Thread re-opened.

As a reminder please remember that insidiously flattering one another with personal attacks will only end up in a dreaded warning, otherwise please continue with the debates and keep your heads cool.

Moreover the pill sometimes results in the rejection of an implanted egg.

Islam seems split even amongst the schools.

Originally posted by gcle2003 When the situation changed in the US I don't know, but there would necessarily be 9th Amendment issues involved. The Roman Catholic position only changed to considering life beginning at conception in 1869 (Pope Pius IX), until then life - 'ensoulment' was assumed to begin, as in England and the medieval and early modern world generally, when the fetus quickened.   Early Christianity, probably because of the influence of some Jewish thinkers, banned abortion, and as I udnerstand it, the Orthodox tradion kept to that, but St Augustine, St Jerome, Pope Innocent III and St Thomas accepted the Aristotelian concept of abortion being legitimate in the early stages - i.e. prior to ensoulment.   Majority Jewish thinking however takes the position that the fetus only becomes fully human on emergence from the womb: however, various schools interpret abortion as unacceptable, particularly after a quickening period, as being a interference with the emergence of a potential human. Abortion to save the mother is on the whole seen rather as self-defence on the part of the mother.

Well, as far as I know the canonical prohibition against abortion has always held in both the East and the West, and that separate from the debate over the moment of ensoulment. Whether or not it has been considered "murder" has been the subject of discussion in the West on several occasions. Generally among the earliest fathers -- and here I am speaking from memory, so forgive me if I am mistaken -- the child was thought to be a separate human being from the moment of conception. Augustine did represent a shift in that, while still condemning the practice of abortion, he asserted a distinction between an animate and an inanimate child in the womb. Still, he suggested that the inanimate child may yet be given a place at the resurrection of the dead. Eventually, Thomas Aquinas drew further distinctions -- between several different stages of soul development -- vegetative, animal, and rational. Still, these distinctions had more to do with whether or not abortion and murder were the same criminal act; both affirmed that abortion was an offense against human life. The question of ensoulment is generally not discussed as much in the East, which does not view it as directly pertinent to the question over whether or not abortion constitutes murder. Saint Basil explicitly affirms that no "subtle distinction" is to be made between a formed and an unformed fetus, and that in both cases an abortion is a murder. Interestingly enough, Eastern theology holds an exception for cases in which a mother's life is at stake -- and suggests that she and her family should seek the counsel of her spiritual father, while keeping in mind that two lives are at stake. The Roman Church generally only holds an "exception" in cases where the principle of "double effect" would apply (eg. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, if the fallopian tissue were already destroyed, it could be removed, which would have the result -- but not the goal -- of killing the child). Forgive me, but I am less familiar with Roman canon law post-Schism than I should be.

Generally, the advent of modern genetic research has resolved the vestigial remnants of the debate over ensoulment, and it is now almost universally held in East and West that the soul is present from the moment of conception -- the East generally did not address the question with the same degree of philosophical sophistication; the West has come full circle on this, as the earliest fathers and apologists in both East and West tended not to speculate all that much about Aristotelian notions of ensoulment (cf. Tertullian, although, forgive me, I can't recall where).

As for why the early fathers were so convinced, in contrast to some Jewish and Greek philosophers, that ensoulment took place at the moment of conception, I'm not entirely sure, but I could propose a hypothesis and an explanation of where it came from. From Apostolic times the Church has been opposed to what is often translated as "sorcery" in English editions of the Bible (as in Galatians 5: 19). The word is φαρμακεία, and it describes a wide variety of practices, of which administering abortofacients is one. Coupled with this is the fact that the early apologists found it necessary to affirm the Church's stance on abortion as a refutation of the charges of cannibalism and infanticide that were constantly levelled against the early-Christians by their pagan and Jewish critics. Thus, the principle that the child is ensouled from the moment of conception serves as a demonstration of the absurdity that Christians, who prohibited even the destruction of the child while yet in the womb, were would kill the child once it had been born, or to feast on human flesh during agape meals. I hope that adds a bit of perspective; feel free to ask me to clarify once I'm back with my books.

