HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Abortion: what is really ...

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 04:46 AM

Abortion: what is really the issue?

Myth has it that Eve tempted Adam. It's always the womans fault.

If we were to accept that in the broader sense of evolution, unfettered rutting only leads to unconrolled population growth, to the extent that the environment will not be able to sustain it.

Religious folk go out of their way to separate us from animals; animals are to be used, eaten, become beasts of burden. Then they claim the 'divine spark' that sets humankind apart from animals. Quite simply, they can't have it both ways.

We are either animals that jointly inhabit the planet with a host of other animals, fish, insects and fungi or we are a 'special' category of living beings to which the laws of nature are not applicable.

This is the contradiction of fundamentalist thought on abortion. Do we reproduce unconrollably or do we apply scientific principles to the number of humans that our planet can sustain.

55 replies, 1507 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply Abortion: what is really the issue? (Original post)
canetoad Sunday OP
WePurrsevere Sunday #1
TheBlackAdder Sunday #21
mercuryblues Sunday #40
TheBlackAdder Sunday #41
WePurrsevere Monday #55
Freddie Sunday #2
nuxvomica Sunday #3
SheltieLover Sunday #9
ResistantAmerican17 Sunday #4
TheBlackAdder Sunday #22
Walleye Sunday #5
Mossfern Sunday #37
betsuni Sunday #6
Solly Mack Sunday #7
SheltieLover Sunday #10
Solly Mack Sunday #47
SheltieLover Sunday #53
Ohiogal Sunday #19
Solly Mack Sunday #48
uponit7771 Sunday #23
Turin_C3PO Sunday #32
Solly Mack Sunday #49
not_the_one Sunday #42
Solly Mack Sunday #51
Poiuyt Sunday #46
Solly Mack Sunday #52
Buckeye_Democrat Sunday #8
Mossfern Sunday #39
hlthe2b Sunday #11
Buckeye_Democrat Sunday #16
jmowreader Sunday #27
hlthe2b Sunday #28
GoCubsGo Sunday #12
no_hypocrisy Sunday #13
DeminPennswoods Sunday #14
Buckeyeblue Sunday #15
Klaralven Sunday #17
Gore1FL Sunday #18
moriah Sunday #25
mopinko Sunday #20
Goodheart Sunday #24
Luciferous Sunday #26
jmowreader Sunday #29
Mr. Ected Sunday #30
Delmette2.0 Sunday #31
JHB Sunday #33
Azathoth Sunday #34
panader0 Sunday #35
UTUSN Sunday #36
KWR65 Sunday #38
rownesheck Sunday #43
OnDoutside Sunday #44
Retrograde Sunday #45
spanone Sunday #50
KentuckyWoman Sunday #54

Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 05:13 AM

1. Abortion is a power issue. It's not about...

Those who are at the core of the anti-choice movement believe women shouldn't have power over their own bodies. They created a religious aspect about "pro-life" to have something to rally people under and yet the Judeo-Christian God isn't exactly known to be "pro-LIFE" (even killing innocent children & babies).

Oh and there's no actual mention in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God being against autoimmunity is why many protestant churches support choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WePurrsevere (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:29 AM

21. Yep. Most everything in the Boble supports abortion. Very little "pro-forced birth."

.

It was perverted for three main reasons:

Keep and retain church membership and their coffers by manufacturing a wedge issue.

Continue to control women and make them subservient.

Energize the church members to become politically engaged.


In my Women in Politics course, which only touched on a few of these, my religion courses touched on the rest, since the mid-70s, there are still a solid 45% of women who still vote the patriarchy based on their church's religious and orthodox views.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #21)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 11:43 AM

40. You forgot cannon fodder

The major religions needed bodies to fight their religious wars. If women had control over when to get pregnant and how many children to birth, it would severely limit the Holy wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #40)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:48 PM

41. Dang. I forgot that one.

.

They need more babies to increase their fold and global presence.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 19, 2020, 06:35 AM

55. Yes, that lines up with what I've learned. I know we still have ...

quite a way to go but I'm truly surprised by the high number of women who are still voting that way though since it's not at all reflective of my own past and current experience. Is that a US or global figure?

I'm truly very curious about the studies the 45% numbers come from. I'd especially like to know how recent and regionally diverse they were. Would you please point me to the sources or textbook/book used? TIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 05:14 AM

2. To me it's regarding women as "carriers"

The belief that women’s main obligation to society is to breed. Pregnancy and childbirth carry countless physical risks, including the risk of death. To force someone to endure those risks against their will smacks of slavery to me (no offense intended please). NO ONE - no person, government or church - should have the right to force a woman to breed. If this ever comes up to SCOTUS again it should be argued not using a right to privacy, but the 13th Amendment - the one about unlawful servitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 05:53 AM

3. In the natural state, the female holds the reproductive power

The female of any species chooses the mate, and whether to mate, hence the tremendous expenditure of energy in male mating rituals among birds. I contend that all of civilization is an elaborate mating ritual, to manipulate the woman's choice. Think of how great the woman's power is and how frequently through history men have tried to override it through subjugation, rape, and now abortion restrictions. And I arrive at the same conclusion as you: by denying women the expression of their natural instincts and failing to accept their power we have overpopulated our species and ruined the planet. I am reminded of Mel Brooks' very canny analysis of Shelley's Frankenstein: it's all about "womb envy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nuxvomica (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 07:32 AM

9. You nailed it!

Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 06:14 AM

4. If it was really about moral opposition to abortion then these

right wing hypocrite woman haters wouldn’t try to bribe, force, beat their mistresses into getting one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ResistantAmerican17 (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:31 AM

22. Someone asked some Republicans about paying a child stippend for those pregnant during COVID. . .

.

Apparently, when money is involved, those babies in the womb are just fetuses.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 06:22 AM

5. The apple in the garden of Eden represented knowledge. That's what they're against

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walleye (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 11:25 AM

37. Just a slight addition....

The apple was from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 06:31 AM

6. Convincing people that Republicans are the moral party.

Republican voters don't like the Republican party's policies, but they're brainwashed into believing it's the moral party.

Meghan McCain is the perfect example. She's convinced that Democrats waltz into abortion clinics at nine months pregnant and tell the doctor to rip out the baby and murder it just because, that Democrats hate the military, hate the flag, hate Christianity, hate guns. She has no excuse for this massive ignorance: rich, good education, travel, meets famous people. Yet it's there in many people, subliminally. The moral Daddy party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 06:31 AM

7. ...

Right-wing religious wackadoodles believe that their god gave humans dominion over the earth and everything in it. The earth is theirs to do what they will with it. Use it up, kill whatever other animal they have to kill to sustain their beliefs/way of life. That their god will protect this way of living and that things like climate change, killing off animals leading to our own destruction, and anything else along those lines is a lie made up to scare people or that such things don't matter since their god will protect them.

Overpopulation only concerns them if it's the wrong sort doing the overpopulating (white supremacy). America's history shows that. Poor whites are seen as less by wealthy white supremacists though those wealthier racists will use the poor ones to do their bidding. The examples of this are readily available and especially easy to find under Trump.

Blaming Eve is sort of a ground zero for misogyny among religious wackadoodles. The whole women as temptress leading good men astray and childbirth as punishment thinking.

The idea that men can't help themselves stems from that. It's the seductress who causes it. Not the man. So it's up to women to behave in a certain manner that doesn't cause men to act out.

From that you get blaming the rape victim. What was she wearing? Was she drinking? How was she acting? Somehow, the woman asked for it because - Eve.

So it's up to women to not invite attention from men.

So the behavior of women must be controlled.

The whole bad girls v. good girls. Good girls don't get raped. Good girls don't have sex outside of marriage. Good girls dress a certain way to hide their bodies to show they're chaste. Good girls don't get pregnant outside of marriage.

Birth control comes along. Frees women.

So birth control must be bad.

Unwed pregnant girls are hidden, sent away, forced to give up their children. Ostracized, abused, sometimes murdered. Not as a common as it used to be but not so much in the past to be forgotten.

If pregnancy is pushed as the punishment for sex outside of marriage (and it is) - or a girl behaving badly - then forcing her to stay pregnant is what she deserves - along with the scorn that will be heaped on them for their bad behavior.

Abortion - legal and safe.

They see that as a bad thing.

Bad because now girls and women can hide their "bad" behavior. It's got nothing to do with the life of the fetus. Nothing. At all.

The religious wackadoodles want to exert control over behavior. Punish what they consider bad behavior.

They want to be able to attack and ridicule, to point to others as being bad - this allows them to feel (self) righteous and smug about being good.

This is what happens to bad girls. I'm not a bad girl so it won't ever happen to me. I am so much better.

Scarlet A's for all the rest.

The abortion issue is about control. Those against abortion want to control the behavior of women. Even the women in the so-called "pro-life" movement.

Evidenced by the complete lack of concern for the child once it is born. Also evidenced by how they speak of pregnant teens/women.
The whole bad girl bullshit. They want women to conform to a certain way of behaving - the way they think a woman should behave - and any deviation from that is seen as bad behavior.

They'll tell you that's it is not them, it's what their god wants but that's complete and utter bullshit.

Religious wackadoodles need everyone around them to conform to their way of thinking because that makes them feel safe about how and what they believe. They can deny their own desires and pretend they don't do things in secret if everyone thinks everyone else is behaving and thinking alike.

If they are all the same then how can they be wrong? If everyone behaves in the exact same manner, then there is no bad. If everyone believes exactly the same, then the world is a safe place.

If women are doing their own thing, then that's women rejecting the beliefs of the religious wackadoodles. Truly, woman or man, the religious wackadoodles can't stand it when anyone is seen as rejecting their beliefs.

They even consider that rejection to be a form of persecution. It's why they whine and moan about being poor, put upon Christians. Not because they are actually being attacked but because people reject their beliefs.

Look at how single mothers are treated and what is said about them. Look at how much more worse those words are, and treatment is, if it is a poor, single mother. A minority single mother. An immigrant single mother.

Religious wackadoodles really do view pregnancy outside of marriage as justified punishment. Get pregnant and not married? Force them to have their children and if they are poor, well whose fault is that?

Why should women who behave badly get assistance for their bad behavior? (WIC, SNAP, healthcare, anything at all)

It doesn't stop at abortion. This need to control women. This need to punish women who refuse to conform to their way of thinking.

They want to punish the women and the children too. Pregnant and not married? And you want to keep the child? Then you deserve everything that happens to you and your child.

Goes along with their if you're poor you've done something bad thinking.

If you're poor you must be lazy.

If you're poor you must deserve it.

All of it - all about control. Wanting to control women. Wanting to control other people who don't think as they do.




























Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 07:38 AM

10. Absolutely!

Control is the issue for sure!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheltieLover (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 05:05 PM

47. That is the bottom line of it all.

All of it comes back to control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #47)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 07:01 PM

53. Sure does & only caucasian men are allow to have it

No women. No people of color.

Cuz patriarchy has done such a great job, right? Assholes have managed to nearly destroy the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:24 AM

19. You nailed it, Solly Mack!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohiogal (Reply #19)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 05:07 PM

48. Thanks

There's more I could have said but when I find myself rambling I feel the need to stop. Still didn't hit all the hot spots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:40 AM

23. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 10:02 AM

32. Excellent post!

You should consider posting this as an OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turin_C3PO (Reply #32)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 05:11 PM

49. I'll tell you a secret.

I got injured yesterday. Nothing major but still needed pain pills. I was a wee bit high when I typed that out. Told myself to wait but then couldn't.

So much to say on the subject. Not sure I could do it up right. Re: an OP of it all.

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:22 PM

42. EXCELLENT analysis!

And the source of all the division? In your words, Right-wing religious wackadoodles. An extremely accurate, I might add, depiction of those in question.

The offending word in that phrase is not "wackadoodles". It is "religious".

Religions are nothing more than fairy tales created to explain which is, at the time, un-explainable. And even fairy tales have an agenda.

Science and logic should be the deciding factors. Scientifically, the only agenda is "out of chaos comes order". The universe, in its infinite age, seems to follow that path. Logically is where religion steps in and takes us down the rabbit hole. Apparently humankind is susceptible to gross manipulation of science, based on a totally agenda oriented logic, at which point it actually becomes mostly devoid of logic, and is based almost exclusively on agenda.

Our problem is we can't grasp infinity (of time, or distance). So we resort to fairy tales. One of twentieth centuries greatest philosophers, Marilyn Manson , said, "God is a number we can not count to..."

The bible itself says it is nothing more than a fairy tale.

IN THE BEGINNING... was creation. Time never began, therefore there could never have been a "creation".

AT THE END OF TIME... we will all be judged according to the guidelines of the fairy tale. Time will never end, so there will never be a "judgment".

For the believers? All for naught. Tots and pears...

The whole idea of control over women's bodies is based on a religious tenet that is false, illogical, and certainly NOT scientific.

The female body is responsible for (once an accidental sperm has been utilized) the gestation of the egg/embryo, nurturing it to birth, then responsible for feeding the child so it doesn't die. The male is relevant ONLY as an accidental occurrence. And more than likely, the LAST thing on said male's mind was to impregnate an egg.

RELIGIOUS MEN of the "right-wing religious wackadoodles" persuasion can't handle the downgrade to accidental occurrence. So there MUST be an agenda that gives control back to THEM. Biblical marriage, where the women gives up her family (a form of isolation) and cleaves to his (as his property), gives up her last name to take his, takes a subservient position in the relationship which allows HIM to make all the decisions, does just that. It was originally a business arrangement. In recent years that justification was adjusted (in most religious cultures) to account for "love".

Sadly, RELIGIOUS WOMEN of the "right-wing religious wackadoodles" persuasion, succumbed to this twisted agenda, becoming willful and voluntary slaves to their earthly masters (husbands), who were acting on the commands of THE heavenly master, who ALSO had a penis (GAWD). Not to digress, but if humans are made in God's own image, and humans consist of male and female, then God is a hermaphrodite. I'm just sayin'...

I believe the REAL purpose for marriage was access to sex on demand. The wife is to do her wifely duties and submit. Either agreeably, or not...

Modern women have rejected being controlled, and to do so ultimately is to control their OWN timeline of when to, or when to NOT, have a child. That is a threat to everything the religious right has manipulated into being acceptable societal behavior.

If we can't eliminate the source of the agendas, in their entirety, we must at least give the individual woman the right to control their own body.

It is both scientific and logical. Society would, in my not so humble opinion, be much the better for it.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to not_the_one (Reply #42)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 05:20 PM

51. I both get and don't get the mindset.

I don't think said mindset can ever be eliminated. You can't destroy an idea, no matter how dangerous of an idea.

Even if you could one day, on the next day someone would invent it all over again.

Still, a woman being in control of her own body/life - is a concept, an idea, a right - that must be held as indisputable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 05:00 PM

46. Great post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poiuyt (Reply #46)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 05:20 PM

52. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 06:33 AM

8. The superstitious think there's a "spirit" in the embryo.

The ol' "Ghost in the Machine" myth.

Stay tuned for future American right-wing Bible-thumpers to declare that the Earth is the center of the Universe again. Anything to make themselves feel more "special" in this world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 11:39 AM

39. According to Jewish tradition

the soul enters upon the first breath of a newborn baby.
Since Jesus was Jew, wouldn't it follow that Christians believe the same?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 07:42 AM

11. The religious "tenets" re: abortion are not based on logic, except perhaps for the political gains

such exploitation provides. And logic is not a substitute for "faith" in these anti-abortion advocates.

The overwhelming irony for me is that these "religious" groups never had a problem with abortion until their decision to tie their entire future to the Republican Party in 1979 when conservative Paul Weyrich seized on it as a way to defeat Carter and put Reagan in the WH. Before abortion became their "cause," it was segregation.

Such a self-serving deception built on a foundation of hypocrisy and exploitation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:01 AM

16. Yep, it was a BS issue for them and it came about...

... as you described.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 09:07 AM

27. Weyrich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #27)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 09:10 AM

28. typo... thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 07:46 AM

12. Yep, it's all about subjugation--which is why they're packing the courts.

It's not just abortion. They're using the courts to keep not only women, but everyone who is not rich and white under their thumbs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 07:49 AM

13. Abortion and birth control are really about sex-without-responsibility

It's that simple.

As things stand now, men and women can engage in sexual relations without the fear of resulting pregnancy, provided that birth control is used, or worst case scenario, the woman obtains a safe abortion.

There is no evidence of those relations. There is no fear of being shunned as an unwed mother who gave birth to a bastard/illegitimate child. The man has no worry about a shot-gun wedding or child support.

And when there is no worry, sex is enjoyed infinitely more. And a lot of religions can't stand the idea of women enjoying sex.

Everything is clean and simple.

Take away abortion (and don't kid yourselves, banning birth control is around the corner), and you have complications and back to the Fifties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 07:55 AM

14. Simple, really

Celebrate priests don't reproduce. Where do all the future priests and parishioners come from if women don't have enough babies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 07:56 AM

15. I struggle with why the anti-choicers get so worked up over abortion

And yet they don't get as passionate about issues effecting children like...

Hunger--imagine the children that could be fed with the money/energy that anti-choicers spend

Clean water--where was the every life is sacred group when the children in Flint were being poisoned

Education--Anti-choicers tend to vote for candidates who cut education spending

I could go on. The contradictory positions taken by most anti-choicers make me think that the issue is mostly anti-women. They are also adamantly opposed to ERA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:08 AM

17. Theologically, it is all about "ensoulment" -- the moment that the fetus receives a "soul"

Once the fetus receives a soul, it is human, not animal, and killing it from that point on is homicide.

Ensoulment may occur as late as birth. After all, "soul" and "spirit" are closely related and the latter is associated with breath. Therefore, it is possible that the fetus does not become human until it draws first breath. This is consistent with the practice that stillborn fetuses that never draw breath are usually not accorded a funeral and burial.

Another view is that ensoulment occurs with "quickening", that is, when the fetus begins to move in the uterus. That seems to have been the rough consensus for most of Christian history.

The view that ensoulment occurs with conception is the most radical, and it became more widespread only in the 19th century. Conception itself is not completely clear - it may be when the sperm and egg fuse, or it may be when implantation occurs. Most fertilized eggs fail to implant.

Of course, for any of this to make sense, you have to believe in a "soul", which is a pretty daft concept in itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:24 AM

18. I find it always freaks people out when I point out there are directions in the Bible.

Numbers 5:11-31 gives the process and an example reason to have one.

I think point out that it's a good thing medical procedures have changed and that there are better reasons to abort than the one "God's Word" speaks of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #18)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 09:02 AM

25. And honestly I always saw it as chicanery....

... designed to promote the belief that a man's wife's children were his, nor does it say that it is only to be used if he goes off to war and returns to her newly pregnant or something. It is to be used if she was unsupervised with a man, to appease her husband's jealousy, if there was not hard evidence of adultery (the kind that would get her killed).

The chapter's instructions are not that the procedure will always produce an abortion. More the guys are told that if she committed adultery she will abort, and if not then her body will produce healthy children

It still ran the risk of a woman who often miscarried being accused of adultery and then believed to be adulterous/"cursed", but at that point it was perfectly acceptable for a man to take a second wife. Since it says the curse of being childless is the only punishment given through this method, it seems a guy's option would still be to support her, but take a second wife to give him kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:25 AM

20. evolutionary psychology. it is the prime directive to pass on that packet of dna.

this theory posits that fear of being a cuckhold is the worst fear of the male. it was a huge leap for the species when males settled down to raise a few offspring, rather than scattering their seed and hoping for the best.
but to invest in another man's child makes you a loser.

but second to that is the fear that a woman will abort your seed.
this is why they hung the witches. they knew the herbs that were the ancient 'plan b' contraception.

that is what it is all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:43 AM

24. It's mostly about religion, which means it makes no fucking sense.

Something about a "soul".

I can never be convinced that a lump of cells, even while technically "alive", constitutes a person. No such thing as a soul, anyway, but even more ridiculous that a non-person has one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 09:04 AM

26. It's all about control

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 09:26 AM

29. They want you to live a joyless life

Some of your more extreme Christians believe you should forsake joy in your earthly existence because only a person who has never experienced joy will be allowed to enter Heaven.

Since sex is a joyful thing, it should only be used for procreation. (Think of the Protestant woman in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life who had two children and only had sex twice, or the scene in The Road to Wellville where John Harvey Kellogg explained that any use of sexual organs for purposes other than procreation was a sin.) The availability of methods to terminate or prevent pregnancy must therefore be eliminated; their theory is that you must be punished for seeking pleasure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 09:33 AM

30. Like all the other GOP hard-line stands, it's bait and switch, and that's why it's nonsense

In the case of abortion, there were constituents ripe for the picking, the ones opposed to Roe v. Wade, and the GOP swooped in and purported to support them in order to get their votes.

Republicans have no moral compass. They stand for absolutely nothing except subjugating liberals and Democrats. Nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 09:56 AM

31. Good post, good responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 10:28 AM

33. It's a halo to stick over their heads while railing against feminism

This is in addition to a number of the points made upthread, and is more about its use as a political tool.

In the 70s and earlier, evangelical protestants weren't particularly organized or vocal about abortion. No matter how they felt personally (and there was the usual "different when it affects me" hypocrisy), being publicly against abortion was seen as a Catholic thing, and those evangelical protestants wouldn't want any of their neighbors thinking they were Catholics, because "Catholics aren't Christian."

But in the 70s conservative operatives like Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie, and others started trying to recruit conservative Democratic-voting groups by finding hot-button issues they could use to get those people single-issue voting and split them off, breaking up the Democrats' New Deal coalition. Abortion was one of those issues, used to split Catholic union members away from what their unions endorsed.

But they also found that the abortion issue made a good "face" for more generalized feminist-bashing, framing it as righteous opposition to baby-killing harpies and lesbians and every other prejudice they could throw into the stew of bile. Once they wooed enough televangelists with this framing, it started solidifying as the general evangelical position.

So in addition to theological and psychological points given above, its prominence is also part of a deliberate political strategy by conservatives to get people to vote about this one thing and nothing else, and use the power they gain by being the Party of That One Thing to pass an extreme conservative agenda that pretty much only serves the very wealthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 10:56 AM

34. Eh, you're forgetting the part about sex being a voluntary act

Outside of the special cases like rape, fundies view sex outside of marriage as a sin. So in their worldview, humans don't reproduce uncontrollably like animals. They do so by conscious choice, and of course they should only choose to do so within the bonds of hetero church-sanctioned marriage.

Don't have sex = don't get pregnant out of wedlock = no need for an abortion = God's laws upheld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 11:08 AM

35. Great post cane, and many great responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 11:18 AM

36. 1/3 biology (OP); 1/3 social justice (below); 1/3 legalistic. Mine sum.

What I calll "legalistic" is for want of a more precise label: Being that Choice, by its innateness, cannot be *IMPOSED* on others.

Social justice:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 11:33 AM

38. Yes. My Catholic Church wants married adults to breed like rabbits.

Thankfully 90%+ of married Catholic Couples practice birth control. Of course, this just separates them from the church by not feeling welcomed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:28 PM

43. There should be a law if abortion becomes illegal,

that evangelicals must adopt every unwanted child as well as every child currently in foster care. That'll end their bullshit crusade real quick.

Bill Hicks once said, "leave about 9 unwanted babies on the steps of the supreme court and this issue goes away real quick."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 04:15 PM

44. "How the Catholic Church came to oppose birth control" - an article from 2018

July 2018 marked the 50th anniversary of the landmark “Humanae Vitae,” Pope Paul VI’s strict prohibition against artificial contraception, issued in the aftermath of the development of the birth control pill, writes Lisa McClain


:small


At the time, the decision shocked many Catholic priests and laypeople. Conservative Catholics, however, praised the pope for what they saw as a confirmation of traditional teachings. As a scholar specializing in both the history of the Catholic Church and gender studies, I can attest that for almost 2,000 years, the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception has been one of constant change and development. And although Catholic moral theology has consistently condemned contraception, it has not always been the church battleground that it is today.Early church practice. The first Christians knew about contraception and likely practiced it. Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek and Roman texts, for example, discuss well-known contraceptive practices, ranging from the withdrawal method to the use of crocodile dung, dates and honey to block or kill semen. Indeed, while Judeo-Christian scripture encourages humans to “be fruitful and multiply,” nothing in Scripture explicitly prohibits contraception.

When the first Christian theologians condemned contraception, they did so not on the basis of religion but in a give-and-take with cultural practices and social pressures. Early opposition to contraception was often a reaction to the threat of heretic groups, such as the Gnostics and Manichees. And before the 20th century, theologians assumed that those who practiced contraception were “fornicators” and “prostitutes.”

The purpose of marriage, they believed, was producing offspring. While sex within marriage was not itself considered a sin, pleasure in sex was. The fourth-century Christian theologian Augustine characterized the sexual act between spouses as immoral self-indulgence if the couple tried to prevent conception.

Not a church priority

The church, however, had little to say about contraception for many centuries. For example, after the decline of the Roman Empire, the church did little to explicitly prohibit contraception, teach against it, or stop it, though people undoubtedly practiced it. Most penitence manuals from the Middle Ages, which directed priests what types of sins to ask parishioners about, did not even mention contraception. It was only in 1588 that Pope Sixtus V took the strongest conservative stance against contraception in Catholic history. With his papal bull “Effraenatam,” he ordered all church and civil penalties for homicide to be brought against those who practiced contraception.

However, both church and civil authorities refused to enforce his orders, and laypeople virtually ignored them. In fact, three years after Sixtus’s death, the next pope repealed most of the sanctions and told Christians to treat “Effraenatam” “as if it had never been issued.” By the mid-17th century, some church leaders even admitted couples might have legitimate reasons to limit family size to better provide for the children they already had.

Birth control becomes more visible

By the 19th century, scientific knowledge about the human reproductive system advanced, and contraceptive technologies improved. New discussions were needed. Victorian-era sensibilities, however, deterred most Catholic clergy from preaching on issues of sex and contraception. When an 1886 penitential manual instructed confessors to ask parishioners explicitly whether they practiced contraception and to refuse absolution for sins unless they stopped, “the order was virtually ignored.”


More of this article at

https://amp.breakingnews.ie/specialreports/how-the-catholic-church-came-to-oppose-birth-control-859522.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 04:33 PM

45. Control of women with a side dose of male fragility

First and foremost women have to be reminded that they are inferior to the great male sex and should not be allowed control over their own bodies. Their purpose is to be a vessel for their husband's mighty manly seed: the more children he sires the more manly he is. Or something. Especially if they're male (remember back in 2012 when some Republicans were claiming Romney was more worthy of being president because he had sired 5 sons, as opposed to Obama's 2 daughters? I wish I were making that up).

The tell that it's really not about the sanctity of the fetus is when so-called pro-lifers say they're OK with abortions if the pregnancy results from rape or incest - IOW, a fetus is a person unless it's sired by a person they don't approve of. I give more credence to those who would prohibit abortion even in those cases: as least they're being consistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 05:13 PM

50. Telling that trump got therapy for Covid that contained fetal tissue and didn't hear one complaint

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 07:13 PM

54. The issue is control of women.

It has jack crap to do with religious beliefs, "right to life", "pro birth" or any other such. The vast majority of these so called right to lifers eat meat, support wars and the death penalty. They'll fling insecticides all over the damn place and will moan the loudest if some "nut job left wing crazies" want to stop the rape of the planet's resources to save wildlife.


When I meet one of these people who start spewing about abortion, I ask them if they eat meat. When they inevitably say yes, I simply say ... then you aren't really pro life, are you?

That generally shuts them up. I know I'm not winning anyone over. I've yet to find a single one who can be won over until it's their family impacted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread