Center For Womens Health Abortion Consent: Fill & Download for Free

The positive cultural influence of the Christian Church is too vast to enumerate in detail in less than a series of books. Its influence is not limited to the West, as it spread beyond the Western Empire in the days of Rome, in its first centuries, and has continued to spread around the world in the centuries since. For the most part, its influence has been more good than not wherever it has gone, and attempting to even list it all would be a very long list indeed.However, in answer to this question, I have chosen to limit a sampling of examples to the West, and to the limited time period of Early Christianity up to the Middle Ages. I have picked a few examples of influence I see as the paradigm altering, watershed, kind.The Christian church has continued, to this day, to be a cultural influence for good all around the world, but the history from the 1400s on is even more extensive—and complex—than what preceded it, so please accept—these limitations I have imposed are my limitations—and not the limitations of the church.Christianity altered the paradigm concerning:SexWomenCharityPreservation of literacyMonks and NunsBenedict’s RuleSkills and EducationSocial StructureCharles Martel Stopped IslamScienceArts and HumanitiesPainting, sculpture and architectureMusicLawHuman ValueHuman RightsSlaveryDemocracyFirst to Fourth Century (30–500)Sex — Let’s talk about sex—not just because it’s fun—but because changes here are among the most powerful, yet most overlooked, of all the many positive changes Christianity brought.“The gradual transformation of the Roman world from polytheistic to Christian marks one of the most sweeping ideological changes of premodern history. At the center of it all was sex.”[1]Historian Kyle Harper says:"...the triumph of Christianity not only drove profound cultural change, it created a new relationship between sexual morality and society...The legacy of Christianity lies in the dissolution of an ancient system where social and political status, power, and social reproduction (passing on social inequality to the next generation) scripted the terms of sexual morality."That ancient system was built on status and used shame to enforce itself. Shame was not personal guilt so much as a social concept: breaking the rules had profound and far-reaching social consequences. Aristocratic men had status; women had little, and slaves had no status at all, therefore, as far as the Romans were concerned, slaves had no internal ethical life and were incapable of shame. This permitted Roman society to find both a husband's control of a wife's sexual behavior as a matter of intense importance, and at the same time, see his live-in mistress and sex with young slave boys as of little concern.Paul wrote that the body was a consecrated space, a point of mediation between the individual and the divine. His over-riding sense that gender—rather than status or power or wealth or position—was the prime determinant in the propriety of the sex act was momentous. It was a transformation in the deep logic of sexual morality.The Greeks and Romans said our morality depends upon our social position which is given to us by fate; that there is inequity in that is not a moral issue that concerned them. Christianity "preached a liberating message of freedom.” It was a revolution in the very image of the human being as a sexual being, free to choose, and personally responsible for that choice to God alone. It created a revolution between society and the individual, limiting society’s rights and claims on the individual as a moral agent.Whether or not Paul’s particular teaching on gender is still agreed with or not, the historical facts show that the Christian view that the powerful should be held to the same standards of sexual accountability as those without power has since become the norm of a just society.Appearance of Jesus Christ to Maria Magdalena (1835) by Alexander Andreyevich Ivanov.Women [2]Early Christianity — Some historians hold that the Church played a considerable part in fostering the inferior status of women by providing a "moral justification" for male superiority. However, the Church has also made enough positive contributions toward women that, on balance, I am going to say the overall impact has been more positive than negative.Understanding that involves understanding context—what was there before, and without, Christianity.In antiquity, there were no Near Eastern societies that were not patriarchal, so patriarchalism and male superiority were not unique to the Old Testament. All around the Mediterranean, patriarchy was established as the norm in all of the multiple different societies before 3000 BC and they did not change for millennia—until Christianity.[3]Women were seen as intellectually and physically inferior to men and as "naturally dependent" by Sumerians, and Babylonians, by the Hittites, the Greeks and the Romans—all of them. Some philosophers speculated that women were a different race not fully human like men. Athenian women were legally classified as children regardless of age and were the "legal property of a man at all stages in her life." Women everywhere, including the Roman Empire, had limited legal rights and could not enter professions.It was common in the Greco-Roman world to expose female infants because of the low status of women in society. Many exposed children died, but many were taken by speculators who raised them to be slaves or prostitutes. Female infanticide and abortion were practiced by all classes. The church forbade these practices to its members.Christians did not believe in cohabitation, so if a Christian man wanted to live with a woman, the church required marriage; the pagan double standard of allowing married men to have extramarital sex and mistresses was forbidden. This gave women far greater security.It was not rare for pagan women to be married before the age of puberty and then forced to consummate the marriage with her often much older husband. Christianity established a minimum age for marriage.Husbands could divorce their wives at any time simply by telling the wife to leave; wives could not. In the code of Hammurabi, a woman could sue for divorce, but if she couldn’t prove she had been an exemplary wife, she was drowned for making the request.Roman law required a widow to remarry; 1 Timothy says a woman is better off if she remains unmarried. Widows in Greco-Roman society could not inherit their husband's estate and could find themselves in desperate circumstances, but almost from the beginning the church offered widows support.Women were an important part of Jesus’ inner circle, and there is no record of him ever treating a woman with less than respect. He spoke to women in public, assumed they had responsibility for their own choices, taught Mary of Bethany, admired, forgave, accepted and approved them. Christianity never fully lost sight of this as a fulfillment of God creating humans in His image as both “male and female.” Along with Paul declaring a Christian is a Christian, male or female, in Galatians 3:28, this produced a kind of “metaphysical” equality found only in Christianity at this point in history. [4]The church started out trying to practice this at first. The extra-biblical evidence is strong that women played vital roles in Christianity’s beginnings. Many women began choosing to stay single and celibate, and they spread the word, but this “female initiative” stirred up vehement opposition from the Romans.According to Margaret MacDonald, accusations that Christianity undermined the Roman family, which was built upon male authority, were used to stir up hatred of Christianity. Along with many other rumors and accusations, this led to the persecution of the early church.[5]Some of the later New Testament texts reasserting traditional roles for women are seen by many scholars as an accommodation to the danger involved with this Roman response.Within the church of the second and third century, tensions between the existing fact of women's leadership in Christian communities, and traditional Greco-Roman and patriarchal biblical views about gender roles, combined with persecution, produced controversy and challenges to women’s roles within the new church. Several apocryphal and gnostic texts provide evidence of such a controversy.Middle Ages — Once the early days of Christianity were past, the status of women declined. Women were routinely excluded from scholastic, political and mercantile life in society, however, women were not fully excluded from service in the church. [6]Medieval abbesses and female superiors of female monastic houses were powerful figures whose influence could rival that of male bishops and abbots: “They treated with kings, bishops, and the greatest lords on terms of perfect equality;... they were present at all great religious and national solemnities, at the dedication of churches, and even, like the queens, took part in the deliberation of the national assemblies...” Such powers had never been, as a rule, available to ordinary women in previous Roman or Germanic societies.[7]There was a rite for the ordination of women deacons in the Roman Pontifical, (a liturgical book), up through the 12th century. (But by the 13th-century Roman Pontifical, the prayer for ordaining women was removed, and ordination was redefined as applicable only to male Priests.) [8]The popularity of the Virgin Mary secured maternal virtue as a central cultural theme of Europe in the middle ages and helped form the concept of chivalry. Kenneth Clarke wrote that the 'Cult of the Virgin' in the early 12th century "taught a race of tough and ruthless barbarians the virtues of tenderness and compassion".Woman-as-witch became a stereotype in the 1400s until it was codified in 1487 by Pope Innocent VIII who declared "most witches are female."The European witch stereotype embodies two apparent paradoxes: first, it was not produced by the "barbaric Dark Ages," but during the progressive Renaissance and the early modern period; secondly, Western Christianity did not recognize the reality of witches for centuries, or criminalize them until around 1400. Sociologist Don Swenson says the explanation for this may lay in the nature of Medieval society as heirocratic which led to violence and the use of coercion to force conformity."There has been much debate ...as to how many women were executed...[and estimates vary wildly, but numbers] small and large do little to portray the horror and dishonor inflicted upon these women. This treatment provides [dramatic] contrast to the respect given to women during the early era of Christianity..."Women under the Law —Church teaching heavily influenced the legal concept of marriage. In a departure from societal norms, Church law required the consent of both parties before a marriage could be performed. No more kidnapping and forced marriages.The elevation of marriage to a sacrament made the union a binding contract. The Church abandoned established tradition by allowing women the same rights as men to dissolve a marriage. (However, in practice, men have been granted dissolutions more frequently than women.)Women, in Conclusion[9]The church’s behavior toward women has been both positive and negative, but all in all, Christianity’s contribution has been more positive than negative.If nothing else could ever be said, Christianity’s treatment of women was a big improvement over what existed before it, and its belief in the spiritual equality of both genders before God, altered the paradigm for women forever.Historian of hospitals Guenter Risse says the Church spearheaded the development of a hospital system geared towards the marginalized.Charity/Hospitals — Prior to Christianity, there is little to no trace of any organized charitable effort anywhere in the ancient world. After centuries of Christian influence, charity has become a universal practice.