Talk:Christianity and abortion

message: Can we get clarity on the meaning of this? "In particular, several historians have written that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard as an abortion what we call "early abortion"—abortion before "quickening" or "ensoulment."" Is there an easy way to track down the writer of that? Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity on "In particular, several historians have written that prior to the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard as an abortion what we call "early abortion"—abortion before "quickening" or "ensoulment."? 

message: I believe the second sentence should change to something like "There is only one explicit reference to abortion in the Old and New Testaments of the Christian bible, however..." 
This should include a link (on the word 'one'?) to the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water , or perhaps to the Abortion interpretation or Textual Analysis subheadings. 
My edit to this effect was reverted by user:indyguy because of "no reliable source," and because "only some interpreters think that a euphemism for abortion is used in the passage, so it is not explicit," But that doesn't seem to be what that page says. 
can anyone offer insight? What would be considered a reliable source for such a thing? Linking to the biblical text directly?
Stateless Mob (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wouldn't be appropriate to link to the primary source because we interpret it in a certain way - reliable secondary sources would have to interpret it. Ordeal of the bitter water has some (I just eyeballed it, I haven't assessed individual ones). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening statement inaccurate, there is an explicit reference to abortion in Numbers 5 

message: Whilst biblical passages arguably could be used to say that abortion is morally wrong  I cannot see  how they can be   used to argue that they should be illegal in any country that isn't a  theocracy.
Use of the term legal abortion should not be used as it implies a legal status to Christianity that doesn't exist. 2001:8003:2058:5800:E89F:E55E:C4EE:4AD0 (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to "legalised abortion" 

message: An earlier discussion debated the inclusion of Numbers 5 as the only explicit reference to an abortion procedure in the Old or New Testament. However, said passage does not necessarily support this, depending on the translation that the reader is using (rather than "womb... shrivel," others read "thigh... rot," indicative of an external mark rather than a miscarriage). Of course, I recognize this is original research on my part in comparing different primary source translations, and I have not had time to examine potential secondary sources. That being said, is there enough evidence to change the sentence to "There is only one possible reference..." or "debated reference," or something along those lines? Just trying to be a responsible textual critic here. TNstingray (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence () in any case is not a good summary of the section on Biblical passages. There is no reason to focus on the passage from Numbers (which is done by using the qualifier "as a procedure") rather than the other passages discussed in the main body. I'd propose replacing that whole sentence by an accurate neutral summary, such as:  NightHeron (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. At the time I originally posted, I had not thoroughly looked through the rest of the article. Since there is another section with a table discussing numerous verses, I think your proposal more accurately reflects the situation. TNstingray (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Have you checked that the references [1] [2] [3] actually support the sentence? If not, they can just be dropped, since a statement in the lead doesn't need sources if, as in this case, it simply summarizes a section in the main body that has adequate sources there. NightHeron (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They support the aforementioned viewpoint regarding the interpretation of Numbers 5, so I just now moved them to that section in the article. They still seemed like good sources, but you are correct that they no longer supported the new sentence. Cheers! TNstingray (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 5 in the lede 

message: There is a discussion at ANI concerning TheMattro's edit-warring in an attempt to remove a whole section from this article without justification and without discussing it on the talk-page. NightHeron (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[WP:ANI]]