In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

A significant bit of the Old Testament (I forget which books) was about
competition between tribes, and one standard way to grow one's tribe was
to conquer a neighboring tribe and steal their women, killing or
enslaving the men. Slaves fetch a good price.

And killing or enslaving any overly resistant women. This is probably
the evolutionary basis for the Stockholm Syndrome.

Wow, I haven't heard that connection before, but the principle could be much
the same. That's a very interesting link that you've drawn, Joe.

Thanks. I would hazard that Deut 21:10 (or :11) is the distillation of
millennia of experience with the management of captive women, covering
ages before the invention of writing. Or perhaps even language.


I would guess that the purpose of the shaved head, new clothes, and
month of grieving in solitude is to cause the woman to "readjust", so
that at the end of the month she will welcome her conquerer.

Well, biblical scholars mostly place Moses's life around 1200 - 1500 BC or
so, and both physical and herbal (medicinal) methods for inducing abortion
were recorded from before the time of Hippocrates. He wrote of it himself.
So it's been around for a long time. It seems likely that it's been with us
since Moses's time.

One assumes that these were oral traditions long before being written
down, but OK, let's say it's more like 3000-4000 years ago. It's still
millennia before the invention of modern medicine.

Some of those herbs are used to this day, but still the abortion debate
of 1500 BC would turn only on the practical issues of efficacy versus
risk of the few options then available. None were particularly
attractive.

Probably not efficacious, but I wonder if that would be part of an "abortion
debate" in 1500 BC. It more likely would have been all about religion or
philosophy, I would think.

I would think that if there had been much of a debate in 1500 BC, we
would have at least fragments of the polemics, probably in the Old
Testament.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

A significant bit of the Old Testament (I forget which books) was
about
competition between tribes, and one standard way to grow one's tribe
was
to conquer a neighboring tribe and steal their women, killing or
enslaving the men. Slaves fetch a good price.

And killing or enslaving any overly resistant women. This is probably
the evolutionary basis for the Stockholm Syndrome.

Wow, I haven't heard that connection before, but the principle could be
much
the same. That's a very interesting link that you've drawn, Joe.

Thanks. I would hazard that Deut 21:10 (or :11) is the distillation of
millennia of experience with the management of captive women, covering
ages before the invention of writing. Or perhaps even language.

As I think about it, there have been words written about slaves in the
ancient world concerning how they often came to be the greatest defenders of
their owners' families, identifying with those families as if they were
their own. I suppose the same applies to a fully subjugated woman and that
the ancients were quite familiar with the methods.

I also recall that in the less-PC time when I was in college, the Stockholm
Syndrome was also known as the "Sambo Syndrome," as it applied to "Uncle
Tom" African-Americans. And another term used for the same thing was
"Identification with the aggressor." All of which ties in.


Probably not efficacious, but I wonder if that would be part of an
"abortion
debate" in 1500 BC. It more likely would have been all about religion or
philosophy, I would think.

I would think that if there had been much of a debate in 1500 BC, we
would have at least fragments of the polemics, probably in the Old
Testament.

It appears you've given this some thought and that you're more familiar with
the texts. What's your take on the attitude toward abortion in ancient
times?

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

A significant bit of the Old Testament (I forget which books) was about
competition between tribes, and one standard way to grow one's tribe was
to conquer a neighboring tribe and steal their women, killing or
enslaving the men. Slaves fetch a good price.

And killing or enslaving any overly resistant women. This is probably
the evolutionary basis for the Stockholm Syndrome.

Wow, I haven't heard that connection before, but the principle could be much
the same. That's a very interesting link that you've drawn, Joe.

Thanks. I would hazard that Deut 21:10 (or :11) is the distillation of
millennia of experience with the management of captive women, covering
ages before the invention of writing. Or perhaps even language.

As I think about it, there have been words written about slaves in the
ancient world concerning how they often came to be the greatest defenders of
their owners' families, identifying with those families as if they were
their own. I suppose the same applies to a fully subjugated woman and that
the ancients were quite familiar with the methods.

Yes. But I don't think it was too complex - well-treated slaves (male
or female) reciprocated the treatment, even if they were slaves.

One way for a man of that day to "marry" was to buy a female slave. The
book "Harem ..." was written by the daughter of such a union, and she
commented that her mother (or was it grandmother?) was for all intents
and purposes her (grand)father's wife, although legally her
(grand)mother was literally a slave.

Another of the stories in this book recounts an Englishman walking
through the slave market in Istanbul being surprised to hear the women
calling to him "Buy me!".

And the Ottoman Empire came to be ruled largely by the Eunichs and the
Harems of the titular rulers.

"Harem - The World Behind the Veil", Alev Lytle Croutier, Abbeville
Press, 1989, ISBN 1-55859-159-1, 224 pages.

Anyway, the point is that not all slaves were unhappy with their fate,
whatever we might think of it, centuries to millennia later, and we need
to be very cautious in applying the mores of today to the situations of
past ages.


I also recall that in the less-PC time when I was in college, the Stockholm
Syndrome was also known as the "Sambo Syndrome," as it applied to "Uncle
Tom" African-Americans. And another term used for the same thing was
"Identification with the aggressor." All of which ties in.

OK. I don't recall those terms, but it makes sense.


Probably not efficacious, but I wonder if that would be part of an "abortion
debate" in 1500 BC. It more likely would have been all about religion or
philosophy, I would think.

I would think that if there had been much of a debate in 1500 BC, we
would have at least fragments of the polemics, probably in the Old
Testament.

It appears you've given this some thought and that you're more familiar with
the texts. What's your take on the attitude toward abortion in ancient
times?

Well, I cannot claim to have read all those texts, but my take on the
attitude of the ancients on abortion is that they thought it a bad idea,
but on practical grounds, not moral grounds: It was too likely to fail
and/or kill the mother, given the medicine of the day, so it wasn't
often attempted in practice. Nor did they put much store in "the
sanctity of life" and such concepts; one was doing very well to survive
to 35, and most children died before the age of ten.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As I think about it, there have been words written about slaves in the
ancient world concerning how they often came to be the greatest
defenders of
their owners' families, identifying with those families as if they were
their own. I suppose the same applies to a fully subjugated woman and
that
the ancients were quite familiar with the methods.

Yes. But I don't think it was too complex - well-treated slaves (male
or female) reciprocated the treatment, even if they were slaves.

That may well be true, but to the extent that it is, that isn't the
Stockholm Syndrome. For anyone following this and wondering what we're
talking about, the Syndrome was named for the WWII phenomenon in which many
residents of Stockholm, Sweden identified with the Nazi occupiers, even
calling themselves "Nazis" and, without being asked, becoming informers for
the Nazis with no direct coercion or promise of favors for ratting out their
neighbors. At least, that's my recollection, not having studied it for close
to 40 years.

Stockholm was an extreme case of a phenomenon that had been identified
throughout history. Other examples were Jews in the Nazi concentration camps
who became overseers and informers on other Jews in the camps. In the US, it
applied to black slaves who were trusted with overseeing other black slaves,
often becoming more brutal enforcers than the brutal breed of whites who
were usually hired for the job.

Again, referring to the understanding of 40 years ago, it was attributed to
a psychological defense mechanism that came into play only when the
oppression was extreme and inescapable, or when the individuals succumbed to
high levels of intimidation that were applied for a long time. The victim
eventually snapped and identified with the aggressor in order to escape the
oppression. It isn't a conscious thing; psychological pressure takes over.

The kind of generous and familial treatment you're describing could well
have led to compliant and supportive slaves, but that's a lot different from
the psychological reversal that's traditionally been called the Stockholm
Syndrome, or, more generally, "Identification with the Aggressor."

