A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[logical4u]

That's exactly what's in dispute. We say: No, she should NOT. It doesn't matter whether he's a good man or a bad one, she should NOT have any obligation to be subordinate or obedient to him merely because she is female. For him to be a good man is of course desirable for other reasons, but it will NOT earn him any obligation of obedience on her part because NOTHING can; it is simply WRONG for women to be subordinate to men. For him to be a bad man is of course undesirable for other reasons, but it will NOT be a "deal-breaker" because there is no deal; it will not lose him his wife's obligation to be subordinate and obey because no such obligation existed to begin with.

(It may lose him his wife, i.e. break up their relationship, but that's a different subject.)

This is simply a way in which prevailing values have changed. And it is, I believe, the real reason for the abortion controversy.

There are times in a marriage when the couple disagrees. There must be a way to settle the dispute. One must be "dominant". If the man is righteous, he will be considerate of his family and do his best to settle disputes in the interest of the Lord and his family. If he surrenders his authority to his wife, then she must do, as he was "supposed" to in regards to the Lord and the family.
Most marriages have a combination of this. One spouse rules this area, one spouse rules that area, examples: children, household upkeep, household maintenance, lawn maintenance, financial maintenance.
Side note: if a wife is not "subordinate" to her husband in any area, he will not remain a "man". He will be the proverbial "nagged" or worse.
I can understand how this offends you. Most people do not want "truth". This is the way of spiritual marriages. If there is not spirituality in the marriage, it will not survive.
Maybe you choose to live a lie: we are really "equal" on every level. Maybe it gets you what you want. It just isn't true.
"IF" men acted as "men" and women acted as "women" with the grace of the Lord, there would be no abortions, other than medical emergencies. The couple would agree to have children when they were spiritually ready to support them, and stop having children when they felt their resources (spiritual, time, etc) would be stretched to the point of harming their children already born. At this point, if they were "surprised" by another child, that child would be looked on, as the Lord's plan, not theirs.
I realize this doesn't seem to fit here, but people are spiritual beings. We should consider that our spirits are shared with our children if they survive the pregnancy, or not, they are still part of ourselves.

You live in La La Land. Good luck to you.

And you chase Satan, good luck to you!

 

[Dragon]

There are times in a marriage when the couple disagrees. There must be a way to settle the dispute. One must be "dominant".

The first two sentences are true; the third does not follow from them; and if you say that one gender or the other consistently should be dominant then you speak abomination.

Disputes can be settled without one party or the other being "dominant." They can be settled by compromise, or by discussion, or by dividing areas of decision-making. There is no need at all to have one person lord it over the other, and that is in fact grossly unhealthy and wrong.

As long as Christianity remains on the side of female subordination, it will continue to decline.

 

[JohnA]

There are times in a marriage when the couple disagrees. There must be a way to settle the dispute. One must be "dominant".

The first two sentences are true; the third does not follow from them; and if you say that one gender or the other consistently should be dominant then you speak abomination.

Disputes can be settled without one party or the other being "dominant." They can be settled by compromise, or by discussion, or by dividing areas of decision-making. There is no need at all to have one person lord it over the other, and that is in fact grossly unhealthy and wrong.

As long as Christianity remains on the side of female subordination, it will continue to decline.

in that regard christianity is not as bad than islam and other religious beliefs .
its hate and intolerance will be far more instrumental in its demise

 

[logical4u]

There are times in a marriage when the couple disagrees. There must be a way to settle the dispute. One must be "dominant".

The first two sentences are true; the third does not follow from them; and if you say that one gender or the other consistently should be dominant then you speak abomination.

Disputes can be settled without one party or the other being "dominant." They can be settled by compromise, or by discussion, or by dividing areas of decision-making. There is no need at all to have one person lord it over the other, and that is in fact grossly unhealthy and wrong.

As long as Christianity remains on the side of female subordination, it will continue to decline.

No where did I say "lord it over". Christ wanted men to treat their wives as He treated the church. That would be with love and guidance. As a married couple, the wife does the same: she offers great council, and a steady guiding hand. There are times when something has to be settled and one spouse will not do it, either by "not" making a decision or avoiding the situation. The other spouse, must stand, and deal with the consequences. Typically, that is the man. And yes, most Christian couples do "settle" with discussion and comprimise, and the areas of decision making are usually divided. See, you are not that far from the Christian line of thinking, maybe you just don't have the fortitude to say that occassionaly, one needs to stand and be the one with the responsibility.

 

[logical4u]

There are times in a marriage when the couple disagrees. There must be a way to settle the dispute. One must be "dominant".

The first two sentences are true; the third does not follow from them; and if you say that one gender or the other consistently should be dominant then you speak abomination.

Disputes can be settled without one party or the other being "dominant." They can be settled by compromise, or by discussion, or by dividing areas of decision-making. There is no need at all to have one person lord it over the other, and that is in fact grossly unhealthy and wrong.

As long as Christianity remains on the side of female subordination, it will continue to decline.

in that regard christianity is not as bad than islam and other religious beliefs .
its hate and intolerance will be far more instrumental in its demise

Oh, please expand on that "hate and intolerance" statement!

 

[Dragon]

No where did I say "lord it over". Christ wanted men to treat their wives as He treated the church.

In other words, lord it over them.

There's no way to extricate yourself here, l4u. You have stated your values -- that women should subordinate themselves to men -- and I find them anathema, appalling, disgusting, contemptible, Neanderthal, and utterly without any redeeming feature. The reason I do, is NOT because I think men are bad or even imperfect. If men were all perfect husbands I would STILL find female subordination unacceptable.

There is simply no excuse for it, no justification, no matter what. This is a core-values dispute and you are never going to be able to validate your beliefs on this in my eyes. No matter what you say, I will always condemn this. Always.

 

[logical4u]

No where did I say "lord it over". Christ wanted men to treat their wives as He treated the church.

In other words, lord it over them.

There's no way to extricate yourself here, l4u. You have stated your values -- that women should subordinate themselves to men -- and I find them anathema, appalling, disgusting, contemptible, Neanderthal, and utterly without any redeeming feature. The reason I do, is NOT because I think men are bad or even imperfect. If men were all perfect husbands I would STILL find female subordination unacceptable.

There is simply no excuse for it, no justification, no matter what. This is a core-values dispute and you are never going to be able to validate your beliefs on this in my eyes. No matter what you say, I will always condemn this. Always.

Can you give me a demonstration where Christ pushed around (what "you" consider domination) the people He came to save? Can you show one instance where He was "anathema, appalling, disgusting, contemptible, Neanderthal" or "without any redeeming feature"? Yet these people did "subordinate" themselves to Him, the Savior.

 

[Dragon]

Can you give me a demonstration where Christ pushed around (what "you" consider domination) the people He came to save?

Complete non-sequitur and utterly irrelevant. The equation Christ=man, Church=woman is one I emphatically, categorically DENY.

There is no justification for female subordination to men. Ever. None. Period. It is wrong. Always. End of discussion.

EDIT: Yes, I know St. Paul said something very similar. I don't care. He's no authority as far as I'm concerned, and he was wrong, too.

 

[logical4u]

Can you give me a demonstration where Christ pushed around (what "you" consider domination) the people He came to save?

Complete non-sequitur and utterly irrelevant. The equation Christ=man, Church=woman is one I emphatically, categorically DENY.

There is no justification for female subordination to men. Ever. None. Period. It is wrong. Always. End of discussion.

EDIT: Yes, I know St. Paul said something very similar. I don't care. He's no authority as far as I'm concerned, and he was wrong, too.

Nice dodge. I guess you got .... nothin'!

Christ told men to treat their wives as He treated the church. He was and is the "head" of the church. I guess that is too complicated for you to understand.

