[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."