What was abundantly clear from last night’s debate is that both Catholic candidates for VP are willing to stand on a pile of dead babies in order to grasp victory.  Paul Ryan’s pile is significantly smaller than Biden’s so there are many who will see that and say, “Well, a smaller pile of dead babies is better than a larger pile so I’ll go with the guy standing on the smaller pile.”  Now, I look at it and say, “Dear God, they’re standing on a pile of dead babies!”  and want no part of either.

I do not believe in abortion but I will not impose my morality.” Joe Biden says he will not impose his morality on us. Does Joe Biden have any morality to impose on us? The Health and Human Services Mandate imposes Joe Biden’s immorality on us and forces everyone to provide abortificients, contraception and sterilization. “I do not believe in abortion but I will not impose my morality.” is the mantra of Father Robert Drinan, S.J. R.I.P. The HHS Mandate imposes abortion immorality on every person in America. Joe Biden is complicit and guilty by dereliction. Any person who repudiates our founding principles and the unalienable Right to Life and Liberty repudiates his citizenship.

Adolpho: In defense of Rep. Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan did invoke the unalienable Right to Life and Liberty in the debate as well as the science that proves human existence begins at conception and must be protected by our founding principles.

Mary, he sure did.  Then he went on to undercut that very philosophy.

I, too, was confused with Ryan’s exceptions and his statement that science and reason say life begins at conception.  Perhaps his statements are similar to a marriage with disagreeing spouses.  Take for example this scenerio: One spouse does not want contraception, the other will not have intercourse without it.  Is the marriage open to life?

Well, the spouse that does not want contraception is open to life and the other spouse is not.  How do you answer the question?  Paul responded in what I could consider the non-contracepting spouse’s answer, “I know life begins at conception.  My partner does not think so in some circumstances, therefore I cannot say that this administration is 100% pro-life.  I can say that I am, but as a team we disagree.”

I am not saying I am right in this interpretation, but it has crossed my mind.

Joe Biden is the most racist/sexist politician going. Replace “MY FRIEND” with “BOY” keep the smirk & laugh then think about how he looks and sounds. The only people keeping me in chains are the Obama and Biden.

Do you really think he cares about abortion he is just saying what he thinks pro-choicers want to hear

Why are the pro-life candidates always playing defense and not taking the offense- Ryan could have followed up with even more passion than Biden on how imposing just laws to protect the young and innocent are not an imposition of one’s Catholicism- if we just review the facts of life and not even focus on our religious belief system- we can easily see that the unborn child is a separate life from his or her mother and father- that makes this a unique question when dealing with the problem posed by the the mantra- My body, my choice. Ryan could have hit Biden back hard by noting that everyone of their children is so precious that we would never dream of the world without them- yet abortion results in the unthinkable- moms and dads actually killing the lives of their own children.

We don’t allow fathers to say - well I can beat up my children in the privacy of my own home- it’s my right to privacy- no one objects to laws that protect children from abuse- if we can clearly see that a new human life has started his or her journey then it is moral and logical to establish laws protecting such lives. There are so many ways to aggressively educate people in a debate format on the absurdity and evils of abortion- when a candidate for President/VP gets it right then I will at last be impressed and be openly supportive- that moment has not arrived for the pro-life movement. Allowing pro-aborts like Biden to appear to be the most concerned about imposing his morality on a question like abortion was a huge huge mistake- a wasted teachable moment bigtime- for shame.

Ryan is simply pointing out that he is the VP candidate, not the Presidential candidate.  So his views in this case do not completely match the exact policy that Romney has chosen to take.  I don’t blame Ryan for that.

By CCC definition, BIDEN is a Catholic Heretic and Schismatic regarding ABORTION, EUTHANASIA, FREEDOM of RELIGION, and HOMO-SEXUAL MARRIAGE.
His Diocese Bishop in Delaware has forbidden him to speak at Catholic Schools- (this can be found on internet).
And BIDEN also stated in regard to abortion - that during the next administration, there will be some new US Supreme Court Justices appointed (true)- with the insinuation that ABORTION for CONVENIENCE will be overturned if you do not vote for his OBAMA.

“My religion defines who I am.—Joe Biden”  Your religion defines you as a heretic, Vice President.

Adolpho, remember in Evangelium Vitae JP2 clearly says that it is morally valid to support policies that REDUCE abortions, which is exactly what Rep. Ryan is doing. Many lives would be saved if abortion was restricted to only cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Of course the end game is getting rid of ALL abortions without exceptions, but sometimes (especially in politics) you have to work there incrementally. Until the day comes when abortion is fully outlawed as murder, we are under a moral duty to put as many restrictions on the practice as possible.

Which catholic church does Biden belong to; the one headed by Pope Simone?

I was disappointed by Ryan’s parsing answer too, but I am sure if he didn’t say anything about the “exception”, Raddatz would have tried to put him in a corner about it.  I think he sort of redeemed himself with the “it’s not the Fed’s job [I’m paraphrasing, apologies!], it should be up to the state, the patient and the doc.”

Regardless of what Biden or anyone else would like to think, if you’re beliefs go counter to what the Catholic Church (Christ’s mystical Body) teaches and believes, then you are not in union with it—you are not in Communion with the Church.

Biden, Pelosi, Ryan, everybody (myself included) really need to ponder those words “AMEN” when we receive Him in Holy Communion.  If we do not truly believe what His Body believes, we are lying and thus bring judgement upon ourselves.

John Paul II, in his encyclical “the Gospel of Life” spoke several times of a contradiction he called “amazing” and “astounding,” namely of the affirmation, in words, of the right to life and its negation in deeds.

The USCCB literature in the matter of “religious freedom” refers to one of these passages. This would imply that it, as John Paul II, would hold it improper, from the point of view of morality and justice, to act against the right to life of the innocents under any circumstances.

Yet, the USCCB, targets only “elective” abortions in urging “opposition” to them and to federal funding of them. At the same time it supported the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions” with its exceptions for “necessary” abortions, that is, for those required by rape, incest and/or health of the mother. Like Joe Biden, it would not “impose its opinions” on women faced with the “hard decisions” of necessary abortions. In this regard, both “Catholic” vice-presidential candidates were in agreement with the “policy” of the USCCB.

So much for the convenient distinction between “policy” and the personal belief of both Catholic candidates, which allows support for the freedom of all in the matter of abortions and “personal opposition” to them.

Either the right to life is intrinsic to innocent human life because it is granted by a loving and benevolent God or it is something granted by the selective “good” will of a “loving” government. Apparently, both partners in the debate hold the latter position: the freedom of all to choose, regardless of what they choose.

Candidate Ryan’s “less permissive” position in the matter of abortion legislation is still permissive and therefore contradicts the right to life of innocents prior to any “benefit” granted by politicians.

Congressman Ryan would have been in order were he to support something like the following policy: “The X adminstration will oppose any legal protection of abortion to the extent this is within the power of the executive, recognizing the effective legal protection, in a democracy, of the right to life of innocents or any other right under natural law, is a task for all three branches of the government and of the governed. If the governed accept the policy of “redistributing ownership” proposed by the Obama adminstration adminstration, so that all “belong to the government,” they can express their will in the electoral process.”
“I do not propose to concede the ownership of the citizens to an almighty State in exchange for the office of Vice President so as to serve a people that belongs to the State. As for me and my household, we have chosen life and thus belong to the almighty God who forbids me to use and abuse the least of his creatures.”

Has anyone mentioned how Biden’s demeanor made it easy to see how the Obama administration has been a failure in working together bipartisan?  The whole debate it seemed like he was blaming “they” -which I’m not sure if he meant republicans or not but blaming they did this, they blocked this, they caused the recession, they voted for war on credit card-which fact check said Biden voted yes as well.  Doesn’t this show that his administration has been a failure in working together,  why would we want this type on leader or more accurately non-leader???  Ryan is right-we deserve better.

I also wish Ryan would have had more opportunity to point out how aggressive in supporting abortion on demand in Obama’s term.  Most pro-choice people don’t believe in abortion on demand, funding abortions overseas and at home.  Please God, I pray that the scales will fall of the eyes of people to see the evil, money hungry, truth of the abortion industry.

As I was watching Biden laughing and interrupting and smirking, I wanted to do something un-Christian to his grinning face.  Most of the media thought he won but I don’t think so.  I am sure many people will be turned off by his arrogant, rude demeanor, in contrast to Ryan, who showed real class, keeping his cool and being polite, like the real gentleman that he is, all throughout.  Both of them did not disappoint when asked about their religion and abortion.  They both responded the way I thought they would.  I sensed some uneasiness on Biden, as if he did not believe in what he was saying.  There might still be a bit of real Catholic lurking inside his heart and mind. Watch out, Joe, our Lord is watching you!

If this is what Joe Biden was referring to does it make him a heretic?

De fide (of the faith) is a “theological note” or “theological qualification” that indicates that some religious doctrine is an essential part of Catholic faith and that denial of it is heresy.

The doctrine is de fide divina et ecclesiastica (of divine and ecclesiastical faith), if contained in the sources of revelation and therefore believed to have been revealed by God (de fide divina) and if taught by the Church (de fide ecclesiastica). If a doctrine has been solemnly defined by a pope or an ecumenical council as a dogma, the doctrine is de fide definita.

What is believed to be a truth contained in the sources of revelation thus becomes a “dogma”, in the present ecclesiastical sense of this word, only when enunciated by the Church: “According to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.”

Saying that you won’t vote for Romney/Ryan because they don’t have a 100% abolition view of abortion is the same as saying you don’t support a 99.5% reduction in abortion (that’s what a rape/life of the mother exception would result in). I’d make that political deal in a heartbeat! What a silly thing to oppose. Yes, life begins at conception and every aborted child cries out to God for justice. We could accomplish A LOT of good by voting Romney/Ryan, whereas voting anyone else is complicit with evil no matter what your intentions. Voting for an independent with a 100% abolition view will only keep Obama in office another 4 years and you’ll have the blood of the innocent on your hands.

I have a friend whose husband has personally watched Biden continually arrive at Mass 30 minutes late and then leave early so that he can stand outside the Church door to shake hands with people. PRACTICING CATHOLIC, MY ASS. This man is a liar, a heretic and an embarrassment to Catholics and the sooner he gets excommunicated, the better.

Mary is exactly right - to be overzealous and proclaim that one could never vote for someone that was not 100% pro-life (i.e. it is “all or none” on the abortion issue); is to just give up on the literally millions of babies that will die if more restrictions are not put into place as an interim step.  I understand being fully dedicated and true to your faith - but we need to use good judgement if we hope to ever get this terrible law reversed.  The majority of Americans simply won’t support an “all or none” policy right now.

Ditto Mary and Jeff. @adolfo (and damianfedoryka?), would you prefer 4 more years of obama to romney/ryan? no one is saying it’s perfect, but there are two options, only two. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Catholics must support romney/ryan in this election or we will all be standing among piles of dead babies, to borrow your phrase adolfo, and those who do not support Obama’s opponent will have blood on their hands too.

Dear Fellow Catholics:
Started about 2000 A.D. trying to DO something about the babies being killed at an abortmill in a nearby town.
12 years later I can say this:
Do you know what it is like to be killed in an abortion?
Does your whole life flash before you?
Do you wait patiently for the first kiss from your Mommy and Daddy?
Does anyone know your name?
Are you sorry you did not take your first breath?
Are you mad no one let everyone know you ARE somebody?
Did you see the chemicals coming to kill you, or the surgical instruments coming to kill you?
Did you ever want someone to speak for you and say let me live?
How much money do you think your life is worth when they pay your murderer?
Is the U.S. standing up for Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness for each unborn person?
Can we have some slaves, let’s say, just in Wisconsin, and so can we kill some Babies, let’s say, just in New York State?
How about the exception for the Life of the Baby?