The modern development of this theory came sometime in the late '50s or
early '60s, when psychologists and social scientists applied it to analyze
the claim by white Southerners that many black slaves actually had been
happy in their enslavement, and that slavery was therefore a beneficent
institution. If it was the Identification with the Aggressor syndrome at
work, the truth was closer to the opposite. Most likely, there were examples
of each. But compliant slaves of any kind -- including the enslavement of
women implied by Deut. 21:10 -- are hard to explain in terms of beneficence.
The Stockholm Syndrome has been strongly identified as the source of many
such examples. The behavior of some Jews in the WWII concentration camps can
hardly be explained by beneficent treatment by the Nazis, and there is
considerable other evidence that slaves and prisoners who identify with
their oppressors do so most often when the oppression is extreme.


One way for a man of that day to "marry" was to buy a female slave. The
book "Harem ..." was written by the daughter of such a union, and she
commented that her mother (or was it grandmother?) was for all intents
and purposes her (grand)father's wife, although legally her
(grand)mother was literally a slave.

Another of the stories in this book recounts an Englishman walking
through the slave market in Istanbul being surprised to hear the women
calling to him "Buy me!".

They probably thought he was rich. g


And the Ottoman Empire came to be ruled largely by the Eunichs and the
Harems of the titular rulers.

"Harem - The World Behind the Veil", Alev Lytle Croutier, Abbeville
Press, 1989, ISBN 1-55859-159-1, 224 pages.

Anyway, the point is that not all slaves were unhappy with their fate,
whatever we might think of it, centuries to millennia later, and we need
to be very cautious in applying the mores of today to the situations of
past ages.

Again, the caution should be informed by what has been learned about the
Stockholm Syndrome. Reading the historical apologia for slavery in the
South, it's easy to be misled.


It appears you've given this some thought and that you're more familiar
with
the texts. What's your take on the attitude toward abortion in ancient
times?

Well, I cannot claim to have read all those texts, but my take on the
attitude of the ancients on abortion is that they thought it a bad idea,
but on practical grounds, not moral grounds: It was too likely to fail
and/or kill the mother, given the medicine of the day, so it wasn't
often attempted in practice. Nor did they put much store in "the
sanctity of life" and such concepts; one was doing very well to survive
to 35, and most children died before the age of ten.

Joe Gwinn

It's interesting that we come to a similar conclusion from different angles.
I've only read the timelines compiled by people with an ax to grind, without
much biblical education, but I've tried to do it from both sides.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As I think about it, there have been words written about slaves in the
ancient world concerning how they often came to be the greatest defenders of
their owners' families, identifying with those families as if they were
their own. I suppose the same applies to a fully subjugated woman and that
the ancients were quite familiar with the methods.

Yes. But I don't think it was too complex - well-treated slaves (male
or female) reciprocated the treatment, even if they were slaves.

That may well be true, but to the extent that it is, that isn't the
Stockholm Syndrome. For anyone following this and wondering what we're
talking about, the Syndrome was named for the WWII phenomenon in which many
residents of Stockholm, Sweden identified with the Nazi occupiers, even
calling themselves "Nazis" and, without being asked, becoming informers for
the Nazis with no direct coercion or promise of favors for ratting out their
neighbors. At least, that's my recollection, not having studied it for close
to 40 years.

One would think that the indirect coercion implicit in being ruled by
Nazi occupiers would be more than sufficient. Those Nazi Swedes may
have also believed in the creed professed (if not exactly followed) by
the Nazis, who had a following in the US as well.


Stockholm was an extreme case of a phenomenon that had been identified
throughout history. Other examples were Jews in the Nazi concentration camps
who became overseers and informers on other Jews in the camps. In the US, it
applied to black slaves who were trusted with overseeing other black slaves,
often becoming more brutal enforcers than the brutal breed of whites who
were usually hired for the job.

And it may be old-fashioned boot-licking.


Again, referring to the understanding of 40 years ago, it was attributed to
a psychological defense mechanism that came into play only when the
oppression was extreme and inescapable, or when the individuals succumbed to
high levels of intimidation that were applied for a long time. The victim
eventually snapped and identified with the aggressor in order to escape the
oppression. It isn't a conscious thing; psychological pressure takes over.

