Questioner
Senior Member
- Nov 26, 2019
- 1,593
- 84
- 50
- Banned
- #1
As far as society and history is concerned, in cultures and institutions past, there were arguably more restrictions on who was allowed to procreate more, and who wasn't.
There may have been more natural "checks and balances", to insure that individuals of higher morality and character were able to have more offspring, while individuals of lower character were discouraged from procreating and children, if the end result is that they, nor society could afford to support the children.
By asserting, on some arguably silly, faith-based axiom of not scientific validity, that a woman has a "right" to give birth to a child, provided their are no effective checks, balances or measurements to insure that the child is well-taken care of and provided a moral environment or atmosphere, this goes against the grain of society, as an institution.
As a result, you now have social degeneracies and ills, such as radical "sexual identity" politics (e.x. incel, radical feminism), made up of disgruntled men and women who believe they are "entitled" to sex, or "entitled" to date an attractive man or woman.
In some, arguably barbaric societies, such men may, for example, have been turned into eunuch and forced to serve the king in the haram; barbaric as this may be by today's standard, it nevertheless shows that societies tended to have natural "checks and balances" to ensure a moral and productive environment for children, and insure those unwilling or otherwise unable to do so, consequentially or not, didn't reproduce solely on the notion or merit that a woman has a "right" to choice, and a right to bear her child even in the event she nor society are willing or able to properly support it - in these cases, requiring abortion, at least up until a certain cutoff point, might ultimately be in the state's properly vested interest, assuming that retroactively "aborting" those men and women, who do to their low manners, morals or intelligence but somehow missed or survived being aborted prior to the cutoff period is not physically possible, nor ethically viable... I am rather unsure...
(As another example, in ancient societies, penalties such as "death penalty for adultery", primitive as they may be today, served likely as a function of population control, much as laws against "sodomy" likely did disease prevention, contrary to the many myths and conspiracy theories that such things were invented or existed in a "vacuum", for no reason other than to oppress people, or punish "sex" itself, as opposed to the natural consequences thereof, particularly in a primitive society without the luxuries of birth control, adoption agencies, and so on and so forth).
There may have been more natural "checks and balances", to insure that individuals of higher morality and character were able to have more offspring, while individuals of lower character were discouraged from procreating and children, if the end result is that they, nor society could afford to support the children.
By asserting, on some arguably silly, faith-based axiom of not scientific validity, that a woman has a "right" to give birth to a child, provided their are no effective checks, balances or measurements to insure that the child is well-taken care of and provided a moral environment or atmosphere, this goes against the grain of society, as an institution.
As a result, you now have social degeneracies and ills, such as radical "sexual identity" politics (e.x. incel, radical feminism), made up of disgruntled men and women who believe they are "entitled" to sex, or "entitled" to date an attractive man or woman.
In some, arguably barbaric societies, such men may, for example, have been turned into eunuch and forced to serve the king in the haram; barbaric as this may be by today's standard, it nevertheless shows that societies tended to have natural "checks and balances" to ensure a moral and productive environment for children, and insure those unwilling or otherwise unable to do so, consequentially or not, didn't reproduce solely on the notion or merit that a woman has a "right" to choice, and a right to bear her child even in the event she nor society are willing or able to properly support it - in these cases, requiring abortion, at least up until a certain cutoff point, might ultimately be in the state's properly vested interest, assuming that retroactively "aborting" those men and women, who do to their low manners, morals or intelligence but somehow missed or survived being aborted prior to the cutoff period is not physically possible, nor ethically viable... I am rather unsure...
(As another example, in ancient societies, penalties such as "death penalty for adultery", primitive as they may be today, served likely as a function of population control, much as laws against "sodomy" likely did disease prevention, contrary to the many myths and conspiracy theories that such things were invented or existed in a "vacuum", for no reason other than to oppress people, or punish "sex" itself, as opposed to the natural consequences thereof, particularly in a primitive society without the luxuries of birth control, adoption agencies, and so on and so forth).
