Talk:Religion and abortion/Archive 1

message: It would be good to expand the sections under Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. For instance, do all Buddhists object to any taking of a life, or only some sects, or only monks? Under Islam, what are the special circumstances under which abortion is permitted?
Wesley 19:32 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
:I agree with the below statement.  I read in the article that "Buddhists generally consider life to begin before conception..."  As a Buddhist, I can't think of any specific text that says this, it would be nice to have a source here.  Furthermore, to answer the questions posed below, the restriction of taking life in Buddhism is a "precept", one adhered to by monks and laypeople alike, of all sects.  But personal choice and critical thinking are also important to Buddhism, so i think the abortion argument would lie within the individual, not in the Buddhadharma, specifically because one could make a strong argument based on dogma either way. Iluvchineselit 23:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism

message: I reverted the insertion of the Sotah procedure, which is a misrepresentation. The treatment of the suspected adulteress in the Book of Numbers makes absolutely no reference to the process as being abortive to a fetus. Please cite a source if you think this is an interpretation that should be mentioned here. The exact "reason" or "purpose" of the Sotah procedure is an enigma, but the Talmudic sources do not bring abortion as a reason. It was abandoned in the 1st century CE after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. JFW | T@lk 17:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The NRSV in text, and the notes to the NIV translations of the Bible both mention that one of the effects of the trial by ordeal in Numbers 5 would be to induce a miscarriage.  So do the notes to the Ryrie Study Bible.  The effect of the potion is to render a guilty adulteress barren; the text specifically mentions that she will be able to conceive children if she is not guilty.  If she were pregnant at the time she takes the potion, it would cause her to miscarry.  Smerdis of Tlön 16:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the text back in, along with the fact that the practice was discontinued. Incidentally, I think of heard of some early stories of Mary, the mother of Jesus being subjected to this procedure and vindicated by it; probably in one of the non-canonical gospels. Wesley 15:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I have moved it into its own section on "Other Biblical texts. . ."  I added the information about the Talmud to the section, and added also a reference to Leah and the mandrakes. Ihcoyc.
Leah and the mandrakes (duda'im) was probably a fertility issue (not all - Jewish - commentators agree) and had nothing to do with abortion. It might be somewhat outside the scope of this article. Otherwise I very much appreciate your input. JFW | T@lk 19:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: More as an aside, for completeness' sake; it may not relate specifically to "religion and abortion," but it does relate at least obliquely to religion and birth control generally; and it seems we don't have that particular article.  Smerdis of Tlön 20:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers 5

message: Before I remove the Sotah section, can anyone think of any reason to have it in this article at all? Frikle 14:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  But Why?

message: Please note the removal of 'unforgivable' sin, at the end of the chapter on abortion under Catholic teaching... this is because under the sacrament of Confession the sin could be forgiven.
(27 Apr 2005)
Also note that the sentence about the decision by the US Council of Bishops saying their view on the morality of the "Morning After Pill" for rape victims can provide some confusion and is a moot point because the US Council of Bishops, or any council of bishops for that matter, has no right to say what is right and wrong for that is right granted only to the Pope and the Pope has never said anything about allowing the "Morning After Pill" in certain situations, and thus should be removed. (Sept 9 06)
The Catholic Church considers situations in which one MUST have an abortion, such as in an ectopic pregnancy, acceptable, since it is considered a spontaneous abortion, just like miscarriage.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.115.205.53 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 November 2006.
====Vatican Position On Pro-Choice Politicians====
I find it very telling that someone keeps editing the sub-section on the Vatican's position on abortion. The facts are very clear: According to the Church, Pro-Abortion politicians, and the people who vote for them have excommunicated themselves, and are wasting their time calling themselves Catholics or going through the motions practicing the Catholic Religion. The sanctity of life is a central tenet of Catholicism. People who can not accept that tenet (or any other for that matter) are welcome to start their own religion, but a failure to accept the facts when they are politically inconvenient is what keeps people from taking Wikipedia seriously. 
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, abortion is exactly the same thing as murder. It is categorically impossible to practice the Roman Catholic faith, while at the same time practicing, aiding, or endorsing legalized murder. That doesn't have to be your own view, or even my view for that matter. But it is a fact that it is the Catholic Church's view.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conpresidio9 (talk • contribs).
:Please see our discussion at the bottom of the page. Thanks.-Andrew c 14:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic Church

