HONK! Sorry....it was in fact a trick question. There IS no consistant RCC position on abortion. The Church's position has in fact changed several times and until the 1860s was decidedly against the idea of "life begins at conception". That doctrine is LESS than 150 years old. In "On Virginal Conception and Original Sin", St. Anselm of Canterbury declared that "No human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception." This ran parallel to Aristoleian theories on "when the soul enters the body" during gestation. St. Thomas Aquinas in "Summa Theologiae", accepted Aristotle's hylomorphic theory of the soul and the acceptance of the "late ensoulment" rose. In 1312, the Council of Vienne, under Pope Clement V, affirmed the teaching of "delayed hominization". An attempt by Pope Sixtus V, to excommunicate anyone who used contraception or induced abortion, was rescinded by Gregory XIV...and this remained in effect for nearly 300 years. Gregory also re-set the time of "hominization" to 16 weeks after conception, i.e. "quickening". It was not until Pius IX in 1869 that it was changed to "moment of conception".
BTW, you can see from the non-responses....even from Protestant "pro-lifers", how this is a stumper. Upto very recently, the Catholic Church (before Luther, the ENTIRE Western Christian Church)....did not believe that a fetus had a soul until the 16th week or "quickening". "Sout at conception"...is a VERY new concept/doctrine.
RCC opposition to abortion and contraception has a "logic" to it....they want to breed more Catholics. More Catholics mean more money in the collection plate or "poor box"....means more power for the Church (at the least to evangelize). You'll notice fundy/evangey Protestant Churchs have picked up on opposition to contraception on the same basis. But the basic fact remains, up to 1869, there was NO Catholic doctrine for "soul at conception". Of course as we see so often here, the "pro-lifers" get squirrely trying to discuss fertilization, conception, or even pre-"quickening" and always try to drag the discussion to late-term abortions.
Blarg. I doubt that is the sole reason. Certainly a possibility, but hardly the sole reason. C'mon Fugazi, I can't keep you honest all the time. - - - Updated - - - Much of what the Catholic Church does and teaches is not 'doctrine' but rather traditional. Doesn't make it evil .
I wouldn't even buy that it is a major reason. Given that all schools of thought and major religions compose 50% women, it wouldn't make sense to despise and alienate half of your membership. It would be unprofitable to do so, not to mention potentially collapsing the organization. Exceptions exist for sure - Islam for example. A fairly misogynistic faith there, or at least it is executed as one. Christianity? Not so much, but can be hijacked easily enough to make it seem to be that way despite doctrine being hostile to unrighteous dominion over another.
Interesting, your first line declares a religion cannot be misogynistic or it would "collapse".....your second declares that such a religion exists and has NOT collapsed. - - - Updated - - - Did I use the word "evil"? Or contradictory? For almost 1800 years the Catholic Church believed the fetus had no soul until about the 16th week. For the last 150, it believes that it does. Seems the preponderance of Christian thought is less stridently "pro-life" than has been claimed for it.
Read it twice Gorn. The first statement is a lie, and the second an obvious truth when noted as an exception. Bipolar?
Peculiar eh? I think so too. The Catholics to not represent the whole of Christianity. I figured I would let you know.
When a woman is brainwashed from birth to believe that her god sees her as "less than" a male, something "different", she then may, unfortunately, believe that garbage and accept that she can't be a priest because she will never be "good enough" (or have a handy penis). She'll accept all kinds of abuse because she's been taught that it's "god's will". She'll work tirelessly as office help, cleaning staff, laundress, cook, bake sale supporter, etc. actually believing she's serving her "god' when she's really serving her true master, men. Men who want her to believe her purpose on earth was to breed and serve....who benefits from that? Men, not women.
There are plenty of women who support their own submission, usually those indoctrinated in their chosen cult. Plenty of Christians adhere to very similar female ideology as Islam.
Both are not terribly common in a developed nation. You're using the left side of the bell curve and saying it is the middle of it. While it does exist, it certainly isn't the majority. Although it does remain a segment, a reducing segment at that. Also, comparing Christian women and islamic women's conditions of life is like oil and vinegar. The culture and treatment is vastly different. To suggest they are the same is straight up crazy. I have seen the difference first hand. I'm sure you'll find pockets of tyrannical Christians in the developed world, but they are rare. You don't have to look very hard at all to find an abusive islamic man with regards to his daughters or his wives.
Blarg. Same thing. Left side of the bell curve in numbers. News flash: There are evil men in the world. Not likely it is going to change in the future. By all means, go and liberate them if it means that much to you. Depends, she gets to pass on her genes too. I'd agree she is getting the lesser end of the stick though if she is in an undeveloped country - they usually do.
Because that is where the bulk of this 'oppression' you're talking about exists. Or do you really think women on average are getting a fair shake in the Sudan, Iraq etc...? By all means, carry the torch of freedom and lead your people from bondage for all I care. Indeed, minimally so. It is not a huge problem despite attempts to make it so. And when it is, it is swiftly handled with the enormous resources women now have that they didn't 50 years ago.
By all means, start your own matriarchal religion then. See if I care. For whatever reason the bulk of the world's people seem to employ a patriarchal society and continue to do so. Surely if the matriarchy was so much more superior than it would take off and flourish. And those 'evil dominating woman controlling bad bad men' would finally pay for their crimes. Wake up call. Bad men only answer to other men. Instead of trying to tear bad men down, you should focus on building good men up - who will then tear evil men down. Want to stop oppression of women? Raise righteous sons who respect them and protect them. But the idea that women will 'take down the guys' is laughable at best. Go ahead, start your own cult. Every big religion started small after all. This is the right time to start given the climate of politics. Your first few followers will likely be lesbian bulldykes, but that is fine, you got to start somewhere I guess.
I see by the non-answer and misogynistic rant that I really hit a nerve....and exposed another Anti-Choicer for what they really are....
I can't answer your question.... religions seem to wiggle all over but I know Catholic women CONSISTENTLY use birth control and have abortions, intelligently ignoring the "rules" of their male superiors...
Because there are 'Christians' and I use that word very loosely who do adhere to a similar view of woman based on the very book you follow, not all I add, but there as some. ...if a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...but if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks..." Leviticus 12:2-5 "I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare." "Look," says the Teacher, "this is what I have discovered: "Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things-while I was still searching but not finding- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all." Ecclesiastes 7:26-28 "let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
I can't help but notice you cannot refute a single thing I have said. By all means, do so. Consult with your fellow peasants and return when you have something of note.
