We’ve got two different things here - the thread title is
and the question in the OP of
Those are two entirely different things.
What would it take for them to be OK with abortion? A loss of faith. They would have to no longer believe that life begins at conception or that there is anything special about human life.
What argument would it take to convince them? I don’t believe there is an argument that could convince them. Well, maybe, if you could convince them not that they ARE wrong about their faith, but that they could be wrong, and therefor their religious morals should not be legislated.
Actually, the anti-abortion viewpoint is quite consistent with the anti-birth-control viewpoint IF you start from the viewpoint of “sex outside of marriage is bad.” No, strike that - you have to start even further than that - “Sex is intended for procreation. Procreation should only happen within the bounds of marriage.” If you truly believe that, then no birth control, no abortion makes perfect sense.
If the question is “what could make the most hardcore, extremist pro-lifers OK with abortion?”, the answer is likely “nothing.” But I think that almost goes without saying. I think something important to understand is this probably only describes around 10% or so of the United States, or around 25% of pro-lifers.
For the remainder, they likely already make some compromises with abortion. A significant percentage of pro-lifers, for example, are in favor of a rape or incest exception to abortion laws, which actually reveals something interesting about that subset of pro-lifers–they don’t really believe a fertilized embryo is a human being. If they did, it wouldn’t matter that it was conceived in rape or incest, right? I can imagine a lot of “angles of attack” with someone like that, to–if not change their mind, at least broaden their horizons, they’ve already done the work of it themselves to a degree.
I can’t imagine how a pro-lifer would become okay with abortion in general. But I have seen people who opposed legal abortion switch over to treating it as “not an issue worth voting on, other issues matter more.”
The critical arguments that swayed them were:
There isn’t actually any Biblical support for “the embryo is ensouled at conception”. Greater detail would be a hijack for this thread, but I can make a very strong case for this and have, to several deeply religious people.
Very early-term abortions feel a lot less like murdering a child than late term abortions. It’s a mistake to lump them all together.
The most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the politicians/judges who are the most ardent anti-abortionists push laws that increase unwanted pregnancies.
There are a lot of other important issues, such as caring for children who have already been born, and the people who are most ardently anti-abortion-rights tend to hold anti-Christian views on a number of other issues.
As far as Bible verses pertaining to abortion is concerned, lets just say that people using the Bible to support their position on this matter play fast and loose when it comes to subject: What Does the Bible Say About Against Abortion? (openbible.info)
They claim that there are 100 different verses on the subject.
Agreed; in the years immediately before and after Roe v. Wade, the Catholic church was one of the leading anti-abortion voices in the U.S., but by around 1980, conservative Protestant denominations joined the cause in earnest.
In most southern states, where abortion rights have been most hotly contested, Protestants typically outnumber Catholics by a lot, and some super-conservative Protestants not only don’t follow the Pope, but feel that Catholicism isn’t really Christianity.
Theologically there’s actually only very recent strong support for the idea of ensoulment at conception, and the treating of abortion even within seconds of conception as murder. The longer history of the Catholic Church and of most of Christianity, going back to the earliest days of the religion, was that abortion was viewed “negatively” at any point in pregnancy, but to put it in simplest terms it “wasn’t a big deal” until ensoulment. And ensoulment did not have a firmly agreed upon moment for awhile, but eventually it was settled upon the concept that the fetus having been “fully formed” to look like a small human is when ensoulment occurred. Meaning two legs, two arms, 10 fingers and 10 toes, a human head, eyes, nose etc.
However part of the issue is it raised the question of how a woman is to know when a fetus is at that point, it’s not like they had medical imaging equipment 1700 years ago. So I suspect based on familiarity ancient people would have had with early term fetuses (when miscarriage was common, occurred in the home, and you were responsible for burying the remains more people probably were physically familiar with a human fetus), it was deduced that generally speaking when the “quickening” had occurred, the fetus was typically fully formed. This is usually around weeks 13 to 16. The quickening or “animation” being the term for the woman being able to feel the baby’s movement in the womb.
Note that this wasn’t technically saying that the quickening is what determined ensoulment, rather it was the form of the fetus, but that the quickening was the “appropriate test.” Over the next 1200 years or so until the 16th century the quickening remained the focus, and theologically the nuance between fully formed vs quickening faded from most public thought. A late 16th century Pope decided he didn’t like this, and issued a Papal Bull saying abortion at any point in pregnancy is homicide, to be treated by the Church as a willful murder. This caused enough problems in the Christian community that the next Pope rescinded it. Finally in 1869 the Church came upon its current position–abortion at any point is homicide, and participating in an abortion means immediate excommunication from the Church. Note that when Pope Pius issued this ruling, he actually didn’t change the concept that ensoulment begins at fetal “formation”, but simply made the argument that since conception creates the possibility of ensoulment, it should be protected the same.
Note that following the “old rule” of the “quickening” which occurs around week 13 to 16, something like 88% of abortions are performed prior to that point (week 12 or earlier.)
Actually that generally happens at around 18-20 weeks, which, if I read the chart in your link correctly, would put the percentage of abortions performed before quickening at 97%.
Some moms can feel their baby move as early as 13-16 weeks from the start of their last period . These first fetal movements are called quickening and are often described as flutters. It may be difficult to determine whether this feeling is gas or your baby’s movements, but soon you will begin to notice a pattern. First-time moms may not feel these first fetal movements as early as second-time moms.
Some moms, especially those in their first pregnancy, may not feel movement until 18-20 weeks . Remember that each woman and every pregnancy is different, so you may not feel movement as early as another woman. There is a broad range of when the first detection of movement can be felt, ranging from 13-25 weeks .
This post is an excellent example of a field of straw, and you standly in smug victory over it.
I specifically said that there are pro-lifers who can be reached, and others who cannot. My point was to concentrate efforts on where they are useful, and not waste them where they are not. That you chose to ignore everything that I actually said, and then go on about how I am claiming that none can be reached demonstrates that you are just talking to yourself, rather than actually responding to anything I have said.
And to eliminate the uncertainty that comes of raising a child when you are not on solid economic ground.
As a pro-choice advocate, I want women to make the choice to have a child freely, and not based on concerns over whether they will be able to provide a good life for it. I don’t want them to have to worry about whether they will be able to keep a roof over its head, food on the table, education or medical care.
Sure, even most the most ardent of pro-lifers won’t actually let a child starve to death in the street, but malnourishment, poor housing conditions, lack of access to quality education or healthcare are things that they are perfectly content to let others live with.
If a woman’s choice is not affected by the fear that having a child at this time will cause both of them to live lives of misery, then the choice to keep the baby can be much more viable for her.
I’d really rather a woman keep the baby, and would do everything short of actually forcing or tricking her to do so to encourage that. Others will do nothing but force her to do so.
Certainly there’s nuance in objections to abortion.
However, what’s driving the anti-abortion rights movement are hard-liners, just as the engine behind objections to vaccination are full-on antivaxers.
These people are by choice (sorry) unreachable.
A better question is, what would it take to make less than devout anti-abortion rights politicians less receptive to anti-abortion laws? Strengthening the pro-abortion rights side sends a message to those whose overriding interest is being elected/re-elected.
In that regard, Texas has done pro-abortion rights advocates a big favor. Planned Parenthood probably hasn’t seen such a surge of donations in years.
I actually think a lot of abortion “moderates” who lean pro-life also haven’t really had to reflect on what their policy preferences might mean in a meaningful way. Roe was seen as not seriously assailable, so there was some element of the Pro-Life movement being more aspirational than practical. I think a lot of them never assumed they could win. But decades of Democrats mishandling politics around the Supreme Court have left us with a situation where the Pro-Lifers have in fact won, Roe will either be overturned soon outright, or left in its currently active but gutted state, and abortion rights will cease to exist in much of red state fascist America. I think some of the stories and tragedies that will follow from that will cause some of the moderate pro-lifers to actually reckon more with the practicalities of their positions.
Proof that an omniscient God already knows in advance which fetuses are to be aborted and, therefore, doesn’t bother equipping them with souls. Good luck with that.
I think this is absolutely true, but should not be mentioned without also mentioning Republican dirty tricks and hypocrisy.
It takes two to get fucked.
The father’s responsibility is to decide whether the abortion is legitimate, according to many pro-lifers. There have been a number of laws, and a number of attempts to pass laws, that would require a woman to inform her partner or even get his permission to have an abortion. Because that’s how we treat child murder–just get the father’s consent!–that’s how you know they’re sincere when they say they oppose abortion because they consider fetuses equivalent to babies.