Talk:Catholic Church and abortion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Gregory XIV's intentions

recognizing that the law was not producing the hoped-for effects, is fully supported by the cited book source, and so I have restored it to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The fake source is Terpstra's claiming to know secret intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:E920:49F8:FD6A:CC4E (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

And what evidence do you have of its being fake? Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

All claims by anyone to know secret intentions are obviously fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:E920:49F8:FD6A:CC4E (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Not logical at all. History is about a historian's interpretation of events, not about chronicle-style data. Dimadick (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, we depend on reliable secondary sources to interpret primary sources for us, not our own interpretations. Terpstra's scholarly book from JHU Press is an excellent source. Moreover, Terpstra is directly quoting Sedes apostolica and he is far from the only source to make this observation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

< redacted >.

Terpstra and banned Esoglou have many conflicts of interest. Esoglou was banned by Arbcom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.142.119 (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Esoglou_site_banned . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.142.119 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Changes in sections on doctrine

I made some fairly minor changes in the recently edited sections on doctrine: (1) I changed the new title from Development of doctrine to Early writings because the word "development" suggests a coherent, organized sequence, which is not what happened. (2) I moved the short paragraph introducing the historical material back to where it was, because it fits there. (3) I made the new sentence about Pope Gregory clearer and more readable, without changing the meaning. NightHeron (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

"This is a Catholic country"

Restored. Ireland's status as a "Catholic country" is directly relevant to both the case and the article, and news sources clearly took note. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed incorrect information from the Belief in delayed animation section

I removed the last two sentences of this section because (1) the first of the sentences misstates what's in the source, and (2) the second sentence and the version in the source are at variance with mainstream history and science. Here is the text I removed: "This Aristotelian approach to delayed ensoulment was abandoned by the 17th century and the conviction grew that the soul was present from the moment of conception. The scientific proof in 1827 of the existence of the female ovum and in 1875 of the involvement of the union of a gamete from each parent in conception reduced philosophical speculation about a delayed "substantial change"."

The source is the Abortion article in The Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, which has a strong anti-abortion POV. The wording in the first sentence in the removed text is quite different from the source, which says: "By the 17th century opinion had turned away from the Aristotelian theory of delayed ensoulment in favor of believing that the soul was present from the moment of conception. These were the terms of the discussion that was pursued by casuists, from the 17th to the 19th century." The phrasing "opinion had turned away" doesn't mean that belief in delayed ensoulment "was abandoned" but rather that (as the following sentence says) delayed ensoulment became controversial and a topic of active discussion. It wasn't "abandoned" by the Catholic Church until Apostolicae Sedis moderationi by Pope Pius IX in 1869. The source does not actually mention Catholic statements on abortion from the 14th century until 1869, so the phrase "opinion had turned away" is unsupported in the source. A more reliable source on the matter is Noonan, who writes that the first theologian to defend the notion that ensoulment is immediate upon conception was Thomas Roncaglia in 1736 and that most theologians continued to hold the viewpoint that ensoulment began somewhere between 40 and 80 days after conception.

The second sentence that I removed does faithfully paraphrase the source; however, the source expresses a fringe view that's at variance with mainstream science. It says: "The existence of the female ovum was scientifically established in 1827, and by 1875 it had been proved that conception involves the joining of one gamete from each parent. This effectively quieted speculation about any later moment when the human fetus might undergo substantial change." The notion of a fetus that does not "undergo substantial change" from the moment of conception is unscientific. First of all, the scientific terminology for the fertilized egg immediately following conception is zygote and then embryo for approximately 60 days. It is a fetus after two months of gestation. It undergoes huge changes during this time in every physiological sense. The quote falsely implies that greater understanding of the gestation process led to greater opposition to abortion. In the U.S., the medical profession was overwhelmingly anti-abortion (except for therapeutic abortion) in the 19th century, and in the 20th century increasingly favored legalization. It's very misleading to suggest that it was scientific knowledge that led to the Church hardening its position. NightHeron (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If the concept of delayed ensoulment, as you wrote, "became controversial and a topic of active discussion", it would make more sense to insert that phrasing into the sentence than to remove the sentence entirely.

In regards to the second change, the sentence doesn't state that the zygote/fetus "doesn't undergo substantial change from the moment of conception". I think you're misreading the sentence; it's merely stating (correctly) that a developing zygote/fetus undergoes a continuous process of development, rather than a delayed one that would correlate with the concept of delayed ensoulment. The second part of your explanation is your personal speculation, which I don't view as valid for the removal or as actually accurate. I would argue the US medical field's flip from being anti-abortion to pro-legalization had very little to do with a further understanding of science and far more due to political forces, particularly the rise of feminism in the early 20th centry. In any case, these are our viewpoints and don't warrant removing a sentence based on personal speculation. 0BlackEclipse0 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "became controversial and a topic of active debate" is a reasonable paraphrase of the source, but actually the source is very unclear. As I said, no reference is made to any Catholic statement on the matter from the 14th century until 1869. The historian Noonan, who's a much better source, dates the first major statement about ensoulment at conception to 1738 (which is not the 17th century) and he also states that Thomas Roncaglia's opinion was the minority viewpoint among Catholic theologians. So "became controversial and a topic of active debate" would be faithful to the source, but the source is an unreliable one. From what Noonan writes, the matter did not become controversial until the 18th century, and ensoulment at conception did not become the official Church position until 1869.

