Life Begins at Conception

[angellous_evangellous]

*And I think even the Catholic Church acknowledges this in its own way. I've never heard of a live-born baby born to a Catholic family not having a funeral (if it dies, of course). I occasionally hear of miscarried late-term fetuses receiving funeral rites... but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I've never ever heard of a Catholic funeral for an embryo or a first-trimester fetus.

The "Mass of the Angels" would cover this.

note:

http://www.diocese-sdiego.org/Handbook/Handbook_PDFs/Liturgy8.pdf

A child who dies before baptism, or a stillborn or miscarried child may be given Catholic
Funeral Rites if the parents intended to have the child baptized. The remains of fetuses or
stillborns should always receive reverent Christian burial if this is at all possible. These​

remains may be placed either in specific individual graves or in a common burial area.

The​

Order for Christian Funerals provides a complete funeral liturgy for children who
have died (OCF #234-342). The various texts for a baptized child or a child who died
before baptism make these rites fully adaptable to various situations, and offer
consolation for those suffering the extraordinary grief which comes with the death of a​

child.

I believe that the OCF #234-342 has become popularly known as "Mass of the Angels."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The "Mass of the Angels" would cover this.

I meant that I'd never heard of it actually being performed.

I note from your quote that the practice is optional. This is still quite different from funerals for children or adults.

It seems to me that the Catholic Church uses baptism instead of birth as the demarcation point for the "hierarchy" that Victor mentioned.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I meant that I'd never heard of it actually being performed.

I note from your quote that the practice is optional. This is still quite different from funerals for children or adults.

It seems to me that the Catholic Church uses baptism instead of birth as the demarcation point for the "hierarchy" that Victor mentioned.

I don't see that. Funeral rites may be performed if the parents intended to baptize them. Which means that they may not receive rites if the parents did not intend to baptize. The quote doesn't say whether it's optional or not, but I strongly suspect that it is.

 

[Midnight Pete]

No. Only a scientific one.

In this (rare) case, scripture and science are in agreement. But if life begins at birth, what is it that grows & develops inside the womb for 9 months?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see that. Funeral rites may be performed if the parents intended to baptize them. Which means that they may not receive rites if the parents did not intend to baptize. The quote doesn't say whether it's optional or not, but I strongly suspect that it is.

In the passage you quoted, the word that caught my eye was "may". The way I interpreted it was that if the funeral rite was mandatory in that case, it would've been worded something like this:

A child who dies before baptism, or a stillborn or miscarried child shall be given Catholic Funeral Rites if the parents intended to have the child baptized.

Maybe I'm too used to auto racing rulebooks, but IMO, the normal progression is:

- "may" implies that the thing is permitted, but not necessarily recommended.
- "should" implies that the thing is recommended, but not required.
- "shall"/"must" implies that the thing is required.

Like I said, this is in contrast to normal practice for children and adults, where baptism is at least a de facto requirement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In this (rare) case, scripture and science are in agreement. But if life begins at birth, what is it that grows & develops inside the womb for 9 months?

A fetus. And it changes in virtually every measurable way over that time.

- What is it that gives a human life value?
- Is it present in the fetus at all points during pregnancy?

I haven't yet heard a valid answer to the first question that allows a "yes" to the second.

 

[Willamena]

A fetus. And it changes in virtually every measurable way over that time.

- What is it that gives a human life value?
- Is it present in the fetus at all points during pregnancy?

I haven't yet heard a valid answer to the first question that allows a "yes" to the second.

Ooh, a challenge.

- The observer of "life" gives it value, meaning.
- It can be present even before conception, and after death, non-literally in non-biological things, and metaphorically in word. It 'lives' in our imagination.

 

[Midnight Pete]

A fetus. And it changes in virtually every measurable way over that time.

- What is it that gives a human life value?
- Is it present in the fetus at all points during pregnancy?

I haven't yet heard a valid answer to the first question that allows a "yes" to the second.

