The Prenatal Holocaust

[Sera]

I'll have to take some time to look back over your posts, because I'm pretty sure somebody posted a quick jab saying that men only desired power and subjugation to be on top.

You might've misunderstood MY post. I said that I find that religious people use the "pro-life" agenda as a way to ban abortion in order to punish women for doing or being something they don't agree with. My point was abortion will always exist, and banning it is irresponsible because it doesn't save any babies (they'll just get aborted through unsafe means anyway) but it WILL kill women (who feel they are forced to seek abortions through unsafe means.) I said it was about "slut-shaming" and punishing the wicked -- but that's not a comment against men, it's a comment against theocracy.

[Tajin]

I think her post was pretty clear and you're reaching or can't read.

[Indeed]

@Maroot

Spoiler: show

I think you must be incredibly mistaken. Greece kind of treated their women like shit in some places (fucking Athens), but the Roman empire was exceedingly good to women in a number of ways. They were far more free there than they have ever been under any form of Christianity. The type of marriage that demanded submission to the will of one's husband in all matters (manus) and gave him ownership of all her property/inheritance and total dominion over her legally, had died out by the second century BC. They could own property, access courts without a male to speak on their behalf if they wished, were entitled to an equal split of inheritance (no favoritism for sons) when their fathers died, and their property remained completely separate from that of their husband's. There were a number of ways for them to prevent their husbands from gaining legal dominion over them. They could obtain divorces, eventually simply on the grounds that they wanted one, and when they did so it was customary for a husband to return most or all of her dowry. Divorce didn't make one a pariah in society. Women were praised for being educated, because it meant that they could raise educated children as well. Women were not just allowed to work, but kind of expected to do something. Nobody was lauding them for sitting around doing dick-all with their lives, and just as with any other place and time, I doubt that was particularly practical for most. All of this was established pretty early on, most of it either BC or within the first 200 years AD. They couldn't vote or be involved in the Senate, but in other areas, things weren't so bad. I'm sure things shifted when Western Rome fell and Eastern Rome/the Byzantine empire became the center of power, but for a while, Rome treated its women better than the bible and Christianity really ever do.

Oh, and there were some women who chose who they wanted to marry for various reasons, but marriage was not viewed by the ancient Romans (or Greeks) necessarily as a relationship built on love. It was often (maybe mostly) people joining together for convenience, status, money, or power. The Greeks tended to find companionship with concubines and other women outside the marriage. The concept of marriage in Christianity is a completely different sort of agreement.

Here's what I know about Christian history: women in leadership positions has always been a contentious subject in Christianity. As early as 150ish AD (I think), you had people like Tertullian challenging women's rights to do things like baptize and teach. It's written into the bible that they are not to hold positions over men in the church. Women were only respected in the church to any degree for maybe as long as it took to get established as a ruling religion, and then rest of the men who supported them pretty much turned on them. They purposely obscured the involvement of women in any portion of Christianity, and in any role of leadership. Christ is not depicted as having any female apostles, although Mary Magdalene and a woman named Junia very well may have been. Mary Magdalene may have been an important teacher, apostle, and prophet, but she was instead conflated with the (different and separate) sinner who washed Jesus' feet and dried them with her hair. She was downgraded to a repentant whore. Junia's name was mistranslated to Junias, the male version of her name, because it was assumed that no women could have held that status. From what I understand, scholars now argue that she was indeed female, but her status as an apostle is questionable due to wording. Gee, I wonder why. I wonder why someone like Thecla, who was second in popularity only to Jesus' mother Mary, is a relative fucking unknown in our day and age. The stories of this woman are relegated to the apocryphal books of the bible now. When Protestantism came along, Mary herself got a lovely downgrade from a figure of great reverence to just some chick. Even the minds behind the reformation of the church saw women as nothing more than broodmares. Luther made comments about women's only purpose being to bear children, and how they should just do that until they were worn out.

And yes, Jesus' death erased the hereditary sin of Adam. It's a Catholic tenet; I just forget the silly Protestants decided to define it as something else for some arbitrary reason, as with everything else related to Christianity. That's another thing I can't stand about Christianity. When people don't like the interpretation or definition of something, or they feel that perhaps they need to adapt/update the bible in some way, they just break off and make a new sect. There are a zillion and five different Protestant religions. It's hard to get all the details right in a discussion with someone, because the details are different depending on who you speak to.

I don't know where you're getting this figure of a thousand years of woman power, either. Papal supremacy was established in the 400s. There is no female clergy in the Catholic church or the eastern orthodox variety. There was no clergy in the Anglican church until 1944. As you can see from this list of Protestant sects, no women were ordained prior to the 1800s if the religion ever allowed it. Many have not. I don't get it. Where are all these positions of leadership and power? Being a nun or belonging to some similar celibate prayer society is not a position of power or influence within Christianity. Maybe what you meant to say is that women are allowed to die for their religion, and women are sometimes elevated to a saintly status post-martyrdom, but they certainly are not historically leaders or figures with power and voice in this community.

The bible is full of messages that women are inferior and should shut the fuck up, and (male) leaders over the course of time have agreed: http://www.religioustolerance.org/lfe_bibl.htm

Also, the language used to describe how women should behave toward their husbands differs from how husbands are expected to treat their wives. The bible openly calls women the weaker partner, and I don't know if you're purposely being obtuse here, but the brain rules the body. Christ rules the church. The husband rules his wife and she is expected to submit to him as the church does to Christ. I'm not exactly sure how that's not blatantly just outright saying, do as your husband commands.

[Indeed]

Also, lol @ "what's with all this rampant feminism?" That's amazing. You really should read back over the thread bro, because everyone so far who's championed a woman's right to go over a man's head on the abortion call has also agreed that men should be able to legally forfeit their parental status as a sort of "male abortion." I'm also relatively sure nobody has yet advocated the tactic of abortion first, discuss later. I have no idea where you're getting that, but I assume it's from the outrage you're feeling that sometimes women just don't give a shit if men want them to keep babies. Honestly, if that's what everyone was saying should be done, there wouldn't be much discussion about what to do when the father dissents, because the father wouldn't be given the opportunity to dissent.

[kuronosan]

Then I really need to read over the thread again before I continue talking, lest I continue to sound like an idiot.

[ronin sparthos]

To look at the Declaration of Independence, I know many who look at "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as hierarchical: you have the right to pursue happiness, so long as it doesn't infringe on another's liberty; you have the right to pursue liberty so long as it doesn't infringe on another's life. Your capacity to pursue your happiness is equal to anyone else's; your capacity to liberty is equal to anyone else's; your capacity for life is equal to anyone else's. As such, if your life is threatened, you may take theirs; you are not obliged to make others happy in the pursuit of your own; you cannot take your liberty at the expense of someone else's.

If you're gonna use the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness argument then you're going to have to at least address the fact that the pro-life movement in its current state wants to stifle the individual liberties of women (and couples by extension) by eliminating one form of family planning that may be appropriate depending on the situation a couple may be in. Depending on how extreme you go this can range from no abortions to the elimination of birth control as a whole. So much for liberty huh?

If my child is identified as having a crippling disease then the decision to abort should be left to that family because outside of the world of emotions - finances, happiness of the couple and life of the child are significant enough issues to leave the option of abortion open to the parents so long as this process is done in a timely fashion. Are you going to give me the hundreds of thousands needed to sustain a child with Cerebral Palsy for years on end? So we'll just ignore it I guess.

The choice to undergo an abortion cannot be blanketed as opponents may love to exclaim. Finances are a legitimate reason for choosing an abortion, a dysfunctional couple is a legitimate reason to undergo an abortion in addition to not being mentally prepared to have a child as most teenagers are. Regardless of my opinions the option should be left to the woman because ultimately it's between her and the father on the decision to bring a new life into the world.

I don't care if people decide to bring every child to term but when the desire is to force me and my significant other to make decisions because of your beliefs then we have a point of contention.

Laws impose a moral or ethical code. Not everyone will agree universally with every law, and that's fine. Persuade others to your stance, and win the day... but whether inspired by religion, humanism, base rationality, or whatever else, the reason people have a stance is largely irrelevant-- you don't have to agree with them, and you are 100% free to educate, persuade, or whatever in opposition. Just don't pretend that you are not advocating your own moral code.

I already posed earlier that my opinion amounts to my moral code when Yugl brought it up but what I was pointing out is that the pro-life stance espouses "sanctity" of life but once the child is born, the script turns to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", "rugged individualism" and "don't give a fuck, get off them entitlements". Who do you think stands to lose the most if abortions become illegal? The poor. Who uses entitlement programs like welfare? The poor. Who stands to be stuck in an endless cycle of poverty if we gut education and family planning? The poor.

So much for sanctity of life.

As for the later, why has adoption really not been mentioned in this thread? Granted, the foster system is bloated... but most people want to adopt babies. But while there are about 115,000 kids in the foster system. While about 17% of women take steps toward adoption, only 2% finish. Why? I honestly haven't been able to find out entirely. Part of it is due to misinformation about foster care, part of is is that some only want infancy adoption, part of it might be local availability-- like the organ transplant list mentioned elsewhere, there isn't one national or international adoption list, and the more you are on (a fiscal limitation), the more likely you are to find either a child you find acceptable, or a pregnant mother you are able to work with, and who is willing to work with you. It's not a simple process, but there seem to be plenty of people willing to adopt.

Already pointed out that I'd love for reforms to happen here but the pro-lifers leading the charge care less to bring this up and much rather waste time trying to defund Planned Parenthood and passing bills that attack women for having a vagina.

Fixing adoptions alone wouldn't solve the problem either because children would fall through the cracks. It's a solution but it's most potent when combined with other family planning options which are all under attack by the powers that be. Ksandra brought up the fact that the very same group of pro-lifers also oppose same-sex adoptions which could help to get children into loving homes.

For a group of people who seem to want abortions to end, they seem to be the same people throwing up obstacles to addressing the issue. But I know the issue isn't abortion for most and what it really amounts to is a mere smokescreen to wanting people to live a very certain theocratic way.

The rape issue is pretty divisive in the Church in my experience; some people believe the damage to the woman is so severely debilitating that it is an acceptable exception to their "Abortion should be illegal" stance. Others believe that, as tragic as the rape is, adding a further tragedy of killing a human being does not solve the problem of the rape, and is a greater injustice than her dilemma. Most of the later advocate strongly for adoption (at least in my experience), as the option to minimize her ordeal while not compromising on the issue of life's sanctity. Some people are simply unempathetic jerks, and I won't try to defend people who insist the mother keep the child for life and see it as a "silver lining." They disgust me.

So the church can't even agree on what to do with rape babies so how about you know... let women make that call?

As for sex-ed... it has a host of issues of its own, but most of it centers around the incredibly differentiated views on moral questions surrounding sex and sexuality. Most would submit, though, that if abstinence were seriously pushed, until one is ready to have children, that abortion (excepting in the case of the mother's life being endangered), ceases to be an issue.

What? Are you serious?

The only people who believe that "serious abstinence" is a solution are people who obviously ignore history and global observation. Your "serious abstinence" was tried already throughout the 15th to 18th century and guess what? It failed miserably, lead to underground sexual activity through brothels, fed a cycle of illegitimate children, caused extreme bouts of sexual repression and hypocrisy flourished. You may not have learned anything from the era in which the Church reigned supreme but some of us have and do not wish to repeat those mistakes.

Perhaps if you like modern observation you should look at the Middle East and see what sexual repression does to human beings. Or perhaps the Catholic Church scandals are more relevant? Let's just blame it all on Satan right? Works every time.

Humans are always going to be interested in sexual activity as a byproduct of our evolutionary need to propagate and enjoy intimacy. We know this and thus have an obligation to education our children on the dangers of sexual activity should they engage in it. Birth control options should always be left open for those who choose to use it but from this education your abortion rates would go down as responsible sexual activity was explained to those willing to hear it.

