Early Church and Abortion

Most have heard of Speaker Pelosi's recent theological pontifications. Pelosi declared that Augustine of Hippo wrote that a baby was not entitled to human rights until 3 months in the womb. Jay the Bennett had a couple of good posts already on it (here and here).

What I was wondering is where the heck she got that from? I cannot find any references to Augustine saying such a thing, though someone suggested that it was Thomas Aquinas and not Augustine. Having just completed a study on the Early Church and their view of Sex and Marriage, most believed that the egg was fully contained in the man's contribution to procreation, and thus even having sex during pregnancy or after menapause was prohibited. Abortion was nothing new in the Early Church, and as early as it is mentioned, it is condemned. Witness Clement of Alexandria:

"Our entire life will be spent observing the laws of nature...if we do not kill off with devious instruments the human creature that has been conceived according to divine providence. For women who, in order to conceal their incontinence, make use of death-dealing drugs that completely expel the mortal creature, abort not only the embryo, but also human kindness." -Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 96

Why reference tradition when it is so slanted against you? Why not claim new revelation like liberals have on homosexuality and women's ordination? Where was she getting this from? Has anyone run across something like what she said in your studies?

Is the Constitution pro-life or neutral?

An interesting question. I had always taken the position that Roe v Wade should just be overturned and the decision on abortion given to the states. But apparently some think the Constitution actually forbids abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment. Is this an overreading by pro-lifers or could it be true? Some of the text of the argument:

"It is surprising, therefore, that on this most central constitutional and moral issue a preponderance of pro–life advocates and legal scholars continually misinterpret the Constitution. According to them, a proper reading of the Constitution would reject the concept of a privacy right to abortion, and thus return the nation to the pre–Roe status quo in which the decision of when, whether, and how to regulate abortion was left to the states. In offering this “restoration interpretation,” they ignore or reject the proper interpretation, which would extend the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to unborn persons. This is what I will call in this essay the “unborn person interpretation.”

Alito and abortion

Drudge had a link to freak out pro-lifers:

csmonitor

But then National Review has a defense:

nationalreview

The people who think for me are arguing! What to think, What to think?!