/b/ - Random

>>323424
It's because modern Christianity is corrupt. They only oppose abortion because forcing Christan women to give birth increases church membership and gives them money/power

>>323431
This is true. Women have historically always been more religious on average, it’s only a recent thing that young men are more religious than women.
Abortion is just one of these issues politics decided to force just to oppose women, to get the conservative vote etc.

>>323431
I may be a bit of a tumblrina but my take is that this happened because capitalism requires continual expansion, also in the form of population growth
i.e. before modern times nobody ever considered a stable population to be bad for a country, while now if a country's population stays the same from year-to-year it's a huge crisis
>>323432
>Women have historically always been more religious
only in the West, in e.g. Islamic societies men have always been more religious because Islam doesn't promise women anything in jannah but more humiliation (sharing hubby with celestial wives/houris) and servitude

Abortion is bad because it treats human being as a commodity. As an inconvenience that you can get rid off. Same as Euthanasia for the old and sick.

This is the fundamental problem with the modern society and the reason why we are lonely. We treat our fellow human beings as a means to an end, not as an end by itself. Whenever somebody becomes inconvenient, we simply remove them from our lives. Thus we cannot form any meaningful bonds.

>>324086
>This is the fundamental problem with the modern society
clearly wasn't a problem in the non-modern society where abortion wasn't a big deal though? assuming you don't think they had the same issue.
this is the whole point of my thread

>>324086
>This is the fundamental problem with the modern society and the reason why we are lonely
Cry about it incel, and kys while you're at it. Sorry that you're useless now.

>>324087
>>324095
The truth is the elites are going to (and do) use the abortion argument exactly like that. For M.A.I.D and degradation of the welfare state.
They never give anyone anything for free.

>>324126
Uh huh… Sure.

>>324128
What is Canada doing now that it's reduced their populace to an economic formula?
Euthanizing the inconvenient. And considering doing it for "failure to thrive". No different than you'd do to animals on a farm.

>>324129
To be honest, I have no interest in addressing any of this because it is irrelevant. I am not addressing the question of whether abortion is moral or not, nor what the secret reptilian government is trying to achieve with it. (as if the pro-life movement doesn't have a hidden agenda)
I want to address this retarded claim I keep hearing, that abortion is somehow a women-exclusive and modern sin. IN fact it only started being a "women's rights" issue when women's rights movement appeared. As soon as women are forced into reproductive slavery abortion will be allowed if the head of the house wants one.

>>324132
It's not just the moral argument though. You'll find you're undermining most of the basis for secularism and humanism in the long run. Intellectual positions. Because people in this thread are making a utilitarian argument and reinforcing it with the views of people who ran slave empires (where they just killed the slaves if they couldn't sell them, not set them free, that was a massive rarity).
It gives monkey paw energy. And the people with political agendas are counting on it.
You cannot have both the massive inconvenience that is human rights and have it remain inconsistent. Roe vs wade was decided on right to privacy in medical decisions vs at what point is government obligated to protect the rights of someone who lacked representation. Even more importantly even Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't expect it to hold because of that very contradiction (she thought the challenge should be filed under the Equal rights clause rather than right to privacy for this very reason). It may not seem like it on the surface but this ties into things like medical consent and social public spending VERY quickly.

>>324139
What utilitarian argument? What moral argument? I think you’re reading something into my point that I’m not saying, respectfully.
Sigh. If you want to know what I think, I don't have a problem with genuine belief that abortion is murder, as long as it is genuine. But it all too often goes hand in hand with the idea that liberating women led them to killing babies, or that we need to abolish the 19th amendment because abortion. I am just so tired of this.

>>324141
>What utilitarian argument
That things can be gotten rid of simply because the consensus is that they aren't worthwhile. That human desire trumps human potential. That associated labor can free you from social obligations.
Which is all also an especially dangerous thing to propose in the age of AI.

>>324142
Please quote where this argument had been used in this thread.

>>324143
>In the Roman Republic and Principate, abortion was punished only when it violated the father's right to make decisions about rearing his offspring.[18]
>But church councils, such as those of Elvira and Ancyra, which were called to specify the legal groundwork for Christian communities, outlined penalties only for those women who committed abortion after a sexual crime such as adultery or prostitution.
What you do with it depends on the situation. All in writing.

>>324144
You misunderstood me. These are not utilitarian arguments for abortion, but rather just a rebuttal to the idea that, once again, the sin of abortion is modern. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to elaborate, but I will disengage now.

>>324145
And yet it provides a window into how those people viewed it. In a utilitarian way. Way back when there was slavery, feudalism and no women's rights.
Which is why it wasn't a "sin" (depending on what the owner of the "incubator" wanted).

>>324146
>Way back when there was (…) no women's rights.
Actually, now that I think about it, that's my entire point.

>>324157
>>Way back when there was absolute savagery, people thought abortion was great too.
I know your point is that it was
>"only ok when men did it" and that people are only mad that women do it
but why are you ignoring that there was a massive ideological paradigm shift that states women are people, slaves are free, animals have rights, workers deserve a living wage, etc.
If abortion was fine in the past, along with those other things, isn't it more likely people became more conscious of general suffering and are working to prevent it?

>>324165
>>"only ok when men did it" and that people are only mad that women do it
Well, not quite.
>If abortion was fine in the past, along with those other things, isn't it more likely people became more conscious of general suffering and are working to prevent it?
Of course that makes sense to me,(I guess it's similar to how veganism emerged in a sense) but I think mainsteam pro-life discourse is more so politically motivated than a result of genuine belief. Just like stated in the OP, social attitudes towards abortion shifted as a reaction towards women's rights movement. I don't believe most pro-lifers are genuine, but if they are I respect it.

Which, to elaborate, there's quite a few pro-lifer politicians that actually went ahead and got abortions or had their wives get abortions. Had they been consistent, they would turn themselves in for murder.

>>324167
so if they did turn themselves in for murder would it be ok?

>>324095
why you think any woman with a non libshit view of the world is a man

>>324176
In my personal opinion? honestly yes because it would presumably mean they believe what they preach. I don't have a strong stance on abortion itself, but I hate very much that it is constantly used to depict women as some sort of evil cruel creatures when really I see no evidence most people are even taking this position seriously in the movement. Historical Christian councils were probably one of the few who did. I don't think this applies to your average gen z prolifer.

Oh wait you asked "would it be okay if they got an abortion and then turned themselves in for murder"
I responded to something like "would it be okay if they still had this position if they turned themselves in"

Yeah the murder itself wouldn't be ok within their framework obviously

>>324177
"i want to deprive women of their body autonomy and kill them through refusing healthcare" is a very male "opinion"

>>324167
>Which, to elaborate, there's quite a few pro-lifer politicians that actually went ahead and got abortions or had their wives get abortions. Had they been consistent, they would turn themselves in for murder.

there were several republicans who flew their daughters out of state to get them abortions, because its obviously something entirely different when an unwanted pregnancy affects you or your close ones.

>>324181
Low IQ take

>>324167
Men have to choose between women being in pain and avoiding personal responsibility, their hardest choice ever

>>324188
Waow you're the smartest kid in middle school and your statements are so bold

>>324299
Yeah honestly I don’t care what they think at this point because they don’t have real stakes

>>324087
I'll be working under the assumption that you are OP.
And to be quiet honest with you, I do not believe you are engaging the position of ant-abortionists in good faith. Your question doesn't seem to be driven by a genuine desire to understand their position.
Instead, you are trying to "win" an internet argument by using a surface-level interpretation of their argument and refuting it by burning a straw man (modernity = bad, all of pre-modernity = good).
So I don't know what to tell you. You are preaching to the choir. There are not many pro-lifers on this site.

>>324368
what the fuck are you talking about oh my god you people are fucking illiterate I am done with you

>>324181
You're retarded.

Reminder that abortion always turns into a form of eugenics and that there’s a huge problem of India and China aborting girl children before they’re even born.

>>324447
That's a pretty good example of a frivolous abortion, considering they intended to go through birth anyway kek. Though I guess there's a bit of nuance between that and not wanting a kid period because you can barely feed or take care of yourself, for instance. (not making any argument for or against just making a distinction)

>>324447
Or maybe that has to deal with the rampant misogyny in both countries.
>aborting girl children before they’re even born
That's how abortion works? You can't abort a two month old

>>324559
You can even abort children post natally

>>324560
Elaborate

>>324559
>misogyny is when you can't abort
i know you think that sounds good but, it does not

>>324589
I was exaggerating but I’m pretty sure you can abort at most stages of pregnancy. Look up Feng Jianmei. (Though I could’ve misunderstood what you were meaning to say)

>>324591
Tbh that's not her point, girls really do get aborted there because male children are more preferable as a heir. In India they literally have to pay people to get a daughter off their hands (dowry, etc). Women are just seen as a burden there.

>>324597
>>324447
But this corroborates the idea brought up by the OP that the concept of abortion has become heinous in modernity, because abortion is more convenient for women nowadays, but men will always be interested in and approve of abortion if it is in their interest, as in the case of selective abortions for female fetuses, but for a social reason, in which male children are more desirable, regardless of the woman's intimate and personal will, but it is a very different context because these societies are in fact very patriarchal and a pregnancy outside of marriage is practically impossible.

People who claim to be "trad" do not care about actual traditions or history.

>>324616
Well yeah I am OP (the first one)
But I’d say it’s heinous as a reaction to women’s rights movement. Not entirely, but politics are a very big part of it

> but men will always be interested in and approve of abortion if it is in their interest
I wouldn’t go that far, but most modern men probably would approve of it if it’s convenient. The same way being anti abortion makes it convenient for politics in a way.

There are Bible passages where pregnant women die/are killed by the way, don't know why Christians are so up in arms over abortion