I just read a post on FB written by the friend of a friend. He's a 21-year old guy. I'm a 44-year old woman, just to give it some perspective. His is a bible-thumper (I'm not friends with him on FB, he just posted on a friend of mines wall, but I know him and his family through mutual friends). He said if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex. I know I should just let it go, but I let him have it. So the only reason to have sex is to get pregnant? Then he said something about if she gets pregnant she has no right to 'kill the kid'. I mentioned rape and incest and the fact that not everyone believes a fertilized egg is a 'kid' yet, and if he doesn't believe in the right to have an abortion, don't have one, and it's a personal decision,etc. I KNOW I shouldn't have argued with him. But it's 4 a.m., I can't sleep, and now I let myself get pissed-off by someone I know is a fundie. Ugh. lol. I will ignore the post if he posts again. There are too many of them to piss me off. I'd have a coronary if I let them all get to me...
Let men bear the babies for a few years - then we'd see a change in legislature....
That's for sure Chris!
I once heard a woman say that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. That's probably right.
Why any man thinks they have any right to impose their view on women's reproductive rights, pisses me off!
I agree Mac! :)~ Melinda
I couldn't agree more.
A lady on Bill Maher last night (excuse me, I can't remember her name) said "Fine, if that is the way you want it, us women will only give out sex when we want a baby and at no other times. Let's see how long the guys last".
It isn't as though it is just women that want to have sex for fun, guys want it too and in some cases more than we do! (actually, in most cases lol). If we were to close our legs at all times other than for procreation, guys would be going nuts everywhere. Just remember, every sperm is sacred, so when you jack off, you are killing innocent children.
I was told by a fundie yesterday that if it wasn't for religion, we wouldn't be able to read as it was the church that started schools and helped everyone learn to read and I should read Harvard's motto and research it's history to prove it!!!!!!. I don't know what Harvard's motto is and the fact that it is written by man (like the bible) seems to make no difference, and I doubt that reading a school motto will change my religious views. There are no answers for these people, and there is no reasoning.
You are right Sandi, you can't get them to use reason.
I think that if it wasn't for religion, people might have learned to read sooner, or more people might have learned to read. Religion controlled who got to learn, who could afford access to information, and what misinformation was being dispatched to the common people. By opening the first schools, they also controlled what was being learned, and by whom. It also meant that when the religious moved into areas, and took over, they could change cultures, and get rid of things that were important to the people who were already there, for the sake of indoctrinating the "ignorant" and "saving" them.
I think the history of literacy is more complex than that, and depends on the religion. Sacred texts/artifacts/charms have always been restricted as to who my see them, but the ability to read non-sacred writing was not. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the early xian's ruling elite were against teaching reading to the "unwashed masses", and until more recently actively suppressed literacy of the 'lower classes".
You could be right, Mac. I must admit I am not as familiar with all of that I as I should have been before saying what I did. I will, now, have to do more research into it...Glad to have something else to go learn.