Don't expect a confirmation of your views from those who don't share them.

If I go down this path with you, if I agree to punch your tar-baby, I'll never get unstuck.

 

[AxisMundi]

Brainwaves nor coherence defines what a person is for me. Does it for you? Not that simple right?

It is a simple matter that people attach complexity to.

What makes a person?

It certainly isn't merely a physical body.

 

[Midnight Pete]

It is a simple matter that people attach complexity to.

What makes a person?

It certainly isn't merely a physical body.

I agree with AxisMundi.

It's rare that I can agree with AxisMundi.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ooh, a challenge.

- The observer of "life" gives it value, meaning.
- It can be present even before conception, and after death, non-literally in non-biological things, and metaphorically in word. It 'lives' in our imagination.

Okay... but in the case of the abortion debate, it's not just a matter of a personal, individual, subjective determination. The argument is that all people should value a fetus at least enough not to abort it, or that if a person does not value a fetus sufficiently, it should be possible to declare that view to be wrong.

Don't expect a confirmation of your views from those who don't share them.

I'm not expecting a confirmation. On the contrary, I was hoping for a better understanding of your views.

If I go down this path with you, if I agree to punch your tar-baby, I'll never get unstuck.

If you don't have good answers for those questions, I imagine you probably would.

 

[Willamena]

The argument is that all people should value a fetus at least enough not to abort it, or that if a person does not value a fetus sufficiently, it should be possible to declare that view to be wrong.

Right. The observer gives it lots of, and many different kinds of, value: "enough not to abort it", "sufficient", and even "right" or "wrong".

Still, the value of "life" given to a thing (biological or otherwise) can be given as easily to the idea of the thing.

 

[McBell]

If I go down this path with you, if I agree to punch your tar-baby, I'll never get unstuck.

So you are admitting that your own argument is worthless?

 

[Midnight Pete]

So you are admitting that your own argument is worthless?

No, not at all. You're a real piece of work, Mestemia.

 

[McBell]

No, not at all. You're a real piece of work, Mestemia.

Would you please explain what you mean then?

 

[Sunstone]

Life is continuous. It began long before conception. The notion that life began at conception reflects a poor understanding of biology.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Life is continuous. It began long before conception. The notion that life began at conception reflects a poor understanding of biology.

Conception signifies the beginning of a new individual.

If you like, you could say that "life" began when the first living cell appeared in the Earth's primordial ooze.

 

[jtartar]

Is there any biblical basis for the claim that life begins at conception?

Darkness,
One scripture in particular sheds light on your question.
Consider Ex 21:22-25, where we see a scenario where two men are fighting and they hurt a pregnant woman. If there is no death the husband can put upon the guilty man some compensation, but if a death occurs, either of the woman or of the child she was carrying, the law of Moses was to be carried out. The law of an eye for an eye, death for death.
Because of the penalty it seems that God considers the fetus to be a living person, and life would have started at conception, because there is no time period mentioned about guilt for the death of a fetus.

 

[smokydot]

The "Mass of the Angels" would cover this.

note:

http://www.diocese-sdiego.org/Handbook/Handbook_PDFs/Liturgy8.pdf


I believe that the OCF #234-342 has become popularly known as "Mass of the Angels."

Have the In Paradisium sung if you can.

 

[smokydot]

Darkness,
One scripture in particular sheds light on your question.
Consider Ex 21:22-25, where we see a scenario where two men are fighting and they hurt a pregnant woman. If there is no death the husband can put upon the guilty man some compensation, but if a death occurs, either of the woman or of the child she was carrying, the law of Moses was to be carried out. The law of an eye for an eye, death for death.
Because of the penalty it seems that God considers the fetus to be a living person, and life would have started at conception, because there is no time period mentioned about guilt for the death of a fetus.

Do you see any basis for it in natural law, as presented in post #602, regarding the nature of seeds?