Author Topic: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"  (Read 23247 times)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« on: February 04, 2017, 02:31:45 AM »
Jan 27, 2017

French Parliment is debating the a bill aimed at suppressing arguments against abortion (IVG).  Not against abortion rights, but arguments aimed at persuading women to not abort.  Because this is called "psychological pressure."   

Existing French law prohibits physical and psychological barriers to abortion.  Illegal to physically block a woman's access, or to try to talk her out of abortion, or to try to talk medical staff out of performing an abortion.  But eager to reduce French population further so immigrants can take over, IVG proponents now want to prevent even general discouragement of abortion in websites or literature. 

Marie-George Buffet, a Communist deputy, a feminist activist in the Coordination of Associations for the Right to Abortion and Contraception, CADAC, made a curious Freudian slip:

Quote
"We want to defend a duty that the Republic has given to women,"

That's regressive leftism for you.  Right to vote turns into duty to vote, and right to abort turns into duty to abort, I suppose. 

Laurence Rossignol, Minister of Families, Children and Women's Rights, argued that the 1003 crime of obstructing abortion,  "must be adapted "to the digital reality". "Thirty years ago, anti-abortion commandos clung to grids," she said. Today, it is on the web that their heirs continue to fight this battle.  So 30 years ago, they fought pro-livers in the streets, so now we have to fight them on the web.  And I suppose 30 years from now you'll have to chase them down and fight them in their own heads, since that's the next step, right? First stop actions, then stop words, then you make them truly love Big Brother.

Christian Kert, another member of parliament, argued that the regressive left is essentially legislating ThoughtCrime.

Into the ring steps the youngest member of the French Parliament ever elected.  Marion Marechal Le Pen.  I'd highly recommend this little piece of fireworks.

https://www.facebook.com/MMLPen.officiel/videos/1331496163602865/

And American lefties think that they have problems!  LoL.  Thank your stars that Marion is French, since she'd make mincemeat of you here.  Damn.



D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2017, 09:07:42 AM »
While the execution of such laws seems muddy at best...  Good for them! 

Quote
But eager to reduce French population further so immigrants can take over,
  The same, or a slightly different spin on the reasoning here (USA).  Anti-abortion efforts have long been aimed at bolstering the ranks of religious groups at any expense, be they psychological or economical.  Maybe Christians and Muslims will find some common ground on this one...  (Or better yet demonstrate why a secular government with zero ties to religion is a super keen idea.)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2017, 09:19:18 AM »
Quote
But eager to reduce French population further so immigrants can take over,
  The same, or a slightly different spin on the reasoning here (USA).

How do you figure?

Quote
Anti-abortion efforts have long been aimed at bolstering the ranks of religious groups at any expense, be they psychological or economical.

This is a peculiar argument. Do you suppose anti-abortion people are lying about their reasons for espousing that position, or have you heard this aim expressed directly?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2017, 09:37:25 AM »
This is all just theories rattling around in my brain.  Possibly BS, but posting how I see the world, not citing verified truths.

The second part quoted answers the first part question.

I think MOST pro-life religious, never think in these terms and it would never occur to them.
I think SOME pro-life religious may rationally grasp this concept but would be sure that THEY oppose abortion on moral grounds.
Then I think there is a group who direct policy / focus specifically for this reason, partly in response to a declining relevance of religion in the day to day lives of many Americans.  (Also extrapolate this world wide and expand it from just anti-abortion and into sexual education and condom availability and other related programs.)

In short, The Church wants people procreating.  First parents indoctrinate for them.  Second, those hit with unexpected pregnancies may turn to the church in times of stress / desperation.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2017, 10:11:30 AM »
I don't think your assessment is accurate with regards to your average 'religious' person in terms of their secret desires. But what about non-religious people who are anti-abortion? What is their secret motive?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2017, 11:06:19 AM »
I don't think they are likely to have one.  A secret one that is.  Just as I don't feel the "average religious person" does.   They both form their opinion based upon their moral beliefs, just from different foundations. 

My theory is that those helping to form those beliefs have been influenced over time towards this "secret" goal. 

That said I suppose there are those who could come to the conclusion that we NEED more babies on purely economic grounds.  Maybe slowing birth rates and lengthening life expectancy panic people of certain groups.  Maybe these groups align themselves with religious groups for purely political/economic reasons...

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2017, 11:30:18 AM »
D.W., it seems to me that you're taking secondary effects of a potion on this topic and concluding that these are the primary aim. For instance, a person who thinks that abortion is murder may, incidentally, also be pleased for the Republican party or for their religious group to also gain political traction from rallying on to pro-life side, but those secondary effects shouldn't be confused with the main objection. Some people no doubt do rationalize their moral position because of its political or social convenience, and so I have no doubt that what you say is accurate to an extent for some people. Similarly, for those who aren't religious it's possible to suppose to since a pro-life position may result in greater amounts of births, that they likewise happen to be pleased about that fact. But again, I sincerely doubt almost any pro-life secular people have adopted that position due to their caring about systemic birth rates.

I think what you may be trying to say is that there are systemic feedback mechanisms in place to reinforce belief in a pro-life position aside from its moral/ethical component, and to that the answer is surely yes. But attributing secondary effects or causes to be the main aim of any given person is a problematic assertion. I could likewise look to anyone who voted Democrat for any reason (anti-Trump, pro-social programs, etc.) and say that since voting Dem bolsters the party that such votes are 'aimed' at bolstering partisan politics and funding special interests. Maybe some Dem voters do think like this, but I suspect most don't. I'd be in error to assume that an effect of voting Dem is the 'aim' of any given person who does so.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2017, 11:42:46 AM »
It is very similar to the line of thinking that Democrats are softer on immigration (or pay the pro-immigration stance more lip service) because those demographics are more likely to vote Democratic. 

I don't think that many voters who see it as an ethical / emphatic stance to take (and vote Democratic because it aligns for that reason) are thinking that it's just about more votes.  But there ARE people in the party thinking that way and applying pressure on our culture / society such that they are positively associated to this empathy based approach BECAUSE they will see gains. 

We are manipulated all the time by powerful groups.  The church (as a collective not a specific one) has always been one of those powerful groups.  They either act in concert with the state (again, not specific but general) or act as a check against the state when things are going counter to their interest. 

I was not suggesting that an individual 'pro-life' person does not hold genuine and morality based views.  I was suggesting that we don't come to all of those views on our own and sometimes the reasoning WE use to reach conclusions have nothing at all to do with the reasoning of those who helped us along to those conclusions.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2017, 01:38:30 PM »
We are manipulated all the time by powerful groups.  The church (as a collective not a specific one) has always been one of those powerful groups.  They either act in concert with the state (again, not specific but general) or act as a check against the state when things are going counter to their interest.

I'm not sure who "the church" is, but that point aside, I think your term "manipulated" collates things that should not be. Some groups do plainly try to manipulate people, and in my view the closer these groups are to big money interests the more this is going to be the case. When you look at big oil, pharma, military, banking, etc etc I have no doubt that they literally sit in closed rooms and finding ways to warp public perception to materially benefit them. But not every group has as its exclusive aim to bolster their income at "any expense" (as you put it). Various churches, I'm sure, do care about the bottom like and try to find ways to attract followers and income, but at the same time I think it would be an error to ascribe their 'main' goal to manipulating people. A better word might be affecting people, and if phrased like that then sure, they certainly do want to affect hearts and minds. Some of it may fall into the category of manipulation, and some may fall into just spreading what they see as the truth.

When you suggest that "the church" acts in concert with the state, I think you may be thinking of it in general terms like "they are both authority establishments, so they're more or less in the same business", but even if you assert that you need to look at specifics regarding money flow. How much does "the church" apply through lobbyists to influence the Congress, compared to other special interests? I'm sure various churches are in the mix, but I wonder whether they might not be more involved at the state level. And at the state level you have to start looking at to what extent they actually do represent the desires of the voters in that state. It's hard to accept that special interests have the public benefit in mind at the federal level, but at the state level I rather think they probably do a good part of the time. But I would especially like to zero in on "in concert with", which supposes a kind of entrenched partnership. Again, I think in some states the church might well be baked into local politics, whereas, again, on the Federal level I don't know how much this is true. And recall that the OP is about a national policy in France and not about local politics in a particular region. The equivalent would be the Congress trying to pass a law, in which case the appropriate level to be discussing here would be Federal (even though there is no direct equivalence between French politics and American).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2017, 03:02:10 PM »
Anti-abortion efforts have long been aimed at bolstering the ranks of religious groups at any expense, be they psychological or economical.

This is a peculiar argument. Do you suppose anti-abortion people are lying about their reasons for espousing that position, or have you heard this aim expressed directly?

There is a roundabout thing going on here, and I think Rush Limbaugh pointed it out back in the 1990's, before the Millenials started making their presence felt politically, which I think caused him to back off on the claim.

An assertion was made that in the irony of ironies, the Pro-Choice and "ultra-left man-hating feminist crowd"("feminazi") had made "a critical error" in their decision making process. Because the people who made the choice to not reproduce, or abort, were by and large members of those groups. Basically, because they largely failed to reproduce and inculcate their own children with their respective beliefs, their movement was ultimately doomed to fail as they grew old and died out.

Now that was where Rush stopped. But if you keep going:

The anti-abortion side of it then logically takes a "next-step" in that by holding to a anti-abortion, or even anti-birth control position, those "anti-abortion groups" took a position in the premeditated belief that they'd just simply pop out enough children on "their side" in relation to the opposing side that they'd simply overturn the decision as a matter of popular will.

Of course, this ignores Glenn Beck over the past 8 years, who has pointed out that a significant number of the founding members of Planned Parenthood had previously(before/during WW2, and sometimes as late as the 1960's) held positions that would clearly be considered to be "White Supremacist" in nature today. Where they actively, and openly talked about pursuing eugenics programs to ensure that "The Black Man" in particular never managed to "outbreed the White Man" and attain majority status/control of the United States.  So in that respect, mission accomplished? Given that the overwhleming majority of the abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood over the past many decades have been for black pregnancies.

Planned Parenthood may at one point in the future go down in the history books as potentially one of the most discrete and successful eugenics programs in history.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 03:04:35 PM by TheDeamon »

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2017, 03:25:08 PM »
Quote
Planned Parenthood may at one point in the future go down in the history books as potentially one of the most discrete and successful eugenics programs in history.

Which is, of course, exactly what they expect you to believe!  :D

Because, by preventing "The Black Man" from having abortions, but allowing the Rich White Men to have as many as they want (since abortions will never cease, but simply go underground, mainly for the rich), the population of Whites will plummet while the population of Blacks and Other Minorities will sky-rocket.

This will mean that either Minorities will become the majority and take all Whites into slavery, or Real Americans will have to unite before that to expel these hoards (isn't it interesting that they always come in hoards? :) ) before they take over and change what America Really Is.

Which would just delay the nefarious plan, since the Minorities will breed like rabbits outside the borders and eventually overrun The Wall and take over America anyway, since there won't be enough Whites to defend the country, having been outbread because of this ridiculous abortion policy.

So you see, keeping poor people poor by making sure they have children they cannot afford and don't want is simply a plot to overthrow the White Majority in this country!

And Planned Parenthood may one day in the future go down as the reason America fell and became a multi-ethnic country.

(See, I can do Glenn Beck, too. :)) )

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2017, 04:02:33 PM »
First, sorry about spinning this off on a tangent.  My main point is that anything that stuffs theological based moralism back on its side of a separation of church and state is a big win.  I see this as one such proposal.
Quote
I'm not sure who "the church" is,
Any dominant religious group that can exert influence in behavior of a large portion of the population in a region/nation. 
Quote
A better word might be affecting people,
  That may be a “better” word for one pleased with the trends.  I concede that manipulation has a negative connotation. 
Quote
When you suggest that "the church" acts in concert with the state, I think you may be thinking of it in general terms like "they are both authority establishments, so they're more or less in the same business", but even if you assert that you need to look at specifics regarding money flow.
They are both interested in retaining and expanding their power and reach.  If they are not in competition, they may work in concert.  I don’t mean in coincidental parallels, I mean strategizing together or operating in a highly symbiotic relationship.
As for relative lobbying activity / influence I find ANY influence to be distasteful.  We are suppose to have freedom of religion here.  Under what possible rational (other than historical precedence) should our law makers grant any consideration to a particular religious lobby?  Other than protecting an individual’s right to practice their religion (when that does not impact a third party) why should the beliefs of how others should act matter one bit? 

When is there a debate on any of these contentious issues?  When a religious group wants others to stop acting in a way they feel is disagreeable.  Then, more often than not they go to great effort to frame themselves as the siege and persecuted group.  Something so deeply entrenched into religion as a whole that its reflex at this point.  (And yes, I understand that it is sometimes also truth.)

Pontiffs and Presidents exchanging tweets may be a far cry from envoys from Rome visiting a king, but they are still playing the same game.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2017, 05:17:00 PM »
Quote
My main point is that anything that stuffs theological based moralism back on its side of a separation of church and state is a big win.

The fact that Jews and Christians make up the loudest part of the pro life movement does not make their case "theologically based."  the phrase "life begins at conception is bad science, not theology. 

Christianityand Judaism do not have a longstanding history of opposition to abortion. It's something that's grown with our understanding of fetal development.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2017, 05:26:29 PM »
I agree with Wayward's argument(although am not sure if Wayward meant it) that having birth control and abortion available only to the better off, divides humanity into r competitors ad k competitors. Instant caste system.

That's why I support free available birth control and incentives for sterilization.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2017, 05:32:43 PM »
Quote
The fact that Jews and Christians make up the loudest part of the pro life movement does not make their case "theologically based."
  True, but it shows a... more consistent? determination on prioritizing the unborn (at whatever state of development) coming to term over the desires of the woman who would bring that life to term.
Quote
the phrase "life begins at conception is bad science, not theology.
I don't disagree, but is this relevant to either of our points?

Quote
Christianity and Judaism do not have a longstanding history of opposition to abortion.  It's something that's grown with our understanding of fetal development.
Which makes it interesting that I've not run across people in the anti-abortion camp who would acknowledge that let alone suggest that our understanding of fetal development has informed why they are opposed to abortion.  I mean, I've read this position, even seen it stated online from time to time.  I've never run into it... "in the wild" as it were.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2017, 06:25:34 PM »
I didn't accuse them of understanding their own ideology. They have been taught by their parents who were taught by theirs.  But it only goes back a century or so to a time that churches were a driving progressive force for civil rights. How else would you explain church history re abortion?

It' s not until we started seeing preserved fetuses in science jars that judeochristian values re children hopped the fence to include abortion.

« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 06:27:40 PM by Pete at Home »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2017, 09:56:31 PM »
I didn't accuse them of understanding their own ideology. They have been taught by their parents who were taught by theirs.  But it only goes back a century or so to a time that churches were a driving progressive force for civil rights. How else would you explain church history re abortion?

Well, that and effective/safe Abortion options were kind of hard to come by prior to the 20th Century. Unless we're talking something like a "morning after pill" which probably had some degree of availability(and widely variable effectiveness) before then. Of course, more relevant to this discussion is the claim that in the time of the Romans, there evidently was a plant which could be used which provided a highly effective means of birth control. Of course, it was allegedly so popular that they used it into extinction. :(

But if those claims are true, then it probably existed and was known in biblical times, in particular it may have still been around during the New Testament era(not sure on when the plant allegedly went extinct, just that the Romans had access to it), yet it seems to go without mention in the Bible.

But that gets into splitting hairs on things, and more particular, playing into a popular Democratic rhetorical trap. That all Conservative Republican oppose all forms of Birth Control, and will have nothing to with something like a "morning after pill" even though MOST(but not all, in particular observant/"obedient" Catholics) have no issue with those specific services. What their issue is generally happens to be the 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, with everybody drawing lines at different spots, with many venturing into that first trimester.

The ones going for "It begins at conception" are certainly among the most vocal, but they're a definite minority even within the pro-life camp.

Quote
It' s not until we started seeing preserved fetuses in science jars that judeochristian values re children hopped the fence to include abortion.

Awareness will do that.

Comparable thing happened with Child Labor laws, Child Labor was perfectly ok for nearly the entire first century of the Industrial Revolution, but suddenly newspapers and other groups starting raising awareness of the working conditions of those children, and suddenly "the Christian thing" became to oppose it.

Ditto for "age of consent" for sex, marriage, and military service. It wasn't until nearly the end of the 19th century that it became illegal in most states(and Europe) for you to engage in sex with a 10 year old. You could even marry an 8 year old if you really wanted to. Such example are certainly extremes, and very exceptionally rare according to the historical record, but it still stands as things you could legally do at the time and have a decent chance of not being universally condemned for it.

Obviously people of the time did take exception to most of those things by the end of the 19th Century, probably once again, due to awareness of it even being an issue coming into play. So once they became aware of it, they changed the laws to put an end to much of it.

But it is kind of odd looking at the history of the Age of Consent laws in particular, in many cases, they started at the Age of 8, and then over a period of decades, the age of consent crept progressively higher. Which by today's standards is just utterly bizarre, but then if you look at it from the religious side, what is the scriptural/doctrinal basis for such a concept?
 
Even so, that a state legislature would debate and pass a law stating that having sex with someone under the of age 7 is unacceptable, but that 8 is fine. Just what arguments were presented in that legislative session that made any legislature decide that was acceptable in any form?

Of course, the madness wouldn't end there. They'd then revisit the issue(in a true (reversed?) slippery slope form), and decide that 8 no longer is ok, but having sex with an 12 year old still remains acceptable. Where you once again have to wonder how they decided THAT was acceptable. Rinse and repeat once or twice more, depending on the states/nations involved, and ultimately you end up with the mixtures of ages of consent ranging from 14 to 18 in most of "the 1st world."

...but then, when we're talking early 20th Century, we also need to remember that a LOT of people even as late as the 1930's didn't even have a 6th grade education. Which would indicate that by the time they hit 12 or 13, they were essentially being treated as adults. As standards of living, and educational standards likewise increased during the 20th century, age of consent seemed to track closely with the age of "mandatory (enforced) schooling" all things considered. Which is how we pretty much have 18 as the universal bar for much of the United States(and more specifically in regards to porn, as some state have lower age limits for consent)--because that's the age at which they finish High School.

Although it does seem that some states have started to use a more "medically rational" basis for setting the age of consent. Which basically boils down to statistical breakdowns of (non-harmful to the mother) pregnancy outcomes based on age of the woman at the time of pregnancy. That data seems to peg things right around 18 years for most of the population(although for some it can extend into their 20's, while others can be earlier by a few years; although if you were going for "best outcome for a first pregnancy," we'd currently be setting the sexual age of consent somewhere in a woman's early to mid 20's), but that's another ball of wax, and trying to legislate such a personally invasive law with a triggering clause based on an individualized medical assessment is just asking for trouble.

Although it would probably be hilarious to see how people would react to trying to push such a reform through. "No Sex until you're 24." Probably safer to try "Mandatory birth control until you're 24" except many religious groups, and a number of women's rights groups for that matter, will object to that for a multitude of reasons. ;)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2017, 10:06:01 PM »
In Roman times, infanticide was the norm everywhere except among the Jews.  Archeology shows that the basements and sewers beneath Roman brothels were filled with skeletons of male newborns (girls were kept for the next generation of brothel slaves, and a female slave in Rome cost 4 times that of a male slave for most of BC 100-AD 300).  This suddenly disappears after Constantine, when infanticide was prohibited in the Empire.  (dictating which kids should be exposed and killed was a core right of the Roman family patriarch, so this Christian reform was far more controversial than modern abortion).  The brothels themselves did not disappear under Christian rule; indeed, the brothels in Rome were owned by clergymen.   The most reasonable inference I can make is that the church brought in or imported some abortive remedy to avoid infancicide (which unlike abortion IS explicitly prohibited in the Tenach/Old Testament and implicitly prohibited in the New Testament).

The Greek Hypocrates prohibited physicians from giving "abortive remedies" but this had to do with purism within the medical profession, much like physicians today who argue that a doctor should not participate in capital punishment, dosing for lethal injection, etc.  Hypocrates didn't say that doctors should go out and try to prevent abortions, or even the infanticides that were rampant and considered quite normal in Greek Culture.  He just saw it imperative to his brand of medicine that the doctor "do no harm" to any living being.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 10:10:04 PM by Pete at Home »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2017, 10:46:44 AM »
Today's politics are always more interesting through the lens of history.  Thanks for the info both of you.  Some I knew, but some good food for thought.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2017, 10:46:53 AM »
It' s not until we started seeing preserved fetuses in science jars that judeochristian values re children hopped the fence to include abortion.

Do you have some source indicating that Jews or Catholics (or other Christian groups) explicitly said that abortion was fine at some point in history?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2017, 11:04:00 AM »
It' s not until we started seeing preserved fetuses in science jars that judeochristian values re children hopped the fence to include abortion.

Do you have some source indicating that Jews or Catholics (or other Christian groups) explicitly said that abortion was fine at some point in history?

Why are you asking me to source something that I did not say?

I said the scriptures explicitly forbid infanticide and said zilch on abortion.  And that inference dictates that abortion was practiced under Christian rule of Rome. I see no sustained effort to prohibit it until later when biology of fetal development becomes known.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 11:10:01 AM by Pete at Home »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2017, 11:39:23 AM »
It' s not until we started seeing preserved fetuses in science jars that judeochristian values re children hopped the fence to include abortion.

Do you have some source indicating that Jews or Catholics (or other Christian groups) explicitly said that abortion was fine at some point in history?

Why are you asking me to source something that I did not say?

I said the scriptures explicitly forbid infanticide and said zilch on abortion.  And that inference dictates that abortion was practiced under Christian rule of Rome. I see no sustained effort to prohibit it until later when biology of fetal development becomes known.

That would have been fine had you said that sovereign laws previously didn't address it, however what you actually said was that "judeochristian values" hopped the fence to include it, implying that their values previously were either ok with it or at least neutral, and that only physical evidence of fetuses changed those values. To back up this assertion I asked whether you had any evidence that either Jewish or Christian values changed over time due to scientific discovery, which is a different matter than that of whether law changed (which I did not address).

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2017, 03:25:03 PM »
No Fenring. You have entirely misunderstood me.

Judeochristian values have not changed. 

The position on abortion has changed because JudeoChristian valued regarding children  were triggered by information re fetal development.


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2017, 03:36:25 PM »
No Fenring. You have entirely misunderstood me.

Judeochristian values have not changed. 

The position on abortion has changed because JudeoChristian valued regarding children  were triggered by information re fetal development.

If I misunderstood you then sorry about that. Are you saying, then, that "life begins at conception" is something that was previously not a part of Jewish or Christian beliefs, and that that standard was adopted at some finite point in history? If so, do you know when?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2017, 04:02:24 PM »
"Life begins at conception" isn't even a concept. It's a pile of words. You are educated so I am embarrassed that you even bring it up.

In the Bible, the WOMAN is said to conceive.  That rules out the modern pop Christian definition of "conception" as fertilization.  Since 67% of fertilized eggs don't ever implant, the woman cannot be said to have conceived.

So the modern pop concept of conception is a Bastard concept, conceived extrascripturally in the annals of bad science.

In real science, a fertilized egg is no more "alive" than an underutilized egg, which is no less alive than you or I. Or than a living worm, for that matter. Life began millions of years ago and has grown continually like a tree in different directions. When life begins is a stupid question.  Life doesn't begin. It began eons ago.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 04:04:50 PM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2017, 04:16:48 PM »
The first statement by any church leader that "conception" and ensoulment occur at the same tiime was 1869, Pope Pious. Previous Catholic sources denied that an embryo was a human being with a soul.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2017, 04:31:20 PM »
And you're back to claiming that people of faith can not believe something because you believe that science "proves" it wrong, notwithstanding that it does not prove anything wrong about the belief.  Didn't we go through this previously?  Whether life begins at concept isn't really impacted by how many fertilized eggs fail to implant, or by how many are absorbed and repurposed by a mothers body, or even by how many split into twins.  There's nothing illogical about moral opposition to interference in the process of the creation of human beings, even if one uses "from conception" as the point from which that opposition begins.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2017, 04:38:32 PM »
I'll ask around in a few sources I know to see what they say about historical Catholic ideas about what "a life" was prior to birth. Interesting topic.

Regarding this comment:

"In real science, a fertilized egg is no more "alive" than an underutilized egg, which is no less alive than you or I. Or than a living worm, for that matter. Life began millions of years ago and has grown continually like a tree in different directions. When life begins is a stupid question.  Life doesn't begin. It began eons ago."

I don't know that even the majority of pro-choice people agree with you here. Many people are dissatisfied with late-term abortions, for instance, even if they vehemently believe they should nevertheless be legal. No one could honestly argue that there is a material difference in whether a baby is more 'alive' in the moment prior to being born versus the moment after, and therefore even a completely secular analysis would have to define in some way when we might call such a being "alive". No serious source, nor any major scientific currents I know of, categorize life as being an organism over time rather than a series of discretely alive individuals, although that idea is certainly worth exploring and is touched upon in the works of Frank Herbert in particular. Note that when I speak here of defining when something is 'alive' it's not strictly related to whether abortions should occur, but is something worth defining in its own right.

If you happen to think that 'life begins at conception' is a stupid idea then that's fine, but if your actual position is that life actually never begins then you've sort of left the entire debate as it stands in the wayside and made up your own debate. It might be a good one to make up, but it's irrelevant to the issue that religious groups bring up, which is that life should be defended and therefore we need to determine what is and what isn't life.

 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2017, 05:02:28 PM »
Quote
I don't know that even the majority of pro-choice people agree with you here

What are you?
You would seriously submit a simple freshman science question up to a vote?

I didn't say it was a 'stupid idea". I said it wasn't an idea at all, but a pile of words pretending to be an idea like "gay marriage" was in the 19o0s.

Look up the definition of life.

Is a sperm alive? Is an egg alive? 

You've forgotten my main point that the Bible uses the word conception in a way that cannot be reconciled with the modern pro life usage of fertilization.

Quote
And you're back to claiming that people of faith can not believe something because you believe that science "proves" it wrong, notwithstanding that it does not prove anything wrong about the belief.

It's not about proof or about belief. It's about the simple meaning of words.  Recitation of a mantra is not belief.  Do pro lifers believe that a sperm and egg are not alive prior to joining?  No. They just haven't thought it through. Question them and they aren't consistent with how they use the word life.  It's a gibberish mantra.

Same with the phrase "hay marriage ban" or the argument LDS aren't Christians. The arguments require a spot redefinition of words where the new definition is held only for the purpose of a single argument.  It's sophistry.  A shell game with words.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 05:05:24 PM by Pete at Home »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2017, 05:05:32 PM »
I suspect that they don't view your absolute rigidity on the definition of conception as even remotely relevant to what their faith requires, which you must at some level understand.  And like I said before, in the other thread where you went on about this, none of the biological questions you raise even remotely approach the level of dispositive on a non-scientific question such as "when does life begin?"

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2017, 05:08:37 PM »
Pure sophistry and sleight of hand, Seriati. A tumor is alive.

What makes the life of a baby or fetus sacred and protect able is something other than "it's alive."

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2017, 06:43:35 PM »
Many people are dissatisfied with late-term abortions, for instance, even if they vehemently believe they should nevertheless be legal. No one could honestly argue that there is a material difference in whether a baby is more 'alive' in the moment prior to being born versus the moment after, and therefore even a completely secular analysis would have to define in some way when we might call such a being "alive".

This is actually an edge case for the LDS Church itself, as it has been largely ambivalent and non-supportive of abortion in general. Unlike the Catholic Faith, which had an infallible Pope set the line at the moment of conception. The Mormons have a very fuzzy line in the sand, and nobody knows where it is. Which puts them largely in the realm of scientific inquiry on the subject.

At what point does that fertilized sperm + ova cease being considered an embryo, or fetus, and when should it start to potentially be considered to be a person(human) being in its own right, even if it hasn't yet drawn breath on its own?

This is as much a secular question as it is a religious one, although the pro-choice crowd doesn't like to acknowledge that. Is there a point where Abortion should instead be considered "Physician Assisted Killing"(or murder/choose your word here)?

As mentioned previously, even much of the "Pro-Life" crowd have few to no issues with things like Birth Control, or even morning-after pills. As that pretty much falls into the realm of what Pete has already alluded to: The vast multitude of fertilized eggs that never "Catch" and fail to properly initiate a pregnancy.

Of course, this probably comes with a helping of scientific knowledge, and an issue specific to that Papal declaration in the mid-19th century. The mechanism had been discovered, nothing much further was known about it, but people wanted a decision on it, so he made one. If he'd known more about the process, and the natural failure rates of "pregnancies" which reach that point, maybe he'd have gone for a later stage, such as the moment the zygote successfully  contacts the uterine wall in time to begin triggering the biological process in women known as "pregnancy." But that's all supposition at this stage. I guess it would be kind of interesting to see if someone could dig up exactly what was known, or otherwise believed, about pregnancy (by the scientific/medical community) at the time of that papal decree.

