Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kalibah
Pro-Life argument isnt deeming the embryo alive- its deeming the fetus alive. It has begun developing into a human being, and will develop into a human being, whereas sperm will never develop into a human being (by itself).
|
Yes. Something being alive (such as sperm) is not the basis for the pro-life argument. Most who are pro-life do not just believe that the unborn child is a life, but that it is a HUMAN life.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kalibah
The church is against contraceptives, which I am sorta stunned at, and disagree with, but yet again the question is When does live begun? The moment the sperm and egg meet? The church's stance is "sometime after contreception, but before birth life begins" - i believe that is their standing atleast.
|
Well, the church's decision on contraception is a particularly interesting one and one which I frankly would ignore. There is an interesting book about how the decision came to be - one which I do not remember the title to at the moment unfortunately, and it is at home - but it's worth the read. The most telling point is the fact that before the decision was made, a panel of bishops was put together to look into the theological implications of contraception. I forget how large the panel was, but almost all of them found that contraception was NOT against church teaching. Three found that it was. The pope at the time sided with the three because their reasoning had something to do with the other stance effectively reducing papal power. Keep in mind that what the pope says is NOT infallible. He has only made two statements that are considered infallible in all of history, and this one was decidedly not one of them. In fact, when the decision was made, it was made in such a way as to make it clear that it may change at a later time. I suspect that the church's stance on contraceptives will change with the next pope or two.
As for when life begins, I'm pretty sure the church believes that it begins at conception. Interesting thing is that, while information about the reasoning behind the church's stance on contraception makes it pretty clear to me that condoms AREN'T bad (that, and common sense), this does not address the birth control pill. Greytone posted in another thread on TFP the interesting piece of info that the birth control pill does not prevent ovulation but that it prevent eggs from attaching to the uteran lining. This of course can allow for conception and then deny what some who consider to be a human life the chance to develop. So, in short, there's not much of an argument against condoms and such, but there is an argument against the birth control pill.