this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
66 points (98.5% liked)

Slop.

604 readers
344 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 13 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Did it really only become an issue for Christians in the 70s? Why was it so rare before the revolution?

[–] darkcalling@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

From what I've read back in my atheist activist days it coincided with integrated schools as a culture war issue becoming untenable as a position so they moved on.

There were always Christian groups against it, Catholics were required to be against it because of a non-revocable Papal decree in the form of "received wisdom from god" type was announced at some point in the 20th century I think. Some Protestant sects were against it, others shrugged at it. There were different theories for centuries on when the fetus was given a soul so different time periods where it was okay. Some traditional religions for example thought the soul was inhaled on the first breath after birth, others gave 30 or 90 days and for much of history abortion was considered okay as long as no movement had yet been felt.

So basically they grabbed onto this as a culture war issue. You know that Republican strategist who wrote in his memoir about how you used to say n-word n-word, etc and then you couldn't do that you moved onto integrated schools then busing and soon it was all an abstract thing but racism just the same. It's the same thing but for sexism, they couldn't be against sexual freedom that second wave feminism had brought and won and which was quite popular, at least they couldn't do so while winning without some wedge issue (they still were openly against feminism but a lot of grillman type folks shrugged at all that and didn't care to join their movement). So they couldn't just slut-shame and call for criminalizing sex outside of marriage, it wouldn't fly and wasn't going to succeed. So what do you do instead? You punish women with "consequences" in the form of having kids. It becomes abstract, you invent dishonest tactics and claim they're killing babies and do this whole moral masturbation thing and freak-out over that, that plus trying to keep contraceptives to couples and you clamp down on sexual liberation by making women liable to suffer pregnancies and bear children they may not want as punishment for sex and then go on and on about stable families and births in wedlock and you're doing the same slut-shaming thing but it's abstract, you're talking in sociological terms and of murder and stable society and families and its cryptic.

And what happened was the school integration and open racism card was no longer as useful by a certain point so political operatives latched onto it after prominent "moral majority" Evangelical leadership did (who themselves of course were deeply political creatures) and they turned it into a culture war issue, they made it part of their purity culture push but they also pushed it beyond that. After all if you can convince people that abortion is murdering a baby you don't have to sell them on your whole system of morality, they don't have to accept the purity culture as a whole because they can delude themselves into thinking oh the women will give it up for adoption, there are plenty of families who want it, it'll be fine for the child and there wasn't much further thinking on it or these poor misled fools would sit there and cry and be upset about the situation because blah blah murder is wrong, poor kids, boo hoo. And they won over a lot of women that way and continue to unfortunately.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Catholics were required to be against it because of a non-revocable Papal decree in the form of "received wisdom from god" type was announced at some point in the 20th century I think.

It's much older. Officially, it's been prohibited since the 1st Century.

[–] XiaCobolt@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Definitely but the way Catholicism differs from protestantism is there's like degrees of sin and it's a dudes job (the priest) to rules lawyer it and talk to god about it for you.

So for the longest time abortion was considered bad, but so much less worse than killing a baby. By the 20th century they considered that the same thing.

[–] darkcalling@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What I recall is that the understanding of what that was changed over time. The wiki article on the issue of the CC's stance on abortion mentions compilations of lists of abortifacient herbs by the church several centuries later among other things. Basically abortion used to refer exclusively to doing so either shortly before birth/deep into pregnancy or after the first "quickenings" or movements could be felt or at the minimum a month after impregnation. By the 20th century they decided that basically the second that sperm gets in there and division starts it has a soul and messing with it is unacceptable.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

Yeah, that's about right. AFAIK when the actual mechanism of how a zygote forms was pinned down, the Church pretty quickly decided that life must begin at conception and abortion at any time was illicit.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago

Phyllis Schlafly was behind a lot of it, before that it wasn't hyperpartisan like it is now and a buttload of even reactionary christians were on the "life at first breath" thing as described in some bible passage i'm not going to look up.

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think the late '70s is around the time that the evangelical movement starts to come into power in the US (Focus on the Family is founded in '77, Moral Majority in '79).

Not 100% sure of your second question, but assuming it's referring to abortion in the Russia Empire, I'd guess it's mainly due to being a largely pre-industrial country with poor education (so less doctors/nurses etc to carry out procedures in a hospital and more midwives doing their best in rural villages).

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, true, but surely Catholicism and previous Mainline Protestants would've been lobbying to oppose abortion before then, no? I remember reading that the American religious right wing only started to crystallize around abortion as its nucleation point, and that Christianity as a whole didn't have much of a position on it before the mid 20th century, but I don't remember the source for that claim and it seems inconsistent with everything else I know about attitudes toward abortion.

[–] TrashGoblin@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Mainline Protestants, and even the forerunners of the current evangelicals didn't give a shit about abortion until the 70s. Like, they probably would mostly say they opposed it if you asked them, but they were certainly not organizing around it. It was regarded as a Catholic issue.

What happened was school integration, actually. When the courts started denying tax-exempt status to church-attached segregation academies (whites only private schools set up to get around school desegregation), Evangelicals got organized. But publicly organizing around restoring segregation was kind of a political non-starter, and it was easier to get people excited about abortion.

Article: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/

[–] XiaCobolt@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I remember someone in the old r/ChapoTrapHouse shit stirring about how John Brown's stance on abortion would be bad but like in reality he'd probably get really confused why anyone cared?

[–] XiaCobolt@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago

Before the 1970-80s being too interested in abortion meant you were a secret Papist.

And Catholics only locked in on abortion at the end of the 19th century (before they didn't like it but thought it was preferable to infanticide).

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago

They lost the battle for segregation and needed to pivot to something else.