message: I find it very telling that someone keeps editing the sub-section on the Vatican's position on abortion. The facts are very clear: According to the Church, Pro-Abortion politicians, and the people who vote for them have excommunicated themselves, and are wasting their time calling themselves Catholics or going through the motions practicing the Catholic Religion. The sanctity of life is a central tenet of Catholicism. People who can not accept that tenet (or any other for that matter) are welcome to start their own religion, but a failure to accept the facts when they are politically inconvenient is what keeps people from taking Wikipedia seriously. 
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, abortion is exactly the same thing as murder. It is categorically impossible to practice the Roman Catholic faith, while at the same time practicing, aiding, or endorsing legalized murder. That doesn't have to be your own view, or even my view for that matter. But it is a fact that it is the Catholic Church's view.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conpresidio9 (talk • contribs).
:Please see our discussion at the bottom of the page. Thanks.-Andrew c 14:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vatican Position On Pro-Choice Politicians

message: How are the following passages relevant to the "Christianity section"
:"The view that life begins at conception is a controversial one, about which each of the major denominations of Christianity has much to say.
:However, as noted on the abortion main page, about 10% of all pregnancies end by natural miscarriage. This may be a difficult problem for the relatively recent view that human life as a person begins at conception, versus the more traditional view that it begins at quickening, i.e., the time that fetal movements are first felt by the mother. At the same time, the response can be made that the fact that a significant percentage of fetuses die in utero no more contradicts their personhood than the fact that, absent modern medicine, a significant percentage of already born children die before reaching adulthood would contradict the personhood of these children. It is worth noting that those pre-20th century Christians who held the view that human life as a person began at quickening were nonetheless generally opposed to abortion."
Str1977 08:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant here?

message: Which I hope you find helpful - 
Islam: 
*Islam & Abortion
*Abortion from an Islamic Perspective from Fatwah bank at IslamOnline
*Islam & Abortion from CrescentLife 
Buddhism:
*Buddhism and Abortion from About
*What is an attitude of a Buddhist towards abortion? from the Questions and Answers at BuddhaNet
Several:
*Summary of Sacred Choices from The Religious Consultion. Covers Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Protestant Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American Religions, and and entry titled "The Chinese Religions, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism" all lumped together. 
*Religion and Abortion Has LOTS of urls for lots of info. 
KillerChihuahua 03:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Um, in case no one else has noticed... all but one of the external links are pro-life sites. A few pro-choice religious sites would be good too, you know. misanthrope 19:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced links?

message: "Buddhism generally asserts that conscious life begins before birth" Reincarnation in Buddhism is not a simple matter of soul/spirit transfering to next being. Buddhism by definition does not believe in eternal soul.  What is transfer into next being is congregation of karma roughly proximated with person's intention. Whether such conglegation of kama should be regarded as sentient or concious is matter of (endless) theological debate.Yoji Hajime
:Could you comment on the ascertion that most buddists equate abortion with infanticide? Personally, I'm quite skeptical about this claim but what's your opinion? Nil Einne 17:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism

message: I recall reading before that Christian monks way back not sure when used to eat rabbit fetuses arguing that they were similar to eggs and weren't meat so couldn't be considered violating their vows not to eat meat. Unfortunetely, a quick google doesn't find a reference but if this is true, it would seem to be it would have some effect on the Christian view of abortion back then Nil Einne 17:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Traditional Christian views

message: My first complaint about anon's edits was that it simply inserted bible verses into the article without explaining why or making it fit the existing context. Things have changed a little, but I still feel these edits are problematic. First of all, the first sentence says "The Jewish Bible contains..." under the heading "Christianity". I still do not see what the quotes have to do with abortion or Christianity's view on abortion. They mention "fruit of the womb" and killing. Additionally, there is unencyclopedic commentary and possible OR. For example "in other words: women that might be pregnant" and "SHE ABORTS" and "The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. Considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man's child." That last bit sounds very POV as well. I think anon's intention is to say that the old testement clearly finds nothing wrong with killing pregnant women/fetuses. However, the presentation of this POV is not neutral or even explained clearly. If the bible verses aren't quoted that support an anti-abortion view, then why should alleged pro-abortion verses be quoted?--Andrew c 04:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yeah.  I could add to your list of complaints, but I think there's already enough here to confirm the decision. Alienus 08:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  132.241.246.111's bible verses 

message: (I posted this to "Mkmcconn"'s talk page - it may be of more general interest since it presents a perspective not otherwise reflected in the article in question.)
Hello Mark,
Forgive me for the length of this (I'm just starting, but I don't want to short-change the subject).
You are apparently an "Orthodox Presbyterian" who is also an IT manager for an "imaging service bureau." Yes, you know that, but I want to comment that we have some things in common; we are not all that different. I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science, and have done work in imaging (though not recently). And I am, self-described, a fundamentalist charismatic evangelical Christian who was, long ago, an atheist.
Since you've recently contributed significantly to the Abortion and Religion article (I've looked at the edit history for the past two years), I thought you might be a good person at which to direct some comments. The trouble is where to start, frankly.
Let me start with this. Do you believe that Jesus believed what he said in John 6:63?: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you, they are Spirit and they are life." Note that I didn't ask if you believe what he said, I asked if you think Jesus himself believed it. Or, for instance, do you think he was being "symbolic," as if in a parable? Clearly, he said things in parables that may be difficult to interpret (at least for sake of a consensus), and intentionally so. Is this a similar case, or did he really, literally mean this?
I both believe he literally meant it, and I agree with it as well. I dare suggest that a lot of people who consider themselves fundamentalist Christians, though, would have trouble squaring a literal believe in John 6:63 with their opinions otherwise, particularly if they believe that "human life begins at conception."
Someone had posted a link in this article to a blog which purported to give a background on where the notion comes from that Christians can believe that human life begins at conception. It said one very important thing, that when a Christian says "life begins at conception," their implicit point is not only that human life begins at conception, but that the human soul begins at conception. I agree, that must be what they mean.
The problem is that there is a clear Scriptural case that disagrees with this opinion. Let's start with Jeremiah 1:5, which says clearly that God knew the prophet not just at conception, but even before, before the prophet had any "flesh". So what of the prophet could have been known before? Not any aspect of the flesh, but likely the prophet's spirit, or soul.
The issue, if Jesus is to be believed, is not when either the flesh or the Spirit is formed, but when the two come together, and how. And this question has a clear Scriptural anwer that even Jesus spoke to: human life begins at first breath, as this is when spirit enters the body.
Genesis 2:7 all but defines life in this way: "the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Ezekial 37 says something similar, at greater length, so I won't quote any of it but I note it for reference.
You're a technically educated person, Mark, so let me ask you a basic question that gets to the issue. Can human flesh exist without being alive? Simple question, right? Of course it can. Human flesh can be as lifeless as any rock. Ask, then, another way: is there something inherent in the physical nature of human flesh that represents the presence or absence of life? The answer is "well, kinda." Nothing to do with the genetics or anything like that - the presence and use of oxygen is a good first-cut indicator. I.e., respiration, the ability and capacity to breathe. My pediatrician and ob/gyn friends tell me that the simplest indication of "viability" for a fetus or newborn is the extent to which their respiratory systems are fully formed and capable of independent function; not all such systems are fully formed at birth, notably the brain, which continues to form for years after birth. I.e., a child can be born even without a complete brain, but not without the ability to breath on its own.
Is human flesh "sacred" if it's not alive? Don't answer for yourself; answer as you honestly believe Jesus would, and that means keeping John 6:63 in mind (and other passages; surely you've read the New Testament and can think of a few good examples). I would suggest that Jesus might bellow in either laughter or anger, "Of course it's not sacred!!!" But you may have a different opinion, not of your own answer, but of Jesus' answer.
Is a fetus an independent human life from its mother? To the extent that this is not a spiritual question, the answer is that it could be either. But it's the spiritual question with which I'm concerned here, and again, I think the answer is clear: no, it's not independent, until it breathes on its own.
Jesus spoke directly to all of this, by the way, despite the impression conveyed by the current article. Not just John 6:63, but more directly, in John 3. He asserted to Nicodemus not only that there are two aspects to natural birth, but that there is evidence of both at time of birth, although the latter requires knowledge of the original Greek text, since it's not reflected, e.g., in English translations.