[10]Albert Jonsen, historian of medicine, says:“the second great sweep of medical history begins at the end of the fourth century, with the founding of the first hospital at Caesarea in Cappadocia, and concludes at the end of the fourteenth century, with medicine well ensconced in the universities and in the public life of the emerging nations of Europe.” [11]That hospital was founded by Basil, Bishop of Caesarea. He established the first formal soup kitchen, hospital, homeless shelter, hospice, poorhouse, orphanage, reform center for thieves, women’s center for those leaving prostitution, and many other ministries. He was personally involved in the projects and process, and gave all his personal wealth to fund the ministries.Basil himself would put on an apron and work in the soup kitchen. These ministries were given freely regardless of religious affiliation. Basil refused to make any discrimination when it came to people who needed help saying that “the digestive systems of the Jew and the Christian are indistinguishable.”His example spread throughout Christianity continuing to the modern day.In the modern day, across the world, various Christian denominations are still the ones largely responsible for the establishment of medical clinics, hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, and schools of all kinds.The Catholic Church maintains a massive network of health care providers. In 2009, Catholic hospitals in the USA received approximately one of every six patients. Catholic Health Australia is the largest non-government provider of group-health, community care, and aged-care services, representing about 10% of the health sector.Women have played a vital role in running and staffing these Christian care institutions. In Methodist hospitals, deaconnesses who trained as nurses staffed the hospitals, and in Catholic hospitals, religious like the Sisters of Mercy, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and the Sisters of St.Mary kept their hospitals focused on serving the needy. The New York Times noted that nuns were trained to "see Jesus in the face of every patient."In the West, these institutions are increasingly run by lay-people after centuries of being run by priests, nuns and brothers, and while the profit motive has stepped in, it does mean more people are taking responsibility for caring for the poor than ever before. In Western nations, governments have increasingly taken up funding and organization of health services for the poor. In 1968, nuns or priests were the chief executives of 770 of America's 796 Catholic hospitals. By 2011, they presided over 8 of 636 hospitals.[12]All over the West, charity is now a societal standard that simply didn’t exist prior to Christianity’s existence.[13]"After the Battle of Gravelotte. The French Sisters of Mercy of St. Borromeo arriving on the battle field to succor the wounded." Unsigned lithograph, 1870 or 1871.Dark Ages and the Early Middle Ages (500–800) [14]Preservation of Literacy — After the Fall of Rome, culture in the west returned to a subsistence agrarian form of life. Church scholars preserved literacy in Western Europe at this time, saving and copying Greek and Roman texts in their scriptoriums. For centuries following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, small monastic communities were practically the only outposts of literacy in all of Western Europe.…all through Europe, matted, unwashed, barbarians descended on the Roman cities, looting artifacts and burning books, when the Irish, who were just learning to read and write, took up the great labor of copying all western literature – everything they could lay their hands on. These scribes then served as conduits through which the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian cultures were transmitted to the tribes of Europe, newly settled amid the rubble and ruined vineyards of the civilization they had overwhelmed. Without this Service of the Scribes, everything that happened subsequently would be unthinkable.[15]Monks and Nuns [16]Benedict’s Rule — The period between 500 and 700, often referred to as the "Dark Ages," could also be designated the "Age of the Monk." Christian aesthetes, like St.Benedict (480–543) vowed a life of chastity, obedience, and poverty, and after rigorous intellectual training and self-denial, lived by the principles ‘work and pray’ following the “Rule of Benedict.” This “Rule” became the foundation of thousands of monasteries that spread across what is modern day Europe; "...certainly there will be no demur in recognizing that St.Benedict's Rule has been one of the great facts in the history of western Europe, and that its influence and effects are with us to this day."[17]Spread Skills and Provided Education— Monasteries were self-supporting models of productivity and economic resourcefulness teaching their local communities animal husbandry, cheese making, wine making and various other skills. They were havens for the poor, hospitals, hospices for the dying, and schools. Medical practice was highly important in medieval monasteries, and they are best known for their contributions to medical tradition, but they also made some advances in other sciences such as astronomy. These monks had impact on every level of society both directly and indirectly since all leaders of this period were educated by monks.[18]Changed Social Structure — The monastic movement also changed our social structure in ways that continue to affect us today. The formation of these organized bodies of believers, free from the political authority and familial authority that normally had the power to control an individual’s choices, gradually carved out a series of social spaces with some amount of independence and autonomy, thereby revolutionizing social history.Charles Martel Stopped Islam — (c. 457-751 CE) and his family played a crucial role in Western Europe’s transition from “ancient” to “medieval.”[19]By 727, Charles — “the Hammer”—has become King of what will one day become the nation of France. Charles wages long campaigns against the pagan Germanic tribes who constantly raid his northern and eastern borders - Frisians, Saxons and Bavarians. He also lends strong support to the missionary activities of St. Boniface hoping that conversion to Christianity will tame the heathens enough to stop this raiding. It is not fully effective, but it sets the stage for his grandson’s actions that do change the landscape of Europe.The Hammer’s main positive role involves the Arabs who, since their arrival in 711, have gained a toehold on the European continent in the Spanish peninsula. The Arabs advanced rapidly northwards in their planned takeover of the continent and were soon beyond the Pyrenees. Narbonne was taken in 720 and an extended raid in 725 brought the Arabs briefly into Burgundy. There was a lull until 732 when a Muslim army took Bordeaux, destroyed a church near Poitiers and rode on towards Tours. Here the Arabs were confronted by an army of Franks led by Charles Martel and were stopped.It was a turning point in the attempted Muslim takeover of Europe.The Middle AgesSet of pictures of notable Scientists who self-identified as Christians: Isaac Newton (top left), Robert Boyle (top right), Francis Bacon (bottom left) and Johannes Kepler (bottom right).Science [20]Early in the eleventh century, the full writings of Aristotle were reclaimed in the West by intrepid monks who traveled to Spain to work with the Jews there translating Aristotle’s writings into Latin. (These writings had been mostly lost in the West but not in the East, and when the Muslims came to Europe, they brought their books.) The church’s study of these texts laid the foundation for the beginnings of modern science as well as our modern university system.Historians of science, including J.L.Heilbron, A.C.Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein, and Ted Davis, have argued that the church promoted learning and science during the Middle Ages. Critics will raise the Church's condemnations of Copernicus, Galileo, and Johannes Kepler as evidence to the contrary— which is a valid criticism—but it should also be considered that these same men all considered themselves Christian, were influenced by their faith in their work, and were originally sponsored by their respective churches.The sheer number of scientists and the amount of scientific work and discovery done by Christians, (many of them funded and supported by the church), supports the assertion that, taking its failures into consideration, the church’s overall impact on science has still been positive.Saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the great scholars of the Medieval period.Thomas Aquinas—the friar—opened the door for the church’s promotion of scientific and intellectual development by arguing that reason is in harmony with faith, and that reason can contribute to a deeper understanding of revelation.[21] The church put that into practice. Churchmen such as the Augustinian abbot Gregor Mendel (pioneer in the study of genetics), the monk William of Ockham who developed Ockham’s Razor, Roger Bacon, (a Franciscan friar who was one of the early advocates of the scientific method), and the modern Belgian priest George Lemaître who was the first to propose the Big Bang theory, and others, have been among the leaders in astronomy, genetics, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics, with many becoming the "fathers" of these sciences.Christians who influenced Western science include such notables as Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Nicholas Steno, Francesco Grimaldi, Giambattista Riccioli, Roger Boscovich and Athanasius Kircher.[22]Henri Becquerel, discovered radioactivity; Galvani, Volta, Ampere, and Marconi, are pioneers in electricity and telecommunications; Lavoisier is the "father of modern chemistry"; Vesalius is the founder of the modern study of human anatomy; and Cauchy, is one of the mathematicians who laid the rigorous foundations of modern calculus.According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), (which is a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000), 65.4% of all Nobel Prize Laureates have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.[23]It is not too much to say that modern science may never have begun without the influence and support of the Christian church, and it most certainly would not be what it is today without it.[24]Universities - The church of the middle ages helped found and build the university system, which grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries. Today, there are more universities in the West than any other part of the world and almost all of them were founded as Christian institutions.[25]Map of mediaeval universities established by Catholic students, faculty, monarchs, or priestsArts and Humanities [26]Painting, Sculpture and Architecture — Artists like Michaelangelo, Da Vinci and Raphael produced some of the most celebrated works of art in history sponsored and supported by the church.