![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2013. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think this article needs a rewritting. It's too much in a personal essay style and claims some unsourced stances. The article seems like a mess. Is this true ? "There is no mention of abortion in the Christian Bible, and at different times early Christians held different beliefs about abortion." The first half of the statement I think it's untrue, the second even less. The Old Testament really menciones abortion sometimes, unlike the New Testament. I ask to some users from the Christianity WikiProject to please try to give the article a more proper writting. Mistico ( talk) 14:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of this. The entire article really should be done. There are many poor sources used as well, such as Catholic for Choice. I say they are poor, let me clarify, they are poor, and in fact not capable or speaking for the institutional Church. They are a fringe group that dodges excommunication... why would we trust them to tell us what the Church teaches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.70 ( talk) 07:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The article states : "He notes that only in Exodus does the Bible discuss what the punishment should be to a man who strikes a woman so that she miscarries." When the article states the Christian Bible, which also includes the Old Testament, I think it should state the New Testament. There's really no reference to abortion in the New Testament but that doesn't mean that the first Christians didn't based their beliefs in this and other issues in the Christian ethics and moral found in the New Testament, mostly in the Gospels and the Letters of St. Paul. Even today the commandment "You shall not kill" is used by anti-abortion Christians as a condemnation of abortion. Of course this is an interpretation. This site provides many sources about how the Christians in the first centuries view abortion : [1]. I will try to choose the best parts later. Mistico ( talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The article uses this [2] from Catholics for a Free Choice as a source. So, do you think it's unreliable too ? 213.13.246.96 ( talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but were did you read that ? The article states : "This is a summary of Catholics for a Free Choice publication The History of Abortion in the Catholic Church." Where did you find the Kenneth Pennington reference ? Anyway, the article is far biased in a modern pro-choice perspective, like can be proved with the claim that "Also contrary to popular belief, no pope has proclaimed the prohibition of abortion an "infallible" teaching." Sorry but some of the article claims are laughable for anyone who knows the Catholic teachings on this issue and only can be seen as an attempt to instale a sort of modern individualist protestant mentality in the Catholic Church. I´m not being pro-catholic, but the article makes a mess and is so tendencious that it could be ballanced with more serious and neutral references. The dogma of Papal Infalibility was only issued in 1854 by Pius IX and it's rarely used by the Church, like when Pius XII issued the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. 213.13.246.96 ( talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with the above author. Let me start by saying that I am somewhat of a Church history nut. I have read many medieval texts in their original Latin, and have analyzed many earlier (1st century even) texts. The pro-choice camp within the Church has for a long time tried to make arguments in favor of abortion, usually trying to portray the Church as having had many different options on the matter of the centimes. Nothing could be further from the truth. We see in many early sources (such as the Apocalypse of Peter)that abortion was always considered morally wrong. While there have been Catholic theologians over the years that argue this topic, they haven't changed doctrine. The only way doctrine can ever be changed, or modified is through an ecumenical council or an ex cathedra statement. A pope could say that he thought abortion was fine, this wouldn't change the doctrine though, abortion would still be considered wrong by the Church. My point is this: just because theologians have argued over abortion, does in no way mean that the Church has never had one clear firm position on the matter. Catholic for Choice is a political organization that twists things to their favor, don't fall for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.70 ( talk) 07:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope this article will atract some users from Christianity WikiProject. They will gave it a more encyclopedic tone that I'm unable to give for lack of knowledge. There are several questions the article lefts unanswered. First, the timeline of Ancient Christianity. It can be seen in three phases, the first from 30 to 313, when Christianity was persecuted, from 313 to 395 when it was tolerated, and from 395 to 476, when it become official, until the fall of the Roman Empire. The historical context of the persecutions of the first period, when Christianity faced many practises allowed by the Roman Empire, like abortion, in any stage of the pregnancy, and homossexuality, is important. Back then it didn't existed the modern conflicts between those who oppose or support it, but between Christianity and roman paganism. 213.13.246.96 ( talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia article about The Catholic University of America : "In a letter to the campus that next month, CUA President David O'Connell wrote: I consider any pro-choice advocacy — whether deliberate or accidental, whether presented under the guise of academic freedom or right to free speech — as incompatible with that fidelity and not worthy of The Catholic University of America.[30]" I doubt that Kenneth Pennington, who hardly could work in the University if he was pro-choice could be the author of that article. How it's related with that website that bears his name is something that I don't get. 213.13.246.96 ( talk) 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If you read the article about The Catholic University of America, you will see that even people who openly support abortion, like actor Stanley Tucci, aren't allowed to give lectures there. It's rather possible that Kenneth Pennington had become pro-life. Anyway, that's not the point. The article states: "In any case, Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their personal conscience in moral matters, even when their conscience is in conflict with hierarchical views." This is simply unbelievable, from a Catholic perspective! The Catholics, and I can speak as a lapsed Catholic, don't have the right to disagree with the Church in essential matters of faith or openly support views that are seen as anti-Catholic. For some reason the Church excommunicated automatically Catholics who joined Freemasonary and Communist Parties. It's not me who says that, but the Church itself. All the Catholic Church theology is overwhelmingly pro-life, as the author of the article pretends not to know. I can quote pope John XXIII: "It is to the Church, indeed, that is given the right and the duty of cheeking the integrity of the principles of religious and ethical order and, besides that, to give knowledge, in virtue of his authority, publicly his criteria, when it concerns the practical application of these principles." (Encyclical Mater et Magistra) I could point dozens of examples from encyclicals and Church documents about this. Like it or not, the Catholic Church still punishes with automatic excommunication every person involved in a induced abortion. Anyway, this brings us to the modern abortion debate and I can't see such a tendencious and non neutral article, written in a modern pro-choice perspective, as a reliable source. Not even these articles can show the impossible, that not even one of the Church Fathers ever supported legal abortion. As I think it should be pointed once again, the entry about the History of the early Christian thought on abortion must be written taking in consideration the historical context of the time, and not in a biased tone for modern religious and political propaganda. 82.154.83.224 ( talk) 03:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source to start ? [3] Maybe if someone wants to buy the book. Mistico ( talk) 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean the book but the source itself. Mistico ( talk) 15:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This used to be in the Pro-life movement article until it was removed.
