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

[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 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.

Good question. I’ve attended Christian protests against wars in Iraq and about climate change. And lots of people of all faiths volunteer in soup kitchens and for victims of domestic violence—for some of us, it’s a religious obligation. But no, I don’t remember a protest against domestic violence in our organization.

[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 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.

Good question. I’ve attended Christian protests against wars in Iraq and about climate change. And lots of people of all faiths volunteer in soup kitchens and for victims of domestic violence—for some of us, it’s a religious obligation. But no, I don’t remember a protest against domestic violence in our organization.

PS, there are also Christian actions against racism. But again, not sure about domestic violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I’m saying that it was a ban after quickening, not a ban at six weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 From another Episcopalian, who’s actually not sure when Jesus preached against premarital sex.

[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.

You are wrong.

[Anonymous]

This is actually part of why I'm no longer religious. I realize the following is reasoning that psychotic people use when killing their children, but to my mind they are only following their religion's teachings to their logical conclusion.

So ok, the Catholic church is pro-life in the sense that all life, from conception to death, is sacred. They are anti-abortion, and they are anti-death penalty. At least on this point they are consistent. And for people on death row, the feeling is that they could at some point repent of their sins and avoid going to hell. If you kill them before they've had every chance to repent that God would have otherwise granted them during their lifetime, you may be taking away that chance. That's a pretty severe consequence if you believe in hell.

But where it falls apart for me is saying we shouldn't abort just in case the "ensoulment" happens at conception. Ok, well let's say it did (do identical twins share a soul, I wonder?). You've aborted an ensouled being. A mortal sin for you, perhaps, but the consequence for the embryo? People used to theorize about limbo since the embryo is unbaptized, but that's not too popular of a concept these days. The official line is that it's a mystery and we hope for God's mercy. However, I think most believe they'd go to heaven given their innocence. I'm not sure many people would worship a God they thought would condemn anyone so blameless to eternal woe. They can't feel pain, they go straight to heaven - seems like a pretty good deal to me!

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

He is also the one who established the dogma of Immaculate Conception of Mary on 8 December 1854, and by 1870, he established the dogma of "papal infallibility,” which states that when speaking in terms of Church doctrine, the Pope speaks the truth with certainty. Convenient, isn't it?

His reason: "He believed that while it may not be known when ensoulment occurs, there was the possibility that it happens at conception. Believing it was morally safer to follow this conclusion, he thought all life should be protected from the start of conception. In 1869 he removed the labels of “animated” fetus and “unanimated” fetus and concluded that abortions at any point of gestation were punishable by excommunication." https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/pope-pius-ix-1792-1878

So, all of this pain and suffering inflicted on women based on one man bucking centuries of belief and practice, hedging his moral bets, and declaring himself the last word on the subject.

What does the Immaculate Conception have to do with anything?

Just that a lot pf people don't really know how the canons of their own faiths formed and many assume things always were as they have been today and might be surprised to find that these are fairly modern concepts even within the Church.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is actually part of why I'm no longer religious. I realize the following is reasoning that psychotic people use when killing their children, but to my mind they are only following their religion's teachings to their logical conclusion.

So ok, the Catholic church is pro-life in the sense that all life, from conception to death, is sacred. They are anti-abortion, and they are anti-death penalty. At least on this point they are consistent. And for people on death row, the feeling is that they could at some point repent of their sins and avoid going to hell. If you kill them before they've had every chance to repent that God would have otherwise granted them during their lifetime, you may be taking away that chance. That's a pretty severe consequence if you believe in hell.

But where it falls apart for me is saying we shouldn't abort just in case the "ensoulment" happens at conception. Ok, well let's say it did (do identical twins share a soul, I wonder?). You've aborted an ensouled being. A mortal sin for you, perhaps, but the consequence for the embryo? People used to theorize about limbo since the embryo is unbaptized, but that's not too popular of a concept these days. The official line is that it's a mystery and we hope for God's mercy. However, I think most believe they'd go to heaven given their innocence. I'm not sure many people would worship a God they thought would condemn anyone so blameless to eternal woe. They can't feel pain, they go straight to heaven - seems like a pretty good deal to me!

Why are you talking about religiosity in general when your example is solely about the Catholic Church?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually part of why I'm no longer religious. I realize the following is reasoning that psychotic people use when killing their children, but to my mind they are only following their religion's teachings to their logical conclusion.

So ok, the Catholic church is pro-life in the sense that all life, from conception to death, is sacred. They are anti-abortion, and they are anti-death penalty. At least on this point they are consistent. And for people on death row, the feeling is that they could at some point repent of their sins and avoid going to hell. If you kill them before they've had every chance to repent that God would have otherwise granted them during their lifetime, you may be taking away that chance. That's a pretty severe consequence if you believe in hell.

But where it falls apart for me is saying we shouldn't abort just in case the "ensoulment" happens at conception. Ok, well let's say it did (do identical twins share a soul, I wonder?). You've aborted an ensouled being. A mortal sin for you, perhaps, but the consequence for the embryo? People used to theorize about limbo since the embryo is unbaptized, but that's not too popular of a concept these days. The official line is that it's a mystery and we hope for God's mercy. However, I think most believe they'd go to heaven given their innocence. I'm not sure many people would worship a God they thought would condemn anyone so blameless to eternal woe. They can't feel pain, they go straight to heaven - seems like a pretty good deal to me!

