I didn't accuse them of understanding their own ideology. They have been taught by their parents who were taught by theirs. But it only goes back a century or so to a time that churches were a driving progressive force for civil rights. How else would you explain church history re abortion?
Well, that and effective/safe Abortion options were kind of hard to come by prior to the 20th Century. Unless we're talking something like a "morning after pill" which probably had some degree of availability(and widely variable effectiveness) before then. Of course, more relevant to this discussion is the claim that in the time of the Romans, there evidently was a plant which could be used which provided a highly effective means of birth control. Of course, it was allegedly so popular that they used it into extinction.
But if those claims are true, then it probably existed and was known in biblical times, in particular it may have still been around during the New Testament era(not sure on when the plant allegedly went extinct, just that the Romans had access to it), yet it seems to go without mention in the Bible.
But that gets into splitting hairs on things, and more particular, playing into a popular Democratic rhetorical trap. That all Conservative Republican oppose all forms of Birth Control, and will have nothing to with something like a "morning after pill" even though MOST(but not all, in particular observant/"obedient" Catholics) have no issue with those specific services. What their issue is generally happens to be the 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, with everybody drawing lines at different spots, with many venturing into that first trimester.
The ones going for "It begins at conception" are certainly among the most vocal, but they're a definite minority even within the pro-life camp.
It' s not until we started seeing preserved fetuses in science jars that judeochristian values re children hopped the fence to include abortion.
Awareness will do that.
Comparable thing happened with Child Labor laws, Child Labor was perfectly ok for nearly the entire first century of the Industrial Revolution, but suddenly newspapers and other groups starting raising awareness of the working conditions of those children, and suddenly "the Christian thing" became to oppose it.
Ditto for "age of consent" for sex, marriage, and military service. It wasn't until nearly the end of the 19th century that it became illegal in most states(and Europe) for you to engage in sex with a 10 year old. You could even marry an 8 year old if you really wanted to. Such example are certainly extremes, and very exceptionally rare according to the historical record, but it still stands as things you could
legally do at the time and have a decent chance of not being universally condemned for it.
Obviously people of the time did take exception to most of those things by the end of the 19th Century, probably once again, due to awareness of it even being an issue coming into play. So once they became aware of it, they changed the laws to put an end to much of it.
But it is kind of odd looking at the history of the Age of Consent laws in particular, in many cases, they started at the Age of 8, and then over a period of decades, the age of consent crept progressively higher. Which by today's standards is just utterly bizarre, but then if you look at it from the religious side, what is the scriptural/doctrinal basis for such a concept?
Even so, that a state legislature would debate and pass a law stating that having sex with someone under the of age 7 is unacceptable, but that 8 is fine. Just what arguments were presented in that legislative session that made any legislature decide that was acceptable in any form?
Of course, the madness wouldn't end there. They'd then revisit the issue(in a true (reversed?) slippery slope form), and decide that 8 no longer is ok, but having sex with an 12 year old still remains acceptable. Where you once again have to wonder how they decided THAT was acceptable. Rinse and repeat once or twice more, depending on the states/nations involved, and ultimately you end up with the mixtures of ages of consent ranging from 14 to 18 in most of "the 1st world."
...but then, when we're talking early 20th Century, we also need to remember that a LOT of people even as late as the 1930's didn't even have a 6th grade education. Which would indicate that by the time they hit 12 or 13, they were essentially being treated as adults. As standards of living, and educational standards likewise increased during the 20th century, age of consent seemed to track closely with the age of "mandatory (enforced) schooling" all things considered. Which is how we pretty much have 18 as the universal bar for much of the United States(and more specifically in regards to porn, as some state have lower age limits for consent)--because that's the age at which they finish High School.
Although it does seem that some states have started to use a more "medically rational" basis for setting the age of consent. Which basically boils down to statistical breakdowns of (non-harmful to the mother) pregnancy outcomes based on age of the woman at the time of pregnancy. That data seems to peg things right around 18 years for most of the population(although for some it can extend into their 20's, while others can be earlier by a few years; although if you were going for "best outcome for a
first pregnancy," we'd currently be setting the sexual age of consent somewhere in a woman's early to mid 20's), but that's another ball of wax, and trying to legislate such a personally invasive law with a triggering clause based on an
individualized medical assessment is just asking for trouble.
Although it would probably be hilarious to see how people would react to trying to push such a reform through. "No Sex until you're 24." Probably safer to try "Mandatory birth control until you're 24" except many religious groups, and a number of women's rights groups for that matter, will object to that for a multitude of reasons.
