In a recent interview between Cindy McCain and Katie Couric, one finds the following exchange:
Katie Couric: Abortion has suddenly become, again, a hot button issue, because of [Gov. Palin]. … Where do you stand on abortion?
Cindy McCain: I’m pro-life, I’m on the record as being pro-life, like my husband.
Katie Couric: So, do you oppose it even in the cases of rape and incest?
Cindy McCain: No.
Katie Couric: No? So, that’s where you two differ?
Cindy McCain: Uh-huh [affirmative].
News reports on this exchange have tended to focus on the differences between the two on the subject of abortion. From my perspective, however, the newsworthy fact here is not the limited disagreement between Gov. Palin and Ms. McCain on the subject of abortion, but there general agreement. While Republican politicians have tended to be at least nominally pro-life, this has not been true of their wives, who often are supportive of abortion rights (and who, it has been theorized, have made life difficult for their husbands when they try to act on the issue). In fact, if I’m not mistaken, Ms. McCain’s statement means that, should her husband win election in November, she would become the first First Lady since Roe v. Wade who was not in favor of that decision.
Do you think Roe v. Wade made sense to Pat Nixon?
The morning after pill is the best way in situations of rape and incest. In the latter case, it might be hard to come by for a minor, since the kind of family horror that makes incest possible in the first place may well also curtail her freedom. Obviously, no one ought to be punished for not wanting to get pregnant via rape or incest. Plan B, if available, will prevent that. Nonetheless, even without Roe, it would never be punished to have an abortion after rape/incest. And of course there are the life of the mother cases, where only barbarians would insist on the mother ‘choosing death’ for herself.
But those 3 scenarios are about 2% of abortions. Obviously, a lot of people are too dumb to use contraception. Why they should get a free pass to abort until almost the last second is the real issue. Austria regulates abortion by simple law. First trimester. Still too long, given the ready availability of pregnancy tests. Not to mention the women who have multiple abortions. Surely there could be some consensus found to limit that ? In any case, getting abortion out of the Constitution would be big progress. The Democrats might even stop trying to outdo one another in abortion worship. The American free for all is rather uncommon in the Western world.
Abortion doesn’t *prevent* pregnancy.
What I meant – Plan B prevents pregnancy. It’s the regular pill in a higher dose.
The whole silly terminology ‘pro-life’ vs. ‘pro-choice’ is just another fruit of the poisonous tree. If we had regular laws like other countries, one could have an actual debate on how to handle abortion. With Roe, Democrats get to argue that the alternative to Roe is coathangers and back alleys. Which is of course complete BS. This false all or nothing scenario gives Democrats the upper hand.
Plan B does cause abortion in most instances.
Plan B may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Pregnancy begins with implantation. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Of course it’s your right to worry about a fertilized egg. I worry for a being with actual feelings. Not to mention the small chance of a fertilized egg being present to begin with. But, since good Catholics are absolutists, I of course understand, while disagree with, your position.
“While Republican politicians have tended to be at least nominally pro-life…”
Nominally anti-abortion, not pro-life the way Catholics understand it.
Plan B may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Pregnancy begins with implantation.
Is that what you’ve learned by reading this blog? Human life begins at fertilization. By chemically not allowing that human life to implant and, thus, pass out of the mother, it is murder. Pregnancy begins with fertilization.
Joseph, our cafeteria frequenting friend doesn’t like the taste of that particular Catholic teaching.
Nominally anti-abortion, not pro-life the way Catholics understand it.
MM, help me out here. I’m have neither loyalties to the Republican party, nor the Democratic party as you do. So, my vision doesn’t get as cloudy when it comes to certain unpopular Catholic teachings around these parts (speaking of Vox Nova). So, are you saying that voting for a man who, not only has sworn to make it his priority to protect the sacred right of murdering innocent children at will, federally subsidize these murders, and also use federal tax dollars to fund the promotion of this satanic sacrament to other nations who have been on their heels trying to fight it is your understanding of “pro-life”, or is that the Catholic understanding? I forgot to mention, which I’m sure you are aware of, your man also fought with all of his might to ensure that doctors could not interfere with the sacrament of abortion by doing what they can to save the lives of children who actually survived abortion.
