Along the course of time, while religions were being invented by the leaders of humans, and gods were invented to instil fear in order to control the masses, unlimited reproduction, seen as a weapon of war, war by numbers, was a primary component of the purpose of religion. Unlimited reproduction (breeding) is still a component of the religious wars. Overbreeding and religion are inseparable. Religious people are indoctrinated into thinking that humans are precious, in order to create more disposable humans, in order to outnumber the other religious factions. Religious citizens are the breeding pawns of war mongers.
Our methods of economics, notwithstanding its many faults, has taught us one very important consideration, the availability of a resource is inversely proportional to its value. Religious leaders know this. As our human population expands, it becomes more and more important for religious leaders to instil the "precious human" doctrine. We need precious disposable humans to send to slaughter at war, to ensure our place at the top of civilisation. Breeding contributes to the war effort.
Now us women in the west have been reducing our war effort, but what have our governments done to compensate? we now encourage population growth in the third world, then import those disposable war workers here. As usual, our governments working against us.
The Stork, by animator Nina Paley
That is one of the best and most succinct explanations of this aspect of the issue I have ever seen.
I agree with you, the religious leaders do have an agenda, but I don't think that is the only reason people find to be anti-choice. I think a lot of people have a surprising lack of information on the issue and think of it as immoral whether they are religiously indoctrinated to think so or not. I've come across plenty and personally know quite a few religious individuals who would get an abortion if their Birth Control didn't work. Most of them are post-secondary students like myself. Their own "selfishness" to complete school outweighs their indoctrination.
Therefore, religions create and sustain the anti-free choice movement. Secondly, the only moral abortion for members of the movement is their own.
An anti-choice US senator signed off on a 2nd-term abortion for his wife:
Really, they could have not given the antibiotics. A similar woman(who wasn't a senator's wife, and therefore, not important) went into cancer remission mid-pregnancy--instead of giving her chemo, which would have killed the baby, they instead shoved a feeding tube down her throat and put her in a drug coma in the hopes the baby would be delivered late enough for it to survive--it didn't. She died a few days after the premature baby was born, due to the completely untreated cancer.
The fact that a hospital could do this to me and any other woman if the wrong doctor attends terrifies the living shit out of me.
I don't see the relevance of comparing the "moralities" of different countries. Denmark also has a huge neo-nazi movement, high alcoholism, etc...
The grass is generally NOT greener on the other side. We all have our shits to deal with.
That's only 3% higher than Canada. And we're a bunch of religious/spiritual/imaginary followers too. I think some our atheist forum members read much too much into certain statistics.
I agree with you that patriarchal modern day religions sustain the pro-life movement, but it was not always so. In the "rabid" sense, pro-lifers are a very recent phenomenon. Women have been aborting for thousands of millennia. Only in the last century has become a big deal.
Great post gary. I've been to Denmark, several times. I agree with you 100%. It's 'better managed' than the U.S., by light years.
abortion is not "the new fashion", as another wise TA user said commenting my post about abortion in italy: it is a dreadful choice to which a woman can be forced by circumstances. anyway, undesidered pregnancies happen, so, if things goes for a girl like "ooops i got preggo", meaning that she is going to ruin her life having a baby, or that she is going to give to her baby a bad life (not giving him/her what he/she needs to grow up happily, or simply fostering the child with some institute, letting him/her growing up as an orphan), maybe to give birth to this baby is not the best solution.
EDIT: i haven't noticed that this post was an old one bumped by william... i apologize -_-'
You really should read other posts.
BTW, I create sperm and they are alive and genetically human and I murder them by the millions! Mwahaha!
I cannot find the words to describe how disgusted I am by those who would bring unwanted children into this sad, vastly overcrowded world. Nor can I find the words to describe how disgusted I am with those who want to force their religion on others. I am particularly disgusted by those who are too stupid to see that the entire abortion controversy is a recent invention, trumped up in order to use people's emotions to get them to vote for theocracy and against their own interests.
I do accept abortions in the case of... rape.
Do you also accept murder of innocent newborns who are the product of rape? If an innocent fertilized egg has the same rights as a human, why the distinction?
You're what I call one of those "mostly pro-choicers" who is only pro-life in the case of promiscuity or failed birth control. Basically, you think a female should not become sexually active until she is willing to accept her duties as a baby making machine, the exception being rape because that female didn't "choose" to spread her legs. This is probably due to the way your society views sexuality.
Spot on, Jewelz.