What
was Thomas Aquinas’ opinion 700 years later?
Thomas totally condemned abortion for any and all reasons. Aquinas
did question when the soul was created. He spoke of the then-current scientific conviction
that a male child was not fully enough developed to be judged human (and therefore to have
a soul) until forty days, and that the female fetus could not be judged fully human until
eighty days. This obviously says something about scientific knowledge of that age.
Aquinas was reflecting a theological and scientific judgment that
mirrored the most accurate scientific information of his time. When, to the most exact
instrument available, the unaided human eye, the unborn child looked like a child and the
individual’s sex could be determined, he or she was deemed dignified and developed
enough to be the possessor of an immortal soul, and so Aquinas made his conclusions. Since
that time we have progressed to electron microscopes, ultrasonic stethoscopes, and
Realtime ultrasonic movies, and increasingly sophisticated knowledge of chromosomes and
genes. We now must make judgments in the light of our new and more accurate biological
knowledge. Aquinas’ conclusions were the best that could be expected in his day.
While not applicable today, they are of historical significance. Had men of his time had
today’s knowledge of embryonic and fetal development, their conclusions would have
been different.
How does religious belief influence the abortion issue then?
Belief in God, in our creation by Him, in His authorship of life, of
His Commandments and His justice, and in our brotherhood and sisterhood with the unborn is
a powerful motivation leading believers to work for the protection of the unborn. The
bottom line is that our religious faith motivates us. It can never be the sole
legal justification for seeking laws to protect the unborn, the handicapped, and the
elderly.
What right has any religious body to impose its morality upon a woman?
If this were a sectarian religious belief, there would be justice to
such a complaint. In fact, this is not a religious question except in the broad sense of
equal rights, dignity, and justice for all.
If any religious philosophy has been imposed upon a nation, it is
Secular Humanism. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined Humanism as a religion. The officer
corps of the pro-abortion movement is almost entirely made up of secular humanists who
have imposed their beliefs upon our nation.
I have the right to swing my fist, but that right stops at your
nose. A woman has certain (not total) rights to her own body, but not over another living
human’s body just because he or she still happens to live inside her.
The Ten Commandments forbad murder and stealing. So do the laws of
every civilized nation. Do those laws impose religious morality? Hardly!
This is a civil rights issue. It is a question of whether an entire
class of living humans shall be deprived of their basic right to life on the basis of age
and place of residence.
Perhaps the question should be turned around :
What Right Does a Mother and Her Abortionist
Have to Impose Their Morality Upon
Her Unborn Child . . . Fatally ?