-Akolouthos

Akolouthos:  "Coupled with this is the fact that the early apologists found it necessary to affirm the Church's stance on abortion as a refutation of the charges of cannibalism and infanticide that were constantly levelled against the early-Christians by their pagan and Jewish critics. Thus, the principle that the child is ensouled from the moment of conception serves as a demonstration of the absurdity that Christians, who prohibited even the destruction of the child while yet in the womb, were would kill the child once it had been born, or to feast on human flesh during agape meals. I hope that adds a bit of perspective; feel free to ask me to clarify once I'm back with my books.
-Akolouthos "

Edited by Cryptic - 15-Jun-2009 at 20:03

Originally posted by Carcharodon Akolouthos:  "Coupled with this is the fact that the early apologists found it necessary to affirm the Church's stance on abortion as a refutation of the charges of cannibalism and infanticide that were constantly levelled against the early-Christians by their pagan and Jewish critics. Thus, the principle that the child is ensouled from the moment of conception serves as a demonstration of the absurdity that Christians, who prohibited even the destruction of the child while yet in the womb, were would kill the child once it had been born, or to feast on human flesh during agape meals. I hope that adds a bit of perspective; feel free to ask me to clarify once I'm back with my books. -Akolouthos "   It is a bit ironic that today some Christian missionaries are accusing Native Americans in the Amazon region for infanticide. Also many times earlier missionaires has accused diverse indigenous peoples for cannibalism. In the case of the infanticide charges, missionaries in Brasil are now acting for a law that makes it possible to remove native children from their parents. This is a part of a western tradition in removing children from their indigenous parents to gain control over their upbringing and education that earleir has been executed in both the US and in Australia.

Don't see what that has to do with the discussion, but okay.

On a serious note, I am not familiar with the situation to which you have referred, but yes, that is a part of the Western tradition -- though it is not part and parcel of Christianity. Generally, as we have said before, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been fairly respectful of indigenous cultures, even incorporating those local traditions that can be incorporated into a Christian framework. Historically, Protestant missionaries have been less so; take the situation that existed among Alaskan natives until fairly recently. As far as the irony goes, I don't see it (at least not a great deal of it); the situations are quite historically distinct.

-Akolouthos

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by Seko Take my word on it - something else was the case.  I believe you. What was probably shown was the graphic murder of a human being.

While I agree with your stance on the issue, and while I think that people need to be exposed to these images, this is not the place in which to do so. The CoC specifically prohibits graphic images in general. Most people on this forum are aware of what these images look like, even if some try not to think about the reality -- for those who are not aware, I would encourage them to look at some of the images. That said, we cannot post them on this forum anymore than we could post graphic pictures of any other murder, a war-zone, etc.

-Akolouthos

Originally posted by Carcharodon Recently, in connection with the election to the EU parliament, a female politician here in Sweden said that she thinks that the right to abortion is a human right and should be considered so also internationally. Many women (and also men) here in Sweden agree with her point of view. But some people also disagree, especially religios christians.   What do you think, is abortion a human right or is it something bad that should be forbidden?

If i may ask, was it Gudrun Schyman that called that a human right? She's the only one i can think of using those words.

I wouldn't call it human right but a necessity for some people. If i personally had a problem with unexpected pregnancy, i would simply swallow it and take responsibility for my actions. It would really kill me, to think that i've killed an embryo just for a f*ck. And i'm not christian to take it to some theological theory. For me it's a matter of ethics and responsibility.

On the other side, some very young people are standing with a dilema of being a parent while not being able to take care of themselves (personaly and financially). In that case a child might bring chaos in their lives and the option of keeping the baby requires nerves of steel and an "express growup".

Some might say that back in the days youngsters became parents and grew up wonderful children and therefore people today should do the same. However, in our times the standards are different. You don't bring a child to the world if you can't provide it a quality of living, meaning that you have a job and you can support yourself. In such cases i understand the choise of some people that were "unlucky" or had "an accident" let's say.

However, I strongly condemn people who frequently do not take precautions and are predetermined that if a child arrives they will make an abortion. Those are pittyful and usually they've done it more than two or three times in their lives.

What is worrying is that someone in Sweden with influence said that and some people tend to take such things as a dogma ("Det är en mänsklig rättighet att göra abort!" some will claim with passion). The abortion rate is already high and i'm afraid if the term "human right" is passed to the people the rate will explode.


PS: I lost a brother when i was a kid, that had never the chance to get born (for physical reasons not abortion) and that's why i feel i have a sentimental view on this subject and i know an unborn human is still a human with the difference we've never seen him/her.


Edited by Flipper - 16-Jun-2009 at 08:51

Akolouthos:  Don't see what that has to do with the discussion, but okay.

On a serious note, I am not familiar with the situation to which you have referred, but yes, that is a part of the Western tradition -- though it is not part and parcel of Christianity. Generally, as we have said before, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been fairly respectful of indigenous cultures, even incorporating those local traditions that can be incorporated into a Christian framework. Historically, Protestant missionaries have been less so; take the situation that existed among Alaskan natives until fairly recently. As far as the irony goes, I don't see it (at least not a great deal of it); the situations are quite historically distinct.

-Akolouthos


Edited by Carcharodon - 16-Jun-2009 at 20:57