Did John Kerry Lie About Abortion?

[God Conquers]

Where does Tertullian disagree?

[ironmonk]

nm

Edited March 2, 2004 by ironmonk

[PhatPhred]

Where does Tertullian disagree?

I was referring to the Tertullian quote from Evangelium Vitae.

[God Conquers]

ummm, sure. But he's just talking about abortion, not ensoulment. He uses man to define a person not yet grown, not "man" in the general sense of humanity.

[frozencell]

I've read most of the conversation that has been going on the past few pages and I would like to thank everyone for at least acknowledging that abortion in wrong despite when a soul is given to a conceived baby. It makes everything else so much easier.

I do have to side a little more with Jake on this one, though, for the simple fact that he's right about the soul making a human a human. Humans are classified with mammals (no surprises there!) next to bats, weasels, mountain goats, dogs, and the thirteen-lined ground squirrel(haha...). Of course we don't know for certain in writing when God gives the soul, but God has infused most of us with common sense and has expected us to use it for some things. At 7 PM I'm not proof positive that it's dark outside because I'm not outside and I don't have windows at work, but I can assume through common sense that it is. The same is with ensoulment; we're not there, but we can look at other things to craw a conclusion. I'm not at the step in my spiritual walk yet where I feel good saying that there is a short period after conception where the "whatever" could be a bat or a sloth instead of a baby. (Common sense also leads you to know that I know that a woman is not going to give birth to a sloth, either, so please take it for what it was worth and nothing else.) Anyhow, it would seem that the soul is what makes a human being a human being, seperate from the other beasts that share our same basic characteristics.

It's also safe to say that God doesn't withhold a soul from someone who is conceived because they are going to grow up and be a serial killer or a rapist or a coke feind or any number of things. Gid gives everyone a soul. Sin was brought into this world by us. God allowed us to do that through free will. Death is a direct result of sin, and sin is so grave that us sinning effects others dying. God also allows us to continue this through free will. To say that God kills babies or adults or teenagers is not intelligent. God allows sin and death. We do with it what we please.

God gives everyone a soul. It is up to them as to what they are going to do with it. God gave Ted Bundy a soul. He gave Ted's victims souls. He gave them souls even with the possibility that they weren't going to go to heaven when they died. So why would he not give a soul to a baby at the moment of conception because there is the chance that they may not make it naturally to full-term childbirth? You may not realize it but this is a niche in which pro-murder people could say that abortion is okay because why would God give a baby a soul if He knew they weren't going to make it to full-term childbirth unnaturally either? Because then it's not murder anymore, it's animal control.

God makes animals and He makes humans. the difference is that Billy has a soul and Rover doesn't. At no point was there the possibility of Billy being Rover instead of Billy or vice versa. My common sense leads me to believe that ensoulment takes place at conception.

If this isn't true then I'm calling my next kid Spot until he/she is born.

Edited March 2, 2004 by frozencell

[IcePrincessKRS]

Frozencell :wub:

(That last line cracked me up! Spot!)

[PhatPhred]

Someone recalled the copy of Denzinger-Schoenmetzer that I had checked out of the library, so I will be going back next week and I'll take a look around for some more official documentation.

In looking more online, I came across a ten page scholarly article by John J. Conley, S.J. (this is an HTML link!!!) that addresses many of the points we have been discussing here. The article discusses attempts by Kevin Wm. Wildes and others to use the Church's lack of a definitive teaching on when ensoulment occurs to justify doing all sorts of horrible things (abortion, stem cell research, etc.) to unensouled embryos. Conley makes it completely clear through the (well footnoted) use of official Church documents that there is absolutely no justification at all for this position, not now nor at any time in the past, including the middle ages when the delayed ensoulment theory was most popular. As frozencell points out, abortion is always wrong regardless of when a soul is given.

Conley then goes on to address the question brought up here of whether the magisterium should come to a definitive position that ensoulment happens at birth:

Certain Catholic observers of the damage wrought by those who have retrieved the delayed-animation hypothesis argue that the Magisterium should clearly endorse the theory of immediate animation and teach that a human person, a rational soul, is present from the moment of conception.

However, Conley concludes that this may be premature given the scientific progess still to be made concerning the biology of early fetal development.

All in all, a very interesting read.