MM, one more thing. You have your chance to show your colors now and disagree with your pal Naus. Let’s see em.
Pregnancy begins with fertilization.
Joseph,
Your statement is not exactly false, but not exactly true. Within the life sciences, pregnancy is usually considered to begin with implantation, not fertilization. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for example, considers pregnancy to begin with successful implantation of the fertilized egg.
Now, under pressure from “pro-life” groups, government is under pressure to define pregnancy as starting at conception, and some state governments have done so. All the ramifications are unclear.
It is not necessary, it seems to me, to maintain that pregnancy begins at conception even if you believe that life begins at conception. There is no pregnancy when in vitro fertilization is used, and yet Catholics would maintain that a human life has begun.
It seems to me that changing the definition of pregnancy is much like changing the definition of marriage. It’s a political battle based on a desire for a certain outcome.
MM my pal ? Please, don’t scare him like that :)
Roe v. Wade is a travesty, abortion doesn’t belong in the Constitution. It makes any regulation impossible. The European model, eg in Austria or Germany, is far more desirable. First trimester – although that should be shortened, given new scientific knowledge, reliable pregnancy tests etc. Abortion will never be completely illegal again, insofar the discussions over whether a fertilized egg is a person are purely academic. 98% of abortions are not rape, incest or health but simply birth control. ‘Abstinence Education’ probably increases teen pregnancy. Clearly, Western European countries have a fraction of the abortion rate in the USA, esp. the teen pregnancy/abortion rate. Lack of education, laziness, “purity pledges” and the like contribute to that.
Is that what you’ve learned by reading this blog?
Please don’t hold us responsible for Gerald’s views on human life. He is free to believe that life begins at implantation, but that’s obviously not the official view of the Church.
When life begins and when pregnancy begins are two different issues. As far as I know, the Catholic Church does not have an opinion about when pregnancy begins.
The FDA under the Bush administration permitted the sale of “Plan B” (the morning after pill) over the counter, acknowledging that one possible mechanism of action is preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. Medical authorities would not call that “abortifacient,” because preventing implantation is not an abortion. For those who believe life begins at conception, it may be the moral equivalent of abortion, but it is not abortion.
Of course, these are purely definitions and definitions can change. But it seems better to me to make your moral points using the conventional definitions rather than change the definitions to conform to your moral viewpoint.
So, what you’re saying is that the label “abortifacient” should not be given to any pill or chemical that prevents implantation, because causing the inevitable destruction of a fertilized egg that is not implanted is not an abortion. Hmm… I don’t think that it’s me who is changing definitions to fit a moral viewpoint.
According to your definition, neither is the birth control pill an abortifacient. That brings me back to this point that you made.
When life begins and when pregnancy begins are two different issues. As far as I know, the Catholic Church does not have an opinion about when pregnancy begins.
No? Hmm… aborifacient… hmm…
No political candidate in the last hundred years or so has been ‘pro-life’ in sexual matters in the Catholic sense, since birth control being legal contradicts that, as do abortions to save a mother’s life. Well, maybe that nut Rick Santorum is. Who knows what all he’d ban.
Only conservative religious sites try to make this case re: “the pill”. Of course, the Catholic Church also thinks it’s better to get AIDS (temporal consequence) rather than use a condom (eternal consequence), so the issue isn’t just whether an egg goes down the tubes. Slate’s William Saletan has a great tongue-in-cheek article on the topic. Excerpt:
As you know, the risk that oral contraception will prevent implantation of an embryo is purely theoretical. There is no documented case of such a tragedy, since we have no way to verify conception inside a woman’s body prior to implantation without causing the embryo’s death. Even theoretically, the risk is vanishingly small, since the primary effect of oral contraception is to prevent ovulation, and the secondary effect is to prevent fertilization. To classify oral contraception as abortifacient, one would have to posit a scenario in which the drug fails to block ovulation, then fails to block fertilization, and yet somehow, having proved impotent at every other task, manages to prevent implantation.
