Are women being turned into livestock again?

Saerlaith

How is it good for our country to make one half the population (the female half) dependent on the other for the choice of whether or nor to bear a child. Men rape, men coerce, men lie, men cheat. Most women have been at the receiving end of male wiles when sex is at stake. And too many women have seen how fast those men deny any responsibility if the woman gets pregnant.

Mooooooo .. Here's my 2 cents �

It�s true, � Most women have been at the receiving end of male wiles when sex is at stake. And too many women have seen how fast those men deny any responsibility if the woman gets pregnant. �� That may be one issue raised in this thread. The other issue, and the one I think most urgent, is �How is it good for our country to make one half the population (the female half) dependent on the other for the choice of whether or nor to bear a child �� The latter issue I�ll try to address first.

I think the problem here revolves around a certain group (Christian Fundamentalists), who, led by their fearless leader, George Dubya, are now starting to flex their religious muscles and take away the rights that �everyone� has had for a long time. The Pill is just the first right coming under attack.

Our born again President has made it clear that God is calling the shots. And George now owes the Bible Belt of America BIG TIME. They handed him a 2nd term. And so, they will surely be heard.

I think it�s a shame that our country seems to be heading in this direction. Our founding fathers warned us of the problems inherent in letting religion influence legislation. Religion and government don�t mix. Now, it seems, however, their warning is being ignored, as the current administration arrogantly heads down this path. I really don�t think the current administration understands the Constitution (probably never even read it), or has the slightest idea what the founding fathers concerns were or what they had in mind. Even worse, I don�t think this administration cares.

It�s impossible to argue this issue logically. Logic has nothing to do with it. And the right to take The Pill is not a Men/Women issue. It�s an issue of having one more right as an American taken away by those who wish to change or control you. It�s a matter of a group of people who see the world as black & white and refuse to accept that others may see in color. George Bush likes to say that we are in danger from outsiders who �hate our freedom�. IMHO the danger is much closer and comes from within by those who �hate our freedom�.

To any ATS religious zealots who decide to flame me, I have no problem with the Higher Power you choose to worship, as long as you don�t try to shove it down everyone elses throat. You can practice your beliefs if you wish, and not take The Pill, but don�t deny others the same right that you have, and the option to make a different choice.


As far as the other issue goes, � Most women have been at the receiving end of male wiles when sex is at stake. And too many women have seen how fast those men deny any responsibility if the woman gets pregnant. �� , it seems to have evolved into the issue of having the right to practice RESPONSIBLE SEX in most of the posts I�ve read. A lot of things seem to come down to this. It�s odd to me how such a simple, natural thing holds so much power over us and influences most everything we do. It can divide men and women, it�s the driving force behind much of what we do, it can be used quite effectively as a bargaining agent, it can be used to gain control, it�s a very effective means of barter, it absolutely destroys the lives of many, it�s a means to achieve power and nations can even topple over it. It�s amazing! Oh yeah, almost forgot, it�s also an expression of love.

At any rate, it�s incredible that SO many people can get SO hungup over such a NATURAL thing. Leave it to Humans, and the Bible. The bottom line, though, is that it�s natural and shouldn�t be a matter of legislation. A woman�s right to practice it as she pleases, just as men do, without the fear of becoming pregnant, should be a fundamental right. Outlawing, or refusing to dispense, The Pill is insanity. If they�re taking their argument to this level, then the Pro Life folks need to focus on getting lives of their own. Next thing you know they will try to make it illegal to even have that special twinkle in your eye. Grow up, people. Get a grip! Whether you like it or not, people will continue to have sex! Pill or no Pill. Don�t force them to do the most natural thing in nature IRRESPONSIBLY. All that will do is increase the abortion rate and cause many women to suffer the horrors of illegal abortions later on, when the fetus has begun to develop.

IMHO the religious right should back off and quit trying to deny other Americans the right to live RESPONSIBLE lives. Practice your religion, worship your God, don�t take The Pill and keep your nose out of others� bedrooms. Have enough respect for others to allow them to have a different view than yourself.



