Posted on 08/27/2008 4:41:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- When Democrats decided they wouldn't let the GOP be "God's Only Party," they weren't kidding. Thanks to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, none other than St. Augustine has been summoned to Denver.
He was resurrected as Pelosi was trying to respond to the question that refuses to die: When does human life begin? This time, it was Tom Brokaw asking on Sunday's "Meet the Press." Citing Barack Obama's recent pass on a similar question -- "At what point does a baby get human rights?" -- Brokaw asked Pelosi what she would say to Obama were he to ask her advice.
Pelosi didn't finesse her answer, as Obama did when he said the question was above his pay grade, but she may wish she had.
"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time," Pelosi began. "And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctrines of the church have not been able to make that definition. ... St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on a woman's right to choose. ... I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."
Few paragraphs have contained more falsehoods. The reaction was swift from Denver's archbishop, the Rev. Charles J. Chaput, among others, who condemned Pelosi's comments during Mass that same evening. Blogging on Monday, Chaput quoted Jesuit John Connery, author of "Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective," who concluded that "The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm anti-abortion attitude."
It is true that laws and penalties concerning abortion have evolved through the ages. "Right to life" is a relatively new concept. It is also true that Augustine -- and St. Thomas Aquinas eight centuries later -- subscribed to a "delayed hominization" theory, meaning that abortion couldn't be homicide because the fetus doesn't receive a soul until a certain point in its development.
Augustine even thought that "hominization" occurred earlier for males than for females. Is it possible that the same authority whom Pelosi invokes to justify her belief in choice also ranked the female fetus below the male on God's "Ensoulments To Do" list?
We may forgive Augustine, of course, because people didn't know much about nascent life in the early 400s. The ovum wasn't discovered until 1827. Fetal imaging, now routine for expectant parents, was unimaginable.
If Augustine had known then what we know now, would he stand by Pelosi as she asserts that when life begins should have no bearing on a woman's right to choose?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled as much in Roe v. Wade, obviously, but Justice Harry A. Blackmun dodged the question of when life begins using the same rationale as Pelosi -- that because scientists, theologians and others couldn't agree on when life begins, then a woman's privacy trumped the unborn's right to due process.
One may choose to believe that out of convenience or conscience, but the logic of the court was both self-contradictory and incorrect, according to Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. By its ruling, says George, the court implicitly determined when life begins (against the fetus), while ignoring science that long before had determined the facts of human embryogenesis.
In his new book, "Embryo," George and co-author Christopher Tollefsen, associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina, left religion behind and set out to establish the embryo's personhood by reviewing all the major scientific works on human embryogenesis and early intrauterine development.
Included was American medicine's most prominent human embryology text, "The Developing Human," whose authors are not imprecise on the matter of life: "Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell -- a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
In other words, human life begins at conception. That is not a religious posture, but a scientific fact that the lowest paid laborer on the planet can assert without qualm. What we do with that understanding is another matter, but no one in the 21st century should pretend not to know when human life begins.
On this matter at least, the church and science are in agreement
“In other words, human life begins at conception. That is not a religious posture, but a scientific fact that the lowest paid laborer on the planet can assert without qualm.”
And any Christian who claims otherwise is a false believer, despite what he, she or they profess. There is *no* option in the Bible. See Psalm 139 as a starting place.
I wonder how these pro-abortion politicians can have a clear conscience when it comes to a 'woman's right to choose...'
Choose what? Coke or Pepsi? Vote Democrat or Republican?
Finish the sentence, Nancy: you mean a 'woman's right to choose to kill their babies.'
abortion is a blood sacrifice to the god of liberal manhood.
IMHO
Our Catholic FRiends I’m sure will keep hammering on this issue and me along with them, and gladly. NO let-up, constant pressure.
Many haven’t quite realized what we’re up against here (the rising Marxism), they need to get a brain, find some guts and and join the fray.
The Church used to boil people alive in oil for statements like that.
Ah, the good old days.
Exactly!
A vote for BHO is a vote for FTA (Fourth Trimester Abortion)
I am glad to see someone else express the issue the way I feel about it. The issue is not a matter of "choice" in and of itself. We live in a universe of choices. The question always comes down to the moral and ethical implications of the choices one makes.
You have to hand it to the pro-aborts when it comes to dishonest debating tactics. Their "arguments" are totally fallacious (i.e., "choice"). They've deflected the attention from the nature of their "choice" (killing innocent persons) to the question of choice itself. It's totally a specious and vapid "argument".
I’ve heard it described as the “sacrament of the Feminist Church.”
I am sure there are a lot of "animal rights" loons in Denver right now with both "Abortion is a Woman's Right to Choose!" and "Fur is MURDER!" buttons on; if you see one simply say to them
"That's funny, I thought Abortion was murder and Fur was a woman's right to Choose."
for every abortion there’s a complicit male who shuns responsibility and bestows unto the female “reproductive rights” as a smokescreen for his licentious behaviour.
IMHO it has nothing to do with any so-called feminist church.
Can you find the Pope Pelosis’ in the pizza?
Oh look, there’s one here. And that’s another one...
Apologies to Father Guido Sarducci.
|
Abortion and Euthanasia |
|
| Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) | Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings. One of American Life League's "Deadly Dozen." |
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.