A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[logical4u]

No, you don't get it because you are applying your own bias and modern sensibilities to an ancient tradition that STILL EXISTS in that part of the world

But that's exactly the point I was making: that these are antiquated, barbaric values appropriate (maybe) to a harsh, cruel, insensitive culture, but completely wrong -- appallingly wrong -- for modern times and modern society. I am, after all, addressing modern people who live in a modern society, am I not? I mean, everyone who lived in ancient Sodom is long since dead, is that not so? And none of us here is a Bedouin nomad or a primitive Afghan sheepherder, right?

I do not doubt that the authors of the Book of Genesis, whoever they were, considered Lot's behavior appropriate to their own values. That is, in fact, exactly my point: because they are not values that any civilized society should accept. And the Bible cannot at the same time enshrine those primitive, barbaric values and be anything appropriate to modern people living in a modern society. The two are absolutely incompatible.

Are you saying that the muslim culture is wrong (because they still live like this)?

 

[logical4u]

I said it seems to be an effective way of dealing with the issue in that time, and probably would be effective today. Not quite the same thing.

It is, in fact, exactly the same thing, particularly the second clause. "An effective way of dealing with the issue at that time" could be interpreted as the same sort of multicultural relativity you advanced above, but "probably would be effective today" is an endorsement for these times, not those times, and as such, utterly abhorrent. Once again, I am amazed you can look at yourself in the mirror.

This is one of the problems with liberals; they are deceivers. They cannot state what they really want: for everyone to be beneath them. Instead, they re-define words, and interpret perfectly coherrent thoughts into mumbo jumbo. That way they do not have to respond with rational thought. If the writer wanted to make it complicated, they would have said the same vague blather that you did. They did not. They were short and to the point (you could learn something there). Please try to use your own thoughts and not "interpret" what someone else, has stated, clearly.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't mind a little flowery language...as long as it's truthful or somewhat accurate.

But to use it just to hide the fact that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about...that's just laughable. And that's what this club seems to enjoy doing. And the REALLY funny part...they think they actually are able to hide the fact that they're ignorant nitwits by using words and phrases in appropriately and extensively.

It's a joke. Just as they are a joke.

 

[Dragon]

This is one of the problems with liberals; they are deceivers. They cannot state what they really want: for everyone to be beneath them. Instead, they re-define words, and interpret perfectly coherrent thoughts into mumbo jumbo. That way they do not have to respond with rational thought. If the writer wanted to make it complicated, they would have said the same vague blather that you did. They did not. They were short and to the point (you could learn something there). Please try to use your own thoughts and not "interpret" what someone else, has stated, clearly.

Oh, please, knock off the bullshit. She clearly stated that she believed that forcing rape victims to marry their rapists might be effective today. There's no ambiguity there at all, no need for interpretation. It's perfectly clear and obvious what she meant, and it is just plain sick, sick, sick. I'm taking this from her own words, you understand, not from someone else's paraphrase.

When she spoke in defense of Lot's offering his virgin daughters up for gang-rape, it was in a multicultural relativism context, not saying that this is how we should behave today, but only that it was appropriate to the values and mores of the time. But she went well beyond that about the other matter, and admitted doing so. She believes that it might be a good idea if we, today, force rape victims to marry their rapists. Un-friggin'- believable.

Now, that's assuming she wasn't mis-describing her original post, which admittedly I haven't read. If that's the case, if she never said that, she can clarify things. If she did say it, but no longer believes it, again, she can clarify things. But going purely by what she said she said, that's what she said. And it is contemptible.

EDIT: Yes, I'm saying that those Muslim cultures which do behave that way are wrong.

To be full and fair, I personally know a lot of Muslims who don't behave that way at all, so this is not necessarily a problem of Islam per se. But where it exists, yes, it's wrong.

 

[koshergrl]

What I said is that it would be an effective deterrent.

I didn't say it would be fun for the victims.

I didn't say we should do it now.

