The Catholic Church, as well as many other Christians, believes that abortion is inherently immoral, based on the belief that life begins at conception. What is the biblical basis for this position? I'm interested in the perspective of those who are Biblical literalists, whether Protestant, Catholic, or others.

According to Catholic moral theologians, does voting for a pro-abortion candidate constitute formal cooperation in the politician's crime of promoting child killing? My question is very similar to "Does the Catholic Church teach that it is sinful to vote for a pro-abortion politician? ", but I am more interested whether such an action is formal or material cooperation .

According to the Catholic Church, can abortion be grounds for marriage annulment?

Is it okay to abort a baby when the continuation of the pregnancy may result in the death of his or her mother, according to Catholicism?

What does the afterlife look like for an aborted baby? What happens to their consciousness (if any)? What happens to their spirit/soul? Since these are presumably controversial questions, I'm interested in an **overview of Christian viewpoints**. ____ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/81207/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89518/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422

John Paul II, *Evangelium Vitæ* §58 (25 March 1995): >The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder Is this the first magisterial document to call abortion murder?

Not sure I understand what's going on here Excommunication of Margaret McBride . It says 1. > McBride was an administrator and member of the ethics committee at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, which is owned by Catholic Healthcare West, later, Dignity Health On 27 November 2009, the committee was consulted on the case of a 27-year-old woman who was eleven weeks pregnant with her fifth child and suffering from pulmonary hypertension Her doctors stated that the woman's chance of dying if the pregnancy was allowed to continue was "close to 100 percent" McBride joined the ethics committee in approving the decision to terminate the pregnancy through an induced abortion. The abortion took place and the mother survived. 2. > Afterwards, the abortion came to the attention of Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix. Olmsted spoke to McBride privately and she confirmed her participation in the procurement of the abortion. Olmsted informed her that in allowing the abortion, she had incurred a latae sententiae (an automatic) excommunication. McBride was subsequently reassigned from her post as vice president of mission integration at the hospital. 3. > In December 2011, a statement from St. Joseph's Hospital was emailed to the Catholic News Service announcing that McBride had since her excommunication "met the requirements for reinstatement with the church and she is no longer excommunicated. She continues to be a member in good standing with the Sisters of Mercy and is a valued member of the St. Joseph's executive team". The hospital did not provide further details. At the time, McBride was the St. Joseph's Hospital's vice president for organizational outreach. In particular for the parts > is no longer excommunicated and > The hospital did not provide further details. It sounds like they don't confirm which of the following happened: 1. **Forgiven** - McBride was wrong but then apologised. McBride was wrong because ______ (fill in the blank as to how an abortion for 'close to 100 percent' death isn't justified?) 2. **Exonerated** - McBride was right and then was exonerated meaning McBride's excommunication was like 'annulled' or 'void ab initio' or something. 3. **Other** - What happened?

Imagine husband and wife conceive but later find out that the child would be severely ill and disabled. The wife wants an abortion but the husband doesn't. The wife decides to abort. What sin does the husband commit in this case?

In 2% of pregnancies, the fertilized egg implants somewhere other than in the uterine lining, often in the Fallopian tubes ("tubal pregnancy"). Ectopic pregnancy - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic . There is no chance of a live birth. Mayo Clinic: "An ectopic pregnancy can't proceed normally. The fertilized egg can't survive, and the growing tissue may cause life-threatening bleeding, if left untreated." The equivalent in a man would be placing an expandable bladder inside an organ in the abdomen, then slowly pumping fluid into it over days or weeks until something bursts. The only known treatment is removal of the (doomed) fetus, via abortion. How is preventing treatment, resulting in severe injury or death of the woman and *no* chance of a live birth, considered moral according to Christianity?

In my 20’s, my mom made me abort a child. Later, I was baptized Protestant. I went through RCIA. Did my baptism absolve my sin or must I confess?

