Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 7 of 14  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The church is wrong
9 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2009 - 1:55PM #61
whirlinggal
Posts: 4,329

Mr JohnnyJoe,


"Clearly it is and was biologically possible to carry the twins to term, for her fertility system was mature enough to release an egg."


 


 


 


A less correct and less scientific statement could not be found on this thread.


 


No wonder there is all that palavar about "innocent lives" but only for embryos, not the actual living breathing and self-sustaining nine year old whom Mr Johnny Joe would find "evil" for her stepfather's sins.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2009 - 2:59PM #62
whirlinggal
Posts: 4,329

Mr JohnnyJoe,


 


"Clearly it is and was biologically possible to carry the twins to term, for her fertility system was mature enough to release an egg."


 


 


Lest my above post saying how incorrect the statement is was not clear.


 


There is a distinct difference in the size of a young girl's body and the body of an adult woman. There is also a difference in the organs of an adult woman in that they are proportionately larger than those of a young girl, including the uterus.


 As well as being metabolically mature.


 


 


That this has to be explained to someone who purports to tell women when they can and cannot have children is an irony too sad to contemplate.

Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2009 - 4:03PM #63
Adelphe
Posts: 28,765

Mar 15, 2009 -- 9:40AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Adelphe


Mar 15, 2009 -- 8:43AM, Adelphe wrote:

What do "absolutely excluded as lawful" and "equally to be condemned" in this context mean?


Apparently, they are then not "equally to be condemned."


In my previous post, I have erroneously omitted the paragraph relative to ABC. Here is the complete quotation:


Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, Unlawful Birth Control Methods, § 14, July 25, 1968, @ vatican.va



As you have already remarked,


* for the condemnation of abortion, the Encyclical uses the adverb "absolutely";


* for the condemnation of sterilization, the adverb "equally";


* for the condemnation of birth control, the adverb "similarly";


While shamefully confusing and conflating the three, perhaps, Paul VI was indicating (subconsciously? intentionally?) this way their different gravity.


Mario




Mario,


What sort of force does "unlawful" carry?

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2009 - 8:22PM #64
TemplarS
Posts: 7,522

Mar 15, 2009 -- 10:00AM, adamcro-magnon wrote:



That there are gradations, where the church is concerned, in the way in which sins are dealt with does not surprise me.  The secular system does it as well…with murder in the first degree, or the second, maybe the third etc. and then there is manslaughter and so on.  At one time (and perhaps still so today unfortunately…in some cases) rape was not looked upon as something terribly horrendous.  In some countries it now is, thank goodness and even in the case in question re this thread the perpetrator is, I understand, in prison.  Here the secular state has ex-communicated the perptrator from normal society.  Perhaps the church could learn a lesson.




The situation of the Church is a bit different from secular society; if for no other reason than that secular society needs some sort of rationale for imposing punishment;  a murderer gets 30 years to life whereas someone convicted of manslaughter might get 10 to 15.  The Church is no longer in the business of imposing temporal punishment, which if one believes it, it need not do anyway since eternal punishment is on the way, where perfect justice may be anticipated.


This is why it is always chancey for the Church to begin dicing too finely as to the relative magnitude of sins: it necessitates a form of strict legalism, not really well-suited for its business.


Another example is that, taken to its legal fullest, the Church must consider divorce a worse sin than murder; since I may murder my wife, repent, and remarry with the Church's full blessing; yet if I divorce my wife, such reconciliation is not possible.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2009 - 8:55PM #65
Shihulud
Posts: 1,360

Mar 15, 2009 -- 1:55PM, whirlinggal wrote:


Mr JohnnyJoe,


"Clearly it is and was biologically possible to carry the twins to term, for her fertility system was mature enough to release an egg."


 


 


 


A less correct and less scientific statement could not be found on this thread.


 


No wonder there is all that palavar about "innocent lives" but only for embryos, not the actual living breathing and self-sustaining nine year old whom Mr Johnny Joe would find "evil" for her stepfather's sins.


 




 


That's my problem with this whole thing too. The established life of the nine year old girl is more valuable than the potential life of the fetuses, therefor it makes more sense, logically and morally, for the victim to have an abortion.


As a side note, I don't know how a catholic can proclaim a baby, born or unborn, can be "innocent." When does originaly sin start anyway? At the moment of birth or when the fetuses heart starts beating? I'm confused, but according to catholic dogma a baby can not be innocent.

Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2009 - 9:08PM #66
ted08721
Posts: 3,790

Mar 15, 2009 -- 8:55PM, Shihulud wrote:


Mar 15, 2009 -- 1:55PM, whirlinggal wrote:


Mr JohnnyJoe,


"Clearly it is and was biologically possible to carry the twins to term, for her fertility system was mature enough to release an egg."


 


 


 


A less correct and less scientific statement could not be found on this thread.


 


No wonder there is all that palavar about "innocent lives" but only for embryos, not the actual living breathing and self-sustaining nine year old whom Mr Johnny Joe would find "evil" for her stepfather's sins.


 




 


That's my problem with this whole thing too. The established life of the nine year old girl is more valuable than the potential life of the fetuses, therefor it makes more sense, logically and morally, for the victim to have an abortion.


As a side note, I don't know how a catholic can proclaim a baby, born or unborn, can be "innocent." When does originaly sin start anyway? At the moment of birth or when the fetuses heart starts beating? I'm confused, but according to catholic dogma a baby can not be innocent.



When the soul enters the fetus I think is how the hierarchy looks at it.
There is no solid Tradition on it throughout the centuries it has varied.
And it was always assumed that the soul would enter a male fetus before it enters a female.

Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2009 - 10:42PM #67
Shihulud
Posts: 1,360

Mar 15, 2009 -- 9:08PM, ted08721 wrote:

When the soul enters the fetus I think is how the hierarchy looks at it.
There is no solid Tradition on it throughout the centuries it has varied.
And it was always assumed that the soul would enter a male fetus before it enters a female.




 


That's very odd considering that all embryos are female until the pregnant woman's body emits the protein H-Y antigen which changes the x chromosome to a y, turning the embryo male. This happens at about the 6th week of gestation. So all males actually start out as female. That's why dudes have nippes.

Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2009 - 11:15PM #68
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Mar 15, 2009 -- 9:08PM, ted08721 wrote:


Mar 15, 2009 -- 8:55PM, Shihulud wrote:


Mar 15, 2009 -- 1:55PM, whirlinggal wrote:


Mr JohnnyJoe,


"Clearly it is and was biologically possible to carry the twins to term, for her fertility system was mature enough to release an egg."


 


 


 


A less correct and less scientific statement could not be found on this thread.


 


No wonder there is all that palavar about "innocent lives" but only for embryos, not the actual living breathing and self-sustaining nine year old whom Mr Johnny Joe would find "evil" for her stepfather's sins.


 




 


That's my problem with this whole thing too. The established life of the nine year old girl is more valuable than the potential life of the fetuses, therefor it makes more sense, logically and morally, for the victim to have an abortion.


As a side note, I don't know how a catholic can proclaim a baby, born or unborn, can be "innocent." When does originaly sin start anyway? At the moment of birth or when the fetuses heart starts beating? I'm confused, but according to catholic dogma a baby can not be innocent.



When the soul enters the fetus I think is how the hierarchy looks at it.
There is no solid Tradition on it throughout the centuries it has varied.
And it was always assumed that the soul would enter a male fetus before it enters a female.




Hi ted


Over forty-five years ago my husband and talked about this very issue. He graduated from a Franciscan college and quoted Duns Scotus on this. Do I remember the entire discussion? No, but I remember that this is an age-old question with different answers by the Church over the centuries.


Thanks for pointing this out.


Right now the Church has a very safe fall-back answer with no back-up. It doesn't work.


No one is pro-abortion, but the questions remain unanswered. Just because we say so by the Church won't fly.


Many bishops do not wish to make this a litmus test, but the Chaputs and Martinos stir up the hornests' nests every chance they get. I'm tired of the press too: controversy always makes news.


 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2009 - 11:27PM #69
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Mar 15, 2009 -- 10:42PM, Shihulud wrote:


Mar 15, 2009 -- 9:08PM, ted08721 wrote:

When the soul enters the fetus I think is how the hierarchy looks at it.
There is no solid Tradition on it throughout the centuries it has varied.
And it was always assumed that the soul would enter a male fetus before it enters a female.




Ted can more the adequately defend what he said, but you didn't read his post correctly. He was adrressing some Church thought over the centuries. Some of us are more than familiar with this. He didn't present this as modern science.


**************************************************


No one here asks that you accept one iota of what the Church teaches. By far the majority of us posting think the Archbishop of Recife should have stayed out of this one.


You are not Catholic, in or out of the Church. I'm unsure what your purpose in posting this is.


 


 


That's very odd considering that all embryos are female until the pregnant woman's body emits the protein H-Y antigen which changes the x chromosome to a y, turning the embryo male. This happens at about the 6th week of gestation. So all males actually start out as female. That's why dudes have nippes.



discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2009 - 11:53PM #70
jane2
Posts: 14,295

I just read this a www.ncronline.org:


VATICAN CITY (AP) - An influential prelate said Brazilian doctors didn't deserve excommunication for aborting the twin fetuses of a 9-year-old child who was allegedly raped by her stepfather because the doctors were saving her life.


The statement by Archbishop Rino Fisichella in the Vatican newspaper Sunday was highly unusual because church law mandates automatic excommunication for abortion. Fisichella, who heads the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, also upheld the church's ban on abortion and any implications of his criticism of excommunicating the doctors and the girl's mother weren't clear.................


Writing as if he were addressing the girl, Fisichella said: "There are others who merit excommunication and our pardon, not those who have allowed you to live and have helped you to regain hope and trust."


This story was carried by AP and Google News. Does this make everything all right? No, but it helps. I'm glad the Archbishop of Recife got slapped down a bit: he made the big mistake and at least a part of Rome didn't buy it.


 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 14  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook