Fewer Doctors Offering Abortions

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

What am I? Chopped liver, boy? Are you ignoring that I'm in this conversation, Apathy?

Who the fuck are you?

[ape descendant]

Hmm, I wonder how many of these Docs who refuse to perform abortions are doing so out of self-interest. Perhaps they don't want to get shot by anti-choice terrorists.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Neopaganism and Wicca hardly count as "religion" for the purposes of this debate. They're completely politically insignificant and therefore don't have a measurable effect on the abortion debate, or really anything other than allowing crazy cat ladies to romanticize their own lives.

I don't think something shouldn't be considered a religion because it doesn't make your point or it doesn't care about politics.

So the less religious you are, the less likely you are to be pro-life/misogynistic, yes?

If you're Christian! Otherwise, doesn't seem to work.

Without that religious brand a racist/sexist/bigot is easier to identify. Without religion there is less of a reason to indoctrinate children to respect traditional (Patriarchal) social structure.

Dude, my dad's atheist and my mother is religious. Dad was the one who wanted us to be delicate little girls and we weren't allowed to join the hockey team. Mom was the one trying to get me to dress like a tomboy. Patriarchy will survive as long as gender roles exist and men want to hang on to their privilege.

Religion gives the perfect, unassailable excuse to behave in an illogical manner: "It's faith, it's personal, and therefore you should respect my misogyny OR ELSE."

By defending religion you are actively working to perpetuate a system who's interests, even when done liberally and moderately (in conflict with it's own scriptures and tenants mind you) are in direct conflict with your own.

I've never heard that fly, but "you're killing babies and you need to respect my opinion" and "women are women and men are men and you have to live with that" and various other misogynistic talk I hear is all without religion. As a person living in a secular society, I promise you, patriarchy never went away or lost its power.

See, again, "religion" is a huge term. I can easily say not all religions are misogynistic and its true. You're saying Christianity is the only one that matters, and that is "religion".

Graus, I think if I've read Saya right, she has a professional interest in making sure that religion is viewed as something relevant. Think of it as ensuring her job security. When it comes to tough questions, Saya must become a religious apologist.

I don't work at a religion factory? What are you getting on with?

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

Saya, you know me too well to believe I would seriously advocate stabbing stupid asshats. I am confused as to why you are arguing that religion has naught to do with misogyny. If you read anything about the Victorian Era of feminism(don't they cover that in feminist studies?) then you should already know that religion was relied on back then to keep women in their 'place' just as it was to justify slavery. Religion has been used to justify and encourage misogyny long before the second wave of feminism.

Certain kinds. Religion wasn't a big thing unified against the first wave either. In fact before the first wave most arguments FOR women's rights came from a religious perspective, Simone de Beauvoir got the idea of "biology isn't destiny" from a Calvinist preacher in the 17th century who argued that other than genitals there is no significant different between men and women, therefore women should be able to do any kind of work they are able to. And during the first wave many feminists joined progressive churches, such as the Universal Unitarians who helped feminists in their work (i.e. Lucy Stone) or the Salvation Army, which was cofounded by a woman who fought for women's right to preach and speak in public.

[Grausamkeit]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

Hmm, I wonder how many of these Docs who refuse to perform abortions are doing so out of self-interest. Perhaps they don't want to get shot by anti-choice terrorists.

That would make the most sense. Or so that those annoying pro-life mobs don't congregate around their offices like they do at Planned Parenthood. It wasn't too long ago that one of those nutjobs killed a doctor who performed late term abortions to save the mother's lives. Contrary to what most of those dickwads believe, there has to be a serious medical reason for a doctor to do it. I will find sources once I get off this tablet, but I'm pretty sure that no doctor does them without a serious reason.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

I don't think something shouldn't be considered a religion because it doesn't make your point or it doesn't care about politics.

All religion cares about politics. It's just that Wicca and Neopaganism are too weak to oppress people at this time. Back when the Pagans were in charge we had regular bouts of human sacrifice in the name of their Gods. Neo paganism is simply a cleaned-up version of this, but if you think it wouldn't seek political and social hegemony you're out of your mind. That's what religion DOES.

If you're Christian! Otherwise, doesn't seem to work.

Oh sorry about that, I misread your statistics. That is surprising...though I have a theory on that so I'd like to see some more studies on these statistics.

Dude, my dad's atheist and my mother is religious. Dad was the one who wanted us to be delicate little girls and we weren't allowed to join the hockey team. Mom was the one trying to get me to dress like a tomboy. Patriarchy will survive as long as gender roles exist and men want to hang on to their privilege.

Certainly, but you don't think being raised in a society DOMINATED by a religion which commands men to hang onto their privilege happens to have nothing to do with that?

It actually makes quite a bit of sense, all of the media that your dad consumed growing up, all of the propaganda, all of the social roles and norms came from Christian ideas of the nuclear family. Even as an atheist indoctrination goes a long way and unlike your mother he wasn't personally oppressed because of his gender, it makes sense he'd think "well this is the way things are supposed to be" if everyone kept telling him that.

Similarly, the abortion statistics, Christians dominate American politics and culture, most people in the current secularist movement in America are coming from a christian background, and thus were heavily indoctrinated as children. It's hard enough to give up your faith, they're having trouble giving up their culture as well.

Or at least that's my theory.

I've never heard that fly, but "you're killing babies and you need to respect my opinion" and "women are women and men are men and you have to live with that" and various other misogynistic talk I hear is all without religion. As a person living in a secular society, I promise you, patriarchy never went away or lost its power.

So you wouldn't say that Canadian sexual politics are more about equality between the sexes than they were 50 or 60 years ago? Nothing has changed since the society became more secular?

See, again, "religion" is a huge term. I can easily say not all religions are misogynistic and its true. You're saying Christianity is the only one that matters, and that is "religion".

Christianity, Islam, Judaism. Those are the religions which matter.

If either Buddhism or Neopaganism gain a major political foothold in the USA and starts oppressing me, you'll hear me add them to the list.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

All religion cares about politics. It's just that Wicca and Neopaganism are too weak to oppress people at this time. Back when the Pagans were in charge we had regular bouts of human sacrifice in the name of their Gods. Neo paganism is simply a cleaned-up version of this, but if you think it wouldn't seek political and social hegemony you're out of your mind. That's what religion DOES.

All of them? Excluding Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhism does in some countries become dependent on the state gain political power (present day Thailand, feudal Japan) but mostly Buddhism has been concerned with enabling monks and nuns to shy away from public life, and that includes politics. Lay Buddhists weren't expected to be particularly religious, and often in Asia lay Buddhists belong to other religions (like in Japan today, most people are both Shinto and Buddhist). Buddhists becoming involved in politics like pacifist movements, social work and disaster relief is pretty new, in doctrine not really happening until Thich Nhat Hanh's Engaged Buddhism movement and the Tzu Chi movement in Taiwan, out of concern that Buddhism has been relying on lay people but hasn't really been giving back rather than a lust for power.

With the Abrahamic three, there are a lot of reasons they're interested in state power. Christianity was just an apocalyptic cult until it became the religion of the Roman Empire and then the Holy Roman Empire, it was turned into a religion to keep the state together. When Martin Luther broke the unity of the church, yeah heresy was part of that but the big concern was that he would split up the Holy Roman Empire, and that's what Protestantism did. Same with Judaism, it kept the twelve tribes together and the shared history and Zionism are just as important as the religion part. State power is incredibly intertwined with Christian history, but I don't think its totally doomed to be. With Judaism keeping the religion and culture was a big part of remaining a people after the Diaspora AND I JUST REALIZED THE DALISH ELVES IN DA2 ARE TOTALLY JEWS MAN, HOLY SHIT.

I'm not too familiar with Islamic history yet, I only took a course so far that talked about women in Islam but I know they had to fight for the right to practice their religion for a long time. In the case of India and Pakistan, Hinduism is pretty tolerant of other religions but in the case of Muslim vs Hindu a lot of it was cultural difference that separated them, Hindus could live with Jains and Buddhists because they were still a lot alike, but Muslims were so different, for Muslims to get Pakistan they felt it was important to their own safety and any hope of peace.

Other religions, well, some are and some definitely don't even dream of it. And again, I don't think the big three are doomed to it, Turkey is a Muslim country but fiercely secular, and Sufi Muslims (who are the majority there) to my knowledge aren't that concerned about it anyway. People are just as religious here as they are anywhere, but usually churches raise their voices to the political level when they see injustice, such as the United Church (which is made up of Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Methodists) when it lost what political power it had now raises its voice to fight for LGBTQ rights and abortion rights, even the Muslim Congress of Canada argued for legalizing gay marriage (their argument was even if some of them disagree with it, religion shouldn't enter into public policy and they sympathize with other minorities trying to gain rights). Law regarding separation of church and state isn't any different here as it is there, at this point I don't know what to tell you except that maybe American Christians breed a particular kind of crazy. Aside from the Catholics the more popular churches of Canada just aren't very conservative. We are a pretty left leaning country compared to you, so I would say religion and society adapt to each other pretty well. By having a secular government and having leftist values does not by any stretch of the imagination means that religion will ever go away, people will just turn to religions that suit their views, and religions will also change and become more progressive.

Certainly, but you don't think being raised in a society DOMINATED by a religion which commands men to hang onto their privilege happens to have nothing to do with that?

It actually makes quite a bit of sense, all of the media that your dad consumed growing up, all of the propaganda, all of the social roles and norms came from Christian ideas of the nuclear family. Even as an atheist indoctrination goes a long way and unlike your mother he wasn't personally oppressed because of his gender, it makes sense he'd think "well this is the way things are supposed to be" if everyone kept telling him that.

Don't think so. My grandparents are agnostic, they don't like church. Sexist pigs though. He was raised on the mainland where secularism is a lot older than it is in Newfoundland, when I was a kid our schools were ran by churches and I had to take Bible study classes and pray every morning, that didn't stop until 1999, and it was still many years before they replaced all the curriculum (in grade 9, despite not being Christian at this point I still had to take a course called "Our Christian Heritage"). Despite that I never recall ever being taught anything sexist in school or Sunday school. And I promise you I was just as sensitive about it back then as I am now, I'd probably remember.

Similarly, the abortion statistics, Christians dominate American politics and culture, most people in the current secularist movement in America are coming from a christian background, and thus were heavily indoctrinated as children. It's hard enough to give up your faith, they're having trouble giving up their culture as well.

Or at least that's my theory.

I think saying that people think some forms of sexism is harmless, or believing biology is destiny is more simple and more likely. And nobody likes admitting they have privilege. Were you around when we were arguing about whether white privilege exists? If you're not oppressed, you don't want to admit to being part of the problem. If you're part of the oppressed, its easier to be an Uncle Tom about it than get upset, get angry and demand change.

So you wouldn't say that Canadian sexual politics are more about equality between the sexes than they were 50 or 60 years ago? Nothing has changed since the society became more secular?

Even back then we were pretty secular compared to you guys. We didn't throw out all the abortion laws until 1988 in a Supreme Court challenged, but the laws concerning abortion were considered unenforceable before that. Public opinion was too strongly in support of abortion doctors to convict them, in the early seventies the government tried but failed miserably.

I can't really say when it happened that Canada became really secular, the Conservatives in power now are very sexist but never use religion as a justification, like most secular sexists they just say sexism doesn't exist.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism. Those are the religions which matter.

If either Buddhism or Neopaganism gain a major political foothold in the USA and starts oppressing me, you'll hear me add them to the list.

Wait wait wait, since when does Judaism and Islam have a strong, major foothold in the USA?

And the problem with your argument with religion being dangerous and backwards and power thirsty is that any religion which isn't any of the three apparently don't qualify as religions.

[Grausamkeit]

It's not that they don't qualify, it's just that they have no political clout like the 3 major ones that he listed.

Certain kinds. Religion wasn't a big thing unified against the first wave either. In fact before the first wave most arguments FOR women's rights came from a religious perspective, Simone de Beauvoir got the idea of "biology isn't destiny" from a Calvinist preacher in the 17th century who argued that other than genitals there is no significant different between men and women, therefore women should be able to do any kind of work they are able to. And during the first wave many feminists joined progressive churches, such as the Universal Unitarians who helped feminists in their work (i.e. Lucy Stone) or the Salvation Army, which was cofounded by a woman who fought for women's right to preach and speak in public.

Yes, it was. Especially in America. They believed that 'God' made women to have babies and take care of the home. Their 'God' didn't give women the kind of intellect that would allow them to do more than be domestic slaves(or so they believed).

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept...truewoman.html

Notice that 'ideal' number one for women is piety. Oppression through religion by making it a woman's job to adhere stridently to religious tenants.

http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/temp...3/HisPage.html

From the link:

This meant that mothers also had to be religious, since religion supported the view of women as free of sexual passion and gratification. Such beliefs were required in order to properly bring up children, because “a mother who lacked religious faith could not instill sexual propriety in her daughter, and thus was unfit to be a mother at all”

Also note in the link the story of Annie Besant in 1878 who, despite being a good mother, had custody of her daughter removed because she was an atheist, promoted sex for pleasure and birth control. Oppression through religion.

One early twentieth century Protestant reformer wrote “If a woman becomes weary of bearing children, that matters not: let her only die from bearing, she is there to do it” (Kent 95).

In other words, if a woman gets tired of doing what 'God' put her on earth for she's better off dead.

Some First Wave Feminists did decide to fight fire with fire and use religion to fight for feminism. That doesn't refute my statement that religion was used as a powerful means of oppression for women in the Victorian Era.

Links for my other comment about late term abortions facts:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...you-can-help-0

http://www.livestrong.com/article/19...term-abortion/

Some states even have laws against late-term abortion even if it saves the mother's life! That is disgusting, to me. To risk a woman's life to force her to give birth to a child who will later die itself is beyond cruel.

[Saya]

Again, only one of the "big three" has clout in American policy.

And very few of the first wave feminists denied the greatest thing a woman could be was a mother, and not many made a huge fuss about access to abortion, it was mostly a second wave issue. A popular argument for feminists was that being educated made them more able to take care of themselves, and better wives and mothers who weren't preoccupied with stupid things like fashion and love. Some hated abortion, which is here Palin gets off calling herself a feminist (although whether Susan B Anthony was anti-abortion is very debatable). Honestly Emma Goldman was just about the only one I can think of who seemed way ahead of her time and knew that the right to vote was only partial emancipation. The first wave was mostly about the right to speak in public, the right to work and keep your wages, and the right to vote. Personhood, basically. At this point people were debating if women were even fully human. Science at this point wasn't very kind to women either, Freud for example tortured his wife to basically create her in his own image (yes, he was atheist.) Doctors supposed that a woman could not be *****, because the vagina is like a "vibrating" sheath in which you cannot put in a sword without it resting. So at best, a woman could only be gang *****. Pregnancy was believed at the time to only result if a woman orgasmed, so if you got pregnant from a rrape, you liked it and therefore it wasn't rrape. Women were classified as imbeciles and no better than children, and sexual gratification was considered harmful to them.

Society, at the time seethed with hatred for any woman who wasn't the angel of the house. Misogynists used science, religion, tradition, anything it could to keep women down. For the UU and Salvation Army and other progressive churches, to side with the feminists was no small thing. Even Queen Victoria said any woman who said she was equal to a man should be flogged.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Ahem, you're WELCOME. If I hadn't broken V over my mighty rhetorical knee, there's no way you two would be swapping dickpix right now. I split that man like a virgin.

As a very late aside: In my defense, I changed my own opinion about abortion.

What you did was make me see that my actions didn't demonstrate any truth that I still held the opinion I had that a fetus still = an infant. I feel that it was a residual sentiment from the prior line of thinking, so it makes sense that it wouldn't stand against much argument.