Jump to content

Ensoulment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromEnsouled)

The initial stages ofhuman embryonic development.
Part ofa serieson
Human growth
and development
Stages
Biological milestones
Development and psychology

In religion and philosophy,ensoulment(from the verbensoulmeaning to endow or imbue with asoul-- earliest ascertainable word use: 1605) is the moment at which ahumanor other being gains a soul. Some belief systems maintain that a soul is newly created within a developing child; others, especially in religions that believe inreincarnation,believe that the soul ispre-existingand enters the body at a particular stage of development.

In the time ofAristotle,it was widely believed that the human soul entered the forming body at 40 days (male embryos) or 90 days (female embryos), andquickeningwas an indication of the presence of a soul. Other religious views are that ensoulment happens at the moment ofconception;or when the child takes the first breath after being born;[1][2]at the formation of the nervous system and brain; at the first detectable sign of brain activity; or when the fetus is able to survive independently of the uterus (viability).[3]

The concept is closely related to debates on themorality of abortionas well as themorality of contraception.Religious beliefs that human life has an innate sacredness to it have motivated many statements by spiritual leaders of various traditions over the years; however, the three matters[clarification needed]are not exactly parallel, given that various figures have argued that some kind of life without a soul, in various contexts, still has a moral worth that must be considered.

Ancient Greeks

[edit]
Aristotelian Soul

Among Greek scholars,Hippocrates(c.460 – c.370 BC) believed that the embryo was the product of male semen and a female factor. ButAristotle(384 – 322 BC) held that only male semen gave rise to an embryo, while the female only provided a place for the embryo to develop,[4](a concept he acquired from thepreformationistPythagoras). Aristotle believed a fetus in early gestation has thesoulof a vegetable, then of an animal, and only later became "animated" with a human soul by "ensoulment". For him, ensoulment occurred 40 days after conception for male fetuses and 90 days after conception for female fetuses,[5][6][7]the stage at which, it was held, movement is first felt within the womb and pregnancy was certain.[8][9]This is calledepigenesis,which is "the theory that the germ is brought into existence (by successive accretions), and not merely developed, in the process of reproduction",[10]in contrast to thetheory of preformation,which asserts the "supposed existence of all the parts of an organism in rudimentary form in the egg or the seed;"[11]modernembryology,which finds both that an organism begins with an inherited genetic code and that embryonic stem cells can develop epigenetically into a variety of cell types, may be seen as supporting a balance between the views.[12]

Stoicismmaintained that the living animal soul was received only at birth, through contact with the outer air,[13]and was transformed into a rational soul only at fourteen years of age.[14]Epicureanismsaw the origin of the soul (considered to consist of only a small number of atoms even in adults) as simultaneous with conception.[15]Pythagoreanismalso considered ensoulment to occur at conception.[16]: 109 

Christianity

[edit]

Historical development

[edit]

From the 12th century, when the West first came to know more of Aristotle than his works on logic,[17][18]medieval declarations by Popes and theologians on ensoulment were based on the Aristotelian hypothesis. Aristotle'sepigeneticview of successive life principles ( "souls" ) in a developing human embryo—first a vegetative and then a sensitive or animal soul, and finally an intellective or human soul, with the higher levels able to carry out the functions also of the lower levels[19]—was the prevailing view among early Christians, includingTertullian,Augustine,andJerome.[20][need quotation to verify][21][need quotation to verify][6][failed verification][22][failed verification]Lars Østnor says this view was only "presaged" byAugustine,[22]who belongs to a period later than that ofearly Christianity.According to David Albert Jones, this distinction appeared among Christian writers only in the late fourth and early fifth century, while the earlier writers made no distinction between formed and unformed, a distinction that SaintBasil of Caesareaexplicitly rejected.[16]: 72–73 While the Hebrew text of the Bible only required a fine for the loss of a fœtus, whatever its stage of development, theGreekSeptuagint(LXX) translation of the Hebrew text, a pre-Christian translation that the early Christians used, introduced a distinction between a formed and an unformed fœtus and treated destruction of the former as murder.[23]: 9, 24 It has been commented that "theLXXcould easily have been used to distinguish human from non-human fœtuses and homicidal from non-homicidal abortions, yet the early Christians, until the time of Augustine in the fifth century, did not do so. "[24]

The view of early Christians on the moment of ensoulment is also said to have been not the Aristotelian, but thePythagorean:

As early as the time ofTertullianin the third century, Christianity had absorbed the Pythagorean Greek view that the soul was infused at the moment of conception. Though this view was confirmed by St. Gregory of Nyssa a century later, it would not be long before it would be rejected in favour of the Septuagintal notion that only a formed fœtus possessed a human soul. While Augustine speculated whether "animation" might be present prior to formation, he determined that abortion could only be defined as homicide once formation had occurred. Nevertheless, in common with all early Christian thought, Augustine condemned abortion from conception onward.[23]: 40 

Through the Latin translations ofAverroes's (1126–1198) work, beginning in the 12th century, the legacy ofAristotlewas recovered in the West. Christian philosophers such asThomas Aquinas(1224–1274) adapted largely to his views[1][6][25][26][27]and because they believed that the early embryo did not have a human soul, they did not necessarily see early abortion as murder, although they condemned it nonetheless.[6][22][20][21]: 150 Aquinas, in his main work, theSumma Theologica,states (Part I, question 118, article 2 ad 2) "...that the intellectual soul is created by God at the end of human generation".[28]Although Jesus may have been exceptional, Aquinas did believe that the embryo first possessed a vegetative soul, later acquired sensitive (animal) soul, and after 40 days of development, God gave humans a rational soul.[29]

In 1588,Pope Sixtus Vissued the BullEffraenatam,which subjected those that carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with automatic excommunication and the punishment by civil authorities applied to murderers. Three years later after finding that the results had not been as positive as was hoped, his successorPope Gregory XIVlimited the excommunication to abortion of a formed fœtus.[16]: 71–72 [30][31]In 1679,Pope Innocent XIpublicly condemned sixty-five propositions taken chiefly from the writings ofEscobar,Suarezand othercasuists(mostlyJesuitcasuists who had been heavily attacked byPascalin hisProvincial Letters) aspropositiones laxorum moralistarum(propositions of lax moralists) as "at least scandalous and in practice dangerous". He forbade anyone to teach them under penalty of excommunication. The condemned propositions included:

34. It is lawful to procure abortion before ensoulment of the fetus lest a girl, detected as pregnant, be killed or defamed.

35. It seems probable that the fetus (as long as it is in the uterus) lacks a rational soul and begins to first have one when it is born and consequently it must be said that no abortion is homicide.[32]

In the 1869 BullApostolicae Sedis,Pius IXrescinded Gregory XIV's not-yet-animated fetus exception and re-enacted the penalty of excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy, which even before that were never seen as merelyvenial sin.[33]Since then,canon lawmakes no distinction as regards excommunication between stages of pregnancy at which abortion is performed. In spite of the difference in ecclesiastical penalties imposed during the period when the theory of delayed ensoulment was accepted as scientific truth,[34][35]abortion at any stage is currently claimed to have always been condemned by the Church[36]and continues to be so.[37][38]However, in its official declarations, the Catholic Church avoids taking a philosophical position on the question of the moment when a human person begins to be:

This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: "From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence... modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time... to find its place and to be in a position to act". This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted. Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.[39]

Citing the possibly first-centuryDidacheand theLetter of Barnabasof about the same period, theEpistle to DiognetusandTertullian,the Catholic Church declares that "since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."[40]Even when the prevailing scientific theory considered that early abortion was the killing of what was not yet a human being, the condemnation of abortion at any stage was sometimes expressed in the form of making it equivalent to homicide. Accordingly, the 1907 article on abortion in theCatholic Encyclopediastated:

The early Christians are the first on record as having pronounced abortion to be the murder of human beings, for their public apologists,Athenagoras,Tertullian,andMinutius Felix(Eschbach, "Disp. Phys.", Disp. iii), to refute the slander that a child was slain, and its flesh eaten, by the guests at theAgapæ,appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the Church unanimously maintained the same doctrine. In the fourth century theCouncil of Eliberisdecreed thatHoly Communionshould be refused all the rest of her life, even on her deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her child. TheSixth Ecumenical Councildetermined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. In all these teachings and enactments no distinction is made between the earlier and the later stages of gestation. For, though the opinion of Aristotle, or similar speculations, regarding the time when the rational soul is infused into the embryo, were practically accepted for many centuries still it was always held by the Church that he who destroyed what was to be a man was guilty of destroying a human life.[41]

TheCatechism of the Catholic Churchstates thatHuman life"must be treated from conception as a person." In 2008, this teaching was confirmed in the authoritative Instruction Dignitas Personae, stating "The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death."[42]It stated that "Although the presence of the spiritual soul cannot be observed experimentally, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo give" a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?”

Catholicism

[edit]
See also:Abortion in the Catholic Church § Recent statements of the Church's position,andEunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven
Part ofa seriesof articles on
Abortion
and the Catholic Church
Official opposition
Philosophy andtheology
History
Activism
Dissidence
See also
iconCatholic Church portal

On 27 November 2010,Pope Benedict XVIstated:

[F]rom the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care.[43]... With regard to the embryo in the mother's womb, science itself highlights its autonomy, its capacity for interaction with the mother, the coordination of biological processes, the continuity of development, the growing complexity of the organism. It is not an accumulation of biological material but rather of a new living being, dynamic and marvelously ordered, a new individual of the human species. This is whatJesuswas inMary's womb; this is what we all were in our mother's womb.[44]

The most recent source on ensoulment is the 2008 Instruction Dignitas Personae, which confirmed that the human being is a human person from their conception, and that there is no compelling philosophical argument to deny ensoulment from conception.[42]

In relation toelective abortion,Pope John Paul IIwrote about ensoulment in his 1995encyclicalletterEvangelium Vitae:

Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine of condemning all directabortionshas been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors andDoctors.Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation ofabortion.[45]

While the Church has always condemned abortion, changing beliefs about the moment the embryo gains a human soul have led their stated reasons for such condemnation and the classification of abortion withincanon lawcodes to change over time.[22][46]

Baptists

[edit]

TheSouthern Baptist Conventionteaches that ensoulment occurs at conception.[47]Resolution 7, which was adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1999, declared that "The Bible teaches that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27, 9:6) and protectable human life begins at fertilization."[47]

Eastern Orthodoxy

[edit]

TheOrthodox Churchwhile not having dogmatised eitherTraducianismorCreationism (of the soul),follows theChurch Fatherswho, either Traducianist or Creationist, believe that the embryo possesses a soul from conception. For example, they accept theTrullo canons,which contain the canons ofBasil of Caesarea,which state that the canonical punishment for abortion is the same as for murder, regardless of the development of the embryo (Basil's Canon 2).[48]See also Basil's letter toAmphilochius of Iconium.[49]

Judaism

[edit]

Jewish views on ensoulment have varied. Rabbi David Feldman states that theTalmuddiscusses the time of ensoulment, but considers the question unanswerable and irrelevant to the abortion question.[50]In recounting a purported conversation in which the rabbiJudah the Prince,who said the soul (neshama) comes into the body when the embryo is already formed, was convinced byAntoninus Piusthat it must enter the body at conception, and considered the emperor's view to be supported byJob 10:12,[51][52]the tractateSanhedrinof the Talmud mentions two views on the question. In a variant reading the rabbi's first statement was that the soul entered the body only at birth.[2]

Other passages in the Talmud, such asYevamot69a andNidda30b have been interpreted as implying that ensoulment may occur only after forty days of gestation.[53]The Talmud passages, whether speaking of ensoulment at conception or only after forty days, place the views of the rabbis within Greco-Roman culture, whose ideas the rabbis then linked with texts of Scripture and endowed with theological significance.[54]The view of ensoulment at conception harmonizes with general lore among rabbis about conscious activity before birth.[55]However, most of them did not apply the wordnefesh,meaning soul or person, to a fetus still in the womb.[51]The latter half of the Second Temple period saw increasing acceptance of the idea of the soul as joining the body at birth and leaving it again at death.[56]One Jewish view put ensoulment even later than birth, saying that it occurs when the child first answers "Amen".[50]The rabbis in fact formulated no fully developed theory of the timing or nature of ensoulment.[55]It has been suggested that the reason why they were not more concerned about the exact moment of ensoulment is that Judaism does not believe in strict separation of soul and body.[57]

Islam

[edit]
Main article:Islam and abortion
See also:Pre-existence § Islam

There are fourSunni Islamschools of thought —Hanafi,Shafi‘i,HanbaliandMaliki— and they have their own views on ensoulment, with differing implications.[58]Two passages in the Qur'an describe thefetal developmentprocess:

We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid (nutfah) in a safe place, then We made that drop into a clinging form (alaqah), and We made that form into a lump of flesh (mudghah), and We made that lump into bones (idhaam), and We clothed those bones with flesh (lahm), and later We made him into other forms—glory be to God, the best of creators! (23:12–14)

...We created you from dust, then from a drop of fluid (nutfah), then a clinging form ('alaqah), then a lump of flesh (mudghah), both shaped and unshaped: We mean to make Our power clear to you. Whatever We choose We cause to remain in the womb for an appointed time, then We bring you forth as infants and then you grow and reach maturity.... (22:5)

TheMalikimadhhab holds "that the fetus is ensouled at the moment of conception" and thus "most Malikis do not permit abortion at any point, seeing God's hand as actively forming the fetus at every stage of development."[58]In this view,

The generally accepted belief is that abortion is forbidden at any stage of a pregnancy on the basis of the following verses from the Qur’an.

“...And do not kill the soul which God has forbidden except for the requirements of justice..." [Glorious Qur’an, Al- An’am 8: 151].

Thus, the termination of a pregnancy, even at the earliest possible stage, without medical justification is not allowed (even for social or economic reasons), as stated in the Glorious Qur’an:

“...do not Kill your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.” [Glorious Qur’an, Al- Esraa’ 17: 31].[59]

TheHanafimadhab places the point of ensoulment at 120 days after conception and a minority opinion teaches that it occurs at 40 days.[58][60]In the latter view, abortion after 40 or 120 days is considered to be a greater sin.[61]

"Verily, the creation of one of you is brought together in the mother’s womb for forty days in the form of a drop (nutfah), then he becomes a clot ('alaqah) for a like period, then a lump for a like period, then there is sent an angel who blows the soul into him."

— Hadith #4, Imam al-Nawawī’s Forty Hadith, Ibn Hajar al-Haytamī, al-Fath al-mubīn bi sharh al-arba'īn

Most schools of thought, traditional and modern, make allowances for circumstances threatening the health or life of the mother.[59][62]In 2003, Shia scholars in Iran approved therapeutic abortion before 16 weeks of gestation under limited circumstances, including medical conditions related to fetal and maternal health.[63]

Hinduism

[edit]

Some Hindus believe that personhood begins with thereincarnationthat happens at conception. But many scriptural references such as the Charaka Samhita, Ayurveda's most authoritative treatise on perfect health and longevity, states the soul does not become attached to the body until the 7th month "the occupant doesn't move into the house until the house is finished", certainly not in the first trimester. The physical body is a biological growth undergoing constant reflexive testing and trial runs as it grows into a physiology capable of housing human consciousness.[29]But the flexibility of Hinduism allows for destruction of embryos to save a human life, or embryonic stem cell research to benefit humankind using surplusblastocystsfrom fertility clinics.[29]

Jainism

[edit]

Although beliefs vary for different individuals, some followers ofJainismhold the belief that souls (calledjivas) or life exist inspermprior to conception, thus practicingcelibacyor abstinence from sex can be done as a way to avoid releasing and killing sperm cells in order to followAhimsa(non-violence). This practice is unrelated to the broader practice of celibacy in Jainism calledBrahmacharya.[64]

Bahá'í Faith

[edit]

In a letter written on behalf ofShoghi Effendidated October 9, 1947 (Lights of Guidance # 1699), it is stated: "The soul or spirit of the individual comes into being with the conception of his physical body."[65]

Identical twins

[edit]

Examining questions of ensoulment ofidentical (monozygotic) twinsgives rise to certain complexities.

Richard Charles Playford[66]of Institute of Theology,St Mary’s University, London,notes that "Many contemporary Aristotelians believe that a human being is present [in the mother’s reproductive system] from the moment of conception. At the same time, certain findings in modern embryology about the formation of identical twins challenge this belief.”[67]

A letter byEdwin Carlyle "Carl" Wood,published in 1982 states, in part: “The early embryo (up to eight cells) does have genetic individuality, but a multicellular individual is still not present. Two early embryos can be fused into one and one early embryo can divide into twins. Each cell behaves as if it is significantly independent of the other cells. Since persons, as usually defined, are multicellular individuals, it is difficult to maintain scientifically that a person has come into existence before the eight-cell stage. At least in a developmental sense, the early embryo is pre-individual.”[68][69]

