Posted on 08/25/2008 7:50:09 AM PDT by kellynla
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, described herself yesterday morning on NBC’s Meet the Press as “an ardent, practicing Catholic,” then told moderator Tom Brokaw and an audience of millions that Church teaching on when human life begins is unclear.
Besides, said Pelosi, even if life does begin at conception, that would not change her pro-abortion views. “The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose,” she said. “Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child -- first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and – to -- that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god.”
Brokaw was quizzing the Speaker on Sen. Barack Obama’s response last week to Pastor Rick Warren’s straightforward question at the Saddleback Forum, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”
Asked Brokaw, “Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, ‘Help me out here, Madam Speaker. When does life begin?’ what would you tell him?”
Here is Pelosi’s response: “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator -- St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know... And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.
(Excerpt) Read more at calcatholic.com ...
People die every day. Some by unfortunate and unavoidable circumstance. Some at the hands of others who are intent on killing them.
That Peggy Noonan is one smart cookie.
She better keep practicing. She doesn't have it right yet.
1) What happens when, after a couple of days of cell division, the blastocyte splits into two identical twins? Which one gets the soul? Or does the other get a new soul at the point of division - days after conception?
2) What happens in the case of a chimera? A chimera is produced when there are two separately fertilized ova (fraternal twins) in a womb and, for reasons yet not understood, they both combine into a single ovum and continue to develop as a single human being with two separate sets of DNA. A chimera can even have two separate fathers if the mother had sex with two men during a single fertile period. The chimera of two male or two female ova most likely will never know he or she is a chimera unless DNA testing reveals the two disparate sets of genes. A chimera from both a male and female ovum will usually be intersexed to one degree or another, which is a bit of a tipoff.
Given that both ova were separately ensouled at conception, what happens to the two souls when they combine? Is one soul lost or gone to Heaven? Or, does the chimera spend his or her life with two intermingled souls? Might one go to Heaven and one to Hell?
The more we learn about biology, the more we have to adjust our religious definitions. At the time the Bible was written, people had little or no understanding of the physical world around them (though one wonders why God appeared equally uninformed), and so they wrote a lot of unintentional misinformation into their religious texts.
In the fifth century BC, Hippocrates wrote:
"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe."
I suspect that the passionate fight between creationism and evolution (and science in general) is an attempt to hold back this process as long as possible.
However, that doesn't alter the fact that the official position of the Church from the beginning was taken from Aristotle's "delayed ensoulment."
Today, Chrisitan apologetics actively seeks to suppress the idea that theological 'verities' were not always as they are today. So, when you turn to contemporary religious works, you will often see only one side of the argument presented, as if that were the entire story.
St. Jerome originally said that people who render themselves sterile "are guilty of murdering a human being not yet conceived." A rather extreme view that might easily be extrapolated to say that any time a fertile woman refrains from intercourse during ovulation, she has murdered a human being not yet conceived. Oddly enough, e also wrote: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs" , so clearly he believed that inducing sterility was murder, yet early abortion was not.
St. Augustine said that a human soul could not live in an unformed body, and so only the termination of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" was actually murder.
Around 700 AD, Theodore assembled a penitential. The penance for abortion was set at 120 days. The penance for oral and anal sex, practicing coitus interruptus, or making yourself sterile carried a penance of from 7 years to life.
Innocent III, who was Pope in the late 12th and early 13th century wrote a decision in the case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to get an abortion. ruling that no homicide had been committed since the fetus was not 'animated.'
As I posted before, it was not until 1869 that Pius IX dropped the distinction between 'fetus animatus' and 'fetus inanimatus.' This became part of official Canon law in 1917 and was affirmed in 1983.
So, with all of the different opinions you can select to quote, the Church itself (except for 3 years in the 16th Century) officially accepted the position of delayed ensoulment, not ensoulment at conception, and this was reflected in the official penance for aborting a fetus.
And please stop with the infantile namecalling "Newbie." As Thomas Jefferson said, "Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us."
You are right as far as it goes, and I apologize if I took you the wrong way. Still and all, it seems there is tremendous resistence among some Freepers to recognize that whatever happens to be the accepted dogma of the day is automatically enshrined as an eternal verity. It was that attitude that allowed Christians to burn “witches” and torture heretics for centuries without a hint of guilt. What was an eternal verity then that led to thousands of brutal and grotesquely painful murders in the name of God (”Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”) is considered a quaint mistake from the ignorant old days.
People should give a bit more though (and tolerance) about what they believe to be absolute “revealed truth,” considering the frequency with which it changes.
So, in defending Pelosi, I take it that you are pro abortion or choice, as they like to say.
Since the thread was slightly diluted on a history tangent by a faulty debate tactic (appeal to history), I think I’ll just restate the thrust of the thread and theh Catholic teachings on such.
The thread is about the Speaker of the House misstating the Catholic Church’s position on abortion.
The Catholic Church makes it very clear that abortion is a grave sin. It also states that support for abortion is punishable by the denial of Holy Communion.
Now, although the history lesson of the Catholic Church by a non Catholic is very interesting...according to the Catechism the history is otherwise. But that is not germane to the thread which is not about history but actual teaching of the Church on public policy matters.
This is clear. Pelosi is a liar regarding her attempts to make abortion an issue where a Catholic is “just fine” supporting abortion rights. Below puts it very directly.
“Rome, Aug 19, 2008 / (CNA) — Archbishop Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial authority of the Holy See, said this week that Catholics who publicly support abortion — especially politicians — should not receive Communion, and that ministers of Communion should be responsibly charitable in denying it to them if they ask for it “until they have reformed their lives.”
That means, Pelosi, Biden, Giuliani, and many others should not be taking Holy Communion in the Catholic Church that they belong to.
I am not defending Pelosi, whom I personally hold in considerable contempt. Nor am I attempting to defend any particular stance on abortion - pro or con. There was nothing in any of my posts that expressed either an approval or disapproval of abortion - only an attempt to explore some of the underlying assumptions (not always correct) that people in this thread seemed to have about the question.
What I am defending is the idea that we all go past our little stereotypes and look deeper for the truths (small 't') that support or contradict them. I have always felt that, if one's opinion can't stand a collision with fact and truth, then it is better to alter one's opinion than try to alter or deny the facts.
Best regards,
- Blue Sun
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
- Herbert Spencer
“...and thus dismiss me without the uncomfortable mental effort of having to marshall reason or facts to refute me.”
You are dismissed because you set up a strawman argument based on 2000 years of history. That is not germane to the topic at hand. The topic is Pelosi saying her position on abortion is compatible with the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is not nebulous on its position regarding abortion and those who support it.
Here is that position:
“Rome, Aug 19, 2008 / (CNA) — Archbishop Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial authority of the Holy See, said this week that Catholics who publicly support abortion — especially politicians — should not receive Communion, and that ministers of Communion should be responsibly charitable in denying it to them if they ask for it “until they have reformed their lives.”
I was having lunch with a couple of friends last weekend and the subject came up. One friend insisted that life begins when the egg is fertilized and a soul imparted.
The other friend insisted that life begins when the baby is born and becomes a separate biological organism.
"You're both wrong," I interjected. "Life begins when the last kid graduates college and the dog dies."
I hope you are not planning on being taken seriously on this forum, newbie.
I will post it again: Your insertion of when life begins, in an historical context, is a tangent. More accurately, it is a strawman, and it won't work. Nobody on this thread is taking issue with what Ms Pelosi may or may not believe to be historical Christian belief. We're being pretty specific here. Ms Pelosi holds beliefs, and acts on those beliefs, in a manner which is in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching. Either you are lacking in your knowledge of Catholic Catechesis or you are being obtuse deliberately to support your pro-abortion stance. (C'mon. Admit it.)
Either way--it is a strawman. It is not germane to the discussion on this particular thread. Quit hijacking.
Where has the Free in FreeRepublic gone?
LOLOL! You really are a noob
When she comes out making false and malicious statements about what the church teaches, it is time for Rome to recognize the enemy and strictly forbid any clergy from giving her the Host. This is too much.
“is time for Rome to recognize the enemy and strictly forbid any clergy from giving her the Host”
The Church has...not specifically to Pelousy but to ALL Catholic politicians who are “pro-choice”
Archbishop Burke on Catholics who Support Abortion
8/20/2008
Catholic News Agency
He referred to “public officials who, with knowledge and consent, uphold actions that are against the Divine and Eternal moral law. For example, if they support abortion”
ROME (CNA) - The prefect of the Apostolic Signature, Archbishop Raymond Burke, said this week that Catholics, especially politicians who publically defend abortion, should not receive Communion, and that ministers of Communion should be responsibly charitable in denying it to them if they ask for it, “until they have reformed their lives.”
In an interview with the magazine, Radici Christiane, Archbishop Burke pointed out that there is often a lack of reverence at Mass when receiving Communion. “Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a sacrilege,” he warned. “If it is done deliberately in mortal sin it is a sacrilege.”
To illustrate his point, he referred to “public officials who, with knowledge and consent, uphold actions that are against the Divine and Eternal moral law. For example, if they support abortion, which entails the taking of innocent and defenseless human lives. A person who commits sin in this way should be publicly admonished in such a way as to not receive Communion until he or she has reformed his life,” the archbishop said.
“If a person who has been admonished persists in public mortal sin and attempts to receive Communion, the minister of the Eucharist has the obligation to deny it to him. Why? Above all, for the salvation of that person, preventing him from committing a sacrilege,” he added.
“We must avoid giving people the impression that one can be in a state of mortal sin and receive the Eucharist,” the archbishop continued. “Secondly, there could be another form of scandal, consisting of leading people to think that the public act that this person is doing, which until now everyone believed was a serious sin, is really not that serious - if the Church allows him or her to receive Communion.”
“If we have a public figure who is openly and deliberately upholding abortion rights and receiving the Eucharist, what will the average person think? He or she could come to believe that it up to a certain point it is okay to do away with an innocent life in the mother’s womb,” he warned.
Archbishop Burke also noted that when a bishop or a Church leader prevents an abortion supporter from receiving Communion, “it is not with the intention of interfering in public life but rather in the spiritual state of the politician or public official who, if Catholic, should follow the divine law in the public sphere as well.”
“Therefore, it is simply ridiculous and wrong to try to silence a pastor, accusing him of interfering in politics so that he cannot do good to the soul of a member of his flock,” he stated.
It is “simply wrong” to think that the faith must be reduced to the private sphere and eliminated from public life, Archbishop Burke said, encouraging Catholics “to bear witness to our faith not only in private in our homes but also in our public lives with others in order to bear strong witness to Christ.”
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=28957§ion=Cathcom
Did Christianity just erupt out of the ether in the past century? By the way, the past history of Christianity DOES NOT support murdering unborn children, it explains why abortion before ensoulment at quickening is NOT MURDERING UNBORN CHILDREN.
It is interesting to me that you express contempt for Nancy Pelosi, yet you adopt her same tactic of obfuscation and misdirecion to various historical theories of "ensoulment" as if they were dispositive of the the moral permissibility of abortion killing historically, or the ontological and moral status of the preborn as human beings, when the simple fact of the matter is that abortion killing has NEVER been permitted in the history of the church, regardless of what the state of scientific knowledge was at any given time, and irrespective of any theories of the state of the soul after induced abortion killings put forth by theologians.
I think you misrepresent Augustine. For him, by his comments on the resurrection, it seems that the ontological status of the preborn human being and the moral impermissibility of abortion killing does not turn on ensoulment, as you and Nancy Pelosi would have it.
Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born.
-De Nube et Concupiscentia 1.17 (15)
On the undeveloped fetus:
Hence in the first place arises a question about abortive conceptions, which have indeed been born in the mother's womb, but not so born that they could be born again. For if we shall decide that these are to rise again, we cannot object to any conclusion that may be drawn in regard to those which are fully formed. Now who is there that is not rather disposed to think that unformed abortions perish, like seeds that have never fructified? But who will dare to deny, though he may not dare to affirm, that at the resurrection every defect in the form shall be supplied, and that thus the perfection which time would have brought shall not be wanting, any more than the blemishes which time did bring shall be present: so that the nature shall neither want anything suitable and in harmony with it that length of days would have added, nor be debased by the presence of anything of an opposite kind that length of days has added; but that what is not yet complete shall be completed, just as what has been injured shall be renewed.
-Enchiridion 23.85.4
On therapeutic abortion:
And therefore the following question may be very carefully inquired into and discussed by learned men, though I do not know whether it is in man's power to resolve it: At what time the infant begins to live in the womb: whether life exists in a latent form before it manifests itself in the motions of the living being. To deny that the young who are cut out limb by limb from the womb, lest if they were left there dead the mother should die too, have never been alive, seems too audacious. Now, from the time that a man begins to live, from that time it is possible for him to die. And if he die, wheresoever death may overtake him, I cannot discover on what principle he can be denied an interest in the resurrection of the dead.
-Enchiridion 23.86
Therefore brothers, you see how perverse they are and hastening wickedness, who are immature, they seek abortion of the conception before the birth; they are those who tell us, "I do not see that which you say must be believed."
- Sermon 126, line 12
source
I think you also misrepresent Jerome, as if he thought the moral permissibility of abortion turned on ensoulment:
You may see many women widows before wedded, who try to conceal their miserable fall by a lying garb. Unless they are betrayed by swelling wombs or by the crying of their infants, they walk abroad with tripping feet and heads in the air. Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.
- Epistula 22
source
Here is a selection of other early Patristic sources to the same effect:
74 AD The Letter of Barnabas "The way of light, then, is as follows. If any one desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19).
137 AD The Apocalypse of Peter "And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25).
150 AD Didache "The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1)
170 AD Mark Felix "There are some women among you who by drinking special potions extinguish the life of the future human in their very bowels, thus committing murder before they even give birth." (Mark Felix, Christian Lawyer, Octavius chap. 30)
177 AD Athenagoras "What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? . . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35, Embassy chap. 5).
177 AD Athenagoras, "What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? For the same person would not regard the fetus in the womb as a living thing and therefore an object of God's care, and at the same time slay it, once it had come to life." (Athenagoras Plea, ch.35)
210 AD Tertullian "Among surgeons' tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery. "There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . ." [The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25).
210 AD Tertullian "In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8).
210 AD Tertullian "Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (Apology 27).
210 AD Tertullian "The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22]
226 AD Minucius Felix "There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30).
228 AD Hippolytus "Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies).
250 AD Diognetus (a likely reference to both exposure of infants to die and abortion): "(Christians) marry, like everyone else, and they beget children, but they do not cast out their offspring." (Letter of Diognetus (late 2nd or 3rd century; ch.5, vs.6)
307 AD Lactantius "When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men.. Therefore, let no one imagine that even this is allowed, to strangle newly-born children, which is the greatest impiety; for God breathes into their souls for life, and not for death. But men, that there may be no crime with which they may not pollute their hands, deprive [unborn] souls as yet innocent and simple of the light which they themselves have not given. "Can anyone, indeed, expect that they would abstain from the blood of others who do not abstain even from their own? But these are, without any controversy, wicked and unjust" (Divine Institutes 6:20).
314 AD Council of Ancyra "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21).
374 AD Basil the Great "He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it die upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" ((First Canonical Letter, canon 8).
374 AD Basil the Great "Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years' penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2).
391 AD John Chrysostom "Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?--where there are many efforts at abortion?--where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24).
400 AD The Apostolic Constitutions "Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for He says, 'You shall not suffer a witch to live' [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for "everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed." (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3).
"The law, moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind." (Josephus, Flavius, The Works of Josephus, Flavius Josephus Against Apion, Book II, 25)
"Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born." (Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, The Epistle of Barnabas, chap. XIX, The Way of Light)
"Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder?" (Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume II, The Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter V.-The Christians Condemn and Detest All Cruelty., Answering the charge that Christians murder and eat human flesh)
"The embryo therefore becomes a human being in the womb from the moment that its form is completed. The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion, inasmuch as there exists already the rudiment of a human being, which has imputed to it even now the condition of life and death, since it is already liable to the issues of both, although, by living still in the mother, it for the most part shares its own state with the mother." (Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume III, Tertullian, A Treatise on the soul, Chapter VII.-On the Formation and State of the Embryo)
Exodus 21:22-23: "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life"
"And now I should wish to meet him who says or believes that we are initiated by the slaughter and blood of an infant. Think you that it can be possible for so tender, so little a body to receive those fatal wounds; for any one to shed, pour forth, and drain that new blood of a youngling, and of a man scarcely come into existence? No one can believe this, except one who can dare to do it. And I see that you at one time expose your begotten children to wild beasts and to birds; at another, that you crush them when strangled with a miserable kind of death. There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth." (Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume IV, The Octavius of Minucius Felix, Chapter
Argument: the Story About Christians Drinking the Blood of an Infant that They Have Murdered, is a Barefaced Calumny. But the Gentiles, Both Cruelly Expose Their Children Newly Born, and Before They are Born Destroy Them by a Cruel Abortion. Christians are Neither Allowed to See Nor to Hear of Manslaughter.)
"1. And the second commandment of the Teaching; 2. Thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit paederasty, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not practise magic, thou shalt not practise witchcraft, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten." Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII, Apostolic Teachings and Constitutions, Chapter II. -The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden.)
"III. Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for He says, "Ye shall not suffer a witch to live." Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for "everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed." (Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII, Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book VII, Moral Exhortations)
"25. And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion." Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume X, The Apocalypse of Peter)
Adopting the same line of reasoning as Nancy Pelosi should alone be enough to give you pause.
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.