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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1970s, a political mastermind had the idea to get women and religious conservatives into voting Republican over "killing babies". Before this point, there had of course been stigma for years over unmarried sex and pregnancies, and desperate women made desperate choices. No one had the opinion that abortion was wrong until it was made political.

Look I’m very pro choice but this is… not true. Wisconsin’s abortion ban is from the mid 19th century.

Was it a six-week. An in the mid 19th century? No it was not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The early Catholic church did allow abortion. In 1869, Pope Pius IX declared all abortion murder.

This entirely misstates the case. Since at least the first century, the Church has unwaveringly held procured abortion to be a grave sin. Indeed, one of the earliest distinctions between Christians and non believers was the former’s opposition to the abortion and infanticide practiced by the latter. Theologians may have debated the matter and Popes may have vacillated on the appropriate canonical penalties, but the Church has never, ever permitted abortion.

But, why? The question the OP asked is why? It’s not rooted in scripture.

The catholic church refers to the ""quickening" similar to the Muslim OP who talks about 120 days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The early Catholic church did allow abortion. In 1869, Pope Pius IX declared all abortion murder.

This entirely misstates the case. Since at least the first century, the Church has unwaveringly held procured abortion to be a grave sin. Indeed, one of the earliest distinctions between Christians and non believers was the former’s opposition to the abortion and infanticide practiced by the latter. Theologians may have debated the matter and Popes may have vacillated on the appropriate canonical penalties, but the Church has never, ever permitted abortion.

But, why? The question the OP asked is why? It’s not rooted in scripture.

The catholic church refers to the ""quickening" similar to the Muslim OP who talks about 120 days.

That’s way later than the fetal personhood stuff that’s bandied about now by the extreme religious right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The early Catholic church did allow abortion. In 1869, Pope Pius IX declared all abortion murder.

This entirely misstates the case. Since at least the first century, the Church has unwaveringly held procured abortion to be a grave sin. Indeed, one of the earliest distinctions between Christians and non believers was the former’s opposition to the abortion and infanticide practiced by the latter. Theologians may have debated the matter and Popes may have vacillated on the appropriate canonical penalties, but the Church has never, ever permitted abortion.

But, why? The question the OP asked is why? It’s not rooted in scripture.

The catholic church refers to the ""quickening" similar to the Muslim OP who talks about 120 days.

That’s way later than the fetal personhood stuff that’s bandied about now by the extreme religious right.

Agree, and unless you are God, in which case you know when ithis soul attachment happens. Leave it up to God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The early Catholic church did allow abortion. In 1869, Pope Pius IX declared all abortion murder.

This entirely misstates the case. Since at least the first century, the Church has unwaveringly held procured abortion to be a grave sin. Indeed, one of the earliest distinctions between Christians and non believers was the former’s opposition to the abortion and infanticide practiced by the latter. Theologians may have debated the matter and Popes may have vacillated on the appropriate canonical penalties, but the Church has never, ever permitted abortion.

I don't know if you're right about Catholics or not, but you're wrong with regard to non-Catholic Christians. Protestants in general had no problem with abortion until the mid 1900s (and a lot of Protestant denominations still don't). In most of American history abortion has been a normal and widely recognized midwife activity, ie. healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1970s, a political mastermind had the idea to get women and religious conservatives into voting Republican over "killing babies". Before this point, there had of course been stigma for years over unmarried sex and pregnancies, and desperate women made desperate choices. No one had the opinion that abortion was wrong until it was made political.

Look I’m very pro choice but this is… not true. Wisconsin’s abortion ban is from the mid 19th century.

Was it a six-week. An in the mid 19th century? No it was not.

Are you saying that Wisconsin abortion ban was not from 1849? If so check your facts again.

[Anonymous]

All 3 faiths, Judaism, Islam and Christianity and about subjugating women. They all preach against premarital sex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All 3 faiths, Judaism, Islam and Christianity and about subjugating women. They all preach against premarital sex

Speak for yourself. Outside of Orthodox Judaism, women are fully equal. I was raised in a Reform synagogue and my family now belongs to a Conservative synagogue with a husband and wife rabbinical team.

Stop pretending as though you know something about a religion you’re clearly completely ignorant about.

[Anonymous]

Oh and, though the Torah considers marital sex holy, it does not outlaw premarital sex.

Turns out reality is more complicated than you make it out to be.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

That has nothing to do with anything. And there's no "person" in any womb, scientifically speaking (though I suspect you do not understand 'science' much at all).

[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.

That has nothing to do with anything. And there's no "person" in any womb, scientifically speaking (though I suspect you do not understand 'science' much at all).

I think the PP has a point in that the visual of the foetus in the womb did set off the changes that allowed the religious right to make abortion the political issue it is. The ability to distribute photos of faces in the womb, connecting them with life healthy babies really strikes an emotional chord with otherwise lazy women voters. And it's easier to paint pro-choicers as cold, uncaring and unfeminine.

[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.

That has nothing to do with anything. And there's no "person" in any womb, scientifically speaking (though I suspect you do not understand 'science' much at all).

I think the PP has a point in that the visual of the foetus in the womb did set off the changes that allowed the religious right to make abortion the political issue it is. The ability to distribute photos of faces in the womb, connecting them with life healthy babies really strikes an emotional chord with otherwise lazy women voters. And it's easier to paint pro-choicers as cold, uncaring and unfeminine.

I can get that, especially in a heavily Christian dominated country.

But this technology didn't change anything for most American Muslim and American Jewish women. It certainly didn't impression any wide-spread movements. The circumstances of women were, and always have been, much more complicated than "here's a cute visual" - the sovereignty of her body never changed or was questioned to the intensity it did in Christian/Catholic communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The early Catholic church did allow abortion. In 1869, Pope Pius IX declared all abortion murder.

This entirely misstates the case. Since at least the first century, the Church has unwaveringly held procured abortion to be a grave sin. Indeed, one of the earliest distinctions between Christians and non believers was the former’s opposition to the abortion and infanticide practiced by the latter. Theologians may have debated the matter and Popes may have vacillated on the appropriate canonical penalties, but the Church has never, ever permitted abortion.

But why are there no protests against domestic violence or gluttony or wage theft? There are many other sins that people commit that nobody seems all that whipped up about. I remember as a victim in abusive marriage feeling like our local priest cared a hell of a lot more about the unborn than he did about me and my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All 3 faiths, Judaism, Islam and Christianity and about subjugating women. They all preach against premarital sex

Wait, let me ask my female Episcopalian minister—no, she’s never preached against premarital sex.