Why the liberals are RIGHT about pro-abortion!

[Orthodox Christian]

"This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard."

How old would the glutton and drunkard be?
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0521.htm

(scroll down)

.

What a sweet and lovely bible God you serve, Gary! Drunkards get killed! Sounds a bit like that other religion from the Middle East...

All this as opposed to today, when drunks and drug addicts are treated and shown priniciples by which to live and overcome their sin-sickness. Why the change from rocks to hugs? Jesus Christ, Gary. Serve Him, not your bible.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

OC claims: "I'm interested in defending the character and message of Christ, as opposed to a book."

... and you don't use the Bible to do that?

:-?

I use the Gospel to do that Gary.

 

[Gary]

OC claims: "I'm interested in defending the character and message of Christ, as opposed to a book."

... and you don't use the Bible to do that?

:-?

I use the Gospel to do that Gary.

And where did you read about that Gospel? In a book or not? Or are you relying on your Bishop to tell you what that Gospel is?

.

 

[Quath]

Not to mention the children devoured by bears for calling the prophet a cue ball and inviting him to drop dead.

Not worth more than this:

Question from the skeptics: "...wasn't Elisha very cruel when he sent those bears against those little kids who were teasing him about being bald?"

Answer: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html

:wink:

So of all the choices God had like (1) making the youth hair fall out, (2) temporary paralysis of the youths, or (3) putting a protective shield around Elisha, God chose to have (4)bears tear up a few. Why does God chose violence, death and destruction as opposed to just as effective nonviolent options? Why did he want the youths to die from the violent bear attack. Wouldn't a heart attack or instant death have been more merciful and less painful?

Quath

 

[Cure of Ars]

Where did you get this information:
"The Catholic church supported abortion to an extent. They were against abortion, but only after the soul entered the embryo. I think this was 40 days for a boy and 80 days for a girl. I think this changed in the 1800's. "

Just curious since I don't believe the Church has ever varied from saying life begins at conception, not 40-80 days after. And how are we to know when a soul enters the body or leaves it for that matter?

From http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abortion.html:

However, these anti-abortion views were by no means universal. Based partly on the teachings of Aristotle and partly on the Bible, the traditional Christian view was that the fetus was not immediately infused with a soul upon conception: the male fetus acquired a soul forty days after conception, while the female fetus only acquired it eighty days after conception. Thus, St. Augustine (354-450) argued that there could be no talk of murder when the fetus has yet to acquire a soul. Based on Augustine's argument, the traditional position was generally that which stipulates abortion of the fetus within eighty days after conception as "permissible", or exempted from punishment.

In 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1521-1590), suspended this traditional ruling, and in his bull Effraenatam threatened anyone who practiced abortion, even within the eighty day period, with excommunication and the death penalty. His successor, Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591), revoked Sixtus ruling in 1591 and reverted to the traditional ruling which allows abortion within eighty days of conception.

The Augustinian idea of infusion of the soul on the fortieth and eightieth day for male and female respectively was never held as a universal truth by everyone in the Church. As a result of this uncertainty in the time of infusion, in 1869 Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) decided to forbid abortion from the moment of conception on the grounds of "prudence." This has been the official Catholic position down to the twentieth century: that abortion could be murder.

The Second Vatican Council (1965) however carried this issue further and condemned abortion unconditionally as an "unspeakable crime."

Thus we can see that the position of the Roman Catholic Church evolved from one of initial uncertainty through one of "prudence" to a final absolutist "abortion is murder".

I think the 40/80 day rule came about because Leviticus 12 says that if a woman has a baby boy, she is unlcean for 7 days and if she has a girl, she is unclean for 14 days (boys rule, girls drool). So that is how they doubled the time for soul entry for a girl. Not sure how they got 40 days.

Quath

Quath, this is a switcheroo. The Catholics Church has always said that abortion is a grave sin. It has never “supported abortionâ€Â. It is true that there has not been a unified consensus about when life begins but this does not mean that they did not think abortion was an evil act.

The Christian tradition
4. Some scholars, considering the prospective benefits to be derived from experimenting on human embryos, have alleged that the Christian tradition had already set a precedent for treating the early human embryo with 'graded status and protection'.3 In support of this it has been noted that there were seventh century books of penance ('Penitentials') which graded the level of penance for abortion according to whether the foetus was 'formed' or 'unformed'. The same distinction was invoked in Roman Catholic canon law which, from 1591 to 1869, imposed excommunication only for the abortion of a 'formed' foetus. Furthermore, St Thomas Aquinas, one of the most authoritative theologians of the Middle Ages, explicitly held that the human embryo did not possess a spiritual soul and was not a human being (homo) until forty days in the case of males or ninety in the case of females.4 Texts from the Fathers of the Church could easily be found to support a similar conclusion.

5. Nevertheless, the contention that for most of Christian history (until 1869) the human embryo has been considered to possess only a relative value -- such as might be outweighed by considerations of the general good -- relies on a misreading of the tradition. Even in the Middle Ages, when most Western Christians held that the early embryo was not yet fully human, it was held that the human embryo should never be attacked deliberately, however extreme the circumstances. To gain the proper historical perspective it is necessary to supply a wider context by incorporating other elements of that tradition.

6. The earliest Christian writings on the issue declared simply, 'you shall not murder a child by abortion'5: the embryo was held to be inviolable at every stage of its existence.6 The first Christian writings to consider the question of when human life began asserted that the spiritual soul was present from conception.7 As one account puts it: 'The Early Church adopted a critical attitude to the widespread practice of abortion and infanticide. It did so on the basis of a belief in the sanctity of human life; a belief which was in turn an expression of its faith in the goodness of creation and of God's particular care for humankind.'8

7. The earliest Church legislation also contains no reference to the distinction of formed and unformed,9 and St Basil the Great, who did consider it, saw it as a sophistical exercise in splitting hairs: 'We do not consider the fine distinction between formed and unformed.'10

8. In the fourth and fifth centuries some theologians argued that human life began at conception,11 some held that the spiritual soul was 'infused' at forty days or so12 (following Aristotle)13 and some held that the timing of the infusion of the soul was a mystery known to God alone.14 However, whatever their views about the precise moment when human life began, all Christians held that abortion was gravely wrong,15 an offense against God the Creator and either the killing of a child, or something very like the killing of a child. If it was not regarded as homicide in the strict sense, 'it was looked upon as anticipated homicide, or interpretive homicide, or homicide in intent, because it involved the destruction of a future man. It was always closely related to homicide.'16

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mis/m ... tion1.html


Quath, what you said is wrong and the post you cited is very misleading.

 

[Quath]

Quath, this is a switcheroo. The Catholics Church has always said that abortion is a grave sin. It has never “supported abortionâ€Â. It is true that there has not been a unified consensus about when life begins but this does not mean that they did not think abortion was an evil act.

I can see what you are saying, but overall, it is not a switcheroo. If at 30 days, a woman wants to abort her fetus, does the Catholic Church object? Today they would; in the past they would not. In that sense abortion (in the medical sense) was accepted by the church.

It also sheds light on a big problem. The Catholic church is founded a lot on tradition. Tradition said that the soul did not enter until at least 40 days. Yet later they thought they could be wrong.

If they could be wrong about this, how much else can they be wrong about? If there is spiritual guesswork in some places, is there spiritual guesswork in other places?

Quath

 

[Cure of Ars]

I can see what you are saying, but overall, it is not a switcheroo. If at 30 days, a woman wants to abort her fetus, does the Catholic Church object? Today they would; in the past they would not.

What is your evidence of this?

It also sheds light on a big problem. The Catholic Church is founded a lot on tradition. Tradition said that the soul did not enter until at least 40 days. Yet later they thought they could be wrong.

When humans get their soul is not a part of apostolic tradition. But abortion being a grave sin is.

If they could be wrong about this, how much else can they be wrong about? If there is spiritual guesswork in some places, is there spiritual guesswork in other places?

The Catholic Church is not wrong because it is not something that the Catholic Church has defined authoritatively. It has universally been taught and authoritatively defined that abortion is wrong.

 

[Quath]

I can see what you are saying, but overall, it is not a switcheroo. If at 30 days, a woman wants to abort her fetus, does the Catholic Church object? Today they would; in the past they would not.

What is your evidence of this?

I am not sure what evidence you are looking for. At different times, the Catholic Church had different stances on killing an embryo.

St. Augustine said that killing the embryo before ensoulment was only as bad as killing an animal or vegatable because a human soul could not live in an undeveloped human body. In the 700's, abortion was considered a lesser offence (120 days pentance) than oral sex (7 years to life). Pope Stephen V was against abortion at any time after conception. Pope Innocent III said there was no homocide if the fetus was not animated. (It was a sin, but a minor one.) Pope Sixtus V in 1588 issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" that punished abortion at any time with excommunication and death. Pope Gregory XIV removed this and reverted it back to 116 days.

So the Church has treated this many ways. If a woman goes back to the 700's, then her abortion would be seen as less bad than if she had oral sex.

The Catholic Church is not wrong because it is not something that the Catholic Church has defined authoritatively. It has universally been taught and authoritatively defined that abortion is wrong.

It is just the definition of abortion that has changed through the Church history.

Quath

 

[Cure of Ars]

Quath, religious tolerance .org is a poor source for information on the Catholic Church. They are motivated to make the Church look like they were not always in opposition to abortion. They are dishonest.


You said the following;

“The Catholic church supported abortion to an extent.â€Â

“If at 30 days, a woman wants to abort her fetus, does the Catholic Church object? Today they would; in the past they would not.â€Â

Both these statements are not true. None of the statements that you have made have shown that the Catholic Church “supported abortion†or even said that it was ok. The Catholic Church has been consistent that abortion at any time is a grave sin. You are right that it has not always been consistent on how grave the sin is. But so what, it has always been viewed as grave.

St. Augustine said that killing the embryo before ensoulment was only as bad as killing an animal or vegatable because a human soul could not live in an undeveloped human body.

Show me where he says this? Here are some quotes that show that he believed that abortion was a grave sin.

Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. -De Nube et Concupiscentia 1.17 (15)

Therefore brothers, you see how perverse they are and hastening wickedness, who are immature, they seek abortion of the conception before the birth; they are those who tell us, "I do not see that which you say must be believed." - Sermon 126, line 12

On the undeveloped fetus:
Hence in the first place arises a question about abortive conceptions, which have indeed been born in the mother's womb, but not so born that they could be born again. For if we shall decide that these are to rise again, we cannot object to any conclusion that may be drawn in regard to those which are fully formed. Now who is there that is not rather disposed to think that unformed abortions perish, like seeds that have never fructified? But who will dare to deny, though he may not dare to affirm, that at the resurrection every defect in the form shall be supplied, and that thus the perfection which time would have brought shall not be wanting, any more than the blemishes which time did bring shall be present: so that the nature shall neither want anything suitable and in harmony with it that length of days would have added, nor be debased by the presence of anything of an opposite kind that length of days has added; but that what is not yet complete shall be completed, just as what has been injured shall be renewed. -Enchiridion 23.85.4

Quotes from:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisteri ... stine.html

In the 700's, abortion was considered a lesser offence (120 days pentance) than oral sex (7 years to life).

Show me the original documents of this? Sodomy and abortions where still mortal sin. This does not show that the Catholic Church “supported†or did not consider it a mortal sin. In fact it shows just the opposite. (As a side not oral sex is permissible if it is used as foreplay and not used to avoid pregnancy the end of sexual intercourse.)

Innocent III said there was no homocide if the fetus was not animated. (It was a sin, but a minor one.)

Show me where Innocent III said that abortion of an unanimated fetus was a “minor sin†(i.e. venial sin)? To say it was a less sin than homicide is possible but I deny that it was not considered a grave sin.

Pope Sixtus V in 1588 issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" that punished abortion at any time with excommunication and death. Pope Gregory XIV removed this and reverted it back to 116 days.

The change in punishment does not show that abortion was not believed to be a grave sin.

So the Church has treated this many ways. If a woman goes back to the 700's, then her abortion would be seen as less bad than if she had oral sex.

This is not your original position. Connecting abortion to sodomy is a diversion. Both were/are considered grave sins.