Why was abortion outlawed in most societies throughout history?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Don't waste your actual facts that are true here

Retard ideologists need to respect the nuances of history and biology if they want a realistic view of the world and not one pushed by football hooligan banter.

The practiced infanticide instead.

journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/arizanthro/article/viewFile/18264/18000

Because individualism is pretty recent
Lot of disgusting stuff have been legal and normalized in different eras
In the 18th century it was treating blacks as animals, in the 1940s it was gassing the kikes, now it's killing unborn babies
People from the future will be quick to judge us like we judge slavers, forgetting we've been brainwashed into thinking abortion is okay since we were kids

It wasn't? It was generally unregulated and even encouraged at points.

Also infanticide was a thing.

Murder.

Wasn't.

It's an Abraamic thing.

Because a healthy society is naturally interested in protecting itself and its future. New members for society are a key part in this.
This. Good post.
No. Bringing fresh blood is the duty that women have to fulfill. You can hardly claim that this is a job to be done by men, can you?

>Why was abortion outlawed in most societies throughout history?
It wasn't, in fact many societies went full infanticide.

If you don't want to contribute to society in the most meaningful way possible, you're free to live in the wilderness.

>having an abortion means you can never have kids
Oh wait, abortions are most common among blacks and Hispanics, who have significantly higher birth rates than the American average! Look at that.

Most women who abort do so because the pregnancy was unplanned and they're not in a position to take care of the child NOW; it implies next to nothing about their plans for having children in the future.

/thread

kek.

Reminder that Isaac Newton was a permavirgin by choice. I guess he should have just fucked off since he wasn't contributing in "the most meaningful way possible."

"""Ought"""

Most women who abort are murderers, and live with that guilt their entire lives. The ones who are not murderers killed their child so that they could live, and they live with survivor's guilt for the rest of their lives.

But sure, idiots, go have sex with whomever, whenever, and however. What's the worst that could happen?

You're right, it is a hard decision to make. That's why women should be able to make it on their own and take responsibility for their choices :^]

Everyone who whines about birthrates will likely never reproduce.

>WTF I CAN'T KILL MY BABY! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!1111

>fetus
>baby

>Abortion being banned is society holding women at gunpoint if anything
This pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with current society

>Are you f*cking kidding me?
>It is the current year!
>You are a fucking white male!

>Dude, it's just that stage of human life, it's perfectly okay to kill it

Meanwhile 200 years ago
>Dude, it's just that race of human, it's perfectly okay to kill it

Rightfully so

>Woman have the choice to murder :^]

Nice equivalence. What punishment do you think women who get abortions should recieve?

When people are threatning your personal comfort, it's okay to kill them
Killing your baby to avoid having to raise it is no different from killing someone who tries to steal your gf or killing someone you're indebted to
The later two arent allowed yet because society is still backward, but they should be allowed in the name of personal freedom

>What punishment do you think women who get abortions should recieve?

Being forcefully impregnated again and forced to carry it to term

Because most societies considered the baby inside the woman to be a distinct life.

kek

Whatever the sentencing guidelines for first degree murder are, duh.

You know that if blastula stage you was scraped from your mum's womb, you would not exist, right?

Murdering someone being a hard decision does not justify murder.

English and American abortion law dates to the 19th century. It was not a subject in English law at all until this point.

>When people are threatning your personal comfort, it's okay to kill them
>Killing your baby to avoid having to raise it is no different from killing someone who tries to steal your gf or killing someone you're indebted to
>The later two arent allowed yet because society is still backward, but they should be allowed in the name of personal freedom.
Sometimes I don't know if some of you are just trolling or just this legitimally retarded

OK, see, this is interesting. See what you just did?

I said nothing about the morality of abortion, just pointed out that if your worry is that abortion lets women shirk their duty to society by not having kids, that's not really a concern, because the demographics that have a lot of abortions also have the highest birthrates. Abortion is actually a very poor method of population control; affordable contraception (not to mention cultural factors and the economy) has a much, much bigger impact than abortion does.

In other words, I made a factual point. You responded with a bunch of REEEE about how abortion is murder. An absolute non sequitur, irrelevant to anything I said. You just dodged what I said and attacked something I didn't. And that's how almost every conversation with anti-abortion activists goes.

Can you see what a bad impression that makes?

>Why was abortion outlawed in most societies throughout history?[citation needed]
it wasn't. infanticide has been commonplace in most non-abrahamic cultures. it's still commonplace in parts of china and india, and hunter/gatherer populations almost unanimously murder their babies on occasion.

You know that if your father had just decided not to fuck on the night you were conceived the world would be exactly the same as one in which you were aborted.
I doubt you'd want to live in a world in which people have a moral and civic responsibility to reproduce.

>Most women who abort live with that guilt their entire lives.
No, this is simply a right-wing fantasy.

but it wasn't

the bible has a handy how-to guide in it

You did, actually. You said murder was acceptable if the pregnancy was inconvenient.

It's a human once sperm fertilizes an egg.

>You know that if your father had just decided not to fuck on the night you were conceived the world would be exactly the same as if he kill you just when you were born.
This fucking stupid equivalencies have to go back

>all of these people forcing their modern-day values on people of the past

/pol/ is the worst.

But I would not have been murdered.

Can you see the difference between being murdered and not being murdered?

I think he's trying to open the eyes of people brainwashed into believing abortion if okay by showing you to what it actually compares

Meet more women who will talk to you.

Who are you trying to reply to? The bit about women "shirking their duty to society by not having kids" was a restatement of these posts not my own position.

not an argument

>/pol/ is the worst.
pol is pro-abortion. Even then legalizing and subsudizing abortion is moronic in every possible way

>I doubt you'd want to live in a world in which people have a moral and civic responsibility to reproduce.

>weekly penis inspections at your local government Health, Wellness and Fertility Clinic
>government assigned wife

Not an easy choice I'm afraid

*Eugenics
They're pro-eugenics, not abortion. Once you've got your Aryan super couples, they'll be encouraged to have children and punished if they damage the future of the wh*te race.

It was meant as a suggestion. Of course, that suggestion may not be possible for you to follow.

>They're pro-eugenics
They have a daily pro abortion thread. pol is just the edgy cousin of r/politics. They are just a bunch of edgy liberals

/pol/ is a Christian board and condemns murder.

>If you hadnt been conceived, you wouldnt exist. Therefore it's okay to murder you

Great argument senpai

>/pol/ is a Christian board
HUEHUEHUE

You don't take their christLARPing deux-vult posting seriously? Those are the Christians of tomorrow and you should respect that.

>daily abortion threads
Their arguments always seemed to boil down to Eugenics to me. It's been about a year since I stopped visiting aside to watch national events as they unfold through their lens.

If the pregnancy were terminated, you wouldn't have yet existed at that point. A "you" requires sapience.

Okay, but if you thought it was relevant to the discussion then my suggestion is for you to put less value on anecdotal evidence.
webmd.com/women/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion#1

Sapience begins in the scrotum

>killed
>before you were born
kek
If abortion is murder then masturbation is defrauding the sperm bank.

>A "you" requires sapience

Explain why newborn murder is illegal then

They're basically autonomous at that point, you're no longer just evicting a non-sapient entity from someone's body. Sure full sapience isn't achieved yet, but it will shortly and it's not occupying someone's body.

Do you realize that fetus are protected by law unless the mother chooses to abort it right? Fetus are considered people by law unless the mother chooses to kill it.It is murder in a legal sense you stupid dingus

Note I mean autonomous in the sense of not being attached to someone's body, you obviously need to feed and care for them. Which is an obligation that it's possible to reject.

Yes and? Murder is defined as unlawful killing. That's unlawful. This is why execution, lawful use of police force (I'm not sure what the proper name for this is), self-defense, and war time killing aren't considered murder.

>murder: deliberatly killing
Did you just made up that definition?

No. I'm using the legal definition for what constitutes a murder. Which is the one that would matter here.

ah, the sound of angry fedoras flapping in the breeze

The only western nation to have explicitly stated that a foetus is protected by law is Ireland

What is manslaughter?

Daily reminder that church and state are separated for a reason

Daily reminder that the only factor going into abortion is if the fetus has developed enough intellectual ability to be sapient, and that this issue should be decided by research and scientific inquiry..

Daily reminder all other arguments are useless pathos.

hitler dubs speak the truth. OP what the fuck are you talking about? what constitutes most societies and would you care to cite sources of "most societies" making abortions illegal and how strictly it was inforced?

This
Science and reason > feels

>Daily reminder that the only factor going into abortion is if the fetus has developed enough intellectual ability to be sapient

Fuck off, retard
Sapience is achieved around 4 years old
Currently, there's no objective factor used to define abortion since it varies from on country to another
Fact is people arbitrarily define what is or not an human being according to doubtful criteria (does it have eyes yet, does it have a heart yet, is it sapient yet, can it breath yet, can it walk yet, can it buy its own food yet) when the only objective starting point is fertilization

The current benchmark in the west is when the fetus develops a nervous system and can respond to outside stimuli. Which I believe is around 20 days.

Seems appropriate to me.

Usually something that results in a human death but was not planned, premeditated or even intended.

I say we draw the sapient line at 1 IQ point higher than you have, so say 75, and abort you today.

Biology is pretty clear on how humans are made.

Maybe take a biology class next year at your failed middle school.

Laws are not, and have never been, and shall never be built on objective criteria. All philosophical and political ideals will eventually come to something arbitrary if you dig deeply enough.

I can demonstrate this by playing the why game with you if you like.

Why should we value the fetus?

Says the 300lb NEET living off of food stamps

The relevant moral question for a society to decide is "Which forms of intentional killing are justifie and which are not?"
The list should include no less than
Abortion, War, Capital Punishment, Euthanasia, Suicide, Defense, Aggression, and Sacrifice.
(Obviously there is a lot of bleed over - for instance Abortion and War are often times also self defense, Euthanasia bleeds into suicide, and capital punishment can be seen as a form of sacrifice depending on your justification)
Then, what each individual person needs to do is determine which categories of killing they think are murder (unjustified) and not murder (justified). Bingo, blamo - you got yourself a Theory of Justified Killing,

The problem from either perspective (pro-life or pro-choice) is that everybody wants to pretend that their personal moral preference is obvious. ["No duh of course capital punishment is wrong BUT of coooourse killing a fetus is just a women exercizing rights over her body"]
When really none of those categories of dath are obviously right or wrong. Gotta use reason and argumentation to make your fucking point.

The weakest point that pro-choicers have is that they argue that fetus isn't human until they find out that they are wrong and then switch over to some red herring version of "personhood" (like sapient, or sentient, or autonomous) as if any of those sub categories proved their point.

The truth is that whether you believe in moral facts or not (I'm talking to you Stirner ppl) everybody will have to develope an argument as to why they believe some or another category or scenario justifies killing a human and accept that not everybody will be compelled by the same moral logic.

Right
Wrong
Wrong

>food stamps
That's for poor minorities. I live off of a combination of autism bux and my parents.

>Seems appropriate to me.

It's an arbitrary criterion, just like sapience, ability to breath, ability to walk, ability to talk, ability to earn a living...etc
Life starts at fertilization, the rest is just stage of developpement

Current abortion is hypocritical
Either consciouness is what matters and newborns should be legally killable, either it isnt what matters and abortion should be illegal
Nervous system is irrelevant since painless ways to kill newborns exist

what school?

huh?

this nigga gets it

Oh its a bookstore

>The truth is that whether you believe in moral facts or not (I'm talking to you Stirner ppl) everybody will have to develope an argument as to why they believe some or another category or scenario justifies killing a human and accept that not everybody will be compelled by the same moral logic.

The problem is that every position is ultimately chosen out of sentiment and at it's core an arbitrary one. To hold any moral position you first need to make a leap and place some value or concept as something of worth to build it around. Pro-choicers take a leap in assuming that a woman's personal autonomy is inherently of value, anti-choicers make a leap in assuming that all life is precious if it happens to have human genetics; when in fact there's no truly grounded reason to believe either of these positions.

That picture. I wanna know if I'm attending classes with a skilled Upskirtsman.