Historical views on the human embryo.

Abstract

In her Viewpoint “Europe confronts the embryonic stem cell research challenge” (special issue on Stem Cell Research and Ethics, 25 Feb., p. [1425][1]), Noelle Lenoir is mistaken in saying that “[t]he Catholic Church did not immediately condemn abortion” at its founding, and that “[i]t was only in the 13th century that abortion was condemned by the [Catholic] Church.” The earliest written condemnation of abortion within the Catholic Church is in the Didache. Although the extant version is from the second century, this catechism was in use long before. One precept is “you shall not kill the child by corruption or destruction, nor kill it at birth” ([1][2]). The first clause refers to life within the womb. Clement of Alexandria expressed a similar view in the second century: “those women who conceal sexual wantonness by taking stimulating drugs to bring on abortion wholly lose their own humanity along with the fetus” ([2][3]). Athenagoras, Tertullian, Mincius Felix, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Jerome—prominent Christian figures from the second through fifth centuries—affirmed the same view ([3][4]). Saint Augustine, contrary to Lenoir's implication that he believed abortion acceptable because the fetus had no sensation, speaks of abortion as an “obvious cruelty” used to “snuff out and destroy within the viscera the fetus that has been conceived” ([4][5]). Lenoir's description of the ancient Greek view on abortion does not mention the Hippocratic Oath, which set the standard for medicine in the ancient world. It states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy” ([5][6]). 1. [↵][7] Didache , ii:2. 2. [↵][8] Pedagogus, ii; 10 96. 3. [↵][9]1. G. Grisez , Abortion: The Myths, the Realities, the Arguments (Corpus Books, New York, 1972), pp. 137-150. 4. [↵][10] De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia , i:15. 5. [↵][11] Encyclopedia of Bioethics (Simon & Shuster and Prentice-Hall, New York, 1995), vol. 5, p. 2632. # Response {#article-title-2} With regard to my discussion in the Viewpoint of the way the ancient Greeks and the first Christians of Rome, such as Saint Augustine, interpreted the question of the status of the human embryo, my point was intended to be a judicial one. It is common knowledge that according to the Catholic Church “life must be protected and favored from the beginning,” as is stated by the “Declaration on Procured Abortion” issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (18 November 1974). However, in the Viewpoint, I was pointing out that in earlier times, there were various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul into the fetus's body. In particular, Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas d'Aquino developed the theory of successive animation based on Aristotle. Canon Law ( Decretum Gratiani , around 1150 A.D.) thus made a distinction between abortion as a crime, that is to say homicidium , and abortion before animation. This distinction was rejected in another Decretum of Innocent XI, who firmly condemned the sentence “Licet procurare abortus ante animationem fœtus” ([1][12]). Since modern discoveries in the fields of anatomy and biology, the Church's condemnation of abortion has made no official distinctions regarding the different stages of development of human embryos. Yet, it is interesting to note than even in 1983 when the Canon Code II was being written, there still continued to be discussions about prohibition (or proscription) versus excommuncation with regard to abortion. All in all, through the centuries the question of abortion and excommunication has been debated and indeed has not been without controversy ([2][3]). 1. [↵][13]1. H. Reis , Das Lebensrecht des Ungeborenen Kindes als Verfassungsproblem \[The Right of the Unborn Child as a Constitutional Problem\] (Mohr, Tubingen, Germany, 1984), pp. 135-147, notes 650-671. 2. 1. P. Valdrini, 2. J. Durand, 3. O. Echappe, 4. J. Vernay , Precis de Droit Prive [Canon Law] ed. 2. (Dalloz, Paris, 1999), p. 393. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5457.1425 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #ref-5 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [10]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [11]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5 in text [12]: #ref-6 [13]: #xref-ref-6-1 View reference 1 in text