Thank you for suggesting that I will have blood on my hands if I do not support Romeny/Ryan. But the suggestion msut be corrected: it is either Obama/Biden that will have a lot of blood on their hands or Romeny/Ryan that will have somewhat less blood on their hands. What I am suggesting is that in this case, the Catholic must submit to the Chruch’s teaching that we are not to have any blood on our hands by participating in shedding the blood of innocents. Becasue the killing of the unborn is itnrinsically evil, I ought to everyhting I can to stop it; if I can’t, it is in the hands of Obama/Biden or of Romeny/Ryan and these are in the hands of God.

In the great Catholic moral tradition, the first principle of action in the world is: Do no evil. Only then are we to do good. We are under no absolute obligation to save the greatest number. We are under the absolute obligation to love even if the one loved is the only one that will be killed under an “exception” to legal abortion but is killed because we wanted to save the 99. We do not love the one if we exchanged him (or her)for saving the ninety nine, as if we and not God owned both the one and the 99. After all, it is the secular state that acts as if it were God, claiming for itself the 100 as if it, not God, were the Lord. That’s the redistribution of (or change in)the ownership of human beings proposed by Obama, who already owns Biden!
It is still an open question as to who owns Ryan.

Heather,
Yup.
I’ve tried to be charitable & give Mr Biden a break up until last night’s debate-or performance,really-but he is truly an embarrassment.Also a bit of a bully & not too bright.
I’m tired of these folks using the Catholic label to get votes, but then throwing Catholic teaching under the bus when it doesn’t mesh with popular culture.No integrity.Or class.

When the author stated that Ryan was merely taking the policy position achievable at this time, what you are basically doing is giving the GOP a pass on what amounts to continued abortions.  Love them or hate them, at least you know where the dems stand on abortion.  GOP is a much stranger animal because they claim to be prolife, but always end up in this squishy place where abortion is all but certain to continue.  We keep voting prolife, planned parenthood keeps killing babies and making millions and then in another four years we have the same fight over again.  40 years and counting.  They aren’t fooling anyone.

Reading about excommunication & wondering WHY the Catholic Church has stopped kicking people out???  From Catholic Encyclopedia, “Hence arise various extenuating reasons (causæ excusantes), based on lack of guilt, which prevent the incurring of excommunication
(1) Lack of the full use of reason. 
(2) Lack of liberty resulting from grave fear.
(3) Ignorance. 
It looks to me like Biden and Pelosi are pretty solid on two of the three.  Think we’re stuck with em :)

Though I strongly sympathize with your 100% abortion ban (and there are other things about Romney/Ryan that make me uncomfortable), there is at least some argument that voting for a cnadidate who holds to the life/rape exception, under present circumstances, is permissble.  The letter Pope Benedict sent a few years back regarding a legislator’s obligations vis-a-vis voting on abortion legislation may shed some light.  In that letter, His Holiness opined that a legislator voting on a bill that limits, but does not eliminate, abortion, could in good conscience vote for such a bill (e.g, a bill that prohibits public funding of it, but does not outlaw the practice; restricts when it can be peformed; etc.).  In that context, the law is an improvement on the present situation, even if not ideal itself.  Likewise, an argument can be made that voting RR is an improvement on the current situation, even if ot ideal in itself.

People excommunicate themselves.  I think what the Church sometimes does is make it “formal” so to speak.  When someone does an action worthy of excommunication, they have already excommunicated themselves.  Think of it like sin, when we commit a grave/mortal sin, we don’t need the Church to officially make a proclamation that we have in fact committed a grave sin.  The very act of committing that sin has aleady severed our relation with God. 

Kind of makes you wonder about that political party that has as it’s platform those action which the Church deems grave…..As Fr. Rocky says, you get who you vote for….

The quote from Evangelium Vitae that Nathan alluded to is: “A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”  -John Paul II. 

Catholics who feel it is against their conscience to vote for Romney because of his rape/incest/lifeofthemother exception can rest assured that the Holy Father deemed it possible, even “proper” to vote for a candidate who pledges to limit the number of abortions without abolishing it outright.  Compromise is not always an evil thing- it is progress.  Obama on the other hand, has promised the exact opposite.  We must absolutely fear another four years of him and his lot being in office and we have a moral responsibility to stop him.

It’s rational: pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. Joe believes life begins at conception and so chooses not to engage in abortion as it might be applicable to his personal life. However, remembering that we are all on this earth of free-will, Mr. Biden recognizes, as God likely does, that each woman must make that choice for herself. Because a mother is always the most rational choice in making decisions about her body and her future.

Do you drink alcohol? Do you drink alcohol and then drive? Do you overeat? Do you drive over the speed limit? Do you smoke? Do you ride a bike without a helmet? Do you wear a seatbelt? Do you talk on the phone while driving? Do you text while driving? Do you believe in the death penalty? Any of these choices can put your life or the life of others at risk, thus aborting whether by intention or neglect, a human life.

Don’t lessen the degree of your daily responsibilities of maintaining your own life and protecting the lives of others from you to the responsibility women have of making choices about their bodies. We all exercise free will every day. And abortion is no different.

Jill, abortion IS different.  Abortion always….ALWAYS….ends in the death of another human being, an innocent human being, without exception.  If Biden believes life begins at conception, then he is accepting the position that it is ok to end an innocent human life.  Holding that position and calling oneself Catholic is untenable.  If one believes life begins at conception, then next logical question is does that life deserve protecting?  If you say no, then that’s a slippery slope because you are basically saying some innocent lives are worth protecting, and some not.  And if we are unwilling to protect the weakest, most vulnerable of human life, than what makes us believe we will protect other human life?

We have laws in place to limit our exercise of free choice.  I have the freedom to swing my arm, but that freedom ends at my neighbors nose.  I have the freedom to take money out of the unattended cash register at Wal-Mart, but fortunately we have laws in place that prohibit me from doing so.

For all those who take issue with Ryan’s statement I pose a question.  If you were president and a bill came across your desk which outlawed abortions except in those cases… would you sign it?  or would you send it back saying you wanted it revised to outlaw all abortions which wouldn’t be passed and risk having no legislation at all?  Rome wasn’t built in a day and there is just no way that we as a country could make that jump right now to total illegality of abortion.  I applaud Ryan when he clearly differentiated principal and policy which wasn’t necessary.  He knows what he believes and understands that the fight to end abortions will not be won overnight.  If he had said that he wanted all abortions made illegal, that would be the only thing being talked about for the next 4 weeks and, unfortunatly cost the ticket the election.

Joe Biden is a coward as a man and has reduced himself to a political tool.  His personal philosophy is as empty as his Chesire grin.  Believing that life begins at conception and being laissez faire on abortion as a politician is the sign of a weak mind and soul.

Ryan said that the policy of a Romney-Ryan Administration would be “to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

Ryan’s legislative record is clear that he does not support the rape/incest exception (and has been attacked by the left for this).

It is unclear whether or not he supports an exception to save the life of the mother. The Catholic distinction of direct abortion=forbidden, indirect abortion=permissible would be difficult, if not impossible to put into law. At any rate, this is a very narrow exception.

But Ryan is the VP candidate. Romney is one in the driver’s seat. This is not RYAN’s position, this is ROMNEY’s. Still, it would be an improvement over the Obama Administration. A Catholic could support such a position as an improvement over current law.

Face it folks, no matter who wins, abortion isn’t going anywhere.  The clear path provided in the primaries has already been shown for what it was….talk.  Now the squish position of the center is the rule for the day.  And it will remain the rule save the Mexico City policy.  That darn policy was created by the politics to ensure that they could do something on the abortion issue to appease their bases.  Doesn’t require real lesislative work and provides “cover.”

I suspect Planned Parenthood will do equally as well under Romney\Ryan as they did under both Obama, both Bush’s and Clinton.

@Rob - All we can do is try our best to elect policitians that will at least make some difference, even if it is not as great as we would like.  As faithful Catholics (or any Christians for that matter), we can not ever give up on an issue (which is called despair).  To do so simply allows evil to prevail.  In other words, we are not allowed to just decide “it doesn’t matter,” and either vote for anyone regardless of their position on abortion or don’t vote at all.  Too many Catholics are copping out with excuses like this, or others that try to equate lesser issues to abortion in an effort to justify their vote.

Catholics voted 2 to 1 for Obama, they’ve voted that way for years for Democrats. It’s not about Obama.

Catholic BISSHOPS voted 100% for Bush/McCain, since FoKKs recently discovered Catholics, as they did with Jews in the 80s as a potential conservative constituency, ignoring decades of hating Catholics and Jews alike. Like Catholics, Jews voted 2 to 1 for Obama.

@merrit - I don’t know who told you that Catholics vote Democrat 2 to 1, but that is not even close to the truth.  Yes, Catholics usually vote a majority Democrat, but it’s usually pretty close.  Also, Bush got 52% of
Catholic votes to 47% for Kerry - so sometimes the Republicans do win the Catholic vote.  Here is a link for your information: http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=9996

@damian p. fedoryka, I understand what you are saying, but please consider:

Pope John Paul II, in his groundbreaking 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), stated that legislative compromise was morally acceptable in certain situations.

“[W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but, rather, a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects” (73).

Doerflinger echoed this point in his comments for the Register.

“The Church opposes all direct abortion and federal funding for all such abortion. But without supporting the exceptions, the bishops’ conference has supported the restrictions placed on abortion funding by the Hyde Amendment and similar laws for the sake of the good they do and the many lives they save.”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/abortion-in-cases-of-rape-todd-akins-slip-spotlights-catholic-teaching-agai#ixzz2996XATZv

With respect, I submit that your position is not the charitable one. Would you pull as many drowning children as you could to safety in your boat and vow to come back for the others, or would you refuse to save any, because your boat won’t hold them all?

I became disillusioned and stop going to the LDS church because they REFUSED to excommunicate Harry Reid. He had joined the LDS (Mormon) congregation in order to win votes in Nevada (which has a large Mormon population). He was never a practicing Mormon, and in fact hold Mormonism in GREAT disdain. Everything he stands for and believes in runs contrary to the LDS beliefs and they STILL refuse to do anything about him. A bunch of wimps and pussies . . . if not Harry Reid, then WHO???? What does a person have to do to get kicked out of the church????? They excommunicated a woman who had an affair but NOT Harry Reid????? Does not make any sense. Lost all respect for the hierarchy.

If Life begins at conception…..

Then is a sperm alive? Or an egg?

What about identical twins, two separate people, who in rare cases may be of opposite sexes, yet come from one conception.

What about chimeras, one person, who have two separate gene lines - they are a product of two separate conceptions.

This doctrine that “Life begins at conception” is a theological novelty. It has no basis in either biological fact or scripture. It is grounded on a misperception of biology.

Now where personhood *does* begin is another matter, a rather more difficult one to answer. If one follows the definition of life ceasing at “brain death”, then Life begins at the point at which the nervous system starts developing. If one follows the definition of life ceasing when the heart stops, then at the first signs of a fetal heartbeat.

By any definition though, it’s many weeks after conception. Otherwise we can’t even say whether “Life has begun” for 0, 1/2, 1, or 2 people.

It’s about changing hearts & minds, at least that’s what my Democrat priest tells me. Biden knows what is at stake here, he said it, he reminded the pro-abortionists: two Supreme Court Justices. Hearts & minds my tush!

Ryan said what his position was: life. He clarified Rommey’s position as having exceptions. The choice is clear. You can trust ol’ Joe on this one.

Vote R & R!

@Zoe - When we say “life” begins at conception, we clearly mean human life.  Many things are “alive,” including plants and animals.  Science (biology) have proven that immediately upon conception, the baby has a new unique human DNA.  That is true regardless of your opinion about religion, a soul, etc.  Human life at conception is not a theological novelty, but a biological fact. 

@esurio - Pro-lifers can be Democrat, Republican, Independent or any political persuasion.  Your priest being Democrat has nothing to do with this.  In each election, we have the responsibility to vote for the candidate most likely to improve the situation (in this case, at least putting more limits on the number of babies being aborted).  Romney may support exceptions, but not nearly as many as “ol’ Joe” and Obama.  To believe otherwise is to fool yourself and perhaps others, but not God.

Biden and other democrats are addicted to the blood money that comes from the anti-life lobby. (Remember abortion is only a tool - if they’re pro-abortion it’s for another cause. Their real goal is human slavery and transhumanist immortality. The appropriate name is anti-life.)

@Jeff wrote
” When we say “life” begins at conception, we clearly mean human life… Science (biology) have proven that immediately upon conception, the baby has a new unique human DNA.”

Nope. See identical twins - they are genetically the same - yet can be of different sexes. Also chimeras - the result of two conceptions - two different DNA mixes.

There’s far more to this than just the initial mixing of DNA. Later events can change this initial mix, parts can be activated or de-activated, a single DNA mixture (genotype) can result in an almost infinite number of slightly different body forms (phenotypes). And in theory, two otherwise absolutely identical phenotypes may have the same genotype, depending on which genes have been activated.

Genotype can and does change after conception, cell division can be subject to anomalies.

There is nothing magical about this. DNA biases the odds (sometimes very heavily) but does not define the person. The supernatural power ascribed to a DNA mixture is based on an over-simplification of biology, much as the “perfectly circular epicycles” of Ptolemaic Astronomy were based on misconceptions about Astronomy.

After conception, there may be variations in cell division - which is why many people have both XX and XXY chromosomes, or XY and XXY, or end up as all X, or all XXY… with bodies that have few or no cells with the same DNA as was created at conception.

Genotype can even change long after birth. This does not change the person’s identity. Bone marrow transplant recipients gradually become genetically identical to the donor. Even a woman’s ovaries may become XY, if the donor had XY chromosomes. That doesn’t change her sex.

See:
Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients by Ikoma et al in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):608.e1-8

Hormonal mix in the womb governs something as fundamental as the developing foetus’s sex. If “human identity” is to mean anything at all, then surely something as fundamental as what sex they are, something that develops after conception, is an essential part of it.

If not, we’d be forced to jettison all of Church teaching on the essential difference between men and women. Either that, or arbitrarily say that someone whose chromosomes at conception are XY means they are male by definition. Even if they’ve given birth to three children.

“A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.”—The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism January 1, 2008 vol. 93 no. 1 182-189

Sorry, the biology is far more complicated and nuanced than the simplified child’s version taught in schools. While it’s a good approximation, it leads to absurd conclusions - such as “personhood” being defined as existing at one arbitrary and very early point in foetal development, long before the person can be defined.

There are equally good biological reasons to say that personhood is defined before conception; and rather better scriptural ones.

Note that personhood comes into being before birth though. There’s nothing magical about that. Late third trimester abortion is infanticide, from a biological viewpoint.

@Zoe - You can try to make it complicated, but you cannot deny the fact that it is human DNA at conception - not rabbit, tree, or some other form of being.  You make a great and detailed explanation about different biological possibilities, but you cannot change that when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, you have (at least one) human being - unique from any other human to come before.  To pretend otherwise would be for you to be playing the “simplified child’s version” of reality.  As for your tangent on “Church teaching,” I’m sure you don’t really want to go there with the people on this thread, as your position is clearly opposed to the teaching of the Church.  It is amazing at what lengths people go to try to justify their own version of truth and morality.

Where’s the love for your fellow man.  I’m reading and feeling a lot of HATE in these letters.  It’s precisely why this issue shouldn’t be a political issue.  Too many people get so bent out of shape, no matter what position you hold.  My question to all of you, if abortion wasn’t legal, do you think it would stop people from having them?  It didn’t stop them before RvW.  I can’t stand the thought of aborting a child, I don’t understand how anyone could do it.  But I also believe that the only person that a woman has to answer to is God—not me, not you, not the President or anyone else.  And if what we as Catholics believe is true, she will have to answer for that on judgement day.  I am not a moral judge for anyone else and neither are any of you.

@Jeff, I was being sarcastic, but failed.

@jeff.  I disagree.  I think what people are growing tired of being told that the life issue is paramount, we follow through but the same thing does not seem to apply to the politicians we send to DC.  Huge disconnect.  OUr vote MUST consider the abortion issue but their WORK does not.

@esurio - sorry for not catching the sarcasm.  Others - I apologize for any anger that displayed in my posts.  Sometimes my passion and emotion for the topic overtakes me…Lori is correct that this discussion needs to be conducted in love; and most of us pro-lifers try to do that as it is only in love that the truth can be told even when it upsets many people.  It is difficult to not get angry when your beliefs indicate that innocent babies are being murdered and so many people want to just look the other way.  Yes, abortions happened even before it was legal, just like other murders still occur today even though they are illegal.  We can’t simply rest on the fact that “I wouldn’t do it, but I can’t tell someone else what to do”...all of our laws tell someone else what to do.  I’m “out” on this post, and will move on, but thanks for the discussion and debate everyone.  I know that most people are trying to do what is right and good - we just have vastly different opinions on that at times.  God bless.

@Jeff wrote:
“you cannot change that when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, you have (at least one) human being - unique from any other human to come before.”

Nope. What develops may be a teratoma for example, or any of a number of kinds of malignant moles. It is a potential human being if further development occurs along specific lines. It may not. Just as a sperm cell and an egg before conception is a potential human being if development happens along specific lines. It may not.

A conceptus may also fuse with another of its kind, so together they produce a unique human being, one different from the one resulting if the fusion had not happened.

We used to think that DNA was everything, that genetics defined a person. It doesn’t, it’s more complex than that, there’s epigenetics that produce inheritable traits too. This produces some troubling conclusions - an embryo will develop in different ways depending on which womb it’s in, differences that in some cases are passed on to the next generation. In a very real way, a host mother contributes epigenetically, so the resultant person has three parents.

Sorry, I’m trying to explain in terms an intelligent lay person can understand, and I’m not sure I’m doing a very good job of it. My PhD thesis is in meta-genetic algorithms, and it was necessary for me to understand what happens biologically - a “special case” of an evolutionary and genetic process.

If I can give an analogy - everyone knows the Moon orbits the Earth, right? Except it doesn’t, they both orbit the centre of mass of the two (which happens to be well below Earth’s surface, so to say the Moon goes round the Earth is a good approximation). It’s even more complex than that, you can’t ignore the influence of the Sun, and for exact space navigation, Jupiter. The rest gets lost in the noise.

Try to do interplanetary travel using a simplistic “Moon orbits the Earth” model, and you’ll go off-course.

Try to do biology or theology by using a simple “human identity comes into being at conception” model, and you’ll go astray too. Ensoulment and pneumatics are not my areas, but those questions should be informed, not misinformed, by biological fact.

Before 1869 (Apostolicae Sedis - Pius IX), ensoulment at conception was not dogma. It is a modern idea, informed by the science of that time. We know better now.

Gregory XIV, in Sedes Apostolica (1591) got it right, as did the Council of Vienne, Gratian, Bede, and St Augustine.

See Joseph F. Donceel, S.J., “Immediate Animation and Delayed Hominization,” Theological Studies, vols. 1 & 2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970).

@Zoe - I know I said I was done with this thread, but I got an e-mail from the system with your last response…sincere thanks for the more advanced biology lesson.  I find it very helpful to better understand where some people with opposing views come from (i.e. why their opinion is so different).  For my better understanding, please clarify about teratomes.  It was my understanding that such tumors grew along with the fetus, as opposed to instead of the fetus, unless/until such time as it kills the fetus in the very early stages of development (i.e. the first few weeks) and then grows on its own.  Since human development does begin at conception, that is why people such as myself have our beliefs in their humanity, or “personhood” from the beginning.  Thanks.

@Jeff - I find teratomas troubling. There are a variety of different causes and mechanisms that can cause them, and the word really describes dozens of quite different things that end up looking sorta similar in some ways.

For example - a conceptus in an Intersex individual due to auto-fertilisation that doesn’t develop along the normal lines for a foetus - due usually to a lack of womb, hormonal issues etc - will be labelled a fetiform teratoma. So will a fetiform mole that develops from other tissue, if it involves teeth, hair, bones etc within it. Yet one was a potential human being, the other a cancer.

Most teratomas appear to be congenital, by-products of things going off the usual track during foetal development. Often they’re only detected in adulthood, long afterwards.

Foetus in Foetu is also a troubling issue.

Wiki’s not too bad here, but omits the more ethically challenging cases, only dealing with the congenital varieties, not the many others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu

I try to be an objective scientist. It’s impossible not to become emotionally involved when reviewing some such tragedies though. A friend of mine with PMDS (persistent mullerian duct syndrome) became pregnant due to a botched hernia operation causing auto-fertilisation - and knew the developing embryo could never come to term. With only one parental gene line, the chances of severe problems would have been very high, but as her female reproductive tract was so rudimentary, normal development wasn’t possible anyway.

Parenthetically, the first human embryos known to have been created via parthenogenesis, without any conception, date from 2004.

I have extreme ethical objections to such experiments until we know far more than we do now from animal experimentation and examination of natural human tragedies such as my friend’s.

Should it be found that a girl developed naturally due to parthenogenesis - most unlikely but not impossible as we now know - without an act of conception, then I would still consider this girl to be human. As I said, ensoulment is not my bailiwick, but if I have a soul, she does too, of the same kind.

I can’t even totally exclude the even more remote possibility the child would be a boy, even though he had XX chromosomes. But we’re talking odds in the billions to one against now.

I’m not happy with either one of them.

As Michael Voris said both parties are taking us to hell. Either we go there at warp speed or on cruise control.

I think Voris and Mark Shea are the only ones who totally put their religiosity first and their politics second.

I caught the last of an interview of a twenty-something on a radio program and I was surprised when the interviewer asked the lady who she is going to vote for and the lady said, “I can’t vote for Romney because he doesn’t like woman’s issues!’ Is that what this election is all about, the uterus of the woman?

Paul Ryan has been against any type of abortion his entire life and he still is.  He was chosen to be Mitt Romney’s running mate.  Mitt Romney has been all over the map on abortion, but now claims he’s pro-life, but with exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and “life of the mother”.  This is the classic RINO stance when republicans are trying to appeal to independents.  It was GW Bush’s position and his father’s.  Ryan would have looked silly if the moderator had asked him why he goes against the teachings of his church.  I guess he could have said he was personally against any type of abortion but Mitt Romney was leading the ticket, blah, blah, blah.  Sarah Palin was in the same pickle four years ago.  McCain also believed in abortions if you didn’t like who the father was, the same as all RINOs.  Palin was against all abortions.  Palin would answer the question by saying her position was in-line with the GOP platform of no abortions for any reason. She didn’t care what the media thought about her. She would not compromise her principles.  It would be nice if Paul Ryan had the courage to say the same thing, but he would be racked over the coals by the media for being an “extremist”.  I would also be willing to bet that Romney has already told him how to answer the question.  Biden is for abortion on demand, paid for by tax payer dollars, and Biden is for sodomite “marriage”.  Nothing Biden does is in line with the Catholic Church and I think he should be publicly excommunicated, along with the rest of the so-called “Catholic” politicians who are causing great scandal by going against the teachings of the Church, and trying to convince other Catholics they are right and we are wrong.

Zoe:
“If Life begins at conception…..”
Life begins with our Creator creating an individual, rational, immortal human soul, in perfect innocence, when the male seed and female egg come together as a new creation, a new human being.  Both the seed and the egg are human cells but not individual human beings. Identical twins are two different human beings with two wills and two souls split from the same conception.  Fraternal twins are two different conceptions that take place at the same time. Two separate conceptions, one body absorbing the other body are two persons conjoined only in body, but not in soul.
God does not create in fractions. Dred Scott was defined by the US Supreme Court as two-thirds of a person. Science cannot prove that the single, first cell of a newly begotten human being is not being human. Scraping the will of God from the womb is always the human soul being evicted. Conception does not take place without the will of God creating and endowing an individual’s soul. Human existence comes into being at conception. And personhood. Human beings have souls, cancer and tumors do not. There is no such thing as a “potential human being.”  The product of conception has a soul.

Mary de Voe wrote:
“Life begins with our Creator creating an individual, rational, immortal human soul, in perfect innocence, when the male seed and female egg come together as a new creation, a new human being.
...
Identical twins are two different human beings with two wills and two souls split from the same conception.”

Isn’t that contradictory?

Souls come into being at conception…. except when they don’t. According to you, they also come into being after conception, in a “split”. Can you please justify this statement theologically?

And what happens to the “extra soul” in a Chimera, a single human being the product of two (rarely more) conceptions? You’re now even telling God what He can and cannot do by saying “God does not create fractions”. Well, maybe not, but He does create Chimeras.

What happens when the conception results in a teratoma not a foetus?

What happens when a foetus doesn’t result from a conception?

You’ve stated your belief that some form of unique miracle is involved in conception. Perhaps you can give me a scriptural or Theological basis for that, one that out-argues St Augustine in “De nuptiis et concupiscentia”.

Science cannot prove that the single, first cell of a newly begotten human being is not being human.

True. What Science can do though is prove that, if ensoulment happens at conception:

a) Certain cancers have souls, or must have had souls at some point.

b) There’s an issue where with Identical twins, an extra soul must be created without conception, or two people must share a soul.

c) There’s an issue with Chimeras, an extra soul is left dangling, or one person must have two souls.

d) There’s an issue with Parthenogenesis, where either a human is created without a soul, or a soul must be created without conception.

Those are logical, inescapable consequences of the belief that ensoulment happens at conception.

That ensoulment only happens at conception is provably false (see identical twins). Sometimes it has to happen later, whether it happens at conception or not.

Note that this ensoulment-at-conception doctrine dates from 1868, when Science knew about conception, but not about teratomas, foetus in foetu, the difference between identical and fraternal twins, chimeraism, DNA, epigenesis, and all the other biological situations that cause difficulties with the “ensoulment at conception” thesis. We know better now, and if this data had been known 150 years earlier, it may be that this doctrine would not have been promulgated due to these difficulties.

Zoe, quick question, so are Teratomas considered unique members of the human species?  I’m not a geneticist, nor do I play one on TV.  I did a quick “google” of teratoma, and it seems to me that a teratoma is an abnormal tissue growth, sort of like a “tumor”?  And what about Chimeras, are these considered two distinct human beings?

Finally, ensoulment at conception is not some relatively new idea that came about from 1868….It’s been around since the early Church.  In fact, some of the Ancient Greeks held this belief (see history on Epicureanism, Pythagoreanism).  Some of the early Church Fathers such as Tertullian and St. Gregory of Nyssa are some fine examples dating back to the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Guitar Man

Teratomas are considered tumours, even if they have hands, feet, lungs, head, teeth, hair, faces….. while most should be considered tumours, in boundary cases there are disturbing issues, same with foetus in foetu.

Chimeras are people who are the product of (at least) two separate conceptions. They have two, sometimes more, gene lines, sets of DNA. That is distinct from Mosaics, who also have two (often more) gene lines, but resulting from one conception. Chimeras are rare, mosaics relatively common.

Conception does not always result in just one unique DNA sequence. Neither do people necessarily have just one set of DNA.

Bottom Line: if ensoulment happens at conception, we’re left with the problem that it also has to happen at other times too, there must be multiple paths, and sometimes we end up with supernumerary souls. If it happens later, then only one mechanism, not many, is necessary, and there’s an exact mapping, one soul to one person. Occam’s razor applies.

If you look at the Ancient Greek and Early Church Fathers’ writings, their definition of “conception” is something far different from modern understanding. Before the invention of the microscope in the 17th century, the mechanism couldn’t have been understood, and was reckoned to have occurred when the foetus became visible to the naked eye, many weeks after actual fertilisation.

“Quickening” was when the foetus was capable on independent movement, something that happens long after development of the nervous system is underway, long after the sex and number of distinct humans is defined.

So is a teratoma considered “a conception” in the same sense of that other “conception” that would ultimately develop into a baby?

So Chimeras are people then.  With not one, but possibly two DNA?  This phenomena though is still the result of a conception correct

I guess I’m having a hard time following how these two things would mean ensoulment would have to occur.

Guitar Man

Teratoma (most kinds) - no conception, no person
Teratoma (some kinds) - one conception, no person
Mosaic - one conception, 2+ DNA, one person
Chimera - two+ conceptions, 2+ DNA, one person
Identical twins - one conception, one DNA, two people
Parthenogenesis - no conception, one DNA, one person
Usual case - one conception, one DNA, one person

Zoe, thanks for the response.  So have there been actual instances of a human person created via Parthogenesis?  I read the news on that south korean scientist.  Has there been an actual human embryo created?

Guitar man - yes, an actual human embryo was created by unethical experimentation, by a Korean scientist.

Whether that means a human person was created or not begs the question.

I would say that if it had reached a certain stage of development, then yes.

Others might say that the instant it’s created, a human person is created, that ensoulment happens whenever an embryo is created, regardless of the mechanism. Justifying that theologically might be difficult.

Others might say that even if it grew to full term and adulthood, it is not human as no conception was involved, it is soulless. I don’t need to point out the dangers of such a belief.

Zoe, so he actually created an embryo?  It was my understanding this Korean scientist (Hwang Woo-Suk) was later determined to be fraudulent.  Did this actually happen?  From what I understand, it was later determined that much of his research etc was fraudulent, and he was later charged with embezzlement and fraud.  He later admitted to faking his findings. 

I agree with you with the ramications though if we do create a human being.  It is a frightening scenario.  Which is probably why Human Cloning is considered to be one of the five non-negotiatables.

Guitar Man - he created parthogenetic embryonic stem cells, which have to come from parthenogenetic embryos.

Once a national hero in South Korea for purportedly generating human embryonic stem (ES) cells by transferring the nucleus of an adult somatic cell into a ‘hollowed out’ oocyte, Woo Suk Hwang became a scientific pariah after evidence of fraud came to light. In a new twist, George Daley and colleagues now report in Cell Stem Cell that Hwang and co-workers unwittingly achieved a scientific first: they obtained human ES cells by inducing parthenogenesis — the production of a cell line from an unfertilized egg.

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 8, 677 (September 2007)

On August 2, 2007, after much independent investigation, it was revealed that discredited South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk unknowingly produced the first human embryos resulting from parthenogenesis. Initially, Hwang claimed he and his team had extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos, a result later found to be fabricated. Further examination of the chromosomes of these cells show indicators of parthenogenesis in those extracted stem cells, similar to those found in the mice created by Tokyo scientists in 2004. Although Hwang deceived the world about being the first to create artificially cloned human embryos, he did contribute a major breakthrough to stem cell research by creating human embryos using parthenogenesis

I should clarify - I’m no biologist. My PhD thesis is in Meta-Genetics though, and I contributed a paper to the XIIth conference on Artificial Life. My work involves applying Evolutionary processes to certain very knotty problems in Quantum Physics, found in the field of Computational Chemistry. Something far trickier than merely creating artificial life-forms, something we’ve been doing for a while.

Creating them is easy. Figuring out plausible natural conditions that cause the components to self-organise (create themselves), and then self-assemble into life, that’s harder, but we made a breakthrough a few years ago when we found the last piece of the puzzle - membranes - are forming all the time quite naturally on silicate clays. DOH! It was right in front of us all the time…

All the rest we’d figured out how they spontaneously self-create a while ago.

So we no longer have to play Dr Frankenstein and use any pre-existing biological parts scavenged from dead lifeforms. We just set up the right conditions and the parts form themselves, as inevitable as a snowflake forming, and just as natural. No human or supernatural intervention needed. Conditions which we know existed in the past, and sometimes - as with membranes - still do.

Deists claim that the Creator was savvy enough to create a Universe where Life would inevitably form. Maybe so. Certainly this Universe seems to be one where Life *has* to form, just as crystals *have* to grow.

I suspect we’ll find Life in all sorts of places - I’d be astounded if the oceans on Europa aren’t teeming with it.

Perhaps it’s a good thing that Theologians are unaware of this, it might upset them - maybe enough to summon a mob with pitchforks and torches, or the modern equivalent.

Note that the work we do is at the cellular level, not animals as such. Single cells, though multi-cell organisms naturally self-assemble from them. It’s rather easy to set up conditions so that the RNA that’s formed can perform certain functions - we even have an RNA compiler, the mechanisms are similar to basic logic gates in computers, NAND, NOT, XOR etc. Had we had a better understanding of biology a century ago, we’d have developed Computing in Silicon rather earlier than we did by imitating what happens inside a cell, rather than working it out from first principles. But I digress.

The proceedings of the conference were published by MIT press, and are available at http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/artificial-life-xii

My own modest contribution is “Using Meta-Genetic Algorithms to tune parameters of Genetic Algorithms to find lowest energy Molecular Conformers”.

Co-authored with a guy who’s a Chimera, by the way.

I’ve been out of pocket for several days, and am just now catching up on this thread.  Although I do appreciate the scientific lessons that have been provided, I have a few questions:
- Why wouldn’t more recent Catholic teachings hold more weight than older teachings, as is the case with more recent scientific teachings?  The Church does, in fact, recognize the importance of science and incorporating new scientific knowledge into its teaching (one simple example being the theory of evolution).  The writings of St. Augustine on ensoulment were referenced, but he wrote at a time of far less understanding of biology and the beginning of human life than we have currently.  This makes him no less of a saint, just less informed on that issue than today’s Catholic theologians.
- Christians believe that God is all-knowing and all-powerful.  He knows all that ever was, is today, and ever shall be.  We are told in scripture that with God anything is possible, and that we think as man thinks, not as God thinks.  As humans, we are simply incapable of comprehending all that God can do.  God knows beforehand if there will be no, one, two or any number of souls in a given situation.  Couldn’t He then, for example, place two souls to share one conception even before the split into twins; place one soul to be shared among two biological entities even before combining into one person, etc?  Even if God chose to create additional souls at some point after initial conception, how would that change the basic argument?
- Again, it is very important for us to understand as much as we can about the science/biology, so as not to make our judgements in ignorance; but that having been said, we cannot let the big picture and our judgement be clouded by rare situations or extremely rare exceptions to the general scientific “rules” that exist.

One clarification on my previous post: The fundamental truths and tenets of our faith will never change over time (e.g. the Holy Trinity of one God, the existence of Heaven and Hell, etc.).  However, specific teachings on particular subjects can and do change with our increased understanding over time.

The time has come to make our voices heard.

Tomorrow, October 20, Americans will rally against the HHS mandate in more than 140 cities around the country.

http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/locations/

Let’s get the message out!