Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
JOKER96BRAVO said:OK.... before any one responds let me catch my mistake.
Yes i know the freedom of press allows them to do this,
My point is by this theory it would be wrong to judge a solider
or the war unless you have "walked a mile in their shoes".
I just get upset to hear that abortion has become an acceptance (even if small)
in our society. If it is so natural and right then why don't we do what animals
in the wild do??? They eat their unwanted young. IMHO abortion degrades
our grand society as a whole and teaches our children that it is ok to not be
responsable. Like I said JMHO.
ajwps said:Submit away.... I have given you bible chapter and verse that states clearly and unambiguously that the human soul is not in the forming fetus. You simply ignore the Bible validation and find yourself (and Bonnie) to revise the Bible itself.
Your arguements have no substance but simply your own feelings and emotions attempting to prove the Bible incorrect.
Most people believe that the Roman Catholic Churchs position on abortion has remained unchanged for two thousand years. Not true. Church teaching on abortion has varied continually over the course of its history. There has been no unanimous opinion on abortion at any time. While there has been constant general agreement that abortion is almost always evil and sinful, the church has had difficulty in defining the nature of that evil. Members of the Catholic hierarchy have opposed abortion consistently as evidence of sexual sin, but they have not always seen early abortion as homicide. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the "right-to-life" argument is a relatively recent development in church teaching. The debate continues today.
Also contrary to popular belief, no pope has proclaimed the prohibition of abortion an "infallible" teaching. This fact leaves much more room for discussion on abortion than is usually thought, with opinions among theologians and the laity differing widely. In any case, Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their personal conscience in moral matters, even when their conscience is in conflict with hierarchical views.
The campaign by Pope John Paul II to make his position on abortion the defining one at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 was just one leg of a long journey of shifting views within the Catholic church. In the fifth century a.d., St. Augustine expressed the mainstream view that early abortion required penance only for sexual sin. Eight centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas agreed, saying abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was "ensouled," and ensoulment, he was sure, occurred well after conception. The position that abortion is a serious sin akin to murder and is grounds for excommunication only became established 150 years ago.
A brief chronology cannot do justice to the twists and turns of theological thinking through the centuries. It can, however, put the abortion debate within the Catholic church into historical perspective and show the importance of continued debate and of open hearts and minds.
The First Six Christian Centuries
Early Christianity: Moving Away from Paganism
Pagan religions had a calm acceptance of abortion and contraception, including the use of barrier methods, coitus interruptus, and various medicines that prevented contraception or caused abortion.
Early Christian leaders, distinguishing Christianity from pagan beliefs, developed ideas about contraception and abortion, marriage and procreation, and the unity of body and soul. They taught that sex even for reproduction was bad and sex for pleasure heinous. Chastity became a virtue in its own right.
100 a.d.: The Debate Begins
One of the earliest church documents, the Didache, condemns abortion but asks two critical questions: 1) Is abortion being used to conceal the sins of fornication and adultery? and 2) Does the fetus have a rational soul from the moment of conception, or does it become an "ensouled human" at a later point? The matter of "hominization" -- the point at which a developing embryo or fetus becomes a human being -- would become one of the cornerstones of debate about abortion, and it remains a subject of debate even today.
St. Augustine: Early Abortion Is Not Homicide
St. Augustine (354-430) condemned abortion because it breaks the connection between sex and procreation.1 However, in the Enchiridion, he says, "But who is not rather disposed to think that unformed fetuses perish like seeds which have not fructified"--clearly seeing hominization as beginning or occurring at some point after the fetus has begun to grow. He held that abortion was not an act of homicide. Most theologians of his era agreed with him.
In a disciplinary sense, the general agreement at this time was that abortion was a sin requiring penance if it was intended to conceal fornication and adultery.
The Middle Period: 600-1500
circa 675: Illicit Intercourse is a Greater Sin
The Irish Canons place the penance for "destruction of the embryo of a child in the mothers womb [at] three and one half years," while the "penance of one who has intercourse with a woman, seven years on bread and water."2
circa 8th Century: Recognizing Womens Circumstances
In the Penitential Ascribed by Albers to Bede, the idea of delayed hominization is again supported, and womens circumstances acknowledged: "A mother who kills her child before the fortieth day shall do penance for one year. If it is after the child has become alive, [she shall do penance] as a murderess. But it makes a great difference whether a poor woman does it on account of the difficulty of supporting [the child] or a harlot for the sake of concealing her wickedness."3
1140: Abortion of an Unformed Fetus Is Not Homicide
In 1140, Gratian compiled the first collection of canon law that was accepted as authoritative within the church. Gratians code included the canon Aliquando, which concluded that "abortion was homicide only when the fetus was formed."4 If the fetus was not yet a formed human being, abortion was not homicide.
