Abortion – some facts and history

Abortion became legal in the UK when I was a child – 1967.

I grew up with tales of knitting needles, bottles of gin, and hot baths. The amateur method of choice for pregnant women who didn’t want to give birth, for whatever reason. Their only other alternative was a back-street abortionist who may, or may not, have been a qualified doctor.

As abortion raises temperatures and inspires much rhetoric, much of it from people who seem to want to tell women what to do with their bodies, I thought a look at some history and some facts might be worthwhile. Sources listed below.

History

Firstly, and hardly surprisingly, given the Christian god’s approval of abortion in the Old Testament, records show that the church was not against abortion. Please note, NOT, against abortion.

Do I need to repeat that?

The first references to abortion in English law appeared in the 13th Century. The law followed Church teaching that abortion was acceptable until ‘quickening’, which, it was believed, was when the soul entered the foetus. The legal situation remained like this for centuries.

For the benefit of those slow on maths, the church was accepting abortion in the 1200s. That’s 800 years ago. And, as it was before the Reformation, we are talking the Catholic Church here. So no, Catholic Church, you have not always opposed abortion.

It wasn’t until the nineteenth century that the law surrounding abortion suddenly became much tighter, and women in Great Britain and America found their freedom of access to abortion severely restricted.

In 1803, the Ellenborough Act introduced the death penalty (or transportation) for performing, attempting, or causing an abortion post ‘quickening’.

And by 1837, the act was amended to remove the quickening distinction so all abortions became illegal.

In 1861 performing an abortion or trying to self-abort carried the mere sentence of life imprisonment.

By 1929 a new act was established, making it a crime to kill a viable foetus ie 28 weeks. The law was vague about the position pre 28 weeks.

Thousands of women resorted to back-street abortionists, permanently damaging their health or dying. Newspapers advertised cures for ‘menstrual blockages’, but women knew they were abortifacients. Many of these were ineffective and were also poisonous; one of the cheapest, a lead-based potion, poisoned and blinded many women.

1923-33:

Fifteen per cent of maternal deaths were due to illegal abortion.

“In the thirties, my aunt died self-aborting. She had three children and couldn’t feed a fourth … So she used a knitting needle. She died of septicaemia leaving her children motherless.”

Well, that’s really helpful isn’t it?

On 27 April 1938 a girl of fourteen was raped. She was taken to see Dr Joan Malleson, a member of the medico-legal council of the Abortion Law Reform Association, who contacted a fellow council member, Dr Aleck Bourne, obstetric surgeon to St Mary’s Hospital. He replied:

I shall be delighted to take her in at St. Mary’s and curette her. I have done that before and shall not have the slightest hesitation in doing it again. I have said that the next time I have the opportunity I will write to the Attorney-General and invite him to take action.

On 31 May, the girl was taken to see Dr Bourne by her mother. A letter of consent to the proposed operation was then obtained from her father. Bourne then saw Dr Wingate, a resident obstetric officer at St Mary’s and informed him of his reasons for operating, namely that the girl was under the age of consent and had been raped. On 6 June she was admitted to the hospital. A pregnancy test proved positive.

Don’t you love the small print where a letter of consent was needed from the father? We’ve still got men owning women back in 1938.

More on this:

In a landmark case, Dr. Alex Bourne was acquitted of having performed an illegal abortion. He believed that abortion should be legal in exceptional circumstances and, most courageously, admitted having performed an abortion for a gang-raped 14-year-old who was suicidal. He argued that the law did permit abortion before 28 weeks and did allow abortion when a woman’s mental or physical health was in danger. The court agreed that this was a life-threatening situation and acquitted Dr Bourne. As a result some women were able to get a safe abortion. However, uncertainty remained as a psychiatrist’s approval was needed. It was usually only educated and/or relatively wealthy women who had the resources to find, and pay for, a compliant psychiatrist.

Ironically after aborting the teenager’s child he became a pro-life activist.

But let’s remember this:

In 14 June 1938, Bourne was arrested after performing an operation without fee at St Mary’s Hospital to terminate the pregnancy of six weeks of a 14-year-old girl who had been sexually assaulted by five off-duty British soldiers, officers in the Royal Horse Guards, in a London barracks

Can you imagine that? A 14-year-old raped by five soldiers?

And sexually assaulted? Faulty language there. Try rape. Rape results in pregnancy.

But let’s look at how other women managed:

The most common advice for getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy was gin and a hot bath. Many unmarried pregnant women who knew little of contraceptives knew about the old ‘gin and a hot bath’ remedy. Though many were unclear on how much gin to take, whether or not a hot bath was also required, and whether the gin itself should also be hot. One doctor’s medical advice after confirming a woman’s pregnancy was, ‘have some gin and a hot bath, perhaps try falling down the stairs a few times.’

Some were offered douche cans by their doctors, or acquired them on their own, but the douching failed to bring about miscarriage. Others mentioned knitting needles and crochet hooks, though they did not attempt these methods. Abortifacient suggestions were quietly passed between desperate women, which beyond those mentioned above also included pennyroyal, salts, slippery elm bark, leeches, deliberate injury (such as falling down stairs), caustic soap and syringe.

Then there was slippery elm and the leech. The leech you’d put inside you and then it would attack the womb, and open the womb up, and of course you’d lose the baby then. I know one of my aunties done it.

And anti-abortionists want women to go back to leeches, knitting needles, crochet hooks, hot baths and gin, or throwing themselves down the stairs?

This was the reality of illegal abortions.

In 1967 in the UK, Liberal MP David Steel put forward a private member’s bill to make abortion legal. It was passed. There have been repeated attempts to reduce the time limit but essentially, his bill is still pretty much in place. I remember his bill, and I remember the attempts to change it, trying to influence what could happen to my body. Why was it their business? Why?

Some stats:

In 2014, there were 185,000 abortions, for residents of England and Wales. Plus, another 5,000, mostly from NI. (All figures rounded up/down)

Most abortions were carried out under 13 weeks and medically rather than surgically.

Repeat abortions accounted for 37% of the procedures.

The rate was highest for women aged 22.

Girls under 16 accounted for 2,400 abortions.

Yet, of these approx 700 were to girls aged under 15, and similarly, just more than 700 were to women over 45. Different ends of the spectrum, but both in the same boat.

Eighty per cent of abortions were for single women.

Ethnicity is also recorded. Most abortions were for white women, but for repeat abortions, Black/Black British women accounted for nearly half.

Most repeat abortions were for older women.

image

But let’s move on and look at Europe. From a World Health Organisation Report:

Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia and Ukraine have the highest estimated abortion rates in the world. In 2003 there were more abortions than live births: 103 abortions per 100 births.

Nevertheless, eastern Europe has seen a dramatic decline in abortion incidence. It was estimated to be 90 per 1000 women of childbearing age in 1995 and 44 by 2004. The decrease coincided with substantial increases in contraceptive use in the region.

Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence; women seek desperate measures if they cannot obtain safe abortions. Data from Romania revealed that, when termination of pregnancy was banned by the Ceausescu regime, maternal mortality was more than 20 times higher than today.

Unsafe abortion kills. [my bold] Much has been done to improve abortion services in the Region, but up to 30% of maternal deaths are still caused by unsafe abortion in some countries of eastern Europe and central Asia.

The cost of conducting a safe abortion is up to one tenth of the cost of treating the consequences of an unsafe abortion.

And looking worldwide?

Well Eastern Europe comes out poorly as cited above, Northern/Western Europe does well and:

The abortion rate in the United States declined by 8% between 1996 and 2003 to 21 per 1,000 women, but remained higher, and in some cases substantially higher, than the rates in many Northern and Western European countries. However, within the United States, abortion levels differed widely by racial or ethnic group. In 2000, the abortion rate was 12% among white women, 31% among Hispanic women and 57% among black women.

Here’s an interesting conclusion:

Studies have demonstrated that abortion levels are strongly linked to contraceptive use patterns.

No!!

Blow me down with a feather. I never would have thought it.

http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/history-of-abortion-law-in-the-uk/

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511563683&cid=CBO9780511563683A026&tabName=Chapter&imageExtract=

http://www.motherandbabyhomes.com/#!alternatives/cqcu

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/433437/2014_Commentary__5_.pdf

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/activities/abortion/facts-and-figures-about-abortion-in-the-european-region

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3310607.html

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

And for blogging posts, here’s one from Violet, and yet another lurid one from

David which suggests that the biggest proponent of birth control (Sanger) in America was pro-abortion. Takes all sorts.

Advertisements

About roughseasinthemed

I write about my life as an English person living in Spain and Gibraltar, on Roughseas, subjects range from politics and current developments in Gib to book reviews, cooking and getting on with life. My views and thoughts on a variety of topics - depending on my mood of the day - can be found over on Clouds. A few pix are over on Everypic - although it is not a photoblog. And of course my dog had his own blog, but most of you knew that anyway. Pippadogblog etc
This entry was posted in feminism, Religion and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

263 Responses to Abortion – some facts and history

  1. Hello,
    You didn’t happen to mention Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder. For the record, the Hosea, Numbers, 2 Kings and other references pro-abortion advocates claim are evidence of God being pro-abortion are only evidence of ignorance. Accepting the sovereignty and wrath of God is hard enough for a believer, but non-believers tend to just not get it at all. The potter has every right to do with the clay what he chooses.

    You did touch on the fact that the rape victim in your article became a pro-life advocate. Indeed, Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” of Roe v Wade US Supreme court case found God and became a pro-life advocate working for Operation Rescue. You see many women at pro-life rallies with signs that say “I regret my abortion”. Their thinking moves from believing abortion is the solution to an unplanned pregnancy, to believing that adoption saves the helpless, voiceless infant. What do you think causes this change of heart?

    For your readers, I am the “David” mentioned in the footnote of your article.

    Thanks so much.

    Like

    • john zande says:

      David, the abortion ritual is detailed quite clearly in Numbers 5:11-21, complete with what words should be recited before the poison is given to the woman… the poison that will destroy the foetus.

      How is this not evidence that the Middle Eastern god you worship is Pro-Abortion?

      If your god is pro-abortion, why are you acting against his ways?

      Like

      • I found his religious references and context unintelligible. We could go down the not killing something that isn’t alive road eternally though. Just as we can ignore the need for contraception to avoid abortion. Why not speak up for that instead of endlessly bleating about abortion?

        Liked by 2 people

      • You are wrong. You’ve chosen to defend your wrong ground, and it is a waste of time discussing with you.

        By the way, Holy water is not poison.

        Like

        • john zande says:

          You can call it Holy Water if you like, and I will call it what it is, Poison. The end result is the same, is it not: The foetus is destroyed. A formalised, authorised abortion has been performed, and the entire process is laid out in detail in your scriptures for other’s to reproduce.

          I believe my question is more than valid, David.

          Why are you anti-abortion when the god you worship is so clearly Pro-Abortion?

          I can give 26 separate occasions where foetus’s and/or infants are destroyed in your bible, but you cannot give me one that supports your postilion.

          Liked by 1 person

          • John, explain God’s sovereignty and His wrath to me.

            Liked by 1 person

          • john zande says:

            Unnecessary red herring. The question revolves around you being anti-abortion when the Middle Eastern god you worship is just the opposite: it’s clearly and definitively Pro-Abortion. We even have a formalised ritual for the procedure, recorded in your Bible for use by all when the need so arises. Your Bible, David, includes an abortion manual! You really can’t get a much clearer attestation than that, can you?

            So, the question is: why are you acting against the demonstrated ways of your god? Isn’t the task (the ultimate task) to emulate your god and all he does?

            Like

          • John, I appreciate the time and effort you spent trying to piece-together your response. You are certainly not lazy. Let me share where I think you’re coming up short. You don’t appear to be academically prepared to accept that God gives and takes life according to His sovereign will.

            Every citation you offered makes -0- mention of a voluntary abortion. Hermeneutically, your Hosea is sovereign judgement, 2 Kings, too… Numbers is sovereign Justice for the compound sin of adultery and lying about the paternity of the child. Your entire argument is moot.

            Premeditated taking of any person is murder. We have no right. God does.

            We don’t get to judge Him, and trying to hold the Supreme Being accountable to behave according to our will is the pinnacle of hubris.

            But your effort was good… Let’s get you into a few hermeneutics classes.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Numbers is sovereign Justice for the compound sin of adultery and lying about the paternity of the child.

            That’s interesting. So the foetus is destroyed, aborted by being dowsed in poison, but the mother is permitted to live. So, by what you’re saying, your god kills the foetus (you do use that word, kill, don’t you?) for the “crime” of the mother.

            Interesting angle on “justice”…

            Like

          • I told you you weren’t academically ready to deal with the sovereignty of God. Incidentally, you do realize the chemical compound H2O is what you keep calling poison. Perfectly harmless .. A little dirt added to it.

            The curse was what would cause her to miscarry. Miscarriage was a very sad outcome, hence it was the punishment for adultery.

            You should also give attention to the fact that this is actually a test that proves fidelity of a woman even though her husband has accused her wrongly. If the water doesn’t kill her, she is proven innocent and her husband must accept that judgement as well.

            To me, it looks like a “trial by ordeal”, which was common for millennia. Dirty water doesn’t look like a very threatening ordeal.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            academically ready to deal with the sovereignty of God

            Let’s rephrase that: “academically ready to deal with an invisible, inaudible, thoroughly undetectable being who, apparently, really, really, really, really wants to be known.”

            Please, David, let’s keep this as real as we can, OK.

            Any reason why you ignored what was said in the last comment? By way of an excuse designed to explain the presence of an abortion ritual in your Bible, you said, quite clearly, “Numbers is sovereign Justice for the compound sin of adultery and lying about the paternity of the child.”

            By this statement you are saying the foetus is burned and destroyed by poison (aborted) for the “crime” of the mother.

            Is this “justice” in your eyes?

            And what about the man she slept with? No punishment for him, either? So it’s just the foetus that is “killed.”

            But let’s return to the point of this: Your Bible contains an Abortion Ritual to be carried out by flesh and blood men. We don’t know how many abortions were performed using this method, the book doesn’t say, but as there is no qualifiers anywhere in the Bible we can assume this Abortion Ritual is still to be used today.

            Would you agree with this?

            This being the case, would you, as a theologian, perform this task? Would you administer this poison to an “accused” pregnant woman in the name of your god? If not you, would you agree with this abortion method being carried out by a priest?

            Like

          • You choose to ignore the evidence that the leader of the Human Genome project finds sufficient. The U.S. Has a world renowned neurosurgeon running for president who biopsied every centimeter of the human body and won’t ignore the evidence of God. Pardon me if I don’t find you credible.

            John, Numbers is Mosaic covenant. With Jesus came the New covenant. Never could possibly be in position to administer the duties of an ancient Jewish priest.

            H2O isn’t poison to humans. Kids eat dirt every day without incident.

            And you still haven’t addressed how you plan on making a legitimate academic effort in hermaneutics. Just admit it john – you don’t know and you aren’t qualified to argue the case. Just be honest.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Well, as I have absolutely no idea what you’re even referring to in that first part I’ll just ignore it.

            So Moses’s Law no-longer applies. I see. 😉

            The potion destroys the foetus in the womb, yes?

            Ah, Hermeneutics:

            Liked by 1 person

          • john zande says:

            And David, just so we’re perfectly clear on this: Do you agree, yes or no, that an abortion is being performed in Numbers 5?

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Really, how so?

            Is the pregnancy terminated, yes or no?

            Like

          • I don’t surrender terms of an argument to anyone. Impose “yes or no” on someone else.

            You refuse to acknowledge Gods sovereignty, yet suddenly you admit God exercised His power to selectively take the child of an adulteress while sparing the child of the faithful woman. Admitting you accept God’s power is a good step.

