Why do you think women are hated this much? These are our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our wives, after all. Shouldn’t our main goal be to love and protect them?
3 Likes
I don’t really know if it is hate, but there are enough humans (or men) who think they are superior and want to rule over the supposedly “weaker sex”, often based on their beliefs (some because of their upbringing). A strong belief they want to indoctrinate others with, so all can live a righteous life, regardless if those other people share the same belief or not.
6 Likes
Putting down half the world’s population is anything but right. It’s wrong, so very wrong. Only a maniac would tell his wife that he loves her knowing fully that she is a second-class citizen whose body is the property of another. That’s not something a man should ever do. Men have but one God-given duty on this Earth: To protect others. By doing the opposite, by hurting them, you are no longer a man, a human being.
3 Likes
People invent their own truths to justify their acts. For example, under the premise that women are weak, they claim we need to be protected and twist that into violence against all women.
But their premise is completely wrong. Women are not weaker than men. That’s pure bullshit.
I don’t need any man (or woman) to protect me. If the society is just, it will protect me and any other individual within it.
7 Likes
This is self-evident, but it is not convenient at all.
You can’t govern what you can’t control.
2 Likes
If this is about the over turning of Roe v Wade in the US I don’t think its about hate or seeing women as weak.
There are only a few reasons - money, power, strong right Christian beliefs.
There are 4 Republican judges on the Supreme Court - and I believe 3 of them were put there by Trump. 4 out of the 5 judges overturned it where men.
The USA’s politics are seeped in Christian Religion, because their voters are loud and can produce votes and money, so the politicians pander to them just so they can stay in office. The government since it began, has always allowed the Church into the White House and Court Rooms. There is no separation of Church and State. Not to mention that every state has different laws (on abortion, guns, schooling, crimes etc not to mention the dealing of LGBTQ+, Women’s Rights and Black Lives Matter rights) to again pander to the people who are loudest in that state.
It isn’t just men that are trying to dictate what rights a woman has over her own body. There are many devout Christians (Democrat and Republican) and strong right wing nutjobs (because they are not the same thing) WOMEN who also think they have the right to decide on other women’s choices.
Its about power, because these politicians regardless of there gender, race or even political party want to stay in power they will f**k over the normal every day people of America.
I mean every month there is a mass shooting or more - guns are still allowed to be purchased and owned by anyone who walks in the shop.
People are going bankrupted, homeless, and dying because they can’t afford healthcare.
Do you think the politicians will care that women are having botched abortions. That women who are raped and impregnated will have no choice, that a 13 year old girl will have to be mother, that a woman carrying a still born or a foetus with birth defects that will die, and they have to carry out the pregnancy?
I am a woman, I believe in God (not a church goer) and although I might be to old to, I still want children. All that being said no other person on this planet has any rights on what I would or wouldn’t choose to do with my body and its reproductive organs.
Americans always pledge allegiance to a flag that represents a system that does not respect them or serves them. They are drilled to think that America is the best and the land of the free. There are literally hundreds of others countries with that same “freedom”.
The TV show, based on the book The Handmaid’s Tale, is getting closer to non-fiction then fiction.
7 Likes
There is nothing Christian about forcing a woman to have a child after being molested or while the initially wanted pregnancy is jeopardising her life. Christianity as a word is being abused here to, as you aptly say, gain power for a handful of maniacs.
70% of USA citizens, who these judges supposedly represent, were against dismissing Roe vs Wade.
This means that the supposed representatives in Congress, Senate and Supreme court, who had been supporting far-right pro-life movement, have gone rogue, working only for their own interests. In that case, they no longer represent their citizens and in fact should be dismissed from their positions.
5 Likes
Sadly it happens in many countries with different political systems, religions, customs, culture and other differentiating factors. If it was a USA thing, it could change or at least it could be waited out for a couple hundreds of years. The problem here is that this is a long-standing, world-wide problem.
I don’t really disagree with you on the reasons for this vote. I just want to stress that this is a very old, very wide-spread problem that goes beyond the USA borders and that nobody seems to know how to correct it.
Mothers and mothers-in-law in many many parts of the world will happily support an abusive man who has or is about to beat a woman to death, for example, than suffer the stigma of a divorce in the family saga.
ETA
Most countries laws (legal and social) use religion as a lever, because religion is a powerful control tool. It doesn’t mean that religion is at the root of it.
4 Likes
Wow really even if it’s jeopardizing the mother’s life? Because most countries in the world allow an abortion if it is risking the mother’s life, no matter what their stand on abortion in general is
1 Like
The average family struggles to raise 2-3 children, I wonder how 6+ children will be manageable. Some families with stable jobs and steady income can do it, but most families aren’t like that. Those who support such legislations can’t understand that having many children means “having many undernourrished, undereducated children” who will struggle in the job market and will be easy pray as cheap labour. I won’t even mention how easy it will be to control an impoverished, uneducated mass of young people when needed (eg when a politician needs to start a war or an armed march).
Having children just because “women must” leads to messy childhoods and messy parenthoods. I’d rather see families with just a few children, well-loved, well-cared and well-raised, than “moral paradigms” with delinquent brats (at best).
