Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Did John Kerry Lie About Abortion?


ironmonk

Recommended Posts

We need to use some proper terminology here. It is impossible to dispute the humanity of a conceptus, embryo or fetus. Humans have human DNA. Humans are humans are humans.

The main debate raging here seems to revolve around the definition of PERSONHOOD. Is an unborn baby a person?

I personally find it defies logic that anything that is human genetically could NOT be a person. There are no examples outside of the unborn where this is disputed. Any non-personness in a fetus has parallel examples outside of the womb which we would never agree is not a person.

If people choose to be completely illogical, that's their problem when they make it to the next life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dairygirl4u2c,

In addition to the pictures IcePrincessKRS posted, please look at Mrs. Frozen's avatar and dispute the humanity and personhood there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You sound like you prefer a society of anarchy. What exactly are our "philisophical rights?" Aren't you more concerned with what's morally right? Let's not become a society of heathens. I thought the barbaric era was over.

(Though on this last comment, let me just say that it is alive and well when my husband and his buddies get together to watch football. :lol:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and MrsFrozen, I love you. :D I don't think you've made a single point I disagree with.

Thanks, Iceprincess! I love you, too! I love the picture of the 12 week baby you posted. There is no denying that is a human being.

God bless. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Dairygirl, you might be interested in the book "A Child is Born" by Lennart Nilsson. It's a gorgeous book of photographs of the unborn baby, and tells of the developmental process. Your library may have it.

God bless. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IcePrincessKRS

Here's a picture of a baby at 8 weeks.

Who is the Embryo?

Thanks so much for posting that! I was looking for a picture of a baby at about 8 weeks like that, but posted what I could find! I'd post them directly to this thread but the file extension is wrong. Grrrrr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :)

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

Jimmy Akin is a great apologist, and I have nothing but respect for him. However, I don't see how his essay in any way contradicts what I said. He believes that ensoulment happens at conception, and provides some arguments in support of his position. As I said, this is perfectly permissible. (Just as it is permissible for those who support evolution and those who oppose evolution to argue on their respective sides.)

As far as the essay itself goes, the first two positions (ensoulment after birth and ensoulment at birth) are contrary to the magisterium. The latest that a faithful Catholic can believe ensoulment occurs is at "quickening", when the fetus starts "kicking", nominally at 116 days into the pregnancy.

I personally believe that ensoulment happens sometime around implantation. Karl Rahner, S.J., argues, based on the fact that fifty percent of all fertilized ova never succeed in becoming attached to the womb, that one consequence of the "ensoulment at conception" position is that 50 percent of all human beings -- that is, real human beings with immortal souls and an eternal destiny -- will never get beyond this first stage of human existence. I can't believe in a God that would design the human body to "naturally abort" so many ensouled human beings that it puts the U.S. abortion clinics to shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for posting that! I was looking for a picture of a baby at about 8 weeks like that, but posted what I could find! I'd post them directly to this thread but the file extension is wrong. Grrrrr.

You're welcome! It took some digging to find that one.

God bless. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy Akin is a great apologist, and I have nothing but respect for him. However, I don't see how his essay in any way contradicts what I said. He believes that ensoulment happens at conception, and provides some arguments in support of his position. As I said, this is perfectly permissible. (Just as it is permissible for those who support evolution and those who oppose evolution to argue on their respective sides.)

As far as the essay itself goes, the first two positions (ensoulment after birth and ensoulment at birth) are contrary to the magisterium. The latest that a faithful Catholic can believe ensoulment occurs is at "quickening", when the fetus starts "kicking", nominally at 116 days into the pregnancy.

I personally believe that ensoulment happens sometime around implantation. Karl Rahner, S.J., argues, based on the fact that fifty percent of all fertilized ova never succeed in becoming attached to the womb, that one consequence of the "ensoulment at conception" position is that 50 percent of all human beings -- that is, real human beings with immortal souls and an eternal destiny -- will never get beyond this first stage of human existence. I can't believe in a God that would design the human body to "naturally abort" so many ensouled human beings that it puts the U.S. abortion clinics to shame.

Actually, PhatPhred, maybe only those fertilized eggs that were meant to be implanted were infused with a soul at conception, while those that were not meant to be implanted were never given one. But who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, PhatPhred, maybe only those fertilized eggs that were meant to be implanted were infused with a soul at conception, while those that were not meant to be implanted were never given one.

Could be. This would imply that the soul could be detected physically, and thus perhaps proved scientifically. Edited to add: This is assuming that it is the presence of the soul that causes implantation to occur or not. Another possibility is that God uses His omniscience to only implant souls in those fertilized eggs that will end up being implanted.

But who knows?

This is my point exactly. The only thing I'm sure of is that God is just and merciful, whatever the answer.

Edited by PhatPhred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, i'll admit that.

however, it IS a sin to destroy a fertilized egg, regardless of when you think ensoulment happens when it's there in the womb it's God's beloved,,, if it's meant to exist God knew it before it was created, and He knows it before He gives it its soul. Once the egg and the sperm meet, there is no tampering with them, it's a deeper and more physical level of "what God has joined together, let no man break apart"

if there's something there preparing for God to breath into it an immortal human soul, humans have no right to demolish it. it's destruction of life, life which you do not know if God intended to be human or not, and thus you cannot destroy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

however, it IS a sin to destroy a fertilized egg, regardless of when you think ensoulment happens when it's there in the womb it's God's beloved,,, if it's meant to exist God knew it before it was created, and He knows it before He gives it its soul.  Once the egg and the sperm meet, there is no tampering with them, it's a deeper and more physical level of "what God has joined together, let no man break apart" 

if there's something there preparing for God to breath into it an immortal human soul, humans have no right to demolish it.  it's destruction of life, life which you do not know if God intended to be human or not, and thus you cannot destroy it.

Agreed. Definitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...