RE: Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...
March 10, 2013 at 5:17 am
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2013 at 5:28 am by EGross.)
In religious societies where the wife of the Faith cannot say no and, in some cases, use any form of contraceptive, it reduces the woman to a breeder who has no control of her life or her body. This is especially true for those women with 10 or more children. In this sense, there are those types of societies where women see this as a way of taking contol of their lives, by taking control of their bodies. Abortion is then seen as a post-contraceptive, which is a tough choice in any case. And that is where counseling comes into play, and outreach. And I certainly support those options.
Connected to this, in the USA, is the interference by the Christian community to force their theological prohibition down everyone else's throat. They have worked on having a political debate as to how to define life (some have gone so far to say that life begins before conception), which has gotten knocked down, and the latest success by the Religious Right is to reduce the time to be [b]before[/i] the first trimester, adding the that the life of the mother, rape, and the religious requirement, "incest" are overriding conditions.
In shore, while they will cry out that Government should not legislate morality, what they mean is "everyone elses morality". And I think that is the more interesting debate, although not for this thread.
Let's say that you live in a society, where contraceptives are forbidden, and the woman is forbidden to say no to her husband. She has 10 children, has never been able to go to University, and never will, because whenever she shares her dream with her owner, he gets her pregnant, and that shuts that idea up for another year.
In other words, in some societies, the woman is the victim of her own chemistry, and then men abuse that, denying them the means to participate in moving socierty forward. And because she has no authority over her own body, she will always be at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to governmental and social reforms.
In places, such as Egypt, it is the secularlist, those who reject the dogma that the man is the owner, who are resisting and working on reforming. They can say no, and with the freedom to say no to man, sometimes that means saying no to something that will interfere with that transformation of the world.
Because when you legislate morality and command the woman that it is the man who defines her future, then it really is no different than what goes on in true Theocracies, and you get a screwed up nation, not because of dishonoring life of the unborn, but of dishonoring the woman because her choice is no longer yours, nor is it the same.
Connected to this, in the USA, is the interference by the Christian community to force their theological prohibition down everyone else's throat. They have worked on having a political debate as to how to define life (some have gone so far to say that life begins before conception), which has gotten knocked down, and the latest success by the Religious Right is to reduce the time to be [b]before[/i] the first trimester, adding the that the life of the mother, rape, and the religious requirement, "incest" are overriding conditions.
In shore, while they will cry out that Government should not legislate morality, what they mean is "everyone elses morality". And I think that is the more interesting debate, although not for this thread.
(March 10, 2013 at 3:14 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I tried to understand why being a host means the mother can do what it wants with it. I don't get it. Why is this the case? I just showed reasoning why (it's on the journey to higher life just as a baby is on a journey to higher life and we don't regard it as animal like in rights due to it's current state) that it's not ok to just kill it...and it's stated because it's a host and is dependent on the mother, you can kill it? LIKE SERIOUSLY WHAT KIND OF COLD LOGIC IS THIS?
Let's say that you live in a society, where contraceptives are forbidden, and the woman is forbidden to say no to her husband. She has 10 children, has never been able to go to University, and never will, because whenever she shares her dream with her owner, he gets her pregnant, and that shuts that idea up for another year.
In other words, in some societies, the woman is the victim of her own chemistry, and then men abuse that, denying them the means to participate in moving socierty forward. And because she has no authority over her own body, she will always be at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to governmental and social reforms.
In places, such as Egypt, it is the secularlist, those who reject the dogma that the man is the owner, who are resisting and working on reforming. They can say no, and with the freedom to say no to man, sometimes that means saying no to something that will interfere with that transformation of the world.
Because when you legislate morality and command the woman that it is the man who defines her future, then it really is no different than what goes on in true Theocracies, and you get a screwed up nation, not because of dishonoring life of the unborn, but of dishonoring the woman because her choice is no longer yours, nor is it the same.
“I've done everything the Bible says — even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!"— Ned Flanders
