Catholic theology and abortion - a discussion

Spread the love

Over on JCecil’s now abandoned blog, I started having a discussion with a gentleman named Jack. Rather than using those abandoned com boxes I thought it would be a good idea to bring the discussion here. Jack’s comments are in blue and when I am responding to some comment directly in my replies, that comment will be in italics.I put my haloscan gravatar beside my comments as well, hopefully that will make it easier to follow.

Can’t you think of another argument than that the majority can be wrong? I have heard that for years. So everybody is wrong but you and a handful of zealots? Ye gads, almost all Americans are wrong and you ABSOLUTELY know the TRUTH. How modest and humble you are!!! Jack
john m haynes | Homepage | 12.22.08 – 12:04 pm | #

I don’t think the majority of Americans believe abortion is morally licit throughout pregnancy and for every reason. Even the libs in congress don’t believe that which is why the partial birth abortion ban passed.

Appeal to the majority is a logical fallacy anyway and doesn’t determine whether or not something is true.

As for your comment earlier about a zygote- Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, teen, young adult, middle aged, elderly – all are just different phases of the human experience. A zygote is no less human than an 85 year old with Alzheimer’s. When we start determining who is human and who is not, who is worthy to live and who must die, we start putting ourselves in the place of God. I for one am not willing to go there.

Happy New year.
Elena | Homepage | 12.31.08 – 10:27 am | #

Elena, is an acorn an oak tree? Isn’t an acorn just a “stage” of an oak tree. So when I clean up the acorns in my front yard, am I really cleaning up oak trees? Jack
john m haynes | Homepage | 12.31.08 – 12:00 pm | #

Are oak trees made in the image and likeness of God? Do Oak trees have souls?

and if you can’t tell why your analogy fails on a Catholic level, I’m sure I won’t be able to help you.
Elena | Homepage | 01.05.09 – 12:07 pm | #

Elena, you completely changed your point. Your new point has nothing do to with what you first wrote. Now tell me when the church has dogmatically declared when ensoulment takes place? Jack
john m haynes | Homepage | 01.05.09 – 12:35 pm | #

I didn’t change my point at all John. Try to keep up ok? I mentioned the different phases of life from zygote through old age and you brought up the silly acorn analoogy (which was pretty easy to knock down incidentally).

The Catholic church defends life from the moment of conception.

Catechism Catholic Church (which incidentally is the “sure norm” for Catholics.)

2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.
Elena | Homepage | 01.07.09 – 6:37 pm | #

My acorn example was excellent. You just can’t answer it, Elena. Quoting the cathecism proves absolutely nothing. It’s just what some old cardinals and others put out. Give some evidence, PLEASE. Jack
Anonymous | Homepage | 01.07.09 – 8:10 pm | #

My acorn example is good, Elena. You just can’t answer it. Life is at least millions of years old and human life at least 200,000 years ago, You are being fooled by the old guys. The church does NOT say when ensoulment occurs. Just because they say something does not make it so? Do you believe Padre Pio can be in two places at once? If the church says he can does that make it so? What would you have done when the church said the earth was flat? Were they right? Or did they mislead people? Jack
Anonymous | Homepage | 01.07.09 – 8:33 pm | #

Uh…Anon 1 and 2
The acorn example was stupid, and like most analogies fell short. This one fell way short and it was easily and quickly brought down by pointing out that theologically human beings were made in the image and likeness of God and oak trees… at least in Catholic Christianity…are not. Maybe in some forms of Paganism but last time I checked (and I could be wrong on that now) this is a Catholic blog.

Just because they say something does not make it so

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the collection of all that the Catholic Church teaches. It is the “sure norm” which is a direct quote from John Paul II in the introduction of the catechism.

Ensoulment isn’t even a term used in the catechism. It’s a man made term – (which is something I thought anti-Catholics and liberals despised!) and not a theological or Catholic one. I read it a lot in pagan literature, sites and blogs. Hmmm… I’m sensing a trend here.
Elena | Homepage | 01.08.09 – 12:51 pm | #

The trend Elena, is you can’t answer any of my statements. I afraid “ensoulment’ is a most catholic word. You said a zygote was a stage of a person; I say an acorn is a stage of an oak tree. Do you deny this? The analogy is perfect. Jack
Anonymous | Homepage | 01.08.09 – 4:39 pm | #

Nonsense. You asked for church “dogma” and I provided an answer from the very approved authoritative source – the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The word “ensoulment” does not appear once in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I also checked Humane Vitae, the Encyclicals of JPII and the Documents of Vatican II. For being a very “catholic” term it is conspicuously absent!

You said a zygote was a stage of a person; I say an acorn is a stage of an oak tree. Do you deny this?

No. I do not deny that you said this.

The analogy is perfect. Jack

Only if you honor and treat oak treats like human beings. Have you checked out Wicca? Might be a better fit for you.
Elena | Homepage | 01.08.09 – 5:09 pm | #

Elena, don’t get ugly. I think you are a nice lady. Ensoulment is a very important part of catholic theology. It is not used in the catechism because it is controversial and the catechism is learned by all types–sophisticated and not so sophisticated, Please check google.

I ask for church dogma on ensoulment, not on my other points. Is all knowledge in the catechism? What about science and reason? You are aware, I assume, that virtually no catholics fully accept the church’s teaching on abortion. About 10 per cent if you check. The doctrine is considered foolish by close to ninety percent of catholics. Oh yes, I know the majority is not always right.

This morning did I have an egg or a chicken for breakfast. I assumed an egg but you would say a chicken in an early stage. No, you would have to say a chicken. Right. Jack

I have no idea what wicca is. Jack
Anonymous | Homepage | 01.08.09 – 7:06 pm | #

You are aware, I assume, that virtually no catholics fully accept the church’s teaching on abortion. About 10 per cent if you check. The doctrine is considered foolish by close to ninety percent of catholics. Oh yes, I know the majority is not always right.

Right. And the Appeal to the Majority is also a logical fallacy.

This morning did I have an egg or a chicken for breakfast. I assumed an egg but you would say a chicken in an early stage. No, you would have to say a chicken.

Only if you live on a chicken farm with a roaming rooster. Otherwise, it was just an egg.
Elena | Homepage | 01.08.09 – 9:21 pm | #

(side note – I actually thought that was a great place to end the discussion – it was funny and I felt we had gone full circle. Jack however felt the need to continue)

Elena, but what if do live on a chicken farm with a roaming rooster. Then would I eat a chicken when I had an egg. I have a package of daisy seed here. Are they seed or flowers. Should I put them in a vase?

I’m not quite sure you know what a logical fallacy is.

What about the sense of the faithful?

Hey, did you admit your error on ensoulment?

How come only about 10 percent of catholics agree with you?Are all the others heretics?

You apparently don’t see why celibates and homosexuals in the priesthood,the latter estimated at least 50 percent, are so opposed to abortion.
Anonymous | Homepage | 01.08.09 – 10:14 pm | #

When I was a little girl, I remember hearing for the first time about chickens and eggs and I remember crying over the thought that I had eaten an unborn baby chicken! Then my country grandma explained to me that it wasn’t a baby chicken yet because it didn’t have a daddy. Over 30 years later I had a similar incident happen with my own children who were also thusly satisfied. Ah… the pure and simple faith of a child who sees the obvious connections that we as adults tend to cloud and make more difficult. Perhaps that is why Jesus said we should have the faith of a little child?

Of course if you were fortunate enough to live on a chicken farm with an equally fortunate rooster, you may from time to time eat an embryo from the G. gallus domesticus species.

The sense of the faithful on matters of faith and morals for the past 50 years or so is practically nonexistent. To have a “sense” the “faithful” have to have “received” the teaching. But with most Catholics ending their religious instruction in the 8th grade,from the poor materials that have passed for “catechesis” in this country, the faithful have barely received anything.

Secondly, the sense of the faithful doesn’t mean just the people living here and now. The faithful includes all the faithful past present and future. The initial common sense response to the suggestion of killing a baby is initially abhorrent. One has to do quite a few twists and turns as you have to justify the morality of killing off new life in the womb.
Elena | Homepage | 01.09.09 – 9:30 am | #

Elena, you just can’t get it. The Church has had many views on “life” in the womb. Cancer is life. Should we kill it? You shift from one cell baby to “life” on the womb. Are sperm and egg life? Of course they are. You should be aware that about 50 percent of all fertilized human eggs abort spontaneously. Now since you say God does all these things, is God the great killer? Did you ever look up ensoulment? Can you be a bit more careful with the use of your terms? The sense of the faithful is just what you have been told what to believe? Then it has no meaning. You still can’t see how you are being used by a strange group of celibates to maintain their position. Did you answer my seed question? How many examples do I have to give? If you had lived centuries ago would you have believed the world was flat? That slavery was permissible? That torture was okay? That only one religion should be tolerated? Jack
Anonymous | Homepage | 01.09.09 – 10:24 am | #

Gravatar Elena, you just can’t get it.
Au contraire friend. I not only get “it”, I have gotten “it” and carried “it”to term 6 times.

