1. Believe that the foetus is alive (and often also that it is human)
2. Believe that life is sacred or otherwise precious.
3. Believe that the foetus's right to life outweighs the mother's right the self-determine use of her body.
I can understand how one can have a thought process like that even if I think it's wrong in numerous different ways.
The actual Jewish tradition is against several of those; the actual Christian tradition may be for them, but the idea that you should actually read the Bible, know what an official position is, or do anything yourself outside of talking to a priest is a modern invention of Protestantism. And Protestants weren’t against abortion until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholicism.
If they believe all three of these things, as well as the unsaid and equally necessary fourth that it is the government's job to enforce them regardless of the will of the people, then they must also believe -
It is the government's job to ensure -everyone- receives necessary care. That means, minimally, food, shelter, healthcare, regardless of your work situation, age, (dis)ability, etc.
Life > personal autonomy, so organ donation is not optional, nor is blood donation. If your kidney is a match for someone who needs one, you're forced to donate, that sort of thing. And expect monthly trips to the blood donation van.
Etc.
Anything else and these are logically inconsistent.
Actually, believing they’re the same thing is more like EA utilitarianism, isn’t it? Almost noone has that philosophy and most would find it repulsive.
Which is why Roe v. Wade's recognition of abortion being protected until a fetus is considered viable.
But, that call out is worth also enumerating - a logically consistent position with that would be that it's legally acceptable to remove someone from life support. Potentially regardless of their wishes, depending on the level of nuance.
I'm pretty much anti-abortion myself, but draw the line at your point. So, I'm practically pro-choice.
> it is the government's job to enforce
Which is where I say we stop on the whole abortion thing. So, I'm an anti-abortion pro-choicer? Kinda weird I suppose. Falling between two camps isn't popular these days.
I've yet to meet the hardliner who wants to ban abortion, but then also is sufficiently pro-welfare to really show they care about life, let alone finding a logically consistent path through all the other knock on effects. Carlin had it right; they tend to be pro-birth, not pro-life.
Isn't reforming pagan Rome essentially the foundational act of the Christian religion? Christ critiqued the system and was tortured to death for it. Followers of Christ continued to critiqued the system and many more were tortured to death for it. The strength of their conviction in the face of death inspired more followers, as did the evident injustice of the Roman system. Before long, they had enough mindshare to enact reform.
Keeping religion out of politics seems like an American value, not a Christian value.
Christ didn't critique Rome. He didn't really have words for Rome at all, beyond "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". The threat he embodied to 'the system' was specifically the Judaic priesthood who didn't view him as the Messiah. Well, arguably he embodied a broader threat to Rome, in that as you say, living in ways counter to Rome (and 'the world' at large) it challenged institutional assumptions and gave way to reform, but that wasn't a threat Rome really recognized, and, key to your point I think, was not trying to affect Roman law, nor lead to it even amongst those who were citizens of Rome.
Other than the aforementioned "give to Caesar what is Caesar's", which certainly doesn't seem to challenge Rome, or indicate any political stance beyond "pay your taxes", can you come up with any time Jesus even -acknowledged- Rome? He didn't even disobey Roman law; both Pilate and Herod Antipas acknowledged they could find "no guilt in him". It was a Jewish affair.
Even Paul didn't seem particular interested in Rome. He was a citizen of Rome, afforded rights, which he availed himself of when it came to who could judge him, but which he never talks about using to vote (despite as a citizen of Rome having that right, at least for local leaders). He doesn't instruct citizens to vote, let alone how they should vote, nor does he instruct them to be active in civics. He does give instruction for how to engage with civic leaders - pray for them, and obey the law.
That hardly paints a picture of getting religion into politics.
More to the point though, what I was referencing was specifically Jesus' and Paul's statements regarding the law. Namely, that all the law could do is condemn. It's part of a broader understanding that one aspect of the Old Testament is that it serves as a demonstration that even God's chosen people are unable to live up to the law; people can't be good enough. Everyone who lived under the law was condemned by the law. That trying to legislate morality just serves to punish people for being immoral. That something different is needed to actually make people righteous (Christ, sanctification through grace, etc etc). It is ironic, then, how many Christians end up deciding that what this culture really needs is more law, morality via legislation, rather than trying to affect the culture by, well, living counter culturally, loving those who persecute you, etc.
If the Christian voting bloc collectively shrugged its shoulders at abortion as a law, while at the same time showing up at abortion centers to love and support those who were there, ensuring their needs as potential mothers, as well as any needs from having an abortion (which is oftentimes still traumatic) were met, voting not to punish and condemn ("you got raped at 14? Too bad; you get to be a single teenage mother now. Have a good life") but instead to enable (mandatory paid maternity leave, welfare programs to ensure children would be taken care of, healthcare coverage, etc, so that having a child wasn't an economic burden), it would likely lead to a much better reception to their message than the current most highly visible tact of political partisanship.
And this is what I've been finding lately as I've been reading and researching the bible.
That’s what “pro-choice” means. They’re not “pro-abortion”, at least officially.
US liberals are good at avoiding abortions ahead of time because they have less premarital sex. The conservative no-sex messaging doesn’t work as well because it relies on telling teens that abstinence is the cool minority thing to do, but once you convert the whole school, it’s hard to believe that.
I think you make fair points, but I would guess here that the reality is not less pre-marital sex. It's probably more, it's just sex with birth control.
Did they really have to have an official position when the state said it was illegal?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ukju68/in_19...
If we narrow consideration to just white evangelical protestants, a 24% / 74% split is clearly a strong trend against abortion. Even so, 1 in 4 is by no means rare.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...
I think that Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, would have something to say[0] about that:
“The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind,” (Josephus, Against Apion Book 2, Chapter 25, Section 202).
> And Protestants weren’t against abortion until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholicism.
That's like saying that Protestants didn't believe in God until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholics who are theists. Do you have any example of historic Protestant teaching that approved of abortion?
[0] https://carm.org/abortion/abortion-and-the-early-church/
I mean, he’s not a rabbi or anything. It was considered somewhat less bad than murder, or possibly is only bad when Romans do it.
https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/publi...
> That's like saying that Protestants didn't believe in God until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholics who are theists.
Surely the Protestants’ idea was they’re the ones who believe in God and Catholics are idolators who worship saints?
> Do you have any example of historic Protestant teaching that approved of abortion?
They switched to being against it in the 70s, so is 68 historic?
https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evang... (page is somewhat broken)
“On the authority of Rabbi Ishmael, it was said: [A murderer is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. What is Rabbi Ishmael’s reason? Because it is written, ‘Whosoever sheddeth the blood of man within a man, his blood shall be shed.’ What is a man within a man? An embryo in his mother’s womb,” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57b).
> is 68 historic?
I wasn't aware of Waltke's position, which is cited by that CNN article, but I don't think it represents the consensus of Christian scholars at the time, and in any case, he later (in 1976) reversed his position, concluding: "The fetus is human and therefore to be accorded the same protection to life granted every other human being."
I don't know if you're a rabbi, but these rabbis disagree with you:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-women-express-anger-aft...
That we believe we can justly inflict capital punishment on a rapist's child is also interesting.
You know, there was once another Supreme Court case where individual rights (namely, property rights) came into conflict with (controversial) claims of personhood: Dred Scott.
You could say I'm trolling here, because the truth is I do not vote on the basis of abortion issues, and, when push comes to shove, I would tend to allow it. So I am not, politically, quite the person you might think I am.
Nevertheless, it does make me extremely, morally, uncomfortable; it's something I wouldn't want to be mixed up in; and I can absolutely understand the philosophical arguments against it. Which is why I am able to make analogies like those above.
If you stop and think about it, Republicans' opposition to abortion, perversely, demonstrates that at least in some areas they have moral principles (though you might disagree with them) -- that they do what they believe is right, even when it's not in their interest. Because the people most disproportionately impacted by restrictive abortion rules are women of color. If Republicans were ruthless consequentialists, this is exactly the person whose abortion rights they would not want to restrict. So in a perverse way it tells me that (some of them) actually believe something.
Maybe! Or, maybe:
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." ~ Frank Wilhoit
...some political philosophies are strongly hierarchical and see a benefit in having a numerous and economically precarious out-group.
[0]: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-high-cost-of-unintend...
Keeping a large group of people oppressed is incredibly dangerous; it's bound to blow up in your face. The Spartans did not last.
You're better off expanding the in-group.
Unless you can do that, it's not fair to claim that those extremists are succeeding in pushing anything.
Edit: I'm not going to individually address all of the dishonest rhetoric from the articles in the replies. The states have laws allowing abortion up to a certain number of weeks, and then after that don't make exceptions. I was referring to outright bans.
'In the past few years, though, the anti-abortion movement has moved in a different direction. In 2019, Alabama legislators passed an abortion ban that lacked rape and incest exceptions. Nine other states—Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas—have passed similar laws. Courts blocked all the laws but Texas’s; if Roe is overturned, it will be a felony for any Texas doctor to perform an abortion for a woman who was raped or impregnated by a family member. In March, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed an early-abortion ban without rape or incest exemptions.'
“The Human Life Protection Act "defines all unborn children as persons". It bans abortions AT ANY STAGE OF A PREGNANCY. The law provides for exceptions in cases where a fetus has a lethal anomaly (a medical condition that would cause the fetus to be stillborn or to die shortly following birth), or in cases where a pregnancy would "present serious health risk" to the woman. The law also allows abortions to be performed "upon confirmation from a psychiatrist" that a pregnant woman diagnosed with a "serious mental illness" might otherwise take an action that would lead to her own death or to the death of the fetus. The law does not ban procedures to end ectopic pregnancies or procedures in which a dead fetus is removed from the uterus. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE AN EXCEPTION IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Life_Protection_Act
Here is another example, from Texas: “Senate Bill 8, ushered through the Republican-dominated Texas legislature and signed into law by the Republican governor, Greg Abbott, in May, bars abortion once embryonic cardiac activity is detected, which is around six weeks, and offers NO EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE OR INCEST. Texas is the first state to ban abortion this early in pregnancy since Roe v Wade, and last-minute efforts to halt it through an appeal to the US supreme court by Tuesday did not succeed.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/01/texas-aborti...
Further reading: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/05/supreme...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/us/abortion-trigger-laws....
"Not in my back yard" is a wonderful summation of this. While many upper class liberals support more homeless shelters, they don't want one in their neighborhood. While many neoconservatives support a ban on abortions, they wouldn't want low income, single mother housing placement shelters in their neighborhoods, with job training.
I believe it's the distinction between active killing vs. the passive lack of support.
If pro lifers are assuming that a fetus is indeed a living human being, then it follows that the child is completely innocent and its survival is completely dependent on the mother.
A soldier signing up for the army knows very well what he is up against..
And yet here is Governor Ducy arguing for an arguably mentally incompetent man to be put to death for the murder of an innocent child. While, yes, the crime is egregious, and he should never be set free from his cell... Do you think that it is, indeed "pro-life" to argue, as quite a few do, to argue for the death penalty as a form of punishment (I won't say many - this truly does split the movement. Catholics especially - Ducy is a poor representative, but Republican politicians are overwhelmingly pro death penalty, anti abortion). A strong case can be made that the people who are executed suffer from severe mental illness and are not capable of telling right from wrong in any true form. Sociopaths who lack the education or means to make it to Wall Street, as it were.
Just so you know, I'm not trying to be argumentative to be argumentative. You guys being very polite and I enjoy these conversations =) If you get sick of it, just stop responding, no hard feelings =)
EDIT: grammar is hard
First, I've yet to meet a pro-choice person who didn't actually, you know, want the best outcomes for kids. They don't actually hate children, and there are other reasons to champion choice than "well, if they're born no one will adopt them" (despite what op says, pro-choice people don't ever list "no one will adopt them" as a reason to get an abortion. That whole line of reasoning is only a strawman presented by anti-abortion proponents. As you'll note even with this thread). Not to mention that if we got to "kid zero" with abortion at its current levels, it doesn't mean we'd stay at "kid zero" if you banned it.
Second, op -did- say with the same quality of outcomes for adopted kids as raised by natural parents. If pro-life activists can adopt as many children as they can, for all the wrong reasons, and still lead to equivalent outcomes...I really don't see the problem.
People want babies, not so much children.
Babies get adopted very quickly, the ones that don't are those with health issues.