Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have a really shallow understanding of Christianity. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Bonhoeffer, too many great theologians to list here.

Great! Lol.

They still are not following Jesus’s teaching. Aquila’s believed in indulgences. Augustine in filioque. Bonhoeffer said abortion murder but not by the women but by society, also he was cool with murdering somebody.. he tried, got caught and hanged. Luther … excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

Why not be direct --- Bonhoeffer was part of a failed plot to murder Hitler

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have a really shallow understanding of Christianity. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Bonhoeffer, too many great theologians to list here.

Great! Lol.

They still are not following Jesus’s teaching. Aquila’s believed in indulgences. Augustine in filioque. Bonhoeffer said abortion murder but not by the women but by society, also he was cool with murdering somebody.. he tried, got caught and hanged. Luther … excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus on Catholicism in this discussion frustrates me. Although Catholics make up half of the world's Christians, they are a minority of Christians in the U.S. Most U.S. Christians are Protestants, and beliefs vary widely. There are lots of liberal Christian denominations that do not want to ban abortion.

Also, in the early years of this country - the period SCOTUS is apparently nostalgic for - Americans were not only staunchly anti-Catholic, they were really into non-Christian deism. Some of the most famous Founders, like Jefferson and Adams, we're not Christians: they denied that Jesus was divine. So the idea that Christian or Catholic views are relevant to our political rights is really ahistoric and recent.

Because the Catholic Church (Bishops) have more money, influence, and effects on our rights.

Catholics also do not believe women are equal.

Could you point out where in the Torah it says abortion is OK? I mean, I’m pro-choice, but I’ve also read the Bible, and that one didn’t stand out.

Where I’m going with this is, how many scriptures (like the New Testament) are silent on the subject, and we all go along until somehow it gets politicized in a given faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus on Catholicism in this discussion frustrates me. Although Catholics make up half of the world's Christians, they are a minority of Christians in the U.S. Most U.S. Christians are Protestants, and beliefs vary widely. There are lots of liberal Christian denominations that do not want to ban abortion.

Also, in the early years of this country - the period SCOTUS is apparently nostalgic for - Americans were not only staunchly anti-Catholic, they were really into non-Christian deism. Some of the most famous Founders, like Jefferson and Adams, we're not Christians: they denied that Jesus was divine. So the idea that Christian or Catholic views are relevant to our political rights is really ahistoric and recent.

Because the Catholic Church (Bishops) have more money, influence, and effects on our rights.

Catholics also do not believe women are equal.

Could you point out where in the Torah it says abortion is OK? I mean, I’m pro-choice, but I’ve also read the Bible, and that one didn’t stand out.

Where I’m going with this is, how many scriptures (like the New Testament) are silent on the subject, and we all go along until somehow it gets politicized in a given faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus on Catholicism in this discussion frustrates me. Although Catholics make up half of the world's Christians, they are a minority of Christians in the U.S. Most U.S. Christians are Protestants, and beliefs vary widely. There are lots of liberal Christian denominations that do not want to ban abortion.

Also, in the early years of this country - the period SCOTUS is apparently nostalgic for - Americans were not only staunchly anti-Catholic, they were really into non-Christian deism. Some of the most famous Founders, like Jefferson and Adams, we're not Christians: they denied that Jesus was divine. So the idea that Christian or Catholic views are relevant to our political rights is really ahistoric and recent.

Because the Catholic Church (Bishops) have more money, influence, and effects on our rights.

Catholics also do not believe women are equal.

Could you point out where in the Torah it says abortion is OK? I mean, I’m pro-choice, but I’ve also read the Bible, and that one didn’t stand out.

Where I’m going with this is, how many scriptures (like the New Testament) are silent on the subject, and we all go along until somehow it gets politicized in a given faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus on Catholicism in this discussion frustrates me. Although Catholics make up half of the world's Christians, they are a minority of Christians in the U.S. Most U.S. Christians are Protestants, and beliefs vary widely. There are lots of liberal Christian denominations that do not want to ban abortion.

Also, in the early years of this country - the period SCOTUS is apparently nostalgic for - Americans were not only staunchly anti-Catholic, they were really into non-Christian deism. Some of the most famous Founders, like Jefferson and Adams, we're not Christians: they denied that Jesus was divine. So the idea that Christian or Catholic views are relevant to our political rights is really ahistoric and recent.

Because the Catholic Church (Bishops) have more money, influence, and effects on our rights.

Catholics also do not believe women are equal.

You are overstating this; not all Catholics agree on these issues (as the Pew report above shows).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus on Catholicism in this discussion frustrates me. Although Catholics make up half of the world's Christians, they are a minority of Christians in the U.S. Most U.S. Christians are Protestants, and beliefs vary widely. There are lots of liberal Christian denominations that do not want to ban abortion.

Also, in the early years of this country - the period SCOTUS is apparently nostalgic for - Americans were not only staunchly anti-Catholic, they were really into non-Christian deism. Some of the most famous Founders, like Jefferson and Adams, we're not Christians: they denied that Jesus was divine. So the idea that Christian or Catholic views are relevant to our political rights is really ahistoric and recent.

Because the Catholic Church (Bishops) have more money, influence, and effects on our rights.

Catholics also do not believe women are equal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The focus on Catholicism in this discussion frustrates me. Although Catholics make up half of the world's Christians, they are a minority of Christians in the U.S. Most U.S. Christians are Protestants, and beliefs vary widely. There are lots of liberal Christian denominations that do not want to ban abortion.

Also, in the early years of this country - the period SCOTUS is apparently nostalgic for - Americans were not only staunchly anti-Catholic, they were really into non-Christian deism. Some of the most famous Founders, like Jefferson and Adams, we're not Christians: they denied that Jesus was divine. So the idea that Christian or Catholic views are relevant to our political rights is really ahistoric and recent.

Because the Catholic Church (Bishops) have more money, influence, and effects on our rights.

Catholics also do not believe women are equal.

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?

Fact: Because Nixon made it bad and made it a political thing. Prior to him riling up the Catholics on the issue, because he needed the votes, it wasn't a thing. Plenty of reading out there on this that backs it up. As well as podcasts.

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?

Anonymous wrote:The focus on Catholicism in this discussion frustrates me. Although Catholics make up half of the world's Christians, they are a minority of Christians in the U.S. Most U.S. Christians are Protestants, and beliefs vary widely. There are lots of liberal Christian denominations that do not want to ban abortion.

Also, in the early years of this country - the period SCOTUS is apparently nostalgic for - Americans were not only staunchly anti-Catholic, they were really into non-Christian deism. Some of the most famous Founders, like Jefferson and Adams, we're not Christians: they denied that Jesus was divine. So the idea that Christian or Catholic views are relevant to our political rights is really ahistoric and recent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Is this in the Hebrew Bible? Are there differences among Jews?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I am not religious. Do not believe in god. Still think abortion is wrong and should be limited. My kid was a preemie - very early 23 weeks and is doing well. It is a real person growing in there. Women need support during pregnancy and these babies deserve a right to live as well.

You aren't answering the question, though. Jews, for instance, believe abortion *should* happen if there is a thread to the health (not just the life) of the mother. But do you think that if there is a human in a woman's body, the government should be able to force her to let it stay there and grow regardless of what she wants? Just because you believe that she has to?

Or do you believe it's just morally wrong but the government doesn't have a right to mandate it? If you actually think that the government should enforce your beliefs that are just based on your personal experience, I think I might actually respect the religions point of view more.

Anonymous wrote:The focus on Catholicism in this discussion frustrates me. Although Catholics make up half of the world's Christians, they are a minority of Christians in the U.S. Most U.S. Christians are Protestants, and beliefs vary widely. There are lots of liberal Christian denominations that do not want to ban abortion.

Also, in the early years of this country - the period SCOTUS is apparently nostalgic for - Americans were not only staunchly anti-Catholic, they were really into non-Christian deism. Some of the most famous Founders, like Jefferson and Adams, we're not Christians: they denied that Jesus was divine. So the idea that Christian or Catholic views are relevant to our political rights is really ahistoric and recent.