The issue that led to the Right becoming Pro-Life

[JimL]

foreigndesirablebetterWhite male patriotism demanded that maternity be enforced among white Protestant womenWhy Not? A Book for Every Woman abortions are infinitely more frequent among Protestant women than among Catholicthe great territories of the far West, just opening to civilisation, and the fertile savannas of the South now disenthralledfilled with our own children of those of aliensThe Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism, Katherine Stewart devotes a chapter to Abortion and the Christian Right. The chapter is very illuminating.

According to Stewart the notion that is held among many Christians today that, in general, Protestants have always opposed abortion and that the Republican Party has likewise been the "party of lifeChristian Medical Society and Christianity Todayindividual health, family welfare, and social responsibilityBaptist PressReligious liberty, human equality, and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decisionI have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowedemotional, mental, and physical health of the mothermoral majorityIt would be hard to overestimate the degree of outrage that the threat of losing their tax-advantaged status on account of their segregationism provoked. As far as leaders like Bob Jones Sr. were concerned, they had a God-given right not just to separate the races but also to receive federal money for the purposewhites only

Very interesting. And just as an aside, Weyrich is also the conservative activist that began the voter suppression movement in the republican party. Paraphrasing: "I don't want more people to vote, if more people vote conservatives have less chance of winning"

[Charles]

The funny thing is that the early Christian church was decidedly anti-abortion. So, the pro-life position is both Christian, AND right.

If only the pro-life position of many of those Christians was truly pro-life and not only pro some sorts of life it would be right.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hence... Christian.

Let us not forget the ascetic movement that was also flourishing in those early centuries, and took its cue from Paul. The storm of protest from the likes of Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, and Pelagius against Jovinian being a case in point.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Very interesting. And just as an aside, Weyrich is also the conservative activist that began the voter suppression movement in the republican party. Paraphrasing: "I don't want more people to vote, if more people vote conservatives have less chance of winning"

Thank you. I did not know that. He sounded as if he was a delightful fellow! [there does not seem to be an emoticon for "heavy sarcasm"]

[oxmixmudd]

I think it would be more accurate to note that the severe and unremitting condemnation of abortion and infanticide, which was widely practised within contemporary Hellenistic society, was a visible mark of the writings of various ante and post Nicene ECFs and of course it was Judaic teachings for the respect towards all human life that influenced such views.

AFAIK, infanticide was the more common practice and the one which would have received condemnation from both Judaism and Christianity. Judaism did not view the unborn child as a Human being - and still doesn't, which is why many(most?) Jewish congregations are pro-abortion today. Early Christians had differing views on the humanity of unborn child.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If only the pro-life position of many of those Christians was truly pro-life and not only pro some sorts of life it would be right.

Interestingly, in her book Scarlet A: The Ethics, Law, & Politics of Ordinary Abortion, Katie Watson refers to the views of Katha Pollit as follows:

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

AFAIK, infanticide was the more common practice and the one which would have received condemnation from both Judaism and Christianity. Judaism did not view the unborn child as a Human being - and still doesn't, which is why many(most?) Jewish congregations are pro-abortion today. Early Christians had differing views on the humanity of unborn child.

If a man strive and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall her, then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm befall her, then you shall give life for lifeasonharmformif there be no form [yet to the foetus], he shall be fined...But if there be form, then you shall give life for life

[oxmixmudd]

Interestingly, in her book Scarlet A: The Ethics, Law, & Politics of Ordinary Abortion, Katie Watson refers to the views of Katha Pollit as follows:

We had quite the debate a while back over when the fetus becomes a human soul. Most conservatives here feel strongly conception, the point where the initial DNA is created. But I argued that's a bit muddy (e.g. twins) and tended more towards no earlier than when neurological activity begins. Clearly there is little difference between the born child and a fetus 3 days before birth - so that is one end. And yet, the zygote itself is human only if all our humanity is in the DNA, which, again, from Twins we know that isn't true, two twins are two distinct human beings yet have DNA that differs only in the same way our own DNA might differ from decade to decade, or cell to cell (that is, since twins originate from the same zygote, their DNA differs only by that variation which can occur during the normal division and differentiation that takes place during pregnancy) or more importantly, by the amount of variation possible after conception.

But that means we are not fully 'who we are' till some later time than conception.

Indeed, our DNA can change even as we live due to mutation, yet we remain 'who we are'. Since change in our DNA after birth doesn't necessarily change who we are, it would be somewhat illogical to say it must then be what defines 'who we are' prior to birth.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We had quite the debate a while back over when the fetus becomes a human soul. Most conservatives here feel strongly conception, the point where the initial DNA is created. But I argued that's a bit muddy (e.g. twins) and tended more towards no earlier than when neurological activity begins. Clearly there is little difference between the born child and a fetus 3 days before birth - so that is one end. And yet, the zygote itself is human only if all our humanity is in the DNA, which, again, from Twins we know that isn't true, two twins are two distinct human beings yet have DNA that differs only in the same way our own DNA might differ from decade to decade, or cell to cell (that is, since twins originate from the same zygote, their DNA differs only by that variation which can occur during the normal division and differentiation that takes place during pregnancy) or more importantly, by the amount of variation possible after conception.

But that means we are not fully 'who we are' till some later time than conception.

Indeed, our DNA can change even as we live due to mutation, yet we remain 'who we are'. Since change in our DNA after birth doesn't necessarily change who we are, it would be somewhat illogical to say it must then be what defines 'who we are' prior to birth.

What a tortuous thread that must have been. How does one attempt to reconcile a Pythagorean concept of ensoulment with modern biology, genetics, and obstetrics?

[oxmixmudd]

What a tortuous thread that must have been. How does one attempt to reconcile a Pythagorean concept of ensoulment with modern biology, genetics, and obstetrics?

tortuous is a fairly good description. Christian faith teaches the concept of an eternal soul, but there is no known way to connect that to what we know about the physical aspects of who we are. I could believe the eternal soul is separate from but entwined with the personality, which arises from our minds/neurological system. But that 'neural net' that defines 'who we are' in that physical sense can't exist in even its most nascant form prior to the formation of the brain cells themselves.

[Cerebrum123]

Thank you. I did not know that. He sounded as if he was a delightful fellow! [there does not seem to be an emoticon for "heavy sarcasm"]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Not like we have another function for that.

[JonathanL]

Thank you. I did not know that. He sounded as if he was a delightful fellow! [there does not seem to be an emoticon for "heavy sarcasm"]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Not like we have another function for that.

There's also .

[Bill the Cat]

If only the pro-life position of many of those Christians was truly pro-life and not only pro some sorts of life it would be right.

I'm sorry... what?

[rogue06]

I'm sorry... what?

Just idiotic prattling of his usual nonsense.

[oxmixmudd]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Not like we have another function for that.

You might just point her to the FAQ that shows what all the xml/html tags are that will be recognized by this editor so that one can know what they are?