Did John Kerry Lie About Abortion?

[PhatPhred]

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.

My position is that believing that ensoulment takes place at conception plays right into the hands of the Culture of Death. Why should anybody be concerned about the measly 1,300,000 babies killed by medical doctors each year when God is the biggest abortionist of them all?

[frozencell]

What has this man NOT lied about???!!!

That's all I have to say.

Offensive mudslinging is the first sign of guilt.

[frozencell]

My position is that believing that ensoulment takes place at conception plays right into the hands of the Culture of Death. Why should anybody be concerned about the measly 1,300,000 babies killed by medical doctors each year when God is the biggest abortionist of them all?

What are you talking about? I'm not sure if I'm egotistical enough to call the Creator an abortionist. That's pretty bold, and I hope that I'm misunderstanding.

[PhatPhred]

What are you talking about? I'm not sure if I'm egotistical enough to call the Creator an abortionist. That's pretty bold, and I hope that I'm misunderstanding.

I'm referring to my earlier post:

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.

[frozencell]

I see. God is the giver (and withholder) of life. He reserves that right especially for Himself, not man, because He sees the whole picture and knows what is best and what to do according to His will. God obviously did not intend that baby to be there at that particular time and is acting in the best interest of Himself and man alike, whether we know it or not. I'm sure a lot of these "natural abortions" take place in the bodies of women who are not married yet are sexually active. This is the wrong context for a baby to be conceived in the first place. All I know is that ugly things start happening when man starts taking things he shouldn't into his own hands. And, besides, I don't think God is pulling them out limb from limb with cold metal forceps either.

[God Conquers]

MY GOD!!!

By your reasoning it's OK TO ABORT EARLY TERM!!!!

There is no reason to protect an unensouled being inside the woman, it's theologically untenable!

God chooses to return to Him WHOEVER HE LIKES AT ANY POINT IN THEIR LIVES! He is not an abortionist!

Everyone dies.

Gregory was correct. YOU are wrong.

The doctrine of the Church is developed now. It was an acceptable belief then, it is not one now.

[PhatPhred]

By your reasoning it's OK TO ABORT EARLY TERM!!!!

I've already explained twice now why this is not so.

There is no reason to protect an unensouled being inside the woman, it's theologically untenable!

Pope John Paul II thinks otherwise. If you won't listen to me, maybe you will listen to him.

... Among the Latin authors, Tertullian affirms: "It is anticipated murder to prevent someone from being born; it makes little difference whether one kills a soul already born or puts it to death at birth. He who will one day be a man is a man already".

Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors. Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.

...

... Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?".

Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life".

God chooses to return to Him WHOEVER HE LIKES AT ANY POINT IN THEIR LIVES! He is not an abortionist!

It is unthinkable that God is an abortionist. Nor does he capriciously kill human souls. This is why I believe that ensoulment happens after conception.

Gregory was correct. YOU are wrong.

The statements "ensoulment happens at conception" and "ensoulment happens after conception" have a truth-value that is independent of who is making the particular statement. This is basic logic.

The doctrine of the Church is developed now. It was an acceptable belief then, it is not one now.

This (acceptable belief -> not) is not development of doctrine, this is repudiation of doctrine. Which would be acceptable, as the middle age statements were not infallible. But it hasn't happened yet.

[Jake Huether]

Sorry PhatPhred, But if you don't accept that "ensoulment" happens upon conception, then you are gravely mistaken. A human is a human preciesly because it has a soul. If it has not an imortal soul, then it is nothing more than an animal. And the Church would not make such a stink about the killing of an animal.

A famous talkshow host on a news radio station once made the ignorant claim that ensoulment happend when the baby took it's first breath outside the womb (when the doctor spanked it).

If the soul isn't a part of the miracle of life at conception, then there is no difinitive evidence of a point in time when one "gets" a soul. And for all we no, there might be adults running around without souls (which seems the case, nonetheless, at times).

Furthermore, should we believe that a newborn baby doesn't yet have a soul, even if 90% of babies die after the first hour of birth? God giveth and he can taketh, at his will.

Death is a result of sin. If death did not exist, even natural abortions wouldn't occur. And so it is illogical to connect this with God's desire. He has warned us about contraception, about premarital sex. Yet we continue in this devistation. Our sins effect even the unborn.

Edited March 1, 2004 by Jake Huether

[Aloysius]

i've tried to explain PhatPhred's position, and he's said i'm right. simple:

God knows when he ensouls a baby. God does not allow an egg to be fertilized and then naturally not grow into a baby. the only thing that is ensouled is that which, if unaltered by man, WILL grow into a baby. Abortificient contraception is altering it by man, abortion is altering by man. MAN IS NOT ALLOWED TO INTERFERE 1nce THE EGG HAS BEEN FERTILIZED, regardless of whether it has a soul at that point or is preparing to have a soul

honestly, you both agree you must protect these fertilized eggs. if PhatPhred wants to say they're being prepared for a soul and you wanna say they already have a soul and i wanna say only God knows when they have a soul, it doesn't matter. it's still a man because it's going to have a soul. PhatPhred's point about the fertilized eggs that naturally don't grow into a full size baby makes a lot of sense, and therefore my position is God ensouls those who He is going to see to the developement of, if an egg is fertilized God only ensouls it if it is meant to produce a child. man cannot interfere with this, if it is going to grow into a child without our intervention it's meant to be a child, and thus we cannot abort or contracept or use the morning after pill or anything of the like under both positions.

[foundsheep]

A famous talkshow host on a news radio station once made the ignorant claim that ensoulment happend when the baby took it's first breath outside the womb (when the doctor spanked it).

Going along with this. My wife is about four months pregnant, That baby punching and kicking definately has a soul. That baby that caused her to have morning sickness when she was just a month pregnant has a soul.

[Aloysius]

i think ensoulment happens at conception only for those fertilized eggs that will not naturally, unopposed by human intervention, be destroyed. because if those were ensouled too, PhatPhred's ludicrus statement to make a point would be right, God would be an abortionist.

[Jake Huether]

God does not allow an egg to be fertilized and then naturally not grow into a baby. 

Why not? He allows new borns to die. Why limit this to babies..? Lets apply this logic to adults. What is the goal of life? If it is to make it to adulthood, then one could argue that even newborns who die do not have souls. Why would God allow that? Is the goal to make it "at least" to babyhood? NO!. But in reality, the purpose of our lives is to please God. And yet, in original sin, even a newborn is not a child of God.

If God reserves a soul for only the "fertilized eggs" that make it? What is the definition of "make it". Because technically, a newborn is a "fertilized egg". So, if a newborn doesn't "make it" did it have a soul? If you want percentages, lets look at each trimester. And then we can agrue about at which minimum "rate of success" God might choose in order for it to be "safe" to give the "fertilized egg" a soul.

This is rediculous. Sorry. The Church would not accept this.

the only thing that is ensouled is that which, if unaltered by man, WILL grow into a baby. 

And what is a "baby"? When is the difinitive time when the "fertilized egg" WILL grow into a baby? Otherwise, don't you think it unfair that even after birth some babies don't "make it"? Or do they not have souls either.

Am I missing something here.?

Abortificient contraception is altering it by man, abortion is altering by man.  MAN IS NOT ALLOWED TO INTERFERE 1nce THE EGG HAS BEEN FERTILIZED, regardless of whether it has a soul at that point or is preparing to have a soul

So, then abortion isn't wrong because it's murder. It's wrong because it is stoping a "potential human".

Think again.

and therefore my position is God ensouls those who He is going to see to the developement of, if an egg is fertilized God only ensouls it if it is meant to produce a child. 

Whow! Stop, right there. Are we to believe, then that an egg and a sperm do not "produce a child". A child is only produced if the fertilized egg makes it past a certain time? This is crazy! A spirm and an egg, when the come together, create a human baby. God created the biological sequences which happen. It has always been the case that the formula for a human sould is conception. It is mans participation with Gods plan for pro-creation.

and thus we cannot abort or contracept or use the morning after pill or anything of the like under both positions.

Yet, the one possition means the end to the life of a cluster of cells, while the other means the casting of an eternal soul to it's judgement.

I can't imagine that the Church would hold such an avid stance against abortion if it was simply the destruction of a "potential" human. The whole point of the Church's fight is that it is a HUMAN SOUL!

I am very sorry for even reading this thread. I am saddened by the fact that there are those who would deny that a newly concieved baby is really a human baby (body soul and spirit).

Lord, by your mercy, accept on my behalf the baptism of all unborn babies, newly concieved, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Edited March 1, 2004 by Jake Huether

[Jake Huether]

i think ensoulment happens at conception only for those fertilized eggs that will not naturally, unopposed by human intervention, be destroyed.  because if those were ensouled too, PhatPhred's ludicrus statement to make a point would be right, God would be an abortionist.

This statement is ludicrus.

By that logic, then even your ideal is flawed. Is God a murderer and sadist because he allows babies to be born and die within a few years? Or to be born with severe handicaps? NO! Death and disease came into the world by US not by God!

If a newly concieved baby dies even before implantation, its imortal soul has a destination (read the catechism - under baptism). God didn't abort the baby any more than he murders children (and adults who get cancer ect.). Death is a fact of life, not by the desire of God, but by the will of humanity - specifically Adam and Eve.

The fact that conception icludes ensoulment doesn't in the very least convict God of abortion when this baby naturally dies. Most people, pre- or post-birth naturally die sometime? It's silly to pin natural death on God.

Abortion isn't even a word. Lets stop using it, because it has a conotation that distinguishes an unborn human from a born human. It's either murder, or natural death. Both of which happen to adults also.

Abortion could be applied to, say, the stopping of sperm from meeting the egg. Because it "aborts" a process which hasn't yet been fulfilled. But conception is the fulfillment of that process. Human life has begun. There is no "aborting" it. It's already complete! Humans don't develope any more in there humanity. They are a complete human. Yes, an unborn baby developes physically, in the body. And adult humans continually develope in spirit - or degenerate. But there is no such thing as the "developement" of humanity of a human. A human is a human. Once the sperm has fertilized the egg, a human is present. It isn't abortion. It is murder. It isn't "naturla abortion". It is natural death.

Forget about the womb. There is nothing different about development once conception occurs. We are all nurtured. We all grow. We all change in appearance. We all shed and grow new cells. We all have a free will. We can be murdered. We can die naturally. From conception on.

God is just no matter what. It is not his "wish" that a newly concieved baby die (naturally or not) any more than it is his "wish" that a newly born baby dies or an adult for that matter. All death is attributed to US. Although God allows it, he does not like it.

Edited March 1, 2004 by Jake Huether

[PhatPhred]

Sorry PhatPhred, But if you don't accept that "ensoulment" happens upon conception, then you are gravely mistaken.

I could very well be mistaken. But the point that I have been tediously trying to make is that I am not outside the bounds of what a faithful Catholic is permitted to believe by the Church's magisterium.

A human is a human preciesly because it has a soul.  If it has not an imortal soul, then it is nothing more than an animal.  And the Church would not make such a stink about the killing of an animal. 

This is in direct contradiction to the excerpts that I took from Evangelium Vitae, where Pope John Paul II explicitly states (and I paraphrase) that abortion is a very big stink regardless of when ensoulment occurs.

God giveth and he can taketh, at his will.

The flaw with reasoning behind this statement is that it ignores the difference between misfeasance and malfeasance. Just because an action (even by God) does not constitute malfeasance does not necessarily imply that it does not constitute misfeasance.

[PhatPhred]

i've tried to explain PhatPhred's position, and he's said i'm right.

I agree with everything that you've said. The idea about conditional ensoulment is very interesting. I don't see anything theologically wrong with it at all.