4,000 Years of Abortion History

Funny that's what caught my eye too - you'd have to be pretty adventurous or desperate. Perhaps both. :-)

Glinda, there's nothing adventurous about playing with poopoo. These were the Egyptians--not the Japanese (zing).

I sincerely hope to never learn how the crocodile dung contraceptive functions.

Me either. Eww.

Interesting and somewhat disturbing read, Loretta. :)

I believe the crocodile dung worked either as a plug or by changing the pH of the vagina.

Fascinating history, Loretta.

the crocodile dung worked either as a plug or by changing the pH of the vagina.

Lalalalalala, I can't hear you.

I believe the crocodile dung worked either as a plug or by changing the pH of the vagina.

The answers to these questions are the only possible justification for "abstinence only" programs.

Lalalalalala

Word.

Word.

Hold on a second, is that word cool again? Just checking, cause I don't want to run around looking like an idiot, more.

The answers to these questions are the only possible justification for "abstinence only" programs.

Only rational justification but I suspect the proponents of abstinence only aren't aware of this information.

Hold on a second, is that word cool again? Just checking, cause I don't want to run around looking like an idiot, more.

No, but I'm listening to 80s music.

No

Whew, thanks!

but I'm listening to 80s music.

Huh, that's weird. I seem to remember reading, lately, that you think the 80's should die. :)

That's why I was listening to it, actually. I was trying to remember whether I could find any redeeming 80s music. I gave up and started listening to some Unter Null.

Don't know that group of course. That's ok. You don't have to try to assist in justifying my downfall love of the 80's. I'm good with it.

I wonder that they are not talking about sun dried and mixed with something to make a cream

A number of cultures used varieties of dung for beauty products and medicinal purposes but you would not know it was dung

I thought it was a contraceptive?

And conveniently bock out the evidence of the extreme measures women have taken and will continue to take as long as it's illegal?

It just sickens you doesn't it? I hope some Pro-Lifers actually read this article. I noticed none have commented on this...

That point kind of backfires agaist the Christian anti-choicers, though. The Christian prohibition on abortion comes not from some poetic interpretation of the psalms, but from the Didache, which was written in the first century, common era. It's listed in this Chronology, but slightly misrepresented. The didache actually, explicitly, proscribes abortion. It's variously interpreted, but basically says "you shall not murder a child by abortion."

So, unfortunately, if you attempt to counter anti-choice by pointing out that abortion isn't a new phenomenon, they can just as easily point out that it's been considered antithetical to Abrahamic ethics since at least the first century and, when the Didache was written, it was already part of rabbinical interpretations of the commandment not to murder. Which leads to it being from Exodus/Deuteronomy, so they can just as easily point out they've got twenty-eight hundred years of banning it (if you accept Exodus being finalized around the time of the first temple, eight hundred ish before the common era).

Not that the point isn't worth making. I'm just saying that you might not want to get your hopes too high about it getting you anywhere with very many people.

it's been considered antithetical to Abrahamic ethics since at least the first century

And Abrahamic ethics, what...started with the beginning of humanity?

(I'm not gnawing at you, Zom Zom. I think you rock. I'm just curious)

No, but they're at least 2,800 years old, is my only point. And most American anti-choicers use a religious defense for their view. And, while few of them have ever even heard of the Didache, my point is simply that pointing out that abortion isn't a new phenomenon doesn't actually help argue against their religious convictions, as the anti-choice has been part of their religion for as far back as the records of their religious teachings go.

I doubt that position actually goes back before the Hebrew religion was consilidated (around the time Kings was written) into a monotheistic religion (reference Jeremiah railing against the Queen of Heaven). But as far back as since they began killing anyone who didn't to the belong to the same sect as the city-state's patron (before which our records of the religion are pretty spotty).

has been part of their religion for as far back as the records of their religious teachings go.

I get that part. My point was that humanity got started a lot earlier than that. Or do they not recognize that, like some don't recognize that the actual planet itself is over 6000 years old? (Where I take my car to get serviced, they have "Geologists who say the Earth is millions of years old are all heathens!" pamphlets on the shelves. They do a good job on my car and don't overcharge me, so don't judge me.)

That, I can't answer. I'm not attempting to justify Christian conservative perspectives. Just to be honest about them. And even that much only because I think that learning about what people were like thousands of years ago is cool.

Why anyone on either side of the debate would bring up ethics from thousands of years ago is beyond me. This chronology simply brings up anthropologial facts but, to use that in an argument with an anti-choicer, you'd have to be able to demonstrate its ethical value, and I'm not sure that's possible. I mean, people have also been killing other people for a really long time, but that isn't gonna sway my opinions on murder.

It's fun, to me, to read about but, I'm not sure that it can contribute much to the debate. 'Course, at the current point in the American, political discussion, pretty much nothing is going to budge the debate one way or the other. But still.

to Shannoscubie

The last that I heard the earth has been dated to 4.5 billion years old, Jehovah dates to 8000 years old and God/Jesus dates to 2000 years old, Some pretty lazy Gods if you ask me sitting around for 4.5 billion years waiting for that one perfect 12 year old virgin to show up before really doing anything of note.

To Zom Zom

Actually the ethics of thousands of years ago are important to the debate, one of the qualities that Christians have dreamed up for their imaginary God is that he is unchanging. Now if their God is unchanging then the religious beliefs should have stayed relatively stagnant. But they have not, they have been evolving for two thousand years so that their unchanging God cannot be real

Why anyone on either side of the debate would bring up ethics from thousands of years ago is beyond me.

I mean, people have also been killing other people for a really long time, but that isn't gonna sway my opinions on murder.

Murder has pretty much always been ethically abhorrent, throughout human history. No matter how long anybody thinks that is. Possibly because most humans have always thought "Hey! Murder might happen to me! THAT isn't ethical! It must be prevented!"

Abortion hasn't always been viewed from Abrahemic-based ethics, though. That's what I was getting at. There have been many other non-Abrahamic-based societies during the course of humanity.

Do the math: Years humans and their ethics have been on the planet minus years of Abrahamic ethics = a lot more years if non-Abrahamic ethics going on. They didn't invent it and certainly don't have a monopoly on it now.

There is no Judiac ban on abortion even today.

I'm aware. The Didache, however, was written by Christian Jews, and is the book I was referencing in my comment.

In Numbers, there is a passage where the husband takes his wife to a priest because he suspects she's had sex with another man. The priest gives her an abortificant.

I'm aware of that, as well. It was my point when I mentioned the prohibition not coming from Psalms as is sometimes claimed (it doesn't come from the bible).

Actually the ethics of thousands of years ago are important to the debate, one of the qualities that Christians have dreamed up for their imaginary God is that he is unchanging.

Unfortunately, again, that is pretty easy for them to get out of. Again, they can reference the Didache, which was an re-interpretation of the laws by Christian Jews. And, according to Christians, the pact with god actually did change (hence the whole "New Testament" thing). So, technically, they can use the Didache to get off the hook again by claiming that it's the interpretation of the commandments through the Christian perspective (which is actually its purpose).

Of course, then you could always point out to them that the Didache was specifically rejected from canon, which is why it was lost until the nineteenth century.

Murder has pretty much always been ethically abhorrent, throughout human history. No matter how long anybody thinks that is. Possibly because most humans have always thought "Hey! Murder might happen to me! THAT isn't ethical! It must be prevented!"

I'm not saying it's equivallent. I'm simply pointing out that "people used to do this" isn't really a very good argument to introduce into ethical debates.

Do the math: Years humans and their ethics have been on the planet minus years of Abrahamic ethics = a lot more years if non-Abrahamic ethics going on. They didn't invent it and certainly don't have a monopoly on it now.

And I'm not saying that they did. I'm saying that I'm not sure that such a chronology such as this has any implications in ethical discussions. Yes, it's a historical fact, and maybe if people understood that, they'd be able to make up their own mind in the first place with better information (which is why it's important). However, I don't think that it can be brought to bear in a discussion between people that have already made up their minds to any effect, is all that I was saying. That it doesn't necessarily help the case in either direction, ethically.

Or if it does, I'm curious how you might see it doing so.

So, technically, they can use the Didache to get off the hook again by claiming that it's the interpretation of the commandments through the Christian perspective (which is actually its purpose).

Er, so...basically you're talking about more fundamentalists?

Well, that's just bloody brilliant....

There is no Judiac ban on abortion even today.

By the way, if that was in response to my 2,800 years claim, I should have explained that more clearly. The authors of the Didache are writing their interpretation of the commandment not to murder and, as the earliest Christian Jews to be explicitly writing an interpretation that I'm aware of, Christians could then use it to claim an unbroken, Christian tradition of interpretation extending 2,800 years. Now, I'm not claiming it's true, because, in the first place, you have to be a Christian who believes that the commandments were first given, then intended to be interpreted that way in the Didache, to get to the 2,800 year mark, and it strikes me as a really crazy kind of claim to make. However, within the confines of their religious interpretations, it's demonstrable.

Er, so...basically you're talking about more fundamentalists?

I'm just talking about the value of history, and attempting to use history to win an ethical debate, and the reasons I don't think it makes a good argument. Personally, I believe that the pro-choice, ethical argument is "@!$%# off and mind your own business." But as long as we're talking about the value of a chronology to the debate, I'm just pointing out that it's easy to jump the gun and miss some of the facts that will make such chronologies less useful in the argument than you might imagine.

To Zom Zom

Sorry they cannot use that to get out of it. The bible as it stands is the quote infallible truth of God unquote. One cannot use books out side of the bible becaue those books are not divinely inspired. Only an idiot would them get off that easy. Christianity has locked itself into a corner they cannot say that the bible is right while using a text that is in contradiction to the bible as also being right.

Sorry folks time for me to hit the bed, take are and sweet dreams

The more facts they have, the easier it is to refute a dumb argument (and a lot of the arguments against abortion are dumb). Likewise, the more facts they have, the easier it will be to make better decisions in their own lives.

I agree. That's what I meant with:

Yes, it's a historical fact, and maybe if people understood that, they'd be able to make up their own mind in the first place with better information (which is why it's important).

To MLH,

Sorry they cannot use that to get out of it. The bible as it stands is the quote infallible truth of God unquote. One cannot use books out side of the bible becaue those books are not divinely inspired.

Pretty sure I actually said almost exactly that in my comment, where I stated:

Of course, then you could always point out to them that the Didache was specifically rejected from canon

I'm simply pointing out that "people used to do this" isn't really a very good argument to introduce into ethical debates.

Okay, I get that. But what I was more trying to argue wasn't necessarily so much "people used to do this" as point out that simply saying (over and over) "this is the way it's always been done" (according to Didache or whatever) doesn't necessarily make it true. Abrahamic-based ethics have existed for a couple of thousand years. Humanity, for much longer. They don't get to claim they own the rights to all humanity's ethics just because they're the ones shouting most loudly about it right now. If that doesn't make sense, then show me some different way of arguing about it. I trust you.

Okay, I get that. But what I was more trying to argue wasn't necessarily so much "people used to do this" as point out that simply saying (over and over) "this is the way it's always been done" (according to Didache or whatever) doesn't necessarily make it true.

You're right and, once I read Loretta's comment in 4.17, I realised that in all my comments, I had totally failed to account for the blatantly false and dumb arguments that are often made. I know and talk to so few anti-choice people that I honestly forget just how many people believe that kind of thing.

So yeah, against them? Totally useful. I guess I just forget that there are still people out there that are like that.

Well, dang, Zom Zom. It'd be nice to have the option of something between an echo chamber or just an out and out Happy Bunny "It worries me how dumb you are" free-for-all slanging match. I like to learn things about thinking so I will consider what you said, because you managed to both annoy and intrigue me at the same time. Maybe tomorrow, as I'm overdue for pumpkin time.

To Zom Zom

Oh sorry then, I thought that you responded to me when I said that if the Christian God is unchanging then for two thousand years the Christian religion should have been relatively stagnant, and you said they could get around that argument. But I was tired at the time and my dinner was not reacting well in my stomack so I might have misunderstood you, but I agree with Shannoscubie you sound interesting enough to talk tol

Well, dang, Zom Zom. It'd be nice to have the option of something between an echo chamber or just an out and out Happy Bunny "It worries me how dumb you are" free-for-all slanging match

Ack! I think you misunderstood my comment. That was me realizing the value of information such as this and admitting that there were uses for it I hadn't thought of. There wasn't any me calling anyone dumb.

There wasn't any me calling anyone dumb.

LOL! I know. I was attempting to be funny and apparently failed, badly. I was comparing our agreeable little posting area here to a recent one I'd been on that's basically page after page of screaming epithets.

Speaking of pennyroyal, I heard folk used to use pennies as a sort of barrier method, back in the day. That wouldn't have worked as well as The Sponge worked for me, I bet. Seriously, the look on my ex-husband's face was like he'd just put his shoe on and discovered a blancmange in there. I burst into the kind of hysterical laughter that I should get royalties for as the Best!Contraceptive!Ever!

That is the future of abortions -- a pill rather than surgery whenever possible.

That's why certain factions are trying to confuse the abortion pill with the "morning after" pill to get both banned - along with any other contraceptive that "might" keep a fertilized blastocyst from implanting.

They probably would. That is the future of abortions -- a pill rather than surgery whenever possible

Smart move.

With things like the morning after pill, and Ru 486, we are definitely on our way there.

keep hearing the old "are too, am not" stuff that goes on

No kidding. I just stopped tracking another discussion regarding the recent legislation in Nebraska because of the ranting and name-calling.

Well, what'll happen when it gets settled at SCOTUS is that poor women will be the ones to bear the brunt. Wealthy women will simply travel to where they can get one, and that's so unjust. Poor women are the ones whose lives get mandated by those who don't give a damn about them other than personal ideology.

Maybe, Loretta. The feds have allowed states more rights than deserved in this, and have been chipping away bit by bit abortion access and only poor women have been suffering.

And that makes no sense to me, Loretta. Why take away the access for poor women? They and any children they have will be adversely affected and those who support to restrict these women do not support true financial freedom for them. In fact they end up even more in poverty...

If a woman doesn't control her body, she doesn't control her life, and that makes her puppet to those who control via abstract ideology of politicians and groups that back them up and yet do not support measures to truly help them.

Equal access for all is a start on equality. Sorry for my soapbox, Loretta. I feel passionately about these laws and the only ones who get really affected are poor and a good majority of these poor women in the US today are minorities, hence a double whammy of prejudice, and I absolutely hate that.

Loretta and Lilith:

You two have absolutely hit the nail on the head! Political gain is the only REAL reason there is any discussion at all. The Abortion issue is used as a smokescreen by politicians for anything and everything on their agendas.

Those who have a true moral conviction against the practice won't do it and morality can NEVER be legislated. Our prisons are full of immoral people! I have been saying this for years.

I am a Christian and I personally would not have an abortion, but that will never stop the practice.

The choice has always been available to some and those who wanted to have an abortion and could access it, have found a way to do so.