Abortion Discussion

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

Something that also needs to be said is that making one's own choices, which entails the risk of making wrong choices, is an inherent part of being an autonomous adult.

And this should apply to how women want to give birth. If you read any pregnancy and parenting forums you'll come across many stories of women told they can't have a c section, that things are presented as something that needs to be done rather than an option to be discussed (having waters broken, episiotomies), that really they are not as important as the foetus inside them when it comes down to brass tacks.

volchitsa

lazygal wrote: »

And this should apply to how women want to give birth. If you read any pregnancy and parenting forums you'll come across many stories of women told they can't have a c section, that things are presented as something that needs to be done rather than an option to be discussed (having waters broken, episiotomies), that really they are not as important as the foetus inside them when it comes down to brass tacks.

Yes, and not only "not as important as" the fetus, but by default they are seen as potential enemies of the fetus - and yet that same (ex) fetus in the form of a baby is presumably going to be handed to them to bring up and make into a functioning member of society in just a few short months or weeks. Crazy.

zeffabelli

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, and not only "not as important as" the fetus, but by default they are seen as potential enemies of the fetus - and yet that same (ex) fetus in the form of a baby is presumably going to be handed to them to bring up and make into a functioning member of society in just a few short months or weeks. Crazy.

And it doesn't stop there.

Don't know about your experience, but after an emergency c section, I had the breast feeding cartel all over me.

Would you ever **** off. I need a nap.

I never felt more reduced as a human to breeding cattle as I did during pregnancy and child delivery.

lazygal

I had a male consultant talk to my husband instead of me about what would happen when I told him I wasn't happy to continue to wait and wanted a c section delivery as soon as possible. He said something like 'well hubby has spoken' and scrawled a note in my file. It wasn't until a little while later I realised he had noted that I was to fast in preparation for a c section later that day. If I have another I'll be requesting in writing at the first appointment that he is never to be allowed near me.

volchitsa

zeffabelli wrote: »

And it doesn't stop there.

Don't know about your experience, but after an emergency c section, I had the breast feeding cartel all over me.

Would you ever **** off. I need a nap.

I never felt more reduced as a human to breeding cattle as I did during pregnancy and child delivery.

Personally I loved breast feeding, but you're completely right that there's a large element of making women do whatever official wisdom at the time decrees they should. My own mother was regarded as a complete oddball for wanting to breastfeed her children in the 60s, and given no help at all, so that she didn't manage to feed the first two at all. By the time she had her fourth it was the 70s, and breastfeeding was becoming acceptable, because of women like her I suppose, who persisted in spite of official disapproval.

But now it's become practically mandatory - it's as though in the face of opposition from women to being made to breastfeed, "officialdom" has changed its mind and gone to the other extreme, when in fact all women like my mother wanted was to be allowed to choose - not to dictate their choice to all women.

The most important thing seems to be to tell women what they must do, even when that completely contradicts what we were being told a few years before that.

Another example of that is drinking while pregnant : obviously it's bad - but one of my sisters remarked that during just one of her pregnancies, the official advice changed three times!!

lazygal

I don't even listen when the latest study comes out that tells pregnant women what they 'should' be doing. It's like we are being told we're screwing up our children before they're born if we're let make our own decisions about anything.

From a woman who's had two sections, is still breastfeeding a nearly two year old and had alcohol during both pregnancies. My kids are doomed.

zeffabelli

volchitsa wrote: »

Personally I loved breast feeding, but you're completely right that there's a large element of making women do whatever official wisdom at the time decrees they should. My own mother was regarded as a complete oddball for wanting to breastfeed her children in the 60s, and given no help at all, so that she didn't manage to feed the first two at all. By the time she had her fourth it was the 70s, and breastfeeding was becoming acceptable, because of women like her I suppose, who persisted in spite of official disapproval.

But now it's become practically mandatory - it's as though in the face of opposition from women to being made to breastfeed, "officialdom" has changed its mind and gone to the other extreme, when in fact all women like my mother wanted was to be allowed to choose - not to dictate their choice to all women.

The most important thing seems to be to tell women what they must do, even when that completely contradicts what we were being told a few years before that.

Another example of that is drinking while pregnant : obviously it's bad - but one of my sisters remarked that during just one of her pregnancies, the official advice changed three times!!

It wasnt even that I didnt want to...I couldn't and what made these harpies think that after surgery and high on morphine pestering me like a hen pecking coven would make the milk come....

