Forum Index
»
Religion
Just Abortion theory
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Thank you for getting the potential for this idea. I passionately believe that human rights for women and girls, including rights to abortion and birth control, is morally justifiable from faith perspectives. I would love to see this theory counter right wing narratives around women and family planning that are having devastating consequences for so many (even women not having abortions since so many hospitals in red states are closing their maternity units due to all the political interferences). |
Anonymous
And yet the research shows that the vast majority of women who have abortions feel mostly relief, and the lasting impacts are mostly positive. |
Anonymous
OP - Could you please cite this research that supports your claim that “the vast majority of women who have abortions feel mostly relief, and the lasting impacts are mostly positive.” I am not familiar with this research. In my experience, many women who have had abortions are ambivalent at best. Medical research suggests that many women who have had abortions suffer various degrees of trauma/ depression for some time but that is complicated. It is influenced by pre existing mental health or other challenges and very difficult to attribute the mental health challenges to abortion of other factors at play. However, I am sure that you are right that there must also be relief when the alternatives and likely outcomes are far worse than the abortion. From the national library of medicine The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities David C Reardon https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/ Abstract The abortion and mental health controversy is driven by two different perspectives regarding how best to interpret accepted facts. When interpreting the data, abortion and mental health proponents are inclined to emphasize risks associated with abortion, whereas abortion and mental health minimalists emphasize pre-existing risk factors as the primary explanation for the correlations with more negative outcomes. Still, both sides agree that (a) abortion is consistently associated with elevated rates of mental illness compared to women without a history of abortion; (b) the abortion experience directly contributes to mental health problems for at least some women; (c) there are risk factors, such as pre-existing mental illness, that identify women at greatest risk of mental health problems after an abortion; and (d) it is impossible to conduct research in this field in a manner that can definitively identify the extent to which any mental illnesses following abortion can be reliably attributed to abortion in and of itself. The areas of disagreement, which are more nuanced, are addressed at length. Obstacles in the way of research and further consensus include (a) multiple pathways for abortion and mental health risks, (b) concurrent positive and negative reactions, (c) indeterminate time frames and degrees of reactions, (d) poorly defined terms, (e) multiple factors of causation, and (f) inherent preconceptions based on ideology and disproportionate exposure to different types of women. Recommendations for collaboration include (a) mixed research teams, (b) co-design of national longitudinal prospective studies accessible to any researcher, (c) better adherence to data sharing and re-analysis standards, and (d) attention to a broader list of research questions. Keywords: Abortion mental health, abortion, reproductive health, post-abortion trauma, research bias, complicated grief, ambiguous loss, bereavement, post-traumatic stress disorder, pregnancy loss |
Anonymous
Not the OP, but here are a few citations -- there are many, many more. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481643 https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/09/news-facts-abortion-mental-health The science shows that women who terminate unplanned/unwanted pregnancies early are unlikely to experience long term emotional trauma if they don't have other pre-existing emotional factors. In fact, for most, abortion effectively ends their emotional trauma. Problem solved. Obviously, women who terminate planned/wanted pregnancies for whatever reason will have a different post-abortion experience. They may not have wanted to abort, but they found the alternatives to be even more potentially emotionally (and perhaps physically) damaging. |
Anonymous
|
OP, I'm a pro-choice Christian and your post has been making me think a little bit, and I think the issue is that this theology can't start with abortion. It's a deeper issue of defining "human" or "a life" in a way that I think Christians have trouble doing in any way other than the very simplistic "life begins at conception, the fertilized egg is a full person with a soul." I don't believe that deep down myself, having multiple pregnancies and kids, but if you take away that bright line it's much harder and maybe beyond traditional theology.
What I mean is, I think IF you want to start with the idea that "just abortion theory" is important but "just infanticide theory" is beyond the pale, you have to define the distinction. On the other hand, if you don't want to start with that idea, then you're in totally different theological waters than I was assuming and it IS much more like just war theory than I realized. |
Anonymous
OP here - sorry that was me asking for research links. Thanks. |
Anonymous
OP again - i am throwing the theory out there for consideration. I mainly am interested in theological framework that supports women’s human and reproductive rights that are under attack in the US. I do think there are similarities to Just War Theory but there are also major differences. That is why I am hoping brilliant theologians will take it on. You raise an excellent and controversial tricky point about defining life and when it starts. That would require research into any medical and other expert consensus on when the fetus facilitates the emergence of individual consciousness/ sentient awareness of self / soul. The third month is when an embryo becomes a fetus in the womb. According to Muslim scholars, the soul enters the body at around 4 months after conception. There is no clear statement off when human souls begin life in the Hebrew Bible, Gospels or Indian ancient scriptures. However, the rabbis in the Talmud all agree that human ensoulment does not occur at conception but around 13 weeks after conception. Even Roman Catholic theologians in the Middle Ages, such as Thomas Aquinas, held that human ensoulment occurs between 2-4 months in the womb. I don’t agree with modern Christian arguments that life begins at conception. I personally agree with Muslim scholars that sentient self awareness/ human soul probably emerges around 4 months. I believe that is when all the human organs such as brain and heart have formed except perhaps for the lungs. You are correct that Just Abortion Theory would need to define and account for when spiritual human life/ sentient self awareness begins. Interesting that 93% of reported abortions in US in 2019 were performed before at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy. 6% were conducted between 14-20 weeks and only 1% occurred after 21 weeks. the later abortions tend to be related to medical concerns such as fetal abnormalities or maternal life endangerment. The vast majority of abortions are carried out before human ensoulment likely occurs. The later ones are usually justifiable? Thank you for a thoughtful and thought provoking comment. |
Anonymous
|
If it’s wrong to hurt people because of skin color or gender, why is it okay to hurt them because they are smaller, less developed, or in a different location?
Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good reasons for saying you could be killed then but not now. |
Anonymous
OP - that is the whole point do this thread. Most people don’t think war is right or good but Just War theory articulates when it is justified and therefore moral Similarly Just Abortion theory would hold that Abortion is not inherently right or good but that it is important to support abortion rights because there are many circumstances when abortion is justified and the lesser of evils. Some criteria to meet the threshold for justified are clear cut (when bringing pregnancies to term puts mothers’ life at risk, pregnancies born of rape or incest and severe congenital abnormalities if the fetus. Other criteria are more subtle but I believe should be factored in: ability of mother to care for her existing children if she continues with pregnancy, and access to decent medical care during and after pregnancy. The issue of when personhood (or from religious perspective ensoulment) occurs is contested. I personally don’t believe that embryos and early fetuses are “people” until sentient consciousness or the soul emerges sometime during the second trimester when the brain and other organs are formed (lungs develop later). I don’t think that embryos while containing physical life hold spiritual life/ consciousness until after the organs are formed and their little bodies can host a soul that is required for conscious awareness of self and environment around it. However, I am open to medical and scientific evidence to justify different beliefs in this regard. There are degrees of both good and bad. We have been gifted with brains and discernment to utilize for pursuing optimal goods for both ourselves as individuals and for our society/ communities. To me, Bring Pro life means supporting optimal outcomes for sentient human life. |
Anonymous
You are welcome to believe as you wish about the unborn, but that doesn’t make your opinion true. Great religious scholars aren’t going to do as you wish and deny their own thoughts, religious beliefs, and opinions on this subject. Tbh what are your qualifications and areas of expertise within academia that has led you to your beliefs? Just curious. |
Anonymous
What are you basing your belief that an unborn baby doesn’t have a soul until the second trimester on? |
Anonymous
OP again Defining sentient life as conscious self awareness and awareness of self in relation to environment … or what people of religious faith may refer to as ensoulment/ Embodied soul. Both Muslim and Jewish scholars contend that ensoulment or when the human soul becomes embodied in a fetus happens in the second trimester. Earlier Christian theologians contend it happened around then also. From a Western science/ Medical perspective I think sentient consciousness would require the brain and most organs to be formed before the embodied soil could physically be aware of itself and experience reality. The baby does not breathe on its own until outside the womb so the lack of fully formed lungs probably does not impact capacity for consciousness in the womb. As stated, I am open to new sound science and evidence around when fetuses develop self aware consciousness and what people Of religious faith might refer to as ensoulment. I have to go out now but can discuss more later if desired. Happy Palm Sunday all. |
Anonymous
What science do Jewish and Muslim scholars base their beliefs on? |
Anonymous
I'm the PP you're responding too, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I do think that the traditions of other faiths offer some alternative approaches. I'm personally a bit skeptical that it's possible to draw a bright line at a single point in pregnancy given that fetal development is a gradual, ongoing process, and we don't have to think necessarily that sentience and the soul are precisely the same thing. What if fetal development is a long ongoing process of becoming a human, but we can't say there's a before or after? |
Anonymous
I definitely don’t think I have all the answers and am hoping for this line of thinking to be taken up by more brilliant others. I would imagine that Just Abortion theory would need to be multidisciplinary to account for different aspects of lived truth and reality Only since you ask: Some Medical training Theological studies Master of philosophy from Catholic university - although not a Catholic, I appreciate their intellectual rigor and examining their beliefs in depth. From a philosophical perspective, Just Abortion theory would probably fall under normative or practical ethics or exploration of what is right and good. I personally see great value in all three major normative approaches - utilitarian (making decisions based on maximum good to maximum amount of people), deontological (sense of duty to seek what is good and right and not using others as means to selfish ends) and Aristotelian virtue ethics (wisdom to make ethical decisions is cultivated over life times and derived from prudently avoiding the extremes and seeking balance in emotions, life style and thinking). I don’t think there are any easy answer or that any one person can think of all aspects of the moral and medical issues involved. However, given the stakes for so many women, children and men who love them, I feel an obligation to at least try to think through just approaches to abortion for people of faith. |