            A sovereign God gives and takes away according to His sovereign will. He also communicates His will to serve as a boundary. Imagine the disasters averted because God makes it known that a secretly unfaithful wife will face trial by ordeal. He also mercifully assures women that if they are falsely accused, the water will not effect them.

            Go into brain surgery or genetics, John. It may help you find God.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            I don’t surrender terms of an argument to anyone. Impose “yes or no” on someone else.

            Naturally, simple answers to simple questions would drastically interfere with the evasive tactics formalised in studied hermeneutics 😉

            You refuse to acknowledge Gods sovereignty, yet suddenly you admit God exercised His power to selectively take the child of an adulteress while sparing the child of the faithful woman.

            Let’s try some evidence first for any god before we start talking about matters of “sovereignty.” And it was you, not me, who raised the issue of “Justice.” Justice, here in your answer, involves killing the foetus for the “crime” of the mother. And let’s not mince words: this is an abortion being carried out by the specific instructions detailed in your holy book. It is an abortion ritual

            As I said, this is an interesting angle on “justice.” But I guess your particular Middle Eastern god enjoys this type of odd-punishment as he kills David’s baby, doesn’t he, for the misdeeds of the father.

            Like

          • A miscarriage

            the expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently, especially spontaneously or as the result of accident.
            “his wife had a miscarriage”
            synonyms: stillbirth, spontaneous abortion
            “she’s had a miscarriage”

            An abortion

            the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
            synonyms: termination, miscarriage
            “her first pregnancy resulted in a spontaneous abortion”

            A simple google search ends your premise.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            An abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

            Precisely! The pregnant woman is brought before the priest who, by the formalised ritual detailed in Numbers 5, administers a poison which unnaturallyaborts the pregnancy. The foetus is “killed” in the womb.

            If the abortion ritual was not carried out the pregnancy would continue, would it not?

            Like

          • You do realize God gives and takes life when and how He chooses. You are contorting yourself mightily for the hope of a distinction without a difference. Hermaneutics John

            Like

          • john zande says:

            So you agree: If the abortion ritual was not carried out the pregnancy would continue quite naturally. Therefore, we have your god performing an abortion on demand.

            How many of these abortions (“killing” the foetus for the “crime” of the mother) do you think Yhwh performed?

            Like

          • Well done, John! You’ve proven to yourself that you have concluded what you have previously concluded. Don’t look at the information I posted. It might dent that airtight information stream running between you and you.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            David, with all your erratic jumping about from one subject to another it’s becoming somewhat difficult (if not impossible) to follow your already baffling stream of thought.

            Do you agree, Yes or No: If the abortion ritual as detailed in Numbers 5 was not carried out then the pregnancy would continue and (provided there were no natural complications) the woman would carry the baby to term.

            David, is this an accurate statement, yes or no.

            I look forward to your uncomplicated answer.

            Like

          • You keep repeating the same question, based upon multiple false premises. I will not answer your question until you frame it properly.

            Yes or no, have you gotten treatment for your kleptomania? A simple yes or no John.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Hi David

            I’m not aware of any false premises. Let’s review the facts, just to see

            1) a woman (suspected of adultery) is dragged before a priest
            2) the priest mixes a potion and administers it (presumably by force) to the woman.
            3) if the woman is pregnant the potion destroys the foetus and the woman miscarriages.

            Here, again, is your published definition of abortion: “An abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.”

            So, that question again:

            Do you agree, Yes or No: If the abortion ritual as detailed in Numbers 5 was not carried out then the pregnancy would continue and (provided there were no natural complications) the woman would carry the baby to term.

            David, is this an accurate statement, yes or no?

            Like

          • David, there’s no reason to accuse John of kleptomania here. You were the one who wanted to be civil, so please back off with silly unfounded accusations.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I’m not good on long words David. Does hermeneutics refer to lies, fiction, fables or what?

            Liked by 1 person

          • There was only a literary demonstration, not an actual accusation. It was the purposeful mis framing of a question to demonstrate the nature of their false premise. Not at all uncivil, but rather an old demonstration. (E.g. “When did you quit beating your wife”)

            On to the definition you asked about.

            her·me·neu·tics
            ˌhərməˈn(y)o͞odiks/
            noun
            the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.

            The Bible is likely the most hermaneutically examined set of books in history. There are several types of poetry, prophecy, wisdom, history, letters of instruction, etc. it was written over 1500 years across 3 continents. I had to take 3 undergraduate and 6 graduate hours in Hermaneutics for my degree plans. Even so, I carefully research reference guides to make sure I’m properly using the text… And it’s my wheelhouse.

            Like

          • Actually, if you had mentioned wife-beating I would have complained about that too given the suggestion of promoting violence against women.

            Sorry, I was being smart asking about hermeneutics, although to be fair, much of history is about interpretation of texts, primary and secondary sources, remaining artefacts etc, so I see little difference, just that biblical interpretation gets a ‘special’ name.

            As a broad principle, the ability to interpret history and archaeology isn’t isolated to the bible. Luckily my first degree stuck to fact, not fiction. Indeed my first university essay was about the degree of propaganda perpetuated by Augustus through whatever means.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Well put. Perception is, to some extent, reality. I find it interesting that there are quite a few archaeologists and historians that find the Bible to be remarkably accurate as an historical document. It is actually fascinating, if you’re willing to look at it. This is just the top 10 findings of 2014… they have other reports form 2013 and before in uniform fashion.

            http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/december-web-only/biblical-archaeologys-top-ten-discoveries-of-2014.html

            Liked by 1 person

          • I’d argue that they merely use it as one of their historical (and inaccurate sources). Whatever, the link was interesting. I was mostly fascinated with the one about olive oil though! Why would olive oil not have been part of a staple diet? And C7 BC? Isn’t that getting a bit close to the earth being only 6000 years old? I’m not up on creationism so I may have that wrong.

            I’m always interested in archaeology though 🙂 just without the Christian slant 😉

            Liked by 1 person

          • tildeb says:

            Biblical archaeology is so darned good that what has been missed is really quite trivial… like missing any archaeological evidence for any exodus, no evidence for a global flood, no evidence for a founding couple, no evidence for Jesus’ ‘miracles’, and so on (why do I sense a disturbance in the Force as I feel John Z starts to get ramped up here?). Other than these paltry absences of evidence, we find by comparing and contrasting the quality of the evidence to be far less convincing than what we find for Harry Potter’s world. Now that is much, much stronger.

            Liked by 3 people

          • It is interesting, but as I never studied it, apart from Constantine, I’m a mere spectator in this field. Archaeology, like science and history, and even use of language, are all constantly changing. Nightmare trying to keep up with current thinking though. That’s why John is so useful 🙂 people like him and Victoria NN and Ruth are great for these discussions.

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            Yes, they are treasures.

            It makes me chuckle whenever some believer goes along with the party line – a rather ignorant position, it turns out – and states with a fair degree of confidence that those who don’t believe as they do fail to believe out of ignorance when it is my experience that the opposite is usually the case.

            I know far too many people who went into seminary and religious studies as earnest believers only to come out the other side as knowledgeable non believers. There seems to be a very strong correlation between ignorance and religious belief. Funny, that.

            Knowledge, not faith, is what justifies the merit of opinions (in my opinion!) and informs by practical value the level of confidence they deserve. I increase my own knowledge base by reading knowledgeable commentary and posts by people like John and Victoria and Ruth and this is enhanced when they take on those who presume they are incorrect or misguided. But for this to happen requires places to congregate and discuss and so less knowledgeable people like thee and me play our valuable part, too, providing impetus to get the talking underway.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I’m happy to contribute with my ignorance and let the others move the debate on, as they do. Sometimes, it needs the uninformed to kickstart things. Yet, while I can’t manage bible studies, I can do basic hist/arch, so the combination works ok with everyone’s input 🙂

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Tomb of St. Stephen

            So? Is anyone doubting there weren’t early Christians?

            Theater of Smyrna [corrected]

            Um, yes. The Bible mentions many real places and people. Historical fiction doesn’t mean “fairy tale.” Post-Babylonian captivity sees the book become quite a good historical source. This is common knowledge.

            Tablet that said the ark was round

            Yes, a Sumerian story of a localised flood which the tablets discoverer labeled as “The Ark Before Noah.” Didn’t the error-free bible describe the ark as rectangular?

            Olive oil from 8,000 years ago

            Ooops, there goes Young Earth Creationism!

            Rosh Ha`Ayin farmhouse

            Errm, great. Important, why?

            Temple at Tel Burna

            Errm, great. Important, why?

            Stone rejected by the builders and Western Wall coins

            You couldn’t get a more ridiculous suggestion.

            Sheshonq’s scarab

            Um, yes. Again, the Bible mentions many real places and people. Historical fiction doesn’t mean “fairy tale.”

            Khirbet Summeily bullae

            Possible evidence for the United Kingdom. Deserves to be looked at. Whether there existed a United Kingdom is, in fact, the only area in biblical archeology where there still exists a live and active debate.

            Herod’s Gate at Herodium

            Again, yes. The Bible mentions many real places and people. Historical fiction doesn’t mean “fairy tale.”

            Sorry David, but if you meant to impress, you failed miserably. Do you even know anything about biblical archaeology?

            Liked by 1 person

          • Have a great night, John.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            You too. But I would like to know if you actually know anything about the contemporary state of biblical archaeology. Your comment and link was baffling. If you think the archaeological efforts of the last 100 years (efforts started by Christians) support your religion then you’re wildly, wildly mistaken. Archaeology has ruined the Jewish origin tale as detailed in the Tanakh. As Christianity Today’s Kevin D. Miller to conceded in 1998:

            “The fact is that not one shred of direct archaeological evidence has been found for Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob or the 400-plus years the children of Israel sojourned in Egypt. The same is true for their miraculous exodus from slavery.”

            Just so you know, the only area where there is still a live debate regarding biblical archaeology is whether or not Judah had an urban society in the 9th Century BCE, which relates to the narrative concerning the United Kingdom. That’s it. That’s all there is. The Patriarchs, Egypt, Moses, Exodus and Conquest are dead subjects in the field of serious archaeology. They were dismissed as myth over two generations ago, and nothing has changed in that time to alter this consensus. As Israel’s oldest daily Newspaper, Hareetz, announced recently:

            Currently there is broad agreement among archaeologists and Bible scholars that there is no historical basis for the narratives of the Patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan, nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.

            That last sentence is important: “Nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.”

            And just to make this point perfectly clear, in 1998, the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), the primary American professional body for archaeologists working in the Middle East, changed the name of its magazine from >Biblical Archaeologist to Near Eastern Archaeology… a change made simply because the bible had been determined to be (beyond all doubt) an entirely unreliable historical source to direct research into the early Jews, pre-Babylonian captivity.

            With these facts in mind, the question left facing you and all Evangelicals is this: Why did Jesus by name Moses and Abraham as real historical characters? How did Jesus blunder so terribly by not knowing basic regional history?

            Like

          • Not my wheelhouse, John. I’m aware of it, and availed it to the host of this blog.

            Liked by 1 person

          • john zande says:

            If you know nothing about it, why then did you even post that link?

            100 years of detailed archaeology has proven the Tanakh to be historical fiction. None of the stories happened. There was no Abraham, no Moses, no Exodus, and certainly no Conquest.

            It appeared by your comment that you were trying to paint the picture that somehow archaeology was proving the bible.

            Like

          • I’m glad you tagged my response post. I’ve been wanting to broach a topic with you. But first let’s deal with your question as to the efficacy and validity of Christian archaeology.

            I would imagine it likely does. I repeat, I was aware of it and availed it to the blog author. It is not my wheelhouse, so I freely assert no expertise in Christian archaeology. My fields are in the application-based: counseling, teaching. preaching, biblical interpretation, etc.

            Now, on to an observation I’ve had watching your behavior for several weeks. Unlike the overwhelming majority of atheism advocates, you vigorously pursue articles that don’t agree with atheism. You work several arguments on multiple blog sites simultaneously. You offer excessively long response postings. You obsessively needle and goad, begging authors with opposing opinions to engage you in an argument. You exhibit these behaviors constantly, day after day. Your behavior is indicative of an obsessive-compulsive disorder.

            John, please don’t read my message as an argument tactic. It absolute is not. It is sincere, and a genuine concern for your health. Obsessive disorders really do call for professional help. I see many obsessives try to self-treat, only to find they are playing “whack a mole” with their disorder – they stop one manifestation, only to find a new manifestation injuring another place in their life.

            John, I sincerely believe you should reach to a qualified counselor. Watch your own behavior. Journal what you are doing, and print out your comments and stack them up in your workspace. After a week, review your journal and stack of responses. You’ll probably discover that it was much more activity than you recognized.

            Be well!

            Like

          • john zande says:

            That’s interesting, David.

            Unfortunately, your comment holds no water at it was you, not me, who brought up archaeology. You are upset, and probably a little embarrassed, to which I can understand. The problem is, though, I don’t make the facts. As Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine so eloquently it: “Facts are facts. They are enormously discourteous.”

            Don’t be cranky at facts, David. If you want to play, then you will have to confront “facts.”

            Like

          • David, please don’t offer amateur psych counselling on my blog. I know it happens on a lot of blogs, but I would prefer to keep it off mine. It’s personal, and it’s making assertions about the state of someone’s mental health.
            For me, John offers long comments because he has a wealth of knowledge about the subject. I sometimes write long comments, but they are unlikely to be so specific.
            If lengthy comments are an indication of state of mind, than you could probably include me too.
            In general terms, a number of atheists visit Christian blogs and vice versa. Probably more of the first than the second. I won’t go into the reasons for that, or this comment will be too long.
            If you wish to end your discussion with John, that’s fine, but please not on those lines. You have each other’s emails so I suggest anything like that should be taken to email. Many thanks.

            Like

          • Didn’t see this on my desktop . Sorry no response. You are absolute right about atheist visitation to Christian sites. I usually reciprocal if followed or linked. I wasn’t kidding about John. But if you don want my comments, that’s fine. I just don’t comment with someone else imposing a filter. All the best to you 😊

            Liked by 1 person

          • tildeb says:

            Your behavior is indicative of an obsessive-compulsive disorder.

            Thank you for that good belly laugh, David.

            John is so sane in his writing (I can’t attest to his personal life) that this attack is novel… and a very funny one because it’s so bizarre. That he keeps his questions simple and straightforward defending the ludicrous and very often deeply ignorant claims of believers – especially aimed at maligning the character of those who do not believe in woo – and doesn’t get sidetracked by those who seek to divert him (unlike so many of us) is hardly ‘obsessive’; it’s very rational and disciplined and I envy his ability to stay on track with a question that usually skewers the poor quality of claims he is responding to. That others fail to answer them in an equally straightforward and rational manner is hardly reason for John to seek counselling! May I suggest that perhaps you are projecting… especially with the hilarious notion of ‘begging’?

            Methinks thou givest thy game away when thou dost protest too much.

            And look, you’ve hurt my feelings: if anyone is going to be accused of leaving long comments it’s me. John is brief by comparison… unless he’s been asked or invited to explain something, in which case just sit back, relax, read, and learn. Most importantly, think about what he’s saying. It might be a novel experience for you to <i.seriously consider what an atheist actually thinks, how it is arrived at, and why the opinion is held with confidence. What he usually offers is a benefit of knowledge free of charge. You can’t beat that price. Assuming his motives are irrational really is very foolish.

            Liked by 2 people

          • No worries, we all have lives.

            I don’t filter. I will moderate or hold in limbo, but normally I try and avoid that.

            What I don’t like is suggestions that commenters need to go and have some sort of mental health treatment because they disagree with each other.

            It’s rude, but you are all adults. However my main gripe is that I think it’s discriminatory to people who may genuinely have OCD, or whatever else. It’s unfair to drag a serious health problem down to the level of a blog disagreement.

            And, I complained to Pink/Mr M when he made a similar comment regarding special needs, so hopefully I’m not hugely biased.

            You can all handle the insults. Other people aren’t in such a fortunate position. That was the point of my complaint.

            Otherwise, if you have anything further to say to John regarding archaeology, please do. I, like tildeb, I suspect, have found your exchange interesting. If not, thanks for visiting and discussing, David. 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

          • Thanks for that commentary John. It’s really interesting. About the only one I could work out on my own was olive oil! Have you done a secret archaeology degree? I tell you Roman Britain was much easier thirty odd years ago. No contention, just admiring nice ruins and mosaics …

            Like

          • john zande says:

            I wouldn’t have the patience 🙂 Just the product of 3 years interviewing the world’s leading biblical archaeologists (most of them Israeli’s) and the leaders of all Jewish movements. I subscribe to all the journals (the “real” journals, that is, not the vanity-press evangelical magazines masquerading as real journals) and still chat quite regularly with Dr Erez Ben-Yosef who’s a minor star in the field of Israeli archaeology. Nice bloke.

            Like

          • David thanks for commenting on here. I’m not sure John admitted anything, be that as it may.

            More importantly, one doesn’t look for something that isn’t there. And to me, certainly, there is no Christian god, or indeed any other God.

            And the last thing I want, is someone imposing their crazy fantasy life on mine.

            Whether that’s about abortion, SSM, homosexuality, chastity, etc. in fact it’s all about sex really isn’t it?

            Liked by 2 people

          • I want to share with you how I appreciate your willingness to discuss these delicate topics in a civil way. Thank you.

            I also want to better inform you about how thoughtful and mainstream Christianity is. The list of astoundingly brilliant scientists who are Christian might give a thinking person pause to reconsider an atheistic position. Here is just a very small list:

            Arthur Compton died 1962 Nobel Prize in physics

            Victor Francis Hess 1936 Nobel prize for discovering cosmic rays

            John Boyd or died 1971 Scottish doctor received Nobel prize for nutrition research

            Wernher von Braun died 1977 one of the most important rocket developers of space exploration

            Mary Kenneth Keller first woman to earn a PhD in computer science in the US

            Neville Francis Mott Nobel prize winning physicist explain the effect of light on photographic emulsion

            Mary Celine fasten Meyer mathematician co-authored the study of WZ theory

            Joseph Murray surgeon who pioneered transplant surgery and won the Nobel Prize in 1990

            Charles Towne’s won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1964

            Dr. Ben Carson neurosurgeon first to successfully separate conjoined twins joined at the head

            Francis Collins led the human genome research institute

            Brian Kobilka a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry 2012

            Gerhard Ertl 2007 Nobel prize winner in chemistry

            I’m not crazy about Wiki, but their list is very well informed, and very, very long… All Christians

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

            Thanks again for hosting the discussion.

            Liked by 1 person

          • tildeb says:

            Even after my comment about priests and pedophilia, you’re still going with this line of reasoning.

            Astounding!

            You assume thoughtful and mainstream Christianity helps to produce astoundingly brilliant scientists.

            Is this true?

            Well, we already know that about 90% of scientists at the most prestigious universities are atheists so how does that fit?

            It doesn’t.

            Uh oh…

            Let me explain (you should have learned this in First Year at any normal university but obviously did not): epistemology determines ontology; because your reasoning is flawed (that’s the epistimelogical portion) your conclusion is wrong (that’s the ontology part). Because you have not linked the brilliance of scientists to their religious beliefs, you have nothing here but your assumption that such a link is there. You believe your assumption. That’s not good reasoning, David. The academic quality of your conclusions pays the price for your sloppiness of thinking. Your religious epistemology – and not an independent and unbiased reality – produces your religious ontology.

            Liked by 2 people

          • If you’re trying to explain that theology is not philosophy, we would be in agreement. You’re trying to paint your picture in the Key of G… The pathology of each is incongruous with the other. In theology, the metaphysics of being are already settled. In this case, your argument then, is that because philosophy is not postured to define theology, philosophy has grounds to dismiss theology. I would submit that philosophy is ill-equipped to form a complete ontological conclusion.

            And I’m not at all sure why you brought epidemiology into the discussion.

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            Did I actually write “epidemiological”? Wow. My bad. I meant epistemological, of course.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I was working on, maybe the epistemological process was “infected” … But I suspected typo.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Lol. I’ve fixed the typo though. We all do it, and can’t adjust after the event 😦

            Liked by 1 person

          • Fixed! Although I read epidemiological naturally as I’m more familiar with that 😀

            Liked by 1 person

          • People are very welcome to discuss topics on here so long as they don’t overstep the mark on any discrimination, and that applies to everyone, whether they have a religion or not.

            As for Nobel Prize winners, makes no difference to me. Each to their own as to what helps them in life. Note, each to their own, and not interfering in the lives of others.

            Like

          • You bring up such an important point. If Christians are anything, they are people that don’t seem to mind offending each other. Notice I said that it runs both directions.

            I would hope Christians wouldn’t try to force their religion on you, but I suspect we do. Highlighting where we disagree is one thing, but sticking coercive conversion at someone is contrary to what Jesus taught. Free will is an absolute necessity to accept or reject God. I fully respect you and your decision.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Thanks David, appreciate you remaining civil throughout. Not easy on an emotive topic when we come from different points of view.

            I think there is a difference between Christians trying to force their religion on me, which is tbh seriously impossible, and just generally spouting the usual.
            I am always happy to discuss, but at some point we will always have to agree to disagree.

            Liked by 1 person

          • tildeb says:

            David advises JZ to Go into brain surgery or genetics, John. It may help you find God (as if this a good thing). This is because creationist neurosurgeon Carson is running for president and Francis Collins who heads up the National Institute of Health is a born again Christian. David links their pursuits with ‘finding’ god as if the one causes the other… or at least links to it as if perfect compatible.

            So let’s use the identical reasoning with Catholic priests who rape children, shall we? “Go into the priesthood, John. It may help you find pedophilia.” That must be a good thing, right? After all, David assumes the one causes the other… or at least links to it as if perfectly compatible.

            Good grief.

            Remember, this is a guy who proudly advertises that he has been taught how to think this way – what he thinks is ‘scholarly’ – by graduating from Liberty University: an evangelical christian university founded by that towering giant of an intellect Jerry Falwell. Its motto reveals its method and it ain’t scholarly: training champions for Christ. This is David’s mission – to be a champion armed by his religious belief – and it has nothing to do with thinking well, which is why we get this ‘zinger’ from him aimed at John but hitting David squarely between the ears: he just doesn’t know it because he can’t think well. That link between the religious ‘training’ of the mind and an inability to think clearly and critically really can be shown to ubiquitous. David, it turns out, is a champion… of exactly this poisonous causal effect.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Somehow I don’t see JZ as wanting to ally himself with such people.

            The US education system beats me. They glorify everything. They probably graduate from primary school. The only graduation I knew was from university after my degree. But graduating from school? Weird. I left school with a handful of certificates. And then, I find that half the universities in the US are religious! WTF? That is not an objective university aimed at teaching students impartial information. It’s sheer indoctrination. See Liberty, and think, groan. Not another.

            I know people who are now atheist and they still graduated from seminaries years back. American university education lacks something. And don’t start me on the fees!!

            Liked by 2 people

          • tildeb says:

            It takes a certain kind of person to go through seminary and not come out the other side a full blown atheist.

            Liked by 3 people

          • john zande says:

            Tildeb

            If you haven’t already seen this, it’s good. It’s the New England Journal of Medicine’s statement on the recent PP “video” farce. Frames everything, and the history of the matter, very, very well

            http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1510279#t=article

            Liked by 1 person

          • john zande says:

            Liberty University: an evangelical christian university founded by that towering giant of an intellect Jerry Falwell.

            It was just a baptist bible school before American’s went insane and reduced “their” the standard of what is called a “university.” The rest of the world, thank fully, still respects the word and awards it appropriately to deserving institutions of “higher learning.”

            Liked by 1 person

          • Well the UK did make all the polys into unis to save people being stigmatised by not having a ‘proper’ degree. But they were still not religious drivel.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            What’s “polls”?

            In Oz (in the early 90’s) many Institutes of Technology were upgraded to University status, but they had to meet the required standard.

            Appears American’ threw their standards out the window. A bible school is to “university” as Dr. Pepper is to “medicine.” 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

          • Predictive text. Polys. Sorry, missed that one. Sounds like Aus did the same. There were a couple hot polys though, North London, and what is now Oxford Brooke’s.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I’m not at all isolated, and dismissing disciplines you don’t understand actually isolates you. The list of brilliant, distinguished scientists who are Christian is very long and chocked full of Nobel Prizes. Before you attack me, you might want to check your own “superior intellect” against some simple Wikipedia

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

            Like

          • Jim says:

            John,

            Can you supply at least some of them for me? I read the Numbers passage you referenced in several different translations and it didn’t seem to be talking about abortion.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Hi Jim

            In Numbers 5:11-21 a bizarre and abusive ritual is described which is to be performed by a priest on any woman suspected of adultery; a ritual which results in an abortion. In the text a potion is mixed and the accused woman is brought before the priest who says, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.”

            As clear as day this is a definitive description of an induced abortion; an act where poison is forcibly given to ruin the foetus and rid a woman of another man’s child.

            Like

          • Jim says:

            Hi John,
            I wonder what translation you cited? The ones I looked at translate the passage in a different way, and wouldn’t lead me to the same conclusion. But you said you had 26 occasion in the Bible dealing with this. I googled it and I couldn’t find any. I don’t doubt that you have access to 26, I am hoping you can point me in the right direction so I can check it out.

            Numbers 5:21-22 New King James Version (NKJV)
            21 then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman—“the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh rot and your belly swell; 22 and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make your belly swell and your thigh rot.”
            ‘Then the woman shall say, “Amen, so be it.”

            Numbers 5:21-22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
            21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [a]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

            Numbers 5:21-22 Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
            21 (then the priest hath caused the woman to swear with an oath of execration, and the priest hath said to the woman) — Jehovah doth give thee for an execration, and for a curse, in the midst of thy people, in Jehovah’s giving thy thigh to fall, and thy belly to swell,
            22 and these waters which cause the curse have gone into thy bowels, to cause the belly to swell, and the thigh to fall; and the woman hath said, Amen, Amen.

            Numbers 5:21-22 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
            18-22 Next, he will remove her veil, then hand her the barley offering, and say, “If you have been faithful to your husband, this water won’t harm you. But if you have been unfaithful, it will bring down the Lord’s curse—you will never be able to give birth to a child, and everyone will curse your name.”
            Then the woman will answer, “If I am guilty, let it happen just as you say.”

            Numbers 5:21-22 New Living Translation (NLT)
            21 “At this point the priest must put the woman under oath by saying, ‘May the people know that the Lord’s curse is upon you when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel[a] and your abdomen to swell. 22 Now may this water that brings the curse enter your body and cause your abdomen to swell and your womb to shrivel.[b]’ And the woman will be required to say, ‘Yes, let it be so.’

            Like

          • Jim says:

            Hi John,

            Thanks! The Biblehub link is a good one! Out of the 19 translations cited only one seems to translate the word “thigh” as womb. I looked at the NIV translation I have on my bookcase and that 1978 version uses the same word, thigh. I find that odd.

            I think we would all agree that ones thigh is located in a different area than the womb. I think a little more research on the passage is in order because it certainly doesn’t look as clear as day that what is taking place is an induced abortion and it isn’t really clear what they are talking about!

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Hi Jim,

            I think it’s quite clear. “Miscarry” leaves no room for doubt.

            Like

          • Jim says:

            Well, there are two words being used in that passage. One translated by the majority of translators as “thigh” and the NIV and the NLT using “womb”. The other word is translated variously as rot, shrivel, fall away and things like that. The newer NIV translates this as “miscarry” which is quite a bit different.

            The NLT you cited in the Biblehub link says:

            ‘May the people know that the LORD’s curse is upon you when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel and your abdomen to swell.”

            Being made infertile is very different than being made to miscarry. Which translation does one choose?

            Since most translators translate this differently than the NIV I would give more weight to their understanding of the passage rather than the NIV. To understand what is really being talked about here requires delving into the original Hebrew words to find out what they mean.

            Now, perhaps the NIV is right and all the other translators are wrong and that WOULD support your claim. I just don’t think it is as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Jim,

            The woman is accused of adultery. She is dragged before the priest who administers a poison potion. If she is “guilty” the pregnancy is terminated… the foetus aborted by unnatural means, ie. the potion.

            It’s clear.

            Like

          • Jim, thanks for commenting. Over on John’s blog, he did list some of the biblical examples:

            Nowhere in the bible does it outlaw abortion. In fact, if you actually read the bible you’d see that the Middle Eastern god Christians worship is quite definitively pro-abortion, personally and passionately performing many terminations and ordering countless more.

            In Hosea 9:11-16, the son of Beeri prays for his god to intervene in earthly affairs and wreak havoc on the unborn of an entire population. “Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts… Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” To paraphrase, Hosea pleads that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children, to which the Christian god dutifully obeys and makes all their unborn children miscarry. Now, terminating a pregnancy unnaturally is unmistakably what we today call an abortion.

            In Hosea 13:16 the Christian god is utterly diabolical as he dashes to “pieces” the infants of Samaria and orders “their pregnant women [to be] ripped open by swords.” This, self-evidently, describes mass abortions of such barbarity that it’s hard to even fathom.

            In Numbers 5:11-21 a bizarre and abusive ritual is described which is to be performed by a priest on any woman suspected of adultery; a ritual which results in an abortion. In the text a potion is mixed and the accused woman is brought before the priest who says, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.” As clear as day this is a definitive description of an induced abortion; an act where poison is forcibly given to ruin the foetus and rid a woman of another man’s child.

            In Numbers 31:17 Moses commands “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words, kill all women that are or could be pregnant, which is plainly abortion for the foetus.

            In 2 Kings 15:16 the Christian god again orders pregnant women to be “ripped open,” which is both abortion and homicide on a mass scale. “At that time Menahem destroyed the town of Tappuah and all the surrounding countryside as far as Tirzah, because its citizens refused to surrender. He killed the entire population and ripped open the pregnant women.”

            In total there are in fact twenty-six separate instances where this Middle Eastern god performs abortions on demand, conducts infanticide (the intentional killing of newborns), and murders toddlers en masse; acts recounted from 1 Samuel 15:3 to Isaiah 13:15-18 where this god not only smashes babies to death but also orders the rape of their mothers. In a word the Christian god is a heinous baby-killing, foetus-destroying monster, and as it turns out his son is also no friend of the unborn. In the Gospel of the Egyptians Jesus not only demands total abstinence but preaches for the outright separation of the sexes, stating that “sorrow” and what he repeatedly calls “error” will remain with man for just “As long as women bear children.” The statement is quite explicit: don’t ever get pregnant, and if you do then abortion is better than birth.

            https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/the-lies-evangelicals-tell/

            I rely on others for biblical references. 🙂 My knowledge of religion tends to be about how it’s impacted on social and political history, rather than wading through the detail of a dubious book of myths. I tend to prefer authenticated facts.

            Like

          • Jim says:

            Thanks Roughseas, that is exactly what I was looking for!

            Liked by 1 person

          • You’re welcome. And all credit to John for having the energy and interest to do what I’m too idle to!

            Like

    • I didn’t mention Exodus because I pointed out I was dealing with history and facts. Not fiction.

      No, I mentioned the medic who carried out the abortion on the 14-year-old who was gang raped became a pro-life activist ie anti-abortionist.

      Thanks for your comment David. It’s still not your call to say whether women can abort or not.

      Liked by 1 person

    • pinkagendist says:

      Just so you know abortion doesn’t hinge exclusively on Roe v Wade. After all, America is just one country. In modern time abortion has been legal in various countries since the first quarter of the 20th century. By the 30’s it was already legal in Iceland and Sweden.
      Just so we’re clear those are both countries that according to your own religious standards are much more moral than your own. They have lower crime rates, lower violence rates, lower drug use rates, lower prostitution rates- and even funnily enough lower abortion rates!!!
      You know why? Because real social morality depends heavily on respecting the rights and autonomy of citizens, and as odd as it may seem to you, women are full fledged citizens. Anything living in their body, until it can walk and feed itself is a parasite, like a tapeworm. The day Christian men find a way to gestate, I’m sure many women considering abortion will happily agree to foetal transplants to your bodies.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You may have noticed I referred to the U.S. Supreme Court case. My comment concerned regret of abortions and a complete change of heart having one. No idea what inspired the nationalist rant. Countries aren’t moral. Morality is a God-given conviction in the heart of the individual. People deny it, reject it or spin it, but biblically speaking it is a God-given gift.

        Like

        • pinkagendist says:

          Morality, ethics and its study predate your religion. They exist independently of your religion.
          What religious groups (wrongly) call morality is actually just their dogma.

          Like

          • God is the uncaused cause. Nothing predates him.

            Like

          • Are you a special needs person? Do you not get the utter stupidity of what you’re saying? You think the god of your religion created the world so only 30% of the people on the planet would follow him? Is he a masochist or something? Does the number alone not seem odd to you?
            The uncaused cause? Seriously? Did you get that off of an Evangelical pamphlet distributed in a trailer-park?

            Liked by 1 person

          • Now that isn’t fair. I am going to be Violetish and complain about the special needs reference. It’s not unfair to David but it is unfair to people with special needs.

            And as to David’s comment. This sounds like the age old ‘who created God’ argument. And as God doesn’t exist in my tiny world, I really don’t give two hoots.

            David, some of us work out morality on our own. We don’t need the rule book. We have a brain. Maybe you do too.

            Like

          • My sincere apologies to all the special needs people whose images were tarnished by being compared to someone who is evidently just a religious fool.

            Liked by 1 person

          • That’s totally fine 🙂 I’m cool with that. Because some people have genuine problems. Others are just … in your words, fools.

            Like

        • Nationalist rant? Just that the world doesn’t revolve around America?

          Not everyone talks bible speak. Some of us are grown up and can work out morality all by our little selves.

          Liked by 2 people

          • I was agreeing that I am well aware of the perception that most Americans think the world circles around the U.S. Not all of us think that way.

            At one time I was agnostic and I would have agreed with your position on morality.

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            At one time I was agnostic and I would have agreed with your position on morality… and then you stopped thinking, got religion (probably as a condition for long term access to sex), and now feel perfectly justified maligning the character of others based on whether or not they believe as you do. That’s you being moral. I can think of better terms.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Before you take that position you may want to look at the background on my site.

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            Read it. Supports my opinion. You’ve stopped thinking. You malign others. You pretend your revelation is a reasonable one.

            Au contraire. (love the line about when you used to worship science)

            And Liberty? Good grief; I guess that’s an improvement over Cedarville University (get this: an accredited creation-based geology degree program!!!!!) … but barely.

            As for seminary, if you could think critically (which is what obtaining a university degree program is supposed to represent), you’d realize what you’re studying is a subject that has no object. That’s why anyone can fill in whatever causal claims in woo he or she wants and go to town. By calling this program ‘Seminary’ it masquerades as an equivalent academic undertaking without any actual academic rigor enforced.

            Welcome to Wooville where the truth is truth as long as it’s revealed and believed.

            Liked by 4 people

  2. violetwisp says:

    Really interesting post. I didn’t realise abortion was happily accepted for most of the history of Christianity. They must think their god isn’t very good at relaying important messages.

    Like

  3. Pingback: a challenge for christians: the moral argument against abortion | violetwisp

  4. john zande says:

    I second Violets observation: thoroughly educational. This is a keeper.

    Like

  5. Pingback: Miscarriage is Murder | Amusing Nonsense

  6. tildeb says:

    Thanks for this, Roughseas. Both useful and enlightening.

    Like

    • It seemed time for a few facts. Rather than rhetoric. And obv Brit law applied across the empire at the time, so pre C19 women in the English speaking world had easy access to abortion. We could ask what changed in the C19? And in the UK why did it take more than 150 years to revert back? And, why is America even more restrictive?

      Women had less economic and social rights, but more bodily autonomy. Weird!!

      Like

  7. I feel sick to my stomach reading this. Fundies care more about potential human cells than they do about the health and well-being of actual humans.

    Liked by 3 people

    • They probably don’t care about either. Just like SSM. They care about making a point 😦

      But it’s interesting that some 200 years ago women had pretty good abortion rights. No vote, or anything like that although rich women, like all rich people were ok. So what’s changed in 200 years that people (men) feel the need to interfere with women’s bodies? Uppity women? Too much religion? I’d need to look much deeper but I am puzzled.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yeah, I truly hadn’t realized that. For all our progress, we have definitely taken steps back.

        Like

        • It applies to all of us. I found it interesting digging around and putting some facts and stats around the talk. Amazed to find women had pretty unrestricted abortions (not sure how, that would be interesting) 200+ years ago.

          I suppose the question is, do women still need them. My answer would be yes.

          Liked by 1 person

  8. EllaDee says:

    Your research and post is very well done, of course. But still engenders a “legal but immoral” comment. FFS. That gets even my live-and-let-live blood pressure up. We could all find something to make a stand against on that basis. Which is fine, I have no problem with personal stances. Nor do I have a problem with personal decisions. But I object to people whose business it’s not interfering in them.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. pinkagendist says:

    I hope you don’t mind if I make a tiny, pedantic sidenote. Pope Sixtus prohibited abortion in any form. Gregorius who followed him went back to the animatus/inanimatus concept. That’s in the 16th century. Other than that your timeline is perfect 😀

    Like

  10. I think you have made a grave logical error in stating:

    And anti-abortionists want women to go back to leeches, knitting needles, crochet hooks, hot baths and gin, or throwing themselves down the stairs?/

    As an anti-abortionist, I can certainly say that I do not want women to resort to those methods of abortion, period. However, I do find it interesting that it’s the “pro-choice” side that says women should not have the freedom to choose those methods to terminate their pregnancy, I mean, it seems a little contradictory?

    As an anti-abortionist, I find it vitally necessary to educate men and women regarding pregnancy and prevention methods. Much like the pro-abortionist side. I care deeply for the life of the woman and the life of the child that is being affected. But I find it alarming that in countries as developed as the United States or in Europe that abortion is still as prevalent as it is

    It seems, however, the argument is that abortion is “unavoidable” regardless of whether there is a safe “legal” option or not. But is it? I mean, in our day and age, we cannot do more to work towards developing an alternative to get rid of the necessity of abortion? That we would rather stay fixed in such an old way of thinking to allow abortions to continue?

    Like

    • Interesting. So you’re a supporter of access to birth control and also sex education, I presume.

      Like

    • If abortion is illegal, then women resort to whatever method they can to induce an abortion. Hence abortion in the UK was legalised because of the significant numbers of deaths caused by illegal abortion.

      If abortion is legal, then women don’t need to grab the crochet hook, the knitting needle and the gin bottle. Or the leeches. They use the NHS.

      I can’t see why anyone would want an abortion. I certainly wouldn’t. But, this is why contraception should be freely available, easily accessible, and, let’s be honest, vasectomies should also be cheap/free.

      And if we change the way we view women as breeders of children, then yes, abortions may not be necessary.

      Like

      • Your argument is assumptive in nature. We have no evidence that in developed countries the rate at which unsafe abortions occur would increase from the present if abortion would become illegal.

        Access to contraception and medical procedures to reduce the chances of getting pregnant is a quite different discussion than abortion. One that should be had without people supporting abortion. It amazes me that people just “accept abortion as necessary” and don’t truly want to find a way or have discussions to eliminate abortion (safe and unsafe) entirely. I believe that should be the actual discussion that takes place, what steps can we take to eliminate abortion?

        Like

        • Well, those who don’t learn from their history and all that …

          No, we can’t see into a hypothetical future, that hopefully won’t happen. However, it is reasonable to look at examples from history that show making something illegal doesn’t stop it happening, eg drinking and prohibition, drugs, aspects of sex work. All these continue regardless of whether or not they are legal.

          Women have fought long and hard for the right to bodily autonomy and accessible contraception, and, where necessary safe, legal, abortion.

          It’s not your call. You can’t get pregnant. You won’t ever be in that position. Leave it to the individual concerned to decide instead of interfering in something that has nothing to do with you.

          There will always be a need for abortion, in extreme and tragic cases why should women who have been raped, raped through incest, or whose lives are in danger be forced to carry to term because of your beliefs in a non-existent deity. We are talking about real people, women who don’t want to be pregnant, but for whatever reason are. This isn’t something to be discussed over a bible study meeting. It’s real life, and often for women who can’t afford to feed another mouth.

          Your aim would merely drive it underground and drag society back hundreds of years.

          Like

          • Arkenaten says:

            Re:legality.illegality. Drugs across the board we decriminalized in Portugal a while back and he positive effects have been astounding.

            Access to contraception and medical procedures to reduce the chances of getting pregnant is a quite different discussion than abortion.

            What the hell is this dickhead blathering on about? How can they be a different discussion?
            That’s like saying a discussion on cutlery must not include forks. Some people are simply as thick as two short planks.

            Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          ST, you say, “It amazes me that people just “accept abortion as necessary” and don’t truly want to find a way or have discussions to eliminate abortion (safe and unsafe) entirely.”

          It amazes me in this day and age of easy access to information that someone can still say such a thing as you did and believe it to be true. At the very least, an abortion is ‘medically necessary’ whenever a woman is desperate enough to harm herself to end it. Treating some the symptoms with moralized hand waving may help you feel better but it does little to treat the underlying cause except privilege it from having any medical consideration.

          The same principle of harm is then extended into patient care and abortion considered necessary where the condition of pregnancy itself harms the woman. Advocating to eliminate access to and services for abortion on demand as if some passing nod of sympathetic symptomatic treatment will have any meaningful role is contrary to providing actual reproductive health care and replaces any concern for the harm principle regarding the woman with the naive view (and I’m being very kind here) that fetal health is somehow and magically and automatically advanced and enhanced.

          Robbing Peter of rights and medical treatments to pay for the continuation of the fertilized egg Paul is neither ethical nor of sound medical principle; it is religiously inspired drivel that when acted upon causes real harm to real women up to and including a death sentence.

          Liked by 1 person

          • And to add a couple of practical points, the risk of dying from abortion is lower than childbirth, and post-abortion complications are lower than childbirth. And that’s before we even get into post-natal depression for the mother, let alone the father. One of my friends was so stressed by having a baby that he couldn’t be left alone with him, and ended up going for some serious depression treatment. And this couple actually wanted a child.

            Liked by 1 person

          • You’ve entire misunderstood my comment. The conversation should be to reduce instances where abortion is “necessary” to the point where they are non-existent. This would mean figure out ways where the woman’s “desperation” is non-existent. Where the life-threatening conditions (which are really very minimal in developed countries) are non-existent. Where rape and incest related pregnancies are non-existent. Where both mother and unborn child’s welfare are being considered and that they are both being provided beneficial opportunities as a result of the unintended pregnancy.

            It doesn’t make sense that when it comes to abortion, we are still trying to treat the gun shot wound with a band-aid.

            Like

          • No I haven’t. You are trying to ride roughshod over a woman’s right to choose. What part of that have I misunderstood?

            But if you want to get rid of rape and incest, try getting rid of sexism, misogyny and patriarchy.

            If you want to get rid of unintended pregnancies, make contraception more freely available. For free.

            Try funding welfare programmes, education, and giving women sufficient self-worth.

            In the meantime, abortion stays. Stop philosophising from your male religious point of view.

            Like

          • The misunderstood comment was not directed at you, I apologize for the confusion.

            Let’s do it, lets have the conversation about those things. If that would help the abortion crisis, if that would help “unwanted” pregnancies and “unsafe” abortions, if that would help society evolve: then let’s have those conversations on how to practically accomplish it.

            My philosophizing male religious point of view is quite contrary to what you think it is. So please don’t hurl insults and let’s have the discussion. Don’t simply assume that because I am male, religious, and against abortion that I favor sexism, misogyny, or patriarchy. That I’m opposed to making contraception (and adequate sex education) freely available. Or that I am somehow against programs aimed at education or giving women sufficient self-worth.

            Like

          • Sorry, I obviously get notification of all comments, but not who they are responding to.

            Truth is, I’m honestly not concerned about your POV regarding abortion. My body is mine for me to decide what to do with.

            Sure, make contraception freely available, more PP clinics in the US for those services. Is that what you mean?

            And once you say that you are against abortion, then yes, you fulfil the criteria of sexist, misogynist and patriarchal.

            Like

          • In America, when it comes to contraceptive being freely available, PP is unnecessary. To suggest otherwise is to miss the fact that there are over 13,000 community health clinics that would be able to provide contraceptives to women. Compared to only about 700 PP clinics.

            And I’m sorry but to suggest being anti-abortion means I’m your x, y, and z claim is absolutely false. You are propagating a stereotype against me based on me being male and religious. My view on abortion has been a conscientious objection to it and that the focus should rather be on improving the livelihood of both the woman (pregnant or not) and the child (born or unborn) while working towards eliminating “the need” for safe and unsafe abortions. So, where have I made even the slightest sexist, misogynistic, or patriarchal comment when it comes to abortion or otherwise?

            Like

          • Freely available or free? Forgive me as I’m not up on contraceptive services in your country. For how long have women been able to go to a general practitioner and receive a prescription for the pill, for example? As a free service?

            Liked by 1 person

          • Not referring to a general practitioner. Referenced community health centers. Not to mention, defunding PP would free up over $500,000,000 in state and federal funding that could be distributed to provide free contraceptives from either general practicioners (if they are not already free) and community health centers.

            But even on PP website they show that the pill may cost $0-50 so through PP it’s not necessarily a “free service” either.

            Like

          • I’m asking a simple question. Is contraception free or not in the US?

            Liked by 1 person

          • I don’t know for sure. I think it depends on whether someone has insurance or if they are on Medicaid. In the U.S., it’s not exactly an easy question.

            Like

          • OK, so basically it’s not free. Which is an immediate problem.

            Now, have you, ever personally, been to your doctor, and as a single woman, asked for contraception? Of course not.

            Have you ever been told you can’t have contraception unless you have a cervical smear? The two are NOT linked by the way.

            There is far more to getting rid of abortion than nice cosy chats from your fluffy little cloud. I suggest you descend to the real world. Abortion and pregnancy are complex issues not helped by religious hyperbole.

            Like

          • Well, that’s a bit ironic. Wasn’t your entire post about how religion historically has endorsed abortion?

            Like

          • No my entire post was not about how religion has historically endorsed abortion. My post was about the legal history of abortion in the UK, which clearly applied to America as a colony, C19 and C20 changes in legislation specifically, anecdotes about illegal abortion and some European and worldwide statistics.

            I was making no point, as the title said, I was presenting some history and some facts (ie stats).

            Like

          • And why did you present the history and facts if you were not making a point?

            It’s clear from the context of your post that you’ve used the history and facts to illustrate a point. You didn’t simply state the facts, you provided a commentary on them. You wrote this post to persuade readers with “history and some facts” as to why abortion should remain legal. So to say you were “making no point” is an obvious lie.

            Like

          • Do not accuse me of lying. Ever.

            I presented history and facts because mostly people spout biblical opinion and rhetoric about abortion.

            So, did you know the church approved abortion? Did you? Because most people have said they didn’t.

            I will not accept calling me, or anyone else on here a liar. So, if that’s your last miserable tactic, clear off somewhere else.

