[acqq]

False!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_the_Catholic_Chur...

"The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception". From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.""

[protomyth]

Well, you are correct for the modern church, but there is a history. The term quickening (sometimes animation) had various meanings from both secular (search for "plead the belly") and religious. Interpretations of Exodus also sometimes strayed into fetus having the features of a baby.

For the modern policy a search of the Vatican's excellent web server is probably the best source http://gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=abortion&btnG=Search+on&s...

[acqq]

The Church disproves you, quoting older texts, even from the second century of the Church:

See "Declaration on procured abortion, 18 November 1974," it can be thankfully found using your search:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docum...

"Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion" [(c. 133 – c. 190 AD) he was a Father of the Church, another author quoted is Tertullian c. 155 – c. 240 AD, moreover, Synod of Elvira, the fourth century, and on and on through the centuries...]

"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."

To repeat: "the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion."

[protomyth]

> the Church disproves you, quoting older texts, even from the second century of the Church:

Only if you really didn't read what I typed. There is a history and there were different opinions in the church. Read the history of the Middle Ages and quickening.

[acqq]

The religious view of quickening is covered here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion_law_debate...

"The Venerable Bede" "c. 725, upheld the 40-day distinction, prescribing a one-year penance for abortion before the 40th day" "After 40 days the penance was 71/2 years, the same as for homicide."

"English common law: Starting with Leges Henrici Primi, around 1115, abortion was treated as a misdemeanour prior to 'quickening', accruing a penalty of 3 years' penance, or as a 'quasi homicide' after quickening."

"Pope Gregory XIV," [1591] "pronounced that abortion before 'hominization' should not be subject to ecclesiastical penalties that were any stricter than civil penalties"

Etc. It supports again the Vatican's text which I've cited: "the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion."

If I've missed something and you have a counterexample I'd like to see it. Thanks.

[protomyth]

I suppose for the later church St. Alfonsus Liguori would be a good starting point. Pope Gregory XIV was actually a relaxation of rules by Pope Sixtus V.

[acqq]

From the "Alphonsus Maria de Ligorio, Theologia Moralis":

"Question 4. Is it permissible to give a mother in extreme illness medicine to expel a fetus? Reply. Firstly, it is certain that it is not permissible for a mother outside of danger of death to take medicine for expelling even an inanimate fetus, since directly impeding the life of a human being is a grave sin, and a still graver one if the fetus is animate. It is certain, secondly, that it is not permissible for a mother even in danger of death to take medicine for expelling an ensouled fetus directly, since this would be procuring the child's death directly."

This quote of de Ligorio is on the Wikipedia page I've already posted here, in my first answer to which you replied. It still supports what Vatican wrote and I cited: "the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion."

[bsder]

> False!

WRONG!

The Church opposes abortion using the same language and reasoning as they were using in opposition to birth control.

In addition, the Catholic Church has been very clear that this opposition does NOT rely on whether a fetus qualifies as life, human or ensouled and so sidesteps that whole issue.

So, we are back to "life begins at conception" being a political slogan, not a religious one.

[acqq]

See my other post here from almost an hour ago with the quotes spanning from the second century AD, ending with the "Declaration on procured abortion, 18 November 1974,"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13497854

I don't see how you can disprove it without the citations. The "all caps" words don't matter, the citations do.

[bsder]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment

> In relation to elective abortion, Pope John Paul II wrote about ensoulment in his 1995 encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae that:

> Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine of condemning all direct abortions has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors. Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.[17]

> While the Church has always condemned abortion, changing beliefs about the moment the embryo gains a human soul have led their stated reasons for such condemnation, and the classification in canon law of the sin of abortion, to change over time.[18][19]

Please note that Pope John Paul II is very clear that the two issues are separate.

Go take it up with the Pope.

[acqq]

I don't understand, your citation again supports my claim, not yours, and they are also consistent with my citations?

"Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine of condemning all direct abortions has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors."

Your claim it's a "political concept" so how is a consistent condemnation by the Church during its whole existence of 2000 years a "political concept"? I understood your claim like it was something invented for the last few election cycles, and made because of the contemporary politics. And it's the opposite, it's the Church doctrine that through the 2000 years condemned abortion, in spite of the lives of the mothers involved.

To be just "a political concept" it would have to be a period where the Church did the opposite, which it never did?

Moreover, how is supporting the doctrine on the Father of the Church from the second century, as in my quotation, "political"?

Is for you then the doctrine of Christ being both human and divine, which was established later than in the second century, also political? The trinity, established in the fourth century, political? The selection of which books are part of the Bible, political?

If the Church selected what is a part of the Bible and what is not, and it did, you can't even claim "it's political because it isn't in the Bible" since it's the Church which decided what the Bible is going to be, so your approach would make the Bible just "a political concept" too. Finally, the Church itself (any Church) is "a political concept." The faith, too.

I, not being a believer, confirm that they are all human inventions. But all that is what is traditionally called, understood and lived as "religion" not "politics."