First, on the objection that Jesus was not talking about natural birth - consider verse 12 clarefully.
Second, let me give you an annotated transliteration of verse 8: "The Spirit (pneuma) breathes (pnei) where it desires, and you hear (acoueis) its voice (phonos), but you do not know from where it comes or to where it goes."
What's the point of this verse? OK, I'll tell you: the point is evidence. Jesus is talking about evidence. Evidence of what? That should be an easier question to answer: evidence of the Spirit, but not just evidence the Spirit in general, but evidence of the spirit in the process of birth. And to what question would such evidence speak? Simply, to the question of when human life begins.
I wondered for years what this verse had to do with anything, before I first discovered that in both Greek and Hebrew, the words for "wind" and "spirit" are the same (pneuma in Greek), and that they are based on the root word for breath (pneo in Greek). But even that doesn't get to the fullness of the point I'm making about this verse.
What evidence is there of the spirit, or anything in the spiritual realm? An atheist will tell you there's none. A Christian who believes life begins at conception would have to tell you pretty much the same (as did, for example, the James Dobson ministry, when I presented this perspective to them; they told me my interpretation was "tortured"). Jesus would point out that language exists, and is spiritual. That simple observation is what shook me out of my atheism - of course Jesus was right.
What evidence is there, then, not of the birth of the flesh - that's obvious, but of the birth of the spirit? You don't imagine that God would have designed us without providing such evidence, do you? Well, Jesus gave the evidence - the sound of a newborn crying is evidence that a spirit has entered the body, and that a new person's life is whole and independent as of that moment.
Human life begins at first breath. Jesus himself said as much, though you may have to understand how inseparable are the notions of life and breath in both Hebrew and Greek, not only to see that he did, but to see why it had him flustered by Nicodemus' lack of understanding of what Jesus thought was a simple point.
A quick-witted and moderately rational person might counter at this point that although certainly human life begins at least by first breath, that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't begin before then. Well and good. Paul suggests, however, in 1 Cor 15 that seeds must "die" before coming to life. I didn't quote the verse (I'm sure you can find it) because his method of reasoning in the chapter is even more important: it's important to be aware not just of individual details of belief, but of the broader implications of those details of belief.
In that regard, I must point out to you that a belief that human life begins at conception is something that would be far easier for an atheist to believe than for a Christian, since it all but excludes the role of the soul or spirit in favor of the flesh in the question of life, whereas Jesus did just the opposite in excluding the flesh (again, John 6:63). I in fact first heard of the notion from an atheist who presented it as a trap, to get me to conclude that there is no basis for "ensoulment" as an aspect of life at all. And that's why the question of evidence of ensoulment is so important. Christians who agree with atheists most of the way on this topic, should find themselves on deeply shaky theological grounds in Paul's 1 Cor 15 terms, if they're paying attention.
With all due respect, I don't think they are paying attention. I think they're in a race for the most zealous, self-righteous position imaginable. But since I don't share that opinion, that's not fair for me to say.
I must finally, however, note for you, Mark, that your "logic" in the article is deeply flawed. I don't even know where to begin to edit it. And if I did edit it, I suspect you'd change or delete what I write. There's no need for that. What I would like instead is for you to consider what I've just written to you, and if you find it worth consideration (I believe it was given by the Holy Spirit ; you don't have to believe the same), that you will yourself change the article to reflect it. If you don't, you and I both know that it is neither of us who judges, but only God himself, at the appointed time. "Let God be true, though every man a liar."
The physical material that makes up any particular human body at any particular point in time, does not stay fixed; it isn't sacred. I was once taught that a human body "recycles" every 7 years or so; i.e., the material that makes up the same person's body, 7 or more years apart, likely does not share a single molecule in common. This really should be obvious. If I, then, attributed my life to my flesh, I've been more than 7 entirely different people by now, not a single life at all. What foolishness it would be to think such. I have to agree with Jesus: the spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing... Or, I've been 7 different people.
By the way, Mark, this is all off topic. I haven't written here about abortion at all; I've written about when and how human life begins from a Christian Scriptural perspective, which only has implications for the topic of abortion. I am certainly not in favor of abortion. But regarding this difference in focus, please note Romans 8:6, and ask yourself, is your mind focused on death, or on life? And if it's on death instead of life, might you have been (self-)deceived?
Peace and love... 8^)
:Hi anon -- I see you reverted my edit.  It wasn't personal, but I don't believe this long post falls under the acceptable use of a talk page. Could you please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#What talk pages may be used for (section copied below).  Also please read Wikipedia:No original research.
::What talk pages may be used for
::Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.  
::Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues.  They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral.  Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia.  (For an alternative forum, see the m:Wikibate proposal.)  Arguing as a means of improving an article is considerably less effective than an equal amount of time engaged in research. 
:Perhaps you could edit the above post and actually tie it back to this article and how it can be imporved?  Thanks.  -Quasipalm 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity and "when human life begins" 

message: This article has a pro-life tilt that is greater than can be explained by the fact that many religions do in fact condemn abortion.
Here are a few examples:
*when discussing atheism, it says only that "some atheists are also opposed to abortion."  That's  hardly a balanced discussion of the views of atheists on abortion.
*It doesn't mention St Antoninus (the first Catholic to write extensively on abortion, who approved of early abortion) or the most famous medieval Christian theorists, St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinus (who both held that the early embryo fetus had the moral status of a plant and that abortion was acceptable before "quickening").
*It has sections for orthodox judaism and conservative judaism (which are stricter about abortion), but not reform judaism (which is more accepting of abortion)
* the external links are almost entirely to pro-life activist sites (rather than to, say, neutral sites discussing the views of different religions)
It's also problematic that the long "Christianity" section has no sources or citations, making it difficult to tell whether it accurately reflects the scholarly consensus.--Fagles 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you mis-spoke.  You say that "This article has a pro-choice tilt" but it seems you mean that this article has a pro-life bias.  Is that correct?  I do agree with you if that's what you're saying. -Quasipalm 16:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I mis-spoke.  I've changed it above.
*I do not think this NPOV nomination is fair. Most (almost all) religions and religious sects really oppose abortion. It is not due to someone's POV that a lot of pro-life beliefs are brought up in the article. The article has actually made a real good effort to bring in pro-abortion views (to be honest, I never knew about the quickening issue until I saw it in the article). The facts listed in this article are not out of context and are quite verifiable. NPOV should really be brought up when sources are unreliable or both sides are clearly not being presented fairly. Nlsanand 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV nomination

message: Andrew, do you propose adding a ref to every single early Christian document?  That would be the only way to prove such a claim.  I suppose you could cite an historian who said this, but would that be sufficient?  Do you know where this line came from?  Perhaps the writer could say where they got the info? MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB </span> 14:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: do you propose adding a ref to every single early Christian document? A ha! You have found the problem with including uncited blanket statements in an encyclopedia. I suppose you could cite an historian who said this, but would that be sufficient? If we have a source that makes this claim, then it is more than adequate to simply cite our sources. Do you know where this line came from? I wish I did, because it would help in tracking down a citation. We have to keep in mind WP:V. How can we verify this claim if it isn't cited? I'm not saying its wrong, because I can't think of any church fathers that support abortion. Hopefully someone can find a cite, but I'll dig through the page history and try to find who added that information.--Andrew c 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A google search turned up this quote: "The early church fathers whose statements on the subject have survived are unanimous in their condemnation of abortion and infanticide. And even though the pagan world of the time readily embraced these practices, the fathers neither minced words nor displayed timidity in attacking them at every turn. There is an abundance of patristic references to abortion as child-killing and murder." It's from an essay entitled "The early church fathers and abortion" by Larry V. Crutchfield, Ph.D., and appears to be well referenced. See . Wesley 16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew's citation tag 

message: There were, in some of the discovered relics relating to the old testament, that it was not a sin to perform an abortion to save the mother's life. I saw this in a History Channel special but i don't know the exact details. Roxanne Edits 03:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier contradiction 

message: One editor piped a link to the Allah article from the word "God". This was reverted based on "I see no issue with using an Arabic term in relation to Islamic beliefs, no more than I see an issue with using a Japanese term, "mizuko kuyo," in relation to Japanese customs.)" I tried to look for precedent or previous discussions elsewhere on wikipedia and could not find any. However, only 25% of Muslims are Arab, and there are clearly English speaking Muslims, while the "Waterchild Ceremony" being described by the Japanese term "Mizuko Kuyo" is distinctly Japanese. I can see an argument to keep the Japanese term, but use "God" when referencing the One deity of Islam. But I don't really care that much. It's like always using Adonai or YHWH in referencing the One deity of Judaism, when most of the English speakers say "God" or G-d. -Andrew c 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) offers the following recommendation: "Allah should be replaced with its translation of "God", unless used as part of a quote. Also, the first occurrance of "God" in the articles should be something to the effect of the following: God." Thus, 205.155.225.1 was correct, and I have changed all occurrences of "Allah" in the Islam section to "God". -Severa  (!!!) 02:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A ha. Thanks for the link.-Andrew c 03:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the link by going to WikiProject Islam. Perhaps, in the future, if you are looking for specific style conventions, individual WikiProjects would be a good place to start. -Severa  (!!!) 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor point regarding Allah 

message: The section in Christianity states that an estimated 10% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.  I think this requires clarification (and a source):
The number of conceptions that end in miscarriage is estimated to be very high, over sixty percent off the top of my head. However, I am worried that readers might confuse this with the total number of conceptions (sperm+egg=zygote) that fail to result in a successful pregnancy, either by spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or by failure to implant.  I'll look up the stats and see if I can fix it.Darkfrog24 18:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the last few notes on the Beginning of pregnancy controversy page for references regarding percentages of failed implantation and spontaneous miscarriage.—Red Baron 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten percent requires clarification 

message: What is the topic of this page?  When I read the body of the article, I think that the title fits: it is a discussion of doctrinal views of abortion.  But when I read the opening, I feel like I am reading an entirely different article that should be renamed Religious groups and abortion:  it is a discussion of public policy platforms.  Since the body is longer, and agrees with the current article name, I think there should be a change to the opening.  Please give some feedback.—Red Baron 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Section--Again! 

message: Many religions have official positions on abortion,Follow the links under "Religious Views" for examples at the BBC's Ethics:Abortion  page. and there is a correlation between an individual's religion and their personal position on abortion.  "Religious beliefs" are reported as the main (opinion forming) influence for 50% of those who oppose abortion; "non-religious beliefs" are reported as the main influence for the plurality of those who support it.ABCNEWS/Beliefnet Poll  Membership in specific religions increases the likelihood of homogeneous abortion views.Ibid. 63% of "Evangelical white Protestants" oppose, and 66% of "non-evangelical white Protestants" support.  However, one need not be religious to oppose abortion.See the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Member List.  See also Atheists for human rights.
</div>
—Red Baron 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and abortion