Just Abortion theory

[Anonymous]

Frankly this is all so tedious. Abortion is medical care, and as such, religion should not play any part in it. My body is not a Christian body, so the rules of Christianity should in no way be applied to me. The vast majority of women abort because they do not have the financial or emotional bandwidth to care for a(nother) child. Nothing that religion says or does is going to change that, and we should not have to justify ourselves to any such entity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.

I think you are right - that there is a secular framework for just approaches to abortion - using criteria that clearly establish moral grounds for providing abortions.

However, I would like to see work done on a theological framework for Just Abortions to counter the extremism and ignorance of many contemporary evangelical anti abortion beliefs.

I am tired of right wing Christians claiming high moral ground by being vehemently anti abortion in simplistic and misinformed ways while showing contempt and callousness towards so much life, especially female life.

Sorry that OP again replying to thoughtful PP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frankly this is all so tedious. Abortion is medical care, and as such, religion should not play any part in it. My body is not a Christian body, so the rules of Christianity should in no way be applied to me. The vast majority of women abort because they do not have the financial or emotional bandwidth to care for a(nother) child. Nothing that religion says or does is going to change that, and we should not have to justify ourselves to any such entity.

OP again

I can’t say I disagree and am a big believer in separation of church and state.

However, in modern America Christian evangelicals and conservative Catholics play a major role in shaping not just GOP agendas but even many judicial decisions, including Supreme Court decisions.

I do believe the hat a moderating theological framework addressing the morality of abortion rights would be helpful - if done well.

[Anonymous]

To me, abortion is no different than an appendectomy, tonsil removal, root canal, amputation or masectomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would you hope to achieve through this?

Misuse of my religion to further harm women and girls in unjust ways.

That’s exactly what’s been done with not allowing birth control and abortions. It’s not based in any religious teachings. It’s only meant to hurt women and children.

Remember to address the emotional toll abortion takes on the woman and family as well. Abortions aren’t just a one and done type thing for the majority of people. They can result in serious trauma to the mother, father, and even other children in the household. These emotions are often overlooked in the name of abortion rights, but the after effects can last a lifetime. No matter the reason you are still choosing to kill your own child, that’s enough to create some emotions and PTSD in even the strongest of women and families. If you’re presenting the argument on the basis of helping women then this shouldn’t be overlooked.

Remember to address the emotional & physical toll giving birth takes on the woman and family as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would you hope to achieve through this?

Misuse of my religion to further harm women and girls in unjust ways.

That’s exactly what’s been done with not allowing birth control and abortions. It’s not based in any religious teachings. It’s only meant to hurt women and children.

Remember to address the emotional toll abortion takes on the woman and family as well. Abortions aren’t just a one and done type thing for the majority of people. They can result in serious trauma to the mother, father, and even other children in the household. These emotions are often overlooked in the name of abortion rights, but the after effects can last a lifetime. No matter the reason you are still choosing to kill your own child, that’s enough to create some emotions and PTSD in even the strongest of women and families. If you’re presenting the argument on the basis of helping women then this shouldn’t be overlooked.

Also, it’s not automatic that the father or other children would have any knowledge that an abortion has taken place. I don’t care how the father feels if he finds out; he’s not the one would have to give birth & do 85% of the parenting like mothers do. The avg child support payment is only $5k/year, before you bring up CS.

[Anonymous]

5 years after an abortion, nearly all women say it was the right decision, according to a 2020 UCSF study: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This absolutely exists in Judaism and Islam. I know there are Christian scholars who have looked into this kind of thing, but the extreme conservatism on abortion in Christianity seems to be mostly an evangelical and Catholic obsession.

I would argue that the reason most "pro-life" people have the attitude that they do, is because they simply don't trust women. A concern for "life" or "babies" is a facade, and so is using religion as a justification.

There's also an economical component to banning abortion, obviously.

The reason most Christians are “pro life“ is because there was a propaganda effort during the Reagan election to target, evangelicals and mis- interpret the Bible to include abortion under though shall not kill.

Everyone knows abortion = killing the life in utero. No?

No that’s your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me, abortion is no different than an appendectomy, tonsil removal, root canal, amputation or masectomy.

OP again - that is simplistic in the other direction. Unnecessary Body parts do not embody consciousness while at some point during the pregnancy, human consciousness/ soul emerges.

I don’t know any people of faith who regard abortion in such callous detached terms but as the lesser of likely harms.

While I agree that decisions to have abortions should be largely medically based, it is not always so. Some justified abortions involve viable fetuses born of rape or incest. Other viable fetuses may not endanger life of mother or child during birth but involve congenital abnormalities that are 90% likely to result in death of baby within hours of birth. There are other non medical factors at play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, abortion is no different than an appendectomy, tonsil removal, root canal, amputation or masectomy.

OP again - that is simplistic in the other direction. Unnecessary Body parts do not embody consciousness while at some point during the pregnancy, human consciousness/ soul emerges.

I don’t know any people of faith who regard abortion in such callous detached terms but as the lesser of likely harms.

While I agree that decisions to have abortions should be largely medically based, it is not always so. Some justified abortions involve viable fetuses born of rape or incest. Other viable fetuses may not endanger life of mother or child during birth but involve congenital abnormalities that are 90% likely to result in death of baby within hours of birth. There are other non medical factors at play.

Bolded is not scientific in any way.

[Anonymous]

Adoptees have 4x the suicide rates of the general population so forced birth isn’t the answer, either.

[Anonymous]

OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.

Those are your beliefs, not mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.

Those are your beliefs, not mine.

you are right. But OP asked for theological discussion and referenced Thomas Aquinas's just war theory and why it wouldn't apply for Christians, so I think my post is directly on point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

What are you basing your belief that an unborn baby doesn’t have a soul until the second trimester on?

Actually later: Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.”