Abortion: When does life really start?

fredms3 wrote:

I believe that's the point of contention here: the zygote successfully implants itself inside the uterus.

Yidda wrote:Abortion: When does life really start?

A prenatal is defined as any human being from conception to birth. Human life begins at conception and develops through several different stages until the prenatal is viable outside the womb and is born. The word “prenatal” means “before birth.” A prenatal is a developing human being.

The soul is infused at conception, at the formation of what is called a zygote (first single cell in the development of human life).

Ateo wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

Fred, according to the above site, some 50% of all fetuses suffer spontaneous abortion. Spontaneous abortion -- also called a miscarriage -- is the expulsion of a fetus from the mother before the point of viability (22nd weeks). (After that point, it is called "still-birth".) One study even showed that 62% of all fetuses are normally miscarried. Actually, most cases of spontaneous abortion happen very early in the pregnancy that the women does not even notice it and thought that it was just a rather unusual menstruation. Nonetheless, a fetus was conceived and was subsequently aborted. By whom?

By this, this means that the woman did not mean it to happen. She did not exercise free will on the matter. I also don't think that the fetus exercise his/her free will to leave the womb. That leaves only one other Being that made that decision -- GOD!. God wills that one half of all conceived fetuses are expulsed from the womb. WHY?

If he really loves fetuses, He should not cause them to be aborted. Please explain.

korrill wrote:

Pray tell: Where in the bible is that stated?

Ateo wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

Fred, according to the above site, some 50% of all fetuses suffer spontaneous abortion. Spontaneous abortion -- also called a miscarriage -- is the expulsion of a fetus from the mother before the point of viability (22nd weeks). (After that point, it is called "still-birth".) One study even showed that 62% of all fetuses are normally miscarried. Actually, most cases of spontaneous abortion happen very early in the pregnancy that the women does not even notice it and thought that it was just a rather unusual menstruation. Nonetheless, a fetus was conceived and was subsequently aborted. By whom?...

korrill wrote:Depends on how you will define "life."

Personally, I see life as starting at the successful implantation of the zygote in the uterus. Only then is the zygote assured of further development and the chance at completing the gestation period and arriving at birth.

As for abortion, I will only agree to it under certain conditions:

1. The pregnancy critically endangers the life of the mother, the fetus, or both.

2. The fetus has been diagnosed as having an incurable disorder / disease that will only guarantee it suffering and certain death after birth.

For all other reasons, my answer is no.

Yidda wrote:

It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that Jesus is like us in his human nature, except free from sin, and that at the Incarnation, the body and soul of Jesus were created at the same time, and also at that same time, the Divine Nature and his human nature were one. Therefore, at every human conception the same simultaneous creation of body and soul occur.

The term soul implies that there is also a body.

"the intellectual soul is united by its very being to the body" (St Thomas, Summa Theologica, I, 76, 6)

The human being is a person from conception (zygote is the single cell stage of development), which includes his bodily and spiritual totality,i.e. his body and his soul.

Yidda wrote:..The procedure is not an abortion;if it is a procedure directed at removing ex. cancer, or a cancerous organ. The death of the prenatal is in the consequences. If the death of the prenatal were intended, the first font of morality would make the act a sin....

Yidda wrote:

Direct abortion is never morally permissible, no matter what the reason, i.e. no matter what the intended end may be. So direct abortion is not permitted, even to save the life of the mother. Neither does the abortion become indirect merely because the intention is to save her life. It is the inherent ordering of the intentionally chosen act toward its moral object that makes the act in and of itself good, or in and of itself evil.

1.The abortion has the intended end of protecting the health or even the life of the mother. However, the act itself is inherently directed at the death of the prenatal as the proximate end of the chosen act. Therefore, the abortion is direct, despite the good intended end.

The procedure is not an abortion;if it is a procedure directed at removing ex. cancer, or a cancerous organ. The death of the prenatal is in the consequences. If the death of the prenatal were intended, the first font of morality would make the act a sin. If the bad consequences of having the procedure outweigh the good consequences, then the third font of morality would make the act a sin.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with surgery to remove a malfunctioning organ. It is morally justified when the continued presence of the organ causes problems for the rest of the body. Surgery to terminate the life of an innocent person, however, is intrinsically wrong. There are no situations in which it can be justified.

2. Nothing, therefore, can justify a direct abortion. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.

korrill wrote:

I am familiar with the stand of the Catholics. But like I stated, what I presented is my own view. But since you brought it up, here's my view on it:

Personally, I find it distasteful.

Which of these is do you find immoral:

1. Terminating an ectopic pregnancy to save the life of the mother.

korrill wrote:
2. Letting both the mother and the baby die just to satisfy a dogma.

The catholic dogma is said to be for the preservation of morals and protecting the life of the unborn. Yet it does not seem to recognize the right to life of the mother that is at times endangered by the pregnancy. As it is, the Catholics are choosing for the mother and the child to both die rather than to terminate the pregnancy and save the life of the mother.