            Like

          • I can see you’re upset. I apologize. However, I didn’t accuse you, I simply presented facts and evidence that you were lying when you said you were “not making a point” with your post. Which is to say, I have proven your statement false.

            Cheerio!

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            Oh, I understand perfectly: you think the conversation should be to address the symptoms of the ‘desperation’ and assume by successfully that doing in practice that you can then eliminate any need for abortion. You are wrong. You are wrong because you’re only treating the symptoms and not the cause. Believe it or not, some women don’t want to be pregnant for reasons entirely (and privately) of their own and do not wish to carry that fertilized egg to term. It takes a certain large degree of hubris and arrogance for someone else to step forward and insist that all of us must talk only about those private and important reasons publicly and then try to ‘solve’ these reasons (relying on droll humour, solving not for x but for xy in this case). A woman’s reasons are not for public consumption.

            Now, if you want to talk about improving social conditions for the raising of children, then that’s a different and important topic altogether but it has no place when discussing making medically necessary abortion services and access to them readily available.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I am just so not getting the whole patronising attitude here. Why interfere with women’s bodies when there is world hunger, invasion of countries and dropping bombs to deal with?

            If I had ever got pregnant, the last thing I would have wanted was some sanctimonious git telling me the ‘best’ thing to do.

            Liked by 1 person

  11. I think I might be scaring your readers away 😀

    Like

  12. After reading some of these anti-abortion comments I feel obliged to mention it seems to me some of these x-tians are commenting on egocentric grounds. It’s rather obvious from their ‘insights’ that they come from mothers who were probably not in the best of situations when they were born. Certainly not capable of providing their offspring with stable lives and good educations.
    They oppose abortion as a means of psychological self-defence. That’s a natural animal instinct. The fantasy that every life is worthwhile. Obviously that’s not true. Some people endure misery from start to finish. Others still try to impose misery on fellow man from start to finish.

    Like

    • I suppose I broadly agree with you. I would call them control freaks suffering from a superiority complex. Why else would they need religion to prop up their lives if they weren’t so insecure?

      (Fellow man? Tut. Tut.)

      Like

  13. Sonel says:

    Well-researched and interesting post darling! 😀

    According to the law, this is your decision and you do not have to inform anyone of your intention.

    Abortion has been legal in South Africa since 1994. According to the law you are entitled to have a free abortion at a government hospital or clinic during the first three months of pregnancy.

    Remember that you have the right to make this decision for yourself.

    Do not consider having a backstreet abortion. They are dangerous, are often performed in unhygienic conditions and can lead to very serious complications such as infertility, or even death. It is much better, and in the long run, a lot cheaper to go to a registered clinic or hospital to have an abortion done. Make informed decisions about your body and your life.

    http://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Teen/Your-body/Having-an-abortion-20120721

    South Africa reformed the abortion law in order to improve the health of women and prevent deaths among women. It is arguably one of the most significant steps in respecting the rights of women to choice and to bodily integrity.

    South Africa has a high maternal mortality rate, especially among the African population. Septic abortion is a major contributor to maternal death incidence rates.

    I don’t think any woman would enjoy having a pregnancy terminated and I can’t even imagine what it would feel like.

    Here’s another articles that refutes some common misconceptions about abortion.

    Some believe that human life begins as conception.

    Fact: There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins. It is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief. Human life is a continuum—sperm and eggs are also alive, and represent potential human beings, but virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted. Also, two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.

    False belief: Abortion is the murder of a person
    Fact: Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact.

    http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/abortioninfo/misconce.shtml

    Once again, everything boils down to religion. People wanting to believe the crap they read in that storybook of theirs and trying to force it down other people’s throats.

    Like

      • That was such an informative read. This, said it all:

        If abortion were illegal, well-intentioned but unskilled practitioners would perforate uteruses, misjudge the length of gestation, do incomplete abortions, and otherwise botch the procedure. Women’s health would suffer and the death rate soar. Further, women would once more be forced to break the law to receive necessary medical care, and their dignity would be lost in the process. Also, this argument, by admitting that abortions would continue under anti-abortion laws, exposes the real goal behind recriminalizing abortion—to punish women.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you too sweetheart for your compliment. I’ve really enjoyed reading your links. When I was researching around, I read that SA still has a high rate of illegal abortions. It might have been in the Gutt report. So the legal level is low because people are still using illegal practitioners :(. And, it was also pointed out, it’s a relatively new law.

      We all do, what we personally think is right. Forcing women to carry to term because ‘THEIR” view is more important than the woman’s, is akin to me wanting to ban meat-eating because I find killing animals for food wrong. And actually, one could question if they are so hung up on respect for life, why don’t they consider that one too? Maybe I should start asking? 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sonel says:

        You’re very welcome and I am glad you did. I know I enjoyed reading yours. 😀

        I am sure it is and I think it’s mostly because there are too many religious nuts here.

        I agree with you. No woman should be made out as a murderer because she did what she thought was right.

        Great point and maybe you should. I wonder what verse they will pull out of their storybook for that one? 😛

        Like

        • The internet is both good and bad. We can read some good information and reputable sources, or we can read some … well, whatever. I think when writing about such an emotive and sensitive subject it is essential to read around, so I welcomed your additional info.

          There are degrees of crazy and some of these people are well up there. Pink made a good point about them being egocentric, I think that’s valid. Or alternatively, they had sad lives.

          No doubt god put them there for us to kill, although my feeble understanding was that originally they were all meant to be veg in the Garden of Eden. Actually some very strict Jews are veg because of that.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Sonel says:

            I agree there and that’s true and you can’t always believe what you read, well … unless it’s on Facebook. 😆

            Absolutely! Some folks also just see what they want to and doesn’t look any further. I think egocentric is a too good word for them. Most of us had sad lives, but we don’t use it as an excuse.

            No doubt they will see it that way. We are all Dinosaurs. Some are herbivores and some carnivores. That’s my excuse. 😛 Doesn’t make it right though.

            If I believed in the Garden of Eden, I might have thought the same. Eve didn’t eat the snake. She had an apple. 😆

            Liked by 1 person

  14. Jim says:

    “Firstly, and hardly surprisingly, given the Christian god’s approval of abortion in the Old Testament, records show that the church was not against abortion. Please note, NOT, against abortion.

    Roughseas, I don’t really care what the church has taught about this topic personally. But I have to admit, I spilled my coffee when I read this. I find it quite intriguing! I am hoping you can point me to the source material for the “records” that show the church actually being against abortion. I have never heard this before and I would love to read the source material.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry about the coffee, and for not being around earlier, been busy this morning.

      My sources are down the bottom. If you mean have I perused medieval documents for this, the answer is no. But the general consensus is that in England abortion was dealt with by the ecclesiastical courts until they were abolished. A straight wiki search will give you that. There was an extremely good book tracing the history, but sadly only the summary was available. It looked pretty well researched however, and also came to the same conclusion.

      However you look at it, women’s rights to abortion, admittedly within time limits, were not restricted until the C19.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jim says:

        Hi Roughseas,

        I was so curious about the statement you made in this post about the church NOT being opposed to abortion. I had never heard that statement made and it seemed hard to believe. I did some digging and what I found is that the church has always been opposed to abortion, though there were differing views on when a developing human received a soul and thus ending the life was an act of murder if done after the receiving of a soul or what they call animation

        I found two helpful links. The first one, takes you through several quotes of the early church fathers and councils up until the 6th church council in 680, which declared abortion to be murder. This council’s view of abortion became canon law in 883. It is crystal clear that the early church was against abortion. Here’s the link:

        http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/EarlyChurchAbortion.php

        The second one takes you through the entire history of the church from the earliest days to today. It really says the same thing: The church was against abortion and viewed it as wrong. The main difference I see, is that there were some who didn’t view an early abortion as murder, because they believed the fetus had not yet received its soul.

        Abortion was always wrong, but it wasn’t always murder, according to some within the church, until after a certain time. Some felt that once the woman could feel the baby moving, an abortion would be murder Other believed that it was only murder once the fetus developed limbs and began to take shape as a human.

        Here’s that link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

        The second link is the quickest and easiest one to read through. It would be more accurate to say: “Though the Church has always viewed abortion as being wrong/evil, not everybody within the church leadership structure believed all abortion to be an act of murder.”

        Liked by 1 person

        • Jim says:

          Of course, “”In England”, one would be talking about the Anglican church and not the Catholic church.

          Like

          • Not before Henry VIII we wouldn’t. Early C16 from memory.

            Like

          • 1509–1547. The split came when he wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn, marriage annulled in 1533.

            Like

          • Jim says:

            Understood, I only mention that because perhaps the Anglicans had a different view of things than the Catholics during that time frame.

            Like

          • Not in the 1200s!!

            Like

          • Jim says:

            . I only mentioned the Anglicans because you referenced “English” law. I confused that with the 1800 date you cited later and thought, perhaps you were talking about the church views at that time. My mistake. The real point I was making was that the Catholic church seems to have always been against abortion and certainly never for abortion.

            Like

          • No worries. The interesting fact though, is that for 600 years, there was no secular legislation against abortion. And in England, roughly half of those years were Catholic, and the other half Anglican, so to speak. I think if ecclesiastical courts were defining abortion, and dealing with post quickening ones as crime, that would suggest it was certainly accepted. I’ve not read your links yet, but I’ll check them out and get back to you 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

        • I’ve read your links Jim, thanks for those. I think it’s clear, however you look at it, that abortion was acceptable by a lot of the church, provided it was carried out early in pregnancy. As Pink (Mr M) pointed out, Pope Sixtus V banned it outright, but that was overturned by Gregory who went back to quickening as a determinant.

          Thus abortions were not condemned if performed early in gestation when the embryo had a vegetable or animal soul. It was only condemned if the abortion was done later in pregnancy that a human soul was destroyed.

          Some of the quotes I found interesting from the second link:

          The Apostolic Constitutions (circa 380 CE) allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy.

          Augustine:

          ” He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). … Only abortion of a more fully developed “fetus animatus” (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

          Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; an abortion required only 120 days. (!!!!)

          Oral sex? A lifetime of penance? And who would know anyway?!

          But on abortion, it’s pretty much like today. There are hard-liners who would ban it outright, and others who adopt a more pragmatic, less judgemental approach.

          Like

  15. Ron says:

    I love how he quote mined Sanger to paint her as a racist.

    The two sentences separated by ellipses (“Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.“) were pulled from two chapters: the first from chapter five, and the second from chapter eight.

    This is easily verified with a simple search of the online ebook found here:

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1689/1689-h/1689-h.htm

    Liked by 1 person

    • I have my doubts about how much research he did, or if he did, he rejected the findings that didn’t fit with his perspective. Most likely just reparroted some anti-abortion/antiPP/anti-contraception rhetoric.

      If he really did sufficient research to have done that, then that is duplicitous in the extreme. My main complaints were about the selective quotes that were out of context – hey easy to do – as you’ve just shown, his grossly inaccurate title/headline for his post, and his total ignoring of context. 2015 is very different to Sanger’s day. She did, and tried to do a lot of good. To ignore that, and her legacy, to describe PP as eugenic clinics is just wrong.

      Thanks for your comment, and the link to Gutenberg, I’ll check that out 🙂 Should be interesting.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Oh, I see David has totally rejected your points. Well, there’s a surprise! What part of Sanger wanted to introduce birth control to avoid abortion does this man not understand?

      There is more satisfaction in headbanging against a brick wall.

      Liked by 1 person

    • john zande says:

      Oh, nice pick up!

      David’s not really into fact-checking his claims, though. You should have seen the meme he had up with a “quote” from Sanger. Three seconds on Google and I found it to be a complete forgery created by pro-lifers.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ron says:

        lol…why let the facts intrude upon the conversation. Reminds me of this clip from Blazing Saddles. (Just substitute facts for badges.)

        Liked by 1 person

        • john zande says:

          I wonder if the teeth are the same 🙂

          Like

        • Nice analogy. Sums it up beautifully. I see David has not let up on his anti-abortion posts and has reblogged a ‘my regrets’ post to prove that all women regret having an abortion. Jasonshaw (not sure I know him) seems to have taken this one on and has produced a study to show this is not the case.

          I’m left wondering why men are such big debaters about abortion. But that’s probably a post in itself and def for another day …

          Like

  16. Arkenaten says:

    I missed this rather excellent post but found myself with tooth ache after wading through (some of) David’s asinine comments.
    He is nothing but a disgusting indoctrinated arse-hat of note and I have no doubt would be considered a major embarrassment to all regular Christians.
    His ignorance is staggering. That a fair portion of that ignorance is willful is disturbing.
    How he is even allowed to council is beyond belief as everything he spews forth will surely have a fundamentalist foundation and I shudder to think what he puts his ”patients” through.

    His brand of presuppositional apologetics is exactly the type of disingenuous vitriol that needs to be guarded against.
    I wish I could feel sympathy for the level of ”crazy” he so rabidly displays. But I do feel sympathy for his kids.

    Liked by 2 people

    • What’s excellent, as ever, is the level of discourse from * some * people. There is so much rhetoric spouted about abortion, and no one looks at facts. And as I like facts … but obviously facts and religion don’t sit happily together.

      Well, David was mostly civil apart from accusing John of being a compulsive thief and having OCD. Impressive diagnosis from Internet conversations huh? He’d probably chuck you and I in the crazy padded cell. I certainly don’t have John’s level of patience.

      Simple descriptions like closed minds, tunnel vision, etc are easy labels, but sadly appropriate. For David, I hasten to add, should anyone be in doubt. And for similar thinking colleagues. The bottom line here is that no one thinks abortion is a must-have along with an expensive designer handbag. It’s often a god damn fucking necessity for women in a very difficult situation, for whatever reason.

      What happened to that bit in the bible about not judging? Did you read the link on Dead Wild Roses to an abortion nurse, from the 80s, I think? Very powerful and so non-judgemental.

      The majority of women do not choose abortion lightly. And if it wasn’t legal, they would find it illegally. Really clever solution fundies.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Arkenaten says:

        I just read your dialogue with friend Wally.
        I’ll go to the wall and state he is lying through his teeth when he says he has ”read plenty” about Margaret Sanger.
        Shoot, I hadn’t even heard of her before a couple of years ago.
        Wally is way out of his depth and seems to like to fawn up to people like David and James in an effort to increase his street cred for some strange reason. I really don’t get it.

        Abortion is one of those things that makes me uncomfortable so I am all for pushing contraception and in every avenue available. But people like David simply disgust me to the core.
        I wonder what his major issue was that ”turned ” him? His blog is quite vague on some of this and the root of it I feel he carefully hides. Nobody becomes as rabid as he is without serious issues, his child’s recovery not withstanding.

        He really is not a nice person at all.

        Like

        • Like John, I did a little reading around before replying on the Sanger issue. I’ve got her book kicking around to read fully, but quoting out of context is a classic ploy. Occasionally, I am tempted to delve deeper and look at the issues and, in David’s case, his sensationalist writing is harmful and dangerous. Similarly so with Wally’s reblog of his post.

          It’s not just lack of contraception that causes pregnancy, well, literally it is, but then, you have to look at why couples ignore contraception when they know about it, and that’s a much bigger societal issue. But freely available, and preferably free contraception is a good start.

          I don’t see David as any more rabid than any other fundy. They are all off the top of the rabidometer. Broken the machine in fact.

          Your theory does seem to hold water though. There is some weird life conversion event, or they are all indoctrinated at age four. They can still keep their religious hands off my body.

          Like

          • john zande says:

            Did you see Ron’s observation? The quote David used is pieced together from two completely different chapters! Talk about fabricating reality. These people know no boundaries to the depth of lying they will go to so as to create the narrative they want.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Arkenaten says:

            There must be some sort of foundational childhood/teen religious influence along the line.Most of us have experienced some measure of personal difficulty/heartbreak of some description but we didn’t all fall on our knees, confess to being a ”filthy sinner” then run to ”God”.

