Talk:Christianity and abortion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Missing citations and bias

The article needs to be checked for biased views , as the article seems to biased against the pro-life beliefs. Worldplayer (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Worldplayer

This article is missing citations.--Lan Di (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is Augustine's "On Exodus"? I see it frequently cited, but apparently no published editions or online editions ever come up? The "religioustolerance" quotes are notorious for being paraphrases or uncited. The Apostolic Constitutions quote they give for example is quite incorrect (I even looked it up on ccel.org), as it makes no mention of abortions being permitted if they are "early enough," but merely forbids the practice and says that God will avenge those which possess a soul or are being shaped (nothing about whether it is already "human shaped" at the time of procedure). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.58.195 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This article cites some unreliable sources such as religioustolerance.org, leading some to falsely assert the conclusion that Pope Gregory XIV founds early abortion unacceptable, I discussed with people familiar with Latin. The second paragraph of the Sedes Apostolicae translated as follows:

The severity of these measures has had a detrimental effect insofar as sinners have been reluctant to seek forgiveness since it required specific recourse to the Holy See. The result has been many more sins, especially of sacrilege. Since the point of penalties is to lead sinners to repentance, and since we want to imitate the One whose place we hold on earth, Who came to call sinners, we have decided that where there is no question of a homicide or an animated fetus not to impose a harsher penalty than those which are already inflicted by the sacred canons and by secular laws… , and leave to any priest who has faculties to hear confessions the power to absolve from these abortions.

Theruteger (talk)

Ironalice continuously makes the false assertion that abortion was found acceptable by certain individuals with no evidence for the claim, the sources she(?) uses does not make the assertion and does not even lead one to conclude its, its close to vandalism on ironalice's part. Not to mention many of the sources shes uses, religious tolerance FAIL to provide sources for many of its claims.

Please stop the accusations.

Direct quote from source:

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):

• He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."
• Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life." ref: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Those accusations were valid since you continuously asserted that abortion was "acceptable" and there is nothing on the site that substantiates the claims for the people you cited, because its considered 'not murder' did not make it acceptable. Furthermore, the citations you make do not cite sources, it does not make a quotation of Pope Innocent III, there are proper ways to cite papal letters and all church documents, but the source simple asserts the claim was made. I still have no reason to believe religioustolerance.org is a reliable source, I feel it should not be used for wikipedia, for the reason it POORLY cites its sources not to mention its bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theruteger (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"For the days are coming upon you when your enemies will raise a palisade against you; they will encircle you and hem you in on all sides. They will smash you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another within you because you did not recognize the time of your visitation." luke 19:43-44 Jimmiejames (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting for you to ACTUALLY quote Pope Innocent III, ironangelalice, instead of quoting an unreliable website which does not even cite much of its sources, you "direct quote" is not even a quote.--Theruteger (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

UUA

I don't think the UUA calls itself Christian, although it comes from Christian roots, among other places. There are Christians who are UU's but UUism in general does not seem to require even nominal Christianity. Spotfixer (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

UUA doesn't call itself Christian and doesn't require Christianity because unlike most Western faiths it is not doctrinal. But it stands firmly in the Protestant tradition, only a bit to the left of UCC. As you point out, many UUs call themselves Christian; many who don't still wouldn't object to being called Christian. Theology along the lines of Bultmann and Bonhoeffer would feel familiar to most UUs. Elphion (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, ok, but you bunched the UU in with "several mainstream Protestant traditions" when I'd think it's more an offshoot of liberal Christianity that's heavy on the "liberal" and soft on the "Christianity". Please understand that I'm in no way suggesting that those UU's who call themselves Christians are anything but Christians or even that being Christian is in any way better than not being Christian. My concern is only with accuracy. Spotfixer (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that does look fishy. But "Several mainstream Protestant traditions belong to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice" is already odd: traditions don't belong to organizations. And who gets to define "mainstream"? UCC (and many individual Epsiscopalian congregations) probably don't look "mainstream" to a lot of Christians (including other Episcopalians). Would it be better to say: "Several denominations from the liberal Protestant tradition ... "? Elphion (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right; only organizations can belong, not traditions. As for "mainstream", maybe this was intended to be "mainline", which is a more clearly defined term. In any case, I'm happy with the version you suggest, and with the inclusion of the UUA in this. Glad we were able to figure this out. Spotfixer (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Baptism and Abortion

Spotfixer I deleted this part of the paragraph:

"Women throughout the long history of the church sometimes suffered spontaneous miscarriages. While these miscarriages often occasioned intense grief for the woman, her family, and her friends, the Christian churches never judged that the aborted substance (even in the third trimester) merited rites for the dead or a Christian burial."

because it is not REALLY source, the link given has NOTHING to do with this claim at all, the link does not discuss Church practice, no where in the whole web page give does it lend support for stating this at all, the whole web page is about what individuals ought to do, its not a discussion at all about Church practice. That is why it was deleted. Theruteger (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC).

Back up a second. Are you saying Catholics allow funeral rites for miscarriages? Spotfixer (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we wouldn't. - Schrandit (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That section was emotionally charged, it lacks citation, and under current church law atleast aborted and miscarried children can receive funeral rites see this site http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=264 "Likewise, a miscarried baby may receive a Catholic funeral, though a family is not required to formally bury a miscarried child." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theruteger (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Funeral or Burial Rites

The 1962 Rituale Romanum describes a "Burial Rite for a Baptized Child". The key point here is that this ritual, which is not a funeral Mass, was performed for those children who were baptized. So, a child who is born alive, but, out of some neglect of the parents, dies before they have baptized it, would also not have received this rite, for the simple reason that the state of the soul of an unbaptized human that never attained the use of reason is posited to be some sort of limbo. http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/45-rite-for-the-burial-of-children.html Thus, the question of whether some sort of burial rite for a miscarriage was given or not has no bearing on the question of the humanity of the fetus, because burial rites would have been denied to any unbaptized infant too.

What can be baptized?

