Abortion and Christianity: Historical perspectives
Qingu
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
This thread is NOT intended as a debate on whether abortion is right or wrong.
I'm genuinely confused—and curious—as to how anti-abortionism has become synonymous with much of Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic. Many Christians cite the Bible for their beliefs against abortion. However, the Bible is silent on the issue. It tells us not to "murder" but it never elucidates whether killing a fetus is considered murder (and after all, there are plenty of permissable killings in the Bible). There is even a verse, Exodus 21:22, that seems to be pro-choice: the penalty for striking a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry is a fine, but if there is any further harm the penalty is eye-for-an-eye.
Jews and Muslims both allow abortions. Nothing in the Old or New Testament directly discusses abortions, and the passage above seems to say that killing a fetus is not equivalent at all to murder.
So where does Christianity's opposition to abortion come from? It isn't a recent idea; the earliest Christiand and church fathers were against it. And anti-abortionism predates Christianity. From the hippocratic oath:
Incidentally, Tertullian (an early church father) actually refers to Hippocrates in his indictment of abortion.
Discuss? Where does the idea that killing a fetus = murder come from, and how did it become absorbed by Christianity?
I'm genuinely confused—and curious—as to how anti-abortionism has become synonymous with much of Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic. Many Christians cite the Bible for their beliefs against abortion. However, the Bible is silent on the issue. It tells us not to "murder" but it never elucidates whether killing a fetus is considered murder (and after all, there are plenty of permissable killings in the Bible). There is even a verse, Exodus 21:22, that seems to be pro-choice: the penalty for striking a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry is a fine, but if there is any further harm the penalty is eye-for-an-eye.
Jews and Muslims both allow abortions. Nothing in the Old or New Testament directly discusses abortions, and the passage above seems to say that killing a fetus is not equivalent at all to murder.
So where does Christianity's opposition to abortion come from? It isn't a recent idea; the earliest Christiand and church fathers were against it. And anti-abortionism predates Christianity. From the hippocratic oath:
Hippocrates wrote:I swear by Apollo, Æsculapius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath....
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.
Incidentally, Tertullian (an early church father) actually refers to Hippocrates in his indictment of abortion.
Discuss? Where does the idea that killing a fetus = murder come from, and how did it become absorbed by Christianity?
Qingu on
0
Posts
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
That's the gist of the argument, at any rate.
He also goes on to argue that Jesus was alive in the womb because Elizabeth and Mary heard them kicking, and other such arguments. But it's interesting how steeped in Greek thought the early Christians' opposition to abortion was.
In other words, I don't think you can say the root of it is the Catholic Church.
I was referring more to the modern "equivalence" between Christian religion and an anti-abortion stance. I'm not nearly an expert on early religious history, but I'm pretty sure that until the time of the rise of the Catholic church and then it's later fracturing into independent sects, there was little uniformity in Christian beliefs so any argument about how Christians were against abortion, but not Jews or Muslims, predating that timeframe would be doomed to fail.
I'll edit this when I have more time to contribute.
Most things "christian" predate the catholic church.
Mithras. The symbolism of evergreens and eggs. Very little is original. It was simply easier to convert the heathen masses by adopting their customs.
You're not L33T enough for IDI/RN FTP!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
The Didache was an early Christian writing, apparently written very shortly after the life of Jesus, so it's not by any means the original statement on abortion. It is the oldest link between abortion and Christianity that I know of, though. You can read one translation here:
http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/didache.htm
From chapter two, verse two:
The wording varies by translation.
Christians and pro-life advocates seem to focus more on the (as they believe) immorality and unfairness of throwing away a life for a sort of convenience. I think the reason for this is because this type of argument will appeal to a lot of people who aren't particularly religious or conservative about sex. You're right; the Bible doesn't specifically say anything about abortion, but if you can convince people that a fetus is a human life, or at least cause uncertainty about it, then many people, religious or not are uncomfortable with the practice of abortion. It doesn't really have much to do with religious teaching honestly, other than being fair and selfless towards each other.
However, I think the reasons that the pro-life position is associated with Christians is because of what the Bible says about sexual morality. I believe that this is perhaps the "original" reason behind why Christians take up the cause against abortion.
