Help in replying to a pro-abortion "classmate"

[SoCalRC]

No, that’s not true. While Jews considered the child to form in the body and Augustine made conjectures abouit “ensoulment” these were based neither on science nor on sound theology.

No, the Halacha (Jewish law) declared that you became a person (“nefesh”) at birth. The developing fetus was still very valuable and abortions where largely prescribed. The primary exception would be when the mother’s life (or that of her children) was threatened. Then an abortion was considered morally necessary and the aborted fetus was considered a “radef”, or ‘persuer’.

To be strictly accurate the concept of ‘duality’ (a soul seperate from physical being) and ensoulment both originated with Plato. Aristotle simply proposed that ensoulment follows form. Since dead things lose their form he theorized that the appearance of form must represent the point of ensoulment.

As a Roman Catholic it would be difficult for me to accept the concept of ensoulment as “bad theology”. It first gained priminence with St. Augustine and St. Jerome, but was reasserted strongly by theologians, including prominent Doctors of the Church like St. Thomas Aquinas, for 1400 years. Even as he dropped the distinction of animated fetus for the purposes of Canon law in 1869 Pope Pius IX stated that he still believed that the developing fetus is not an ensouled person.

Since then the Church has expressely declined to take a position on when ensoulment occurs on multiple occassions. Agressively arguing that it is bad theology, when some of the arguments made by past theologists are still sound, could be construed as an attack on the Infallibility of the Church, hence its apostolic authority.

No, we did not. The Didache (1st Century) forbids abortion. Tertulian mentions it as forbidden.

You are confusing teaching with action. However, first you should be careful when citing snippets of ancient Christian writings. For example Tertullian, who comes closest to expressing what many evangellicals now believe, that ensoulment begins at conceptions, was promoting the idea of Traducianism, something that the Church holds to be heretical (we do not believe that souls and original sin flows from our parents, but that each soul is a unique creation by God). Also, your quote from his “The Soul” is dishonest. What was snipped from between fragments in chapter XXV began:

“Of the necessity of such harsh treatment I have no doubt even Hicesius was convinced…” (Strictly speaking, the Latin was “necessary cruelty”)

In other words, Tertullian was generally opposed to abortion, but that was not why he was describing a gruesome partial birth abortion to condemn it. Quite the opposite, he was pointing out that, despite the obvious moral necessity of such a procedure and the obvious lack of viability of the fetus, the people performing them must intuitively know that they were still dealing with a person because of the ways they acted after the procedure.

However, more on point - have you ever wondered why, in a world of barbarism and slavery why so much early Christain writing would be devoted to the value of unborn and newborn infants?

Again, when Pauline Christianity grew, it was among a population with no prior religious or cultural mores against infanticide and abortion. And that remained a huge problem for the Church for a millenia. Since you are grabbing snippets from a pro-life website somewhere, not citing from complete texts, look closely at this popular one from Pope Stephen V, circa 887:

“If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old.” -Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz

Look closely, yes he is reaffirming that abortion of an ensouled fetus is murder. But he is also stating that it is self evident that a born child is of even greater value. This is not the belief that the Magisterium holds today.

More tragically, take the quote, like Tertullian, in context. The Pope appears to have been basically saying, ‘look, we teach that killing an ensouled person in the womb is murder - of course we need to stop the local cultural practice of burying unwanted children alive among your flock…’

The definition of “person” as distinct and superior to “human” was not used prior to Roe v. Wade

Since you reject Church law as an example (see ‘Abortion’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia), would examples in secular law help? Most laws against abortion date only from the 19th century so their history and debate is easy to review.

Best Regards

 

[SoCalRC]

Actually, it would be interesting to go though all the quotes and put them in exact context, but I don’t really have time. Another one that did jump out at me was St. Jerome and his letter to Aglasia:

“The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs”

Again, St. Jerome spoke out about abortion, but it is less supportive to current Catholic dogma if we take entire context. For much of Church history early abortion was seen as a serious form of birth control, not murder. That is why it is given such light treatment in penitentials through the middle ages.