            Yes, I agree, David’s approach is potentially dangerous. Wally is a bit of a softy and not very well informed and tends to wilt when seriously challenged If led by quietly by the hand he might come right and see reason?

            David and his ilk on the other hand need to be forcibly kept away from ( other people’s) children and similar vulnerable people.
            One could quite easily see him preaching the End is Nigh. And the gods know where some more colourful personalities have on many occasion led the weak-minded.

            Like

          • No idea. Just, no idea. Ask Victoria 🙂 Or, they’re American. I joke not.

            I see David as inspired by – er – something. He’s a different version of GMF. Wally is like one of the three monkeys, and, I love monkeys. He closes his ears and covers his eyes. See reason? Nah. He got a shag by going to church. Talk about desperation.

            I’m not sure why priests/ministers can counsel. Shouldn’t that be left to people in psychology/psychiatry?

            Yes, he is very inflammatory. Shame he took a course in journalism at college. His delusions about his writing skills have clearly gone to his head 😦

            Liked by 1 person

      • tildeb says:

        Valerie Tarico also has some excellent articles on the issue, too. (here)

        Liked by 3 people

  17. Making abortions illegal will increase unsafe abortions for mothers? Here’s an article about some research that disputes that claim:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/31/british-medical-journal-study-pro-life-laws-on-abortion-dont-lead-to-higher-maternal-morality-rates/

    Liked by 1 person

    • john zande says:

      LOL! Seriously, you’re quoting a study from Mexico, one of the most deeply superstitious, poorly educated, least uniformly serviced country’s on the planet. Yep, that’s representative. And it appears the papers conclusion doesn’t even support your claim:

      Conclusions: the observed differences
      between populations were not attributable to abortion
      legislation by itself. In fact, exhaustive multivariate
      analyses showed that these differences were largely
      explained by other factors such as women’s literacy,
      maternal healthcare, water, sanitation, fertility rate and
      violence against women.

      In the future, perhaps you should try “reading” the papers first?

      Like

      • John, I don’t think you have realized just how much you have embarrassed yourself just now. Let me help you out.

        1) While the research was conducted in Mexico it was high enough quality to be published in a British Medical Journal.

        2) The conclusion *doesn’t* support my claim? You aren’t being serious are you?

        Let’s see, my claim is that legal abortions ARE NOT needed to prevent unsafe conditions for women during pregnancy or to prevent unsafe abortion practices.

        The pro-abortionists claim is that legal abortions ARE needed.

        The papers conclusion says the following:

        “The observed differences between populations were not attributable to abortion legislation by itself.”

        Meaning that, abortions whether legal or illegal could not be attributed to the differences observed. This supports my position and opposes the pro-abortion position. As the pro-abortion position would require the research to show that legal abortions attribute to safer conditions. But that is not what has been concluded.

        3) The multi-variate analyses also support my position and oppose your argument.

        If you have read any of my conversation with roughseas, you’d see that I’ve mentioned the need for education and healthcare but that there is no need for abortions to be legal to prevent unsafe pregnancies/unsafe abortion practices. This is of course supported by the conclusion where it attributes “women’s literacy and maternal healthcare” to the observed differences.

        However, the irony of you using the conclusion to claim that it does not support my position is wonderful. As the conclusion does not support your argument against my position.

        You objected, based on Mexico being “poorly educated and [one of the] least uniformly serviced countries on the planet.”

        Now, if the research observes that women’s literacy, maternal healthcare, water, sanitation, fertility rate, and violence against women are attributed to the differences observed then you can expect to find this across the planet. So unlike you object, Mexico can be representative of the whole. And here’s why:

        If you compare Mexico in each of the 6 factors to a country like the USA or the England you will observe that Mexico is lower in 4 and higher in 2 factors by comparison and you would expect to see a difference in the safeness of pregnancies as a result.

        Meaning that Mexico having lower literacy, lower quality healthcare, lower water quality, and poorer sanitation, along with higher fertility rates and higher violence against women. You would expect to see greater “unsafe” pregnancies and practices compared to the USA or England.Which I would argue is what we in fact observe.

        4) This is also observed via historically and mis-used by pro-abortionists. The original argument is that historically “before abortion was legal” we observed more unsafe pregnancies and unsafe abortions. This wrongly gets attributed to making abortions “legal.” Which the actually reasons are what the research shows as countries where women’s literacy, maternal healthcare, water and sanitation increased and where there was a decrease in fertility rates and violence against women.

        So I appreciate you sharing the conclusion of the paper which absolutely supports my claim while it obliterates the pro-abortionists claim. It’s unfortunate that you suggest I should try “reading” the paper first, when you have utterly misrepresented the conclusion.

        Like

        • john zande says:

          Like I said… In the future you should “read” the paper’s you suggest.

          RESULTS Abortion legislation and maternal mortality

          The group of states with less permissive abortion legislation showed apparently stable trends for MMR, MMRAO and iAMR during the decade analysed. The group of states with more permissive abortion legislation displayed decreasing trends for MMR, MMRAO and iAMR, narrowing the gap between the two groups by 2011, but still exhibited statistically significant differences (

          Like

          • I took your advice and I’m not surprised to see you are cherry-picking.

            From the papers MAIN RESULTS:

            Over the 10-year period, states with less permissive abortion legislation exhibited lower MMR (maternal morality rate), MMRAO (maternal mortality rate abortive outcome), and iAMR (induced abortion mortality rate) than more permissive states.

            From the papers RESULTS Abortion legislation and maternal mortality:

            Regardless of where the vital event took place, MMR, MMRAO, iAMR and the proportion of induced abortion-related deaths between 2002 and 2011 were lower in the group of states with less permissive abortion legislation

            Now your wonderful cherry-picked quote:

            The group of states with less permissive abortion legislation showed apparently stable trends for MMR, MMRAO and iAMR during the decade analysed. The group of states with more permissive abortion legislation displayed decreasing trends for MMR, MMRAO and iAMR, narrowing the gap between the two groups by 2011, but still exhibited statistically significant differences, narrowing the gap between the two groups by 2011, but still exhibited statistically significant differences per 100 000 live births for more permissive vs less permissive states

            And finally:

            The highest difference between both groups was for the average iAMR, was 47% lower in states with less permissive legislation

            Perhaps rather than cherry-picking quotes and misrepresenting the research you should just accept the truth. The research supports exactly what I’ve been claiming. And contradicts the pro-abortionists claims that *more permissive* abortion legislation is needed to lower the risks for mothers; as it is not.

            Like

          • To clarify John’s cherry-picked quote:

            The results are displaying that MMR, MMRAO, and iAMR declined over the 10 years but still remained higher in more permissive states vs. less permissive states by a significant difference.

            What John has attempted to claim is that the decline that was observed in more permissive vs. less permissive is attributed to the abortion legislation. The results simply mean that over the 10 years, both less permissive and permissive states showed a decrease in MMR, MMRAO, and iAMR. But the rates declined more significantly in more permissive states than in less permissive states. This was due to much higher to begin with in permissive states vs. less permissive states to begin with. So the quote that John provided is telling us that the decline in permissive states rates “helped narrow the gap” but it still remained *higher* than in less permissive states.

            Of course, we know from the CONCLUSION that these results *cannot* be attributed to the more permissive abortion legislation like John is trying to portray. That the decline in more permissive states was due to increased women’s literacy, increased maternal healthcare, improved water quality, improved sanitation, and lower fertility rates and less violence against women. Where as the minor decrease found in less permissive states would be due to less needing improved/reduced in the 6 factors.

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            Classic case of correlation does not equal causation, hence the admission that there are other factors at work here. There is a hundred percent correlation between those who drink water and die.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Not exactly sure what you are trying to say?

            Are you meaning that John has tried to correlate more permissive legislation to the decline in MMR, MMRAO, and iARM when the research shows that this is not the case?

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            I’m saying that this study doesn’t say what you want it to say, that legally constraining abortion will improve health outcomes for women. At best it is indicating nothing more than a specific correlation between a selected population and a specific intention behind a piece of legislation. I made the comment that there is also a correlation between those who drink water and those who eventually die. In neither case do we have any compelling evidence that one causes the other in spite of a correlation.

            One of the most common misunderstandings is to realize the difference between claims that rely on correlation and claims that rely on causation. The way we know the difference is by means of a clearly tested and demonstrable link: correlation requires no causal link (which is what we see in this study) whereas causation does. You are using a study that presents a correlation as if it offers us a causal connection. This is a mistake. But it may still be the case.

            To figure out how much or little confidence to place in correlation, we need to widen the field, so to speak and see how well the correlation holds over different populations over time. We do this to weed out other important considerations like economic ability to pay for interventions, education, good infrastructure for water and sanitation, access to a healthy diet, and so on.
            What John has done is used the study’s own words to point out to you that this study is just a correlation and just a susceptible to other important factors that may have a much more significant role in causation. These other factors and influences have not been addressed. So to test how weak or strong is the correlation offered, John has gone to other sources of data to see if the correlation raised in the study aligns with the general body of work about the effects of having access to abortion services.

            In medicine, there is no debate about abortion services as an essential component to women’s health care: the highest rates of what we consider ‘harm’ – increased mortality, increased complications, increased need for medical treatment – across the board throughout the world over time is where access to abortion services are lowest. Still just a correlation. The correlation gains something, however, when improved access negatively correlates to lowering rates of harm (the more access, the lower the harm rates). The correlation continues to the extremes where access is the highest the rates are lowest. Still, this is a correlation, but it is what we consider a more ‘robust’ correlation in that it remains consistent over time and across different populations. As a case in point, a small Christian Science community in the northern US where access is not just curtailed by similar legislation but refused by these religious science-deniers. We find a mortality rate identical to the poorest and least medically served populations on the globe with the highest mortality rate in the world. Again, this adds robust support to the correlation.

            You argument using this study is very weak and stands contrary to this robust correlation. Awarding it any confidence based on such a flimsy correlation I think is unreasonable because it remains unjustified by good evidence.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Thanks tildeb, that’s a really helpful explanation of why jumping to conclusions based on flimsy and limited evidence is not a good idea – to use my lay terms 🙂

            Like

          • I find it remarkable that you have reiterated what I’ve said and tried to use it as an argument against me.

            Let’s be clear. The research shows a weak correlation between abortion legislation and women’s health. Which means that someone who claims that “legal abortions improve women’s health” or that “making abortion illegal will have negative effects on women’s health,” most likely isn’t as true as they think. The reason for this is that there are multiple factors outside of abortion legislation that are attributed to improved women’s health. Namely, women’s literacy, maternal healthcare, water, sanitation, fertility rates, and violence against women.

            If pro-abortionists would take an honest look at what is the stronger correlation/cause of improving women’s health they would see that it has little to do with whether or not abortions are legal.

            97% of unsafe abortions/poor women’s healthcare are in developing countries. If pro-abortionists focused on the 6 factors listed in the Mexico research and off of legalizing abortion they would likely see improved women’s health without the need for legalized abortions.

            In India, where abortions are legal, we still see unsafe pregnancies and abortions. Mainly because the legality of abortion services is a weak correlation. In India, the 6 factors from the Mexico study need major improvement, and their poor women’s health is attributed to those factors while pro-abortionists ignore that legal abortion in India has little to no effect on the quality of women’s healthcare for that country.

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            ST, you say The research shows a weak correlation between abortion legislation and women’s health. Which means that someone who claims that “legal abortions improve women’s health” or that “making abortion illegal will have negative effects on women’s health,” most likely isn’t as true as they think.

            No. This is exactly wrong.

            Legalizing abortion is very much a necessary step in making abortion services available (that we know is robustly associated with improved women’s health outcomes). Making abortion illegal (or constraining it option by legislation when it may and may not be offered, when, how, by whom, under what circumstances, and so on) obviously makes the availability and access of abortion services equivalently illegal or constrained, wouldn’t you think?

            Look, abortion is a medical issue. On purely medical grounds yielding health outcomes for women, there is no debate that accessible abortion services are an essential component (presumably legal). Those who try to paint it as a moral issue, who advocate to forcing birth on women who are pregnant, are not helping women or their healthcare outcomes by talking about it this way. Moral debates about abortion do absolutely nothing whatsoever to promote women’s healthcare outcomes and everything to do with treating them as reproductive chattel. In fact, this approach impedes this essential medical service for medical reasons (and all the robust correlation data available on this) with these unnecessary argumentative diversions that end up correlating very strongly with real harm to real women in real life by denying or impeding medical reproductive services.

            You also say we should be as concerned with women’s literacy, maternal healthcare, water, sanitation, fertility rates, and violence against women. Absolutely. But doesn’t this start with first legislating legal equality AND legal autonomy? Without those necessary planks in place, the rest is just so much hot air telling women what they may and may not do, what services they may or may not receive, keeping them in place as reproductive chattel. And that is a reprehensible and very real product from all this moralizing.

            Liked by 1 person

          • “Legalizing abortion is very much a necessary step in making abortion services available…”

            Not really. As abortions occur in places where they are illegal. And unsafe abortions still occur in places where abortions are legal.

            If you look at the Mexico study objectively you will see that from a medical perspective it calls into question the presumption that “legal abortion services is vital to improve women’s healthcare.”

            You are still making the same argument where you correlate “legal abortion” with “improved women’s healthcare.” Which you ignore the fact that not more than 2 comments ago you argued against the correlation between abortion legislation and women’s healthcare from the Mexico study. You must realize that the fence swings both ways.

            Either their is a strong correlation between abortion legislation and women’s healthcare or there is a weak correlation. The Mexico study suggests a weak correlation. You however have suggested that it’s a weak correlation when you argue against making abortions illegal and that it’s a strong correlation when you argue for legal abortions. I’m sorry, but what you suggest just doesn’t work: as the correlation cannot be both weak and strong regarding which side of the abortion legislation you stand on.

            Just imagine it from the opposing perspective. If I argued that there is a weak correlation between legalizing abortions and improved women’s healthcare and a strong correlation between making abortions illegal and improving women’s healthcare you would look at me cross-eyed.

            Like

          • Excellent summary tildeb 🙂

            Like

          • Well, that’s quite the double standard roughseas. You get offended when I point out that when you claimed your post did not intending to make a point was in fact a lie, but it’s perfectly suitable for you to refer to me as a “religious patriarchal male arsehole…?”

            Outside the entirely presumptuous nature of your personal attack, do you have evidence to show your claim about me is true?

            Here:

            What is Simplified Theology?

            Simple: It’s all about Jesus. He is the way, the truth, and the life.

            That would suggest you are religious, yes?

            If that’s not clear, what about this?

            When I gave my life to Jesus, I began to see the sharp contrast between living in the flesh and living in the Spirit.

            Therefore by definition if you believe in Christianity (Islam or Judaism) which are all patriarchal religions, one can reasonably infer that you subscribe to patriarchal beliefs and norms. And certainly, weighing in to restrict abortion rights is in itself a patriarchal view.

            Male, well, called Kyle, with a wife and two children, I think that’s a reasonable conclusion.

            I’ll admit arsehole is subjective, but anyone who wishes to restrict abortion rights, is in my opinion an arsehole. Clearly you may well disagree with that. However, I didn’t specifically describe you as such. It was a general comment aimed at all religious patriarchal male arseholes. But if the cap fits …

            Where have I denied anyone their right to think for themselves? Where have I told you what you should do? Where have I advised how you should think? Where have I suggested what you or anyone else should do with your (or their) body? And just so we’re clear, if you can find examples, I can provide plenty of examples where you and others have done the same towards me. And then we can all be a bunch of hypocrites together.

            Here:

            I find that there is a greater need for educating on reproductive health and the risks associated with unsafe abortions.

