To what extent does Religion influence the decision making of women on abortion?

JajaD

Hello everyone,

I was hoping that I could get a conversation going about a thesis that Im doing. My thesis question is 'To what extent does Religion influence the decision making of women having abortions?'

What are people's opinions on this?

PDN

Well I'm not a woman, but it would seem reasonable that those with deeply held religious beliefs that it is wrong to kill babies would usually refrain from doing so.

Morbert

Anti-abortion and Christianity seems to have the same relationship as Science and atheism. Anti-abortion does not immediately follow from Christianity, though a large percentage of Christians are anti-abortion.

JajaD

I want to find out if Religion actually forces (for lack of a better word) women to have abortions. ie: Women/teenagers from a religious background who get pregnant out of wedlock have pressure on them because of the shame brought onto their 'religious' family. So some (I presume) have an abortion to stop this shame etc. The same precentage of people to Non -Religious people get abortions as Religious people. So why are the people who are Religious getting abortions?

Im doing my thesis on it so I just want to see what people think..

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

Anti-abortion and Christianity seems to have the same relationship as Science and atheism. Anti-abortion does not immediately follow from Christianity, though a large percentage of Christians are anti-abortion.

What?

PDN

JajaD wrote: »

I want to find out if Religion actually forces (for lack of a better word) women to have abortions. ie: Women/teenagers from a religious background who get pregnant out of wedlock have pressure on them because of the shame brought onto their 'religious' family. So some (I presume) have an abortion to stop this shame etc. The same precentage of people to Non -Religious people get abortions as Religious people. So why are the people who are Religious getting abortions?

I've bold-faced the very questionable assertion. Most statistics I've seen purporting to support this come from the US and, for example, count all Jews as 'religious' - even though 'Jewish' is an ethnic identification and the majority of American Jews are irreligious.

In fact 23.7% of abortions in the US are carried out on women with no religious affiliation, even though 13% of the population describe themselves as non-religious.

Some other figures from the US:
Catholics, 24% of the population - 31% of abortions
Evangelicals, 26% of the population - 18% of abortions
Protestants in general (which includes evangelicals), 49% of the population - 37% of abortions

Fanny Cradock

JajaD wrote: »

I want to find out if Religion actually forces (for lack of a better word) women to have abortions. ie: Women/teenagers from a religious background who get pregnant out of wedlock have pressure on them because of the shame brought onto their 'religious' family. So some (I presume) have an abortion to stop this shame etc. The same precentage of people to Non -Religious people get abortions as Religious people. So why are the people who are Religious getting abortions?

Im doing my thesis on it so I just want to see what people think..

There is a lot in that.

JajaD wrote: »

I want to find out if Religion actually forces (for lack of a better word) women to have abortions. ie: Women/teenagers from a religious background who get pregnant out of wedlock have pressure on them because of the shame brought onto their 'religious' family.

Firstly, it seems that in asking "if religion actually forces women to have abortions" you aren't phrasing the question accurately enough for it to be meaningful. All religions are not saying essentially the same thing. Even if we can focus on Christianity alone, it would be very difficult to give an accurate response to your question without somehow factoring in all the denominational differences and the church/ personal variations within Christianity.

My own understanding of the situation in Ireland is that there was (and still is) largely blanket condemnation of abortion by the RCC. This obviously suggests that abortion was in no way encouraged. However, if we are to make some speculative assumptions that the stigma of having a child out of wedlock drove women into seeking out back-street abortion clinics somewhere, I don't see how we could get any accurate figures to comment on it.

Given that Christianity has traditionally strongly opposed and even forbidden abortion, I don't think that your proposition is true.

JajaD wrote: »

The same precentage of people to Non -Religious people get abortions as Religious people. So why are the people who are Religious getting abortions?

I'm not sure that this religious/ non-religious divide works. I know of "religious" atheists (they attend church if only for the music or peace they can enjoy) and I know non-religious theists. I would largely consider myself a non-religious Christian, for example. In this regard, I think you have to define not only what religion you are talking about, but also define what you mean by religious.