Best Regards

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, the Halacha (Jewish law) declared that you became a person (“nefesh”) at birth. The developing fetus was still very valuable and abortions where largely prescribed.

Yes it is correct – Jewish law considers the fetus in a state of development, not complete – as your own post above shows.

To be strictly accurate the concept of ‘duality’ (a soul seperate from physical being) and ensoulment both originated with Plato. Aristotle.

Which is neither here nor there when considering the Church’s position on abortion.

As a Roman Catholic it would be difficult for me to accept the concept of ensoulment as “bad theology”.

But that is not dogma. As science progresses we understand the human is not separate from the person and the soul does not “grow” or “develop.”

Since then the Church has expressely declined to take a position on when ensoulment occurs on multiple occassions.

Show me where the Church has ruled the soul “grows” or “develops.” In earlier times there was speculation – just as there was speculation over Limbo. But the Church holds the human is formed at conception.

You are confusing teaching with action. However, first you should be careful when citing snippets of ancient Christian writings. For example Tertullian, who comes closest to expressing what many evangellicals now believe, that ensoulment begins at conceptions, was promoting the idea of Traducianism, something that the Church holds to be heretical (we do not believe that souls and original sin flows from our parents, but that each soul is a unique creation by God). Also, your quote from his “The Soul” is dishonest. What was snipped from between fragments in chapter XXV began:

“Of the necessity of such harsh treatment I have no doubt even Hicesius was convinced…” (Strictly speaking, the Latin was “necessary cruelty”)

In other words, Tertullian was generally opposed to abortion, but that was not why he was describing a gruesome partial birth abortion to condemn it. Quite the opposite, he was pointing out that, despite the obvious moral necessity of such a procedure and the obvious lack of viability of the fetus, the people performing them must intuitively know that they were still dealing with a person because of the ways they acted after the procedure.

Bingo!

However, more on point - have you ever wondered why, in a world of barbarism and slavery why so much early Christain writing would be devoted to the value of unborn and newborn infants?

Several reasons – simple Christian morality and respect for life among them. Secondly, Christian charity – Christians cared for children “thrown away.”

Again, when Pauline Christianity grew, it was among a population with no prior religious or cultural mores against infanticide and abortion. And that remained a huge problem for the Church for a millenia. Since you are grabbing snippets from a pro-life website somewhere, not citing from complete texts, look closely at this popular one from Pope Stephen V, circa 887:

“If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old.” -Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz

Look closely, yes he is reaffirming that abortion of an ensouled fetus is murder. But he is also stating that it is self evident that a born child is of even greater value. This is not the belief that the Magisterium holds today.

What’s your point? The Church rejects abortion and has from the First Century – even when we knew next to nothing about how the child devleops.

More tragically, take the quote, like Tertullian, in context. The Pope appears to have been basically saying, ‘look, we teach that killing an ensouled person in the womb is murder - of course we need to stop the local cultural practice of burying unwanted children alive among your flock…’

What’s your point?

Since you reject Church law as an example (see ‘Abortion’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia),

When did I reject Church law?

Here’s a quote from the article you cite:

It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, “Thou shalt not kill”. The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception;

would examples in secular law help? Most laws against abortion date only from the 19th century so their history and debate is easy to review.

Best Regards

Why would I look at secular law when debating basic Catholic morality?

 

[SoCalRC]

Bingo!

Bingo, in that you edited Christian writing to make it appear more compatible with your beliefs, or Bingo, Christain beliefs about abortion have changed (ex. 1st - 19th century, abortion to save the life of the mother permissable, 19th century - present, abortion to save the life of the mother is not permissible)?

Why would I look at secular law when debating basic Catholic morality?

Well, you stated that the principle had not appeared in law until Roe v. Wade - ie, secular law. As in, history and secular law appeared to be your point.

