Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   "Pro-lifers want to control women's bodies" - Okay, but........why? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=875915)

Velocity 05-21-2019 09:24 PM

"Pro-lifers want to control women's bodies" - Okay, but........why?
 
(Splitting off from the other abortion threads a bit):

It's often said that the real motive of pro-lifers is not to preserve unborn life, as they claim, but rather, "to control women's bodies."

Okay, let's say that is the case - but why? What do they get out of controlling women's bodies? Does it provide them with a thrill - a pleasure strong enough to rally hundreds of thousands of people to the March for Life every year and also to keep a multi-decade-long fight going against Roe, and enough to rally voters around Trump because he promised anti-abortion SCOTUS nominees during the election, and to keep the whole pro-life campaign going vigorously with numerous demonstrations, organizations and donations? Is the lulz that strong?

Furthermore, a great deal of anti-abortion advocates are women (from looking at the March for Life photos, it looks like the majority of marchers are women, year after year.) 47 percent of American women are pro-life. Do these women get lulz from......women's bodies being controlled?

Finally, from a political standpoint, why wouldn't conservatives want liberals and minorities to have more abortions (and thus reduce their future voters?)

Riemann 05-21-2019 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21655687)
It's often said that the real motive of pro-lifers is not to preserve unborn life, as they claim, but rather, "to control women's bodies."

I don't accept your premise. Who is claiming that there is a secret primary agenda to control women's bodies? The pro-life side are sincerely pro-life, that's their primary motivation. The point is that the necessary consequence of a pro-life position is to be anti-choice, to seek to limit a woman's bodily autonomy.

manson1972 05-21-2019 09:44 PM

No, they want to punish women for having sex. That's why lawmakers say abortions should be painful

Darren Garrison 05-21-2019 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riemann (Post 21655714)
I don't accept your premise. Who is claiming that there is a secret primary agenda to control women's bodies?


Here is one example.

Bryan Ekers 05-21-2019 10:07 PM

The politicians pander to the voters who make themselves feel good and justify their bronze-age superstitions by declaring another group of people to be dirty dirty sinners. It's probably related to how you can influence southern whites by lip-servicing the idea that they're better than southern blacks.

Walken After Midnight 05-21-2019 10:13 PM

So that women can be vessels for man's holy seed.

Llama Llogophile 05-21-2019 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21655724)
No, they want to punish women for having sex.

I find it difficult to deny this conclusion. While there are certainly people whose primary reasons for being pro-life don't include that motivation, it seems apparent that many, many do whether they admit it to themselves or not.

Giving some benefit of the doubt, it may sometimes take the form of a puritanical outlook on sex rather than punishment, but I think there's a sizable block that simply resents people having sex for pleasure outside of what they consider "proper" conditions. This seems to fit with the (otherwise inexplicable to me) faction that seems to want zero abortions, yet also doesn't support many forms of contraception, easier access to contraception in general and comprehensive sex education.

UltraVires 05-21-2019 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21655724)
No, they want to punish women for having sex. That's why lawmakers say abortions should be painful

Including the pro-life women at these rallies?

Kimstu 05-21-2019 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21655869)
Including the pro-life women at these rallies?

Sure, lots of women want other women to be punished for sexual behavior that they consider "immoral". Partly because internalized sexism and misogyny affects women as well as men, and partly because many women are also influenced by racial, class, and/or religious bias to believe that other women's abortions are bad because those women are bad/inferior.

See, for instance, "The Only Good Abortion Is My Abortion":
Quote:

"We have anti-choice women in for abortions all the time. Many of them are just naive and ignorant until they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. [...] Unfortunately, many also think that somehow they are different than everyone else and they deserve to have an abortion, while no one else does."

Jragon 05-22-2019 12:49 AM

N.B. I'm going to use "woman" somewhat loosely in multiple contexts in this post without much disambiguation. On one hand, I'm using it as shorthand for people the abortion issue directly affects: people with functioning wombs, of which it is worth noting not all of whom are women, and is a class that not all women fall under. However, many of the social issues I'll discuss transcend the direct effects of the issue at hand and have ramifications for women as a perceived political/social class, distinct from the exact group of people the policy itself harms.

Here's the thing, almost none of them have some like... master plan. I guarantee almost nobody is squatting in the shadows, cackling like a goblin, saying "mwahahaha just another step in my MASTER PLAN to control people with functional wombs!!!" This argument, like the definition of patriarchy, isn't some argument about what some shadowy cabal is explicitly planning to do to women.

It's an argument about what the undercurrent of their position is, especially when taken in concert with the particular arguments they use, the attitudes they hold, and the other positions they support. As well as an assertion about the ramifications of policies engineered to enforce these attitudes.

When viewed under this lens "but women do it too" isn't really a sensible counterpoint. Of course individual women can be complicit in, and in some cases actively supportive of, institutions and actions that oppress women as a collective group. All oppressed groups contain members who facilitate or support their own oppression, whether they mean/want to not. This doesn't mean "oh, these poor women, they know not what they do and act against their own self interest!" But it doesn't change the fact that that they are reinforcing institutions that harm women as a class, even if they're in a position where they as an individual wouldn't be harmed by the specific policy. In fact, I'd argue that all of us women are, in at least one aspect of our lives, doing or arguing for something that undermines women as a class, it's a nature of the system, that doesn't mean we can't criticize those things because almost all of them are things women do or defend.

A lot of this rhetoric owes itself to both radical and marxist/socialist feminism (which are two groups that are not identical and sometimes at odds, but have similar ideas about the origins of the oppression of women in the modern context). Both radical and socialist feminism view the classification of women as entities whose primary role and definition is reproduction and tasks surrounding reproduction (such as housekeeping) as one of the roots of female oppression. Socialist feminism departs from radical feminism here because radical feminism largely views this as the defining aspect of womens' oppression (which is why so many radfems are trans or sex work exclusionary), whereas socialist feminists view this as part of the redefinition of womens' roles under the rise of new economic systems and another means to create a class divide (see the book Sylvia Fedricci's Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation, which is not quite a Marxist text but contains many of these arguments). In both viewpoints, of course, this is seen as something to be eliminated, albeit they take very different routes towards addressing this.

Under such a framework, the explanation for a lot of sexism takes form. Note that while some radfems may claim this as foundational, most wouldn't deny that many of these attitudes have multiple causes, but merely this is the primary cause. For instance, social policing of womens' sexual promiscuity as "sluts" is the manifestation of social forces requiring women to only engage in reproductive behavior on society's narrow terms -- controlling their social roles and bodies, in essence. Similarly, victim blaming for rape and social expectations about women being more "on the hook" for worrying about birth control stem from women being the ones expected to be the custodians of reproduction on society's own terms.

Note that this is a very nuanced viewpoint with a lot of foundational theory, as well as historical and statistical evidence that's difficult to cover in one post. There are aspects of these viewpoints I'm leaving out. Including the importance bits that contextualize the treatment of women who cannot produce children in such a system.

Regardless, under this viewpoint where women are oppressed in large part (or fundamentally, if you're a radfem) due to their societal role centering around their reproduction, then control over the terms under which women may elect whether or not to reproduce is an attempt to leverage that role against women. By defining when women may elect to reproduce, we're not only requiring women to engage in this definition (as they have little choice whether to engage in motherhood now), we're also renegotiating their freedom of engaging with it on their own terms.

Women have even less freedom to engage with their social role as babymakers. It's controlling their social role, their lives, and yes, their bodies.

Grrr! 05-22-2019 01:29 AM

They want to control women's sexuality.

Men want to control it for obvious reasons and women want to control it because they feel threatened by single women that are sexually active. (Or home wreckers as they see them).

Nava 05-22-2019 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimstu (Post 21655889)
Sure, lots of women want other women to be punished for sexual behavior that they consider "immoral". Partly because internalized sexism and misogyny affects women as well as men, and partly because many women are also influenced by racial, class, and/or religious bias to believe that other women's abortions are bad because those women are bad/inferior.

And partly because some people would love to control everything and everybody. Often, these same people treat any instance where the universe does not behave the way they would want to as a personal offense. Always, they are quick with a criticism, but praise is rare and likely to be of the "damned with faint praise" type.

Voyager 05-22-2019 02:10 AM

More evidence - these states push abstinence based education, though it demonstrably leads to more teen pregnancies than real sex education. Why would they support something that leads to a bad result? Because they get to teach that premarital sex is a sin.

As for women supporting the oppression of women - I went to the wedding of my former step-nephew, who was a religious fanatic. It was in a fundy church in California. On the stage was the minister and his wife. The wife had no apparent religious training. The wife would hardly let the real minister speak - especially when she went on about how the wife must obey the husband in a good Christian marriage.

UnwittingAmericans 05-22-2019 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grrr! (Post 21655990)
They want to control women's sexuality.

Men want to control it for obvious reasons and women want to control it because they feel threatened by single women that are sexually active. (Or home wreckers as they see them).

It's a simple as this.

Plus the added side benefit of giving themselves the perceived upper hand morally, which is what people spend a lot of time doing.

Everything else is just hyperbole.

clairobscur 05-22-2019 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riemann (Post 21655714)
I don't accept your premise. Who is claiming that there is a secret primary agenda to control women's bodies? The pro-life side are sincerely pro-life, that's their primary motivation. The point is that the necessary consequence of a pro-life position is to be anti-choice, to seek to limit a woman's bodily autonomy.

Nope. A lot of people deny that pro-life people are really motivated by the fate of the fetuses/unborn babies and do assert that their true motivation is to control women bodies. Or to put women at their place. Or to punish women for having sex. This is a really common statement, especially on this board.

clairobscur 05-22-2019 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grrr! (Post 21655990)
They want to control women's sexuality.

Men want to control it for obvious reasons

Like what? How is it in my interest that women won't be sexually active?


As in :

1) Prevent women from having an abortion

2) ?

3) Have plenty of sex

What is the second step?

clairobscur 05-22-2019 04:36 AM

nm

clairobscur 05-22-2019 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Llama Llogophile (Post 21655849)

This seems to fit with the (otherwise inexplicable to me) faction that seems to want zero abortions, yet also doesn't support many forms of contraception, easier access to contraception in general and comprehensive sex education.

I fail to see how it's inexplicable. They're religious. Their religion tells them that both contraception and abortion are wrong. So they oppose both, naturally. Where's the mystery?

And it's the same with sex ed. They don't want their children to be taught anything else than what their religion mandates : sex is only between a man and a woman, properly married in church, and the reason for sex is reproduction, as mandated by god. No mystery here, either.

BigT 05-22-2019 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 21655752)
Here is one example.

I note that article claims it isn't about pro-life for the politicians, and then cites politicians who support the bill making claims that aren't compatible with the pro-life concept.

I would argue that there is a distinction between the politicians and the general public. I think politicians are less likely to care about the pro-life aspects, and more likely to be in it for political reasons. The pro-life position is just a requirement for one of the political parties.

I also think that politicians or other public figures are more likely to be hypocrites on the subject, personally espousing pro-life talking points but privately being okay with people close to them having abortions. We've seen it happen. Politicians will have affairs and tell their mistress to abort. They'll help their daughter abort.

I think it is wrong to assign any single position to everyone on the pro-life side.

Gyrate 05-22-2019 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clairobscur (Post 21656066)
Nope. A lot of people deny that pro-life people are really motivated by the fate of the fetuses/unborn babies and do assert that their true motivation is to control women bodies. Or to put women at their place. Or to punish women for having sex. This is a really common statement, especially on this board.

A statement backed by substantial evidence, as we've already discussed elsewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clairobscur (Post 21656079)
I fail to see how it's inexplicable. They're religious. Their religion tells them that both contraception and abortion are wrong. So they oppose both, naturally. Where's the mystery?

And it's the same with sex ed. They don't want their children to be taught anything else than what their religion mandates : sex is only between a man and a woman, properly married in church, and the reason for sex is reproduction, as mandated by god. No mystery here, either.

It's no mystery, true. It's irrational, but it's understandable.

But the upshot of this is that in practice their beliefs lead to a much higher rate of unwanted pregnancies which leads to a much higher rate of abortions (legal or illegal). However, rather than acknowledging this link - which would involve acknowledging their culpability in it - they simply blame the pregnant women and girls for having sex in the first place. Thus they get to be on the side of God (because God wanted them to do all those things) and they get to feel superior to those sinful fallen women. I see it all the time.

monstro 05-22-2019 05:54 AM

Women's bodies and sexuality has always been viewed as things that must be regulated because women are too stupid (or given to temptation) to regulate themselves.

See chastity belts and female circumcision.

Why, if women can have sex without any negative consequences, what will stop your wife from opening her legs for your next-door-neighbor? Next thing you know, you're raising some other feller's kids without even knowing it. And if your daughter can have sex without any negative consequences, what will stop her from opening her legs for the ne'er-do-well heathen down the road and bringing shame to the family? No one will ever want to marry such a ruint woman! No, we must regulate female sexuality to keep order in the home!

Conservatives in general has always viewed women's sexuality as an evil that must be controlled. They may sincerely believe their pro-life position is all about saving babies, but their disregard for women's rights and autonomy to achieve this aim is rooted in the fears I laid out above...whether they want to admit it or not. And you gotta wonder about the motivations of an Administration that is so vehemently against both abortion and "evil Islam" but shrugs its shoulders over female circumcision. You also gotta wonder about the motivations of a political party that claims to care so much about babies, but doesn't see anything wrong with female babies being forced to marry.

Kobal2 05-22-2019 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clairobscur (Post 21656067)
Like what? How is it in my interest that women won't be sexually active?


As in :

1) Prevent women from having an abortion

2) ?

3) Have plenty of sex

What is the second step?


You misunderstand. The point isn't for men to have more sexual partners but to ensure wives/daughters don't fuck around. Which is also why you often see pro-life people objecting to sex ed mentioning anything beyond "abstinence" (although I've always been tickled by the "fuck me in the ass 'cause I love Jesus" crowd) as well as contraceptives. The point is to restrict female sexuality to specific boundaries that can be enforced and controlled by patriarchal figures.

Cheesesteak 05-22-2019 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clairobscur (Post 21656079)
I fail to see how it's inexplicable. They're religious. Their religion tells them that both contraception and abortion are wrong. So they oppose both, naturally. Where's the mystery?

The mystery here is WHY does their religion tell them these things? As much as their religion would like us all to believe it is the unvarnished word of God, the exact tenets and teachings of religions are decided upon by the people who run the churches.

Those people have decided that sex is naughty, and people who engage in it must "face consequences", whether or not those people are practitioners of their religion. The consequences of sex are much deeper for women than men, so they bear the brunt of these religious attacks.

asahi 05-22-2019 06:26 AM

They want to control people -- period. Controlling what women can do with their body is an example of that, and a pretty strong one. The real message is, "We don't give a fuck if a majority of you Godless bastards support a woman's right to choice; we're going to take that choice away from you whether you like it or not, so shut your asses up and burn in hell. We know we're right.

p.s. God loves you
"

That's one reason (among many) why I think a lot of the people who voted for Trump, many of them being relatively libertarian or somewhat reasonable on some issues, are going to regret their vote down the line. The mentality fueling Trumpian politics is authoritarianism. They might be taking away someone else's freedom now, but eventually, they will come for yours too.

clairobscur 05-22-2019 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak (Post 21656126)
The mystery here is WHY does their religion tell them these things? As much as their religion would like us all to believe it is the unvarnished word of God, the exact tenets and teachings of religions are decided upon by the people who run the churches.

You think that they believe that? That their religious tenets are just made up on the fly by their pastors? Of course not. They believe it's the eternal and unchanging word of god.

monstro 05-22-2019 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clairobscur (Post 21656162)
You think that they believe that? That their religious tenets are just made up on the fly by their pastors? Of course not. They believe it's the eternal and unchanging word of god.