            That would suggest you think women need education, presumably in line with your anti-abortion views, so they choose not to have an abortion. If you think educating men and women about sex and contraception will prevent ALL unwanted pregnancies, you are living in dreamland. And, I do not need education. Suggesting that ‘there is a greater need’ implies that you are not getting your message across sufficiently well, so therefore more education is needed. Personally, no. It isn’t. And as you are anti-abortion, you are telling women what to do with their bodies.

            Regarding bodily rights and autonomy, I take little issue in what others do with their bodies. Even when it comes to abortion. I find this defense as weak as all the other arguments from pro-abortionists, as it ignores all rights of the conceived

            They don’t have any. They are not legally or medically defined as people.

            to allow nature to take its course. If I haven’t been clear enough, I think EDUCATION (and other factors) are more important than LEGISLATION on the matter.

            No. You think your bigoted sexist patriarchal male viewpoint transcends the law. Have I been clear enough?

            Regardless of what I think: Are you glad your mother didn’t choose to abort you after you were conceived in her womb? Are you glad that she allowed nature to take its course which gave you life? Are you glad that your mother considered you worth more when you we only a zygote than her convenience?

            Irrelevant. 1) She wanted children. 2) I really don’t care either way. If I hadn’t been born it would have made no difference to me. Her choice. Not mine.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Suggests I’m religious? It suggests that I believe in the Christian faith. Meaning that I am a theist. You’d have to define how you are using the term “religious” rather than simply trying to say “everyone who believes in god(s) is religious.” As many atheists are as religious in their prescribed dogma as theists are with theirs.

            Patriarchal?

            Again, that depends on what you are implying by the term you are using. It’s clear that you are asserting that you believe that I likely feel women are subservient to men. This is certainly not the case, nor do I feel that women cannot hold leadership positions. This is simply a bigoted stereotype that you hold and are trying to apply to me.

            So you don’t think women (especially in developing countries) should receive education in regards to reproductive health and the risks of unsafe abortions?

            It’s great to see you admit that you are presuming to know what I mean. I, on the other hand do not have to presume to know that you think education should be in line with your pro-abortion views. As far as “the greater need” that I refer to, I’ve already clarified my statement to mean that educating and improving other factors are more determinant to improving women’s health outcomes than abortion legislation. And sorry, I’m not telling women what to do with their bodies, I’m providing a view point and information so that an informed decision can be made. Simply because you do not agree with my views does not mean that “no woman” would.

            Not legally or medically defined as people: That’s a wonderful dehumanizing statement regarding human conception. And such a terrible justification that’s used by pro-abortionists. Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses haven’t fully developed into a legally or medically defined “person” therefore the development can be terminated at the will of the mother. I’m sorry, but the majority of fetal abortions performed have killed a future human being who has been denied the right of a chance at life.

            Have you been clear enough? No, as you simply think your bigoted sexist feminist female viewpoint transcends any viewpoint other than your own and should be the law.

            Certainly not irrelevant. Mostly, had you not been born it would make a difference to you as you would not exist to be here and defend abortion as you have. This is the thing most pro-abortionists miss, that had their mothers not wanted them and aborted them then they would not have been granted the opportunity to promote abortion as they do for other women to terminate future human beings who might have a positive impact
            on society or the pro-abortionist cause.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Saying someone is pro-abortion is like saying saying someone is pro-amputation. Shall I call you pro-forced birth?

            Liked by 1 person

          • Sounds like to me isn’t that what ‘pro-life’ is all about? Regardless of anything?

            Liked by 1 person

          • tildeb says:

            I notice you really have no response to my comments other than not addressing the points I raise. You continue to use the term ‘pro-abortion’ for those of us who understand why and how abortion is a fundamental and necessary medical service for women’s health care. As John asks, does this make you ‘pro-amputation’? That example should reveal the problem with your understanding and terminology about legal or illegal abortions. It’s hard to think anyone who is rational would argue that making amputations illegal would somehow improve the quality of medical care people with damaged limbs and digits would then receive. Yet this is the identical reasoning you are trying use with abortion. There’s something wrong with it but you seem rather befuddled how this can be so.

            To help you understand that abortion is not what you think it is, this article may help. Your understanding of why an abortion may be chosen is in need of a radical infusion of knowledge rather than more religiously inspired moral obfuscation.

            In fact, those who wish to inhibit abortion as a medical service are actually trying to limit this choice. It is quite reasonable to call such people ‘anti-choice’ and the effect from putting it into practice really does force many women to have unwanted births. So it makes sense to call such people ‘forced-birthers’ and this obviously has a very great effect on the autonomy and legal equality of women. Hence the charge of being paternalistic and misogynistic also has much truth to it.

            Wouldn’t it be great if every child was wanted? Wouldn’t it be great if every pregnant women was so by choice? Wouldn’t it be great if women could receive whatever medical services they required? All of this is closer to being obtained through the empowerment of women, through the legal equality they must have to be equivalent and the same legal autonomy you have to make decisions for themselves. That you wish to impose your disagreement with this principle by abusing the legal system to do your dirty work for and constrain women and their medical choices indicates to me questions about the ethical strength of your character.

            Liked by 2 people

          • You make some excellent clear and objective points regarding abortion. ST seems to think women go for abortions like they go to Tupperware parties (if those still happen!). Nobody chooses an unwanted pregnancy, hence the very term ‘unwanted’. And the concept of ‘just have it anyway, someone else can adopt it’ directly contradicts the supposed value put on the potential life, as though it can be traded around like a second hand car.

            And education about sex and contraception, while totally laudable won’t solve all the problems or eliminate the need for abortion, particularly in the tragic cases of rape. There is much more to it than that.

            I wondered if you had read Tarico’s latest post. The other interesting one for ST to read would be the one that The Arb posted, I’ll have to get the link and add it.

            Like

          • Sorry but being pro-abortion is not like being pro-amputation.

            If you had a friend who had no medical reason for having their hand amputated come up to you and say, “I have this old sports injury with my wrist, it’s rather annoying sometimes and I don’t want to deal with it anymore so I am going to have my hand amputated just above the wrist.” Would you just simply support your friends choice to have their hand amputated or would you try and reason with them to keep their hand and find another solution?

            Where as with pro-abortion, you support abortion for any and all reasons, this removes the “medically necessary” part of your argument. It’s no longer an abortion performed because the life of the mother would be at risk, but it’s an abortion performed because the mother has made a choice based on convenience. The child is “unwanted” because it would “inconvenience” the mother in some way; so rather than be inconvenienced you get rid of what’s unwanted. We don’t accept this type of logic when it comes to amputations so the analogy fails.

            I’ll state it plainly so you understand. I have no problem with abortion being legal in cases where it would save the life of the mother. But I find that in developed countries like the US and England, we have advanced medically where in almost all cases doctors can save both the life of the mother and the child so there again would only be a limited number of “medically necessary” abortions.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Rather strange study, wouldn’t you say? There appears to be some fairly large contradiction in the data, or in its interpretation. No doubt, trying to conduct a nationwide study in a country such as Mexico is going to be fraught with problems… Not least of all the staggering inconsistencies of service/education/sanitation levels from state to state.

            But yes, whereas clearly access to safe abortion treatment would decrease the woman’s risk, we must look to vital factors such as education and sanitation. This is a package deal, not something black and white as you are trying to paint it.

            Maybe this World Health Organisation report will shed some light on thing. It begins: “Unsafe abortion is a persistent, preventable pandemic.” A pandemic felt worst in developing countries.

            http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/unsafe_abortion/article_unsafe_abortion.pdf

            It concludes:

            Unsafe abortion endangers health in the developing world, and merits the same dispassionate, scientific approach to solutions as do other threats to public health. Although the remedies are available and inexpensive, governments in developing nations often do not have the political will to do what is right and necessary. The beneficiaries of access to safe, legal abortion on request include not only women but also their children, families, and society—for present and future generations.
            Women have always had abortions and will always continue to do so, irrespective of prevailing laws, religious proscriptions, or social norms.104 Although the ethical debate over abortion will continue, the public-health record is clear and incontrovertible: access to safe, legal abortion on request improves health.73 As noted by Mahmoud Fathalla, “Pregnancy-related deaths … are often the ultimate tragic outcome of the cumulative denial of women’s human rights. Women are not dying because of untreatable diseases. They are dying because societies have yet to make the decision that their lives are worth saving.”105 Simply put, they die because they do not count.

            Like

          • John, not sure where you are seeing these glaring contradictions of data or interpretation. As the paper is relatively clear and precise. Not to mention that Mexico provides a decent demographic for looking at what is attributed to improving women’s health because of the conditions and the various abortion legislation between it’s states. It provides a unique perspective in what contributes to improved women’s health in developing countries.

            Lol, the same WHO article that shows India where abortion is legal is fraught with poor quality healthcare for women?

            Or the same article that has to include a “Conflict of Interest Statement” because the authors are pro-abortionists and simply think abortion should be legalized in developing countries?

            Oh, and your cherry picked quote, which includes a quote from a 1982 article from another pro-abortionist which has suggested (quite possibly wrongly) that the improved women’s healthcare in the US from 1960-1980 is attributed to the legalization of abortion. As the more recent Mexico study suggests that other factors are more likely the case. I couldn’t find a link to the original 1982 article to see if it actually looked at women’s literacy, maternal healthcare, water, sanitation, fertility rates, and violence against women in the US between 1960-1980. But I doubt that it does. My guess is that it simply looked at the improving women’s healthcare and attributed the changes to legalized abortion without looking at any other factors. Factors that would have been occurring simultaneously that may have had a stronger correlation on the improvement of women’s healthcare during that period.

            Oh, and your question about why would [I] wishing to see women suffer? I never have wished, nor would I ever wish to see women suffer. To imply as you have with your question is complete ignorance. It’s a nice attempt at a loaded question, but none remains guilty of being a logical fallacious question to ask.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            You really have problems differentiating women’s general maternal health issues and mortality rates tied to illegal abortions. Of course, distinguishing between the two would, of course, counteract the cartoon reality you want to believe in.

            Keep it up.

            Liked by 1 person

          • How you’ve drawn that conclusion is whats not based in reality.

            It’s wonderful for you to assume such negative things about me. I’m sorry John, but I do not have trouble differentiating between women’s maternal health issues and mortality rates tied to illegal abortions.

            But feel free to attempt more personal attacks as you really have no better ground to stand on.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            I never have wished, nor would I ever wish to see women suffer.

            Then you’d support legal and safe abortions.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Not in the least. I support safe women’s maternal healthcare.

            I find that there is a greater need for educating on reproductive health and the risks associated with unsafe abortions. Rather than simply assuming that legalizing abortions is the “only” or “best” solution available.

            Let’s just say, thinking that legalizing abortion will solve the problem of unsafe abortions is like trying to put a band aid on a bullet wound to the chest. It’s not going to stop the wound from bleeding. As the Mexico study suggests, there are multiple variables for improving women’s health other than permissive abortion legislature.

            You do realize that to even suggest legalizing abortions that you have to attach “safe” to it. As you know very well from places like India, that simply having legal abortions does not mean they are “safe” abortions. It’s remarkable how you are unable to differentiate this.

            Like

          • But do you support women’s health care and their autonomous bodily rights? Just as you have to your body? Well?

            There is a greater need for educating women. Full point. (Period, full stop etc.)

            Should you like to educate me? What is needed is indeed for women to receive more education, think for themselves, and quite frankly not have religious patriarchal male arseholes telling them what to do, how to think, and definitely what to do with their own body.

            It is not your business.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Well, that’s quite the double standard roughseas. You get offended when I point out that when you claimed your post did not intending to make a point was in fact a lie, but it’s perfectly suitable for you to refer to me as a “religious patriarchal male arsehole…?”

            Outside the entirely presumptuous nature of your personal attack, do you have evidence to show your claim about me is true?

            Where have I denied anyone their right to think for themselves? Where have I told you what you should do? Where have I advised how you should think? Where have I suggested what you or anyone else should do with your (or their) body? And just so we’re clear, if you can find examples, I can provide plenty of examples where you and others have done the same towards me. And then we can all be a bunch of hypocrites together.

            What I’ve done, is present a position that disagrees with a number of claims made by pro-abortionists. I’ve also presented what I find is a more suitable solution to resolving the pandemic of unsafe abortions.

            Regarding bodily rights and autonomy, I take little issue in what others do with their bodies. Even when it comes to abortion. I find this defense as weak as all the other arguments from pro-abortionists, as it ignores all rights of the conceived to allow nature to take its course. If I haven’t been clear enough, I think EDUCATION (and other factors) are more important than LEGISLATION on the matter.

            Regardless of what I think: Are you glad your mother didn’t choose to abort you after you were conceived in her womb? Are you glad that she allowed nature to take its course which gave you life? Are you glad that your mother considered you worth more when you we only a zygote than her convenience?

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Just to repeat that:

            the public-health record is clear and incontrovertible: access to safe, legal abortion on request improves health

            The question to you then is this: Why do you wish to see women suffer?

            Like

          • I have a few days away in Spain and suddenly we are discussing abortions in Mexico. Or maternal death rates there. I wonder if the BMJ has also published a study on the effects on families in Mexico of yet another unwanted mouth to feed? Poverty? Illiteracy? Violence against women?

            This feels like a very circular argument regarding cause and effect. Personally, I usually run with the WHO when I want an overall, relatively unbiased view, hence quoting their European report above. Still, who’d believe a bunch of health experts?

            Liked by 1 person

          • john zande says:

            I was a tad confused as to how a general mortality rate (across such a diverse country as Mexico, which ranges from 1st world to the worst of the 3rd world) applied specifically to abortion-related mortality. So many measures, none focused, that the study is really a “How Not to Do a Study” exercise.

            Like

          • A good example of how medics examine something so narrowly it has no value. Sometimes, the bigger picture is a good idea?

            Liked by 1 person

          • john zande says:

            It’s just baffling.

            Like

          • john zande says:

            Veles exists! I just had to do this article for NYT’s. Seems to demonstrate just how bad maternal care is in some parts of Mexico.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/health/midwife-mexico-chiapas.html?_r=0

            Liked by 1 person

          • No! You don’t say … there are more important things in life than pontificating from a religious soapbox about abortion when it won’t have a snowflakes chance in hell of affecting you anyway.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Taking to new thread. Oddly your comments don’t get notified to me. Supernatural I suppose.

            Like

  18. Arkenaten says:

    Again, so much energy devoted to kicking the shit out of abortion. Why don’t concerned Christians and other anti-abortionists simply channel all this negative vitriol into something positive and truly get fully behind education and prevention and push as hard as they can, for their god’s sake?

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Arkenaten says:

    @Simple Theologian

    “Legalizing abortion is very much a necessary step in making abortion services available…”

    Not really. As abortions occur in places where they are illegal. And unsafe abortions still occur in places where abortions are legal.

    Okay, this is one of those discussions that meanders all over the place.
    ST. So let us try to get to the nitty gritty shall we?

    1.Given the choice, (opportunity)would you ban abortion outright or make it legal across the board?

    Liked by 2 people

  20. @ ST

    Suggests I’m religious? It suggests that I believe in the Christian faith. Meaning that I am a theist. You’d have to define how you are using the term “religious” rather than simply trying to say “everyone who believes in god(s) is religious.” As many atheists are as religious in their prescribed dogma as theists are with theirs.

    Get a dictionary if you want to understand the term religious.

    Patriarchal?

    Yes.

    Again, that depends on what you are implying by the term you are using. It’s clear that you are asserting that you believe that I likely feel women are subservient to men. This is certainly not the case, nor do I feel that women cannot hold leadership positions. This is simply a bigoted stereotype that you hold and are trying to apply to me.

    Tell me again why you think it is your right to determine what a woman should do with her body?

    So you don’t think women (especially in developing countries) should receive education in regards to reproductive health and the risks of unsafe abortions?

    I think men and women should receive education about contraception and consider the financial and emotional costs of having children. As said before, abortion has a lower health risk than childbirth.

