Talk:Religion and abortion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

I agree with the below statement. I read in the article that "Buddhists generally consider life to begin before conception..." As a Buddhist, I can't think of any specific text that says this, it would be nice to have a source here. Furthermore, to answer the questions posed below, the restriction of taking life in Buddhism is a "precept", one adhered to by monks and laypeople alike, of all sects. But personal choice and critical thinking are also important to Buddhism, so i think the abortion argument would lie within the individual, not in the Buddhadharma, specifically because one could make a strong argument based on dogma either way. Iluvchineselit 23:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


It would be good to expand the sections under Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. For instance, do all Buddhists object to any taking of a life, or only some sects, or only monks? Under Islam, what are the special circumstances under which abortion is permitted? Wesley 19:32 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Moved from main:

  • moved to yoism - expected to be deleted.

I mean, we have Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, with their millions of followers, and.... Yoism? Eh? Evercat 18:40 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I want to add a section on Jedi views of abortion :) Martin 18:06 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Numbers 5

I reverted the insertion of the Sotah procedure, which is a misrepresentation. The treatment of the suspected adulteress in the Book of Numbers makes absolutely no reference to the process as being abortive to a fetus. Please cite a source if you think this is an interpretation that should be mentioned here. The exact "reason" or "purpose" of the Sotah procedure is an enigma, but the Talmudic sources do not bring abortion as a reason. It was abandoned in the 1st century CE after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. JFW | T@lk 17:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The NRSV in text, and the notes to the NIV translations of the Bible both mention that one of the effects of the trial by ordeal in Numbers 5 would be to induce a miscarriage. So do the notes to the Ryrie Study Bible. The effect of the potion is to render a guilty adulteress barren; the text specifically mentions that she will be able to conceive children if she is not guilty. If she were pregnant at the time she takes the potion, it would cause her to miscarry. Smerdis of Tlön 16:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I put the text back in, along with the fact that the practice was discontinued. Incidentally, I think of heard of some early stories of Mary, the mother of Jesus being subjected to this procedure and vindicated by it; probably in one of the non-canonical gospels. Wesley 15:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guys, you inserted this in the section on the Jewish view on abortion. All I read is Christian interpretations. As a matter of fact, the Talmud states that infertile women occasionally "used" the procedure, as the Torah promises that a vindicated woman will bear children, and that she will bear the other sex if until then she has only had children of one sex. There is categorically no mention in JEWISH sources on Sotah being an abortifacient. If you feel this very marginal information should be included, please do so at the end of the Judaism section, and with reference to the commentaries you have quoted. Again, this is really not worth the bytes we're wasting on it. JFW | T@lk 16:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have moved it into its own section on "Other Biblical texts. . ." I added the information about the Talmud to the section, and added also a reference to Leah and the mandrakes. Ihcoyc.

Leah and the mandrakes (duda'im) was probably a fertility issue (not all - Jewish - commentators agree) and had nothing to do with abortion. It might be somewhat outside the scope of this article. Otherwise I very much appreciate your input. JFW | T@lk 19:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More as an aside, for completeness' sake; it may not relate specifically to "religion and abortion," but it does relate at least obliquely to religion and birth control generally; and it seems we don't have that particular article. Smerdis of Tlön 20:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] But Why?

Before I remove the Sotah section, can anyone think of any reason to have it in this article at all? Frikle 14:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Church

Please note the removal of 'unforgivable' sin, at the end of the chapter on abortion under Catholic teaching... this is because under the sacrament of Confession the sin could be forgiven. (27 Apr 2005)

Also note that the sentence about the decision by the US Council of Bishops saying their view on the morality of the "Morning After Pill" for rape victims can provide some confusion and is a moot point because the US Council of Bishops, or any council of bishops for that matter, has no right to say what is right and wrong for that is right granted only to the Pope and the Pope has never said anything about allowing the "Morning After Pill" in certain situations, and thus should be removed. (Sept 9 06)

The Catholic Church considers situations in which one MUST have an abortion, such as in an ectopic pregnancy, acceptable, since it is considered a spontaneous abortion, just like miscarriage.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.115.205.53 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 November 2006.

[edit] Relevant here?

How are the following passages relevant to the "Christianity section"

"The view that life begins at conception is a controversial one, about which each of the major denominations of Christianity has much to say.
However, as noted on the abortion main page, about 10% of all pregnancies end by natural miscarriage. This may be a difficult problem for the relatively recent view that human life as a person begins at conception, versus the more traditional view that it begins at quickening, i.e., the time that fetal movements are first felt by the mother. At the same time, the response can be made that the fact that a significant percentage of fetuses die in utero no more contradicts their personhood than the fact that, absent modern medicine, a significant percentage of already born children die before reaching adulthood would contradict the personhood of these children. It is worth noting that those pre-20th century Christians who held the view that human life as a person began at quickening were nonetheless generally opposed to abortion."

Str1977 08:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

And how is the cynicism viewpoint relevent to Religion and Abortion? (XXX)

Don't ask me, I didn't put it there, I only shortened it. Str1977 23:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cynic section

What is the criteria for relevency? The Cynicism section indicated that the viewpoints of religions about abortion are mostly biased with conflict-of-interest. Remember who promotes and receives tithes, after all. So perhaps Religion itself should actually be considered disqualified/irrelevant to participate in the abortion discussion. Yet rather than offer counter-evidence or counter-logic to the Cynicism section, it was deleted (or censored). This could be expected of somebody who thinks Religion Cannot Be Wrong (and evidence of Wrongness must be suppressed), and yet If Religion was Right, why are there dozens of them competing with each other? The fact that they mostly agree about prohibiting abortion just underscores the fact that more births equals more potential tithes. The arguments so far presented don't even begin to tackle such questions as, "If a soul comes into existence by the purely physical process of sperm/egg fertilization, then on what grounds can the soul be called immortal?", or "On what basis is God required to create a soul just because fertilization happens, when a significant percentage of embryos have fatal genetic defects and get flushed out with the next menstrual cycle?", or "Does a truly Loving and Omniscient God create a soul for a destined-to-be-aborted fetus JUST so that somebody can be condemned of murder?", or "If reincarnation means that a soul is independent of a fetus, then why isn't it obvious that an immortal soul can afford to wait to be born into a family that wants it?" So, until Religion can provide Answers that are at least logically consistent with common sense, to say nothing of actually being Truth, that is why the arbitrary and often conflicting pronouncements of Religion should be taken with a large shaker of salt.--216.174.39.2

Wikipedia is not a soapbox in general, and nor is this the article to discuss secular humanism (which ignores the supernatural, not condemns) or the merits of religion. look at the title of the article--Tznkai 20:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not condemnation to label an arbitrary claim as being an arbitrary claim. Consider that some religions ban the eating of pork, and others don't care, or say it is OK. Obviously both views cannot be correct, and so at least one is making not just an arbitrary claim, but a FALSE arbitrary claim. Well, where is the evidence that denunciations of abortion are anything but arbitrary claims?--216.174.39.2
Wikipedia is still not a Soapbox. You can get onto usenet and invite someone to talk to you about comparitive theologies and the nature of truth if you want though--Tznkai 20:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Soapboxes are for opinions. The arbitrariness of something is inversely related to its factual basis. Therefore all claims are arbitrary until evidence is provided.--216.174.39.2
Relgion exists. They say this. They base their opinions on older opinions. This is all fact. Arbitrary or not, we say it. Wikipedia is not a scientific or logical review of everything.--Tznkai 21:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The fact that religions exist, and the fact that religions make statements X, Y, and Z --those facts have nothing to do with the degree of validity of statements X, Y, and Z. Wikipedia is a place where mostly factual statements are expected to be found; that IS the advertised nature of encyclopedias. Therefore it is entirely proper to be able to say, within the text of Wikipedia, BOTH that it is a fact that religions claim such-and-such AND that such-and-such has not been proved to be true. Anything less merely turns Wikipedia into a mouthpiece for all sorts of unproved statements -- and if any such are usually weeded out in non-religious areas of an encyclopedia, then it would be editorially hypocritical to allow religious claims to stand unqualified, AS IF they were factual. Remember that people make important decisions based on the data they have available. On what basis should any encyclopedia contain data which (A) is not proven to be be true, and (B) is not marked with a CAUTION because of possibly being untrue? Let me remind you of these Questions: "If a soul comes into existence by the purely physical process of sperm/egg fertilization, then on what grounds can the soul be called immortal?" "On what basis is God required to create a soul just because fertilization happens, when a significant percentage of embryos have fatal genetic defects and get flushed out with the next menstrual cycle?" "Does a truly Loving and Omniscient God create a soul for a destined-to-be-aborted fetus JUST so that somebody can be condemned of murder?" "If reincarnation means that a soul is independent of a fetus, then why isn't it obvious that an immortal soul can afford to wait to be born into a family that wants it?" Religions have made enough different statements X, Y, and Z that some of these questions indicate -- even for one single religion -- that there are contradictions in some of those statements. The first question loosens the linking of conception with soul-formation; the second loosens it even more; the third compares fire-and-brimstone to compassion and intelligence; and the fourth is for those Eastern religions that don't focus on an all-powerful God (the karma of you-committing-abortion is, logically, that when you are a loose soul seeking to reincarnate, your chosen fetus might be abortad and so you will simply have to wait a little longer, for another fetus -- but since you're immortal...). Perhaps these Questions should be added to the overall Religion and Abortion discussion, just to point out the problems with arbitrary claims made by religions. Why not? The only reason I haven't done it already is because I don't know what Section Heading to give it--216.174.39.2
I agree with Tnzkai. Religions may be arbitrary in their pronouncements, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to question them, but to describe them. Whether or not a religion's pronouncements are true or not, the pronouncements themselves are facts that are to be reported. This article is obviously intended for an audience interested in the various positions held by each religion on the matter of abortion, not on their truth or falsity. Your judgments of the validity of individual pronouncements have no place here. Those who come to Wikipedia are intelligent beings with powers of agency and ratiocination and can make their own judgments absent your commentary, and if there is power in me to do so, they will. → (AllanBz ✎ ) 06:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who is to say that murder or rape is wrong, then by your logic? 75.3.28.188 05:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism section