[edit on 11/9/2004 by netbound]

Originally posted by netbound
Our born again President has made it clear that God is calling the shots. And George now owes the Bible Belt of America BIG TIME. They handed him a 2nd term. And so, they will surely be heard.

I think it�s a shame that our country seems to be heading in this direction. Our founding fathers warned us of the problems inherent in letting religion influence legislation. Religion and government don�t mix. Now, it seems, however, their warning is being ignored, as the current administration arrogantly heads down this path. I really don�t think the current administration understands the Constitution (probably never even read it), or has the slightest idea what the founding fathers concerns were or what they had in mind. Even worse, I don�t think this administration cares.



As far as the other issue goes, � Most women have been at the receiving end of male wiles when sex is at stake. And too many women have seen how fast those men deny any responsibility if the woman gets pregnant. �� , it seems to have evolved into the issue of having the right to practice RESPONSIBLE SEX in most of the posts I�ve read. A lot of things seem to come down to this.
[edit on 11/9/2004 by netbound]

I like your post Netbound.

It's hard not to get worked up by all the issues going round on here, especially when I have non-internet things to do

I think what bugs me the most is the mix of religion and government. I know the founders of this country were religious, and still had the wisdom to know not to mix the two. Throughout the world's history, it's led to grief and war.

As for "male wiles" I mean the acting out of the saying "women have sex to hear I love you, men say I love you to get sex". Rather crude and simplistic, but I've seen it borne out. The problem is that saying you love someone when you don't gets you a heartbreak, having sex when you shouldn't gets you pregnant. But so many people want love, they are hoping for the best, hence the desire to believe the "I love you part". After all, watch any pop/teen movie and it's pretty much the focus. Boys want sex, girls want love. It should be more like everyone needs love & sex in some way shape or form, so lets do what we can to make it responsible and positive for us all.

--Saerlaith

Originally posted by genesiss

In fact about the only way a woman cannot get help from a man is if she doesnt remember or know who gave her a child or hes a rapist (and im sorry that ever happens) and if she cant find that man the government gives low if not free housing and medical care and food,, i dont understand where this is hard on women

The only men i bash is the ones that agree with the regulation of women choices under the umbrella of religious fundamentalist agenda, if you don't fit in these cathegories then my post does not apply to you.l

What we do in this earth and the choices you make and the results you get should make you stronger not weaker.

I myself met my husband when I was sixteen I married him when I was 21 we have been marry for 24 years, we had good times and bad times but I am not going to claim that god or jesus had anything to do with it.

We also had two wonderful children and if they had turned to be what they are it has to do with the teaching of my husband or me not any church or religion.

I am in favor of wome rights and my views are just for the ones that wants to take them away.



[edit on 9-11-2004 by marg6043]

Well, I noticed that your source was from overseas. I honestly can't believe that what you're claiming is actually happening in more than a few isolated places. I live in the south and in a fairly Christian part of the south at that. Just down the road sits a planned parenthood facility that is handing out everything from condoms to morning after pills. If one doctor tells you no... go find another one. To suggest that women are becoming like cattle once more is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by veritas93
I live in the south and in a fairly Christian part of the south at that. Just down the road sits a planned parenthood facility that is handing out everything from condoms to morning after pills. If one doctor tells you no... go find another one. To suggest that women are becoming like cattle once more is just ridiculous.

I live in the south and I agree with you at least we still have the needed help for women around here.

I hope it does not change. Women need help not legislation to make their choices to take control of their life.

About the Cattle I know is a littler bit extremist but if religious fundamentalist get away with it I probably believe it.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by marg6043]

...a woman of childbearing capacity, trying not to bear a child? If not, I think you'd better leave the decision up to the women concerned.


www.reproductiverights.org...
"Bush Administration to Extend Health Coverage to Fetuses but Not to Pregnant Women

May 6, 2002
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, the Center for Reproductive Rights took aim at the Bush administration�s proposal to extend health care to fertilized eggs, rather than directly to pregnant women under the State Children�s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). "

www.dfw.com...

"President Bush has decided not to send the $34 million approved by both houses of Congress for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA).

The fund provides contraception, family planning and safe births, and works against the spread of HIV and against female genital mutilation in the poorest countries of the world. Thirty-four million dollars goes a long way in the parts of the world where more than 600,000 women die every year from pregnancy and childbirth, many of them children themselves."


Foul and disgusting! This man is a christian??

And while some of you may be lucky enough to have access to birth control near you, some aren't. Some have to run a gauntlet of abuse from pro-lifers, some just have to figure out how to keep an abusive parent from finding out. Is it the middle ages where people want to revel in the "shame" of seeing a woman forced to carry a baby she doesn't want?

As for sources being from overseas, you think america is the only place that can report on events in america? I certainly hope not, as it may be pretty hard to get unbiased news from the red-state owned media.

How is it good for our country to take away a person's control over their own body?

You know, this nails the problem with the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate right on the head. The issue isn't the issue... The issue is freedom of choice.

Pro-choice doesn't mean you have to have an abortion... It means you have the CHOICE to have an abortion. It is possible to be pro-choice AND against abortion. It is a personal decision - just like what religion to believe in.

Elimination contraceptive options is plain stupid. You think people are going to stop having sex? Have they ever stopped having sex? People are going to do it regardless of what thier religion says... Religion in it self is one of the most corrupt and perverse organizations on the planet.

So to all of you thinking this is a good idea arguing it is "god's will" remember that the next time you go in for fertility treatments... For that matter the next time you get the flu. Infact, don't even go to the doctor. Just die if it is god's will, it will help save the planet.

Religion is civilizations fatal weakness. This is testimate to that.

The whole abortion issue is obviously very complex, why try and add more danger to the cocktail by adding contraception to the argument. Condoms are outlawed in the Roman Catholic Church; though it is only minorities of devote practitioners who abide by the rule. As far as I know the pill and many other forms of contraception are not outlawed by the RCC. I think it was Saerlaith who pointed out the Onan reference to why this is, though if I remember well if not correct me, it was because God ordered him to have sex with his sister-in-law but it repelled him. Therefore, masturbation and so all forms of contraception are outlawed because someone did not want a child with his brother�s wife even though God ordered him to, so he had sex but pulled out. Which is worse? Emily_Cragg seems to have fallen under the great spell of most neo-conservative, religious fundamentalists in America today. Politics is based on ideology, Religion is based on faith. Two VERY different things all together. The example of using porn as a qualifier for the argument as in it is just a sin for pleasure is ridiculous. Yes not to have sex is the only True contraception but having sex for pleasure is NOT wrong. How can you say you believe in God and all he represents then in the same breath say sex is wrong? Sex without the purpose of procrastination is still an act of LOVE. So to go to war and kill children is OK but to express love to another human without the aim of making a child is a sin and should be against the law! Too much now people are living their lives under the banner �What Would Jesus Do?� Well all that's just a divisive means to rid you of complex moral choices that God gave us all the gift of Free Will to make. Here is a new ideology to try. �What Would You DO?� give it a go and stop using religion and even politics as a crutch to ease your mind of tough moral decisions that too many Americans today seem too weak and scared to make for themselves.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by The Teller]

Condoms are outlawed in the Roman Catholic Church; though it is only minorities of devote practitioners who abide by the rule.

Ever been to any mostly Catholic 3rd world country? Guatamala? I wouldn't exactly say minorities... Religion is a big reason why people (women especailly) are oppressed and live in poverty.

Religion is simply a mind control tool. Pure propaganda. Faith is proof of nothing and hence nobody knows anything. It isn't worth killing/dying for.

Also...

Men should have no weight in debate on this issue. I say this as a man... We make up only one tiny second of the birthing process - in a purely phisiological sense. There for, those setting policy regarding women's reproductive rights should be female. Female politicians should set female focused laws. Men can surely debate, but only from the sidelines... I'd be interested to see how issues like this would turn out if that were the case.


[edit on 9-11-2004 by tacitblue]

Originally posted by tacitblue

Pro-choice doesn't mean you have to have an abortion... It means you have the CHOICE to have an abortion. It is possible to be pro-choice AND against abortion. It is a personal decision - just like what religion to believe in.

Exactly! I've heard version of liberal belief, something like - I'll fight and die for your right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. And the flip side something like - I'll fight and die for my right to impose my religious beliefs on you.

I believe that a fully educated and emancipated population is best equipped to make tough choices for themselves. Accidents happen, let alone my (and others') beliefs that sex is a universal drive that we are lucky enough to be able to use and channel, not just for procreation but for pleasure. The world has more than enough children, but not near enough joy.

So choose choice, which may or may not be abortion, or birth control, or even sex Have faith in yourselves to do what's best for you, and let others have the same right.

--Saerlaith

First, I'm not making ANY decisions here, so I'm not sure what the first line of your statement was about. I am in fact a responsible male who more often than not has been the first to insist the use of birth-control in my sexual encounters... because I understand the implications of an unwanted pregnancy and have no desire to ruin my life or the life of another. Also, if you think that young males don't have to suffer life altering abuse from their parents regarding life decisions... then you're wrong. I am the "black sheep" of my (Catholic) family, because most if not all of the decisions that I've made in regards to my course in life are diametrically opposed to my family's desires. Guess what?... I opposed them at every turn and now we have better relationships than ever. That's what's so great about free nations... we can make our own choices and good parents will love us no matter what.

I was merely stating an opinion based upon my experiences in a very Christian rural area. No matter what legislation is passed, the pro-lifers will still have the right to protest when and where they like, and if running that gauntlet isn't worth gaining access to birth-control, then maybe you need to rethink your priorities.

As for Bush cutting funding in those areas that you mentioned... that may not be the most admirable decision, but it certainly isn't taking any of your rights away from you. Btw, 34 million is chump change in regards to foreign aid, which supports your arguement to some degree.

While Christian fundamentalist may have won Bush the election, by no means does that suggest that all conservatives are even Christian. Maybe all this "divided America" hype has made you miss the reports of the growing moderate republican pressure that's being placed upon Bush. Your avatar shows just how little you and the media understand the real conservative America.

Be patient... not nearly all of those on the "right" are religious fundamentalist and the moderate conservatives will do everything that they can to reel Bush in. The sky in not falling, civil war is not approaching, and religious wackos are not taking over this country. Also, keep in mind the two term limit. None of Bush's decisions are in any way permanent.

A true contraceptive PREVENTS conception. When the Pill first came out, it had more estrogen, and therefore chances of ovulation were considerably less.

Life beings at conception. The Pill nowadays is more likely to prevent the fertilized egg--the new human being--from implanting, and basically killing it, hence it's an extremely early abortion. I found out about this AFTER I had gone off it, when my husband and I were trying for a baby. I felt really bad about that! He wanted only one child, so after our son was born he got a vasectomy.

Believe it or not, abstinence teaching actually reduces unplanned/teen pregnancies. Planned Parenthood knows this--so they go ahead with their sex "education" programs. The more teens have sex, the more likely pregnancies will occur, and the more abortions can be SOLD. PP is in it for the money--they care nothing about people.

Contraception is NEVER 100%. Sooner or later the law of averages catches up with you. There is no such thing as safe sex.

Originally posted by Saerlaith

Originally posted by TrueLies
If their going to go that far and say that the pill is a form of abortion might as well take the condom away too...

That damn sperm.... You men must die....

Oh boy! Don't go there

There is a story in the bible about a man, Onan, I think, wasting his seed on the ground. God cursed or punished him for it (don't have my bible with me, so I can't quite remember the details). That is supposedly where the whole "masturbation is bad" school of thought came from. If the folks who want a return to old testament law keep at it, I'm sure even condoms will be sinful.

Actually, Onan was destroyed because he disobeyed God. He knew that when he impregnated his dead brother's wife the resulting child would be considered his brother's and not his, so I guess he withdrew or something.

Onan was punished for disobedience. That is all.

Life beings at conception.

This has nothing to do with the freedom of choice and is your own opinion. You are free to have this opinion as I am free to have mine. Isn't that freedom worth more to you than the opinion you have?

Yes - This means you protect the intergrity of peace and civilization can advance with active debate.

No - This ultimately means war and destruction.


