Conflicts between religious and secular discourses, norms, actors, and institutions are differently shaped across the Middle East and Europe in accordance with their specific sociolegal contexts. While current scholarship has often studied this tension by focusing on religious rituals, we shed new light on the way religion and secularity shape the everyday making of life politics by way of a three-country comparison of abortion debates in Germany, Turkey, and Israel. Through face-to-face interviews with stakeholders involved in interpreting secular abortion law, we analyze how social actors in three predominantly monotheistic countries and 1 This article is written as a part of a larger research project on contested authority in body politics which compares religious-secular tensions on male circumcision, abortion, and posthumous organ donation, led by equal PIs Gökce Yurdakul and Shai Lavi, funded by the German-Israeli Foundation Regular Grant (2016 through 2019). We thank our research assistants, who conducted interviews in three countries: David Schulz (Germany); Burcu Halaç and Emine Uçak (Turkey); Shvat Eilat and Gala Rexer (Israel). Nil Mutluer’s research has been supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation’s Philipp-Schwartz Scholarship for Scholars at Risk (2017 through 2019). Anna Korteweg, Sharon Orshalimy, Kinneret Lahad and two anonymous reviewers commented on the earlier versions of this article. Gökce Yurdakul thanks Harvard University Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Research Cluster on Comparative Social Inequality and Inclusion (led by Michele Lamont) for providing residence and library resources for finalizing this article. socio-political circumstances construe secular abortion laws differently in practice. Contrary to common belief, we show that contestations over abortion do not neatly divide between religious and secular authority, but they create gray zones of negotiation. Articulated through specific historical, political, and religious circumstances, such gray zones involve everyday decisions on human authority in determining abortion practices and differing understandings of women’s bodies.

中文翻译：

---

对生活政治有争议的当局

中东和欧洲的宗教和世俗话语、规范、行为者和制度之间的冲突根据其特定的社会法律背景而形成不同的形式。虽然当前的学术研究经常通过关注宗教仪式来研究这种紧张关系，但我们通过对德国、土耳其和以色列三个国家的堕胎辩论进行比较，揭示了宗教和世俗如何塑造日常生活政治的方式。通过与参与解释世俗堕胎法的利益相关者的面对面访谈，我们分析了三个主要一神论国家的社会行为者如何和 1 本文是作为一个更大的研究项目的一部分而撰写男性包皮环切、堕胎和死后器官捐赠的长期紧张局势，由平等的 PI Gökce Yurdakul 和 Shai Lavi 领导，由德国-以色列基金会定期资助（2016 年至 2019 年）资助。我们感谢我们的研究助理，他们在三个国家进行了采访：David Schulz（德国）；Burcu Halaç 和 Emine Uçak（土耳其）；Shvat Eilat 和 Gala Rexer（以色列）。Nil Mutluer 的研究得到了亚历山大·冯·洪堡基金会的 Philipp-Schwartz 风险学者奖学金（2017 年至 2019 年）的支持。Anna Korteweg、Sharon Orshalimy、Kinneret Lahad 和两位匿名审稿人对本文的早期版本进行了评论。Gökce Yurdakul 感谢哈佛大学 Weatherhead 国际事务中心、比较社会不平等和包容性研究小组（由 Michele Lamont 领导）为本文定稿提供住所和图书馆资源。社会政治环境在实践中对世俗堕胎法的解释不同。与普遍看法相反，我们表明，关于堕胎的争论并没有明确划分宗教权威和世俗权威，但它们创造了谈判的灰色地带。通过特定的历史、政治和宗教环境，这些灰色地带涉及在决定堕胎做法和对女性身体的不同理解方面对人类权威的日常决策。