> Abortion was illegal in every state in the US by 1910.
Let's be clear about what was illegal, because the radical definition, 'life begins at fertilization', is a recent innovation[1]:
> Abortion was not always a crime. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, abortion of early pregnancy was legal under common law.[22] Abortions were illegal only after "quickening," the point at which a pregnant woman could feel the movements of the fetus (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). The common law's attitude toward pregnancy and abortion was based on an understanding of pregnancy and human development as a process rather than an absolute moment. Indeed, the term abortion referred only to the miscarriages of later pregnancies, after quickening.
This is not a consensus view by legal scholars. While a consensus view is that abortion of a quick fetus had clearly been seen as a “heinous crime” in common law, many argue that abortion in general has also been seen as unlawful, just not as serious of a crime as abortion of a quick child. Blackstone, for example, discusses an example where a doctor gives a women a potion the purpose of which is to induce abortion, but which results in killing the woman. Blackstone explains that this is common law murder, because it is done with malice aforethought, that is, abortion intent. In other circumstances, doctors giving people potions that kill them was not seen as murders.
I’m not talking about the common law. Due to medical advances in the 1800s, abortion was illegal at all stages of pregnancy in the US by 1910.
Also, “life begins at conception,” or at another very early stage, isn’t a Christian innovation. That’s the belief in Shia Islam. Certain Sunni schools also prohibit abortion at any stage. In Thailand, a Buddhist country, abortion was illegal at all stages of pregnancy until 2021.
Prohibitions against abortion, even at early stages, are common across the world’s belief systems. Perhaps the only thing you could call uncommon is the view that abortion is impermissible even to save the life of the mother. But that’s an uncommon view even within evangelical Christianity.
These are all great examples of the bandwagon fallacy, but if we're going off popular appeal then why don't we see the abortion debates put to rest once and for all by popular vote?
The answer of course is that abortion rights would win by a healthy margin[1] if the public had any say in the matter.
> Pro-choice sentiment is now the highest Gallup has measured since 1995 when it was 56% -- the only other time it has been at the current level or higher -- while the 39% identifying as "pro-life" is the lowest since 1996.
I’m responding to OP’s mischaracterization above that “abortion ban comes from a fringe theory forced by a single religion.” Abortion is banned in many different societies that practice many different religions.
>Also, “life begins at conception,” or at another very early stage, isn’t a Christian innovation. That’s the belief in Shia Islam.
This is a lie ("In Shia Islam, abortion is "forbidden after implantation of the fertilised ovum.", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion). I guess it never occurred to you why even the Sharia countries are not as extreme on abortion as Christian ones.
>Certain Sunni schools also prohibit abortion at any stage.
Let's be clear about what was illegal, because the radical definition, 'life begins at fertilization', is a recent innovation[1]:
> Abortion was not always a crime. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, abortion of early pregnancy was legal under common law.[22] Abortions were illegal only after "quickening," the point at which a pregnant woman could feel the movements of the fetus (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). The common law's attitude toward pregnancy and abortion was based on an understanding of pregnancy and human development as a process rather than an absolute moment. Indeed, the term abortion referred only to the miscarriages of later pregnancies, after quickening.
[1] https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft967n...