The Conservative War On Women

DanB wrote:

I would like to meet these women who want to "have as much hot alpha sex as possible without any consequences.”

Because... err... science.

Doesn't everyone want this?

Mystic Violet wrote:

You thought that was bad?

Check out his previous post.

Ugh. If someone can read this guy's rantings and not be so thoroughly disgusted that they feel a little dirty for having even given it a page-view, they need to take a long, hard look at themself.

Crispus wrote:

I have never known a pro-lifer in real life who was pro-life because they wanted to control women, either blatantly or indirectly.

I have.

Mystic Violet wrote:

You thought that was bad?

Check out his previous post.

Thing is, that may have been the only ad that I liked during this entire campaign.

Crispus wrote:

From my experience, most pro-lifers are pro-life because they think abortion is wrong. I agree that many are also anti-premarital sex because they're conservative people who also believe that behavior is wrong, but I have never known a pro-lifer in real life who was pro-life because they wanted to control women, either blatantly or indirectly.

The problem is that those who are anti-premarital sex and pro-life seem to place them as roughly equivalent "evils". If they didn't, they'd at least begrudgingly admit that contraception and sex education are good and necessary as these things are far more effective at reducing abortions than "abstinence only" education.

But I actually don't agree with you. Even those pro-lifers that I've met that INSIST it's just about abortion being wrong almost always couch it in terms that suggest it's at least partly about punishing "sluts".

DSGamer wrote:
Crispus wrote:

I have never known a pro-lifer in real life who was pro-life because they wanted to control women, either blatantly or indirectly.

I have.

the plural of anecdote is not daa, but I'm hard pressed to think of a single pro-lifer in real life who wasnt pro life because (s)he wanted to control women. 99% indirectly, of course.

The secret? Have a conversation about it. If the person uses the word "consequences" even once during the discussion, then they consider the baby, at some level, punishment for sluttery.

Maq wrote:

It's implicit in the argument. If you're telling a woman what she may or may not do with her own body and her own life you explicitly want the government to exert control over them by removing their right of choice. The same way you want the government to exert control over murderers or thieves or tax evaders by enacting laws that constrain and/or punish their behaviour.

You can't say you want to stop women doing something but equally don't want to control them. The stopping the the thing is an act of control.

Ok, that's true, I should have been more clear. What I intended to say was, I don't know pro-lifers who are pro-life because they want to control women's sexual behavior (i.e., ban abortions with the end goal of forcing women to be less slutty, rather than to save lives).

Valmorian wrote:
Crispus wrote:

From my experience, most pro-lifers are pro-life because they think abortion is wrong. I agree that many are also anti-premarital sex because they're conservative people who also believe that behavior is wrong, but I have never known a pro-lifer in real life who was pro-life because they wanted to control women, either blatantly or indirectly.

The problem is that those who are anti-premarital sex and pro-life seem to place them as roughly equivalent "evils". If they didn't, they'd at least begrudgingly admit that contraception and sex education are good and necessary as these things are far more effective at reducing abortions than "abstinence only" education.

I agree, but if one is conservatively religious (and I think people who hold both stances general are), those ARE roughly equivalent "evils". So, like I said in a previous post, their beliefs have effectively painted them into a no-win corner that leaves them no ability to compromise. I don't see a way out for them, unless they're willing to accept one 'sin' to prevent another. That's hard to do if they can't assign a hierarchical importance to these 'sins'.

Crispus wrote:

I agree, but if one is conservatively religious (and I think people who hold both stances general are), those ARE roughly equivalent "evils". So, like I said in a previous post, their beliefs have effectively painted them into a no-win corner that leaves them no ability to compromise. I don't see a way out for them, unless they're willing to accept one 'sin' to prevent another. That's hard to do if they can't assign a hierarchical importance to these 'sins'.

The problem with using the conservatively religious as examples of people who are concerned about the evils of abortion and not the control of women is that they're ALSO interested in the control of women. It's not like misogyny isn't amply demonstrated in conservative religious views, after all.

I agree with Seth 100% but this conversion has happened a dozen times over the last year. I don't think anyone who isn't already convinced is going to be. Especially if the links recently posted don't change anything.

Crispus wrote:

I agree, but if one is conservatively religious (and I think people who hold both stances general are), those ARE roughly equivalent "evils". So, like I said in a previous post, their beliefs have effectively painted them into a no-win corner that leaves them no ability to compromise. I don't see a way out for them, unless they're willing to accept one 'sin' to prevent another. That's hard to do if they can't assign a hierarchical importance to these 'sins'.

Pardon me the chance to be an ass here, but if someone wants to say that saving lives (unborn children in this case) is no more important than enforcing their behavioral mores (premarital sex bad!), then their logic is stupid and irrelevant.

Because they're basically saying that the value of a human life is equivalent to stopping a naughty action.

[edit]Here's an analogy that might help them find a way out of that dumbass corner they've painted themselves into:

"You walk into a room. On opposite ends of the room you see these two situations developing. In one corner, a man is pointing what appears to be a loaded pistol at an infant and threatening to shoot it. In the opposite corner a couple of teenagers are about to have consensual sex. You can only stop one of these two things from occurring; which one do you pick?"

If they have to pause even momentarily before saying they'd save the infant, slap them and then politely explain to them that their religious beliefs are clearly evil.

Farscry wrote:

If they have to pause even momentarily before saying they'd save the infant, slap them and then politely explain to them that their religious beliefs are clearly evil.

Of course they'll say that. They already know that that god's wrath will be served on the teenagers and the dirty little slut will be punished for being a whore by getting pregnant.

Don't you see? All life is precious. The life created to teach tramps a lesson doubly so.

Does anyone else get a serious "Abominations Unto Nuggan" vibe from some of the more crazy religious conservative types? There's so much contradiction and hypocrisy going on with their attitude towards life and women, it's feels like a satire, but sadly it's not...

Makes me think this was worth bringing up, something I ran across the other day:

In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.

...

...evangelicals would benefit from pausing to look back at their own history. In doing so, they might consider the possibility that they aren’t submitting to the dictates of a timeless biblical truth, but instead, to the goals of a well-organized political initiative only a little more than 30 years old.

Here are the relevant lines from Exodus:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

So, if two men fight and cause a woman to miscarry, but not kill the woman, the guy that hurt her is punished, but is NOT put to death. If death of the woman follows, than the man would be killed as punishment for murder.

Although, I'm not a biblical scholar, so it might be somewhat ambiguous whether the mischief here refers to the baby's death or the mother's. It's possible she could have the baby early and the baby could survive, and the man would have to only pay recompense for the injury to the woman.

Not that the Old Testament actually counts for anything anymore. New covenant and all that.

Edit: After some cursory research it looks like some interpret this as specifically miscarriage and others as born early. I don't think it's quite so tight a case for pro-choice.

Mixolyde wrote:

Here are the relevant lines from Exodus:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

So, if two men fight and cause a woman to miscarry, but not kill the woman, the guy that hurt her is punished, but is NOT put to death. If death of the woman follows, than the man would be killed as punishment for murder.

Although, I'm not a biblical scholar, so it might be somewhat ambiguous whether the mischief here refers to the baby's death or the mother's. It's possible she could have the baby early and the baby could survive, and the man would have to only pay recompense for the injury to the woman.

Not that the Old Testament actually counts for anything anymore. New covenant and all that.

Edit: After some cursory research it looks like some interpret this as specifically miscarriage and others as born early. I don't think it's quite so tight a case for pro-choice.

What years did your research cover? Because that's the point: on the cusp of Roe v. Wade, the consensus interpretation among even evangelicals was far different than it is today. It doesn't surprise me that your are finding different interpretations, because that's what is being argued: the interpretations started to change in the 70s as Falwell and others involved in the ecumenism of the trenches shifted the theology of evangelical Christianity.

Wait, are you implying that Biblical literalists might not have it right because they changed their interpretation over the years?

It's almost as though the Bible doesn't really have much to say on the topic of abortion!

Imagine that.

Demyx wrote:

It's almost as though the Bible doesn't really have much to say on the topic of abortion!

Imagine that.

Oh, it's got a few things to say, it's just not remarkably clear or consistent.

Mixolyde wrote:
Demyx wrote:

It's almost as though the Bible doesn't really have much to say on the topic of abortion!

Imagine that.

Oh, it's got a few things to say, it's just not remarkably clear or consistent.

While on the other hand it is quite clear and consistent about things like dietary restrictions. Of course those rules get ignored because nobody cares about controlling people who eat shrimp.

More like, the people who *do* eat shrimp are no longer competing with the Jews for control of the tribes.

muttonchop wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
Demyx wrote:

It's almost as though the Bible doesn't really have much to say on the topic of abortion!

Imagine that.

Oh, it's got a few things to say, it's just not remarkably clear or consistent.

While on the other hand it is quite clear and consistent about things like dietary restrictions. Of course those rules get ignored because nobody cares about controlling people who eat shrimp.

Bingo. It's always been about control.

muttonchop wrote:

While on the other hand it is quite clear and consistent about things like dietary restrictions. Of course those rules get ignored because nobody cares about controlling people who eat shrimp.

Room for some judgement in those, too. Like what counts as "the same meal" for mixing dairy and meat. Some Spanish jews will have dinner with meat, change the tablecloth and immediately have ice cream for dessert.

It's more that natural language just isn't a good medium for transcribing rules, period.

I wonder what the overlap is between biblical literalists and speakers of aramaic is anyway.

For the record, I'll continue to assert that while some may be pro-life for this reason, most are not, so painting with the above broad brush does not help build credibility

Crispus, it's essentially always there, in one form or another. If we talk at length, you are extremely likely to have it too, if you're actually honest in the discussion.

If we talk at length, you are extremely likely to have it too, if you're actually honest in the discussion.

How many goodjers have you diagnosed with beliefs they don't actually hold, over the years? "If you don't agree, you're lying, you just don't know it". Come on, that's not discussion, it's confirmation bias.

If you want to stop women from doing something they want to (or feel like they have to) do, but that you consider immoral, isn't that controlling women by definition?

The only question is whether the intent is malicious. In some cases it is, in some cases it isn't.

Robear wrote:
If we talk at length, you are extremely likely to have it too, if you're actually honest in the discussion.

How many goodjers have you diagnosed with beliefs they don't actually hold, over the years? "If you don't agree, you're lying, you just don't know it". Come on, that's not discussion, it's confirmation bias.

There are other threads where this kind of behavior has been wildly off. In this thread..not so much, in my opinion. Malor is also not the only one diagnosing these beliefs either, in this case.

Best argument that shows this is about the "punishing of women" that I've seen is this:

Do you support mandatory organ donation in cases where the donor would not be killed?

That is, person A needs a kidney and you are a match. Through a lottery it is determined that you have to give up your kidney so that they can live. You are now legally obligated to donate.

If this whole argument is REALLY about the sanctity of life over the "inconvenience" of the mother, then you should be ALL FOR this.

Valmorian:

Bioethical considerations in those cases extend beyond body rights, because a lot of people stand to make a profit on each transplant case.

LarryC wrote:

Valmorian:

Bioethical considerations in those cases extend beyond body rights, because a lot of people stand to make a profit on each transplant case.

Of course, but the ethical consideration at its base is the same. Does anyone have an ethical right to use your body to survive?