Abortion Discussion

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?