Way to sidestep the letter by Abp. Chaput and the content of it.

A very quick response . . .

What Chaput says made me remember what Scalia said about abortion in the recent Sixty Minutes interview:

“My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don’t count pregnant women twice.”

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?

You may, or may not, find this interesting. Abp. Chaput to Biden.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment “You shall not kill”.

But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html