Lack of belief in God does not imply having a particular view on abortion. In general, atheists tend to be more socially liberal than many non-atheists, and thus statistically more atheists are likely to be pro-choice than not. Even so, there are still pro-life atheists, and there is nothing in atheism incompatible with a pro-life stance. Although many religious pro-life positions are based on belief in a soul, you can reject the existence of the soul and still oppose abortion. There are logical arguments either way:

  • Disallowing abortion: The life of a human body is seen as the entirety of a human being's existence. What with DNA shuffling and random minor mutations, every single human body that ever lived is unique from all others. To lose any of them prematurely is to lose the full flavor of that uniqueness. The only individuals who might be terminated early are those who prove themselves to be detrimental to others, like serial killers. Certainly the unborn mostly prove no such thing (only a small percentage threaten the lives of their mothers).
  • Allowing abortion: While much of the preceding remains completely true, a human being is much more than just a body. The human mind is the single most important characteristic of the species (assuming souls don't exist, as noted previously). Well, there is plenty of evidence the human mind does not exist when the human brain is insufficiently developed, or, later on in life, after it happens to become sufficiently damaged by any of a number of possible causes (not excluding various diseases). When no mind is present a human body is in essence little different from any other animal on Earth. It has no ability to claim any of the rights that most human minds claim, including the "right to life". Yes, abortion usually terminates the potential for existence of a human mind -- but to insist that a potential must be fulfilled is to spout nonsense, simply because anyone doing any such insisting has the potential to drown in a bathtub...

Wrong article, IMO, but moved so someone can retool it if they wish. I think this is better served in morality and legaltiy of abortion --Tznkai 14:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but Atheism doesn't even belong here, by definition an Atheist is areligious, so adding Atheism to an article about "Religion and.." anything is nonsense. My $.02.
Can anyone here defend this being on this article?
KillerChihuahua 03:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Atheism is often, ironically, classed under a religon. It represents a total lack of religion, but can be said to be a religion due to it being a belief system. eg, there are no gods. A religion is more or less a system of belief, so we could keep it in here, unless we make a seperate article entitled "Abortion and Belief Systems" to make it more politically correct.

Probably easier to keep it this way.

Also, sorry about the anonymous IP, I'm tired and can't be bothered to log in.

124.189.20.203 13:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edits

I made many edits. The Catholic ones have important content. The other edits are stylistic, but also ensure that the MAIN view or MAIN tradition of each religion regarding ABORTION is higlighted first. For example:

Judaism condemns most abortions. In addition to that, the basis for this belief is that fetus is not fully human.

It should be presented in that order - main point (abortion on demand is not supported), followed by supporting info (fetus is not a person). That is what my edits have tried to accomplish. Same with the information about early Christian writings about abortion: the early texts that EXIST should be higighted first, and speculation by religious abortion rights advocates about whether there was some other undocumented Christian belief that would allow abortion is certainly secondary, and should not be as prominent. 214.13.4.151 17:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

