Obama knows the truth of when human life begins. He knows that when his wife was pregnant, that a live, human person was growing in her womb.  He, like the rest of the pro-abortion crowd, won't publically admit it though...keeping the aborturaries running through Roe v. Wade is more important to them than admitting this truth.

By their consistent votes for the evil of abortion, Obama and Biden place themselves and poliical expediency first. The millions of aborted unborn children prove that. If in the hands of these two, the innocent unborn life in the womb isn't safe, then how can society ever be safe in their hands?   

Are you just as passionately opposed to hormonal birth control?  Do you think hormonal BC should be illegal?

Technically, yes.  It starts to become an organism at that point rather than an extention of another.

Now how come you trust scientists in this case but when it comes to evolution and the idea of an old earth it's "OH NO!  That's wrong!"?

*sigh*  Christianity: supporting science only if it supports their beliefs.

So disappointing...

~Zoo

Birth control, in my opinion, is neither amoral nor illegal unless you use it incorrectly. Granted, people will differ in their definitions, but I believe that if you're gonna do anything outside of marriage, it's wrong.

TW POSTS:

If, by hormonal birth control,  you mean the use of mechanical or chemical procedures to prevent conception from taking place my answer is yes.

Your second question falls within the objective criteria of morality. I view the use of artificial BC as out of conformity with the moral law. Therefore the use of artificial birth control is morally unacceptable, but illegal?, hmmmm, ....let's think about this........it's use is against God's law so I guess since man's law must be in conformity with God's law, then it's use should be against man's law too.  

The Church, which is on the side of life, teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." This particular doctrine is based on the inseparable connection established by God which man on his own initiative cannot break, between the unitive and the procreative significance which are both inherent in the marriage act.

Periodic continence, also called natural family planning, that is, the methods of birth regulation based upon self-observation and the use of infertile periods is in conformity with GOd's moral law. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil.   

Erathoniel:  That doesn't make any sense.  What does marriage/non-marriage have to do with it.

And do you understand what hormonal BC does? 

Lula:  I mean specifically hormonal BC methods that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting (BC pills, the patch, hormonal IUDs, etc.) as opposed to barrier methods that prevent conception (FWIW, many hormonal forms of BC are dual purpose and make conception less likely as well as making implantation impossible).  I always wonder about people who are against abortion based on a definition of life beginning at conception, but who have no issue with the legality of hormonal forms of BC. 

Heh, I do think Catholics tend to be at least consistent in this regard.

Lula posts:

Hey, Zoo, I missed you over the summer.....I'm glad that you are back.

Correct....at the moment of fertilization, the little person has his or her own DNA and they are good to go...through all their stages of life.

The difference is in the scientists, Zoo. These scientists have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that life begins at fertilization. Embryology is true science, whereas, evolution and "old earth" are theory.  Until they have empirical proof, then I quite confidently call their contention that mankind somehow grew from apekind bunk!  

Christianity has been here for over 2000 years....and the Holy Bible especially Genesis,  alot longer than that. It's gonna take some time for true science to get caught up and prove it, and they may never.

Last January Pope Benedict said that science cannot fully understand the mystery of man. The story from Catholic news agency is quite interesting.

A joyful Pope Benedict spoke this morning with academics gathered at the Vatican to study the human person. While applauding their efforts, he also told them that science is not capable of fully understanding the mystery of human beings.

The inter-academic conference entitled "The changeable identity of the individual", is the collaborative effort of the "Academie des Sciences de Paris" and by the Pontifical Academy of Science.

In our time, the Pope told the scholars, "the exact sciences, both natural and human, have made prodigious advances in their understanding of man and his universe". However at the same time "there is a strong temptation to circumscribe human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known."

"In order to avoid going down this path," the Pontiff said, "it is important not to ignore anthropological, philosophical and theological research, which highlight and maintain the mystery of human beings, because no science can say who they are, where they come from and where they go. The knowledge of human beings is then, the most important of all forms of knowledge".

"Human beings always stand beyond what can be scientifically seen or perceived", the Pope affirmed. This failure manifests itself today in "an incapacity to recognize the foundation upon which human dignity rests, from the embryo until natural death," said the Pope.

"Starting from the question of the new being, who is produced by a fusion of cells and who bears a new and specific genetic heritage", the Holy Father told his audience, "you have highlighted certain essential elements in the mystery of man". Man, said the Pope is "characterized by his otherness. He is a being created by God, a being in the image of God, a being who is loved and is made to love. As a human he is never closed within himself. He is always a bearer of otherness and, from his origins, is in interaction with other human beings".

Contrary to the Darwinian concept of man, Pope Benedict said that "man is not the result of mere chance, of converging circumstances, of determinism, of chemical inter-reactions."

 Man is a being who enjoys a freedom which ... transcends his nature and is a sign of the mystery of otherness that dwells within him. ... This freedom, which is characteristic of human beings, means they can guide their lives to a goal" and "highlights how man's existence has a meaning. In the exercise of his authentic freedom, the individual realizes his vocation, he is fulfilled and gives form to his deepest identity".

Closing his talk, the Pope told the academics, "Human beings have the specific ability of discerning what is good". "In our own time, when the progress of the sciences attracts and seduces for the possibilities it offers, it is more necessary than ever to educate the consciences of our contemporaries to ensure that science does not become the criterion of good, that man is still respected as the centre of creation, and that he does not become the object of ideological manipulation, arbitrary decisions, or abuses".

Erathoniel,

Amen, Zoo.

Oh, for the love of God...

And again I sigh...loudly and depressingly.

By the way, geology and evolutionary biology are real sciences.  Embryology actually contributes quite a bit to the evolutionary model.

Oh, and science doesn't "prove" - it finds evidence for or against something.  Bible stories have nil in the evidence for pile.  Evolution, however...well...I'm sure you can guess.  I think I'll be taking an evolutionary biology class pretty soon...perhaps I can find more evidence with which to convince you.

Although all my efforts will most likely be in vain.

~Zoo

This is not true at all. What scientific evidence shows is that two forms of "life" (notice the difference here ... just "life" not "human life") combine to form another form of "life". if the resultant form is a human life then the two basic forms are also human life since there was no other ingredient entered into the picture "yet".

when does that resultant form becomes "human life" is the main and only meaningful question which no one adresses.

if you go by what sience shows, then it is after the first 3 months that a descernible difference starts to show that that third form of life is a "human life". many theologians believe that is when the "soul" is entered, by God, into that third form of life.and THAT what makes a difference between a "life" and a "human life".

a little clot, a little wiggly bite, or a little leach are certainly a form of a "life" .... when that leach matures and is injected with a "soul" it then becomes " human life" .....

accordingly abortion before the 3rd month is a termination of a "life" not of a "human life". that makes all the difference ... since termination of many forms of life are not amoral or against God's command of killing a "human life". God did not forbid killing of "any" life, He forbade killing only of "human life".

In any case ... this whole issue is a private one and should be left for each individual to decide ... we all will be asked about our choices by God .... it is exactly similar to, and in MHO less sinful, than premarital sex.

It is a narrow-minded view to base your political views on this issue alone, and if you do then you have to consider the other private acts that fall into the same category as well. just picking one and ignore the others is mere hypocrisy.

That is how Obama, Biden and Gore look at this issue. They all personally oppose abortion, but that is a private act just like premarital sex, like not obeying any of God's orders. It is presumptuous of anyone to force his/her own views regarding that on others.

This issue should be debated in Churches, Temples and Mosques not in a political arena. and people should act according to their believes not accroding to what a politician say they should do.

it is very very hypocritical to oppose government intevention in peoples private life and at the same time make the most "private" issue a litmus test for politician and get the whole country embroiled in a debate about it ....

then again principled consistency has never been a principle worth adhering to for the anti-abortion single-issue crowd.

Careful!  You just blew Roe V. Wade out of the water with that statement.

THINKALOUD POSTS:

Science has definitively spoken on when human life begins...at the moment when a male sperm fertilizes the female egg. 

Christian theology definitively explains the human soul. The Holy Bible addresses this in Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:7and so does the Catholic Church's teaching on the human soul.

"Let us make man in our image and likeness.....to the image of God he created him: male and female He created them. And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul."   

The teaching is that the image of God in man is not in the body but in the soul which is a spiritual substance undued with understanding and free will. While God spoke the rest of the visible world into existence, He created mankind with a soul which distinguishes mankind above all the rest. The soul is not made from the earth, but is a 'breath' of God. God gives existence to the soul at the very moment when it is to be united to the body produced by generation (fertilization) becasue it is designed by God to form with that body one human nature. The soul is the cause of the body's life; without it the body cannot live. When a soul is separated from the body, the body dies.

According to Catholic theology, the human soul is the ultimate principle of our individual conscious life, the principle which we feel, think and will. The human soul is a spiritual substance directly created by God and its existence is independent of matter.

House Speaker Pelosi in her attempt to hold up abortion has added to the confusion over what the Church Fathers said. Thankfully, the Catholic bishops and theologians set the record straight saying that the Speaker had “misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion.”

They pointed out that since the first century the Church has “affirmed the moral evil of every abortion.”

It's true that in the late Middle Ages that without having the studies about human embryology that we have today, they speculated  about the age at which the unborn child receives a soul. However, it should be undestood from the getgo that their debates about what is called “ensoulment” were independent of the question of the evil of abortion.

Bottom line: we know now through science that “a new human life begins with the union of sperm and egg” and Catholic teaching reflects this scientific fact.

Archbishop Chaput of Denver pointed out that politicians like Pelosi “tend to take a hard line in talking about the ‘separation of Church and state.’” However, “their idea of separation [only] seems to work one way.”

Well, it doesn't become a fully independent being until the umbilical cord is cut.  'Til then it's more like a parasite(not to be offensive or anything) because it needs a host (this is ticking someone off isn't it?) to live.

I'm still not a fan of abortion, though.

~Zoo

Sure it's not a "punishment"?