Abortion: The One True Hill to die on

The BBQ Pit
1

Ok, I get that Conservatives believe it to be murder, but their overwhelming emphasis on this matter, to the exclusion of all other moral issues, baffles me. Ok, yes, Murder, worse than many other things. Got it.

But here’s the thing.

Ancient Israeli law (the Old Testament) on the matter was basically inherited from previous Semitic empires (Akkadian, Sumerian), where Abortion was only a crime if a viable baby was aborted. ‘Viable’ meaning that it could live on its own, which was a far different thing in the Bronze Age than it is today. The only real mention of it I could find was that if a man kicks a woman and causes her to abort, he owed her 10 shekels. That’s not a whole lot of money. It’s about an ounce and a half of silver. If he killed the mother, he was put to death.

The only evidence of the death penalty being mandated for abortion in the ancient laws is found in Assyrian Law, in the Code of Assura, c. 1075 BC; and this is imposed only on a woman who procures an abortion against her husband’s wishes.

The plant silphium, native to Crete, was driven to extinction through its use as an abortifacient.

The priests and prophets of the bible would look at you sideways for suggesting that embryos and zygotes are ‘people’. That is clearly not true under Old Testament / Ancient Semitic Law.

Otherwise, most ancient cultures not only had no law against it, but had customs and medicinal texts on how to do it properly.

In the time of Jesus, under the Roman Empire, abortion was not a crime at all. The only time it was a crime in ancient Greece was if the husband was dead and the wife then aborted his male child, since that child was his inheritor, and that was largely moved over to the Roman Empire, where the head of a household had complete power of life and death over its members.

Then there’s the hard and cold fact that despite these laws and the history, neither Jesus or any of the Apostles made as much as a single reference or condemnation of the practice. Not one. Not Paul “A day late and a messiah short”, not Timothy the misogynist. Modern believers put it under the heading of 'thou shalt not kill", but quite clearly, it is not considered as such at any point in the Christian bible. You’d think if it was the same high moral issue as the American right considers it today, they’d have at least mentioned it or condemned it. They didn’t.

Under Christianity, starting in about the 3rd century AD, it started to become illegal, but well, it’s complicated. At no point, even up until the middle ages, was aborting a fetus before ‘the quickening’ (first movements at 3-5 months) considered wrong, as church philosophy stated that it had no soul before that point. This would seem to be right in line with ancient Semitic laws on the matter.
So how did this issue become the one overriding issue for Conservatives that they’re willing to vote for the very embodiment of the seven deadly sins, they’re willing to vote against their own best interests at all levels, if the politician denounces abortion?

2

Ultrasounds and modern technology may have had a role, but also, people’s views change. A long time ago, the idea of gay marriage would have been laughable. On any given issue, the viewpoint can shift significantly with time. So it’s not surprising that people would go from “abortion isn’t murder” to “abortion is murder.”

And if something *is *viewed as murder, then, how could you NOT vote on that issue almost overwhelmingly to the overriding of every other issue?

That being said, even most pro-lifers don’t truly *feel *that it is the same as murder, otherwise you wouldn’t be seeing such a “tame” approach by pro-lifers against abortion clinics. If, say, a million toddlers were being euthanized in clinics in America, you’d see a violent storming of such clinics or far more ferocious opposition, but you don’t, because the gut feeling isn’t there. Abortion doesn’t have the same gut impact to people (pro-life or pro-choice) as the killing of a born, living, long-out-of-the-uterus person.

3

Indoctrination and tribal virtue signalling. Those that are most vocal and focused on the issue have had the idea drilled into them from an early age, so consequently there is no real rational philosophy involved. By adopting the pro-life mantle and becoming a warrior for the cause they gain status in their tribal ranks. And they satisfy the very human propensity to separate the world into the “us” (pro-life) vs. “them” (baby killers).

Regarding the history lesson, that’s nice, but what does that have to do with anything, really? Much of what passes for fundamental christian teaching was invented by 19th century opportunistic preachers.

But that’s just my opinion.

4

It’s the real holy trinity of the regressive mind: Ignorance, Zealotry & Hypocrisy.

5

As far as it being such a wedge issue politically, there is a very low cost politically for running on the issue and individually for voting on the issue. There is no real immediacy involved.

Similar to the issues of the environment, or immigration, most opponents don’t see there being any immediate impact on their lives. It’s only when they see their friend Carlos carted off by ICE, or their cousin getting cancer from tainted water, that they start to get that there are real consequences to their positions.

6

It’s interesting to remember that when George W Bush was president, Republicans were often criticized for voting for him because he seemed like a nice guy that you’d want to have a beer with, rather than based on his policies. Now that Republicans may be seen as voting for Trump because of his policies and overlooking his personal life and deportment, the criticism switches around.

Similarly, Christians are sometimes criticized for unthinkingly following 2,000-year-old doctrines, except when they’re following doctrines that developed more recently, in which case they may get criticized for doing that.