I'm reading exactly what the sentence in the source about "substantial change" says. It calls the fertilized egg a "fetus" that will not undergo "substantial change" at a later time and doesn't say anything about continuous development. You're incorrect about the source "stating (correctly) that a developing zygote/fetus undergoes a continuous process of development."

I did not say that the medical profession started to advocate for legalization (roughly starting in the 1930s in the US) because of greater scientific understanding of gestation. I'm saying that the notion that greater scientific knowledge leads to opposition to abortion is contradicted by the fact that the medical profession became more inclined toward advocating legalization in the 20th century (when medical knowledge was much greater) than in the 19th century (when medical knowledge was much less developed). I wouldn't say that it was exactly the influence of feminism, although undoubtedly the physicians' professional concern for the health of their women patients and their realization of the heavy toll of illegal abortions played a role. Many physicians also thought that medical decisions should be made by doctor and patient, not by politicians or religious authorities. NightHeron (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like the entire ensoulment debate on the page is splitting hairs, because regardless of moment of ensoulment, early abortions were still considered by the Church to be sins (for a variety of reasons, including sins against chastity and a flouting of the Christian duty to protect children). Tertullian for example wrote; "To prevent being born is to accelerate homicide, nor does it make a difference whether you snatch away a soul which is born or destroy one being born. He who is man-to-be is man, as all fruit is now in the seed." They were intelligent enough to know that regardless of an unborn baby developing a soul prior to 40 days, to kill the developing baby would still be preventing them from living in the future.

The source does not say that the the fetus (or fertilized egg) "won't undergo substantial change at a later time". It says scientific innovations quieted speculation about any later moment where substantial change might happen. This may just be confusing wording on the writer's part.

I don't see that as a contradiction because correlation does not equal causation. US medical professionals may have garnered more liberal attitudes toward abortion regulation for entirely different reasons than scientific advancement while at the same time the Catholic Church gained more anti-abortion views due to scientific advancement. As an example of one way this could be, I think that the notion that mankind is made in the image and likeness of God, and that Jesus instructed Christians to protect children, has a strong impact on Catholics when they see ultrasounds of developing fetuses who look like miniature babies. A secular medical professional who doesn't have these concepts in mind, meanwhile, won't have that same reaction. 0BlackEclipse0 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The ensoulment issue is not "splitting hairs". Quite the contrary. Catholic and Evangelical Protestant anti-abortionists generally believe that abortion is both a sin and a crime (they often even call it "murder") from the moment of conception. Catholic anti-abortionists often falsely claim that this has been the Church position since ancient times. To correct this disinformation it's necessary to talk about the true history of the Church's stand, which until 1869 (with the exception of 2 1/2 years) distinguished between pre- and post-ensoulment, where ensoulment was defined to be between 40 and 80 days of gestation. There was much debate about abortion before ensoulment, and there was much tolerance toward it. It's ironic that the pre-1869 position of the Catholic Church was a moderate one much like that of most present-day mainstream Christian denominations, whereas the post-1869 (and especially post-1930) Catholic position has much in common with that of the extremist Evangelical sects of Protestantism.

As far as ultrasound goes, that has nothing to do with attitudes toward an embryo in early pregnancy, since ultrasound can only give a good image at the fetal stage of development. Would Christians develop an emotional attachment to a zygote if, taking advantage of modern science, they viewed one under a powerful microscope? Would they imagine that it looks like a baby? If so, I guess that could harden their opposition to early abortion. NightHeron (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Clarification in the 'Early Writings' section

I felt that the latter portion of the Early Writings section needed clarification. The previous version was unclear in how some in the past Church viewed abortions of "formed" vs "unformed" unborn. I think page 106 of Stem Cells, Human Embryos and Ethics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives gives the clearest perspective on the issue. Both were sins, with the former viewed similarly to the sin of contraception, and the latter the sin of murder. 0BlackEclipse0 (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The Ostnor article (book chapter) is unreliable for history, because it's not a history article and Ostnor is not a historian. (Google Scholar lists no historical work by Lars Ostnor, and the Norwegian School of Theology doesn't list him among their history faculty.) The article is about ethics, it does not cite historical sources, and it includes unsupported vast generalizations such as "There was, indeed, a consensus among all [Christian] denominations until well into the twentieth century that abortion was sinful, and that late abortion was homicide." Such a source cannot be used to undermine the three history sources (now four, after I added one) that were cited earlier in the sentence.

A common mistake is to assume that writers of earlier times always defined abortion the same way we do. Another source clarifies: "The succeeding pope [after Effraenatam]...returned to the traditional position that contraception was a sin and abortion a crime, but that abortion could not occur until after the fortieth day, when the fetus was ensouled." NightHeron (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References