"Opposition to abortion by some Christians is based on a number of sources. Historically, the first Christian opposition to abortion is found in a short early Christian treatise called the Didache and in the writings of a few of the Church Fathers. The Didache, which dates from the end of the 1st century, specifically prohibits abortion. [1] Tertullian (c. 160-c. 230) condemned abortion as a crime: "Abortion is a precipitation of murder, nor does it matter whether or not one takes a life when formed, or drives it away when forming, for he is also a man who is about to be one." [2] St. Basil the Great (330-379) also states that "Those who give potions for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers, as are those who take potions which kill the child." [3] St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-379) takes a similar position : "There is no question about that which is bred in the uterus, both growing, and moving from place to place. It remains, therefore, that we must think that the point of commencement of existence is one and the same for body and soul". [4] St. Augustine did consider that the gravity of participation in an abortion depended whether or not the fetus had yet received a soul at the time of abortion. [5]"
If no one objects I think these opinions should be added to the article. If anyone can find other views if they favor more or not abortion, I have no objection too. Mistico ( talk) 15:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The original source was a blog, later replaced by other sources. The reference to St. Augustine deserves more explanation because, despite his views on "ensoulment", in any place this Church Father supported abortion as morally acceptable. Mistico ( talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The Didaché reference appears in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, from 1992. 213.13.246.96 ( talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article about
Augustine of Hippo states: "Abortion and ensoulment// Like other Church Fathers, St Augustine "vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion".[81] In his works, Augustine did consider that the gravity of participation in an abortion depended whether or not the fetus had yet received a soul.This occurred at 40 days for males, and 80 for females.[81]" The source is: * Fitzgerald, Allan D., O.S.A., General Editor (1999). Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
ISBN
0-8028-3843-X. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
If St Augustine, according to historical evidences, strongly condemned abortion, before or after what he viewed as "ensoulment", he certainly condemned also abortion as a crime before ensoulment. It seems implicit in his stance. If he used the word "murder" or not, I don't know. Only direct quotes from St. Augustine works could clarify this question. Anyway, even those who use the "ensoulment" question, can't deny that he totally opposed legal abortion, like the Church.
82.154.83.224 (
talk)
03:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Since there was a slow edit war growing more heated, I've protected the page for 6 hours, no doubt in the wrong version. Please exchange your arguments here on the talk page, not as one-liners in the edit summaries. Thanks. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what there is to say. The sources are in the article, they're even quoted; all you have to do is read them. It could not possibly have been made easier. You can make statements about most scholars believing that early Christians condemned abortion, but you simply cannot make categorical statements that early Christians condemned abortion because we have an extremely reliable source that says they did not agree on this issue.