Unfortunately, it remains demonstrably false. It was applied in many of the very laws that Roe v. Wade overturned. I also gave the demonstrable example that a distinction on rights existed in written Catholic Canon law for about 9 centuries and in Jewish law since 300 years before the birth of Christ.

We are not debating Catholic morality. That is clear. One need look no further than the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION (1975).

You are disputing history and written Dogma. Of course, one need look no further than paragraph 13 of the same document, and the more explicit footnote 19 to see that the Church does, indeed, still embrace ensoulment, it just now declines to take a position on precisely when it occurs, a position it has held since 1869.

We are not ‘debating’ because no dialog is occuring. For example you are happy to present history to bolster your point, but find it irrelevant when corrected. Similarly, I have given you a specific example of the Church struggling with infanticide. There are countless more in Church history, and the problem remains (albiet on a very small scale today). The Church still struggles with infanticide of disabled children in pockets of South America and a few other places around the world.

The fundemental difference appears to be that, to me, a Church struggling in an imperfect world, but making social progress over time is encouraging. You seem to find a history with stuggles somehow threatening to your faith. For that I am sorry.

Best Regards

 

[cockatoo]

Surprisingly enough I did not get a reply. 2 other students posted something, but it was related to an offensive joke this oen kid wrote.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bingo, in that you edited Christian writing to make it appear more compatible with your beliefs, or Bingo, Christain beliefs about abortion have changed (ex. 1st - 19th century, abortion to save the life of the mother permissable, 19th century - present, abortion to save the life of the mother is not permissible)?

The souirce of my data is Priests for Life, who know a good deal more about it than your average layman.

Well, you stated that the principle had not appeared in law until Roe v. Wade - ie, secular law. {/quote]
No, I didn’t. I said defining the term “person” to be more than “human” is a post Roe V. Wade neologism. And it is.

 

[fix]

Bingo, in that you edited Christian writing to make it appear more compatible with your beliefs, or Bingo, Christain beliefs about abortion have changed (ex. 1st - 19th century, abortion to save the life of the mother permissable, 19th century - present, abortion to save the life of the mother is not permissible)?

What do you say to this?

The exact time when the fetus becomes ‘animated’ has no practical significance as far as the morality of abortion is concerned. By any theory of ‘animation,’ abortion is gravely wrong. Why so? Because every direct abortion is a sin of murder by intent. It is, to say the least, probable that every developing fetus is a human being. To deliberately kill what is probably human is murder.4

Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked upon as a moral dividing line between permissible and immoral abortion.5

A constant teaching prevailed despite the fact that it was accompanied by a variety of extrinsic factors that did change: canonical penalties, the opinions of individual ecclesiastical writers, and the speculations of contemporary scientists. There is consensus on this point by all scholars who have studiously investigated the Church’s teaching on abortion…

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3361

 

[SoCalRC]

What do you say to this?

I’d say that people don’t really read. If you review carefully I have never stated that the Church has ever viewed abortion as anything other than a mortal (hence, grave by definition) sin. I have simply commented, truthfully, that a distinction existed for a considerable period of of time based on fetal devolopment. A late abortion was viewed as a more serious sin than an early one. We can see this in theological writings over 800 years, penitentials, etc.

Vern is arguing, strenously, that no, there has never been a distinction. This is a common belief. I think it stems from a misguided concern that any sign of change in Church Dogma or priorities somehow errodes the authority of Church teaching today.

But look at your document under the section “Church’s Teaching Unwavering”, you will find:

“In 1588, for example. Pope Sixtus V tried to discourage abortion by issuing severe penalties, such as reserving absolution from excommunication for all those who procured abortions to the Holy See. A few years of experience showed that the severity of this penalty was not only ineffective, but occasioned much spiritual harm inasmuch as it discouraged people from going to confession. Accordingly, in 1591, Pope Gregory XIV rescinded some of the harsher penalties of his predecessor and returned absolution to the local ordinary.”

Now, there is a lot here if we look closely. Even in the 16th Century, in papal lands, abortion was a large enough problem that Pope Sixtus V felt compelled to take action (most historians believe that it was an attempt to crack down on rampant prostitution). If you study his Papal bull “Effraenatam” you will see he specifically suspended a distinction in Church law.

Aside from the lesson that even making abortion a potentially capitol offense does not erradicate it (a lesson that Catholics obsessed with secular law might do well to at least study), it makes my point. Regardless of moral teaching, a distinction existed, in law, based on developmental status. Similiarly, we can read that Pope Gregory XIV specifically reinstated the distinction, but altered the previously vague ‘quickening’ test to a specific period of time (116 days).

Again, looking at your article, we can see that the distinction stood until 1869 (another of my statements). From “The Unborn A person At Every Stage”:

“In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially removed the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus from the penal legislation of the Church. This was, of course, disciplinary and in no way involved Church teaching on abortion.20 Henceforward, every direct killing of human life after conception would be treated in the same way, that is, the penalty of excommunication applied to all abortions.”

One might get the idea that the disciplinary change was minor, but we know from Church documents that this is not true. For example, in the 7th century pennance for an early abortion, 120 days. Pennance for oral sex, 10 years. Pennance for murder, 20 years to life.

This does not mean that the Church did not view early abortion as a mortal sin (again, implicitly grave), but it does mean that priorities, at least as reflected in discipline, have changed. Abortion is now viewed much more seriously, and masterbation much less so. But, at times, masterbation was referred to as “murder” by theologists.

As far as the article as a whole, I would say it cherry picks (ex. we see a conviction of murder, but not Pope Innocent III’s judgement that abortion of the pre-ensouled is not murder) and judiciously omits some details, but is generally factual.

The problem I have with canned arguments with strawmen is that I believe that honest historical context does far more to bolster the Church’s moral position than spin and revisionism ever will.

cont.

 

[SoCalRC]

For example, take the example of dismissing delayed ensoulment as “bad science and bad theology”. At the time, it was quite reasonable science (Aristotle observed the development and decay of plants, animals, and humans as much as current technology permitted). He observed that form always leaves living objects when the spirit has obviously departed, so he reasoned that form and spirit have a causal relationship. Since he observed that human development (remember, lots of pregnancies end in miscarriage) appeared to go through vegetable form, lower mammal form, then human form, and humans are uniquely different in the gift of cognitive thought, that human form indicated the presence of a human soul.

This actually stands up to developmental neuroscience today. Early fetus development is difficult to distinguish from any organic tissue development. Slightly later, the fetus is difficult to distinguish from that of many other mammels. Finally, past the point set by Pope Gregory XIV, human synapses appear quite suddenly in what, before that, is a non functioning brain.

The point not being rather it is right or wrong, just that it hardly could be argued as bad science. Which leaves us the question of theology. If it is “bad”, why have so many prominent theologians in the Church (we are talking Saints and Doctors of the Church) embraced it? Their reasons are, again, well worth reading. At first glance, an obsession with human form might seem odd, but consider context. St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas were theologically competing with beliefs about witchcraft, centuries apart.

In addition, theologians made some compelling observations about human reproduction. Today, 1/3-1/2 of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion before the mother is even aware of them and about 1/5 of those detected end in miscarriage in the first trimester. In ages past, fetal death and miscarriages were dramatically higher. This is hard to reconcile with a loving and forgiving God. Seriously, why create so many souls just to quickly remove them from the earth. So theologists reasoned that the imperfection was us, biologically, perhaps due to original sin. And that God waits to create a soul until we provide a suitable vessal. Again, this does not make them right, but it is a reasonable way of thinking about the world as they knew it.

Understanding the reasoning is a far easier way to explain the progression of Church teaching and discipline than to just shout, ‘no no, that was bad science and a brief mistake - besides, it only mattered for book keeping…’

Because, ultimately, revisionists have to come to terms with the fact that the Magisterium still embraces ensoulment today, it has just refused to yet take a stance on when it occurs. This can be seen even in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION (1974).

Best Regards

 

[fix]

From your link:

In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous…

DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION

---

***Now, that document and the paper I linked to show that abortion was always a grave sin as you agree to yourself. I am not certain what you are arguing about? It seems that as science developed the Church teaching became more refined. Is that not how teaching develops?

 

[mlchance]

Just once I’d like to see a published, peer-reviewed scientific study that confirms when “personhood” begins.

Whether or not an embryo is alive or human isn’t a religious question. It is a scientific question, and it is one that the science of embryology definitively answers. A developing human embryo is alive and human. To say otherwise is absurd.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’d say that people don’t really read. If you review carefully I have never stated that the Church has ever viewed abortion as anything other than a mortal (hence, grave by definition) sin.

Then why post all the rest of this verbiage?

I showed how the Church, through various prominent churchmen, condemned abortion from the beginnoing. That ought to be the end of the story.

 

[sprout]

Today, 1/3-1/2 of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion before the mother is even aware of them and about 1/5 of those detected end in miscarriage in the first trimester. In ages past, fetal death and miscarriages were dramatically higher. This is hard to reconcile with a loving and forgiving God. Seriously, why create so many souls just to quickly remove them from the earth. So theologists reasoned that the imperfection was us, biologically, perhaps due to original sin. And that God waits to create a soul until we provide a suitable vessal. Again, this does not make them right, but it is a reasonable way of thinking about the world as they knew it.

Exellent stuff SoCalRC! I’ve learned alot from reading your posts.

This particular section I’ve quoted above reminds me that the “spontaneos abortion” argument is one that prochoice and pro embryonic stem cell advocates use alot and cockatoo would be well prepared for such by reading something I found from Fr. Tad (a favorite of mine) regarding this argument :

The Ten Great Myths in the Debate Over Stem Cell Research
Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.

1. **Because large numbers of embryos generated during intercourse are lost from the woman’s body and die naturally, that makes it permissible for us to destroy embryos in research. **

What Mother Nature does and what man may do are two distinct realities that should never be confused. If Mother Nature sends a tsunami that claims thousands of human lives, that does not make it morally permissible for me to take a machine gun and shoot into a stadium filled with thousands of people.

ncbcenter.org/10Myths.pdf

Also the spontaneous abortion issue brings up another question I have, slightly off topic, but it’s about Heaven, Limbo or Hell for the unborn. Some older writings suggest that the unborn are forever denied the beautific vision. This is as you say, hard to reconcile with a loving & merciful God.

 

[SoCalRC]

From your link:

---

***Now, that document and the paper I linked to show that abortion was always a grave sin as you agree to yourself. I am not certain what you are arguing about? It seems that as science developed the Church teaching became more refined. Is that not how teaching develops?

I am arguing that Vern is wholly incorrect in an assertion about legal history. A distinction in a fetus’ status of personhood has existed, both in secular and Church law, for, well, millenia before Roe v. Wade. Similiarly, many of the laws that Roe v. Wade overturned were relatively new (about a century old) and, themselves, made a distinction between an unborn and born fetus. This simple correction, which actually can be demonstrated in Vern’s documents, your documents, and mine, has triggered something I think of as conditioned, knee-jerk, pro-life chaf.

I, personally, think it is counter productive. Secular detractors can point to seemingly obvious moral mistakes and evidence of contradiction to historical revisionism. So, instead of viewing the matter as a slippery slope, I view our history as something to embrace. Viewed in context, I think our imperfections do not derail our beliefs and moral convictions but, instead, reinforce them. More imporantly, it is difficult to Spread the Word when even the pretense of dialog does not exist. Case in point, I started by saying, no, see what has been written in our own laws… And here we are having a non-debate about the morality of abortion.

Regarding your observation about science, it is an interesting one. But I actually think science has little to do with it. Some very bad science (in hindsight) influenced theologians pushing Simultaneous Animation in the 17th and 18th centurys, and some of that science may have influenced Pope Pius IX (though he specifically rejected simultaneous animation) but I think it has a lot more to do with the Church realizing that, ultimately, you can only lead the willing. So, seemingly like God, we have had to take some things in steps. Start with our nature, she hits him, he kills her… So God gave us “an eye for an eye”. Once we accepted that concept of proportional justice, the bar was raised further to “turn the other cheek”.

The church’s approach to abortion is similiar, starting with a large, gentile, laity with no existing mores against infanticide we had ‘killing a baby after it moves inside the mother is murder’. Now, in even secular society this is well accepted (3rd trimester abortions are illegal in 40 states and exceedingly rare (almost always a health problem is involved). And the church has raised the bar higher. Abortion is an absolute, always gravely immoral.

Non Catholic society is just not there yet. You’ll find many self described Christians claim that they think abortion is OK for rape and incest. But even most Catholics have not really caught up to the Magesterium. Remember, for most of Church history abortions to save the life of the mother have been tolerated (or even sanctioned). Now, the Church has spoken unequivically (for essentially all of the 20th century), but it is a Church teaching that is still overwhelmingly ignored by the faithful.

Best Regards

 

[fix]

Today, 1/3-1/2 of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion before the mother is even aware of them and about 1/5 of those detected end in miscarriage in the first trimester. In ages past, fetal death and miscarriages were dramatically higher. This is hard to reconcile with a loving and forgiving God. Seriously, why create so many souls just to quickly remove them from the earth. So theologists reasoned that the imperfection was us, biologically, perhaps due to original sin. And that God waits to create a soul until we provide a suitable vessal. Again, this does not make them right, but it is a reasonable way of thinking about the world as they knew it.

I have never understood that argument. The large number of spontaneous abortions is like many other natural evils. We live in a fallen world.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Just once I’d like to see a published, peer-reviewed scientific study that confirms when “personhood” begins.

Whether or not an embryo is alive or human isn’t a religious question. It is a scientific question, and it is one that the science of embryology definitively answers. A developing human embryo is alive and human. To say otherwise is absurd.

– Mark L. Chance.

Every living human being has the right to life, as part of the human condition. If we don’t – if the right to life is conferred on us by some human agency (society, the government), then it isn’t a right at all but a privilige. And priviliges can be revoked or withheld.

The unborn child is alive, has human DNA and has its own DNA. Scientifically, it is a living human being. End of story.

 

[fix]

I am arguing that Vern is wholly incorrect in an assertion about legal history. A distinction in a fetus’ status of personhood has existed, both in secular and Church law, for, well, millenia before Roe v. Wade. Similiarly, many of the laws that Roe v. Wade overturned were relatively new (about a century old) and, themselves, made a distinction between an unborn and born fetus. This simple correction, which actually can be demonstrated in Vern’s documents, your documents, and mine, has triggered something I think of as conditioned, knee-jerk, pro-life chaf.

I believe part of the problem is anti Catholic folks try to assert the Church has reversed Herself in this topic therefore She is not infallible. As we see there was no reversal, only a deeper understanding.

I, personally, think it is counter productive. Secular detractors can point to seemingly obvious moral mistakes and evidence of contradiction to historical revisionism. So, instead of viewing the matter as a slippery slope, I view our history as something to embrace. Viewed in context, I think our imperfections do not derail our beliefs and moral convictions but, instead, reinforce them. More imporantly, it is difficult to Spread the Word when even the pretense of dialog does not exist. Case in point, I started by saying, no, see what has been written in our own laws… And here we are having a non-debate about the morality of abortion.

So, sometimes we talk past each other.

Regarding your observation about science, it is an interesting one. But I actually think science has little to do with it. Some very bad science (in hindsight) influenced theologians pushing Simultaneous Animation in the 17th and 18th centurys, and some of that science may have influenced Pope Pius IX (though he specifically rejected simultaneous animation) but I think it has a lot more to do with the Church realizing that, ultimately, you can only lead the willing. So, seemingly like God, we have had to take some things in steps. Start with our nature, she hits him, he kills her… So God gave us “an eye for an eye”. Once we accepted that concept of proportional justice, the bar was raised further to “turn the other cheek”.

It seems you are arguing two separate issues here? The Church penalties have varied and we all agree. But, you seem to argue those changes are somehow related to Her teaching of objective moral reasoning? Abortion was always held as a sin.

The church’s approach to abortion is similiar, starting with a large, gentile, laity with no existing mores against infanticide we had ‘killing a baby after it moves inside the mother is murder’. Now, in even secular society this is well accepted (3rd trimester abortions are illegal in 40 states and exceedingly rare (almost always a health problem is involved). And the church has raised the bar higher. Abortion is an absolute, always gravely immoral.

Ok

Non Catholic society is just not there yet. You’ll find many self described Christians claim that they think abortion is OK for rape and incest. But even most Catholics have not really caught up to the Magesterium. Remember, for most of Church history abortions to save the life of the mother have been tolerated (or even sanctioned). Now, the Church has spoken unequivically (for essentially all of the 20th century), but it is a Church teaching that is still overwhelmingly ignored by the faithful.

Best Regards

Ok

 

[SoCalRC]

Then why post all the rest of this verbiage?

I showed how the Church, through various prominent churchmen, condemned abortion from the beginnoing. That ought to be the end of the story.

But the only thing I contested was your assertion about legal history. But, probably because of my triggering an emotional response you started firing your standard salvo. A lot of which I believe was used out of context or in otherwise misleading ways.

I think that knowledge is power, so I tend to address many raised points. I ellaborate because it does little good to simply say ‘you are wrong, read here’. That is simply being insulting with no effort to be helpful. I know you don’t see it as helpful, but maybe in the future you will change your mind.

Imagine this, you argue with someone who is ‘pro choice’. You pull out your canned Tertullian quote. The person you are arguing with pulls out the same quote in full context and says, ‘dude, he approves of abortion if the mother is in danger or the baby is simply deformed!’ Or, they point out that Tertullian ended his life a heretic (hence his failure to achieve saint status) and that his teachings about conception and souls is deeply heretical (Traducianism or Generationalism). They won’t convince you (any more than you will convince them), but people observing, who might be open to understanding our beliefs will find your arguments less compelling.

Best Regards,

 

[vern_humphrey]

But the only thing I contested was your assertion about legal history.

I never made an assertion about “legal history.”

My points are:

1. The Catholic Church has always considered abortion to be a serious sin.
2. The term “person” was never considered to be something different and above the term “human” until after Roe v. Wade. That particular useage is a neologism, invented to defend that indefensible ruling.

 

[SoCalRC]

The unborn child is alive, has human DNA and has its own DNA. Scientifically, it is a living human being. End of story.

OK, lots of fertilized zygotes end up as uterine cysts. Living tissue, with DNA unique from the mother. Are you certain that these natural phenomena are human beings? This is just an example of some of the many reasons that the Church has held on to the concept of ensoulment instead of embracing simultaneous animation.

mlchance’s question is a good one. There has actually been a lot of scientific research into fetal development. However, I am not sure that secular medical ethics really apply. For a long time, many medical ethicists used a concept of viability. What is the earliest point, with all medical technology available, that we can consistantly keep a fetus alive outside the womb and have a reasonable chance of it reaching maturity.

The problem is that it is not a very exact measurement, has continuously moved, and gives little guidance at either birth or end of life. Today, many medical ethicists use the concept of conciousness. Not alert and awake, but a brain capable of generating certain brainwaves and activity. Not a perfect measure, but a more detectable line, which is more helpful for doctors. In a fetus, synapses form quite suddenly at about 25 weeks.

Again, this is not a substitute for Church moral teachings. But, if anyone is interested, I could suggest further reading.

Best Regards