The kind of generous and familial treatment you're describing could well
have led to compliant and supportive slaves, but that's a lot different from
the psychological reversal that's traditionally been called the Stockholm
Syndrome, or, more generally, "Identification with the Aggressor."

Again, I think that it's not all that complex. The survival instinct is
perhaps the strongest of the instincts, so it's the "inescapable" part
that counts the most, where the deep likely unconscious calculation is
that one must conform or die. A little kindness goes a long way in such
an environment.


The modern development of this theory came sometime in the late '50s or
early '60s, when psychologists and social scientists applied it to analyze
the claim by white Southerners that many black slaves actually had been
happy in their enslavement, and that slavery was therefore a beneficent
institution. If it was the Identification with the Aggressor syndrome at
work, the truth was closer to the opposite. Most likely, there were examples
of each. But compliant slaves of any kind -- including the enslavement of
women implied by Deut. 21:10 -- are hard to explain in terms of beneficence.
The Stockholm Syndrome has been strongly identified as the source of many
such examples. The behavior of some Jews in the WWII concentration camps can
hardly be explained by beneficent treatment by the Nazis, and there is
considerable other evidence that slaves and prisoners who identify with
their oppressors do so most often when the oppression is extreme.

Again, way too complex and post hoc for my taste. Psychology is an
effect, not a cause. Coming back to women, the fundamental test of the
evolutionary success of a woman is lots of grandchildren. In other
words, her children were numerous enough and well-enough provided for
that they were able to carry on. Nothing else matters.

Specifically, it doesn't much matter who the fathers were, so long as
they bring home the bacon, don't treat her too harshly, and don't kill
too many of her children. And the fiercer the menfolk, the better
defended the women and children. So there's a tradeoff here.

After a million years of evolution under the pressure of endless tribal
conflict and warfare, the gene pool will have a large component of women
who accept the periodic forcible replacement of their menfolk, as did
their mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, ... This acceptance
became hard-wired into their brains; no conscious thought required.

That same gene pool will have a large component of fierce menfolk - they
got, and kept, the girl.


One way for a man of that day to "marry" was to buy a female slave. The
book "Harem ..." was written by the daughter of such a union, and she
commented that her mother (or was it grandmother?) was for all intents
and purposes her (grand)father's wife, although legally her
(grand)mother was literally a slave.

By the way, it turns out to be the grandmother, not the mother.

Turkey outlawed harems in the 1920s.


Another of the stories in this book recounts an Englishman walking
through the slave market in Istanbul being surprised to hear the women
calling to him "Buy me!".

They probably thought he was rich. g

By their standards, any English gentleman was. More to the point, rich
enough to take them out of the slave market.

The book "Harem ..." also tells the story of one Englishman who did buy
an odalisque (female slave, implication being young and fetching) at the
market. Suffice it to say that she was not a prisoner in his home.


And the Ottoman Empire came to be ruled largely by the Eunichs and the
Harems of the titular rulers.

"Harem - The World Behind the Veil", Alev Lytle Croutier, Abbeville
Press, 1989, ISBN 1-55859-159-1, 224 pages.

Anyway, the point is that not all slaves were unhappy with their fate,
whatever we might think of it, centuries to millennia later, and we need
to be very cautious in applying the mores of today to the situations of
past ages.

Again, the caution should be informed by what has been learned about the
Stockholm Syndrome. Reading the historical apologia for slavery in the
South, it's easy to be misled.

While we are well rid of slavery, and many other practices of past ages,
it does not follow that the historical documents as a whole are
misleading, even though individual documents may well be.

That said, documents from the North or the South during the run-up to
the Civil War would be particularly suspect, given the politics of that
day.

I recall reading that after the Civil War, many of the just-freed slaves
in the South stayed where they were, becoming employees or tenant
farmers for their former masters. It makes sense actually. Most slaves
had known no other life, and if the master wasn't too bad a sort, given
the paucity of options in rural areas, it may have been the path of
least resistance. By the same token, I'm sure that the terrible masters
suffered swift depopulation of their enterprises once the former slaves
were free to go.