Otherwise, we have a legion of "Accidental Deaths" that have been going unnoticed for millennia, and continue to not be noted in most cases today. From a spiritual perspective, I find that highly unlikely.

Now where things quickly start to go grey is after the woman's body acknowledges that it is pregnant. Is the fetal heartbeat a decisive point? How about when the fetus starts to show any detectable brain activity? Are we going to set the bar at when we can detect specific kinds of brain waves? (And on this note, in a "future tech/sci-fi" context, I have to wonder where the popular view regarding abortion will skew should we ever achieve the technical capability of brain to brain communication, and it gets used with success, to "communicate" with a fetus in some form. Of course, such a technology also would have implications in regards to domesticated and wild animals alike as well. ) Or do we continue to draw the line of not regarding that entity as being human until it draws a breath outside of the womb?

But the more concerning item for me in the secular sense, is the matter in regards to premature babies. Where we can now have premature babies born as early as the 22nd week of pregnancy now, and have the child survive(actually, the record is evidently 21 weeks, and 6 days. I rounded up) Albeit, such a child would require very extensive medical care, and will likely have a laundry list of medical issues for their entire life, but it has now been done. However, that very premature delivery was considered human right out of the starting gates without any meaningful hesitation(about anything other than odds of survival).  Meanwhile that child has a huge cohort of counterparts who are being aborted months later in gestation process.

So as a rationale person, I have to wonder at a legal system that when looking at in terms of age from time of conception. We can have a "22 week old Embryo" get entitled to the full range of legal protections up to and including legal actions against any who try to harm it. While that same legal system will turn around and say it sees nothing wrong with "a medical practitioner" ending the existence of an Embryo in its 36th week of development.

There is something very wrong with that scenario, the only people who don't see a problem there are pushing an agenda as far as I'm concerned.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2017, 07:52:33 PM »
Many people are dissatisfied with late-term abortions, for instance, even if they vehemently believe they should nevertheless be legal. No one could honestly argue that there is a material difference in whether a baby is more 'alive' in the moment prior to being born versus the moment after, and therefore even a completely secular analysis would have to define in some way when we might call such a being "alive".
[/quote]

That's why the "alive" question is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.  A tumor is alive.  A hair follicle is alive.  Blood cells are alive.  Sperm and eggs are alive.  The question is not when "life" begins.  The Bible speaks of the term "QUICKENING" meaning the time at which the mother senses the movement and life within her.  When is this?  The Bible doesn't say.  But it's clearly not fertilization.



This is actually an edge case for the LDS Church itself, as it has been largely ambivalent and non-supportive of abortion in general. Unlike the Catholic Faith, which had an infallible Pope set the line at the moment of conception. The Mormons have a very fuzzy line in the sand, and nobody knows where it is.

I think the fact that Mormons believe in divine revelation on a limited albeit growing number of topics, they are comfortable saying we don't know and God hasn't told us that yet so we need to base that decision on the facts we have available to us.  Also, "he that needs be commanded in all things is an idle and slothful servant."


Quote
Which puts them largely in the realm of scientific inquiry on the subject.

While most pro-choicers reject science and rely on law, tradition, and convenience-based dogma.  The actual text of Roe V Wade uses the word "Tradition" more than Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof.

Quote
At what point does that fertilized sperm + ova cease being considered an embryo, or fetus, and when should it start to potentially be considered to be a person(human) being in its own right, even if it hasn't yet drawn breath on its own?

The legal question of "personhood" is inhumanly deceptive, since a legal person, a corporation, need not ever "draw breath."

Quote
This is as much a secular question as it is a religious one, although the pro-choice crowd doesn't like to acknowledge that.

Precisely.  At this point, pro-lifers use bad science (life begins at conception) to defend their tradition, while pro-choicers use bad religion (tradition, tradition) to defend theirs.

Quote
Is there a point where Abortion should instead be considered "Physician Assisted Killing"(or murder/choose your word here)?

If "life" is the standard, then oncology is "physician-assisted killing" (of a tumor).  That which distinguishes a fetus (or living child) from a tumor is something that neither the pro-lifers nor pro-choicers are willing to allow us to consider.  That's why I consider both the pro-life and pro-choice mainstream collectively "anti-brain" positions.  :o 8)

Quote
Or do we continue to draw the line of not regarding that entity as being human until it draws a breath outside of the womb?

If you believe some anti-brain NARAL fanatics, even a homosapiens that draws breath can be "aborted" if it has one foot in the birth canal.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 07:57:35 PM by Pete at Home »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2017, 12:58:46 AM »
That's why the "alive" question is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.  A tumor is alive.  A hair follicle is alive.  Blood cells are alive.  Sperm and eggs are alive.  The question is not when "life" begins.

If you'll pardon me, I'll borrow a phrase from you and ask whether you're being deliberately obtuse here? There is, first of all, nothing I said (or that Christians of any kind I know of say) implying that all life needs to be defended. There is no merit to arguing that bacterial life is sacred. What we're talking about is human life, meaning an organism consisting of human DNA that has the capacity to live.

Secondly, I have to date never heard any scientist refer to a tumor as a living being, but nevertheless if you're going to categorize organic components as "alive" in some colloquial sense, they are at any rate not sentient life forms in any way we can tell. Even if you want to call my finger nail 'alive', you can't call it a human being, nor can you call it a sentient life form. So asking whether a sentient being is alive is, indeed, relevant, and obviously is very important in matters of law as well as religion. Even if you raise doubts about whether non-sentient matter may be called a life form or alive, that's irrelevant to the question of how to treat life forms that are sentient by nature, as human beings are (according to our loose definitions of sentience).

I would go much further than this on the scope of the philosophy of science, because despite what you're claiming here - that it doesn't matter when life begins - the world of science is entirely interested in when life begins, and how it begins, and even what makes living beings alive in the first place. This goes into fields like neuroscience, biochemistry, cognitive science, and even frankly into particle physics because time is a massively important component in what we call consciousness, and without a definition for that we cannot even begin to fully understand what sentient life might be. So yes, the abortion issue really does branch out into relevant areas of scientific study, and asking when life begins and even what it is are crucial questions to be solved, religion aside. You are certainly free to assert that you think the matter is of no relevance, but you would be in the VAST minority in so doing, and certainly not backed up by any science I know of.
 
Quote
The Bible speaks of the term "QUICKENING" meaning the time at which the mother senses the movement and life within her.  When is this?  The Bible doesn't say.  But it's clearly not fertilization.

I'm not that well versed in the different Christian sects and to what extent they are more or less fundamentalist than each other in terms of interpreting Biblical verses literally. Jewish custom as passed down through Rabbinical tradition absolutely does not interpret the Bible in a fundamentalist fashion, where it's all too common to see a modern rule be founded on a Bible passage but have the implementation be wildly different from the literal text (see: dietary laws). Likewise, Roman Catholicism isn't a literalist/fundamentalist tradition and does not base its doctrines and rules based purely on the literal wording of the texts. While you may believe that the "from fertilization" rule is BS, I don't believe there's a legitimate way to use Biblical verses to 'prove' that the Catholic position on this is somehow made up out of the clear blue sky. As TheDeamon noted, it might be interesting to find out exactly how the determination on this actually was made; but even if the decision that 'human life begins at conception' is as arbitrary as 'human life begins at birth' neither position can be contradicted with "science." They are at the very worst lines drawn in the sand, neither factually right nor wrong.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2017, 01:07:42 AM »
That's why the "alive" question is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.  A tumor is alive.  A hair follicle is alive.  Blood cells are alive.  Sperm and eggs are alive.  The question is not when "life" begins.

If you'll pardon me, I'll borrow a phrase from you and ask whether you're being deliberately obtuse here? There is, first of all, nothing I said (or that Christians of any kind I know of say) implying that all life needs to be defended.

You can ask, but I'd prefer you made more of a good faith effort to figure out what I'm saying before you ask such a question.  No, I'm ot being obtuse.  I didn't say Christians said that ALL life needs to be defended.  They do say that  "Life" begins at conception and needs to be defended because it is life, and so it's reasonable for me to ask how an UNDIFFERENTIATED BLASTOCYST differs from a tumor as far as being deserving of human life.

Rather than crying out to me what they don't mean, why don't you make an effort to say what they do mean.  My position is that they are throwing words together meaninglessly, and speaking with the illusion of meaning, like a typical con man hustler, or brainwashed cultist.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2017, 01:18:42 AM »
Quote
Secondly, I have to date never heard any scientist refer to a tumor as a living being,

Are you being obtuse?  The pro-lifers didn't make the statement that something becomes a "LIVING BEING" at conception.  They said "Life begins."  THat's the statement that I said is a  pile of BS words they cannot possibly mean.

If they had said, the sperm and egg form a LIVING HUMAN BEING at fertilization, that would at least be a statement rather than a meaningless garble of words.  But it' is clearly falsifiable since you cannot cut a living human being into two parts and have two living human beings.

If you have to change their words to claim that their words make internal sense, you've proved my point.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2017, 01:28:54 AM »
Quote
but nevertheless if you're going to categorize organic components as "alive" in some colloquial sense, they are at any rate not sentient life forms in any way we can tell.

If *I* am going to categorize "organic components" as "alive"?  Have you had no science classes at all, man?

Gasoline contains "organic components" and gasoline is not alive.

I'm not creating any novel definition for "alive."  It's the same definition that's in the dictionary or any biological textbook.  It's not having "organic components.  :doh:  It's about having living processes.  I say that sperm and eggs are alive, but there are also dead sperm and dead eggs.  It takes a living sperm and a living egg to form a living blastocyst.  The dead sperm and dead eggs have all those "organic components" that you blather about" but they are nonetheless dead.  Likewise, a living tumor may be killed by chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or it may be cut out alive as living cells.

Why are you playing like a lefty all of the sudden and pretending that it's me making up strange new definitions of words when you know very well what it means for something to be alive?  That's right out of the leftwit brainwashing handbook, to refuse to engage folks on the terms of the normal language, but insist on treating your convenient redefinition of words like it was the only one.

life is life.  If you don't want to go by the standard definition of life, then please, provide me with a definition that you're working with.  Because I don't think you're playing with any set definition of life; you're simply juggling around words and either not realizing or hoping we won't realize that there's no possible coherent meaning ascribable to the string of words you're spinning around.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2017, 02:21:45 AM »
Are you being obtuse?  The pro-lifers didn't make the statement that something becomes a "LIVING BEING" at conception.  They said "Life begins."  THat's the statement that I said is a  pile of BS words they cannot possibly mean.

If they had said, the sperm and egg form a LIVING HUMAN BEING at fertilization, that would at least be a statement rather than a meaningless garble of words.  But it' is clearly falsifiable since you cannot cut a living human being into two parts and have two living human beings.

I didn't raise any issue about pro-lifers as a whole, I raised an issue with your comment about Judeochristian values. As such I'm only discussing Judaism and Christianity, and not other possible claims made by pro-lifers that may be entirely secular.

Regarding what "they" had said about the sperm and egg forming a living human being, I feel like you've created a strawman claim based on your interpretation of someone else's religion. Here's a copy-paste of what the Catholic Catechism has to say about abortion:

Quote
Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71

             Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72
             My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

            You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74
            God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
            Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75

I'll also remark that footnotes 72 and 73 both link to Old Testament books, which you can check yourself if you want to verify:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

These quotes seem to call into question your claim that historical religion said little about human life prior to birth. I can also assure you that I have played no word games here, and that if you think the 'Judeochristian' claims about when human life begins are a "garble" that perhaps you just don't like their definition? But I don't see anything unclear about it. Again, you may disagree that theirs is a good definition, but it's difficult for me to see what's garbled or hard to understand about how they define when a living human being begins to exist. Is it "living" in the sense of being fully developed? No, but that's not necessary for the argument. That cells may still need to undergo development prior to beginning to aesthetically resemble a grown human seems to me besides the point, since there is a long process of development for human young, during which I don't see a clear-cut way to identify one moment as "not living" and the next as "living" unless you want to create an arbitrary rule (i.e. brainwaves, heartbeat, etc.). Excepting some influence like revelation, it seems to me that any definition of when human life begins it going to be at least to an extent arbitrary. You must draw the line somewhere, and failing to draw any line creates absurdities such as having to claim that legal rights are equivalent to the definition of life, which is what happens if no line is drawn prior to birth.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2017, 04:20:42 AM »
Life begins at the birth canal exit.

And it doesn't begin until the birth canal is fully cleared. If only the feet or top of the head are out then the non-living thing can be killed without compunction or mercy.

Planned Parenthood Book 17, Chapter 4, Verses 21-28

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2017, 04:38:28 AM »
Are you being obtuse?  The pro-lifers didn't make the statement that something becomes a "LIVING BEING" at conception.  They said "Life begins."  THat's the statement that I said is a  pile of BS words they cannot possibly mean.

If they had said, the sperm and egg form a LIVING HUMAN BEING at fertilization, that would at least be a statement rather than a meaningless garble of words.  But it' is clearly falsifiable since you cannot cut a living human being into two parts and have two living human beings.

I didn't raise any issue about pro-lifers as a whole, I raised an issue with your comment about Judeochristian values. As such I'm only discussing Judaism and Christianity, and not other possible claims made by pro-lifers that may be entirely secular.

Regarding what "they" had said about the sperm and egg forming a living human being, I feel like you've created a strawman claim based on your interpretation of someone else's religion. Here's a copy-paste of what the Catholic Catechism has to say about abortion:

Quote
Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

DOESN'T IDENTIFY WHAT CONCEPTION IS.  IT'S ONLY IN POLITICS THAT THEY PRETEND THAT IT's FERTILIZATION.

Quote
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71

BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHEN THE ENTITY BECOMES A HUMAN BEING.

         
Quote
   Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

That refers to the preexistence doctrine which Catholics deny.  That God knew our spirits before we even formed in the womb.  That doesn't prove that preembryonic blastocyst is ensouled or in any way a human being.



Quote
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.

Note the total lack of sourcing.  The church in fact approved some abortion during the 10th century and afterwards.


Quote
            You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74
       

What source is that?  Not OT or NT.

     God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
            Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75


Quote
    These quotes seem to call into question your claim that historical religion said little about human life prior to birth.
 

Straw man.  I never claimed that historical religion said little about "HUMAN LIFE PRIOR TO BIRTH."  That's a completely bull crap claim since I referenced Biblical terms such as Conception and Quickening, so I cannot see how you could in good faith claim that I denied that historical religion said little about human life before birth.   I said that abortion was not forbidden absolutely until the 1800s.  The fact that the Bible references life before birth extensively, and uses terminology with more specificity than the modern pro-life movement obfuscators, underscores my point.


Quote
  I can also assure you that I have played no word games here

See above re your straw man claim.

Quote
, and that if you think the 'Judeochristian' claims about when human life begins are a "garble" that perhaps you just don't like their definition?

There you go again, playing word games.  I asked you to provide their definition of life, and of conception, and you evade that by waffling about me "not liking" their definition.  Provide it sir, and then let's discuss if I like it.


Quote
But I don't see anything unclear about it.


Then state it clearly.

Quote
Again, you may disagree that theirs is a good definition, but it's difficult for me to see what's garbled or hard to understand about how they define when a living human being begins to exist.


Holy circular definitions, batman.

Quote
Is it "living" in the sense of being fully developed?


Darwin wept, man.  Where in pluto's arse do you find a definition of "living" to mean "fully developed."?  Where do you pluck these definitions from?

Quote
No, but that's not necessary for the argument.


No indeed?  Who in limbo are you arguing with there?

Quote
That cells may still need to undergo development prior to beginning to aesthetically resemble a grown human seems to me besides the point, since there is a long process of development for human young, during which I don't see a clear-cut way to identify one moment as "not living" and the next as "living" unless you want to create an arbitrary rule (i.e. brainwaves, heartbeat, etc.)

Straw man again.  You know very well that I've pointed that there is NO place we can say that "life begins" since life is before fertilization, and after, and after implantation. Absence of a clear cut way of identifying one moment as not living and the next as living is MY point that "living" is not the issue but rather when the creature is a human being.

.
Quote
Excepting some influence like revelation, it seems to me that any definition of when human life begins it going to be at least to an extent arbitrary.

It's not about human life, but about human being-ness.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2017, 07:56:31 AM »
life is life.  If you don't want to go by the standard definition of life, then please, provide me with a definition that you're working with.  Because I don't think you're playing with any set definition of life; you're simply juggling around words and either not realizing or hoping we won't realize that there's no possible coherent meaning ascribable to the string of words you're spinning around.

You are being obtuse on this one. Most pro-lifer groups are going for "the tag line" approach as the media loves sound bites, and short lines make easier chants for rallies and protests. So it's an abbreviated and "cliff notes" version of their position, I doubt more than a small handful interpret the phrase as literally as you are.

Based on statements and other activities most such groups get involved in, it is clear their interest doesn't lay in life in the generic sense. Their interest is specifically focused on human life, and only someone being deliberately obtuse would miss that. So the literal rendition(before getting into interpretation) should be "(a human's) life begins at conception."

Now obviously, even I have said that position creates issues for me personally long before other external factors("womens issues") come into play. But the position still remains somewhat relevant in the (non)discussion that is ongoing in regards to when exactly does "a human life" become "a human life" complete with the full array of legal protections?

As medical science progresses, this is going to become increasingly relevant even outside a woman's right to exercise control over internal biological processes in her own body. For the life begins at conception crowd, it already is relevant, because laboratories can already induce "conception" by their definition under laboratory conditions... on a Petri dish no less.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 08:09:38 AM by TheDeamon »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #41 on: February 08, 2017, 09:08:04 AM »
Pete, if you're going to deny that there is such a time as "conception" and that there is no such concept as "begins" as it pertains to life, then it will be impossible for you to accept any standard definition of this type that answers your question. You're rejecting definitions not because they don't make sense, but because you refuse to acknowledge the terms used as meaning anything. I can't go any further on this one since I contest your claim that they make no sense.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #42 on: February 08, 2017, 09:50:53 AM »
life is life.  If you don't want to go by the standard definition of life, then please, provide me with a definition that you're working with.  Because I don't think you're playing with any set definition of life; you're simply juggling around words and either not realizing or hoping we won't realize that there's no possible coherent meaning ascribable to the string of words you're spinning around.

You are being obtuse on this one. Most pro-lifer groups are going for "the tag line" approach as the media loves sound bites, and short lines make easier chants for rallies and protests. So it's an abbreviated and "cliff notes" version of their position, I doubt more than a small handful interpret the phrase as literally as you are.

I said originally that the statement was a meaningless pile of words, and that it was an empty phrase they didn't really believe in.  Fenring insisted otherwise, we argued, I showed literally how it made no sense, and now you call me obtuse for taking Fenring literally, and say that it's just a "tag line."  Which is exactly the position that I started out with.

Fenring argued that "Life begins at creation" was based in Christian theology.  My position was that it's a new BS tag line that's not even consistent with the way they use the word life in other contexts, plus inconsistent with how the Bible uses the word "Conception."

So you're saying that if Fenring makes a stupid argument, and then I dismantle it step by step, that I'm being obtuse because no one would be dumb enough to believe what Fenring originally said?  You sort that out with Fenring, and leave me out of it.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 09:52:58 AM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2017, 09:58:18 AM »
Pete, if you're going to deny that there is such a time as "conception"

I certainly do not deny that there is such a time as conception.  I deny that what the Bible means by conception could possibly refer to fertilization.  The Bible's usage unequivocally refers to something that occurs with the woman's physiology, since the woman conceives.  I think most likely this refers to a stage of implantation.

The biblical term for fertilization is "begetting."  The father begets.  Then the mother conceives.  Then the child quickens.

The trouble is that Christian pro-lifers are even sloppier with their bibles as they are with their science.  That's why their pro-life ideology is based mostly on bad science, and very little on theology.


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #44 on: February 08, 2017, 10:03:04 AM »
Pete, if you're going to deny ... that there is no such concept as "begins" as it pertains to life, then it will be impossible for you to accept any standard definition of this type that answers your question. You're rejecting definitions not because they don't make sense, but because you refuse to acknowledge the terms used as meaning anything. I can't go any further on this one since I contest your claim that they make no sense.

Don't be so lazy.  I've asked you repeatedly to define the terms, and you haven't.  Which suggests that you don't know any way to define them coherently and consistently.  Deamon is calling me obtuse for even trying to engage you in a serious argument over what he calls a tag line.  Is he right?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #45 on: February 08, 2017, 10:16:52 AM »
Pure sophistry and sleight of hand, Seriati. A tumor is alive.

What makes the life of a baby or fetus sacred and protect able is something other than "it's alive."

At no point does an unmolested tumor have the potential to become an independent human being.

What you're actually engaging in here is poor logic.  You seem to believe that because every living human being's life began at conception, it must hold that all conceptions will result in human life or else there is a "problem" with the belief.  But's that just bad logic.  All x are y, does not require that all y are x.

Show me the living human for which it would be unfair to conclude that their life began at conception.  If one is looking back from the point of view of actual humans to where their life began this is not at all a contra-factual or unscientific conclusion.  On something like this there are of course other reasonable beliefs and one could decide that another moment is more relevant but its solely a matter of belief not science that gets you there. 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #46 on: February 08, 2017, 10:48:36 AM »
Pure sophistry and sleight of hand, Seriati. A tumor is alive.

What makes the life of a baby or fetus sacred and protect able is something other than "it's alive."

At no point does an unmolested tumor have the potential to become an independent human being.

What you're actually engaging in here is poor logic.  You seem to believe that because every living human being's life began at conception--

What you're engaging there is poor reading.   You're proceeding with the anti-biblical assumption that Conception means fertilization.  In fact, a blastocyst, unmolested, can split and turn into two human beings.  Or into one human being and into part of another human being (absorbed and used as a stem cell).

If conception means IMPLANTATION, as signified in the Bible, then it makes sense to say that every living human being began it's life (as opposed to beginning life generally) at conception.

Individual human life begins at implantation.  Most blastocysts are reabsorbed by the woman's body and used as stem cells.

Quote
At no point does an unmolested tumor have the potential to become an independent human being.

At no point does an unmolested blastocyst have the potential to become an independent human being.  It has to implant and be received by the female body in a procedure much more difficult to achieve than simply using it as a stem cell to repair damaged tissue.


Your view runs counter to the Biblical usage as well as being bad science.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 10:51:54 AM by Pete at Home »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #47 on: February 08, 2017, 11:07:24 AM »
What you're engaging there is poor reading.   You're proceeding with the anti-biblical assumption that Conception means fertilization.  In fact, a blastocyst, unmolested, can split and turn into two human beings.  Or into one human being and into part of another human being (absorbed and used as a stem cell).

And?  Even from a religious point of view that's not troubling (as you'd have to assume a fallible god who doesn't know which blastocysts will become people (and how many they will become) for it to make a difference), and from a secular one its utterly meaningless to complain about what appears to be your confusion over what a soul is.

Why not respond to my challenge.  Show me the human being whose life did not begin at conception.

Quote
If conception means IMPLANTATION, as signified in the Bible, then it makes sense to say that every living human being began it's life (as opposed to beginning life generally) at conception.

I don't see any reason to hold to your particular interpretation of the Bible, particularly not when they seem to be contrary to what those who actually claim to be members of particular faiths say about their beliefs.  I never accept the right of an "outsider" to decide matters of religious belief. 

In any event, why should I care whether or not someone else interprets their holy words differently that you do? 

Quote
Individual human life begins at implantation.  Most blastocysts are reabsorbed by the woman's body and used as stem cells.

Which again makes no difference, until you can show me the human being for whom their life did not begin with conception.  Best you could do, I think, is maybe a claim around a clone, but even there it takes an extraordinary interference.

Quote
Quote
At no point does an unmolested tumor have the potential to become an independent human being.

At no point does an unmolested blastocyst have the potential to become an independent human being.

Sigh.  Since virtually every human life started in this manner your claim is literally contra-factual.  Natural biological processes cause this result to occur with some frequency, or am I wrong about the 6 billion or so people that have managed to come into existence?

Quote
It has to implant and be received by the female body in a procedure much more difficult to achieve than simply using it as a stem cell to repair damaged tissue.

And?  That's a natural consequence that occurs, despite your claims of difficulty, what hundreds of millions of times a year?

Quote
Your view runs counter to the Biblical usage as well as being bad science.

I think your view of my view is nonsensical.  Like I said, you have a fundamental logic fail.  You can not assume that because not all blastocysts become humans, that all humans didn't begin as blastocysts.  No amount of waffling gets you away from that fundamental mis-claim.  There is no amount of science that can establish a beginning to life at all, nor that can refute a belief at about which point that it occurs.  Heck, some religious people believe all life already exists, which means all of the biology is just window dressing designed to serve the purpose of bringing those pre-existing people into this living realm.  Science can't disprove that either.

Believe what you want, but I reject your bad logic and claims of refuting anything.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #48 on: February 08, 2017, 11:30:47 AM »
Pete, what does it matter whether conception is defined as being fertilization or implantation, for the purposes of this discussion? I don't know that the one or the other creates notably different results in the moral realm. Incidentally, this is what the Wiki entry on fertilization has to say:

Quote
Fertilization is the event most commonly used to mark the zero point in descriptions of prenatal development of the embryo or fetus. The resultant age is known as fertilization age, fertilizational age, embryonic age, fetal age or (intrauterine) developmental (IUD)[15] age.

So while you may think implantation is a better zero point, nevertheless it is not the case that "science" affirms your position unequivocally.

I will remark, however, that I began this digression in response to your comment that

Quote
Christianityand Judaism do not have a longstanding history of opposition to abortion.

which in the case of Catholicism the quote I provided from the Catechism proves false, regardless of when exactly conception begins (an irrelevant detail when discussing whether abortion past that point is permissible). In the case of Judaism here's a section from a Wiki entry on the topic:

Quote
Scholars of Talmudic and Medieval rabbinic law draw a sharp contrast between the theologies behind Jewish and Catholic opposition to abortion. After favorably reviewing Christian opposition to abortion, Immanuel Jakobovits writes in Jewish Medical Ethics: "In Jewish law, the right to destroy a human fruit before birth is entirely unrelated to theological considerations. Neither the question of the entry of the soul before birth nor the claim to salvation after death have any practical bearing on the subject." Although halakhic regulations works strenuously to protect the unborn child, he says that "none of these regulations necessarily prove that the foetus enjoys human inviolability." In contrast to the neo-Platonic and Christian approach, moreover, Talmudic thought does not "make any legal distinction between formed and unformed foetuses,"[22] after the 40th day. Feldman, likewise, is emphatically comparative, saying: "... while Christianity's position on abortion has raised the moral level of western civilization in this regard and has succeeded in sensitizing humanity to a greater reverence for life, it is obviously comprised, at the same time, of theological postulates which the Jewish community can not share." Feldman also points out that Talmudic debate over whether the soul achieves immortality upon conception, or at a far later stage, has little bearing on halakhic protections for the fetus because, absent a doctrine of original sin, "abortion would not interfere with the immortal rights or destiny of the foetus."[23]

So it would appear that the history of how this is treated changes from religion to religion, even though this passage from that same page has certain implications of its own:

Quote
Maimonides codified in the Mishneh Torah that the definition of murder according to the Noahide Laws includes a person who kills "even one unborn in the womb of its mother," and adds that such a person is liable for the death penalty. The killing of an embryo is also recognized as murder in the Talmud Sanhedrin 57b: "A heathen is executed..for the murder of an embryo..Because it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man within [another] man, shall his blood be shed. What is a man within another man? An embryo in his mother's womb." Another explicit reference to abortion is in the Zohar, where it is likewise forbidden.
In regard to life-risking pregnancies, Jewish scholar Rashi said that a fetus is not a viable soul until it's been born, and killing it to save the woman is permitted. Maimonides supported the ruling using din rodef (Hebrew: דין רודף‎‎), thus likening an endangering pregnancy to the fetus killing the woman.

As Judaism places a high premium on doing whatever's necessary to saving one's own life, it makes sense that various scholars would say abortion is ok to save the mother. However the ruling made by Rashi and Maimonides seems to imply that the abortion in this case would be an exception rather than the rule. I'm sure the issue is much more complex than this, but either way I think your statement above is at best an oversimplification, and at least in the case of Catholicism, simply incorrect.
 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #49 on: February 08, 2017, 12:31:56 PM »
Pete, what does it matter whether conception is defined as being fertilization or implantation, for the purposes of this discussion?

Implantation is consistent with the Biblical language, and it would be arguably accurate to say that the life of a human being begins at implantation, since that's when the blastocyst begins to take on the attributes of an individual being, rather than a mass of stem cells that could become, naturally, replacement body parts, one baby, twins, or triplets, in that level of likelihood.

If it's defined as fertilization, then the phrase life begins at conception is pure bullcrap both from a Biblical and a scientific point of view.


[fenring cites wiki as the ultimate scientific authority] 

Quote
Christianityand Judaism do not have a longstanding history of opposition to abortion.

which in the case of Catholicism the quote I provided from the Catechism proves false,

No it didn't prove anything of the sort.  When was that added to the Catechism?