The 1962 Rituale Romanum also states: "20. No child is to be baptized while still enclosed in the mother's womb, as long as there is a probable hope that it can be properly brought forth and then baptized. If only the head of the child has come forth and there is danger of its dying, it should be baptized on the head; if afterward it is born and lives, baptism may not be repeated conditionally. If another member of the body makes its appearance and there is danger of death, the baptism should be conferred conditionally upon that member; if the child lives after birth it must be rebaptized conditionally. Should a mother die in confinement, the fetus should be extracted by those obliged thereto by their profession, and if there is a certainty that it lives, it should be baptized absolutely, otherwise conditionally. A fetus baptized while in the mother's womb must be rebaptized conditionally after birth.

21. One should see to it that every abortive fetus, no matter of what period, be baptized absolutely if it is certainly alive. If there is doubt about its being alive, it should be baptized conditionally.

22. A monster or abnormal fetus should in every case be baptized at least with the following expressed condition: If you are a human being, I baptize you, etc. When in doubt as to whether there is one or several persons in the deformed mass, one part is to be baptized absolutely, and the others each with the condition: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc." http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/07-the-sacrament-of-baptism-general-rules.html

According to one moral theology manual: http://www.archive.org/details/MN5034ucmf_1 : "The Ritual admonishes ministers of the sacrament to be cautious about baptizing monsters. If a monster has not a human shape, but is a mere mass of fleshy growth, it should not be baptized at all. If there are two heads and two bodies, there are two persons, and both should be baptized, separately if there is time, otherwise under a common form. If it is doubtful whether there are two persons or only one, Baptism should be given absolutely to one, and again conditionally to the other, under the form,

"If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee," and so forth.

The Ritual also prescribes that if a woman dies in pregnancy the foetus should be extracted, and if still living should be baptized. This, of course, supposes that there is a skilled person present who judges that the foetus is still alive, and who is capable of performing the necessary operation." pp. 84-85

I presume that the reservation about baptizing a monster that has not human form is based on the idea that perhaps such is only some discharge of the woman. It would be interesting to review earlier versions of the Rituale Romanum and see what they have to say on the matter. For instance the on page 9 of this (http://books.google.com/books?id=xdQHAAAAQAAJ) Rituale from 1739 it says essentially the same thing concerning the baptism of monsters. So at least as far back as 1739, the Church clearly allowed for the conditional baptism of fetuses that remotely resembled humans.

--Freedomlives (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I took out the section for several reason. First, miscarriage is not central to the topic, so a relatively long section covering this info info doesn't belong in the intro. Second, the second sentence ("Christian churches never judged that the aborted substance (even in the third trimester) merited rites for the dead or a Christian burial") lacks a reference. Second, it seems to indicate that even when the fetus clearly looks human, baptism is not permitted. However, the subsequent section makes clear that baptism is not permitted in the case where the fetus in no way resembles a human. It doesn't speak to church teaching when the fetus does resemble a human. In short, the section is misleading and needs to be shortened and reworked if it is to be included.LCP (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Contemporary Roman Catholic views" is a mess

The more I look at it, the less I understand the edits made to it by ADM over the weekend. For example, the section starts by talking about how nuances of Catholic teaching have been overlooked of late. This makes no sense without the context of the version of last week. I've started reorganizing, but it is such a mess, I am leaning toward a full-blown revert. Anyone else have any thoughts?LCP (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the term Church teaching just means the positions taken by various Catholic leaders, especially Popes, Cardinals and Archbishops, on various issues. Please note that the mode of Catholic decision-making on social issues is not based on things like the texts of the Bible, early theology, modern science, the women's rights movement or representative democracy, but that it works a lot like a conservative political party, which has a President and a College of public representatives, who each have to try to build a consensus. Their views are their own and not anyone else's. ADM (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your statements belie a profound ignorance of Catholicism and how Jesus has set up his Church. Please read the article on Apostolic succession. And then, read the article on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Among other things, it points out, "The contents are abundantly footnoted with references to sources of the teaching, in particular the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils and other authoritative Catholic statements, principally those issued by recent Popes." Finally, you can look up Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church for an examination of how the Magisterium interacts with scientific findings. Having said all that, I have to add that you are correct on one very important point: The Church is not a representative democracy. Jesus didn't set it up that way. If you want truth by democracy instead of truth by the Holy Spirit, there are several options. If you like the feel of orthodoxy (without all of that pesky Roman Catholic business about the Pope and apostolic authority), you might try the Episcopalians. I hear the laity has recently voted to give their bishops permission to bless homosexual unions; if that isn't democracy, I don't know what is! LCP (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My statement merely reflects the assent given by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. If we really believe the Church is the Body of Christ, then we must believe that the Magisterium of the Church is authentically guided by a Spirit-led authority which actually expresses divine intentions for the pastoral care of humanity's flock. According to this perspective, which is abundantly found in the texts of Vatican II (i.e. Lumen Gentium, Ecclesiam Suam), the truth of the Church speaks on its own because it is the truth. Citing Jesus in an individual and historical manner is okay, but it doesn't necessarily express the more profound mystery of Christ being fully united to his Spouse the Church. ADM

Please forgive me if I mistook your intention. You said, "I would add that the term 'Church teaching' just means..." and you added info about a rogue group that claims to be Roman Catholic but which is rejected by Roman Catholic leadership. Granted that, it seemed to me you were downplaying the importance of the Magisterium in Roman Catholic teaching. By the way, there is no need to post comments in more than one place. Either here or on my talk page would have been fine.LCP (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

POV bias in this article!

Please look at the recent edits I have made. Among them, I had to correct a blatant factual error stating that Aquinas did not believe abortion to be a grave sin. And I did so using the NY Times as a ref! Until the 1960s, all of Christianity had been unequivocally condemnatory of abortion. Some contributors seem to have a problem with the fact and are softening content in the article so that the article conforms to their POV--which is that Christian opinion has been equivocal. I am writing about this here to alert all editors of good will and to warn those who are inserting POV bias.LCP (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times citation was not an article, but a letter to the editor in the Opinion section from a Catholic seminarian. I believe that the resources I am using are more reliable.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The author of the editorial is a Monsignor and dean of a Catholic seminary--a much stronger authority than many others that have gone unchallenged in this article. The other changes--that you reverted--are supported by even stronger citations. And finally, the changes I made more accurately reflect the contents of the citation that was already being used for the page, ReligiousTolerance.org! So, to say my changes were POV is ludicrous. It is a very well established historical fact that Christianity has been overwhelmingly against abortion for the vast majority of its existence. Get over it.