Norman Michael Ford was President of theMelbourne College of Divinity,Melbourne, Australia in 1991-1992.[70]He wrote the bookWhen Did I Begin? Conception of the human individual in history, philosophy and science(1988). The book investigates the theoretical, moral, and biological issues surrounding the debate over the beginning of human life. Following a detailed analysis of the history of the question, Reverend Ford argues that a human individual could not begin before definitive individuation about two weeks after fertilization. This, he argues, is when it becomes finally known whether one or more human individuals are to form from a single egg. Thus, he questions the idea that the fertilized egg itself could be regarded as the beginning of the development of the human individual. Ford also differs sharply, however, from those who would delay the beginning of the human person until the brain is formed, or until birth or the onset of conscious states.[68]

David W. Shoemakersays "Consider, for example, what happens at around five days after fertilization, when certain cells separate off from the ICM (the embryo’sinner cell mass) to form thetrophectoderm.The entire collection, including the outer layer, still falls under the rubric of ‘embryo'…but it is only the cells of the ICM whose descendants will form a fetus and then an infant. Are the cells of the trophectoderm, which are synchronically unified with the cells of the ICM at this time as an embryo, also unified as part of a single human being via the soul?... If not, then theontologicalobject to be ensouled is not the embryo but the ICM. But the ICM does not come into existence until around five days post-conception.”[67][71]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^abEmbodiment, morality, and medicine,by Lisa Sowle Cahill and Margaret A. Farley
  2. ^abDaniel Schiff,Abortion in Judaism(Cambridge University Press 2002ISBN978-0-521-52166-6), p. 42, footnote 38
  3. ^"BBC – Religion & Ethics – When is the foetus 'alive'?: The stages of foetal development".Retrieved5 January2009.
  4. ^Clift D, Schuh M (2013)."Restarting life: fertilization and the transition from meiosis to mitosis (Box 1)".Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.14(9): 549–62.doi:10.1038/nrm3643.PMC4021448.PMID23942453.
  5. ^Aristotle.De Anima.
  6. ^abcdA companion to bioethicsBy Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer
  7. ^ReligiousTolerance.org
  8. ^Aristotle, History of Animals, book VII, part III
  9. ^Norman M. Ford, When Did I Begin? Conception of the Human Individual in History, Philosophy and Science(Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University PressISBN978-0-521-42428-8), p. 28
  10. ^"Oxford English Dictionary".epigenesis.Retrieved31 January2011.
  11. ^"Oxford English Dictionary".preformation.Retrieved31 January2011.
  12. ^For a discussion of the differences betweenepigenesisand thetheory of preformation,see this:Jane Maienschein. "Epigenesis and Preformationism".Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Retrieved31 January2011.
  13. ^A.A. Long,Stoic Studies(University of California Press 2001ISBN978-0-520-22974-7), p. 237
  14. ^Tad Brennan,The Stoic Life(Oxford University Press 2005ISBN978-0-19-925626-6), p. 155
  15. ^Norman Wentworth DeWitt,Epicurus and His Philosophy(University of Minnesota 1954), p. 201
  16. ^abcDavid Albert Jones,The Soul of the Embryo(Continuum International 2004ISBN978-0-8264-6296-1)
  17. ^Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, "Aristotelianism, Christian"
  18. ^James Edward McClellan, Harold Dorn,Science and Technology in World History(Johns Hopkins University Press 2006ISBN0-8018-8360-1), p. 184
  19. ^Aquinasnotes inSumma Contra Gentiles,lib. 2 cap. 88 n. 3Archived2012-03-03 at theWayback Machinethat "Aristotle teaches in theDe generatione animaliumII, 3that the fetus is an animal before becoming a man. "
  20. ^abDictionary of ethics, theology and societyBy Paul A. B. Clarke, Andrew Linzey. Routledge, 2013. First published 1996. ISBN 9781136120923.Preview
  21. ^abWhen Children Became People: the birth of childhood in early Christianityby Odd Magne Bakke
  22. ^abcdStem cells, human embryos and ethics: interdisciplinary perspectives: Lars Østnor, Springer 2008
  23. ^abDaniel Schiff,Abortion in Judaism(Cambridge University Press 2002ISBN978-0-521-52166-6)
  24. ^Paul T. Stallsworth, Ruth S. Brown (editors),The Church & Abortion(Abingdon Press 1993ISBN978-0-687-07852-3), p. 42
  25. ^Summa TheologicaIª q. 118 a. 2 ad 2.Aquinas's fullest treatment of this is in hisDe potentia,q. 3 a. 9 ad 9Archived2010-12-18 at theWayback Machine(Reply to the Ninth Objection).
  26. ^Haldane, John;Lee, Patrick (2003)."Aquinas on Human Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life".Philosophy.78(2): 255–278.doi:10.1017/s0031819103000275.S2CID170444869.Archived fromthe originalon 27 January 2011.
  27. ^For a criticism of arguments for "delayed hominization," see alsothis articleArchived2011-09-27 at theWayback MachinebyFr. Benedict Ashley, O.P.
  28. ^Applied Ethics: A Sourcebook, chapter 5: Abortion,by James Fieser, 2010
  29. ^abcNeaves W (2017)."The status of the human embryo in various religions".Development.144(14): 2541–2543.doi:10.1242/dev.151886.PMID28720650.
  30. ^Nicholas Terpstra,Lost Girls: Sex and Death in Renaissance Florence(Johns Hopkins University Press 2010ISBN978-0-8018-9499-2), p. 91
  31. ^Jean Reith Schroedel,Is the Fetus a Person?(Cornell University Press 2000ISBN978-0-8014-3707-6), p. 19
  32. ^Catholic Moral Tradition: "In Christ, a New Creation", David Bohr, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1999,ISBN0-87973-931-2,p. 293
  33. ^Johnstone, Brian V. (March 2005). "Early Abortion: Venial or Mortal Sin?".Irish Theological Quarterly.70(1): 60.doi:10.1177/002114000507000104.S2CID170797954.An excerpt can be foundhere.
  34. ^"In the Middle Ages, while the reception of his (Aristotle's) works was a great boon to philosophy, the influence of his scientific works was damaging to science" (Anthony Kenny,Essays on the Aristotelian Tradition(Oxford University Press 2000ISBN0-19-825068-1), p. 3).
  35. ^The Aristotelian Tradition, p. 3Archived2012-03-15 at theWayback Machine
  36. ^Theologians' brief submitted to the House of Lords Select Committee on Stem Cell Research.Archived2009-07-08 at theWayback MachineThis document cites many early Christian writers who condemn all forms of abortion. Some of the writers say that a human being begins at conception, thus excluding delayed ensoulment.
  37. ^The 2008 declarationDignitas Personae,which describes abortion as "the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth" (Dignitas personae,23).
  38. ^T.L. Frazier, The Early Church and Abortion
  39. ^InstructionDonum vitaeof the Congregation for the Doctrine of the FaithArchivedOctober 27, 2009, at theWayback Machine
  40. ^"Catechism of the Catholic Church – The fifth commandment".vatican.va.Retrieved18 July2017.
  41. ^Catholic Encyclopedia, seeAbortion
  42. ^ab"Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith".vatican.va.Retrieved24 August2023.
  43. ^Roman Catholic Church(7 December 1965)."Gaudium et Spes".n. 51. Archived fromthe originalon 11 April 2011.Retrieved22 March2011.
  44. ^Pope Benedict XVI(27 November 2010)."Celebration of First Vespers of the First Sunday of Advent for unborn life".Archived fromthe originalon 11 May 2011.Retrieved22 March2011.–Watch the video here,andsee the pictures here.
  45. ^Pope John Paul II(25 March 1995)."Evangelium Vitae".61. Archived fromthe originalon 19 December 2010.Retrieved31 January2011.
  46. ^Ana S. Iltis, Mark J. Cherry,At the Roots of Christian Bioethics(M & M Scrivener Press 2010ISBN978-0-9764041-8-7), p. 166
  47. ^abGilbert, Scott F.; Gilbert, Scott; Tyler, Anna L.; Zackin, Emily (24 June 2005).Bioethics and the New Embryology.Macmillan. p. 39.ISBN978-0-7167-7345-0.
  48. ^Basil of Caesarea."The First Canonical Epistle of Our Holy Father Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium".Orthodox Church Fathers.Retrieved17 August2024.Canon II. Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years' penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not.