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
09:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it really, as claimed, a violation of WP:SYNTH to state verifiably in this article that Basil the Great imposed a ten-year exclusion from communion for abortion and a three-year exclusion for military killing? Even if the impositions were by different church authorities of the same period, and not by the same individual as here, information on the different periods of exclusion in vogue at the time is surely highly pertinent in providing the context of the imposition of any one of them. As such, this information does not appear to be the type of illicit synthesis envisaged in the Wikipedia rule book. I am, of course, open to correction. Esoglou ( talk) 17:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't compose any argument. I just don't understand how it could be considered synthesis to state verifiably that Sophocles' Oedipus the King has 1530 lines and his Oedipus at Colonus has 1779 lines (implying no more than the obvious fact that the second is longer than the first, not for instance that Sophocles liked one more than the other), or to say verifiably that the City of London (in the strict sense, not the whole town) has an area of about one square mile, while the area of Vatican City is less than 0.2 square miles (implying no more than the obvious fact that the City of London is about five times the size of Vatican City), or to cite the canons of the Council of Elvira for the sins for which that Council did not want communion to be given even at death (implying no more than the obvious fact that that Council rated all those sins as meriting the same exclusion), or to indicate verifiably what periods of exclusion Basil considered appropriate for more than one sin (implying no more than the obvious fact that he rated one sin as meriting a longer exclusion than the other). If you compose your request first, I could doubtless add my comment, either before or after you post your request. If you decide to post it first, please let me know when the question has been put. Esoglou ( talk) 12:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the offer, Esoglou, but I don't think you can give me special dispensation from 1RR. ;) Anyway, it's better to discuss. I removed the section because the article is about Christian perspectives and, to a lesser degree, the Greek and Jewish perspectives which are thought to have influenced the Christians. Unless the sources discuss how Stoic perspectives on the soul influenced (or did not influence) Christian perspectives, the information is extraneous. I would suggest adding the information perhaps to Ensoulment - that has an extensive section on the Catholic view, but not much else, and more information on Greek views could make it a better article. It also might help to take another look at the sources in this article for Greek and Jewish views, to make sure they talk about how those views relate to Christian views. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, the problem with all these suggestions and additions is WP:NOR. Too many sources say that Augustine was an Aristotelian on this issue for us to water down this claim in any way based on what appears, from your comment, to be your own analysis of primary sources. Do you have secondary sources that agree with your view? (And of course, if in the current version of the article - I'm on my phone again so I can't view the article and talkpage at the same time - cites Augustine's view, which you read to be incorrect, only to a primary source, it must certainly be replaced or augmented with secondary sources - it's not as though there's a shortage of scholarly literature on Augustine, after all!) Same with Pythagoreanism. I don't doubt that there are sources which connect Pythagoreanism to Christianity, but they would have to specifically reference Pythagorean views on the soul or on abortion in connection with Christians. (Forgive me if they do, I haven't yet been able to view them for the aforementioned reason.) "Pythagoreans believed this about the soul" + "Pythagorean ideas influenced Christians" =/= "Pythagorean ideas about the soul influenced Christian ideas about the soul"; this would be synth. But either way, I think this detailed information about different beliefs on ensoulment belongs in the article on ensoulment, rather than here. Could you elaborate on why you don't incline to it? Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Propose changing the title of this article (via "move") in order to expand scope
History of early Christian thought on abortion → History of Christian teaching on abortion –
The current title is too restrictive in scope yielding a short article. My proposed title allows the article to discuss Christian teaching beyond "early Christianity". This will be useful for shortening the articles on Christianity and abortion and Catholic Church and abortion. Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 01:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
NB: References in the early part of this section to "the first 3.5 paragraphs of Christianity and abortion" refer to the subsections that are now in the "History" section at the end of that article. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is in the perception that material will be "removed" from Christianity and abortion. Instead of removing it, I propose to replace it with a summary per WP:SUMMARY. The History of Christian teaching on abortion will summarize the current situation whereas Christianity and abortion will summarize the history leading up to the current situation. How to strike the right balance between summary and detail is a discussion that need not be resolved completely at this point in time. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 08:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I support eventually renaming the article to History of Christian thought on abortion but as the article stands now, it doesn't need to be done right away. Two articles are useful (one on current developments and another with historical context) and since every denomination has its own teachings, the word "thought" seems to better support the article's future scope (I presume it will eventually be expanded beyond the fourth century). All the best, Miniapolis ( talk) 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Twice, the article falsely states that, "there is no mention of abortion in the Christian Bible", while this same article at its end quotes John Calvin's commentary on Exodus 21:22-25. Read this passage in full.
"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, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (NKJV)
The men who were careless enough to be fighting around a pregnant woman would be punished for accidentally inducing labor even if no harm came to the child. But if harm did come to the child, they were to be killed: "you shall give life for life". This reflects a very sanctified attitude toward the fetus, since accidental murder is otherwise unpunishable. So then, if an accidentally induced death of a fetus is worthy of capital punishment (due to the carelessness of the men fighting), how much more is the purposefully induced death of a fetus worthy of capital punishment, i.e., life for life? The implication of this concerning abortion is clear. The Christian Bible does mention abortion.
Some translations seek to make this passage refer to a miscarriage. This translation is refuted by the Sixth General Assembly of the PCA. They state that the word used "indicates that the child in view is not the product of a miscarriage", and also that, "Verse 23 describes a situation where some harm is done EITHER to mother OR child or BOTH...An induced miscarriage could hardly be described as a situation where there is 'no harm'. Verse 22, therefore, describes, not an induced miscarriage, but an induced premature birth." They also state that translations using the word miscarriage are "both inaccurate and misleading". [1]
In view of this, the article should be revised to remove these false statements, and hopefully will mention the modern evangelical Christian view that the Bible does mention and condemn abortion, along with their reasons for believing so.
SAC, Christian ( talk) 22:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Christian thought on abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The patristic writings section currently includes the lines
Not only did they not view early abortions as being abortions, but many prominent Catholics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones. For example, in her treatises the 12th century abbess and later saint Hildegard of Bingen discusses tansy as an effective abortifacient taken by a pregnant woman "on account she languishes [morietur], or she aborts an infant with a danger to her body, or if she has not had a menstrual period for a time period so that it hurts". [1]
This is problematic for two reasons: first, the source names hazelwort, not tansy, as the herb in question. Second, the assertion in the source is based on a bizarre mistranslation. One edition of the corresponding latin text reads [2]
Et si pregnans mulier eam comederet, aut moreretur aut infantem cum periculo corporis sui abortiret, aut si eo tempore cum menstrua non haberet, vel plus inde doleret.