BTW, while I'm not disagreeing with your information about abortion rates, I wonder could you provide a link to the research you quote?

::Edit::

I see PDN got in there before regarding the research.

PDN

A further note on the statistics. There is a strong correlation between socio-economic status and abortion. To put it bluntly, in the USA poor people are much more likely to have abortions than wealthier people. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to have abortions than white people. People with poor education are more likely to have abortions than those who have been to College.

Here's a fairly comprehensive study by the Guttmacher Institute from about 10 years ago: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3422602.html
It also states that the two groups with the highest incidence of abortions are non-Christian religions and those with no religious affiliation at all.

I'm not sure if this is helpful to the OP, since they do sound as if they've already made their mind up. (I really hope I'm wrong about that, maybe I'm overly cynical after marking too many theses.)

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What?

I think he means it is sort of taken for granted that Christians are anti-abortion, but not all are (though a lot are)

JajaD

Well i am delighted that there is some interest in this thread. I am handing in my thesis proposal tomorrow so all advice from here is happily received.

Maybe I am phrasing my argument/question wrong. Here is the actual title of my thesis 'To what extent does Religion influence the decision making of women in relation to abortion'

After looking at recent statistics of Irish abortion rates (women from Ireland who have traveled out of the country to have an abortion), it showed that around 7000 women have an abortion every year. Around 90% of Irish people class themselves as Catholic.

I want to find out if a woman is from a religious (maybe i should narrow it down to Catholic) background, would that factor actually be a factor deciding whether to have an abortion. Ie: A 20 year old woman who is Catholic has a baby, because she is from a catholic family, society, does that actually put social pressure on her because having a baby out of wedlock is against the catholic churches beliefs....

I hope I have explained it clearly enough.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I think he means it is sort of taken for granted that Christians are anti-abortion, but not all are (though a lot are)

I get that. What I don't get is the use of a contentious science/ atheism analogy or why it is necessary to bring it up here.

JajaD

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I get that. What I don't get is the use of a contentious science/ atheism analogy or why it is necessary to bring it up here.

Could you elaborate?

I am new to researching and abortion so I am not going to pretend I know about everything that relates to it

Fanny Cradock

JajaD wrote: »

Could you elaborate?

I am new to researching and abortion so I am not going to pretend I know about everything that relates to it

I could elaborate but I'm not sure it would amount to more than what I've already said. In other words, me complaining that Morbert's point -- at least in terms of the juxtaposition he used -- had little relation to your thread.

JajaD

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I could elaborate but I'm not sure it would amount to more than what I've already said. In other words, me complaining that Morbert's point -- at least in terms of the juxtaposition he used -- had little relation to your thread.

This is my first thesis and I have my proposal done which i am handing in tomorrow. I am having second thoughts now. I thought my thesis question is good. I showed it to my lecturer and he actually re-phrased the question to what i put on this thread. Is there any suggestions that you think might be better than the one i have given? Also, my thesis is based on Ireland, i forgot to mention that.

My thesis can be on anything about Religion in society..

Fanny Cradock

JajaD wrote: »

This is my first thesis and I have my proposal done which i am handing in tomorrow. I am having second thoughts now. I thought my thesis question is good. I showed it to my lecturer and he actually re-phrased the question to what i put on this thread. Is there any suggestions that you think might be better than the one i have given? Also, my thesis is based on Ireland, i forgot to mention that.

My thesis can be on anything about Religion in society..

Mercy! I certainly don't want to dissuade you from your choice in thesis. It could be very interesting!

Both you and your lecturer might think that what I'm highlighting is a load of crap (and that wouldn't be a first time I've been accused of spewing it) but it seems to me that there are a number of complexities involved (I touched on them above) that would need to be addressed.

JajaD

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Mercy! I certainly don't want to dissuade you from your choice in thesis. It could be very interesting!

Both you and your lecturer might think that what I'm highlighting is a load of crap (and that wouldn't be a first time I've been accused of spewing it) but it seems to me that there are a number of complexities involved (I touched on them above) that would need to be addressed.

Haha, I was about to throw the towel in but im going to stick with it. Im going to only focus on Catholicism and the research only based on Ireland. That way I feel i will be eliminating possible trouble that will arise. Well, hopefully!

Thanks for your help

Fanny Cradock

Post back here if you think we can be of help.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I get that. What I don't get is the use of a contentious science/ atheism analogy or why it is necessary to bring it up here.

It's not contentious though. Atheism does not immediately follow from science, though a large percentage of scientists are atheist. I was using the parallel to highlight that, if religion does have an influence on the abortion issue, it is often an indirect influence.

philologos

It is contentious. A large % of scientists still believe in God which explains the existence of groups such as Christians in Science, BioLogos Foundation and so on. Francis Collins in his "The Language of God" cites believers as being 40% of all scientists. That's still very high. Indeed on an anecdotal level I know a lot of believers who are currently studying in scientific fields at university. One even saying to me that his interest in biology fascinates him as to how impressive God's creation actually is. That's an exciting thing to hear considering that so much mythology is told around Christians not actually being able to study modern science while remaining consistent with their beliefs by both YEC's and new-atheists.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

It's not contentious though. Atheism does not immediately follow from science, though a large percentage of scientists are atheist.

Here's some data describing the situation in a survey of the beliefs of 1000 American scientists. Iirc, this survey was published in Nature magazine.

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scient...lly-reject-god


GALLUP EVOLUTION QUESTIONS

Question / Scientists / Public
1. Special Creation, 10 000 years / 5% / 46%
2. Evolution, God Guided / 40% / 40%
3. Evolution, God had no part / 55%/ 9%


It could also be said that a large percentage of scientists are theists.

Zombrex

Deal with both responses in one post because I think you are both blowing this out of proportion and it is some what derailing the thread.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I get that. What I don't get is the use of a contentious science/ atheism analogy or why it is necessary to bring it up here.

It is common to think of atheists as all materialists/humanists/rationalists. While a lot are, that is not always the case, nor does it automatically follow. You can have atheists who are none of those things and vice versa. We get a lot of this on the A&A forum, he was drawing a comparison to highlight assumptions about different groups.

I thought that was pretty clear, not quite sure why the big misunderstanding.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is contentious. A large % of scientists still believe in God which explains the existence of groups such as Christians in Science, BioLogos Foundation and so on.

Yes, that was his point. Atheism does not automatically imply scientist/rationalist, and scientist/rationalist does not automatically imply atheist.

Christian does not automatically imply anti-abortion, and anti-abortion does not automatically imply Christian (or theist)

There are Christians who are pro-choice and there are anti-abortion people who are atheists.

Like I said to Fanny I'm not quite sure why this is causing so much contentious. I think you are reading way to much into what was said.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

It's not contentious though.

I disagree.

Morbert wrote: »

a large percentage of scientists are atheist

Yes. Atheists are overrepresented in the sciences. However, there is nothing particular to either science or atheism that compels the atheist to become a scientist. There might, for example, be socio-economic correlations between atheism and education and education and the sciences.

When we are talking about a particular doctrine of a particular religion, say, one dealing with the sanctity of life, an adherent is compelled (or they are at least informed as such) to follow it.

That many Christians are against the idea of abortion (certainly without some exceptional medical circumstances) I would suggest is largely because this conviction lies at the heart of Christianity.

Morbert wrote: »

I was using the parallel to highlight that, if religion does have an influence on the abortion issue, it is often an indirect influence.

I would say that a "pro-life"/ anti-abortion stance or whatever you want to call it is quite explicit in most of the major denominations.

Fanny Cradock

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That many Christians are against the idea of abortion (certainly without some exceptional medical circumstances) I would suggest is largely because this conviction lies at the heart of Christianity.


.

Can I ask what the basis is?
I vaguely remember passages where there are fines given if you cause a woman to miscarry, but it's not the "god doesn't like it" type of thing, IIRC.
Or is it just a general "god made us so only god takes us away" kind of thing?

