Jump to content

Talk:Christianity and abortion/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014

Please change "Today, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, opposes elective abortion except to save the life of the mother.[46] The Southern Baptist Convention calls on Southern Baptists to work to change the laws in order to make abortion illegal in most cases.[47] Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has said that he believes abortion is more damaging than anything else, even poverty.[48]" in the Southern Baptist Convention section to "Today, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, opposes elective abortion except to save the life of the mother.[46] The Southern Baptist Convention calls on Southern Baptists to work to change the laws in order to make abortion illegal in most cases.[47] Richard Land, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has said that he believes abortion is more damaging than anything else, even poverty.[48]" because Dr. Richard Land is no longer the president of the Ethic and Religious Liberty Commission. Thank You. SJR97 (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done (sort of - I put dates instead of "former") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Abortion and Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation

1) Everything in this article found its way back to christianity and abortion. It never strayed away from the topic and I never got distracted by the information present, which is very good and notable. I really like how the article wraps everything back up with christianity and abortion. 2) The article is very neutral. There are no parts of this article where there are biased facts/ opinions. It does a nice job at staying neutral for the reader which is very important so that there is no information that could be false due to opinionated ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcastro ethics (talk • contribs) 04:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for the Page

A lot of the sources from this page are a bit outdated. Especially the ones from over 10 years ago. A lot of the churches listed may have come out with more explicit stances on the subject and could have changed their minds from before. The country is rapidly changing its opinion on the subject of abortion, so more research should be done on the stances of different churches. Also, the order of the page should be considered to change. The history of the subject should go first to provide context and then the different denomination's positions. A reader might want to read the context and the background first on the subject. Spark 96 (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

"AbortionFacts.com." The Christian View of Abortion. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.

@beliefnet. "The Biblical Basis ForBeing Pro-Choice." The Biblical Basis for Being Pro-Choice: Bible, Abortion, Christians, Religion. Beliefnet, Inc. And/or Its Licensors, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.

Gorman, Michael J. Abortion & the Early Church: Christian, Jewish & Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1982. Print.

Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009. Print.

Liu, Joseph. "Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Abortion." Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. N.p., 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.

O'Brien, Dennis. The Church and Abortion: A Catholic Dissent. N.p.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010. Print.

Roys, Julie, and Guest Writer. "The Secret Shame of Abortion in the Church."CT Women. N.p., Feb. 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.

Sproul, R. C. Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1990. Print.

Turner, By Ryan. "What Does the Bible Say about Abortion?" CARM. CARM, 25 Oct. 2014. Web. 18 Oct. 2016. Spark 96 (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, here is what I am thinking for adding to the page:

The Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod

The Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod views abortion as contrary to God's Word. The church released a statement on their website saying that abortion "is not a moral option, except as a tragically unavoidable byproduct of medical procedures necessary to prevent the death of another human being, viz., the mother."[1] The LCMS believes that whether abortion is legal or not, it does not change the fact that abortion is as sin. On the topic of whether abortion is allowed in the case of rape or incest, the LCMS has stated that though there are many "emotional arguments for abortion... the fact of the matter is that it is wrong to take the life of one innocent victim (the unborn child)...It is indeed a strange logic that would have us kill an innocent unborn baby for the crime of his father."[2]

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod adopted a resolution in July 2011 on social issues, where it includes the twofold approach[3]:

"Encouraging the WELS ministerium to continue the faithful proclamation of God's Word also when it addresses social issues." "Encouraging the membership to be a positive influence in the battle against sin by their public testimony and vote." In this resolution of social issues, a resolution of the topic of abortion has been included. Within this resolution of the topic of abortion, the WELS continues to express its commitment to the Holy Scriptures and believes that the Holy Scriptures "clearly testify to a reverence for the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child as both being equal in value."[3] Furthermore, the intentional termination of a life should be considered a sin because the WELS would consider the unborn a life and the Bible commands against murder.[4] On the issue of the endangering the mother's life during the pregnancy, the WELS states that effort to save both the mother's and baby's life, but if that is not possible, then there should be effort to save at least one life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spark 96 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

1. http://www.lcms.org/faqs/lcmsviews#abortion 2. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LGZ4AyTZMfUJ:www.lcms.org/document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1101+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us 3. http://wels.net/about-wels/what-we-believe/doctrinal-statements/abortion/ 4. http://wels.net/faq/abortion-a-sin/

Spark 96 (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


Overall the article is very informative and uses a variety of reliable sources. Also, the article was unbiased throughout, but could be improved with more content on each of the specific Christian denominational views and comparing the differences between them. Most views were covered, but there was not much depth in each section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelseyrouse (talk • contribs) 07:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Overall the article is very informative and uses a variety of reliable sources. Also, the article was unbiased throughout, but could be improved with more content on each of the specific Christian denominational views and comparing the differences between them. Most views were covered, but there was not much depth in each section.

Kelseyrouse (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Should there be a more extensive section on the history of Abortions in relationship to Christianity to provide a better understanding for why christians believe what they believe? maybe even provide a basis one why each denomination has varying stances regarding the topic. P.makakaruwang (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Abortion and Christianity article

I think you have a lot of great information regarding your article on abortion and christianity, and it is all helpful information. There are several different topics helping discuss parts of abortion and christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arapisar33 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"Or approval"

It should be added that there is no explicit prohibition or approval of abortion in the Christian Bible. Edit5001 (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, because no one could possibly confused about that obvious and irrelevant point. --JBL (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you explain yourself? Why is it irrelevant, and what makes you think it's "obvious"? Edit5001 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no explicit endorsement in the Bible of aborting future edit-warring POV-pushers. Nevertheless, the lead paragraph of the article should not include the sentence, "There is no explicit endorsement in the Bible of aborting future edit-warring POV-pushers." A reader who manages to get as far as the third sentence will have sufficient context to understand what is the salient question. A non-stupid alternative to what is presently written could be something like "There is no explicit discussion of ...", or a rewording that uses a phrase like "statement about" etc. --JBL (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, just using "statement about" is fine with me. Edit5001 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The result is fine with me. --JBL (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Abortion and Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Additions

For this page, even though it is pretty good already, I think I will try to add more information on the medical aspect of abortion and what makes a fetus an actual "living person". The whole page is all on christianity/catholicism and how they view abortion, but not other aspects.

"A Humanist Discussion on Abortion." British Humanist Association. N.p., 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

Debate over abortion. (1994, May 28). Los Angeles Times (Pre-1997 Fulltext) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcastro ethics (talk • contribs) 02:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel like if we dug deeper into how the relationship between Christianity and the topic of abortions developed, we would have a better understanding of why churches stand where they stand on the issue. here are some sources that can be helpful in uncovering the development in abortion policies, ethics, and controversies. hopefully some of the sources will also give us insight to christianity's perspective as the issue grew.

Podell, Janet. Abortion. New York: H.W. WilCo., 1990. Print. The Reference shelf, v. 62, no. 4; Reference shelf, v. 62, no. 4. Rubin, Eva R. The Abortion Controversy : A Documentary History. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1994. Print. Primary documents in American history and contemporary issues; Primary documents in American history and contemporary issues. Schiff, Daniel. Abortion in Judaism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Web.

P.makakaruwang (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

With this article already being so far established, diving into that origin of dialogue for Christianity and the topic of abortions will give you some major talking points. Sounds like even more historical moments will be pumped into this article. You can discuss why different denominations of Christianity think the way they do, as well, maybe the divides between denominations and their attitudes on abortion will further reveal why these denominations exist. I think you're off to a good start. Jadcruz (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This article does a very good job on touching the points and positions on different religions. Some good additions to make would be making more of a historical background on abortion and the history behind it involving the church. This would give more of a background on how the thoughts of abortion were back then until what it is now. It would give more of a talking point for readers to understand the stance behind abortion from back then and how it is now. By talking about the history, the article would stay more neutral and informative rather than so one sided. By talking about the other standpoint with non christians, and then bringing out the information of the stance on the church, it would be more neutral. Another thing to add in this article would be more of the politics behind abortion. The politics behind what the church has tried to do policy wise would be a good talking point and there impact on politics around the world not just the United States of America. By doing this, it gives more detail to the topic and connects the stance to what is being placed in real life. Additions to different policies and programs that were created as well as medical procedures and the ethics behind it would be great additions. Ethics such as if the mother is in danger of death unless an abortion procedure is done. Stuff like that would be great talking points for this article. Austinx1997 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Two proposed changes in lead paragraph of section on Catholic Church

In its present form this paragraph puts certain things in Wikipedia's voice that should be attributed to the Catholic Church. I'd like to propose the following changes:

(1) Change the first sentence to:

The Catholic Church states that its opposition to abortion follows from a belief that human life begins at conception and that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception"[11].

(2) In the sentence starting "Since the first century" move that phrase to the end of the sentence, which would then read as follows:

The Church has affirmed that every procured abortion is a moral evil, a teaching that the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares "has not changed and remains unchangeable" since the first century.[15]

NightHeron (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Thanks for addressing this. I think that we need to include context to clarify this word "absolutely", since it's currently misleading. e.g. how about we change the sentence to:

The Catholic Church teaches that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception"[1] with very few exceptions: the Church has always allowed war in particular circumstances[2], has since 1930 specifically disallowed abortion for ectopic pregnancy, and for most of its existence (until August 2018) has allowed the execution of some criminals (the Church ceased these executions in 1826).

Thank you also for your contributions on your talk page which helped me create the above. Your concern about violating WP:OR or WP:SYNTH might be addressed by instead including the full catechism paragraph, which mentions the word "innocent". It seems a dilemma so I liked your idea to post here to get more opinions. Mebden (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mebden: Perhaps the best way to avoid OR/SYNTH is to find good secondary sources that point out that the professed belief in the "absolute" protection of human life does not accord with the historical and current policies and conduct of the Catholic Church in certain respects. Those sources should be ones that connect the Church's stand on abortion to its policies and conduct on other matters. The "exceptions" or contradictions to the professed belief should be pointed out by our sources rather than by us as editors. NightHeron (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NightHeron that discussion of war or the death penalty in this article would need, at a minimum, high-quality secondary sources - not citations to the catechism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270 Archived October 8, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  2. ^ "Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2308". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

The see also section

I have been trying to add separation of church and state to the see also section, only to be reverted multiple times by Edit5001, who seems to be the only person to have a problem with this. The see also section is for related Wikipedia pages, whether we agree with them or not. The role between the church and the state is a related topic, as objection to abortion often comes from religious reasoning and arguments. Religion often plays a role in a country's abortion laws, wherein opposition to its access usually originates. Take the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland for examples, which have highly Christian populations and where Christianity plays a large role in society, both in modern times and historically. Ireland only recently opened up abortion through a referendum in 2018 (see Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland) and in Northern Ireland access to abortion is still restricted to this day. The United Kingdom also has restricted laws regarding abortion, and is one of the few countries left in the world wherein a Christian state religion is retained within it (Church of England) - see state religion. This is in contrast to the vast majority of Europe, where access to abortion is legal upon request (see abortion law) and where countries do not have state religions. Therefore my argument is there these topics are related and that separation of church and state should be allowed to be included among the links in the see also section. Helper201 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I object for a few reasons. Firstly, this article almost entirely focuses on what each Christian denomination teaches/believes about abortion, not their involvement in politics surrounding abortion. Secondly, while people's religious views often impact their view of abortion, and they thus vote based on that, that is not the equivalent of violating separation of church and state. Religious opposition to abortion -and subsequent state restrictions on abortion- is not inherently related to establishing a state church. The inclusion of "separation of church and state" would thus be disingenuous for that reason. Edit5001 (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I was not talking about through peoples voting intentions. Religious influence and state religion play much more of a part than voting intentions. For one example as an established state religion the Christian Church of England is given the Lords Spiritual, a place for 26 bishops to sit in the United Kingdom's House of Lords and influence the passing of laws (a state matter). Helper201 (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, one other editor also reverted the addition, not just Edit5001. I also do not think it is a particularly germane See also. If it were, then it would have been added to every article that involves a political issue on which a religious body has given an opinion, which does not seem to be the case. Indyguy (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I am the other user who reverted, and I agree with Indyguy -- it is just not germane to this article. --JBL (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Reference to the Bible in the Lede Section

Currently the Lede reads as follows: "There is no explicit statement about abortion in either the Old Testament or the New Testament books of the Christian Bible. While some writers say that early Christians held different beliefs at different times about abortion,[1][2][3] others say that, in spite of the silence of the New Testament on the issue, they condemned abortion at any point of pregnancy as a grave sin,[4] a condemnation that they maintained even when some early Christians did not view as homicide the elimination of a fetus not yet "formed" and animated by a human soul.

I see a problem with this because it seems to be suggesting the interpretation that we are saying opposition to abortion isn't based on something in the bible and that it is 'silent' about the issue. Many pro-life groups make claims that the bible has verses that support the idea that life begins prior to birth, which is essentially the ideological belief for which opposition to abortion is based on. I think it is a bit misleading and POV issue to say in the Lede 'the bible doesn't say anything about abortion', when many of those who are arguing against abortion are saying 'the bible teaches that life begins in the womb'. Obviously many people disagree with the latter view, but if the latter view exists, the former view can't be put in standing alone on its own, because it is implicitly contradicted by the latter view. I recommend putting some additional lines here to clarify this so it doesn't leave people with the impression that wiki is taking the position that the bible is 'silent' about abortion. Reesorville (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, the lead states that the Bible does not explicitly mention abortion, and that's a fact. The lead goes on to say that there's controversy over whether or not, despite that, the Bible should be interpreted as implicitly supporting the anti-abortion position, and the lead does not take a side on that question. That's a matter of interpreting the Bible, which is contested. However, no one can claim that the Bible explicitly mentions abortion (either positively or negatively). It's simply not there, as multiple RS state.
The main body of the article includes mentions of certain denominations (Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelical Lutheran, and Seventh-day Adventist) that interpret certain Biblical passages as being implicitly anti-abortion. NightHeron (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You wrote: 'The lead goes on to say that there's controversy over whether or not, despite that, the Bible should be interpreted as implicitly supporting the anti-abortion position, and the lead does not take a side on that question.'
Where in the lede do you see this? The lede says that the bible is silent about the issue of abortion, but despite that fact it is 'silent' about abortion, Christians have historically held different views on whether abortion is morally acceptable. Unless I've missed something, the lede doesn't say anything about these Christians that object to abortion relying on the bible for their objection.Reesorville (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct that the sentence in the lead does not say that abortion opponents claim that early Christians condemned abortion because of their interpretation of the Bible. Do we have sources where abortion opponents say that Biblical interpretation is the reason for early Christians' supposed condemnation of abortion? If so, we could reword the sentence to say this. Another possibility would be to drop the sentence about controversy over what early Christians believed and replace it by a sentence saying that abortion opponents say that certain passages in the Bible implicitly give them a basis for their opposition to abortion. If we change the lead, we should we aware that many editors watchlist this page, and we might agree on a certain wording that does not meet with approval by other editors. NightHeron (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The main problem I see with it is as follows: a person who reads the lede is going to be left with the impression that 'the bible is silent about abortion' which is absolutely not a neutral analysis, since many of the opponents of abortion today believe that the bible teaches life begins prior to birth, and that fact isn't mentioned here. For example, in the first chapter of Luke's gospel, the angel Gabriel tells Zechariah that John the Baptist (his son) will be filled with the Holy Ghost 'even from his mother's womb' (Luke 1：15）, which theologically isn't normally thought possible for an object without a soul. If I could make an analogy, it is a bit like saying 'the bible is silent gay marriage' ... this statement is true, but it is misleading... the bible says nothing about gay people getting married explicitly, but on the other hand it does say stuff about putting men to death who have sexual relations with each other, and if you completely omit that part, a reader is going to be misled very greatly by the statement 'the bible is silent about gay marriage'. The reader would then be left with the idea that these Christians must have developed something completely on their own without ever looking at the bible when they came up with these notions about their opposition to gay marriage...
My suggestion to fix it is maybe something like this: 'The bible doesn't explicitly condemn abortion, but parts of the bible have been interpreted by anti-abortion Christians to mean that abortion isn't morally acceptable.' Any further analysis and details on that point of how groups have interpreted the bible could then be left to later paragraphs. This would be a much more neutral approach, IMO Reesorville (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
A small change in wording would be more likely to be acceptable to most editors than a major change. Your suggestion is a good one. What about simply adding the following to the 2nd sentence: "...; however, certain passages in the Bible have been interpreted by anti-abortion Christians to mean that abortion isn't morally acceptable." Would that be okay?
Gay marriage is not analogous. As you say, the Bible explicitly states that men who have sexual relations with each other should be killed, which is a much more draconian anti-gay position than mere opposition to gay marriage. In the case of abortion, the New Testament has no mention at all of intentional termination of pregnancy. The Old Testament has two passages (Exodus 21:21-25 and Numbers 5:18-27, of which the second is disputed by some commentators) which suggest that abortion is not in itself a crime. By far the clearest passage is in Exodus (colloquial translation in The Message): "When there's a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life -- eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,..." So Mosaic law considers involuntary manslaughter a capital offence (as is homosexual sex or sex with an animal), but causing a woman to lose her embryo or fetus is considered a property crime against the husband. NightHeron (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, your suggestion for the wording is also fine for me. If no one says anything on this page by the end of today, I'll make the change.
It doesn't really matter if you think the analogy is right or not. The only point I was making was trying to illustrate why simply just leaving the statement standing alone 'the bible is silent about x' is misleading to readers. There are Christians out there who also believe the bible says nothing to condemn gay marriage and they don't think those passages I mention are related to the topic.
However, you've given me a good idea. I think this article could actually benefit from a section that references the different scriptural passages used by people and denominations either for or against abortion. This example you mentioned about the law of Moses would be appropriate addition to it, but you'd need to just get a source that shows that this is actually used by pro-choice Christians as a scriptural basis for their position. Reesorville (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully the addition to the second sentence will not meet with objections. Concerning your thought of adding a section on different Biblical interpretations by abortion rights advocates and opponents, it might be difficult to write a brief, neutral summary.
On the issue of abortion, it gets complicated. There's disagreement even over translation of the Bible. In connection with the passage from Exodus, could Wikipedia use the translation I cited above, which, among those I've seen, is the one that's most understandable to a modern reader? Or would opponents of abortion claim that it's non-neutral? Some English translations obscure the connection with abortion by replacing "miscarries" with "gives birth prematurely", which doesn't seem to make much sense. (If a healthy baby is born, then it's unclear why any compensation should be paid; if an unhealthy baby or a baby who dies soon after birth is born, then Mosaic law would certainly exact a punishment far worse than a financial payment.) I found it interesting that Spanish-language translations do not seem to correlate with the publishing denomination's stand on abortion. An easy-to-understand translation published by the Sociedad Biblica Catolica Internacional reads as follows: "Si unos hombres, en el curso de una pelea, dan un golpe a una mujer embarazada, provocandole un aborto,...".
Concerning sources about the views of pro-choice Christians, my impression is that liberal Christians do not typically see a need to justify their moral viewpoint through Biblical exegesis. Liberal Christians were prominent among early abolitionists, despite the Bible's condoning of slavery, and have supported gay rights and other causes that are in clear conflict with what's in the Bible (especially the Old Testament). There are authors (Christian and non-Christian) who argue against Christian Evangelical interpretations on abortion, but I'm not sure about sources where liberal Christians base their own support for abortion rights upon Biblical passages. NightHeron (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I've now made the change to the lede, since no one else has posted anything here for or against what we discussed.
My idea for a section on different biblical interpretation would just work something like this: we list different passages, with short descriptions of arguments that have been taken from them, which are basically used by major mainstream denominations to argue for or against abortion, and then cite them with reliable sources. Neutrality is only violated if wiki starts taking a position as to which interpretation is 'right'. If we just repeat what is being said by other sources in their biblical referencing, without offering a judgment on who is right and who is wrong on the issue, I believe neutrality is preserved. Regarding what you say about 'liberal Christians', I have actually heard the scripture you cited before in terms of the Mosaic law used to support pro-choice arguments, although we would need to cite reliable sources (maybe perhaps articles written by their leaders, etc.) that cite those passages in their arguments in order to put in such a section. I don't think disagreements about translations is really an issue here; as long as some major denomination is using some translation of the bible to cite a particular scripture passage and they say that is why they oppose or support legalized abortion, then for our purposes that is enough for us; we don't really require anything more than that to reference them in the article. Reesorville (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
If you want to add such a section, I'd suggest that you propose a draft on the talk page for discussion before anything is added to the article. We could then try to reach an agreement, hopefully with participation of more editors, about making the section neutral. As I mentioned, the passage in Numbers has been the subject of dispute, with anti-abortion Christians saying that it is not really about herbal abortion. Similarly, supporters of legalized abortion argue that the passages cited by opponents of legalized abortion have little to do with legalization of abortion and nothing at all to do with early abortion (before quickening/ensoulment). Neutral coverage of a particular passage in the Bible would require us to cite the conflicting views of it, not just the views of one side that claims that it supports their position. Occasionally the dispute relates to how the passage is translated. So it could be tricky. NightHeron (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
If you decide to write a proposed new section giving the Biblical passages that are cited by pro-abortion-rights and anti-abortion sources to support their viewpoints, it would be good to include sources that dispute the particular interpretation of the passage. For example, here are some pro-abortion-rights sources that treat the relevant Biblical passages: [1] [2] [3] [4][5] [6] NightHeron (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Reesorville and NightHeron. So, firstly, I would support changing the incredibly weaselly lead ("some people say that different people held different beliefs at different times, others disagree" is laughable). I think the crux of the "does or does not the Bible discuss abortion" question is that (as far as I understand) the Bible unequivocally does not talk about abortion in the sense in which modern political partisans talk about it. There simply is no mention of a procedure that a pregnant woman undergoes in order not to be pregnant anymore. However, anti-abortion people point to X verses to claim that the Bible says life begins at such and such a point, and pro-choice people point to Y verses (eg. the bit in Exodus) and/or to different interpretations of X verses (eg. the bit in Jeremiah where God's knowing Jeremiah in the womb is presumed to show that he is special and unique, not that this is true for every fetus) to contradict that claim.
  • I don't think it would be unreasonable to give a brief overview of the biblical passages that people cite on this issue, but I'm also leery of replicating what has happened in the religion and homosexuality articles, which is that we have this massive constellation of overlapping material. I also think that it's important for the article to keep in mind (not necessarily to note explicitly, but just to keep in mind while writing/reworking) that there has not been a direct lineage from A to B. For instance, as much as abortion opponents now might point to early Christian documents in support of their claim of an unbroken history of activism, much of the anti-abortion movement is a modern creation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed section on biblical passages

Let me just move this discussion over here from the thread above since the topic is now changing. Here is a sample of what this section could look like: '

  • Jeremiah 1:5 -"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you."(NAB) Christians opposed to legalized abortion have interpreted this passage to mean that life begins prior to birth, thus making abortion the taking of a person's life (citations here to pro-life sources using these arguments). Christians that support legalized abortion, however, have argued that this passage only refers to Jeremiah alone and isn't making a statement about all fetal life universally(citations here to pro-choice sources using these arguments).'
  • Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 - “ [3] If a man beget a hundred children, and live many years, and attain to a great age, and his soul make no use of the goods of his substance, and he be without burial: of this man I pronounce, that the untimely born is better than he. [4] For he came in vain, and goeth to darkness, and his name shall be wholly forgotten. [5] He hath not seen the sun, nor known the distance of good and evil:” Christians that support legalized abortion have interpreted this text to mean that quality of life is more important than life for the sake of life, and therefore abortion is sometimes a preferable choice (citations to pro-choice sources). Christians that are opposed to legalized abortion, however, have argued that this text is saying that fetal life is a person, because it is saying that someone is better to have died in the womb than to have attained this state that is being compared.' (citations to pro-life sources)...

and so on.... Reesorville (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems like no one had any interest in further discussing, so I've added the proposed section. If there are any thoughts on how to change it, please leave comments here to discuss. Reesorville (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
You didn't include the two Biblical passages that implicitly refer to intentional or human-induced termination of pregnancy (the one from Exodus and the one from Numbers, discussed above). Those constitute the strongest evidence that the Bible does not support the anti-abortion POV. The only passage you quoted that supporters of legalization use is actually very weak, especially if one accepts the translation "untimely born"; it seems to have nothing to do with abortion. So your selective use of Biblical passages is not balanced. Please revise. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
In addition, please try to find translations that are clear and readable. The term "untimely" sounds like a reference either to premature birth or birth at an unfortunate time (e.g., the father has just abandoned the family, or war has just broken out). It does not suggest abortion, miscarriage, or stillbirth. NightHeron (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
For the translations, I can change the translation for the passage you mentioned, I have no objection.
For the other passages - I didn't know which passages you consider 'strongest' evidence; I personally didn't think that those passages looked stronger than the one I cited. I simply cited one that looked representative without wanting to make the section too long to read. If you think those passages need to be included, I have no objection to it. How about this:
  • Exodus 21:22-25 "When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges.23 But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.(NAB) - Christians who are in favour of legalized abortion cite this passage because it shows that when a woman suffers miscarriage from a blow during a fight, only a fine is required in compensation, while if the parties injure or kill each other during the fight, the party that deals the damage has to receive an equal punishment to what he did. (citations) Christians who are against legalized abortion, however, argue that this passage is referring to an accidental death, which is not punished with the offender being put to death in other places when dealing with a person already born. (citations)
  • Numbers 5:27 Once she has done so, if she has been impure and unfaithful to her husband, this bitter water that brings a curse will go into her, and her belly will swell and her thighs will waste away, so that she will become an example of imprecation among her people. (NAB) - In this passage, a woman who is suspected of adultery is made to drink something that will cause her thigh to waste away and her belly to swell if she was guilty of adultery. Christians who support legalized abortion believe that this is talking about the woman's fetus being destroyed if she was guilty of adultery with another man. (citations) Christians against legalized abortion, however, argue that this passage is not referring to an abortion and that the effects on the woman's body refer to something else. (citations)
If this is alright, then I'll add it in like this. Reesorville (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The second passage is explained clearly. However, the explanation of the view of the Exodus passage by Christians who are against legalized abortion is unclear. The quoted passage explicitly says that if the pregnant woman suffers further injury or death [even though it's accidental], then punishment is an eye for an eye and "life for life", which means capital punishment if she dies. Perhaps if you have a citation where an opponent of legalized abortion explicitly discusses this passage, we can see what their rationale is for disputing the interpretation by people who cite it as a clear statement that the Old Testament did not regard death of a fetus as equivalent to death of someone after birth.
Regarding the translation of the other passage, is there a translation that uses a term such as "stillborn" rather than "untimely born"? NightHeron (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
for the first passage, this is the text from the link I cited regarding this passage: 'To anyone knowledgeable in Bible studies, there is a lot wrong with that analysis. First off, causing a miscarriage, whether the mother survives or not, is still considered a sin in this passage. Causing abortions is wrong, whether the Bible calls this murder or something else. That she admits that, but still considers the Bible pro-choice, shows that she has failed to make the connection. Secondly, spiritual status is not reflected in social status in Old Testament times. For instance, if a master struck his slave with a rod, and the slave died a few days after the incident, that master was not to be penalized (Exodus 21:20-21). However, the slave is still made in the image and likeness of God. Thirdly, accidental death never requires the death penalty in the Old Testament. Fourthly, there are other interpretations of the text. One reading is that the death penalty is applied to the perpetrator if harm comes to the unborn child because of the indefinite use of “if no harm follows”. Harm to whom? It could be harm to a fetus. It could be easily construed from the text that if the fetus can be shown to be harmed from the fight, there would be compensation. Joyce Arthur's reading is not self-evident.'
I think this text here perhaps contains too many points to try to cite all of them on the page, so I just took the one the writer put under 'thirdly' because I think this interpretation for the passage might be common in other places as well, so it is perhaps a good representative. What it means is that the death of the fetus was accidental, while the person being struck in the fight was purposeful. There are other parts of Moses's laws where people cause accidental deaths and aren't punished by being put to death themselves.
for the passage from Ecclesiastes, yes, it easy to get translations that use the word 'stillborn'. For example from the NIV: 'A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he.' Reesorville (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
How about just quoting or paraphrasing the part of the anti-abortion interpretation of the Exodus passage that says "causing a miscarriage, whether the mother survives or not, is still considered a sin in this passage. Causing abortions is wrong, whether the Bible calls this murder or something else"?
I don't see why you say that "the person being struck in the fight was purposeful". The fight was between two men, not with the woman. The woman was just standing there, or was perhaps trying to break up the fight. If one of the men got hurt, that would have been purposeful. NightHeron (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, in your wording of the interpretation by pro-legalization Christians, it shouldn't be "if the parties injure or kill each other" but rather "if the parties injure or kill the woman", because the passage says "hurt a pregnant woman". The passage does not address the separate question of what happens if a man is injured in a fair fight, perhaps one that he started. NightHeron (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, your suggesting about the paraphrase is fine to me. So would it be OK then if I put the paragraph like this?: Exodus 21:22-25 "When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges.23 But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.(NAB) - Christians who are in favour of legalized abortion cite this passage because it shows that when a woman suffers miscarriage from a blow during a fight, only a fine is required in compensation, while if the parties injure or kill during the fight, the party that deals the damage has to receive an equal punishment to what he did. (citations) Christians who are against legalized abortion, however, argue that this passage is still representing the causing of a miscarriage as sinful. (citations) Reesorville (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
to explain my wording before: I was misreading the passage and thought that the 'eye for eye' was referring to if one of the men got injured. You are correct though, it appears to have been referring to the woman. Reesorville (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd suggest a clearer wording for the part "while if the parties injure...", as follows, "while if the woman is injured or killed, then the punishment must be equal to the injury suffered, including capital punishment if the woman dies." NightHeron (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
That's fine for me. I'll revert your revert and add these two additions to the list according to this discussion then. Reesorville (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
That's fine with me, but I'll probably make some relatively minor edits. NightHeron (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with your removal of the note on the Greek word 'brephos'. I think that's a critical detail to those who use this passage to support the pro-life. If you think it needs to have equal measure, it would be better to find some pro-choice source that explained why that term shouldn't be interpreted as it is rather than deleting. Reesorville (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
If we get into more detail, there's an obvious argument of those supporting legalization that we've omitted. Namely, the vast majority of abortions occur before "quickening" (when the fetus is felt by the mother) or "animation" (when different religious traditions believed that the soul enters the body). What the Bible (and other religious texts) have to say about a post-animation fetus has no relation to early abortions. This is discussed in many places, and I could provide sources. However, I think we both agree that this section should be brief. People in ancient times would not have used the Greek word for "infant" for an early-pregnancy embryo. The same point can be made in reference to other Biblical passages cited by abortion opponents. NightHeron (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The point of the section is to show some of the commonly used biblical passages used in relation to argue for or against legalized abortion. That passage from Luke is one of the most widely cited passages used by pro-life people, and that detail where it said that the fetal John was a 'child' (Brephos) is a key part of that case. The section already has 3 passages used by abortion supporters and 2 passages used by abortion opponents, hence how can you say that it is unbalanced if this one detail is included on the side for the abortion opponents? If you really want to, I have no objection to including any biblical passages that you can find being used to support arguments for 'quickening' or 'animation' or for including any note on either in this section. Reesorville (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The passage quoted from Luke is already significantly longer than any of the other four quoted passages. In all four of the other cases the description of the two viewpoints is balanced and takes the form "Christian opponents of abortion argue... Christians who favor legalization argue..." with one sentence for each. Thus, there are only two sentences of that form for the passage from Exodus, which is a frequently cited passage that provides the clearest evidence for the abortion-rights viewpoint on the Bible. The sentence I removed expanded on the anti-abortion argument about the Luke passage beyond what we have for any of the other passages in order to make a point about Greek word usage. If we're going to go into such detail, then we really have to point out that anti-abortion people are claiming that "Holy Scripture also recognizes that an unborn child's life is sacred, and begins no later than conception" (this is from the source for the statement about the Greek word) based on a passage from Luke that refers to a fetus after quickening. As I said, that Greek word would not have been used for an "unformed" (i.e., not yet animated) embryo, let alone for the zygote produced at conception. With the exception of the questionable sentence I removed, which makes a linguistic claim that the typical reader won't be able to evaluate, the other arguments are straightforward on both sides, and readers can form their own opinions. NightHeron (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I much respect and appreciate the work you've put into the section on Biblical passages and your constructive responses to my comments and edits. It's a credit to the Wikipedia project when editors who clearly have very different personal opinions about a controversial subject can work together to make the coverage balanced and neutral. NightHeron (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very kind of you. I do try to make an effort to take wiki's guidelines about assuming good faith seriously.
here is the data: the 1st passage (used for the pro-life side): 25 words for scripture, 26 words for the pro-life side, 26 words for the pro-choice side. the 2nd passage (used for the pro-choice side): 73 words for scripture, 33 words for the pro-choice side, 45 words for the pro-life side. the 3rd passage (used for the pro-life side): 126 words for scripture, 52 words for the pro-life side, 34 words for the pro-choice side, the 4th passage(used for the pro-choice side): 49 words for scripture, 59 words for the pro-choice side, 27 words for the pro-life side, the 5th passage (used for the pro-choice side): 78 words for scripture, 58 words for the pro-choice side, 20 words for the pro-life side. On the page not counting the scripture, there are 170 words for pro-life arguments, 250 words for the pro-choice arguments, 151 words for the pro-life scripture, 200 words for the pro-choice scripture. I think your argument that there is undue balance on the pro-life side is without merit. If equal time needs to be given to both sides, then more should be added to the pro-life side, rather than deleting material from the pro-life side. It doesn't really matter to me, however, whether they have equal attention. I am quite fine with either side getting longer sections as long as it is not too great a difference one way or the other. But I do think it is important that that note on the word 'child' should be added in, because it is an important piece of that argument regarding that scripture. As I said, I have no objection to adding in a part to the counter argument against the linguistic claim.
Regarding your argument that we need to include what the source for the Greek word says about 'and begins no later than conception' I think you need to look back at the source, because it is quoting Jeremiah for that and not Luke, which is the first passage that we already have on the page. I wrote 'begins prior to birth' rather than 'at conception' because I know that not all people making pro-life arguments would agree with the latter claim for interpreting that piece of scripture, but they would agree with the former. Reesorville (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'll put back your sentence and also insert some additional text that clarifies the viewpoint of supporters of abortion rights relating to the Jeremiah and Luke passages.
Concerning your source for the sentence on the use of brephos, it really does use the Luke passage (along with the Jeremiah passage) to claim that the use of this word supports the contention that personhood begins no later than conception. Here is the part of the source that I'm talking about: Though less specific, Holy Scripture also recognizes that an unborn child's life is sacred, and begins no later than conception: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5, 6. [16] Also noteworthy is St. Luke's use of the same Greek word, brephos (baby), for both the unborn St. John the Baptist (Luke 1:44) and the newly-born Christ child (Luke 2:12). However, there's no need to discuss this in the article. NightHeron (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm satisfied with those changes that you made. I am not sure if you are aware that Luke 1 also says that Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant with John the Baptist when the story occurred and you could have use that for the 'quickening' argument as well. Reesorville (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

China India and Russia

My edit has the sources as proof and they are as relevant to the prevalence of abortion among christians section as anything else in there. Some here obviously dont like the truth and want to hide it but i will continue adding it.


Russia, where Orthodox and Protestant outnumber Catholics, has the highest abortion rate in the world while Mexico has the lowest.[1][2] China and India, where Protestants outnumber Catholics, are the countries with the highest annual estimated abortions.[3][4][5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielbr11 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23iht-church.4.12274801.html
  3. ^ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg98715/html/CHRG-114hhrg98715.htm
  4. ^ https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/national-estimate-abortion-india-released#:~:text=Study%20Finds%2015.6%20Million%20Abortions,in%20the%20country%20in%202015.
  5. ^ https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/09/15/protestant-christianity-is-booming-in-china
  6. ^ https://www.worldatlas.com/amp/articles/countries-with-the-most-protestant-christians.html
Your attempt to link the relative number of Catholics and non-Catholic Christians to country-by-country abortion rates is your own OR and is not what's done in the sources. It's in blatant violation of WP:OR. Your sentence about China and India also happens to be irrelevant, because the vast majority of people in both countries are not Christians at all. NightHeron (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You see you are the one that is projecting that i said anything about a link of rates between catholics and protestants. The sentence SIMPLY states A. russia has the highest abortion rate B. there are more protestants than catholics in russia. THAT is what the sentence says it doesnt say ANYTHING about protestants having more abortions than catholics in russia which is what You are Projecting.Danielbr11 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
There are two possibilities: either the addition is designed to lead to a conclusion not stated in the sources or it is a random collection of disconnected facts. The first is a violation of WP:SYNTH, the second is a violation of the basic principles of good writing. In either case, the addition doesn't belong. --JBL (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Explain to me how the first sentence of that paragraph which says "In countries where the dominant religion is Catholicism, abortions are higher per capita than the worldwide average" is any different from me saying "russia, where protestants outnumber catholics, has the highest abortion ratio" with the reference that shows it. Why do you guys accept the first sentence but not mine?Danielbr11 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I changed the wording slightly in that sentence to make it closer to the formulation in the source. The source says the following: ``Catholic women in the United States are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, and 29% more likely than Protestant women. Catholic countries, even where abortion is illegal, have high levels of abortions: in Brazil, the estimated number of abortions ranges from 1 million to 2 million per year and in Peru, 5% of women of childbearing age have abortions each year, compared to 3% in the United States. NightHeron (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Well thats very generous of you but i personally didnt request that. So theres no way im allowed to say "russia, where orthodox and protestants outnumber catholics, has the highest abortion rate in the world" if i put a source showing russia has the highest abortion rate and a source showing orthodox/protestants outnumber catholics in the country? Is there any way you can reword it for me so that its accepted? If that paragraph mentions brazil and peru why cant i mention russia.Danielbr11 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I know you didn't request that. My reason for rewording it was to make it closer to the source's wording.
Neither you nor I can insert the sentence you propose, worded in a way that implies a connection between relative proportion of Catholics vs Protestants and abortion rate, unless we have a source that says precisely that. If you read WP:SYNTH, which is a section of WP:OR (a core policy on Wikipedia), you'll find a good explanation of this. NightHeron (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok then but look at the sentence in the paragraph that says "The estimated number of abortions per year in Brazil is roughly 1 million to 2 million" cant i just write a sentence that simply says "russia has the highest abortion rate in the world" with the reference just like the brazil sentence says not a word about protestants or catholics? That would be the same Exact wording.Danielbr11 (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
First, you need a source that says that Russia has the highest abortion rate in the world. (You cannot look at a table of abortion rates of the world's countries and write as your own conclusion that Russia has the highest rate in the world. For example, there could be some countries or territories missing from the table, or the table could be using data from different years for different countries, etc.) Drawing your own conclusion from the table is considered OR. Second, there's no reason to include that information if it's not related to the topic of the article, which is Christianity and abortion. The link between some statistic and the topic of the article must be made by the source, not by you or me. NightHeron (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Nightheron here is the new sentence with the source saying exactly that: "Even though the Russian Orthodox Church supports legislation to cap abortions at 12 weeks, Russia has the highest abortion rate in the world."

https://c-fam.org/turtle_bay/russia-it-was-more-common-to-take-sick-days-for-an-abortion-than-for-a-cold-in-those-days/Danielbr11 (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Your sentence misstates what the source says. The words "even though" imply something that's not in the source and don't even make sense. Why "even though"? And of course your source says nothing about comparisons between Catholic-majority countries and Protestant-majority countries. NightHeron (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Nightheron.. The sentence that says Catholic majority countries have high abortion rates. And the sentence that says brazil has 1 million abortions SAYS NOTHING about the comparison between catholics and protestants in brazil. My sentence likewise says Nothing about the comparison. My sentence is structured exactly like the brazil or catholic majority country sentences that you allow. Now you are clearly showing bias. My sentence may say "The russian orthodox church supports legislation to cap abortion at 12 weeks in Russia which has the highest abortion rate." That sentence is equally valid to the brazil and catholic majority sentences.Danielbr11 (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Accusing me of bias is a personal attack; please read WP:NPA. The sentence you proposed started with "even though", which logically does not fit and is not what the source says. Both that sentence and your new sentence would put in a fact about the Russian Orthodox Church supporting certain proposed legislation, and that's off topic. The topic of the section is "Prevalence of abortion among Christians". In addition, a fact about prevalence of abortion in Russia is relevant only if your source identifies Russia as a predominantly Christian country. I don't know whether that's true, and even if I believed it to be true I couldn't insert it without a source. NightHeron (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The new sentence is "Russia, where the primary religion is Orthodox Christian, has the highest abortion rate in the world." That sentence is exactly like the catholic dominant country sentence. Here is the source page 103 says exactly both of those things.

https://books.google.com/books?id=qV6VtcCSni8C&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=%22russia+has+the+highest+abortion%22+%22orthodox%22&source=bl&ots=WpM9juKgR6&sig=ACfU3U0vkk4lCXY7Wn2i_hpBw0e80tEL1g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9tq-TlLXuAhXEAp0JHV85CHoQ6AEwCXoECA8QAQ#v=onepage&q=%22russia%20has%20the%20highest%20abortion%22%20%22orthodox%22&f=falseDanielbr11 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

In the first place, the source does not say those two things in a way to suggest they're linked. There's an intervening discussion about teen dating and other matters. In the second place, the statement that the Orthodox Church is the primary religion in Russia is not the same as saying that Russia is an Orthodox-majority country. Even during the Soviet Period, when that Church was severely restricted and only a small proportion of the population (mainly, among the elderly) attended Orthodox services, it was still the case that, among all religions, Orthodoxy was the primary one. It may still be true, as in Soviet times, that the majority of the population is non-religious. In any case, in order to add the type of sentence you're proposing, you need a source that identifies Russia as an Orthodox-majority country having a very high abortion rate. NightHeron (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me the word majority is not in the sentence that says "in countries where the dominant religion is catholicism" and it is the same as me saying "where the primary religion is orthodox" the words dominant and primary are equal. Quibbling over semantics is not in the wikipedia policy. You cannot tell me what word i have to use i am allowed to state what the source says which references both the religion and abortion rate. Double standards and hypocrisy are not allowedDanielbr11 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Your angry tone and personal attacks, now accusing me of "hypocrisy", have got to stop. Have you read WP:NPA? First you disregarded WP:NOR in your edit, next you disregarded WP:EW, and now you're disregarding WP:NPA, all of which are basic Wikipedia policies.
The source used in the current text speaks of "Catholic countries" and gives the examples of Brazil and Peru. As I said, during the Soviet period Russia was not a Russian Orthodox country or an Orthodox-majority country, but even then among all religions the primary religion was Orthodoxy, with Islam second. Most people then did not belong to any church. Maybe that's changed since the Soviet period. Maybe Orthodoxy now is dominant in the way that Catholicism is dominant in Brazil and Peru. But your sources don't say that.
This is not a semantic question. Earlier you tried to add a statement linking abortion rates in India and China to the greater number of Protestants as opposed to Catholics in those two countries. Of course, this was illogical because the vast majority of people in those countries are neither. Similarly, it might be true for all we know that the vast majority of people in Russia are not Orthodox and couldn't care less what the Russian Orthodox Church thinks about abortion. Without any clear statements from sources, we just can't say one way or the other. NightHeron (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Nightheron you are debating the word dominant vs primary. The definiton of dominant is "most important, powerful, or influential" the definition of primary is "of chief importance; principal". You allow the sentence thay says "countries where the dominant religion is catholicism"(the source doesnt say its majority catholic) but you dont allow my sentence that says "where the primary religion is orthodox". How can you justify allowing the catholic sentence if the orthodox sentence is of equal RELEVANCE to this article. Neither sentence mentions percentages of Catholics or Orthodox getting those abortions.Danielbr11 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I edited that sentence to say "Catholic countries", which is the term used in the source, so that we don't have to argue about definitions. NightHeron (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
You still are not answering how "Catholic countries" is accepted but not "country where orthodox is the primary religion" is not relevant? All sources on the internet say orthodox is the majority religion in Russia more than unaffiliated/atheists. Wikipedia says it here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Russia and just one outside source is here https://www.pewforum.org/2017/05/10/religious-affiliation/ i of course included a source saying that on my original sentence Danielbr11 (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, that's a source about dominance of Russian Orthodoxy. And you have a different source about the high abortion rate. However, as editors we can't combine these two facts in a way that suggests a connection between them, unless we find a source that does precisely that -- the way the other source does about Catholic countries and abortion. Have you read WP:SYNTH yet, as another editor suggested you do? That explains that we're not allowed to write a sentence that combines two sources and suggests a connection that is not explicitly mentioned in a source. NightHeron (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
nightheron that's fine i already understood that in the beginning but you didnt answer my first question: how "Catholic countries" is deemed relevant to you for this article but not "country where orthodox is the primary religion"? My sentence is just as relevant for this article it doesnt matter if one country is dominant and another is primary they can both be included in this article.Danielbr11 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
There's no point in wasting time arguing about what "primary religion" means in this context, since that's not the issue in the edit you want to make. The issue is that you don't have a source that says what you want to say, whereas what's there now is accurately sourced. NightHeron (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
How are you saying the source doesnt say what i wany to write. The source said in one sentence "orthodox is the primary religion in russia" and in the other sentence "russia has the highest abortion rate". My sentence has both points in one sentence that says "russia, where the primary religion is orthodox, has the highest abortion rate" i say exactly what the source says nothing more but you are saying its irrelevant because its "primary" not "majority".Danielbr11 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Your source is a book titled Sexuality and Dating in America. A chapter called "Worldwide Perspective" is a whirlwind survey of sexuality and dating in many parts of the world, of which a total of 2 pages is a quick overview of sex and culture in the Russian Federation. At one point the author mentions Russian Orthodoxy. Then he has a paragraph about dating, and in the paragraph after that he mentions abortion. He makes no connection between religion and abortion.
Also, if you look at the book's references at the end of the chapter, of several dozen references there's only one on Russia, titled Women in the USSR and published in 1991 (at the end of the Soviet period, before the Russian Federation). So in any case this book does not seem to be a reliable source concerning the Russian Federation.
The connection between Catholicism and abortion is a notable topic that is discussed in many sources. That's why Wikipedia has an article Catholic Church and abortion. It's worthy of note and covered by many sources when, despite the importance the Catholic hierarchy attaches to its anti-abortion stance, abortion rates among laity are high in certain Catholic countries. It's no surprise that our sources speak specifically about this fact.
In the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, we're having difficulty finding sources that attach significance to the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy is the main religion in a country with a high abortion rate. Had anyone expected the Russian Orthodox Church to have the type of influence on sex and reproduction in Russia that the Catholic Church traditionally has had in Catholic countries? If not, then a discrepancy between the official positions of the Orthodox Church on these matters and the personal conduct of Russians is not noteworthy and apparently not commented on in sources. If sources don't comment on this, then neither does Wikipedia.
Of course, if you do find a source that comments directly on this, then you have a case for including a sentence that paraphrases that source. NightHeron (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Well goodnight then Nightheron. Fortunately the whole world can type in google search to see that every source says russia has the highest abortion rate while china and india have the highest abortion count while the usa is right behind them. They can also see how every link on google search (and on wikipedia) that those countries all have more protestants than catholics and even this article says protestants have higher percentage of abortion than catholics in the usa as well as the fact that almost all the main protestant churches approve of abortion while the catholic church does not. Just 5 minutes on google or wikipedia shows everyone that protestants are more guilty of abortion than catholics. Unfortunately the truth doesnt fit your narrative!Danielbr11 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Luker Statement

@NightHeron and @134.226.214.244, I'd like to encourage you both to discuss here instead of arguing in the article. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The only issue is whether or not the statement accurately reflects what Luker said. The IP who removed the statement cited something she said that was quite different. Of course, the source said many things, and in restoring the statement I merely pointed out that, in addition to what the IP cited, on a different page she did write what's attributed to her in the statement. NightHeron (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I wrote this before I examined the IP's edit. It turns out their edit summary is misleading. The issue the IP wants to raise is not whether Luker is properly paraphrased. Rather, they now want to slip in a major change under the guise of improving the sentence from Luker. Such a change of course needs a talk-page consensus. NightHeron (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for any edit-warring, it was unintentional! So the sentence from Luker that @NightHeron is citing as justifying the statement in the article reads like this "Most importantly, from the third century AD onward, Christian thought was divided as to whether early abortion - the abortion of an unformed embryo - was in fact murder." The end of the early Christian period is generally taken to be 325 AD (Council of Nicea). I would therefore suggest that the qualifier "from the third century AD onward" is of critical importance in understanding this statement. 134.226.214.244 (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

If we want to get into more detail on what Luker says, before vs after 325 is not what she emphasizes in the passage in question on pp. 12-13. What she emphasizes is that during the whole early period, even when certain commentators denounced abortion, that was not matched in practice. She says that there might be punishment if the abortion were connected with a sexual crime such as adultery or prostitution. Otherwise, abortion was generally absent from the texts that dealt with practical consequences. She then says that after about 300 AD there was a lot of disagreement (even in theory) about the morality of abortion.
There's more detail about the early history in the article Catholic Church and abortion. Of course, the early history covered in the two articles is the same, since the Catholic vs Christian distinction didn't arise until later. NightHeron (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that our interpretation of Luker is the same, though I think the way it is summarized in the article is incorrect. Firstly, the section is Early Christian thought on abortion. A reasonable reader would therefore expect, as I did, the sentence 'Luker says there was disagreement on whether early abortion was wrong' to be referring to the entire pre-Nicean era. Qualifying that this statement refers only to 3rd century onwards is therefore of critical importance. If we want to get into more detail on what Luker says, we could also summarise Luker p.12 as saying that "abortion is denounced whenever it is mentioned in early Church documents" - though this would also not be a neutral reading. My point is we would be violating WP:SYNTH. I question whether Luker should be mentioned at all on this page - her book is not intended as a work of historical scholarship and thus of limited value on page devoted to history. I'm withdrawing a copy of Bakke from the university library later today, so I may have some new ideas with what to replace it with after I've read it.

Edit: Some of the Bakke confirms what I have been saying above. Here is a quote: We can therefore say that by the beginning of the third century, there was a well established critical attitude to all forms of the murder of children-whether abortion, expositio, or other methods of killing. "Critical" is really too mild a word: these practices were utterly condemned. 134.226.214.244 (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Luker is a very eminent scholar who has a special interest in the history of legal practices. Her main point, as I read it, is that, while Catholic authors took different stands in the theoretical debates about whether pre-ensoulment termination of pregnancy was wrong (and were more inclined to condemn all abortion in the period following 325 AD than before), in practice the position of the Church was tolerant toward abortion, especially pre-ensoulment. Even post-ensoulment abortion almost never (until modern times) was supposed to be severely punished unless it was combined with other sins such as adultery or prostitution. Luker does not attach great significance to the difference between pre-325 AD and post-325 AD, so in citing her neither should we. NightHeron (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Luker is mainly concerned with abortion as a legal issue in the 20th century. She has no background in classical or church history. You can probably make a much better case for her source Noonan, Contraception, pp. 88 - 106 In any case, the ensoulment debate she discusses occurs from 1100 - 1150, which is during the High Middle Ages and not relevant to the early Church. And, her point is precisely the opposite - theologians were less likely to condemn abortion after 325 AD than before 325 AD. My main issue is that the section header is Early Christian Thought On Abortion. Once she's discussing things that occur after 325AD, she's no longer talking about early Christian thought, and regardless of whether she makes a distinction or not, it belongs in a different section. 134.226.214.244 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity_and_abortion/Archive_3&oldid=1095400931"