214, please source this sentence, otherwise it'll have to be removed:
  • "Early Christian writers condemned abortion explicitly. There is no textual evidence that early Christians allowed for any exceptions under which abortion would be morally permissible."
Also, don't you think that this is a little redundant to the rest of the paragraph? why is this particular mention noteworthy:
  • "Such a Constitution is the most authoritative expression of the faith that exists, in that a concilliar Constitution is only issued with the universal affirmation of all the bishops in the world in union with the pope. Church leaders often explain that modern advancements in scientific and medical knowledge of DNA and pre-natal development have simply affirmed the Church's understanding of the beginning of human life."
  • You also changed "The "mainline" Protestant churches continue to be divided over the issue. While generally tending to be reluctantly supportive of the laws protecting a woman's right to choose abortion" to "While generally tending to be reluctantly supportive of the abortion laws" -- laws is ambiguous... what laws? It should be changed back or reworded.
Please note that I've reverted a lot of your changes simply because you rewrite entire articles without a single peep on the talk page. You need to discuss controversial topics (the only kind you seem to care about) on talk pages first. Also note that the 3RR generally only applies to three reverts in 24 hours -- so your complaints about reverts are unfounded as it currently stands. Also, note that I have never made any serious changes to these articles -- you are the one rewriting them, so you should be the one that needs to prove these assertions. I hope this clears things up.
Thanks --Quasipalm 18:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The Didache is an example of Early Christian writers explicitly condemning abortion. If you find textual evidence that early Christians allowed for any exceptions under which abortion would be morally permissible, please let me know. Its the facts that matter. Much research has been done on this by countless people, and I am well-read on all sides of the issue - and I have never come across any Early Christian textual references that discuss if or when abortions were considered permissible. The intro that was present offered modern speculation as if it were on par with actual documenation of anti-abortion teachings (Didache). That does not fly. Its not factual and its clearly POV. 214.13.4.151 06:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The weight of any particular teaching is extremely significant within Catholic theology and discipline. It is quite similar to the relative weight given to the conclusions contained in the US Constitution as compared to the weight given to conclusions contained within a Federal Statute. The fact that this particular statement about abortion was during the most recent Council and was contained within a Constitution makes the authority of the statement absolute - and that is why the Catholic Church's position is considered to be so absolutist - because there is no way the position could be any more firm or unequivocal. By comparison, the teaching that the death penalty is immoral has clearly limited authority - in fact it is not an absolutely settled matter, and the teaching (even if it were authoritative) allows for exceptions when the death penalty can be morally justified. Interested to read your response. 214.13.4.151 07:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree: "Abortion laws" should be changed to "legal abortion." 214.13.4.151 07:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Which I hope you find helpful -

Islam:

Buddhism:

Several:

  • Summary of Sacred Choices from The Religious Consultion. Covers Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Protestant Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American Religions, and and entry titled "The Chinese Religions, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism" all lumped together.
  • Religion and Abortion Has LOTS of urls for lots of info.

KillerChihuahua 03:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced links?

Um, in case no one else has noticed... all but one of the external links are pro-life sites. A few pro-choice religious sites would be good too, you know. misanthrope 19:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism

"Buddhism generally asserts that conscious life begins before birth" Reincarnation in Buddhism is not a simple matter of soul/spirit transfering to next being. Buddhism by definition does not believe in eternal soul. What is transfer into next being is congregation of karma roughly proximated with person's intention. Whether such conglegation of kama should be regarded as sentient or concious is matter of (endless) theological debate.Yoji Hajime

Could you comment on the ascertion that most buddists equate abortion with infanticide? Personally, I'm quite skeptical about this claim but what's your opinion? Nil Einne 17:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional Christian views

I recall reading before that Christian monks way back not sure when used to eat rabbit fetuses arguing that they were similar to eggs and weren't meat so couldn't be considered violating their vows not to eat meat. Unfortunetely, a quick google doesn't find a reference but if this is true, it would seem to be it would have some effect on the Christian view of abortion back then Nil Einne 17:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Christianity" Section Slanted by Default

The introduction to "Christian" views on abortion, while fairly even handed, is clearly written from a Roman Catholic point of view and makes little or no mention of official statements of European or American Protestant bodies on the issue, some of which divide the ethical/moral question from the legal, that is, whether abortion is something properly regulated by the state. All we hear is that there are pro-life and pro-choice factions within these bodies and that Anglicans and Lutherans consider abortion "a grave sin".This is an inaccurate summary of the teachings of these churches, except, perhaps for the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod.If an abortion is undertaken to save a woman's life, then I do not think that most Anglicans or Lutherans would even raise the sin issue.I can only assume that the person who wrote this section was unfamiliar with a great deal of Protestant discussion of the matter and didn't care to investigate further.

"Mainline" is also a rather loaded term and should not be used. Traditionally, it refers to English speaking, primarily Calvinist/Anglican church bodies (Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists) in the United States. It never included churches that grew out of the Radical Reformation (such as Baptists, Moravians, etc.) or churches who still held services in other languages, such as Lutherans or Dutch Reformed. As these churches lost their "foreignness", they were also considered "mainline".

[edit] 132.241.246.111's bible verses

My first complaint about anon's edits was that it simply inserted bible verses into the article without explaining why or making it fit the existing context. Things have changed a little, but I still feel these edits are problematic. First of all, the first sentence says "The Jewish Bible contains..." under the heading "Christianity". I still do not see what the quotes have to do with abortion or Christianity's view on abortion. They mention "fruit of the womb" and killing. Additionally, there is unencyclopedic commentary and possible OR. For example "in other words: women that might be pregnant" and "SHE ABORTS" and "The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. Considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man's child." That last bit sounds very POV as well. I think anon's intention is to say that the old testement clearly finds nothing wrong with killing pregnant women/fetuses. However, the presentation of this POV is not neutral or even explained clearly. If the bible verses aren't quoted that support an anti-abortion view, then why should alleged pro-abortion verses be quoted?--Andrew c 04:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. I could add to your list of complaints, but I think there's already enough here to confirm the decision. Alienus 08:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity and "when human life begins"

(I posted this to "Mkmcconn"'s talk page - it may be of more general interest since it presents a perspective not otherwise reflected in the article in question.)