In an indirect way, treating abortion as an acceptable practice is to further make acceptable and perhaps even idealize premarital sex, multiple partners, etc. This is the same reason you'll see Christians against proactive birth control and STD education campaigns in school. It's not because they want teens to have lot of babies or live with diseases. In fact, most American Christians are glad to have good sex ed courses. What they don't like are campaigns which will give the impression to kids that sexual immorality (as explained in the Bible) is perfectly acceptable and even expected in our society.
I believe that this is the real religious basis for the position against abortion. I'm not suggesting that religious pro-life advocates are being dubious. I think both reasons (right to life and sexual morality) are very important to them. It's just that the religious basis is more about sexual morality than the actual paractice of abortion.
In other words, abortion is something we have, or something that is being used more commonly because we aren't following the morals taught in the Bible. To make abortion more common and acceptable is to further idealize the kind of lifestyle that is not moral by Christian standards.
Veegeezee, that's an interesting quote, but it comes from a writing generally regarded as apocryphal to Christian canonical writing. Its also a fairly obvious ripoff of the ten commandments. I doubt many christians use it as a justification, or even know it exists.
From what I remember of my history, the religious connection to anti-abortion positions in its modern form arose fairly recently - Victorian-era, IIRC. Quite a bit of it actually stemmed from how dangerous the surgery used to be, particularly before we knew about germs and the need for sterile conditions (that's also why many early feminists were anti-abortion - because of the danger, and because women were often coerced into having them by partners or circumstance rather than being allowed an actual choice they way they are today). I'm way fuzzy on the details, though.
I think he was just stating what he thinks they believe, not necessarily what he believes. Sexual education doesn't necessarily cause an increase in abortions, but I don't doubt that some people believe that it does.
I think it's just being referenced as a window into the thoughts of the time, demonstrating that a connection between religion and anti-abortionist views existed at that point.
Cat, help me out. Recommend a couple good books on abortion to me.
I think one argument against it was the Jewish belief that the soul was in the blood (or something like that - it is related to the practice of draining blood from meat to make it Kosher, for example).
Keep in mind though, I'm relating something Gil Grissom said on CSI
Yes, it works well with our current popular theology.
I have a suspicion that the finer details of historic theology are actual somewhat more strange and complex than what now seems natural.
I wasn't implying justification - anyone with a need to justify their stance has plenty to work with in the canonical Christian stuff. Historically speaking, though, I don't know of a lot of documented links between Christianity and anti-abortionism at all.
Also, I'm not sure it's ripping off the ten commandments. I think it's actually referring to them. Now that I've said that, though, I'm not sure.
Plus life was cheap. (Of course with the Catholic Church's view on condoms and HIV you might consider whether that's actually changed at all.)
4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying,
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Psalm 139
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
Isaiah 49
5 And now the LORD says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD
and my God has been my strength-
There are many more, but these are just the first few I could find of God forming people in the womb, and knowing them before they are even born.
God created most of the universe in 5 days, then man on the sixth. Life was created specifically for man. The accounts of the first 5 days say, "And God saw that it was good"
On the sixth day, after creating man, it says "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
God has set man apart from all other creations, everything we have is because of Him, and He has a love for us not from birth, but from the womb where we are created.
Possibly. Then again, a lot of the tenets of a lot of religions are just based on common sense. I don't really see a strange and complex origin for things like, "Don't murder people," and it would surprise me if "don't murder unborn people, either" was much more complicated.
Not really.
It's just that the ones that defy common sense in a dramatic way don't survive because their followers are weakend by them and they are unappealling to potential converts.
Because abortion on a non-apocalyptic scale does less to sway the material survival of followers and groups of followers, the discipline of common sense isn't brought to bear on it too heavily, so the ideas around it remain in the realm of theoretical theology.
I mean, just about every religion has some equivalent of "Don't murder." I see two possibilities, here:
- Every religion in existence descended from some single religious Mitochondria Eve which was fortunate enough to have "Don't murder" as a tenet, or
- "Don't murder" is so blindingly obvious a virtue that every religion stuck it in there, because c'mon, duh.
I know that there are a lot of random, nonsensical things that have since fallen out of vogue, such as "Don't eat meat on Fridays" and "If you don't sacrifice a virgin goat on the third day of each month, God will fuck your shit up," and perhaps those tenets even outnumber the ones that I'd classify as obvious. But that doesn't invalidate my point, because I didn't say anything about most tenets, merely many. And I really find it hard to believe that Grog was sitting around in his cave pondering the finer philosophical points of why Thundarr the Lightning God didn't want him pounding Ook over the head with his club.
