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

[Anonymous]

6th Commandment - “Thou shall not kill” I believe sums it up. And don’t compare this to justified instances of self defense, etc. Seems these threads just turn into Catholic bashing. Pedophile priests and the bastards that enabled them have nothing to do with abortion and everyone knows that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:6th Commandment - “Thou shall not kill” I believe sums it up. And don’t compare this to justified instances of self defense, etc. Seems these threads just turn into Catholic bashing. Pedophile priests and the bastards that enabled them have nothing to do with abortion and everyone knows that.

But Judaism and Islam has that commandment too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6th Commandment - “Thou shall not kill” I believe sums it up. And don’t compare this to justified instances of self defense, etc. Seems these threads just turn into Catholic bashing. Pedophile priests and the bastards that enabled them have nothing to do with abortion and everyone knows that.

But Judaism and Islam has that commandment too.

Right - they do not all interpret it the same way. For many Christians, this Commandent is the basis on which they view abortion as a sin. If you believe life begins at conception, then the 6th Commandment would apply to abortion. This is simple, but that is the belief. That all life, from conception to natural death is sacred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6th Commandment - “Thou shall not kill” I believe sums it up. And don’t compare this to justified instances of self defense, etc. Seems these threads just turn into Catholic bashing. Pedophile priests and the bastards that enabled them have nothing to do with abortion and everyone knows that.

But Judaism and Islam has that commandment too.

Right - they do not all interpret it the same way. For many Christians, this Commandent is the basis on which they view abortion as a sin. If you believe life begins at conception, then the 6th Commandment would apply to abortion. This is simple, but that is the belief. That all life, from conception to natural death is sacred.

DP.

Right, so we're asking... what happened with Christian interpretation that it strayed so differently on this than it's older and younger sibling?

Why is the line drawn where it is? What is meant by "life" and "killing?" How was the line of delineation chosen, and why?

[Anonymous]

This is what I will never understand. There is so much nuance. So much unknown. So much "what if this?" "What would god say?" "Is this true?" "Where should the line be drawn?" We don't know, there's too many questions for us to sum it up in a neat bow and decide "this is morally good" or "this is morally bad." So the only thing we can do is say "let's ensure that this is an issue between each individual woman with her individual moral qualms (or not) and her individual story and her doctor." Isn't that the most humane, most reasonable answer to questions that are, essentially, unanswerable and certainly not universally agreeable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:6th Commandment - “Thou shall not kill” I believe sums it up. And don’t compare this to justified instances of self defense, etc. Seems these threads just turn into Catholic bashing. Pedophile priests and the bastards that enabled them have nothing to do with abortion and everyone knows that.

The point, of course, is who is being killed? The mother maybe; she should be saved (but many states are going to allow her to die). Is the live tissue being removed a soulless benign tumor at the point of removal? Is anything independently alive being killed? Some religious believe the "potential human" may have a soul, and therefore should be allowed to live off of the host female at any cost, even the cost of the hosts' life. Most people do not believe that, at all, and many don't even believe in souls, and find it theobabbling hooey. The early Catholic church did not believe it either. Many world religions do not believe this.

You have to accept that these are very strongly held differing theological points of view. Even Pope Pius said he didn't know and was erring on the side of a soul at conception -- no proof of a soul or of an independent life; just a strongly held religious belief. So the real question is, should the law of this country, where religious freedom reigns, adopt one religious point of view to the detriment of the majority whose religious point of view or atheist point of view vehemently disagrees with this notion of a soul at conception? Should one person's religious theory of life be allowed to interfere with the right to medical care of a person who does not share that religious belief and in fact vehemently disagrees with it? Even many Catholics (likely more than half) who would not get an abortion themselves understand and agree that the United States cannot adopt one religion's theology as national law or policy because our Constitution forbids it. The US Supreme Court does not get to decide the theology of this country.

[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.

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.

+1. That a fetus is the same as a born, breathing child is patently false, no one actually believes it; no one would prioritize an unborn fetus over a living child. It is only over a WOMAN that anyone wants to prioritize the fetus. Which just speaks volumes about where this is coming from.

Someone above said that no one believes the fetus doesn't matter at all. That might be true, but I can say honestly thata random embryo (<12 weeks) doesn't matter to me at all. I truly don't care about it any more than I care about the eggs women shed every month during menstruation. (Note that that doesn't mean I wouldn't care about my own embryo, something I hoped would become my living child. But it matters to me only in terms of what it can become, not in terms of what it is.)

[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.

A parasite? Cancer cells?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:6th Commandment - “Thou shall not kill” I believe sums it up. And don’t compare this to justified instances of self defense, etc. Seems these threads just turn into Catholic bashing. Pedophile priests and the bastards that enabled them have nothing to do with abortion and everyone knows that.

But it's not "thou shalt not kill any living thing." Killing animals is a-ok in the Bible. For that matter, killing one's enemies isn't always frowned on either. So this commandment really doesn't settle any score where an embryo is concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:6th Commandment - “Thou shall not kill” I believe sums it up. And don’t compare this to justified instances of self defense, etc. Seems these threads just turn into Catholic bashing. Pedophile priests and the bastards that enabled them have nothing to do with abortion and everyone knows that.

It's not Catholic bashing to ask for reason and explanation, because "thou shall not kill" is also a thing in Islam and Judaism. So how did the Catholic (and/or) Christian definition become so much more different? Why kill animals? Why kill in battle? Why kill cancers growing in you? Why some cells, and not others? Where did the Christian/Catholic definition become what it is, an so different from the other Abrahamic faiths?

If you can't come up with an explanation, it's not Catholic bashing to say that the reasoning is essentially rooted in bunk. The commandmant isn't clear or precise, and you have to be honest and admit that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6th Commandment - “Thou shall not kill” I believe sums it up. And don’t compare this to justified instances of self defense, etc. Seems these threads just turn into Catholic bashing. Pedophile priests and the bastards that enabled them have nothing to do with abortion and everyone knows that.

But Judaism and Islam has that commandment too.

Right - they do not all interpret it the same way. For many Christians, this Commandent is the basis on which they view abortion as a sin. If you believe life begins at conception, then the 6th Commandment would apply to abortion. This is simple, but that is the belief. That all life, from conception to natural death is sacred.

DP.

Right, so we're asking... what happened with Christian interpretation that it strayed so differently on this than it's older and younger sibling?

Why is the line drawn where it is? What is meant by "life" and "killing?" How was the line of delineation chosen, and why?

You can’t ask a Catholic they don’t know. You need to ask a historian.

Up until 1869 the Catholic Church allowed abortions up to 166 days or 24 weeks. Baptism and funeral rights were given to anybody who lost a fetus pistc24 weeks.

It wasn’t until crazy Pius IX came to power he changed a few rules. He was infallible (he really hated the Bishops telling him what he could do), Mary was a virgin, and all abortion was a sin.

So it really came down to crazy men not Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6th Commandment - “Thou shall not kill” I believe sums it up. And don’t compare this to justified instances of self defense, etc. Seems these threads just turn into Catholic bashing. Pedophile priests and the bastards that enabled them have nothing to do with abortion and everyone knows that.

But Judaism and Islam has that commandment too.

Right - they do not all interpret it the same way. For many Christians, this Commandent is the basis on which they view abortion as a sin. If you believe life begins at conception, then the 6th Commandment would apply to abortion. This is simple, but that is the belief. That all life, from conception to natural death is sacred.

DP.

Right, so we're asking... what happened with Christian interpretation that it strayed so differently on this than it's older and younger sibling?

Why is the line drawn where it is? What is meant by "life" and "killing?" How was the line of delineation chosen, and why?

You can’t ask a Catholic they don’t know. You need to ask a historian.

Up until 1869 the Catholic Church allowed abortions up to 166 days or 24 weeks. Baptism and funeral rights were given to anybody who lost a fetus pistc24 weeks.

It wasn’t until crazy Pius IX came to power he changed a few rules. He was infallible (he really hated the Bishops telling him what he could do), Mary was a virgin, and all abortion was a sin.

So it really came down to crazy men not Jesus.

True.

I think Islam and Judaism have much stronger traditions of deep analytical dives into their faiths. Yes, still heavily misogynistic and very male dominated, but members of those faiths have schools upon schools upon books upon books to break it all down.

There doesn't seem to be as big of an emphasis on that in Catholicism. There's a strict hierarchy, and access to analysis is much more restricted.

[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.

They wouldn't survive outside the lab. They can't. Kind of the whole point.

[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.

yup and sex outside of marriage is a private subject, as in you cannot talk abut someone having sex outside of marriage unless you have 3 witnesses to actual penetrative sex, if you don't have the witnesses you are guilty of defamation and public indecency, if you live in an islamic state that is. I grew up in a generally gossipy muslim community and I know that people must have extramarital sex but it is literally never mentioned b/c this belief is so strong, its very taboo to discuss anyone else's sex life. TBH, muslims who are really strict about abortion are those uneducated nut jobs who imitate the Christian Right, there has been a lot of religious innovation in Muslim fundamentalist circles and most of it is copying Christian evangelist movements since they are seen as powerful and successful. Or they are just cultist like the Taliban or Daesh or Jamaat e Islaami and they make up stuff according to their leaders' whims and have personality cults and totally out of mainstream orthodoxy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They wouldn't survive outside the lab. They can't. Kind of the whole point.

Also, if you truly, sincerely, really believed that millions of babies were being slaughtered each year, and your reaction was to go to rallies and marches, that would be an incredibly inadequate response. And the pro-life movement used to fall all over itself to disclaim violence, but, again, if you really thought MILLIONS of BABIES were being killed, why *wouldn't* violence be justified? Killing someone who was killing hundreds of babies a year would seem to be pretty morally justified. I can look at what people say they believe, and then look at what they do, and then draw conclusions about whether they really believe what they say they believe.

I should give some credit to Fred Clark, a blogger who was raised evangelical and is a practicing Christian, who has written numerous times about the recency of the protestant anti-abortion movement (younger than the Happy Meal) and the sincerity and function of anti-abortion beliefs on his blog Slacktivist, and I highly recommend it to anyone wrestling with these questions, because he wrestles with them, with love and compassion and genuine moral seeking.

Sample columns:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/03/11/this-is-what-abortion-politics-is-for/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2020/09/02/i-am-a-christian-here-is-what-i-believe-about-abortion/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2022/06/26/flashback-sandy-hook-uvalde-a-corrosive-toxic-lie/