Because you cannot accept the Lord's teachings, you want to twist "dominant" into something that it was not meant to be. When you are presented with the terms in context, you want to change the subject and dive for cover. Why don't you just admit that you did not understand? Maybe you are not mature enough to understand marriage (your comments about adultery point to this)? Maybe you just want to work against the Lord.

 

[Dragon]

Nice dodge. I guess you got .... nothin'!

Dodge? What dodge? Look,I'm not even a Christian. Biblical texts or whatever that you put up in authority mean bugger-all to me. For men to be in authority over women is wrong because I say it's wrong. And because today, most other people say it's wrong. And that means traditional Christian teachings on the subject are wrong. And if the Bible is interpreted to support that, it means the Bible (or at least that interpretation) is wrong.

It's wrong because it hurts people, because it denies to half the population the right to self-rule and equality. That's far more important to me than words in any antiquated set of writings penned in a barbarous age under equally barbarous customs and values.

Christ told men to treat their wives as He treated the church.

Just out of curiosity, in what Gospel passage is he reported as having said that?

If he did say it, he was wrong. But I actually doubt that he did.

 

[logical4u]

Nice dodge. I guess you got .... nothin'!

Dodge? What dodge? Look,I'm not even a Christian. Biblical texts or whatever that you put up in authority mean bugger-all to me. For men to be in authority over women is wrong because I say it's wrong. And because today, most other people say it's wrong. And that means traditional Christian teachings on the subject are wrong. And if the Bible is interpreted to support that, it means the Bible (or at least that interpretation) is wrong.

It's wrong because it hurts people, because it denies to half the population the right to self-rule and equality. That's far more important to me than words in any antiquated set of writings penned in a barbarous age under equally barbarous customs and values.

It is not how "you" portray it. Here are some examples:

Christ told men to treat their wives as He treated the church.

Just out of curiosity, in what Gospel passage is he reported as having said that?

If he did say it, he was wrong. But I actually doubt that he did.

Genesis 2:24 (Whole Chapter)
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 3:15
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Proverbs 18:22 (Whole Chapter)
Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.
Proverbs 19:14 (Whole Chapter)
House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the LORD.
Ecclesiastes 9:9 (Whole Chapter)
Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.

1 Corinthians 7:3 (Whole Chapter)
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1 Corinthians 7:4 (Whole Chapter)
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

1 Corinthians 7:14 (Whole Chapter)
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Ephesians 5:23 (Whole Chapter)
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Ephesians 5:28 (Whole Chapter)
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Ephesians 5:31 (Whole Chapter)
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Ephesians 5:33 (Whole Chapter)
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
1 Peter 3:7 (Whole Chapter)
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

 

[Newby]

Still weird ideology.....

I agree. And I think I can pinpoint exactly why it seems weird. It treats the woman as a possession, as property. Her own desires are irrelevant here. The man, the rapist, is guilty: he has made use of property that doesn't belong to him. He must pay a fine, but not to his actual victim (as we would see things); rather, to the victims owner -- her father. That's because, from that point of view, it's the father who is the principle victim, not the woman. He had a right to sell her on the marriage market as a virgin, and the rapist has deprived him of that right. And the rapist is also required to marry her, because, being reduced in value on the marriage market by loss of her virginity (for which he is responsible), it's not that likely anyone else will. And he's not allowed to divorce her, either. (Of course, she wouldn't be allowed to divorce her husband under any conditions -- women were property. Property doesn't cast off its owner.)

While it was rare, I think, for an agrarian-age culture to actually require rapists to marry their victims as a matter of consistent law, similar attitudes prevailed throughout the world. They are embodied in all of the so-called "great" religions, all of which emerged during the agrarian age of civilization.

The only real good any of this served was to maximize birthrates, something that is no longer a good. A woman whose fertility is controlled by a man bears more children, statistically, than one who controls her own. In the agrarian age, especially its earlier millennia, maximum population growth was required. Neighbors were often hostile. You needed the numbers to win the wars that were a constant fact of life.

But the subordination of women, however much it was required by the need for high birthrates, and however much a virtue of this necessity religious teaching made it, was not, in itself, a good thing. It was horrid. And so, as the industrial revolution changed our material circumstances and maximum birthrates became a liability instead of an asset, it was changed as soon as could be politically and culturally arranged.

Free women, women in control of their own fertility, conflicts with traditional Christian morality (and Muslim morality, and Hindu morality, and Jewish morality, and so on) on all matters of sex, reproduction, and the relations between genders, not just on abortion rights. The conflict over abortion rights is only a part of that larger conflict, which will endure until the "great" religions change to accommodate the times and the new reality.

What I bolded is not an argument for abortion however, and has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. Women today, for the most part, are completely free to 'control their fertility', there are hundreds of products on the market and free clinics to ensure that even those who do not have the money can 'control their fertility'. All a woman has to do is keep her legs closed to 'control her fertility', or take a birth control pill, or use a condom, etc... Chosing to kill the child after conception because of irresponsible behavior is not 'controlling her fertility', the time for that has long since passed. Abortion is primarily used as birth control due to irresponsible behavior and a woman not 'controlling her fertility', not because a woman has been raped and doesn't want the child. Why can't those in the pro-abortion crowd admit to that? Many people are aganst abortion because it's wrong, not because of their religion or their need to control another person's life.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Still weird ideology.....

I agree. And I think I can pinpoint exactly why it seems weird. It treats the woman as a possession, as property. Her own desires are irrelevant here. The man, the rapist, is guilty: he has made use of property that doesn't belong to him. He must pay a fine, but not to his actual victim (as we would see things); rather, to the victims owner -- her father. That's because, from that point of view, it's the father who is the principle victim, not the woman. He had a right to sell her on the marriage market as a virgin, and the rapist has deprived him of that right. And the rapist is also required to marry her, because, being reduced in value on the marriage market by loss of her virginity (for which he is responsible), it's not that likely anyone else will. And he's not allowed to divorce her, either. (Of course, she wouldn't be allowed to divorce her husband under any conditions -- women were property. Property doesn't cast off its owner.)

While it was rare, I think, for an agrarian-age culture to actually require rapists to marry their victims as a matter of consistent law, similar attitudes prevailed throughout the world. They are embodied in all of the so-called "great" religions, all of which emerged during the agrarian age of civilization.

The only real good any of this served was to maximize birthrates, something that is no longer a good. A woman whose fertility is controlled by a man bears more children, statistically, than one who controls her own. In the agrarian age, especially its earlier millennia, maximum population growth was required. Neighbors were often hostile. You needed the numbers to win the wars that were a constant fact of life.

But the subordination of women, however much it was required by the need for high birthrates, and however much a virtue of this necessity religious teaching made it, was not, in itself, a good thing. It was horrid. And so, as the industrial revolution changed our material circumstances and maximum birthrates became a liability instead of an asset, it was changed as soon as could be politically and culturally arranged.

Free women, women in control of their own fertility, conflicts with traditional Christian morality (and Muslim morality, and Hindu morality, and Jewish morality, and so on) on all matters of sex, reproduction, and the relations between genders, not just on abortion rights. The conflict over abortion rights is only a part of that larger conflict, which will endure until the "great" religions change to accommodate the times and the new reality.

What I bolded is not an argument for abortion however, and has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. Women today, for the most part, are completely free to 'control their fertility', there are hundreds of products on the market and free clinics to ensure that even those who do not have the money can 'control their fertility'. All a woman has to do is keep her legs closed to 'control her fertility', or take a birth control pill, or use a condom, etc... Chosing to kill the child after conception because of irresponsible behavior is not 'controlling her fertility', the time for that has long since passed. Abortion is primarily used as birth control due to irresponsible behavior and a woman not 'controlling her fertility', not because a woman has been raped and doesn't want the child. Why can't those in the pro-abortion crowd admit to that? Many people are aganst abortion because it's wrong, not because of their religion or their need to control another person's life.

When has any pro-choice person ever said rape was the main reason abortions happen?

 

[Newby]

I agree. And I think I can pinpoint exactly why it seems weird. It treats the woman as a possession, as property. Her own desires are irrelevant here. The man, the rapist, is guilty: he has made use of property that doesn't belong to him. He must pay a fine, but not to his actual victim (as we would see things); rather, to the victims owner -- her father. That's because, from that point of view, it's the father who is the principle victim, not the woman. He had a right to sell her on the marriage market as a virgin, and the rapist has deprived him of that right. And the rapist is also required to marry her, because, being reduced in value on the marriage market by loss of her virginity (for which he is responsible), it's not that likely anyone else will. And he's not allowed to divorce her, either. (Of course, she wouldn't be allowed to divorce her husband under any conditions -- women were property. Property doesn't cast off its owner.)

While it was rare, I think, for an agrarian-age culture to actually require rapists to marry their victims as a matter of consistent law, similar attitudes prevailed throughout the world. They are embodied in all of the so-called "great" religions, all of which emerged during the agrarian age of civilization.

The only real good any of this served was to maximize birthrates, something that is no longer a good. A woman whose fertility is controlled by a man bears more children, statistically, than one who controls her own. In the agrarian age, especially its earlier millennia, maximum population growth was required. Neighbors were often hostile. You needed the numbers to win the wars that were a constant fact of life.

But the subordination of women, however much it was required by the need for high birthrates, and however much a virtue of this necessity religious teaching made it, was not, in itself, a good thing. It was horrid. And so, as the industrial revolution changed our material circumstances and maximum birthrates became a liability instead of an asset, it was changed as soon as could be politically and culturally arranged.

Free women, women in control of their own fertility, conflicts with traditional Christian morality (and Muslim morality, and Hindu morality, and Jewish morality, and so on) on all matters of sex, reproduction, and the relations between genders, not just on abortion rights. The conflict over abortion rights is only a part of that larger conflict, which will endure until the "great" religions change to accommodate the times and the new reality.

What I bolded is not an argument for abortion however, and has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. Women today, for the most part, are completely free to 'control their fertility', there are hundreds of products on the market and free clinics to ensure that even those who do not have the money can 'control their fertility'. All a woman has to do is keep her legs closed to 'control her fertility', or take a birth control pill, or use a condom, etc... Chosing to kill the child after conception because of irresponsible behavior is not 'controlling her fertility', the time for that has long since passed. Abortion is primarily used as birth control due to irresponsible behavior and a woman not 'controlling her fertility', not because a woman has been raped and doesn't want the child. Why can't those in the pro-abortion crowd admit to that? Many people are aganst abortion because it's wrong, not because of their religion or their need to control another person's life.

When has any pro-choice person ever said rape was the main reason abortions happen?

I haven't been following the entire thread, just reading bits and pieces of it. I was just commenting on the one post that I quoted and on the one sentence that I bolded. It seemed that the poster was arguing through most of their posts that it was mostly men who opposed abortion because they felt they weren't then able to control a woman's 'fertility', which is kind of absurd to begin with I think. And I believe that the post I quoted was in regards to rape, which is why I commented on it. Every time I've discussed abortion, the pro-abortion crowd always accuses the anti-abortion crowd of forcing women to bear the children of their rapists, or putting their own lives in jeapordy, etc... When in reality abortion is used as a birth control option the great majority of the time it is done.

 

[BDBoop]

Still weird ideology.....