A literal and grammatical reading of the passage is
And if a pregnant woman were to eat it, she would either die or miscarry the infant, with danger to her own body; or if [she ate it] at that time when she was not having menstrual periods, hence she would be pained even more.
An older edition of the latin text gives [3]
Et si pregnans mulier eam comederit, aut morietur, aut infantem cum periculo corporis sui abortiret, aut si eo tempore cum menstrua non haberet, vel plus indoleret.
A literal reading of this one is
And if a pregnant woman shall have eaten it, either she will die, or she would miscarry the infant, with danger to her own body; or if [she ate it] at that time when she was not having menstrual periods, she would be pained even more.
Riddle, strangely, reads this as
If a pregnant woman will eat Asurum, either on account she languishes, or she aborts an infant with a danger to her body, or, if she has not had a menstrual period for a time that it hurts.
and interprets it as an endorsement of the herb as an abortifacient, disregarding the larger context: Hildegard is warning against the use of hazelwort in general, and lists particularly vulnerable populations, including people with fever or gout, in addition to pregnant women. So far as I can tell, no other author has independently arrived at Riddle's translation or interpretation; Priscilla Throop, who has translated the entire work, renders the line [4]
A pregnant woman who eats it would die or abort the infant, with danger to her body. If a woman who has not yet had a menstrual period eats it, it will affect her more.
The scholar Monica H. Green, reviewing another of Riddle's books (in which he makes the same argument), also remarks on the poorness of Riddle's translation and disputes his conclusion. [5] Since apparently no one other than Riddle has seen a connection between Hildegard von Bingen and the promotion of abortifacients, I am proposing to remove the mention of her from the article. Cheers, gnu 57 02:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
References
There is already a decent about of discussion on early Christian thought on infanticide in this article. I do not recommend taking it out--the issues are clearly linked. But I am proposing changing the title to History of Christian thought on abortion and infanticide especially since this is already the scope of the article.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 03:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the following could fit into the article; it mostly came from the Church Fathers and abortion article; this would be a good place to work it up a bit if need be before moving it back. Even though I'm signing this with my username feel free to improve the text.
Athanagoras of Athens, an Ante-Nicene Christian apologist, philosopher, and Apostolic Father, wrote in 177 AD, in A Plea for the Christians, that "women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder." [1]
Tertullian, a Christian writer and Latin Father influenced by Stoicism, who is not regarded as a saint by the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church because of his denial of the Trinity, wrote in 197 AD, in Apology, that Christians, being forbidden to murder, could not "destroy even the fetus in the womb." [2] In 208 AD, Tertullian wrote in On the Soul that Mosaic Law punishes "the man who shall cause abortion." [3]
Marcus Minucius Felix, a Latin Father and apologist, wrote in 226 AD, in Octavius, that women who "extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels" commit parricide. [4]
Hippolytus of Rome, a Latin Christian theologian who at one time committed schism before reconciling with the Christian church, wrote in 228 AD, in Refutation of All Heresies, that women who "expel what was being conceived" commit murder. [5]
Augustine of Hippo, a Latin Christian theologian and bishop of Hippo influenced by Neoplatonism, wrote in 320 AD, in On Marriage and Concupiscence that "sometimes...cruel lust...resorts to...poisonous drugs...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." [6]
Augustine believed that an early abortion is not murder because, according to the Aristotelian concept of delayed ensoulment, the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present, a belief that passed into canon law. [7] [8] Nonetheless, he harshly condemned the procedure: "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))
Basil of Caesarea, a Latin Christian theologian and bishop of Caesarea Mazaca who supported the Nicene Creed, wrote in 374 AD, in Epistle to Amphilochius, that the woman "who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder." [9]
Jerome of Striden, a Latin Christian priest, confessor, theologian, and historian who translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, wrote in 384 AD, in Letter to Eustochium, that adultresses who "use drugs to procure abortion" commit "child murder." [10]
Ambrose of Milan, a Latin Christian archbishop of Milan and opponent of Arianism, wrote in 388 AD, in Hexameron, that women by "the use of parricidal mixtures they snuff out the fruit of their wombs in the genital organs themselves. In this way life is taken away before it is given." [11]
John Chrysostom, a Latin Christian archbishop of Constantinople, whose views on the Jews are considered antisemitic, wrote in 391 AD, in Homily 24 on Romans, that abortion is "murder before birth...or rather something even worst than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born." [12] Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 02:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 02:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
bioethics
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).religioustolerance
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I attempted to amend the page to reflect John Chrysostom's views. The article currently states that John Chrysostom didn't view abortion as being as bad as murder, which directly contradicts his homilies on Romans in which he explicitly states that it is "something even worse than murder". [1] I gave the appropriate citations (a direct link to the homily translated into English, as well as two publications from two separate schools of law that also cite the homily, alongside many of John Chrysostom's contemporaries).
Since it has been reverted again (a second time), I'm trying to discuss it here to see what the issue is.