Nevertheless, I've added an additional two academic papers by a tenured prof, one of which is pubished in the Cambridge University Press journal of philsophy. LCP (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is seemingly skewed to be "prochoice" and is loaded with misleading wording. Aquinas condemned abortion at ANY stage, an animated fetus was undoubtedly homicide, as he state in his Summa, before animation the abortion of the embryo is still considered a grave sin, as it was regarded as a form of contraception. The section 1st Century AD and the Classical World is misleading, in that era the Romans outlawed abortion and contraception, deeming them to be unprofitable to the State. In addition also in the first century Juvenal and Ovid spoke very negatively of abortion. The Article gives the impression that the abortion of an embryo was condemned by no one besides the 2 popes mentioned, it omits the fact that Augustine and Aquinas did regard it as gravely sin form of contraception.Theruteger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC).

Is "Human life" an "emotionally charged" phrase in the context of the section on Roman Catholicism?

Badger Drink made the accusation that using "human life" instead of "fetus" in the Roman Catholicism section is "emotionally charged". He used that as warrant to revert it and several other well cited changes. When I made the change from fetus, I did so because the RCC is emphatic about the fact that "human life"--not only the fetus--is sacrosanct from conception. "Fetus" alone does not communicate this fact. Since this is a subject that effects only Roman Catholicism, I would appreciate comments from those informed in RC theology. Thanks! LCP (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The irony of Badger Drink's comment just occurred to me. Science tells us "human life begins at fertilization": "The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life" (http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162). Therefore, the only editor guilty of using "emotionally charged" warrant is Badger Drink, who mistakenly denies that human life begins at conception, and based on this erroneous POV, reverted my changes.LCP (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Human life" may mean instantiation, or it may mean sentience, or it may mean something else. If by "human life" one means a life which is viable, then generally this is at around 24 - 38 weeks, with varying results. If it means when the soul enters the body, that is either conception or the first breath, depending upon what flavor of Christianity one holds to. Its not that simple, LCP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Science unequivocally states human life begins at fertilization, and non-scientific criteria don't work. For example, if we say "human life" is based on sentience, then you have to say that someone in a coma does not possess human life. What isn't simple, and perhaps this is what you have in mind, is when "human personhood" begins. I agree that that is a complicated issue.LCP (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Human life began around 200,000 years ago, according to science, and there is a lot of dispute about precisely when, with most scientists agreeing that it is impossible and foolish to try to pick one line of demarcation. I have yet to see any view on when an individual "human life" begins which does not either mean conception, viability, or birth. You may choose to infer it is the "conception" usage, fine; but it is not viable. Hence the concern that this might be "loaded" terminology. If you wish to stick to scientific terms, then use "conception" "viability" "birth" etc, and do not confuse the issue with non-specific more humanistic terms such as "human life". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This point is moot; use the terminology of the reliable source being quoted. All sources that support abortion never use the words "human life"; to do so instantly puts their argument on shakey ground. If the source uses fetus, quote it; if the source uses human life, then use human life. What would be inappropriate would be to censor vocabularly of sources; that is POV. --^StormRider 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And the source in this case, a document of the Catholic Church, uses "human life."71.134.42.129 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Severe problems in current article

The current article is deeply misleading. It states that the Bible says nothing about abortion, and fails to mention that the Bible regards life in the womb as human life. It states that the likes of Aquinas did not consider abortion to be a serious sin--when in fact he did consider it a serious sin, just not as serious as murder. It fails to mention the Jewish roots of early Christian ethics. It fails to mention the 1st century teaching on the Didache. In fact, it doesn't even use its own main source (ReligiousTolerance.org) accurately, failing entirely to mention the universal disapprobation of early church fathers. I have attempted to amend these problems, and all of my revisions have been reverted.LCP (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Try taking one objection/concern at a time, suggesting new verbiage, with sourcing, and discussing here to see if your desired edits will gain consensus. You've tried being bold; as you've been reverted by several editors I suggest you try discussing. Lets go in order; you say the current article says the "Bible says nothing about abortion" - please provide a reference for the Bible referencing abortion, and explain where you think this should be incorporated into the article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I understand that perhaps I was too bold. Before I read your most recent note, I made several in-line changes that try to respect the tone and content of the current article. Regarding the example you used, I agree that the Bible doesn't say anything directly about abortion. I would add that it contains very clear examples that indicate that human personhood begins in the womb. That is the omission I wanted to correct in the lead that was reverted. I'll stop for now to see how the edits I have made sit.LCP (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Change lead to indicate what Bible states about preborn human life?

Here is what I think it should say:

The Christian Bible does not mention abortion directly but does speak about "children & sons in womb" and the ability of the "child" to experience "joy" in the womb.LCP (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think we need to add the following:

Since the first century, the Church has taught, "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish"LCP (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree there may be a place for your first suggestion in the article, not in the lead, if you can locate a source where this is used by a notable Christian and/or Christian organization as an argument regarding abortion. We cannot place it in the article without that, or we will be violating WP:SYNTH. Your second suggestion is very poorly phrased, IMO, and I would prefer we work on that separately. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree; one thing at a time. When you say, "work on [it] separately," do you mean start a new thread? Can you tell me what you don't like about the phrasing? Maybe I can start the new thread with an improved version.LCP (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking settle the first, then move to the second, in this thread. However: Here is my primary objection: "the church" - while the Roman Catholic church refers to itself in the singular (there is only one the rest are impostors, more or less) for us to do so is highly biased in favor of RC. So if this is included, it should be far more carefully worded, and placed in the appropriate section. Also, rather than that imperative quote, a simple statement. I think the most logical place would be under RC, perhaps immediately before or after "The Church today firmly holds that "the first right of the human person is his life" and that life is assumed to begin at fertilization." If after, verbiage which would work would be "This position has been constant since the first century" - btw, what is the content from your source? How do they mention abortion? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll take it up in a separate thread when I have the time. Thanks.LCP (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the original line a violation of WP:SYNTH since no conclusion is being reached. It is merely a statement of fact. If I were to say "The bible states X, Y, and Z, and therefore is condemnatory of abortion", I can see how that would be a violation.LCP (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the article "What the Bible says about abortion" or even "What the Bible says about life in the womb", its "Chritianity and abortion" and you really have to find someone else who tied that verse to abortion, someone very influential/notable, not some random minister or priest. Really. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To talk of Christian teaching without making reference to the bible is like talking about civil rights in the US without making reference to the Constitution. In other words, you can't do it.LCP (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you must source this. The Bible is a large book, and interpretations and applications of its contents varies widely - even its contents vary, depending upon sect and translation. You are engaging in OR, and must provide a source which links that content with abortion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources should only be used when the meaning is without confusion, clear, and beyond doubt of what is being said. Secondary sources, those from experts/reliable sources, should be used when the primary sources are unclear. Sons in the womb is pretty clear; Chihuahua are you saying there is disagreement or could be disagreement over what that means?

I would disagree about putting it under the Catholic Church section. Several churches rely upon the Patristic Fathers as "their" theologians and their is an disagreement about which church we are discussing during the first 300 years after Jesus Christ. I am not sure if any group within Christianity does not respect the comments of these early church fathers; they all speak for Christianity of the period. If we have a theologian that states from the beginning till now ... that may be an alternative source to use.

Reliable sources do not need to be discussed to be entered in any article if the topic is germane to the article. If necessary in highly controversial topics, such as this one, just quote the source. Otherwise a paraphrase would work as long as it is sourced. Editing of this quality is beyond argument and stops a lot of the need as articles are being built. --^StormRider 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is clear "sons and daughters in the womb" means embryos and fetuses, yes. However, this is being used to support the anti-abortion position of "the" church - which is not supported by teh Biblical quote. Indeed, the desired content makes it clear the Bible does not mention abortion - and this is the Christianity and abortion article. Some use of this verse by significant entities is needed. I am open to discussion as to where to put it, assuming any sourcing is located which shows the verse's use. As none has been provided, discussion on where to place it is probably premature. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement is about the Bible, not the Church's position on abortion. There is no argument, explicit or implicit, against abortion in the article that relies on those passages. As for the Church being against abortion--from antiquity--that is just a simple fact. I think it is important to keep in mind that we are not arguing the rightness or wrongness of abortion here. We are talking about the beliefs of Christians.LCP (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And its important to keep in mind which article we're editing. The Catholic church has historically been against abortion, so far as I know, since its inception. That's not at issue. What's at issue is your desired additions to the article, for which you have failed to provide adequate sourcing for inclusion in this article. You have not provided a source which ties this verse with abortion as used by the Catholic or any other Christian church. Any further discussion is pointless; you have no source. Per WP:V, you must provide one. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Along the lines you suggest, we need to remove the statement about the Bible altogether as there is nothing in the cited source about what the Bible does not contain regarding abortion. I am serious about this and not trying to pull a reductio ad absurdum. Thoughts? Also, any additional feedback you might have about the current article--which IronAngelAlice keeps reverting--would be appreciated. I would be grateful if you would follow the sources I have cited before opining. Thanks!LCP (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead and its source

I have revised the lead to more accurately reflect the contents of the source that was being used for the lead well before I came along. In other words, I didn't pick the source. Nevertheless, because a certain editor will undoubtedly revert the changes I have made and make a comment questioning the source, I am including here the pertinent excerpt from the source (http://books.google.com/books?id=VBN6r3cC6v0C&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=early+christianity+and+abortion&source=web&ots=Ew-3l3eEYS&sig=JWPvHb7VXPN37YXN4GeiVL2iKNI#v=onepage&q=&f=false):

"We begin by noting that none of the New Testament writings directly speaks of abortion, infanticide,or expositio. It is possible that the employment of terms related to pharmakeia (drugs) at Galatians 5:20 and Revelation 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, and 22:5 imply a critical attitude to abortion since they were associated with abortion both in pagan writings and in later Christian texts. These matters are, however, mentioned explicitly in other early Christian writings. The first text to deal with this topic is the Didache...."

Does anyone else have an opinion in this matter???LCP (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd Magne Bakke's book has much to say about "abortion" in early Christianity. To cherry pick the above quote does a disservice to the book, and presents an NPOV problem with the article.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask to whom I am speaking?LCP (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of to whom I am speaking, your assertion that I "cherry picked" is Begging the question. Please research this logical fallacy and avoid it in the future. I also wonder if you don't need to research Psychological projection. Anyone who reads the text I referenced will easily see that my additions respect context and the spirit of the text. And talk about "cherry picking," this article makes heavy use of ReligiousTolerance.org, which has Christianity roundly condemning abortion from the 1st century--and yet this fact is conveniently ignored.LCP (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the use of your quote to claim that all of early Christendom opposed abortion in a specific way, when clearly this was not the case.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that depends on what you mean by "early Christianity." ReligiousTolerance.org paints a clear picture of universal disapporbation until Augustine. By the way, the Kristin Luker quote you added is excellent.LCP (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What have you done with the paragraph on the 1st century???LCP (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Invitation to additional editors

Since there is an apparently intractable disagreement between user:IronAngelAlice and at least two other editors (myself included), and IronAngelAlice hasn't responded to my comments on this discussion page but instead reverts my changes, suggesting that my changes are POV and her's NPOV, I have requested the feedback from several previous editors of this page.LCP (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm responding. Though there isn't much to respond to. Please see my notes in my edits.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of 1st century sectin needs to be reworked.

The ideas of the following section should be included, but not in their current form. The section fails to mention that Bakke is quiting Dixon and, in fact, doesn't completely agree with Dixon.

According to Theologian Odd Magne Bakke, early Christians generally adopted Jewish ideas on the subject of abortion. He writes, "...we should read the references about abortion as expressions of an ideological agenda where men are attempting to maintain or reestablish traditional structures and patterns of power between the sexes, not as information about historical realities."

LCP (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dixon, I was in the middle of re-wording that when we had an editing conflict. It now relfects that it was Dixon who made that claim. I agree, the section needs to be reworked and expanded.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the section that was lost in the conflict, expanded on Bakke's ideas so as to provide his thoughts on Dixon (the sentence I used immediately follows the Dixon quote you included), and did some minor reorganization.LCP (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This section begins by quoting a a source from Religoustolerance.org (which I don't think is a reliable source, but unsure; is it peer reviewed?) that states the Greeks influenced early Christian thought. Then it proceeds to several quotes of Greek philosophers. The problem is that this is classic synthesis. The quotes have nothing to do with Christian thought and there is no references that state these philosophers influenced Christian thought in this specific area. We need a source that specifically ties specific Greek philosophers to specific Christian ideals. BTW, Bakke contradicts all of these statements. He makes it clear that Christian thought at this stage was strongly against abortion and elevated the value of children far beyond the rest of the surrounding cultures of the day. Let's get a reference or I think the first paragraph should be deleted. --^StormRider 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Storm, ReligousTolerance.org is sourced. It is a synthesis, but I don't think that is a bad thing in this case. Bakke doesn't necessary contradict the what ReligiousTolerance.org says. Bakke more accurately expounds.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Example ReligousTolerance.org is used as a source by Bill Moyers: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/profile.html, Moyers interviewed the creator of the site on his show. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Religioustolerance, may be an acceptable site, I just haven't reviewed it yet. I generally shy away from any web based sites and stick to a more academic standard.

Synthesis is never acceptable for Wikipedia; that is why we have a policy stating it is not acceptable. Unless it is tied to a specific reference it is not appropriate. That it not my opinion, but Wikipedia policy talking. Why would you think it acceptable? --^StormRider 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood your use of "synthesis." I thought you meant "summary." The ReligousTolerance.org site offers a summary. What is written is not a synthesis because we do not "combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Great pains to explain the nuance involved in the scholarship. To do this we quote Bakke directly rather than summarizing him. I think the article can be improved by establishing a reliable scholarly source as the basis for the timeline. The Bakke book may be that source.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am having a problem with the way RT.org is being used to suggest the influence of Greek thought on Early Christianity. It looks to me like the idea stated in our WP article is a synthesis not covered in RT.org. If you take a look at the cited page, the section being quoted is titled "Pagan & Christian beliefs 400 BCE -1980 CE", and the first paragraph of that page is entirely about paganism, not Christianity or its affect on Christian thought. In fact, the only mention of Christianity in the first section of the RT.org page ties it to Judaism. In other words, the page being cited does NOT connect pagan belief with EARLY Christian thought. Issues of "ensoulment" enter only with Augustine (as far as I know and can tell from the page).LCP (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

St. Augustine reversed centuries of Christian teaching

The following is from ReligiousTolerance.org, a source IronAngelAlice uses. And yet, she keeps cutting this. The passage is essential because it reveals the context in which Augustine's thought occurred and demonstrates that pagan philosophy did indeed have an impact on Christian thought about abortion.

St. Augustine reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment." He believed that an early abortion is not murder because the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present. This belief passed into cannon law, reversing earlier laws that did not take the same position on "delayed ensoulment."

LCP (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. In fact, I'll add it.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, it's already there. I just added some of the wording above.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!LCP (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Change section title from "Early Christian thought about Abortion" to "Theologian Odd Magne Bakke Thoughts?"

I support some of IronAngelAlice's additions, but overall her many changes to this section have brought it to rely too heavily on one source.

This version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_abortion&oldid=309078903) incorporates two diverse sources and conveys the essential information much more succinctly:

In the 1st Century AD, Christians adopted Jewish thought about abortion, which accepted abortion only in emergency situations in which the mother's life was at stake.[4] Christian teaching is explicitly stated in the Didache, which scholars date to the end of the first century.[5] The Didache states, "Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion" (2:2). It also states, "The Way of Death is filled with people who are ... murderers of children and abortionists of God's creatures" (5:1-2).

Thoughts anyone?LCP (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

*Shrug* The version you cite has the same references. The problem, of course, is that Bakke has written an entire book about Abortion, Infanticide and Exposito in early Christianity whereas the other sources have cursory explorations.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Aquinas considered all abortion to be a grave sin

I've had to reintroduce this well cited (an opinion in the NY times by the dean of a seminary, an academic essay, and an essay in a peer reviewed journal) fact several times. Does anyone have a problem with it or have the deletions been accidental?

Nevertheless, Aquinas considered all abortion, even abortion before quickening, to be a grave sin.

Thanks!LCP (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, none of the sources seem to come from published sources with the exception of the NY Times Opinion pieces. And we all know that Opinion pieces are not considered reliable sources. Can you show us where this article was published, and in what capacity they have been published (i.e. a scholarly historical journal vs. a publication in a Catholic journal?):

• http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm

Also, this is simply an abstract: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=148395 Can we get the entire article? Does it say "grave sin" in the article? It should also be noted that the author is known to be theologically conservative. Shall we put him in context? --IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if we put one in context, then all are put in context? By what measure do we qualify people given that one individual's liberal is the next's conservative. You are going in a less than helpful direction. Would you enjoy me rating your sources? Let's just use reliable sources and let them speak for themselves. --^StormRider 19:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

First, let me clarify. The author of the Camridge.org article (of which we do not have the full text, and is therefore not yet a source), takes a self-described "conservative" viewpoint. There are other scholars who disagree with him. In fact, there are others who disagree with him on this very issue. Frequently. In fact, the abstract of the article talks about the disagreement among scholars. The authors state:

"This is the subject of a chapter in a recent book by Robert Pasnau on Thomas Aquinas on Human Nature (Cambridge: CUP, 2001). Since there will be readers whose only knowledge of the issues in question will come from Pasnau's account, and since that account is contentious in substance, and advanced in advocacy of a particular moral interest, it is necessary to provide another, and, we believe, more credible account of the issue of when human life begins, as this may be determined on the basis of known empirical facts and Aquinas's metaphysics, and a more accurate representation of how (and how extensively) this matter has been treated hitherto."

