Did John Kerry Lie About Abortion?

[cmotherofpirl]

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.

I always though the ensoulment at kicking is a silly argument. Babies are kicking long before you feel them. Some moms who are really heavy don't feel the kicking for the longest time. I know one (who was a paramedic, go figure) who didn't realize she was pregnant til she went into labor.

Catholics have always considered the pill is an abortificant becauase it stops the implantation of a fertilized egg. Jimmy's theory would find that permissible.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Thats exactly what I was going to say Cmom!

[PhatPhred]

Catholics have always considered the pill is an abortificant becauase it stops the implantation of a fertilized egg. Jimmy's theory would find that permissible.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you meant to say that my theory would find that permissible, as Jimmy's theory is that ensoulment happens at conception.

However, this is an incorrect deduction, as Aloysius points out. An unensouled fetus is still a vessel being prepared by God for the reception of an enternal soul, and is thus a human being with the full rights of a person.

Your statement that my theory would make abortificants permissible is not logical. It's as if I pointed out that committing adultery was a betrayal of one's spouse, with you then concluding that I think fornication is acceptable because no spouse is being betrayed.

[God Conquers]

The medievals argued about when ensoulment took place because they knew next to nothing (compared to us) about biology. Why would God allow a human to exist without a soul? He wouldn't because our soul is what defines our humanity.

Our soul is also bound indivisibly to our flesh. They are one and indivisible. It only makes sense that ensoulment would take place at conception, because this is when we come into being. God must act at that point, to create who we are.

Arguing that ensoulment takes place later on, but that what precedes ensoulment is human is ridiculous. An unensouled human would the worth and dignity which is present in us only because of the soul.

We are made in the image and likeness of God. It is our free choice and intellect which define this, and these faculties are linked with the soul. No human is created who is NOT in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, at our biological creation (conception) we MUST be endowed with a soul in order for us to be human, children of God.

[Aloysius]

i think PhatPhred has an acceptable view. as long as he believes that to destroy a fertilized egg is murder by nature of the fact that that was being prepared to receive a soul. i think we don't quite know when ensoulment happens, but we do know that from the point of conception human dignity must be appointed it because either it already has a soul or it is being prepared for a soul.

[PhatPhred]

i think PhatPhred has an acceptable view.  as long as he believes that to destroy a fertilized egg is murder by nature of the fact that that was being prepared to receive a soul.

Exactly my view.

The medievals argued about when ensoulment took place because they knew next to nothing (compared to us) about biology.

Just as we know next to nothing compared to what science five hundred years from now will discover. The Church respects the teachings of Pope Innocent III, the Ecumenical Council of Vienne, and Pope Gregory XIV not because medieval science was accurate, but because they were guided by the Holy Spirit who knows all there is to know about biology and ensoulment.

Why would God allow a human to exist without a soul?

Why would the Holy Spirit allow the above Popes to promulgate laws (which the Church then faithfully observed) pertaining to the abortion of unensouled fetuses if in fact there were no such thing?

You can make all sorts of arguments for and against many different positions. Each Catholic has to determine for himself or herself which to believe.

[God Conquers]

Although I respect your right to your own opinion, I believe that your opinion is a dangerous one.

There are no humans who do not have souls. If you don't have a soul, you're not human, ergo, you can't argue that it has dignity as being in the image and likeness of God.

If you have a "thing" (not human, no soul) being "prepared" for ensoulment, that thing is not protected in the plan of Salvation. It doesn't have a soul, so why would it matter if it was killed or not?Why would we need to be "prepared" for a soul? It just doesn't make sense.

What happens if this being being prepared to recieve a soul dies before the point of "ensoulment"? It can't go to heaven or hell... it has no soul, and therefore no eternal life whatsoever. Its just another animal.

Souls are what make us human. No soul, no humanity, no eternal life, no dignity deserved of an eternal being.

Your view allows for oral contraceptive and birth control, and also possibly for early term abortion.

[PhatPhred]

Your view allows for oral contraceptive and birth control, and also possibly for early term abortion.

This is where I disagree. The Church is very clear that these are quite sinful, just as fornication is quite sinful even though there is no spouse being betrayed. (This last is a reference back to the analogy in my post at Feb 29 2004, 01:48 PM.)

I view the issue of ensoulment as similar to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's kind of interesting, and it would be nice if the Church had a definite teaching on the matter, but the most important thing is that the Church does have definite teachings as regards all the real-world consequences, e.g., the gravely sinful early-term abortion that you mention above. We will find out where all the fertilized ova that don't implant end up when we get to heaven.

[ironmonk]

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.

Wrong. A faithful Catholic believes that ensoulment happens at conception. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

I personally believe that ensoulment happens sometime around implantation.

That would be a false belief. What reason causes for this belief? Is it to calm a conscience that has used the death "pill"? I cannot think of any theological reaons. Please enlighten me.

The Church teaches that ensoulment begins at conception.

Christ was with Mary at conception.... St. Luke 1.

If you do favor some form of birth control, you might like to know that the Church teaches that it is intrinsically evil.

2370

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

--------------------

2273

The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274

Since it must be treated from conception as a person, 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 safeguarding 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."82

2275

"One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

-----------------------

A faithful Catholic must and will believe that life/ensoulment begins at conception.

There is no theological or scientific reason to believe otherwise.

For Christ,

ironmonk

[PhatPhred]

Wrong. A faithful Catholic believes that ensoulment happens at conception. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

It's good to know that Pope Gregory XIV wasn't a faithful Catholic then. Maybe you can have Catholic Culture add him to their "unapproved" list. Seeing how that list already includes several members of the Church's magisterium, they shouldn't have a problem with adding one more.

That would be a false belief. What reason causes for this belief? Is it to calm a conscience that has used the death "pill"? I cannot think of any theological reaons. Please enlighten me.

As I've already stated, I find Karl Rahner's argument the most convincing.

The Church teaches that ensoulment begins at conception.

You might want to read canon law number 227 over again. The Church has never repudiated its teachings from the middle ages.

If you do favor some form of birth control, you might like to know that the Church teaches that it is intrinsically evil.

At least we are agreed on one thing.

[ironmonk]

The Catechism I posted shows that you are wrong.

You might want to read 227 again.

-ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

It's good to know that Pope Gregory XIV wasn't a faithful Catholic then. Maybe you can have Catholic Culture add him to their "unapproved" list. Seeing how that list already includes several members of the Church's magisterium, they shouldn't have a problem with adding one more.

As I've already stated, I find Karl Rahner's argument the most convincing.

You might want to read canon law number 227 over again. The Church has never repudiated its teachings from the middle ages.

At least we are agreed on one thing.

Yep.

Catholic Culture is a great site , isn't it.

[God Conquers]

PhatPhred,

We're not saying Pope Gregory is wrong. What we're saying is that the Church's teachings have bee ELABORATED since he was pope in 1591.

There was no abortion, there was no oral contraceptive or birth control pill or widespread belief that babies are not worth protecting in the 16th century.

What makes someone human is their soul.

There are no humans without souls.

Because of their souls, humans have intrinsic dignity as the Image and Likeness of God.

If something doesn't have a soul, it is not human.

If the embryo has no soul it is not human.

If the embryo has no soul it is not made in the image and likeness of God.

Therefore the embryo does not deserve to be protected.

Times change, the Church elaborates and develops its doctrine in order to defend life and encourage salvation.

No teachings from the middle ages have been repudiated, but some of the teachings have been developed further, with deeper understanding of how God works through nature and revelation.

If our bodies are a reflection of our soul, the sould must exist at the time of conception.

If our bodies are inextricably linked to the soul, this is also the case.

Again, to believe that ensoulment takes place at some "point" after conception is playing right into the hands of the Culture of Death. It takes value away from the human person at the departure point of their life.

[PhatPhred]

The Catechism I posted shows that you are wrong.

What the Catechism said (your highlighted part):

Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.

...

Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

What I said:

An unensouled fetus is still a vessel being prepared by God for the reception of an enternal soul, and is thus a human being with the full rights of a person.

They look pretty consistent to me.

[PhatPhred]

We're not saying Pope Gregory is wrong.

Thus as long as I'm saying the same thing as Pope Gregory, then I cannot be wrong either. Yet you seem to be saying that I am wrong. What am I missing?

What makes someone human is their soul.

There are no humans without souls.

Because of their souls, humans have intrinsic dignity as the Image and Likeness of God.

If something doesn't have a soul, it is not human.

If the embryo has no soul it is not human.

If the embryo has no soul it is not made in the image and likeness of God.

This is a perfectly reasonable logical progression, and as I have said it is consistent with the magisterium. However, it is not, in and of itself, a teaching of the magisterium. (Unless you are secretly a Bishop.)