[Antoninus]

Hell, even the Catholic Church at one time had an official dogma that a person had no soul until his/her mother was 4 months pregnant.

No, it wasn't official Church dogma--what, do you get your talking points from Planned Parenthood?

And as it is, the Church has allowed the theological debate on this issue to continue until the modern era--and now that it's perfectly clear thanks to modern medicine that the fetus in the womb is a living human being, the Church has come out authoritatively and said that abortion is WRONG and a terrible SIN.

Don't guys like you generally whack the Church for not adapting its teachings to modern scientific understanding? And yet when it does, you demand that we go back to the former theory? Damned if you do, damned if you don't yet again.

[sitetest]

Dear Antoninus,

Although the question of when the human person became ensouled was an open question up until the last couple of centuries, as you know, the question of whether or not abortion was morally acceptable never was.

If I recall correctly, the Church has condemned abortion at least as far back as the Didache, which is late first century or early second century.

Of course, I don't really know why the law on abortion would be governed by a theological debate as to when human beings get "souls." Whether a human being is ensouled at conception, or at age 40, that is all a matter of faith.

What we actually know is when the human being comes into existence, when the unique member of the species homo sapiens has her beginning: conception.

For me, it isn't a religious issue. It isn't an issue of faith. It's a fundamental human rights issue.

I believe that the protection of law should extend to all members of the species homo sapiens. Our rights are inherent, intrinsic, inalienable. If we believe that, then we believe that our rights inhere to us because we exist, not because we've accomplished some level of achievement, performed some action.


sitetest