[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."

[protomyth]

Your own quote proves my original point, that there was debate in the church. I really don't get what the heck you think I said at this point.

[acqq]

Your reply to my quotation of Wikipedia's claim "the Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus..." at that point was:

"you are correct for the modern church, but there is a history..."

which I understood that you mean that there was a time in history when the Church didn't "oppose all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus," contrary to what it does as "the modern church." But going with you through the names you gave, there is no proof for such a claim. The Church always opposed and considered it "illicit" (which supports Vatican claims in its 1974 text).

If you agreed with my citations then I don't understand why you replied in a manner like I had used some wrong information?

If you agree that the Church did oppose (or considered "illicit") abortion from the conception through all the time of its existence (independently of different opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul) which is what Vatican claims and I quoted here more times, then we both agree. Moreover, my reply was to refute the statement "'life begins at conception' is primarily a political construct" with the proof that the Church was always against abortion starting from conception, that is, it can't be seen differently than other Church decisions like "what should constitute the Bible" and "is Jesus both of human and god nature." Which was never considered politics but religion. Thank you.