As a Catholic, I know that I am accountable to a higher law than human/positive law. The natural moral law is the guiding force behind the formation of my conscience and if human laws are not in accord with the current law, I am obligated to deny/change/protest/ignore them. As such, is it right, for me, to consider the moral crime of abortion to be equal in all instances to the moral crime of murder? Is abortion exactly the same as murder, under the natural moral law and in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

On the topic of unborn/infants dying without being baptized, could one argue that, as those babies would not go to hell but instead to heaven, it is an act of mercy or justice to abort babies to "guarantee" a spot in heaven?

I have heard Christians claim that the zygotes and fetuses that are aborted or miscarried get a free pass to go to heaven. Is this true? I can't find anywhere in the Bible where this is the case. The Bible itself declares that there is only one name under heaven given among men whereby one may be saved and that is Jesus. Is there a possibility that those who are zygotes or fetuses do not have an afterlife?

In the didache it says: > you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. > https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm There currently is a judge in my state who claims that an old law commonly understood to be outlawing abortion only cover feticide instead of surgical abortion. Now, I'm not so interested in the merits of that particular argument, but was there ever a point in Christian history where Christians would have considered abortion and feticide to be separate things?

Laws, especially when made for moral reasons, should have unambiguous support in God's Word. But God's Word is far from unambiguous on this issue. The clearest passages addressing abortion (although the Bible uses other terms) all appear to *lean toward* it. Job's Desire to Have Been Aborted --------------------------------- > 11 **Why died I not from the womb?** why did I not give up the > ghost when I came out of the belly? 12 Why did the knees > prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck? 13 For > now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then > had I been at rest, 14 With kings and counsellors of the > earth, which build desolate places for themselves; 15 Or > with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver: > 16 **Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as > infants which never saw light.** 17 There the wicked cease > from troubling; and there the weary be at rest. (Job 3:11-17, KJV) Solomon's Declaration --------------------- > 3 If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, > so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with > good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that **an untimely birth > is better than he.** 4 For he cometh in with vanity, and > departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. > 5 Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: > this hath more rest than the other. (Ecclesiastes 6:3-5, KJV) David's Lament -------------- > 3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as > soon as they be born, speaking lies. 8 As a snail which > melteth, **let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a > woman, that they may not see the sun.** 58:8 (Psalm 58:3,8, KJV) Hosea's Prophecy ---------------- > Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: > they shall fall by the sword: **their infants shall be dashed in pieces, > and their women with child shall be ripped up.** (Hosea 13:16, KJV) None of these passages declares that abortion is *good*; but none of them *condemns* it, either. In fact, they appear more favorable toward it overall. Given lack of clear condemnation for abortion, how can people push for legislation on the basis of their strongly held opinions, without respect for the right of others' individual conscience? Do we presume to think that it is a lesser evil to force others against their will, than to allow them to possibly make major mistakes with their free choice? As Paul aptly states: > Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for **why is my > liberty judged of another man's conscience?** (1 Corinthians 10:29, KJV) **On what basis, therefore, can the coercion of conscience be based, when the Bible seems so unclear on the issue?** ----------- Links to evidence that Evangelicals are pushing for abortion laws: - [What everyone gets wrong about evangelicals and abortion](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/05/16/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-evangelicals-abortion/) - ['Throughline' Traces Evangelicals' History On The Abortion Issue](https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734303135/throughline-traces-evangelicals-history-on-the-abortion-issue) - [Evangelicals and Abortion in the 20th Century: A Hidden History?](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/returntorome/2013/01/evangelicals-and-abortion-in-the-20th-century-a-hidden-history/)

In Catholicism, under what circumstances is abortion condoned besides ectopic pregnancy? Two specific circumstances I'm wondering about: 1. If the pregnant female was raped at a very young age e.g. 5 years old 2. If the pregnant woman has an going illness that for some reason can't be treated while pregnant or would harm the fetus if treated. And in this case is whether or not the pregnant woman is raped relevant? Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83385/is-abortion-okay-if-the-mothers-life-is-at-risk-according-to-catholicism (but I didn't see here the specific circumstances I mention above - real world circumstances happening in Ohio ) > In Catholic morality, abortion is always wrong. Another principle is that intention is primary: it's about saving lives. When in saving the mother's life and reasonable care has been done for the unborn baby but the baby still does not survive, it's not called abortion as it is the unintended side effect. **Edit**: There was a question as to whether the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy counts as an abortion. I'd call it a 'justifiable abortion' similar to like justifiable homicide , but I think then that would be called like 'justifiable termination of a pregnancy' while the analogue of 'justifiable abortion' would be like 'justifiable murder'.

