Im a Catholic AND an American so?

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samson:

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

Jesus (prophecy):

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

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

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

Jeremiah:

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

John the Baptist:

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

Paul:

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

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

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

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

Official stance of the RCC on Abortion.

From the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ok thank you for your time kingbee.

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

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

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well the quote :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No apology needed at all

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

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

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

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

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

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

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

thanks for explaining the abbreviations and numbering system.

as far as the mosaic law you cited (from exodus) goes, my interpretation is based on my very casual understanding of a combination of other ancient law systems with cultural customs and concerns common to many (even present day) tribal/agricultural societies which are embodied in our own civil codes (oj was sued by nicole's family for damages/loss for which they felt him responsible and the court agreed; families of the victims of 911 or the lockerbie disaster receive compensation based on loss of potential earnings).

Successfully updated karma reason!

It seems I have quite a few issues to address here lol but what the hell, im feeling ok. First of all I would like to thank you for being respectful AND for asking very good questions. It is always nice for me to research issues, especially very important ones, so It can help me understand the why, of my belief. Ok.
First it seems that I skipped over one of your inital rebuttals, I will address it here.

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

Well the reason I do want to go there, lol, is simply because as a Catholic that is what we are required to believe, and as such, it is an alternativel, as you said, to scientific reasoning. Faith is a gift and with that gift comes comes the understanding that, if you believe what the Church teaches about Doctrional issues, which is also required, you must comply with, not nessacarily like it.
it's not germane in any event because clearly theres no way to demonstrate scientifically that someone is endowed with a special purpose (well no one but steve martin in the jerk anyway) at conception.
On Doctrinoal issues there is no need for scientific proof. Such as Jesus's ressurection, His healings and miracles. If you adhere to Christianity you just believe it is possable, evedince, by word of mouth of course, for miracles is provided in the Old Testement books. Christians simply take the early Church's word that it happened. It may sound nieave to most non-believers but thats ok, it DOES sound nieave (sp?) But as Jesus said to St. Thomas. " You believe because you have seen, blessed are those who belive and have not seen." We have not seen and still belive.
someone is endowed with a special purpose (well no one but steve martin in the jerk anyway) at conception.
Well in two distince cases we do believe that to be the case. One- jesus's conception had endowed him with a special purpose and Mary's singular grace endowed her with a special purpose, no one else.
However it is true that Mary and even Jesus could have said "no" and that would be that, they did not. Focusing on Mary, as obviously not God come down as man, she had even a greater chance of saying "no". If she had, she still would have been endowed with a special purpose ( carry Jesus in her womb) she just would have chosen not to utilize that special purpose, and that was well within her rights vis a vie free will.

thanks for explaining the abbreviations and numbering system. as far as the mosaic law you cited (from exodus) goes, my interpretation is based on my very casual understanding of a combination of other ancient law systems with cultural customs and concerns common to many (even present day) tribal/agricultural societies which are embodied in our own civil codes (oj was sued by nicole's family for damages/loss for which they felt him responsible and the court agreed; families of the victims of 911 or the lockerbie disaster receive compensation based on loss of potential earnings).

Well although your interpretation is based on casual understanding on ancient law systems, mine simply was based on my version of "common sense" im no expert on ancient law systems and dont even have much of a casual understanding of it. ( a little but not much at all.)
And I agree with the inital Scripture passage that it indicates, very clearly, that at first it would be financial compensation. But I believe the second part delved into the "meat and potatoes" issue of abortion.
As I said, the Church and its Doctrines have evolved and advanced, albeit slowly, through the ages. And because the early Church didnt belive in, or know, some issues it dosent mean they, the current ones, are wrong.
I provided some examples of early issues. The Church is constantly re-evaluating its stance on moral issues, and even Doctrinal issues. Man-made Church laws can, and have been changed, Doctrinal issue can only be updated, and not contrary to what it was. If, of course you believe what the Church stands for and has authority to do.

Obviously many people do not agree with the Catholic Church or even Christianity in general, and thats thier right make no mistake, but without that belief it is hard to understand and/or accept what we belive, or what the Church teaches.

Im no scholar, and only an Apologist in training. I simply provide offical proof of the issues and often times my own personal opinion. My reason for this is not, at all, to convert anyone, simply to explain the Church's stance. ( I know ive said it before lol)
I dont ask people to agree with me, I am just giving my point of view and relish the chance to discuss it. kingbee is very articulate and forces me to think and re-think my beliefs. Good.

Jessica:
Well hello to you!! lol. I love you too, your sister, mom, of course Colin ( my brother to everyone out there.)
To address your concerns. I do accept your choice in what to belive in. People can choose whatever they want and thats their right. They can belive in this or that, or in many cases, nothing.
I do have a probelm in you choice of "religion" but I will never, not ever "turn away" from you. That would be completly un-Christian and also very rude. Im glad you feel as happy as you do, I could never want for you to not be happy. But my opinion of the reason you feel happy is not good but it dosent change a thing.
You are great and I love and respect your decision even though i disagree with it.
Neither I nor Colin will turn away from you. Always will you have our support, in good times and bad.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Eric, thank you. I don't know what to say. I was so scared to tell you. It really made me cry to read your post back to me. I have spent years trying to be something I'm not, trying to be perfect, and it helps to know that you still love me(although you're under no obligation like mom and Colin) although I'm not. Thank you.
I hope your doing okay, and I pray for you everyday. No matter the differences in what we believe, I know that both our prayers are going to the same entity regardless of who we think it is. Come home soon, okay? We all miss you so much. Happy Veteran's Day, even though its not till Thursday. Tell Matthew, Patrick, and Jen we send our love. Are the rumors of a bun in the oven true? If so, congratulations. Keep me updated. Love you always! Jessica

Successfully updated karma reason!

lol, yes the rumors are true. Hopeing its gonna be a girl for once!

It seems the abortion issue initaited by kingbee is just about wrapping up. We could, of course go on and on about who said this or that, but the question primarily was about scientific evidence, which I partly responded to and also the faith part of it which is just as essential, if not more.
I will continue to address this issue as the need arises but, in the absence of new questions I will simply post the questions and answers to common issues.
thanks for your time

Successfully updated karma reason!

We could, of course go on and on about who said this or that, but the question primarily was about scientific evidence, which I partly responded to and also the faith part of it which is just as essential, if not more.

thanks so much for putting so much time, effort and thought into this discussion. it was enlightening to me and your willingness to share your knowledge as youre doing here deserves an insightful rating in my humble opinion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

well kingbee I do honestly appreciate your question as it raised some of my own. It was a pleasure having this discusion with you and I am willing to try and address any others you may have.
As for my time and effort, well it wouldn't make much sense to declare that I would do my best to answer a question and then not do my best ya know

thank you for the compliment.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Now on to the topic of Catholic customs and Traditions.

Information provided by "Cathoic customs and traditions" by Greg Dues.

First of all they are Subject to change.
Because religious traditions are a human dimension of faith, they are subject to change.
Sometimes the change is subtle and sometimes dramatic and they tend to happen during a broad uphheaval in society.
In the 1960s there was a profound change in the way Catholics lived their faith. (due to the 2nd Vatican Council) and the changes are still takeing place.

In the 4th and 5th centuries Christianity became allied with and even synonymous with the Roman Empire.
During the "dark ages" (565-1095) the people entered the age of Feudalism with its small principalities and higly structured rankings among nobles, princes kings etc. These upheavals continued with the founding of nations and the Protestant Reformation, and continued advancment of humankind continuing to this day.

Changes in society always effects the traditions of Christians. The Church adopted structures (such as dioceses) and court ettiquete ( for example, genuflecting) from the civil Roman Empire.
It also adapted to the religous practices of the "barbarian" tribes which swept through europe when these people became Christians.

The Church became Monastic during the "dark ages", feudalistic with clearly defined roles for clergy and laity during the time of Feudalisim.
The Church then, and now, functions much like a monarchy with higly centralized authority and today is struggling with aspects of Democracy.

Because of the upcoming Thanksgiving I will speak about it here:
Thanksgiving recievs the prize for being the most earthy of celebrations in our contempory culture today.
Thanksgiving( the idea and function) have been a basic theme in most religions throughout history regardless of race and ethnic origin. All peoples have enjoyed the harvest festivals, celebrating the end of the growing season and the fruit of thier hard work with feasting. Paradoxily, the Pilgrims, who were responsable for the present tradition of Thanksgiving were opposed to public celebrations of festivals.
Jewish traditions included both private and public celebrations and sacrifices of thanksgiving. Some are discribed in detail in Scripture. The fifty days of Passover for example. and in the fall the celebration of "sukkot, or feast of booths.
The same for Christianity, celebrating the bread-and-cup ritual of Jesus ressurrection and continuing presence.
The aztecs of mexico celebrated the corn harvest by beheading a young girl ( barbaric I know but its historical) who represented Xilonen, the goddes of new corn.
The Pawnee native americans also may have sacrificed a girl. The Cherokees danced the Green Corn Dance, and began the new year at the end of the harvest and so on.

Tradition is important as it has its roots deep in our minds. It is a public issue that helps bring people toghter in a concrete, mutual way. We all enjoy celebrating weddings, birthdays, annaversirys, and any other holiday. It brings about a sense of community and sharing. That is one reason why regular traditon is dynamic, some times in order to bring about a better sense of community and sharing we must re-evaluate what we feel is important to celebrate toghter.
My opinion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

test

Successfully updated karma reason!

Excuse me for my absence, for some reason I was unable to post or reply for a week or so.
To continue;

Christmas Candles

Light, especially in its natural form, a flame, has always been an intergral part of pretty much every religion the world has seen.
There is something mystical and special about a flame. The Christmas candle is an ancient tradition symbolizing the light of Christ in His defeat of darkness. The light signifies the illumination of ignorance and pushing away the shadow of sin. It is a representive of Christ, a memorial of his birth ( no He was probably was not born on Dec 25 but that is the day we celebrate His birthday.)
A candle serves as a glowing reminder of what we belive in and it is very fragile to keep lit in the turblence of the times, indeed of all times. But if we manage to keep the light going and if should go out we are able to re light it, we are illuminating our faults, the Lord's truth, and it will help us to "shed light" on how to go about resoliving any particualr issue me may have.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Can you find out why the Catholic Church always has in its churches the cross with the image of the suffering Christ on it? Many Protestants find this offensive for some reason. I think it would be more appropriate to have an image of the Risen Christ as the predominate figure as you enter the church. The Catholic Church generally has a reason for all of these things. I would like to know what it is so that I may answer the question posed by some of my Protestant friends. I don't think such matters should ever be a subject that causes more division and disunity. It is really not that important, at least, to me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Im a Catholic AND an American so?

Taking any RESPECTFUL questions or comments.