How did abortion come to be accepted in western society?

The real argument here is what's life and what's not. Bioligical life is enough to say that someone/something is alive?

(((Soviet Union))) was the first modern country to legalize it

>on things that haven't happened

Except the majority of people who get abortions are either raped or can't afford to take care of a child?
Thats the argument
You fucking dumbass

If you're this butt hurt are you upset yours failed?

>people arguing against abortion and abortive contraception
>on Porn: The Website
wew lad

When it's actually able to survive outside of the womb is good enough for me.

>fetuses aren't developed enough to be humans so it isn't murder, retard

Utter bullshit
If it's a human fetus, it's human you dumbshit (just like if it's a dog's fetus, it's a dog).
Fetus is a stage of life, and human is a specie, not something you can arbitrarily decide based on your own criteria.

>wew almost had to make an argument there haha showed you

literally soft eugenics

the people on the too know what's up and what they're doing

the "muh body muh choice" crowd are just useful idiots for them

>Scientist on other planets

"We have discovered LIFE on Mars! We discovered a uni-cellular form of bacteria!"

>Scientist on a foetus

"It is okay to abort this! It is NOT LIFE! Even though it has taken billions of years of evolution, is already developing major humans features within the first few weeks and is has millions of cells and neurons, it is NOT LIFE! I PROMISE!"

First off the whole "life at conception' argument is false and invalid when really the "person" is just a lump of parasitic cells that are using the host body. That being said, until it is actually a discrete entity entirely away from the host body you can't really call it a person, therefore, it can't necessarily have rights.

I repeat, is biological life enough to call someone/something alive?
And there's no clear answer to this question

Again, you are making knowledge claims about the future based on current events which is retarded. There is no evidential reason to believe that the children will grow up bad, the parents could get jobs, the child could thrive with technology.

Your argument is based on a hypothetical and is therefore useless.

Now back up your claim about rape and poverty with a citation, thanks.

That's true and "abortion" back then was just leaving the thing to die in the woods, seems like society has progressed to a point where there isn't the unnecessary suffering of an actual human being.

I'm just saying that arguing for conservative or religious morals is kinda odd on a website like Veeky Forums.

The middle and upper classes have hopped on the sterilization agenda. Contraceptives only work on forward thinking peoples and that implicitly creates a brain drain for the next generation. I can't believe this sold as empowerment when it only advantages the state and corporations by keeping women atomized from families and the home.

What is certain is that fetus and newborns have roughly the same level of consciousness so both should be murderable or neither.

>all these idiots itt arguing life vs. not life

It's a matter of personhood you dinguses.

>and abortive contraception

No one here is against contraception
Life starts at fertilization, so abortion is murder while condoms and pills arent

Nobody gives a shit about whether a foetus is "life". Grass stalks are "life", and yet you trample them whenever you want. Pigs are "life", and yet you eat them. Bugs are "life", and yet you squish them.

What matters is whether it's a "human".

>What matters is whether it's a "human".
A human person, that is. Personhood is probably even more important than it being human.

>That being said, until it is actually a discrete entity entirely away from the host body you can't really call it a person, therefore, it can't necessarily have rights.

That's just your epic creteria
Maybe a future society will say until it can feed itself it has no right, so it's okay to kill babies

Are you saying that defining personhood is easier?
Legally, your not a person until you get a birth certificate, yet fetuses are still indistinguishably individuals.

That is undefinable.

I ask you, would you feel easy about having an abortion with your wife/girlfriend?

Be serious, would you really? It's easy to say yes, but would you really?

Exactly.

No, of course it's not easy, it shouldn't be. But if my wife/girlfriend really wants one, it is ultimately her choice and not anyone else's.

>What matters is whether it's a "human".

Are you a literal retard who skipped biology class?
If it's a human fetus it's obviously human, you moron
What else could it be, a tiger?
Fetus aren't another specie, they're a a stage of life like embry, newborn, baby, kid, teen, adult...
A human fetus is human, just like a human baby is
You can argue on whether it's a person or not, but not on whether it's human
How can you expect to be taken seriously after that...

To be honest, I'd probably never feel the same way and leave her.

I don't see why the answer could be no, desu.
There's no clear answer to any ethical question.
Science doesn't provide 'answers,' it provides explanations.
Moral and ethical questions are inherently unscientific. If you know of a science of ethics* then please let me know
*that isn't formulated by a philosopher who, like Hegel, styles his work as a science in a pre-20th-century manner

>That is undefinable.
Why? What exactly is and isn't definable, and why?

>I ask you, would you feel easy about having an abortion with your wife/girlfriend?
Most people feel pretty terrible when they pay taxes or child support. How comfortable you feel shouldn't play a role.

Hurrdurr. Read before replying, next time:

>How comfortable you feel shouldn't play a role.

All reason is based on human emotion and desire.

Prove me wrong, protip, you can't.

anti-natalism

You can only say that because it isn't your choice to make.

As are all faults in reasoning.

Just look at how much disgust and fear can misfire, e.g. when it comes to disgusting but nutritious food or boarding an airplane.

Yeah, another person corrected that retard too
Does it mean I shouldnt have as well?

Women want to have sex without any of the consequences. /thread

Only good post in this shitty thread.

Hm, you're right, but it doesn't mean I have to agree.

God, women are scum, lol!

Abortion shouldn't be allowed unless both parents agree
Of course the mother shouldn't be forced to raise the kid afterward if she doesn't want it, but she should be forced to birth it if the father wants it to live

That was obviously myself, user. Now, stop being so hysterical.

Of corse you commies would support this bullsh**. Exodus 20:13: "You shall not murder". Crazy how so many people have strayed from Christianity. Sickening, actually. Lets see if you commies get your way with Trump and Pence in the exec branch...kek

>a universal creator who loves us unimaginably probably doesn't exist
>I shouldn't spend my time at university doing something I love just because it makes me happy.
>emotional growth is literally dependent on you coming to terms with the fact that you can't be fully satisfied and so dependent on you relying on pursuing reason in your decision making rather than the pursuit of comfort.

Those are just off the top of my head, and I'm drunk.

Are you saying that the pro-eugenics crowd of the 20th century backed down realising that contraception and abortion would be more useful?

If so that's quite interesting.

If abortion was illegal, I'd fully agree with fathers being forced to pay alimoney even for child they didn't want
But the fact a woman can kill the kid even if the father wants to raise it, while if the mother wants the kid and the father doesnt she can keep it AND get the money is just fucked up

It's much more crazy that you still believe the bible is factual.

Fetuses aren't conscious

Children of single mothers are more likely to be criminals and guess what demographic is a large abortion patron?

I can understand this, but ya'll have to take into account that it's the mother who has to push the fucker out of her vagina. all the father had to do was fuck her, so the mother should have more say in the matter.

I think you go look for those really interesting things Margaret Sanger said.

I would be okay with killing a fetus even if it were my own and even if it were undeniably "alive".

Better outlaw divorce then

Secular rhetoric.

We are living in the end of days, and the Antichrist walks the earth. Pity those that follow him, and also fear them because they are the majority.
>what's better
>proceeds to shit all over the keyboard with utilitarian rhetoric

Then alimony shouldn't be a thing
If women are the only ones to have rights about life and death of the kids, they should be the only ones to have duties too

Too bad divorce employs all the (((lawyers))). Divorce doesn't contribute to abortion as much as harlotry does.

Whose the AntiChrist?
I legitimately want to know who you are thinking of.

I think most people here would agree with that. It's certainly unequal in regards to distribution of responsibility.

George S

Can't say, Hillary is honestly a candidate though. So is any big figure that works by fear, has some positive and fashionable ideology that works against Christianity, and also has some connections to the occult.

Hillary however quoted scripture during her speech yesterday, and may have before, which makes me doubt it is her.

It could even be multiple people.

I disagree. If alimony were abolished, men would have no responsibility whatsoever for the pregnancies they cause, other than what they felt like taking on. Single motherhood would be the norm. Removing abortion as a possibility, or forcing women to get permission from the father doesn't give men any more responsibility, it just gives more to women, who would still have to push out and take care of the baby whether or not the father sticks around.

Fuck off facist Christians

To elaborate -- the Antichrist would be a big figure that one would never really suspect. There's too many of them to pinpoint and people like the Koch brothers and Rothschilds are too obvious and indirectly influential to suspect. Then again, the Antichrist could have moved from a cult of personality to a web of negative influence.

It's complex, and that's what is terrifying.

You don't know what Fascism is, fuck off.

>it's a Veeky Forums doesn't know what it's talking about kind of thread

What a big surprise.

The fact is, if a woman really doesn't want a baby, they'll circumvent the entire healthcare system and get their baby-killing done in a backalley with a coathanger if they have to.

Legalizing abortion is exactly the same reasoning as methodone clinics: It's safer for aborting mothers to be within the healthcare system where they have access to services and good care, rather than see them dead or rendered infertile from a botched abortion.

>and take care of the baby whether or not the father sticks around.

Nope
If the woman doesn't want the kid, she'd only be forced to birth it and after that it'd become the responsability of the father who wanted it and his responsability only

>availability and legality of something has no effect on it's frequency
Come on.

>any big figure that works by fear, has some positive and fashionable ideology that works against Christianity, and also has some connections to the occult.

I'm afraid Trump is your man then.

Revelations does say that he would mislead Christians as well. Given Trumps awkward, and yet successful attempts to gain the evangelical vote, on top of his populist rise to power as the leader of the modern world power, he fits the bill.

>The fact is, if a woman really doesn't want a baby, they'll circumvent the entire healthcare system and get their baby-killing done in a backalley with a coathanger if they have to.

It's actually false
Very few women are brave enough to abort themselves (which can be very painful).
Before "safe" abortion was invented, most women who didn't want kids would just birth them and then kill/abandon them

How would it become the responsibility of the father? look at reality. Some women don't even know who the father of their child is. The "father" can be some guy who had a one night stand never saw the chick again. In these cases (which happen to be a lot of cases in which abortion becomes a serious option for the mother), the mother is the one who necessarily has to take responsibility for the child. There's just no realistic way to enforce a policy in which the father has to take on some form of responsibility for the child.

Trump is a suspect but he's also too demonized to be it. He also identifies as Christian, which is a disqualifier. It would have to be somebody completely secular, but with a weird spirituality around fashionable ideology. They would have to be extraordinarily popular, universally charming, and so on. But as I said, it could be multiple people now, or even multiple people working through media.

He would work in phases, with the destruction of Christianity first and then the slow death of humanity. This is a figure that is absolutely contrary to Christ but tries to appear like a modern Christ for secularism and whatever other means necessary.
Chemical abortion has existed for a few hundred years, if not longer.

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is the Human Soul Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Abort Primordial Clumps of Cells From The Womb Like Nigga Open Your Legs Haha

Are you dense?
The hypothesis was that abortion would only be forbidden if the father opposed it
It doesn't apply to unknown father pregnancy

>can't afford to take care of a child?
Condoms are cheap
Adoption is free

And abortions does not solve it. When motherhood becomes a female bodily elective, father HAS to become a social elective. Causalized abortion facilitates low investment couplings.

It literally isn't a baby though, it is a lump of cells, and until it can autonomously function on its own, without the need and/or necessity for some kind of "host" to feed it, it just cannot be a person and therefore cannot have rights that supersede the rights of the mother.

>becuz i sed so

Meanwhile, 22nd century argument about baby "rights"

>It literally isn't a kid though, it is a lump of cells, and until it can autonomously function on its own, without the need and/or necessity for some kind of "caretaker" to feed it, it just cannot be a person and therefore cannot have rights that supersede the rights of the mother to kill it if it suits her.

Was that the hypothesis? Or was it that if abortion was legal, alimony should be abolished, because that is what I was responding to.

But, to get back on topic, I still think that just because a father opposes it, it still is a decision that is ultimately made by the mother because it affects her most. If you allow the father to veto the decision, then the decision becomes ultimately the fathers, which is not fair to the mother given the level of investment she will necessarily have to put into the child's life. That was the point I was trying to get at.

The father doesn't HAVE to do anything. If your argument is that the father would have to follow some sort of moral imperative based on his involvement, then I've got some shitty news for you about human nature.

>Abortifacient advertising was highly effective in the United States, though apparently less so across the Atlantic. Contemporary estimates of mid-19th century abortion rates in the United States suggest between 20% - 25% of all pregnancies in the United States during that era ended in abortion.[93]

And this was when it was illegal!

Whether it's by a coathanger or by an interesting mix of industrial chemicals, plenty of women have preferred an attempted abortion to childbirth. Not the majority, but a significant minority.

23rd century argument about kid 'rights'
>It literally isn't a person though, it is a lump of cells, and until it can autonomously function on its own, without the need and/or necessity for some kind of "guardian" to provide for it, it just cannot be a person and therefore cannot have rights that supersede the rights of the mother to kill it if it suits her.

Humanity truly has declined; this is the exact same reasoning as Ancient civilizations. These same people, ironically, believe in infinite progress.
>human nature
Doesn't exist

>human nature doesn't exist
fine, I'll just say that humans tend to be self interested unless persuaded otherwise by their culture. Better?

Not at all.

Humans have been practicing literal infanticide for all of our evolutionary history
Why are people outraged humanity has developed enough that we can abort without having to actually murdering something alive and that has feelings?

can you explain your opposing viewpoint, or are you content with being a contrarian?

>Cmon Veeky Forums before planned parenthood women would have to secretly murder a baby, No they get tax payers money to do it!

>is-ought

Thats what Shotguns weddings were there for. But no that's not for the current year.

>Humans have been practicing literal infanticide for all of our evolutionary history
Humans have been doing a lot of things for our history, do you really want to travel down that path?

Shotgun weddings are dependent on girls father knowing who knocked her up. Easy in small redneck towns but now so much anywhere else. Also, do shotgun weddings produce happy families where the kids grow up in good environments? probably not.

>newborns have feeling

Autists pls let me solve abortion for yall (cray cray christians and feminists need not apply)
8 month old fetus>>>basically a baby
2 month old fetus>>>lump of cells
You can """kill""" (pee out) the lump of cells, but not the baby. You just need to set an ""age"" limit. (ie. three months)
>But it would be arbitrary
Yea you need these pretty much for anything irl, you aspie, get over it (ie.age majority) All discussion about abortion should be about where to set this limit, which should be determined in turn as objectively as possible.