www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ethics Question-Emergency Contraception

"The issue is whether implantation is the beginning of life. I believe my linked sources above is ample reading material to determine the 'mind of the Church."

Actually you raised a bunch of issues including biololgical ones about which your knowledge is limited. And you have downplayed the conundrum raised by Lance that is certainly relevant: any understanding of the beginning of life, requires an understanding of "life".

OK. Maybe one more reference related to the issue of "verbal engineering":

- - -

Planned Parenthood also knew that many people would reject contraception if they knew it could operate as an abortifacient instead of a contraceptive. In 1962, Dr. Mary Calderone, PP�s medical director said "if it turns out that these intrauterine devices operate as abortifacients, not only the Catholic Church will be against them, but Protestant churches as well." (Ibid. page 292)

Consequently, PP turned to verbal engineering to counter this problem. They worked to change the definition of conception and pregnancy from fertilization to implantation. This way, those devices that can operate by preventing implantation of a conceived embryo could be called "contraception" instead of abortion. It�s strategy worked and in 1965, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology embraced this new definition in the first issue of its publication Terminology Bulletin, which stated "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum".

Clearly, this redefining of conception was ideological, not scientific as was pointed out by Dr. J. Richard Sosnowski, head of the Southern Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a member group of ACOG, in his 1974 presidential address: "I do not deem it excellent to play semantic gymnastics in a profession�It is equally troublesome to me that, with no scientific evidence to validate the change, the definition of conception as [fertilization] was redefined as the implantation of a fertilized ovum. It appears to me that the only reason for this was the dilemma produced by the possibility that the intrauterine contraceptive device might function as an abortifacient." (ibid, page 293)

- - -

The entire text can be read here:

http://www.nebcathcon.org/pastoral_plan_pulse.htm

Follow the money ...

Joe

djs,

Thank you for reminding me that I cannot or do not have the capacity to understand due to my lack of medical license. With that fallacy in mind, we can also ignore the bishops on family matters because they don't know squat about being married.

Then the Pope and the bishops are fools for making such silly statements since they aren't doctors and are not in the capacity to teach what is "life."

Joe

I have not criticized their statements.
And your statements are not limited to quoting theirs.

djs,

I see where this is leading.

Lance asked about where this is mentioned in the Church. I believe I have provided the answer.

But why are we so sure when life does NOT begin than when life DOES begin?

Joe

I have not made any comment about your "capacity". Nor any suggestion that such capacity is linked to having a medical degree. As such your comment about the bishops and family matters is completely unconnected to my posts.

The issue, again, is whether life begins at implantation. The deacon/doctor mentions something about a 'union.' How does that correspond with the above church documents?

Joe

For me, this boils down to man wish to define something that he has no way of knowing.

That is, when does life start, fertilization or implantation.

I don't know and I find it hard to believe that anyone out there can know. So I err on the side of caution and say it is at fertilization.


David

Joe,

You provide many valuable citations but I wish to expand on one from Donum Vitae:

"Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magesterium has not expressly committed it self to an affirmation of a philosophical naturebut it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable."

The Church once taught that a baby was not ensouled until 40 days after fertilization and therefore was not a person, i.e. not a life. It still forbade abortion. Now the Church teaches that life begins at fertilization, without commiting to a moment of ensoulment which to me is contradictory because one can not have human life without a soul. The Church could forbid abortion without teaching that life begins at fertilization.

The Church bases its current teaching on the fact that at fertilization a unique genetic code is formed that contains all that is necessary for a person to exist. However, the Church also seems to ignore the biological fact that a fertilized egg can split into twins or two eggs can fuse. The Church's agruement of a unique individual is undermined by this fact. The document asks: How can a human individual not be a human person? The answer is a unique physical form is present but it is not a person until God infuses a soul into it. Again, since zygotes can twin or fuse from fertilization till implantation (about 14 days)the most theologically sound case for ensoulment is implantation. A person cannot have "life" without a soul, so "life" would not begin until implantation. Since the Church once taught something similar and still fobade abortion, it could opt to do so once again.

Please note I do accept the possibilty that ensoulment occurs at fertilization and twinning and fusing may be something beyond our biological and theological understanding. I simply object to Deacon John being accussed of heresy, error, what have you, for holding a postion the Church has not defintively ruled on. In any case, the Churches teaching on respect for life and forbidding abortion remains intact.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Lance,

First, I don't think you will find the topics of abortion and implantation in any Creed. So far, the Pope, the Vatican, and the bishops have consistently maintained or given instructions that human life begins at conception/fertilization, not conception/implantation. Our Byzantine Catholic bishops have not written any declaration or instruction on their own separate from the Conference (not synod) of bishops.

As for a 40-day soul implantation, would this be related to the 40-day departure/toll-houses doctrine? I have a different idea why 40 is used, but it isn't based on biology.

Joe

Joe,

You keep sidestepping the main question, How can life be said to exist without a soul? If the Magesterium is unwilling to commit to a moment of ensoulment, it should not commit to a moment of life, but simply state that abortion is wrong even if life/ensoulment has not yet occured. This is what the Church previously taught.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Lance,

You definitely raise another issue worth deliberating about. Yet, the beginning of life (bios, not pneumatikos) is the issue. Pope John Paul II has even written about this in Evangelium Vitae. See my link and quote that I provided above.

He wrote:

"Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?"."

What aspect of his statement, "the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained," didn't you understand? Even the Holy Father does not base his argument on the issue of the soul. But you have turned the issue of the beginning of life to an argument when souls appear. Thomas Aquinas might be better at answering that question as well as a few more speculative ones.

Am I really sidestapping the question? Not really. I don't think the soul argument will prove to be good enough to convince governments and physicians. As Christians, we do believe in souls or the like. We also believe in Theosis, becoming partakers of the divine nature. But the issue remains: when does life begin? fertilization or implantation? When the Pope and our bishops are for one side and Planned Parenthood, physicians, legislators, and pharmaceutical companies are on the other side, then we have to pause and see where this is heading. It is not a matter about souls. It is about the commencement of life.

Of course, you can fault me for quoting the sources I give. They may not be as interested in the argument of souls as you would like to see. You may want me to include this issue in my replies, but it still doesn't alter the phsyiological events of fertilization.

You mention the point of the many fertilized ovums that get swepped away without anyone knowing. There are many still-borns too as well as miscarriages. Can we include them in this group? Were they not human too? The local Catholic cemetary has a plot for unborn fetuses.

I think the Church doesn't have to commit to the moment of ensoulment as much as it shouldn't have to commit to the moment of Transubstantiation. Its all a mystery. The Church HAS commited itself to defining when life begins. If you have a problem with that, then you should debate them and not me, a simple messenger.

Joe

Joe,

You can't be a messenger of what the Church doesn't teach. The documents you cite themselves declare they do not to take a philosophical position. Yet, Deacon John's philosophical position is attacked. Further you try to polarize the issue into the Magesterium on one side and abortionists on the other, which is unfair and wrong. The Church formerly maintained the position that life started later than fertilization but still forbade abortion. One can argue that the Church be theologically consistent and still uphold its teaching on contraception and abortion. The concern of the documents is with maintaining the Church teaching that contraception and abortion are sins.

You state we are talking about bios and not pneumatikos, I do not think the two can be seperated. There is no bios without pneumatikos. The Fathers are clear on this, so I don't need Aquinas. To hold that fertilization=life, and ignore the implications twinning and fusing has on such a statement is theologically irresponsible.

You also state:"What aspect of his statement, 'the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained,' didn't you understand?" It was a question, not a statement, and I understood it perfectly. Science alone cannot tell us when ensoulment takes place. It can however,provide us with the information as to when is the more likely time for this to occur. Therefore, experts may suggest the Church review this.

And to answer your question yes of course miscarried, stillborn, and aborted babies are human persons. I resent the implication of such a question as I am firmly prolife.

The Church does not need to commit to an exact moment of ensoulment, but just as the Church has committed to saying the Gifts are most certainly transformed by the end of the Anaphora, it should commit to saying the zygote is ensouled at least by some point, not: we don't know when it is ensouled but life begins at fertilization. That is a contradictory statement. No soul=no life. If the Church wants to define ensoulment at fertilization it should do so, if biological evidence (twinning and fusing)suggests otherwise it should go with implantation. Either way abortion at fertilization still remains a sin just as contraception is a sin. If it is sinfull for a man to pull out and waste his sperm, it certainly sinful to waste a fertilized egg even if life hasn't begun or ensoulment hasn't occured. This is consistent with the Fathers and is theologically sound.

The original question remains unanswered. Emergency contraception, if only preventing fertilization, is allowable. If it is abortive is unallowed. The question is then if it prevents implantation is it allowable. If ensoulment occurs at fertilization it cannot be allowed. If ensoulment occurs at implantation, economy may justify preventing implantation in cases of rape and incest. Therefore, it is not wrong for an expert like Deacon John to suggets the Church review this in light of biological evidence. Current Church teaching forbids preventing implantation and I accept this teaching as I am sure Deacon John does.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Then we finally agree.

First, I only convey what the Church teaches regarding life beginning at fertilization. Did you not read the links and quotes I provided? Do you think I make these things up? Show me where the Church states that life begins at implantation.

Second, notwithstanding taking a philosophical position, the Church has stated that life begins at fertilization, not implantation. It was not apt to define it in relation to souls.

Third, Deacon John's philosophical position is attacked because it does not agree with the Church. Show me how his statement agrees with previouis church declarations, encyclicals, and instructions.

Fourth, the abortionists/pro-choice crowd and the Church was already polarized before I graduated from highschool. One cannot be an abortionist and pro-Life at the same time. The statements and instructions from the Church have been in response to governments, legislators, physicians and pro-choice advocates over the years. Read their documents. If there was any polarization it was when conception was re-defined as implantation, not fertilization. Did you not read their arguments? They are not originally from me. They continually bring up that little bit of "verbal engineering" time and time again. The Church was already polarized when I had my personal conversation ... err, confrontation with Fr. Charles Curran back in the early 1980's.

Cantor Joe Thur