# Pelosi, Abortion, and Church History



## Marrow Man (Aug 26, 2008)

In light of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent comments in which she defended her pro-abortions beliefs by appealing to early church fathers (Tertullian and Augustine, I believe), I was wondering if anyone could post a quote or link to the references in question. In other words, exactly what did Augustine and/or Tertullian say (if anything) with regard to the subject of abortion?


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 26, 2008)

> 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 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



> Augustine recognizes the challenging complexities of the problem of abortion. He states that a key question in his own time, as it is now, was “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.”
> 
> With his typical candor, Augustine admits that he cannot assuredly say at exactly what point human life begins. He seriously questions whether any human has the power to decisively say. Nevertheless, he asserts that any one who looked at the cut-up remains of an aborted baby would have to recognize that this had been a human life. Although Augustine apparently had a firm belief that a developing fetus participates in human life, he argues equally strongly here that a conclusive proof is outside our human ability.


 Christian History : Augustine. 1987; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996 (electronic ed.). Carol Stream IL: Christianity Today.



> Jerome and Augustine, while condemning abortion, wrestled with the question of ensoulment (at forty-six days for Augustine) and the formed and unformed fetus, concluding that there was no solution to this, but that the killing of either was to be condemned. Others allowed the distinction of “formed and unformed” to influence the punishment visited upon the perpetrator of abortion.


 Komonchak, J. A., Collins, M., & Lane, D. A. (2000, c1991). The New dictionary of theology. "A Michael Glazier book." (electronic ed.) (3). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Aug 26, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Augustine recognizes the challenging complexities of the problem of abortion. He states that a key question in his own time, as it is now, was “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.”
> With his typical candor, Augustine admits that he cannot assuredly say at exactly what point human life begins. He seriously questions whether any human has the power to decisively say. Nevertheless, he asserts that any one who looked at the cut-up remains of an aborted baby would have to recognize that this had been a human life. Although Augustine apparently had a firm belief that a developing fetus participates in human life, he argues equally strongly here that a conclusive proof is outside our human ability.
> 
> Christian History : Augustine. 1987; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996 (electronic ed.). Carol Stream IL: Christianity Today.



Augustine didn't have the benefit of a microscope or an ultrasound probe. Had he been able to see the beating heart at 8 weeks gestational age or the fertilized zygote, he would undoubtedly have believed life begins at conception.

For what it's worth, I have a waist-high stack of medical textbooks that all say life begins at conception.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 26, 2008)

Basically, it sounds like I suspected: Augustine was undecided on the subject of ensoulment, couldn't say positively when life began, yet still condemned abortion. And Spker Pelosi is hanging her RC hat on this one thing, not seeing the forest for the trees. Am I mistaken in my analysis of her comments?


----------



## BJClark (Aug 26, 2008)

And I have never understood why they ignore the fact a baby moves and kicks without the help of the mother..at least *I* never forced my babies to kick me from within the womb..seems to me that would be the result of a child with it's own soul acting on it's own..


----------



## Solus Christus (Aug 26, 2008)

BJClark said:


> And I have never understood why they ignore the fact a baby moves and kicks without the help of the mother..at least *I* never forced my babies to kick me from within the womb..seems to me that would be the result of a child with it's own soul acting on it's own..



Sadly, the answer to that really is because they want to rid themselves of the baby. But of course they'll use words like "fetus". Anything to accomplish their goal. I'm reminded of Obama's quote some time back about not wanting his daughters "punished with a baby". Even when they call it a baby it's still seen as an object to get rid of.

But to avoid thread-jacking, I believe you're right in your analysis Marrow. Pelosi really does have an agenda and that she is speaking to liberally minded people. There really is no integrity in politics and if her beliefs conflict with the populace, well, we can see what she decided was more important.


----------



## Galatians220 (Aug 26, 2008)

BJClark said:


> And I have never understood why they ignore the fact a baby moves and kicks without the help of the mother..at least *I* never forced my babies to kick me from within the womb..


 
_I did._  We used to play a little game, starting from about Week 33: my son's feet were firmly planted most often at the bottom of my right rib cage. He used to kick there, and hard... In order to distract him, I would push on the bottom of one of his feet, once, and he'd kick back once; twice, and he'd kick back twice. I demonstrated this to my OB at one of my last appointments before my C-section and he was very surprised, to say the least.

*But to Nancy Pelosi and other pro-aborts, especially Dems, this little "gamer" could not possibly be classified as a human being. *

Right.  

Margaret


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 26, 2008)

Pelosi is dead wrong. Tertullian clearly opposed abortion. 

ANF, Vol 3, pg. 25; From Tertullian's Apology, ch. IX. 
ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


> How many, think you, of those crowding around and gaping for Christian blood,—how many even of your rulers, notable for their justice to you and for their severe measures against us, may I charge in their own consciences with the sin of putting their offspring to death? As to any difference in the kind of murder, it is certainly the more cruel way to kill by drowning, or by exposure to cold and hunger and dogs. A maturer age has always preferred death by the sword. * In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fœtus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from 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 the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.*


----------



## Zenas (Aug 26, 2008)

Now she's twice the liar.


----------



## TimV (Aug 26, 2008)

> For what it's worth, I have a waist-high stack of medical textbooks that all say life begins at conception.



We all agree on that from a biological point of view. The question, though, is that of "ensoulation", i.e. when that immature member of the species _Homo sapiens _becomes human. And as has been said, the reason for the distinction has to due with punishment. 

The point I would take home is this: Ms. Pelosi is rightly pointing out that many of the Church Fathers did NOT believe that a human being had a soul at conception. Many of not the overwhelming majority believed that a member of the species _Homo sapiens_ didn't become human, and have the same legal rights as the rest of the population until later.

But, Ms. Pelosi, to be fair, needs also to point out that according to the church fathers, ALL termination of the species _Homo sapiens_ was BAD, even before the death penalty applied to killing them.

I didn't read her quotes, as I frankly find her a bit disturbing. Do I dare hope that she chose her words with intellectual honesty?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 26, 2008)

My guess is this place was feeding her info.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 26, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> My guess is this place was feeding her info.



Oh my, is that really a seminary website? It looks like the publicity page for a sitcom.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 26, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > My guess is this place was feeding her info.
> ...



Better yet I know "clergy" in the PC(USA) who went there as it is a PC(USA) school.


----------



## Galatians220 (Aug 27, 2008)

This may be what the Ever-So-Addled Ms. Pelosi is thinking of:

Historical abortion beliefs of the Christian church.

Catholic Church hasn't always had its "ducks in a row" on abortion, as I recall.

Margaret


----------