Why are you talking about religiosity in general when your example is solely about the Catholic Church?

Well, I focused on Catholicism because that was my tradition. But Protestantism is not much different in this respect. Whether people believe there is no salvation without faith or not, they don't tend to believe that innocent children go to hell, so they probably don't believe embryos do either.

As for why I said "religious" and not "Christian", because I wasn't thinking and conflated the two. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Strictly theologically speaking (by which I mean Christianity's official teachings, not what Christians tend to personally believe), there is a good chance aborted souls go to hell. That's a pretty big problem so I can see why they'd feel some urgency about it. But again, most people do not actually believe this, and I think spend no time contemplating it.

[Anonymous]

It is kinda false to say Islam supports abortion. It doesn’t and the Quran says do not kill your unborn for fear of poverty as God/Allah is the best of providers .


Now culturally, Muslims (Arab Christians included) will quietly get abortions and encourage an unmarried man or woman to schedule an abortion because it’s less of a scandal than being a single parent

[Anonymous]

I grew up very involved in the evangelical pro-life movement and was certainly "indoctrinated" from a young age that God actively cared about the pre-born and "knitted me together in my mother's womb" (verse from the Psalms). By the time I was an older teen I had been shown videos of an abortion (I still feel sick to my stomach thinking of the "silent scream") and was taught/shown that this was essentially torturing babies. I question that now but it's hard to get rid of the gut reaction that it's violent and causes suffering with no compassion...

I am not religious any longer and generally vote quite liberally but have been unable to grasp how so many of my coworkers at a human rights org seem to not even consider the fetus at all. I have so much compassion for women who are facing an unwanted pregnancy and can see both sides. I certainly have always donated, volunteered and voted to support women and children in vulnerable circumstances.

Since I no longer factor God into the equation, all I'm left with is my ethics. I don't have a guideline stating 120 days in God breathes a soul. That sounds much easier to accept. No offence, but the Talmud teaching the fetus is essentially the women's thigh just doesn't make sense to me. Scientifically the fetus is not the woman's thigh or even close. And because I'm not Jewish I have no reason to adopt that line of thinking.

I guess my ethics might say that before a fetus can feel pain the woman has a greater interest and her will should be more strongly considered, but after the fetus can feel pain we need to take into account its suffering and at least humanely euthanize it before its terminated. I have a hard time accepting the idea of abortion at this point at all though.

Whether it's "life" or "potential life" doesn't really seem to matter as much. If it can feel pain and suffer I care. I feel like I should give as much consideration to this kind of being as I would give a dog or cat. And weigh that against the interest of the woman. That's where I feel like I can't agree with most pro-choice advocates. It's very hard to go from believing that this is a life with infinite value in the eyes of God to it being worth not even a second thought if the woman doesn't want it. I am not able to make that leap completely, even if I wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up very involved in the evangelical pro-life movement and was certainly "indoctrinated" from a young age that God actively cared about the pre-born and "knitted me together in my mother's womb" (verse from the Psalms). By the time I was an older teen I had been shown videos of an abortion (I still feel sick to my stomach thinking of the "silent scream") and was taught/shown that this was essentially torturing babies. I question that now but it's hard to get rid of the gut reaction that it's violent and causes suffering with no compassion...

I am not religious any longer and generally vote quite liberally but have been unable to grasp how so many of my coworkers at a human rights org seem to not even consider the fetus at all. I have so much compassion for women who are facing an unwanted pregnancy and can see both sides. I certainly have always donated, volunteered and voted to support women and children in vulnerable circumstances.

Since I no longer factor God into the equation, all I'm left with is my ethics. I don't have a guideline stating 120 days in God breathes a soul. That sounds much easier to accept. No offence, but the Talmud teaching the fetus is essentially the women's thigh just doesn't make sense to me. Scientifically the fetus is not the woman's thigh or even close. And because I'm not Jewish I have no reason to adopt that line of thinking.

I guess my ethics might say that before a fetus can feel pain the woman has a greater interest and her will should be more strongly considered, but after the fetus can feel pain we need to take into account its suffering and at least humanely euthanize it before its terminated. I have a hard time accepting the idea of abortion at this point at all though.

Whether it's "life" or "potential life" doesn't really seem to matter as much. If it can feel pain and suffer I care. I feel like I should give as much consideration to this kind of being as I would give a dog or cat. And weigh that against the interest of the woman. That's where I feel like I can't agree with most pro-choice advocates. It's very hard to go from believing that this is a life with infinite value in the eyes of God to it being worth not even a second thought if the woman doesn't want it. I am not able to make that leap completely, even if I wanted to.

OP here. I have never met anyone who said that a fetus doesn't matter and they don't care at all.

The line of thinking from how I grew up, and most people I know (all religions and non religions) is that a woman matters more. Not that the fetus has zero worth, but that a woman, who is here and exists in this world, who has sovereignty... she comes first. Always. This is true religiously, and even secularly. It makes sense. I cannot wrap my head around the idea that a woman and a fetus are completely equal, or that the fetus matters more. I do not understand that idea from a religious or secular standpoint.