Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, May 18, 2009
News It's About Sex
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg on last week's "pro-life nation" poll and the suddenly intensifying abortion debate:
I don't consider a fertilized egg the size of the period at the end of this sentence to be the equivalent of the Gerber baby, and find people who do to be curious, especially for the anger they bring to the debate. If being pro-life meant an across-the-board reverence for life — if pro-life activists were also Human Rights Watch members, also fierce opponents to capital punishment and vigorous battlers of AIDS in Africa, and of course anti-handgun and anti-war — then I could almost understand the compressed rage that pro-lifers often exhibit.But they aren't. Nor are they in favor of the contraception that would prevent abortions, a tipoff that this — at its core — is not about preventing violence to the unborn so much as it is about unraveling a modern society where women are able to plan their pregnancies. Stealing is bad, and religion speaks against it, but no congregation ever took to the streets to protest theft. There is an intensity — at times a frenzy — behind the abortion debate, which hints that something else is going on, that religion is attacking modern sexually open society at its weakest point, taking a stand that requires them to not only see abortion as a morally significant act, which it is, but to insist that morality cannot shift under any circumstance, and that having an abortion is the same if you're 14, or 24, or 64.
...
It helps to connect the abortion debate to the contraception debate because it is a continuum, the way World War II was really the second act of World War I. If you believe that sex is for procreation and nothing else, then a pro-life stance flows naturally. If you believe it's for procreation, at certain times, but also for fun, then you're pro-choice. Don't hate me for bringing the news, but the for-fun element seems to be winning, no matter what last week's poll numbers say.
2
Man, this sums up everything I've ever thought about this in the most succinct three paragaphs I've ever seen.
3
A delight. @1, I'd sure agree that sex for fun or pleasure seems unchristian to fundamentalists, but they're flat wrong. I know a lot of believers, and their sex for fun and pleasure fits energetically into their spiritual lives.
4
If you believe it's for procreation, at certain times, but also for fun, then you're pro-choice. Because nothing screams 'FUN' like killing your child.
5
Unscientific slog poll?
1.
A) I fuck to procreate
B) I fuck for fun.
C) I fuck for fun and to procreate.
D) I am celibate/watch porn and wank.
2.
A) I am pro choice.
B) I am pro life.
C) I don't care/know.
3.
A) I am oppose the death penalty.
B) I support the death penalty.
4. r'lijus filiation
A) protestant
B) catholic
C) sunni
D) shia
E) mormon
F) jewish
G) flying spaghetti monster
H) buddhist
J) other
1.
A) I fuck to procreate
B) I fuck for fun.
C) I fuck for fun and to procreate.
D) I am celibate/watch porn and wank.
2.
A) I am pro choice.
B) I am pro life.
C) I don't care/know.
3.
A) I am oppose the death penalty.
B) I support the death penalty.
4. r'lijus filiation
A) protestant
B) catholic
C) sunni
D) shia
E) mormon
F) jewish
G) flying spaghetti monster
H) buddhist
J) other
7
"Don't hate me for bringing the news, but the for-fun element seems to be winning."
Because decadance and shirking responsibility is always a seductive easy sell.
In fact, it practically sells itself!
Because decadance and shirking responsibility is always a seductive easy sell.
In fact, it practically sells itself!
8
i, too, have always found great contradiction in the pro-life/pro-death penalty "christians." that and my dad the charismatic preacher beating my mom & me 4 my entire childhood.
9
"not about preventing violence to the unborn so much as it is about unraveling a modern society where women are able to plan their pregnancies."
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
11
8
Yes.
it is really hard to reconcile the desire to protect the most perfectly innocent helpless members of the human family while also favoring seeing evil brutal killers recieve the punishment they deserve.
Yes.
it is really hard to reconcile the desire to protect the most perfectly innocent helpless members of the human family while also favoring seeing evil brutal killers recieve the punishment they deserve.
12
So we are willing to sacrifice a million lives a year because "they" don't support contraception to our satisfaction....
13
@ 11 "the most perfectly innocent helpless members of the human family" wtf are you talking about 'family'- a fucking jello wad of cells?
14
I really believe it's more about education (#1) and women's rights (#2) than the nature of sex.
Education - If you ever talk to/argue with a pro-lifer, you'll find they are incredibly ignorant about where babies come from. They all seem to think a magical soul is created when an egg and sperm come together. They never realize or acknowledge that 50% of fertilized eggs are sloughed off naturally through "spontaneous abortion," and whether this is a more urgent problem than optional abortion. They never acknowledge that using fertility drugs, IVF, or sex without contraception almost always leads to spontaneous abortion. They never realize or acknowledge that men produce hundreds of millions of "full genome" XY sperm cells through their life, which are genetically identical to fertilized eggs. They can never explain why a fertilized egg cell is magically different than any other cells throughout the body.
Women's rights - This one is obvious. If you take away the abortion option, you sentence a woman to a lifetime of motherhood in traditional American society. Many women who have taken motherhood on as their primary role in life also are against abortion -- they, like most men in power, have nothing to gain and much to lose by allowing other women to be financially and socially independent.
Education - If you ever talk to/argue with a pro-lifer, you'll find they are incredibly ignorant about where babies come from. They all seem to think a magical soul is created when an egg and sperm come together. They never realize or acknowledge that 50% of fertilized eggs are sloughed off naturally through "spontaneous abortion," and whether this is a more urgent problem than optional abortion. They never acknowledge that using fertility drugs, IVF, or sex without contraception almost always leads to spontaneous abortion. They never realize or acknowledge that men produce hundreds of millions of "full genome" XY sperm cells through their life, which are genetically identical to fertilized eggs. They can never explain why a fertilized egg cell is magically different than any other cells throughout the body.
Women's rights - This one is obvious. If you take away the abortion option, you sentence a woman to a lifetime of motherhood in traditional American society. Many women who have taken motherhood on as their primary role in life also are against abortion -- they, like most men in power, have nothing to gain and much to lose by allowing other women to be financially and socially independent.
15
@10 I sure am. Here's a great idea for you! Why don't you come suck an embryo out of my fat hairy cunt if you feel left out of the fun. You will like it, c'mon tastes like iron and feels like jello!
16
And the overwhelming majority of pro-"lifers" are men. I'm thinking man can't get laid => blames the evil bitches who won't sleep with him => is determined to punish the evil bitches when they do sleep with other men and risk pregnancy. For more information, reference #4, 7, 10, and 11 in this thread.
17
The first part is exactly dead on—for the most part. The fight against abortion does follow the fight against birth control. But it also follows the fight against divorce. The divorce fight was interesting because you can't keep one of those secret. It's way easy, and quite common, to fight against abortion and have one for yourself. As long as you keep quiet all is well. But when you congregation is chock full of visibly divorced people it's kind of hard to have everybody comfortable with preaching against it. (That the first “Christian” president was divorced was the last straw on that one.) And it is important to keep in mind that the ferocity of that position is required by the rhetoric. If you say you believe abortion is murder then you need to be seen treating it as such. People do take to the streets to protest murder and people do use violence and force to stop it.
However I don't buy that it's as simple as hating sex. If two married people want to get their freak on then that's just fine. (When the husband wants something that the wife doesn't it's a different story.) They're not trying to control married people, they're trying to control unmarried people—especially teens. On the one hand they are scared to death of their children as sexual beings. On the other hand, some of them are a little upset at the dearth of babies they see as suitable for adoption. I do recall the founder of Operation Rescue, and others, going on about how the number of abortions in the US is the same as the number of babies wanted for adoption. Randell Terry [sp?] was pretty straight forward about this being the reason he got into the whole business.
For a good snapshot into the inner sexual-psyche of these folks spend some time at https://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/c… .
More...
However I don't buy that it's as simple as hating sex. If two married people want to get their freak on then that's just fine. (When the husband wants something that the wife doesn't it's a different story.) They're not trying to control married people, they're trying to control unmarried people—especially teens. On the one hand they are scared to death of their children as sexual beings. On the other hand, some of them are a little upset at the dearth of babies they see as suitable for adoption. I do recall the founder of Operation Rescue, and others, going on about how the number of abortions in the US is the same as the number of babies wanted for adoption. Randell Terry [sp?] was pretty straight forward about this being the reason he got into the whole business.
For a good snapshot into the inner sexual-psyche of these folks spend some time at https://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/c… .
18
This is a terrifically on-target summary of the problem.
And it relates directly to Craigslist's Erotic Services dilemma. Most jurisdictions in the U.S. say that sex acts for money is an illegal transaction. But find me more than a handful of churches and groups that devote serious effort to helping train the men and women who engage in prostitution as an economic need (not as a choice, which some percentage certainly do) in other careers, help them find jobs, help them get off the drugs that many of them are on, etc.
No, instead it's about moral opprobrium about the advertising, and about how if the advertising were suppressed, then the availability of sex-for-hire would disappear.
I have long suspected that the folks trying to beat on Craigslist (instead of, say The Stranger, other online sites, other newspapers, etc.) are really upset more at Casual Encounters (sex without pay and without consequences) than so much the sex for hire part.
And it relates directly to Craigslist's Erotic Services dilemma. Most jurisdictions in the U.S. say that sex acts for money is an illegal transaction. But find me more than a handful of churches and groups that devote serious effort to helping train the men and women who engage in prostitution as an economic need (not as a choice, which some percentage certainly do) in other careers, help them find jobs, help them get off the drugs that many of them are on, etc.
No, instead it's about moral opprobrium about the advertising, and about how if the advertising were suppressed, then the availability of sex-for-hire would disappear.
I have long suspected that the folks trying to beat on Craigslist (instead of, say The Stranger, other online sites, other newspapers, etc.) are really upset more at Casual Encounters (sex without pay and without consequences) than so much the sex for hire part.
19
Claiming that religion itself is attacking a sexually open society is just as crazy as claiming that athiests want to outlaw heterosexual marriage. The religious people of this world are not one unified ravenous horde bent on robbing you of your civil rights. Part of the reason I identify more with athiests than religious people is that athiests tend to make less of these batshit-crazy "us or them" statements.
20
ok now that I am done troll baiting, let me get back to real talk. I find it disgusting that this same branch of fundies crying murder believe in culling animals (with no scientific evidence that is needed ala Palin), an endless war, the sexualization of children (anyone ever seen a lib kiddie pageant? I didn't think so), and the whole 'all american hero' archetype- which basically boils down to the US bossing around the world. Many fundies immerse themselves in mainstream pop culture and never think of the consequences until after they are pregnant. There are tens of thousands of fundie women that have secretly had a termination, and they have to live through a hell where they have no social support, no family support, many never see a therapist for pre pr post surgical counseling, and then to top it off, they believe that their god won't support them either. Its actually a lot like parents who would rather let their child remain sick than go to a Dr due to religious beliefs.
22
I think this was obvious long before now but I suppose that if this makes the real battle more obvious to more people, then I'll count it as a thin silver lining to a terrible development.
Before they began this open call to limit contraception information & access, I thought the exception for rape & incest made by many who call themselves "pro-life" made it obvious that their crusade was about controlling women's sexuality.
If it's really 1st degree, premeditated murder then the circumstances of how a particular woman became pregnant would never have been an issue. I always thought that an obvious tell that their real objection was *how* the woman became pregnant, with the inescapable implication of treating a pregnancy like a punishment for those women whose morals and behaviors society condemned.
Before they began this open call to limit contraception information & access, I thought the exception for rape & incest made by many who call themselves "pro-life" made it obvious that their crusade was about controlling women's sexuality.
If it's really 1st degree, premeditated murder then the circumstances of how a particular woman became pregnant would never have been an issue. I always thought that an obvious tell that their real objection was *how* the woman became pregnant, with the inescapable implication of treating a pregnancy like a punishment for those women whose morals and behaviors society condemned.
23
@ 22 It really is another way for the religious patriarchy to still attempt to control women in this modern age using guilt and political maneuvers.
24
This was clearly evidenced by the fact that the (very small) protests at Notre Dame were against Obama b/c of his pro-abortion views (of which he has none), which were anti-Catholic. Notice they don't mention his pro-birth-control views (of which he has many), which are also anti-Catholic. But being anti-birth-control is not nearly as palatable to mainstream America, and therefore they couch their war in these "pro-abortion" bogus terms.
25
The "Pro-Life" movement is horribly inconsistent. They're pro-life for an unborn fetus, but after that you can go fuck yourself for all they care. This guy nails it - if you're pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-gun, etc., then you aren't really "pro-life".
26
The Libs like to throw up all the smoke screen collateral issues but it's pretty simple.
Abortion kills a human.
If you are going to kill a human you should have a pretty good reason.
'Fun' doesn't seem to be a very good reason to kill someone, especially your own child.
Abortion kills a human.
If you are going to kill a human you should have a pretty good reason.
'Fun' doesn't seem to be a very good reason to kill someone, especially your own child.
27
@ 4, 7, 10-12: You know what's ironic about those posts, is that they PERFECTLY demonstrate what Steinberg was talking about - "There is an intensity — at times a frenzy — behind the abortion debate". Way to prove the man's point!
28
As obstetric sonograms become more widely available and technology as such advances people are realizing more and more the inherent value of life on all stages, including the womb. No matter how much the pro abortion side wants to deny the sea change. It's fun to watch how quickly the pro abortion side discards their favorite pastime (polls) now that it shows their side loosing in bringing hearts and minds to their ideological point of view.
30
#26: If you have a child, chances are you have killed at least one "human" through spontaneous abortion. For each child. Are you saying nobody should have unprotected sex? Are you calling all biological parents murderers?
There were about 800,000 medical abortions last year, and well over 5,000,000 spontaneous abortions. There were over 100 trillion killings of full genetic XY humans through sperm discharge. Please explain why one is murder and the other two are ignorable?
There were about 800,000 medical abortions last year, and well over 5,000,000 spontaneous abortions. There were over 100 trillion killings of full genetic XY humans through sperm discharge. Please explain why one is murder and the other two are ignorable?
31
@1
You don't even need to include sex. I would simply say:
Fun or pleasure is fundamentally unchristian.
You don't even need to include sex. I would simply say:
Fun or pleasure is fundamentally unchristian.
33
We have plenty of children available for adoption in this country. The "problem" is that they're past their sell-by date. Randall Terry et al don't want to adopt black or latino adolescents who have behavioral issues from years of abuse or neglect. They want white babies and they don't give a fuck if one white baby results in several unwanted black or latino children. That's how deluded and callous those motherfuckers are.
On the other hand, some of them are a little upset at the dearth of babies they see as suitable for adoption.
We have plenty of children available for adoption in this country. The "problem" is that they're past their sell-by date. Randall Terry et al don't want to adopt black or latino adolescents who have behavioral issues from years of abuse or neglect. They want white babies and they don't give a fuck if one white baby results in several unwanted black or latino children. That's how deluded and callous those motherfuckers are.
34
People argue that a fetus is more important than the woman carrying the thing because of life-potential, but in reality, a woman can have 16 children in the time it would take the aborted cells to manifest into a single entity capable of having children itself, and that's assuming we allow early teens to have children, which is wrong in most people's eyes (unless you're Mary or evangelical).
And if children are so important, why are they seen as a punishment for having reproductive choice? "You got pregnant, you knew what was up, no excuses, HAVE THIS BABY!" It's not like people are going to get lots of abortions, most just get one if they do at all.
Anti-choicers are going to have to admit that they don't care about the child or the mother so much as they care about being able to act as though they're god himself directing others to be fruitful and punishing people who disobey.
And if children are so important, why are they seen as a punishment for having reproductive choice? "You got pregnant, you knew what was up, no excuses, HAVE THIS BABY!" It's not like people are going to get lots of abortions, most just get one if they do at all.
Anti-choicers are going to have to admit that they don't care about the child or the mother so much as they care about being able to act as though they're god himself directing others to be fruitful and punishing people who disobey.
35
For a while I was really miffed at the right wing sockpuppets shooting their mouths off all over the Slog. But these days it's been fun watching them writhe in their death throes. Sockpuppet Man's fury will never equal a coherent argument. You can't be pro-life and pro-war. You can't scream against killing the innocent and be in favor of the hideously flawed death penalty. But as our puppety friend proves, you can still be a control freak with delusions of moral grandeur, which is exactly the kind of backwards thinking that we are finally outgrowing as a culture.
36
30
Sperm are not humans. They are human cells. Unless they join an egg they will never be anything but sperm cells.
Spontaneous abortions are, duh, spontaneous. No one 'did' it. Everyone dies sometime, some folks at 80, some after a few hours. It is life.
Intentionally killing someone, be they 80 or 8 or a few hours old, IS different.
If you don't like the fact that most sperm cells die without fertilizing an egg and many zygotes spontaneously abort take it up with mother Nature or the Creator or whatever you worship. Or don't. But don't blame pro-lifers. You sound insane.
It is like the difference between a million people being killed by a tsunami (who are you going to blame?) or a million people being killed by an atomic bomb.
Sperm are not humans. They are human cells. Unless they join an egg they will never be anything but sperm cells.
Spontaneous abortions are, duh, spontaneous. No one 'did' it. Everyone dies sometime, some folks at 80, some after a few hours. It is life.
Intentionally killing someone, be they 80 or 8 or a few hours old, IS different.
If you don't like the fact that most sperm cells die without fertilizing an egg and many zygotes spontaneously abort take it up with mother Nature or the Creator or whatever you worship. Or don't. But don't blame pro-lifers. You sound insane.
It is like the difference between a million people being killed by a tsunami (who are you going to blame?) or a million people being killed by an atomic bomb.
37
"You might point out that human rights are not determined by majority vote, thank goodness"
Seems to work just this way in California.
Seems to work just this way in California.
38
The pope just told the people of Africa not to wear condoms. That is pro-death! That means a slow death to untold thousands of babies that will be born with AIDS because of him. They should be called Benedict AIDS babies.
39
"It is like the difference between a million people being killed by a tsunami (who are you going to blame?) or a million people being killed by an atomic bomb."
I think someone just proved one of our points for us...THANKS!
I think someone just proved one of our points for us...THANKS!
40
@20: It's understandable that sometimes 'troll baiting' is something that just has to be done - since some troll statements are just to !!?? to pass up commenting on.
That having been said, I can't pass on the following:
"It is like the difference between a million people being killed by a tsunami (who are you going to blame?)..."
Um, maybe blame the lack of early warning tsunami detectors; and the social conditioning that had taught many to ignore the natural signs around them (I can't recall the name of the study at this time - but there is a report that shows that areas where the population was more 'rustic' or in tune with the cultural history of their people about their land - that these communities noticed the subtle changes in the land and animals around them, and were able to seek shelter further inland - resulting in lives saved); oh, and the developers who built too close to shorelines and/or helped erode some of the natural protections that may have minimized some of the damage/death.
That having been said, I can't pass on the following:
"It is like the difference between a million people being killed by a tsunami (who are you going to blame?)..."
Um, maybe blame the lack of early warning tsunami detectors; and the social conditioning that had taught many to ignore the natural signs around them (I can't recall the name of the study at this time - but there is a report that shows that areas where the population was more 'rustic' or in tune with the cultural history of their people about their land - that these communities noticed the subtle changes in the land and animals around them, and were able to seek shelter further inland - resulting in lives saved); oh, and the developers who built too close to shorelines and/or helped erode some of the natural protections that may have minimized some of the damage/death.
41
Hernandez @ 25,
Thank you; I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The "pro-life" crowd couldn't give a fuck about the hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and child that have been killed by the US war machine in places like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. They love war and want more.
Fuck them with a chainsaw dildo.
Thank you; I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The "pro-life" crowd couldn't give a fuck about the hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and child that have been killed by the US war machine in places like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. They love war and want more.
Fuck them with a chainsaw dildo.
44
If you listen to anti-abortion people in interviews, they usually break down into two types: There's the ones who go on and on about the dead babies, and there's the "she shouldn't be able to just have sex without consequences" crowd.
I know a person who is rabidly anti-abortion (she gave up Catholicism to become a Baptist partly because she thought the church was too wishy-washy about it, and partly because her dipstick husband insisted) and most of her arguments against abortion go back to the "no consequences" side. That's interesting, because she got pregnant in high school and was made to keep the baby, which was raised basically by her parents while she went to college.
It's funny how Karma works, however. That son of hers - the one she didn't abort - is as gay as the day is long. Who knows? Maybe this will force her into a new perspective, and she'll become a diehard P-FLAG mom, and redirect all her energy there.
I know a person who is rabidly anti-abortion (she gave up Catholicism to become a Baptist partly because she thought the church was too wishy-washy about it, and partly because her dipstick husband insisted) and most of her arguments against abortion go back to the "no consequences" side. That's interesting, because she got pregnant in high school and was made to keep the baby, which was raised basically by her parents while she went to college.
It's funny how Karma works, however. That son of hers - the one she didn't abort - is as gay as the day is long. Who knows? Maybe this will force her into a new perspective, and she'll become a diehard P-FLAG mom, and redirect all her energy there.
45
While scrolling through the responses, I was amused that with my anonymous poster killer turned on, I can't see ANY of the trolls. I saw @27's list (@ 4, 7, 10-12) and realized they were all blocked.
My blood pressure is so much better now that those who are too scared to register and post their stupidity are gone from my life :)
My blood pressure is so much better now that those who are too scared to register and post their stupidity are gone from my life :)
47
If a fetus = human being, then abortion = murder.
If abortion = murder, then allowing any woman of child bearing years to drink alcohol, ride a roller coaster, or climb a mountain (all of which can cause early miscarriage) = criminal reckless endangerment.
If abortion = murder, every "person" who absorbs his/her twin in the womb is a murderer and must be punished as such. This happens in more births than do births of live twins.
If you want to see a society where the pro-coathangar faction won, take a long hard look at Nicaragua, and ask yourself is that truly what you want?
If abortion = murder, then allowing any woman of child bearing years to drink alcohol, ride a roller coaster, or climb a mountain (all of which can cause early miscarriage) = criminal reckless endangerment.
If abortion = murder, every "person" who absorbs his/her twin in the womb is a murderer and must be punished as such. This happens in more births than do births of live twins.
If you want to see a society where the pro-coathangar faction won, take a long hard look at Nicaragua, and ask yourself is that truly what you want?
48
The Bible does say one thing about abortion (kinda if you stretch a little). If someone causes a woman to miscarry, they owe her husband a small sum of money. It's less than if their ox killed his ox. So that shows me where God stands on the abortion issue, and I quote: "meh". Unborn babies were, like the women who carried them, property. And if one wants to beat or kill his own property (like his wife for instance) God's view is, and I quote once more: "meh".
However, most of us in the US, except those who attend the Saddleback church of course, realize that beating your wife is wrong.
Would frenzied pro-lifers feel better if clinics gave their patients a small refund after an abortion proceedure to give to the woman's owner? She could give it to her husband, or if unmarried to her father. Or for God's sake, we could all remember that she lives in the US and is not property and doesn't live in a time they thought eclipses were acts of an angry God.
However, most of us in the US, except those who attend the Saddleback church of course, realize that beating your wife is wrong.
