Author Topic: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"  (Read 23244 times)

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2017, 04:45:20 PM »
Couple of quick points (wish I had more time but I don't):

I've had this discussion with Fenring before and unfortunately couldn't get past the logical contradictions.  There is no consistent definition of "living being" that draws a line between "is a living being" or "may become a living being".  Pete knows this and knows that "the beginning of life" is too muddled and self-contradictory a term to work with. 

Sperm-fertilizes-egg is a neat definitional milestone for almost every person (I'm fairly confident someone has produced a human clone by now, and if not it'll be soon), but since that's an event we can't detect and most of those events don't result in an implantation, it doesn't seem to have any practical value.  It also may result in multiple people.  "This is a person" doesn't really work when it may later be two people. 

And, in fact, chimeras are possible too - two different zygotes can turn into one person.

Life is continuous.  When it begins is billions of years ago.  When it ends is in a future holocaust. 

For legal and ethical purposes we need to look at when personhood begins, and "upon fertilization" is impractical and unable to cope with twinning and chimeras. 

It may be that we need multiple legal concepts instead of a person/not-person dichotomy to best cope with the process of reproduction, embryonic and fetal development, and birth. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #51 on: February 08, 2017, 04:56:37 PM »
For legal and ethical purposes we need to look at when personhood begins, and "upon fertilization" is impractical and unable to cope with twinning and chimeras. 

It may be that we need multiple legal concepts instead of a person/not-person dichotomy to best cope with the process of reproduction, embryonic and fetal development, and birth.

Note again that the discussion I began with Pete was in context of him saying that Judaism and Christianity had previously not been against abortion until modern science showed us some details. In that context, "from fertilization" is certainly solid enough of a starting point to discuss abortion, regardless of the finer details. It doesn't matter whether "life" has begun there, or "potential life", or "personhood"; a rule that says not to interfere with the process begun by fertilization is clear as crystal whether or not it's backed up by objective moral facts. It's not hard to understand how to follow that rule as far as it's supposed to go. Your point that fertilization might result in two people, not one, ergo it's not the definitive start of a given person's life is immaterial to whether ceasing that process could be defined as 'abortion'. It's just as abortive to cease two [potential] lives as one. For legal purposes it would obviously create a great mire to define legal personhood as beginning during a nebulous event that can't ordinarily be observed, but again while I think that's an interesting discussion it's not the one I intended to open up. I was strictly addressing whether or not Judaism and Christianity had anything to say against abortion going back in history, regardless of when exactly in the process of 'conception' preventative measures could be rightly called abortion.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #52 on: February 08, 2017, 06:21:30 PM »
While there's not usually much progress to be made in using scientific discoveries and reasoning to argue against religious beliefs, since those beliefs are usually based on a completely different epistemology, I think there IS a simple logical contradiction between two beliefs that are often held in tandem:

1) The bible is the literal word of god and has all the religious law you need to know contained therein.
2) A new person that we shalt not kill exists at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg. 

The latter is predicated on knowledge that isn't in the bible and isn't compatible with relevant verses in the bible. 

I don't think this is as much a problem for Catholics as it is for fundamentalist sects who tend to believe #1.  I don't think people who hold both beliefs agree with me that there's a logical contradiction, but I think that is because of ignorance.

So anyway I support the effort to respond to a religious argument that "life begins at conception" - or even the 3rd party summation of that belief in those terms - with an attempt to establish terms that have a consistent definition.  It doesn't establish a common semantic framework for the discussion, sadly, but it gets us closer.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #53 on: February 08, 2017, 06:46:40 PM »
1) The bible is the literal word of god and has all the religious law you need to know contained therein.
2) A new person that we shalt not kill exists at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg. 

The latter is predicated on knowledge that isn't in the bible and isn't compatible with relevant verses in the bible. 

I don't think this is as much a problem for Catholics as it is for fundamentalist sects who tend to believe #1.  I don't think people who hold both beliefs agree with me that there's a logical contradiction, but I think that is because of ignorance.

I basically agree with this, especially since I think fundamentalism is a problem in and of itself. That being said, there is nothing wrong with doing one's best to interpret general guidelines using better knowledge, so that if a given religion believes in some premise regarding a fetus more knowledge about how a fetus develops can help them to follow their own rule. In this sense we should hope that science would help people to better observe their religion, rather than to undermine it. So even if a religion had a proscription against abortion beginning at some event in fetal development, science ought to help them to narrow down exactly when that is. As you say, only a fundamentalist who will not accept new information will end up in a contradiction if they insist on following rules based on old information. An intelligent person who believes in life beginning at "conception" (perhaps loosely defined in history) might now learn some new things and realize that this can be specified to be at the point of, say, fertilization. Thus, if they make this adaptation and then say that based on the Bible they believe that life begins at fertilization, in this context that would not be a contradiction but rather just an updating of specificity and accuracy in order to follow an old law.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 06:48:49 PM by Fenring »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #54 on: February 08, 2017, 07:09:59 PM »
For legal and ethical purposes we need to look at when personhood begins, and "upon fertilization" is impractical and unable to cope with twinning and chimeras. 

It may be that we need multiple legal concepts instead of a person/not-person dichotomy to best cope with the process of reproduction, embryonic and fetal development, and birth.

Note again that the discussion I began with Pete was in context of him saying that Judaism and Christianity had previously not been against abortion until modern science showed us some details. In that context, "from fertilization" is certainly solid enough of a starting point to discuss abortion, regardless of the finer details.

"Finer details" like whether the woman is actually pregnant?

Abortion is termination of a pregnancy.  If the woman's not pregnant, there's no pregnancy.  This isn't rocket science, Fenring.  Don't pretend it's over your head. this is really bloody simple stuff, and you're an educated man.

And as far as I know, you aren't running for office, so why play stupid?  There's no such thing as abortion before the woman gets pregnant, and she isn't pregnant until implantation.  That's what any honest and literate person knows the Bible is saying when it talks about a woman conceiving.  There's no verb applicable to a woman when an egg is fertilized.


"Note again that the discussion I began with Pete was in context of him saying that Judaism and Christianity had previously not been against abortion until modern science showed us some details. "

I specified the period in which scientists started picking fetuses for study, which is about the 18th century.  And sure enough, it's a whole century after that that Catholicism comes out with the first total prohibition of abortion, under Pope Pius."  1869, neh?

You respond with something from a catechism, but don't say when it was written.  I know of catechism additions as recent as 1994 (the addition of Cardinal Ratzinger's hope that an unbaptized child doesn't go to hell.)  So the fact that something's cathechized doesn't mean it's ancient history.  Prior to 1869, abortion was at worst considered as sinful as masturbation.   And for centuries it was LESS sinful to "spill your seed in the belly of a whore" who presumably aborted, than to spill it on the ground like Onan.  So no, the idea that a preembryonic blastocyst is a human life is quite a newfangled bit of guff.  Not so much theology as a fad.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 07:21:15 PM by Pete at Home »

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #55 on: February 09, 2017, 12:14:25 PM »
I don't think that novelty or facility makes something not theology. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #56 on: February 09, 2017, 02:45:25 PM »
Pete, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're mostly talking about the distinction between fertilization and implantation insofar as they are different steps of the process that occur at different times. If so, and if your beef is that Christian groups (for example) may not properly specify at which stage a fetus begins development, then that's a sensible assertion. One might suggest, if one believed that there is no fetus prior to implantation, that abortion can rightly only be said to be a possible action after implantation, and that prior to that but after fertilization it would be some kind of contraceptive maneuver but not, strictly speaking, abortion. Is that your point? If so, that's fine, but it still doesn't seem to me to be relevant to whether or not ancient Christians and Jews had specific rules about abortion - whenever it is that it becomes possible to have one. The ancients definitely spoke about the unborn, and so the question would only be how far back in the fetal development process they saw 'unborn child' as being an existing thing in the womb. It wouldn't affect whether they were for or against abortions, but it would specify the details about when abortions could have taken place either way.

But this kind of detail isn't foreign to religion, nor does it undermine the validity of any position the ancients had, because technical knowledge is always needed to follow any rule. Take a law like "don't steal." It sounds easy on paper, except that in practice not stealing requires knowing things about property law, social norms, how natural resources are divvied up, etc etc. One cannot effectively follow even a law like this without having various understandings to create boundaries and specificity. Similarly, with abortion rules, one must use the best of available knowledge to figure out when the rule applies, and what it means. That this knowledge should increase over time ought to only mean that it's easier to follow the rule, not that the rule is defunct.

If we take Catholicism in particular, I could see one area you could pick at with the fertilization/implantation specificity, which would be to ask why a Catholic can't take a morning after pill so long as it definitely occurs prior to implantation. Maybe one would argue that the rule should be modified to only prevent 'abortion' of the process after implantation, but in the time period between fertilization and that (Wiki says 6-12 days) it should be ok to do so. I'm not quite sure what a Catholic scholar would say about that, but since both contraception and abortion are proscribed on a practical level it doesn't matter when one begins and the other ends; don't do either, is the rule. But if it was somehow imperative to determine exactly which sin one had engaged in when taking the morning after pill prior to implantation, then I guess that might be an interesting question to raise. You would have prevented a life, but perhaps not ended a life, which is a bit different I suppose. Was this, then, the issue you were raising?   

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #57 on: February 09, 2017, 03:01:04 PM »
I don't think that novelty or facility makes something not theology.


Agreed. It's lack of an underpinning philosophy, lack of -ology, that makes it non theology.

Give religious prolifism a century or two and a theology may evolve to underpin the present thaumaturgy.   "Personhood" is no less thaumaturgical, btw, and I hope to see choice reconceived to match its public "my body" reasoning rather than anti human personhood.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #58 on: February 09, 2017, 04:28:11 PM »
Quote
Pete, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're mostly talking about the distinction between fertilization and implantation insofar as they are different steps of the process that occur at different times.

Consider yourself corrected. You are wrong. Embryo and blastocyst are different stages of the process. Zygote and blastocyst are stages of an entirely different process. 

Implantation is individuation. There is no way about it.  A blastocyst most often is used as uterine lining or some other replacement part in the egg producer. Sometimes to create an embryo, or two, or three. 

"Life begins at conception" conflates scientific ignorance and biblical illiteracy. And "Personhood begins at birth" is an anti-human positivist piece of priestcraft. A plague on both their houses.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #59 on: February 09, 2017, 05:00:04 PM »
"Life begins at conception" conflates scientific ignorance and biblical illiteracy.

Or simply acknowledges that there is not one living person currently alive for whom that is not true. 

You really like to try and beat your personal definitional quirks to death.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #60 on: February 09, 2017, 06:11:33 PM »
There are many possible definitions of life,

you could claim sperm and eggs are life,
or you could say that life begins at sexual maturity - until sexual maturity there isn't the possibility of reproduction and thus no 'life'.
or you could say that life begins when the fetus has differentiated sex organs.
or you could say that life begins when the organism is physiologically capable of surviving without a womb.
or you could say that life begins when the organism can process sensory input

Quote
Or simply acknowledges that there is not one living person currently alive for whom that is not true.

By that definition we could say that life begins at the formation of the parents sex organs (or grandparents, or great grandparents, ad infinitum), since for any living person it is also true.

Also in the not too distant future we should be able to create organisms at far more advanced stages.  Or even transform other organisms into human with gene editing.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 06:14:55 PM by LetterRip »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #61 on: February 09, 2017, 07:42:21 PM »
There are many possible definitions of life,

Sure are, but for me to be wrong you have to be able to conclude that the one I'm referring to is invalid, not just that others are possible (which I've never failed to acknowledge).

Quote
you could claim sperm and eggs are life,

Yep, but we already established that parts of a human are not a human.  Neither of those cells creates a human without the other.

Interesting note, some religions prohibit masturbation in part because they believe that wasting the sperm in such a manner is an offense.  I can't tell you that an arbitrary deity would not agree with them, nor can I tell you such a deity would think that's silly.

Quote
or you could say that life begins at sexual maturity - until sexual maturity there isn't the possibility of reproduction and thus no 'life'.

Well they do say that life begins when you get your drivers' license.  Almost the same thing.  However, not aware of anyone really holds to an idea that children are not alive.

Quote
or you could say that life begins when the fetus has differentiated sex organs.

I guess you could, but that would seem to be one of the very hardest to justify.  That's kind of like saying life begins when you grow hair.  It also leaves hermaphadites in an interesting pickle.

Quote
or you could say that life begins when the organism is physiologically capable of surviving without a womb.

Sure, you could make that call and make a plausibly rationale case.  I don't think many people actually believe that this the point where life begins, but many of us (including me) believe its the point where we can first separate the rights of a fetus from the rights of a mother by seeking to preserve both sets of rights.

Quote
or you could say that life begins when the organism can process sensory input

I guess you could, though you'll get into quite the quagmire trying to be definitive about whether an organism is "processing" sensory input and what that really means.

Quote
Quote
Or simply acknowledges that there is not one living person currently alive for whom that is not true.

By that definition we could say that life begins at the formation of the parents sex organs (or grandparents, or great grandparents, ad infinitum), since for any living person it is also true.

Ahh... the slippery slope argument, lol.  What's amazing about the slope is that one can get off it if there is a reasonable reason, like say the first point at which the unique set of DNA of every living person becomes identifiable (chimeras notwithstanding).  Since we're literally looking back at live people, there really isn't a prior point at which you could identify them unless of course you want to get into philosophy or religion (in which case the scientific "argument" is even less on point).

Quote
Also in the not too distant future we should be able to create organisms at far more advanced stages.  Or even transform other organisms into human with gene editing.

Very true, but that won't really require that anyone change their religious beliefs or prove those beliefs wrong either.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #62 on: February 09, 2017, 08:13:02 PM »
Seriati,

you seem to conflate 'life' with 'personhood' which really isn't reasonable.  Every cell in my body is alive, and needs very little more than a fertilized egg does to become a person.  If we confer personhood on a fertilized egg, then we should convey personhood on all other cells also and make it illegal to smoke or drink, or anything else that might increase the 'natural' rate of cell death.  Similarly we should outlaw prenatal vitamins, since they increase the risk of death of a fetus (most fetuses spontaneously abort - and vitamins increase the rate of spontaneous abortion).

Also all animals and insects have far more characteristics of 'personhood' than does a early stage fetus.

I think by far the most justifiable position on abortion is 'probrain' (the 'process sensory input' from above)- since the brain is what differentiates human persons from other animals.  A margin of safety to insure that no fetus with a functional brain can be aborted is reasonable.  This is basically where the cutoff is already though that isn't the reasoning given.  Pigs will be engineered to be organ compatible with humans in the near future (the differences are minor) - so the rest of what makes us human persons aren't very relevant (we don't consider people with missing limbs or most other organs to have ceased to be a person, but the loss of brain we do).  We pronounce people dead once the brain ceases functioning - thus it has legal symmetry as well.  It also is medically justifiable.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #63 on: February 09, 2017, 09:31:20 PM »
"Life begins at conception" conflates scientific ignorance and biblical illiteracy.

You really like to try and beat your personal definitional quirks to death.

These are not my "personal" definitions.

Since you fail to address my bible examples or show any counter examples to the dictum that the woman conceives, I can only assume that you are used to posturing in front a friendly judge and are being intentionally obtuse when you call this my "personal" definition.

Do did not make up the verb to conceive, or its biblical usage. And don't play stupid with me, counsellor. I have no patience for it.  Everyone who is reading can see what you just did, and while they are more polite, I think only one is impressed, and I don't think you want to impress him. 

If you don't have the will to engage me, then dont, but I won't take it kindly if you attempt to obfuscate my position.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #64 on: February 09, 2017, 11:52:42 PM »
Since Seriati refuses to provide his own definitions when asked, and insists that I'm making up my own personal definitions of words, here is the bleeding dictionary:
Quote
life
līf/Submit
noun
1.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
"the origins of life"
synonyms:   existence, being, living, animation; More
2.
the existence of an individual human being or animal.
"a disaster that claimed the lives of 266 Americans"
synonyms:   person, human being, individual, soul
"more than 1,500 lives were lost in the accident"

As for definition #1, the idea that "life begins at conception" is total crap since a sperm or egg differ from inorganic matter in the exact same way that a fertilized egg, fetus, or teenager for that matter.

As for definition #2, the pro-lifers pretend that this is true of fertilization, but it ain't so, because as shown above, the INDIVIDUAL being does not come into any sort of existence until implantation.

So here's the second word, Conception, whose definition Seriati claims to believe that I maintain some sort of personal definition.  Again, our friend the dictionary, which I did not author:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception
Quote
a (1) :  the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both (2) :  embryo, fetus

Note reference to what I called the biblical usage -- the process of becoming pregnant is an action of ... wait for it ... the woman!  Did Pete make that up?  No, Seriati.  Birds and the bees.  It's the woman that gets pregnant, ergo the woman that conceives. 


Therefore the phrase "life begins at conception" is accurate only if we take life to mean specifically individuation, definition #2, AND if we take "conception" to mean implantation rather than fertilization.

I welcome Seriati to step into the arena and get specific with terms and substantiate what he thinks he means when he says "life begins at conception" is true of everybody.  If you haven't said anything specific, you haven't said anything at all.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 11:59:11 PM by Pete at Home »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #65 on: February 10, 2017, 12:25:39 AM »
"Life begins at conception" conflates scientific ignorance and biblical illiteracy.

Or simply acknowledges that there is not one living person currently alive for whom that is not true. 

You really like to try and beat your personal definitional quirks to death.

I think you guys are talking across each other from inches, or a handful of feet, apart.

There are many possible definitions of life,

Sure are, but for me to be wrong you have to be able to conclude that the one I'm referring to is invalid, not just that others are possible (which I've never failed to acknowledge).

Quote
you could claim sperm and eggs are life,

Yep, but we already established that parts of a human are not a human.  Neither of those cells creates a human without the other.

...Which brings us back to my mention of the whole "life begins at conception" is more accurately "human life begins at conception." Which can very much be debated(as we're seeing).  No (known) human alive today has been without a "conception event" having happened. So in that respect, "the start of their life" does trace back to that moment in time.

I almost put in "individual life" but backed off on that, as I doubt a zygote has much ability to even begin to process such a concept. Which in turn takes us to the question of when should a fetus be considered a "person"/"human" and receive appropriate treatment according to secular standards?

I actually found a good link that summarizes it well. Will include at the end of the post.

Quote
Quote
or you could say that life begins at sexual maturity - until sexual maturity there isn't the possibility of reproduction and thus no 'life'.

Well they do say that life begins when you get your drivers' license.  Almost the same thing.  However, not aware of anyone really holds to an idea that children are not alive.

Well, going by the link I'm including near the end of this post, evidently there are some that hold self-awareness to be the threshold for "being human" and are actually ok with infanticide, so depending on the age of the "child" in question, there evidently are some out there, after a fashion.

Quote
Quote
or you could say that life begins when the fetus has differentiated sex organs.

I guess you could, but that would seem to be one of the very hardest to justify.  That's kind of like saying life begins when you grow hair.  It also leaves hermaphadites in an interesting pickle.

That position actually isn't a very common one, at all.

Quote
Quote
or you could say that life begins when the organism is physiologically capable of surviving without a womb.

Sure, you could make that call and make a plausibly rationale case.  I don't think many people actually believe that this the point where life begins, but many of us (including me) believe its the point where we can first separate the rights of a fetus from the rights of a mother by seeking to preserve both sets of rights.

This actually isn't a point raised in the link I'm providing, but it falls within a 5 week window that it does cover.

Quote
Quote
or you could say that life begins when the organism can process sensory input

I guess you could, though you'll get into quite the quagmire trying to be definitive about whether an organism is "processing" sensory input and what that really means.

Is somewhat addressed by the link. ;)

Quote
Quote
Quote
Or simply acknowledges that there is not one living person currently alive for whom that is not true.

By that definition we could say that life begins at the formation of the parents sex organs (or grandparents, or great grandparents, ad infinitum), since for any living person it is also true.

Ahh... the slippery slope argument, lol.  What's amazing about the slope is that one can get off it if there is a reasonable reason, like say the first point at which the unique set of DNA of every living person becomes identifiable (chimeras notwithstanding).  Since we're literally looking back at live people, there really isn't a prior point at which you could identify them unless of course you want to get into philosophy or religion (in which case the scientific "argument" is even less on point).

Agreed.

And now, the link:

http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/

Of which it broadly covers:
"Preconception" ("Every sperm is sacred," because it has the potential to form a human being)

"Conception"
Quote
The greater religious community generally view the “moment of conception” as the standard for when life begins. However, the definition of conception is subject to variability. Some take the word conception to actually mean the act of ejaculation. Others consider conception to be the process of fertilization. Still others consider the fusion of genetic material into a new set of chromosomes to be meant by conception. The problem with any of these definitions is that the process is not instantaneous. From the time of ejaculation, sperm take 7 hours before they become active and able to fertilize an egg. Once the sperm meets the egg, a chemical cascade begins and the sperm begins to bore its way through the egg, which may take up to an hour. Once the sperm actually enters the egg, it’s another 12 hours before the sperm DNA makes its way to the egg’s DNA, and then another 24 hours for the restructuring and packaging process of new chromosomes. All told, the “moment of conception” could take anywhere from 2-3 days to complete.

"Gastrulation" ("Uterine implantation" -- when "twinning" and the chimera stuff ceases to be viable event, typically happens anywhere from 12 to 14 days after conception)

"Week 8" (All organ precursors have been formed, including a rudimentary nervous system and the beginning of a brain)

"Quickening" (Signs of voluntary movement start, typically around 14 to 16 weeks, fetus starts to react to external stimuli)

"Week 20" (Thalmus has mostly completed forming, giving improved control over motor functions by highe cortical processes)

"Week 25" (Regular Brain Wave patterns demonstrated in most pregnancies; based on the clinical basis for declaring "brain death")

"Birth" (self-explanatory, I hope)

"Self-consciousness" (mostly a position held by a small group of philosophers, mostly an academic position more than anything else.)

Given that the record for pre-mature delivery sits at 21 weeks, 6 days, it falls in the range of week 20/week 25. I'd certainly be inclined to give the week 25 basis as an outer boundary on that ground alone, even before getting into the matter of brain wave activity.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #66 on: February 10, 2017, 02:11:39 AM »
Still not sure what (if any) relevance the distinction between fertilization and implantation have in terms of whether life begins at conception or not. So what if it begins at one moment or the other; they are a few days apart. If that's the issue the argument might hold water for the morning after pill, but is irrelevant in terms of whether abortion ends "a life" or not.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #67 on: February 10, 2017, 07:13:48 AM »
Still not sure what (if any) relevance the distinction between fertilization and implantation have in terms of whether life begins at conception or not.

That's because the ambicalence of your "life begins" mantra.  "Life begins at conception" is essentially a hot date between two Shrodinger's Cats.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 07:16:16 AM by Pete at Home »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #68 on: February 10, 2017, 09:46:01 AM »
Seriati,

you seem to conflate 'life' with 'personhood' which really isn't reasonable.  Every cell in my body is alive, and needs very little more than a fertilized egg does to become a person.  If we confer personhood on a fertilized egg, then we should convey personhood on all other cells also and make it illegal to smoke or drink, or anything else that might increase the 'natural' rate of cell death.

Since I've specifically addressed this multiple times not sure how you make that argument.  In any event its a silly strawman to impute to me.  I'm not aware that we generally refer to masturbation, or plucking your eye lashes as having an abortion.  Please pretend all you want that there is no difference between dropping cells from a mutli-cell organism that doesn't involve any harm to such organism is indistinguishable from the deliberate removal all cells of a second muliti-cell organism resulting in its death.  Of course you know its not since you're able to formulate the thoughts, as everyone else, we even have that unique word for it.

Quote
Also all animals and insects have far more characteristics of 'personhood' than does a early stage fetus.

Agreed but irrelevant.  Happy to talk about whether animals and insects have rights in a world with carnivores and omnivores.

Quote
I think by far the most justifiable position on abortion is 'probrain' (the 'process sensory input' from above)...

I haven't disputed anyone's right to follow what they think is the most justifiable position, just Pete's down right nastiness about something he erroneously thinks science has disproved.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #69 on: February 10, 2017, 09:47:35 AM »
So here's the second word, Conception, whose definition Seriati claims to believe that I maintain some sort of personal definition.  Again, our friend the dictionary, which I did not author:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception
Quote
a (1) :  the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both (2) :  embryo, fetus

So after all that nastiness, you look up the definition and find that it can in fact refer to fertilization and you're still nasty about it?  Wow. 

The court takes judicial notice of such definition, you may now sit down counselor.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #70 on: February 10, 2017, 03:19:55 PM »
So here's the second word, Conception, whose definition Seriati claims to believe that I maintain some sort of personal definition.  Again, our friend the dictionary, which I did not author:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception
Quote
a (1) :  the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both (2) :  embryo, fetus

So after all that nastiness, you look up the definition and find that it can in fact refer to fertilization and you're still nasty about it?

If that represents your best grasp of the discussion, then I apologize for accusing you of pretending to be dim.

Once again: The Bible uses the word to refer to something that could not possibly be fertilization, but the modern Christians use the term to refer to fertilization.  So the word is ambivalent.  What I said is that "Life begins at conception" is a total lie if you take conception to mean fertilization, and is ARGUABLY true if you take conception to mean implantation. 

That's why I said that the statement isn't theology but a pile of gibberish, since it contains two ambivalent words, and therefore at least four possible meanings, only one of which is arguably true.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 03:22:16 PM by Pete at Home »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #71 on: February 10, 2017, 03:25:10 PM »
Pete, is this seriously your basis for saying that Judaism and Christianity didn't have much to say about abortion prior to the 19th century? It's merely a quibble about the precise time when "conception" begins? That's not how language works, sorry to say. If a single term in a conversation about a topic is vague it doesn't mean the topic hasn't actually been discussed, it just means it's been discussed and that a term has been unclear and later clarified. It's not like writing code where if a term is undefined the entire program fails. If that's your standard for whether a topic has been addressed then in fact no topic at all can be counted as ever having been addressed, since all of our language terms have as their basis a very imprecise understanding of reality! Your argument strikes me as being roughly in the terrain of being deconstructionist.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #72 on: February 10, 2017, 03:48:55 PM »
Pete, is this seriously your basis for saying that Judaism and Christianity didn't have much to say about abortion prior to the 19th century?

No, obviously not, as you'd know if you'd read what I'd said on this thread..  I've cited other information above that shows it, like the papal bull, and other historical items.

Once again: the stuff about "life begins at conception" is AFAIK a newer piece of crap, 20th Century if I'm not mistaken.  But Christian opposition to abortion as something more "serious" than masturbation or birth control, that goes back to the 19th century, and that has nothing to do with the 20th century obfuscation of the words "life" and "conceive."

Quote
It's merely a quibble about the precise time when "conception" begins?

It's not a "quibble."  It's an entirely different process.  Especially now when the morons are trying to apply it to frozen blastocysts (which the mother-obfuscators both pro-choice and pro-life refer to as "frozen embryos") which can remain frozen for generations between fertilization and implantation.  That difference determines whether stem cells can be used to save and improve hundreds of millions of lives, or whether we are obliged on pain of murder to find human incubators for each one of them.

If you say you think that's a trivial question, then you haven't thought it through.

I wish I knew a more polite way to get someone to pull their head out of a hole and look at what was actually being said.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #73 on: February 10, 2017, 03:55:13 PM »
You call the distinction between fertilization and implantation trivial, and accuse me of making a big deal out of nothing, but those that attach it to fertilization are basically accusing tens of thousands of women of homicide for using the morning after pill and IUDs, which do no more than prevent implantation.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #74 on: February 10, 2017, 04:08:35 PM »
You call the distinction between fertilization and implantation trivial, and accuse me of making a big deal out of nothing, but those that attach it to fertilization are basically accusing tens of thousands of women of homicide for using the morning after pill and IUDs, which do no more than prevent implantation.

No. The distinction is irrelevant in context of a conversation about whether abortion was permitted historically or not. It is not irrelevant in the context of other conversations, and I already said previously. If we were discussing the morning after pill in context of Jewish or Christian history that could be interesting. But we were talking about abortion, and to whit I don't think I've heard someone so far call the morning after pill having an abortion. They might call it something, probably contraception, which may also be proscribed, but again, that's a different discussion.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #75 on: February 10, 2017, 04:30:11 PM »
You call the distinction between fertilization and implantation trivial, and accuse me of making a big deal out of nothing, but those that attach it to fertilization are basically accusing tens of thousands of women of homicide for using the morning after pill and IUDs, which do no more than prevent implantation.

No. The distinction is irrelevant in context of a conversation about whether abortion was permitted historically or not.
???
If you think that's the only discussion going on in this thread, there's the source of your confusion right there. 

Quote
It is not irrelevant in the context of other conversations, and I already said previously. If we were discussing the morning after pill in context of Jewish or Christian history that could be interesting. But we were talking about abortion, and to whit I don't think I've heard someone so far call the morning after pill having an abortion.

That's a fairly common plank among Christian pro-lifers, which is the movement I'm responding to:

https://cogforlife.org/morning-after-pill/
Quote
Dr. John Wilke, Director of the Life Issues Institute in Cincinnati. “You have to talk about the physiology of this,” he said. “When the sperm is deposited in a woman’s genital tract, it reaches the ovary in 15 to 30 minutes. If she has an ovum waiting, she’s pregnant before she gets out of bed. If she conceives, these are not contraceptives. These are abortion pills — period,” he said.

Extreme pro-choice advocates exploit illiterate pro lifers' idiotic logic to blur the lines between contraception and abortion to justify third term partial birth abortion in Stemberg v. Carhart.


Quote
They might call it something, probably contraception, which may also be proscribed, but again, that's a different discussion.

If they called it "contraception" then I never would have raised this objection, Fenring.  Back to Dr. Wilke:

Quote
Some pro-life experts said women were being misled about the pills. “It’s not a contraception. It is a very, very early abortive drug,” said Dr. John C. Willke, president of the Life Issues Institute in Cincinnati. Conception can occur within 30 minutes of intercourse, Dr. Willke said. “So if she has had sex, by the time she gets to taking those pills, she has conceived. So this can’t be a contraceptive,” he said.

Think Dr. Wilke is an outlier?  I wish.

http://www.prolife.com/morningafterpill.html
 :'(
Think this is old news, out of date, or that the stupidity is confined to America?  No, we exported our ignorance, and it's thriving.  Here's from a couple weeks ago:

Quote
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/malta-pro-lifers-want-morning-after-pill-owlawed-because-it-violates-ban-on

Tens of thousands of women are going to end up either aborting later term or forced to bear a rapist's baby because they were lied to, or their communities were lied to about the morning after pill being a form of abortion rather than contraception.

Does this affect US politics?  Yes, since anti-brain propagandists profile even the staunchest pro-life conservatives as pro-choice for supporting the MAP:

http://prolifeprofiles.com/Rubio/abortion
Quote
Although Rubio publicly states he will support legislation that would enforce the Personhood of the unborn, he also supports legislation that allows for the murder of some of those children - the so-called "hard cases."

Supports the abortifacient known as the "morning-after" pill. In an interview with an email newsletter called, "theSkimm" on September 30, 2015, Rubio said he supports the morning-after pill. This pill is designed to block fertilization. However, in cases where fertilization does occur, the morning-after pill stops the egg from implanting in the woman’s uterus, resulting in the pill acting as an abortifacient. Because Rubio states he is in favor of protecting life from the moment of conception, it appears he is unaware of the details of exactly when conception occurs. Good intentions or not, this ignorance of fetology could continue the snuffing out of human life on a massive scale if he becomes President



Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #76 on: February 10, 2017, 06:23:18 PM »
Since this discussion is touching on Christianity and abortion, I thought I'd throw out this little factoid.

The Old Testament clearly shows that the unborn was not considered the same as a born person.  Just look at the penalties for killing a person vs. killing a fetus.  It was much lower for killing a fetus.

Assuming that these laws came from God Himself, it logically follows that God considers the unborn to be of less worth than a born person.  Which then brings into question why some Christians believe the unborn to be at least valuable as the born, if not more so (as for those who are against abortion even if it threatens a mother's life).

Anyway, carry on. :)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #77 on: February 10, 2017, 06:30:56 PM »
The Old Testament clearly shows that the unborn was not considered the same as a born person.  Just look at the penalties for killing a person vs. killing a fetus.  It was much lower for killing a fetus.

Assuming that these laws came from God Himself, it logically follows that God considers the unborn to be of less worth than a born person.  Which then brings into question why some Christians believe the unborn to be at least valuable as the born, if not more so (as for those who are against abortion even if it threatens a mother's life).

Anyway, carry on. :)

I'm inclined to suspect, without checking or researching it, that the "killing of the unborn" focus was more in regards to outside parties doing things that would mess with another family's "line" as it were. So if the family itself made that decision, it's one thing. But if your neighbor comes over and starts beating your wife until her pregnancy terminates, well, now you're talking "additional charges," as it were.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #78 on: February 10, 2017, 06:43:38 PM »
The Old Testament clearly shows that the unborn was not considered the same as a born person.  Just look at the penalties for killing a person vs. killing a fetus.  It was much lower for killing a fetus.

The unborn cannot be considered as "the same" as a born person because they're not the same. But that's merely a truism. It doesn't say what they are; merely what they are not (i.e 'the same').

Quote
Assuming that these laws came from God Himself, it logically follows that God considers the unborn to be of less worth than a born person.  Which then brings into question why some Christians believe the unborn to be at least valuable as the born, if not more so (as for those who are against abortion even if it threatens a mother's life).

This doesn't remotely follow logically. Where did you get the weird idea that assessment of penalties has anything to do with some kind of assessment of "worth"? That's like saying that because manslaughter carries a lesser sentence than premeditated murder it must mean those killed in the former way are less valuable than those killed in the latter. Ridiculous. If anything penalties will be correlated to culpability, rather than to the nature of what or who was harmed. It is entirely logical to penalize people less for abortion, even if it's murder, because there are extenuating circumstances there including the safety and well-being of the mother, the fact that many people don't recognize the unborn as people, the fact that in a time prior to ultrasounds it was something known but unseen and therefore potentially 'less real', and so forth. It is entirely consistent to decline to penalize people for an action even though the result of that action is very bad, so long as the circumstances of doing it aren't as clear-cut as, say, walking up to a guy with a knife and stabbing him. The mindset of the accused is entirely relevant, as well as what he reasonably understood and believed, and the circumstances in which it happened. That same is true in a court of law now. And in terms of why God would theoretically use this kind of lenient judgement, note that the laws in the Bible were for human society, not for divine justice.

Your question about why Christians value the unborn potentially more than the born both involves a false premise and a false conclusion. Their desire to protect the unborn has nothing to do with their worth (where did you get the idea that relative worth of human beings is a thing in Christianity?), and is rather to do with the fact that they're helpless. As far as I know it's a question of defending those who cannot defend themselves. Christians don't assess any human being as being innately worth more than another, again as far as I know, which is a separate matter from what we might call the triage of where to prioritize one's efforts. Protecting the weak seems to be placed at a higher premium than defending the strong, but from this one cannot conclude that the weak are 'worth' more than the strong.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #79 on: February 10, 2017, 07:35:40 PM »
Quote
. If anything penalties will be correlated to culpability, rather than to the nature of what or who was harmed. It is entirely logical to penalize people less for abortion, even if it's murder, because there are extenuating circumstances there including the safety and well-being of the mother, the fact that many people don't recognize the unborn as people, the fact that in a time prior to ultrasounds it was something known but unseen and therefore potentially 'less real', and so forth.

You mean even if it's homicide, right?  Because Mens Rea is what distinguishes murder from manslaughter from excused homicide from justifiable homicide.

Your reasoning is sound but Wayward's interpretation cannot be dismissed.  It's not easy to second guess God, or even to distinguish God from Moses from the scribes in the dustier corners of Numbers and Deuteronomy.  Most of Judaism and Christianity claims that Moses wrote the whole Torah down as dictated by God, but that's demonstrably nonsense.  From the disparate contradictory oral traditions concatenated one after another like a hall of broken mirtors, to the end where TO THIS DAY no prophet has arisen like unto Moses.  Unto what day, if not the day the story was composed or scribed, generations after Moses? Mo would have to be one queer fish to write that part himself.

But Fenring, your point about mens rea isn't conclusive, since the Torah unambiguously contains parts which purport to be God's direct word.  And it seems that abortion being murder would be a point God would make directly when God articulates variations on Thou Shalt not [Murder] (kill is a mistranslation; all the Rabbis agree on that.]

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #80 on: February 11, 2017, 12:47:45 AM »
Quote
. If anything penalties will be correlated to culpability, rather than to the nature of what or who was harmed. It is entirely logical to penalize people less for abortion, even if it's murder, because there are extenuating circumstances there including the safety and well-being of the mother, the fact that many people don't recognize the unborn as people, the fact that in a time prior to ultrasounds it was something known but unseen and therefore potentially 'less real', and so forth.

You mean even if it's homicide, right?  Because Mens Rea is what distinguishes murder from manslaughter from excused homicide from justifiable homicide.

Yes, I'm not up on the precise legal terms but that's what I was trying to say.

Quote
Your reasoning is sound but Wayward's interpretation cannot be dismissed.  It's not easy to second guess God, or even to distinguish God from Moses from the scribes in the dustier corners of Numbers and Deuteronomy.  Most of Judaism and Christianity claims that Moses wrote the whole Torah down as dictated by God, but that's demonstrably nonsense.  From the disparate contradictory oral traditions concatenated one after another like a hall of broken mirtors, to the end where TO THIS DAY no prophet has arisen like unto Moses.  Unto what day, if not the day the story was composed or scribed, generations after Moses? Mo would have to be one queer fish to write that part himself.

Part of the difficulty of second guessing God is that God's laws were written for men, to be enforced by men, and lived with by men. So even if God saw a crime as being 'as bad' as another, if human beings were in no way going to recognize the two as being anything near as bad as each other it would actually cause strife to require they enforce them with similar penalties. It would create confusion at best, and at worst could undermine faith in the law as it might create the perception of injustice in its tenets (due to people not sufficiently understanding God's reasoning). So I could totally see God deciding to mitigate some of the penalties to conform to what humans would accept, even if it ended up being rendered in a way that gave the impression of differing levels of 'badness' than what God actually saw in the acts. So a religious person certainly could second guess God - at least insofar as wondering why the laws were presented as they were, but ideally not insofar as cherry picking which ones to follow. If God's reasons were to create maximum peace among men for the time being, that would be a logical reason not to have a terribly high penalty for abortion, even if from the divine point of view it was murder.

Plus from what I understand of the Catholic idea of sin, mens rea is very much relevant in how God supposedly assesses things, and it goes without saying that the vast, vast majority of people who have abortions certainly do not go into it thinking "this is a human being with rights, and I choose to kill them now." Maybe some rare case has a person think that and do it anyhow, but otherwise you would find the majority thinking things like "it could have been a life" or "it's a life, but it's not murder", or "the rights of the mother over her body trump the right of the fetus", and so forth, all of which are reasonable positions to take insofar as they are coherent concepts (right or wrong). So by even a modern legal standard none of these people could be shown to be knowingly engaging in murder, as they literally do not accept the reality required for them to accept for that to be what murder is to them. One could argue they're wrong, or right, but that's beside the point; what their actual view of life is is what would count against them in a [divine] court. It's not like you can say "you were amply warned that it's a person with rights", because in fact they have not been. When one receives contradictory information from various sources, especially when the culturally most respected sources frequently are on the side of abortion, the person choosing to have one cannot be said to have been making a decision having been fully cognizant of the truth. Even if I were to take the position that abortion is murder I would likewise find it ludicrous to treat an abortion as a legal murder.

Quote
But Fenring, your point about mens rea isn't conclusive, since the Torah unambiguously contains parts which purport to be God's direct word.  And it seems that abortion being murder would be a point God would make directly when God articulates variations on Thou Shalt not [Murder] (kill is a mistranslation; all the Rabbis agree on that.]

I'm sure you're right, and it would seem to be a major issue to determine how literally to read the Bible versus how much in the spirit of the words, especially if the idea of God having literally written it is discarded as fantasy. In principle it seems to me like a fundamentalist reading creates so many problems and contradictions that it cannot even likely stand up under its own weight. However declining to take it all literally begs the question of what at all to take seriously in it. Surely even if they aren't God's literal words they are still what someone heard of God's words (or what they heard someone tell them they heard, etc), and therefore even a second hand account of God's words would need to be taken pretty seriously. It's no wonder it takes 2,000 years of scholarship for Rabbis and Bishops to figure stuff out :P


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #81 on: February 11, 2017, 01:13:06 AM »
Mormons aren't the only Christians who presume that "Old Law" was a set of forms and contingent rules, to be enforced by man on man, while the New Law of Christ was more principle-based, and mainly to be written in the fleshy tables of the heart rather than the stone tables ... meaning that Christianity teaches people principles and lets them govern themselves.  ]The adulteress is not stoned, and we are to render unto caesar that which is caesar's and unto God that which is God's.  Separation of Church and State.  Separation of conscience and coercion.  We don't always do it that way, but that's the general idea.

So a lot of the Torah in my opinion is just martial law set up to get Israel to survive 40 years in the wilderness.  Other parts to survive as a people and to develop a fiercely separate culture and identity.  So there is some weight of crimes as Wayward supposes, but it's not God's value that's being protected, but rather the value of a life, a bit of private property, a marriage, or a sabbath to Israelite society and its community.  That's the outward law.

The inward law (which makes up most of Christianity but still does exist in part in the Old Law, and in the teachings of prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, etc.) touches on the importance of actions and refraining from other actions to the individual.  God's not all about making this a better world; it's a garden, a school, and our souls are the product.  We go back to him, if we can.  (CS Lewis makes this clearer than anyone else in the Screwtape Letters and the Great Divorce).  So the inner law exists to make us ready to know God.  Heaven isn't a reward for being obedient; it's the inner law that's created to prepare us to enter heaven.  So outer laws are about preventing damage to society, inner laws are about protecting and nurturing our spirits.  The value of a life in that context is a nonsequitur, because from God's frame of reference, no one and nothing dies; they just change form.  Laws exist either for our spiritual benefit, or for our society's survival.  Or both.

As best as I can tell, when there are harsh punishments attached, it's a temporal, social law.  So the question isn't whether God values the life of a fetus more or less or equally to the life of an adult, but rather how do the deaths affect the survival of society.  Is a society that allows abortion more likely to thrive than a society that allows children and adults to be murdered in the streets, and that puts newborns out to be exposed?  Yes, absolutely.

Inner laws are more like "love thy neighbor as thyself" and care for the poor and needy, and you don't see penalties attached there, usually.  But here's the thing ... the question "who is my neighbor."  Right during the New Testament, after the gospels and in the middle of Acts, suddenly gentiles, the freaking muggles, are considered neighbors to the Christians.  So the idea of expanding exclusivity is planted into Christianity.  In my opinion, that's what was triggered when we started seeing fetuses that looked just like our babies.

OTOH, the stuff about blastocysts being human -- that's bad science, biblical illiteracy, priestcraft, and a general sense that if the world is going one way, that Christianity needs to go the other.  The latter impulse isn't always a bad thing, as CS Lewis makes clear in Screwtape.  But when it comes to Stem Cells, I think it's turned out to be a real turd of a policy, evoking Lewis' dicta about people running around with fire extinguishers during a flood.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2017, 01:21:59 AM by Pete at Home »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #82 on: February 13, 2017, 12:32:46 PM »
I got a chance to ask a learned source I know about Catholicism's views on "when life begins" going back to the 4th and 5th centuries (an important time in the consolidating of the Church's doctrines), and he told me that at the time they often subscribed to an Aristotelian view of the generation of a fetus. Apparently they had a rule of thumb, which was IIRC 40 days for a male child and 60 for a female, before they were considered to be 'real people'. I have no idea why the numbers were different for each sex, but anyhow this rules seemed to be widespread and used for a long time. It seems that it was an important guide because the early Christians did want to safeguard the lives of the unborn, even though obviously they were clueless about the real process of becoming pregnant.

I didn't go that much farther into depth, such as asking about possible contraception use at that time prior to the deadline suggested by the rule of thumb, but if one wanted to be pedantic one might suggest that all kinds of "abortions" were going on back then even though they didn't think of it in those terms. That's possible, but as far as I can tell the premise that unborn people needed to be protected was in play back then, notwithstanding the timing and technical details of when that began. Science has updated the time frame for Catholics of 'when life begins', which indeed has made the rule more restrictive now than it likely was 1,500 years ago. I still see no evidence, though, that Catholics ever changed their view on whether abortion (i.e. the termination of an unborn human person) is ok or not. 

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #83 on: February 13, 2017, 02:01:46 PM »
I'm not aware that we generally refer to masturbation, or plucking your eye lashes as having an abortion.

I was doing something called 'Proof by contradiction'.  They are morally equivalent to early stage abortion, yet we find nothing controversial with the former but people have strong beliefs about the later.

Quote
Please pretend all you want that there is no difference between dropping cells from a mutli-cell organism that doesn't involve any harm to such organism is indistinguishable from the deliberate removal all cells of a second muliti-cell organism resulting in its death.  Of course you know its not since you're able to formulate the thoughts, as everyone else, we even have that unique word for it.

Just because we 'have a sperate word for it' - doesn't mean there is meaningful difference.  Nearly any living human cell could be turned into a clone and implanted.  All human cells have a similar potential to become another human life that a fertilized egg does.

Quote
Agreed but irrelevant.  Happy to talk about whether animals and insects have rights in a world with carnivores and omnivores.

I think it is highly relevant when determining what legal protections there should be for a fetus.  Those same protections should logically be universal.

Quote
I haven't disputed anyone's right to follow what they think is the most justifiable position, just Pete's down right nastiness about something he erroneously thinks science has disproved.

Ah, I hadn't followed most of the thread... your post just happened to catch my eye.  (These days I usually only skim ornery threads since they are often rehashes of the same arguments we've all had 1000 times before...)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #84 on: February 13, 2017, 03:21:20 PM »
I'm not aware that we generally refer to masturbation, or plucking your eye lashes as having an abortion.

I was doing something called 'Proof by contradiction'.

I really think you failed to establish a direct contradiction of what I said, which makes the exercise futile.  Maybe if you break it down into clear logical steps I can show you were your proof fails.  Tell me which simple assumptions you are making, and which you think I've made.

Quote
They are morally equivalent to early stage abortion, yet we find nothing controversial with the former but people have strong beliefs about the later.

Again, I directly dispute that there is a moral equivalence between terminating cells of an organism that doesn't harm the organism as a whole in any material way, and terminating all cells of an organism.  They are not morally equivalent.  However, moralism is a relative philosophy and each is free to pursue their own understanding of it, certainly the moralism of a hard core pro choice advocate that declares that even a fetus that can live independently of the mother is "part of her body" and subject to her absolute choice to terminate would agree with you, there's just nothing about that morality that is self evident or necessarily implied by any facts on the table.

Quote
Quote
Please pretend all you want that there is no difference between dropping cells from a mutli-cell organism that doesn't involve any harm to such organism is indistinguishable from the deliberate removal all cells of a second muliti-cell organism resulting in its death.  Of course you know its not since you're able to formulate the thoughts, as everyone else, we even have that unique word for it.

Just because we 'have a sperate word for it' - doesn't mean there is meaningful difference.  Nearly any living human cell could be turned into a clone and implanted.  All human cells have a similar potential to become another human life that a fertilized egg does.

I think you've made a logic fail here, specifically there are 6 billion humans alive today that began as fertilized eggs, which means a non-trivial number of them become humans.  Meanwhile those 6 billion humans shed trillions of cells, of a variety of types, every day and none of them - to my knowledge - have become living humans, not even clones.  Somehow you seem to think something that frequently occurs and something that never occurs have equivalent potential to occur?

Does every pee wee football team have the same potential to become Superbowl champions as the professional teams in the NFL?

Quote
Quote
Agreed but irrelevant.  Happy to talk about whether animals and insects have rights in a world with carnivores and omnivores.

I think it is highly relevant when determining what legal protections there should be for a fetus.  Those same protections should logically be universal.

Logic only produces the direct results of your assumptions, facts and inputs.  You only get to the result that the protections should be universal if you assume that the lives have equal values.  There's no reason that any human should agree to value the life of animal or insect as equal to the value of their own life, though they are free to do so.  I'm not aware that any society on Earth would accept as a defense to murder that the person was an exterminator and was about to kill a colony of ants.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #85 on: February 13, 2017, 03:45:18 PM »
This is why nobody ever gets anywhere in these discussions. Some of us think a 3 week old fetus, based on its biology, does not deserve personhood status, let alone a fertilized egg. Others think that any interference with events leading to gestation, starting with birth control, are wrong because it prevents a human being that might otherwise have lived.

It is an apple to an orange of potential versus current fact.

I doubt that anyone would have an abortion quite as casually as swatting a fly, even if it could be done instantly and painlessly for free in one's own home. This is an acknowledgement that there is some difference due to potential, even though one may believe it is moral.

Far fewer would have a moral qualm about Ru-486, but still quite a few. Even fewer would have an issue with oral contraceptives.

It's almost like trying to calculate the net present value (NPV) of a human life. The closer you get to birth, the more the value goes up. Nobody will ever agree upon that equation, a large percentage of people will always be unhappy if their valuation isn't matched by the society at large.

And that's without even trotting in the various positions on which people ought to be having intercourse at all.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #86 on: February 13, 2017, 04:14:11 PM »
Seriati,

Quote
Again, I directly dispute that there is a moral equivalence between terminating cells of an organism that doesn't harm the organism as a whole in any material way, and terminating all cells of an organism.  They are not morally equivalent.  However, moralism is a relative philosophy and each is free to pursue their own understanding of it, certainly the moralism of a hard core pro choice advocate that declares that even a fetus that can live independently of the mother is "part of her body" and subject to her absolute choice to terminate would agree with you, there's just nothing about that morality that is self evident or necessarily implied by any facts on the table.

The cells of an organism without a brain are simply cells.  An early stage fetus is arguably more moral to kill than a few eyelashes - since the fetus is a risk to woman, where as the eyelash cells provide benefit.  Also it is also arguably immoral to increase the global population and arguably immoral to not abort a fetus that is going to result in an unwanted pregnancy (since that will result in a person who will experience suffering).  The immoral nature of an abortion is if it will cause suffering - either to the mother (thus it is generally immoral to bring about an abortion for a mother who wants to have a child) or to a person (thus it is immoral to kill a fetus once it has developed a brain and thus can experience suffering).

You can make the case that it is immoral to kill a fetus at all, but that morality would only logically be defensible if it is immoral to kill anything more developed than a fetus or equally as developed as a fetus.

If you or others concerned with abortion were strict vegans - I'd find your arguements to be more convincing.

Quote
I think you've made a logic fail here, specifically there are 6 billion humans alive today that began as fertilized eggs, which means a non-trivial number of them become humans.  Meanwhile those 6 billion humans shed trillions of cells, of a variety of types, every day and none of them - to my knowledge - have become living humans, not even clones.  Somehow you seem to think something that frequently occurs and something that never occurs have equivalent potential to occur?

We could switch to no human pregnancies occurring via insemination and all pregnancies only being derived from skin cells.  We don't do so because there isn't any reason to do so (there have been cloned human embryos, but none have been announced as having been brought to term).  The frequency is but an accident of nature.  If the frequencies were reversed would that make all skins cells sacred to you?  (Fun science fiction scenario - some disease wipes out all human eggs and sperm.  Society switches to generating embryos exclusively from skin cells; and then many generations later the disease is wiped out but now insemination pregnancies are viewed as unnatural and forced to be aborted).

Quote
There's no reason that any human should agree to value the life of animal or insect as equal to the value of their own life, though they are free to do so.

I was arguing that logically a fetuses life that has not developed a brain should be valued similarly or less than other life that has developed a brain (and thus can suffer), not a human valuing their own life.

There are only a few ways to give moral 'value' to a life.  Either it's current 'value' as a being (it can think, it can suffer, etc.) or its potential value.

If you want to go with 'current value' - then anything more advanced should have greater value (thus ants > fetuses); if you want to go 'potential value' - then anything of roughly similar potential should have similar value (thus skin cells; etc.); there is also personal value (the mother wants to have a baby).  (Things like 'unique' fail for clones, or for the matter than every cell is unique to some degree; things like human fail due to things like cancer and skin cells)

You seem to want very very narrow construing of potential value (ie something that is a trivial difference with todays technology) so that an implanted egg is at 100%, but skin cells are at 0% where there is no obvious basis for there to be any but the slightest of difference.

If we go with 'actual' value (it can suffer, it can think) then fetuses without a functional nervous system value should logically have less value relative to anything that is already birthed including insects and all animals.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 04:19:13 PM by LetterRip »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #87 on: February 13, 2017, 04:39:13 PM »
LR, you are very far from completing the process of exhaustively listing reasons why a person might value the life of an early-pregnancy fetus high than a developed and born animal with a brain. I would be cautious if I were you of attempting an Aristotelian 'complete list' of anything to do with science or morality. Aquinas tried to do it with morality and regardless of his success level it took him a massive volume of writing to get through that kind of project.

One premise you seem to be riding on here is that 'all life is equal', which seems actually to be a counter-intuitive premise. Maybe you're anticipating a Star-Trek type morality where all life must be protected regardless of type? But even the Federation values sentient life over other types, even though it generally respects all types. But at this stage in history it seems to be fairly standard for human life to be valued more highly than all other kinds, and so comparing apples to applies by way of looking at a fetus without a brain as compared to a fully developed ant will really get you nowhere except perhaps with a tiny minority of people who may actually devalue human life to that level. Religious axioms aside, you might ask why it is logically necessary to place human life so highly; but even without an answer it would be incorrect to therefore assert that it should not be placed so highly. At worst it means the question is open and can't be answered satisfactorily. However since most people do value human life at a vastly higher level than all other types of life it should pose no mystery why some people might additionally place higher value on an unborn human than on a born life form of some other type, to say nothing of skin cells.

A good exercise might be not to reject the premise that you feel is unproven, but rather, to accept the premise hypothetically and then try to determine for yourself ways to justify it. There are ways, whether or not you agree with them.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #88 on: February 13, 2017, 04:49:49 PM »
My POV is that if the fetus needs the mother to survive, it's rights don't supercede the mother's. In any way, shape, or form. She can decide to abort for any reason whatsoever.

When the fetus can live, it gets muddier.

My perfect society is one where birth control is accepted and encouraged (piss off, Catholics, ) and every woman has access to abortion. In *that* society, I think that if a woman decides to allow the pregnancy to progress to a point where the fetus is viable outside the womb she has made a concious choice to accept the very real risks of childbirth and pregnancy in whatever form it might take.

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. And whilst I might spit on Pyrtolin-esque arguments that third trimester abortion should be allowed no matter what, in all it's forms, just in case the mother feels guilty about giving the kid up for adoption, there still remain legitimate arguments in minor but non zero sum cases.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #89 on: February 13, 2017, 05:06:02 PM »
My POV is that if the fetus needs the mother to survive, it's rights don't supercede the mother's. In any way, shape, or form. She can decide to abort for any reason whatsoever.

When the fetus can live, it gets muddier.

So about 22 weeks of development by current medical standards. ;)

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #90 on: February 13, 2017, 05:14:04 PM »
My POV is that if the fetus needs the mother to survive, it's rights don't supercede the mother's. In any way, shape, or form. She can decide to abort for any reason whatsoever.

When the fetus can live, it gets muddier.

So about 22 weeks of development by current medical standards. ;)

Can babies really live at 5 months, 2 weeks of development? And I don't mean in a one in a million type of way. That seems reaaaaally early to me.

Admittedly,  this topic isn't too close to heart so I haven't done the research myself.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #91 on: February 13, 2017, 07:46:02 PM »
Fenring,

i think we need to separate out moral arguments from arbitrary preference.  An arbitrary preference ('because that is just how I believe', 'because I think that is what God told me', 'that is how I was raised', 'this is what many people have believed', 'this is what this group of people has legislated') isn't an argument that informs the morality of the preference - the exact opposite view can be held for the exact same basis.

I have an arbitrary preference for human life, but I can acknowledge that the preference isn't based on morality.

Quote
LR, you are very far from completing the process of exhaustively listing reasons why a person might value the life of an early-pregnancy fetus high than a developed and born animal with a brain.

Wasn't meant to be exhaustive.

Quote
One premise you seem to be riding on here is that 'all life is equal', which seems actually to be a counter-intuitive premise.

If you think it deserves legal protection because it is 'life' and it is immoral to kill life, the gum cells are every bit as deserving of protection as an early stage fetus.  If the argument is suffering or thinking - then other life that can suffer (more) or think (more) deserves the same or stronger protections, etc.  There isn't any logical way to arrive at 'early stage life that is a clump of cells are particularly more deserving of protection of other clumps of cells.

Quote
But at this stage in history it seems to be fairly standard for human life to be valued more highly than all other kinds

Valuing of a human life prior to birth (or even after birth for the first couple of years) is a pretty recent development in human history.  If you want to argue custom or sentiment as a basis of morality of abortion - than infanticide was moral for nearly all of history and still is in some locations.  So I don't think you want to go down that route - it is an absurd foundation to root morality.

Quote
Religious axioms aside, you might ask why it is logically necessary to place human life so highly; but even without an answer it would be incorrect to therefore assert that it should not be placed so highly.

It is correct to assert that it should not be valued more highly unless there is a reason to value it more highly - unless you are simply asserting that it isn't a moral difference, but rather a personal preference.  Arbitrary choices aren't moral choices. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #92 on: February 13, 2017, 08:30:24 PM »
My POV is that if the fetus needs the mother to survive, it's rights don't supercede the mother's. In any way, shape, or form. She can decide to abort for any reason whatsoever.

When the fetus can live, it gets muddier.

So about 22 weeks of development by current medical standards. ;)

Can babies really live at 5 months, 2 weeks of development? And I don't mean in a one in a million type of way. That seems reaaaaally early to me.

Admittedly,  this topic isn't too close to heart so I haven't done the research myself.

From what I've found online, they CAN, but it requires a long list of other prerequisite conditions to be met(and has about a 20% success rate even then). Basically they have to be born in a hospital with the staff, resources(+equipment), and expertise needed to make it happen.

It has been done, so it is possible. Near as I can tell, the only thing that makes the odds so poor is the lack of said equipment and expertise in most locations. Still medically preferable by far to carry the baby to term, as the extremely premature babies are going to have a long list of health issues due to being premature births.

Now if we ever create an artificial womb, then we're really stepping into some deep stuff, and I suspect that (an artificial womb) is coming sooner rather than later at this stage in the game, the bioethics of that should be all kinds of fun when we get there, even before getting into how it ties into the abortion side and if it is even possible to "transplant an active pregnancy" from one womb to another, that's obviously going to be in animal trials first.

Of course, doing a quick Google search, it seems we don't need to reproduce the uterus, we may instead just do psudeo-placenta(or even just use it as well) to do the work:

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/04/06/artificial-uterus-close-reality/

Which seems to suggest the challenge they have is with Pregnancies in the 22 to 30 week time frame (which has a 20% survival rate) is development of the lungs/airways of the fetus, which is where a lot of their long-term health issues come from(oxygen deprivation). So when they start pursing a placental alternative, rather than the steroids and carefully metered oxygenated neonatal cribs, things are likely to start moving to younger ages once again. (Evidently, that one instance of a delivery of someone at 21 week, 5 days of development was in 1987; so that margin seems to be locked in with current methods)

But as the article mentions, this opens up other frontiers on the legal front, as "the placental path" leads to a "delivered baby" that isn't breathing, and being medically prevented from doing so.

Of course, also on the medical tech side, going much younger than the 22 weeks of development means they're going to have to make other provisions as well, as they're unlikely to have a sufficiently developed urinary tract(they'll need dialysis or comparable), and likewise be lacking in a digestive system(they'll have to provide nutrients intravenously). Of course, both things should be able to be done through "a placental link," but it does add more layers of complexity to the medical side.

However, it is plausible that this is medical tech we have decent odds of seeing being used in the next 20 years, if not sooner.

Which as I think about it creates another weird bio-ethics thing, particularly for female athletes and professional woman of the future, even some of the less professional ones as well. If/when that technology is developed, and if that tech can have its costs brought down to a "Reasonable level" for them, and it is proven to be safe and reliable with minimal side-effects.  It then becomes possible that say, in 30 to 40 years, it may not be particularly unusual for many women to "deliver" their child at say, around the 5 to 6 month, and then have them "placentaly incubated" (for lack of a better term) for that final trimester, thus saving their own bodies from the stresses of that final stage of pregnancy, and allowing them to get back to their professional pursuits for a couple months before assuming a more active role in the care and raising of their child at the traditional 9 months of gestation point.

I guess an even more interesting aspect of this would be seeing what potential outcomes may result from allowing such a "gestation" to continue beyond the 9 month point,  given the traditional constraints regarding pregnancy would not be applicable.

Obviously, that would likely be more of a domain for the rich to play in, as the use of the resources needed to sustain an artificial gestational process still require someone to pay the bills. Meaning the less well off, and the more traditionalist types, would be pulling that particular cord around the 9 month point.

It certainly will raise new and entirely different kinds of questions as to "developmental age" when it comes to human kind.

A tertiary use would be OB/GYN's looking at multiple-birth pregnancy scenarios, as well as larger fetus scenarios a bit differently too. Even for the ones that didn't opt for that "5 month option" previously. The OB/GYNs may start inducing labor earlier in the pregnancy in order to minimize stress on the mother, or just so they can deliver in the more "traditional way" (before they become large enough to require a surgical delivery) even if they're going to immediately put the infant(s) right back into "a gestational environment" until they declare the infant to have developed "to term" or "sufficiently."

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #93 on: February 13, 2017, 11:00:55 PM »
I got a chance to ask a learned source I know about Catholicism's views on "when life begins" going back to the 4th and 5th centuries (an important time in the consolidating of the Church's doctrines), and he told me that at the time they often subscribed to an Aristotelian view of the generation of a fetus. Apparently they had a rule of thumb, which was IIRC 40 days for a male child and 60 for a female, before they were considered to be 'real people'. I have no idea why the numbers were different for each sex, but anyhow this rules seemed to be widespread and used for a long time. It seems that it was an important guide because the early Christians did want to safeguard the lives of the unborn, even though obviously they were clueless about the real process of becoming pregnant.

I didn't go that much farther into depth, such as asking about possible contraception use at that time prior to the deadline suggested by the rule of thumb, but if one wanted to be pedantic one might suggest that all kinds of "abortions" were going on back then even though they didn't think of it in those terms. That's possible, but as far as I can tell the premise that unborn people needed to be protected was in play back then, notwithstanding the timing and technical details of when that began. Science has updated the time frame for Catholics of 'when life begins', which indeed has made the rule more restrictive now than it likely was 1,500 years ago.

All that is excellent research, well thought out, and thank you.

Quote
I still see no evidence, though, that Catholics ever changed their view on whether abortion (i.e. the termination of an unborn human person) is ok or not.

I was about to nail you to the wall, until I realize that you didn't explicitly say that you had in any way contradicted what I had said. :)   The issue where I said the church had changed position on, is the vapid modern bromide that "life begins at conception."

Your queer redefinition of "abortion" as "termination of an unborn human person" is bizarre.  I have to give you points for originality there.  Except for extreme and/or brainwashed pro-lifers who live in a realm that makes creationism and dinosaurs on Noah's ark look like hard science, and extreme-pro-choicers whose sole intent is to obfuscate abortion and birth control in order to justify elective partial birth abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever, everyone has always to my knowledge defined abortion as termination of a pregnancy.  So your definition is absolutely novel.  The problem is, it begs the question of at what point an embryo or fetus becomes an unborn human being.  I understand that you're seeking to do to the word abortion what lefties do to the word "discrimination," i.e. it's inherently wrong.  But that doesn't give any sort of guide to behavior.  It's like saying killing people is OK so long as you don't murder anyone, except that we generally understand what makes Murder murder, but we don't have a firm agreement on what makes a fetus or baby human, or what makes any given distinction wrongfully "discriminatory."

I tend to agree with DJQuag that since there's no science for telling us when God put's the soul in, that the balance of rights is going to shift with the science.

Where I may or not differ from DJQuag (he didn't specify here) is that I think that where it doesn't come down to a balance of rights, e.g. when it's a third party who kills the fetus without interest of the mother's life or health or choice, that a charge of murder should lie at the point of brain waves, not viability.


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #94 on: February 13, 2017, 11:16:25 PM »
You call the distinction between fertilization and implantation trivial, and accuse me of making a big deal out of nothing, but those that attach it to fertilization are basically accusing tens of thousands of women of homicide for using the morning after pill and IUDs, which do no more than prevent implantation.

No. The distinction is irrelevant in context of a conversation about whether abortion was permitted historically or not. It is not irrelevant in the context of other conversations, and I already said previously. If we were discussing the morning after pill in context of Jewish or Christian history that could be interesting. But we were talking about abortion, and to whit I don't think I've heard someone so far call the morning after pill having an abortion. They might call it something, probably contraception, which may also be proscribed, but again, that's a different discussion.

As your own source verified, the Catholic church treated Tansy and other early term abortive remedies (40-60 days)  as if they were a "morning after pill."  Incidentally, there's no such thing as a male embryo during that time period.  Now you have created some brand new definition of the word "abortion" under which what I said could be considered incorrect.  But most abortions today occur during that 60 day window.  Here I will quote a conservative news source, the only one I know that's unfriendly to abortion rights so you won't say I'm biasing the sample: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06/17/fast-facts-us-abortion-statistics.html

that's 91% in the first trimester.  Now unless you assume that more than half of those occur during the last 30 days of the first trimester, that means that most abortions today would occur during the time period in which you say that the Catholic church permitted abortion without any penalty.

Furthermore, even where abortion was "impermissible" after 60 days, it still was not considered as sinful as, say, masturbation.  Only after the 12th century was it considered as sinful as birth control.  In later years, the Catholic church went back and forth on how to treat abortion until the 19th century, as I showed above.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #95 on: February 14, 2017, 04:35:54 PM »
Your queer redefinition of "abortion" as "termination of an unborn human person" is bizarre.  I have to give you points for originality there.

My exact phrasing may have been my creation, but I was just doing my best to accurately reflect what Catholicism's definition at present seems to be.

Quote
So your definition is absolutely novel.  The problem is, it begs the question of at what point an embryo or fetus becomes an unborn human being.  I understand that you're seeking to do to the word abortion what lefties do to the word "discrimination," i.e. it's inherently wrong.  But that doesn't give any sort of guide to behavior.  It's like saying killing people is OK so long as you don't murder anyone, except that we generally understand what makes Murder murder, but we don't have a firm agreement on what makes a fetus or baby human, or what makes any given distinction wrongfully "discriminatory."

Well, this is a bit of a bad analogy, because while some people don't subscribe to the notion that "discrimination" is always bad (even though the term certainly has some baggage in North America now), I don't know how many people actually believe that abortion is "good". At best I think we could say that the right to abortion is good, and that it's good for women to make a choice that's best for them, but in and of itself I think there seems to be some consensus that abortion itself is not a good thing, but is the lesser of evils for the most part. For my part I wasn't trying to inject the term with an implicitly negative connotation, although to be sure if we think of "unborn human persons" that certainly doesn't make it sound like like a bed of roses. I think the idea in discussion abortion shouldn't be to whitewash what's happening, but rather to argue a balance of what's best. If an abortion is decided to be 'best', then fine, but in so doing one doesn't need to therefore pretend that what was done was other than what it really was. A better analogy would be like in a war: when you kill enemy soldiers you are killing human beings. One can rationalize this by calling them "the enemy" or "hostiles", but the rightness of engaging in the war needn't (and actually shouldn't) make us forget what the actual realities are.

Quote
that's 91% in the first trimester.  Now unless you assume that more than half of those occur during the last 30 days of the first trimester, that means that most abortions today would occur during the time period in which you say that the Catholic church permitted abortion without any penalty.

When judging historical actions or choices it's best to view them within their proper context, and therefore as 'historians' it would not be proper to call terminations of pregnancy prior to 40 or 60 days in that era as "abortions" since that's not what they were considered to be. However in the context of using history to inform how we should live now, we rightly should call those abortions, and simply recognize that we have better knowledge than they did. The Church obviously has updated the specifics of how to implement its rules as science has provided us with new insight, but my main point was that it's not that the principle behind the rule changed, just exactly what's the best way to go about following it. That certainly does change over time.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #96 on: February 14, 2017, 05:28:37 PM »
Catholics knees what a pregnancy was Fenring.

Abortion was and is a termination of a pregnancy.  If you are claiming that science today shows that a 60 day embryo is more of a human person than the Medeivals supposed,then you have joined the Fundies in propping up new religious fads with misreported dinosaurs on the Ark pseudoscience, which seems a queer position for a nonreligious person to take.

The Medeical Catholics seem to have done their best according to their lights. And their 2000 year out of date science is more on point than the new wine in old bottles that you offer here.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #97 on: February 14, 2017, 05:34:06 PM »
Quote
When judging historical actions or choices it's best to view them within their proper context, and therefore as 'historians' it would not be proper to call terminations of pregnancy prior to 40 or 60 days in that era as "abortions" since that's not what they were considered to be.

You offer no evidence that the word abortion was not used and I have shown already that it was. The church used the writings of hypocrites and Galen, remember?  Your whole argument is based on a new definition you just my made up and you are rethinking it into Catholic church history.  Abortion means termination of a process.  You are aware that th the early church fathers spoke latin, are you not? What word would the use for termination of a pregnancy If not the Latin word for termination?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #98 on: February 14, 2017, 05:40:33 PM »
Just some general knowledge TIL stuff, not in reply to anyone.

There was this widespread plant in Roman times. A region even based it's economy around it. There is an argument that the "heart shape," (which, remember, does not at all look like a human heart) is based on drawings of the seed of this plant.

It was known as both an abortificant and birth control. The Romans drove this thing to extinction, lol.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: French "Feminist" defends the "Duty to Abort"
« Reply #99 on: February 14, 2017, 05:55:30 PM »
Catholics knees what a pregnancy was Fenring.

Abortion was and is a termination of a pregnancy.  If you are claiming that science today shows that a 60 day embryo is more of a human person than the Medeivals supposed,then you have joined the Fundies in propping up new religious fads with misreported dinosaurs on the Ark pseudoscience, which seems a queer position for a nonreligious person to take.

The Medeical Catholics seem to have done their best according to their lights. And their 2000 year out of date science is more on point than the new wine in old bottles that you offer here.

I actually have no idea what you're talking about here, to be honest.