Instead of forcing people who don’t want kids to give birth to several children, politicians should enforce laws to help and support families who want kids. Something that politicians avoid like the plague.
3 Likes
That’s a very general statement, isn’t it? With similar wording, you could ask “Why do people hate children so much, children who didn’t ask to be born in adverse conditions but whose unique DNA directs their bodies and minds to keep developing, filled with the potential to love, heal, and change things?”
Even the talk on “protection” is quite a general statement. Mammals are supposed to be more evolved, which is why they don’t lay a bunch of eggs out in the open but opted for internal fertilization and development. Isn’t that all to protect the few young they have instead of relying on beating the odds of survival with large numbers? Who is allowed to decide the stages of life that should and should not be protected?
A choice should be a well-informed choice. Making a choice agaisnt keeping a child doesn’t make the child magically disappear. Is everyone well-informed of the potential physical and psychological risks involved that are supported with enough statistics to make it a valid cause for concern? Is everyone presented with all other alternate options? Are they informed about the possibilities of giving a chance to the potential life and the millions of loving and supportive families waiting for children? How about improving support and healthcare for pregnant women and teenagers instead of popularizing a yes-no question that isn’t as simple as it looks? “Women shouldn’t have to dread motherhood or adoption and risk their lives to avoid it.” Can’t messy childhoods and messy parenthoods be prevented by well-structured childcare counselling? It used to be a huge social stigma to seek help for mental or family problems. We’ve come such a long way from then.
Until recently, the world thought that coal and fossil fuels were the only way to produce large amounts of energy. Only when Earth started saying no, fossil fuels won’t last forever, did we look for sustainable alternatives. We have so many bright minds working on alternative solutipns because they were restricted by a shortage of non-sustainable energy.
Why is the pro-life movement associated with Christianity? Because Christians were told no, potential life isn’t to be governed by a yes-no choice. “Because dependency varies across life stages doesn’t mean value should.”
It reminds me of the poor illiterate female laborers in my country with no access to basic hygiene resources, who choose to have vasectomies out of their own free will, because they are told that the costly procedure is the only solution to their problems. Of course, the subsequent side effects and impact on their mental health in the long run is conveniently hidden before they are allowed to make the choice.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.in/features/how-women-sugarcane-workers-in-maharashtras-beed-deal-with-side-effects-of-hysterectomy/954449/%3Famp
According to Focus on the Family(a pro-life, “religious” US organization, “…Women’s rights are objectively crucial to our society, and women should have bodily autonomy. But what the pro-life movement believes isn’t about taking away those rights. Instead, it’s about drawing a line when it takes another’s rights. Consider when a pregnant mother is killed. It’s considered in some places to be a double homicide because there is a second life to account for. A similar conclusion can be made with abortion”
We have to consider what kind of woman asks for an abortion. Some people believe that only lesbians, “nymphomaniacs” and h**kers asks for abortions.
If you ask my grand-aunts, each and every woman who asks for an abortion is a wh* who wants to sleep around with no repercussions or who who doesn’t want to fulfill her duties to the family.
If you ask people who are not stuck-ups, they may tell you that carrying a rapist’s baby and giving it for adoption is not a solution. Carrying the baby of your prom night sweetheart because your parents and your schoold refused to talk to you about the bees before the act, to ‘‘protect your innocence’’, is not a solution. Carrying a still-born or a foetus that puts you in danger medically, is not a proof of love. Carrying some blo**y wife abuser’s child is not a proof of “not being a home-wrecker”.
There are so many ophan babies out there (wars, accidents, illnesses), innocents who die without a hope for adoption or that have to jump through the hoops of …uh… substandard foster homes (gang-owned human trade niches that governments fail to crush because they are busy hunting down and subduing abused wives) that we really don’t need more orphans.
People who are so vocal about infanticides should probably look around and protect children that are already born, for a change! If one billionth of this sensitivity for unborn children could go to the respect of life in general, we would have a safer society.
That said, whenever a woman wants a child and is ready to carry and have it, I’m obviously on her side. We must not forget that there exist forced abortions that should never ever happen!
ETA
At least until 50 years ago (still now, in villages) it was customary for a widower to marry a woman to “raise his children”. She could have children of her own, because “contraception is sin”, but she could not have a son if the widower already had a son. Guess what happened in case she did give birth to a baby son?
I believe it would be much better if she could a) try and prevent the pregnancy and b) have an abortion instead of having her babies killed by the in-laws.
2 Likes
If you were to talk to the people on that website Focus on the Family at what point does mother’s life (not just the physical one, but also psychological and emotional one) have more rights than the foetuses, they will tell you never. Which goes to show that they are not out there to protect life, but to protect an idea.
Also, the moment that child is born, it becomes less relevant, same as the rest of the already born humans.
Although I agree with you that the society should be such that even if you don’t want to have an abortion and don’t want to keep the baby, you would have the chance to give it away to some lucky parent(s), or if you wanted to become a single mother, as of now that is far from being realistic due to the many misplaced mechanisms in most of the countries around the world. And as an individual you might not want to risk ruining your life and the life of your child while waiting for your country to finally wake up and do a meaningful reform.