I guess this is the part where you tell me no one would have babies.

Your solution looks and smells like Prohibition and would have the exact same results if it were ever to pass. Once again you've failed to look at history and are doomed to repeat it.

They would submit that safe-sex isn't 100% safe but is portrayed as such, and that abortion is promoted as a "If the condom breaks, you're still safe," option that minimizes the value of human life. There is, a degree of misinformation on what sex-ed is, partly because the extremes of "here's how you can have gay sex with thirteen goats in 18 different positions" types of stories grab the headlines and are perceived as the default of what sex-ed is. It is also an issue that I think is less clear-cut for most people, and one that is less defensible in secular terms.

Outrageous.

You may believe abortion is pitched as a way to get rid of children but in reality this depends on the person and their line of thought. Real sex-ed clears up the bullshit that parents are too cowardly to address like using protection to avoid unplanned pregnancies, explains protection isn't 100%, explains the diseases that spring forth from sexual activity, enlightens individuals on various forms of contraception and the benefits for a woman and couples all while explaining that abortion is an option but not one to be taken lightly - and you don't need religion to explain why.

Abortions like all procedures have side-effects.

[Ashmada]

Ok, I've had it with all the "We're defending life you killers! LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE!!!!!1111one" BS and the far-fetched specific cases the other side responds with.


No one is "defending life" in an abortion debate. Any arguments such as "what if you abort the next Lavoisier? (and its counter: "what if you abort the next Pol Pot?") are moot.

What if you ejaculate the next Kepler in a tissue?
What if you decide not to have children and MozartV2.0 is never born?
What if New Vermeer is lost in a period?
And so on.
Truth is, so long as it doesn't:

1. Seek to outlaw male masturbation.
2. Seek to mandate sincere reproduction attempts for every fertile female after the first period, every month.
3. Seek to outlaw all forms of anal or oral sex, heterosexual or homosexual.
4. Seek to outlaw usage of all birth control measures (as "mad pole" Karol wanted to).


...the "pro-life" stance is untenable.
Potential life isn't life and "not giving birth" isn't killing.

[zoobernut]

Pregnancy is a medical condition -- I think that's what you people are missing here -- it is a legitimate medical condition, and a physical commitment to supporting what is essentially a parasitic being (sorry if you don't like it, but the definition of parasite doesn't lie, so you'll just have to get over that one, bro) until it becomes capable of being independent of your bodily functions to survive (and then becomes dependent on your elective actions to support it.) Not everyone is ok with that at all times for a myriad of reasons.

The bolded is highly debatable and a lot of women (my wife included) would disagree with you. In fact a lot of people would point out that treating pregnancy like a medical condition is what has gotten the USA into such a bad place with regards to medical decisions made with regards to pregnancy. Pregnancy is a natural process that when it goes well does not require any medical intervention. Unfortunately doctors in this country have led people to believe it is a medical condition and as such the US has one of the highest rates of c-section in the world as well as one of the highest infant mortality rates and mother mortality rates of developed nations in the world. OBGYN's are so quick in this country to do whatever they can during birth to cover their asses and not get sued that they often end up intervening a lot more than they should.

But that is a side debate. I just don't think you can say that it is a medical condition in such a matter of fact way.

Other than that I tend to agree with you on this issue.

[Byrthnoth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mort.svg

Having a comparable infant mortality rate to Croatia isn't really something to brag about, but that could just as easily be from our high number of people who voluntarily do not take advantage of our medical facilities and instead choose to rely on midwives and the like. (quakers, fundamentalists, weirdos, etc.)

If it affects the way you are treated by a doctor, it is a medical condition. Pregnancy affects the way you are treated by a doctor, so it is a medical condition. End of the story.

[zoobernut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mort.svg

Having a comparable infant mortality rate to Croatia isn't really something to brag about, but that could just as easily be from our high number of people who voluntarily do not take advantage of our medical facilities and instead choose to rely on midwives and the like. (quakers, fundamentalists, weirdos, etc.)

If it affects the way you are treated by a doctor, it is a medical condition. Pregnancy affects the way you are treated by a doctor, so it is a medical condition. End of the story.

Actually that is quite the opposite of true. European countries like Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and many others have almost all normal births attended by midwives and only go to the hospital if there are complications have lower infant mortality rates than the USA. Also the way this country treats pregnancy has turned it into a medical condition but inherently by definition it is not a medical condition.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...ical+condition

A medical condition refers to a disorder or disease not a normal natural function of the body.

[Ksandra]

but that could just as easily be from our high number of people who voluntarily do not take advantage of our medical facilities and instead choose to rely on midwives and the like.

O.o;

I think they've done studies that having a midwife is about the same (ratio-wise) as going to the hospital.

Quick look and here's a time article on it:

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...898316,00.html

"It showed that for low-risk [home] births in the U.S. and Canada, the infant mortality rate was roughly 1.7 per 1,000, or about the same as it is in hospitals." The key, of course, is the "low-risk" part — which means young, healthy mothers with routine pregnancies and no complicating variables like multiple fetuses or a history of delivery problems. These are the only kinds of cases midwives are supposed to handle.

[edit] also wanted to point out that since they have labelled pregnancy as a "medical condition" it also then has become a pre-existing condition meaning if you get preggo and are uninsured you better hope you get approved for wic (or have a group plan option) or you're fucked. Which is retarded.

[Ashmada]

Cute medieval view of Europe you've got there, Zoobernut. Actually, going to the hospital is the norm, and I'd speculate your higher infant rate is actually due to the opposite: rednecks in backwoods areas not having access to a close hospital.

[Pirian]

Pregnancy is a natural process that when it goes well does not require any medical intervention.

It may be a "natural process", but it is a medical condition, too. Not treating it like a medical condition is why for the majority of history childbirth was one of the major causes of female fatalities. It sounds like your wife is very ill-informed.

[Sera]

Actually that is quite the opposite of true. European countries like Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and many others have almost all normal births attended by midwives and only go to the hospital if there are complications have lower infant mortality rates than the USA. Also the way this country treats pregnancy has turned it into a medical condition but inherently by definition it is not a medical condition.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...ical+condition

A medical condition refers to a disorder or disease not a normal natural function of the body.

nope sorry. you have to avoid specific substances and foods, there are certain things you can't do safely, etc. medical condition.

It is considered a "planned medical condition" (which is kind of LOL, actually) according to insurance companies, btw. So yeah. Medical. Condition. That phrase doesn't imply sickness, it just means your body is compensated in some way, and pregnancy does change a lot about how the female body is operating, and opens a woman up to many complications and illnesses (gestational diabetes, high BP, etc etc etc.) Most people seek the care of a specialist during that time: be it an NP or MD, or whatever -- but prenatal checkups must be done etc -- so yeah again, medical condition.

[kuronosan]

I suppose eating healthy is a medical condition then, since you have to avoid processed sugars and trans fats.

Still reading over the thread, btw.

[Pirian]

I suppose eating healthy is a medical condition then, since you have to avoid processed sugars and trans fats.

Still reading over the thread, btw.

Life is a medical condition

[Indeed]

Is this seriously something being argued? Whether or not you feel like calling pregnancy a "condition," there are a lot of health complications that can arise from simply being pregnant. Pregnancy can also seriously complicate existing medical conditions. To read the last few posts, you'd think no women ever fucking died from a risky pregnancy. Clues: get them.

http://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnanc...plications.cfm

Yeah guys, pregnancy is totally safe and risk free in this day and age. Almost nobody even really needs to visit a hospital! It's been such a safe practice throughout all of history. You're so right.

[Sera]

yeah it's nothing special, why even bother with prenatal care! just rough it. whatever!

[Correction]

yeah it's nothing special, why even bother with prenatal care! just rough it. whatever!

This week's Hark A Vagrant is eerily relevant.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Why are women in this thread getting trolled by a bunch of lonely virgins my brain is full of anal