Hello Mark,

Forgive me for the length of this (I'm just starting, but I don't want to short-change the subject).

You are apparently an "Orthodox Presbyterian" who is also an IT manager for an "imaging service bureau." Yes, you know that, but I want to comment that we have some things in common; we are not all that different. I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science, and have done work in imaging (though not recently). And I am, self-described, a fundamentalist charismatic evangelical Christian who was, long ago, an atheist.

Since you've recently contributed significantly to the Abortion and Religion article (I've looked at the edit history for the past two years), I thought you might be a good person at which to direct some comments. The trouble is where to start, frankly.

Let me start with this. Do you believe that Jesus believed what he said in John 6:63?: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you, they are Spirit and they are life." Note that I didn't ask if you believe what he said, I asked if you think Jesus himself believed it. Or, for instance, do you think he was being "symbolic," as if in a parable? Clearly, he said things in parables that may be difficult to interpret (at least for sake of a consensus), and intentionally so. Is this a similar case, or did he really, literally mean this?

I both believe he literally meant it, and I agree with it as well. I dare suggest that a lot of people who consider themselves fundamentalist Christians, though, would have trouble squaring a literal believe in John 6:63 with their opinions otherwise, particularly if they believe that "human life begins at conception."

Someone had posted a link in this article to a blog which purported to give a background on where the notion comes from that Christians can believe that human life begins at conception. It said one very important thing, that when a Christian says "life begins at conception," their implicit point is not only that human life begins at conception, but that the human soul begins at conception. I agree, that must be what they mean.

The problem is that there is a clear Scriptural case that disagrees with this opinion. Let's start with Jeremiah 1:5, which says clearly that God knew the prophet not just at conception, but even before, before the prophet had any "flesh". So what of the prophet could have been known before? Not any aspect of the flesh, but likely the prophet's spirit, or soul.

The issue, if Jesus is to be believed, is not when either the flesh or the Spirit is formed, but when the two come together, and how. And this question has a clear Scriptural anwer that even Jesus spoke to: human life begins at first breath, as this is when spirit enters the body.

Genesis 2:7 all but defines life in this way: "the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Ezekial 37 says something similar, at greater length, so I won't quote any of it but I note it for reference.

You're a technically educated person, Mark, so let me ask you a basic question that gets to the issue. Can human flesh exist without being alive? Simple question, right? Of course it can. Human flesh can be as lifeless as any rock. Ask, then, another way: is there something inherent in the physical nature of human flesh that represents the presence or absence of life? The answer is "well, kinda." Nothing to do with the genetics or anything like that - the presence and use of oxygen is a good first-cut indicator. I.e., respiration, the ability and capacity to breathe. My pediatrician and ob/gyn friends tell me that the simplest indication of "viability" for a fetus or newborn is the extent to which their respiratory systems are fully formed and capable of independent function; not all such systems are fully formed at birth, notably the brain, which continues to form for years after birth. I.e., a child can be born even without a complete brain, but not without the ability to breath on its own.

Is human flesh "sacred" if it's not alive? Don't answer for yourself; answer as you honestly believe Jesus would, and that means keeping John 6:63 in mind (and other passages; surely you've read the New Testament and can think of a few good examples). I would suggest that Jesus might bellow in either laughter or anger, "Of course it's not sacred!!!" But you may have a different opinion, not of your own answer, but of Jesus' answer.

Is a fetus an independent human life from its mother? To the extent that this is not a spiritual question, the answer is that it could be either. But it's the spiritual question with which I'm concerned here, and again, I think the answer is clear: no, it's not independent, until it breathes on its own.

Jesus spoke directly to all of this, by the way, despite the impression conveyed by the current article. Not just John 6:63, but more directly, in John 3. He asserted to Nicodemus not only that there are two aspects to natural birth, but that there is evidence of both at time of birth, although the latter requires knowledge of the original Greek text, since it's not reflected, e.g., in English translations.

First, on the objection that Jesus was not talking about natural birth - consider verse 12 clarefully.

Second, let me give you an annotated transliteration of verse 8: "The Spirit (pneuma) breathes (pnei) where it desires, and you hear (acoueis) its voice (phonos), but you do not know from where it comes or to where it goes."

What's the point of this verse? OK, I'll tell you: the point is evidence. Jesus is talking about evidence. Evidence of what? That should be an easier question to answer: evidence of the Spirit, but not just evidence the Spirit in general, but evidence of the spirit in the process of birth. And to what question would such evidence speak? Simply, to the question of when human life begins.

I wondered for years what this verse had to do with anything, before I first discovered that in both Greek and Hebrew, the words for "wind" and "spirit" are the same (pneuma in Greek), and that they are based on the root word for breath (pneo in Greek). But even that doesn't get to the fullness of the point I'm making about this verse.

What evidence is there of the spirit, or anything in the spiritual realm? An atheist will tell you there's none. A Christian who believes life begins at conception would have to tell you pretty much the same (as did, for example, the James Dobson ministry, when I presented this perspective to them; they told me my interpretation was "tortured"). Jesus would point out that language exists, and is spiritual. That simple observation is what shook me out of my atheism - of course Jesus was right.

What evidence is there, then, not of the birth of the flesh - that's obvious, but of the birth of the spirit? You don't imagine that God would have designed us without providing such evidence, do you? Well, Jesus gave the evidence - the sound of a newborn crying is evidence that a spirit has entered the body, and that a new person's life is whole and independent as of that moment.

Human life begins at first breath. Jesus himself said as much, though you may have to understand how inseparable are the notions of life and breath in both Hebrew and Greek, not only to see that he did, but to see why it had him flustered by Nicodemus' lack of understanding of what Jesus thought was a simple point.

A quick-witted and moderately rational person might counter at this point that although certainly human life begins at least by first breath, that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't begin before then. Well and good. Paul suggests, however, in 1 Cor 15 that seeds must "die" before coming to life. I didn't quote the verse (I'm sure you can find it) because his method of reasoning in the chapter is even more important: it's important to be aware not just of individual details of belief, but of the broader implications of those details of belief.

In that regard, I must point out to you that a belief that human life begins at conception is something that would be far easier for an atheist to believe than for a Christian, since it all but excludes the role of the soul or spirit in favor of the flesh in the question of life, whereas Jesus did just the opposite in excluding the flesh (again, John 6:63). I in fact first heard of the notion from an atheist who presented it as a trap, to get me to conclude that there is no basis for "ensoulment" as an aspect of life at all. And that's why the question of evidence of ensoulment is so important. Christians who agree with atheists most of the way on this topic, should find themselves on deeply shaky theological grounds in Paul's 1 Cor 15 terms, if they're paying attention.

With all due respect, I don't think they are paying attention. I think they're in a race for the most zealous, self-righteous position imaginable. But since I don't share that opinion, that's not fair for me to say.

I must finally, however, note for you, Mark, that your "logic" in the article is deeply flawed. I don't even know where to begin to edit it. And if I did edit it, I suspect you'd change or delete what I write. There's no need for that. What I would like instead is for you to consider what I've just written to you, and if you find it worth consideration (I believe it was given by the Holy Spirit ; you don't have to believe the same), that you will yourself change the article to reflect it. If you don't, you and I both know that it is neither of us who judges, but only God himself, at the appointed time. "Let God be true, though every man a liar."

The physical material that makes up any particular human body at any particular point in time, does not stay fixed; it isn't sacred. I was once taught that a human body "recycles" every 7 years or so; i.e., the material that makes up the same person's body, 7 or more years apart, likely does not share a single molecule in common. This really should be obvious. If I, then, attributed my life to my flesh, I've been more than 7 entirely different people by now, not a single life at all. What foolishness it would be to think such. I have to agree with Jesus: the spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing... Or, I've been 7 different people.

By the way, Mark, this is all off topic. I haven't written here about abortion at all; I've written about when and how human life begins from a Christian Scriptural perspective, which only has implications for the topic of abortion. I am certainly not in favor of abortion. But regarding this difference in focus, please note Romans 8:6, and ask yourself, is your mind focused on death, or on life? And if it's on death instead of life, might you have been (self-)deceived?

Peace and love... 8^)

Hi anon -- I see you reverted my edit. It wasn't personal, but I don't believe this long post falls under the acceptable use of a talk page. Could you please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#What talk pages may be used for (section copied below). Also please read Wikipedia:No original research.
What talk pages may be used for
Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia. (For an alternative forum, see the m:Wikibate proposal.) Arguing as a means of improving an article is considerably less effective than an equal amount of time engaged in research.
Perhaps you could edit the above post and actually tie it back to this article and how it can be imporved? Thanks. -Quasipalm 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV nomination

This article has a pro-life tilt that is greater than can be explained by the fact that many religions do in fact condemn abortion.

Here are a few examples:

  • when discussing atheism, it says only that "some atheists are also opposed to abortion." That's hardly a balanced discussion of the views of atheists on abortion.
  • It doesn't mention St Antoninus (the first Catholic to write extensively on abortion, who approved of early abortion) or the most famous medieval Christian theorists, St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinus (who both held that the early embryo fetus had the moral status of a plant and that abortion was acceptable before "quickening").
  • It has sections for orthodox judaism and conservative judaism (which are stricter about abortion), but not reform judaism (which is more accepting of abortion)
  • the external links are almost entirely to pro-life activist sites (rather than to, say, neutral sites discussing the views of different religions)

It's also problematic that the long "Christianity" section has no sources or citations, making it difficult to tell whether it accurately reflects the scholarly consensus.--Fagles 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems you mis-spoke. You say that "This article has a pro-choice tilt" but it seems you mean that this article has a pro-life bias. Is that correct? I do agree with you if that's what you're saying. -Quasipalm 16:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I mis-spoke. I've changed it above.
  • I do not think this NPOV nomination is fair. Most (almost all) religions and religious sects really oppose abortion. It is not due to someone's POV that a lot of pro-life beliefs are brought up in the article. The article has actually made a real good effort to bring in pro-abortion views (to be honest, I never knew about the quickening issue until I saw it in the article). The facts listed in this article are not out of context and are quite verifiable. NPOV should really be brought up when sources are unreliable or both sides are clearly not being presented fairly. Nlsanand 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious groups section first line

There have been several edits and reverts of the first line of the religious groups section, so I thought we should discuss it here:

"Many religious organizations support a woman's right to choose a legal, safe, medically supervised abortion."

I contend that the use of the word "choose" is NPOV, since that is the wording that "pro-choice" advocates use to emphasize the word "choice." There is no need for that word. It would be sufficient to say,

"Many religious organizations support a woman's right to legal, safe, medically supervised abortion."

I also don't like the word "safe," because there is a whole range of safety levels depending on the procedure used, the gestational age of the fetus, and the strictness of medical regulations in the country in question. I think "medically supervised" is sufficient, thus

"Many religious organizations support a woman's right to a legal, medically supervised abortion."MamaGeek Joy 13:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with the reasoning behind the first part. "Choose" is a POV word in this instance, and it sounds awkward. Here is a comparable example. Do we (in the US) have a right to bear arms, or a right to choose to bear arms? "Choose" is redundent in these instances. However, do "religious organizations support" unsafe abortions? The question is, does "medically supervised" cover "safe"? Are there "medically supervised" abortions that are unsafe? Safe may also need to go, but not because some abortions precedures that "religious organizations support" are probably unsafe. So in summary, I'd support a version with these two words removed, unless someone can make a compelling case why "safe" isn't covered by "medically supervised".--Andrew c 15:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree -- the sentence without "choose" and "safe" reads better and is NPOV statement of fact. LotR 16:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a bit tricky. For example, it would be simply mistaken to say that these organizations support abortion, because they don't. Typically, all the support is the right to have one if that's what you want. Likewise, safety is an issue, because history has shown that women will get abortions even when they're illegal, even from those who do not follow medical standards for safety. Al 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The proposed sentence does not say that any religous groups support abortion. It says they support the "right to" abortion. Your comments do not really address the removal of the word "choice." As for your second objection, doesn't "medically supervised" cover that? MamaGeek Joy 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Women in China have the right to an abortion. In fact, this right is so strong that they often cannot refuse it. In contrast, these groups want women to have the right to choose or refuse an abortion, which is something a little different. As for medical supervision and safety, the two are related but the former does not necessitate the latter. Consider cases where laws allow abortion but make it more dangerous, as by forbidding some methods or forcing delays. Even though a doctor does get to supervise, their ability to make the process safe has been impeded by the law. Al 18:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting point. Maybe "choose or refuse?" I'm concerned that "choose" alone has too much political connotation in the U.S. in its association with the "pro-choice" movement. As for "safe," I think Andrew's comments were interesting regarding whether any "religious organisations support" unsafe abortions. Does anyone support "unsafe" abortions? Even if someone supports a law that might theoretically make abortion less safe, that is never the intent. In fact, laws that require delays (waiting periods after reviewing information on abortion) are intended to help the woman make an informed decision, so that she decides for or against the procedure after weighing its safety against her reasons for wanting it. Even if the delay itself introduces an inherent risk, the drafters of the law were not supporting "unsafe" abortion. MamaGeek Joy 19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hate to be difficult but isn't "right" also POV? It presumes that there is a natural right to abortion, whether any specific group supports it or not. Frikle 05:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the term "right" is used in other instances that may not refer to "natural rights" such as the "right to bear arms".--Andrew c 12:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Andrew's correct. The fact that some people want the right to do something doesn't mean it is something they ought to be doing. Consider that NAMBLA wants the right to have "consensual" sex with little boys. A legal right is not a moral right, clearly.

It might be interesting to speculate on the goals behind special consent laws, as well as laws forbidding chemical abortion or D&X. For example, the most obvious inference we can draw is that they are intended to discourage abortion. However, that's not really what's important here. Whatever the goal, the net effect is to make abortion less safe, even if that was not the intention.

In the end, I believe that "safe" and "right" are two words we cannot remove without making the article simply inaccurate, not to mention biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alienus (talk • contribs) .

I don't think we've yet reached a consensus on this, Alienus. What do you think about Andrew's point that no religious group would support "unsafe" abortion. (see comments above). MamaGeek Joy 13:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If "medically supervised" does in imply "safe," then what about, "modern, medically supervised?" I have no problem with the word "right." I think "right," in this sense, means "legal license." However, in the interest of reaching a consensus, how about using "legalisation" in place of "a woman's right to legal?" Here are some possible wordings:

"Many religious organisations support the legalisation of modern, medically supervised abortion."
"Many religious organisations support a woman's right to legal, medically supervised abortion."
"Many religious organisations support a woman's right to modern, medically supervised abortion."

MamaGeek Joy 13:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand Andrew's point about pro-life groups not necessarily desiring that abortions be unsafe, but I can't overlook the fact that laws intended to discourage abortion also tend to make those abortions that do occur significantly less safe. Also note that early-term abortions are substantially safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. Therefore, how about:
"Many religious organisations support a woman's legal right to choose a safe, medically-supervised abortion."

Al 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No good. Your wording does not address any of the concerns we've raised here. In fact, it is barely any different from the original disputed sentence. There have been suggested several compromise sentences with careful reasoning behind the wording. We need something other than "choose." That word has a very specific connotation in the U.S. when used in the abortion context. What's wrong with "legalisation?" How does "modern, medically supervised" exclude "safe?" As for laws making abortions less safe, where is your proof? I was willing to grant that there may be an effect of that nature in discussing the use of "safe," but you seem to take it as an undisputed fact. Besides, this sentence isn't dealing with laws of that nature. It's dealing with a generalization about some religious organisations. You can get into more details about individual laws in the specifics of the section. MamaGeek Joy 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any comments about the three sentences I proposed? Any specific objections, or other alternatives which address the concerns raised here? MamaGeek Joy 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, and most here seem to agree that "choice" is NPOV, and "safe" is unnecessary, I am going to change the line to the following: "Many religious organisations support the legalisation of modern, medically supervised abortion." At the least, it will show up on the watchlists of anyone interested, and they will get reinvolved in this discussion. MamaGeek Joy 12:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening section

Does anyone else have problems with the opening sentence of this article?

Religion and abortion are issues that are closely linked. Most world religions condemn abortion, though most do consider abortion acceptable under very limited circumstances

I find it a bit unclear, especially with "most" being used twice. It seems to be saying that although most religions condemn abortion, they also consider it acceptable. There are better ways to word this, I'm sure, that would be more explanitory, sound less contradictory, and more encyclopedic.

Also, the next part, which lists some religions, seems out of place. Do we even need this list? The article goes on to discuss abortion issues relating to each religion. Why not just provide links to these religion articles in the sections pertaining to them in article? Besides, why does Catholicism get a little line of explanation and the rest don't?

There seems to be a minor edit war going on with regard to a different section of this article, so I wanted to see how others feel before going in a making changes... Thanks in advance for the input. romarin[talk to her ] 19:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the changes you have suggested. The opening section is a mess. --Fagles 20:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew's citation tag

Andrew, do you propose adding a ref to every single early Christian document? That would be the only way to prove such a claim. I suppose you could cite an historian who said this, but would that be sufficient? Do you know where this line came from? Perhaps the writer could say where they got the info? MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  14:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

do you propose adding a ref to every single early Christian document? A ha! You have found the problem with including uncited blanket statements in an encyclopedia. I suppose you could cite an historian who said this, but would that be sufficient? If we have a source that makes this claim, then it is more than adequate to simply cite our sources. Do you know where this line came from? I wish I did, because it would help in tracking down a citation. We have to keep in mind WP:V. How can we verify this claim if it isn't cited? I'm not saying its wrong, because I can't think of any church fathers that support abortion. Hopefully someone can find a cite, but I'll dig through the page history and try to find who added that information.--Andrew c 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
A google search turned up this quote: "The early church fathers whose statements on the subject have survived are unanimous in their condemnation of abortion and infanticide. And even though the pagan world of the time readily embraced these practices, the fathers neither minced words nor displayed timidity in attacking them at every turn. There is an abundance of patristic references to abortion as child-killing and murder." It's from an essay entitled "The early church fathers and abortion" by Larry V. Crutchfield, Ph.D., and appears to be well referenced. See [1]. Wesley 16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and murder

Why is there no article on Religion and murder and what all the religions believe about murder? 75.3.28.188 05:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/l/Talk%7EReligion_and_abortion_b29a.html"