……
Breast-feeding, like oral contraception, alters a woman’s hormonal balance, thereby suppressing ovulation, fertilization, and, theoretically, implantation. These results were documented in a 1992 research paper, “Relative Contributions of Anovulation and Luteal Phase Defect to the Reduced Pregnancy Rate of Breastfeeding Women.” The authors concluded: “The abnormal endocrine profile of the first luteal phase offers effective protection to women who ovulate during lactational amenorrhea within the first 6 months after delivery.” In other words, breast-feeding prevents pregnancy despite ovulation.
When pregnancy begins is not relevant. Abortion is considered wrong because it is the taking of an innocent human life. Teaching is clear, life begins at conception. Teaching is also clear that artificially interfering with conception within the marital act is gravely sinful. Therefore, whether or not implantation has occurred is academic.
Breastfeeding is a *natural* and nurturing activity in support of innocent human life, to try and insinuate that the Catholic Church should treat it on the same level as artificial contraception is ludicrous.
So, what you’re saying is that the label “abortifacient” should not be given to any pill or chemical that prevents implantation, because causing the inevitable destruction of a fertilized egg that is not implanted is not an abortion. Hmm… I don’t think that it’s me who is changing definitions to fit a moral viewpoint.
Joseph,
Bending over backwards to be fair, I would say that there is no one definition of pregnancy. The medical profession in the United States and Britain tends to define pregnancy as beginning at implantation. They will deny that the pill or Plan B is an abortificacient, because an abortifacient ends a pregnancy, and a pregnancy doesn’t exist before implantation. The pro-life movement (or at least the most conservative among them) defines pregnancy as beginning at conception, and consequently claims the pill and Plan B are abortifacients.
It seems to me that the sensible pro-life Catholic position would be that definitions of pregnancy and abortion and abortifacient aren’t significant. What is significant is protecting human life from the moment of conception. If you believe that a drug that prevents implantation takes an innocent human life, what matters is not what you call it, but what it does.
It is my sense (and perhaps not fair of me) that certain people in the pro-life movement have emotional reasons for wanting to call something like Plan B an abortifacient. It is not satisfying enough to say that it may prevent implantation and therefore end a human life. The ant-abortion people want to be able to say abortion.
Now, here is what I would argue makes it odd to call Plan B an abortifacient. First, my understanding is the same as Gerald Naus’s above. Nobody actually knows if the pill or Plan B prevents implantation, It’s a conjecture. But here’s something that seems even more telling to me. If a woman who knows she is pregnant from the obvious signs takes Plan B, or if a woman who is determined to be pregnant by any existing test for pregnancy takes Plan B, it will not end her pregnancy. It seems very strange to me to call a drug that is safe for pregnant women an abortifacient!
When pregnancy begins is not relevant.
jeremy,
I think you are absolutely correct. Or at least it is not relevant to the moral discussion.
Breastfeeding is a *natural* and nurturing activity in support of innocent human life, to try and insinuate that the Catholic Church should treat it on the same level as artificial contraception is ludicrous.
Many in the pro-life movement accept that a woman can take the pill for noncontraceptive purposes (for example, the treatment of endometriosis) but argue that she must practice abstinence during the time she is on the pill, since it is an abortifacient. For those who accept that argument, if breast-feeding has the same potential “abortifacient” effects as the pill, I don’t see how one could argue that a breast-feeding woman need not practice abstinence.
Hi Dave,
Two points -
1) What ‘many say’ is not a teaching that must be followed, or even necessarily correct. If I was in a similar situation, I would consult with my local ordinaries.
2) the keyword is ‘artificial’.
By the way, I thought Cindy McCain looked terrific during the convention.
“When life begins and when pregnancy begins are two different issues.”
Huh?
Definition of Pregnancy
The period from conception to birth. After the egg is fertilized by a sperm and then implanted in the lining of the uterus, it develops into the placenta and embryo, and later into a fetus. Pregnancy usually lasts 40 weeks, beginning from the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period, and is divided into three trimesters, each lasting three months.