Would frenzied pro-lifers feel better if clinics gave their patients a small refund after an abortion proceedure to give to the woman's owner? She could give it to her husband, or if unmarried to her father. Or for God's sake, we could all remember that she lives in the US and is not property and doesn't live in a time they thought eclipses were acts of an angry God.
49
45
Cracker Jackass doesn't know we are talking about him!
Can You Hear Me Now?
Good!
(He is scared to be exposed to different ideas)
Cracker Jackass doesn't know we are talking about him!
Can You Hear Me Now?
Good!
(He is scared to be exposed to different ideas)
50
@31:
Precisely. Thanks to our Puritan forefathers, the religious establishment in this country envisions pleasure in ANY form as morally degenerate.
According to their way of thinking, we gave up the right to earthly pleasure when Eve and Adam were ejected from Eden for disobeying God's commandment not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, and ever since then it has been the lot of humankind to suffer our burden of Original Sin, forsaking earthly pleasures in exchange for our Heavenly Reward.
Of course, much of this attitude comes from the efforts of the Church, and most later Protestant off-shoots, to reconcile the masses to their lives of miserable toil and impoverishment, by promising them some sort of posthumous pay-off in exchange for their obedience and servitude in this life. Needless to say, it's proven to be a very convenient and effective means of keeping the larger population under the thumb of the authorities, while at the same time giving them just enough to look forward to that their enforced piety and self-deprivation became viewed as an asset, instead as just another kind of yoke around their necks.
With the advent of the modern era, our ongoing improvements in technology, and resultant elevations in living standards for many people, however, it's become increasingly difficult to sell the flock on the notion that they have to endure suffering in the here-and-now, in order to qualify for the "Halos And Wings" plan in the hereafter. For one thing, many people simply aren't "suffering" to the same degree as they would have even 150 years ago; with the exception of the most impoverished nation-states (where ironically religious believe tends to be on the increase), people today get adequate nutrition, a roof over their heads, and can reasonably expect to live 70 or more years in relative comfort, without (for the most part) being required to engage in endless hours of back-breaking manual labor in order to achieve it.
And of course, we have all these wonderful medical breakthroughs making life easier for us as well. Whereas before women were somewhat at the mercy of their own biological cycles, suddenly they now have the ability to control those same cycles, or even suppress them completely. As others have stated, it's this ability on the part of women to exercise direct management of their previously uncontrollable states of fertility that has thrown the religious institutions into such a frenzy. I mean, think about it. Women comprise roughly half the population, and yet they've traditionally been fairly easy to keep under control by virtue of the simple fact that a pregnant woman and/or mother has a completely different set of priorities, namely protecting herself, her unborn fetus and her living children , than does a not-pregnant woman, who, with all that spare time on her hands might begin to develop all sorts of un-pious, heretical notions about her place in the scheme of things, and that can't be a good thing, because it's hard enough trying to keep that OTHER roughly 50% who CAN'T get preggers from entertaining those same sorts of thoughts as it is, and doubling the number of potential dissenters simply becomes a recipe for disaster.
So, in the face of advances in modern technology, religious leaders have been forced to adapt their strategies in order to keep those uppity females in their place, and the primary tactic has become to declare the fruits of modern medical science as sinful and morally corrupt. The result? They've attempted to outlaw contraception and birth control, abortion, and the very concept of sex as a pleasurable (as opposed to procreative) act.
That's why a majority of anti-abortion adherents tend to be men, because they're simply attempting to maintain the patriarchal status-quo that has existed for as long as males have been able to exploit the natural "weakness" inherent in female reproductive biology.
More...
Precisely. Thanks to our Puritan forefathers, the religious establishment in this country envisions pleasure in ANY form as morally degenerate.
According to their way of thinking, we gave up the right to earthly pleasure when Eve and Adam were ejected from Eden for disobeying God's commandment not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, and ever since then it has been the lot of humankind to suffer our burden of Original Sin, forsaking earthly pleasures in exchange for our Heavenly Reward.
Of course, much of this attitude comes from the efforts of the Church, and most later Protestant off-shoots, to reconcile the masses to their lives of miserable toil and impoverishment, by promising them some sort of posthumous pay-off in exchange for their obedience and servitude in this life. Needless to say, it's proven to be a very convenient and effective means of keeping the larger population under the thumb of the authorities, while at the same time giving them just enough to look forward to that their enforced piety and self-deprivation became viewed as an asset, instead as just another kind of yoke around their necks.
With the advent of the modern era, our ongoing improvements in technology, and resultant elevations in living standards for many people, however, it's become increasingly difficult to sell the flock on the notion that they have to endure suffering in the here-and-now, in order to qualify for the "Halos And Wings" plan in the hereafter. For one thing, many people simply aren't "suffering" to the same degree as they would have even 150 years ago; with the exception of the most impoverished nation-states (where ironically religious believe tends to be on the increase), people today get adequate nutrition, a roof over their heads, and can reasonably expect to live 70 or more years in relative comfort, without (for the most part) being required to engage in endless hours of back-breaking manual labor in order to achieve it.
And of course, we have all these wonderful medical breakthroughs making life easier for us as well. Whereas before women were somewhat at the mercy of their own biological cycles, suddenly they now have the ability to control those same cycles, or even suppress them completely. As others have stated, it's this ability on the part of women to exercise direct management of their previously uncontrollable states of fertility that has thrown the religious institutions into such a frenzy. I mean, think about it. Women comprise roughly half the population, and yet they've traditionally been fairly easy to keep under control by virtue of the simple fact that a pregnant woman and/or mother has a completely different set of priorities, namely protecting herself, her unborn fetus and her living children , than does a not-pregnant woman, who, with all that spare time on her hands might begin to develop all sorts of un-pious, heretical notions about her place in the scheme of things, and that can't be a good thing, because it's hard enough trying to keep that OTHER roughly 50% who CAN'T get preggers from entertaining those same sorts of thoughts as it is, and doubling the number of potential dissenters simply becomes a recipe for disaster.
So, in the face of advances in modern technology, religious leaders have been forced to adapt their strategies in order to keep those uppity females in their place, and the primary tactic has become to declare the fruits of modern medical science as sinful and morally corrupt. The result? They've attempted to outlaw contraception and birth control, abortion, and the very concept of sex as a pleasurable (as opposed to procreative) act.
That's why a majority of anti-abortion adherents tend to be men, because they're simply attempting to maintain the patriarchal status-quo that has existed for as long as males have been able to exploit the natural "weakness" inherent in female reproductive biology.
51
If you want to ban at least most abortions, there is a way you could get a lot of people like me, who don't like abortion per se, but think that no one should be forced to endure the very real risks of pregnancy against her will, on board: invest your time and money in developing a uterine replicator.
Invent an artificial womb, where you can put a cellular culture that's sucking the precious bodily fluids from some poor gal who doesn't want her precious bodily fluids sucked, and the fetuses will beat a pathway to your door.
And the core technology has been here for alost a century: It's called a pressure cooker.
Pop the little darling out through mommy's bellybutton, stick it in the soup, cook @ 98.6°F for 7-8 months, and blammo! The beautiful squeal of perfect new life that you now have to figure out how to feed for the next 22 years. Congrats!
Invent an artificial womb, where you can put a cellular culture that's sucking the precious bodily fluids from some poor gal who doesn't want her precious bodily fluids sucked, and the fetuses will beat a pathway to your door.
And the core technology has been here for alost a century: It's called a pressure cooker.
Pop the little darling out through mommy's bellybutton, stick it in the soup, cook @ 98.6°F for 7-8 months, and blammo! The beautiful squeal of perfect new life that you now have to figure out how to feed for the next 22 years. Congrats!
52
hey kesh -- i've heard that men are actually equally pro-choice as women are.... do you have any links or data on this? (sincere question) it's tricky to actually find something about this online.....
here's one i found, for instance:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/2…
MEN AND WOMEN ON ABORTION
Abortion should be... Generally available
Men: 40%
Women: 37%
here's one i found, for instance:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/2…
MEN AND WOMEN ON ABORTION
Abortion should be... Generally available
Men: 40%
Women: 37%
53
Loveschild, and all:
So, by your reasoning, I should be labeled a murderer for the miscarriage I had before this current pregnancy? I mean, I hadn’t been taking my prenatal vitamins, so it’s possible that it had a neural-tube defect that led to the miscarriage. So I may have caused my baby to be aborted by my body. Guess I’m going to hell.
Oh, and anyone who uses the term “pro-abortion” should be expelled from the US for terroristic tendencies.
So, by your reasoning, I should be labeled a murderer for the miscarriage I had before this current pregnancy? I mean, I hadn’t been taking my prenatal vitamins, so it’s possible that it had a neural-tube defect that led to the miscarriage. So I may have caused my baby to be aborted by my body. Guess I’m going to hell.
Oh, and anyone who uses the term “pro-abortion” should be expelled from the US for terroristic tendencies.
54
I am adopted, and a Christian, so you'd expect that I'd be marching outside an abortion clinic with a suicide vest right now. But you couldn't be more wrong.
My birth mother (who I had the audacity to search for and meet) went through horrible truama to have me and give me up. The trauma was at the hands of the so-called Christians who were in charge of hiding her "shame" (that shame was, um, me) and who kept her up for 6 weeks straight by praying over her while she "slept." She had a mental breakdown while I was being born and has really never recovered.
Am I glad I'm alive? Absolutely. Glad my own child is alive, and all the subsequent generations that would not have been.
But here's the thing: in 1964 when I was born, it was okay to treat my mother horribly because she was loose with her puntang and got knocked up. Today, you can't do that to young women and expect them not to go get an abortion. So the right to abortion is forcing the self-righteous to be nice to young women who are in the most vulnerable position they will ever face. We (Christians) should have been amazingly awesome and loving all along, cause that's what we preach, but now we are forced to walking the talk. Sounds like divine retribution to me.
My birth mother (who I had the audacity to search for and meet) went through horrible truama to have me and give me up. The trauma was at the hands of the so-called Christians who were in charge of hiding her "shame" (that shame was, um, me) and who kept her up for 6 weeks straight by praying over her while she "slept." She had a mental breakdown while I was being born and has really never recovered.
Am I glad I'm alive? Absolutely. Glad my own child is alive, and all the subsequent generations that would not have been.
But here's the thing: in 1964 when I was born, it was okay to treat my mother horribly because she was loose with her puntang and got knocked up. Today, you can't do that to young women and expect them not to go get an abortion. So the right to abortion is forcing the self-righteous to be nice to young women who are in the most vulnerable position they will ever face. We (Christians) should have been amazingly awesome and loving all along, cause that's what we preach, but now we are forced to walking the talk. Sounds like divine retribution to me.
56
53 I'm sorry that you suffered a miscarriage, I get scared just thinking about something like that now. I'm also sorry that you seem to be a little dishonest in trying to conflate an accident (what has happened to you) with a deliberate act like an abortion. I hope you're better now and that this new pregnancy produces a healthy lovely baby.
And even though I disagree with some people here and I think that what they're advocating is detrimental for society I would never wish them 'expelled' from this nation. I'm as much as an American as you (if you are one) and like our moderate President has said that type of mindset and division you have expressed does us no good, we need to to view our shared values and work in union. In God's love.
And even though I disagree with some people here and I think that what they're advocating is detrimental for society I would never wish them 'expelled' from this nation. I'm as much as an American as you (if you are one) and like our moderate President has said that type of mindset and division you have expressed does us no good, we need to to view our shared values and work in union. In God's love.
57
Keshimeshi nailed it with the observation the guys (it is 70-90% planned parenthood protesters are men). Those male protesters are the losers who no woman would ever let them come within poking range of their vaginas. Those guys shouting "WHORE" and "DYKE" (yeah, I know, but they do!) are guys who can't get away with screaming that crap outside a high-school full of nubile cheerleaders, or outside a night club full of nubile college girls, or outside a gym at nubile spandexed yuppie women, because they'd get arrested and run off. But when they do it outside an abortion clinic they can get away with it, because they are "saving the babies". Just look at 'em though, you know they've never gotten laid in their entire lives and never will (even if they pay for it). They know they can get away with verbally abusing women who reject them (which is all of them) anywhere else in society, but outside of the abortion clinic.
Also, they never make a peep when a non-white woman enters a Planned Parenthood (I know people who volunteer). Never!
Also, they never make a peep when a non-white woman enters a Planned Parenthood (I know people who volunteer). Never!
58
@ 51 The Max, the science is called ectogenesis, and is practically here. It's my favorite solution, since it will completely reshape the texture of the whole controversy.
Some who are presently anti-access will go pro-access since they don't want all the squalling little tykes suckling up state funds.
Others will argue that it violates Genesis 3:16, since it really is about them-there degenerate girls having sex without consequence.
Oh, and I think almost every woman (who can) will choose to have their child externally developed in a (controlled-environment, safer) ecto-tank since it allows them to keep their girlish figure. The rare exception will be those who actually like being pregnant.
There's millions to be made to the enterpriser who develops this service. Transparent tanks and Mozart piped in to the growing feti costs extra, of course.
Some who are presently anti-access will go pro-access since they don't want all the squalling little tykes suckling up state funds.
Others will argue that it violates Genesis 3:16, since it really is about them-there degenerate girls having sex without consequence.
Oh, and I think almost every woman (who can) will choose to have their child externally developed in a (controlled-environment, safer) ecto-tank since it allows them to keep their girlish figure. The rare exception will be those who actually like being pregnant.
There's millions to be made to the enterpriser who develops this service. Transparent tanks and Mozart piped in to the growing feti costs extra, of course.
59
What is really annoying, is that the Pro-Lifers have framed the term "Pro-Choice" to equal "Pro-Abortion." This is how they spin the words in an attempt to win their argument. It is simply not true that Pro-Choice equals Pro-Abortion, and somehow we Pro-Choice people need to redefine the term from their definition.
As I see it, Pro-Choice means you will NEVER be FORCED to have an abortion. But, Pro-Life means you WILL be FORCED to have a child.
As I see it, Pro-Choice means you will NEVER be FORCED to have an abortion. But, Pro-Life means you WILL be FORCED to have a child.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (60) RSS