[In the West] with a single exception, the great artists of the time were all sincere, conforming Christians. Guercino spent much of his mornings in prayer; Bernini frequently went into retreats and practised the Spiritual Exercizes of St.Ignatius; Rubens attended Mass every morning before beginning work. The exception was Caravaggio, who was like the hero of a modern play, except that he happened to paint very well. This conformism was not based on fear, but on the perfectly simple belief that the faith which had inspired the great saints of the preceding generations was something by which a man should regulate his life.The cathedrals of the Late Middle Ages are among the most iconic feats of architecture ever produced by Western civilization.Music — Catholic monks developed the first forms of modern Western musical notation; there would be no modern music as we know it without this.An enormous body of religious music has been composed for the church, with its support, and this sacred music led directly to the emergence and development of European classical music, and its many derivatives.Ludwig van Beethoven, composed many Masses and religious works, including his Ninth Symphony Ode to Joy.Law and Human Rights [27]Church laws were the single Universal Law common to the different jurisdictions and peoples throughout Europe for much of European history.Human Value[28]If we turn to the roots of our western tradition, we find that in Greek and Roman times not all human life was regarded as inviolable and worthy of protection. Slaves and 'barbarians' did not have a full right to life and human sacrifices and gladiatorial combat were acceptable... Spartan Law required that deformed infants be put to death; for Plato, infanticide is one of the regular institutions of the ideal State; Aristotle regards abortion as a desirable option; and the Stoic philosopher Seneca writes unapologetically: "Unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children who at birth are weakly and abnormal.” And whilst there were deviations from these views..., it is probably correct to say that such practices...were less proscribed in ancient times. Most historians of western morals agree that the rise of ...Christianity contributed greatly to the general feeling that human life is valuable and worthy of respect.[29]Human Rights — Christian theology has strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists in many ways, but nowhere more than in the area of human rights. Howard Tumber says, "human rights is not a universal doctrine, but is the descendent of one particular religion (Christianity).""...one cannot and need not deny that Human Rights are of Western Origin. It cannot be denied, because they are morally based on the Judeo-Christian tradition and Graeco-Roman philosophy; they were codified in the West over many centuries, they have secured an established position in the national declarations of western democracies, and they have been enshrined in the constitutions of those democracies." [30]Saint Peter Claver worked for the alleviation of the suffering of African slaves brought to South America.Slavery — The Church initially accepted slavery as part of the social structure of society, campaigning primarily for humane treatment of slaves but also admonishing slaves to behave appropriately towards their masters.[31] However, historian Glenn Sunshine says,Christians were the first people in history to oppose slavery systematically. Early Christians purchased slaves in the markets simply to set them free.Later, in the seventh century, the Franks..., under the influence of its Christian queen, Bathilde, became the first kingdom in history to begin the process of outlawing slavery....In the 1200's, Thomas Aquinas declared slavery a sin.When the African slave trade began in the 1400's, it was condemned numerous times by the papacy.[32]The British became involved in the slave trade in the late 1500s, and by the 1700s, most people accepted slavery as a fact of life, until gradually, from the mid-1700s onwards, a Christian abolitionist movement began to take shape. It began with American Quakers.Slavery was also coming under attack from Enlightenment philosophers like Montesquieu and Rousseau, but it was Christian activists who initiated and organised an abolitionist movement.By the 1770s, Evangelicals were waking up to the seriousness of the issue – the British Methodist John Wesley and the American Presbyterian Benjamin Rush denounced the slave trade in influential pamphlets. Once the British Abolition Committee was established in 1787, abolitionism quickly became a mass movement. Within twenty years, the slave trade had been abolished throughout the British Empire. [33][34]Christianity was instrumental in stopping slavery. If you don’t think it was Christianity that made the difference, read this: John Dewar Gleissner's answer to What are some mind-blowing facts about slavery?Consistent with Calvin's political ideas, Protestants helped create both the English and the American democracies.Christianity is criticized for many things, some of them justly. David Gushee says Christianity has a "tragically mixed legacy" when it comes to the application of its own ethics, using the examples of three cases of "Christendom divided against itself": the crusades, and Frances of Assissi’s attempt at peacemaking with Muslims; Spanish conquerors and the killing of indigenous peoples, and the Christian protests and fights for Native rights; and the on-again, off-again, persecution and protection of Jews. [85]But we have also gotten a few things right here and there.I have borrowed from the article Role of Christianity in civilization - Wikipedia but I did attempt to limit myself to those sections of the article I wrote myself. Here are some of my references:Footnotes[1] From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity (Revealing Antiquity): Kyle Harper: 9780674072770: Amazon.com: Books[2] A Short History of Christianity: Geoffrey Blainey: 9781442225893: Amazon.com: Books[3] Amazon.com: Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome (9780521859431): Rebecca Langlands: Books[4] The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism: Timothy Keller: 9780525950493: Amazon.com: Books[5] Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion[6] Amazon.com: Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia (Routledge Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages) (9780415969444): Margaret C. Schaus: Books[7] CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Abbess[8] Get the facts in order: A history of women's leadership[9] Society, Spirituality, and the Sacred: A Social Scientific Introduction, Second Edition: Donald S. Swenson: 9780802096807: Amazon.com: Books[10] Christian Charity in the Ancient Church - Kindle edition by Gerhard Uhlhorn. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.[11] A Short History of Medical Ethics: 9780195134551: Medicine & Health Science Books @ Amazon.com[12] Nuns, a ‘Dying Breed,’ Fade From Leadership Roles at Catholic Hospitals[13] Giving: Charity and Philanthropy in History: Robert H. Bremner: 9781560008842: Amazon.com: Books[14] A History of Orthodox, Islamic, and Western Christian Political Values: Dennis J. Dunn: 9783319325668: Amazon.com: Books[15] Amazon.com: How the Irish Saved Civilization (Hinges of History Book 1) eBook: Thomas Cahill: Kindle Store[16] Amazon.com: 9783319325668: Books[17] Benedictine Monachism[18] Christian Community in History: Volume 1: Historical Ecclesiology: Roger D. Haight: 9780826416308: Amazon.com: Books[19] Charles Martel : the Military Leader and Frankish Defender: History and Civilization Collection: 9782366593624: Amazon.com: Books[20] 100 Scientists Who Shaped World History[21] St. Thomas Aquinas and the Natural Law Tradition: Contemporary Perspectives: John Goyette, Mark S. Latkovic, Richard S. Myers: 9780813213781: Amazon.com: Books[22] Faithful to Science[23] 100 Years of Nobel Prizes: Baruch Aba Shalev: 9780935047370: Amazon.com: Books[24] 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God[25] Amazon.com: A History of the University in Europe: Volume 1, Universities in the Middle Ages (9780521361057): Hilde de Ridder-Symoens: Books[26] The Western Humanities: The Complete Edition: Roy T. Matthews, F. Dewitt Platt: 9780874847857: Amazon.com: Books[27] Amazon.com: The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought (Routledge Religion Companions) (9780415442251): D. Jeffrey Bingham: Books[28] The Sacredness of Human Life: Why an Ancient Biblical Vision Is Key to the World's Future: David P. Gushee: 9780802844200: Amazon.com: Books[29] Text, Cases and Materials on Medical Law and Ethics: Marc Stauch, Kay Wheat: 9781138024021: Amazon.com: Books[30] The Routledge Companion to Media and Human Rights[31] The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery[32] Why You Think the Way You Do[33] The abolition of the slave trade: Christian conscience and political action by John Coffey - Jubilee Centre[34] The Abolitionists

My go-to argument when it came to defending abortion used to be the organ donation analogy. Pregnancy can be thought of as a temporary form of organ donation, in that a woman uses her bodily resources to sustain the life of a fetus, often to her own detriment. Simply put, no one, regardless of their legal status — meaning, semantic arguments about ‘personhood’ are irrelevant — has the right to another person’s blood, tissue, organs, etc. The state cannot compel a parent to donate, say, a kidney, to their child, even if the child will die without it. The state cannot compel a criminal to donate, say, blood, to their victim, even if the victim will die without it. Most compellingly, it is illegal to harvest the organs of a dead person if they have not given express consent to so while alive. Where abortion is criminalized, women have fewer rights than corpses.At this point, those who are against abortion may put forth the following argument — there is a morally significant difference between killing and allowing to die. They view a woman who aborts as actively killing (another person), while someone who withholds their blood or organs is merely allowing someone else to die. Additionally, they might argue that a pregnant woman retains the use of all of her organs after the pregnancy has ended, assuming there are no complications, while a donor physically loses their ability to utilize the blood, tissue, and/or organs that are donated.My response is to examine the nature of pregnancy more closely. I will grant that the organ donation analogy is not perfect (no analogy is) and also that the killing versus allowing to die distinction is non- trivial. As alluded to previously, however, a woman risks her health and life while pregnant.…far too many people think of pregnancy as, at worst, a minor inconvenience, as opposed to the massive physical, mental, and financial toll it is. In addition to the endless romanticization of parenthood by popular media, the dark underbelly (pardon the pun) of pregnancy and childbirth is covered up not only by religious and cultural narratives, but also by doctors and other healthcare professionals[1]…legal abortion is safer than pregnancy and childbirth. Based on the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Guttmacher Institute (among others), a woman is about 14 times more likely to die giving birth than while having an abortion[2]. Granted, this data is from the United States, where access to healthcare and maternal mortality rates are notoriously poor in comparison to other developed nations. But even here in Canada, where it is apparently three times safer to give birth than in the US[3], abortion is still a much safer medical procedure to undergo, with a complication rate of about 2%[4][5]. Because the majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, the actual risks are even lower. While it is true that modern medicine has alleviated many of the more harrowing aspects of pregnancy, there are still a boatload of potential risks, some of them fatal…[6]**For a more comprehensive list of obstetric complications: List of complications of pregnancy - WikipediaNot only would the symptoms of even a low-risk pregnancy be considered torture if one were to deliberately inflict them on someone, the embryo/fetus can be thought of as a parasite and hostile occupant of a woman’s body that she has the right to remove via deadly force.…This characterization will seem alarmingly callous to some, but if we strip back the layers of misinformation and romanticization regarding pregnancy, it becomes clear that, while the fetus and the woman carrying it belong to the same species, the relationship between the two can be thought of as parasitical in that the fetus directs nutrients and resources away from the woman’s body, endangers her life and health, etc…I am aware that the word parasite has a biological definition that doesn’t strictly apply in the context of pregnancy — I’m using the term in attempt to expound a political and ethical argument, not a rigorous scientific one. To understand why an abortion rights advocate may not view abortion as equivalent to murder, one has to understand that a fetus can be a hostile occupant of a woman’s body …and that killing doesn’t always rise to the level of murder. The classic example has always been killing in self-defense[7].As political scientist Eileen McDonagh argues in her book Breaking the Abortion Deadlock, which I cannot cite and recommend enough,…even in a medically normal pregnancy, the fetus massively intrudes on a woman's body and expropriates her liberty. If the woman does not consent to this transformation and use of her body, the fetus's imposition constitutes injuries sufficient to justify the use of deadly force to stop it… as in rape, kidnapping or slavery[8].Those who are against abortion often bring up the issue of responsibility. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of a sexual encounter, they argue, and the majority of pregnancies are not the result of sexual assault. In my view, this constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of consent. Consent is not a discrete quantity, but a continuous process.Consent to sexual activity can be withdrawn at any time, and if said activity continues against either party’s will, we call it rape. Similarly, pregnancy is not a legally binding contract. Pregnancy requires the ongoing consent of a woman to use her blood, organs, and nutrients, often to her detriment, to sustain the life of the fetus…What are men’s responsibilities in these scenarios? Many seem to treat pregnancy as some sort of punishment that women face for sexual activity, which is disturbing enough, but what about the men who impregnate women? Those who are anti-abortion may respond that a man should be equally responsible for providing for his child, even if he never wanted to become a father, but child support payments are not equivalent to pregnancy. Only women’s lives and health are threatened when bringing pregnancies to term…No activity is entirely risk-free. People drive cars, despite the possibility of road crashes. People swim, despite the possibility of drowning. And people have sex, despite the possibility of disease and pregnancy. Luckily, we’re fortunate enough to live in a world with seat belts, flotation devices, and condoms. Of course, no form contraception is 100% fool-proof. Heck, even sterilization performed by qualified medical professionals isn’t guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. But the odds are low enough[9]that it makes more sense to provide comprehensive sexual education, access to contraception, and access to safe abortion than it is to criminalize abortion, which kills more women[10]and saves no babies[11].“Responsibility” often becomes a distinctly vindictive term in anti-abortion rhetoric, and pregnant women are often held to standards that the rest of the population isn’t. For instance, do healthcare professionals deny a smoker lung cancer treatment because their condition is a result of freely-made choices? To make the analogy more accurate, are people involved in car crashed penalized by the medical community, even if they were wearing seat belts? I don’t see how consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy if one was using contraception, just as driving a car isn’t consenting to being in a car accident. The use of both contraception and seat belts minimizes the risk negative consequences, and in many cases the failure to use protection is due to lack of education. Moreover, one could argue that having an abortion is taking responsibility. An individual (or couple) who chooses to actively minimize the risk of unwanted pregnancy, while simultaneously deciding what to do in the unlikely case that they are faced with one, takes responsibility for their choices whether that choice ends up being abortion (the only alternative to pregnancy), adoption (an alternative to parenthood, not pregnancy), or parenthood. In fact, one could argue that given a pregnant person’s lack of resources and/or the conditions of foster care, abortion is not just a morally acceptable choice, but a morally responsible one. While I am sympathetic to this line of reasoning, it is beyond the scope of this answer, as my goal is to provide a defense for the legal acceptability of abortion, not to speculate on the (potential) lives of children born to poor and/or incompetent parents.To elaborate on some of the empirical aspects of this issue in addition to the philosophical,There is no statistically significant variation in abortion rates between jurisdictions where the procedure is legal and where it is not[12].Tens of thousands of women die every year from complications relating to unsafe abortions[13], usually in developing countries where abortion is highly restricted…Abortion legislation disproportionately affects low-income women[14]for a number of reasons, including lack of access to quality healthcare, primarily contraception[15], inability to bypass targeted restrictions[16], and general lack of resources to provide for oneself and one’s family.[17]In short,Abortion is an imperfect solution to a problem that, as of now, cannot be completely eradicated. There is no getting around the fact that unintended and unwanted pregnancies occur….And we are still ignoring so many confounding variables — complex social issues that won’t be solved by improving the efficacy of birth control[18].I can respect a genuinely “pro-life” ethos, one that is, among other things, anti-war, anti-capital punishment, and anti-factory farming in addition to being anti-abortion. I can even respect a genuine belief in the sacredness of human life from the moment of conception, provided such a belief also translates into actively working to minimize the suffering and maximize the flourishing of already born human beings. What I cannot respect is any policy that would deem women gestational slaves and acceptable casualties while there is no law compelling men to use so much as a drop of their own blood in order to sustain the life of another.The abortion debate is often treated as an abstract intellectual exercise, but it has tangible consequences. Remember Savita Halappanavar, and remember the thousands of nameless, faceless women like her.This is personal, and I, for one, refuse to be an incubator.Footnotes[1] Angeli Adeen's answer to What are some strange but true facts about pregnancy doctors rarely talk about?[2] https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=jchlp[3] The Last Person You'd Expect To Die In Childbirth[4] http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/76-Anti-choice-research-dangers-abortion.pdf[5] http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf[6] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to What are the reasons you would chose to abort a child rather than carry it to term and put it up for adoption?[7] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to Why are abortions not seen as murder by pro-choice advocates?[8] http://…even in a medically normal pregnancy, the fetus massively intrudes on a woman's body and expropriates her liberty. If the woman does not consent to this transformation and use of her body, the fetus's imposition constitutes injuries sufficient to justify the use of deadly force to stop it… as in rape, kidnapping or slavery.[9] Contraception | Reproductive Health | CDC[10] Preventing unsafe abortion[11] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to What pro choice arguments are the strongest / weakest?[12] Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare[13] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/75173/WHO_RHR_12.01_eng.pdf[14] Disparities in Abortion Rates: A Public Health Approach[15] Why Do Poor Women Have More Abortions?[16] 23 ways anti-abortion activists are attempting to erode Roe v. Wade without repealing it[17] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to How do pro-choice people view pro-lifers?[18] Shruthi Sailesh's answer to Why do pro-choice advocates get so defensive when labeled pro-abortion? Why not just own it?

Abortion providers are not like Starbucks. You can’t just stroll into one on every corner, place your order, and receive quick service.Roughly 90% of American counties have no abortion providers.Roughly 40% of American women live in those counties where there are no abortion providers.Those numbers are from 2014, and the number of abortion providers has been declining.Guttmacher Data Center35 states require that women receive counseling before an abortion is performed: 29 of these states detail the information a woman must be given; 6 states have abortion-specific requirements generally following the established principles of informed consent.27 of these states also require women to wait a specified amount of time—most often 24 hours—between the counseling and the abortion procedure.14 states require that counseling be provided in person and that the counseling take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility.29 states direct the state health agency to develop written materials: 11 require that the materials be given to a woman seeking an abortion, 18 require that the materials be offered to her.15 states require that the woman be informed that she cannot be coerced into obtaining an abortion.Nearly all the states that require counseling require information about the abortion procedure and fetal development.25 states require that the woman be given information about the specific procedure, while 23 require information about all common abortion procedures.33 states require that the woman be told the gestational age of the fetus.28 states include information on fetal development throughout pregnancy.13 states include information on the ability of a fetus to feel pain.6 states require that the woman be told that personhood begins at conception.26 states include information about the risks of abortion.3 states require medically inaccurate information that a medication abortion can be stopped after the woman takes the first dose of pills.21 states include accurate information on the potential effect of abortion on future fertility; in 4 states, the written materials inaccurately portray this risk.5 of the 8 states that include information on breast cancer inaccurately assert a link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.8 of the 20 states that include information on possible psychological responses to abortion stress negative emotional responses.29 states include information on the health risks of continuing pregnancy.Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion