Talk:History of Christian thought on abortion

Expert Needing
I think this article needs a rewritting. It's too much in a personal essay style and claims some unsourced stances. The article seems like a mess. Is this true ? "There is no mention of abortion in the Christian Bible, and at different times early Christians held different beliefs about abortion." The first half of the statement I think it's untrue, the second even less. The Old Testament really menciones abortion sometimes, unlike the New Testament. I ask to some users from the Christianity WikiProject to please try to give the article a more proper writting. Mistico (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a Bible buff, but do you have a reference to abortion in the OT? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. The entire article really should be done. There are many poor sources used as well, such as Catholic for Choice. I say they are poor, let me clarify, they are poor, and in fact not capable or speaking for the institutional Church. They are a fringe group that dodges excommunication... why would we trust them to tell us what the Church teaches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.70 (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article states : "He notes that only in Exodus does the Bible discuss what the punishment should be to a man who strikes a woman so that she miscarries." When the article states the Christian Bible, which also includes the Old Testament, I think it should state the New Testament. There's really no reference to abortion in the New Testament but that doesn't mean that the first Christians didn't based their beliefs in this and other issues in the Christian ethics and moral found in the New Testament, mostly in the Gospels and the Letters of St. Paul. Even today the commandment "You shall not kill" is used by anti-abortion Christians as a condemnation of abortion. Of course this is an interpretation. This site provides many sources about how the Christians in the first centuries view abortion :. I will try to choose the best parts later.Mistico (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think "Presbyterians Pro Life" is a remotely reliable source - either for interpretation nor for selection of primary sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The article uses this from Catholics for a Free Choice as a source. So, do you think it's unreliable too ?213.13.246.96 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an essay by Kenneth Pennington, Professor of Ecclesiastical and Legal History, at, of all places,The Catholic University of America. As far as I can make out, Pennington is a first-rate scholar, so yes, that looks like a good source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but were did you read that ? The article states : "This is a summary of Catholics for a Free Choice publication The History of Abortion in the Catholic Church." Where did you find the Kenneth Pennington reference ? Anyway, the article is far biased in a modern pro-choice perspective, like can be proved with the claim that "Also contrary to popular belief, no pope has proclaimed the prohibition of abortion an "infallible" teaching." Sorry but some of the article claims are laughable for anyone who knows the Catholic teachings on this issue and only can be seen as an attempt to instale a sort of modern individualist protestant mentality in the Catholic Church. I´m not being pro-catholic, but the article makes a mess and is so tendencious that it could be ballanced with more serious and neutral references. The dogma of Papal Infalibility was only issued in 1854 by Pius IX and it's rarely used by the Church, like when Pius XII issued the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.213.13.246.96 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with the above author. Let me start by saying that I am somewhat of a Church history nut. I have read many medieval texts in their original Latin, and have analyzed many earlier (1st century even) texts. The pro-choice camp within the Church has for a long time tried to make arguments in favor of abortion, usually trying to portray the Church as having had many different options on the matter of the centimes. Nothing could be further from the truth. We see in many early sources (such as the Apocalypse of Peter)that abortion was always considered morally wrong. While there have been Catholic theologians over the years that argue this topic, they haven't changed doctrine. The only way doctrine can ever be changed, or modified is through an ecumenical council or an ex cathedra statement. A pope could say that he thought abortion was fine, this wouldn't change the doctrine though, abortion would still be considered wrong by the Church. My point is this: just because theologians have argued over abortion, does in no way mean that the Church has never had one clear firm position on the matter. Catholic for Choice is a political organization that twists things to their favor, don't fall for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.70 (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope this article will atract some users from Christianity WikiProject. They will gave it a more encyclopedic tone that I'm unable to give for lack of knowledge. There are several questions the article lefts unanswered. First, the timeline of Ancient Christianity. It can be seen in three phases, the first from 30 to 313, when Christianity was persecuted, from 313 to 395 when it was tolerated, and from 395 to 476, when it become official, until the fall of the Roman Empire. The historical context of the persecutions of the first period, when '''Christianity faced many practises allowed by the Roman Empire, like abortion, in any stage of the pregnancy, and homossexuality, is important. Back then it didn't existed the modern conflicts between those who oppose or support it, but between Christianity and roman paganism.213.13.246.96 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia article about The Catholic University of America : "In a letter to the campus that next month, CUA President David O'Connell wrote: I consider any pro-choice advocacy — whether deliberate or accidental, whether presented under the guise of academic freedom or right to free speech — as incompatible with that fidelity and not worthy of The Catholic University of America.[30]" I doubt that Kenneth Pennington, who hardly could work in the University if he was pro-choice could be the author of that article. How it's related with that website that bears his name is something that I don't get.213.13.246.96 (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on Pennington's site, and it is referenced as his text by at least one other scholar here. Pennington also wrote this 13 years ago, 5 years before he became a faculty member at CUA. I looked through the article, and really found no obvious red flags. Papal infallibility is not that simple - it only applies in very limited situations, and is very rarely used. There are only 7 (seven) generally recognized instances of statements made invoking infallibility over the last 2 millennia - see Papal_infallibility. None of them mentions abortion. And you miss-understand the difference between advocacy and scholarship. Saying "I support the right to abortion" is advocacy. Saying "The ensoulment of the fetus at conception is a modern concept not shared by early and medieval authorities [refs here]" is scholarship. The Catholic church has become fairly good at keeping this apart, especially after the bad press rep in the Galileo Galilei case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article about The Catholic University of America, you will see that even people who openly support abortion, like actor Stanley Tucci, aren't allowed to give lectures there. It's rather possible that Kenneth Pennington had become pro-life. Anyway, that's not the point. The article states: "In any case, Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their personal conscience in moral matters, even when their conscience is in conflict with hierarchical views." This is simply unbelievable, from a Catholic perspective! The Catholics, and I can speak as a lapsed Catholic, don't have the right to disagree with the Church in essential matters of faith or openly support views that are seen as anti-Catholic. For some reason the Church excommunicated automatically Catholics who joined Freemasonary and Communist Parties. It's not me who says that, but the Church itself. All the Catholic Church theology is overwhelmingly pro-life, as the author of the article pretends not to know. I can quote pope John XXIII: "It is to the Church, indeed, that is given the right and the duty of cheeking the integrity of the principles of religious and ethical order and, besides that, to give knowledge, in virtue of his authority, publicly his criteria, when it concerns the practical application of these principles." (Encyclical Mater et Magistra) I could point dozens of examples from encyclicals and Church documents about this. Like it or not, the Catholic Church still punishes with automatic excommunication every person involved in a induced abortion. Anyway, this brings us to the modern abortion debate and I can't see such a tendencious and non neutral article, written in a modern pro-choice perspective, as a reliable source. Not even these articles can show the impossible, that not even one of the Church Fathers ever supported legal abortion. As I think it should be pointed once again, the entry about the History of the early Christian thought on abortion must be written taking in consideration the historical context of the time, and not in a biased tone for modern religious and political propaganda.82.154.83.224 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Early Christian Views on Abortion
This used to be in the Pro-life movement article until it was removed.

"Opposition to abortion by some Christians is based on a number of sources. Historically, the first Christian opposition to abortion is found in a short early Christian treatise called the Didache and in the writings of a few of the Church Fathers. The Didache, which dates from the end of the 1st century, specifically prohibits abortion. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 230) condemned abortion as a crime: "Abortion is a precipitation of murder, nor does it matter whether or not one takes a life when formed, or drives it away when forming, for he is also a man who is about to be one." St. Basil the Great (330-379) also states that "Those who give potions for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers, as are those who take potions which kill the child." St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-379) takes a similar position : "There is no question about that which is bred in the uterus, both growing, and moving from place to place. It remains, therefore, that we must think that the point of commencement of existence is one and the same for body and soul". St. Augustine did consider that the gravity of participation in an abortion depended whether or not the fetus had yet received a soul at the time of abortion. "

If no one objects I think these opinions should be added to the article. If anyone can find other views if they favor more or not abortion, I have no objection too.Mistico (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a references section so the references are visible. Is there a reason why they were removed from Pro-life movement? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking over the source, the last one is a 404, and all but the first one seem to be fringe views self-published by fairly esoteric churches. I don't think these are reliable sources on early church history. I think the first one refers to a primary source that I don't have access to, but primary sources are fairly iffy, especially for things written 2000 years ago and with dubious pedigree. So I don't see how we can use that paragraph. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The original source was a blog, later replaced by other sources. The reference to St. Augustine deserves more explanation because, despite his views on "ensoulment", in any place this Church Father supported abortion as morally acceptable.Mistico (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

St. Augustine on Abortion
The Wikipedia article about Augustine of Hippo states: "Abortion and ensoulment// Like other Church Fathers, St Augustine "vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion".[81] In his works, Augustine did consider that the gravity of participation in an abortion depended whether or not the fetus had yet received a soul.This occurred at 40 days for males, and 80 for females.[81]" The source is: * If St Augustine, according to historical evidences, strongly condemned abortion, before or after what he viewed as "ensoulment", he certainly condemned also abortion as a crime before ensoulment. It seems implicit in his stance. If he used the word "murder" or not, I don't know. Only direct quotes from St. Augustine works could clarify this question. Anyway, even those who use the "ensoulment" question, can't deny that he totally opposed legal abortion, like the Church.82.154.83.224 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Protected for 6 hours
Since there was a slow edit war growing more heated, I've protected the page for 6 hours, no doubt in the wrong version. Please exchange your arguments here on the talk page, not as one-liners in the edit summaries. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolving the dispute on the talk page
I'm not really sure what there is to say. The sources are in the article, they're even quoted; all you have to do is read them. It could not possibly have been made easier. You can make statements about most scholars believing that early Christians condemned abortion, but you simply cannot make categorical statements that early Christians condemned abortion because we have an extremely reliable source that says they did not agree on this issue. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 09:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I was going to expand on this. Kristin Luker, a sociologist and member of a number of distinguished research associations whose book Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood was nominated for a Pulitzer, writes "Different sources of church teachings and laws simply did not agree on the penalties for abortion or on whether early abortion is wrong." We have other sources that disagree, but we cannot ignore this one. Unless we have a reliable source that does so, we can't even criticize Luker's claims.
 * I struck out my statement above in light of WP:RS/AC. Contrary to what I thought, we cannot actually claim general agreement on this subject unless we have a secondary source that attests general agreement. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Illicit synthesis?
Is it really, as claimed, a violation of WP:SYNTH to state verifiably in this article that Basil the Great imposed a ten-year exclusion from communion for abortion and a three-year exclusion for military killing? Even if the impositions were by different church authorities of the same period, and not by the same individual as here, information on the different periods of exclusion in vogue at the time is surely highly pertinent in providing the context of the imposition of any one of them. As such, this information does not appear to be the type of illicit synthesis envisaged in the Wikipedia rule book. I am, of course, open to correction. Esoglou (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SYN, we mustn't "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If none of the sources naming the punishments for other crimes compare those punishments to the punishment for abortion (/ if none of the sources naming the punishment for abortion compare it to the punishment for other crimes), we are implying things about the perceived gravity of abortion by putting in the information. (The Smith and Jones example at the policy page is actually fairly good for this disagreement.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As WP:SYNTH says, it is not illicit synthesis to say that Smith claimed X and that Jones claimed Y about the same matter, and to leave it at that: an original synthesis arises only when an additional declaration is made that Smith was wrong. It is not illicit synthesis, for instance, to say (verifiably) that the Lithuanian language has x grammatical cases, and to say (again verifiably) that certain neighbouring languages have y or z grammatical cases. It is not illicit synthesis to say that some independent country has an area of x square kilometres, and that some one of the US states has an area of 2x square kilometres.  Esoglou (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The same matter" is key there, though. Just as, in the Smith and Jones example, it is inappropriate to cite the Harvard manual because it does not comment on the Smith and Jones case (and, per the text that follows the example, would be inappropriate even without the "If Jones..." lead-in - it's a question of the appropriateness of the use of that source, not just wording), here it is inappropriate to cite sources that do not comment on abortion in an original-research attempt to determine the relative severity of penalties for abortion. To use your example, it's not just comparing the number of cases, because there's no implicit conclusion attached to that - it's more like saying "Lithuanian is very difficult because it has so many cases" [1] "but it has fewer cases than Polish or Latvian" [2][3] where [2] and [3] just verify the number of cases in Polish and Latvian without commenting on Lithuanian. The implication is that Polish and Latvian are more difficult. (Assume no factual accuracy in my example - Eastern European languages aren't my field, I just made this up.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, it is the same matter: relative size. Like the relative size of countries and states.  Like the relative number of grammatical cases (Lithuanian is the one with most - but that doesn't at all mean it must be a more difficult language than the others, a conclusion that would involve introducing another factor, like the Harvard Manual, a claim that difficulty is chiefly a matter of grammatical cases rather than the many other elements in a language).  Like ... Esoglou (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification, do you agree that (what I've described as) the synthesis can be removed once a sourced comparison is added? I have the relevant page of Bakke open now, but I want to make sure we agree about whether the current comparison can be removed. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I don't know that Bakke says, I don't know whether it could be thought to propound a particular point of view. Does it just state the facts without illation?  Esoglou (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bakke does try to draw conclusions, but as long as it's not us drawing the conclusions, we're in the clear as far as original synthesis is concerned. Sorry, I should have spoken more clearly - I mean "can I replace your calculations/conclusions with Bakke's, if they differ." Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 09:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I see it, I have only reported verified facts, without any drawing of conclusions that would require attribution to some reliable source. And again, does Bakke talk about the "2nd century AD to 4th century AD" period or instead about a later period, the period of "tariff penances", for which there is more abundant and precise evidence?  Without knowing what Bakke says, I cannot answer your question either positively or negatively.   Esoglou (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bakke's page is on the fourth-century synods of Elvira and Ancyra. But, like I said, I still think what you wrote is completely against Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy - I was hoping we could come to an accord, where we'd agree to replace synthesis with slightly different but non-synthesized content, but if you still want to keep it, maybe we should take this to WP:RFC and get some more opinions. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. As I said, I am open to correction.  Since you think this is a violation of WP:NOR, don't you think the simplest and quickest remedy would be for you to take it to WP:NORN?
 * I take it that Bakke must be doing more than reporting what the two synods actually say. For the bare fact that the Council of Elvira, which imposed exclusion from communion even at death on women who aborted an adulterous conception (canon 63), imposed the same exclusion on adult Christians who sacrificed to idols (canon 1), on bishops, priests and deacons guilty of sexual immorality (canon 18), and on other Christians who did various other wrong deeds (other citable canons) - for this fact it is enough to quote the canons of the Council; but of course you or I cannot put into the article some conclusion merely drawn by yourself from that fact: we need to cite some other source, such as Bakke, for any such conclusion.  Esoglou (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, good idea. I forgot there was a noticeboard for that. Bakke compares the punishments for fornication/promiscuity, for accidental killing, and for intentional murder to the punishment for abortion in order to conclude that it was more serious than accidental killing, but less serious than murder. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're going to submit a request to the noticeboard, I suggest we do it jointly - you compose your argument, and I'll compose mine, and then one of us will post them together at noticeboard. Does that sound good? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't compose any argument. I just don't understand how it could be considered synthesis to state verifiably that Sophocles' Oedipus the King has 1530 lines and his Oedipus at Colonus has 1779 lines (implying no more than the obvious fact that the second is longer than the first, not for instance that Sophocles liked one more than the other), or to say verifiably that the City of London (in the strict sense, not the whole town) has an area of about one square mile, while the area of Vatican City is less than 0.2 square miles (implying no more than the obvious fact that the City of London is about five times the size of Vatican City), or to cite the canons of the Council of Elvira for the sins for which that Council did not want communion to be given even at death (implying no more than the obvious fact that that Council rated all those sins as meriting the same exclusion), or to indicate verifiably what periods of exclusion Basil considered appropriate for more than one sin (implying no more than the obvious fact that he rated one sin as meriting a longer exclusion than the other). If you compose your request first, I could doubtless add my comment, either before or after you post your request. If you decide to post it first, please let me know when the question has been put. Esoglou (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll let you know. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-Aristotelian
I appreciate the offer, Esoglou, but I don't think you can give me special dispensation from 1RR. ;) Anyway, it's better to discuss. I removed the section because the article is about Christian perspectives and, to a lesser degree, the Greek and Jewish perspectives which are thought to have influenced the Christians. Unless the sources discuss how Stoic perspectives on the soul influenced (or did not influence) Christian perspectives, the information is extraneous. I would suggest adding the information perhaps to Ensoulment - that has an extensive section on the Catholic view, but not much else, and more information on Greek views could make it a better article. It also might help to take another look at the sources in this article for Greek and Jewish views, to make sure they talk about how those views relate to Christian views. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you were restricted to 1RR. I will therefore on your behalf undo my edit.  But don't you think that, as it stood (and as I am now restoring it), the text suggests that Aristotle's were the only ideas that people had in the first century AD classical world, when in fact, unless I am mistaken, the prevailing philosophies were Stoicism, Epicureanism and a form of Platonism? They too were certainly part of the "1st Century AD and the Classical World" but the text speaks only of the Aristotelian view among the Greeks (and Romans), saying, for instance, "For the Greeks (all of them? In reality, obviously not), ensoulment occurred …" The text speaks of the view of early Christians only for less than half of the first of the four paragraphs in the section.  The ambience that they found themselves in, and which is the subject of the other three and a half paragraphs, also included these other ideas.  I'll return to this some time tomorrow.  Esoglou (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All abortion-related topics, broadly construed, are on 1RR. I'd link the page about sanctions but I'm on my phone, so I'll try to remember later. Anyway, thanks for reverting. I agree that the information is useful, and if, for some reason, I was writing a book about early Christian thought on abortion, I would want to include it so readers had an idea of the philosophical milieu in which this thought developed. But Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, works on slightly different principles, so we can't include this information as "background" unless a source has noted that it is "background." (But it would definitely belong in Ensoulment, which I think is linked from here, so readers of this article would still be able to get that information.) And I agree that "For the Greeks" etc. could be rephrased in light of the Stoics, even if we don't include the Stoics in the article. It could read "For adherents of Aristotelianism" or similar. Later, I'll take a look at the first couple of paras to make sure they only contain information relevant to Christian views, since that is the topic. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the first section I have separated out what is said about Christian views from the much more abundant material on the ambience. My attention was directed to the Stoics by something I met in reading Marcus Aurelius (whose Greek style and abundant use of technical Stoic terms makes him difficult reading).  Much material is available on the relationship between Stoic and Christian thought.  If necessary, I can look up sources in that field.  Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The sectioning-off you've done looks good. And, a clarification on Stoicism: yes, obviously Stoic thought and Christian thought are related in various ways, but we would need to find a source that talks specifically about Stoic views on the soul influencing Christian views (in this case, I guess it would be influencing them in the opposite direction). "Stoic views on the soul were these" and "Stoicism and Christian philosophy are related" won't do. Similarly, the bit on Epicureanism would need a source connecting it to Christianity.
 * However, I still question whether, if such a source were to be found, it should be included in this article. It seems to me like everything related to ensoulment should go in the ensoulment article, and the important parts summed up briefly here with reference to how they affected views on abortion. That way, we wouldn't have to worry about straying off-topic, and readers could find out all they wanted about the details by clicking a link, but there would still be enough material to provide context for early Christians' views on abortion. Also the ensoulment article could really use the information! It's got a great deal on Catholicism and a little bit on Islam, but the Greeks are only mentioned for how they influenced Catholic thought and, as you've shown, the varieties of Greek thought should definitely have a section.
 * Relatedly, I still think the "Ambience" section is too long. Part of the problem is that we don't have an "Abortion in ancient Rome" article where we could shove a lot of that background. However, there is a History of abortion article and their Rome section is very small and unsourced, so the information here could be moved there and an anchored link added in the text to direct readers there for more background. Some mention of Roman law could also be made in the "Legal: History of abortion law" section of that page. And Judaism and abortion is pretty detailed, for that part of the background, though it doesn't include that particular point from Bakke. Basically, I think that the article should focus on Christian thought, and allow readers to branch out to other articles for more in-depth background about Greek, Roman and Jewish thought.
 * And my comment is way longer than I intended. Sorry. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comments on Stoicism and Epicureanism surely apply also to the question of the frequency of abortion in the general population in Greece and Rome, that of legal prohibition and penalties in the classical world, and the view that writings from that world "portray abortion as expressions of an ideological agenda where men maintain or reestablish patterns of power between the sexes, not as information about historical realities". But I feel no urge to return immediately to study of the matter.  Esoglou (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely. Anything less than immediate background should be put elsewhere. Do you think it would be worth creating an "Abortion in ancient Rome" article rather than shifting the information to the general History of abortion article? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I don't feel like doing it myself. I have not been constantly examining even these few articles, to which I was drawn only because, when I happened upon them, I saw their one-sided character and their attempts to get across fallacious ideas such as that those who did not classify abortion in certain circumstances as murder were therefore(!) teaching that in those circumstances abortion was quite permissible.  The importance of the question whether some abortions could be classified as not murder lay in the fact that the punishment for murder was death.  The first Christian who, pace Bakke and Company and perhaps yourself, can actually be quoted as saying that the distinction between a formed and an unformed embryo was relevant to judging abortions is Augustine (who is not part of early Christianity).  According to one published source - I haven't seen his exact words (in Latin) - he wrote: "The body is created before the soul. The embryo before it is endowed with a soul is informatus, as its destruction by human agency is to be punished by a fine. The embryo formatus is endowed with a soul; it is an animate being; its destruction is murder and is to be punished by death" (Quaestiones in Exodum 80).  He expressly stated that the penalty for abortion in "formed" circumstances was death, and expressly stated that abortion in "unformed" circumstances was punishable too, though not with the death penalty.
 * In this article, I find it hard to understand how anybody can imagine that they can distinguish Christian thought of the first century from Christian thought in the other early Christian centuries about abortion. It would make more sense to devote the first-century section to the ideas in the surroundings in which the first Christians found themselves (when Stoicism dominated, since it was only towards the end of the second century that Stoicism was eclipsed by a revival of Platonism and Aristotelianism): what clearly first-century Christian writing (Didache and Barnabas may be first or second century) does talk about abortion?  Esoglou (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know exactly how you feel - the "it would be a great idea, but I really don't want to be the one to execute it." ;D What you're suggesting makes sense, but again, we would have to make sure that every source we used specifically related the information to Christian views, or we would be violating WP:NOR. We would probably lose a lot of useful information that way, and I'd rather not deny that information to the reader - that's why I suggest moving it to another article, either a new one or History of abortion, as well as Ensoulment, so we can direct them there and they can learn about the ambience without us engaging in original synthesis or leaving out relevant information. Maybe there is a WikiProject where one of us could ask for help creating the "abortion in Rome" article, and since you already did the research on Greek views on ensoulment, you could move it to that article. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, on my part it isn't a matter even of "it would be a great idea, but I really don't want to be the one to execute it". I confess to being quite indifferent to the proposal.  I would like to add that the quotation that I gave above as attributed to Augustine does not correspond to what Augustine actually wrote, which was much more complex and unclear.  While he, like Tertullian (who rejected the idea that the distinction had any moral significance), was aware of the fairly common notion that the embryo was not really human at first, he gave no sign of accepting or even knowing of Aristotle's peculiar notion of males becoming human at about 40 days and usually kicking on the right side and females becoming human some 20 days later and usually kicking on the left side.  He seems to have been unenthusiastic about the notion, but since he was commenting on the Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22-25, he felt that he had to accept that there was some such distinction.  Another philosophy that could be cited is Pythagoreanism, which believed in animation at conception. Several sources, including the Roe v. Wade judgement(!), say the Hippocratic Oath originated in Pythagoreanism and was brought to prominence by the early Christians, who agreed with the Pythagorean ethic.  Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, the problem with all these suggestions and additions is WP:NOR. Too many sources say that Augustine was an Aristotelian on this issue for us to water down this claim in any way based on what appears, from your comment, to be your own analysis of primary sources. Do you have secondary sources that agree with your view? (And of course, if in the current version of the article - I'm on my phone again so I can't view the article and talkpage at the same time - cites Augustine's view, which you read to be incorrect, only to a primary source, it must certainly be replaced or augmented with secondary sources - it's not as though there's a shortage of scholarly literature on Augustine, after all!) Same with Pythagoreanism. I don't doubt that there are sources which connect Pythagoreanism to Christianity, but they would have to specifically reference Pythagorean views on the soul or on abortion in connection with Christians. (Forgive me if they do, I haven't yet been able to view them for the aforementioned reason.) "Pythagoreans believed this about the soul" + "Pythagorean ideas influenced Christians" =/= "Pythagorean ideas about the soul influenced Christian ideas about the soul"; this would be synth. But either way, I think this detailed information about different beliefs on ensoulment belongs in the article on ensoulment, rather than here. Could you elaborate on why you don't incline to it? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aaaaand I see that your edit was about the Septuagint. This is why I should look at the article edit before the talkpage edit. Anyway, that edit looks good, specifically the source which connects it to Christians; I think the article will need reorganization at some point, but that can be considered after a consensus is arrived at about shifting or not shifting some of this content to other articles. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I really should not have made those Talk page comments. I meant them only as final remarks, thinking that I could now let this article rest until or unless someone inserted things that call for response.  Augustine is outside the period of early Christianity.  I mentioned what he wrote because I had earlier quoted something about him that was incorrect.  My remark about Pythagoreanism was just by the way.  Pythagoreanism was a decidedly minor current of thought in the first and second centuries, but it had a revival later.  It would be interesting to see if any source says its revival was because of affinity with Christian thought, but I doubt if anyone says that.  There are sources that explicitly say there was affinity between Pythagorean and Christian thought on abortion.   Unless my memory is playing me false, Roe v. Wade did.  It was the search for what exactly Augustine said that made me look up information about the passage of Scripture that he was commenting on.  I was not thinking of adding anything more to the article now.  (Admittedly, if the urge were some day to come on me, I could of course put in something about Pythagoreanism.)  And I don't see any need at present - do you? - to insert sources that speak of delayed animation without linking it to Aristotle.  Does the article claim that Aristotle was the only person ever to think independently in terms of delayed animation?  If it does, I suppose I should add something.  If I felt that the article said what you seem to say here, that Augustine was an Aristotelian, then I would have to add something.  I think it is agreed that "Like most fourth-century Christian writers in the Latin West, Augustine knows Aristotle primarily as a logician. To the extent that he is aware of Aristotle's other work, he tends to consider it obscure."  Esoglou (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Roe v. Wade isn't exactly a work of historical scholarship, but it cites a book which we could probably use to bring in Pythagoreanism if we decided that was a good idea. (FWIW, I use "Augustine is an Aristotelian on this issue" as shorthand for "he accepts a formed-unformed or ensouled-unensouled distinction"; there are nuances, but I thought that was the point of contention.) Anyway, if you've no objection, I will probably move the Greek stuff to Ensoulment, and the Roman stuff onto this talkpage until it is decided whether to move it to History of abortion or to create a new article. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I will await the result, which may call for more edits. By the way, you mention "Greek stuff" and "Roman stuff", but not "Jewish stuff".
 * In response to your use of the term "Aristotelian", may I remark that people believe in delayed animation/humanization without at all accepting Aristotle's ideas of human life attained at 40/60 days and indicated by kicking on right side or left. The Stoics believed in a delay that was longer than the Aristotelian delay.  They weren't Aristotelians.  There are many today who are totally ignorant of or expressly reject Aristotle's philosophy (ask them what they think of hylemorphism, for instance), but who hold that the embryo or fetus is not a human being and who strongly object to use of the term "baby" for it.  Even opponents of inducing abortion immediately after conception may hold that what is conceived, while its already individual though undeveloped life is human life and is thus sacred, is not at first a human person.  Esoglou (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Judaism and abortion already exists and contains a decent background on the subject, unlike the "Greek stuff" and "Roman stuff." (There is no reason to move the Septuagint information you added out of the article, because it relates directly to Christianity and thus is not synthesis or digression.) I'll let you know on your talk page when I've made the edits! Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change of title and scope
Propose changing the title of this article (via "move") in order to expand scope

History of early Christian thought on abortion → History of Christian teaching on abortion –

The current title is too restrictive in scope yielding a short article. My proposed title allows the article to discuss Christian teaching beyond "early Christianity". This will be useful for shortening the articles on Christianity and abortion and Catholic Church and abortion. Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose History of Christian thought on abortion. Agree with Pseudo-Richard that the current period is arbitrary, but prefer "thought" to "teaching" as it allows us to discuss the views of important thinkers that were not necessarily integrated into teaching. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally dislike the use of "Christian thought" instead of "Christian teaching" as "Christian thought" is hard to define. Is it the thought of any Christian?  How would that be useful?  I would prefer to focus on the teachings of specific Christian denominations.  However, I would accede to using "Christian thought" if there were a number of editors who preferred it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposal seems to me to be equivalent to merging this article with Christianity and abortion and perhaps removing from the latter the only section that is not directly about Christian teaching, namely, "Christian abortion statistics" - some would surely want to keep it as evidence of observance or lack of observance of the varied teachings that exist, which may be precisely why it is at present where it is.  There are many varieties of Christianity or at least of religious denominations that claim to be Christian, and these varied denominations have varied teachings.  Roscelese's counterproposal would be yet wider, extending the article not just to denominations but to ad-hoc groups and even individuals.  Two questions.  Is "History of" necessary or useful in the present title?  Is it really either necessary or useful to separate this article out from Christianity and abortion?   Esoglou (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
NB: References in the early part of this section to "the first 3.5 paragraphs of Christianity and abortion" refer to the subsections that are now in the "History" section at the end of that article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Esoglou, as you know from our working together on a number of topics, I am as much interested in the history of a debate as in the current state of the debate. I envision the proposed article History of Christian teaching on abortion to cover the first two sections of Christianity and abortion, viz. "Early Christian thought on abortion" and "Later Christian thought on abortion".  My rationale is that providing the history of a debate is most useful in books which have the luxury of spending pages and pages describing the historical development of a controversy.  However, Wikipedia is not paper and we need not follow the same model as books.  My experience is that doing the same thing in a Wikipedia article degrades the article by bogging the reader down in historical details that are not necessarily useful in grasping the current state of a controversy.  There is a certain intellectual snobbery in saying, "You can't understand this debate unless you have an intimate knowledge of its history."  Some historical details are actually critically important to understanding; most are just historical trivia that is not critically pertinent.  I much prefer to summarize the history in the main article and provide the details in a separate subsidiary article if the history is substantial enough to warrant a separate article.  I hope you will reconsider your opposition.  --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish, I withdraw my query about having "History of" in the title. But for the rest, moving here the from-start-to-now history would leave too little in the Christianity and abortion article.  Esoglou (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't true at all - Christianity and abortion is mostly a rundown of what different denominations believe. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, I agree with Roscelese. Christianity and abortion is a reasonable length article that will be just fine with a little less historical detail in it.  This article on the other hand is a practically a stub with (AFAICT) little hope of being expanded significantly.  The first two sections of Christianity and abortion amount to 3 and a half paragraphs which, when combined with the 6 paragraphs in this article, will result in a relatively short 8-10 paragraph article.  It is my hope that the expanding the scope to cover 1900 years of history will create the opportunity to grow the article further. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we have a problem of semantics. My reason for saying little would be left in the Christianity and abortion article is precisely what Roscelese says: the article is "mostly a rundown of what different denominations believe".  To my mind, but apparently not to those of R and P-R, that overwhelming "mostly" is very definitely part of the "history of Christian teaching on abortion".   Perhaps R and P-R envision history as ending, if not at 325 or thereabouts, then at some other date in the past.  If "history" is defined in that way, excluding, say, everything after 1789, then of course R and P-R are right.  Richard speaks of "1900 years of history", perhaps down to, say, 1933.  Some of the teaching declarations mentioned in the article are earlier than 1933.  So when did history end?  Esoglou (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My view is that there is "history" and there is "the present". "History" includes "the present" and thus any article that discusses "history" should also discuss the present as the endpoint of history but the discussion of the present should be in the context of history.  If there are two separate articles discusing "history" and "the present", then the "history" article should discuss the present lightly and the article on "the present" should discuss "history" lightly.  The demarcation between "history" and "the present" is hard to define but is roughly that point where significant changes are not found. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article that you propose to remove "history" from mentions events for which it explicitly gives the dates of 1869, 1895, 1966, 1971, 1980, 1987, 2007. All these lie outside the 3.5 paragraphs that you propose to move here (or rather, in part, to merge here, since part of it is supposed to be a summary of what is already here).  Although they - including even the 2007 event - can be seen as "significant changes", you seem to want these events, and others whose dates are not mentioned explicitly, to be classified as belonging not to "history", but to "the present".  That is the problem I see in your proposal.  Esoglou (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is in the perception that material will be "removed" from Christianity and abortion. Instead of removing it, I propose to replace it with a summary per WP:SUMMARY. The History of Christian teaching on abortion will summarize the current situation whereas Christianity and abortion will summarize the history leading up to the current situation. How to strike the right balance between summary and detail is a discussion that need not be resolved completely at this point in time. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what you want to have in this article. Are you now saying that it will contain all the history of Christian teaching on abortion, and not just the first 3.5 paragraphs of the other article, as I thought you said earlier?  And how do you propose to provide in each article either a summary of or a detailed account of recent history without giving almost the same text in both?  Is the summary in the non-history article to mention events like that of 2007 or not?  Esoglou (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposed article History of Christian teaching on abortion will start out containing just the 3.5 paragraphs of Christianity and abortion plus the contents of this article. However, it is my earnest hope that the new article would then be expanded to cover other parts of the evolution of Christian thinking about abortion.  I'm guessing that more could be written about the views of Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm except that doing so now would be too much of a distraction in Christianity and abortion.


 * As for 2007, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you talking about the Anglican Church of Australia?  If so, that seems like an example of recentism to me.  Can't tell right now if that is going to be a notable event in history or not.


 * The point is that Christianity and abortion should focus on what the current state of affairs is with only an overview of how things got to be the way they are. History of Christian teaching on abortion can provide the historical narrative of how things got to be the way they are.


 * In general, it seems to me that Christianity has been opposed to abortion in principle for most of the last 2000 years but perhaps less unequivocally so in practice (e.g. debating over the timing of "ensoulment"). I am not aware of any branch of Christianity that has supported abortion prior to about 1900 (though I am not an expert here so I could well be mistaken).  My perspective is that during the 20th century, especially the latter half of the 20th century, the stance of some Christian denominations has changed towards being more pro-choice and, perhaps in reaction, others have moved towards being more solidly pro-life.  (This is obviously just one interpretation; let's not dispute whether or not it is "the truth".)  In brief, the 20th century has seen significant changes in Christianity's attitude towards abortion.  If it was ever "monolithic" prior to 1900, it certainly is not so now.  The increase in diversity is part of the historical narrative.


 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I can only conclude that, in spite of the title you are proposing, you intend that the renamed article should not be about the "History of Christian teaching on abortion", but should instead be about the "History of Christian teaching on abortion in the first millennium".  (The main article has three paragraphs on "Early Christian thought on abortion", and if you take only the first half of the next paragraph, you stop before Aquinas.)  That would be a reasonable proposal.  But an article that says nothing about the 20th-century change of teaching by some (most?) Protestant denominations in the West is omitting a highly important part of the "History of Christian teaching on abortion", if that is what the article is supposed to be about.  Some pro-freedom-to-abort "reliable source" writers state, without citing any early or first-millennium source for their opinion, that early abortion was treated by some early or first-millennium Christians as a moral choice; and in spite of the lack of evidence adduced by them, Wikipedia cannot reject the insertion of their view by some of its editors; but as far as I can see, Christian teaching of the period you envisage, even when it accepted that abortion need not be classified as murder, was unanimous in condemning abortion as a gravely sinful act.  In that period, absolutely no Christian teaching, either in the West or in the East, can be cited as permitting abortion before ensoulment.  At least, none has been cited here and I have come across none elsewhere.  The historic change within a sector of Christianity came later.  As you say, "the increase in diversity is part of the historical narrative"; so it cannot be excluded from an article that claims to be about the "History of Christian teaching on abortion".
 * You may well be right about the "recentism" of the 2007 event in one see of the Anglican Church in Australia, which makes its inclusion in either of the two articles problematic. Esoglou (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I am so inept in communicating my intent. I think it is because I am not very knowledgeable in this area and may be expressing my intent badly.  It is far from my intent to cover only the first millenium or even only the first 1900 years.  To the extent that the 20th century represents a watershed moment for a large part of Christianity (mostly the "mainline" Protestant denominations), this should be covered in the "History of..." article.  The Christianity and abortion article should focus on presenting the final result (i.e. where everybody stands today) with just a summary of how they got there.  The "History of ..." article can describe the blow-by-blow of how they got there.  Perhaps the reason that I have not communicated this well is that I am not really that knowledgeable about the evolution of Protestant doctrine regarding abortion in the 20th century.  It is my intent to create a place for that historical narrative to be presented but I rather expect other editors to help flesh it out since my knowledge of this area is so scant.  This article as currently titled is clearly not an appropriate location for presenting this historical narrative.  Christianity and abortion could be the right place but I fear that article would become too long if there were significant historical narrative included in it.  (As it is, the 3.5 paragraphs of history are a bit of a distraction from the main flow of the article.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it is not just those few 3.5 paragraphs, but all the historical events (those, at least, for which a date is given, including those in 20th-century Protestantism) that you would move to the history article, but leaving a summary of them in the other article? An adequate summary would mean considerable duplication, as shown by the present summary in the other article of the information given in this article on Early Christian (down to 325) history.  We would then have two articles with approximately the same content, not a good situation.  I would certainly not support that proposal, but if it really is your proposal and if others agree with it, I would not actively oppose it.   Esoglou (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In 5 days, only three people (you, myself and Roscelese) have expressed opinions. If you will not actively oppose, I will move ahead with my proposal when the RM period ends.  I think it will work out fine despite your reservations.  I will seek your assistance in creating a worthy article.  --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but it would really be good first to hear other people's views on the appropriateness of having two articles that will, entirely in one case and almost entirely in the other, be on how Christians have looked on abortion. Esoglou (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I support eventually renaming the article to History of Christian thought on abortion but as the article stands now, it doesn't need to be done right away. Two articles are useful (one on current developments and another with historical context) and since every denomination has its own teachings, the word "thought" seems to better support the article's future scope (I presume it will eventually be expanded beyond the fourth century). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With the appearance of this further expression of view, I withdraw all opposition. Esoglou (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Bible Teaching on Abortion
Twice, the article falsely states that, "there is no mention of abortion in the Christian Bible", while this same article at its end quotes John Calvin's commentary on Exodus 21:22-25. Read this passage in full.

"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (NKJV)

The men who were careless enough to be fighting around a pregnant woman would be punished for accidentally inducing labor even if no harm came to the child. But if harm did come to the child, they were to be killed: "you shall give life for life". This reflects a very sanctified attitude toward the fetus, since accidental murder is otherwise unpunishable. So then, if an accidentally induced death of a fetus is worthy of capital punishment (due to the carelessness of the men fighting), how much more is the purposefully induced death of a fetus worthy of capital punishment, i.e., life for life? The implication of this concerning abortion is clear. The Christian Bible does mention abortion.

Some translations seek to make this passage refer to a miscarriage. This translation is refuted by the Sixth General Assembly of the PCA. They state that the word used "indicates that the child in view is not the product of a miscarriage", and also that, "Verse 23 describes a situation where some harm is done EITHER to mother OR child or BOTH...An induced miscarriage could hardly be described as a situation where there is 'no harm'. Verse 22, therefore, describes, not an induced miscarriage, but an induced premature birth." They also state that translations using the word miscarriage are "both inaccurate and misleading".

In view of this, the article should be revised to remove these false statements, and hopefully will mention the modern evangelical Christian view that the Bible does mention and condemn abortion, along with their reasons for believing so.

SAC, Christian (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, while some modern anti-abortion commentators interpret that passage as prohibiting abortion, most point out that the second clause refers to lasting harm to the pregnant woman. (Shocking.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This objection is also answered by the assembly, "We should also note that the term "ason" (harm), found in both verse 22 and verse 23 is indefinite in its reference. The expression "lah" ("to her"), which would restrict the harm to the woman in distinction from the child, is missing. Thus the most natural interpretation would regard the "harm" as pertaining either to the woman or to the child."


 * The purpose of the passage mentioning a pregnant woman would be useless unless the situation was somehow unique to a pregnant woman. Such harm, e.g., a blow to the abdomen, could hardly cause a normal woman harm, and likely not a pregnant woman: the main harm would be in the inducement of labor, which, though not dangerous to the mother, is dangerous to a premature fetus. "Furthermore, the less dangerous methods - physical exertion, abdominal massage, and ingestion of relatively harmless substances thought to induce miscarriage - are less effective, and may result in the fetus developing birth defects. However, abdominal massage abortion is traditionally practised in Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia."


 * A second biblical reference, though it does not explicitly mention abortion, strongly implies something especially heinous about the death of a pregnant woman, as though the child in her womb is actually of value: "For three sins of Ammon, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. Because he ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead in order to extend his borders, I will set fire to the walls of Rabbah..." (Amos 1:13-15)


 * SAC, Christian (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first source is ambivalent about the position you claim it supports, of quality inferior to that of scholarly sources that have commented on the subject, and in a minority position. Your other sources do not refer to the passage and are irrelevant, while your comment that labor was totally safe for women and only harmed premature fetuses is - I don't really have a softer word for this - really, really stupid.
 * Your comment that ripping open a woman's body is a-OK in itself is fairly offensive. I recommend that you stop with the original research and leave it up to reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Christian thought on abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218195040/http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm to http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903232336/http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hildegard von Bingen
The patristic writings section currently includes the lines

"Not only did they not view early abortions as being abortions, but many prominent Catholics saw nothing wrong with compiling lists of known abortifacient herbs and discovering new ones. For example, in her treatises the 12th century abbess and later saint Hildegard of Bingen discusses tansy as an effective abortifacient taken by a pregnant woman "on account she languishes [morietur], or she aborts an infant with a danger to her body, or if she has not had a menstrual period for a time period so that it hurts"."

This is problematic for two reasons: first, the source names hazelwort, not tansy, as the herb in question. Second, the assertion in the source is based on a bizarre mistranslation. One edition of the corresponding latin text reads "Et si pregnans mulier eam comederet, aut moreretur aut infantem cum periculo corporis sui abortiret, aut si eo tempore cum menstrua non haberet, vel plus inde doleret."

A literal and grammatical reading of the passage is "And if a pregnant woman were to eat it, she would either die or miscarry the infant, with danger to her own body; or if [she ate it] at that time when she was not having menstrual periods, hence she would be pained even more."

An older edition of the latin text gives "Et si pregnans mulier eam comederit, aut morietur, aut infantem cum periculo corporis sui abortiret, aut si eo tempore cum menstrua non haberet, vel plus indoleret."

A literal reading of this one is "And if a pregnant woman shall have eaten it, either she will die, or she would miscarry the infant, with danger to her own body; or if [she ate it] at that time when she was not having menstrual periods, she would be pained even more."

Riddle, strangely, reads this as "If a pregnant woman will eat Asurum, either on account she languishes, or she aborts an infant with a danger to her body, or, if she has not had a menstrual period for a time that it hurts."

and interprets it as an endorsement of the herb as an abortifacient, disregarding the larger context: Hildegard is warning against the use of hazelwort in general, and lists particularly vulnerable populations, including people with fever or gout, in addition to pregnant women. So far as I can tell, no other author has independently arrived at Riddle's translation or interpretation; Priscilla Throop, who has translated the entire work, renders the line "A pregnant woman who eats it would die or abort the infant, with danger to her body. If a woman who has not yet had a menstrual period eats it, it will affect her more."

The scholar Monica H. Green, reviewing another of Riddle's books (in which he makes the same argument), also remarks on the poorness of Riddle's translation and disputes his conclusion. Since apparently no one other than Riddle has seen a connection between Hildegard von Bingen and the promotion of abortifacients, I am proposing to remove the mention of her from the article. Cheers, gnu 57 02:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In ethnobotany studies involving the interviewing of tribal elders it is not uncommon to have a variety of plants labeled as "abortifacient" or "for sterilization"--but it doesn't mean that is what they actually routinely used it for, or that the medicine men had such a large number of them in their mental inventory because they used them often. Rather, it was just the "only plausible use" for that particular plant in their list of plants. For some this was the use ascribed to just about any poisonous plant. It doesn't mean that they were actually going around prescribing and using these plants, only that this was the inferred use, possibly by watching what happens to animals who eat such plants, or simply an assumption that whatever could kill a person could probably induce an abortion at a smaller dose.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move
There is already a decent about of discussion on early Christian thought on infanticide in this article. I do not recommend taking it out--the issues are clearly linked. But I am proposing changing the title to History of Christian thought on abortion and infanticide especially since this is already the scope of the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Content that could be merged into this article.
I think the following could fit into the article; it mostly came from the Church Fathers and abortion article; this would be a good place to work it up a bit if need be before moving it back. Even though I'm signing this with my username feel free to improve the text.

Athanagoras of Athens
Athanagoras of Athens, an Ante-Nicene Christian apologist, philosopher, and Apostolic Father, wrote in 177 AD, in A Plea for the Christians, that "women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder."

Tertullian
Tertullian, a Christian writer and Latin Father influenced by Stoicism, who is not regarded as a saint by the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church because of his denial of the Trinity, wrote in 197 AD, in Apology, that Christians, being forbidden to murder, could not "destroy even the fetus in the womb." In 208 AD, Tertullian wrote in On the Soul that Mosaic Law punishes "the man who shall cause abortion."

Marcus Minucius Felix
Marcus Minucius Felix, a Latin Father and apologist, wrote in 226 AD, in Octavius, that women who "extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels" commit parricide.

Hippolytus of Rome
Hippolytus of Rome, a Latin Christian theologian who at one time committed schism before reconciling with the Christian church, wrote in 228 AD, in Refutation of All Heresies, that women who "expel what was being conceived" commit murder.

Augustine of Hippo
Augustine of Hippo, a Latin Christian theologian and bishop of Hippo influenced by Neoplatonism, wrote in 320 AD, in On Marriage and Concupiscence that "sometimes...cruel lust...resorts to...poisonous drugs...to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born."

Augustine believed that an early abortion is not murder because, according to the Aristotelian concept of delayed ensoulment, the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present, a belief that passed into canon law. Nonetheless, he harshly condemned the procedure: "Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born."(De Nube et Concupiscentia 1.17 (15))

Basil of Caesarea
Basil of Caesarea, a Latin Christian theologian and bishop of Caesarea Mazaca who supported the Nicene Creed, wrote in 374 AD, in Epistle to Amphilochius, that the woman "who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder."

Jerome of Striden
Jerome of Striden, a Latin Christian priest, confessor, theologian, and historian who translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate, wrote in 384 AD, in Letter to Eustochium, that adultresses who "use drugs to procure abortion" commit "child murder."

Ambrose of Milan
Ambrose of Milan, a Latin Christian archbishop of Milan and opponent of Arianism, wrote in 388 AD, in Hexameron, that women by "the use of parricidal mixtures they snuff out the fruit of their wombs in the genital organs themselves. In this way life is taken away before it is given."

John Chrysostom
John Chrysostom, a Latin Christian archbishop of Constantinople, whose views on the Jews are considered antisemitic, wrote in 391 AD, in Homily 24 on Romans, that abortion is "murder before birth...or rather something even worst than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born." Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

John Chrysostom
I attempted to amend the page to reflect John Chrysostom's views. The article currently states that John Chrysostom didn't view abortion as being as bad as murder, which directly contradicts his homilies on Romans in which he explicitly states that it is "something even worse than murder". I gave the appropriate citations (a direct link to the homily translated into English, as well as two publications from two separate schools of law that also cite the homily, alongside many of John Chrysostom's contemporaries).

Since it has been reverted again (a second time), I'm trying to discuss it here to see what the issue is.

SvoHljott (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. A homily from almost 2000 years ago should not be cited directly as a source to prove anything, because it's a primary source that has to be interpreted by a secondary source, per WP:RS. This is a particularly glaring example of the need to adhere to WP:RS, since the words when translated into English and read out of context can seem to have very different meanings. For example, "abortion" to us includes very early abortions, whereas to most writers in antiquity it meant post-quickening abortion. Scholars have explained that in ancient times the harshest condemnation of abortion was when it served the purpose of covering up adultery. Perhaps the best source is Noonan's book Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (Harvard University Press, editions of 1965, 1986, or 2012). Noonan believed that the sin referred to as "worse than murder" in the homily was contraception, not abortion. He also commented that at the time some theologians used terms such as homicide to refer to castration and to homosexual activity, on the grounds that they are "mutilations of nature" that prevent the formation of a new life. NightHeron (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)