Contraceptives and sin

I think this statement is of fundamental importance. Science can give us information to inform our philosophy, but science is completely incapable of defining what is human, what is animal and what is something else entirely.

 

Teh early church was against it and saw it as a grave sin.


“Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten,” (Didache Chapter 2).

The so-called “Epistle of Barnabas” (early second century) preserves the same command almost exactly:

“Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born,” (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 19)

Likewise in the early/mid-second century “Epistle to Diognetus,” the Christian lifestyle is described, including the statement:

“They beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh,” (Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter 5)

Like the Jewish “Sibylline Oracles,” the second-century apocryphal “Apocalypse of Peter” describes eternal judgment on those who commit abortions:

“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,” (Apocalypse of Peter, verse 25).

Later in the second century, a Christian apologist named Athenagoras wrote:

“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,” (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 35).

And the Latin theologian, Tertullian, explained:

“In our case, 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 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 destroys 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,” (Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 9).

It was a pretty clear consensus. As Anglicans we are informed by Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

 

Correct. I made an argument from Scripture and Reason; you made one from Tradition. I think the Tradition has grossly misrepresented the Scriptures on this point, and I explained why. We aren’t committed to the infallibility of Tradition, and we aren’t bound by it when it deviates from Scripture; it’s perfectly ok to apply Reason to the problem and conclude that the Tradition is wrong. That’s how the English Reformation started.

 

Well, if what you say is true, then we have a distressing problem in our country: our courts routinely utilize DNA evidence to identify people via lab work and the testimonies of expert witnesses. If each person's DNA is not unique in some respects (even though some 99.8% of DNA is identical, the remaining .2% provides the differences), then all these expert witnesses are deceived and our legal system is convicting people of felonies on the basis of fraudulent pretend-science.

https://sciencing.com/dna-fingerprinting-unique-6497207.html

https://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/DNAbro/what.html

It is generally accepted that a child receives 1/2 of his DNA genes from the father and 1/2 from the mother, creating a unique mix, and this mix varies from sibling to sibling (except in the case of identical twins). Each DNA molecule contains perhaps 20,000-30,000 genes, so it doesn't take much to produce an identifiable, quantifiable difference between two people. Even if one prefers to speak in terms of transcription factors, the differences are present and identifiable.

Is it human DNA? Yes. How can it not be a human? By the way, the child's heartbeat is detectable as early as 3 weeks after conception, and science has progressed to the point where a fertilized egg can be grown to birthing age outside of the uterus (have you heard of 'test tube babies'?). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research

 

But it has not deviated from scripture.

 

Scripture doesn’t say it’s murder (and in fact implies that it is not); Tradition states the opposite. Who’s right?

 

Scripture says that children in the womb. Scripture is against murdering of people. So scripture is against abortion. I see where you say it is a property crime and not a death penalty offense but that does not take away the personhood of the child and it does imply that is is wrong even if your interpretation is correct.

 

It says children in the womb are people in how it deals and treats with Children. John leapt in his womb when meeting Jesus who was in Mary's womb is the clearest example in the New Testament. How or why would John leap upon being in the presence of Mary and Jesus if Jesus was not already in the earliest stages of his bodily form?

 

I never said it wasn’t a sin in most circumstances. I believe it is. I said it is not murder. The passages you cited don’t affect that contention.

 

Episcopalians...

 

I think I ought to be able to expect not to be mocked for being a member of the canonical American Anglican jurisdiction on an Anglican site. We’re grown adults here; we can do better than snide ad hominem remarks.

Deal with the argument, not where it came from. Nowhere - nowhere - do the Scriptures state that abortion is murder. By what authority, then, is the opposite claim made? Can’t something be a sin without being murder? Why the kneejerk reaction against considering the biblical evidence on its merits, apart from any presuppositions we may have inherited? Why is that so difficult? It’s not like I’m arguing in favor of abortion or something (and I’m not). If you’re concerned about the issue, as I am, would it not be good to know how far our respective convictions can be rationally justified, so that they can be reflected in possible legislation in a secular republic? These are questions worth asking, and they have tremendous practical implications, not merely theoretical ones. We need to take them seriously.

 

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
-Jeremiah 1:5

The good news is that the Anglican tradition has already answered it for us, from centuries of legal and ecclesialstical jurisprudence. The initially conceived fetus is animal, and becomes a human fetus when the human soul enters the body, ie. after the Quickening. Before quickening (which is a legal term), abortion is a crime but not murder. After the quickening, it is murder and punished typically by capital punishment.

If Scripture is silent on something, then the rule of the Church and the ecclesiastical Tradition are binding. So even if Scripture said nothing about it (something I don't accept), you are still bound as an Anglican by the Anglican tradition, and by the ecclesiastical/canonical rule of the Church. And if the Anglican tradition were silent and there were no ecclesiastical rulings on the matter, you'd still be bound by Reason, and abortion is against reason as well.

On every level, it's a losing battle to try to defend it from any scriptural, ecclesiastical, or rational standpoint. Abortion is an indefensible secular atheistic and irrational abomination.