Those who suffer the most here are always the poorest people. Those who don’t have the education, the information and the money to do what they think it’s best, whether to keep the baby or not. They have no choice and stand no chance of getting one any time soon. It is a discrimination against the poor, perpetuating poverty. A dark limbo, so to speak.
3 Likes
This. Exactly this.
1 Like
How fair is it to expect a woman who for whatever reason can’t/won’t keep her child to carry out her pregnancy, go through labor, maybe not even get a chance to see her child and then have it taken away from her after all? And she won’t know if the child is going to lead a happy life. He/she might go from foster home to foster home or grow up in a family where he/she will be sexually abused, which happens a lot to foster children.
Also, legally spoken, abortion is the “easiest” option (I’m definitely not talking about the psychological effects here). Children have the official right to grow up with their birth parents so if you want to give your child up, you first have to prove to a judge that you can’t give your child what it needs and you have to do it before labor. If you then change your mind after giving birth, you have to prove that you actually are able to take care of your child and you have no guarantee that the judge will buy it.
There will always be women who see no other option than abortion, and there will always be third parties (family, the unborn’s dad, the woman’s partner, employers, etc.) who coerce women into having abortions. If they can’t realize that in a legal way, they either end up having illegal abortions (with all the risks involved) or they try to do it themselves (again, with all the risks involved). As sad as it is, if you have to have an abortion, you’d better have it at a place with professionals and good hygiene.
Parents have to make decisions for their children as long as they are not old enough to make those decisions themselves. A child who is not even born yet can’t be asked for his/her opinion so the decision lies with the mother. No woman goes through an abortion for fun, whether it’s her own choice or not. And the reason for terminating the pregnancy might very well be the best option for the child. Preventing your child from having a horrible life is also a form of maternal love.
And what if the woman’s life really is in danger? Sure, you might be willing to die for your child, but that would mean the child would be left without a mother. Is that such a great alternative?
That would be great, but there is a lot to improve and most governments just don’t want to put their money into such matters.
3 Likes
Maybe I am too biased because I have seen lots of ‘‘loving mothers’’ burning their cigarette fags on the child’s skin, locking the kid in a cupboatd because it cries when they watch daytime tv, refusing to feed a kid for a whole day if it doesn’t clean its room, pretending that they don’t know the kid gets abused or bullied by other family members (a boyfriend, a dad, a sibling). What good is give birth to a baby if you are going to break its little bones?
I’m NOT talking about mentally unstable women or women with drug addictions. I’m talking about mothers with a great job, an education, a nice income, nice family backgrounds, 100% respectable in their local community.
I really wish those ‘‘mothers’’ had opted for an abortion instead.
1 Like
For me, the answer is straightforward… I’m male, and I have pretty much 100% individual control over my body. I wholeheartedly believe that females should also have the same 100% control over their bodies. All of us are humans, and females shouldn’t be disadvantaged just because they are designed with XX chromosomes. Whatever an individual woman decides should be entirely up to her and her conscience, and no one should judge her on whatever decision she makes.
11 Likes
I happen to know couples who wish to start a family, but can’t because of medical issues. Fertility treatments are expensive and exhaustive with little to no financial support. And adoption is this laboriously bureaucratic process that prevents thousands of children from finding a good home. And people don’t know this, but there are a bunch of legal fees involved in the process, which is already a super emotional ride.
2 Likes
As for what is happening in the United States, I have no idea why a Government established solely on the notion of Liberty – which the U.S. Constitution defines as freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual – would even intervene in such a private and delicate matter?!
3 Likes
And how are we going to ensure that all mothers who choose to have children out of their own free will are going to treat their children well?
That idea could go into different places - we could wish murderers’ mothers always chose to terminate their pregnancies, we could wish the world’s tyrants chose to terminate their own lives before taking millions of others… Should suicide should be allowed whenever a person wishes just because the person isn’t being responsible/satisfied with their life at that point in time?
The majority of anti-abortion laws around the world allow abortions in case the pregnancy is putting the mother’s life in danger or she’s at “serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function” unless an abortion is performed. This includes all the US states. Until now, five states include exceptions in cases of sexual assault and incest.
Depending on how involved a birth parent chooses to be, there are a range of options, from Safe Haven laws to closed and open adoptions that allow the mother to evaluate the adoptive family. After adoption, the odds of a child entering the foster care system are about the same as any other child.
https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/termination-of-parental-rights
Even though the ease of an abortion is debatable, should “ease” have a prominent place in such discussions? “Ease” can be used to support anything from stripping everyone of their rights so that the one in charge can control everyone how they see fit and “right”, to anarchy. “Ease” can remove the need for suicide prevention centres, counselling programmes, juvenile institutions and de-addiction establishments.
I am in no way saying that this legislation or a blanket ban will solve all the world’s problems. I just don’t get why people are told that their options are only parenting the child, aborting the child, or giving them up into a system that will abuse them.
There will always be people who abuse the law. There will always be people who use religion to cover for their power-hungry or self-righteous schemes. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws. We have come a long way from what we were 50 or 100 years ago. We can go further. Education is letting people know their options.
1 Like