I agree. And I think I can pinpoint exactly why it seems weird. It treats the woman as a possession, as property. Her own desires are irrelevant here. The man, the rapist, is guilty: he has made use of property that doesn't belong to him. He must pay a fine, but not to his actual victim (as we would see things); rather, to the victims owner -- her father. That's because, from that point of view, it's the father who is the principle victim, not the woman. He had a right to sell her on the marriage market as a virgin, and the rapist has deprived him of that right. And the rapist is also required to marry her, because, being reduced in value on the marriage market by loss of her virginity (for which he is responsible), it's not that likely anyone else will. And he's not allowed to divorce her, either. (Of course, she wouldn't be allowed to divorce her husband under any conditions -- women were property. Property doesn't cast off its owner.)

While it was rare, I think, for an agrarian-age culture to actually require rapists to marry their victims as a matter of consistent law, similar attitudes prevailed throughout the world. They are embodied in all of the so-called "great" religions, all of which emerged during the agrarian age of civilization.

The only real good any of this served was to maximize birthrates, something that is no longer a good. A woman whose fertility is controlled by a man bears more children, statistically, than one who controls her own. In the agrarian age, especially its earlier millennia, maximum population growth was required. Neighbors were often hostile. You needed the numbers to win the wars that were a constant fact of life.

But the subordination of women, however much it was required by the need for high birthrates, and however much a virtue of this necessity religious teaching made it, was not, in itself, a good thing. It was horrid. And so, as the industrial revolution changed our material circumstances and maximum birthrates became a liability instead of an asset, it was changed as soon as could be politically and culturally arranged.

Free women, women in control of their own fertility, conflicts with traditional Christian morality (and Muslim morality, and Hindu morality, and Jewish morality, and so on) on all matters of sex, reproduction, and the relations between genders, not just on abortion rights. The conflict over abortion rights is only a part of that larger conflict, which will endure until the "great" religions change to accommodate the times and the new reality.

What I bolded is not an argument for abortion however, and has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. Women today, for the most part, are completely free to 'control their fertility', there are hundreds of products on the market and free clinics to ensure that even those who do not have the money can 'control their fertility'. All a woman has to do is keep her legs closed to 'control her fertility', or take a birth control pill, or use a condom, etc... Chosing to kill the child after conception because of irresponsible behavior is not 'controlling her fertility', the time for that has long since passed. Abortion is primarily used as birth control due to irresponsible behavior and a woman not 'controlling her fertility', not because a woman has been raped and doesn't want the child. Why can't those in the pro-abortion crowd admit to that? Many people are aganst abortion because it's wrong, not because of their religion or their need to control another person's life.

Absolutely that is the need to control another person's life. And I do hope every single man out there who has seed is staying celibate, save when he intends to place a child on the planet. That would help A LOT.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I agree. And I think I can pinpoint exactly why it seems weird. It treats the woman as a possession, as property. Her own desires are irrelevant here. The man, the rapist, is guilty: he has made use of property that doesn't belong to him. He must pay a fine, but not to his actual victim (as we would see things); rather, to the victims owner -- her father. That's because, from that point of view, it's the father who is the principle victim, not the woman. He had a right to sell her on the marriage market as a virgin, and the rapist has deprived him of that right. And the rapist is also required to marry her, because, being reduced in value on the marriage market by loss of her virginity (for which he is responsible), it's not that likely anyone else will. And he's not allowed to divorce her, either. (Of course, she wouldn't be allowed to divorce her husband under any conditions -- women were property. Property doesn't cast off its owner.)

While it was rare, I think, for an agrarian-age culture to actually require rapists to marry their victims as a matter of consistent law, similar attitudes prevailed throughout the world. They are embodied in all of the so-called "great" religions, all of which emerged during the agrarian age of civilization.

The only real good any of this served was to maximize birthrates, something that is no longer a good. A woman whose fertility is controlled by a man bears more children, statistically, than one who controls her own. In the agrarian age, especially its earlier millennia, maximum population growth was required. Neighbors were often hostile. You needed the numbers to win the wars that were a constant fact of life.