And I've also read my share of present-day stories about small towns
with only one employer, a famously ugly one, where the employees might
as well be slaves.

Anyway, the real problem happens when isolated documents are wrenched
out of their historical contexts and misused in present-day political
disputes.


It appears you've given this some thought and that you're more familiar with
the texts. What's your take on the attitude toward abortion in ancient
times?

Well, I cannot claim to have read all those texts, but my take on the
attitude of the ancients on abortion is that they thought it a bad idea,
but on practical grounds, not moral grounds: It was too likely to fail
and/or kill the mother, given the medicine of the day, so it wasn't
often attempted in practice. Nor did they put much store in "the
sanctity of life" and such concepts; one was doing very well to survive
to 35, and most children died before the age of ten.

Joe Gwinn

It's interesting that we come to a similar conclusion from different angles.
I've only read the timelines compiled by people with an ax to grind, without
much biblical education, but I've tried to do it from both sides.

Yes. I would tend to dismiss out of hand any analysis claiming that the
ancients, cared a fig for, or would even understand, the present-day
abortion debate. It's simply too remote, in every sense of the word.

That said, one perhaps relevant datapoint comes to mind, the Vikings.
Basically, while there was no such thing as abortion in their world,
their law was that a couple had one week to decide to keep a newborn.
If the answer was No, they abandoned the child on a hill after
announcing their intention in the public square. If the newborn was
healthy, a childless couple would be hovering, and would take the
abandoned baby home. If the newborn was not healthy, nobody would come.

Ref: The Icelandic Sagas, which are oral traditions from 800-1000 AD
written down in the 1200s, and are still in print (Penguin). There is
also much academic literature on the laws and social mores of the
Vikings. (The Klingons of Star Trek are modeled on the Vikings.)

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Again, referring to the understanding of 40 years ago, it was attributed
to
a psychological defense mechanism that came into play only when the
oppression was extreme and inescapable, or when the individuals
succumbed to
high levels of intimidation that were applied for a long time. The
victim
eventually snapped and identified with the aggressor in order to escape
the
oppression. It isn't a conscious thing; psychological pressure takes
over.

The kind of generous and familial treatment you're describing could well
have led to compliant and supportive slaves, but that's a lot different
from
the psychological reversal that's traditionally been called the
Stockholm
Syndrome, or, more generally, "Identification with the Aggressor."

Again, I think that it's not all that complex. The survival instinct is
perhaps the strongest of the instincts, so it's the "inescapable" part
that counts the most, where the deep likely unconscious calculation is
that one must conform or die. A little kindness goes a long way in such
an environment.

The effects you're attributing it to are the standard and traditional ones,
but the reason the Stockholm Syndrome came to attention is that it became
clear after WWII that those old attributions just didn't fit the behavior
and attitudes of the subjects in question. Some Jews from the camps, and
Swedes who had never shown a hint of sympathy for Nazis, really *believed*
they were Nazis.

Researchers said it looked like full-blown psychosis. And it explains a lot
of similar behaviors recorded throughout history. People like you and me,
who likely (in my case, anyway) have never experienced that kind of
oppression, nor any kind of psychosis, are likely to attribute it to more
familiar causes. The whole point is that those causes didn't fit the
situation. It's something that's beyond the experience of all but a small
percentage of people alive. It isn't like ordinary political and social
oppression, or lawful imprisonment; it's absolute, with the threat of death
coming in an arbitrary and unexpected way.

I don't think this is something you can analyze from an armchair.


It's interesting that we come to a similar conclusion from different
angles.
I've only read the timelines compiled by people with an ax to grind,
without
much biblical education, but I've tried to do it from both sides.

Yes. I would tend to dismiss out of hand any analysis claiming that the
ancients, cared a fig for, or would even understand, the present-day
abortion debate. It's simply too remote, in every sense of the word.

That said, one perhaps relevant datapoint comes to mind, the Vikings.
Basically, while there was no such thing as abortion in their world,
their law was that a couple had one week to decide to keep a newborn.
If the answer was No, they abandoned the child on a hill after
announcing their intention in the public square. If the newborn was
healthy, a childless couple would be hovering, and would take the
abandoned baby home. If the newborn was not healthy, nobody would come.

Ref: The Icelandic Sagas, which are oral traditions from 800-1000 AD
written down in the 1200s, and are still in print (Penguin). There is
also much academic literature on the laws and social mores of the
Vikings. (The Klingons of Star Trek are modeled on the Vikings.)

Very interesting stuff, Joe. I'll have to keep that in mind.

--
Ed Huntress

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

(snippage)

One would think that the indirect coercion implicit in being ruled by
Nazi occupiers would be more than sufficient. Those Nazi Swedes may
have also believed in the creed professed (if not exactly followed) by
the Nazis, who had a following in the US as well.


I believe the Stockholm Syndrome refers to a hostage incident in the '70's
in which the hostages resisted their rescuers. One of those useless pieces
of information that stuck for some reason. The Nazi's didn't occupy
Sweden.

Garrett Fulton

"gfulton" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

(snippage)

One would think that the indirect coercion implicit in being ruled by
Nazi occupiers would be more than sufficient. Those Nazi Swedes may
have also believed in the creed professed (if not exactly followed) by
the Nazis, who had a following in the US as well.


I believe the Stockholm Syndrome refers to a hostage incident in the '70's
in which the hostages resisted their rescuers. One of those useless
pieces
of information that stuck for some reason. The Nazi's didn't occupy
Sweden.

Garrett Fulton

Oh, jeez, did my memory get twisted up. Yes, "identification with the
aggressor" (IWA) was a phrase from a study of concentration camps in 1943 (a
German study, I think), referring to Jews who had flipped. That was the
theory that was applied to slaves in the US, and which was also known as the
"Sambo syndrome."

The Stockholm Syndrome came much later. And it was Norway, not Sweden, that
further got messed up in my recollection -- although I don't know if Norway
had any examples of IWA.

I've got to write this down before dementia sets in. g

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Again, referring to the understanding of 40 years ago, it was attributed to
a psychological defense mechanism that came into play only when the
oppression was extreme and inescapable, or when the individuals succumbed to
high levels of intimidation that were applied for a long time. The victim
eventually snapped and identified with the aggressor in order to escape the
oppression. It isn't a conscious thing; psychological pressure takes over.

The kind of generous and familial treatment you're describing could well
have led to compliant and supportive slaves, but that's a lot different from
the psychological reversal that's traditionally been called the Stockholm
Syndrome, or, more generally, "Identification with the Aggressor."

Again, I think that it's not all that complex. The survival instinct is
perhaps the strongest of the instincts, so it's the "inescapable" part
that counts the most, where the deep likely unconscious calculation is
that one must conform or die. A little kindness goes a long way in such
an environment.

The effects you're attributing it to are the standard and traditional ones,
but the reason the Stockholm Syndrome came to attention is that it became
clear after WWII that those old attributions just didn't fit the behavior
and attitudes of the subjects in question. Some Jews from the camps, and
Swedes who had never shown a hint of sympathy for Nazis, really *believed*
they were Nazis.

"Standard and traditional" is my point.

As for the attributions, I assume that this is from the then equivalent
to the psychologists handbook (by whatever name), which was shown to be
inadequate. No doubt, as it came from treating some mixture of rich
neurotic and floridly psychotic patients, none under any real pressure.


Researchers said it looked like full-blown psychosis. And it explains a lot
of similar behaviors recorded throughout history. People like you and me,
who likely (in my case, anyway) have never experienced that kind of
oppression, nor any kind of psychosis, are likely to attribute it to more
familiar causes. The whole point is that those causes didn't fit the
situation. It's something that's beyond the experience of all but a small
percentage of people alive. It isn't like ordinary political and social
oppression, or lawful imprisonment; it's absolute, with the threat of death
coming in an arbitrary and unexpected way.

