Fewer Doctors Offering Abortions

[Saya]

For women seeking an abortion, finding a doctor willing to offer the procedure is easier said than done.

Ninety-seven percent of obstetrician-gynecologists have encountered patients wanting an abortion, but only 14 percent performed them, according to a study published today in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Access to abortion has become more limited over the past few decades, according to the article. Another recent study found that in 2008, 87 percent of U.S. counties where 35 percent of reproductive-aged women live did not have a single abortion provider. Since 1996, however, all ob-gyn residents have been required to learn how to perform the procedure.

This year, states have passed at least 80 new abortion restrictions– double the previous annual record of 34 seen in 2005, and more than triple 2010′s 23 changes.

A patient’s best chance of finding a willing doctor?

Women physicians are more likely than male physicians to provide an abortion (18.6 percent v. 10.6 percent)
Young doctors (ages 26 to 35) are the most likely to offer abortion, followed by the oldest doctors (ages 56 to 65)
Doctors in the Northeast or West are more likely to offer the procedure than those in the South or Midwest
Urban doctors are more likely than rural doctors to perform abortions
Religion also turns out to be a good indicator of whether a doctor will provide abortions.

40.2 percent of Jewish doctors say yes, compared with
1.2 percent of Evangelical Protestants
9 percent of Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox
10.1 percent of Non-Evangelical Protestants
20 percent of Hindus
26.5 percent of doctors who said they had no religious affiliation
Few doctors who work in Catholic facilities, which often restrict abortion, offered the procedure.

The study was based on a self-administered confidential survey sent to a sample of 1,800 ob-gyns practicing in the United States. A total of 1,144 doctors responded.

It did not assess whether doctors who don’t offer abortions themselves referred their patients to their colleagues who did, which could help improve access.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org...fer-abortions/

I didn't know so few doctors were willing to do it.

[JCC]

Dem Jews love kiling babies.

[Saya]

Maybe thats why Glenn Beck is so against Reform Judaism?

[AshleyO]

Don't you guys just love religion?

I know I do. It makes things so much more interesting.

[Grausamkeit]

If by 'interesting' you really mean "makes me want to poke those fucker's eyes out with a hot knife", then I agree.

[Saya]

Heeeeey. >.> I'm right here.

[Grausamkeit]

Originally Posted by Saya

Heeeeey. >.> I'm right here.

Are you going to poke their eyes out?

It's 2011, for fuck's sake! Where the fucking-blue-blazing-hells do people get off using religion to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own goddamn bodies?

I will be so glad when the world wises up and shrugs off those ancient shackles.

[Saya]

Well, the interesting thing was that Jewish doctors are more willing to provide abortions than the nonreligious. Religion is definitely a big player in the antichoice camp, but there are definitely a lot of agnostic and atheist anti-choicers out there, I think they discuss this in Lake Of Fire. Versus is atheist and the first time we really talked to each other we were at each other's throats about this XD

Also interesting to note: No religious doctrine forbids abortion, and it was legal until the first wave of feminism. The anti-choice movement on the right really got its wind in the eighties, as a backlash against the second wave, and I once read a paper by a evangelical theologian who theorized that it probably became so popular because after they lost the campaign against no fault divorce laws, and this was an easy battle for them to feel like they were saving something.

[AshleyO]

Yeah, because the nonreligious are CERTAINLY the majority culprits in the anti-choice movement.

Some Atheists are Randians. What's your point?

It's not the nonreligious flag planted on the anti-choice hill, it's the religious.

[Saya]

Its all kinds of people, and misogyny is whats behind it. Like I said, the religious right, usually Christian is the big player in the antichoice movement, but the desire is to punish women is the motivation and there's all kinds of religious and non religious people on both sides. Really, thats usually what they say. She should have kept her legs closed if she didn't want kids. Where's the father's choice in abortion? Its not fair to punish the kid because you're a slut.

[AshleyO]

Saya, do you actually like the idea of religions being a part of the political spectrum?

I mean... we can't really use the state to dissolve religion and it's unfortunate that mankind still wants to wear the shackles of barbaric superstition, but chick, religion is STEEPED in misogyny. It actively encourages it.

You honestly think that it wouldn't SIGNIFICANTLY lessen the severity of the antichoice movement if the religious influence wasn't reasoned out of the debate?

Versus was probably an easy argument to win against.

When it comes to religion, you're not just going toe to toe with misogyny, you're going toe to toe with spiritual beliefs and gods that perpetuate the sickness.

IF the religious part wasn't there, I'd say it would be a very LARGE reduction in the influence of the antichoice movement as a whole.

Let's be real here, it's not like you're seeing a lot of people blaming religion for capitalism. That'd be a silly entity to blame for the major problems in that debate.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Saya, do you actually like the idea of religions being a part of the political spectrum?

I mean... we can't really use the state to dissolve religion and it's unfortunate that mankind still wants to wear the shackles of barbaric superstition, but chick, religion is STEEPED in misogyny. It actively encourages it.

You honestly think that it wouldn't SIGNIFICANTLY lessen the severity of the antichoice movement if the religious influence wasn't reasoned out of the debate?

Versus was probably an easy argument to win against.

When it comes to religion, you're not just going toe to toe with misogyny, you're going toe to toe with spiritual beliefs and gods that perpetuate the sickness.

IF the religious part wasn't there, I'd say it would be a very LARGE reduction in the influence of the antichoice movement as a whole.

Let's be real here, it's not like you're seeing a lot of people blaming religion for capitalism. That'd be a silly entity to blame for the major problems in that debate.

No, religion shouldn't be part of the political spectrum, what I'm saying is that the desire to control women is what instigated the antichoice movement.

It was never an issue religiously before the first wave, where banning abortion was used to push back and try to keep the suffragists in their place. The movement in the US started after Roe vs. Wade but is also linked to the previous anti-divorce movement which found itself without a cause, and embarrassingly enough, Bible belt states have higher rates of divorce.

I don't think stabbing religious people, and as a religious person I have a self interest in saying this, full disclosure, is the best solution to the abortion debate. Separation of church and state is an important issue, but so is fighting sexism which sadly knows no boundaries.

And no, the debate with Versus dragged on quite a bit before he changed his mind, and I don't think we ever changed Behind The Shadows' mind.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

No, religion shouldn't be part of the political spectrum, what I'm saying is that the desire to control women is what instigated the antichoice movement.

And now the religious flag is firmly planted in the debate. If this were a game of Risk, religion would have all of Russia, China, Australia, Most of Africa, and was working on all of Europe.

It was never an issue religiously before the first wave, where banning abortion was used to push back and try to keep the suffragists in their place. The movement in the US started after Roe vs. Wade but is also linked to the previous anti-divorce movement which found itself without a cause, and embarrassingly enough, Bible belt states have higher rates of divorce.

You're not really making a huge argument about how religion isn't really one of the biggest factors in this. Times have changed. The face of the debate has changed and I guarantee you that religion being hand in hand with misogyny is a tougher opponent than Versus just not really knowing any better. The stakes are higher. We're going to have to take out the all star player to weaken their position.

I don't think stabbing religious people, and as a religious person I have a self interest in saying this, full disclosure, is the best solution to the abortion debate. Separation of church and state is an important issue, but so is fighting sexism which sadly knows no boundaries.

Did I say something about stabbing religious people? Nah. That's a perfectly good waste of human life. However, I do think it's important to EVISCERATE religious thought. It's important that those that are religious need to have the seeds of cognitive dissonance implanted in them. The best thing to do is work at establishing doubt amongst those that are faithful. Religion itself needs to lose its intellectual legitimacy, not the lives that are under it.

And no, the debate with Versus dragged on quite a bit before he changed his mind, and I don't think we ever changed Behind The Shadows' mind.

I saw what Despanan did to Versus. Versus didn't seem like such a hard convert. He's a reasonable dude and even though it took you some effort, he realized how his misogyny had no grounds to stand on and it dissolved like paper in water.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

And now the religious flag is firmly planted in the debate. If this were a game of Risk, religion would have all of Russia, China, Australia, Most of Africa, and was working on all of Europe.

China? China is an atheist state, and years of oppression has certainly crippled the religious movements there, laws are relaxed but religions are still under vast control. And religion isn't one big united thing out to get us. Somehow the Taoist down the street doesn't seem like a world conqueror to me.

You're not really making a huge argument about how religion isn't really one of the biggest factors in this. Times have changed. The face of the debate has changed and I guarantee you that religion being hand in hand with misogyny is a tougher opponent than Versus just not really knowing any better. The stakes are higher. We're going to have to take out the all star player to weaken their position.

I have clearly stated that I do think that religion is a big player, its just not the primary winds in the sail, so to speak. Especially when different religions differ on their opinions on abortion.

Its pretty easy to discredit. There's nothing in the Bible to state that abortion is unethical. There. Its a little surprising that Jewish doctors are more willing to perform abortions than nonreligious doctors, but most Jews are pro-choice and while there are a lot of opinions about abortion in Judaism, the prevalent belief seems to be that life doesn't begin until the first breath is taken, and it is your moral duty especially to perform an abortion if the woman's life is at risk.

Did I say something about stabbing religious people? Nah. That's a perfectly good waste of human life. However, I do think it's important to EVISCERATE religious thought. It's important that those that are religious need to have the seeds of cognitive dissonance implanted in them. The best thing to do is work at establishing doubt amongst those that are faithful. Religion itself needs to lose its intellectual legitimacy, not the lives that are under it.

Graus did, which sparked my initial protest. But I am a brainwashed person who doesn't know what rationality is, so maybe I imagined it

I saw what Despanan did to Versus. Versus didn't seem like such a hard convert. He's a reasonable dude and even though it took you some effort, he realized how his misogyny had no grounds to stand on and it dissolved like paper in water.

I just went back to read it and dude caved, but then came back and debated some more. I thought it was kind of an ugly argument, I didn't like him for a while after that. And because I'd like to have sex with him I should probably not voice my further misgivings since :x

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

China? China is an atheist state, and years of oppression has certainly crippled the religious movements there, laws are relaxed but religions are still under vast control. And religion isn't one big united thing out to get us. Somehow the Taoist down the street doesn't seem like a world conqueror to me.

...You missed my Risk joke. I am disappoint son. Also, China is doing it wrong. If they want to ban religion, they should have only went so far as to say that it is illegal to hold a political view based on your faith. But that's beside the point.

I have clearly stated that I do think that religion is a big player, its just not the primary winds in the sail, so to speak. Especially when different religions differ on their opinions on abortion.

Would it have been easier for me to simply say that the big three (the only ones that really matter) are the ones to be contested with? Are you Buddhist or something?

Its pretty easy to discredit. There's nothing in the Bible to state that abortion is unethical. There. Its a little surprising that Jewish doctors are more willing to perform abortions than nonreligious doctors, but most Jews are pro-choice and while there are a lot of opinions about abortion in Judaism, the prevalent belief seems to be that life doesn't begin until the first breath is taken, and it is your moral duty especially to perform an abortion if the woman's life is at risk.

I think by now we've established that Christian culture doesn't exactly reflect the book in its entirety. That might be a good thing. o_0 However, you bankrupt their book of any intellectual capital and you're going to have a weaker opponent.

Graus did, which sparked my initial protest. But I am a brainwashed person who doesn't know what rationality is, so maybe I imagined it

Hey, you're the one trying to defend barbaric religions, not me. Stabbing people is a bad idea. I just wasn't paying attention to Graus.

I just went back to read it and dude caved, but then came back and debated some more. I thought it was kind of an ugly argument, I didn't like him for a while after that. And because I'd like to have sex with him I should probably not voice my further misgivings since :x

The dude did cave. Saya, it is generally known that NO ONE wants to be in bed with unreason and misogyny for its own sake is entirely unreasonable and can be easily proven as unreasonable. I'm just saying that since religion wants to get into the battle royal of women's rights, its own intellectual prowess needs to be ultimately undermined. You NEED the general public to recognize that religion is inherently dumb or at LEAST NOT IMPORTANT.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

...You missed my Risk joke. I am disappoint son. Also, China is doing it wrong. If they want to ban religion, they should have only went so far as to say that it is illegal to hold a political view based on your faith. But that's beside the point.

I don't think its a good idea to say that certain political ideas are illegal. Actions, yes, but if you're freedom of choice and thought, you're freedom of choice and thought even for the people you disagree with.

Would it have been easier for me to simply say that the big three (the only ones that really matter) are the ones to be contested with? Are you Buddhist or something?

You're cute. And only Christianity really matters when it comes to the abortion debate in North America, and even then a particular faction of Christianity, I'm not sure about the states but the United Church of Canada is one of the largest denominations here, and has argued for safe abortion access.

Actually, to explore more on banning political opinion based on religion, is that only for the opinions that we don't like? If a church, religion or religious movement is all for gay rights and abortion rights and women's rights, should we silence them and refuse to ally with them because we don't like their source material? What if they present both religious and secular reasons? And its pretty hard to say sometimes if an opinion comes from religion or not. I have a lot of reasons for being pacifist, some are religious and some are not, combined with a personal distaste for violence. I don't voice the religious reasons when I'm in a political debate with someone from outside my religion, but what if thats the reason I came to those reasons in the first place?

I think by now we've established that Christian culture doesn't exactly reflect the book in its entirety. That might be a good thing. o_0 However, you bankrupt their book of any intellectual capital and you're going to have a weaker opponent.

The anti-choice movement is generally made of literalists, I don't know if you've read it but The Handmaid's Tale was written in response to the growing religious right in the states, taking them to their logical conclusions.

Generally, the more I know about the Bible the more easy it is to point out that a lot of these people don't even read the fucking thing.

The dude did cave. Saya, it is generally known that NO ONE wants to be in bed with unreason and misogyny for its own sake is entirely unreasonable and can be easily proven as unreasonable. I'm just saying that since religion wants to get into the battle royal of women's rights, its own intellectual prowess needs to be ultimately undermined. You NEED the general public to recognize that religion is inherently dumb or at LEAST NOT IMPORTANT.

I don't think the people we are talking about pride their religion on intellectual prowess. How many times have you heard, THATS WHY ITS FAITH. THIS IS A TEST. Intellectual prowess doesn't come into the equation. Evolution has been slapping literalists in the face with its cock for over a hundred years now and its still not really sinking in.

And as far as being in bed with unreason and misogyny for its own sake, privilege resists self examination. Most sexists won't admit they are sexists, and people generally are rarely entirely reasonable and often blind to their own biases. Hell Versus still won't say he's a feminist, but I don't think he's a misogynist, just has an aversion to the label that is probably not a logical act on his part.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Its all kinds of people, and misogyny is whats behind it. Like I said, the religious right, usually Christian is the big player in the antichoice movement, but the desire is to punish women is the motivation and there's all kinds of religious and non religious people on both sides. Really, thats usually what they say. She should have kept her legs closed if she didn't want kids. Where's the father's choice in abortion? Its not fair to punish the kid because you're a slut.

I think you're reaching to defend an obvious culprit here Saya. Misogyny exists everywhere, but only in religion do you find that misogyny isn't just defended, but commanded: western religion is pretty much just worship of a giant, invisible phallus in the sky, and eastern religion is equally patriarchal and misogynistic (I seem to recall even after Buddhism officially deciding that gender "didn't matter" they were writing up rules and sutras to recite so that in her next life a woman could move up a slot and be reborn as a man.

Religion is massively misogynistic It always has been, and it always will be. It's written into their core tenants for crying out loud.

Well, the interesting thing was that Jewish doctors are more willing to provide abortions than the nonreligious. Religion is definitely a big player in the antichoice camp, but there are definitely a lot of agnostic and atheist anti-choicers out there, I think they discuss this in Lake Of Fire. Versus is atheist and the first time we really talked to each other we were at each other's throats about this XD

Ahem, you're WELCOME. If I hadn't broken V over my mighty rhetorical knee, there's no way you two would be swapping dickpix right now. I split that man like a virgin.

Also: I want to see some statistics on the percentage of anti-choice atheists.

[AshleyO]

[quote=Saya;676597]I don't think its a good idea to say that certain political ideas are illegal. Actions, yes, but if you're freedom of choice and thought, you're freedom of choice and thought even for the people you disagree with.]/quote]

It's not. I wouldn't even say it's a good suggestion, but it gets somewhere if their country wants to ban religion. I would actually say that perhaps it'd been better to have the children be taught in school exactly why religions are intellectually bankrupt. As far as I'm concerned, reason trumps religion every single time. It'd be hard for me to be outraged by state funded education where its main thesis was to identify the logical inconsistencies with religions and hell, let's throw philosophies in there for good measure.

You're cute. And only Christianity really matters when it comes to the abortion debate in North America, and even then a particular faction of Christianity, I'm not sure about the states but the United Church of Canada is one of the largest denominations here, and has argued for safe abortion access.

In America the debate is heavily influenced by the religious right. If ONLY my country could get its head out of its religious ass and be more like Canada. I envy it for its inherent secularism. Must be the education there.

Actually, to explore more on banning political opinion based on religion, is that only for the opinions that we don't like?

Actually, I don't hold that view, so you don't really have a weakness to exploit here on that front. I agree that it's a bad policy.

If a church, religion or religious movement is all for gay rights and abortion rights and women's rights, should we silence them and refuse to ally with them because we don't like their source material?

That's not the norm for religious thought in America. If it were, we wouldn't be having to debate its presence in this discussion.

What if they present both religious and secular reasons? And its pretty hard to say sometimes if an opinion comes from religion or not. I have a lot of reasons for being pacifist, some are religious and some are not, combined with a personal distaste for violence.

Is your reasoning based more in religion or more in reason? Would your reasonable beliefs be any less significant if it lacked the religious backing? Your secular and liberal politics are much more intellectually sturdy. It doesn't need religion to survive.

I don't voice the religious reasons when I'm in a political debate with someone from outside my religion, but what if thats the reason I came to those reasons in the first place?

I would say that it was perfectly unreasonable.

The anti-choice movement is generally made of literalists, I don't know if you've read it but The Handmaid's Tale was written in response to the growing religious right in the states, taking them to their logical conclusions.

Generally, the more I know about the Bible the more easy it is to point out that a lot of these people don't even read the fucking thing.

Of course they don't. I already made that point.

I don't think the people we are talking about pride their religion on intellectual prowess. How many times have you heard, THATS WHY ITS FAITH. THIS IS A TEST.

All the reason we SHOULD always show why religion is logically faulty even more.

Intellectual prowess doesn't come into the equation. Evolution has been slapping literalists in the face with its cock for over a hundred years now and its still not really sinking in.

Have you actually met a racists who prides themselves in people knowing they're racists? Why would anyone want to be known as a base misogynists? You have to have SOMETHING to excuse your bad behavior. Why do you think the religious thought has such a strong support in the discussion? It's friendly to misogyny.

And as far as being in bed with unreason and misogyny for its own sake, privilege resists self examination. Most sexists won't admit they are sexists, and people generally are rarely entirely reasonable and often blind to their own biases.

So we should STOP discussing the merits of religion based on reason in the debate even though it is really one of the last foundations that the whole behavior even has left?

Hell Versus still won't say he's a feminist, but I don't think he's a misogynist, just has an aversion to the label that is probably not a logical act on his part.

Most people aren't logical. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't stop trying to steer popular opinion towards reason.

Debating the salience of religion may be a dirty tactic, but if I'm going to argue against a misogynist, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure they have no intellectual sanctuaries for their dumb ass ideas. Again, we agree. NO ONE wants to be known as a misogynist or a racist or even a classist.

[Apathy's_Child]

Desp, Kontan and Saya fighting about religion and misogyny, with the only hint of member unity gotten from bro-pounding over the image of a bruised & battered Versus ... it's like someone sticky-taped up my broken Gnet and handed it back to me in one piece.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I think you're reaching to defend an obvious culprit here Saya. Misogyny exists everywhere, but only in religion do you find that misogyny isn't just defended, but commanded: western religion is pretty much just worship of a giant, invisible phallus in the sky, and eastern religion is equally patriarchal and misogynistic (I seem to recall even after Buddhism officially deciding that gender "didn't matter" they were writing up rules and sutras to recite so that in her next life a woman could move up a slot and be reborn as a man.

Religion is massively misogynistic It always has been, and it always will be. It's written into their core tenants for crying out loud.

Buddhism has thousands of sutras, so it depends on which sect we're talking about. But from the Songs Of The Sisters in the Tripitaka, a holy scripture written by women, it sounds like contemporary women of the Buddha thought themselves equal to men. After he died there was a lot of disagreement over what he thought, so there's sutras for and against women's equality. One of the reasons for the splits between Mahayana and Theravada was the issue over universal buddhahood, as shown in the Vimalakirti Sutra where a goddess turns Shariputra into a woman to show him how meaningless sex is. Most sects did keep up with the eight rules a nun must follow, but most of them had to break them to keep the tradition going. I think Pure Land in China reintroduced the idea that you have to be reincarnated into a man to be enlightened, but its not a common view at all.

And its silly to argue that religion as a unity is always misogynistic and always will be. There are matriarchal religions and feminism had a lot to do with the whole neopaganism/Wicca thing.

Ahem, you're WELCOME. If I hadn't broken V over my mighty rhetorical knee, there's no way you two would be swapping dickpix right now. I split that man like a virgin.

Also: I want to see some statistics on the percentage of anti-choice atheists.

I can't find a poll that specifies "atheist", but apparently non-Christian religious people are 54% pro-choice in all circumstances, while 39% of non-religious people are pro-choice in all circumstances. 7% of non-Christian religious folk think it should be illegal under any circumstance compared to 10% of non-religious people think it should be illegal under any circumstance:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/22222/rel...-abortion.aspx

It's not. I wouldn't even say it's a good suggestion, but it gets somewhere if their country wants to ban religion. I would actually say that perhaps it'd been better to have the children be taught in school exactly why religions are intellectually bankrupt. As far as I'm concerned, reason trumps religion every single time. It'd be hard for me to be outraged by state funded education where its main thesis was to identify the logical inconsistencies with religions and hell, let's throw philosophies in there for good measure.

I thought about it after, and they do do this to some degree, Tibetan Buddhism is seen as a threat as it protects their traditional theocracy. Take it with a grain of salt but the guy who wrote Art Of Happiness talks a bit about how one school in China, to get rid of the nonviolent teachings, instructed students to kill an animal and bring it in, and the bigger the animal the more points you get.

Or we could do it like secular schools do, in high school we just had world religions as an optional class and never really mentioned it otherwise, except a brief mention about how some people disagree with evolution before going on going to evolution being correct and the only view being taught.

Most people aren't logical. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't stop trying to steer popular opinion towards reason.

Debating the salience of religion may be a dirty tactic, but if I'm going to argue against a misogynist, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure they have no intellectual sanctuaries for their dumb ass ideas. Again, we agree. NO ONE wants to be known as a misogynist or a racist or even a classist.

I'm just skipping ahead here because I gotta go soon. But a lot of Christians won't admit to being racist or sexist either. More and more they co-opt feminism and say its empowering to be a religious Christian woman. Sarah Palin identifies as a feminist. A lot of pro lifers claim to try to protect women from the horrors and danger of abortion.

Even if they did, I don't think a dishonest sexist is any better than an honest sexist.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

Desp, Kontan and Saya fighting about religion and misogyny, with the only hint of member unity gotten from bro-pounding over the image of a bruised & battered Versus ... it's like someone sticky-taped up my broken Gnet and handed it back to me in one piece.

Whats worse now is that I probably owe Versus a blowjob now for dragging him into it.

Watch me complain about it, Gnet.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Buddhism

I know it's not a common belief. I don't need a term paper on Buddhism, I'm just making a point.

And its silly to argue that religion as a unity is always misogynistic and always will be. There are matriarchal religions and feminism had a lot to do with the whole neopaganism/Wicca thing.

Neopaganism and Wicca hardly count as "religion" for the purposes of this debate. They're completely politically insignificant and therefore don't have a measurable effect on the abortion debate, or really anything other than allowing crazy cat ladies to romanticize their own lives.

I can't find a poll that specifies "atheist", but apparently non-Christian religious people are 54% pro-choice in all circumstances, while 39% of non-religious people are pro-choice in all circumstances. 7% of non-Christian religious folk think it should be illegal under any circumstance compared to 10% of non-religious people think it should be illegal under any circumstance:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/22222/rel...-abortion.aspx

So the less religious you are, the less likely you are to be pro-life/misogynistic, yes?

a lot of Christians won't admit to being racist or sexist either. More and more they co-opt feminism and say its empowering to be a religious Christian woman. Sarah Palin identifies as a feminist. A lot of pro lifers claim to try to protect women from the horrors and danger of abortion.

Even if they did, I don't think a dishonest sexist is any better than an honest sexist.

Without that religious brand a racist/sexist/bigot is easier to identify. Without religion there is less of a reason to indoctrinate children to respect traditional (Patriarchal) social structure.

Religion gives the perfect, unassailable excuse to behave in an illogical manner: "It's faith, it's personal, and therefore you should respect my misogyny OR ELSE."

By defending religion you are actively working to perpetuate a system who's interests, even when done liberally and moderately (in conflict with it's own scriptures and tenants mind you) are in direct conflict with your own.

Originally Posted by Saya

I owe Versus a blowjob

Pics or it didn't happen.

YOU OWE ME SAYA.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

Desp, Kontan and Saya fighting about religion and misogyny, with the only hint of member unity gotten from bro-pounding over the image of a bruised & battered Versus ... it's like someone sticky-taped up my broken Gnet and handed it back to me in one piece.

What am I? Chopped liver, boy? Are you ignoring that I'm in this conversation, Apathy?

[Grausamkeit]

Saya, you know me too well to believe I would seriously advocate stabbing stupid asshats. I am confused as to why you are arguing that religion has naught to do with misogyny. If you read anything about the Victorian Era of feminism(don't they cover that in feminist studies?) then you should already know that religion was relied on back then to keep women in their 'place' just as it was to justify slavery. Religion has been used to justify and encourage misogyny long before the second wave of feminism.

[AshleyO]

Graus, I think if I've read Saya right, she has a professional interest in making sure that religion is viewed as something relevant. Think of it as ensuring her job security. When it comes to tough questions, Saya must become a religious apologist.