1312: "Delayed Hominization" Confirmed
The Council of Vienne, still very influential in Catholic hierarchical teaching, confirmed the conception of man put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas. While Aquinas had opposed abortion -- as a form of contraception and a sin against marriage -- he had maintained that the sin in abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was ensouled, and thus, a human being. Aquinas had said the fetus is first endowed with a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and then -- when its body is developed -- a rational soul. This theory of "delayed hominization" is the most consistent thread throughout church history on abortion.5
Pre-Modern Period: 1500-1750
1588: Abortions Penalty Becomes Excommunication
Concerned about prostitution in Rome, Pope Sixtus V issued the bull Effraenatam (Without Restraint) and applied to both contraception and abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, the penalty designated for homicide: excommunication. There was no exception for therapeutic abortion.6
1591: Rules Quickly Relaxed
Only three years after Pope Sixtus V issued Effraenatam, he died. His successor, Gregory XIV, felt Sixtuss stand was too harsh and was in conflict with penitential practices and theological views on ensoulment. He issued Sedes Apostolica, which advised church officials, "where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does."7 This papal pronouncement lasted until 1869.
1679: Pregnant Girls Facing Murder by Their Families
Consistently, abortion had been considered wrong if used to conceal sexual sins. Taking this idea to its extreme, Pope Innocent XI declared abortion impermissible even when a girls parents were likely to murder her for having become pregnant.
The church was still teaching delayed hominization, sure only that hominization occurred some time before birth.
The Modern Era: 1750-Present
1869: Excommunication for All Abortions
Completely ignoring the question of hominization, Pope Pius IX wrote in Apostolicae Sedis in 1869 that excommunication is the required penalty for abortion at any stage of pregnancy.8 He said all abortion was homicide. His statement was an implicit endorsement -- the churchs first -- of immediate hominization.
1917: Doctors and Nurses Targeted
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, the first new edition since Gratians code in 1140, required excommunication both for a woman who aborts and for any others, such as doctors and nurses, who take part in an abortion.9
1930: Therapeutic Abortions Condemned
In his encyclical Casti Connubii (Of Chaste Spouses), Pope Pius XI condemned abortion in general, and specifically in three instances: in the case of therapeutic abortion, which he called the killing of an innocent; in marriage to prevent offspring; and on social and eugenic grounds, as practiced by some governments.10
Piuss stance on abortion remains the hierarchical view today. The encyclical Casti Connubii did not purport to be infallible teaching, but as an address by the pope to the bishops, it carries great authority.
1965: Protection from the Moment of Conception
The Second Vatican Council, in Gaudium et Spes (section 51), declared: "Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes." Here, abortion is now condemned on the basis of protecting life, not as a concealment of sexual sin.
1974: The "Right-to-Life" Argument
In 1974, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued the "Declaration on Procured Abortion," which opposes abortion on the grounds that "one can never claim freedom of opinion as a pretext for attacking the rights of others, most especially the right to life." The key to this position is that the fetus is human life from the moment of conception, if not necessarily a full human being. With this position, the church has fully changed the terms of its argument.
Today: Abortion Ban Is Absolute
The Catholic church hierarchy today does not permit abortion in any instance, not even in case of rape or as a direct way of saving the life of a pregnant woman.
Notes
1. St. Augustine, De nuptiis et concupiscentia, 1.15.17 (CSEL 42.229-230).
2. John T. McNeill and Helena M. Gamer, Medieval Handbooks of Penance (New York: Octagon Books, 1974), pp. 119-120.
3. McNeil and Gamer, p. 225.
4. John T. Noonan, ed., The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspectives, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), p.20.
5. Joseph F. Donceel, S.J., "Immediate Animation and Delayed Hominization," Theological Studies, vols. 1 & 2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), pp. 86-88.
6. Codicis iuris fontes, ed. P. Gasparri, vol. 1 (Rome, 1927), p. 308.
7. Ibid., pp. 330-331.
8. Actae Sanctae Sedis, 5:298.
9. Codex iuris canonici, c. 2350.
10. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 22:539-92.
musicman said:AJ:
"Why must you insist that paraphrasing you on post #147...was a lie?...give us a little of that infinite wisdom of yours." Maybe you weren't lying. Maybe you're just really that dim. "Try to understand that the Supreme Court is restricted to interpretation of the Constitution..." Then, what is it's constitutional justification for meddling in behaviors, such as abortion, that are clearly beyond it's purview? "Do you think that the people...are interested in legislating morality into this document...?" No - and I think they're fed up with morality being legislated by the Supreme Court, in clear violation OF that document. The SC are interpreters of the constitutionality of law, not social engineers. Roe vs. Wade is an example of an "activist" judiciary overstepping it's bounds, and legislating morality. "Really you could have fooled me." No kidding. Evidently, I fooled you out of your socks on post #147. "Human nature for procreation are built into mankind for the preservation of our homosapien species." And this is justification for abortion on demand - people are going to have sex anyway??!! I'm really hungry, AJ. Do you mind if I knock you senseless with a two-by-four, so I can take your money and buy something to eat? Human nature for hunger is built into me for the preservation of myself. God forbid I should exercise any self-control, or get a job, or anything like that. I said, *Wow - both the right, middle, AND left? Amazing!* Your eyes-closed tight, roundhouse whiff of a reply: "It is amazing that you can understand the basic concept that human beings blahblahblah entire political spectrum blahblahblah sitting at your feet blahblahblah godlike pronouncements blahblahblah." In other words, you entirely missed my point. Again. BOTH THE RIGHT, MIDDLE, AND LEFT. Think about it. I'll allow your bizarre interpretation of the Book of Genesis to speak for itself. Nothing I add could convict you more eloquently.
ajwps said:I see you are having difficulty with the US Constitution and the SC relative to creating new laws or simply protecting those that already exist. The Constitution was made to evolve with changing times, technology and the protections afforded to citizens of the United States.
Please allow me to ask you a simple question.
Would you consider the destruction of one cell on the surface of your
skin as an abortion of a living human being?
ajwps said:ScreamingEagle: It appears to me that the crux of ajwps's argument is that an unborn baby has no "soul" and thus not to be considered "human life" and therefore it's OK to kill the unborn baby. His argument hinges upon his belief in the Bible and what he perceives it to say.
I would like to ask then why the Catholic Church believes in human life at conception if the Bible states "clearly and unambiguously that the human soul is not in the forming fetus"? Do you have an inside track of Biblical knowledge that the Catholic Church somehow missed for centuries?
Like musicman the Catholic church base their position on abortion by very personal opinions. I thought the following post enlightening about the Catholic church's varing opinions on abortion?
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/articles/history.asp
rtwngAvngr said:Since you can't see me, let me say this: your analogy is ridiculous, your thought process assinine, and your integrity nil.
Bonnie said:So Now AJ you are equating a piece of dead skin in the same league as a tiny little group of cells, that has a face toes, fingers, moves, breathes oxygen from its mother, has a beating heart, and lungs..........?????? Unblievable!!!!
ScreamingEagle said:You nicely avoided my question: Do you have an inside track of Biblical knowledge that the Catholic Church somehow missed for centuries?
Interesting history of the Catholic Church's views on abortion. However, it does appear that they have been against abortion for centuries, although there has been some question in the past about the earlier stages of pregnancy.
DKSuddeth said:the embryo does not have a beating heart until around 3 weeks of fetal development.
deaddude said:The basic argument here is whether or not (human) life begins at conception. There is no argument that life begins at conception, they may just be four cells, but they are alive God damn it.
Then theoretically life begins before conception. The sperm cell and the egg cell are both living organisms after all. Most people do not hold those cells to be human life (ergo masturbation is not murder).
The troubling question then is when human life begins. Is it human life when they are four cells wiggling to their cytoplasm's content? When do those four cells cease to be cells and begin to be babies? Since the cells are incapable of communicating with us we cannot know, we can only guess and opinionate. At what number of cells does the fetus feel emotions?
From the Bible in the original language, it when G-d breathes the LIFE FORCE or SOUL into its nostrils with its first breath on earth and out of its mother. But everyone thinks this is contorted and unreal. What the heck does G-d know about this anyway?In the religious stand point: when are those four cells endowed with a soul?
64% of the population is willing to accept Abortion in (and only in) the cases of Rape, Incest, and cases where the mother's life is endangered. This is middle ground people, compromise forms the basis of our system of government.
Live with it.
JOKER96BRAVO said:Ok....
so if were going to use the bible as a reference guide here let's examine
a few things. Jesus said that it is better to spill your seed in a whore than on the
ground. got it. so what I get from that is masturbation is frowned upon. The
book also says that you shouldn't have premarital sex. ok got it. I think
we're getting to a point. Sex was created for the purpose of reprodution
to use it in any other fashion (as we do today) is wrong. So why is using
abortion as a method of birth control right??? Maybe it's because society
has made sex acceptable as an activity and ignored it's true purpose. It's
easy to justify wrong doing with the science of the nature when the fact is
it's still wrong, murder or not. the soul purpose of sex is to reproduce.
I agree that there are times when it would seem logical such as incest or rape or even if the mother's life is in danger, but that all goes back to using sex as an activity doesn't it??? With the exception of the mother's life. So how do we fix the REAL problem???
deaddude said:Ajwps, you will notice that I used life and human life seperately, I meant them to be seperate. Please reread my post through this context.
The basic argument here is whether or not (human) life begins at conception.
There is no argument that life begins at conception, they may just be four cells, but they are alive God damn it. Then theoretically life begins before conception. The sperm cell and the egg cell are both living organisms after all. Most people do not hold those cells to be human life (ergo masturbation is not murder).
The troubling question then is when human life begins. Is it human life when they are four cells wiggling to their cytoplasm's content? When do those four cells cease to be cells and begin to be babies? Since the cells are incapable of communicating with us we cannot know, we can only guess and opinionate. At what number of cells does the fetus feel emotions?
In the religious stand point: when are those four cells endowed with a soul?
64% of the population is willing to accept Abortion in (and only in) the cases of Rape, Incest, and cases where the mother's life is endangered. This is middle ground people, compromise forms the basis of our system of government.
Live with it.
