# Think Tank > History >  History of Abortion Laws

## Mesogen

Someone posted this in a thread at Fark. 

I thought it was interesting and decided to share it here. 

It comes from a pro-choice perspective, that's why they say "anti-choice." 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion has been in existence since the Ancient times and practiced by women all over the world. From primitive potions to barbaric tools and odd instruments, women resorted to painful, humiliating procedures in order to induce a miscarriage. When you take a look at the evolution of abortion, the reasons are clear WHY Hope Clinic was established and continues to exist today.

 	2600 BC First recorded recipe for an abortion producing drug.

 	1850 BC Egyptians record recipe for contraceptive pessaries, one made from crocodile dung.

 	4th Century AD St.Augustine lays down Catholic dogma sanctioning abortion up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus.

 	13th Century AD -St.Thomas Aquinas states Catholic dogma justifying sexual intercourse only for procreation.

 	1564 AD -Italian anatomist, Fallopius, discoverer of Fallopian tubes, publicizes condoms as anti-venereal disease devices.

 	1588  Pope Sixtus forbids all abortions.

 	1591  Pope Gregory XIV rescinds Pope Sixtus edict against abortion.

 	1803  Great Britain makes abortion a misdemeanor.

 	1821  Connecticut outlaws abortion after quickening, early abortions are legal.

 	1860s  All states pass comprehensive, criminal abortion laws. Most remain until 1973.

 	1869  Pope Pius IX forbids all abortions in exchange for Frances Napoleon III acknowledging papal infallibility. Frances population experienced a sharp decrease over the previous 60 years.

 	1873  Federal Comstock laws enacted prohibiting mailing or distribution of information on birth control and abortion.

 	1879  Margaret Higgins Sanger is born. She led the movement for birth control in the U.S.

 	1882  First modern birth control clinic in the world opens in Holland, sponsored by trade unions.

 	1913  Margaret Sanger arrested for violation of Comstock laws because of feminist birth control columns in, The Woman Rebel.

 	1916 - Margaret Sanger & her sister, Ethel Byrne jailed for dispensing contraceptive information at first American birth control clinic in Brooklyn, NY.

 	1924  First scientific confirmation of womens ovulatory and fertility cycle.

 	1930  Pope Pius XI affirms Catholic dogma that every act of sexual intercourse is a sin unless performed with a reproductive intent.

 	1942  Margaret Sangers Birth Control Federation of America becomes Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

 	1956  Dr. John Rock (a Catholic) and others developed the birth control pill. Their research was funded by two women.

 	1960s  FBI crime reports showed organized crime rings made enormous profits performing dangerous abortions. Any doctors caught performing a safe abortion were sent to prison, fined, and had their medical license taken away.

 	1963  Pope Paul IV issues encyclical Humanae Vitae condemning artificial birth control.

 	1965  In Griswold v. Connecticut, U.S. Supreme Court rules Connecticuts law prohibiting birth control for married couples violates a newly defined right of marital privacy.
 	1967  Then-Governor Ronald Reagan of California signs the most liberal abortion law of the times allowing freedom of choice during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

 	1970  Hawaii, Alaska, and New York repeal criminal abortion laws allowing abortion in the first trimester.

 	1970  Belotti v Baird II decision allows states to require parental consent for abortion so long as there is a confidential judicial bypass.

 	1972  Supreme Court finds the right to privacy of unmarried persons violated by Massachusetts law against distribution of contraceptives in Eisenstadt v Baird. Justice Brennan in the majority opinion states that all Americans have a right to bear and beget children free from government interference.

 	1973  On January 22, 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, hands down Roe v Wade making a 1st trimester abortion a private decision between a woman & her physician. In the 2nd trimester states can put limitations on abortion with regard to the health of the pregnant woman. In the 3rd trimester states can make abortion illegal except to save the life of the woman.

 	1973  Indiana passes first call for a Constitutional Convention to ban abortion.

 	1974 - Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, IL, opens as one of the first abortion providers.

 	1976  Hyde Amendment is passed barring the use of federal Medicaid funds to provide abortions to poor women.

 	1977  A revised Hyde Amendment is passed which allows states to deny Medicaid funding except in cases of rape, incest, or severe and long lasting damage to the womans physical health. Rosise Jimenez, a 27- year-old mother on welfare, died of an illegal abortion as she could not afford to get a legal abortion due to the Hyde Amendment.

 	1977  First reported arson at an abortion clinic (in St. Paul, MN) and first know bombing of an abortion clinic (in Cincinnati, OH).

 	1980  19 of the 34 states required have passed calls for a Constitutional Convention.

 	1982 - Janyary, 1/3 of Hope Clinic destroyed by fire bomb.

 	1982 - August, physician who owns Hope Clinic kidnapped along with his wife by three men calling themselves the Army of God. Both were held bound, blindfolded, and gagged on the dirt floor of an abandoned munitions bunker for eight days. All three men went to jail.

 	1989  Webster v Reproductive Health Services is handed down by Supreme Court allowing states to place increased restrictions on access.

 	1991  Supreme Court upholds Title X gag rule (restriction on mentioning abortion in federally funded clinics) in Rust v Sullivan. Congress votes overwhelmingly to overturn gag rule, but override of Pres. Bushs veto fails narrowly.

 	1993  Newly inaugurated President Clinton reverses several anti-choice policies of Reagan & Bush administrations including gag rule.

 	1993  Dr.David Gunn is murdered by anti-choice fanatic in Florida. He is the first of a series of abortion providers shot in the following years.

 	1994  President Clinton signs Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) making it a federal crime to interfere with the provision of reproductive health care.

 	1994  Dr. John Britton, Lt. Col. Jim Barrett, Shannon Lowney, and Leanne Nichols are murdered in shootings at three abortion clinics.

 	1995  U.S. clinical trials of mifepristone (RU486)

 	1998  25 years of legal abortion in America.

 	1999 - Hope Clinic moves to state-of-the-art building.

 	2000  FDA approves Mifeprex (RU486)

 	2000 - Hope Clinic begins offering the abortion pill (Mifeprex).

 	2004 - Hope Clinic turns 30 years old.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's interesting to me that at certain times, the Catholic church was OK with abortion.

----------


## dannno

> 1960’s – FBI crime reports showed organized crime rings made enormous profits performing dangerous abortions.


hmmmm..

Is abortion murder in the eyes of God? I think so. Will God punish this person in time no matter what the state or federal laws on abortion are? I would imagine so.

Does a woman or doctor performing an abortion make them inherently dangerous to rest of society? No. Should they be put in prison? No. 

That is how I believe the states should handle the issue, but I leave it up to them.

----------


## dannno

If you are religious you have to remember that society does not need to prohibit something in order for it to be wrong in the eyes of God. Abortion being legal doesn't sanction abortion in the eyes of God. 

Prison is for people who are dangerous to society. Fetuses do not have birth certificates, and are not part of society yet, so I think it is reasonable to give jurisdiction to the mother.

----------


## Mesogen

Thank God for certificates. Where would we be without them? Well, not part of society, that's for sure.

----------


## ChaosControl

Yeah, people have been disgusting selfish sickos since the beginning of time.
But yeah I was surprised the Catholics were okay with it at one point, just kinda shows how screwy religion is.

----------


## dannno

> Thank God for certificates. Where would we be without them? Well, not part of society, that's for sure.


My point was that society is there to protect the members of that society, and the unborn are invisible to said society, they do not keep records of them. Especially early pregnancies.. they are completely invisible. If the fetus goes missing there is no way of knowing that they even existed in the first place. It's not the strongest part of my argument, but you did not answer the part of my post regarding them being dangerous to society, so until you do the entire argument stands on its own.

You might also tell me what you think about teas and substances that produce miscarriage. Is that the same as abortion? How does one know whether a mother knowingly took an abortive remedy or whether the miscarriage was natural?

----------


## dannno

If you think God is against abortion so much, why don't you assume that he will punish those who perform it accordingly? 

If the person is otherwise safe within society, but they commit an abortion, are you unsure of whether justice will inevitably be served? 

I mean, come on, get some eternal perspective on things! Just because you are Christian doesn't mean you need to be for the  earthly punishment of women or doctors who commit abortions. Birthing is such a personal experience, I see no reason why the state needs to be involved.

----------


## Deborah K

All this proves is that barbaric behavior has been around (in all its forms) since the existence of humanity.  And the religious are not exempt.

----------


## Deborah K

Look up Margaret Sanger and eugenics.

----------


## ChaosControl

dannno, not everyone pro-life is religious.

----------


## dannno

> dannno, not everyone pro-life is religious.


Ya, that's why not all my arguments are religious based. 

You'll have to answer whether the women or doctors are dangerous to society, whether the black market creates worse conditions and nobody has said ANYTHING about abortive remedies, etc..

----------


## dannno

Although I would like to get a head count of those who are pro-life and NOT religious....

anybody? 

ChaosControl, are you not religious?

I've personally never met anybody who was not religious and pro-life, but I don't doubt they exist.

----------


## Objectivist

As an Atheist I am only concerned with fact, so here are the facts. The unborn child is a individual genetic entity, it is a being with it's own DNA in other words. The mother is nothing but a host and continues to be a host along with the father in a proper scenario after the child is delivered.

Now, I'm not against women murdering their own offspring and it actually is a good thing that people capable of murdering their own offspring, are not reproducing. Just recognize that it is you that are the mental cripple who was incapable of being a responsible human being and the burden of murder is yours for life. I can justify murder in war or in response to being attacked by another human being. How do you justify murdering your own child? Then again I don't mind, but you appear as a psychopath when you do.

NOw at what point in this video did that child become something other than just that, a child? Because it looks like a child to me, it had a heartbeat at a much earlier time. And most importantly it is an individual genetic entity.

YouTube - Partial-Birth Abortion Illustrated Video The Crime of Crimes / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Film

----------


## Deborah K

> Although I would like to get a head count of those who are pro-life and NOT religious....
> 
> anybody? 
> 
> ChaosControl, are you not religious?
> 
> I've personally never met anybody who was not religious and pro-life, but I don't doubt they exist.



And your point izzzzzz........?

----------


## Objectivist

Roe vs. Wade and Abortion in America is responsible for the deaths of 11 million African Americans. Genocide?

----------


## dannno

Apparently in the very early stages the fetus looks more like a sea creature, develops gills and then develops some sort of furry skin like a monkey.. then it sheds it and takes a more human form. 

I think partial birth abortions are sickening. If I were a doctor I would never administer one. I would tell the woman to try an abortive remedy (not sure of the exact definition of partial birth, so maybe not..) or just put the baby up for adoption. It's too late. I don't have a huge problem with abortions in the very early stages.


Back to the Christians: What if you died and found out God delivers the spirit of a child as they are exiting the mother's womb, and all of this divisiveness over abortion was created by Satan to make Christians seem less palatable to the masses? I mean, the early Catholic Church said abortion was ok, so it obviously isn't a cut and dry issue in the Bible.

----------


## dannno

> And your point izzzzzz........?


Morbid curiosity.

----------


## Deborah K

> Morbid curiosity.


Sounds like it's poll time...

----------


## dannno

> Sounds like it's poll time...


You gonna dance?

----------


## Deborah K

> Apparently in the very early stages the fetus looks more like a sea creature, develops gills and then develops some sort of furry skin like a monkey.. then it sheds it and takes a more human form. 
> 
> I think partial birth abortions are sickening. If I were a doctor I would never administer one. I would tell the woman to try an abortive remedy (not sure of the exact definition of partial birth, so maybe not..) or just put the baby up for adoption. It's too late. I don't have a huge problem with abortions in the very early stages.
> 
> 
> Back to the Christians: What if you died and found out God delivers the spirit of a child as they are exiting the mother's womb, and all of this divisiveness over abortion was created by Satan to make Christians seem less palatable to the masses? I mean, the early Catholic Church said abortion was ok, so it obviously isn't a cut and dry issue in the Bible.


Danno, take the fundamental christian thinking out of the equation for a minute.  You were once that sea monkey you described - we all were.  We had to start somewhere.  A woman is never 'sort of' pregnant so you can't begin with the premise that we really don't start out as human beings.

I think we all intuitively (whether we're willing to admit it or not) know that life for humans begins at the beginning.  

Unborn babies don't have a voice in any of this madness.  They NEED our protection.  All babies are objects of love. 

With some EIGHT different kinds of contraception available, it boggles my mind that there are still so many abortions.  oh....make it nine....since abortion is now considered an acceptable form of contraception.

----------


## Deborah K

> You gonna dance?


Poll not pole silly.

----------


## klamath

I am agnostic and  I feel abortion is is ultimate evil.  War is a lot more of a sane way of killing people.  At least you know the people you are killing are guilty of something and you get the fun of blowing sh*t up.  If your neighbor is an inconvenience to you or has something you want, Kill em!

----------


## Theocrat

More important than how abortion has been legislated and sanctioned in history is what instruments abortionists have used to murder millions of innocent lives throughout history. Abortion "doctors" have got to be the most heartless and twisted people on God's earth to do what they do. For those who have the wit and stomach to view these instruments of death, click here, *but I must warn you that there is a graphic video at the top of the web page, so viewer discretion is advised.*

----------


## Original_Intent

> If you think God is against abortion so much, why don't you assume that he will punish those who perform it accordingly? 
> 
> If the person is otherwise safe within society, but they commit an abortion, are you unsure of whether justice will inevitably be served? 
> 
> I mean, come on, get some eternal perspective on things! Just because you are Christian doesn't mean you need to be for the  earthly punishment of women or doctors who commit abortions. Birthing is such a personal experience, I see no reason why the state needs to be involved.


By this logic, if society decided that you were not a "real person" until you were age two, and did not give you a personhood certificate until then, no one should complain about infanticide, and let god sort it out. Or maybe it makes more sense that you are not a person until you are able to completely care for yourself - that makes more sense, until you can take care of yourself you live at the whim of your parents. They aren't a threat to society, and what they do with their kids is their business.

----------


## ChaosControl

> Although I would like to get a head count of those who are pro-life and NOT religious....
> 
> anybody? 
> 
> ChaosControl, are you not religious?
> 
> I've personally never met anybody who was not religious and pro-life, but I don't doubt they exist.


I am agnostic.

And it isn't about whether they are a danger to society, it is about the actual action of abortion, so that question is pointless.

As for worse conditions on the black market... well I imagine there would be some who would pursue such a route and for them it'd be worse. Others would simply not do it if it wasn't readily available. Overall numbers of abortions would go down, which is the goal.

Abortive remedies?

----------


## Working Poor

I think it is interesting that Jesus never said anything directly about abortion although it was going on during the time of His earth walk.

He got pretty mad over the money changers though.

Jesus healed the sick and commanded to love one another and to love your enemy. He called religious people hypocrites and the politicians had Him killed. He hung out with tax collectors and  other unpopular people. He told His followers to heal the sick and spread the message of love and that the truth will make you free. He has power to raise the dead.

----------


## literatim

> Back to the Christians: What if you died and found out God delivers the spirit of a child as they are exiting the mother's womb, and all of this divisiveness over abortion was created by Satan to make Christians seem less palatable to the masses? I mean, the early Catholic Church said abortion was ok, so it obviously isn't a cut and dry issue in the Bible.


A non-Christian should not be in here trying to argue for abortion using Biblical context. You will always loose.

The Bible and Abortion: The Biblical Basis for a Prolife Position

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/prolife.html"]What does the Bible teach about abortion?

----------


## TechnoMage

...why is it then that the american people have never got to vote on it in a national referendum?

...why is it that 9 blacked robed oligarchist(SCOTUS) allowed to "make law" in this matter, the case before them was phony and staged. it seems as though a whole body of "law" has been created around this nonsense.

abortion in my mind is a states right issue and i do not like my tax dollars funding it for any reason and in any country.  i believe that doctor Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies and not once has he seen where "the womans life was in danger" if she delivered, which is the biggest "what if" scenario offered by the pro-choice crowd. it seems as though with personal responsibility and contraception that abortion would be very rare, and, least we not forget, it is no less messy on a operating table than it "supposedly" was in the back alley. in 1984 i seen the 30 second film clipp titled "silent scream"...anyone else? it removed all doubt from me about the right/wrong debate...it is wrong at all levels and in any context.

after all, lacy petersons baby did not have a "certificate" but yet scott got convicted of double murder and is on death row for it.

i have a great idea...why don't we get all the liberals together, revoke their birth certificates and then abort them since they can rationalize just about anything.

----------


## Objectivist

> A non-Christian should not be in here trying to argue for abortion using Biblical context. You will always loose.
> 
> The Bible and Abortion: The Biblical Basis for a Prolife Position
> 
> http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/prolife.html"]What does the Bible teach about abortion?


You rang? If there were a god I'd say he was pro-death or pro-abortion as more than half of all conceptions end in a miscarriage. There again I don't believe in the invisible people like Christians do.

----------


## PaulaGem

Religion assumes a soul is that which distinguishes man from animal. 

The existance of the Soul can not be scientifically proven.

The time of ensoulment, when a fetus becomes a man under religous belief can not be established by an empirical test.

Therefore law, which depends on objective tests of fact can not be constructed in a way that is acceptable to religion.

Don't expect the impossible, in other words.

----------


## PaulaGem

> i have a great idea...why don't we get all the liberals together, revoke their birth certificates and then abort them since they can rationalize just about anything.


I have a great idea, why don't you try to stop thinking about anyone who believes differently from you as a pariah "liberal" and apply a little original thought to the issue?

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

A human in the Embryonic Stage (a fetus for cowards who are squeamish and therefore have to think up a euphemism) is still that: a human. As others have said, personhood begins the moment a unique human DNA chain is created (conception). Self-awareness is irrelevant as I can make the case for gassing the mentally retarded if not.

----------


## Krugerrand

> You rang? If there were a god I'd say he was pro-death or pro-abortion as more than half of all conceptions end in a miscarriage. There again I don't believe in the invisible people like Christians do.


100% of all conceptions ultimately end in death.

----------


## Krugerrand

> Religion assumes a soul is that which distinguishes man from animal. 
> 
> The existance of the Soul can not be scientifically proven.
> 
> The time of ensoulment, when a fetus becomes a man under religous belief can not be established by an empirical test.
> 
> Therefore law, which depends on objective tests of fact can not be constructed in a way that is acceptable to religion.
> 
> Don't expect the impossible, in other words.


This has nothing to do with a "soul."  This has to do with protecting the individual human life of an unborn child.  Much like we protect other human life.

----------


## PaulaGem

When then does a fetus become human?

Your definition must be something that can be proven empirically.

Please don't say that it is at the moment of conception.  That makes God or fate the biggest abortionist around.

And I do believe in the Soul, an eternal componant of personhood.   Religionists believe in the Soul and it is the reason that human life is considered sacred.

Otherwise we are just another animal and there is no reason to protect the fetus of an animal if the animal is overbreeding.

----------


## Krugerrand

> When then does a fetus become human?
> 
> Your definition must be something that can be proven empirically.


A human fetus doesn't become human ... it is human.  Much like an young chicken in a an unhatched egg doesn't become a chicken after it hatches it is a chicken before it hatches.  It is a unique chicken different from it's mama and papa chicken.

----------


## Krugerrand

> When then does a fetus become human?
> 
> Your definition must be something that can be proven empirically.
> 
> Please don't say that it is at the moment of conception.  That makes God or fate the biggest abortionist around.
> 
> And I do believe in the Soul, an eternal componant of personhood.   Religionists believe in the Soul and it is the reason that human life is considered sacred.
> 
> Otherwise we are just another animal and there is no reason to protect the fetus of an animal if the animal is overbreeding.


This has nothing to do with as "soul."  It's biology.  All conceptions end it death.  This is about not causing a human death.

----------


## Brown Sapper

Ugh I hate this topic.

Lets me just start this by saying I am pro-life for personal reasons.
In order to determine when life begins you have to look at when life ends.  When does a doctor says "this ones a goner"?  There are three vital functions that a body must have in order to live; a heartbeat, breathing and brain activity.  If one is missing then can the embryo be considered alive?

----------


## Krugerrand

> Ugh I hate this topic.
> 
> Lets me just start this by saying I am pro-life for personal reasons.
> In order to determine when life begins you have to look at when life ends.  When does a doctor says "this ones a goner"?  There are three vital functions that a body must have in order to live; a heartbeat, breathing and brain activity.  If one is missing then can the embryo be considered alive?


That's not a biologically sound argument.  Is the unhatched chicken in an egg not alive when its heart is not beating or it is not yet breathing or the brain activity not active.  The organism is most certainly alive before then.

To say that an organism must have these things at the beginning of its life makes a good sound byte ... but it is irrational.  There is no valid reason to support the concept that life at its first stages must equal life at its final stage.

----------


## Brown Sapper

Touche.

So what is different for the 3 month stillborn baby and and the 3 month aborted baby?

----------


## Krugerrand

> Touche.
> 
> So what is different for the 3 month stillborn baby and and the 3 month aborted baby?


Cause of death is the difference.  Plus, the latter may have burns all over its body or be dismembered into pieces depending on the "procedure" used.

----------


## dannno

Wow.. several pages have gone by, I have mentioned abortive remedies at least 3 times, at least ONE person asked what it was, I have asked the question probably 15 times total on these forums, and not ONE answer.

Is it wrong to use abortive remedies in the eyes of God? Valid question.

Should they be illegal? I certainly think not.

An abortive remedy would be like an herb that you put into a tea that causes miscarriage. How do you prove that was the intent?? How do you prove that the herb caused the miscarriage and it didn't occur naturally? What's the difference between that and someone using cannabis? Don't we all have a choice of what we put into our bodies?

----------


## Deborah K

> Wow.. several pages have gone by, I have mentioned abortive remedies at least 3 times, at least ONE person asked what it was, I have asked the question probably 15 times total on these forums, and not ONE answer.
> 
> Is it wrong to use abortive remedies in the eyes of God? Valid question.
> 
> Should they be illegal? I certainly think not.
> 
> An abortive remedy would be like an herb that you put into a tea that causes miscarriage. How do you prove that was the intent?? How do you prove that the herb caused the miscarriage and it didn't occur naturally? What's the difference between that and someone using cannabis? Don't we all have a choice of what we put into our bodies?



Danno, I'm not getting your persistence on this matter of abortive remedies.  To my way of thinking, it's abortion pure and simple.  So what is there to talk about?  The methods used are only one aspect of this issue.  The intention to kill the unborn is the same whether or not it's done with tea or surgical instruments.

----------


## dannno

> A non-Christian should not be in here trying to argue for abortion using Biblical context. You will always loose.
> 
> The Bible and Abortion: The Biblical Basis for a Prolife Position
> 
> http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/prolife.html"]What does the Bible teach about abortion?


I will NEVER lose because though I am agnostic and accept the possibility of Christianity to be true, but I will NEVER believe that the Bible is the "word of God" when it was originally written decades if not centuries after Christ died, and it was funded and translated by European royalty. There is no proof that any of this text existed during Jesus' time on earth, and even the Mormons believe in the Bible "as long as it is *translated* correctly". They believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God because it was translated by Joseph Smith using a tool sent from God directly from the source.

I have no idea when the spirit enters the body, and if the body is simply a carrier for a spirit, then how do we know when the spirit enters the body?? I'm not going to take King James' word for it, either.

----------


## Deborah K

> Therefore law, which depends on objective tests of fact can not be constructed in a way that is acceptable to religion.
> 
> Don't expect the impossible, in other words.


Paula, are you familiar with Alexis de Tocqueville?  Based on the above comment, I don't think you are.  In fact, you don't seem to be very well versed on the founding of America as it pertains to her gov't at all.  Religious principles played a huge role in laying the foundation.

----------


## dannno

Maybe someone here, particularly Theocrat, could site in the Bible where exactly it says that MAN is responsible for enforcing GOD's laws here on earth. Cause I always thought they would be enforced on an eternal scale.

----------


## dannno

> Danno, I'm not getting your persistence on this matter of abortive remedies.  To my way of thinking, it's abortion pure and simple.  So what is there to talk about?  The methods used are only one aspect of this issue.  The intention to kill the unborn is the same whether or not it's done with tea or surgical instruments.


OK, that's one opinion, but you are also for making drugs illegal, so it would carry that you might think other substances should be illegal. 

I have no idea how you plan on enforcing that. Do you make the people who grow the herb illegal? What if it has other medicinal uses? Your going to make an entire plant illegal Or do you make the act illegal? How do you enforce this without destroying privacy rights?? How do you know the herb caused the miscarriage, miscarriages happen all the time!!

It's a logistical thing.. I think the WoD is stupid for these same reasons.. so making an abortive remedy illegal? Also dumb.

----------


## Natalie

> 4th Century AD –St.Augustine lays down Catholic dogma sanctioning abortion up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus.



How did they know if it was a boy or girl back then?  I thought finding out the gender before it was born was pretty new...   Plus, you can't even tell if it's a boy or girl after 40 days.  Am I mis-reading this?

----------


## Deborah K

> Maybe someone here, particularly Theocrat, could site in the Bible where exactly it says that MAN is responsible for enforcing GOD's laws here on earth. Cause I always thought they would be enforced on an eternal scale.



That would derail this thread.  And anyway, what difference would it make since you've already stated you don't believe the bible is the word of God?

----------


## Deborah K

> OK, that's one opinion, but you are also for making drugs illegal, so it would carry that you might think other substances should be illegal. 
> 
> I have no idea how you plan on enforcing that. Do you make the people who grow the herb illegal? Do you make the act illegal? How do you enforce this without destroying privacy rights??


Another derail.  I am for de-criminalizing drug use.  Show me where I said I was for keeping drug use illegal?

----------


## Deborah K

> How did they know if it was a boy or girl back then?  I thought finding out the gender before it was born was pretty new...   Plus, you can't even tell if it's a boy or girl after 40 days.  Am I mis-reading this?



Good question!!!  Actually, I'd like to see an official source on this "history".

----------


## Theocrat

> How did they know if it was a boy or girl back then?  I thought finding out the gender before it was born was pretty new...   Plus, you can't even tell if it's a boy or girl after 40 days.  Am I mis-reading this?


Maybe that piece of information was made up? After all, it is coming from a source which advocates abortion, so I would presume to say that maybe they got their facts wrong in an effort to make individuals in church history, like Augustine, look like villains against "freedom of choice."

----------


## dannno

> That would derail this thread.  And anyway, what difference would it make since you've already stated you don't believe the bible is the word of God?


Not much, just trying to get a justification from Christians here, because the Christians here are by far the most reasonable amongst the group as a whole, advocates so strongly for state intervention for enforcing God's laws. 

I don't want to see any Old Testament BS either, cause Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses.

----------


## dannno

> Another derail.  I am for de-criminalizing drug use.  Show me where I said I was for keeping them illegal?


I could have sworn that was one place where you said you had disagreed with Ron Paul.. it seems like it was about a month or two ago.. and it was in a thread on that very topic (which I'm sure I'll never find).. if not I stand corrected.

----------


## dannno

Abortive remedies were in the OP, so they are fair game. 

So are we going to start making plants or substances illegal to prevent abortions?

Personally I think medical abortions are pretty horrid even when they are done early, I would like to see our society switch back to abortive remedies. I think the eugenecists got us hooked on the medical abortion to corrupt a piece of humanities' conscience. I think most people would prefer not to be violent against a fetus. Abortive remedies are much safer and cheaper, they are effective, it is something that happens naturally anyways, and women can obtain them earlier on in their pregnancy. One reason women get late abortions is because they don't have the funding early in the pregnancy.. But these remedies would cost virtually nothing.

----------


## Natalie

Yeah, sooo....  I think I just debunked this whole thread.  Pwned.

----------


## dannno

> Early Christians, following the lead of their Jewish forebears, respected life in the womb as "fashioned by God."[5] Nonetheless, a distinction was always made between the "unformed" character of the early embryo and the "formed" fetus.[6] Augustine, for example, concluded that an early abortion could not be termed "a homicide" because, he argued, "there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed" (On Exodus)[7]. However, Augustine also admitted he might be wrong and an undeveloped body may indeed have life and be present at the resurrection.[8]
> 
> 
> 
> 5 See, for example, Psalm 139:13-18.
> 
> 6 Michael J. Gorman, in Abortion & the Early Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982), shows that, for most Church Fathers, "a certain stage of development is necessary before there is a person and, hence, before there can be a murder" (p. 69). For an in-depth study, see Daniel Dombrowski, "St. Augustine, Abortion, and Libido Crudelis", Journal of the History of Ideas 49 (1988) 151-156.
> 
> 7 Augustine searched the Scriptures and examined the medical/philosophical treatises of his day without coming to any firm conclusion on the matter of the time of ensoulment. He wrote as follows: "When a thing obscure in itself defeats our sagacity, and nothing in Scripture comes to our aid, it is not safe for humans to presume they can pronounce on it" (Letter 190.5). Augustine, in his City of God 22.13, takes up the issue as to whether aborted fetuses will be resurrected on the last day. Here, Augustine is tentative when speaking of a viable fetus.
> ...


-Wiki

----------


## Deborah K

> I could have sworn that was one place where you said you had disagreed with Ron Paul.. it seems like it was about a month or two ago.. and it was in a thread on that very topic (which I'm sure I'll never find).. if not I stand corrected.


OP please forgive the temporary digression.  Danno, I don't believe people who use drugs belong in jail. Period. Hence, my stance on decriminalization of drug use.  But I am against LEGALIZING drugs for the following reasons:

1.  It would mean more gov't intrusion into our lives.  More gov't expansion if they are allowed to regulate it.

2.  It would increase addiction exponentially and cost the country more than it already does - which is more than the WODs is costing.

Here's the thread on my argument:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...alcohol&page=7

I am not an advocate of the WODs.  It's just another inefficient gov't activity.  I don't have the answers but my inclination is that the gov't needs to stay the hell out of it all the way around.  I guess you could say, I really don't have much of a problem with the black market.

----------


## Krugerrand

> Abortive remedies were in the OP, so they are fair game. 
> 
> So are we going to start making plants or substances illegal to prevent abortions?
> 
> Personally I think medical abortions are pretty horrid even when they are done early, I would like to see our society switch back to abortive remedies. I think the eugenecists got us hooked on the medical abortion to corrupt a piece of humanities' conscience. I think most people would prefer not to be violent against a fetus. Abortive remedies are much safer and cheaper, they are effective, it is something that happens naturally anyways, and women can obtain them earlier on in their pregnancy. One reason women get late abortions is because they don't have the funding early in the pregnancy.. But these remedies would cost virtually nothing.


I think this is a fair line of discussion, I just don't see it clouding the issue.  

It almost all cases, something such as this would be completely unenforceable.  I think a fantastic percentage of abortions would still not happen without the abortion industry encouraging and supporting the abortions.

----------


## Krugerrand

> How did they know if it was a boy or girl back then?  I thought finding out the gender before it was born was pretty new...   Plus, you can't even tell if it's a boy or girl after 40 days.  Am I mis-reading this?


This list is rather suspect anyway from a credibility perspective and from a relevance to what abortion laws should be now.  What happened in 2600 BC, what Pope Sixtus did in 1588, when Margaret Sanger was born .... so what.

The thing I can't figure out is why people who don't care about what various churches believe care about what those churches' historical beliefs or the internal faith-based merits of those beliefs.  (Danno, that's the way I read the earlier thread about atheists not arguing from a biblical perspective.  Once the case is made against a religious argument as irrelevant, what use is there in discussing the merits of the religious argument?  Of course, the suggestion of atheist's de facto failing the argument certainly merited objection.)

----------


## dannno

> The thing I can't figure out is why people who don't care about what various churches believe care about what those churches' historical beliefs or the internal faith-based merits of those beliefs.  (Danno, that's the way I read the earlier thread about atheists not arguing from a biblical perspective.  Once the case is made against a religious argument as irrelevant, what use is there in discussing the merits of the religious argument?  Of course, the suggestion of atheist's de facto failing the argument certainly merited objection.)


I'm just picking the Christian collective's brains. 

It's sort of similar to the gay marriage thing.. Why do some Christians care if gay people _think_ they are getting married? Obviously if God is so much against homosexuality then gay marriage is a sham.. since marriage is between a man and a woman and God.. So why do they care what they are doing? Ron Paul has said that he does NOT in fact care what gay people do in this regard. 

Obviously this is a little different, I mean, I argue the Christian perspective on abortion to people who are pro life all the time.. I respect both positions and am a bit agnostic on the issue.

The point is, is man responsible for enforcing God's laws? Why would he hold us accountable for not enforcing them we we know damn well that he is going to?

----------


## Krugerrand

> The point is, is man responsible for enforcing God's laws? Why would he hold us accountable for not enforcing them we we know damn well that he is going to?


I am a little surprised also that history has moved many Christians to the GOP.  I know many a pro-life Democrats.  Typically, they are Christian-Socialists that very much think "goodness" should be legislated.

Personally, I would like to see a more liberty-based system where a Christian, or anybody else is free to exorcise their faith, and (hopefully by example and without annoyance) encourage others to share their beliefs.  (ie, I have no problem with people politely knocking on my door to share their faith .... just politely leave when I say that I'm not interested.)

Of course, life necessarily comes before liberty.  And, even at it's earliest stages, all humans deserve legal protection from murder.  I don't see that as religious, I see it as fundamental to the definition of liberty.

----------


## Deborah K

> Of course, life necessarily comes before liberty.  And, even at it's earliest stages, all humans deserve legal protection from murder.  I don't see that as religious, I see it as fundamental to the definition of liberty.


Bravo!  Well put!

----------


## Icymudpuppy

I would never perform an abortion on my own child.  It is counter to maximizing my own reproductive success, and therefore detrimental to the continuance of my genetic line.  On the other hand, I have no problem with other people aborting their children as it means more resources for my children.  I shouldn't have to pay for their self destruction, though.  Abortion should be legal, but 100% privately funded.

----------


## Krugerrand

> I would never perform an abortion on my own child.  It is counter to maximizing my own reproductive success, and therefore detrimental to the continuance of my genetic line.  On the other hand, I have no problem with other people aborting their children as it means more resources for my children.  I shouldn't have to pay for their self destruction, though.  Abortion should be legal, but 100% privately funded.


Are you also okay with parents killing their 3 year old children to help free up resources for your reproductive successes?

----------


## literatim

> Maybe someone here, particularly Theocrat, could site in the Bible where exactly it says that MAN is responsible for enforcing GOD's laws here on earth. Cause I always thought they would be enforced on an eternal scale.


Genesis 9:6  He that sheds man's blood, instead of that blood shall his own be shed, for in the image of God I made man.

----------


## dannno

> And, even at it's earliest stages, all humans deserve legal protection from murder.


Personally I don't see the fetus as an individual because they are so completely dependent on the mother for their survival. How can you define a fetus as an individual just because they have the potential to be an individual? Are we going to put a woman in jail who stops eating because she is pregnant? What about a woman who punches herself in the stomach to try to have a miscarriage? How on _earth_ do you enforce that? It's just not logical for me to see police going around enforcing this type of stuff without being extremely tyrannical in their approach. 

You can't make that statement without going all the way, can you? Should mothers be locked up in jail for smoking cigarettes during pregnancy? How on earth do you enforce that?

Is using an abortive remedy murder, and should the state be involved? Are we going to outlaw the plants and substances that make these up?

Again, you make a valid argument, but so does the pro-choice side of the debate. You can't argue that the fetus is an individual because by definition you could say they are not.. are connected and dependent to their mother, so I say they aren't individuals until they are born. You can disagree with me, but I think it's a bit presumptuous to go around throwing women and doctors in jail when you don't know if a fetus has a spirit, a consciousness or really anything that makes an individual besides DNA.

I say be an example, teach that abortion is wrong. If someone makes a mistake, they can answer to God. If you aren't Christian, then use the logistical side of the debate as your guide. Logistically it doesn't make sense to outlaw abortion because women are going to find a way to do it one way or another, and attempting to enforce such a questionable law in the first place with a tyrannical approach? I have a hard time with that.

----------


## Krugerrand

> Genesis 9:6  He that sheds man's blood, instead of that blood shall his own be shed, for in the image of God I made man.


Does that have to imply who responsibility it is for that outcome?  It seems that one could risk being presumptuous to infer that responsibility on one's self.

----------


## dannno

> Genesis 9:6  He that sheds man's blood, instead of that blood shall his own be shed, for in the image of God I made man.


Is this an order? It doesn't sound like it, it sounds more like it is inevitable or justified or something. It doesn't sound like a responsibility.

Was this Moses' law that was fulfilled by Christ? There are a lot of crazy laws in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Christ, who preached forgiveness.

I was actually asking for something out of the New Testament.

----------


## dannno

> Are you also okay with parents killing their 3 year old children to help free up resources for your reproductive successes?


No, they are individuals.. I don't know how a fetus could possibly be defined as an individual, now that I really think about it. I mean, if they have a spirit and consciousness, maybe, but we don't really know that.

----------


## literatim

Deutronomy 19:11-12
11But if there should be in thee a man hating his neighbour, and he should lay wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him, that he die, and he should flee to one of these cities, 12then shall the elders of his city send, and take him thence, and they shall deliver him into the hands of the avengers of blood, and he shall die.

----------


## Krugerrand

> Personally I don't see the fetus as an individual because they are so completely dependent on the mother for their survival. How can you define a fetus as an individual just because they have the potential to be an individual? Are we going to put a woman in jail who stops eating because she is pregnant? What about a woman who punches herself in the stomach to try to have a miscarriage? How on _earth_ do you enforce that? It's just not logical for me to see police going around enforcing this type of stuff without being extremely tyrannical in their approach. 
> 
> You can't make that statement without going all the way, can you? Should mothers be locked up in jail for smoking cigarettes during pregnancy? How on earth do you enforce that?
> 
> Is using an abortive remedy murder, and should the state be involved? Are we going to outlaw the plants and substances that make these up?
> 
> Again, you make a valid argument, but so does the pro-choice side of the debate. You can't argue that the fetus is an individual because by definition you could say they are not.. are connected and dependent to their mother, so I say they aren't individuals until they are born. You can disagree with me, but I think it's a bit presumptuous to go around throwing women and doctors in jail when you don't know if a fetus has a spirit, a consciousness or really anything that makes an individual besides DNA.
> 
> I say be an example, teach that abortion is wrong. If someone makes a mistake, they can answer to God. If you aren't Christian, then use the logistical side of the debate as your guide. Logistically it doesn't make sense to outlaw abortion because women are going to find a way to do it one way or another, and attempting to enforce such a questionable law in the first place with a tyrannical approach? I have a hard time with that.


short on time, sorry ... we put people injail for murder who punch a pregnant woman and kill her baby.  Not long ago, the girl requested the punch from her boyfriend.  He's in jail.

Infants are also completely dependent on their parents for survival.  Dependence does not make you not an individual.  That is biological.

Let's start with making the abortion industry illegal.  

cigarettes ... You're more likely to see cases where children sue their parents for damages caused by illnesses that result from drug use, etc.

Many things would b unenforceable.  But that doesn't mean that it should be legal to hire somebody to kill your child.

----------


## literatim

Here is a clearer translation of Genesis 9:6

Genesis 9:6  whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man is his blood shed: for in the image of God hath He made man.

----------


## dannno

> Deutronomy 19:11-12
> 11But if there should be in thee a man hating his neighbour, and he should lay wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him, that he die, and he should flee to one of these cities, 12then shall the elders of his city send, and take him thence, and they shall deliver him into the hands of the avengers of blood, and he shall die.


Old Testament.. not interested.. Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses.

You could justify a whole host of BS authoritarian laws using the Old Testament.

I'm not saying that enforcing murder is authoritarian, but I am asking if it is man's responsibility to enforce God's laws, based on New Testament Doctrine.

----------


## dannno

> short on time, sorry ... we put people injail for murder who punch a pregnant woman and kill her baby.  Not long ago, the girl requested the punch from her boyfriend.  He's in jail.


Curious, how did they find out about this?

If a woman punches HERSELF in the stomach in her BATHROOM, how do we know that she did it? How do we know she didn't run into something by accident?

Try and think of this more on a logistical level. How the hell do you enforce that? In this case there was obviously a witness or something, but if a woman does it on her own, how do you enforce that?





> Infants are also completely dependent on their parents for survival.  Dependence does not make you not an individual.  That is biological.


Yes, but if the woman leaves the baby out in public, somebody else can take the baby in and care for them. That makes them an individual. A woman cannot do that with a child in her stomach, because it is not an individual yet.





> Let's start with making the abortion industry illegal.


I'm not against people trying to do that at the state level, but I'd be wary of making abortive remedies illegal, or putting the woman in jail for self-inflicting damage. It's a tyrannical approach. Leaglizing abortion was supposed to help end the horrible things that women used to do to their bodies. I think medical abortions are still horrible, but there are safer alternatives.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> Are you also okay with parents killing their 3 year old children to help free up resources for your reproductive successes?


Please read this post of mine in another thread....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=188918

I propose a clear legal definition of US Person, US Citizen, and perhaps other levels.  Below is a possible way these could be defined.


US Entity - anyone living pre-nativity or post nativity in the US. such individual being subject to the whims of their caretaker.  Not subject to the bill of rights.

US Person - anyone living within the US and able to communicate.  Includes your three year old and an illegal immigrant.  Protected by the bill of rights, but restricted in personal movement.

US Resident - anyone living within the US legally and able to communicate.  Separates the person like an illegal immigrant from a legal resident or guest worker.  Unrestricted by movement within the US.

US Citizen - any person naturalized in the US.  Must have a clear understanding of personal responsibility.  First level able to exercise restricted freedoms such as purchasing cigarettes, alcohol, or attaining a drivers license and passport.. Not subject to age, but to a test of the principals of liberty and responsibility (born does not equal naturalized)  There may be a need for different levels within citizen.

US Franchisee - any citizen living fully independent either employed or a business owner without any help from taxes.  A government job doesn't count unless it is a specialized skill without a private alternative.  Example: Infantryman.  This is the only level able to vote.

Just an idea.

----------


## Deborah K

> Personally I don't see the fetus as an individual because they are so completely dependent on the mother for their survival.


You were a zygote, embryo, and fetus at one time, Danno. We all had to start somewhere.

A baby _outside_ the womb is completely dependent on its Mother (or Mother figure) for survival as well.  And my 86 year old mother-in-law is completely dependent on me and my husband.  Does that mean she isn't considered an individual?

Babies at only 20 weeks gestation are surviving outside of the womb with today's technology.  And as it advances, before too long the "test-tube" baby will have a whole different meaning than it does today.  It saddens me that on the one hand, we will do whatever it takes to save the premature 20 week old fetus - IF the mother wants the baby - and we'll allow the same aged fetus to be killed by the mother who doesn't want her baby.  There is something very wrong with the thinking in this country.

----------

