Evidently not. St Augustine distinguished between males and females. We now know that external sexual characteristics present by the end of the 11th week yet St Augustine stated that males could not be aborted after the 6th week, 40 days. Something wrong there, no?
Second, Pius IX was (to the best of my knowledge) not in receipt of any new information concerning the development stages of the fetus. Finally, the concept of ensoulment at any stage of development is a completely theological determination, even though Augustine and others attempted to link it to physiology.
Correct which is exactly the point I've been trying to get across to you. St Thomas and Maimonides basically said the same thing, that being that if science conflicts with the theology one needs to reexamine ones theology because truth can not contradict truth. So while ensoulment is faith based when life begins is not, it is science.
As for the debate on abortion today, I don't think many even consider the history. Those for it link it simply to a woman's choice right up to and including the birth process. Those opposed usually consider it murder from the moment of conception. Neither will consider the history that we have been discussing, nor any possibility of something in between conception and birth.
Individual life is a continuous function. Human beings take on different human characteristics along that continuum consistent with being a human being. On the other hand God says he knew us before we were formed. A person of faith takes God at his word looks at the science and comes to an inevitable conclusion, life begins at birth and the taking of that innocent human life is wrong.
While a majority of Americans do not like abortion, still the majority seems to recognize that there actually are distinctions between those two points, as shown in the recent South Dakota vote, and most polls taken in the past few years.
Actually, the South Dakota is pretty darn encouraging. The tough position to take is that all innocent human life should be treated the same and visiting the sins of the father on the baby is not a good thing. But I understand peoples reticence to carry a rapists baby to term. It is a very, very difficult thing to do and perhaps to much to ask from government. But 44% of South Dakotans voted to be consistently pro life. An amazing number in todays America don't you think?
Ultimately, just as it was with Augustine, it is a matter of faith, not science that drives most opinions.
I would disagree with that. I think science and faith can go hand and hand in deciding great moral issues.
Yet only few consider the constitutional issue: At what point if any, does a fetus assume the rights granted by the Bill of Rights?
At conception. :-}
Here, science can play a role. Sentience is a consideration.
Why? Is the unborn baby less human prior to sentience? Is a comatose adult less than human? Sentience is an argument I understand but don't put much stock in. It's simply another arbitrary point in the human continuum similar to St Augustines 40 and 80 days.
At some point a fetus has sufficiently progressed to the possession of a central nervous system, can feel pain, can learn. Even those who do not believe in souls must still consider the Constitution as it applies to the fetus.
So when do you think an unborn baby deserves protection under the 5th and 14th amendments?
Well...it does demonstrate that he saw fetuses at later stages, but does not reflect any evidence he didn't see them at very early stages, which I understand he did. His determination that females developed at a different rate than males, or that he was mistaken about the age of the fetus certainly doesn't lead one to conclude (at least through biology) that a soul is implanted at the time of conception.
Correct which is exactly the point I've been trying to get across to you. St Thomas and Maimonides basically said the same thing, that being that if science conflicts with the theology one needs to reexamine ones theology because truth can not contradict truth. So while ensoulment is faith based when life begins is not, it is science.
Yet this whole debate is based on linking science with theology. Those who didn't accept Augustine's conclusions did so by using a scientific argument, not a theological one. Their argument is that Augustine was not in receipt of the knowledge of biological development we are today. My argument here has always been that if one relies on faith, fine. If one attempts to interject science into the argument, it begins to falter...badly. It is the reason the Church today tries to bury the earlier concepts since scientists and popes alike accepted the concept of late ensoulment...based on both faith and science. It tends to cause problems from both perspectives. From a faith perspective, why did so many popes not have the correct faith? From a scientific perspective, what did Pius IX learn that led to his encyclical?
On the other hand God says he knew us before we were formed. A person of faith takes God at his word looks at the science and comes to an inevitable conclusion, life begins at birth and the taking of that innocent human life is wrong.
But if as you say, God said that, it would seem clear that Augustine and everyone else should have known that. Why did they not?
But 44% of South Dakotans voted to be consistently pro life. An amazing number in todays America don't you think?
I'm not sure if that's a trend one way or another. It may be a lot like the gay marriage issue. Most Americans are against gay marriage, as the constitutional amendments in various states reflect. But polls show that most still have no problem with other legal arrangements for gays and lesbians. The same here with abortion. Most Americans don't like it, but accept it under certain circumstances. Polls show only a relatively small number favor a woman's right to an abortion, unfettered at any stage.
I would disagree with that. I think science and faith can go hand and hand in deciding great moral issues.
I made the point in another post that with abortion, most try to link faith with science to demonstrate that life and therefore the soul begins at conception. When discussing the evolution v: creation controversy, many creationists try to delink science from it by denying the science. It can get a tad confusing....
Why? Is the unborn baby less human prior to sentience? Is a comatose adult less than human? Sentience is an argument I understand but don't put much stock in. It's simply another arbitrary point in the human continuum similar to St Augustines 40 and 80 days.
The problem with that is that those of faith can rely on the concept of the soul to make their point. Those who don't must rely completely on biology. For them, the question is at what stage does a life take on sufficient human characteristics to be considered a "person" as envisaged by the Bill of Rights? Nor is it necessarily arbitrary, since there is a point at which development makes one sentient. Others consider viability the real point. But in any case, it cannot be easily brushed off. As for a comatose person, no issue for me. Once a person is determined to have certain rights, a medical condition should not remove them.
So when do you think an unborn baby deserves protection under the 5th and 14th amendments?
For me there is little doubt that viability is the absolute fail safe point. But I am open to the theory that sentience should be considered. Very difficult to put into a workable law. At that point, I would opt for the rights of the unborn child.