98% of Catholic Women us Contraception
- Thread starter JuNie
- Start date
There's still the problem that it says exactly nowhere in the bible that a fetus has a soul before the quickening. Actually there's evidence for the opposite. You are just stuck in your hateful mindset and use religion as a tool to channel your hate on certain targets that some imbecile religiotard mis-interpreter of the bible thought would be easy to hate on.
I don't think you even realise that this is what you're ACTUALLY doing. You're not doing Gods work. At least not the God who is described in the bible.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
YoYoPapaya,
The following seems like a factoid: A statement made to look like a fact.
What references can be sited as to the accuracy of this? What study and methods were used? Did Asguard just make this up?
I don't answer for Asguard
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
You should do that. You're unable to defend your position anyway.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Conception and Protection of the Result of Conception
CCC No. 2270 states:
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."
The relevant part of the Didache - the earliest known writing we have regarding Christianity's position on the unborn - states:
"2 The Second Commandment
2:1 The second commandment of the teaching is this:
2:2 . . . you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor."
Citing the Didache and other Church documents, the CCC states even more explicitly in the relevant part:
No. 2271 . . . You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish . . . Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception . . ."
Finally, CCC No. 2274 states in relevant part:
"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."
Although not directly, the CCC comes as close as anything I have read in it as far as defining what constitutes conception:
"No. 2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person."
As I said, although it is not a direct "definition" per se, the above quote from the CCC seems to make clear that conception occurs when the sperm penetrates the egg, as that is the only "act which brings the child into existence . . . [by] the power of doctors and biologists . . ." in a petrie dish.
In an earlier post, I distinguished between a totipotent zygote and an embryo, but I do not believe the Church has ever made, nor will it ever make, such a distinction. The only way man can "distinguish" the two is by - as you suggest - separating certain "transitions" between the moment of the sperm penetrating the egg and the creation of additional cells, and even this can only be done through the use of an electron microscope.
From a purely medical/biological point of view, I have found the following definitions of "conception" (and even here, the line blurs on occasion):
1. a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.
b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.
2. Fertilisation (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy) is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism. In animals, the process involves the fusion of an ovum with a sperm, which eventually leads to the development of an embryo.
3. The process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both. (This definition, from Webster's, is the most inarticulate, as it does not really distinguish conception from fertilization and implantation, whereas the Church certainly does make such a distinction).
The Soul and its Creation
Teaching regarding the soul is a bit more vague.
The 8th General Council of Constantinople established the dogma that man possesses only one single spiritual soul: unam animam rationabilem et intellectualem habere hominem.
Synods at Constantinople and Braga both rejected the teaching that souls exist before their connection with a body.
Strict scriptural proof regarding when and how a soul is created does not exist. Nevertheless, many, many Church pronouncements through the years lead us to the "comfortable" theological position that, "each individual soul is created by God out of nothing at the moment of its unification with the body." Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, Sect. 15, No. 4
In his encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII said, "The Catholic Faith obliges us to hold firmly that souls are immediately created by God."
"Modern Christian philosophy generally holds that the creation and infusion of the spiritual soul coincides with the moment of conception."Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, Sect. 15, No. 4
Ott cites for contrast of the above quote, a condemnation by decree from the Holy Office on March 4, 1679, of the following heresy: "1185 35. It seems probable that every foetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time that it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion."
Disingenuousness of Citing "Early Church Fathers" on when Life Begins
In closing, it is important to note that early theologians such as St. Augustine did not have the requisite knowledge of biology so as to permit them to comment with authority on matters such as when a child in the womb deserved protection.
The poster-person for how NOT to be a Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, raised this exact issue recently when she said, regarding abortion and the beginning of life:
"as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose.”
Several cardinals and numerous bishops across the US immediately criticized Pelosi for not only misrepresenting Church teaching, but also because of her duplicity in citing "Church Fathers" on matters that they simply did not have the wherewithal to know at that time the information we have today.
This may sound uncharitable, but if it were possible for Pelosi to lose an election and NEVER be permitted to serve in a position where she could have a hand in deciding a matter on abortion, I would gladly serve extra time in Purgatory (assuming, God willing, I make it there).
CCC No. 2270 states:
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."
The relevant part of the Didache - the earliest known writing we have regarding Christianity's position on the unborn - states:
"2 The Second Commandment
2:1 The second commandment of the teaching is this:
2:2 . . . you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor."
Citing the Didache and other Church documents, the CCC states even more explicitly in the relevant part:
No. 2271 . . . You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish . . . Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception . . ."
Finally, CCC No. 2274 states in relevant part:
"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."
Although not directly, the CCC comes as close as anything I have read in it as far as defining what constitutes conception:
"No. 2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person."
As I said, although it is not a direct "definition" per se, the above quote from the CCC seems to make clear that conception occurs when the sperm penetrates the egg, as that is the only "act which brings the child into existence . . . [by] the power of doctors and biologists . . ." in a petrie dish.
In an earlier post, I distinguished between a totipotent zygote and an embryo, but I do not believe the Church has ever made, nor will it ever make, such a distinction. The only way man can "distinguish" the two is by - as you suggest - separating certain "transitions" between the moment of the sperm penetrating the egg and the creation of additional cells, and even this can only be done through the use of an electron microscope.
From a purely medical/biological point of view, I have found the following definitions of "conception" (and even here, the line blurs on occasion):
1. a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.
b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.
2. Fertilisation (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy) is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism. In animals, the process involves the fusion of an ovum with a sperm, which eventually leads to the development of an embryo.
3. The process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both. (This definition, from Webster's, is the most inarticulate, as it does not really distinguish conception from fertilization and implantation, whereas the Church certainly does make such a distinction).
The Soul and its Creation
Teaching regarding the soul is a bit more vague.
The 8th General Council of Constantinople established the dogma that man possesses only one single spiritual soul: unam animam rationabilem et intellectualem habere hominem.
Synods at Constantinople and Braga both rejected the teaching that souls exist before their connection with a body.
Strict scriptural proof regarding when and how a soul is created does not exist. Nevertheless, many, many Church pronouncements through the years lead us to the "comfortable" theological position that, "each individual soul is created by God out of nothing at the moment of its unification with the body." Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, Sect. 15, No. 4
In his encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII said, "The Catholic Faith obliges us to hold firmly that souls are immediately created by God."
"Modern Christian philosophy generally holds that the creation and infusion of the spiritual soul coincides with the moment of conception."Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, Sect. 15, No. 4
Ott cites for contrast of the above quote, a condemnation by decree from the Holy Office on March 4, 1679, of the following heresy: "1185 35. It seems probable that every foetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time that it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion."
Disingenuousness of Citing "Early Church Fathers" on when Life Begins
In closing, it is important to note that early theologians such as St. Augustine did not have the requisite knowledge of biology so as to permit them to comment with authority on matters such as when a child in the womb deserved protection.
The poster-person for how NOT to be a Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, raised this exact issue recently when she said, regarding abortion and the beginning of life:
"as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose.”
Several cardinals and numerous bishops across the US immediately criticized Pelosi for not only misrepresenting Church teaching, but also because of her duplicity in citing "Church Fathers" on matters that they simply did not have the wherewithal to know at that time the information we have today.
This may sound uncharitable, but if it were possible for Pelosi to lose an election and NEVER be permitted to serve in a position where she could have a hand in deciding a matter on abortion, I would gladly serve extra time in Purgatory (assuming, God willing, I make it there).
Still nothing. No proof of the bible saying that it has a soul before the quickening. There is none. It's just the usual religiotard bs invented so you can kick those that are already down. They make easier targets, don't they?
some people don't believe in souls at all. and i've already stated in this thread that the bible says that god knew us BEFORE he formed us in the womb. that's BEFORE conception. whether you believe in a soul or not, the truth is that we each have an entirely unique identity that is at the latest determined upon conception by our dna and all that happens after that is growth and development, which continues through childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood. imo, the only reason we see a need to try and draw a line at anytime other than conception is because something's wrong.
i having had an abortion, think your comment about being kicked while you're down is ironic. things don't always turn out the way people think they will. live and learn.
Yes he knows the soul before conception, but when does the soul enter the fetus? It's just lies and lies. To excuse disgusting behavior outside doctors clinics. Same behavior as in the case of the dead soldiers and that retard babtist church.
But you believe what you want to believe. That's generally what people do. They interpret the bible in some way that suits their needs. And if it's not there they make shit up so they can do whatever the hell they want like spitting on unfortunate young girls that have a difficult enough time. These people need christlike christians for moral support. Not a flock of stonethrowing devils with goldfish like IQ.
What seems to be the underlying issue here that you are pointing at?
Who are "those who are already down"?
Read my other posts in this thread. Then I'm sure you will understand.
A person's faith/religiosity develops over time, this development has even been formalized - Fowler's stages of faith development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler's_stages_of_faith_development
A person's external behavior is an expression of this development, whatever particular stage they are currently at.
Especially in the early stages, a person's behavior can be quite crude.
But this doesn't mean that they are perfect examples or that this is all there is to religiosity.
I used to be quite upset over fundamentalist behavior too, but understanding things from a developmental perspective has significantly eased that upset.
I doubt that these people will ever develop beyond that stage. It's not even about religion. It's about a flock of retards using religion as an excuse to harass people. I know that it's far from all christians that even support those people. There are plenty of good religious people. What I'm saying is that these people should not be legitimised by holy book, when there's absolutely NO EVIDENCE in the book for saying that pre quickening abortions are murder. Even if there was evidence, it shouldn't be ok. But there's not. There's evidence for the opposite.
I'm not sure what you see as the problem - given the First Amendment and similar laws in many other countries.
You misunderstand me on purpose. Is it really necessary? Could you start talking like an adult please and stop pretending that the pro-life morons are not a problem, when I just showed you the statistics. Are you immune to facts or something?
You said that the people who attack abortion clinics do so because they believe the Bible tells them so.
Then you yourself point out that the Bible doesn't tell them so.
So they are misquoting.
What's the problem in this?
Note, we're not disputing the wrongness of the attacks, we agree they are wrong.
The only issue is the justification for those attacks.
They say they are justified by the Bible, you say they aren't.
So?
Then you yourself point out that the Bible doesn't tell them so.
So they are misquoting.
What's the problem in this?
Note, we're not disputing the wrongness of the attacks, we agree they are wrong.
The only issue is the justification for those attacks.
They say they are justified by the Bible, you say they aren't.
So?
So they shouldn't be encouraged into behaving like that, by whomever it is that poisons their minds.