[1/2] [1/2] Abortion Deba
FRANK SCHEIDT
>>> Part 1 of 2...
-=> Quoting Bob Eyer to Frank Scheidt <=-
>But people who led decent lives had nothing to fear from
>the Church.
BE> -"Decent lives?" Average longevity in the Middle Ages was less
BE> -than 30 years. The class system practically guaranteed that
BE> -the only people who had a chance to lead a decent life were
BE> -aristocrats and Church prelates.
>I meant decent in the sense of a *moral* life.
BE> There was more killing, dislocation, and disease in those days
BE> than now. That can hardly be moral.
>Furthermore
>the class system had little to do with one's longevity at
>the time. It was more a matter of genes and food ...
BE> Yeah, right. Genes. I suppose we now live much longer because
BE> God gave us better genes in the 20th century. You have to be
BE> kidding.
*You* have to be kidding. I made no such statement. What
I *did* say was that longevity is "more a matter of genes
and food", which is to say that there's a genetic component
to a long life. Didn't you *know* that? You do now ... so
let's continue ...
BE> Now if you had the engine of innovation working (implying
BE> democracy, freedom, etc), those average longevity figures would
BE> climb to reasonable levels.
Of course. So?
>Huh! We had *all* of those things available at the
>beginning of the Twentieth Century yet life expectancy was
>only perhaps two-thirds that at the *end* of that same
>century. I suppose you'll blame the Church's influence for
>that, too ...
BE> No, the progress of improvement had already begun. Before 1800
BE> longevity figures were flat. After 1800 they more or less
BE> continuously improve, due to technical change, etc.
BE> I blame the Church for causing the onset of the Modern Period to
BE> be delayed to the 17th century. It could have begun in the 4th.
Oh *sure* it *could* have begun in the 4th century. The
*moral* aspects of life doubtless began early in the
*First* Century, A.D. As technology improved so did the
physical improvements to life. The Church did nothing to
interfere with that. The Church dealt with the *moral*
aspects of life.
Have you no scientific background whatsoever? Don't you
know that each bit of progress in science is based upon an
earlier bit of progress usually made by an earlier
individual. This goes back to the discovery of fire
probably. Thus to say your "Modern Period" with its
technology would have begun in the Fourth Century is
foolishness. *Regardless* of anything the Church did or
didn't do science marches on. I mentioned the discovery of
fire above. I suppose within a reasonable time that was
followed by the ability to transfer fire from a
naturally-occurring fire (lightning-caused) to a pile of
flammable material. Step-by-step, Bob, regardless of
Church doings.
BE> The average person in the leading countries of the world did not
BE> begin to live decent lives until the late 19th century.
>That's only according to your narrow definition of
>"decent".
BE> Living longer and eating better is a pretty good definition in
BE> anyone's cookbook.
Certainly that's one way of looking at it ... unfortunately
the moral aspects of life can be equally important, and
they seem to be sinking ...
BE> And that's what
BE> you get in societies which treat abortion as murder and
BE> systematically punish it as such.
>What society considers abortion to be murder? Granted, it
>*is* murder but what society actually has come to terms
>with that fact?
BE> Certainly England and Spain during the Middle Ages. In Spain, an
BE> aborting mother was punished via live burial. In England,
BE> according to Bracton in the 13th century, the abortion of a
BE> quick fetus was considered homicide.
I had assumed you meant *modern* societies ... let's stick
to the present ...
BE> Both of these ideas were dropped with the beginning of the
BE> Modern Period.
BE> That refusal continued well into the Modern period. This fact,
BE> incidentally, is one of things the Pope apologised for this past
BE> March.
>Don't tell me you've suddenly begun to admire the Pope!
BE> Not at all. But when the Pope issues an apology for the
BE> Church's role on the slavery question, no one can argue that the
BE> Church was NOT responsible for slavery after the 4th century.
I'd have to read what the Pope actually *said* rather than
rely on your obviously prejudiced interpretation.
BE> The great
BE> majority of Catholics in the past, as well as the present, were
BE> never able to educate their children in the Church system.
> They were if they really *wanted* to.
BE> Nonsense. Parochial schools require fees. Until the 20th
BE> century, the overwhelming majority of all Catholics didn't have
BE> the fees. By far the majority of them all round the world were
BE> serfs who narrowly escaped starvation every year.
Fees? Sure, since it costs money to operate a school -- or
don't you agree? Currently many Catholic schools operating
in the inner cities offer *free* schooling to anyone who
cannot pay. This depends upon the space available, of
course. Due to the widely acclaimed superiority of the
Catholic school system the demand *far* outruns the supply
of space. In many of the inner city Catholic schools the
pupils aren't even Catholics. That must bother you since
it is such a powerful argument against the drivel you've
been spewing out here ... [sigh] ...
BE> -Practically all of them. But even if modern states and their
BE> -international system promoted only a small subset, they would
BE> -still be morally far in advance of the leading states of the
BE> -ancient world. The very idea of rights enforceable by courts
BE> -against government cannot be found in the ancient world. This
BE> -idea is a development of modern constitutionalism, and probably is
BE> -not older than the 17th century.
>By "ancient world" here I presume you refer to the world
>which had a "B.C." date ... with that I cannot disagree.
BE> No, I'm referring to the world prior to the Modern period--prior
BE> to the 16th or 17th centuries.
Since Europe, prior to the 16th Century was largely
influenced by the Church what you say makes no sense,
though bigots would certainly agree with you.
>True enough, but that is because of the inevitable
>progression of technology -- something which is certainly
>not hindered by the Church.
BE> -Not today in the modern period, except for biotechnology. The
BE> -Church has been compelled to make many compromises with science
BE> -during the last 500 years. One of the remaining areas in which
BE> -science is pushing back the reactionary character of Church
BE> -doctrine is in the area of biotechnology. The Church's position
BE> -on abortion seriously hinders research on fetal tissue and genetic
BE> -research in that area, because it involves using the discarded
BE> -materials from abortion operations.
>The Church is taking a very practical as well as moral
>stance in that case. Consider what will logically happen
>if such research is allowed: Some women will "generate"
>children for "parts". You and I both know that will happen.
>They'll sell the "parts" for the ol' moolah!
BE> Nothing wrong with that. It's their body.
I don't know *how* to reply to that ... you've
unconsciously given us an insight which I'm certain you
would rather we didn't have ... killing for profit ... you
must have loved the old Mafia organization called "Murder,
Incorporated." For a price they'd kill anyone. You're
advocating killing people for body parts. I cannot believe
this!!
BE> There are hundreds of incidents in the history of the Church
BE> which show where, if the Church had had its way, there would be
BE> no science, no technological development at all. One only has
BE> to recall Galileo. And Galileo recalls Bruno and many others.
>Galileo? That's interesting. At the time of Galileo
>conventional science taught that the earth was the center
>of the universe. The Church when criticizing Galileo had
>assumed conventional science was right. Thus it was not
>*opposing* science but supporting it.
BE> No, you're using "science" in the manner of the Catholic
BE> schoolmen who took "science" to mean merely a "body of
BE> knowledge" by which they meant Aristotle, Augustine, the Church
BE> Fathers, etc.
I don't think so ...
BE> This is bullshit. I'm talking modern science.
Yeah ... sure ... modern science in the time of Galileo ...
you seem to jump back to whatever age you think supports
your position ...
BE> This is nonsense. Practically all discussion of morality and
BE> ethics at the university level relies on models developed only
BE> during the Modern period.
>I doubt that very much ...
>>> Continued to next message...
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway