Talk:Christianity and abortion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Early Christian thought on abortion

I've recently aquired a copy of O.M. Bakke's book When Children Became People, and have been double-checking some of the references on this page. Bakke is cited three times in total.

a. Some writers state that there is evidence that some early Christians believed, as the Greeks did, in delayed ensoulment, or that a fetus does not have a soul until quickening, and therefore early abortion was not murder Bakke is the only citation given for this statement. This is not actually backed up by the source at all. On page 111, he discusses Jewish attitudes towards abortion and mentions it as an opinion within the Palestinian school. He qualifies this with the paragraph We must, however, emphasize that the Palestinian school discussed abortion almost exclusively in relation to "the problem of the legal and cultic status of the fetus, especially in miscarriages and certain necessary (and usually late) abortions. Abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, `on demand' or as a means of birth control `is very likely not even contemplated in the Mishnaic law. The primary concern was not to determine the stage in pregnancy at which the fetus acquired the form and status of a human being, in view of potential judicial proceedings. Rather, the main point of these discussions was to emphasize the profound immorality of killing a fetus, irrespective of the stage of its development: this action was classified as murder. Where the fetus died, not through an unlucky miscarriage, but by means of an intentional abortus provocatus, this was regarded with particular gravity, and it is not by chance that Philo discusses the legal status of the fetus in the context of his exposition of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." The ensoulment idea is not mentioned again in Chapter 4.

b. This is supported in the text.

c. The quotation here is cherrypicked. The full paragraph goes The basic thinking remains the same as far as theological principles are concerned, but some nuances are introduced, above all on the issue of expositio. Since an increasing number of Christian parents were poor and found it difficult to look after their children, the theologians were forced to take into account this situation and to reflect anew on the question. This made it possible to take a more tolerant attitude toward poor people who exposed their children. As I have said, however, the basic thinking did not change; this is why I limit myself in this section to a brief overview of the discussion. Boldface mine. The following two paragraphs then discuss punishments for abortion in the Constantinian era. 134.226.214.244 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you that Bakke is not a good source for some of the statements for which he's cited. In particular, something Bakke says about tolerance toward infanticide (Infant exposure) by the poor doesn't belong in a discussion of abortion. There are much better sources in Catholic Church and abortion#Early writings. For example, three historians are cited for the statement that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard abortion before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as sinful, and in fact "abortion" was commonly understood to mean post-quickening termination of pregnancy." NightHeron (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look through Riddle. I don't think it supports the statement that early Christian thought regarded abortion before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as sinful, and in fact "abortion" was commonly understood to mean post-quickening termination of pregnancy. In fact, in his section on early Christian thought he makes some stronger claims that probably should be mentioned in this article. For example on page 82, he argues that Galatians 5:20 and Revelation 9:21, 21:8 are likely condemnations of abortion (Bakke mentions the first one). He then directly says thatThese passages indicate that among some Christians there had developed a notion that the fetus should be protected and that abortion, at any point, was religiously wrong. A few paragraphs on he says . In numerous synodal acts abortion was regarded as a sin without forgiveness. He argues that the Greek and Jewish views on abortion were imported into Christianity by Augustine of Hippo (so post-Nicea). In other words, I think that there is a strong consensus among our references here. I'm going to be busy writing for a few days, but it would be nice if some other editors in the meantime could weigh in here and help break the deadlock between NightHeron and me. 134.226.214.244 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking quotes from Riddle out of context. For example, the last sentence you cite about "numerous synodal acts" is in reference to the church synod at Elvira in 309. That quote from Riddle is immediately preceded by the following: "As judged by the number of synodal resolutions, however, the primary concern was sexuality. Sexual behavior was a focus of attention because it was a means by which the Church, at least in Spain, sought control and definition. All sexual activity outside of marriage was forbidden and in marriage discouraged." Like Luker (whom we discussed in the previous thread), Riddle makes the point that, whatever the early theoretical statements might say, in practice the Church in this period was opposed to abortion primarily insofar as it was associated with adultery and other sex outside of marriage.

One page earlier Riddle writes: "The Christians took the lessons attributed to Jesus and mixed them with ideas from the Stoics to arrive at beliefs not much different from prevailing Judaic, Hellenic, and Roman values." A few pages later, he writes (in connection with Roman prohibition on abortion) that "for a woman to be blamed for an abortion the pregnancy would have to have been visible. There was no practical way that the court could probe that an early-term pregnancy had ended." Luker, Riddle, Noonan, Means, and Cadden all agree that the Church's teachings on abortion pre-1869 were always contested terrain among theologians. None of these sources support the sharp distinction that you've been making between the "pre-Nicean" vs "post-Nicean" Church. They of course acknowledge that some early writings strongly condemned abortion, but they attach more significance to the interpretations of Church writings by Augustine and Gregory that specified that abortion should not be taken to refer to early pregnancy (pre-quickening or pre-40-days).

Writing about the one period pre-1869 when the Pope took an unambiguous anti-abortion position, namely, the period of the Effraenatum in the late 1500s, Riddle writes (p. 158): "The bull had a lifetime of about two-and-a-half years and was weak in influence. The succeeding pope countered it and returned to the traditional position that contraception was a sin and abortion a crime, but that abortion could not occur until after the fortieth day, when the fetus was ensouled" (my emphasis). NightHeron (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we're both reading our sources with biases and we need a neutral arbitrator to help settle this impasse. Here are my suggestions for change

1. The phrase early Christian thought refers to the pre-Nicaean era. This is not just my opinion - it is general Wikipedia policy, see the first sentence of Historiography of early Christianity. In fact, it is distinction made in this very article Later Christian thought on abortion talks about the 4th century. As it stands, this article misleading to readers as it conflates the accepted timeline. It is crystal clear in all our sources that the ensoulment debate took place between the First Council of Nicaea and 1869. There is no source supporting the historical existence of a debate within the context of early Christian (ie. pre-Niceaen) thought. In fact, the most comprehensive source we have says precisely the opposite - Bakke says that

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. 

2. Luker is redundant in this debate since all her contributions are cited as coming from Noonan. She should be removed as a reference, as her work work is meant as contribution to 20th century legal studies not to church history.

3. Galatians 5:20 (and possibly Revelation 9:21 and 21:8) should probably be added as relevant verses in Sections 1.1 and 10.1 supported by citations from Bakke and Riddle.

4. The Bakke citation for Some writers state that there is evidence that some early Christians believed, as the Greeks did, in delayed ensoulment, or that a fetus does not have a soul until quickening, and therefore early abortion was not murder is just wrong. As I said none of sources believe this to be an issue in the pre-Niceaen era (and thus the context of Section 10.1). It can be moved to Section 10.2, where it belongs.

5. The final paragraph needs to be moved to Section 10.2 as well as it pertains to later Christian thought.

In response to more recent comment, I reject that any of my quotes are cherrypicked. The quote about "numerous synodal acts" is indeed in reference to the church synod at Elvira in 309, but that is the only pre-Niceaen church synod that he mentions at all in his piece. Riddle indeed does not make the distinction between early Christian thought and later Christian thought, but we must do here because of the structure of the article. Unlike Bakke, his work is not comprehensive enough. Bakke does make this distinction and arrives at conclusions that I have voluminously outlined above. With respect to your last quote, Riddle's personal opinions in a separate section about Roman law are not relevant here.

Lastly, would it be possible to provide textual evidence for your claim that Riddle makes the point that, whatever the early theoretical statements might say, in practice the Church in this period was opposed to abortion primarily insofar as it was associated with adultery and other sex outside of marriage? It's not obvious to me from a cursory reading. 134.226.214.244 (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

My comment that you're claiming I don't have textual support for is simply a paraphrasing of what Riddle says in the passage I quoted about the Elvira synod. At the risk of repeating myself (and repeating Riddle), the synod's "sin without forgiveness" statement was made in a context where it was clear that what they were really upset about was what they perceived as sexual immorality (often associated with abortion and contraception).

Our discussion has been about attitudes toward what in our day is called early abortion, that is, destruction of a zygote or embryo. I'm surprised that you seriously propose Bakke as a credible source. In the words you quote from him he refers to this as a form of "murder of children". Only an anti-abortion zealot would use such an emotional and inaccurate term. On abortion-related articles over time I've had discussions with several editors who are clearly opponents of abortion, but in my experience all of them, like you, have used civil and respectful language. The only ones who use the type of offensive language that Bakke uses are the extremists who frequently vandalize these pages.

I see your point that you and I aren't making progress on the central issue of debate, which is whether or not Riddle, Noonan, Cadden, and Means (you can leave out Luker, since she's not a historian) are reliable sources for the statement that pre-1869 Catholic thought on abortion was contested terrain, and Catholics mostly interpreted abortion to mean post-quickening or post-40-days gestation.

