-40).

After Conception

It is sometimes claimed that Thomas Aquinas believed that the unborn did not acquire a soul until several weeks after conception. This is not true. Aquinas believed that the unborn had a soul (a rational, human soul) from the time it was conceived. However, following Aristotelian science, he (and a few other Western writers) thought that conception was an extended process that did not finish until forty or ninety days into the pregnancy: "The conception of the male finishes on the fortieth day and that of the woman on the ninetieth, as Aristotle says in the IX Book of the Animals" (Aquinas, Commentary on III Sentences 3:5:2).

Aquinas was correct that the unborn receive their souls at conception; he was merely mistaken on when conception was finished, due to the lack of available science. As modern medicine has shown, conception in humans occurs almost instantaneously, as soon as the sperm and the ovum unite. This joining may occur as soon as twenty minutes after the marital act.

Aquinas and a few other medieval Western writers held the forty-to-ninety-day conception theory, but the biological discoveries of the nineteenth century proved it wrong. The view provides little comfort for abortion advocates today for a variety of reasons. It was based on primitive science. It draws a distinction between males and females that many today would regard as sexist. It was held by only a few writers. No single theologian (even Aquinas) speaks for the Church. The writers who favored the theory also opposed abortion as intrinsically evil at any stage.

At Conception

When viewed without the lens of Aristotelian science, the biblical view of ensoulment becomes clear. In the Old Testament, the psalmist assumes the humanity of the unborn child at conception when he says, "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5, NRSV). This indicates that the unborn child possesses a sinful, fallen nature at the time of conception (though it does not manifest in actual, personal sins until later; cf. Romans 9:11). Since sin is a spiritual phenomenon, the presence of a sinful nature indicates a spiritual nature and thus a soul, making the child a complete human being from conception.

The humanity of the unborn at all stages of development is also indicated by the biblical terminology used to refer to unborn children. The Hebrew term yeled, which means "child, son, boy, offspring, youth," is used to refer to the unborn child, regardless of the stage of development. (Cf. Ex. 21:22, where the Hebrew says literally "her children come out" instead of "she has a miscarriage," as in some translations.) The same is true of the term ben, which means "son, child, youth" (cf. Gen. 25:22).

From the biblical perspective, all children are children, whether born or not. The Jews neither had nor needed a specialized term for the unborn, whose humanity they saw clearly. Thus the Hebrew Scripture regularly refers to individuals existing in the womb ("I knew you in the womb," Jer. 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12, Ps. 139:13-16, Is. 44:2).

The Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament (c. A.D. 70) states, "You shall not procure an abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (2:1). The Letter of Barnabas (c. A.D. 74) states, "You shall not murder a child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born" (19). Numerous other references in the early Christian writers condemn abortion as murder.

The possession of the soul at all stages of development is also indicated by natural reason, once one understands what a soul is. From an ultimate perspective, a human is comprised of a human soul serving as the substantial form of a human body (cf. Summa Theologiae 1:75:4), as indicated in Genesis 2:7. The fact that a soul is needed to turn a human body into a human has sufficiently penetrated the popular consciousness that people recognize the presence of a soul is tied to the right to life.

This leads to the argument in which pro-abortion individuals try to turn the concept of the soul against pro-lifers by arguing that there is no empirical way of determining the presence of the soul, making it a matter of faith or personal opinion.

One response to this argument is to discuss the concept of the soul. According to biblical theology, the soul (the spirit) is the life-principle of the body. As such, so long as a human body is alive, it has a human soul, for, as James tells us, "the body apart from the spirit is dead" Jas. 2:26). This point of biblical theology was infallibly proclaimed, using philosophical terminology, by the Council of Vienna (1311-1312). The Council dogmatically defined that the soul is the substantial form of a living human body — the metaphysical form that gives the body its humanness and its life (DS 902 [D 481], CCC 365). When the soul departs, the body ceases to be living, loses its integrity, and begins to decay.

Given this, a pro-life advocate may say that there is an empirical test for the presence of the human soul. Though the soul itself cannot be empirically observed, its presence can be detected (just as an electron itself cannot be directly observed, but the presence of an electron can be detected through various scientific means). The test is simple: If you have a living human body, it is made alive by a human soul. This reduces the issue to the question of biological humanness.

Another way to deal with the argument is to turn the abortion activist's assertion — that the soul is undetectable — against him. One may argue that if the soul is undetectable, then its presence or absence cannot be used as a test for humanness in a secular society. People cannot be allowed to terminate the lives of others based on their individual beliefs concerning whether their victims have souls. Therefore, we must rely on what we can test, which is whether a life form is biologically human.

This approach will often be more appropriate than arguing about the presence or absence of souls, especially when one is talking with a person of little or no religious faith. It also undercuts the argument that the rights of the unborn are a purely religious matter.

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4295

[Dave]

There are lots of stats out there.. it's hard to tell what's what.. but this seems reputable.

It appears that people agree with me.

But if the majority of the people agree with you, that is the way it should be. But that doesn't mean I will stop believing what I do.

You say a woman should have a choice to decide whether her baby is human or not.

No, it would be far more appropriate to say that you believe a woman should have a choice to decide WHETHER TO KILL HER BABY OR NOT.

Dairygirl, just because some people may think a baby isn't human doesn't make it so. You're relying on your feelings and opinions rather than objective fact. If you rely on feelings and opinions, you will ALWAYS be led astray. And it appears that that's exactly what's happening to you. You need prayers big-time, hon.

[MrsFrozen]

Hi, dairygirl4u2c. Welcome to Phatmass.

Or if he were Catholic the way Catholics are taught today (though this may change), he would vote for what he thought was moral based on his faith instead of what is democratic.  ie  only able to do things that aren't hurting other people

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "though this may change," but I just wanted to point out that our morals most certainly will not change. "Thou shalt not kill" is the fifth commandment. The Catholic Church will never consider abortion to be okay, because it is murder.

Next thing you know everyone's going to be voting their specific morals and we're going to regress to a society that is simply run by the moral majority vote instead of the majority vote for the moral truth of true democracy. ie again being able to do anything as long as it isn't hurting other people.

Praise the Lord that we should "regress" into such a society! I pray for this peaceful, moral, loving, Catholic society every day! The secular society in which we live today is the true regression. Come on. Do you honestly think it's okay for a baby to be ripped from a mother's womb, dying in the process? Think about it.

Isn't that what America was created for? Freedom? To stop countries from being run by majority rule?

I think you're confused. A country is supposed to be run by majority rule. If not, we'd most likely be living in a totalitarian government, or ruled by a dictator. I.e., Hitler.

Dairygirl4u2c, I will be praying for you. I think you have been misled. Try not to listen to what the world tells you. God bless.

[MrsFrozen]

Hi, Dairygirl4u2c

Again with the rape, murder etc. I don't know how many times I have explained how those are different.

I missed your explanation. Can you please repeat how they are different from abortion? Thank you.

Even theologians dispute when the baby becomes "really" a person.

Just wanted to add that the true Catholic theologians do not.

God bless.

Edited February 27, 2004 by MrsFrozen

[MrsFrozen]

does anybody on this board have any comments on kerry notwithstanding the issue of abortion?

Sure! He's inconsistent at best, and an outright liar at worst. He didn't show up for 1/3 of the Senate votes, which shows that, well, frankly, he doesn't care. Would you hire someone who didn't show up for work 1/3 of the time? He stereotypes people and changes his tune for each audience. He directly and personally attacks the President. While serving in Vietnam, he opted to leave as soon as he possibly could, rather then stay and fight with his men. As a military wife, I am offended by this. Also, anyone who doesn't let their "morals get in the way of how they vote" not only has no morals, but really is a flimsy and gutless person. Not to mention the "intern incident." Hmmm... Remind you of anyone?

God bless. :)

[MrsFrozen]

ok let me get this straight... you're saying that abortion is the root of all evil? if only we were to rid the world of abortion, everything else would just fall in place. if we overturn Roe v Wade, the economy would get better, Ethiopian kids would have access to food, Iraqis would have protected liberty, there would be peace between the Israelis and Palestinians; the Indians and Pakistanis, Japan's economy would turnaround, Kim Jong Il would shut down his plutonium factories in Yongbyon, corruption on Capitol Hill would cease, etc. !?!!!?!? if only we can get rid of abortion, the world would have peace...

No. She said that BEFORE we concentrate on any of these things, we must FIRST recognize the unborn baby as a human life.

God bless.

[MrsFrozen]

I will not deny a mother her right to decide if she thinks a baby is human or not just because of someone's faith.

If a woman should have the right to decide whether or not her unborn child is a human, then why doesn't she have the right to decide whether her newborn, or toddler, or child is human?

[dairygirl4u2c]

Because with a born baby there is no dispute in my mind. If you want to think you are being denied your right to kill your born baby, in fhis philosophical context, I would agree with you. But don't expect me to back you up, because I don't think it is understandable for you to think the baby is not human.

Also to note I do think after the first trimester we should not allow abortion. It is arbitrary, but that's just the price we pay in order to value democracy and free will above life when it is reasonably disputed.

Edited February 27, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[littleflower+JMJ]

Because with a born baby there is no dispute in my mind. If you want to think you are being denied your right to kill your born baby, in fhis philosophical context, I would agree with you. But don't expect me to back you up, because I don't think it is understandable for you to think the baby is not human.

Also to note I do think after the first trimester we should not allow abortion. It is arbitrary, but that's just the price we pay in order to value democracy and free will above life when it is reasonably disputed.

as a christian, you know that LIFE is the greatest gift that can only come from GOD.

by your views, your choosing to destroy it.

you value democracy more than GOD and LIFE.

and you call murdering a unborn child in the first stages of LIFE reasonable?

[IcePrincessKRS]

Because with a born baby there is no dispute in my mind. If you want to think you are being denied your right to kill your born baby, in fhis philosophical context, I would agree with you. But don't expect me to back you up, because I don't think it is understandable for you to think the baby is not human.

Also to note I do think after the first trimester we should not allow abortion. It is arbitrary, but that's just the price we pay in order to value democracy and free will above life when it is reasonably disputed.

If you claim that a baby doesn't receive a soul and therefore is not human till you can feel it move or whatever (not you as in you personally) then that first trimester thing is bologna. I felt my baby kick very early on. Do you know what a baby LOOKS like by the end of the first trimester? We're talking about 3 months development here; they have working bodily functions, they have fingerprints, heartbeats, they move, they feel pain, yet you're willing to say that they might not be human? That up to this point its ok to KILL them? There is something very wrong with that.

There isn't much difference between 3 and 4 months if you ask me. A baby is a baby is a baby. Period.

Three Months

Four Months