  49. ^Haykin, Michael A. G.(27 July 2024)."The Ancient Church and Abortion: The Witness of Basil of Caesarea".Speak for the Unborn.Retrieved17 August2024.The woman who has deliberately destroyed [her fetus] is subject to the penalty for murder. And among us there is no fine distinction between a completely formed and unformed [embryo].... Yet, it is not necessary to extend this penitence until their death, but one should accept a period of ten years' [penitence]. Moreover, their restoration (therapeian) should be determined not by time, but by the manner of their repentance (metanoias).
  50. ^abDavid Feldman, "Jewish Views on Abortion" in Steven Bayme, Gladys Rosen (editors),The Jewish Family and Jewish Continuity(KTAV 1994ISBN978-0-88125-495-2), p. 239
  51. ^abAvraham Steinberg, "Jewish Perspectives"in Shraga Blazer, Etan Z. Zimmer (editors),The Embryo(Karger 2004ISBN978-3-8055-7802-8), p. 34
  52. ^Sanhedrin,11
  53. ^John D. Loike and Rabbi Moshe Tendler, "Halachic Challenges Emerging From Stem Cell Research" inJewish Political Studies Review21:3–4 (Fall 2009)
  54. ^Gwynn Kessler,Conceiving Israel(University of Pennsylvania Press 2009ISBN978-0-8122-4175-4), pp. 68–69
  55. ^abSchiff,Abortion in Judaism,p. 43
  56. ^Adele Berlin, Maxine Grossman (editors),The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion(Oxford University Press 2011ISBN978-0-19-973004-9), p. 700
  57. ^New South Wales Board of Jewish Education, "Judaism and the Body"Archived2012-03-18 at theWayback Machine
  58. ^abcWeigl, Constanze (2010).Reproductive Health Behavior and Decision-making of Muslim Women: An Ethnographic Study in a Low-income Community in Urban North India.LIT Verlag Münster. p. 199.ISBN978-3-643-10770-1.
  59. ^abAlbar, Mohammed (2011). "Commentary from Saudi Arabia".Asian Bioethics Review.3(4): 360–361.hdl:10635/144521.Project MUSE461979.
  60. ^Yusuf, Hamza (2018)."When Does a Human Fetus Become Human?".Renovatio, The Journal of Zaytuna College.
  61. ^Al-Matary, Abdulrahman; Ali, Jaffar (December 2014)."Controversies and considerations regarding the termination of pregnancy for Foetal Anomalies in Islam".BMC Medical Ethics.15(1): 10.doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-10.PMC3943453.PMID24499356.
  62. ^"When is Having an Abortion Permitted?".SeekersGuidance.6 October 2011.Retrieved30 October2021.
  63. ^Hedayat, K M; Shooshtarizadeh, P; Raza, M (1 November 2006)."Therapeutic abortion in Islam: contemporary views of Muslim Shiite scholars and effect of recent Iranian legislation".Journal of Medical Ethics.32(11): 652–657.doi:10.1136/jme.2005.015289.PMC2563289.PMID17074823.
  64. ^Brianne Donaldson; Ana Bajželj (17 August 2021).Insistent Life: Principles for Bioethics in the Jain Tradition.University of California Press.p. 127.ISBN9780520380578.Retrieved2 April2021.
  65. ^"Lights of Guidance (second part)".bahai-library.Retrieved20 November2020.
  66. ^Playford, Richard Charles (2022)."Curriculum Vitae".Retrieved20 August2024.
  67. ^abPlayford, Richard (August 2020)."The Mathematics (and Metaphysics) of Identical Twins".The Linacre Quarterly.87(3): 278–291.doi:10.1177/0024363920920396.PMC7350103.PMID32699438.
  68. ^abFord, Norman M. (1989) [December 1988].When did I begin? Conception of the human individual in history, philosophy and science.Cambridge University Press.ISBN9780521424288.Foreword written byMary Warnock, Baroness Warnock.Preview=https:// google /books/edition/When_Did_I_Begin/VKq7xWqr8g0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PR9&printsec=frontcover
  69. ^Wood, Carl(15 November 1982). "Letter to the Editor re Early embryo not yet a person".The Age.Melbourne,Australia.
  70. ^"History of Melbourne College of Divinity".University of Divinity.26 March 2024.Retrieved20 August2024.(under 'Presidents') 1991-1992 The Revd Dr Norman M Ford sdb (Catholic)
  71. ^Shoemaker, David W.(January 2005)."Embryos, Souls, and the Fourth Dimension".Social Theory and Practice.31(1): 51–75.doi:10.5840/soctheorpract20053112.PMID16007752.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ensoulment&oldid=1246956094"