Its dogma makes no distinctions between a necessary termination to save a life and a frivolous termination to end a pregnancy. While I agree with the Catholic church on the second, I am disgusted by their stand on the first.

What makes it even more so is what you yourself admitted: It is all dogma.

Ones not even based on scripture but on an interpretation of the scripture.

So how sure are you that god really wants you to let two people die rather than saving the life of one of his creations?

Yidda wrote:
The medical disorder in cases of ectopic pregnancy is that the prenatal is in the wrong location. So removing the prenatal itself from that location directly treats the disorder; it is not direct abortion. The death of the prenatal is indirect. If it were medically possible to then implant the prenatal in the correct location, then this would be done. It is not currently medically possible (but it isconceivable)

this is an example of ad hominem.
If the church said anything remotely like that, then please provide a quote and reference.

Ateo wrote:


Yidda, I have to beg to disagree with you. The same Thomas Aquinas was quoted as having believed in the concept of "delayed ensoulment". I quote Prof. Maguire, a Catholic theologian: http://www.sacredchoices.org/News_Tracker/moderate_RC_position_on_contraception_abortion.htm

"St. Thomas Aquinas, the most esteemed of medieval theologians, held this view. Thus the most traditional and stubbornly held position in Catholic Christianity is that early abortions are not murder."

As I already explained earlier in this thread, the medieval Catholics believe that the soul enter the body only at the moment of quickening, the time when the fetus starts moving, which is at the 14th week of pregnancy. You may have been wrong, Yidda, is saying that the soul enters the body during conception.

Yidda wrote:

Let me broaden your question :Why does God allow evil to happen?

So he can bring about a greater good. If you do not believe this ask a simple question. What is the greatest evil ever perpetrated by man.? Answer the Crucifixion. Question: What is the greatest good ever accomplished for man. Answer: Our salvation purchased for us by Jesus on the Cross. It is because of him we are redeemed and are able to be saved.

Yidda wrote:You must refuse the abortion. Everything that can be done, morally, should be done, to try to save both lives. But direct abortion is always immoral.

There was a case like that in the news recently. The USCCB committee on doctrine condemned the use of direct abortion even to save the life of the mother. The case involved just such a pregnancy.

http://www.usccb.org/doctrine/direct...2010-06-23.pdf

"She consented in the murder of an unborn child," says the Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix. "There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means."

Yidda wrote:

The Saints are not infallible. We follow the teaching of the Church, which is not necessarily the same as the teaching of a Saint hundreds of years ago. Aquinas and others did not have sufficient knowledge about procreation and development in the womb in order to understand that the human person is created, body and soul, at conception.

Despite his error on ensoulment, Aquinas held that the Incarnation of Jesus occurred all in the same moment:

Saint Thomas Aquinas, citing Saint Gregory the Great: "On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xviii): 'As soon as the angel announced it, as soon as the Spirit came down, the Word was in the womb, within the womb the Word was made flesh.' "

Saint Thomas Aquinas, citing Saint John of Damascus: "On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): 'At the very instant that there was flesh, it was the flesh of the Word of God, it was flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul.' "

The body and soul of Jesus were both created at the same moment, and in that same moment body, soul, and Divinity were united as one Person. But since Jesus is like us, in his humanity, in all things but sin, we also must be created, body and soul, at the same moment. Therefore, ensoulment is not delayed.

korrill wrote:

So which is moral:

1. Terminating the pregnancy to save the mother's life.----Moral

2. Letting both the mother and the child die to satisfy a dogma. -----Perverted

korrill wrote:

So basically, you'll just let them both die.

If you're familiar with the case, you should already know that the mother was already dying. Her heart had already partially failed. The pregnancy was the one putting the strain on it and terminating it was the only way that would save her life.

The gravity of the situation, how close the mother was to death, is evident in the fact that one of the administrators of the hospital - a nun - agreed for the procedure to be done.

The nun was excommunicated for doing so.

You accused me of posting an ad-hominem when I said that the church does not seem to recognize the right of the mother to live and that it would rather see a mother and her child die from a life-threatening pregnancy rather than perform an abortion and save the mother's life - all for the sake of dogma.

You asked me for a quote of where the church would say such a thing. I give you the statement of the church representative with regards to the excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride:



That's the church stating that it would rather see the mother and child die than perform an abortion to save the mother's life.

The church condemned the act because it was direct abortion. But let me put it this way: A chicken with its head cut is different from a chicken with its neck wrung. But does it matter to the chicken?

In the same way, a treated ectopic pregnancy is different from a treated life endangering pregnancy. Either way, the solution is the termination of the pregnancy and the fetus ends up dead.

So what's the difference?

On the other hand, leaving the situation as is still means the fetus will end up dead. Only this time, the mother ends up dead as well.

So which is moral:

1. Terminating the pregnancy to save the mother's life.

2. Letting both the mother and the child die to satisfy a dogma.

korrill wrote:

Now that, Yidda, is what is known as cherry picking.