To be fair, and this is the key point, every MAJOR MODERN religion has don't murder as a tenet (and even within that, it's with varying strength and specificity). That says nothing at all about the thousands of splinter sects of each religion or the thousands of completely spontaneous religious movements (cults and so on).
Basically what Shinto was describing, and what pretty much anyone who looks at religion serious and objectively accepts, is a sort of "evolution of ideas". The religions that last thousands of years and have millions of followers are going to have certain traits in common, as all large land animals have certain traits in common.
There's absolutely no physical proof of divine favor of a given religion, so the only way to gain followers is through persuasion, a competition of ideas. A relatively reasonable religion (or one that can be mutated into such) that imposes relatively little on the day to day activities of its followers will be more successful than one that calls for radical changes, like cutting off your balls or killing left handed people.
Everyone knows Jesus Christ.
Almost no one knows another miracle worker named Honi the Circle Drawer who lived at the same time and was also executed around passover.
There are reasons the worship of Jesus spread and Honi was forgotten. These dynamics are not unlike the one governing evolution or the survival of businesses. In the world new organizations, philosophical, financial, biological, are always being created. Those that don't contradict common sense laws or can accomodate themselves to common sense laws survive. The others are footnotes.
It could be because the phrase "don't murder" is vague enough that most religions with that commandment could have almost completely different definitions of murder. In one religion, killing a person because he insulted you might not be murder. In another religion, that might be considered murder.
I'm still not seeing how this contradicts my claim that a lot of the tenets of a lot of religions are just based on common sense.
I'm saying that only the common sense one's survive.
There is some overlap in that a philosophy designed for common sense will survive, but I think that the process of founding a major religious school of thought is a somewhat less deliberative and self conscious act than all that.
On the micro level of individual survival it doesn't
On the larger scale of human survival forming common beliefs to reinforce social groups is quite important.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
If so, that wasn't my intent. I don't think people really sit down to create religious philosophy in general, except in a few isolated instances. Generally, they just sort of evolve.
From my persepctive it is simply this: the pro-life stance, and the devoutly religious stance (whatever religion it may be), both appeal to similar principles of philosophy. If, for whatever reason, you tend to believe in an innate quality of human being, and/or you believe that categorical principles trump practical societal concerns, then you are likely to be both religious and pro-life, though not necessarily both.
For your average modern pro-life Christian, being both Christian and pro-life is more correlation than causation. Philosophical underpinnings exist that tend to lead to both. But there are plenty pro-choice Xians and, to a lesser extent, athiest pro-lifers.
I don't claim to really know or understand what all these philosophical underpinnings really are, but it just seems that most people would, in a world without abortion, still be Christian, and in a world without particular Christian doctrine, still be pro-life.
You might have misunderstood me, because I have no idea how what you are saying applies to what I was saying.
Of course, that is based on the assumption that there is a 'moment of conception', which is a vast oversimplification.
Well, yes and no. There's a discrete point at which the sperm enters the egg. There's a discrete point at which the fertilized egg implants itself into the uterine wall. You can argue which one is the more significant, but either way you can point to a distinct point in time and say, "This is where it all begins." Once the egg implants itself, you're out of discrete moments until you get to the somewhat arbitrary point at which the baby pops out of its mommy's cooch.
Figure (a): Pre-conception.
~~~o0
Figure (b): Conception.
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)
The Bible tells us God is involved in our creation from the womb:
"Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:15)
Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb. (Psalms 22:9-10)
(http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/prolife.html)
Something that I have always actually been confused myself is how do pro-choice people justify that the fetus is not alive? Because the only reason I personally am agaisnt abortion is that I think it is a form of legalized murder.
Exactly how do you think this quote supports a pro-life position?
Well to be honest when I saw this thread I just typed "bible on abortion" and grabed a few quotes. The key is "penalty life for life" as in the fetus life=to your's. I don't really care what the bible states I was just answering how right wing neo-christians justify their position.
War we blithely accept as an unfortunate necessity when it is justified by the most trivial reasons.
Abortion we rail against.
Mysterious.