Theologically speaking, why is abortion so "bad" in Christianity (compared to Judaism, Islam, etc)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because it's not actually about religion. It's about something else. Can you think what it might be?

+1

There’s nothing to discuss. The topic is a screen for hatred of women. Kill some women? Who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

If that were the case, then wouldn’t all people be on board with abortion bans? It’s still the religious conservatives that are the most fervent about it.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Is this in the Hebrew Bible? Are there differences among Jews?

Jewish law encompasses so much more than just the "Hebrew Bible." It's the Tanakh and Talmud and Mishnah and midrash and just centuries of rabbis having discussions about the law. It is a religion of debate. We don't just carry the winning argument forward, but consider the debate itself part of our legal record. When we talk about Jewish law, we reference what Rabbi Hillel had to say (he was usually the winner of these arguments) and also what Rabbi Shammai had to say, even though his argument was not usually the one we went with. My point is that we are comfortable with gray areas, with multiple viewpoints on a given issue, and with the idea of multiple valid opinions that we have to value and weigh when coming to a communal decision about the law.

Of course there are differences among Jews. We are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply." Having children is a mitzvah. We also believe that "whoever saves a life is considered to have saved the whole world." This commandment to preserve life allows us to break other laws, even the observance of Shabbat or Yom Kippur, if doing so will save a life. If a woman's health is endangered by a pregnancy, we are commanded to save her life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

If that were the case, then wouldn’t all people be on board with abortion bans? It’s still the religious conservatives that are the most fervent about it.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Is this in the Hebrew Bible? Are there differences among Jews?

Jewish law encompasses so much more than just the "Hebrew Bible." It's the Tanakh and Talmud and Mishnah and midrash and just centuries of rabbis having discussions about the law. It is a religion of debate. We don't just carry the winning argument forward, but consider the debate itself part of our legal record. When we talk about Jewish law, we reference what Rabbi Hillel had to say (he was usually the winner of these arguments) and also what Rabbi Shammai had to say, even though his argument was not usually the one we went with. My point is that we are comfortable with gray areas, with multiple viewpoints on a given issue, and with the idea of multiple valid opinions that we have to value and weigh when coming to a communal decision about the law.

Of course there are differences among Jews. We are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply." Having children is a mitzvah. We also believe that "whoever saves a life is considered to have saved the whole world." This commandment to preserve life allows us to break other laws, even the observance of Shabbat or Yom Kippur, if doing so will save a life. If a woman's health is endangered by a pregnancy, we are commanded to save her life.

That sounds progressive, but is not
Men can deny their women a divorce
Women stoned for adultery is there in those books

Very few women priests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

If that were the case, then wouldn’t all people be on board with abortion bans? It’s still the religious conservatives that are the most fervent about it.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Is this in the Hebrew Bible? Are there differences among Jews?

Jewish law encompasses so much more than just the "Hebrew Bible." It's the Tanakh and Talmud and Mishnah and midrash and just centuries of rabbis having discussions about the law. It is a religion of debate. We don't just carry the winning argument forward, but consider the debate itself part of our legal record. When we talk about Jewish law, we reference what Rabbi Hillel had to say (he was usually the winner of these arguments) and also what Rabbi Shammai had to say, even though his argument was not usually the one we went with. My point is that we are comfortable with gray areas, with multiple viewpoints on a given issue, and with the idea of multiple valid opinions that we have to value and weigh when coming to a communal decision about the law.

Of course there are differences among Jews. We are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply." Having children is a mitzvah. We also believe that "whoever saves a life is considered to have saved the whole world." This commandment to preserve life allows us to break other laws, even the observance of Shabbat or Yom Kippur, if doing so will save a life. If a woman's health is endangered by a pregnancy, we are commanded to save her life.

That sounds progressive, but is not
Men can deny their women a divorce
Women stoned for adultery is there in those books

Very few women priests

...We don't have priests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

If that were the case, then wouldn’t all people be on board with abortion bans? It’s still the religious conservatives that are the most fervent about it.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Is this in the Hebrew Bible? Are there differences among Jews?

Jewish law encompasses so much more than just the "Hebrew Bible." It's the Tanakh and Talmud and Mishnah and midrash and just centuries of rabbis having discussions about the law. It is a religion of debate. We don't just carry the winning argument forward, but consider the debate itself part of our legal record. When we talk about Jewish law, we reference what Rabbi Hillel had to say (he was usually the winner of these arguments) and also what Rabbi Shammai had to say, even though his argument was not usually the one we went with. My point is that we are comfortable with gray areas, with multiple viewpoints on a given issue, and with the idea of multiple valid opinions that we have to value and weigh when coming to a communal decision about the law.

Of course there are differences among Jews. We are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply." Having children is a mitzvah. We also believe that "whoever saves a life is considered to have saved the whole world." This commandment to preserve life allows us to break other laws, even the observance of Shabbat or Yom Kippur, if doing so will save a life. If a woman's health is endangered by a pregnancy, we are commanded to save her life.

This is true of Islam and Christianity as well. Lots of differences and lots of debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

So you’re suggesting that Christian’s are more anti-abortion now because of science? Before the 70s plenty of religious people were anti-abortion.

You guys are so young. Most people were pro-life back in the day, until the Democrats realized they could pick up votes by differentiating themselves from the Pro-life Rs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

So you’re suggesting that Christian’s are more anti-abortion now because of science? Before the 70s plenty of religious people were anti-abortion.

You guys are so young. Most people were pro-life back in the day, until the Democrats realized they could pick up votes by differentiating themselves from the Pro-life Rs.

I wish I had the energy to address all the idiocy on DCUM. Instead I’ll have a glass of wine and read a good book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

If that were the case, then wouldn’t all people be on board with abortion bans? It’s still the religious conservatives that are the most fervent about it.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Is this in the Hebrew Bible? Are there differences among Jews?

Jewish law encompasses so much more than just the "Hebrew Bible." It's the Tanakh and Talmud and Mishnah and midrash and just centuries of rabbis having discussions about the law. It is a religion of debate. We don't just carry the winning argument forward, but consider the debate itself part of our legal record. When we talk about Jewish law, we reference what Rabbi Hillel had to say (he was usually the winner of these arguments) and also what Rabbi Shammai had to say, even though his argument was not usually the one we went with. My point is that we are comfortable with gray areas, with multiple viewpoints on a given issue, and with the idea of multiple valid opinions that we have to value and weigh when coming to a communal decision about the law.

Of course there are differences among Jews. We are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply." Having children is a mitzvah. We also believe that "whoever saves a life is considered to have saved the whole world." This commandment to preserve life allows us to break other laws, even the observance of Shabbat or Yom Kippur, if doing so will save a life. If a woman's health is endangered by a pregnancy, we are commanded to save her life.

This is true of Islam and Christianity as well. Lots of differences and lots of debate.

I can't speak for Islam, but while Christianity certainly has many different denominations with accompanying beliefs, it seems to me that any appetite for debate about theological issues among the rank and file is long gone. Maybe mainline Protestants argue amongst themselves, but evangelicals don't really. Most people pick and choose what they personally believe but don't admit it. I don't think abortion is a theological question for most Christians at all. It's just killing babies = bad. They are really not curious about what the pro-choice side thinks or why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

If that were the case, then wouldn’t all people be on board with abortion bans? It’s still the religious conservatives that are the most fervent about it.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Is this in the Hebrew Bible? Are there differences among Jews?

Jewish law encompasses so much more than just the "Hebrew Bible." It's the Tanakh and Talmud and Mishnah and midrash and just centuries of rabbis having discussions about the law. It is a religion of debate. We don't just carry the winning argument forward, but consider the debate itself part of our legal record. When we talk about Jewish law, we reference what Rabbi Hillel had to say (he was usually the winner of these arguments) and also what Rabbi Shammai had to say, even though his argument was not usually the one we went with. My point is that we are comfortable with gray areas, with multiple viewpoints on a given issue, and with the idea of multiple valid opinions that we have to value and weigh when coming to a communal decision about the law.

Of course there are differences among Jews. We are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply." Having children is a mitzvah. We also believe that "whoever saves a life is considered to have saved the whole world." This commandment to preserve life allows us to break other laws, even the observance of Shabbat or Yom Kippur, if doing so will save a life. If a woman's health is endangered by a pregnancy, we are commanded to save her life.

This is true of Islam and Christianity as well. Lots of differences and lots of debate.

I can't speak for Islam, but while Christianity certainly has many different denominations with accompanying beliefs, it seems to me that any appetite for debate about theological issues among the rank and file is long gone. Maybe mainline Protestants argue amongst themselves, but evangelicals don't really. Most people pick and choose what they personally believe but don't admit it. I don't think abortion is a theological question for most Christians at all. It's just killing babies = bad. They are really not curious about what the pro-choice side thinks or why.

I find your wording confusing. “Most Christians “ are actually pro-choice. First you note — correctly, that Christianity has many denominations, with accompanying beliefs. Since I’m not sure who you’re referring to as “rank and file” I can’t address your comment about “appetite for debate” except to say that that’s not my own experience. You then jump to “most Christians….It’s just killing babies =bad.” Which is both a sweeping generalization, flat out wrong, and in opposition to your acknowledgment that there are “many different denominations with accompanying beliefs”.

Since I’m not sure where to start with this, I’ll simply say that generalizing about “Christians “ based on the little that you know about mostly white Protestant and Catholic evangelical extremists is not likely to be an effective way of bringing clarity to this topic.

NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

If that were the case, then wouldn’t all people be on board with abortion bans? It’s still the religious conservatives that are the most fervent about it.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Is this in the Hebrew Bible? Are there differences among Jews?

Jewish law encompasses so much more than just the "Hebrew Bible." It's the Tanakh and Talmud and Mishnah and midrash and just centuries of rabbis having discussions about the law. It is a religion of debate. We don't just carry the winning argument forward, but consider the debate itself part of our legal record. When we talk about Jewish law, we reference what Rabbi Hillel had to say (he was usually the winner of these arguments) and also what Rabbi Shammai had to say, even though his argument was not usually the one we went with. My point is that we are comfortable with gray areas, with multiple viewpoints on a given issue, and with the idea of multiple valid opinions that we have to value and weigh when coming to a communal decision about the law.

Of course there are differences among Jews. We are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply." Having children is a mitzvah. We also believe that "whoever saves a life is considered to have saved the whole world." This commandment to preserve life allows us to break other laws, even the observance of Shabbat or Yom Kippur, if doing so will save a life. If a woman's health is endangered by a pregnancy, we are commanded to save her life.

This is true of Islam and Christianity as well. Lots of differences and lots of debate.

I can't speak for Islam, but while Christianity certainly has many different denominations with accompanying beliefs, it seems to me that any appetite for debate about theological issues among the rank and file is long gone. Maybe mainline Protestants argue amongst themselves, but evangelicals don't really. Most people pick and choose what they personally believe but don't admit it. I don't think abortion is a theological question for most Christians at all. It's just killing babies = bad. They are really not curious about what the pro-choice side thinks or why.

I find your wording confusing. “Most Christians “ are actually pro-choice. First you note — correctly, that Christianity has many denominations, with accompanying beliefs. Since I’m not sure who you’re referring to as “rank and file” I can’t address your comment about “appetite for debate” except to say that that’s not my own experience. You then jump to “most Christians….It’s just killing babies =bad.” Which is both a sweeping generalization, flat out wrong, and in opposition to your acknowledgment that there are “many different denominations with accompanying beliefs”.

Since I’m not sure where to start with this, I’ll simply say that generalizing about “Christians “ based on the little that you know about mostly white Protestant and Catholic evangelical extremists is not likely to be an effective way of bringing clarity to this topic.

NP

Oops: Forgot to add that I grew up in a Protestant church that my family attended for three generations. I also attended multiple summer Bible school programs in various denominations as a kid, and have personal friends who attended divinity school (Protestant) as well as Catholic educational programs. I say all that to suggest that I’m at least mildly “curious “ and open to debate and theological discussions. Not once in church or Sunday school or Confirmation classes was abortion ever discussed. I suspect that, as with many things, the expectation was that we would combine our own understanding with guidance —if we sought it, to make personal decisions that we, ourselves, were morally responsible for making. Those decisions would be between ourselves and God, with medical and spiritual guidance for our individual situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

So you’re suggesting that Christian’s are more anti-abortion now because of science? Before the 70s plenty of religious people were anti-abortion.

You guys are so young. Most people were pro-life back in the day, until the Democrats realized they could pick up votes by differentiating themselves from the Pro-life Rs.

Um, no. Most people, except for Catholics, viewed abortion as a private, medical decision. Perhaps your “back in the day” means something different from my version. The push was made by Republicans in the 1970s to garner political support with a galvanizing issue when it briefly became problematic to be openly racist in most circles. Before the 70s, plenty of religious people were anti-abortion. Before the 1970s, plenty of people were pro-choice. The issue is that during the 1970’s, the Republicans politicized the issue.


I’ll throw this link out here again:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8274866/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

If that were the case, then wouldn’t all people be on board with abortion bans? It’s still the religious conservatives that are the most fervent about it.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Is this in the Hebrew Bible? Are there differences among Jews?

Jewish law encompasses so much more than just the "Hebrew Bible." It's the Tanakh and Talmud and Mishnah and midrash and just centuries of rabbis having discussions about the law. It is a religion of debate. We don't just carry the winning argument forward, but consider the debate itself part of our legal record. When we talk about Jewish law, we reference what Rabbi Hillel had to say (he was usually the winner of these arguments) and also what Rabbi Shammai had to say, even though his argument was not usually the one we went with. My point is that we are comfortable with gray areas, with multiple viewpoints on a given issue, and with the idea of multiple valid opinions that we have to value and weigh when coming to a communal decision about the law.

Of course there are differences among Jews. We are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply." Having children is a mitzvah. We also believe that "whoever saves a life is considered to have saved the whole world." This commandment to preserve life allows us to break other laws, even the observance of Shabbat or Yom Kippur, if doing so will save a life. If a woman's health is endangered by a pregnancy, we are commanded to save her life.

That sounds progressive, but is not
Men can deny their women a divorce
Women stoned for adultery is there in those books

Very few women priests

Maybe PP is referring to pre-rabbinical Judaism, when the Second Temple still existed?

Or, more likely, PP is totally ignorant about Judaism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it's not actually about religion. It's about something else. Can you think what it might be?

+1

There’s nothing to discuss. The topic is a screen for hatred of women. Kill some women? Who cares?

+2.

“Abortion is profoundly anti-women. Three-quarters of its victims are women: Half the babies and all the mothers.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

If that were the case, then wouldn’t all people be on board with abortion bans? It’s still the religious conservatives that are the most fervent about it.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Is this in the Hebrew Bible? Are there differences among Jews?

Jewish law encompasses so much more than just the "Hebrew Bible." It's the Tanakh and Talmud and Mishnah and midrash and just centuries of rabbis having discussions about the law. It is a religion of debate. We don't just carry the winning argument forward, but consider the debate itself part of our legal record. When we talk about Jewish law, we reference what Rabbi Hillel had to say (he was usually the winner of these arguments) and also what Rabbi Shammai had to say, even though his argument was not usually the one we went with. My point is that we are comfortable with gray areas, with multiple viewpoints on a given issue, and with the idea of multiple valid opinions that we have to value and weigh when coming to a communal decision about the law.

Of course there are differences among Jews. We are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply." Having children is a mitzvah. We also believe that "whoever saves a life is considered to have saved the whole world." This commandment to preserve life allows us to break other laws, even the observance of Shabbat or Yom Kippur, if doing so will save a life. If a woman's health is endangered by a pregnancy, we are commanded to save her life.

This is true of Islam and Christianity as well. Lots of differences and lots of debate.

I can't speak for Islam, but while Christianity certainly has many different denominations with accompanying beliefs, it seems to me that any appetite for debate about theological issues among the rank and file is long gone. Maybe mainline Protestants argue amongst themselves, but evangelicals don't really. Most people pick and choose what they personally believe but don't admit it. I don't think abortion is a theological question for most Christians at all. It's just killing babies = bad. They are really not curious about what the pro-choice side thinks or why.

I find your wording confusing. “Most Christians “ are actually pro-choice. First you note — correctly, that Christianity has many denominations, with accompanying beliefs. Since I’m not sure who you’re referring to as “rank and file” I can’t address your comment about “appetite for debate” except to say that that’s not my own experience. You then jump to “most Christians….It’s just killing babies =bad.” Which is both a sweeping generalization, flat out wrong, and in opposition to your acknowledgment that there are “many different denominations with accompanying beliefs”.

Since I’m not sure where to start with this, I’ll simply say that generalizing about “Christians “ based on the little that you know about mostly white Protestant and Catholic evangelical extremists is not likely to be an effective way of bringing clarity to this topic.

NP

Oops: Forgot to add that I grew up in a Protestant church that my family attended for three generations. I also attended multiple summer Bible school programs in various denominations as a kid, and have personal friends who attended divinity school (Protestant) as well as Catholic educational programs. I say all that to suggest that I’m at least mildly “curious “ and open to debate and theological discussions. Not once in church or Sunday school or Confirmation classes was abortion ever discussed. I suspect that, as with many things, the expectation was that we would combine our own understanding with guidance —if we sought it, to make personal decisions that we, ourselves, were morally responsible for making. Those decisions would be between ourselves and God, with medical and spiritual guidance for our individual situations.

I posted originally about there being debate within Christianity, and thanks for your response.

It’s surprising, or maybe it’s not, that someone who doesn’t know much about the various denominations would assume they all look like a single, uniform block from the outside. On the contrary, there’s lots of debate. People go to their priests/pastors/ministers with questions and arguments all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has always puzzled me. While there are certainly strictists in Judaism and Islam, both religions tend to take a considerably more moderate attitude towards abortion and termination of a pregnancy, compared to Christianity and especially Catholicism. I don't really understand why. Yes, I know there's an emphasis on "life" but the other Abrahamic religions are more open to termination than their middle sibling. Why? How historically and theologically did this happen?

As an example, I grew up in a practicing Muslim family and practicing community. In Islam, it's commonly believed (according to various texts) that God "breathes" a soul into a fetus 120 days after conception. Before 120 days, it does not have a soul. Protection of the mother is paramount - both before AND after those 120 days, and it is undisputed that a mother/woman takes precedence in a pregnancy. Termination for her wellbeing can be done at ANY time, with medical guidance.

As for other termination reasons, I (and I know many others) were raised that it's between a woman and God. She should terminate in those 120 days, and without question if it's from rape or incest. All other reasons were at her (and her family's discretion). Obviously there are some very strict people that don't support abortion at all, but overall there still seems to be much more wiggle room with regards to human circumstances. I believe it's similar in many veins of Judaism.

Let's avoid a roe v. wade debate, and try to understand historically/theologically what happened, why things changed in the middle of the Abrahamic timeline. Anyone?

In the 1970s, we got sonograms showing a live person in the womb. We also already had stethoscopes to hear a heart beating. So, we can see and hear a baby before it's born now. Science is what changed.

If that were the case, then wouldn’t all people be on board with abortion bans? It’s still the religious conservatives that are the most fervent about it.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Is this in the Hebrew Bible? Are there differences among Jews?

Jewish law encompasses so much more than just the "Hebrew Bible." It's the Tanakh and Talmud and Mishnah and midrash and just centuries of rabbis having discussions about the law. It is a religion of debate. We don't just carry the winning argument forward, but consider the debate itself part of our legal record. When we talk about Jewish law, we reference what Rabbi Hillel had to say (he was usually the winner of these arguments) and also what Rabbi Shammai had to say, even though his argument was not usually the one we went with. My point is that we are comfortable with gray areas, with multiple viewpoints on a given issue, and with the idea of multiple valid opinions that we have to value and weigh when coming to a communal decision about the law.

Of course there are differences among Jews. We are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply." Having children is a mitzvah. We also believe that "whoever saves a life is considered to have saved the whole world." This commandment to preserve life allows us to break other laws, even the observance of Shabbat or Yom Kippur, if doing so will save a life. If a woman's health is endangered by a pregnancy, we are commanded to save her life.

This is true of Islam and Christianity as well. Lots of differences and lots of debate.

I can't speak for Islam, but while Christianity certainly has many different denominations with accompanying beliefs, it seems to me that any appetite for debate about theological issues among the rank and file is long gone. Maybe mainline Protestants argue amongst themselves, but evangelicals don't really. Most people pick and choose what they personally believe but don't admit it. I don't think abortion is a theological question for most Christians at all. It's just killing babies = bad. They are really not curious about what the pro-choice side thinks or why.

I find your wording confusing. “Most Christians “ are actually pro-choice. First you note — correctly, that Christianity has many denominations, with accompanying beliefs. Since I’m not sure who you’re referring to as “rank and file” I can’t address your comment about “appetite for debate” except to say that that’s not my own experience. You then jump to “most Christians….It’s just killing babies =bad.” Which is both a sweeping generalization, flat out wrong, and in opposition to your acknowledgment that there are “many different denominations with accompanying beliefs”.

Since I’m not sure where to start with this, I’ll simply say that generalizing about “Christians “ based on the little that you know about mostly white Protestant and Catholic evangelical extremists is not likely to be an effective way of bringing clarity to this topic.

NP

Oops: Forgot to add that I grew up in a Protestant church that my family attended for three generations. I also attended multiple summer Bible school programs in various denominations as a kid, and have personal friends who attended divinity school (Protestant) as well as Catholic educational programs. I say all that to suggest that I’m at least mildly “curious “ and open to debate and theological discussions. Not once in church or Sunday school or Confirmation classes was abortion ever discussed. I suspect that, as with many things, the expectation was that we would combine our own understanding with guidance —if we sought it, to make personal decisions that we, ourselves, were morally responsible for making. Those decisions would be between ourselves and God, with medical and spiritual guidance for our individual situations.

I posted originally about there being debate within Christianity, and thanks for your response.

It’s surprising, or maybe it’s not, that someone who doesn’t know much about the various denominations would assume they all look like a single, uniform block from the outside. On the contrary, there’s lots of debate. People go to their priests/pastors/ministers with questions and arguments all the time.

Also, Bible study is a part of almost every very church, and it invariably leads to debate among participants.