But the subordination of women, however much it was required by the need for high birthrates, and however much a virtue of this necessity religious teaching made it, was not, in itself, a good thing. It was horrid. And so, as the industrial revolution changed our material circumstances and maximum birthrates became a liability instead of an asset, it was changed as soon as could be politically and culturally arranged.

Free women, women in control of their own fertility, conflicts with traditional Christian morality (and Muslim morality, and Hindu morality, and Jewish morality, and so on) on all matters of sex, reproduction, and the relations between genders, not just on abortion rights. The conflict over abortion rights is only a part of that larger conflict, which will endure until the "great" religions change to accommodate the times and the new reality.

What I bolded is not an argument for abortion however, and has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. Women today, for the most part, are completely free to 'control their fertility', there are hundreds of products on the market and free clinics to ensure that even those who do not have the money can 'control their fertility'. All a woman has to do is keep her legs closed to 'control her fertility', or take a birth control pill, or use a condom, etc... Chosing to kill the child after conception because of irresponsible behavior is not 'controlling her fertility', the time for that has long since passed. Abortion is primarily used as birth control due to irresponsible behavior and a woman not 'controlling her fertility', not because a woman has been raped and doesn't want the child. Why can't those in the pro-abortion crowd admit to that? Many people are aganst abortion because it's wrong, not because of their religion or their need to control another person's life.

Absolutely that is the need to control another person's life. And I do hope every single man out there who has seed is staying celibate, save when he intends to place a child on the planet. That would help A LOT.

Yeah that's all i hear from a lot of the pro-life crowd, it's always "don't spread your legs" and NEVER any mention of "keep it in your pants."

 

[Newby]

I agree. And I think I can pinpoint exactly why it seems weird. It treats the woman as a possession, as property. Her own desires are irrelevant here. The man, the rapist, is guilty: he has made use of property that doesn't belong to him. He must pay a fine, but not to his actual victim (as we would see things); rather, to the victims owner -- her father. That's because, from that point of view, it's the father who is the principle victim, not the woman. He had a right to sell her on the marriage market as a virgin, and the rapist has deprived him of that right. And the rapist is also required to marry her, because, being reduced in value on the marriage market by loss of her virginity (for which he is responsible), it's not that likely anyone else will. And he's not allowed to divorce her, either. (Of course, she wouldn't be allowed to divorce her husband under any conditions -- women were property. Property doesn't cast off its owner.)

While it was rare, I think, for an agrarian-age culture to actually require rapists to marry their victims as a matter of consistent law, similar attitudes prevailed throughout the world. They are embodied in all of the so-called "great" religions, all of which emerged during the agrarian age of civilization.

The only real good any of this served was to maximize birthrates, something that is no longer a good. A woman whose fertility is controlled by a man bears more children, statistically, than one who controls her own. In the agrarian age, especially its earlier millennia, maximum population growth was required. Neighbors were often hostile. You needed the numbers to win the wars that were a constant fact of life.

But the subordination of women, however much it was required by the need for high birthrates, and however much a virtue of this necessity religious teaching made it, was not, in itself, a good thing. It was horrid. And so, as the industrial revolution changed our material circumstances and maximum birthrates became a liability instead of an asset, it was changed as soon as could be politically and culturally arranged.

Free women, women in control of their own fertility, conflicts with traditional Christian morality (and Muslim morality, and Hindu morality, and Jewish morality, and so on) on all matters of sex, reproduction, and the relations between genders, not just on abortion rights. The conflict over abortion rights is only a part of that larger conflict, which will endure until the "great" religions change to accommodate the times and the new reality.

What I bolded is not an argument for abortion however, and has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. Women today, for the most part, are completely free to 'control their fertility', there are hundreds of products on the market and free clinics to ensure that even those who do not have the money can 'control their fertility'. All a woman has to do is keep her legs closed to 'control her fertility', or take a birth control pill, or use a condom, etc... Chosing to kill the child after conception because of irresponsible behavior is not 'controlling her fertility', the time for that has long since passed. Abortion is primarily used as birth control due to irresponsible behavior and a woman not 'controlling her fertility', not because a woman has been raped and doesn't want the child. Why can't those in the pro-abortion crowd admit to that? Many people are aganst abortion because it's wrong, not because of their religion or their need to control another person's life.

Absolutely that is the need to control another person's life. And I do hope every single man out there who has seed is staying celibate, save when he intends to place a child on the planet. That would help A LOT.

So, you're saying all these women who go out and get abortions had no control over whether or not they had sex or used birth control? I wouldn't want to assume that's what you meant of course, so perhaps you could expand on your comments? Since it's the 'woman's body', why isn't she responsible for what happens to it?

 

[Newby]

What I bolded is not an argument for abortion however, and has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. Women today, for the most part, are completely free to 'control their fertility', there are hundreds of products on the market and free clinics to ensure that even those who do not have the money can 'control their fertility'. All a woman has to do is keep her legs closed to 'control her fertility', or take a birth control pill, or use a condom, etc... Chosing to kill the child after conception because of irresponsible behavior is not 'controlling her fertility', the time for that has long since passed. Abortion is primarily used as birth control due to irresponsible behavior and a woman not 'controlling her fertility', not because a woman has been raped and doesn't want the child. Why can't those in the pro-abortion crowd admit to that? Many people are aganst abortion because it's wrong, not because of their religion or their need to control another person's life.

Absolutely that is the need to control another person's life. And I do hope every single man out there who has seed is staying celibate, save when he intends to place a child on the planet. That would help A LOT.

Yeah that's all i hear from a lot of the pro-life crowd, it's always "don't spread your legs" and NEVER any mention of "keep it in your pants."

Well that's be cause the pro-kill crowd always insists that it's her body and she decides what happens to it, but I guess that's not the case whenever she's deciding to have unprotected sex, it's only the case when it's time to kill the baby? You don't see that as being at odds even a little bit. a lot on the hypocritical side?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Absolutely that is the need to control another person's life. And I do hope every single man out there who has seed is staying celibate, save when he intends to place a child on the planet. That would help A LOT.

Yeah that's all i hear from a lot of the pro-life crowd, it's always "don't spread your legs" and NEVER any mention of "keep it in your pants."

Well that's be cause the pro-kill crowd always insists that it's her body and she decides what happens to it, but I guess that's not the case whenever she's deciding to have unprotected sex, it's only the case when it's time to kill the baby? You don't see that as being at odds even a little bit. a lot on the hypocritical side?

Pro-kill lol, you know just what to say to try to get a reaction out of people.

You're making my point for me, it's not just she who decides to have unprotected sex. THEY decide to have unprotected sex.

 

[BDBoop]

What I bolded is not an argument for abortion however, and has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. Women today, for the most part, are completely free to 'control their fertility', there are hundreds of products on the market and free clinics to ensure that even those who do not have the money can 'control their fertility'. All a woman has to do is keep her legs closed to 'control her fertility', or take a birth control pill, or use a condom, etc... Chosing to kill the child after conception because of irresponsible behavior is not 'controlling her fertility', the time for that has long since passed. Abortion is primarily used as birth control due to irresponsible behavior and a woman not 'controlling her fertility', not because a woman has been raped and doesn't want the child. Why can't those in the pro-abortion crowd admit to that? Many people are aganst abortion because it's wrong, not because of their religion or their need to control another person's life.

Absolutely that is the need to control another person's life. And I do hope every single man out there who has seed is staying celibate, save when he intends to place a child on the planet. That would help A LOT.

So, you're saying all these women who go out and get abortions had no control over whether or not they had sex or used birth control? I wouldn't want to assume that's what you meant of course, so perhaps you could expand on your comments? Since it's the 'woman's body', why isn't she responsible for what happens to it?

She absolutely is. But you're male, right? So you can only control your very own body, and it is none of your business how she controls hers.

Are you celibate?