However, there is nothing particular to either science or atheism that compels the atheist to become a scientist.

I think that was exactly the point he was making.
I'm also surprised it was made into such a huge issue. It's just "one does not necessarily follow from the other, similarly as two other fields where one does not necessarily follow from the other".

Fanny Cradock

bluewolf wrote: »

I think that was exactly the point he was making.

And I'm saying there isn't a comparison with Christianity because Christian doctrine (admitting that I'm not speaking for all denominations) specifically prohibits things like abortion.

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm also surprised it was made into such a huge issue.

I hardly think my 3 relatively short posts on this constitutes a disagreement being "made into a huge issue". That's just hyperbole. I happen to disagree with Morbert, and I've sought to make the bones of my disagreement clear. But if you guys still don't see why I raised the issue then I'm sure I'll get over it.

Sefirah

PDN wrote: »

count all Jews as 'religious' - even though 'Jewish' is an ethnic identification and the majority of American Jews are irreligious

Better to use the term *secular* in this instance
Also, many Jews take offense to people calling them a 'race' or 'ethnicity' because 'race' is a genetic distinction which cannot be changed because it's your DNA. As you can imagine, this give rises to such Nazi ideals that Jews are to be classed as a different species or are some how biologically different. To be a Jew, you don't need a common ancestry, since Judaism allows for conversion.
As for 'ethnicity', while Jews share certain cultural habits, these vary greatly across the numerous countries from which Jews originate. Also, not sharing in certain cultural expressions doesn't make anyone less Jewish, so that can be ruled out too.
Most Jews prefer to be considered a nation, which anyone who is sincere can join, and who share a common history. However, owing to issues regarding Israel, this term has been distorted by some, and a number of people are now relating to the Jewish people as a kind of 'family'.

Apologies for wandering off topic, but I keep seeing this mistake being made, and I feel that it's an important one to clarify

Festus

Sefirah wrote: »

Apologies for wandering off topic, but I keep seeing this mistake being made, and I feel that it's an important one to clarify

it's very important. irreligious by definition has connotations of hostility to religion and is probably a more apt term for the sectarian or atheistic attitudes.

I think the poster meand areligious - as in indifferent but not hostile.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I disagree.

Yes. Atheists are overrepresented in the sciences. However, there is nothing particular to either science or atheism that compels the atheist to become a scientist. There might, for example, be socio-economic correlations between atheism and education and education and the sciences.

When we are talking about a particular doctrine of a particular religion, say, one dealing with the sanctity of life, an adherent is compelled (or they are at least informed as such) to follow it.

That many Christians are against the idea of abortion (certainly without some exceptional medical circumstances) I would suggest is largely because this conviction lies at the heart of Christianity.

I would say that a "pro-life"/ anti-abortion stance or whatever you want to call it is quite explicit in most of the major denominations.

There is nothing that compels an atheist to become a scientist, I agree (Many atheists adopt patently anti-scientific beliefs like homoeopathy). But there is something that encourages many scientists to be atheists, even though science and (mainstream) Christianity are compatible.

Though I am curious. With the exception of Catholicism, I never saw anti-abortion as a necessary stance for a Christian. I have Christian friends who are pro-abortion, as they don't believe a human life begins at conception. Is there any Biblical argument that life begins at conception?

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

Is there any Biblical argument that life begins at conception?

Yes there is.

Is there any scientific argument that life does not begin at conception?

prinz

I was going to post earlier on this and thought I had, but apparently not.

Anyway, what would concern me would be using a 90% of Irish people 'classing themselves' as Catholic as any sort of sound basis to get the true impact of religion on personal decisions. You'd really have to talk to people in that position and discuss it with them rather than attempt to extrapolate based on number of abortions v number of people who class themselves as whatever...

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Yes there is.

What are they?

Is there any scientific argument that life does not begin at conception?

That is for another thread.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

What are they?

Biblical arguments that life begins at conception

Morbert wrote: »

That is for another thread.

See you there.