The disagreement is what I was referring to as "context." The other sources simply are not reliable. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you quoting??? As for your not reliable claim, it is without substance, pure POV. Again, the first citation references an OpEd written by a Monsignor who also happens to be the dean of a RC seminary. In other words, he has oodles of academic credibility--where Christianity is concerned. The second citation references an academic essay written by a published, tenured professor of theology at a very well known and respected university. Can you find dissenting opinions? Possibly. However, the statement I included expresses the accepted, mainstream belief about what Aquinas actually believed.LCP (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi LCP, I'm quoting the Cambridge.org article that was used as a reference for that section. All the articles you use are from Catholic Sources, and are best used in the "History of Catholic Thought" section rather than the over-all history section.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with what you are suggesting about what you call Catholic sources. In matters of Christian theology, history, morality, and dogma, Catholic theologians are generally highly credible. Even in extreme cases, when they disagree with the Magisterium (which is not the case with abortion and the history of thought about abortion), they do a good job of representing the position they disagree with. And of Catholic universities, Earnest L. Boyer, President Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, states the following:

"The Catholic colleges and universities in the United States have had an enormously powerful influence in helping to shape higher learning in this country. They have brought not only the influence of intellectual life and vitality, they have also brought a great sense of moral commitment. They understand how to blend so splendidly the intellectual quest and the yearnings of the human spirit."

On top of the historical fact that the [university] here in the west is itself a product of Catholicism, the sources I used are credible well beyond Catholic circles. Who better to understand the thought of early Catholic scholars (e.g., Augustine and Aquinas) than other scholars (who are published and hold tenure at prestigious institutions) of the same tradition? Why on earth would anyone suppose that an epistomologist at state university (Robert Pasnau), albeit evidently an excellent one, is better qualified to interpret early Catholic belief about abortion--a matter having nothing to do with epistemology--than a Catholic theologian who has specialized in moral theology--which is intimately concerned with moral issues such as abortion? Who would you trust more to interpret Freud, Jung or the Dalai Lama? How about Buddhism? And all of that aside, you haven't produced a text contradicting the well supported one I included about Aquinas' beliefs about the sinfulness of all abortion. All that you have produced is a rather vague quote suggesting that there may be disagreement.LCP (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

--

How to write a good article

When writing articles with the objective of making it a good article one must first address the context of the topic. In the case of this article, we must first address the Christian position. Currently, the history section goes around the elbow to get to the thumb. The section first talks about the Greek position. Then we address the feminist position of interpreting the culture of the day. Lastly, we state the actual Christian position.

What we need to do is invest the way the current section reads and clearly state the Christian position of the first century. I don't know why the Greek position is relevant because the Christian position does not echo it and they conflict. If we are going to talk about the Greek position, then we should juxtapose that they conflict. The feminist quote is meaningless to me. It seeks to argue a point that is not being addressed. The whole article seems to want to argue a position that is not being addressed.

The article first and foremost must begin and end by stating the Christian position. After doing so, if there is a critical position, then state it without arguing it. I suggest this manner of writing because it the only way to write good articles and I am not interested in getting into a edit war by rewriting what is currently there. Where do we go from here? I would like to hear some thoughts on what I have said and discuss how to proceed. Does this make sense to the current editors? If not, why not. If so, have I left anything out. I know I am only addressing a fundamental concept, but it is sorely lacking in the article. --^StormRider 06:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you entirely. It is quite clear from the article that the Greek position influences the early Christian position. According to our references, this is a significant point.

There is no mention of a "feminist" position within the article, and I have no idea where your claim comes from. There isn't even a "feminist" reference. It seems to me in this last regard, Storm Rider, that you perhaps want to have argument about a topic outside the scope of this article, and are bordering on a straw man.

Last, for us to "state the Christian position of the first century" makes no sense because there was not a unified position, and the very notion of "abortion" at that time is different from today's notion. We are attempting to include the nuance of the various positions on abortion that were taken by thinkers of the time, and the various contexts in which abortion was performed. This nuance in our article is comes directly from the disunited positions that are claimed in our reliable sources.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Iron, that is not a surprise because you are the one making the edits without any discussion here. What is made is a statement that Greek philosophy influenced Christian thought, but nothing demonstrates that this is so. What we have is 9/10 of the section discussing nothing that has to do with the Christian view of abortion during the first century.

In an article that is supposed to discuss the Christian concept we take a walk down the Greek view, which has nothing to do with the Christian view in the article. Then we take a walk down what is obviously some wild effort to bring in feminists interests, "that abortion and infidelity posed a threat to the traditional power [in the classical Roman world] of the husband over his wife, her body, and their children..." No one talks about "the traditional power of the husband except a feminists. To say it is not is frankly just plain stupid. This is not a straw man, but it is clear this has nothing to do with abortion. At this point in the article we are arguing a point without ever introducing what the Christian view is.

We finally get to a Christian view, but only in the context of an opinion that two schools disagree; one condemns abortion and the other says it may be acceptable under certain circumstances. THIS IS THE ACTUAL TOPIC OF THE ARTICLE AND THIS IS WHERE THE SECTION SHOULD FOCUS. If this is some how related to Greek philosophy, only after a presentation of Christian thought, then it is introduced and explain HOW it influences Christian thought. Currently there is no explanation of how, we just focus on it from the beginning and it hangs there without any tie in to the Christian concept.

