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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

What sura/verse is this??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

That is NOT what the Quran says. Here is the verse:

"Kill not your offspring for fear of poverty; it is We (God) who provide for them and for you. Surely, killing them is a great sin." Qur'an 17:32

There is ZERO reference to unborn or fetus. Across all species, "offspring" is considered the born and the young of an animal (or human). Infanticide (very different than abortion) has been a historically common practice in many societies where poverty is rife, and that is quite clearly what the verse is referring to. In fact, the Quran makes zero references whatsoever to the unborn or fetuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More of the conversations I've heard make it very much an either/or proposition, with neither side acknowledging the interests of the other. It always seems a very contentious issue with little room for nuance. People that I've heard discussing abortion aren't expressing care most of the time, they are expressing fear of how the other side is going to make evil prevail in the world.

And I understand, maybe agree with the idea that the woman matters more. And if we are looking at saving the life of a fetus or a woman I don't think it would be hard to choose to save the woman. But most of the time we aren't talking about saving the life of the woman. In that circumstance it isn't even objected to by the vast majority of pro-lifers. Most of the time in an abortion the stakes are very different for the fetus and woman. When the interests of the woman prevail the fetus fails to exist. When the interests of the fetus prevail the woman does not die. The consequences may be extremely difficult, but most of the time it's not actually failing to exist. So it's not so much that they have equal interests, it's that it's only a life or death situation for one of them. I don't think that it's the same thing as saying the fetus matters more to say that the stakes are higher for the fetus. But it really does come back to whether it is life or not. If it's just a "clump of tissue" or part of the woman's body then of course its interests are not strong at all, maybe non-existent. If it's human life then the interests are a lot stronger. And I think both sides have really dug into their position on this. Who gets to decide when life begins? Is that a personal decision? It does seem like a religious question at its core. Just not one with clear answers in every faith tradition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

By the same logic though, naturally miscarrying fetuses would ALSO go to hell, and at least half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. That seems INSANE to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one really believes that aborting a fetus is the same as murdering a child. Look at how people reacted to the little kids being shot in Uvalde. Does anyone really think that was the same as abortion? 4,000 embryos were lost due to a power outage at a fertility clinic in Cleveland in 2018, a loss greater than 9/11, but while it made the news, if anyone REALLY thought that embryos were the same as children, we would have a national day of mourning and remembrance every year. We don't, because we don't. If you were in a fertility clinic and there was a fire, would you save 100 embryos out of the freezer or a baby in the waiting room? The fetus matters, but the actual person who is actually alive matters more. The existing framework under Roe and Casey recognized that, and accorded with the moral intuitions of most people -- early on, abortion should be available with minimal restrictions. Later on, states could restrict it more. And frankly, NO ONE is having abortions for funsies in the third trimester. Those are wanted pregnancies where something went wrong. There's a severe abnormality incompatible with life, or the fetus is dying, or the woman's life or health is at risk. It doesn't matter if YOU have a "hard time accepting it," especially because you seem to have no idea about why women have abortions in the third trimester.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More of the conversations I've heard make it very much an either/or proposition, with neither side acknowledging the interests of the other. It always seems a very contentious issue with little room for nuance. People that I've heard discussing abortion aren't expressing care most of the time, they are expressing fear of how the other side is going to make evil prevail in the world.

And I understand, maybe agree with the idea that the woman matters more. And if we are looking at saving the life of a fetus or a woman I don't think it would be hard to choose to save the woman. But most of the time we aren't talking about saving the life of the woman. In that circumstance it isn't even objected to by the vast majority of pro-lifers. Most of the time in an abortion the stakes are very different for the fetus and woman. When the interests of the woman prevail the fetus fails to exist. When the interests of the fetus prevail the woman does not die. The consequences may be extremely difficult, but most of the time it's not actually failing to exist. So it's not so much that they have equal interests, it's that it's only a life or death situation for one of them. I don't think that it's the same thing as saying the fetus matters more to say that the stakes are higher for the fetus. But it really does come back to whether it is life or not. If it's just a "clump of tissue" or part of the woman's body then of course its interests are not strong at all, maybe non-existent. If it's human life then the interests are a lot stronger. And I think both sides have really dug into their position on this. Who gets to decide when life begins? Is that a personal decision? It does seem like a religious question at its core. Just not one with clear answers in every faith tradition.

I think that's in a way, true, which is why the government--judges and politicians who just happened to be able to climb the ladder to positions of authority--shouldn't have the final say. They are just random people and cannot have the answers to these questions people have struggled with for millennia.