SvoHljott ( talk) 03:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2013. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think this article needs a rewritting. It's too much in a personal essay style and claims some unsourced stances. The article seems like a mess. Is this true ? "There is no mention of abortion in the Christian Bible, and at different times early Christians held different beliefs about abortion." The first half of the statement I think it's untrue, the second even less. The Old Testament really menciones abortion sometimes, unlike the New Testament. I ask to some users from the Christianity WikiProject to please try to give the article a more proper writting. Mistico ( talk) 14:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of this. The entire article really should be done. There are many poor sources used as well, such as Catholic for Choice. I say they are poor, let me clarify, they are poor, and in fact not capable or speaking for the institutional Church. They are a fringe group that dodges excommunication... why would we trust them to tell us what the Church teaches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.70 ( talk) 07:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The article states : "He notes that only in Exodus does the Bible discuss what the punishment should be to a man who strikes a woman so that she miscarries." When the article states the Christian Bible, which also includes the Old Testament, I think it should state the New Testament. There's really no reference to abortion in the New Testament but that doesn't mean that the first Christians didn't based their beliefs in this and other issues in the Christian ethics and moral found in the New Testament, mostly in the Gospels and the Letters of St. Paul. Even today the commandment "You shall not kill" is used by anti-abortion Christians as a condemnation of abortion. Of course this is an interpretation. This site provides many sources about how the Christians in the first centuries view abortion : [1]. I will try to choose the best parts later. Mistico ( talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The article uses this [2] from Catholics for a Free Choice as a source. So, do you think it's unreliable too ? 213.13.246.96 ( talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but were did you read that ? The article states : "This is a summary of Catholics for a Free Choice publication The History of Abortion in the Catholic Church." Where did you find the Kenneth Pennington reference ? Anyway, the article is far biased in a modern pro-choice perspective, like can be proved with the claim that "Also contrary to popular belief, no pope has proclaimed the prohibition of abortion an "infallible" teaching." Sorry but some of the article claims are laughable for anyone who knows the Catholic teachings on this issue and only can be seen as an attempt to instale a sort of modern individualist protestant mentality in the Catholic Church. I´m not being pro-catholic, but the article makes a mess and is so tendencious that it could be ballanced with more serious and neutral references. The dogma of Papal Infalibility was only issued in 1854 by Pius IX and it's rarely used by the Church, like when Pius XII issued the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. 213.13.246.96 ( talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with the above author. Let me start by saying that I am somewhat of a Church history nut. I have read many medieval texts in their original Latin, and have analyzed many earlier (1st century even) texts. The pro-choice camp within the Church has for a long time tried to make arguments in favor of abortion, usually trying to portray the Church as having had many different options on the matter of the centimes. Nothing could be further from the truth. We see in many early sources (such as the Apocalypse of Peter)that abortion was always considered morally wrong. While there have been Catholic theologians over the years that argue this topic, they haven't changed doctrine. The only way doctrine can ever be changed, or modified is through an ecumenical council or an ex cathedra statement. A pope could say that he thought abortion was fine, this wouldn't change the doctrine though, abortion would still be considered wrong by the Church. My point is this: just because theologians have argued over abortion, does in no way mean that the Church has never had one clear firm position on the matter. Catholic for Choice is a political organization that twists things to their favor, don't fall for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.70 ( talk) 07:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope this article will atract some users from Christianity WikiProject. They will gave it a more encyclopedic tone that I'm unable to give for lack of knowledge. There are several questions the article lefts unanswered. First, the timeline of Ancient Christianity. It can be seen in three phases, the first from 30 to 313, when Christianity was persecuted, from 313 to 395 when it was tolerated, and from 395 to 476, when it become official, until the fall of the Roman Empire. The historical context of the persecutions of the first period, when Christianity faced many practises allowed by the Roman Empire, like abortion, in any stage of the pregnancy, and homossexuality, is important. Back then it didn't existed the modern conflicts between those who oppose or support it, but between Christianity and roman paganism. 213.13.246.96 ( talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia article about The Catholic University of America : "In a letter to the campus that next month, CUA President David O'Connell wrote: I consider any pro-choice advocacy — whether deliberate or accidental, whether presented under the guise of academic freedom or right to free speech — as incompatible with that fidelity and not worthy of The Catholic University of America.[30]" I doubt that Kenneth Pennington, who hardly could work in the University if he was pro-choice could be the author of that article. How it's related with that website that bears his name is something that I don't get. 213.13.246.96 ( talk) 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If you read the article about The Catholic University of America, you will see that even people who openly support abortion, like actor Stanley Tucci, aren't allowed to give lectures there. It's rather possible that Kenneth Pennington had become pro-life. Anyway, that's not the point. The article states: "In any case, Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their personal conscience in moral matters, even when their conscience is in conflict with hierarchical views." This is simply unbelievable, from a Catholic perspective! The Catholics, and I can speak as a lapsed Catholic, don't have the right to disagree with the Church in essential matters of faith or openly support views that are seen as anti-Catholic. For some reason the Church excommunicated automatically Catholics who joined Freemasonary and Communist Parties. It's not me who says that, but the Church itself. All the Catholic Church theology is overwhelmingly pro-life, as the author of the article pretends not to know. I can quote pope John XXIII: "It is to the Church, indeed, that is given the right and the duty of cheeking the integrity of the principles of religious and ethical order and, besides that, to give knowledge, in virtue of his authority, publicly his criteria, when it concerns the practical application of these principles." (Encyclical Mater et Magistra) I could point dozens of examples from encyclicals and Church documents about this. Like it or not, the Catholic Church still punishes with automatic excommunication every person involved in a induced abortion. Anyway, this brings us to the modern abortion debate and I can't see such a tendencious and non neutral article, written in a modern pro-choice perspective, as a reliable source. Not even these articles can show the impossible, that not even one of the Church Fathers ever supported legal abortion. As I think it should be pointed once again, the entry about the History of the early Christian thought on abortion must be written taking in consideration the historical context of the time, and not in a biased tone for modern religious and political propaganda. 82.154.83.224 ( talk) 03:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source to start ? [3] Maybe if someone wants to buy the book. Mistico ( talk) 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean the book but the source itself. Mistico ( talk) 15:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This used to be in the Pro-life movement article until it was removed.