To address the silly statement that "there was not a unified position"...of course that is what the section should address! Instead we go around the thumb to get to the elbow, which is just poor structure. I don't have time to write more at the moment.--^StormRider 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with StormRider, and I too can't avoid a feminist reading of some of the text IronAngelAlice has introduced. And this, I think, destroys her credibility. To me, it looks as if she has hijacked this article--as she has done in several places--and made it into a creature that suits her own personal agenda, an agenda which can be inferred simply by looking at her [contributions]. The thing that strikes me about these contributions is that--in articles that have been stable for some time--she uses "editorialization" and "not a reliable source" as regularly as a mantra and, on these grounds, literally guts the articles she decides to bless with her attention. Claiming consensus (where there is none) is another favorite rhetorical technique she uses. I don't have time to revert all of the changes I disagree with or the time to continue fighting this battle.LCP (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, from the tone of this conversation, including the all caps sentences, I shouldn't respond to either of you at length other than to tell you both that you are in obvious violations of Wikipedia rules that include:

• No Personal Attacks
• Assume Good Faith

To quickly answer one of your complaints Storm, our references repeatedly claim that Greek thought influences early Christian thought on Abortion. Even Bakke makes this claim. Please read the sources.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is very tiresome, but expected. Would you please stop being defensive and listen. You are not getting it. The article SAYS that there is an influence but does not demonstrate how it influenced Christian thought. In fact, it demonstrates that there was no influence. The article clearly states that the Greeks held a different view of the unborn child than Christians. How was Christian thought influenced by Greek philosophers as far as abortion goes? Please just answer that question and how the article demonstrates that.--^StormRider 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I thought it was evident in the references, but I agree that paragraph was not as clear as it could have been. I added the following: Some very early Christians,(referencing the Bakke book) and both Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine believed in delayed ensoulment.(referencing the Bioethics book, and the dictionary of Ethics among others)--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apology, IronAngleAlice. "Hijacked" was a very poor choice of words. Please allow me to clarify. The first section you linked, "No personal attacks," does not say that an editor cannot question another editors judgement. Please see [What is considered to be a personal attack]. Apart from possibly my unfortunate use of "hijack," none of my comments fall under any of the statements listed. As for assuming good faith, the guidelines state the following: "If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, then please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence so that people can understand the basis for the concerns." This is what I did. And for the record, I don't doubt your good faith. I firmly believe that you are fully in earnest and mean well. What I intended to suggest is that, perhaps unwittingly, you have an agenda that is based on personal bias, and that informed by this agenda, you are harming Wikipedia.LCP (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is more support for the assertions I make above. Read the following from top to bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IronAngelAlice&oldid=311187530#Your_POV_edits_to_Christianity_and_abortion. Your Talk page provides ample evidence to support what I claim above.LCP (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice try LCP, but that editing session was fast and I accidentally deleted things I did not mean to delete. I added those things back, and the situation was worked out amicably with the other editors. Let's please stick to the evidence at hand instead of trying to attack me personally.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The number of "editing conflicts" you have and "accidental" deletions you make is exceptional. Nevertheless, I am not attacking you personally. I have never met you. On top of that, I would bet that, in real life, you are nice person to know, a person who obviously cares deeply about something important. What I have been attacking is your credibility as an editor. That is a much different type of thing. I don't think you have any credibility, and that is material to the problems we are having editing this article. I think other editors need to know about your Wikipedia baggage. If you didn't have a suspect history, then I would agree that you would have every right to object. And if your history had no bearing on your edits (in other words, if you didn't cherry pick, push an agenda, and use cheep rhetorical tricks such as begging the question), then I would agree that my comments have no bearing on the discussion. But since you continue to cherry pick, push an agenda, and beg the question almost as often as you have a disagreement with another editor, my comments are highly relevant. But again, I am NOT attacking you personally. I am merely pointing out a behavior pattern that makes you an unnecessarily difficult editor to work with.LCP (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You are, indeed, attacking me personally. But, more importantly you are trying to bias people into not working with me. Your accusations on this page, and your canvassing of others [1] in a further attempt to bias people against me and further your agenda, is not how we should proceed. It is uncivil, and I will not be bullied. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"I will not be bullied." Another favorite line. You might consider, IronAngelAlice, that you aren't being "bullied" but that the numerous editors who have found you difficult to impossible to work with--most or all of whom you have accused of "bullying"--have valid gripes. Perhaps you could learn something from them. As for your use of the tu quoque fallacy, suggesting that I have an agenda (the very thing I claimed of you), you actually happen to have a good point. My "agenda," as you call it, is historical accuracy. Where you have a history of being dinged for edit warring and even sock puppetry, I have been commended for reversing my position based on evidence that only I found. As for your claim that I was canvassing, the only canvassing I did was to ask other editors for their "objective input." I did, however, make the mistake of indicating that I did not agree with your perspective, a mistake I haven't made a second time. The thing that makes me sad is that you seem to believe that the passé feminist, revisionist propaganda you shoehorn into Wikipedia articles actually changes the truth of the matter. Your edits don't change history or the opinions of anyone with a lick of education. They just destroy the credibility of the Wikipedia articles you work on.LCP (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic. If your agenda is historical accuracy, let's get down to the business of talking about the history of abortion and Christensdom, and the sources therein.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

POV Tag

I added a POV tag because it is obvious that a single editor is determined to cherry pick positions that support her objectives and ignore all others. She deletes all legitimate references that disagree with her opinion and until such time as a balanced approach can be achieved the article remains highly POV.--^StormRider 03:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

::I am going to remove the POV tag until there is an explanation other than a personal attack.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I second StormRider's POV tag. And based on his comment in the Talk section titled "POV bias in this article," I think User:Theruteger would too.LCP (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Need Help Expanding the History of Catholic Thought on Abortion

I think this section needs to be fleshed out. Please consider helping.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea for the section, but I disagree with the implication that "the history of Catholic thought on abortion" is something unique that requires its own section. Christian thought about abortion was entirely Catholic/Orthodox until the Reformation--and even then Catholic and Protestant thought on abortion didn't diverge until the second half of the 20th century. All of our early and medieval sources were self-identified Catholic (big "C") brothers, priests, and bishops. In short, the section is misleading and has no reason to exist. I move to cut it.LCP (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's quite clear per the sources that there is disagreement between historians outside the church and some theologians inside the church regarding early Christian thought on abortion (including St. Augustine and St. Thomas). What I was hoping to add to this section the debate among present Catholic theologians and scholars about the history of abortion in the Catholic Church. Some Catholics trace pro-life ideology back to St. Augustine. Others do not. Per the sources, the current discussion of Catholic theologians about the history of abortion is decidedly different from the view of non-Catholic historians. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have always counseled editors to stick to the position of churches because it is so easily documented and it is most meaningful in articles about churches. When you move from the position of a church to the position of individual members/theologians/academics of respective churches you have only succeeded in voicing an opinion. However, it is unequivocal what doctrine is... A teaches xyz, etc.

In the case of interpreting early patristic fathers, I would agree that we should appeal to the commentaries of reliable sources that support the majority position. If a historian has a minority position, a legitimate minority and not a fringe position, then that position may/should also be covered.

To juxtapose the conflict of opinions between members may be a worthwhile position, but that should not be confused with or obviate the focus that the Catholic Church is decidedly against abortion or anything similar. It may be worthwhile to note in the article that major Catholic politicians have taken a decidely pro-choice position at some sacrifice vis-a-vis their church i.e. the Eucharist has been denied them or at least it has been threatened to be denied to them. --^StormRider 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Without a doubt, the Catholic Church is decidedly against abortion. That position is reflected in our sources and in the RCC section. There should be no equivocation there.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure you are appreciating the problem of introducing the opinion of members. There is no church, no group, no entity of any kind on the earth that has automatons for members; Catholics don't, Jews don't, Muslims don't, Mormons don't, not even Moonies are like that. Every religion will have members that believe differently than their respective churches. It is stating the obvious to talk about any church's members disagreeing with the doctrines of a church. More importantly, no individual speaks for Christianity; that is the purview of individual churches.

Alternatively, do you think all the churches you have listed as pro-choice have a uniform belief by their members? None of those articles have anything that shows the disagreement with such a position. This looks very, very one sided. Why? --^StormRider 04:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not under and pretense that all the members of "pro-choice" denominations are actually "pro-choice." Though, I don't know how vocal those members are, or how well documented their dissension is. We should definitely research this.

Catholics for Choice are highly vocal and well documented, and the group is therefore noteworthy. So is the dissent among scholars within the Catholic Church. I also fully and completely understand that members of the Catholic Church do not set doctrine (I remember that clearly from catechism). Do you think that the reader does not realize this? Perhaps it is worth a mention?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Separate page for "Early Christian thought on Abortion"?

I'm thinking this could be a very long, contentious page. I'm going to move it over to it's own page. Please let me know what you think.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Since it has been several days since I created the new page and paired down the section, would it be okay to remove the Neutrality tag?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This Article is To Focused in the United States

Seems that the American wikipedians believe that the world turns around United States. I remember clearly reading that many Lutheran Churches in Europe are as much pro-life as the Catholic Church. Protestant mentality is different then the Catholic, but what happens in the United States doesn´t often aplies to all over the world.Mistico (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please add this information and cite your sources.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to create an article entitled Protestant views on abortion, because most of the material currently focuses on Protestant views. ADM (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I don't see the need. This page is mostly a list. How would "Protestant views on Abortion" be different?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues

If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

While we were discussing the issue, two of the participants decided jump the gun and start changing articles to ensure that their preferred version was in place. CarolineWH (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

1. - I don't really think that can be called tendentious editing

2. - While the discussion isn't over yet and I am still trying to get more people to comment on it, it has been 3 days and with 5 editors leaning yes and 1 editor leaning no I think the gun has pretty well sounded. - Schrandit (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's just obvious she's pregnant.

Paul, your edit comment asked "how would "an abortion to save the life of a pregnant woman" compare with one to save the life of a non-pregnant woman?)". Rather than answering in a counter-edit, I thought it would be more tactful to answer here.

The answer is that, in this case, there is only one woman involved -- even if the fetus is female, it's not a woman. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with dropping the "pregnant". In fact, I've supported this variation before, so it should not come as any surprise.

Unfortunately, rather than changing the one line that you identified in your edit comment as problematic, you reverted all of my changes. This makes your edit comment inaccurate. I suggest that you fix your inadvertent error. CarolineWH (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Is U/U Christian?

Although Unitarian Universalism originates in Christianity I don't think it still considers itself a Christian denomination. Am I wrong on that?--T. Anthony (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As a body, or movement, it would be difficult to classify the organization as Christian. However, you could very easily have Christians within their organization. No intent to be disrespectful, but the organization is more of a catch-all that leaves doctrine and teachings to the experience of each individual as they search for truth. The result is an extremely broad swath of beliefs including atheism, humanism, to almost anything else an individual determines is "their" truth. --^StormRider 23:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph Move / Wrong Heading

If one of the regular editors here will take a look. I moved the second paragraph under CJCLDS to early Christian Thought replacing the existing unsourced paragraph there which was:

From the 4th to 16th century, Christian philosophers had varying stances on abortion. Under the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I, there was a relaxation of attitudes toward abortion. Bakke writes, "Since an increasing number of Christian parents were poor and found it difficult to look after their children, the theologians were forced to take into account this situation and reflect anew on the question. This made is possible to take a more tolerant attitude toward poor people who exposed their children." Augustine of Hippo believed that an early abortion is not murder because the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present. Augustine reversed earlier Christian teaching by returning to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment."

Poor people "exposing" their children wouldn't be abortion, would it? I couldn't find where this part of the article was currently being discussed. Eudemis (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be worth while to note that this belief was due to a primitive understanding of human development and that when science better understood the field that Church's stance was modified. - Schrandit (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bible References (abortion by god)

Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.(Hosea 13:16) --85.146.181.187 (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)