I don't buy the theory that it was a psychosis. I think it was a normal
(that is, hardwired) response to an extreme situation that has
fortunately become uncommon, at least in western countries. There is a
lot in human psychology that isn't pretty, that evolved in the jungle,
long before there was any law save that of the talon.

You might find "Chimpanzee Politics : Power and Sex among Apes", Frans
de Waal (Harper and Row, 1982, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989,
1998, and now 2000) interesting albeit disturbing. And funny.


I don't think this is something you can analyze from an armchair.

This is fortunate for us personally, but that sure leaves the
psychiatrists out of it too.


It's interesting that we come to a similar conclusion from different angles.
I've only read the timelines compiled by people with an ax to grind, without
much biblical education, but I've tried to do it from both sides.

Yes. I would tend to dismiss out of hand any analysis claiming that the
ancients, cared a fig for, or would even understand, the present-day
abortion debate. It's simply too remote, in every sense of the word.

That said, one perhaps relevant datapoint comes to mind, the Vikings.
Basically, while there was no such thing as abortion in their world,
their law was that a couple had one week to decide to keep a newborn.
If the answer was No, they abandoned the child on a hill after
announcing their intention in the public square. If the newborn was
healthy, a childless couple would be hovering, and would take the
abandoned baby home. If the newborn was not healthy, nobody would come.

Ref: The Icelandic Sagas, which are oral traditions from 800-1000 AD
written down in the 1200s, and are still in print (Penguin). There is
also much academic literature on the laws and social mores of the
Vikings. (The Klingons of Star Trek are modeled on the Vikings.)

Very interesting stuff, Joe. I'll have to keep that in mind.

Thanks. Another book you might find interesting is "Ancient Law", Sir
Henry Sumner Maine, Dorset Press, 1986. First published in 1861. Can
be a bit of a slog, but has lots on the ancient law regarding slaves and
slavery. The Roman law was pretty complex in this area.


Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

Very interesting stuff, Joe. I'll have to keep that in mind.

Thanks. Another book you might find interesting is "Ancient Law", Sir
Henry Sumner Maine, Dorset Press, 1986. First published in 1861. Can
be a bit of a slog, but has lots on the ancient law regarding slaves and
slavery. The Roman law was pretty complex in this area.

It sounds like a great slice of history to study seriously, one that I wish
I had time for. Sometimes I get around to these things years after they come
up, when I'm finished with something else and can move on.

What I'll remember is the impression from this discussion that it's
something I should look into. Thanks, Joe.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jan 2006 12:44:59 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Whoops, I forgot an important conservative argument: that Griswold was
decided wrongly, that states do indeed have a right to tell married
couples
that they're not allowed to use contraception, and that there is no
right to
privacy. Bork has argued this precisely.

Ah, but bork isn't on the USSC, nor will he ever be. He got borked.

My guess is for them to overturn roe v wade they first do have to
dismantle griswold. This is actually already happening when
drugstores refuse to sell birth control to selected folks. But
not codified into law, of course.

Jim

So you are claiming that a liquor store should be forced to sell
booze, even to drunks?

Or is this an individuals right (business owners) right to serve who
he chooses?

Business ownner have some lattitude. Pharmacists may or may not, depending
on state laws.

Like doctors who can't refuse to treat someone they don't like, or who has
a condition the doctor may believe the patient brought upon himself,
pharmacists in many states can't decide to whom they will dispense drugs.

There is an ethical argument going on now about whether there should be a
"conscience clause" for pharmacists in those states with laws that require
them to dispense any prescription drug.

Think of it as "Biblical-based pharmacy." A pharmacist gets to choose
whether you can be treated for anything, based on his biblical world view.
If you fit within his religious beliefs, you get treated. If you don't,
sayonara, baby.

I don't have a real problem with this, as long as the pharmacy is required
to post a sign outside readable from 100 feet away in all directions that
states "We Refuse Service To Anyone We Think Deserves To Be Sick".

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)