And I suspect that people anywhere on the political spectrum don’t take it too seriously when their political opponents seek to define what their interests properly should be. Everyone makes value judgments of some kind.

7

When people start treating miscarriages of 4 week old fetuses the same as a child who dies, including full on funerals with a casket and such, then I will believe that they believe what they are saying. Until then, meh.

8

Agreed, it doesn’t make sense. Abortion is wrong because life is sacred, but the death penalty is OK, and guns that kill people are OK, and there should not be any social programs to help underprivileged children in need. Pro-life? More like pro-fetus. Once you’re born, you’re on your own.

9

Yes, the historical context is valuable. Some of the pregnancies pro-lifers are trying to save would have had little to no chance of survival beyond the child’s infancy hundreds of years ago. Good luck finding a religious pro-lifer who thinks society ought to plan (planning is a dirty word) to adjust for their quality of life issues.

10

Well, there’s a difference - no fetus has ever committed violent crimes while in the womb. Most pro-lifers aren’t pro-all-life, period - they’re pro-innocent-life. So for an innocent fetus to be aborted to be wrong, but for execution of a convicted murderer to be right, doesn’t conflict with their logic at all. It’s 100% consistent; no contradiction.
Sure, there are wrongfully convicted people who get executed, but that’s a different issue.

11

As for the oft-repeated “If pro-lifers support life, then why don’t they support care/assistance for the children after they’re born, why do they only care about before they’re born” argument - I agree that more should be done to help children after they’re born. However, it doesn’t follow that just because someone doesn’t personally invest more of themselves to help a cause, that they’re not pro-that-cause. By analogy, someone can care about the plight of undocumented immigrants while not personally donating their own money to support undocumented immigrants.

12

And yet we have children going hungry in this country and deny them healthcare; and we indiscriminately bomb brown-skinned children in the name of America without a twinge of conscience.

13

So Jesus forgives, but not his most ardent [del]hypocrites[/del] followers.

14

Careful what you say! (Indiana tried to require funerals for abortions).

I consider myself the one person in the country neither pro-life or pro-choice ;).

I think abortions are a travesty. I think it’s an insult to call it a choice; no woman “chooses” an abortion. She is forced into it because of some unfortunate circumstance.

So, I want there to be zero abortions. And, therefore, I support the things the Republican pro-lifers routinely reject: easy access to the morning after pill (I am willing to agree that life begins at conception, but conception does not begin at intercourse!), early sex education (before the equipment is functioning and the experimenting has started!), free access to contraception, et al.

And, while you try to prevent the rate of abortion, you do need to provide legal, safe, and clinical access: I can respect the legal standard that says it is ok up to the point that the fetus is “viable” outside the womb, but that means abortions services must be available for those early in their pregnancy. Otherwise, you are just exacerbating a health crisis, since outlawing the practice of abortion won’t eliminate the demand for one.

Republicans (well, at least the power brokers) don’t want an abortion-free country, anymore than Demoratic power brokers want a gun-free country. Instead, they want a controversy that can rile up the passions of their base and help them raise money. True solutions are anathema to that boondoggle.

15

First, remember this is a recent change for Protestant groups. As recently as the [70s](http://www.p atheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/), this was not even remotely an issue for the majority of non-Catholic denominations.

The truth is the Religious Right movement was all about race and fighting against desegregation:

Abortion opposition was selected as a more acceptable moral cause than fighting desegregation:

16

Yes, but to pro-lifers, that’s the difference between **active **and passive. If you are actively killing someone (which is what abortion is, from the pro-life standpoint,) that is quite different than merely not intervening on behalf of someone. Sure, more should be done to help the kids. But from the pro-life standpoint, what you are describing is the difference between someone merely not helping a hungry homeless man on a street corner, and someone actively *killing *a homeless man on a street corner.

We don’t. Name a single recent instance where the United States *specifically targeted brown-skinned children with bombs for the sake of bombing them, *and did so on the basis of it being viewed as a good thing to do. Collateral damage isn’t the same; the primary target isn’t the kids.

17

Catholic Nun Explains Pro-Life In A Way That Will Stun Many (Especially Republican Lawmakers)

18

So if someone commits murder, the jury and judge are supposed to “forgive” the murderer on behalf of the victim?

19

I don’t see unanimity among conservatives that abortion is murder in all circumstances, although willingness to compromise on what would seem to be common-sense provisions (such as allowing abortion in the case of severe and/or life-threatening birth defects) brings down hollering condemnations from practitioners of the True Faith.

Interesting that there have been calls by (alleged) progressives recently for “compromise” by pro-abortion rights advocates, on the grounds that rigidity on the issue costs progressives support among voters. In effect they are saying this is not a hill to die on. I get the feeling most of these “compromisers” would be happy if abortion was mostly outlawed, though they occasionally have a glimmer of a point (i.e. whether laws to prohibit some abortions late in pregnancy if maternal health exceptions are included are deserving of a hearing).

20

Yeah, that’s totally where I was going with that. :rolleyes: