The War on Women

[Murmurs]

One does not make sex any safer or less damaging by divorcing the consequence from the action. It is only in taking the consequences with the actions that we can step up to the plate. Anything less contributes more to the culture of death we see in so much of the world now.

The very phrase “No one can stop sex happening” reveals the truth, that some do not intend on exercise of ration and reason, but wish man to be reduced to an animal, slave to desires and sins forever.

This enslavement is another war. Only it is not just a war against women, it is a war against creation itself.

So is this the fault of “the patriarchy” or not?

If so, Ever hear “happy wife, happy life”? Is that based on an ingrained idea that men have to please women? Did that come from the matriarchy?

I fear that our interesting conversation on this thread is going to come to an end for my part with this post, lest in response to any further egregiously smug myopia I say something really uncharitable which we will all have cause to regret.

I simply ask for consideration, that there is extremely unhelpful intransigence from both sides of this issue and perhaps those who are opposed effectively if not intentionally to women’s rights at least give credence to the idea that as not everyone believes the same things about the origins of morality (or the world, for that matter), we stop using our own definitions as a tool with which to bash others with whim we disagree.

Because when that happens, it’s abundantly clear who is the real tool.

God bless you all

Murmurs xx

 

[billcu1]

Abortion on demand is a fruit of feminism, not “the patriarchy”.

Right. And their main thing they like to say to me is a misnomer. “It’s my body.” Is it? We have nothing IMO. All was made “by him and FOR him.” My :twocents: worth.

 

[MarcoPolo]

it would probably easier if at the very least it was primarily a discussion between women about an issue that only effects women.

As others said, this hardly is an issue that only affects women.

Now, I agree with you that some women (and even men) reject anything that comes out of a man’s mouth on this issue. Such women are themselves bigoted. But if there was a married couple that evangelized on this topic and they felt that their contact would be more comfortable if the wife did the talking, then so be it. On a case by case basis I think the principle of not causing a brother to stumble may better apply. But this notion that men should get out of the dialogue corporately is contrary to the very charism of headship demanded of a man. He must tell the truth even if the masses crucify him for it.

 

[Murmurs]

As others said, this hardly is an issue that only affects women.

Now, I agree with you that some women (and even men) reject anything that comes out of a man’s mouth on this issue. Such women are themselves bigoted. But if there was a married couple that evangelized on this topic and they felt that their contact would be more comfortable if the wife did the talking, then so be it. On a case by case basis I think the principle of not causing a brother to stumble may better apply. But this notion that men should get out of the dialogue corporately is contrary to the very charism of headship demanded of a man. He must tell the truth even if the masses crucify him for it.

Ok with my Hypocrisy Hat on (because I’ve come back to the thread ), I’d tentatively suggest that however well intentioned as it undoubtedly is (and also I do see what you mean and basically agree), ideas and expressions like “the very charism of headship demanded of a man”, is at the heart of the patriarchal attitude which makes possible the (sometimes unwitting, sometimes not), war on women, and moreover is the sort of language which I’d suggest most women, not just the most ardently feminist, would find just a tiny bit sexist.

Why and how is headship demanded of a man? If one is thinking in a Biblical sense, then it is undeniable you can find something to back that up (I’m sure we all can think of appropriate passages), but I’d also suggest that that sort of attitude is more cultural than inherent in humanity. Our culture now celebrates the equality of ‘headship’. And that is a very good thing, surely? As far as holy orders goes (not that I want to bring that old chestnut into the discussion), the only reason I am against the ordination of women - effectively endorsing one articulation of ‘headship’ confined to men - is because the Church through consistent teaching has said it’s not moving in that direction, and I respect that consistency, regardless of whether or not a more persuasive argument is that it’s a tradition built on a cultural inheritance rather than to do otherwise would upset God.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

The “War on Women” is a propagandist ploy, here are a few recent examples…

If you don’t support the troops, you don’t support the war.
If you don’t support contraception and/or abortion, you’re making a War on Women.
If you don’t support equality in marriage, you’re a bigot, homophobe, hateful, etc.

Its as simple as taking a political position and crafting negative connotations to associate and repeat with falsehoods to advocate for said position. All of these political “wars” in society such as the “War on Poverty” have actually caused the issue of poverty to become far worse. Most often they have nothing to do with the people they claim to help but rather seek to enshrine more power within the government while leading to abject moral decay.

So, the war on poverty did not worsen poverty. Our financial system simply got much better at creating it. Nice try slipping it in to this discussion though.

 

[francisca]

I have seen men at pro-life rallies who mourn lost fatherhood. I have seen men whose wives aborted their children and they are hurt by it. You can try and diminish their pain all you want but that doesn’t change a thing.

I think fatherhood right shouldn’t be removed from men. Pro-life movement must include this right, and also the right of the fetus.

“Woman empowerment” is actually to push “all responsibility to woman”, the reason why women being “left alone to herself” to decide for abortion.

In cases of child neglect, both parents will have to be responsible. With similar logic I think it’s not hard to deduce a conclusion that both parents will be guilty of abortion (murder of their own offspring!) if both of them allow it to happen. With this responsibility being pushed back to men, this will empower men to claim their right of fatherhood.

Fatherhood comes with great responsibility too.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

As others said, this hardly is an issue that only affects women.

Only women have abortions.

Others may be affected second-hand, but they’re not the ones having the abortions.

If you want to reach out to husbands and boyfriends and encourage them to take responsibility for their children – financially, emotionally, practically in terms of childcare – for the next 18 years so that women may consider continuing their pregnancies, that would be a good thing. But it comes with the understanding that it’s the woman who ultimately decides to continue or end the pregnancy and men can’t force the decision one way or the other.

But this notion that men should get out of the dialogue corporately is contrary to the very charism of headship demanded of a man. He must tell the truth even if the masses crucify him for it.

They’re not going to crucify you. They’re going to ignore you as they have been for 40 years.

And they’re going to understand that men claiming “headship” is all about taking power. Men proclaiming that they’re in charge is not going to convince women to listen.

It’s been said that insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So how are your efforts to take charge of women’s lives and end abortion working out?

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s been said that insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So how are your efforts to take charge of women’s lives and end abortion working out?

Apparently, the alternative of standing back and not saying or doing anything has resulted in the deaths of over 55 million human beings in the United States alone and 1.3 billion world wide, along with, now, the cannibalizing and selling of human baby parts.

If that isn’t enough to give you pause and compel you to, minimally, give the other side a hearing, then I am not sure what could EVER change your mind.

The other issue I have is with you framing the issue as an either/or and false dichotomy.

It isn’t a choice between taking charge of women’s lives or not, it is a question of attempting to persuade women (at least those who see this as a question of animus) to take off that blinker/filter and see the issue with a new lens - one of “Are you happy with the kind of being that ‘taking charge of your life’ is turning you into?”

This is a legitimate question which serves, appropriately, to compel otherwise moral beings to focus on the long term consequences of where they are heading. The women in the CMP videos are glimpses into the kinds of human beings we are turning into. THAT may be unproblematic for someone solely concerned with “taking charge of lives,” but it should give pause to anyone concerned with what it means to be a moral human being.

 

[Murmurs]

Apparently, the alternative of standing back and not saying or doing anything has resulted in the deaths of over 55 million human beings in the United States alone and 1.3 billion world wide, along with, now, the cannibalizing and selling of human baby parts.

If that isn’t enough to give you pause and compel you to, minimally, give the other side a hearing, then I am not sure what could EVER change your mind.

I agree. New approaches sorely needed, and hopefully succeeding long before the death toll in the US alone reaches 100 millions (we can hope, work, pray, that this is the case).

Thing is though, we know how the banning-abortion (or making it more difficult) approach is portrayed, and arguably rightly - that women’s rights are being denied (whatever the beneficent motive, this is undeniable; we merely feel that it is a legitimate case for denying particular rights, or rather superseding them to the right-to-life of the child).

The other issue I have is with you framing the issue as an either/or and false dichotomy.

It isn’t a choice between taking charge of women’s lives or not, it is a question of attempting to persuade women (at least those who see this as a question of animus) to take off that blinker/filter and see the issue with a new lens - one of “Are you happy with the kind of being that ‘taking charge of your life’ is turning you into?”

If it is, as you say, not a choice between taking or not “charge of women’s lives”, then we shouldn’t be attempting to do so through legislative or other means. (Forcing ultrasounds, etc, is similarly taking charge of a woman’s life and while I applaud the motive, the act I find abhorrent).

However, we do agree - the idea behind “…the kind of being that ‘taking charge of your life’ is turning you into?” is laudable as something to inculcate in society in general.

This is a legitimate question which serves, appropriately, to compel otherwise moral beings to focus on the long term consequences of where they are heading. The women in the CMP videos are glimpses into the kinds of human beings we are turning into. THAT may be unproblematic for someone solely concerned with “taking charge of lives,” but it should give pause to anyone concerned with what it means to be a moral human being.

I’m wary of bringing up PP - or rather I am very wary of bringing up medical research, because I think bolting it onto the abortion issue means some people (not meaning you at all) start to castigate women for making a rather altruistic decision to donate foetal tissue for research (which - and the rightness of drawing good from evil is for another thread - is beneficial for human kind in general, at least in a material way). Also it is very wrong to attack PP officials or anyone involved in this kind of work, for being callous in discussing human body parts in this way - like it or not it is their bread and butter, so to speak, and so do not have the emotive reaction that you or I do or would do, towards the topic. (Personal testimony; my mother is a GP and will quite happily talk about the most teeth-curdlingly awful things at the dinner table while eagerly tucking into a roast dinner, while the rest of the family blanches - these researchers are similarly habituated to it and we should not attack them for seeing human body parts as a research resource - given they are already dead at this point; viewing a living person as a harvestable store, is when we start to get Mengele-ian).

But anyway, presenting choice, and persuading to take a more moral choice, is absolutely what we should be doing. I am sure most people who support abortion rights couldn’t disagree if they were reasonable (most in my experience are, actually). It lurches into a front of a war-on-women, in the eyes of pro-abortion feminists (not all feminists favour abortion, just FYI) when either the right to make that choice is taken away, or the choice is no longer an informed one; doctors should provide info about abortion alternatives, and crisis centres should provide info about abortion, IMO. Doing otherwise is rightly or wrongly perceived as an attack).

It is a war, and it’s about perception. Just slight changes in the approach can maybe wring huge perceptual changes - which points towards a victory for what is right, and without deliberately or unconsciously, attacking women.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m wary of bringing up PP - or rather I am very wary of bringing up medical research, because I think bolting it onto the abortion issue means some people (not meaning you at all) start to castigate women for **making a rather altruistic decision to donate foetal tissue for research **(which - and the rightness of drawing good from evil is for another thread - is beneficial for human kind in general, at least in a material way).

The ONLY possible way to interpret the donation of fetal tissue as “altruistic” is to assume that the tissue somehow “belongs” to the mother and not to the human being in her womb.

I have never been able to consider “volunteering" some OTHER person for some burdensome task to be “altruistic” on MY part. It just baffles me that you can write this without a cold chill running down your spine.

Here, let me consent to having YOU chopped up into little pieces and then count that as “altruistic” on MY part.

Sorry, this just doesn’t register as even remotely plausible.

I am sure you will read this through the lens of “castigating women,” but let me assure you I would apply the principle whenever and wherever two or more human beings are involved – without distinction.

What puzzles me is why anyone would think it could possibly be a woman’s privilege to be “altruistic" with someone else’s life and bodily integrity.

 

[vz71]

Thing is though, we know how the banning-abortion (or making it more difficult) approach is portrayed, and arguably rightly - that women’s rights are being denied (whatever the beneficent motive, this is undeniable; we merely feel that it is a legitimate case for denying particular rights, or rather superseding them to the right-to-life of the …

I have to ask, what right of a woman is denied in disallowing abortion?
The right to … what? Murder?

 

[francisca]

Only women have abortions.

Others may be affected second-hand, but they’re not the ones having the abortions.

If you want to reach out to husbands and boyfriends and encourage them to take responsibility for their children – financially, emotionally, practically in terms of childcare – for the next 18 years so that women may consider continuing their pregnancies, that would be a good thing. But it comes with the understanding that it’s the woman who ultimately decides to continue or end the pregnancy and men can’t force the decision one way or the other.

It is a reality that a fetus has a father, and this fatherhood should have some degree of right in it. Parental right comes with responsibility otherwise no right.

I think “fetus fatherhood” should mean giving the mother financial and moral support during pregnancy, birth, and after-birth recovery period, until child support begin (hence “fetus support” and then “child support” so to speak).

Pregnancy is hard for a woman to work when she’s nauseous all day, her feet/ body hurt, and sizely she become less mobile, hence financial support. Moral support at the very least is for a man to accompany the woman to the clinic (if so she wish), or going away from neighbour and friends to give birth secretly, which can be a big thing for many cultural background. Cultural background can press hard on women that they abort the pregnancy for no other reason than shame for having no man beside her. Time also very crucial matter, the first 20weeks is the decision time. This last one means to educate men about pregnancy and what they can do to exercise their right.

They’re not going to crucify you. They’re going to ignore you as they have been for 40 years.

And they’re going to understand that men claiming “headship” is all about taking power. Men proclaiming that they’re in charge is not going to convince women to listen.

It’s been said that insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So how are your efforts to take charge of women’s lives and end abortion working out?

 

[utah_rose]

I have a problem with both of them. Especially when they also claim to be Catholic. You cannot be 100% liberal or conservative and be 100% Catholic. Something has to give, and in America it’s usually the faith rather than the politics.

Im a woman and feel that we do have the right to good jobs already, providing we have some education and are willing just as men are to begin on the bottom. Interestingly enough, the liberals that claim no job opportunity for women and equal wages are many that are paying them less. This has been proven for women working for the President and probably others in the administration. It’s a case of don’t do as I do, but do as I say.

And yes, I’m a Conservative and 100% Catholic. You will find that many of us give more to charity. are more pro life, and for traditional families. Oh yes, I’m a senior, not wealthy, living on SS . Many of us are regular folks tired of the secularism pushing at us from all directions.

 

[francisca]

I agree. New approaches sorely needed, and hopefully succeeding long before the death toll in the US alone reaches 100 millions (we can hope, work, pray, that this is the case).

Thing is though, we know how the banning-abortion (or making it more difficult) approach is portrayed, and arguably rightly - that women’s rights are being denied (whatever the beneficent motive, this is undeniable; we merely feel that it is a legitimate case for denying particular rights, or rather superseding them to the right-to-life of the child).

I agree if a woman need to choose between her own life and the fetus life, then it is her right to choose her life. No question about this. If a woman can’t even support her own life, then how can she be responsible for another life (the fetus)? Therefore if the father doesn’t excercise his right to give support, then she should be allowed to choose for herself whether she can carry the burden of another life alone without any other support/ help.

But if the father choose to support her, then she should give the fetus it’s right to live. The right of the fetus to live comes from the consentual sex between both the man and woman, and not man only or woman only. I am saying that man and woman agree to have sex, therfore it is their duty to give the fetus a chance to live. If one party neglect his duty then he has no say regarding the fetus life.

Bottom line, the central issue shouldn’t be whether abortion is allowed legally. It should be allowed legally. Abortion is only one option. The other option is the life, and how to be responsible for this new life.

If it is, as you say, not a choice between taking or not “charge of women’s lives”, then we shouldn’t be attempting to do so through legislative or other means. (Forcing ultrasounds, etc, is similarly taking charge of a woman’s life and while I applaud the motive, the act I find abhorrent).

However, we do agree - the idea behind “…the kind of being that ‘taking charge of your life’ is turning you into?” is laudable as something to inculcate in society in general.

I agree that in execution, it should be woman’s voluntary agreement to let the pregnancy continue, and to go for her health checkup. No man is allowed to take charge of others health matthers, otherwise it can potentially become rather “ugly”.

This is a sensitive issue, I guess it has to be applied not only with legality, cultural and sexual education/ pregnancy education (for men too)/ woman’s vs man’s right has to be defined carefully during this decisive moment (around 20 weeks) of the fetus life.

But anyway, presenting choice, and persuading to take a more moral choice, is absolutely what we should be doing. I am sure most people who support abortion rights couldn’t disagree if they were reasonable (most in my experience are, actually). It lurches into a front of a war-on-women, in the eyes of pro-abortion feminists (not all feminists favour abortion, just FYI) when either the right to make that choice is taken away

I think woman’s right to own her body should be a blanket of woman’s protection against being overpowered by men. This is a basic LEGAL right that woman should have, and no matter what she should to be allowed to make the decision for herself, and the fetus who has no LEGAL consent right yet, therefore legally women should still be allowed to decide for the fetus that grow in her, otherwise who else should we give this legal right to?

However, knowing that the fetus also has another parent, then the right of the father should be recognized if he so choose to support the life of the fetus with his own natural means. But he has no right to intefere with maternal natural means since these means is not his natural means. Example: what health check up which vitamins or food to take: this is woman’s right to choose for the fetus because this is her natural means to support the fetus. The father natural means is financial and moral support. Having given this support to a woman doesn’t give right for him to decide for her body. Rather, he is exercising his right to contribute to the fetus life hence giving her no reason that the fetus life should be terminated. By agreeing with the father, then she’s bound to this agreement.

Sure, the fetus life is not her life, but it grows inside her, and it has no legal consent right yet. Naturally woman would want her pregnancy to continue. It is a matter of how. The unnatural reasoning (cultural, financial, fear & worries, shame) usually are the factors that press her to terminate her pregnancy.

 

[francisca]

I’m wary of bringing up PP - or rather I am very wary of bringing up medical research, because I think bolting it onto the abortion issue means some people (not meaning you at all) start to castigate women for making a rather altruistic decision to donate foetal tissue for research (which - and the rightness of drawing good from evil is for another thread - is beneficial for human kind in general, at least in a material way). Also it is very wrong to attack PP officials or anyone involved in this kind of work, for being callous in discussing human body parts in this way - like it or not it is their bread and butter, so to speak, and so do not have the emotive reaction that you or I do or would do, towards the topic. (Personal testimony; my mother is a GP and will quite happily talk about the most teeth-curdlingly awful things at the dinner table while eagerly tucking into a roast dinner, while the rest of the family blanches - these researchers are similarly habituated to it and we should not attack them for seeing human body parts as a research resource - given they are already dead at this point; viewing a living person as a harvestable store, is when we start to get Mengele-ian).

Allowing to sell body parts will encourage another monstrous immoral business more abhorent than porn business.

If one organization is allowed to make profit out of human body parts-- it is a nature of business to always want more profit, and it will go through all kinds of legality/whatever it takes to do so-- then the next thing you know you will find advertisements in your children’s handphones “how to make money quickly, while helping ‘humanity’”.

Chopping and selling fetus body parts is not-- as you put it-- beneficial to humanity at all. It is much better to dispose them than to sell them. Exactly the reason why we can’t sell our deceased parents’ body when they passaway in order to feed other lives. That’s abominable practice. The fact that we have arrived here shows that our hearts has turned into stones just as the prophets says in the Bible.

If it is organ donation then it should be free of charge, not a sale, and with consent from whoever donating or the guardian. Organ donation without consent can turn into “yanking people’s organ while they lay on hospital bed” is rather gruesome practice really. Medical people know this code of ethic very well.

.

 

[francisca]

I have to ask, what right of a woman is denied in disallowing abortion?
The right to … what? Murder?

Abortion is not a right.

Abortion is only one of the options woman have, when pregnancy happens.
The right is for the woman to choose which option.

As long as social situation remains the same-- porn, pressure to have sex in no-marriage relationship, permissive culture-- then to make abortion illegal (if this is what you mean when you say “disallowing abortion”) will not stop abortion from happening. Stripping women from their legal right to choose will not stop abortion from happening either. When things happens illegally, then you will be punishing victims (as criminals) instead of dealing with the perpetrators which basically porn industry and culture of men.

Where abortion is legal, it can be properly regulated. The Church and authorities will be able to give the right information to the women. This can’t be done if abortion happens in illegal clinics. And the scandalous baby organs selling will still happen and worse it will happen in the dark where nobody knows.

Pro-life movement then have to move within this blanket of basic woman’s legal right to choose.

I disagree that a man have no say regarding abortion. If he is the father, then he should have the right to say someting. I agree that It will look not convincing for a group of men to push illegality of abortion as a general movement, it will look like war-on-woman: men try to overpower women. But the father of the fetus surely have the right to say something, eventhough abortion is legal. There’s difference in the approach.

In a no-marriage relationship, the father of the fetus legal right hasn’t been properly defined, I suppose. Typically it seems that fatherhood starts only after the child is born. If a man trying to dispute the abortion of his baby, I should say that its not that difficullt to see that he can do that on the basis that the fetus is also his child.

In the case a woman is very independent and financially sufficient, and she decides to abort her pregnancy anyway. Can the fetus father disagree? I think he can, on the grounds she has agreed to have consentual sex with him, so then there is no reason to refuse the duty as a parent, and take away the other parent right to have his child.

 

[vz71]

Abortion is not a right.

Abortion is only one of the options woman have, when pregnancy happens.
The right is for the woman to choose which option.

Claiming removing that option interferes with a women’s rights implies abortion to be a right.
So which is it?

Is there, or is there not, a right to murder?

 

[francisca]

Claiming removing that option interferes with a women’s rights implies abortion to be a right.
So which is it?

Is there, or is there not, a right to murder?

There is no right to murder.

But we live in a society that allow people being exposed to porn.
Porn is also a grievious offence of morality in our society…

If we illegalize abortion, it wont stop abortion.
Instead this law will criminalize victims of porn.

If we illegalize porn, then maybe we can one day
illegalize abortion too.

 

[vz71]

There is no right to murder.

Then removing the choice to murder in no way interferes with rights.
And this issue no longer has grounding as a “war on women.”

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Then removing the choice to murder in no way interferes with rights.
And this issue no longer has grounding as a “war on women.”

Legally abortion is not murder.

It seems like this keeps coming around to the same point. You have to convince the women who have abortions not to do so. Calling them murderers is not going to convince them. Talking AT them is not going to convince them.

And I’m not entirely sure what will change their minds. Some of the ultrasound pictures seem pretty convincing that the baby in utero really is a child, just not fully developed. Though the most baby-looking ultrasounds are later in pregnancy. For some women it might be a matter of knowing they have support in raising their children, but fathers (whether married or not) often walk out on their families and their responsibilities.

The problem is that hearts are hardened on this issue on both sides. One side needs to recognize the baby, while the other side needs to recognize the woman. It’s interesting that generally the women in this discussion can fully understand why the “war on women” idea has traction while the men just keep asserting their authority to tell women what they can do.