# "Pro-lifers want to control women's bodies" - Okay, but........why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2019, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330 "2019-05-22T02:24:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/61 "2019-05-22T17:10:59Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > If patriarchy in its entirety can be said to “want” something, that something is control. I think you’re on the right lines but I’ve got to disagree with you here because I think you’ve skipped a step. Control is secondary, not primary. Most social systems - including both patriarchy and matriarchy - are about wanting peace, prosperity, and stability. And one of the consequences is some control. The people agree to abide by the rules - thus ceding some control - in return for (hopefully) peace, prosperity, and stability. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/62 "2019-05-22T17:15:24Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Not sure that I buy that. The prohibition is in the same verse as “Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.” “Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together”. So its pretty clear that the overall message is that mixing different things together is unclean, not that its being reserved for the most holy. > **[Shatnez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnez)** > > Shatnez (or shaatnez, \[ʃaʕatˈnez\]; Hebrew: .mw-parser-output .script-hebrew,.mw-parser-output .script-Hebr{font-family:"SBL Hebrew","SBL BibLit","Taamey Ashkenaz","Taamey Frank CLM","Frank Ruehl CLM","Ezra SIL","Ezra SIL SR","Keter Aram Tsova","Taamey David CLM","Keter YG","Shofar","David CLM","Hadasim CLM","Simple CLM","Nachlieli",Cardo,Alef,"Noto Serif Hebrew","Noto Sans Hebrew","David Libre",David,"Times New Roman",Gisha,Arial,FreeSerif,FreeSans}שַׁעַטְנֵז‎ šaʿaṭnēzⓘ) is cloth containing both ... \*Shatnez (or shaatnez, [ʃaʕatˈneːz]; Biblical Hebrew Šaʿatnez About this soundשַׁעַטְנֵז (help·info)) is cloth containing both wool and linen (linsey-woolsey), which Jewish law, derived from the Torah, prohibits wearing. The relevant Biblical verses (Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11) prohibit an individual from wearing wool and linen fabrics in one garment, the interbreeding of different species of animals, and the planting together of different kinds of seeds (collectively known as kilayim).\*_Rabbinic Judaism maintains that shatnez was permitted in the case of the avnet (Kohen’s girdle), in which fine white linen was interwoven with purple, blue, and scarlet material. According to the rabbis, the purple, blue, and scarlet were made from wool and interwoven with the fine linen._ > **[Why does the Bible speak against wearing clothing made of different types of...](https://www.gotquestions.org/different-types-of-fabric.html)** > > Why does the Bible speak against wearing clothing made of different types of fabric? Is it wrong to wear clothing comprised of different types of fabric? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/63 "2019-05-22T17:16:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. The Bible says a lot of things. Many of those things are completely ignored by church leadership because those things are inconvenient, incompatible with today’s world, or contrary to the worldview they wish to promote. The things a particular religion chooses to focus on, particularly when imposing those rules on people NOT of their religion, says more about the personal worldview of the leadership than it does about the word of God. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/64 "2019-05-22T17:19:39Z")
I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, that there aren’t two sides to the abortion debate, but at least six: Pro-life, anti-life, pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion. Pro-lifers (and they do exist) oppose abortion, but also hold a lot of other views that they consider part of the same issue: They’re also, for instance, anti-war and anti-death penalty. Anti-lifers also exist, but thankfully seem to be quite rare. Members of doomsday cults, who want death just for the sake of death, fall into this category. They are likely to support abortion as a means to an end of human extinction. The pro- and anti-abortion factions view abortion in isolation from other issues, and regard it as a positive or a negative. China’s one-child policy might fairly be described as pro-abortion, for instance. The pro-choice faction generally views abortion as either morally neutral, or having a relatively low moral weight, and therefore concludes that a pregnant woman should be allowed to choose either possibility for herself. The anti-choice position believes that a pregnant woman should have the decision made for her, _in either direction_. Consider, for example, the Biblical edict that a woman suspected of adultery should be given abortifacient drugs (together with a prayer that they not work if she’s innocent): That’s anti-choice, despite being in favor of (some) abortions. To sum up: The pro-life, anti-abortion, and anti-choice factions might sometimes find themselves to be political allies, but they do _not_ actually agree on some very fundamental points. Likewise for the pro-choice, pro-abortion, and anti-life factions. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/65 "2019-05-22T17:20:27Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > 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. > [@clairobscur](#): > > 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. Well, they WERE made up by men, whether religious people believe it or not. And my theory is sex. It always comes down to sex. And I believe these “rules from God” were originally written down by the 2000BC equivalent of “beta cucks, soy boys, and MRAs”. They couldn’t even get laid in a primitive society, so they figured they were going to create a world where _they_ had the power. If they set up the rules where women were subservient to their husbands, then by god (heh heh) no alpha male was going to steal their wimmin away. That is, once they got one. And by creating a society where women would be considered undesirable without a husband, just by statistics they stood a good chance of getting one of their own. Trouble is, all these guys are long dead, and we’re STILL living in the world they created. ---
**Author:** ![bizerta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@bizerta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizerta)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/66 "2019-05-22T17:21:08Z")
One possibility is that religion is brainwashing pro-lifers. Religion objects to abortion, birth control, and same-sex unions because that will mean fewer minds to brainwash in 20 years or so. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/67 "2019-05-22T17:22:25Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The Bible says a lot of things. > > Many of those things are completely ignored by church leadership because those things are inconvenient, incompatible with today’s world, or contrary to the worldview they wish to promote. > > The things a particular religion chooses to focus on, particularly when imposing those rules on people NOT of their religion, says more about the personal worldview of the leadership than it does about the word of God. Name something important in the **NT** \* that are completely ignored by church leadership. \* But again, it’s not Christians who are against Abortion. 75% of America are Christians, only 25% want to dump Roe. Indeed, Islam also has the same issues. Dont confuse the Religious Right with Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/68 "2019-05-22T17:24:09Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Well, they WERE made up by men, whether religious people believe it or not. > > And my theory is sex. It always comes down to sex. And I believe these “rules from God” were originally written down by the 2000BC equivalent of “beta cucks, soy boys, and MRAs”… > Trouble is, all these guys are long dead, and we’re STILL living in the world they created. \*\*All \*\*major religions oppose Adultery. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/69 "2019-05-22T17:25:14Z")
> [@bizerta](#): > > One possibility is that religion is brainwashing pro-lifers. Religion objects to abortion, birth control, and same-sex unions because that will mean fewer minds to brainwash in 20 years or so. It’s not Christians who are against Abortion. 75% of America are Christians, only 25% want to dump Roe. Dont confuse the Religious Right with Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/70 "2019-05-22T17:25:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Name something important in the **NT** \* that are completely ignored by church leadership. > \* > > But again, it’s not Christians who are against Abortion. 75% of America are Christians, only 25% want to dump Roe. Indeed, Islam also has the same issues. > > Dont confuse the Religious Right with Christianity. “Important”. That would be cherry picking that’s already happening, folks. It’s axiomatically true that they’re not ignoring anything _they_ consider important, but that doesn’t mean they’re not ignoring things. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/71 "2019-05-22T17:28:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > \*\*All \*\*major religions oppose Adultery. There are very good societal reasons to oppose adultery - it pisses people off and causes strife. A ban on adultery has no bearing whatsoever on mutually extramarital sex, and no bearing at _all_ on abortions (of course). ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/72 "2019-05-22T17:35:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Name something important in the **NT** \* that are completely ignored by church leadership. > \* begbert2 beat me to it, but really, man, you’re telling me that there are parts of the bible that are unimportant and the whole first half of the book can be ignored? This is how religion works. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/73 "2019-05-22T17:44:36Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > begbert2 beat me to it, but really, man, you’re telling me that there are parts of the bible that are unimportant and the whole first half of the book can be ignored? > > This is how religion works. Jesus was the new Covenant. Thus, the OT is guidelines, and interesting stuff, no longer laws or rules, which is why Christians dont keep Kosher, Linen & wool is Ok, and so forth. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/74 "2019-05-22T17:50:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Jesus was the new Covenant. Thus, the OT is guidelines, and interesting stuff, no longer laws or rules, which is why Christians dont keep Kosher, Linen & wool is Ok, and so forth. Ok, so we just ignore the stuff you think isn’t important, then. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/75 "2019-05-22T17:53:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Jesus was the new Covenant. Thus, the OT is guidelines, and interesting stuff, no longer laws or rules, which is why Christians dont keep Kosher, Linen & wool is Ok, and so forth. So the whole “don’t judge” thing is still on the table, right? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/76 "2019-05-22T17:54:57Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Jesus was the new Covenant. Thus, the OT is guidelines, and interesting stuff, no longer laws or rules, which is why Christians dont keep Kosher, Linen & wool is Ok, and so forth. So I don’t have to honor my mother and father? On a serious note, isn’t the OT where all the supposed anti-contraceptive stuff is? So that shouldn’t apply either, right? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/77 "2019-05-22T17:59:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [Shatnez - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnez) > > \*Shatnez (or shaatnez, [ʃaʕatˈneːz]; Biblical Hebrew Šaʿatnez About this soundשַׁעַטְנֵז (help·info)) is cloth containing both wool and linen (linsey-woolsey), which Jewish law, derived from the Torah, prohibits wearing. The relevant Biblical verses (Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11) prohibit an individual from wearing wool and linen fabrics in one garment, the interbreeding of different species of animals, and the planting together of different kinds of seeds (collectively known as kilayim).\*_Rabbinic Judaism maintains that shatnez was permitted in the case of the avnet (Kohen’s girdle), in which fine white linen was interwoven with purple, blue, and scarlet material. According to the rabbis, the purple, blue, and scarlet were made from wool and interwoven with the fine linen._ > > [Why does the Bible speak against wearing clothing made of different types of fabric? | GotQuestions.org](https://www.gotquestions.org/different-types-of-fabric.html) Not to take this hijack too far, but that suggests that a special exemption from the law was made for this garment, not that the existence of the garment was the purpose of the law. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/78 "2019-05-22T18:13:31Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > So I don’t have to honor my mother and father? > > On a serious note, isn’t the OT where all the supposed anti-contraceptive stuff is? So that shouldn’t apply either, right? Actually it’s was a common belief and came from the early church fathers. There are no specific NT verses and one argued OT verse. OTOH, not all Christian churches are against contraception. Anglicanism ,Presbyterianism, Methodism etc all are Ok with contraception. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/79 "2019-05-22T19:13:26Z")
[quote=“Quartz, post:61, topic:834330”] [quote=AHunter3] If patriarchy in its entirety can be said to “want” something, that something is control. > [@](#): > > I think you’re on the right lines but I’ve got to disagree with you here because I think you’ve skipped a step. Control is secondary, not primary. Most social systems - including both patriarchy and matriarchy - are about wanting peace, prosperity, and stability. And one of the consequences is some control. The people agree to abide by the rules - thus ceding some control - in return for (hopefully) peace, prosperity, and stability. It isn’t typically necessary to specify that (for example) the purpose of Printed Circuit 29417 is to carry electricity along a pathway. Because it’s the purpose of all the circuits and therefore it isn’t specific to this one. But OK… social systems in general have the purpose of creating a dependable, predictable structure that formalizes how people interact. And yes, they arise because they bring us the benefits of (more) peace and prosperity (by increasing our efficiency) and in particular they bring us stability. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2019, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330/80 "2019-05-22T21:20:23Z")
If we put aside the emotional aspect of it, isn’t every law about control? Further, wouldn’t abortion bans curb men’s sexuality as well? Now, if I am in a casual sexual relationship, I can talk to the woman before or after pregnancy and get a decent idea of whether she might abort. After the ban, my sexual escapade might cause me to have a child with someone that I barely know and also cause 18 years old child support payments. So, the control seems to be one born of: 1) respect for life, and 2) the control of sexual morality, which frowned upon in the last 30 to 40 years or so, has nonetheless been a part of Western society for hundreds of years. IOW, I don’t see how the sky is falling here, or how that this is one huge step beyond any other law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-lifers-want-to-control-womens-bodies-okay-but-why/834330.md?page=5)