    It’s great to see you admit that you are presuming to know what I mean. I, on the other hand do not have to presume to know that you think education should be in line with your pro-abortion views. As far as “the greater need” that I refer to, I’ve already clarified my statement to mean that educating and improving other factors are more determinant to improving women’s health outcomes than abortion legislation. And sorry, I’m not telling women what to do with their bodies, I’m providing a view point and information so that an informed decision can be made. Simply because you do not agree with my views does not mean that “no woman” would.

    You aren’t providing anything of any use. You have no idea what it is like to be a woman. Or to be in fear of being pregnant when you don’t want to be. STFU

    Not legally or medically defined as people: That’s a wonderful dehumanizing statement regarding human conception. And such a terrible justification that’s used by pro-abortionists. Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses haven’t fully developed into a legally or medically defined “person” therefore the development can be terminated at the will of the mother. I’m sorry, but the majority of fetal abortions performed have killed a future human being who has been denied the right of a chance at life.

    No. Just no. There is no life in a foetus. Legally and clinically. You do not transcend the law.

    Have you been clear enough? No, as you simply think your bigoted sexist feminist female viewpoint transcends any viewpoint other than your own and should be the law.

    It is the law. So, what’s your point?

    Certainly not irrelevant. Mostly, had you not been born it would make a difference to you as you would not exist to be here and defend abortion as you have. This is the thing most pro-abortionists miss, that had their mothers not wanted them and aborted them then they would not have been granted the opportunity to promote abortion as they do for other women to terminate future human beings who might have a positive impact
    on society or the pro-abortionist cause.

    Fine. It’s still irrelevant. I am not so arrogant as to think my existence has shaken up the earth.

    Like

  21. Couldn’t reply in line so I’ll quote it:

    You make some excellent clear and objective points regarding abortion. ST seems to think women go for abortions like they go to Tupperware parties (if those still happen!). Nobody chooses an unwanted pregnancy, hence the very term ‘unwanted’. And the concept of ‘just have it anyway, someone else can adopt it’ directly contradicts the supposed value put on the potential life, as though it can be traded around like a second hand car.

    And education about sex and contraception, while totally laudable won’t solve all the problems or eliminate the need for abortion, particularly in the tragic cases of rape. There is much more to it than that.

    I wondered if you had read Tarico’s latest post. The other interesting one for ST to read would be the one that The Arb posted, I’ll have to get the link and add it.

    It is so lovely to see you make such retched comparisons. Nobody chooses a wanted or unwanted. People “choose” to or not to take preventative measures. The only time there is “no choice” is in cases of rape and incest.

    You’ll try and argue that conception can still occur even if contraception/preventative measures are taken, but that is a known risk. Like I’ve said, the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence. And I apply the concept of abstinence equally to men as I do women. However, IF a person understands that contraception/preventative measures do not always work and they engage in sexual activity, then they understand pregnancy may occur. While these get referred to “unwanted” pregnancies does not mean that choices that led to the pregnancy were not being made with a full understanding of what could potentially happen. If you want to have sex, you better be willing to take full responsibility for your decisions. Don’t use the term “unwanted” like it’s some sort of get out of free jail card. It’d be laughable to see people who know stealing was wrong try and use “but I didn’t want to get caught and go to jail” as a reason why they should be let off the hook for engaging in theft.

    The majority of my arguments have been that abortion is not needed as prevalent as we observe in developed countries. In the US, the original law made abortions legal in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother was at risk. Nowadays, abortions are like Fast Food restaurants where people can have the convenience of a drive through abortion for any reason.

    Rape, incest, and maternal endangerment are limited circumstances for abortion. In those cases, the mother should be allowed the “choice” of whether or not they want to have an abortion. AND they should feel limited pressure from those around them so their choice is theirs and not someone else. The way this is treated by pro-abortionists is that the mothers “choice” is no longer limited to those circumstances but for any reason. And there may be abortion clinics that promote biased counseling to women (which is against the law in the U.S.).

    Like

    • Arkenaten says:

      In case you missed it ….

      Simple Theologian

      “Legalizing abortion is very much a necessary step in making abortion services available…”

      Not really. As abortions occur in places where they are illegal. And unsafe abortions still occur in places where abortions are legal.

      Okay, this is one of those discussions that meanders all over the place.
      ST. So let us try to get to the nitty gritty shall we?

      1.Given the choice, (opportunity) would you ban abortion outright or make it legal across the board?

      Like

      • I would say that in instances of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk; that the woman should be afforded the opportunity to abort if she so chooses.

        Outside of those limited circumstances [and in developed countries], I am of the position that the choice is made prior to conception. If you make the choice and are aware that contraception/preventative measures could fail, then you should be ready to take responsibility for the results of your actions.

        My views on abortion in developing countries is that rather than changing abortion legislation, there are other factors that need to be improved upon in order to improve maternal outcomes.

        Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          Fair enough. But this does not exactly address the issues at the legislative level. Which was what I was trying to get at.
          And by adding so many provisos re developed/under-developed countries this opens up a huge Pandora’s box.
          How for example would you address a semi-literate (or dirt poor) young woman in the Southern States of the USA, who has been indoctrinated by her hyper-religious community, and may well have used contraception but was too afraid of her immediate peers, and falls pregnant?

          My question is primarily directed at your apparent (couched) terms.

          In other words, do your religious beliefs in any way influence your current view?

          Like

        • It’s commendable that you allow women the choice if they have been raped or if their life is at risk, as a number of anti-abortionists do not.

          I am puzzled however, about your inclusion of incest. If a couple has incestuous sex, and the woman becomes pregnant, why should, in your view an abortion be permissible in those circumstances whereas it shouldn’t for your average non-familial couple in the street, who attempted to avoid pregnancy?
          And, it would appear that you are suggesting that if couples wish to avoid pregnancy, they should abstain from sex. Are you are aware that people enjoy having sex? And would like to do so without worrying about filling the house with children that they can not afford? You are suggesting that the ineffectiveness of a manufacturer of say a condom, or the pill, or whatever, then becomes the fault of the couple using that contraception?

          Like

          • I’ll just address this shortly. My comment was geared off of the original legalization of abortion in the U.S. Further, I’m fairly certain that in the U.S. “incest” is an illegal act and would be the likely reason that was included in the original law. Considering that pregnancy via incest was likely caused by a father or brother forcing himself on to a daughter or sister. Essentially meaning that it is “incestual rape.”

            Regarding consensual incest which you refer to, then my view would be the same as consensual sex between non-relative’s.

            Of course I’m aware that people enjoy sex. But that’s not a valid argument against abstaining from it. Sexual partners can take multiple contraceptive/preventative measures and still enjoy sex with very minimal risk of unwanted pregnancy. Not to mention that abstaining from sex doesn’t have to mean never having sex. If a woman is aware of her cycle and knows what to look for to identify when she maybe more fertile; her and her partner can abstain from sex for that period of time to further reduce risk of unwanted pregnancy. But resume sexual activity outside of her fertile days. Quite honestly, the more women know and the more men and women use necessary measures the less likely they will be to experience an unwanted pregnancy.

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            What works to reduce abortion rates? If this truly is your goal, then you will promote those policies that are well known to reduce these rates.

            I don’t think you will because you’re still touting ideas we know don’t work… pipe dreams like ‘abstinence’.

            It’s easy to say women need more education. But we all do… especially the men who don’t have to share a pregnancy. But what does ‘education’ mean in practice that reduces these rates? And it here where we start to get the misogynistic influence of religion.

            Are the religious in their massive majority ready to embrace and support at home comprehensive public sex education? No. Are the religious lining up to support free contraception easily accessible? No. Are the religious lining up to support family planning clinics for everyone without parental consent? No. U486? No. There is no evidence for any of this.

            Go look at where abortion rates are the lowest, where teen pregnancies are the lowest, where sexually transmitted diseases are the lowest, and see what public health policies are enacted compared to those populations with the highest rates. There is a direct and robust correlation with abortion rates, with teen pregnancies, with STDs, with constrained access to contraception and morning after pills. This leads us to an inescapable conclusion: the primary opposition to everything we know that works to reduce abortion rates are the religious and their misogynistic beliefs.

            As I said, abortion is a medical issue best addressed by informed women and their doctors. But high rates of any negative health behaviour is a public policy issue best addressed by utilizing better public health policies. Making abortion illegal and expecting better health results is lunacy. Making abortion a religious concern supplanting the medical one is even crazier because we already know the higher the religiosity of a population the higher the rates of all kinds of negative public behaviours… and their social consequences. Religious belief has no place in public health matters if we’re trying to achieve positive public outcomes by reducing these rates. Those who continue to believe and act as if religious belief does in fact play a positive role when all evidence points to the contrary are very much the major problem here. It’s not women that is the problem. It’s not abortion that is the problem. It’s religion and people who act as if their religious beliefs should be the primary concern addressing real world issues and practices.

            Liked by 3 people

          • I enjoyed you anti-religious rant, but where exactly did I reference anything regarding this as a religious matter?

            Did you miss the times where I mention that “abstinence” was not the only thing couples needed to reduce unwanted pregnancy? Where I said multiple forms of contraception/preventative measures?

            You make a number of arguments from silence suggesting that I would not agree with your views on ways to lower abortion rates because of your presumption against religion. It’s sad really that you feel the need to attack religious beliefs in such a way without actually having a discussion. Truly, truly sad. And for that reason, I hope one day you realize how ignorant it is to stereotype religious people online such as you have.

            Have a blessed day!

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            Rant? What an interesting choice of words… and very… skewed. And that perception is quite revealing to me. You define legitimate (and demonstrable with compelling evidence to back it up) criticism of the role religions play in hindering the goals you say you want to achieve as “anti-religious”. No. It’s simply a fact you don’t want to recognize and so you re-label it. A rose by any other name…

            Where are you on this simple chart just to help me understand what your religious assumptions are?

            Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          @ST
          You seem to have missed my question:I shall repeat it just in case.

          In other words, do your religious beliefs in any way influence your current view?

          oh, p.s.. I have a couple of comments you are currently holding in moderation on you blog, in case you missed them. Thanks.

          Like

          • Haven’t missed any of them. Regarding your question on “religious views” I find the phrasing of the question poor.

            My worldview obviously influences all of my views just as your view influences yours. While mine is a Christian theistic worldview that plays a role in how I view things. However, asking if my “religious views” influence…makes a vague reference that is open for wild interpretation. Where it becomes your interpretation of my “religious views” and does not necessarily reflect my actual views.

            It’d be much like me asking if your atheist views influence your views on abortion. You’d scoff and wonder if I was jesting.

            My views on abortion are comprised on a great deal more than simple religious beliefs as you are suggesting.

            As for your comments that are in moderation, they are still in moderation. I haven’t had a good chance to review them yet. But I appreciate your follow up!

            Like

          • Arkenaten says:

            It was a genuine question. I have very mixed feelings over abortion and it is one topic I feel extremely uncomfortable about,which is why I would rather argue against abortion from a contraceptive/education perspective, and push this for all its worth, yet still recognise a woman’s autonomy.
            The current state of affairs is a darn site better than if abortion were once more declared illegal, gods forbid, which would be tantamount to dragging us back to the frakking dark ages.
            I am sure there are atheists that feel similar to the way I do.

            But my personal feelings about abortion have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, whereas a great many people’s attitude toward abortion is directly linked to their theism, which is why I asked.

            So, in your case, is it directly linked to your theism?

            Like

          • tildeb says:

            Valerie has a terrific article today talking about how the topic is discussed on the chosen ground or in the framework of theists and why this needs to change. To help reduce that feeling of discomfort and moral uncertainty, change the framework and I think (like Valerie) we will stand on firm ethical ground that promotes birth by design rather than default and functional families where every child is wanted.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Arkenaten says:

            I shall give it a read. Thanks, Tildeb.

            Like

          • Not directly. As my arguments have been from a contraception/education perspective. I’ve done my best to leave “my religion” out of this discussion if you haven’t had a chance to read all of my comments.

            It is others who have assumed my position is solely based (or largely based) on me being a Christian. To which I have expressed my objections to those comments.

            Like

          • Arkenaten says:

            Well, I am pleased to hear this. It is an highly emotive subject and it’s nice to read someone who is not simply raging on about it because of religious reasons.
            Let’s hope that in the not too distant future here will be no need for discussions on abortion at all.

            Like

          • Arkenaten says:

            I see my comments are stillin moderation. Are they that contentious or are you simply going to leave them there indefinitely?

            Like

          • Patience Ark, patience.

            Like

          • Arkenaten says:

            I have lots of patience.
            I just find it odd that people feel the need to moderate comments when they are obviously not Spam.
            While not limited to religious bloggers it seems that an overwhelming number of them have this almost paranoid need to censor or at the very least exert almost Nanny-like control over what other visitors, and especially potential Christian visitors, will be allowed to read. I always wonder what on earth people who practice this form of censorship are afraid of?
            But then, I am reminded that once upon a time while the general populace within the Church’s vile sphere of influence was expected to believe and toe the line or be burnt alive they were forbidden from reading/interpreting the bible. And at one point, reading it in English was punishable by death.

            Maybe the Church was scared shitless of the truth even then?

            Liked by 2 people

          • tildeb says:

            This is what a serious anti-abortion movement should look life and provides the standard by which people who <i.say they are against abortion could easily follow.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Jim says:

            Tildeb,

            That really was a terrific article! I think the world would be a better place if there were 90% less abortions and I think the author of that post provided great advice on how that could happen. The problem, as I see it, is that most of us with pro-life leanings have other convictions that we allow to get in the way of thinking clearly about the course the author suggests and we don’t even realize it.

            I hope that will change, because it does seem like the problem would be solved if the focus of the conversation shifted from what it is today to what she suggests.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Valerie has written another great article looking at contraception, ease of access for free contraception, and … how the religious right puts out very mixed messages, which to summarise, is that they basically want to control women by denying them autonomy, whether it’s access to abortion, or free reliable contraception. I think it’s important to note that people who are pro-choice aren’t wanting to inflict abortions on women right, left and centre, it’s a last resort. But it’s a back-up for women who need it. Valerie’s article about contraception points out that the I’ll has a failure rate of 1 in 9 and that half all American pregnancies are unplanned – of which half of those end up as abortions. Bringing a life into this world is one big responsibility, and there is something wrong with figures that suggest 50 per cent of potential parents didn’t intend to do that.

            Like

    • Let’s look at rape and incest. Any sexual intercourse below the age of consent is rape. An average age has been quoted as age 11, and the onset of incest cited as ages 5–8. One could argue about the psychological manipulation when incestual rape continues above the age of consent, but it’s reasonable to consider it to be continuing rape. So, when we say incest, we are invariably talking rape.

      But as I’ve asked below, do you think incest between consenting adults, if and when no rape has occurred justifies abortion, whereas for other couples you would insist on forced birth? That is a very black and white view.

      Should a couple have sex once or twice to produce children? Are they then allowed to have a vasectomy and/or sterilisation in case they want to have sex a second or third time? Or should every couple use every single form of contraception under the sun in the hope they avoid that unwanted pregnancy that they are doing their best to avoid?

      It is demeaning to women to compare them to a meal at a fast food restaurant. It is farcical to compare an unwanted pregnancy with intentional theft.

      Not everyone shares your sex drive or ability for abstinence, your desire for every unintentional pregnancy to be forced to term, or your judgemental, preaching, sanctimonious attitude.

      When you have had periods, you know, that bloody mess in your knickers, those vile cramps in your stomach, and feeling of nausea, and when you have had a fear of pregnancy ruining your life, then you can climb off your high horse and converse with normal people.

      Telling people to remain abstinent for fear of pregnancy when they should be engaging in a healthful sex life is skewed and perverted.

      Liked by 1 person

I appreciate any comments you leave, so long as they are relatively polite. And thanks for reading.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s