"Opposition to abortion by some Christians is based on a number of sources. Historically, the first Christian opposition to abortion is found in a short early Christian treatise called the Didache and in the writings of a few of the Church Fathers. The Didache, which dates from the end of the 1st century, specifically prohibits abortion. [1] Tertullian (c. 160-c. 230) condemned abortion as a crime: "Abortion is a precipitation of murder, nor does it matter whether or not one takes a life when formed, or drives it away when forming, for he is also a man who is about to be one." [2] St. Basil the Great (330-379) also states that "Those who give potions for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers, as are those who take potions which kill the child." [3] St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-379) takes a similar position : "There is no question about that which is bred in the uterus, both growing, and moving from place to place. It remains, therefore, that we must think that the point of commencement of existence is one and the same for body and soul". [4] St. Augustine did consider that the gravity of participation in an abortion depended whether or not the fetus had yet received a soul at the time of abortion. [5]"
If no one objects I think these opinions should be added to the article. If anyone can find other views if they favor more or not abortion, I have no objection too. Mistico ( talk) 15:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The original source was a blog, later replaced by other sources. The reference to St. Augustine deserves more explanation because, despite his views on "ensoulment", in any place this Church Father supported abortion as morally acceptable. Mistico ( talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The Didaché reference appears in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, from 1992. 213.13.246.96 ( talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article about
Augustine of Hippo states: "Abortion and ensoulment// Like other Church Fathers, St Augustine "vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion".[81] In his works, Augustine did consider that the gravity of participation in an abortion depended whether or not the fetus had yet received a soul.This occurred at 40 days for males, and 80 for females.[81]" The source is: * Fitzgerald, Allan D., O.S.A., General Editor (1999). Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
ISBN
0-8028-3843-X. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
If St Augustine, according to historical evidences, strongly condemned abortion, before or after what he viewed as "ensoulment", he certainly condemned also abortion as a crime before ensoulment. It seems implicit in his stance. If he used the word "murder" or not, I don't know. Only direct quotes from St. Augustine works could clarify this question. Anyway, even those who use the "ensoulment" question, can't deny that he totally opposed legal abortion, like the Church.
82.154.83.224 (
talk)
03:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Since there was a slow edit war growing more heated, I've protected the page for 6 hours, no doubt in the wrong version. Please exchange your arguments here on the talk page, not as one-liners in the edit summaries. Thanks. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what there is to say. The sources are in the article, they're even quoted; all you have to do is read them. It could not possibly have been made easier. You can make statements about most scholars believing that early Christians condemned abortion, but you simply cannot make categorical statements that early Christians condemned abortion because we have an extremely reliable source that says they did not agree on this issue.
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
09:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it really, as claimed, a violation of WP:SYNTH to state verifiably in this article that Basil the Great imposed a ten-year exclusion from communion for abortion and a three-year exclusion for military killing? Even if the impositions were by different church authorities of the same period, and not by the same individual as here, information on the different periods of exclusion in vogue at the time is surely highly pertinent in providing the context of the imposition of any one of them. As such, this information does not appear to be the type of illicit synthesis envisaged in the Wikipedia rule book. I am, of course, open to correction. Esoglou ( talk) 17:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't compose any argument. I just don't understand how it could be considered synthesis to state verifiably that Sophocles' Oedipus the King has 1530 lines and his Oedipus at Colonus has 1779 lines (implying no more than the obvious fact that the second is longer than the first, not for instance that Sophocles liked one more than the other), or to say verifiably that the City of London (in the strict sense, not the whole town) has an area of about one square mile, while the area of Vatican City is less than 0.2 square miles (implying no more than the obvious fact that the City of London is about five times the size of Vatican City), or to cite the canons of the Council of Elvira for the sins for which that Council did not want communion to be given even at death (implying no more than the obvious fact that that Council rated all those sins as meriting the same exclusion), or to indicate verifiably what periods of exclusion Basil considered appropriate for more than one sin (implying no more than the obvious fact that he rated one sin as meriting a longer exclusion than the other). If you compose your request first, I could doubtless add my comment, either before or after you post your request. If you decide to post it first, please let me know when the question has been put. Esoglou ( talk) 12:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the offer, Esoglou, but I don't think you can give me special dispensation from 1RR. ;) Anyway, it's better to discuss. I removed the section because the article is about Christian perspectives and, to a lesser degree, the Greek and Jewish perspectives which are thought to have influenced the Christians. Unless the sources discuss how Stoic perspectives on the soul influenced (or did not influence) Christian perspectives, the information is extraneous. I would suggest adding the information perhaps to Ensoulment - that has an extensive section on the Catholic view, but not much else, and more information on Greek views could make it a better article. It also might help to take another look at the sources in this article for Greek and Jewish views, to make sure they talk about how those views relate to Christian views. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, the problem with all these suggestions and additions is WP:NOR. Too many sources say that Augustine was an Aristotelian on this issue for us to water down this claim in any way based on what appears, from your comment, to be your own analysis of primary sources. Do you have secondary sources that agree with your view? (And of course, if in the current version of the article - I'm on my phone again so I can't view the article and talkpage at the same time - cites Augustine's view, which you read to be incorrect, only to a primary source, it must certainly be replaced or augmented with secondary sources - it's not as though there's a shortage of scholarly literature on Augustine, after all!) Same with Pythagoreanism. I don't doubt that there are sources which connect Pythagoreanism to Christianity, but they would have to specifically reference Pythagorean views on the soul or on abortion in connection with Christians. (Forgive me if they do, I haven't yet been able to view them for the aforementioned reason.) "Pythagoreans believed this about the soul" + "Pythagorean ideas influenced Christians" =/= "Pythagorean ideas about the soul influenced Christian ideas about the soul"; this would be synth. But either way, I think this detailed information about different beliefs on ensoulment belongs in the article on ensoulment, rather than here. Could you elaborate on why you don't incline to it? Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Propose changing the title of this article (via "move") in order to expand scope
History of early Christian thought on abortion → History of Christian teaching on abortion –
The current title is too restrictive in scope yielding a short article. My proposed title allows the article to discuss Christian teaching beyond "early Christianity". This will be useful for shortening the articles on Christianity and abortion and Catholic Church and abortion. Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 01:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
NB: References in the early part of this section to "the first 3.5 paragraphs of Christianity and abortion" refer to the subsections that are now in the "History" section at the end of that article. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is in the perception that material will be "removed" from Christianity and abortion. Instead of removing it, I propose to replace it with a summary per WP:SUMMARY. The History of Christian teaching on abortion will summarize the current situation whereas Christianity and abortion will summarize the history leading up to the current situation. How to strike the right balance between summary and detail is a discussion that need not be resolved completely at this point in time. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 08:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I support eventually renaming the article to History of Christian thought on abortion but as the article stands now, it doesn't need to be done right away. Two articles are useful (one on current developments and another with historical context) and since every denomination has its own teachings, the word "thought" seems to better support the article's future scope (I presume it will eventually be expanded beyond the fourth century). All the best, Miniapolis ( talk) 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Twice, the article falsely states that, "there is no mention of abortion in the Christian Bible", while this same article at its end quotes John Calvin's commentary on Exodus 21:22-25. Read this passage in full.
"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, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (NKJV)
The men who were careless enough to be fighting around a pregnant woman would be punished for accidentally inducing labor even if no harm came to the child. But if harm did come to the child, they were to be killed: "you shall give life for life". This reflects a very sanctified attitude toward the fetus, since accidental murder is otherwise unpunishable. So then, if an accidentally induced death of a fetus is worthy of capital punishment (due to the carelessness of the men fighting), how much more is the purposefully induced death of a fetus worthy of capital punishment, i.e., life for life? The implication of this concerning abortion is clear. The Christian Bible does mention abortion.
Some translations seek to make this passage refer to a miscarriage. This translation is refuted by the Sixth General Assembly of the PCA. They state that the word used "indicates that the child in view is not the product of a miscarriage", and also that, "Verse 23 describes a situation where some harm is done EITHER to mother OR child or BOTH...An induced miscarriage could hardly be described as a situation where there is 'no harm'. Verse 22, therefore, describes, not an induced miscarriage, but an induced premature birth." They also state that translations using the word miscarriage are "both inaccurate and misleading". [1]
In view of this, the article should be revised to remove these false statements, and hopefully will mention the modern evangelical Christian view that the Bible does mention and condemn abortion, along with their reasons for believing so.
SAC, Christian ( talk) 22:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Christian thought on abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The patristic writings section currently includes the lines
Not only did they not view early abortions as being abortions, but many prominent Catholics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones. For example, in her treatises the 12th century abbess and later saint Hildegard of Bingen discusses tansy as an effective abortifacient taken by a pregnant woman "on account she languishes [morietur], or she aborts an infant with a danger to her body, or if she has not had a menstrual period for a time period so that it hurts". [1]
This is problematic for two reasons: first, the source names hazelwort, not tansy, as the herb in question. Second, the assertion in the source is based on a bizarre mistranslation. One edition of the corresponding latin text reads [2]
Et si pregnans mulier eam comederet, aut moreretur aut infantem cum periculo corporis sui abortiret, aut si eo tempore cum menstrua non haberet, vel plus inde doleret.
A literal and grammatical reading of the passage is
And if a pregnant woman were to eat it, she would either die or miscarry the infant, with danger to her own body; or if [she ate it] at that time when she was not having menstrual periods, hence she would be pained even more.
An older edition of the latin text gives [3]
Et si pregnans mulier eam comederit, aut morietur, aut infantem cum periculo corporis sui abortiret, aut si eo tempore cum menstrua non haberet, vel plus indoleret.
A literal reading of this one is
And if a pregnant woman shall have eaten it, either she will die, or she would miscarry the infant, with danger to her own body; or if [she ate it] at that time when she was not having menstrual periods, she would be pained even more.
Riddle, strangely, reads this as
If a pregnant woman will eat Asurum, either on account she languishes, or she aborts an infant with a danger to her body, or, if she has not had a menstrual period for a time that it hurts.
and interprets it as an endorsement of the herb as an abortifacient, disregarding the larger context: Hildegard is warning against the use of hazelwort in general, and lists particularly vulnerable populations, including people with fever or gout, in addition to pregnant women. So far as I can tell, no other author has independently arrived at Riddle's translation or interpretation; Priscilla Throop, who has translated the entire work, renders the line [4]
A pregnant woman who eats it would die or abort the infant, with danger to her body. If a woman who has not yet had a menstrual period eats it, it will affect her more.
The scholar Monica H. Green, reviewing another of Riddle's books (in which he makes the same argument), also remarks on the poorness of Riddle's translation and disputes his conclusion. [5] Since apparently no one other than Riddle has seen a connection between Hildegard von Bingen and the promotion of abortifacients, I am proposing to remove the mention of her from the article. Cheers, gnu 57 02:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
References
There is already a decent about of discussion on early Christian thought on infanticide in this article. I do not recommend taking it out--the issues are clearly linked. But I am proposing changing the title to History of Christian thought on abortion and infanticide especially since this is already the scope of the article.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 03:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the following could fit into the article; it mostly came from the Church Fathers and abortion article; this would be a good place to work it up a bit if need be before moving it back. Even though I'm signing this with my username feel free to improve the text.
Athanagoras of Athens, an Ante-Nicene Christian apologist, philosopher, and Apostolic Father, wrote in 177 AD, in A Plea for the Christians, that "women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder." [1]
Tertullian, a Christian writer and Latin Father influenced by Stoicism, who is not regarded as a saint by the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church because of his denial of the Trinity, wrote in 197 AD, in Apology, that Christians, being forbidden to murder, could not "destroy even the fetus in the womb." [2] In 208 AD, Tertullian wrote in On the Soul that Mosaic Law punishes "the man who shall cause abortion." [3]
Marcus Minucius Felix, a Latin Father and apologist, wrote in 226 AD, in Octavius, that women who "extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels" commit parricide. [4]
Hippolytus of Rome, a Latin Christian theologian who at one time committed schism before reconciling with the Christian church, wrote in 228 AD, in Refutation of All Heresies, that women who "expel what was being conceived" commit murder. [5]
Augustine of Hippo, a Latin Christian theologian and bishop of Hippo influenced by Neoplatonism, wrote in 320 AD, in On Marriage and Concupiscence that "sometimes...cruel lust...resorts to...poisonous drugs...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." [6]
Augustine believed that an early abortion is not murder because, according to the Aristotelian concept of delayed ensoulment, the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present, a belief that passed into canon law. [7] [8] Nonetheless, he harshly condemned the procedure: "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))
Basil of Caesarea, a Latin Christian theologian and bishop of Caesarea Mazaca who supported the Nicene Creed, wrote in 374 AD, in Epistle to Amphilochius, that the woman "who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder." [9]
Jerome of Striden, a Latin Christian priest, confessor, theologian, and historian who translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, wrote in 384 AD, in Letter to Eustochium, that adultresses who "use drugs to procure abortion" commit "child murder." [10]
Ambrose of Milan, a Latin Christian archbishop of Milan and opponent of Arianism, wrote in 388 AD, in Hexameron, that women by "the use of parricidal mixtures they snuff out the fruit of their wombs in the genital organs themselves. In this way life is taken away before it is given." [11]
John Chrysostom, a Latin Christian archbishop of Constantinople, whose views on the Jews are considered antisemitic, wrote in 391 AD, in Homily 24 on Romans, that abortion is "murder before birth...or rather something even worst than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born." [12] Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 02:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 02:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
bioethics
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).religioustolerance
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I attempted to amend the page to reflect John Chrysostom's views. The article currently states that John Chrysostom didn't view abortion as being as bad as murder, which directly contradicts his homilies on Romans in which he explicitly states that it is "something even worse than murder". [1] I gave the appropriate citations (a direct link to the homily translated into English, as well as two publications from two separate schools of law that also cite the homily, alongside many of John Chrysostom's contemporaries).
Since it has been reverted again (a second time), I'm trying to discuss it here to see what the issue is.
SvoHljott ( talk) 03:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)