Yes, that is the reference I was making. Almost exactly 2 centuries ago, places started banning abortions all over the place. Prior to that, it was not dissimilar to modern times in Colorado.
You got it.
Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs
- Start date
Saying that you want to go back to the way things were when slavery was still legal and women weren't allowed to vote is a hell of a flex.
I wish we could get Christians that weren't so authoritarian all the time
Lmao, trying so damn hard to pretend you didn't just pull some numbers out your ass and have it backfire, huh. Weird coincidence they started heavily banning abortion when slavery started getting phased out and they couldn't forbid black people from getting them anymore. Needed them cheap slave kids before hand, don't you know, increase their investment.
Pretty sure Buyetyen isn't arguing we go back to that, but you're having to violently scrub any nuance and shift those goalposts in a hurry to avoid the bit where, 200 years ago, the exact time you said Buyetyen wanted to go back to, we hit your ideal world
Last edited:
I guess the principle of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" has all the implications an authoritarian Christian could wish for if they were Caesar.
Although honestly, I think forgiveness, humility and "turn the other cheek" is probably the more important principle Jesus would hope to apply in the situation.
Yeah, but that's not a direct route to power like conservative Christians want. And make no mistake, that's what their culture war bullshit is really about: power.
It is really, really tragic how bad you two are at this. Your answers are unbelievably nonsense.
Me: You want to take us back 200 years.
You two: They started banning abortion 200 years ago!
Me: Right, and before that, it was mostly just allowed.
You two: Oh, so your ideal world was 200 years ago!
Me (now): The whole premise of this argument is that going back that far is bad...
Abortion bans started popping up like 200 years ago. Abortion was increasingly illegal for a long time after that. As slavery was getting banned, more places were banning abortion. The biggest push to ban abortion was in the Progressive Era. It was a progressive policy founded in the discoveries of modern medicine. For thousands of years, people stood by basically the opinion of Aristotle, that a fetus is a lifeless vegetable until you feel it start moving. With medical science, people were studying human development instead of guessing when a soul entered the body, and concluded "yeah, this is a human upon conception." And that scientific fact drove progress for most of the 20th century, until the late 60s into early 70s and ultimately Roe v Wade, which put us right back into that old, stupid, pre-science policy where an early term fetus doesn't count as a human being yet.
2 centuries was not a random number I pulled out of my butt. 2 centuries ago is when modern medicine began to take form. You want the abortion policies from 200 years ago, I'd like to knock down Roe v Wade and pick up where the Progressive Era left off.
You know, I was going to agree with you until you made this comment
What happened to babies during that time was way worse than abortions today. Instead of killing a fetues, they just killed the babies when it came out.
Starvation, poisoning, strangulation, drowning or just putting babies straight onto a fire. Mostly in the first few days if life
Why would you keep a baby alive when you can pocket what you are paid to take care of the baby
I never want society to be like that again
I've never understood how pro-life people ever made the assumption that if you could bring the baby to term that it would be alive by the end of its first year.
Eg. Generally, rich parents who force their rich daughters to give up their kids to adoption in 1900, did not want that kid to live
Eg. Generally, rich parents who force their rich daughters to give up their kids to adoption in 1900, did not want that kid to live
Lmao, sure. You're so progressive you want to the government to force women to be medical equipment. Course, abortions were illegal after the first trimester (give or take) due to English common law being the law of the land, but you'll just pretend that that is the law the Buyeten wants to go back to. Not to mention being strictly illegal to a whole class of people because that would hurt slavery profits, which you're flat out ignoring. So the US had, what, about 35 years when white women of means could maybe get an abortion if the men in their life didn't forbid it before it got banned entirely?
Absolutely fucking hilarious how you're trying to appropriate the Progressive Era of Science as being against abortion though. Catholic doctors wanted to keep it illegal, 'cause a dead mom with a dead kid got into heaven. Non-Catholic doctors wanted it legalized because a safe procedure leads to fewer dead/injured/fucked up people vulnerable to criminals and abuse.
No, in the 200 years you simultaneously say was bad but had the politics you advocate for
I feel like you skipped a few steps. Figure out what it is you want and get back to me.
Yeah... that is bollocks.
Anti-abortion movements date to around the turn of the 19th century, and had precious little to do with the science of when babies could think and feel. It's not that they weren't wrong to realise that the old idea of "quickening" wasn't what the ancients thought, but they also still had no more idea than Aristotle had. At best it was a fig-leaf for the real reasons to ban abortion, pretty much all of which were social factors, such as:
1) Abortions were dangerous procedures whether by abortifacient or quasi-surgical means, with a significant rate of severe illness and death
2) Medical doctors were growing in power and influence; as abortions were generally carried out by non-medics, it was a way of cementing their control over all things health-related
3) Maintaining social control of women
4) Political fear of declining birth rates (thus lower populations and less ability to wage war)
Amusingly, of course, the Catholic church was well behind when it abruptly declared souls to appear at conception, which it did in the mid-late 19th century. The Vatican magicked that line out of approximately nowhere, based on very little except jumping on the social bandwagon already in process.
No.
Firstly, as above. In many ways (e.g. point 3 above) anti-abortion policies were anti-progressive.
Secondly, "progressive" risks being misleading. Certainly, it's got little to do with what anyone would understand as the progressive movement, as that only definably emerged when abortion was all but fully banned anyway. It is fair to say social and scientific progress contributed to arguments around abortion, but that's little more than a pale truism of noting that change happens.
You say before confirming the thing I said, with only minor disagreements about the phrasing. When you dispute that it was related to medical science, and then claim it was because medical doctors were trying to take control, you have to see how nit-picky that is.
No, it's just that you're completely wrong about motive and science as usual. These idiots didn't believe germs were real for half a century after they started banning abortion and you want to pretend they were going by new research that fetuses were people, meanwhile in actual reality progressive doctors were the ones pushing to make birth control and abortion legal in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, long as they weren't Catholic
Buncha white dudes banning women from their jobs because the dudes "knew better" doesn't mean that the dudes knew better, seeing as how they killed way more women in child birth than midwives ever did. 'Cause, you know, they didn't figure they needed clean fucking hands and would go straight from carving up a dead body to delivering a baby
Humanity didn't understand germs for all of time prior to discovering germs in specifically the era we're discussing, and you have the audacity to call those people "idiots". You stand on the shoulders of giants and think yourself tall.
That's not a nit-pick at all.
There's a lot of difference between advocating policy because there is good scientific evidence to defend the case, and advocating policy because a bunch of people in a science-related field think it will give their profession more social, economic and political power (as part of a much wider sociological, political and religious set of reasons).