Texas, Afghanistan, the taliban and women's rights

[Someone here]

Supposedly the Taliban, now apparently in charge of the nation of Afghanistan, do not treat women as equals - In fact they are accused of treating women as lesser entities that are there to do Man's bidding - They say they have changed and as long as it fits their concepts of what is known as Sharia Law, women can have relative rights.

Now in many ways Texas and the 'Christian right wing South' have similar rules - Women are equal except when it comes to reproductive rights which are owned by the state - A women's reproductive organs have been confiscated by the State of Texas so even if she is raped if she becomes pregnant she must have the child who is protected by the State of Texas - Who, in spite of the Constitution of the
United States functions under Christian Fundamentalist law.

Now I have two questions:
1. Is Texas part of the United States of America and functioning under the laws and Constitution of The United States of America, or is Texas an independent country functioning under Fundamentalist Christian law {America's Christian version of Moslem Sharia law} 

2. Is a woman today better off in Texas or Afghanistan - Or does it really matter 

[Roy]

1. The United States isn't really a "nation". It's a federation or "union" of independent states that function more or less like countries. Kind of like how the Soviet Union wasn't just Russia, but Russia + a bunch of other pre-existing nations. That's part of what makes the US so powerful, is these states have more autonomy to focus on what they need and not be bogged down by high authorities. Of course they don't always get this right and can be selfish in spite of the larger picture and interests of the union.

2. Is this really a question? Yea not having reproductive rights sucks, but imagine not having those + genital mutilation, forced marriages, no access to education, no access to certain recreational activities, no recourse to being assaulted or raped, living under constant physical threat, not being able to drive, being suppressed from expressing yourself and how you dress, etc.

If Texas is the 1st layer of hell for women, Afghanistan is the 6th or 7th.

Afghanistan is underdeveloped though as a nation, and hasn't been stable for literally hundreds of years. They've been under the boot of one imperial superpower after another, from the Mughals to the British to the Russians to the Americans.

Things will only start to get better in that country once the Taliban gets sufficient time to implement their rule, and then it runs its course and the people get sick of it and want something better.

This is evolution. It takes a long time and it sucks.

[Preety_India]

You're so way off the mark here. You're conflating two very different things. 

Afghanistan's Taliban is depriving women of basic rights as a human being. 

A woman being pregnant is secondary and it's no longer just about the woman anymore, it's also about the child/fetus she is carrying which is a life (a human) distinct from hers. 

She should obviously deserve all her rights as a separate human being. But she cannot have complete authority over her child, even though in the condition where she is carrying it, because it's a separate human being who is voiceless and defenseless. We should care about her own rights yet we cannot ignore the rights of a child(a separate human being). 

That's where the conflict lies. Deciding things for a woman's child is not the same as taking away or infringing on her rights. 

It's like if a father was raping a child (I know this is an extreme example but try to corelate the softer parts of it), and if we decide that the child should be snatched from the father, should the father scream that his rights as a dad have been infringed upon? 

Would that make sense? 

You need to look at this issue without comparisons because they are too distinct and different from each other. 

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Preety_India

[Someone here]

21 minutes ago, Roy said:

1. The United States isn't really a "nation". It's a federation or "union" of independent states that function more or less like countries. Kind of like how the Soviet Union wasn't just Russia, but Russia + a bunch of other pre-existing nations. That's part of what makes the US so powerful, is these states have more autonomy to focus on what they need and not be bogged down by high authorities. Of course they don't always get this right and can be selfish in spite of the larger picture and interests of the union.

2. Is this really a question? Yea not having reproductive rights sucks, but imagine not having those + genital mutilation, forced marriages, no access to education, no access to certain recreational activities, no recourse to being assaulted or raped, living under constant physical threat, not being able to drive, being suppressed from expressing yourself and how you dress, etc.

If Texas is the 1st layer of hell for women, Afghanistan is the 6th or 7th.

Afghanistan is underdeveloped though as a nation, and hasn't been stable for literally hundreds of years. They've been under the boot of one imperial superpower after another, from the Mughals to the British to the Russians to the Americans.

Things will only start to get better in that country once the Taliban gets sufficient time to implement their rule, and then it runs its course and the people get sick of it and want something better.

This is evolution. It takes a long time and it sucks.

I agree: the Christian right is in many ways not so much different than the Taliban and their vision of society is very similar. Yet, I don't think one can compare the grip the Muslim fundamentalists have on their country with the one Christian fundamentalists have on theirs, which is not to say one should not keep an eye on them. The fact is, answering my second question in the OP, a woman today is still better off in Texas than in Afghanistan.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Someone here

[Someone here]

9 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

You're so way off the mark here. You're conflating two very different things. 

Afghanistan's Taliban is depriving women of basic rights as a human being. 

A woman being pregnant is secondary and it's no longer just about the woman anymore, it's also about the child/fetus she is carrying which is a life (a human) distinct from hers. 

She should obviously deserve all her rights as a separate human being. But she cannot have complete authority over her child, even though in the condition where she is carrying it, because it's a separate human being who is voiceless and defenseless. We should care about her own rights yet we cannot ignore the rights of a child(a separate human being). 

That's where the conflict lies. Deciding things for a woman's child is not the same as taking away or infringing on her rights. 

It's like if a father was raping a child (I know this is an extreme example but try to corelate the softer parts of it), and if we decide that the child should be snatched from the father, should the father scream that his rights as a dad have been infringed upon? 

Would that make sense? 

You need to look at this issue without comparisons because they are too distinct and different from each other. 

 

I'm all for women's rights, including the right to abortion. I'm all for the separation of church and state in Texas and Afghanistan, and I'm all against fundamentalists imposing their regressive beliefs in both places, but I must say that comparing Texas laws with Sharia law, even as reproductive rights have lost protection in many parts of USA, is a bit overstated

[Preety_India]

I don't know how someone can compare the situation in Taliban to women's reproductive rights in first world countries. 

The Taliban literally butchers women's fundamental rights to survival on their own terms. 

A woman feeling like she cannot abort a child is vastly different from a woman feeling like she simply cannot live her life, feeling terrorized all the time. 

If you can't drink (or aren't allowed to) beer, it's one thing. But if you're not allowed to drink water, the whole equation changes quite radically, that's what we see here. 

Reproductive rights are like a privilege which cannot be abused. They aren't birth rights like safety or the "right to access court." Certain fundamental rights simply exist by birth. Reproductive rights aren't one of them. 

 

 

 

[Someone here]

23 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

I don't know how someone can compare the situation in Taliban to women's reproductive rights in first world countries. 

The Taliban literally butchers women's fundamental rights to survival on their own terms. 

A woman feeling like she cannot abort a child is vastly different from a woman feeling like she simply cannot live her life, feeling terrorized all the time. 

If you can't drink (or aren't allowed to) beer, it's one thing. But if you're not allowed to drink water, the whole equation changes quite radically, that's what we see here. 

Reproductive rights are like a privilege which cannot be abused. They aren't birth rights like safety or the "right to access court." Certain fundamental rights simply exist by birth. Reproductive rights aren't one of them. 

 

 

 

I see what you are saying - So let me clarify what I am saying:

I see it as much, much worse than a cultural anomaly where we can compare Moslem vs. Christian ideology and and its enforcement.

I see it as a left over remnant of the 'Inquisition' and the 'witch hunts' of the middle ages where women where systematically tortured and burned alive by a sick bunch of Devils supposedly doing the work of God.
- These evil and ill conceived anti abortion laws to supposedly protect the unborn from the evils of the living are sick - And the people trying to push the agenda are at least sick, if not insane.

I saw a proponent of the anti-abortion agenda on TV a few years ago trying to explain himself - He grew teary eyed as he started to cry about those poor unborn babies, as if he felt personally responsible to be sure he they all get born. And how many doctors have been attacked, and in some cases even murdered by these crazy devils supposedly doing the work of god 

In my opinion we are not dealing with politics or philosophy - These anti abortion laws, more than anything are based upon mental illness, the same type of sick minds that gave the World the Inquisition and Witch hunts of the past.

So go ahead accuse me over exaggerating - But I say it will never stop with just abortions, when you let the mentally ill take over politics and law the worst is yet to come 

[Epikur]

52 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I see what you are saying - So let me clarify what I am saying:

I see it as much, much worse than a cultural anomaly where we can compare Moslem vs. Christian ideology and and its enforcement.

I see it as a left over remnant of the 'Inquisition' and the 'witch hunts' of the middle ages where women where systematically tortured and burned alive by a sick bunch of Devils supposedly doing the work of God.
- These evil and ill conceived anti abortion laws to supposedly protect the unborn from the evils of the living are sick - And the people trying to push the agenda are at least sick, if not insane.

I saw a proponent of the anti-abortion agenda on TV a few years ago trying to explain himself - He grew teary eyed as he started to cry about those poor unborn babies, as if he felt personally responsible to be sure he they all get born. And how many doctors have been attacked, and in some cases even murdered by these crazy devils supposedly doing the work of god 

In my opinion we are not dealing with politics or philosophy - These anti abortion laws, more than anything are based upon mental illness, the same type of sick minds that gave the World the Inquisition and Witch hunts of the past.

So go ahead accuse me over exaggerating - But I say it will never stop with just abortions, when you let the mentally ill take over politics and law the worst is yet to come 

Imagine there would be a cult where the women torture their unborn babies. What kind of penalty would you give them as a society?That is how you find out what you really believe.

[Preety_India]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

I see what you are saying - So let me clarify what I am saying:

I see it as much, much worse than a cultural anomaly where we can compare Moslem vs. Christian ideology and and its enforcement.

This subject about abortion and Women's reproductive rights are not so much about religion. For example, I'm not entirely in favor of abortion, yet I'm born a Hindu and this matter has nothing to do with religion in my perspective, not all Christians oppose Abortion, not all anti-Christians or non Christians or atheists favor it. So you seeing fundamentalist Christians opposing abortion is simply one dimension of it, not everyone opposing Abortion is an automatic fundamentalist Christian. This is more of a political cum legal issue more than religious. Although religion tends to interfere into politics giving you this illusion that this is a religious issue. If you get down to the basics, this is an issue of rights. Reproductive rights of the woman  and the birth rights or basic rights of an unborn child/fetus. These are not simply women's rights because someone else's (someone who is not born yet) rights are enmeshed here with the woman's rights. 

So if you keep religion out, it will lead to way less confusion. 

Quote

I see it as a left over remnant of the 'Inquisition' and the 'witch hunts' of the middle ages where women where systematically tortured and burned alive by a sick bunch of Devils supposedly doing the work of God.

Again. You're looking at this from a religious point of view. So it appears quite harsh from your view. But there are multiple dimensions to an issue. You're looking at this from a religious dimension. I'm looking at this from a political and legal dimension. 

 

Quote

- These evil and ill conceived anti abortion laws to supposedly protect the unborn from the evils of the living are sick - And the people trying to push the agenda are at least sick, if not insane.

No they're not sick. You have to put yourself in their shoes and see it from their perspective. It would be devilish to tell a raped woman to carry a child and birth it. The same could be said of a woman dealing with medical issues herself or a woman who is carrying an abnormal fetus. In such cases one needs to be lenient and let the woman not carry the fetus anymore. This is perfectly understandable. 

 

Quote

 

I saw a proponent of the anti-abortion agenda on TV a few years ago trying to explain himself - He grew teary eyed as he started to cry about those poor unborn babies, as if he felt personally responsible to be sure he they all get born. And how many doctors have been attacked, and in some cases even murdered by these crazy devils supposedly doing the work of god 

Again I don't think that the doctors should be attacked. I don't think that the pregnant woman should be attacked. I'm not supporting that. 

Yet, abuse of a fetus is always a possibility. Fetuses can be aborted for sale or for harvesting organs. This is a possibility and it would be highly immoral. A lot of abortions do not happen at the clinic. A lot of babies are aborted illegally (part of this is because the woman is scared of aborting a child at a clinic, possibly afraid of being attacked or demonized, yet a lot of women could be aborting a child not out of fear but out of laziness or wilful neglect/abuse. I can give you an example. A woman throwing/dumping her fetus down the toilet. How exactly does this look morally appealing to you? There was no dignity afforded to the unborn fetus and it was discarded as trash. You also have to take into account that abortion rights can be heavily abused by women who only want a son and not a daughter. 

They could carry out repeated abortions  by illegally paying/hiring a doctor to determine the gender of the fetus and then abort all female fetuses. This is a crime. And in this scenario you can clearly see how abortion laws can be violated. 

Now the next issue that is tied to this is the nature of a fetus. When does a fetus become a child? Can a fetus be biologically considered a non human? If it's biologically a non human, is it psychologically and emotionally a non human too? Some people look at a fetus as a fetus and nothing more than some biological yet non emotional non sentient entity. However some people look at it not as a fetus but as a living breathing human being. This is question of perspective and is highly debatable. You cannot say that people who look at it as a child or "living breathing being" are absolutely wrong since it's the fetus that becomes a human upon birth. Also remember that even in the fetus stage it has a heart beat. At what stage should we really consider it to be a human, the heart beat stage? Or the post delivery stage? People who are  pro-abortion think that it's not  living if it's not born yet. But this is just a perspective, not the absolute truth. Now I'm not saying that the fetus is a human. Yet even if I said that the fetus is a human, that won't be an absolute truth either. That is none of these can be held as absolute truths, they are both simply perspectives and views, they could be both right and wrong at the same time. 

The next question is about pregnancy itself. If a woman (who wants to abort) is so irked by her pregnancy, why is she pregnant in the first place? Has she never heard of contraceptives, condoms, pills etc? Isn't she a first world country woman? How does she get pregnant and then suddenly realize that she does not want the child (and this is barring scenarios of rape or fetal medical issues)? 

A woman does not get pregnant on a  one night stand unless she is some fertile Helenic princess. Women get pregnant like that only if they are very fertile, and have had sex just after ovulation. A pregnancy usually happens after multiple attempts of unprotected sex. So where was she all along? She didn't know that she would be pregnant if she had unprotected sex with her boyfriend? How would she not know that? In fact it's the very first thing that women think about in a fresh relationship - an unwanted pregnancy. They jump through hoops to make sure they don't get pregnant especially if they are not willing to become mothers. So it only takes a very reckless woman to simply get pregnant like it's buying groceries. Having a child is a huge privilege and this privilege shouldn't be abused. Most abortions are just reckless women getting pregnant and then not wanting the responsibility of a parent and wanting to discard the child as rubbish (in an abortion clinic) so that they can go on with their drunken sex lives. It's not as innocent as "I was raped or I became pregnant without my will and now I have to abort because this is so awful to me." What's so wrong with pregnancy and having a child? Shouldn't it be the most beautiful thing for a woman, a gift from nature? Shouldn't it be the natural culmination of a relationship /romance as nature wants it? And if the woman so dislikes pregnancy and hates being a mother, then why wouldn't she try a plethora of options meant for contraception? How do women in India not get pregnant before marriage? Are these not women? Don't they have a womb, a vagina and  periods? Don't they have sexual desires? Don't they have boyfriends and husbands? Why don't they get pregnant? You could argue that they could be doing operations to not get pregnant anymore after the birth of children. But there are so many women in my family who have given birth to 1-2 kids and not gotten pregnant after that. Clear and simple. They tell their husbands to use condoms. Absolutely safe. 

Are husbands divorcing their wives in India because of condoms? Absolutely not. So why only western women have this problem. Why not Indian women? 

Because it comes down to lack of responsibility, hedonism, a sick culture that is full of drugs and drinking and partying and mindless sex and then waking up some day  realizing that you're pregnant because oh shit you forgot precaution!!!!!! 

Sick and crazy are not people who oppose abortion. Sick are people who abuse their freedoms in the name of western culture. 

It looks less like "freedom" and "women's rights" to me and more like sickening abuse of "freedom" and recklessness to me to be frank. 

 

Quote

In my opinion we are not dealing with politics or philosophy - These anti abortion laws, more than anything are based upon mental illness, the same type of sick minds that gave the World the Inquisition and Witch hunts of the past.

 

I already explained above. 

 

Quote

So go ahead accuse me over exaggerating - But I say it will never stop with just abortions, when you let the mentally ill take over politics and law the worst is yet to come 

Mentally ill people are those who think they can do whatever they want with their fetus for their sex fiend frenzy. 

Responsible adults use precaution and a contraceptive. 

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Preety_India

[itachi uchiha]

I am not fully against abortion but some of the so called "ohh taliban opresss woman " is propoganda

[Someone here]

29 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

This subject about abortion and Women's reproductive rights are not so much about religion. For example, I'm not entirely in favor of abortion, yet I'm born a Hindu and this matter has nothing to do with religion in my perspective, not all Christians oppose Abortion, not all anti-Christians or non Christians or atheists favor it. So you seeing fundamentalist Christians opposing abortion is simply one dimension of it, not everyone opposing Abortion is an automatic fundamentalist Christian. This is more of a political cum legal issue more than religious. Although religion tends to interfere into politics giving you this illusion that this is a religious issue. If you get down to the basics, this is an issue of rights. Reproductive rights of the woman  and the birth rights or basic rights of an unborn child/fetus. These are not simply women's rights because someone else's (someone who is not born yet) rights are enmeshed here with the woman's rights. 

So if you keep religion out, it will lead to way less confusion. 

Again. You're looking at this from a religious point of view. So it appears quite harsh from your view. But there are multiple dimensions to an issue. You're looking at this from a religious dimension. I'm looking at this from a political and legal dimension. 

 

No they're not sick. You have to put yourself in their shoes and see it from their perspective. It would be devilish to tell a raped woman to carry a child and birth it. The same could be said of a woman dealing with medical issues herself or a woman who is carrying an abnormal fetus. In such cases one needs to be lenient and let the woman not carry the fetus anymore. This is perfectly understandable. 

 

Again I don't think that the doctors should be attacked. I don't think that the pregnant woman should be attacked. I'm not supporting that. 

Yet, abuse of a fetus is always a possibility. Fetuses can be aborted for sale or for harvesting organs. This is a possibility and it would be highly immoral. A lot of abortions do not happen at the clinic. A lot of babies are aborted illegally (part of this is because the woman is scared of aborting a child at a clinic, possibly afraid of being attacked or demonized, yet a lot of women could be aborting a child not out of fear but out of laziness or wilful neglect/abuse. I can give you an example. A woman throwing/dumping her fetus down the toilet. How exactly does this look morally appealing to you? There was no dignity afforded to the unborn fetus and it was discarded as trash. You also have to take into account that abortion rights can be heavily abused by women who only want a son and not a daughter. 

They could carry out repeated abortions  by illegally paying/hiring a doctor to determine the gender of the fetus and then abort all female fetuses. This is a crime. And in this scenario you can clearly see how abortion laws can be violated. 

Now the next issue that is tied to this is the nature of a fetus. When does a fetus become a child? Can a fetus be biologically considered a non human? If it's biologically a non human, is it psychologically and emotionally a non human too? Some people look at a fetus as a fetus and nothing more than some biological yet non emotional non sentient entity. However some people look at it not as a fetus but as a living breathing human being. This is question of perspective and is highly debatable. You cannot say that people who look at it as a child or "living breathing being" are absolutely wrong since it's the fetus that becomes a human upon birth. Also remember that even in the fetus stage it has a heart beat. At what stage should we really consider it to be a human, the heart beat stage? Or the post delivery stage? People who are  pro-abortion think that it's not  living if it's not born yet. But this is just a perspective, not the absolute truth. Now I'm not saying that the fetus is a human. Yet even if I said that the fetus is a human, that won't be an absolute truth either. That is none of these can be held as absolute truths, they are both simply perspectives and views, they could be both right and wrong at the same time. 

The next question is about pregnancy itself. If a woman (who wants to abort) is so irked by her pregnancy, why is she pregnant in the first place? Has she never heard of contraceptives, condoms, pills etc? Isn't she a first world country woman? How does she get pregnant and then suddenly realize that she does not want the child (and this is barring scenarios of rape or fetal medical issues)? 

A woman does not get pregnant on a  one night stand unless she is some fertile Helenic princess. Women get pregnant like that only if they are very fertile, and have had sex just after ovulation. A pregnancy usually happens after multiple attempts of unprotected sex. So where was she all along? She didn't know that she would be pregnant if she had unprotected sex with her boyfriend? How would she not know that? In fact it's the very first thing that women think about in a fresh relationship - an unwanted pregnancy. They jump through hoops to make sure they don't get pregnant especially if they are not willing to become mothers. So it only takes a very reckless woman to simply get pregnant like it's buying groceries. Having a child is a huge privilege and this privilege shouldn't be abused. Most abortions are just reckless women getting pregnant and then not wanting the responsibility of a parent and wanting to discard the child as rubbish (in an abortion clinic) so that they can go on with their drunken sex lives. It's not as innocent as "I was raped or I became pregnant without my will and now I have to abort because this is so awful to me." What's so wrong with pregnancy and having a child? Shouldn't it be the most beautiful thing for a woman, a gift from nature? Shouldn't it be the natural culmination of a relationship /romance as nature wants it? And if the woman so dislikes pregnancy and hates being a mother, then why wouldn't she try a plethora of options meant for contraception? How do women in India not get pregnant before marriage? Are these not women? Don't they have a womb, a vagina and  periods? Don't they have sexual desires? Don't they have boyfriends and husbands? Why don't they get pregnant? You could argue that they could be doing operations to not get pregnant anymore after the birth of children. But there are so many women in my family who have given birth to 1-2 kids and not gotten pregnant after that. Clear and simple. They tell their husbands to use condoms. Absolutely safe. 

Are husbands divorcing their wives in India because of condoms? Absolutely not. So why only western women have this problem. Why not Indian women? 

Because it comes down to lack of responsibility, hedonism, a sick culture that is full of drugs and drinking and partying and mindless sex and then waking up some day  realizing that you're pregnant because oh shit you forgot precaution!!!!!! 

Sick and crazy are not people who oppose abortion. Sick are people who abuse their freedoms in the name of western culture. 

It looks less like "freedom" and "women's rights" to me and more like sickening abuse of "freedom" and recklessness to me to be frank. 

 

I already explained above. 

 

Mentally ill people are those who think they can do whatever they want with their fetus for their sex fiend frenzy. 

Responsible adults use precaution and a contraceptive. 

 

I don't want to glorify Texas, and I don't agree with their religious-based anti-abortion law, which I think will be struck down eventually. However, nobody is being held against their will there. Women are allowed to go to school, they don't have to hide their faces, they can drive a car and enjoy every other right that a man would enjoy, like owning guns or whatever. This is actually quite a contrast between what Taliban rule was in the past and presumably will be going forward. They've as much as said so.

But let's go forward with this same 'right to life' ideology and see where it can lead.
Under this Texas abortion law a woman would theoretically lose the right to her own body once pregnant, no matter how she got pregnant including rape and incest - She is now committed by law to defend the unborn baby inside her, no matter how the baby got there until it is born.

Like some dystopian science fiction future ['The Handmaid's Tale' - "..... following a Second American Civil War wherein a totalitarian society subjects fertile women, called "Handmaids", to child-bearing slavery."] Isn't this what this Texas 'right to life' abortion law is all about 

The argument can be made that bringing children into a World run by such meat-heads is child abuse to begin with 

Why would anyone want to have children in a world that encourages them to have children they never wanted in the first place .

Let me put it this way: the new laws in Texas have pushed its citizens a little more than half a century back in history. Afghanistan with the Talibans are going backwards several centuries and are a bit closer to the Middle Ages

[Preety_India]

It's weird to assume that women aren't oppressed there. Although occupation of a country is not necessarily a valid solution. Yet to dismiss the oppression is plain ignorance. 

 

[Preety_India]

36 minutes ago, Someone here said:

But let's go forward with this same 'right to life' ideology and see where it can lead.
Under this Texas abortion law a woman would theoretically lose the right to her own body once pregnant, no matter how she got pregnant including rape and incest - She is now committed by law to defend the unborn baby inside her, no matter how the baby got there until it is born.

I do not support this. I'm pretty sure there are many anti-abortionists that wouldn't support this yet they are against abortion/abortions for many different reasons. There should be exceptions for rape/incest/fetal issues. It wouldn't be appropriate to expect a woman to carry a child that is not born the normal way. 

Quote

Like some dystopian science fiction future ['The Handmaid's Tale' - "..... following a Second American Civil War wherein a totalitarian society subjects fertile women, called "Handmaids", to child-bearing slavery."] Isn't this what this Texas 'right to life' abortion law is all about..

Again. You're only considering this absolutely and totally from the woman's perspective alone. It's almost like the child(unborn) simply doesn't exist in your mind when you type all this. Why is child bearing considered slavery? 

Don't you think the unborn child has rights too? 

Your perspective is completely lacking in any empathy for the unborn child. You can only think this way if your mind automatically assumes the unborn child is nothing but a bag of groceries that can be abandoned/discarded on the side of the street because it's smelling bad. 

I liken this to pet owners who suddenly don't want the pet anymore because they don't think they can handle it and so they simply abandon the pet on the side of the road. And you're standing there and justifying it and calling it pet caring slavery if they aren't allowed to do that. How in the world you don't see the abuse of the pet? How you don't realize that those unborn children /fetuses did not sign up for this torture? Neither did they sign up to be born in the first place nor did they sign up to be butchered before birth? How do you not see this from the perspective of the unborn child at all? 

Did you say that women are subjected to child bearing slavery? That would imply that the women were forced to get pregnant in the first place by forcing them to have sex? But that's totally not the case. These women get pregnant of their own volition, nobody is forcing them to get pregnant, they could have easily chosen to not get pregnant by taking precautions, yet they didn't. You're saying as those women automatically get pregnant and have absolutely no control over how they get pregnant. That's possible in a rape scenario. Even despite rape, raped women who approach clinics for a morning after pill (or other medical interventions) can thwart the possibility of a pregnancy. In reality it's the first thing that most raped women do, they run to clinics and hospitals either for a rape kit and or to avoid a possible pregnancy. I feel like rape cases are used as strawman in these arguments. Cherry picking. Most unwanted pregnancies aren't from rape but from mindless reckless irresponsible unprotected sex. You're using the rape argument as though all women lining up to abortion clinics are raped women. Ridiculous. Why can't  exceptions be given to raped women  and women facing medical issues? That can be easily accommodated since these do not make up majority of the women who walk into an abortion clinic. 

 

Quote

The argument can be made that bringing children into a World run by such meat-heads is child abuse to begin with. 

Bringing children into the world? Are you kidding me? For a pregnancy to occur, sex and unprotected sex( on top of it) should happen first. The meat heads didn't force these innocent angels to have unprotected sex. These reckless people decided to not use protection and brought it on themselves. It's they who are causing the conceiving of the fetus in the first place, all things later. 

You act as though contraceptives simply don't exist. 

If you don't want to bring those kids into this world, don't have unprotected sex! Period. 

 

Quote

Why would anyone want to have children in a world that encourages them to have children they never wanted in the first place .

Then don't have. Use contraception and stop conception. Abortion is not the only way to stop a child from coming into this world. That's what a sensible anti-abortionist would want, they would want people to try safer ways to not have children and not have to resort to abortion.

Quote

 

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Preety_India

[Someone here]

The new Texas anti-abortion laws are, apart from anything else, apparently cynically designed to promote "bounty hunting" against anyone who even drives a woman to the Texas border. But I don't think they're motivated primarily by misogyny or the desire to subjugate women as such. I think they're motivated by a pathological fixation on the concept of the sanctity of human life in the abstract, without any thought for what it means in the real world, or for the quality of that life in the real world. In restricting abortion to before most women know they are pregnant, even in cases of incest or rape, they clearly don't pay much heed to the welfare of women. But it's not the welfare of living things they care about. It's simply this fetishizing of "human life" which leads to the idea that a single fertilized human cell ought to be afforded more rights than a fully formed, thinking, living, breathing non-human.

It's interesting to wonder if they would feel the same way if the recent extinction of our nearest hominid relatives (homo erectus etc) hadn't created such a relatively large evolutionary divide between us and our nearest extant relatives. If birds had brains that were sufficiently developed to have moral opinions about abortion similar to ours, I wonder if stage  blue would regard single-celled blue tit embryos as deserving more rights than fully formed great 

Keep in mind that, in both places, women profess the same religion as the men. A great many right-to-lifers are female, just as a great many advocates of women's reproductive rights are male. The divide is between the sexes; it's between political factions.

In Afghanistan, there is no effective government or law-enforcement, now that the US puppets have gone the way of their imperial predecessors. The militant fundamentalists constitute federal authority, army, police, court and church.
When all the warlords are defeated or assimilated, the Taliban will have absolute control.

 

[Someone here]

I was just listening to an interview on NPR {National Public Radio} of a woman who wrote a book on the history of abortion in the US.
According to her the new Conservative Supreme Court may hold up the Texas law and a bunch of other state anti-abortion laws which would not only overturn Roe vs. Wade but might even lead to abortion becoming illegal on a nationwide bassis

[puporing]

@Someone here Yep and yep.. unless the State will also compensate a woman for forcing her to have a kid she don't want, give her the option to give the kid up to foster care (also not great for the kid?) or whatever alternative caretaking options, it is an intrusion to women's rights, their lives and body. But even compensation is cringe worthy because ultimately you're taking away choice/freedom. Ultimately it conveys that an unborn fetus has more rights than an adult. In a more optimal world there would probably be both resources to take care of "unwanted" kids collectively, and giving people the choice not to have them and this includes better access to "near perfect" birth control methods in addition to abortion. Some people are genuinely scared that the human race will die out due to abortions and the use of birth control.

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by puporing

[Someone here]

Yes .that's the cover-lie. Women are seen as a threat. They're smart, co-operative, organized and far-seeing. Once you stop subjugating them by physical force and legal sanction (barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen), they gain power, and if they gain power, the whole system will change. As it did in developed nations: the birth rate declines; tolerant, inclusive laws are introduced - next thing you know, they're coming for your guns, SUV's and cattle. Which is why the right wing resurgence of white-supremacist, Islamist, fundamentalist factions are so keen to subjugate them again

Edited February 13, 2022 by Someone here

[puporing]

20 minutes ago, Someone here said:

They're smart, co-operative, organized and far-seeing. Once you stop subjugating them by physical force and legal sanction (barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen), they gain power, and if they gain power, the whole system will change.

 Why thank you.

Yeah makes sense it's a reactionary kind of move. Ego doesn't like 'losing' its relative powers, when used to getting its way with things. Treating women like individuals like you would a man means the hierarchical system starts to dissolve. 

[Preety_India]

28 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Yes .that's the cover-lie. Women are seen as a threat. They're smart, co-operative, organized and far-seeing. Once you stop subjugating them by physical force and legal sanction (barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen), they gain power, and if they gain power, the whole system will change. As it did in developed nations: the birth rate declines; tolerant, inclusive laws are introduced - next thing you know, they're coming for your guns, SUV's and cattle. Which is why the right wing resurgence of white-supremacist, Islamist, fundamentalist factions are so keen to subjugate them again

It's not so black and white. Feminism and Supremacy of the Left is not always the best scenario. You're looking at one side of the coin, not the other. 

White supremacist is not as bad as you think. Some white supremacists aren't racist. 

I have myself been a part of white supremacist groups. 

It's not so black and white as you assume. 

Not all right wing people are monsters out to get women 

 

[Yarco]

There's a huge difference between not having reproductive rights vs. not being able to go to school, own land or a business, have a job, travel in public without a male guardian, etc. If you asked any woman if they'd rather live in Texas or Afghanistan, it's not even a question.