The Church has had many views on “life” in the womb.

But it has never advocated deliberate and premeditated killing life in the womb.

Cancer is life. Should we kill it?

This is much like your acorn analogy and equally as dumb. Cancer is not a human being. Cancer is a pathology to the human condition.

You shift from one cell baby to “life” on the womb.

A one cell baby is life in the womb. It is alive.

Are sperm and egg life?

Sperm and egg are alive just as your nerve, muscle, stomach and other cells are alive. But they are not individually by themselves human life. Once the sperm and egg unite that is the beginning of human life. You went through that and so did I.

Of course they are. You should be aware that about 50 percent of all fertilized human eggs abort spontaneously.

Of course. That doesn’t make them any more or less human. I also delivered an infant at 23 weeks. He too was human.

Now since you say God does all these things, is God the great killer?

Where exactly did I say that? God gives us all free will and with free will come consequences. Part of our fallen earthly condition is miscarriage and disease. This is sort of theology 101 BTW.

Did you ever look up ensoulment?

Yep. The word ensoulment does not appear in any Catholic documents that I could find and I was very generous with the search engine.

Can you be a bit more careful with the use of your terms?

I don’t use that term. You do.

The sense of the faithful is just what you have been told what to believe? Then it has no meaning.

That’s partially correct. You can’t reject a teaching if you have never received the teaching. That has been the case on faith and moral issues for the last 50 years or so.

You still can’t see how you are being used by a strange group of celibates to maintain their position.

No. However, I can see how like minded obedient Catholics being open to new life and having and raising Catholic children steeped in the faith and loyal to the magisterium might be a threat to yours over the next 20 years. In fact that has already started.

That slavery was permissible?

Interestingly 150 years or so ago slavery was legal and the majority felt it was fine. SO much for your appeal to popularity/majority.

So many issues jack, so little time. Let’s stick to the main topic of this one.

I would like to stay on the topic, but your answers are so totally non-responsive and non-sensical. You answwer nothing but simply spill out platitudes that have no meaning. I don’t know where to start. I’ll try a simple question to see if you answer. Are you saying “innocent” children are killed because of something early man did? Jack

And that’s where we pretty much have left it. I have invited Jack to come here to discuss and hopefully get some additional input from actual readers!

ADDENDUM: AND ANALYSIS**********************
Jack discontinued our discussion with a not too subtle ad hominem attack. I’m neither insulted or surprised. I’ve had liberals cut off discussions with much worse including threats to my children or references to the size of my backside! So as discussions go, this one ended relatively mildly.

In addition to the ending ad hominem I’d like to point out some other characteristics of this discussion that are very similar to ones I’ve had and discussed in the past. We did a lot of backtracking “who said what when” type of stuff. But interestingly, debating with a liberal Catholic in many ways can be like debating with a non-Catholic. Particularly in the sense that my opponant wanted to dump all of his issues with the church into our discussion on abortion, including problems with the clergy and the church heirarchy.

There was also no real desire to dialogue. Jack wanted me to say that a zygote was nothing like a baby at term or like a child at the age of 9. I guess in his mind that gives us a license to kill it or at the very least puts the human zygote on the same level as the earth worm as far as survival rights. And when I wouldn’t answer the questions the way he wanted me to, or ignored the ones that I thought were going way off topic, then it was time to use the poor analogies and the logical fallacies. Our discussion was rife with both.

Worthwhile? Probably not. Jack has convinced himself I’m a nice lady(kind of refreshing. Most of my opponants think I’m a bitch or a shrew- see side bar) but dumber than dirt and far beneath him. He’ll probably never read another word I write. But then I think Jack was looking to discredit me the moment I challenged him on JCecil’s blog. In that way I have a LOT in common with Sarah Palin popping up where she wasn’t wanted or expected as well!

Worth it for me? No. But it does reiterate to me that there is indeed a pattern to these things in the blogosophere and elsewhere.