With Roe v. Wade being ["consigned to the dustbin of history"](https://denvercatholic.org/dobbs-and-the-vindication-of-american-democracy/) , the need for changing hearts and minds with respect to abortion in the USA has never been greater. What are the main arguments that Christian pro-life leaders around the world have written or talked about that are used to justify outlawing various forms of abortion?

**Question:** Is it sinful to physically attack a doctor who performs abortions and break his fingers so that he can not perform an abortion? If yes, why? If no, why? Does it depend on the circumstances? **Arguments against:** 1. It would seem that one should not attack a doctor because he is not doing something unlawful. 2. It would seem that one should not attack a doctor because one does not have the authority to exert violence. However, these arguments seem not to be good. To explain why I will give an analogy. Imagine a situation where some guy wants to dismember a 3-year-old child. You see him going toward the child, and you know for certain what he plans to do. You are able to stop him via violence (and no-one except that guy will be harmed in the process). However, your stopping him will be illegal. It still seems that you should stop the guy. This analogy seems to explain why neither authority nor what is (il)legal matter, and therefore it shows why arguments against are not good arguments. Also, it is often said that: "Necessity does not know the law." And that "Unjust laws are not really laws." 3. If it were not sinful to attack a doctor who performs abortions someone would already be doing it. But we did not see such a case. **Arguments for:** 1. Using the same analogy as above, it seems not only that it is not sinful to attack a doctor, but that we have a duty to attack a doctor, just as we would have a duty to stop someone (if we are able to) who wants to dismember a 3-year-old child. Maybe the arguments above depend on whether we see a doctor who directly goes to the hospital to perform an abortion, but not to a doctor who does not directly go to perform an abortion. I am interested in responses from a Catholic viewpoint (preferably a natural law response).

US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was recently barred from receiving communion in her diocese by her bishop over her obdurate viewpoint with regard to abortion, in response she said: > I wonder about the death penalty, which I am opposed to. So is the Church. But they take no action against people who may not share their view,” she said during MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show. > > https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251348/nancy-pelosi-comments-communion-ban-abortion-support Does she have a point or is there an incredibly obvious reason why a pro-abortion stance is held as more morally abhorrent than a pro-death penalty stance?

In the news recently was the issue of denying communion to those claiming to be Catholic, but allowing for late term abortions as a form of birth control. The Roman Catholic assumption, if I understand it correctly, is that the human life of a child in utero with detectable brain waves & heart beats should be given the same human rights as a child out of the womb. At the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi state encouraged late term abortions as a form of birth control was considered a crime against humanity. However, in the defense of the Nazis , SS General Richard Hildebrandt argued: > Up to now nobody had the idea to see the interruption of [any] > pregnancy as crime against humanity. However, Prosecutor McHaney in the trial testimony, considered the unborn as human beings subject to the protection of the law. McHaney argued: > But protection of the law was denied to *unborn children* [emphasis > mine] of the Russian and Polish women in Nazi Germany. Abortions were > encouraged and even forced on these women. Is there any evidence to indicate that the Catholic Church refused communion to those of its members that participated in government encouraged abortions during the Nazi era? It's interesting to compare the Roman Catholic approach to the Lutheran approach during the Nazi era. Articles, a book & talks can be found of Rev. Henry Gerecke who served as a chaplain during World War II. He was assigned to the war trials of Nuremberg along with a Roman Catholic chaplain. Of particular note is that Goering claimed he was never refused communion by a pastor, though he did not believe. However, after the war, when he was given the conditions for a simple saving faith in Jesus and an acknowledgement of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, he refused to take communion from the chaplain. See 2 minutes into this talk. Were the Catholics, like the Lutherans, in the practice of giving communion to Nazis without regard to what they did as leaders in the state? A similar question can be found here. But this question is more related to a church's view of denying the sacrament to those encouraging late term abortions as a form of birth control.