But I don't actually think it comes down to when life begins, I think it comes down to the liberty of a human being. Even if the thing in me that, if allowed to remain, were to be a human being, there is a thing inside of me that I don't want to be there. The government doesn't get to tell me I have to let it use my body to live. So for a lot of us, no, when life begins isn't the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More of the conversations I've heard make it very much an either/or proposition, with neither side acknowledging the interests of the other. It always seems a very contentious issue with little room for nuance. People that I've heard discussing abortion aren't expressing care most of the time, they are expressing fear of how the other side is going to make evil prevail in the world.

And I understand, maybe agree with the idea that the woman matters more. And if we are looking at saving the life of a fetus or a woman I don't think it would be hard to choose to save the woman. But most of the time we aren't talking about saving the life of the woman. In that circumstance it isn't even objected to by the vast majority of pro-lifers. Most of the time in an abortion the stakes are very different for the fetus and woman. When the interests of the woman prevail the fetus fails to exist. When the interests of the fetus prevail the woman does not die. The consequences may be extremely difficult, but most of the time it's not actually failing to exist. So it's not so much that they have equal interests, it's that it's only a life or death situation for one of them. I don't think that it's the same thing as saying the fetus matters more to say that the stakes are higher for the fetus. But it really does come back to whether it is life or not. If it's just a "clump of tissue" or part of the woman's body then of course its interests are not strong at all, maybe non-existent. If it's human life then the interests are a lot stronger. And I think both sides have really dug into their position on this. Who gets to decide when life begins? Is that a personal decision? It does seem like a religious question at its core. Just not one with clear answers in every faith tradition.

I think that's in a way, true, which is why the government--judges and politicians who just happened to be able to climb the ladder to positions of authority--shouldn't have the final say. They are just random people and cannot have the answers to these questions people have struggled with for millennia.

But I don't actually think it comes down to when life begins, I think it comes down to the liberty of a human being. Even if the thing in me that, if allowed to remain, were to be a human being, there is a thing inside of me that I don't want to be there. The government doesn't get to tell me I have to let it use my body to live. So for a lot of us, no, when life begins isn't the question.

Shoot I thought this was a different thread! I didn't mean to get so off course from the issue of why many christian sects have chosen abortion as their pet political issue. Although maybe the idea of white evangelical belief that it's a man's role to dominate and subdue women has to do with their belief that women should be forced to use their bodies to give birth to another life...

[Anonymous]

No one really believes that aborting a fetus is the same as murdering a child. Look at how people reacted to the little kids being shot in Uvalde. Does anyone really think that was the same as abortion? 4,000 embryos were lost due to a power outage at a fertility clinic in Cleveland in 2018, a loss greater than 9/11, but while it made the news, if anyone REALLY thought that embryos were the same as children, we would have a national day of mourning and remembrance every year. We don't, because we don't. If you were in a fertility clinic and there was a fire, would you save 100 embryos out of the freezer or a baby in the waiting room? The fetus matters, but the actual person who is actually alive matters more. The existing framework under Roe and Casey recognized that, and accorded with the moral intuitions of most people -- early on, abortion should be available with minimal restrictions. Later on, states could restrict it more. And frankly, NO ONE is having abortions for funsies in the third trimester. Those are wanted pregnancies where something went wrong. There's a severe abnormality incompatible with life, or the fetus is dying, or the woman's life or health is at risk. It doesn't matter if YOU have a "hard time accepting it," especially because you seem to have no idea about why women have abortions in the third trimester.

I firmly believed this for most of my life. I went to rallies and marches. Have you not seen churches with crosses on the lawn memorializing the number of babies aborted each day in America? This is exactly why a lot of people are so against it. Because they believe it is murder of innocents is why they bomb abortion clinics. (Which is, of course, a heinous crime and I feel it goes without saying I condemn that violence and most pro-life people I know do also, but anyway.) You don't have to understand or agree, but you don't get to say what other people believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More of the conversations I've heard make it very much an either/or proposition, with neither side acknowledging the interests of the other. It always seems a very contentious issue with little room for nuance. People that I've heard discussing abortion aren't expressing care most of the time, they are expressing fear of how the other side is going to make evil prevail in the world.

And I understand, maybe agree with the idea that the woman matters more. And if we are looking at saving the life of a fetus or a woman I don't think it would be hard to choose to save the woman. But most of the time we aren't talking about saving the life of the woman. In that circumstance it isn't even objected to by the vast majority of pro-lifers. Most of the time in an abortion the stakes are very different for the fetus and woman. When the interests of the woman prevail the fetus fails to exist. When the interests of the fetus prevail the woman does not die. The consequences may be extremely difficult, but most of the time it's not actually failing to exist. So it's not so much that they have equal interests, it's that it's only a life or death situation for one of them. I don't think that it's the same thing as saying the fetus matters more to say that the stakes are higher for the fetus. But it really does come back to whether it is life or not. If it's just a "clump of tissue" or part of the woman's body then of course its interests are not strong at all, maybe non-existent. If it's human life then the interests are a lot stronger. And I think both sides have really dug into their position on this. Who gets to decide when life begins? Is that a personal decision? It does seem like a religious question at its core. Just not one with clear answers in every faith tradition.

I think that's in a way, true, which is why the government--judges and politicians who just happened to be able to climb the ladder to positions of authority--shouldn't have the final say. They are just random people and cannot have the answers to these questions people have struggled with for millennia.

But I don't actually think it comes down to when life begins, I think it comes down to the liberty of a human being. Even if the thing in me that, if allowed to remain, were to be a human being, there is a thing inside of me that I don't want to be there. The government doesn't get to tell me I have to let it use my body to live. So for a lot of us, no, when life begins isn't the question.

Exactly. No individual is allowed to use another individual’s body for survival against the will of the person being used. It doesn’t matter when life, sentience, pain, etc begins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No one really believes that aborting a fetus is the same as murdering a child. Look at how people reacted to the little kids being shot in Uvalde. Does anyone really think that was the same as abortion? 4,000 embryos were lost due to a power outage at a fertility clinic in Cleveland in 2018, a loss greater than 9/11, but while it made the news, if anyone REALLY thought that embryos were the same as children, we would have a national day of mourning and remembrance every year. We don't, because we don't. If you were in a fertility clinic and there was a fire, would you save 100 embryos out of the freezer or a baby in the waiting room? The fetus matters, but the actual person who is actually alive matters more. The existing framework under Roe and Casey recognized that, and accorded with the moral intuitions of most people -- early on, abortion should be available with minimal restrictions. Later on, states could restrict it more. And frankly, NO ONE is having abortions for funsies in the third trimester. Those are wanted pregnancies where something went wrong. There's a severe abnormality incompatible with life, or the fetus is dying, or the woman's life or health is at risk. It doesn't matter if YOU have a "hard time accepting it," especially because you seem to have no idea about why women have abortions in the third trimester.

I firmly believed this for most of my life. I went to rallies and marches. Have you not seen churches with crosses on the lawn memorializing the number of babies aborted each day in America? This is exactly why a lot of people are so against it. Because they believe it is murder of innocents is why they bomb abortion clinics. (Which is, of course, a heinous crime and I feel it goes without saying I condemn that violence and most pro-life people I know do also, but anyway.) You don't have to understand or agree, but you don't get to say what other people believe.

DP.

But unless you would save a bunch of embryos and let a child die, you don't actually and truly believe that embryos are as much "life" as a child. They think believe that life starts at conception but they don't.

I guess that's not totally true though, some really might save the embryos.

[Anonymous]

I think that's in a way, true, which is why the government--judges and politicians who just happened to be able to climb the ladder to positions of authority--shouldn't have the final say. They are just random people and cannot have the answers to these questions people have struggled with for millennia.

But I don't actually think it comes down to when life begins, I think it comes down to the liberty of a human being. Even if the thing in me that, if allowed to remain, were to be a human being, there is a thing inside of me that I don't want to be there. The government doesn't get to tell me I have to let it use my body to live. So for a lot of us, no, when life begins isn't the question.

Exactly. No individual is allowed to use another individual’s body for survival against the will of the person being used. It doesn’t matter when life, sentience, pain, etc begins.

Just want to say I think this conversation is fascinating. Pregnancy is so unique and interesting. It makes me have such an appreciation for our biology AND our philosophical understanding of it. I'm trying to think of any other circumstance where an individual is using another's body for survival in any kind of similar fashion and it just doesn't seem like it exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one really believes that aborting a fetus is the same as murdering a child. Look at how people reacted to the little kids being shot in Uvalde. Does anyone really think that was the same as abortion? 4,000 embryos were lost due to a power outage at a fertility clinic in Cleveland in 2018, a loss greater than 9/11, but while it made the news, if anyone REALLY thought that embryos were the same as children, we would have a national day of mourning and remembrance every year. We don't, because we don't. If you were in a fertility clinic and there was a fire, would you save 100 embryos out of the freezer or a baby in the waiting room? The fetus matters, but the actual person who is actually alive matters more. The existing framework under Roe and Casey recognized that, and accorded with the moral intuitions of most people -- early on, abortion should be available with minimal restrictions. Later on, states could restrict it more. And frankly, NO ONE is having abortions for funsies in the third trimester. Those are wanted pregnancies where something went wrong. There's a severe abnormality incompatible with life, or the fetus is dying, or the woman's life or health is at risk. It doesn't matter if YOU have a "hard time accepting it," especially because you seem to have no idea about why women have abortions in the third trimester.

I firmly believed this for most of my life. I went to rallies and marches. Have you not seen churches with crosses on the lawn memorializing the number of babies aborted each day in America? This is exactly why a lot of people are so against it. Because they believe it is murder of innocents is why they bomb abortion clinics. (Which is, of course, a heinous crime and I feel it goes without saying I condemn that violence and most pro-life people I know do also, but anyway.) You don't have to understand or agree, but you don't get to say what other people believe.

DP.

But unless you would save a bunch of embryos and let a child die, you don't actually and truly believe that embryos are as much "life" as a child. They think believe that life starts at conception but they don't.

I guess that's not totally true though, some really might save the embryos.

Fair enough. But saying life begins at conception (and ending it is murder) and all lives have equal value are not the same thing. A child and an elderly person are "equally" human in my eyes but I still might prioritize saving the child...like programming a self-driving car to avoid some people over others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More of the conversations I've heard make it very much an either/or proposition, with neither side acknowledging the interests of the other. It always seems a very contentious issue with little room for nuance. People that I've heard discussing abortion aren't expressing care most of the time, they are expressing fear of how the other side is going to make evil prevail in the world.

And I understand, maybe agree with the idea that the woman matters more. And if we are looking at saving the life of a fetus or a woman I don't think it would be hard to choose to save the woman. But most of the time we aren't talking about saving the life of the woman. In that circumstance it isn't even objected to by the vast majority of pro-lifers. Most of the time in an abortion the stakes are very different for the fetus and woman. When the interests of the woman prevail the fetus fails to exist. When the interests of the fetus prevail the woman does not die. The consequences may be extremely difficult, but most of the time it's not actually failing to exist. So it's not so much that they have equal interests, it's that it's only a life or death situation for one of them. I don't think that it's the same thing as saying the fetus matters more to say that the stakes are higher for the fetus. But it really does come back to whether it is life or not. If it's just a "clump of tissue" or part of the woman's body then of course its interests are not strong at all, maybe non-existent. If it's human life then the interests are a lot stronger. And I think both sides have really dug into their position on this. Who gets to decide when life begins? Is that a personal decision? It does seem like a religious question at its core. Just not one with clear answers in every faith tradition.

I think that's in a way, true, which is why the government--judges and politicians who just happened to be able to climb the ladder to positions of authority--shouldn't have the final say. They are just random people and cannot have the answers to these questions people have struggled with for millennia.

But I don't actually think it comes down to when life begins, I think it comes down to the liberty of a human being. Even if the thing in me that, if allowed to remain, were to be a human being, there is a thing inside of me that I don't want to be there. The government doesn't get to tell me I have to let it use my body to live. So for a lot of us, no, when life begins isn't the question.

Exactly. No individual is allowed to use another individual’s body for survival against the will of the person being used. It doesn’t matter when life, sentience, pain, etc begins.

True. A man wouldn't be able to force a lactating stranger to breastfeed him or his baby at gunpoint. He doesn't have the right to use her body to save himself or the child from starving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

What sura/verse is this??

It appears twice actually.

6:151 and 17:31. You can make the argument it’s about infanticide. Either way it’s interesting poverty is given as a reason. It doesn’t say don’t ever terminate a pregnancy. It just says do not do it for fear of poverty implying for
Other reasons it might be okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that's in a way, true, which is why the government--judges and politicians who just happened to be able to climb the ladder to positions of authority--shouldn't have the final say. They are just random people and cannot have the answers to these questions people have struggled with for millennia.

But I don't actually think it comes down to when life begins, I think it comes down to the liberty of a human being. Even if the thing in me that, if allowed to remain, were to be a human being, there is a thing inside of me that I don't want to be there. The government doesn't get to tell me I have to let it use my body to live. So for a lot of us, no, when life begins isn't the question.

Exactly. No individual is allowed to use another individual’s body for survival against the will of the person being used. It doesn’t matter when life, sentience, pain, etc begins.

Just want to say I think this conversation is fascinating. Pregnancy is so unique and interesting. It makes me have such an appreciation for our biology AND our philosophical understanding of it. I'm trying to think of any other circumstance where an individual is using another's body for survival in any kind of similar fashion and it just doesn't seem like it exists.

True but I think organ donation and bone marrow transplants are analogous enough.

Which does make me wonder why religions don't insist everybody get on lists to donate kidneys and their bone marrow? All the life-saving body parts are right there.