However, I'm not opposed to clarifying the time line. I see that the technical meaning of "early Christian thought" in Church history is different from the common meaning. Readers are likely to think of the 4th century through the Middle Ages as early. The sources Riddle, Noonan, Cadden, and Means don't make a distinction in terminology between pre-Nicean and post-Nicean, and seem to accept the common usage of early rather than the technical usage. But the English language is rich in synonyms and alternative ways of saying things, so some minor changes in wording should remove the confusion over what period early Christian thought refers to. NightHeron (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Abortion providers

NightHeron my addition is about a study by the National Institute of Health directly from the table on page 8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170127/pdf/nihms314025.pdf You are free to rephrase my sentence as you deem most precise but it is crucial to this article.Foorgood (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that's your reading of the table, but that's not what the authors write or what the table actually says. According to the table, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (grouped together) perform fewer abortions than non-Evangelical Protestants, but far more than Evangelical Protestants.

This is a primary source representing one study, and according to WP:RS secondary sources are preferred anyway. NightHeron (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron as I said we can include it just as you wrote it- "According to the table, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perform fewer abortions than non-Evangelical Protestants, but more than Evangelical Protestants." The national health institute is a top level source and the Guttmacher study in the first sentence is a similar survey.Foorgood (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Although that sentence would accurately represent a piece of the data from the table, as far as I could see it's not a point that the authors make. It's up to the authors, not you or me, to interpret the table and decide what's significant in the data. They comment on the relation between religiosity (across several religions) and willingness to perform abortions, and they also talk about doctors who work in Catholic hospitals. If you want to add a balanced discussion of Christian doctors' attitudes toward performing abortions (since you call that aspect of the topic "crucial to this article") without running up against WP:UNDUE, you should first look for more sources. If you find two or three more high-quality sources that discuss this, then I think you'd have a case for adding a whole paragraph on this. NightHeron (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok so 1. the national institute of health pdf on page 8 shows more non evangelical protestants provided abortions than Catholics. 2. This source on page 331 shows protestants were more willing to perform abortions than Catholics. https://books.google.com/books?id=HIZJAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA330&dq=obstetrician+gynecologist+abortion+catholic+protestant&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwwoy5x5X0AhXUPn0KHfHrANoQ6AF6BAgDEAM 3. On the second page down from this source says the protestants had no conviction against providing abortions whereas the Catholics did. https://books.google.com/books?id=VfzIDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT64&dq=obstetrician+gynecologist+abortion+catholic+protestant&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwwoy5x5X0AhXUPn0KHfHrANoQ6AF6BAgIEAM

And here's the first source cited elsewhere

https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2011/09000/Abortion_Provision_Among_Practicing.16.aspx

Foorgood (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying your sources. The basic problem with what you're doing is that you're drawing conclusions from data in a primary source that go beyond what the authors say, and those conclusions could easily be wrong. WP:OR tells us not to do this. For example, let's look at your first source from Health Services Reports. You say that this source "shows protestants were more willing to perform abortions than Catholics." No, it doesn't. Its data are exclusively from New York State, where Protestants are likely to belong to moderate denominations, whereas in other parts of the US (and parts of Latin America) they're more likely to belong to Evangelical denominations. The article is not even concerned with differences between religions; the topic of the article is women obstetricians in New York State. You can't draw a sweeping conclusion about Catholic vs Protestant physicians' views about performing abortions from this type of source. Please read WP:OR. NightHeron (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Now if we allow the Guttmacher study for the abortion patients, tell me what is wrong with my first source if it is cited in different pages and clearly states what you wrote above " "According to the table, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perform fewer abortions than non-Evangelical Protestants, but more than Evangelical Protestants." One study is sufficient like the Guttmacher study if it's cited in different places.Foorgood (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I pointed that out only as an example of how your sweeping edit comparing Catholic to Protestant physicians was a simplification of what the table actually shows. I was not proposing that as an acceptable sentence to add. It was my own point after looking at the table, not something that was in the text of the article. A table of data can be used to conclude a lot of things, most of which are not mentioned by the authors and so presumably considered by them to be either unimportant or uncertain or irrelevant. It's not our job as editors to draw conclusions from raw data, such as a table of numbers or percentages. Also, WP:PROPORTION says that information should be included in proportion to what reliable sources say is noteworthy. Policies such as WP:RS and WP:MEDRS say that the best guides to what's noteworthy are secondary sources. The trouble with a primary source (reporting on one particular study of the authors) is that we're not in a position to judge how other experts evaluate the study, how it fits in with other studies, how replicable the study is, how significant it is, and so on. NightHeron (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron here are the multiple sources that cite the source- https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/08/22/139859979/proportion-of-ob-gyns-offering-abortions-may-be-lower-than-thought. https://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/23/fewer-doctors-willing-to-do-abortions-new-study-shows/. https://khn.org/news/study-fewer-doctors-are-offering-abortions/. They all reflect how the main source table 1 said there were more non evangelical protestant obgyns performing abortion than Catholic obgyns. However you want to phrase it is it crucial.Foorgood (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not true. Your first two sources both mention the figure of 9% for Catholic or Eastern Orthodox and 10% for non-Evangelical Protestants. The fact that the sources don't call attention to that miniscule difference is not surprising, since it is hardly of statistical significance. Statistically insignificant is the opposite of "crucial". NightHeron (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

How is that different than the Guttmacher difference? On this table from the original source https://ibb.co/N7MJDRd 31 non evangelical protestants provided abortions while 23 Catholics provided abortions. That is enough of a difference to include about US physicians in this article by stating "According to a 2011 study in the US non evangelical protestant physicians were more likely to provide abortions than Catholic physicians but evangelical protestant physicians were the least likely."Foorgood (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't follow. Are you quoting the sentence that's in quotes from this article or another article (if so, where is it?), or are you saying that you want to add that sentence? NightHeron (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying we can add that sentence if you prefer that wording but look how the Guttmacher sentence says "The same report said that of US abortions, 37 percent were undertaken by women who identified as Protestant, and 28 percent were Catholic" so in similar fashion this table https://ibb.co/N7MJDRd shows that 22.9% of abortion providers were non evangelical protestants while 16.8% were Catholic.Foorgood (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

What you're saying is a good example of why Wikipedia has the policy WP:OR, which you really should read. You insist on doing your own interpretation of the table of statistics, and the result is a misinterpretation of the numbers. The 22.9% Protestant vs 16.8% Catholics among abortion providers does not show what you think it shows, because the same table says that 34.5% of those who refuse to provide abortions are Protestants and only 28.7% are Catholics. So both groups (providers and non-providers) had more Protestants than Catholics, because there were more Protestants than Catholics among the people surveyed. The relevant statistic is the proportion of Catholics who provide abortion out of all who responded (about 9%) vs the proportion of Protestants who provide abortion out of all who responded (about 10%). This is the same statistic that was given in your other sources, and it's of no statistical significance, which presumably is why none of the authors of those sources attached any importance to it. I'm not criticizing you for misunderstanding the statistics. Wikipedia editors are not expected to be skillful in interpreting statistics; rather, we're supposed to rely on the experts for that -- which is why the WP:OR policy requires us to use reliable sources to interpret statistics, especially statistics about complicated subjects such as attitudes of different groups of people about abortion. NightHeron (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand about the ones who don't provide abortions but the point you are ignoring is still the same- Out of all physicians that provide abortions, protestants outnumber Catholics. The Guttmacher sentence doesn't state how many protestants and Catholics don't do abortions it just states the ones that do. Likewise my edit is to state how many protestants and Catholics performed abortions. Again read these two sentences there is no difference "The same report said that of US abortions, 37 percent were undertaken by women who identified as Protestant, and 28 percent were Catholic" so in similar fashion from this table https://ibb.co/N7MJDRd Out of abortion providers in the US 22.9% of were non evangelical protestants while 16.8% were Catholic.Foorgood (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, Guttmacher is a reliable secondary source for factual and statistical information, and the comparison that's in the article is made explicitly in the source. It's not a conclusion that a Wikipedia editor made after looking at a table. In the second place, you're again misinterpreting the significance of those numbers. They do not show that Catholic women are less inclined to have abortions than Protestant women. The US population is about 49% Protestant and 23% Catholic. That is, there are more than twice as many Protestants as Catholics. But of US abortions, the number undertaken by Protestant women is only about 1 1/3 times as many as the number undertaken by Catholic women. NightHeron (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The facts are based on Guttmacher and this study, out of the totality of abortions in the us, (60 million) protestants have done more than Catholics (higher percentage of the total) so proportions and likelihood don't matter. I will quit this quibbling with you.Foorgood (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Quite aside from the rest of this discussion, the sentence as currently phrased just makes me think "well, duh, there are way more Protestants in the US than Catholics, that's just math." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spark 96, P.makakaruwang, Kelseyrouse, Nayeli8rojas. Peer reviewers: Jadcruz, Bdevalk, Arapisar33, Austinx1997.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)