Im a Catholic AND an American so?

on Nov 06, 2004

i think what youre doing is great. if you dont mind, lemme kick it off by asking you to explain what youve learned about the church's doctrine regarding the question of when life begins and whether there is any valid scientific validation to support (or invalidate) its stand.

2

philomedy

on Nov 06, 2004

This is a great thing to start. I don't have any questions as of now, and it seems that kingbee has started it off with a great one anyways, so i'll politely back away now.

3

kingbee

on Nov 06, 2004

yikes...i gotta start reading what im typing before i hit the 'submit' button. valid validation that might invalidate?

what i meant was...is there any science that supports the church's doctrine that life begins at conception? any science that refutes it? and how did the church arrive at its position? to whom can it be attributed?

4

Dysmas

on Nov 06, 2004

Ok, please keep in mind, again, that I don't speak for the Church. Im no scientist and no medical specialist. I am merely responding to your question as best I can (also trying to be reasonable with space-not trying to write a book here

)

On the scientific side of the table.
Science and Abortion
The Scientific Basis for a Prolife Position
Does science have anything to say about abortion? Those who have taken embryology know full well the answer to this question. If you examine pro-choice arguments for abortion, you will find the proponents using such terms as "tissue" and "grams of material" (a weight). What they do not like to discuss is what that "tissue" consists of. In fact, the preborn human fetus is genetically a fully human being at the point of conception. As you will learn below, the aborted fetus is not just a "blob of tissue." Warning: some of the descriptions below are graphic and upsetting to most people. Do not continue if you are unwilling to suffer some emotional trauma.

Stages of human development
What are the stages in human embryonic development? Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception.1 There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception.2 This is only 7-10 days after a women would expect to begin her menses. Since most women have cycles that can vary by this amount, they do not discover they are pregnant until after this point. Therefore, all abortions stop a beating heart, even "early" abortions. However, most abortions do not occur until 4-6 weeks after the fetus begins to form. The human brain begins to form on day 233 is formed enough to produce brain waves by 6 weeks, which means that abortion destroys a functioning human brain.

What do embryology books have to say about human development?
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology4 (pp 2-18): "Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Essentials of Human Embryology5 (pp. 1-17): "In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

Human Embryology & Teratology6 (pp. 5-55): "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book." (p. 55)."

What does this "lump of tissue" look like?
So, what do doctors find when they do abortions? A lump of tissue? An amorphous blob? Below is a description of what the abortionist must look for to make sure that he has removed the entire fetus: Dr. David Brewer, a former abortionist described his first encounter with abortion, while training at a clinic. He recalled going to a clinic "to learn about abortion. After all, abortion was just applying the technique of a D&C to a woman who was in a little different stage - she was pregnant." And so the young resident did as he was told: He watched the material come down the plastic tube and emptied the reddish contents of the little bag onto a blue towel - to make sure the doctor had gotten it all:

"I opened the sock up and I put it on the towel and there were parts in there of a person. I'd taken anatomy; I was a medical student. I knew what I was looking at. There was a little scapula [shoulder blade] and there was an arm, and I saw some ribs and a chest, and I saw a little tiny head, and I saw a piece of a leg, and I saw a tiny hand. ... I checked it out and there were two arms and two legs and one head, etc., and I turned and said, I guess you got it all ... It was pretty awful that first time... it was like somebody put a hot poker into me."

If women (and their male sexual partners) had to examine the results of their abortions,7 there would be a lot fewer abortions in the world. As long as the fetus is just a "blob of tissue" abortion will continue to be widely practiced. This is why abortion advocates oppose any attempts to provide women with scientific, unbiased information on fetal development. Ignorance is bliss.

References

Heart Development at the Loyola University Chicago web site
"Life Before Birth" Life Magazine Educational Reprint 27, April 30, 1965, page 6.
and Week 4 at the Loyola University Chicago web site
Brain development slideshow at Temple University
Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia.
Larsen, W.J. 1998. Essentials of Human Embryology, Churchill Livingstone, New York.
O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York.
On the Catholic side of the table.

Some Biblical references:
Biblical Basis for a Prolife Position
The Bible declares that God values all human life and that He wants all people to come to repentance to inherit eternal life.1 The Bible explains that the entire life of a human - from the beginning to its natural end - is sacred, since God determines the length of those days.2 When does human life begin? This page will examine that question from a biblical perspective.

Many Christians believe that the Bible is silent in regard to God's view on life before birth. Although the Bible does not specifically define when life begins, it does give us enough information to formulate a solid biblical position.

Jesus demonstrated the love of God for children often during His ministry. In one passage, Jesus took a child to him and sat with him. He said, "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 18:10). Jesus tells us not to despise or look down upon the least powerful and significant (by human standards) of humans. It is ironic that the most helpless humans are those inside the womb. Of all the risks that we must face in our lives, the most dangerous place we can be is in the womb, since fully one third of all human babies are aborted in this nation - over one million every year. Greater than 98% of all abortions are done for non-medical reasons.

The Old Testament provides most of the information on God's view of life before birth, since it gives us the law. The law specifically addresses the issue of taking the life of a fetus in the book of Exodus:

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)

Therefore, the law tells us that a man who induces an abortion or miscarriage is to be punished, indicating that God values life before birth. A verse from Hosea3 says that abortion is a punishment for sin, indicating God views it as bad. Likewise, God expressed His disgust for the Ammonites, who "ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead".4 When does this life begin?

The Bible tells us God is involved in our creation from the womb:

"Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:15)

Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb. (Psalms 22:9-10)

For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalms 139:13-16)

Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, `Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen. (Isaiah 44:2)

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone, (Isaiah 44:24)

God distinguishes between human life and animal life, since the killing of animals has been allowed by God from as early as just after the fall.5 It would be helpful to first define what makes human life different from that of the animals. The Bible says that God created three kinds of creatures:

Creatures which possess bodies (Hebrew - basar, Greek - swma) only
Creatures which possess bodies and souls (Hebrew - nephesh, Greek - psuchay)
Creatures which possess bodies, souls, and spirits (Hebrew - ruach, Greek - pneuma)
Most of God's creatures possess bodies only. These creatures include the insects, worms, fish, etc. God defines the creatures possessing souls as being the birds, the whales, the predatory and domesticated land mammals, and human beings (Genesis 1:20-27). Creatures which possess a soul have the characteristics of having a mind, a will, and emotion. Most of us who have cats or dogs realize that these soulish creatures have all these character traits.

Therefore, the difference between human life and animal life is that, in addition to having a body and soul, we are endowed with a spirit, (1 Thessalonians 5:23), by which we can communicate with, love, and worship God. The Bible tells us that God forms this spirit within us,6 and we are endowed with a spirit before birth (Luke 1:15), which makes us fully human before we are born.

In addition, there are a number of great men of God (and Jesus) who were called to be God's servants from the womb:

Samson:

Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, "A man of God came to me and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. And I did not ask him where he came from, nor did he tell me his name. "But he said to me, `Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.'" (Judges 13:6-7, see also Judges 16:17)

Jesus (prophecy):

Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me. (Isaiah 49:1)

And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, in order that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength), (Isaiah 49:5)

Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb. (Psalms 22:9-10)

Jeremiah:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

John the Baptist:

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)

Paul:

But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased (Galatians 1:15)

In addition, the Bible tells us the wicked are estranged or enemies of God from the womb:

The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth. (Psalms 58:3)

All of the above verses tell us God considers us to be human before we are born, but they don't answer the question of when we actually become so. I propose there is a way to know what God considers the latest point in development at which we must consider a fetus to be a living human. Even before God gave Moses the law, when He gave Noah and his family all the animals for food (in addition to the plants), He told them, "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Genesis 9:4). At the same time, God gave the law and penalty for murder (described as the shedding of "man's blood").7 Therefore, God considers blood to be the basis for life and the shedding of human blood, which results in death, to be murder. Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception.8 There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception.9 Since blood is flowing at this point, it is likely that blood formation begins well before day 21 (I could find no reference for the date at which blood formation begins). Therefore, this represents the latest date at which we must consider the fetus to be human (according to biblical standards), which is only 7-10 days after a women would expect to begin her menses. Most women have cycles that can vary by this amount, and therefore do not discover they are pregnant until after this point. For all practical purposes, from a biblical perspective, abortion at any point must be considered murder by Christians.

Official stance of the RCC on Abortion.

From the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

2270: Human life must be respected and protected absolutly from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, ahuman being must be recognized as having the rights of a person-among which is the inviolable right of everyn innocent being to life. 71
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. 72.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricatley wrought in the depths of the earth.73.

2271: Since the first century the Church has affirmed themoral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. 75.
( I can explain the numbers after the quotes if you like but for the sake of space I will not at this time.)

2273: The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

" The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do the represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin............."

" The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation outh to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in partciular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.......As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the aw must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's right's"

(Damn this is a long entry, I hope you are following along, im having a hullava time transcribing it all down lol )
Any way it goes on to talk about the issues of stem cell and chromosomic or genetic inheritance procedures. ( not on topic but valid nontheless.)

Well I did what I could in the time I have and if i need to clarify anything or add to anything please let me know. Im no scientist, all I can do is let you know what the professionals say.
It would be helpful to point out that for those of us who are Pro-Life, the majority of us dont particularly need science to prove when life begins, we just use what we consider to be common sense. Call it faith, as faith, in most senses, is blind.

5

Dysmas

on Nov 06, 2004

Philomedy:
Yes I agree lol, and damn what a complex question and volitile issue to begin with hehe.

6

Dysmas

on Nov 07, 2004

Sorry, it was late and I had just taken my meds before the first question was posted but, thank God I didn't go overboard and answered what I could before I shut down lol.

As a quick addition to to the first topic I will quickly give the CCC's statements on what is now known as Stem Cell research and chromosomic and/or genetic inheritance procedures.

( geeze, I just realized that everything I had put in italics and bolded didn't transfer through to the blog response - I had to formulate my answeres on a word pad document- sorry.)

2274: Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual.........It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a dignosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence." (81)

2275: " One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condidion of health, or its individual survival." (82)

" It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposale biological material" (83)

" Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic bur are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity" (84) Whic are unique and unrepeatable.

So thats what the RCC's stance is on those issues. As to the why, if its not adequatly explained in the passages I could try to find out more of what is behind the statements stated in the Fidei Depositum ( Apostolic Constitution)
It would be very time consuming but I think I could do it.

7

kingbee

on Nov 07, 2004

wow...i didnt realize there had been a response til i found this about 5 mins ago. unfortunately ive gotta split for a couple hours. ive just skimmed thru the first one and any comment id make now would be hurried and an injustice to your effort. i promise you this will be the first blog i check when im able.

8

Dysmas

on Nov 07, 2004

Ok thank you for your time kingbee.

9

kingbee

on Nov 08, 2004

ive been only able to drop by for periods of a few minutes atta time til now...and im not going to be able to address all of the information youve provided at one time...but i didnt want to neglect the wealth of stuff youve provided any longer.

although i asked about science, permit me to start with something i saw near the end (in the church's position's section...and yes id appreciate knowing what the numbers indicate as well as knowing if there is a historical chronology to the statements youve quoted).

2271: Since the first century the Church has affirmed themoral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

it's my understanding this is not entirely accurate in context. from what ive read, the very early church's objection to abortion had as much to do with concealing evidence of the sins of fornication and adultery as anything. the didache (which i believe to be the source of this: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74.) is conflicted by st augustine's take on abortion:

"If what is brought forth is unformed but at this stage some sort of living, shapeless thing, then the law of homicide would not apply, for it could not be said that there was a living soul in that body, for it lacks all sense, if it be such as is not yet formed and therefore not yet endowed with its senses".

the issue of hominism--which underlies my original question--as a basis for condeming abortions, was for a number of centuries resolved by the opinion ensoulment didnt take place until some 40 days after conception for males and 80 days for females.

obviously thats nonsense altho it served as the basis of the church's take on abortion til the late 1500s.

i cant locate it online but i once saw some drawings that were made (im virtually positive) by st thomas acquinas after observing sperm cells thru a primitive microscope of sorts. the drawing indicated bodily features on each sperm cell (sorta like a merman hahaha). the accompanying text indicated that observation to be, in large part, the reason for the church's eventual condemnation of abortion and birth control. once again, it was obviously misperception rather than science.

as to the old testament citations, the one i find most telling is the legal procedure for assessing a fine against a man who strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to lose the child. the fine prescribed would indicate no moral repugnance against the act...but a means of bringing justice to a man who was deprived of the economic benefits of a child that came to term and would eventually be able to labor on behalf of the family.

sorry for doing this in sections. like i said earlier, its unfair to you, but at least this will move things forward to some extent.

10

kingbee

on Nov 08, 2004

In addition, the Bible tells us the wicked are estranged or enemies of God from the womb:

The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth. (Psalms 58:3)

im not so sure you wanna go there. that would provide (as would the ordained prior to birth thing) a great argument for determinism wouldnt it? it's not germane in any event because clearly theres no way to demonstrate scientifically that someone is endowed with a special purpose (well no one but steve martin in the jerk anyway) at conception.

11

Dysmas

on Nov 08, 2004

Well the quote :

2271: Since the first century the Church has affirmed themoral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

was taken, word for word, out of the CCC. As I said I am merely re-stateing what the Offical stance of the Church is now. As for the numbers after the quote issue, I will address them at the bottom of this reply.

it's my understanding this is not entirely accurate in context. from what ive read, the very early church's objection to abortion had as much to do with concealing evidence of the sins of fornication and adultery as anything. the didache (which i believe to be the source of this: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74.) is conflicted by st augustine's take on abortion:

"If what is brought forth is unformed but at this stage some sort of living, shapeless thing, then the law of homicide would not apply, for it could not be said that there was a living soul in that body, for it lacks all sense, if it be such as is not yet formed and therefore not yet endowed with its senses".

True St. Augustine is a "Father" of the Church but one important thing to consider is that the Magestirum of the Church is not bound to obide by the personal views of Theologians, many have not, in the long run, turned out to be correct,
the Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and Pope's have the final say on what is or isnt accurate, as they are the "keepers of the faith" as are all Christians. The Church, as im sure you know, is made up also by the faithfull wich are the "pillar and foundation" of the Church, but among those faithfull, those called to Holy Orders have the authority and insight, normally, to discern fact from fiction. And the Church, as time went on and more revalations came to it, adapted to these new revlations. i.e circumsicion, the issue of gentiles converting to judasiam befor they can be come Christains and so forth.

the issue of hominism--which underlies my original question--as a basis for condeming abortions, was for a number of centuries resolved by the opinion ensoulment didnt take place until some 40 days after conception for males and 80 days for females. obviously thats nonsense altho it served as the basis of the church's take on abortion til the late 1500s.

Im not sure where this information came from but if you could, please provide me with the source?

i cant locate it online but i once saw some drawings that were made (im virtually positive) by st thomas acquinas after observing sperm cells thru a primitive microscope of sorts. the drawing indicated bodily features on each sperm cell (sorta like a merman hahaha). the accompanying text indicated that observation to be, in large part, the reason for the church's eventual condemnation of abortion and birth control. once again, it was obviously misperception rather than science.

Im not aware of any drawings to that effect but I don't presume to imply that you are in any way lieing.
That being said, I will, for the sake of argument say that that is true, but I disagree with that being the reason the Chruch condemed abortion, as we know it today, for that reason.
One of the tenets of my faith is the belief in the Immaculate Conception, in that Mary, the mother of God, was uniquily concived without origional sin so that she would be able to carry the sinless Christ. Knowladge has it that origional sin is passed down, esotaricly, through generations, so, since Jesus was really a human, Mary had to be concived without it so as not to pass it down to the Christ. So if God would give that singular grace to a person at its conception, then it would be logical to assume that life begins at conception. Since this is a tenet of my faith, one in which a Catholic must believe in, I would say that that is the main reason why the Church considers conception the moment of life.

as to the old testament citations, the one i find most telling is the legal procedure for assessing a fine against a man who strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to lose the child. the fine prescribed would indicate no moral repugnance against the act...but a means of bringing justice to a man who was deprived of the economic benefits of a child that came to term and would eventually be able to labor on behalf of the family.