I said it would be an effective deterrernt, and it would, as it was in ancient times. Rapists don't typically want a wife to support (well in some cases, they did rape a woman to ensure marriage to her when they could not get permission any other way...and it often didn't work out too well for them. Read the story about the man who *raped* the woman he loved and wanted to marry, and who was willing to marry him...but could not get permission. Her brothers killed him, over her protests. Wow, how enlightened of them!)

As I pointed out in a rather flippant manner, it was an ancient custom, meant maintain an able bodied working class they could not afford to kill off will nilly, and to assure that children born in questionable circumstances were provided for, provided with a name they could claim as their own, and thereby prevent the fabric of a very isolated and limited population from unraveling becuase rape was mistakenly viewed as great a crime as murder.

Rape isn't murder, folks. It's not nice, it's not pleasant, but the histrionics about how all rapists in ancient cultures should be cast out society forever meant that that society would lose a LOT of able bodied men, gain a LOT of women with no protectors or providers, and result in a large population of illegitimate children with no means of support.

In other words, the Hebrew population would have developed along the same lines that the inner cities populations have, and we all know what a wild success THAT has been.

 

[koshergrl]

And yes it would suck for the woman to be married to a man who raped her initially.

That's a pretty common dynamic in Muslim marriages, btw. So common, in fact, it's accepted as part and parcel of a woman's lot. Perhaps instead of pissing and moaning over this single biblical stricture that is no longer adhered to, you shoud devote your time to educating Muslim men, women, and girls about acceptable behavior between men and women and what marriage really can mean...instead of boo hooing about a practice that no longer has anything to do with anything in the Christian world.

 

[Dragon]

What I said is that it would be an effective deterrent.

That does clarify matters, but it's still, frankly, weird, and any expression of approval of it is even weirder.

Rape isn't murder, folks. It's not nice, it's not pleasant, but the histrionics about how all rapists in ancient cultures should be cast out society forever meant that that society would lose a LOT of able bodied men, gain a LOT of women with no protectors or providers, and result in a large population of illegitimate children with no means of support.

Look, it goes beyond that. In ancient societies, while rape was a crime, it wasn't viewed as the same sort of crime as today. It was in fact a property crime, a man making use of a woman to whom he had no right, a woman who was either another man's wife (i.e., slave) or still the property of her father or brothers (i.e., marketable commodity whose price would be negatively impacted by loss of virginity). It wasn't rape if the rapist was the woman's husband -- i.e., her owner, who had a right to **** her whenever he wanted, whether or not she wanted.

It was a very nasty set of rules. And yes, I do understand the need for something like this, of the subordination of women to men during the millennial of agrarian civilization when maximizing birthrates was a competitive necessity. A similar need existed for slavery or some sort of substitute form of forced labor. That doesn't make these things right or desirable, and we as a society are absolutely right to eradicate them as soon as changed material circumstances render that possible.

My entire point in many of my posts on this thread has been that anti-abortion advocates, a large majority of them that is, are champions of the old female-subordinate mores of the agrarian age, perhaps not in their appallingly pure form, but in a stronger form than we should find tolerable.

Perhaps instead of pissing and moaning over this single biblical stricture that is no longer adhered to, you shoud devote your time to educating Muslim men, women, and girls about acceptable behavior between men and women and what marriage really can mean...instead of boo hooing about a practice that no longer has anything to do with anything in the Christian world.

I disagree that it no longer has anything to do with anything in the Christian world. It is part and parcel of the entire idea that a woman should be subordinate to a man, and that is very much alive among right-wing Christians today.

However, be assured that I will do my best to educate Muslims on the same subject should that need arise. This disgusting tendency is of course not confined to Christianity.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, rape was a crime. Hence teh punishment of enforced marriage or death. or payment (aka "fines" which are payments enforced when there has been a crime committed).

"

"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-27). "


​

 

[koshergrl]

THIS passage has to do with two un-promised people, who have sex, get caught.....it may be rape, it may not be rape. But in this case, where two people have determined to have sex and the woman is not promised to another....guess what, she gets to marry the person she sleeps with.

""If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)"

This is more a matter of forcing those who cannot control their lusts to be responsible for their actions than it is about forcing some poor pitiful rape victim to marry her rapist. This passage is meant to deal specidically with men and women who engage in sex without the consent of their families or the benefit of any consent whatsoever.

And as I pointed out before, often the families took it into their own hands and killed the man anyway...against the protests and desire of the so called victim.

Who I do beleive, in the incident I'm thinking of (Joseph's brothers???) the girl committed suicide.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes, rape was a crime. Hence teh punishment of enforced marriage or death. or payment (aka "fines" which are payments enforced when there has been a crime committed).

"

"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-27). "


​

Still weird ideology.....

 

[Dragon]

Still weird ideology.....

I agree. And I think I can pinpoint exactly why it seems weird. It treats the woman as a possession, as property. Her own desires are irrelevant here. The man, the rapist, is guilty: he has made use of property that doesn't belong to him. He must pay a fine, but not to his actual victim (as we would see things); rather, to the victims owner -- her father. That's because, from that point of view, it's the father who is the principle victim, not the woman. He had a right to sell her on the marriage market as a virgin, and the rapist has deprived him of that right. And the rapist is also required to marry her, because, being reduced in value on the marriage market by loss of her virginity (for which he is responsible), it's not that likely anyone else will. And he's not allowed to divorce her, either. (Of course, she wouldn't be allowed to divorce her husband under any conditions -- women were property. Property doesn't cast off its owner.)

While it was rare, I think, for an agrarian-age culture to actually require rapists to marry their victims as a matter of consistent law, similar attitudes prevailed throughout the world. They are embodied in all of the so-called "great" religions, all of which emerged during the agrarian age of civilization.

The only real good any of this served was to maximize birthrates, something that is no longer a good. A woman whose fertility is controlled by a man bears more children, statistically, than one who controls her own. In the agrarian age, especially its earlier millennia, maximum population growth was required. Neighbors were often hostile. You needed the numbers to win the wars that were a constant fact of life.

But the subordination of women, however much it was required by the need for high birthrates, and however much a virtue of this necessity religious teaching made it, was not, in itself, a good thing. It was horrid. And so, as the industrial revolution changed our material circumstances and maximum birthrates became a liability instead of an asset, it was changed as soon as could be politically and culturally arranged.

Free women, women in control of their own fertility, conflicts with traditional Christian morality (and Muslim morality, and Hindu morality, and Jewish morality, and so on) on all matters of sex, reproduction, and the relations between genders, not just on abortion rights. The conflict over abortion rights is only a part of that larger conflict, which will endure until the "great" religions change to accommodate the times and the new reality.

 

[Dr Grump]

Still weird ideology.....

I agree. And I think I can pinpoint exactly why it seems weird. It treats the woman as a possession, as property. Her own desires are irrelevant here. The man, the rapist, is guilty: he has made use of property that doesn't belong to him. He must pay a fine, but not to his actual victim (as we would see things); rather, to the victims owner -- her father. That's because, from that point of view, it's the father who is the principle victim, not the woman. He had a right to sell her on the marriage market as a virgin, and the rapist has deprived him of that right. And the rapist is also required to marry her, because, being reduced in value on the marriage market by loss of her virginity (for which he is responsible), it's not that likely anyone else will. And he's not allowed to divorce her, either. (Of course, she wouldn't be allowed to divorce her husband under any conditions -- women were property. Property doesn't cast off its owner.)

While it was rare, I think, for an agrarian-age culture to actually require rapists to marry their victims as a matter of consistent law, similar attitudes prevailed throughout the world. They are embodied in all of the so-called "great" religions, all of which emerged during the agrarian age of civilization.

The only real good any of this served was to maximize birthrates, something that is no longer a good. A woman whose fertility is controlled by a man bears more children, statistically, than one who controls her own. In the agrarian age, especially its earlier millennia, maximum population growth was required. Neighbors were often hostile. You needed the numbers to win the wars that were a constant fact of life.

But the subordination of women, however much it was required by the need for high birthrates, and however much a virtue of this necessity religious teaching made it, was not, in itself, a good thing. It was horrid. And so, as the industrial revolution changed our material circumstances and maximum birthrates became a liability instead of an asset, it was changed as soon as could be politically and culturally arranged.

Free women, women in control of their own fertility, conflicts with traditional Christian morality (and Muslim morality, and Hindu morality, and Jewish morality, and so on) on all matters of sex, reproduction, and the relations between genders, not just on abortion rights. The conflict over abortion rights is only a part of that larger conflict, which will endure until the "great" religions change to accommodate the times and the new reality.

Which is why I am an athiest....

 

[Dragon]

Which is why I am an athiest....

I don't believe the religions were the source of that ethos, they merely endorsed and codified it.

(Nitpick: It's spelled "atheist.")

 

[Dr Grump]

Which is why I am an athiest....

I don't believe the religions were the source of that ethos, they merely endorsed and codified it.

(Nitpick: It's spelled "atheist.")

I concur.

(Nitpick - if you're going to nitpick my posts for typos, you're gonna waste a lot of time on these boards)....

 

[DracoinAZ]

Why do women abort their babies?

I understand there may be an ample number of reasons, but what, in your opinion would be the concensus?

I think it's purely for selfish reasons for the most part.

Your thoughts.

I am pro-choice but the choice should never be done for financial reasons or maturity of the mother. There are several different ways to raise a child whether the mother decides to not abort the child, so I feel that it is better to "give" the child away rather than to not give that child a chance at life.

I believe that medical conditions are really the only reason that a choice can be made, where the mother would not survive or the child will not have a chance to live itself. It can way heavy on a young persons mind knowing that their mother had passed while giving birth to them. This can cause personal struggles for them through out their own lives. With medical advancements today the diagnosys for a live child birth with or without harm to mother are far more accurate than years past. Yet even with a perfectly healthy mother and child, many things can go wrong.

If the child is diagnosed in the womb that there is a problem with their health, well that is a tough "choice". IMO that there is NO chance of the child to survive beyond any young age without that child suffering, then that is where the choice should be allowed.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You are mistaken, I understand it perfectly, and I DESPISE it.



You're not getting it. I don't fault Lot for refusing to yield up his guests to be raped. I fault him for offering his daughters to be raped instead. There is no possible excuse for that; it is simply loathesome. To try to justify it on any basis, including the laws of hospitality, is, quite honestly, nauseating. I have no idea how you can do that and look at yourself in the mirror afterwards.



Yes, yes, I know the story. Again, you don't seem to get it. I'm not defending the men of Sodom, I'm simply saying that Lot was obviously no better than they were and in some ways worse.

Don't waste your breath looking for rational thought out of koshergirl with regards to the Old Testament. She told me forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist was a good thing, and would be a good idea if we did that in society now.

Yeah, you go ahead and link that, you lying sack of shit.

I said it seems to be an effective way of dealing with the issue in that time, and probably would be effective today. Not quite the same thing.

So I'm a "lying sack of shit" because of the ENORMITY of difference between you saying a rape victim forced to marry her rapist would be a good thing and you saying a rape victim forced to marry her rapist would be an effective thing? Okie dokie.

Both lines are equally loony.

I'm sure if you were raped, forced to marry your rapist, you wouldn't say "Gee golly whiz this is effective."

 

[FurthurBB]

Is there a non-selfish reason to kill your child?

Well, I think most people who kill their children actually do not do it for selfish reasons, but because they are insane or have an anger management problem. Now for abortion, I had sort of an abortion in a catholic hospital. They actually just dilated my cervix so that the miscarriage that had been going on for three weeks could complete before I bled to death. See, I am actually one of those 1 in 1,000,000 women that really got pregnant on the pill and there was no missed doses or antibiotic use. So, the hormones were at full levels, meaning I only made 1/4 of the endometrium that a woman not on the pill makes, and my cervix was thick and constricted. I actually found out I was pregnant three weeks in, not because I felt pregnant or skipped a period but because I was in excruciating pain. They found out I was pregnant and told me that babies conceived when you are at full birth control pill hormone are not viable and that I should get a chemical abortion right then to save a lot of heartache and save my own life. I didn't want to, they did an ultrasound at 3 & 1/2 weeks and the placenta was already coming away from the uterine wall. At 7 weeks I started bleeding really heavy and they said that my body was trying to miscarry, but my cervix would not dilate so the fetus was stuck in the birth canal. They let that go on for 3 weeks, giving me different things telling me to walk. Finally when I went into shock from a lack of blood to my organs and had to be taken to the hospital by ambulance they went ahead and dilated my cervix and it was all over 15 minutes later. If I had it to do over again, I would have listen to the doctor the first time and gotten the abortion right then. She obviously knew better than me.

Re: the bolded bit. Where on earth did you come up with that idea?

From history and statistics. Most people who kill their children are women and do not kill them because they are selfish, but because there is something mentally or emotionally wrong with them. Sometimes people do kill their children because they cannot control their temper in stressful situations with the children misbehaving, I imagine they have anger management problems to let things get so out of control.

 

[koshergrl]

Don't waste your breath looking for rational thought out of koshergirl with regards to the Old Testament. She told me forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist was a good thing, and would be a good idea if we did that in society now.

Yeah, you go ahead and link that, you lying sack of shit.

I said it seems to be an effective way of dealing with the issue in that time, and probably would be effective today. Not quite the same thing.

"it seems to be an effective way of dealing with the issue in that time"
How so?
"seemed" is the approprate tense for the past.
Is the spread too high or too low Georgia/Ole Miss?
Do you like Go Bananas in the 6th at Calder at 10-1?

I didn't think you could possibly become more incoherent. Thank you. My lack of faith in humanity is restored.

 

[koshergrl]

Still weird ideology.....

I agree. And I think I can pinpoint exactly why it seems weird. It treats the woman as a possession, as property. Her own desires are irrelevant here. The man, the rapist, is guilty: he has made use of property that doesn't belong to him. He must pay a fine, but not to his actual victim (as we would see things); rather, to the victims owner -- her father. That's because, from that point of view, it's the father who is the principle victim, not the woman. He had a right to sell her on the marriage market as a virgin, and the rapist has deprived him of that right. And the rapist is also required to marry her, because, being reduced in value on the marriage market by loss of her virginity (for which he is responsible), it's not that likely anyone else will. And he's not allowed to divorce her, either. (Of course, she wouldn't be allowed to divorce her husband under any conditions -- women were property. Property doesn't cast off its owner.)

While it was rare, I think, for an agrarian-age culture to actually require rapists to marry their victims as a matter of consistent law, similar attitudes prevailed throughout the world. They are embodied in all of the so-called "great" religions, all of which emerged during the agrarian age of civilization.

The only real good any of this served was to maximize birthrates, something that is no longer a good. A woman whose fertility is controlled by a man bears more children, statistically, than one who controls her own. In the agrarian age, especially its earlier millennia, maximum population growth was required. Neighbors were often hostile. You needed the numbers to win the wars that were a constant fact of life.

But the subordination of women, however much it was required by the need for high birthrates, and however much a virtue of this necessity religious teaching made it, was not, in itself, a good thing. It was horrid. And so, as the industrial revolution changed our material circumstances and maximum birthrates became a liability instead of an asset, it was changed as soon as could be politically and culturally arranged.

Free women, women in control of their own fertility, conflicts with traditional Christian morality (and Muslim morality, and Hindu morality, and Jewish morality, and so on) on all matters of sex, reproduction, and the relations between genders, not just on abortion rights. The conflict over abortion rights is only a part of that larger conflict, which will endure until the "great" religions change to accommodate the times and the new reality.

Horse crap.

 

[Gadawg73]

And yes it would suck for the woman to be married to a man who raped her initially.

That's a pretty common dynamic in Muslim marriages, btw. So common, in fact, it's accepted as part and parcel of a woman's lot. Perhaps instead of pissing and moaning over this single biblical stricture that is no longer adhered to, you shoud devote your time to educating Muslim men, women, and girls about acceptable behavior between men and women and what marriage really can mean...instead of boo hooing about a practice that no longer has anything to do with anything in the Christian world.

You are a fool. I work for many Muslim attorneys both men and women and the women do not get raped by their husbands.