A Question on the Value of life... (Abortion)

[cougarfan]

I am in a heated conversation with a few others on Abortion. I stand that it is murder and someone responded with this:

**Really? Is that why Christians, including the catholic church, commonly sancitoned abortions and beleived life began at birth for the two millenia that followed Christ’s death and prior to the rebirth of puritanism in Victorian times?

Valuing human life is a no-brainer- but determining when that human life begins was and is a matter of some complexity. So kindly spare us the pretention that you speak for “true Christians.”**

Did our church really value life at birth vs. conception? That was news to me. Any help on this would be great. I really just want to set them straight and figure some of you are educated beyond reason on this historical accusation.

 

[Mike_O]

cougarfan:

I am in a heated conversation with a few others on Abortion. I stand that it is murder and someone responded with this:

**Really? Is that why Christians, including the catholic church, commonly sancitoned abortions and beleived life began at birth for the two millenia that followed Christ’s death and prior to the rebirth of puritanism in Victorian times?

Valuing human life is a no-brainer- but determining when that human life begins was and is a matter of some complexity. So kindly spare us the pretention that you speak for “true Christians.”**

Did our church really value life at birth vs. conception? That was news to me. Any help on this would be great. I really just want to set them straight and figure some of you are educated beyond reason on this historical accusation.

In all debates, remember this; those who make the novel affirmation (in this case, the one you are arguing against) also incur the burden of proof.

The only thing you need to do is request proof, which your opponent cannot supply, because what he or she has said about the Church “sanctioning abortions” should be considered to have the same credibility as those oddities pasted on the front of the supermarket tabloids.

 

[Batjacboy]

Mike O:

In all debates, remember this; those who make the novel affirmation (in this case, the one you are arguing against) also incur the burden of proof.

The only thing you need to do is request proof, which your opponent cannot supply, because what he or she has said about the Church “sanctioning abortions” should be considered to have the same credibility as those oddities pasted on the front of the supermarket tabloids.

Mike O is exactly right. And after you’ve requested the proof (and your opponent is unable to provide it), you can quote this from *The Didache * (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, from the 1st Century):

“Do not murder; do not commit adultery”; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; “do not steal”; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant."

And make sure they notice the distinction made between abortion and infanticide.

 

[NotWorthy]

What does the Bible say about life? In Luke, the Angel Gabriel tells Zechariah, “He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even in the womb”. You can not be filled with the Holy Spirit if you don’t have a soul. Hence, John the Baptist had a soul while still a fetus. Sounds like a good case AGAINST abortion to me.

Notworthy

 

[doomhammer]

NotWorthy:

Sounds like a good case AGAINST abortion to me.Notworthy

not at all.

“It is unnecessary to discuss the soul with reference to the abortion question. In fact, it is detrimental to an effective condemnation of abortion to discuss the soul. Mark L. Chance”.

It is necessary to repeat again that abortion has nothing to do with religion. Abortion is an anthropological issue, not a religious one.

uffl.org/vol12/conley12.pdf
(very interesting article on delayed animation).

 

[cougarfan]

WOW thanks everyone. You are all my angels!!!

I will let you know where this goes!! And you are all correct… someone has to fight for the unborn! I started that today!!!

 

[1ke]

cougarfan:

Did our church really value life at birth vs. conception?

No, it did not.

1. Get material from www.omsoul.com and ww.hh76.com and read up on abortion. Visit www.all.org and other related pro-life websites.
2. Get the book Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn.
3. From the content of this person’s respons, I can tell you that you are wasting your time with these particular people.
4. The burden of proof is on THEM if they make such an allegation.

 

[Eden]

**

Really? Is that why Christians, including the catholic church, commonly sancitoned abortions and beleived life began at birth for the two millenia that followed Christ’s death and prior to the rebirth of puritanism in Victorian times?

**

Wasn’t this part of a plot in a novel? I remember someone posting something similar to this a while back and it turned out they were quoting a novel; i.e. not fact but fabrication.

What are they talking about by the way, “the two millenia following Christ’s death…”? Technically, 2033 would be around the real 2 millenia mark after Christ’s death yet according to this person the Victorian era was after the 2 millenia mark.

Bless you for having the patience to stay around and continue the dialogue with this person!

 

[masterjedi747]

Really? Is that why Christians, including the catholic church, commonly sancitoned abortions and beleived life began at birth for the two millenia that followed Christ’s death and prior to the rebirth of puritanism in Victorian times?

Absolutely no. That is complete and utter BS. (I’d type it out, but it’s Lent.)
Seriously, though, the Catholic Church has always taught that human life begins at conception. And besides that, it is a biological, scientific fact that life begins at the moment of conception. But what’s happeing today is that people are trying to re-define when “personhood” begins…and that is a theological, not scientific, question. And again, on that issue the Church has always maintained that personhood begins with the creation of the human being (which happens at the moment of conception).

Valuing human life is a no-brainer- but determining when that human life begins was and is a matter of some complexity. So kindly spare us the pretention that you speak for "true Christians."

Don’t argue that you are speaking for “true Christians”…Christianity as a whole can be very divided over this matter (although they shouldn’t be). Argue that you are speaking for the Catholic Church, as a Catholic. And then hit them up with this: The only logical philosophical understanding is to maintain that personhood begins at conception. Once the sperm and egg (with all 46 chromomes) combine, they cease to exist as individual parts, and are literally transformed into a brand new, genetically unique individual. All that child needs to do, from that moment on, is grow. There is no other objective point at which any other significant changes are made in that individual. All it does is move itself into the womb, and grow there until it exits the mother. And if you pick any other purely subjective standard (such as the beginning of consciousness…and that argument has plenty of other flaws), then you can easily justify anything and everything you want, including infanticide (since there’s really no big change in the child after it is born, either). If you choose a sunjective standard, then no one’s rights are safe, because you can always re-define and justify what you want to do. If you want the lives of all human beings to be protected, then you must choose an objective standard to base judgements on. Personhood begins when the human being begins, which is at conception.

Check this article out, it’s an excellent resource: When Do Human Beings Begin?

 

[estesbob]

cougarfan:

WOW thanks everyone. You are all my angels!!!

I will let you know where this goes!! And you are all correct… someone has to fight for the unborn! I started that today!!!

Often times those claiming this nonsense will pull out out of context quotes from church fathers talking about Ensoulment ,viability, quickening, etc. The point is that abortion was always a mortal sin -the discussion was what the pennance should be. Thus the discussion about the proper penance for one who aborts after the “quickening” as opposed to one who did not is distorted by pro-choicers to mean the church supported abortion before the “quickening”.

Since we don’t see a lot of the discussions about pennance anymore it is easy for those who support abortion to distort the teachings of our church fathers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic Positions on Abortion

The Didache
“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (*Didache *2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas
“The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (*Letter of Barnabas *19 [A.D. 74]).

The Apocalypse of Peter
“And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion” (*The Apocalypse of Peter *25 [A.D. 137]).

Athenagoras
“What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it” (*A Plea for the Christians *35 [A.D. 177]).

Tertullian
“In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (*Apology *9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] “the slayer of the infant,” which of course was alive. . . .

“[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive” (*The Soul *25 [A.D. 210]).

“Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does” (ibid., 27).

“The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]” (ibid., 37).

Minucius Felix
“There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide” (*Octavius *30 [A.D. 226]).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic Positions on Abortion (Continued)

Hippolytus
“Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!” (*Refutation of All Heresies *[A.D. 228]).

Lactantius
"When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. . . . Therefore, let no one imagine that even this is allowed, to strangle newly-born children, which is the greatest impiety; for God breathes into their souls for life, and not for death. But men, that there may be no crime with which they may not pollute their hands, deprive [unborn] souls as yet innocent and simple of the light which they themselves have not given.

“Can anyone, indeed, expect that they would abstain from the blood of others who do not abstain even from their own? But these are, without any controversy, wicked and unjust” (*Divine Institutes *6:20 [A.D. 307]).

Council of Ancyra
“Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees” (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).

Basil the Great
“Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not” (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

“He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees” (ibid., canon 8).

John Chrysostom
“Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine” (*Homilies on Romans *24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome
“I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder” (*Letters *22:13 [A.D. 396]).

The Apostolic Constitutions
“Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . *f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed” (*Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

 

[StCsDavid]

I like to counter this argument with…

Let’s take religion completely out it. We know that at conception the individual receives all of the DNA material that will make one the person she is to become, right? That single cell is the smallest any of us will ever be. From that point on two things change. The first is the individual’s size. The second is the level of dependence that individual has on someone for its survival. These two factors vary throughout one’s life. After birth, a person is still totally dependent upon his parents for care. As we grow older, we get bigger and more independent. We can feed and pretty much take care of ourselves. As we grow old we shrink a little bit and become more dependent on others as our health starts to fail. So at what point do we as culture say that a person is either too small or too dependent on another to be worthy of existing? Can we really discriminate based on size and/or need of care?

 

[vern_humphrey]

StCsDavid:

I like to counter this argument with…

Let’s take religion completely out it. We know that at conception the individual receives all of the DNA material that will make one the person she is to become, right? That single cell is the smallest any of us will ever be. From that point on two things change. The first is the individual’s size. The second is the level of dependence that individual has on someone for its survival. These two factors vary throughout one’s life. After birth, a person is still totally dependent upon his parents for care. As we grow older, we get bigger and more independent. We can feed and pretty much take care of ourselves. As we grow old we shrink a little bit and become more dependent on others as our health starts to fail. So at what point do we as culture say that a person is either too small or too dependent on another to be worthy of existing? Can we really discriminate based on size and/or need of care?

You are right – support for right to life is not simply some sort of religious crochet. The right to life can be defended without reference to religion.

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?
The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that “society” or the government decide when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people – perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics – never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

• Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

• Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

• But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.

Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.