 

No one here is defending it. The theory you are describing is similar (if not identical) to what Aquinas taught (and Aquinas is certainly a good place to start). That is important, because any discussion of “personhood” in the context of ecclesiastical tradition would need to take into account Aquinas’ definition:

Aquinas’ definition, if applied consistently, rules out the notion of the zygote or embryo being considered a human person. The ‘independent existence’ criterion is key here. Once a foetus is physically capable of living outside the womb, I would argue that the ‘independence’ criterion has been satisfied, because the location of the foetus is, in Aristotelian terms, an ‘accident’ of its existence, not essential to its nature. An alternative view is that this moment is reached when the newborn takes its first breath, i.e., birth. Life as know it begins and ends with respiration, and there is biblical warrant for this view as well (cf. Gen. 3: “And God breathed into Adam’s nostrils, and he became a living soul” (Hebr. nephesh). If homicide is defined as “the unjust killing of a human person”, then determining what constitutes a “person” is critical. But so are the conditions that would render such an act just or unjust. Even granting the personhood of the foetus, are there circumstances in which its existence might constitute a threat to the mother? Of course there are. What this shows is that one can have an informed view of some of the philosophical and theological issues at stake without either (1) denying its sinfulness under normal circumstances, or (2) committing oneself to indefensible formulations out of all proportion to either the biblical text or rational argument, as the Roman Catholic Church has done in recent years. What the Roman Catholic Church has done with this issue is incredibly irresponsible.

 

Is it at all possible to not talk about them but the historic and Anglican Church instead?

 

Not if it’s the RC position I’m arguing against.

Can you provide some primary sources regarding historic Anglican endorsement of the quickening theory?

 

It was part of the English common law, for centuries. In the famous “Offences against the Person Act of 1828”, it is written:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Offences_against_the_Person_Act_1828

Administering Poison or using any Means to procure the Miscarriage of a Woman quick with Child. The like as to a Woman not quick with Child.

XIII. And be it enacted, That if any Person, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman then being quick with Child, unlawfully and maliciously shall administer to her, or cause to be taken by her, any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall use any Instrument or other Means whatever with the like Intent, every such Offender, and every Person counselling, aiding, or abetting such Offender, shall be guilty of Felony, and being convicted thereof, shall suffer Death as a Felon;

and if any Person, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman not being, or not being proved to be, then quick with Child, unlawfully and maliciously shall administer to her, or cause to be taken by her, any Medicine or other Thing, or shall use any Instrument or other Means whatever with the like Intent, every such Offender, and every Person counselling, aiding, or abetting such Offender, shall be guilty of Felony, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be transported beyond the Seas

 

I already knew about that. I was asking if that common law perspective ever got incorporated into church teaching along the way. That would be news to me, and thus interesting.

 

Sorry if it offends you; I didn't mean it as mocking. I simply have observed generally that people who gravitate toward the Episcopal Church tend to have much different (more "modern" or "progressive" if you will) points of view on several important issues than do people who gravitate toward, say, the ACNA or some of the similar Anglican branches (who hold more "traditional" or "conservative" viewpoints). It seems that each group tends to think the other group's stubborn adherence on those key issues is rather daffy. And there seems to be no way for the one type of person to convince the other, or vice versa, concerning any of those issues. My patience had reached the tipping point on this one.

 

(Feeling somewhat refreshed after the break...)

This was the Court's reasoning as well. Justice O'Connor's dissent in one of the post-Roe cases (I forget its styling) pointed out the fallacy inherent in that reasoning. You see, the Court wanted to hold that life begins when the fetus can survive outside the womb. However, as medical science progresses, this point will creep earlier and earlier in the gestation cycle. And eventually, O'Connor wrote, it would someday creep all the way back to the point of conception. So, supposing that the fetus could only survive at (let's say) day 182 at some point in history, but a few years later it can survive outside the womb at day 126, and years later at day 93, and then day 74, and so on. Picture this as a line segment (a line with a fixed end point on the left at conception and a fixed end point at birth). How can it make logical sense to say that life only begins at 182 if life soon will begin at day 126? Do you get the picture? It is nonsensical to draw an arbitrary mark in the sand and say, "this is the point in gestation when life begins." The only logical conclusion is to go to the non-arbitrary mark of that day which is certain (in that it certainly happened), the day which medical capability is trending ever toward: the day of conception.

Life begins when life begins, and this fact of life cannot be changed by judicial fiat.

Therefore, if one accepts that the "independent existence" criterion is key, then it stands to reason that the criterion must be considered 'met' at the earliest point which medical science should conceivably become able to sustain the new life outside of the mother's womb. That point is met when the egg is fertilized by the sperm and the DNA of both mother and father combine in that one cell in a pattern belonging to only that new, beginning individual life form. (The Court had already accepted as a foregone conclusion the fact that life began prior to birth... the only other fixed point on the gestational line segment)

 

I should point out that abortion being murder at conception is a RC doctrine, and a novel RC at that (1800s-1900s), at odds with the old RC doctrines, including what’s taught by Aquinas himself. According to Aquinas and the western legal tradition, the human soul does not enter the body at conception (This was also why Aquinas denied the immaculate conception of Mary ). No, the human soul enters the body some time later than conception itself. Prior to that, the fetus is living, it is alive, but is not yet human, and aborting is a crime other than murder. See the 1828 law I posted above.

How do we know when the human soul enters the body? The legal tradition argues that it happens when the clump of cells begins to move inside the mother, when it’s heart starts beating (roughly 3-4 weeks in). That’s called the moment of Quickening. At that point even before birth it is a full-fledged human being, and then abortion becomes murder.

Thus the traditional Christian would not be at home in today’s abortion debate. He would reject any kind of late-term abortion even strongly than we do, even at the point of self-martyrdom. But he would also be puzzled by the late-1800s RC innovation of claiming that human life begins at conception.