Ask them where in the Bible these teachings come from. If abortion is such an evil that women should gladly turn over their bodily autonomy to ensure it never happens, then surely this evil is unambiguously described in the holiest of texts and explicitly forbidden.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Vinyl Turnip 05-22-2019 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clairobscur (Post 21656162)
You think that they believe that? That their religious tenets are just made up on the fly by their pastors? Of course not. They believe it's the eternal and unchanging word of god.

If the same God who used to be pretty blithe about destroying entire civilizations is now deeply concerned about the survival of embryos and fetuses, it's fair to say His views on the sanctity of life have evolved somewhat over time.

DigitalC 05-22-2019 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riemann (Post 21655714)
I don't accept your premise. Who is claiming that there is a secret primary agenda to control women's bodies? The pro-life side are sincerely pro-life, that's their primary motivation. The point is that the necessary consequence of a pro-life position is to be anti-choice, to seek to limit a woman's bodily autonomy.

Bullshit, the pro life side cares absolutely nothing about life.

Jasmine 05-22-2019 07:40 AM

The reason is that, throughout history, and almost without exception, men have dominated women. By reasserting control over a woman's reproductive processes, they essentially regain much of the control that they have lost in this society. Women literally become slaves who can be raped with impunity and chained to giving birth to the demon's spawn. You can't have more control than that.

Nava 05-22-2019 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clairobscur (Post 21656079)
I fail to see how it's inexplicable. They're religious. Their religion tells them that both contraception and abortion are wrong. So they oppose both, naturally. Where's the mystery?

And it's the same with sex ed. They don't want their children to be taught anything else than what their religion mandates : sex is only between a man and a woman, properly married in church, and the reason for sex is reproduction, as mandated by god. No mystery here, either.

There are many people whose religion tells us that abortion is wrong, contraception can be wrong (there is no religion which considers all forms of contraception wrong, some are more subtle about it than others), and sex should happen within marriage with an openness for conception - yet who also consider that there are degrees of sin, and/or take views such as:
"since shit happens, so should toilet paper"
"since other people have other religions, I don't have any more right to impose my religious views on them than they on me", or
"government law and religious law are and should remain separate".

So one of the questions is what is the difference between the ones you talk about and all these others. It seems to me that different people and cultures have different levels of manicheism, but also that this is the kind of essential trait which manifests in many aspects of that person or society.

Isamu 05-22-2019 08:24 AM

Yeah it's religious. Should we stone them to death those who wear two items of clothes woven from different fibers? That's religious too (or something like that - I don't care anymore about the specifics).

If you follow religion in such matters I have a low opinion of your decision-making ability. And I act accordingly.

Annie-Xmas 05-22-2019 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasmine (Post 21656208)
The reason is that, throughout history, and almost without exception, men have dominated women. By reasserting control over a woman's reproductive processes, they essentially regain much of the control that they have lost in this society. Women literally become slaves who can be raped with impunity and chained to giving birth to the demon's spawn. You can't have more control than that.

Exactly. And the women in the movement are being moral by doing what these men say.

Straight, white, Christian men had the power in this country for over two centuries. They are very pissed they have lost it, and will do anything to make any person not in those categories to feel bad, and to regain that power.

manson1972 05-22-2019 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clairobscur (Post 21656079)
I fail to see how it's inexplicable. They're religious. Their religion tells them that both contraception and abortion are wrong. So they oppose both, naturally. Where's the mystery?

I can't find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says "Don't use contraception".

Can you point it out?

Gyrate 05-22-2019 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21656295)
I can't find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says "Don't use contraception".

Can you point it out?

The command to "be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis is usually cited, although God doesn't specifically say "uncontrollably".

Budget Player Cadet 05-22-2019 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21655687)
(Splitting off from the other abortion threads a bit):

It's often said that the real motive of pro-lifers is not to preserve unborn life, as they claim, but rather, "to control women's bodies."

Okay, let's say that is the case - but why? What do they get out of controlling women's bodies?

This conclusion is usually reached by pointing out that the pro-life movement clearly and evidently does not believe what it claims it believes and consistently acts in such a way to ensure that there will be more unwanted pregnancies, and therefore more abortions. Their stated reasons make no sense, in other words. And it's not a new observation to point out that fascists and authoritarians lie - constantly, about everything.

So what reason is there? Well, what's the through-line? And what ideological tentpoles do those through-lines map to? Well, women shouldn't be allowed to get abortions. Women shouldn't have access to birth control. Nobody should get decent sexual education. Rapists should be able to sue for custody (even if the victim was 12 at the time of the rape). Also, we definitely shouldn't do things like support the equal rights amendment, or fair pay for women, or parental leave, or anything like that.

There's a philosophy underlying this that may sound familiar: "Women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen." This is a throughline in dominionist and conservative Christian thought. And, if this is what you believe, all of the above actions make sense. If you want women disempowered, weak, at the mercy of their husbands, and unable to make decisions about their own lives, everything the religious right does makes a whole lot of sense, especially the parts that make absolutely no fucking sense if the premise we're going from is "the religious right wants to prevent abortion".

This is why I insist that the movement, much like the YECs, is rotten to the core. There may be true believers, but the people running the show? They know what they're after, and it's not the life of the fucking blastocyst that passed through Sally Sixpack's system without anyone ever knowing that there was "life" there.

Kimstu 05-22-2019 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas
Straight, white, Christian men had the power in this country for over two centuries. They are very pissed they have lost it

Nitpick: Of course, the vast majority of people who have serious power in this country still are straight white Christian men. It's just that the average non-wealthy straight white Christian man is now much less likely to have significant power over the non-straightwhiteChristianmale folks around him than, say, his straight white Christian grandfather was.

The phenomenon of effective opposition to discrimination on grounds of race/gender/sexual orientation/sexual identity/etc., combined with continued resistance to anything labeled "socialism", means that for the last few decades our society has been slipping back into the largely wealth-based hierarchical class system of the late 19th century.

Wealthy white men around the turn of the 20th century persuaded non-wealthy white men to side with them politically as a gesture of racial and gender solidarity. The implied bargain was that non-wealthy white men would forsake class solidarity in exchange for being socially superior to, and dominant over, women and non-whites.

The second half of that bargain has been unraveling over the last fifty years or so, but many non-wealthy white men are still clinging to the first half. They blame their loss of social dominance on the members of the groups they used to have dominance over, rather than on the people who conned them into this bargain in the first place.

GIGObuster 05-22-2019 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isamu (Post 21656269)
Yeah it's religious. Should we stone them to death those who wear two items of clothes woven from different fibers? That's religious too (or something like that - I don't care anymore about the specifics).

If you follow religion in such matters I have a low opinion of your decision-making ability. And I act accordingly.

Yeah, and besides beef stroganoff is delicious.* :)








* Use coconut milk or other milk substitute for a kosher version. :)

Snowboarder Bo 05-22-2019 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 21655869)
Including the pro-life women at these rallies?

You really should read links before you quote/post them.

Annie-Xmas 05-22-2019 09:27 AM

Boy, it's a good thing a wealthy, straight, white Christian man isn't leading our country.

Say what?

Sitnam 05-22-2019 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas (Post 21656385)
Boy, it's a good thing a wealthy, straight, white Christian man isn't leading our country.

Say what?

Trump isn't Christian.

It is perhaps the only thing I respect about him.

RTFirefly 05-22-2019 09:43 AM

This pro-life legislator (voted for the MS heartbeat ban) is a serious control freak wrt his wife's sexuality:
Quote:

LUCEDALE, Miss. (AP) — A police report says a south Mississippi lawmaker punched his wife in the face after she didn't undress quickly enough when the lawmaker wanted to have sex.

Republican state Rep. Doug McLeod of Lucedale was arrested Saturday on a misdemeanor domestic violence charge.

Procrustus 05-22-2019 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sitnam (Post 21656424)
Trump isn't Christian.

It is perhaps the only thing I respect about him.

Hard to respect him for faking it though. If he was honest about it, that would be one point in his favor. Pretending the Bible is his favorite book isn't the way to garner respect from either the religious or nonreligious.

Sitnam 05-22-2019 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Procrustus (Post 21656444)
Hard to respect him for faking it though. If he was honest about it, that would be one point in his favor. Pretending the Bible is his favorite book isn't the way to garner respect from either the religious or nonreligious.

It's plenty telling Christians don't appear to care enough to vote for someone who follows a righteous path. It's almost like they're faking it.

Novelty Bobble 05-22-2019 10:07 AM

The anti-abortionists (I won't dignify the term "pro-life" by using it in an uncontested way) tend to come at it from a religious justification point of view.

Male control over the female reproductive process is a well-trodden religious path. Give it the authority of a divine commandment and codify it in religious practice and bingo, you'll even get women to agree to it themselves.

It is no real surprise. Religions have historically sought control over land, property, thought and action and women have often fallen squarely in the second category.

DrDeth 05-22-2019 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grrr! (Post 21655990)
They want to control women's sexuality.
...

Yes. Their idea is that women should only have sex to have babies for their husbands or to please him. (Men, of course, are free to fool around). That's why abortions are evil, women are there as baby makers, barefoot and pregnant.

DrDeth 05-22-2019 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sitnam (Post 21656462)
It's plenty telling Christians don't appear to care enough to vote for someone who follows a righteous path. It's almost like they're faking it.


Dont say Christians as if you are lumping together about 75% of the population of the USA. Only about 25% of Americans want Roe vs Wade overturned. Most Christians support a woman's right to choose, altho many are unhappy if the choice is abortion.

kanicbird 05-22-2019 10:47 AM

I'd say they want life done in a certain way and for people to conform to their views of how it should be. Without abortion as a option, it automatically puts women at a disadvantage in some aspects of life, and they like women being at a disadvantage, as that seems 'right' and the way it is suppose to be. Women who don't like that are troublemakers that can't accept their place.

manson1972 05-22-2019 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21656548)
Yes. Their idea is that women should only have sex to have babies for their husbands or to please him. (Men, of course, are free to fool around). That's why abortions are evil, women are there as baby makers, barefoot and pregnant.

And apparently, if women don't undress fast enough to have that sex, their Christian pro-life husbands get to punch them in the face.

DrDeth 05-22-2019 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak (Post 21656126)
The mystery here is WHY does their religion tell them these things? As much as their religion would like us all to believe it is the unvarnished word of God, the exact tenets and teachings of religions are decided upon by the people who run the churches.

Those people have decided that sex is naughty, and people who engage in it must "face consequences", whether or not those people are practitioners of their religion. The consequences of sex are much deeper for women than men, so they bear the brunt of these religious attacks.

Well, pretty much, the Bible does say that adultery is wrong and even sex without marriage is wrong. That's not something weird Church leaders have dreamt up. And in fact that has been the prevailing thought for pretty much all of recorded history. Not just Christianity, Islam, Judaism teach the same and :

Hinduism : https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library...and%20adultery
According to Hinduism dictionary, Adultery is sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman not his wife, or between a married woman and a man not her husband. In Hindu shastras, adultery is considered as a serious breach of dharma. Hinduism considers marriage as a sacred and a highly sanctified relationship.

Buddhism :https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zmjmyrd/revision/2
The Five Precepts are considered an important source of authority in Buddhism. The third Precept offers guidance on how to achieve a successful marriage. 'Do not engage in sexual misconduct', instructs Buddhists to be content within marriage and not to commit adultery as this will cause suffering.

DrDeth 05-22-2019 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 21656183)
Ask them where in the Bible these teachings come from. If abortion is such an evil that women should gladly turn over their bodily autonomy to ensure it never happens, then surely this evil is unambiguously described in the holiest of texts and explicitly forbidden.

Abortion is not mentioned much in the Bible. There are some disputed verses. Adultery is mentioned many times as is Fornication.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.