They are my boobs, my baby...now step off.

It's just incredible how much you become public property suddenly.

robdonn

lazygal wrote: »

From a woman who's had two sections, is still breastfeeding a nearly two year old and had alcohol during both pregnancies. My kids are doomed.

Drinking while pregnant does increase the chance of foetal abnormalities, this is a fact. The problem with the research, and therefore how it is expressed by midwives/nurses/doctors, is that we don't know yet at what point during pregnancy that the foetus is most vulnerable to it. So when you hear the old wisdom of "oh, just one glass of wine is fine" or "it's OK to drink until week X", it shouldn't be trusted because it's not possible to perform these tests on a foetus in the womb so we honestly don't know yet.

Alcohol can pass through the placenta at any stage during the pregnancy and the foetus is less capable of processing the alcohol as the mother because the liver is one of the last organs to develop and mature. Drinking in early pregnancy (first 3 months) has been linked to increased chances of miscarriage while drinking during the entire pregnancy can lead to premature labour and, in extreme cases, Foetal Alcohol Syndrome. Even drinking while breastfeeding can be harmful, but that's another kettle of fish.

The problem is really with how medical staff give this information, they know that alcohol can harm the foetus, and they know (or at least they should) that it has yet to be determined when it is most harmful, so the default position from a safety standpoint is to request that the mother abstains throughout the pregnancy.

This is the limit to what medical staff can and should be able to do though, they cannot stop you from drinking during pregnancy, nor can they stop you from smoking or skydiving (although others may have policies that prevent this), but it is a caution that should be at least considered properly.

The choice is yours, you still retain your autonomy, but is important for medical staff to ensure that your choices are made with the best available information.

robdonn

zeffabelli wrote: »

It wasnt even that I didnt want to...I couldn't and what made these harpies think that after surgery and high on morphine pestering me like a hen pecking coven would make the milk come....

They are my boobs, my baby...now step off.

It's just incredible how much you become public property suddenly.

There is a fine line between giving sound medical advice and mouthing off your own opinion to someone, and these "harpies" crossed it.

The NHS has a great maternity program, completely "woman-centred" approach to everything, but even there you will occasionally get the big-mouthed midwife or doctor that insists on trying to convince a woman to do things after she has already made her choice.

I have never been a violent person, but some people just deserve a slap sometimes. :P

zeffabelli

robdonn wrote: »

There is a fine line between giving sound medical advice and mouthing off your own opinion to someone, and these "harpies" crossed it.

The NHS has a great maternity program, completely "woman-centred" approach to everything, but even there you will occasionally get the big-mouthed midwife or doctor that insists on trying to convince a woman to do things after she has already made her choice.

I have never been a violent person, but some people just deserve a slap sometimes. :P

I know in the U.S. The breastfeeding cartel have managed to take welfare benefits away from women who don't breastfeed. They used to give free formula to welfare mothers, but now to encourage breastfeeding that has been stopped.

inocybe

sounds like things have swung too far the other way, but my experience 12 years ago was the complete opposite. There was no time or interest for help with anything in hospital, when I was discharged I hadn't actually managed to get my baby to feed at all, not a drop, and he was very jaundiced so should have been given water at least. It took some determination to get things going by myself.

robdonn

zeffabelli wrote: »

I know in the U.S. The breastfeeding cartel have managed to take welfare benefits away from women who don't breastfeed. They used to give free formula to welfare mothers, but now to encourage breastfeeding that has been stopped.

I would love to see a source for that. The WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) has started to allocate funds towards trying to promote breastfeeding with mothers who are capable as it is better for the baby's health, but they have not taken away access to formula. What they do recognise is that breastfeeding rates are lower with women on welfare and they believe that it is partly attributed to the formula being freely available, but instead of taking it away they are simply allocating some funds to promoting breastfeeding.

volchitsa

inocybe wrote: »

sounds like things have swung too far the other way, but my experience 12 years ago was the complete opposite. There was no time or interest for help with anything in hospital, when I was discharged I hadn't actually managed to get my baby to feed at all, not a drop, and he was very jaundiced so should have been given water at least. It took some determination to get things going by myself.

Yes that was my mother's experience (a lot more than 12 years ago though).

I really think that it's absolutely not about the pendulum swinging too far, it's actually that where pregnant women and new mothers are concerned, it doesn't matter much to those giving advice what exactly that advice is, all that matters is being in a position of having some orders to give. Like I said, one of my sisters remarked that the details of the official advice pregnant women were meant to follow as regards alcohol during pregnancy changed three times during a single one of her pregnancies! (Her first - before she stopped caring what the official advice was!)

volchitsa

robdonn wrote: »

I would love to see a source for that. The WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) has started to allocate funds towards trying to promote breastfeeding with mothers who are capable as it is better for the baby's health, but they have not taken away access to formula. What they do recognise is that breastfeeding rates are lower with women on welfare and they believe that it is partly attributed to the formula being freely available, but instead of taking it away they are simply allocating some funds to promoting breastfeeding.

TBH I find it hard to believe too. For one thing, it shows complete lack of understanding of the statistics around who breastfeeds. There's really no evidence (afaiaa) that when class and social deprivation are removed from the results, there is a significant improvement in outcomes due to breastfeeding.

(That's not to say there's no reason to breastfeed all the same. Apart from the fundamental issue for children in third world countries where access to clean water is not reliable, even in developed countries there are all sorts of reasons for breastfeeding, including the simple one of cost. But the idea of removing access to formula milk for one group of women for social, not economic, reasons is hard to imagine.)

robdonn

volchitsa wrote: »

TBH I find it hard to believe too. For one thing, it shows complete lack of understanding of the statistics around who breastfeeds. There's really no evidence (afaiaa) that when class and social deprivation are removed from the results, there is a significant improvement in outcomes due to breastfeeding.

(That's not to say there's no reason to breastfeed all the same. Apart from the fundamental issue for children in third world countries where access to clean water is not reliable, even in developed countries there are all sorts of reasons for breastfeeding, including the simple one of cost. But the idea of removing access to formula milk for one group of women for social, not economic, reasons is hard to imagine.)

Exactly, breastfeeding is not perfect and it can be dangerous in certain situations. On the worst end of the scale you have women who suffered from hyperemesis gravidarum during pregnancy, a lot of times their body is already very weak and breastfeeding can burn up to 500 calories a day. For the government to turn around and refuse to give formula in these situations would be damning.

And although I fully support the promotion of breastfeeding, it is and always should be a choice, and as breastmilk and formula are the only two foods that newborns can have then removing formula would be as good as making breastfeeding the law, which is wrong on so many levels.

zeffabelli

robdonn wrote: »

Exactly, breastfeeding is not perfect and it can be dangerous in certain situations. On the worst end of the scale you have women who suffered from hyperemesis gravidarum during pregnancy, a lot of times their body is already very weak and breastfeeding can burn up to 500 calories a day. For the government to turn around and refuse to give formula in these situations would be damning.

And although I fully support the promotion of breastfeeding, it is and always should be a choice, and as breastmilk and formula are the only two foods that newborns can have then removing formula would be as good as making breastfeeding the law, which is wrong on so many levels.

Sorry, yeah I think there was a lot of talk of doing it at the time, but I don't know if they actually implemented it.

There were definitely some breastfeeding lobbyists trying for it, I remember a lot of petitions and literature around the hospital at the time.

robdonn

zeffabelli wrote: »

Sorry, yeah I think there was a lot of talk of doing it at the time, but I don't know if they actually implemented it.

There were definitely some breastfeeding lobbyists trying for it, I remember a lot of petitions and literature around the hospital at the time.

I can definitely understand where the breastfeeding lobbyists would get the idea from, the AAP (American Academy of Paediatrics) recommend exclusively breastfeeding for the first six months of a pregnancy, but what people seem too headstrong to accept is that it is simply a recommendation. The lobbyists see this statement and ignore the facts that some mothers cannot breastfeed or are allowed to choose not to.

The whole thing is part of the "Mother's Guilt" system, where no matter what you do with your child, you'll be going against the recommendations of someone and therefore a bad mother. The truth is that as long as you are not harming your child or actively preventing good development then you are doing just fine!

volchitsa

zeffabelli wrote: »

Sorry, yeah I think there was a lot of talk of doing it at the time, but I don't know if they actually implemented it.

There were definitely some breastfeeding lobbyists trying for it, I remember a lot of petitions and literature around the hospital at the time.

It's all part of the "don't you worry your little head about these things, we know what's best for you" syndrome, isn't it? Whether they're promoting breastfeeding or are dead against it doesn't really matter much, afaict, it's all about power really!

Cabaal

Lets look at the facts of abortion as presented by Discovery News.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swoWhrERRNk

Interesting to find out that the christian church once allowed abortions until women could feel the fetus moving,

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Interesting to find out that the christian church once allowed abortions until women could feel the fetus moving,

It would be more interesting if it were actually true. But it's not; Christian opposition to abortion (along with opposition to infanticide and to the exposure of unwanted infants) is one of the earlier characteristically Christian stances that we know. We know this from the contemporary writings of both Christians and non-Christians. Indeed, one of the factors that historians sometimes cite for the rapid growth of Christianity in the early period is a higher Christian birthrate, the outcome of their refusal to practice the, um, family planning methods considered acceptable in the classical Roman world.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

It would be more interesting if it were actually true. But it's not; Christian opposition to abortion (along with opposition to infanticide and to the exposure of unwanted infants) is one of the earlier characteristically Christian stances that we know.

But the church "opposes" (i.e. theocratically forbids when it's able to do so with force of law, and tuttuts at sanctimoniously when it's not) lots of things. That doesn't mean they see (or always saw) them as precisely equivalent. Consider, for example, its "opposition" to contraception and to masturbation -- that doesn't mean that spermicide is equivalent to infanticide. And it's well-documented that for a long period of time, the church confidently believed that ensoulment happened at all sorts of wacky, makey-uppy times. Just as it now confidently asserts it begins at conception. (Pesky double-yolker monozygotic twins!)

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

But the church "opposes" (i.e. theocratically forbids when it's able to do so with force of law, and tuttuts at sanctimoniously when it's not) lots of things. That doesn't mean they see (or always saw) them as precisely equivalent. Consider, for example, its "opposition" to contraception and to masturbation -- that doesn't mean that spermicide is equivalent to infanticide. And it's well-documented that for a long period of time, the church confidently believed that ensoulment happened at all sorts of wacky, makey-uppy times. Just as it now confidently asserts it begins at conception. (Pesky double-yolker monozygotic twins!)

I'm not sure what point you're making here. The claim I'm responding to is a claim that the church "once allowed abortions until women could feel the fetus moving"; this claim is flat-out untrue. It's a claim which has been made many times, and debunked many times. In a forum which supposedly endorses and encourages scepticism I shouldn't be the only person pointing this out.

The question of whether the church always regarded abortion as equivalent to murder is a separate one. Cabaal has made no claim about that, so I have nothing to respond to. For what it's worth, rather than being "wacky" and "makey-uppy", the Christian position on this has generally been driven by the available empirical evidence. Prior to the invention of the microscope and the understanding of human reproduction and development which it enabled, quickening was considered to be the first evidence of autonomous life during human pregnancy. This was the general view of doctors and physicians, and the church mostly accepted it. Abortion prior to this stage of the pregnance wasn't regarded as tantamount to murder - but it was condemned.

MrPudding

alaimacerc wrote: »

(Pesky double-yolker monozygotic twins!)

I believe I have worked out what happens here. When the split occurs the soul stays with one half. As best I can tell it is a completely random process which decides which half has the soul. Once the soul is safely secured in one the twins the remaining twin becomes ginger.

MrP

robdonn

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you're making here. The claim I'm responding to is a claim that the church "once allowed abortions until women could feel the fetus moving"; this claim is flat-out untrue. It's a claim which has been made many times, and debunked many times. In a forum which supposedly endorses and encourages scepticism I shouldn't be the only person pointing this out.

The question of whether the church always regarded abortion as equivalent to murder is a separate one. Cabaal has made no claim about that, so I have nothing to respond to. For what it's worth, rather than being "wacky" and "makey-uppy", the Christian position on this has generally been driven by the available empirical evidence. Prior to the invention of the microscope and the understanding of human reproduction and development which it enabled, quickening was considered to be the first evidence of autonomous life during human pregnancy. This was the general view of doctors and physicians, and the church mostly accepted it. Abortion prior to this stage of the pregnance wasn't regarded as tantamount to murder - but it was condemned.

I agree, the claim that the Catholic church allowed abortions is wrong (or at least there is no supporting evidence). It is true that there was a period between the 5th and 16th centuries when many notable Christians had opposing views (St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas) and the penance for abortion was very low when compared to using contraception, but it was never the official position of the Church that abortion was ever allowed.

obplayer

Anti-choice campaigners force closure of abortion clinic

https://humanism.org.uk/2015/07/21/anti-choice-campaigners-force-closure-of-abortion-clinic/

An abortion clinic has closed after months of harassment and intimidation by anti-choice campaigners. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) said that the clinic, which has not been identified, will be forced to close ‘as a direct result of protest activity’, the first such occurrence in the UK. The BPAS also said one of its clinics was still operating despite ‘desperate attempts’ to interfere in its services, after anti-choice groups reported it too had closed.
The closure comes after months of warnings over the harassment faced by women seeking access to abortion services. Religious campaigners have increasingly taken to protesting directly outside abortion clinics and intimidating women using these services with verbal assaults and exposure to graphic imagery in an attempt to deter them from making use of their legal right to an abortion.
In response to this, the British Humanist Association (BHA) and other campaign groups including BPAS delivered over 118,000 signatures to 10 Downing Street in March as part of their ‘Back Off’ campaign. The campaign called for the introduction of protected buffer zones to protect women across the UK from harassment by religious zealots outside of abortion clinics and pregnancy advice centres. The introduction of buffer zones would act only to prevent anti-choice campaigners from entering a small set distance from abortion clinics in order to allow women to enter freely and safely, and would not impinge on campaigners’ right to public protest.
Last month, Labour’s Diane Abbott MP, a member of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, put down an early day motion, which was signed by 27 MPs, supporting the establishment of buffer zones. The motion warned that protests are ‘having a significant impact on women’s ability to access safe, legal reproductive healthcare services’. The MPs expressed alarm that clinics were threatened with closure or unable to open due to the intimidating nature of the protests.
Responding to the closure, BHA Director of Public Affairs and Campaigns Pavan Dhaliwal said, ‘It is shameful that radical religious activists have been able to force the closure of an NHS clinic, thereby denying women access to safe and legal abortions.
‘Those in favour of buffer zones have made it absolutely clear that anti-choice campaigners have the right to protest against abortions should they wish to do so. What they cannot do is position themselves directly outside clinics and harass women facing a deeply difficult time in their lives. Their appalling tactics have now directly interfered with the right of women to access healthcare, simply because they personally disagree with the services being offered. We cannot allow a minority with outdated, hardline views to cause such damage to hard-won and fundamental women’s rights. This closure, and the continued harassment faced by women at other clinics, demonstrates that buffer zones are now a necessity.’
Notes
For further comment or information, please contact BHA Director of Public Affairs and Campaigns Pavan Dhaliwal on pavan@humanism.org.uk or 0773 843 5059.
More on the Back Off campaign (back-off.org) and petition.
The British Humanist Association is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. It promotes a secular state and equal treatment in law and policy of everyone, regardless of religion or belief.

Bold done by me.

robdonn

obplayer wrote: »

Anti-choice campaigners force closure of abortion clinic

https://humanism.org.uk/2015/07/21/anti-choice-campaigners-force-closure-of-abortion-clinic/



Bold done by me.

Two friends of mine work in Marie Stopes clinics and the amount of abuse that they get going into work each day is incredible. It would be like atheists gathering outside churches and screaming at people going in. It's sickening.

Peregrinus

robdonn wrote: »

I agree, the claim that the Catholic church allowed abortions is wrong (or at least there is no supporting evidence). It is true that there was a period between the 5th and 16th centuries when many notable Christians had opposing views (St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas) . . .

If, by "had opposing views", you mean Augustine, Jerome and Aquinas considered abortion to be morally permissible, I don't think this is true either.

alaimacerc

MrPudding wrote: »

I believe I have worked out what happens here. When the split occurs the soul stays with one half. As best I can tell it is a completely random process which decides which half has the soul. Once the soul is safely secured in one the twins the remaining twin becomes ginger.

Ingenious! Can we use some procedure to daub one of the two ginger if this doesn't happen "naturally"?

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you're making here. The claim I'm responding to is a claim that the church "once allowed abortions until women could feel the fetus moving"; this claim is flat-out untrue. It's a claim which has been made many times, and debunked many times. In a forum which supposedly endorses and encourages scepticism I shouldn't be the only person pointing this out.

I'm not sure what you're not sure about. You gave a narrow response on the particular proposition Cabaal made. (I wouldn't have said what Cabaal did, but neither am I in a position to directly contradict it, so that I'm apparently being scolded for not making your counterargument for you is somewhat puzzling in itself.) I pointed out the broader, and IMO more pertinent to the issue at large, historical background to the church's rationalisations.

The question of whether the church always regarded abortion as equivalent to murder is a separate one.

And the answer to it is very clear, no? I can't speak comprehensively to the precise scale of discipline imposed at different times. Though they're not "equivalent" at present, either -- abortion is strictly more severely dealt with, in a number of respects. But if they're ontologically different, they're necessarily not equivalent, whether or not they were punished even similarly (much less equivalently).

For what it's worth, rather than being "wacky" and "makey-uppy", the Christian position on this has generally been driven by the available empirical evidence.

I think when one's thundering pronouncements on scientific facts and moral judgement are as far ahead of the empirical evidence as they were then, "make-uppy" is fair. If not positively kind. Though perhaps they're more deserving of retrospective sympathy than people who're happy to repeat slogans like "life begins at conception" when the empirical evidence is definitively to the contrary -- whichever way one chooses to interpret it.

Abortion prior to this stage of the pregnance wasn't regarded as tantamount to murder - but it was condemned.

Much commentary on the church position suggests it's motivated by a wish to control sexuality -- and female sexuality in particular. Defenders protest nonono, it's all about the sanctity of life. So isn't it actually rather revealing that back when the church did not believe this was so, it was still remarkably firmly opposed to abortion of these pre-ensouled entities? One might almost take that as concession of the original analysis.

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're not sure about. You gave a narrow response on the particular proposition Cabaal made.

I wouldn’t have thought that my response was particularly narrow. Was there any aspect of Cabaal’s proposition that I failed to address? Perhaps what you’re really pointing out is that Cabaal’s proposition was itself narrow.

alaimacerc wrote: »

And the answer to it is very clear, no?

Yes, it is. The church has not always condemned abortion as murder. (Indeed, SFAIK formally it still doesn’t, though many individual churchmen hold the view that it is a form of murder. )

But I don’t think that this is a particularly controversial proposition, or a particularly telling one. Everyone’s understanding of the human reproductive cycle was revolutionised following the development of the microscope. The fact that current theological views are different from medieval theological views is no more surprising (or undermining) than the fact that current medical views are different from medieval medical views.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think when one's thundering pronouncements on scientific facts and moral judgement are as far ahead of the empirical evidence as they were then, "make-uppy" is fair. If not positively kind.

Surely the point is that the church’s position wasn’t ahead of the empirical evidence? They took the view that no life was present (or, at any rate, was known to be present) before quickening precisely because there was no empirical evidence of the presence of life.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Though perhaps they're more deserving of retrospective sympathy than people who're happy to repeat slogans like "life begins at conception" when the empirical evidence is definitively to the contrary -- whichever way one chooses to interpret it.

Current empirical evidence, surely, shows that the human reproductive cycle is just that, a cycle, and that life is present at all points in the cycle? So it’s not true to say that “life begins at conception”; the life of a distinct entity may begin at conception, but life generically is present during and before conception (as well as afterwards). I’m not quite sure, though, that I would say that that is really the “contrary” of the claim that life begins at conception.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Much commentary on the church position suggests it's motivated by a wish to control sexuality -- and female sexuality in particular. Defenders protest nonono, it's all about the sanctity of life. So isn't it actually rather revealing that back when the church did not believe this was so, it was still remarkably firmly opposed to abortion of these pre-ensouled entities? One might almost take that as concession of the original analysis.

One might, if one is interested only in supporting one’s preconceptions, and is willing to dismiss or disregard any thought which fails to do that.

A more open-minded approach to the question would note that when the church adopted its countercultural anti-abortion position, in the classical Roman period, the tolerance of abortion which they rejected was definitely not associated with a liberal attitude to women or female sexuality - quite the contrary. And it would also note the common explanation offered by historians of the period for the high number of female converts; Christianity afforded women a higher status than classical Roman society generally did. And we might also note that in the ancient world decisions about abortion (and child destruction) were typically made by men (husbands, fathers, owners) and not by women. So the thesis that the church condemned abortion in an attempt to control female sexuality isn’t a neat fit with the observed evidence. In fact the practice of abortion in the ancient world was largely an attempt to control female sexuality.

Rather than starting from the conclusion one wishes to reach, and trying to explain the past in terms of it, a sounder approach might be to start by looking at the past and seeing what actually happened. If we want to know why the early church condemned abortion, a good start might be looking at the social significance and impact of abortion in late classical Rome, and what Christian commentators had to say about that, and what their opponents had to say about that. I’ll leave this as an exercise for the honours students but, hint, you can take it that (a) the liberation of women, and (b) vindications of twenty-first century western attitudes to the expression of female sexuality are not going to feature largely in what you find. Whereas Aristotelian views about the nature of being, and about whether the moral significance of a thing depends only on what it currently is, or also on what it is becoming, are going to feature quite a lot.

robindch

robdonn wrote: »

Two friends of mine work in Marie Stopes clinics and the amount of abuse that they get going into work each day is incredible. It would be like atheists gathering outside churches and screaming at people going in.

Ah, but that would be "religious persecution".

Different thing.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

the life of a distinct entity may begin at conception,

Except, not that either in any definitive or meaningful manner, as also repeatedly pointed out.

A more open-minded approach to the question would note that when the church adopted its countercultural anti-abortion position, in the classical Roman period, the tolerance of abortion which they rejected was definitely not associated with a liberal attitude to women or female sexuality - quite the contrary.

That's an "approach" based on entirely different evidence from the point we were discussing a post or two ago, however. And an area I wouldn't claim to be especially familiar.

Perhaps I can clarify what's fairly generally, I think, meant when it's suggested that the church has, and has long had, an unhealthily authoritarian attitude to sexual "morality". I don't think the suggestion is that religion is a historically unique source of misogyny and social control. Rather, it's that it strongly tends to server as a social brake on such attitudes changing. Let's suppose the church was a radically enlightened as you suggest 17-odd centuries ago. Does giving those marginal gains the force of cosmological absolutes look like such a smart move in hindsight?

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

Except, not that either in any definitive or meaningful manner, as also repeatedly pointed out.

As repeatedly claimed, but also as repeatedly rejected. And, in neither case, as proved in any empirical way.

The issue here is whether we assign moral value to the human conceptus, such that destroying it is a morally problematic act. The assignment of moral value, or the refusal to do so, is of its nature something that can be informed by empirical evidence, but not validated by it. The claim that "life begins at conception" may be false, and may be empirically demonstrated to be false; the claim that "life is present at all times during the human reproductive cycle" may be true and may be empirically demonstrated as true, but the claim that the life of the recently-conceived entity is not "definitive" or "meaningful" invokes concepts which are not capable of empirical demonstration.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Perhaps I can clarify what's fairly generally, I think, meant when it's suggested that the church has, and has long had, an unhealthily authoritarian attitude to sexual "morality". I don't think the suggestion is that religion is a historically unique source of misogyny and social control. Rather, it's that it strongly tends to server as a social brake on such attitudes changing. Let's suppose the church was a radically enlightened as you suggest 17-odd centuries ago. Does giving those marginal gains the force of cosmological absolutes look like such a smart move in hindsight?

Um. Religion can certainly act as a "social brake" on attitudes changing. Equally, though, it can act as an accelerant. Most historians ascribe the social and legal condemnation of child exposure to the spread of Christianity, for example. And I suspect it's a timing thing; during a time of the growth of a new religion, or the significant reform/development of an existing one, religion may tend to act as an accelerant of social change; at other times as a brake.

(I'd add that the same is likely to be true of non-religious ideologies - with Soviet Socialism, for instance, we can easily see periods of rapid change followed by periods of stifling conformity and stagnation.)

And, of course, either way the social change may be one which we view positively or negatively. The Christianisation of Europe is associated with the supression of abortion (which we tend to view negatively) and the supression of child exposure (which we tend to view positively). But I don't see that our attitudes and values can be set up as cosmological absolutes any more than those of the second century. If the fact Christianity suppressed child exposure doesn't validate Christianity (and, for the record, it doesn't) then the fact that it also suppressed abortion doesn't invalidate it.

robdonn

Peregrinus wrote: »

If, by "had opposing views", you mean Augustine, Jerome and Aquinas considered abortion to be morally permissible, I don't think this is true either.

Augustine believed in the the Aristotelian concept of delayed ensoulment and wrote that a soul cannot inhabit a body until it is fully formed, therefore abortion in early pregnancy was not murder and therefore morally permissible.

Jerome - A fair few places have this quote: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs".

But to be honest, I can't actually track down a source for it. I've traced it to this site and they cite it as being from St. Jerome's Epistles (121, 4) but I have yet to find a version of letter 121 that has this line, or any other letter. So either the citation was wrong or it's a misquote/made-up. As a result, I temporarily retract Jerome from the list.

Aquinas's opinion in his Summa Theologica is that he also follows the delayed ensoulment belief. He clearly states that he believes that abortion after reaching the "human-soul" stage of development is murder, but does not make any such declaration for the "vegetable-soul" or "animal-soul" stages.

Peregrinus

But (leaving aside the matter of a citation for Jerome) what you say about Jerome and Aquinas is that they did not regard early abortion as murder or killing. It doesn't follow that they regarded it as morally unobjectionable. An act can be not murder, and yet morally objectionable - lying, fraud, theft, adultery, doubting the integrity of the moderators.

You do say that Augustine regarded early abortion as "not murder and morally permissible" but you (or whoever you are paraphrasing) may simply be assuming that the latter follows from the former. It doesn't. And my inner sceptic tells me to be reluctant to accept your summary of Augustine's position until I have seen Augustine's words.

robdonn

Peregrinus wrote: »

But (leaving aside the matter of a citation for Jerome) what you say about Jerome and Aquinas is that they did not regard early abortion as murder or killing. It doesn't follow that they regarded it as morally unobjectionable. An act can be not murder, and yet morally objectionable - lying, fraud, theft, adultery, doubting the integrity of the moderators.

You do say that Augustine regarded early abortion as "not murder and morally permissible" but you (or whoever you are paraphrasing) may simply be assuming that the latter follows from the former. It doesn't. And my inner sceptic tells me to be reluctant to accept your summary of Augustine's position until I have seen Augustine's words.

Going from "not murder" to "morally acceptable" was a jump that I should not have made and therefore retract my argument completely.

PopePalpatine

Wisconsin looks set to ban "non-emergency" abortions after 20 weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest. https://news.vice.com/article/wisconsin-passes-20-week-abortion-ban-as-scott-walker-preps-for-presidential-bid

Not a NSA agent

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Wisconsin looks set to ban "non-emergency" abortions after 20 weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest. https://news.vice.com/article/wisconsin-passes-20-week-abortion-ban-as-scott-walker-preps-for-presidential-bid

Proponents of the bill believe fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks.

They believe?

QuinDixie

Abortion comes down to 1 issue for me:
Women should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies, and there is no good enough counter argument to challenge this.
when it comes down to it, if an abortion is denied a pregnant woman is placed at an unfair disadvantage and would not only be expected to carry the foetus but society would also demand her to raise the child after birth, thus making the mother unequal to the father regarding life options available to them, educational, income, etc.
Abortion offers the freedom to choose, and wouldn't we all want that.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

QuinDixie wrote: »

Women should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies, and there is no good enough counter argument to challenge this.

apart from when it's not their body...

B9K9

A & A discussing theological positions on a moral /social issue hmmm....

krankykitty

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Wisconsin looks set to ban "non-emergency" abortions after 20 weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest. https://news.vice.com/article/wisconsin-passes-20-week-abortion-ban-as-scott-walker-preps-for-presidential-bid

Do these people even care why abortions are carried out at that term....

Peregrinus

krankykitty wrote: »

Do these people even care why abortions are carried out at that term....

As it happens, not for rape or incest, typically. People who have conceived in those circumstances and who want an abortion don't wait five months to get one.

Late-term abortions are nearly alway tragic cases involving wanted and welcome pregnancies which have developed in heartbreaking ways.

robdonn

Peregrinus wrote: »

As it happens, not for rape or incest, typically. People who have conceived in those circumstances and who want an abortion don't wait five months to get one.

Late-term abortions are nearly alway tragic cases involving wanted and welcome pregnancies which have developed in heartbreaking ways.

That's a generalisation that shouldn't be reflected in law. Rape and incest can carry with them a lot of shame and reluctance to admit the circumstances of a pregnancy or even hide the pregnancy.

robdonn

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

apart from when it's not their body...

And when is it not her body?

robindch

B9K9 wrote: »

A & A discussing theological positions on a moral /social issue hmmm....

Sad thing is that the A+A view is likely to be better-informed concerning religious dogma than anything emanating from the excellent people who claim to be members of the religion concerned.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Sad thing is that the A+A view is likely to be better-informed concerning religious dogma than anything emanating from the excellent people who claim to be members of the religion concerned.

That wouldn't accord with my observations!

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

That wouldn't accord with my observations!

Well, I disagree - even your excellent self has been known to discourse widely and knowledgeably on various strands of christian dogma

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

robdonn wrote: »

And when is it not her body?

When it's the baby's/ foetus'/ clump of cells biologically distinct from the woman carrying it...

robdonn

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

When it's the baby's/ foetus'/ clump of cells biologically distinct from the woman carrying it...

And how do we determine when that is?