David, don’t you see that the theoretical chance of an egg being ‘murdered’ far outweighs the horror of having to be pregnant with and give birth to, eg, one’s own brother ?
Gerald,
Just a point of clarification – you can’t murder an egg. You can scramble them, poach them, fry them etc, but not murder them.
On a more serious note, please don’t use human tragedy to score rhetorical points. When we discuss do’s and don’ts as they relate to sin, we do so in a comfortable environment where the lines are not blurry. When you bring human tragedy into the picture, then the lines are blurred. We must now focus on two victims, instead of just one. That just makes the conversation messier, not clearer. In such conversations, the third (or more) person is also overlooked, and that is the perpetrator. The real damage does not get erased by snuffing out a life. Things that were objectively sinful are still sinful. As Catholics (and non) we all know that the intentional taking of an innocent human life is a grave sin, regardless of how that life was created.
little gal,
Things are sometimes more complicated than the Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine, the source of your definition, makes them out to be. In fact, the passage you quote implies two different definitions of pregnancy.
(1) The period from conception to birth.
(2) Pregnancy usually lasts 40 weeks, beginning from the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period.
Is the date of conception the same as the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period? As I pointed out above, there are many different definitions of pregnancy.
If life begins when pregnancy begins, and vice versa, then why are Catholics opposed to stem-cell research? The embryos that are handed over for research have been fertilized in the lab and have never in any way been part of a pregnancy.
To get some sense of what is going on, check out the following article from the Wall Street Journal (I give just the beginning, with a link to the full article):
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121745387879898315.html?mod=blog
Then check out Wikipedia’s article “Beginning of Pregnancy Controversy,” which includes a brief account of the regulation mentioned in the WSJ article and what happened with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
David,
Bending over backwards to be fair…
I think you missed my point. You’ll have to read the comment you made that I was referring to, and then read my comment in full. If you put it together, you’ll see that I was illustrating that two of your points were misleading and/or false.
1) Your definition of pregnant and what constitutes an abortion. As little gal pointed out. The medical definition of pregnancy (I don’t know what source hers was from) in the American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary is “The condition of a woman or female mammal from conception until birth; the condition of being pregnant.”
2) Your suggestion that the Catholic Church has not come to the same conclusion as medical science. I was inviting you to simply google search combinations of words such as “abortifacient”, “Plan B”, “Catholic”, “Pope”, “oral contraceptive”, “abortion”, “implantation”, etc. Any combination will do. You will find what the authorities in the Church have said over and over about Plan B and oral contraceptives (aka “the pill”). That was particularly why I was repeating “abortifacient”, to kill two birds with one stone.
Of course, if you google that, the only groups talking about ‘abortifacient’ nature of the pill are ultra-conservative religious ones. Your ecclesiology is also interesting – “the Catholic Church” basically means the Pope & the Pope’s Men. The sensus fidei/fidelium died a premature death. Oh yeah, that sense is correct when it agrees with the hierarchy. Just like freedom is the freedom to agree with the hierarchy.
David:
The quote was not from an alternative medicine encyclopedia. It is a medical definition of pregnancy that most women (and those who have taken biology in high school) would be familiar with. You may be looking at government definitions of pregnancy for purposes of abortion/contraception.*
FYI, it’s impossible to tell exactly when conception takes place due to many factors-the female’s ovulation, the specific act of intercourse and the length of time that sperm can survive. I suspect that is why the date of a pregnancy is calculated from the first day of the female’s last menstrual cycle. Later on-say the second or third trimester-with use of ultrasound that the timeframe for pregnancy can be refined a bit more.
Re: your second question about use of stem cells. From The Catholic New World:
“The church teaches that research on stem cells from human embryos is always wrong, because the only way to procure the cells is to kill the embryo.
But media reports often focus on the potential of embryonic stem cells, Pacholczyk said, and many people are unaware of the work going on with adult stem cells.
Catholics seem to be about as informed as the general public on stem cell issues, he said, and major misconceptions abound.
People also seem to misunderstand the nature of a human embryo as a immature human being. To counter that, Pacholczyk said, he uses the example of the federal law protecting the American bald eagle that was enacted in 1940. That law made it just as much a crime to harm a bald eagle egg as to hurt an adult bald eagle. “This makes perfect sense,” Pacholczyk said. “What is inside that egg is an eagle embryo. But people seem to be somehow disconnected form the embryos we all once were.”
*I think the best place to go for definitions is a textbook on Catholic moral theology.
Is there some reason that my comments are being moderated? If there is, please let me know what specfically was objectionable.
Joseph and Little Gal,
To be candid, in digging deeper into this issue, I am surprised at the number of references (including medical references) that define pregnancy as being from conception to birth. However, that doesn’t change what I am saying. There is no such thing as the definition of pregnancy.
There was recently a draft of proposed regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that grappled with this issue and tilted toward redefining abortion to include prevention of implantation. Here is an excerpt, in which I have highlighted some passages.
Now, I know which definition you prefer, but this turned out to be too controversial, and HHS has now dropped the language from the proposed regulations, leaving us still with “two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins.”
Almost everything I found doing Google searches on “Catholic,” “pope,” “abortifacient,” and so on turned up material that I would consider to be far from authoritative, but I did find this statement in the Statement on the So-Called Morning-After Pill, from the Pontifical Academy for Life:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html
So we have an official Vatican document taking the position that prevention of implantation is abortion.
My point remains that both definitions of pregnancy (beginning at conception, and beginning at implantation) are reasonable definitions and although the Catholic Church has opted for the definition that begins with conception, the Catholic Church has no special authority to define medical terms. The question isn’t really “when does pregnancy begin?” It’s “whose definition do you use?”
Now, of course for Catholics, the Church does have the authority to say life begins at conception, and any interference that deliberately causes that life to end is the unjust taking of a human life. What the Church can’t do is insist to people who believe pregnancy begins at implantation that the morning-after pill is an abortifacient. What the Church can do, however, is say, “It doesn’t matter whose definition of pregnancy is used, using a drug to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg is the unjust taking of a human life.”
In other words, the Church has no authority to demand that people use certain medical definitions rather than others. What it can do (in the case of Catholics) is tell them what is morally right and wrong and forbid them to use definitions of when pregnancy begins to deny Catholic teaching about when life begins.
The sensus fidei/fidelium died a premature death. Oh yeah, that sense is correct when it agrees with the hierarchy. Just like freedom is the freedom to agree with the hierarchy.
Yeah, pretty much… especially given that the hierarchy happens to be right here. So sorry you have a problem with that.
BTW, did you have a problem with the sensus fidei up till about 1960 when it concurred with the Vatican that abortion was a horrific punishable crime? Or what about the pre-Christian sensus fidei, which had little problem with exposing newborns on mountaintops in societies like Greece?
Finally, what’s the sensus fidei of Muslim communities when it comes to beheading certain Danish cartoonists and stoning gay people? Are you a big fan of that, too?
Oh yeah, that sense is correct when it agrees with the hierarchy.
Yes, but the opposite is also true.
The Catholic Church has always taught that contraception is just as bad as abortion. John Paul II declared in _Evangelium Vitae_, using the formula reserved for infallibility (he specifically nvoked the authority of St. Peter) that life begins at conception.
There is no room for debate on these matters. Faithful Catholics are to fight for the immediate outlawing of all abortion and contraception: this is the clear teaching of _Evangelium Vitae_. In follow-up statements, JPII said that arguments that we can’t outlaw them because of political expediency or public outrage are forms of the Sin against the Holy Spirit.
“The Catholic Church has always taught that contraception is just as bad as abortion”
Interestingly, this rationale has been interpreted by some poor laypeople that it’s better to have abortions, since there’d be fewer instances of ‘sin’.
The Catholic Church has always taught that contraception is just as bad as abortion.
JC,
I find what you are saying impossible to believe. It’s simply not credible that a Church that considers abortion to be murder would consider contraception “just as bad.” I would be appalled if this were an authentic Catholic teaching. Could you cite any source to back up this assertion?
Here is a quote from Evangelium Vitae. Noet the phrase that I have highlighted. I don’t see how anyone could interpret this passage to mean contraception is just as bad as abortion.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
David,
You wouldn’t be officially automatically excommunicated for using a condom as you would be for being complicit in an abortion, though it is a moral sin. And, a mortal sin is a mortal sin. So, you would be out of communion for doing either. One is obviously more grave and perilous than the other. There are the differences and similarities, but both are intrinsically linked.
Good job finding the Vatican statement. I knew you would. Though the majority of the other new stories, which I’m sure you are referring to, are not authoritative, they do provide quotes from the heirarchy on the subject and can therefore provide insight to the mind of the Church on an infomral level. The Catholic Church opts with the definition that is clearly based on science. Just as the seed of a plant become new organic life when it is germinated, the human egg, once fertilized, instantly becomes life, organically human. All other attempts to portray human life as not beginning until implantation are directly opposed to objective science (no one is speaking about ensoulment, the question is when does human life begin).
Joseph,
For Catholics, the Church clearly has the authority to say that life begins at conception. My only quarrel is insisting that pregnancy begins at conception. I wouldn’t say that defining pregnancy as “conception to birth” is a bad definition. But there are many good reasons for defining pregnancy as “implantation to birth.” And I will grant that both sides may have ulterior motives to insist on their definition.
There is virtually no way to tell if a woman has conceived, so the first detectable signs of pregnancy are at implantation. Also, somewhere between 30 and 70 percent of the times a woman conceives, the fertilized egg fails to implant. So it’s quite possible that the majority of times a woman is “pregnant” (by the “conception to birth” definition), the “pregnancy” is over within a few days, and nobody knows it every happened.
So as a practical matter, it makes sense for medical professionals, who are dealing with patients, to consider as pregnancy a condition that they can test for and monitor in their patients. It is probably only during fertility treatment that obstetricians and gynecologists would be concerned with what might happen between conception and implantation. For all other purposes, it’s irrelevant to the actual practice of medicine.
Just as the seed of a plant become new organic life when it is germinated, the human egg, once fertilized, instantly becomes life, organically human.
This argument can cut both ways. A seed doesn’t germinate until it is planted. Before it is planted and germinates, a seed is just a seed, not a plant. Likewise, a fertilized human egg has no chance of being a baby until it is (im)planted.
None of this, of course, invalidates the Church’s teaching that human life begins at conception, and from the moment of conception an embryo must be treated as a person. It is really just an argument about what terminology to use at what stage.
“Objective science” can probably say that a human life begins at conception, in that the fertilized egg is human and is alive. Science cannot prove that a person exists from the moment of conception that must be treated as a human being with a right to life. Nor can it prove the opposite. It’s just not a scientific question.
Dave,
Mortal Sin is Mortal Sin. The sin of blowing off mass carries essentially the same penalty as procuring an abortion, going on tri-state killing spree, or dissing you parents.
Theologically, I’m sure there are differences, but in practical terms… you only go to hell once, and a good valid confession (which means repentance as well) will wash it all away.
My only quarrel is insisting that pregnancy begins at conception.
Then your quarrel is against objective science and not with the Church or Catholics.
But there are many good reasons for defining pregnancy as “implantation to birth.”
There may be according to your personal philosophy, but you would be choosing to integrate your personal philosophy with science, therefore managing the impossible, making science subjective, or false science. Your philosophy may be shared by millions of other people in the world, but objective (true) science isn’t decided by polls. That’s just the way it is.
There is virtually no way to tell if a woman has conceived, so the first detectable signs of pregnancy are at implantation. This doesn’t diminish the fact that once an egg is fertilized, (organically, human) life begins.
So as a practical matter, it makes sense for medical professionals, who are dealing with patients, to consider as pregnancy a condition that they can test for and monitor in their patients. Once again, this doesn’t diminish the fact that once an egg is fertilized, human life begins.
This argument can cut both ways. A seed doesn’t germinate until it is planted. Before it is planted and germinates, a seed is just a seed, not a plant. Likewise, a fertilized human egg has no chance of being a baby until it is (im)planted.
A seed doesn’t begin to grow because it’s planted. It is germination that brings it to life. Human sperm fertilizes the egg before it is planted in the wall of the uterus. It is when the egg, or seed is fertilized/germinated that life begins.
Likewise, a fertilized human egg has no chance of being a baby until it is (im)planted.
Objective science tells us that a fertilized egg, at the moment of conception, is organically a human life. The stage of life is not the question, it is whether or not the fertilized egg is human life. A baby has no chance of being an adult unless she survives infancy. That doesn’t make the baby any less human.
“Objective science” can probably say that a human life begins at conception, in that the fertilized egg is human and is alive.
It not only can, it does.
Science cannot prove that a person exists from the moment of conception that must be treated as a human being with a right to life.
Science has already proven that the fertilized egg, and every successive growth stage of the human, is human life. The taking of human life, especially that which is innocent and defenseless, is, objectively, murder.
Unfortunately, our government has decided to ignore science and amend the meaning of murder and its consequences, but it is murder, nevertheless. Science can prove that a human person exists (organically) from the moment of conception, but you are right, science doesn’t make the laws.
Joseph,
There is no way for “objective science” to determine whether it is better to define pregnancy as beginning at conception or beginning at implantation. It is a matter of defining words, not a matter of discovering some underlying reality.
Neither definition of pregnancy is incompatible with believing life begins at conception. No one disputes that a fertilized human egg is human and alive. The question is whether it is a person. The Church says it is. Science can neither prove nor disprove that, since it ultimately depends on what definition of person you want to use.
Germination and fertilization are two quite different things.
Actually, in backing away from the language in the HHS regulation I quoted, the government didn’t decide to ignore science. It decided to leave all the definitions unchanged going back to the founding of the country and before. The legal definition of a person is “a human being that has been born and is alive.” It is the pro-life movement, not the pro-choice movement, that is attempting to change legal definitions that have been used for hundreds of years.
Jeremy,
There is something very wrong with your reasoning. It would imply that if you are in the state of mortal sin, or if you are intending to commit a mortal sin, there is no reason not to go all out and do every vile thing you can think of. It would mean there was no difference between killing someone and getting your hands on a nuclear weapon and blowing up a whole city. It would mean there’s no difference between quietly masturbating (which I believe still counts as a mortal sin) in the privacy of your own home and being a serial rapist (and killer, too, since why not kill your victims). You have to be wrong!
David,
You may, or may not, find this interesting. Abp. Chaput to Biden.
Joseph,
A very quick response . . .
What Chaput says made me remember what Scalia said about abortion in the recent Sixty Minutes interview:
It seems to me that if you and Archbishop Chaput are correct, and a person is present from conception, then not only is Scalia wrong, but the other four Catholics on the court are wrong, and, of course, the remaining four non-Catholics are wrong. The ultimate responsibility for abortion rests, at the moment, with the Supreme Court. If they acknowledged the “scientific fact” that a person is present at the moment of conception, they could end abortion the next time they decided an abortion case.
So why is Archbishop Chaput wasting his time with Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden?
Justice Scalia’s opinion doesn’t diminish the scientific evidence that life begins at conception.
Also, I’m not sure if Scalia, because he is a Catholic, speaks for the other Catholic Justices. So, I’m not sure if your leap in logic that because holds this view, which is wrong, it must then follow that the other Catholic Justices hold the same view.
Way to sidestep the letter by Abp. Chaput and the content of it.
So did anyone catch Cindy McCain get caught up in the abortion question this morning on the View with her hubby sitting nest to her. She kept getting asked by the ladies about the issue. She responded she was pro life. Then they asked so you do you agree completely with Palin across the board she kept kind of skipping the question then finally she said on rape and incest that is when John and I do agree , We are both pro life but there are circumstances. His mouth almost hit the floor. I don’t think he wanted that actually said on National TV. OOOOOPPPPPPSSS