science (in)tolerance

[Jayhawker Soule]

Me either..
If you find out let me know please.

~Victor

According to ReligiousTolerance.org

Pope Innocent III (?-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

 

[Quiddity]

According to ReligiousTolerance.org

Well thank God he didn't make it official doctrine. Me along with many others would have challenged him on it:

The Didache: A.D. 70
"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).

“The Way of Death is filled with people who are
... murderers of children and abortionists of
God's creatures.” (Didache 5:1-2)

The Letter of Barnabas: A.D 74
"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).

The Apocalypse of Peter: A.D. 137
"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).

Athenagoras: A.D. 177
"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).

Tertullian: A.D. 197
"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).

“Thus, you read the word of God, spoken to Jeremias: ‘Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee.’ If God forms us in the womb, He also breathes on us as He did in the beginning: ‘And God formed man and breathed into him the breath of life.’ Nor could God have known man in the womb unless he were a whole man. ‘And before thou camest forth from the womb, I sanctified thee.’ Was it, then, a dead body at that stage? Surely it was not, for ‘God is the God of the living and not the dead.’” (De Anima 26.5)

“It is not permissible for us to destroy the seed by means of illicit manslaughter once it has been conceived in the womb, so long as blood remains in the person” (Apologia cap 25 line 24)

Basil: (A.D. 329-379)
“To Anfilochius, Bishop of Iconia:
She who has intentionally destroyed [the fetus] is subject to the penalty corresponding to a homicide. For us, there is no scrutinizing between the formed and unformed [fetus]; here truly justice is made not only for the unborn but also with reference to the person who is attentive only to himself/herself since so many women generally die for this very reason.”(First Letter 2)

“…those who give the abortifacients and those who take the poisons are guilty of homicide.” (First Letter 8)

Jerome: (A.D. 347-420)
“You may see many women widows before wedded, who try to conceal their miserable fall by a lying garb. Unless they are betrayed by swelling wombs or by the crying of their infants, they walk abroad with tripping feet and heads in the air. 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.”

 

[JerryL]

I agree with Ceridwen... biology will determine when an embryo becomes a human. In fact, I think it already has!

"human" isn't the question. The question is "when is it a person"

The standard at the time of writing was from "quickening" (about 23 weeks), which (BTW) is also the standard in several states for when someone attacking a pregnant woman and killing the baby is guilty of murder. That said, there are also foundational writings which explicitly say "born person".

 

[AtheistAJ]

I agree. There's just no sense in allowing facts to inform one's opinions.

Should not change the subject, there are abortion topics for that.

 

[Scott1]

Well thank God he didn't make it official doctrine. Me along with many others would have challenged him on it

Amen, brother... the development of dogma/doctrine seems to confuse a lot of people.... thanks for the quotes.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Well thank God he didn't make it official doctrine. Me along with many others would have challenged him on it:

No offense, but I doubt that you would be challenging it now if Pope Innocent III had made it official doctrine. You don't challenge the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Infallibility, etc., so why would you question doctrine specifying that the soul enters a baby when it becomes animated, of all things?

As for the quotes you posted, they are completely philosophical/theological, and do not deal with the actual science and biology of a pregnancy in the least. Its all fine and well that those people thought those things, but could they have backed up their opinions with facts?

 

[Quiddity]

No offense, but I doubt that you would be challenging it now if Pope Innocent III had made it official doctrine.

Perhaps you are right. But since I don't believe a Pope can make official an erroneous doctrine, it is not something I worry about. God knows that the hundreds of Popes have had a chance.

You don't challenge the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Infallibility, etc., so why would you question doctrine specifying that the soul enters a baby when it becomes animated, of all things?

Because I have read enough Church writings to say otherwise. That can't be said of the others. Granted you'll have this theologian and that Bishop uproaring about a particular teaching but the volumes teaching for it are more numerous. I also don't want to you to think this is a numbers game. Because it's not. If you want to understand how catholics know where to get official doctrine I explained it here: Post#59
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18554&page=6&pp=10Catholic Church never changed doctrine

As for the quotes you posted, they are completely philosophical/theological, and do not deal with the actual science and biology of a pregnancy in the least. Its all fine and well that those people thought those things, but could they have backed up their opinions with facts?

You are asking for facts from men who had limited resources at their time? No lab, no nothing. What exactly were you expecting Ceridwen? All Catholic teachings comes down as thoughts to this day. Sorry, but the Church doesn't have a trip to Mt. Sanai to see God or a lab where you can see a sperm and egg unite with the word "life" written on it. I take truth in whatever form it comes. Even if it comes from you...

~Victor

 

[Ceridwen018]

No lab, no nothing. What exactly were you expecting Ceridwen?

I'm expecting for you to not take their word on it, for the exact reasons you mentioned.