Justin86 “It is bad debating to make a mass negative stereotype….
There really is no need to show contempt.”

I note you make no such comment to Francis who used the little gems

“Despite the rantings of the apostles of the culture of death“
“Many would have said the same, i.e. "good on you", to the Nazis.”

Or your own iterations regarding mass negative stereotypes and their “selfishness”



Re “(Col) If a woman decides to abort at 8 1/2 months, it is for a reason, she does not have to explain it to me or you but reason there will be.

The question is how do I debate this? If you really believe that an 8 1/2 month child is just a bunch of cells and can be disposed of like rubbish at the garbage dump, then I don't really know what to say.

I would at least ask you to consider how arbitary your stance is, just as you say we are arbitary choosing conception as the starting point. I would suggest that science heavily would point to the latter.”

How you debate it is up to you.
I would have thought reason and respect for other people’s cognitive skill were two good attributes to embrace.

So read my posts.

I have made no comparison between an embryo / foetus and any other arrangement of cellular matter.
Likewise, I have made no comment to any issue of commencement of “life”.

I have noted “separation” is recorded as the moment of birth and such an event is significant. I have noted the scientific fact that, prior to separation, the embryo/foetus is wholly dependent upon the resources of the mothers body. I have noted the mother has priority of right to her own body relative to any right of the embryo / foetus.

So if you think you are up to debating with me, I suggest you do not start by putting words into my mouth (which you will then criticise), such tactics make, to use your words, for “bad debating”.

excellent post, Col Rouge.

For the pro-foetuses, here's a hypothetical-

You are imprisoned by a terorist. In one hand he holds a test-tube containing a microscopic, fertilised human ovum. In his other hand he holds a gun to the head of a twenty-year-old woman. He tells you one of them must die, and unless you choose, you will all die.

Which do you choose?

If you choose to allow the fertilised ovum to die (as most rational people would) then you implicitly believe that non-sentient life is of less value than sentient life. You are pro-choice. All that remains is shades of grey.

Justin, you are clearly not a Catholic, or don't know the doctrine very well. No more masturbation, its a mortal sin you know :)

Wasting those holy sperms is violating natural law, they say.

This is what the Catholics think about the holy sperms and why:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

I repeat it for new readers, as clearly few know the actual Catholic doctrine for being so obsessed with sex, condoms, birth control,
masturbation etc.

Col, great posts by the way.

Francis, you belong to a very confusing sect.

>>My source is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which makes it absolutely clear that your interpretation [that an aborted foetus is bound for hell] is wrong.<<

According to my copy, entitled "The Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church includ[ing] the corrections promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 8 September 1997"

the relevant entry is...

"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation..... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude"

There are a few possibilities here. One is that your particular catechism differs in some way; or perhaps there is a more recent update; or maybe there is a contradictory clause of which I am unaware.

As far as I am aware - and once again please feel free to contradict - this particular part of the catechism has remained largely intact since the Council of Trent, from which I previously quoted.

The key issue here is, of course, original sin.

Unfortunately, my copy of the catechism is also pretty explicit on this topic.

"The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ"

Pretty tough on the unsuspecting foetus. Unborn, but full of sin. Straight to hell. Wow.

Over to you.

Pericles, the Catholic Catechism refers entirely to the born, not the aborted. There is good reason for this, since the Catholic Church, along with many of its greatest thinkers (not an oxymoron, by the way) is not entirely sure about foetal personhood. Both Aquinas and Augustine were of the opinion that 'ensoulment' took place only after a period of development. Aquinas considered this period to be the time it took for distinct organs to be visible. This could be as much as 90 days. Therefore, most, if not all, aborted foetuses would not go to hell – not yet having souls, they do not have original sin. In Evangelium Vitae, even JP II speaks only of the 'probability' of a human person being killed through abortion, while in 1987, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day," stated

[t]he Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature [as to the time of ensoulment], but it constantly affirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion.

Ensoulment is held to be a direct act of God, who can, presumably, withhold or withdraw ensoulment from those foetuses who are to be aborted. Furthermore, Aquinas’s body-soul (matter-form) analysis of the human being entails that the human soul is infused only when the body generated by the parents is sufficiently organised to be disposed for it – when it has the capability of sin. By the way, until the nineteenth century, the majority view in the Catholic church, as reflected in canon law as well as theological opinion, drew a distinction between early- and late-stage abortions. An early-stage abortion was considered to be a grave sin, but not regarded as equivalent to murder. The extract from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope) tends to indicate this position has not been entirely abandoned.

Does this help make matters clearer to you or Francis?

Pericles,

Keep reading.

Francis