B]"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)

A very interesting view indeed. It took me a moment to try and come up with some type of response. Very good insight kingbee.
Upon further review of the passage I have a difference of opinion and I will explain it as such:
It says "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman..." My view on that, as it said "if men struggle with each other" would be that if two men, or more, where involved in an altercation and struck the pregnant woman on accident, then it would be an unintentional abortion and therefor not murder and so the man who did it would be fined, as you said, for any economic benifits it may have provided for its family. It would be an accident so no moral crime would've been comitted.
However the passage goes on to say "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." meaning, I assume, that if the man struck the pregnant woman again and caused her or her child to die then the judgment would be "life for life"
I have e-mailed a few of my apologetics contacts to see if my perception of the passage was accurate for a person such as myself.
They agreed. I am now trying to contact Official Church Apologists to see if it was an accurate perception of the passage, and I will absolutly get back to you on that. ( Please remind me if it is not soon as I have short term memory loss due to my condition)
sorry for doing this in sections. like i said earlier, its unfair to you, but at least this will move things forward to some extent.

No apology needed at all

things did move forward and thats what discussions and learning are all about. Thanks for your time.

12

Dysmas

on Nov 08, 2004

Sorry I forgot about the "numbers" ** sheepishly grining**
Here they are, from the CCC.

71. Cf. CDF, Donum vitae I, 1.
72. Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11.
73. Ps 139:15.
74. Didache 2, 2: SCh 248, 148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19,5: PG2, 777; Ad Diognetum 5,6: PG 2,1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9: PL 1, 319-320.
75. GS 51 (weird looking S,-two s's overlaping oneanother.) 3.

CDF- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Jer- Jermiah, Job- Book of Job, Ps- Psalms
SCh- Sources Chretiennes.
Ep- Euchoristc prayer.
GS- Gaudium et spes

CCC, Proluge V.
19: The texts of Sacred Scripture are often not quoted word for word but are merely indicated by a reference ( cf.) For a deeper understanding of such passages, the reader should refer to the Scriptural texts themselfes. Such Biblical references are a valuable working-tool in catechesis.

22: At the end of each thematic unit, a series of brief texts dum put the essentials of that unit's teaching in condensed gormulae. These IN BRIEF summaries may suggest to local catechists brief summary formulase that could be memorized.
(bolded and all caps as they appear in CCC.)

13

Dysmas

on Nov 08, 2004

Sorry for my origional response I dont't know what the hell happend with the whole "quote" thing, some of my responses are IN the yellow quote and some are not. ( Im retarded sometimes haha)

14

kingbee

on Nov 09, 2004

Im not sure where this information came from but if you could, please provide me with the source?

try here (not very scholarly but consistent with stuff ive read offline) LINK

15

kingbee

on Nov 09, 2004

One of the tenets of my faith is the belief in the Immaculate Conception, in that Mary, the mother of God, was uniquily concived without origional sin so that she would be able to carry the sinless Christ. Knowladge has it that origional sin is passed down, esotaricly, through generations, so, since Jesus was really a human, Mary had to be concived without it so as not to pass it down to the Christ. So if God would give that singular grace to a person at its conception, then it would be logical to assume that life begins at conception. Since this is a tenet of my faith, one in which a Catholic must believe in, I would say that that is the main reason why the Church considers conception the moment of life.

altho i dont believe ive ever seen the issue explained that way. as soon as i saw the words 'immaculate conception' i KNEW exactly where you were gonna go with it tho. the concept of immaculate conception obviates the need for science--for those able to believe anyway--unless (and i doubt this is the case) there exists more than one level of human-ness (for want of a better term): one favored by unique direct divine action and others in which the process is ummm automatic?

even for those unable to accept ic in faith, it provides--at very least--an easily grasped alternative and is no more or less demonstrable than any other explanation of which i have any knowledge, including the embryological theories you provided in your initial response.