ColbyCosh.com

Perhaps the better observation is that much of what you have in bold doesn't really support the thesis sentence. I suppose that's why she cites that, rather than the facts you put forward that don't fully address it. If you meant the second sentence to qualify the first, that isn't clear; it looks as though you meant to be making the argument that the first sentence, in the meaning one would imagine it to have by itself, is true. I would think her argument against that sentence is more on point than your argument in support of it.

The first sentence is true. There was no controversy: everybody agreed that it was sinful and disgusting (but not murder).

Also, Mr. Hoy would probably want me to point out that you have a little pronoun trouble.

While I haven't studied this any depth, it took me a matter of minutes to google "church fathers abortion" and find plenty of quotes that seem to equate abortion with murder, at least at first glance. How did you reach your conclusion that "It turns out to be rather hard to find Church figures who denounce abortion as deliberate homicide for a period of about 1,700 years of history"? Have you surveyed the literature yourself and reached this conclusion, or can you provide a citation from someone who has?

As well, your point about ancient laws not enforcing punishment until after visible signs of pregnancy is not surprising. External signs of pregnancy were the only practical means that pre-modern people had of proving that a given woman was in fact pregnant.

I've looked at the literature myself, but honestly what has convinced me is that when challenged to equate abortion with murder, pro-lifers always throw the same authorities out there. You can try it yourself—I dare you to send me a nickel for every time the Didache and Tertullian come up. When you check out other early writings you will often find quotes that actually make the distinction between abortion and murder quite clear. Look at the commentary in the code of Justinian, for example: we find that abortion is regarded as evil—in the paramount source for the early law of Christian civilization— specifically because it "deprive[s a] husband of children without being punished" and sometimes harms or kills the adults engaged in it. Things really did not change much between Justinian's time and, say, 1860.

To take another example, you'll find St. Jerome slipped onto these lists, but there's an extant letter in which he explains to a correspondent that abortion is "not reputed homicide" until the infant in utero receives its "appearance and members". Similar views are found in the writers that Catholics ordinarily take most seriously—Augustine of Hippo, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, etc.

I have slight stick with the facts (although I'll have to read the original article). You have to qualify the sweeping statement 'English common law'. The statute against infanticide was very much in effect from 1624 onwards.

It's a very woolly exercise to determine historical views on abortion, which have principally been dictated by advances in medicine, not ethics as such. The word 'abortion' is itself problematic, because it meant any expulsion, voluntary or otherwise, of a fetus, and included unintended miscarriages. Abortion methods were shared among women, but there was absolutely no proof positive that a woman was pregnant at all prior to quickening - any symptoms could have meant illness, particularly cessation of the menses.

All this is to say that abortion is not an historically static issue, and any claim that the Vatican has been against it for however many years can't be taken at face value.

I think Mr. Hoy's mistake was in assuming you were making a substantiative point, rather than just a technocratic one;)

Even the 1624 statute against infanticide shows the distinction. It made it a capital crime—but only for unmarried women; the concern was explicitly with the consequences of allowing "lewd Women" to escape scrutiny.

You might have avoided much of this controversy by referring to the "technical" rather than the "ethical" status of abortion. That abortion is wrong is, as has been demonstrated, basic and unchanging Chriastian teaching. That it is tantamount to murder has been a subject of debate. Unless you're attempting to argue that what isn't murder is therefore ethical, in which case you deserve all the controversy you get.

So essentially, you're asking "Where would anyone get the idea that some people think abortion is tantamount to murder?"

No, I'm asking, "Where would anyone get the idea that only murder is unethical?" Or I would be asking, if I thought anyone actually had that idea. I said that the idea that abortion is tantamount to murder has been open to debate, so clearly I had two sides in mind. One-side debates are like one-hand claps.

You're arguing that, since there has long been dispute over whether abortion is to be regarded as murder, therefore there has long been dispute over whether abortion is right. Non sequitur. Unless, of course, you really areasserting that whatever isn't murder is just groovy cool, in which case I'm asking my question after all.

Cosh seems to be omitting the fact that Catholic teaching derives from its understanding of its Magisterium. No charism of infallibility applies to the collected teachings of even the greatest Saints of the Catholic Church, according to the Church's own teaching.

Since Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he would be as aware of anyone as to the historical understanding of the Early Church Fathers on abortion and how that teaching was transmitted through the ages, through different epochs, etc.

So, if Cosh believes that he has a historical theological or hermeneutical case to be made, I think there are more than enough historical theologians, though Cardinal Avery Dulles at Fordham passed away recently, to engage in a fruitful discussion.

Unless, of course, Cosh was just tweaking sensibilities.

For anyone who is checking, the Catechism of the Catholic Church references are Sections 2270 - 2275 (available online) cover abortion specifically, with footnote historical references. You'll note the reference to Donum vitae, several code of canon law statutes, Gaudium et Spes and the Didache, Tertullian etc.

You'll kindly note the Donum Vitae is a CDF document (The Pope's posting while a Cardinal).

The irony here is Cosh is hoping pro-life Christians rely on Church teachings in the past which he mocks rather than scientific advances of the past few decades which clearly moves closer and closer to determining that the fetus is more human then previously thought.

"pro-life Christians rely on Church teachings in the past"

I was rather surprised that Cosh didn't mention John Henry Cardinal Newman's The Development of Doctrine as the seminal work of 19th century Catholic Theology for an explanation on how doctrine deepens over time but does not change. I was also hoping that Cosh would mention his resort to the original sources in Latin as well as Greek but, alas, such was not to be.

There's also a highly suspicious grap in the record of early Christian church fathers opposing internet porn, drink driving and warrantless phone tapping in the first few centuries after Jesus, too.

"highly suspicious"

The Dewey Decimal system is also nowhere mentioned in the Didache.

Savages.

There's also a highly suspicious grap in the record of early Christian church fathers opposing internet porn, drink driving and warrantless phone tapping in the first few centuries after Jesus, too.

This is actually the best point made in the comments thread. Abortion became more visible in the 20th century, thus the Church's condemnation of it became more visible as well.

This is actually the best point made in the comments thread.

It's the dumbest point made in ANY comments thread. Therapeutic abortion is hardly a novelty: why else is it condemned (until modern times) as murder ONLY in sources so early that they might as well be the Catholic version of the Flintstones?

But of course you have to have a Ph.D. in patristics to make any comment at all on the history of the church, right? Indeed, I'm still waiting to be properly contradicted by one, instead of listening to ink-squirting comments that don't address my point.

Indeed, in the original column I wrote that the Church suddenly faced a new technological state of affairs in the Sixties and made a particular choice about how to handle it. The jokes about drunk driving and the Dewey Decimal System don't undermine this point: they confirm it.

"Church suddenly faced a new technological state of affairs"

Not exactly, though I think the point merits further discussion, which I'll be happy to post at my blog shortly.

As I understand it, the reason old abortion statutes were only effective after quickening is because before quickening, how could you prove for sure that there had ever been a baby? It was more a matter of meeting the reasonable-doubt standard than a metaphysical statement.

Assuming all the quotations given here are accurate, I think it's worth noting that many of them (not just the Didache and Tertullian) use "murder" and similar terms: http://www.byzantines.net/misc/ABORTION.HTM

I suspect that the Code of Justinian still bears the influence of pre-Christian Roman law.

A guy named Joseph Dellapenna came out with a doorstep-length book on Anglo-American abortion law a few years ago challenging many of the traditional assumptions such as yours. He is a professor at Villanova, but despite the affiliation and the Italian name, a Unitarian. (He also somehow thought it was cute to name every chapter after a line from a rock song, particularly from the 1970s. That was irritating, but the book is still worth looking at.)

At least Cosh is a self-described conservative and therefore arguments from tradition are not absurd in his mouth. I can't stand it when I hear such arguments from liberals who otherwise don't care two beans about tradition.

Assuming all the quotations given here are accurate, I think it's worth noting that many of them (not just the Didache and Tertullian) use "murder" and similar terms: http://www.byzantines.net/misc/ABORTION.HTM

Maybe it's that Russian "new chronology" that has Athenagoras of Athens writing to Emperor Commodus to defend the new Christian cult in the year 765?

I've seen the decree of the "Council" of "Eivira" [sic] (actually Elvira, and more commonly recognized today as a preconciliar synod); it was shortly countermanded at the Synod of Ancyra (314), where the bishops, being "desirous to use somewhat greater leniency" toward abortion, reduced the penalty of lifetime exclusion from communion to ten years. Now why would they do a thing like that?

As I understand it, the reason old abortion statutes were only effective after quickening is because before quickening, how could you prove for sure that there had ever been a baby? It was more a matter of meeting the reasonable-doubt standard than a metaphysical statement.

Assuming all the quotations given here are accurate, I think it's worth noting that many of them (not just the Didache and Tertullian) use "murder" and similar terms: http://www.byzantines.net/misc/ABORTION.HTM

I suspect that the Code of Justinian still bears the influence of pre-Christian Roman law.

A guy named Joseph Dellapenna came out with a doorstep-length book on Anglo-American abortion law a few years ago challenging many of the traditional assumptions such as yours. He is a professor at Villanova, but despite the affiliation and the Italian name, a Unitarian. (He also somehow thought it was cute to name every chapter after a line from a rock song, particularly from the 1970s. That was irritating, but the book is still worth looking at.)

At least Cosh is a self-described conservative and therefore arguments from tradition are not absurd in his mouth. I can't stand it when I hear such arguments from liberals who otherwise don't care two beans about tradition.

Oops (on behalf or byzantine.net); probably that was a transcription error for "165" (especially since it is in the right place chronologically), but it was nonetheless inexcusable. (I also thought my original comment hadn't gone through; my apologies for the double post.)

Two points:

1. Precisely because they were local synods (although "councils" is acceptable; it does not necessarily imply "ecumenical councils."), I don't think Ancyra is Asia Minor could "countermand" Elvira in Spain; presumably differing local legislation continued in both places. I am open to correction here if wrong. Regardless, the idea of lifelong excommunication for all murders eventually passed from common practice, so I'm not sure that's as strong a point as you think it is.

2. Even if there was debate and disagreement on the issue; that's not the same as "no one thought it was murder." Clearly some people did.

Point is, I think this is precisely the moment at which the transition from the early Church's more rigorous views is happening; the penitential punishments for abortion are, for some mysterious reason, relaxed first and separately (seems like Basil the Great ordained the same thing, though I must admit that he seems fairly categorical about describing abortion a species of murder even as he treats it differently).

And of course the Codex Justinianus is "influenced" by pre-Christian Roman law. That was the purpose of the exercise: it was a revision of Roman law to bring it into conformity with Christian principles.

I just realized that Commodus reigned from 180 to 192, so 165 can't be the right date either. I confess Athenagoras was the only source on that list I had never heard of before, hence my confusion.

It might have been a different emperor, I was going from memory.

At least Cosh is a self-described conservative and therefore arguments from tradition are not absurd in his mouth. I can't stand it when I hear such arguments from liberals who otherwise don't care two beans about tradition.

What isn't absurd about an argument from tradition? Any argument which is logically structured in way of: if it was, then it is so right is broken logic.

This is the first time I've ever heard someone try to assert that argument from tradition is not bad logic.

If it's not, then which traditions take precedence? What of new traditions? Is the practice of burning alledged practitioners of witchcraft at the stake a valid practice as it is rooted in tradition? Or what about selling slaves?

Argument from tradition is nonsense. And you're right, it is liberals who do not jump to tradition to validate the status quo. Instead, liberals/libertarians thought outside the box and gave the world liberal democracies, free markets (Adam Smith/Milton Friedman/Ayn Rand), free speech (John Stuart Mill), etc.

Oh, those crazy liberals and their lack of appeal to tradition... what will they think of next?

For me, the basic arguments against abortion are commonsensical. I can understand (although I disagree) a halfway decent person's being skeptical of the personhood of a zygote, embryo, or even early fetus, but before long we have a beating heart, brain waves, responses to stimuli, and even sleep cycles - it's clearly an alive person. If (and I don't concede it) some of our ancestors thought differently, it's because their knowledge of these facts was often vague, not because they were willfully blind as modern pro-choicers are.

I was once told by an actual expert, as opposed to a dilettante peripheral expert like myself, that the Stoics held that life began at birth. The fetus was conceived of as being some sort of plant life that didn't get ensoulled until contact with air. This is a bizarre doctrine, though hardly any more so than the competing Big Bright Line of life beginning at conception. Trying to find a wholesome middle ground, we are inevitably mudbound and straggling.

1. Er, "grap" not "gap".

2. "on ANY comments thread"? CC, go re-read Popper on "all swans are white" statements.

3. "reduced the penalty of lifetime exclusion from communion to ten years. Now why would they do a thing like that?" Oh, all right - obviously because they'd read, and been profoundly moved by, Kennedy J's "meaning of life" concurrence in _Casey_.