Supreme Court ends Roe v. Wade?

It can’t be “presuppositionally true”, as the fetus is empirically non-independent prior to birth. A person is “an individual substance of a rational nature” (cf. Boethius); if a being lacks individual existence, it cannot be a person, under the classical Christian definition.

It sounds, however, like you are gradually approaching the Consistent Life Ethic. I ultimately disagree with that approach, being neither anti-war nor anti-capital punishment. The question of abortion is something that should be between a woman and her doctor. The CLE is too loaded down with Roman Catholic dogma, as I see it. But at least it attempts to see value across the whole life cycle, and it does acknowledge a woman’s bodily autonomy alongside its commitment to legal protection of the fetus, unlike the antiabortion/forced birth movement in general. There was a time when I was attracted to the CLE approach. I understand its overall appeal.

 

Let us propose a limbless, blind, deafmute -- is this unfortunate creature a person? Perhaps this creature was born with some terrible birth defect, or was rendered into this state by a terrible accident -- the cause scarcely matters to our discussion. This creature surely cannot survive absent constant attention and care from others. This creature has no ability to even attempt to care for himself. Shall we euthanize him? If not, why not? What "personhood" does he have that an unborn infant does not have? He is inconvenient, his care is expensive, and he can be of no practical use; surely euthanasia is the best choice. As an added benefit, we can cut out his organs and give them to more deserving people. If we follow the logic of abortion, then euthanasia is the only choice here as well. We can extend the hypothetical to the elderly, the mentally infirm, and many others. And we damn ourselves for destroying the weakest and most helpless among us -- and directly flouting the Lord Jesus' command to care for the poor, the sick, and the weak. Who is poorer or weaker than an unborn child?

Infants and small children rely completely upon their parents for shelter, clothing and sustenance -- they would surely die absent those things (in fact that sort of abuse is punished as the terrible crime it is). Are newborns "people"? How about toddlers? When is "personhood" attained? What status effect renders this "personhood" active?

For that matter, we consider each member of the Trinity to be a "person". If the Holy Spirit is a person (and he is), then how is his personhood understood if we deny it to a preborn infant?

We do not confer "personhood" on other human beings. That is not in our power. God created them as human persons. In fact, since God knew of every human before they were ever born, we can say that their personhood was invested in them by God from eternity.

 

In fairness, I have already addressed this, citing the traditional definitions that were forged during the Trinitarian and Christological controversies, and further refined by the medieval Scholastics. A person is an individual substance of a rational nature (cf. Boethius). Aquinas further refined the concept as follows:

The "individual substance," which is included in the definition of a person, implies a complete substance subsisting of itself and separate from all else; otherwise, a man's hand might be called a person, since it is an individual substance; nevertheless, because it is an individualsubstance existing in something else, it cannot be called a person; nor, for the same reason, can the human nature in Christ, although it may be called something individual and singular. (ST IIIa, Q. 16, art. 12, ad 2)
​

In the case of fetal development, the moment when these criteria are met is birth. They are capable of being met, although not met in fact, when viability is reached. (With respect, I do not know why you’re asking about toddlers or birth defects, or assuming that what I’m saying implies that the unborn are entitled to no legal protections at all.) The only case I have been making here is that abortion is not murder; I never said it wasn’t immoral under some (but not all) circumstances.

The antiabortion movement has relied for decades on a very simple syllogism to make its point:

(Major) Terminating the life of a human person is murder;
(Minor) Abortion is the termination of the life of a human person;
(Conc.) Therefore, abortion is murder.
​

The syllogism is formally valid, but neither the Major nor the Minor premise is self-evidently materially true, and there is good evidence from the Bible, as well as from the history of law, philosophy, and science, that they are in fact both materially false. There are instances when terminating a human person’s life can be morally and legally justified, and it is by no means clear, obvious, or undisputed that a zygote, embryo, or fetus in utero meets either traditional religious or philosophical criteria for personhood. Therefore, the conclusion “abortion is murder” is not established. Recognition of that fact has important implications for how Christians ought to interact with the issue, a recognition that far too many are far too willing to ignore.

 

Are you seriously going to equate the word person, as used today, to the persona in Boethius which was only ever used in the context of the persons of the Trinity? That’s being dishonest, man. That’s like, peak dishonesty, to import Boethian trinitarian persona as if having some legitimate orthodox Christian connection to abortion/personhood debates.

I can see now that you will say anything, on this issue. You’ll twist any pretext, no matter how contrary to your case, hoping people won’t know the nuances to perceive the sleight of hand. You’ll answer the weak arguments and studiously ignore to all the strong & hard ones; just to keep going, just to have the last word, just to keep fighting no matter what, to keep the precious abortion on the books.

 

Your response is heavy on emotion and light on fact. The fact that Christian reflection on the meaning of personhood had its origin in theology does not mean it has no other application. Neither Boethius nor Aquinas limited the classical definition to the persons of the Trinity, as evidenced by the very quote from the Summa (and its location in the Summa) that I provided above. It is a definition that was intended to apply to all rational beings, created and uncreated alike.

Ancient and medieval definitions of personhood were “static” and relied on some application of the Aristotelian Categories. Post-medieval attempts at a definition have characteristically been more dynamic and have focused on more modern problems, e.g., identity across time, the nature of consciousness, how to understand “responsibility” in a mechanistic universe, etc. Then there’s the 20th century emphasis on psychology. Of course, if we take these more modern notions and try to apply them to the Trinitarian and Christological debates, the results are tritheism, Nestorianism, and a denial of classical theism. Such a state of affairs would in effect leave us with two unrelated approaches to personhood, with the result that Christian theology and even Christology would have nothing to contribute to our understanding of our own personhood, including its purpose and destiny. The merit of the medieval definition (the history of which you appear to be unfamiliar with) is that it is both precise and has the widest range of applicability. It is a perfectly legitimate form of inquiry to ask how the tradition of specifically Christian reflection on the meaning of personhood might impact our understanding of modern issues, like the abortion debate. The assertion that such an exercise in free thought is somehow “dishonest” is patently absurd. We have to start somewhere. The Bible nowhere defines “personhood” for us. If it had, the first five centuries of Church history might have been spared a great deal of controversy. If you think a different tradition or approach to personhood would yield enlightening results, no one is stopping you from sharing them here. That would frankly be a lot more interesting than the constant raising of bogus objections and silly accusations against whatever I might have to say.

If the Christian tradition of reflection on personhood isn’t guiding your approach here, it’s difficult to see what the theological basis of your objections could be, aside from the fact that you simply don’t like the result.

 

"Episcopal priest says last week he put up a banner on the church building reading "Abortion Is Health Care" at the request of his local Planned Parenthood"
https://twitter.com/WokePreacherTV/status/1524082017931038724

 

I fail to see the problem.

I also neglected to mention previously that, although my own conclusions have not been influenced by him (as I have not read his work), it has come to my attention that the Aquinas scholar Robert Pasnau arrived at more or less the same conclusions I did when attempting to apply Aquinas’ principles to the question of the status of unborn life. This should not be in any way surprising. There has been a resurgence over the past few decades of interest in Aquinas, and how his epistemological and ethical principles might be applied to contemporary situations and problems. Just war theory (in reference to Iraq and Afghanistan), and political theory have been particularly fruitful areas of scholarly inquiry. I was consequently quite taken aback by the dishonesty charge because of how truly ridiculous and off-point such a charge is, especially in light of recent (and published) Aquinas scholarship.

 

Nothing TEC does any more surprises me. TEC is an object of pity and sorrow for me now, not anger. They are lost. We can only pray they will find their way home again.

 

This kind of smug, sanctimonious rhetoric is as tiresome as it is unjustified, and it isn't what I come to a supposedly "Anglican" forum to hear. ACNA's time will come. They have all the same identity issues and demographic constraints, and are no more capable of hermetically sealing themselves off from history or society than anyone else. All they did was reset the clock by a few decades (if that), nothing more.

 

God will preserve his church. If the ACNA continues to preach the Gospel and contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), it has nothing to fear. If it does not, it will fall away in due course as others have done. But God will preserve his church. Our task as believers is to discern when a church has strayed from the Gospel and either bring it back into the light of God or take ourselves to a place where the light of God still shines. Anglicans have been around for a long time, and they will be around for a long time to come. If a few branches wither and fall away, new ones will spring up. The tree itself is sound.

 

I see the kind of attitudes in ACNA today, that haven't been seen in the Episcopal Church even in the 1990s. Or the '70s, or even the '60s. We know this, because Bishop Pike, that first demon of progressive Anglicanism, began preaching his thing back in the 1950s. And he wasn't ever prosecuted in the church courts (afaik), although some bishops tried, unsuccessfully. He could say what he said already back in the 1950s! But he simply couldn't get away with saying that in today's ACNA. There's a visible contrast between today's ACNA and the episcopal church of even the 1950s, let alone more recent times. He would be hounded so quick, there would be pitchforks outside his house. So yes while ACNA needs to get a couple of things right to fully embrace the Anglican patrimony, in terms of its culture these are not your grandfather's diminutive Episcopalians. These are intense people, almost cage-stage, in terms of the strength of their convictions.

 

Not disputing the accuracy of your description, you make them sound more like fundamentalist Presbyterians than classical Anglicans. I see very little regard for classical Anglican virtues like reason, moderation, or broadmindedness in much of what gets written here from many of the ACNA members’ keyboards. I see instead a lot of doctrinal confusion, anti-intellectualism, and rigid insularity. Too much of anything, including conviction, isn’t necessarily a good thing. But we will see what happens.

 

I'm sorry, Invictus, but this always makes me laugh. Every time we point and laugh at their nonsense, liberals cry "anti-intellectualism". Well, if that's what it is, so be it. "Intellectuals" have done far more harm than good in the last few centuries*, so a bit more humility might be in order. (Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals" is as trenchant a read now as it has ever been.)

*I'm not talking about engineers and scientists here (for the most part), but rather mendacious frauds like Rousseau, Marx, Freud, and Rorty.

 

Would broadmindedness help us when we were tortured by the Roman Catholics, and then a century later by the Puritans? Would it help when we had a choice of being ripped apart by lions in Coliseum? Just a pinch of incense, c’mon why are you being so unreasonable?

 

I was referring to an attitude of refusal to learn all sides of an issue prior to making a judgment about it. “Anti-intellectualism” is a nice word for that. Prejudice is more accurate. Bigotry even applies to some. A refusal to consider a new point of view is not a virtue or something to strive for. I have no sympathy for it and see no value in it.

 

None of those things have any relevance to what I was talking about it. One doesn’t have to be an idiot to die as a martyr. Being broadminded is a good thing, in and of itself. I shouldn’t have to defend that.

 

In other words, tolerance is not a virtue. It is a tactic, sometimes useful and sometimes damaging. The notion that tolerance is always and everywhere a positive thing is a dreadful modern conceit. Too much of it renders teaching of the Gospel truth impossible even in principle. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) So says Jesus, though this offends Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists alike. We can compromise with the world on many things, but not the Gospel.

 

I guess that depends on what exactly you mean by "tolerance." In my experience rejection of "tolerance" has often seemed to be a dogwhistle.

 

But this is your own, (although common), interpretation of what Jesus Christ MEANT in saying that of himself. I do not believe he was implying that everyone was wrong except himself or no one is fit for the Kingdom of God UNTIL they become a member of the Christian RELIGION.

I think Jesus Christ IS God and that makes him also The Way, Truth and Life. Only those who duly respect, Truth, The Way of "Loving one Another" as a command of God, and have respect for and honour LIFE, are approaching the Kingdom of God, through Him. Those who chose their own way, distort and deny truth and take life merely for their own or others fun and entertainment are declared not fit for the kingdom of God.

There are individuals within all 'religions' and none who fulfil the criteria Christ enumerated, but also many 'Christians' that don't.
.

 

John 15:4-6: "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned."

Acts 4:8-12: Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”