I fear most of the world does not understand this concept. To prove this turn on your TV.



[edit on 9-11-2004 by tacitblue]

It just sucks to get such grief trying to live as a human being. I hope anyone truly needing birth control or abortion has the courage to make it past the diffculties. I guess I should walk my talk and see if there are any groups in my area trying to help folks do this. And I know many males get just as stuck with the consequences of sex without birth control. I think that since it is women that get pregnant, the bulk of education should be about making smart choices, and helping women stick with that.

I used to live in what Seattle has for a hood, and heard a lot of talk from the young gentlemen about how many children they had fathered, as if it were a point system. And talk from the young women implying that having a baby was a given, not a choice. So maybe there is a problem with how young folk are taught about love and sex. And maybe that's another place to try and help.

Another frustrating side effect of the Bush era is gag rules, lack of funding, and preventing schools from teaching more than abstinence as birth control.

I'm hoping the pendulum will swing back in 4 years. The sky may not fall, but a lot of lives will be ruined, forests vanished, oceans polluted and so on, in the meantime. Hard to wait it out.

--Saerlaith

Originally posted by Saerlaith
I hope anyone truly needing birth control or abortion has the courage to make it past the diffculties. I guess I should walk my talk and see if there are any groups in my area trying to help folks do this.

If anyone here has problems gaining access to birth control and lives in the Central Texas area, they can U2U my, we can exchange some info and I'll get whatever they need for them.

I agree that sex ed has taken a turn for the worse recently and hopefully we can put a stop to that.

I'm hoping the pendulum will swing back in 4 years. The sky may not fall, but a lot of lives will be ruined, forests vanished, oceans polluted and so on, in the meantime. Hard to wait it out.

As sad as it may be, I think that every president does their fair share of damage. The only difference is where that damage is applied. I can't see an easy fix to the ocean and air pollution, as a great deal of this pollution is being caused by "developing" third world countries who have few if any environmental regulations. As for the trees, I'm more than willing to help in the reforestation effort There are more than enough of us to counter this decline... as long as people will be willing to do some vounteer work. Seems like no one will do anything without a paycheck these days.

I just wanted to reassure you that there are a number of conservatives that don't like Bush at all but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kerry. I personally voted for neither He WILL be reeled in or you can probably guarantee a Democrat victory next election.

Saerlaith - I didn't catch it the first time... Your picture of the United States of Canada and Jesusland is funny.

Saer, before I continue I want you to know I am pro-choice.

But here is where it does not make sense to me. This is not in assumption of a long term relationship.

If you get pregnant and do not want the child you can have an abortion. What if you are pregnant and do not want the child and the father WANTS the child? Where are his rights? He cannot force you to have the child nor will the courts side with him.

What if the father wants absolutly nothing to do with the child yet the mother decides to keep it? Why should the father be liable for child support? I should think that if the one night stand that resulted in a pregnancy happened and the father under no circumstances wants anything to do with it then he should not have to pay child support if the womans choice was to have the baby.

Originally posted by tacitblue
Saerlaith - I didn't catch it the first time... Your picture of the United States of Canada and Jesusland is funny.

I liked it too....was glad NY will soon be part of Canada!!!
But, can we leave NY City, and Albany behind?

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg

Did you interpret surrendering your life to Christ that you would HALT ALL THINKING about the cause-and-affect relationships in your life--that you would simply--slavishly--allow yourself to be dominated by circumstances? That is to say, you gave up your ability to REASON? Uh-oh.

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg


...It's true, every church has both sheep and goats; wheat and tares; wolves and lambs. Only by thinking clearly about effects you get and outcomes that come from behavior will anybody be able to do what Jesus said to do: "You will know the tree by its fruit. You cannot get rotten fruit off a healthy tree nor healthy fruit off a rotten tree."
...It's really clear that sin BEGETS bad effects. Ah hah! There's your clue. The people in the church who are lawless are creating bad effects for themselves; it's not that they're being persecuted for holding to what is True and Right and Innocent.
...But you have to be able to tell the difference; and that demands the skills of the Holy Spirit to PARSE Truth in your life.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]

No, I interpreted it to mean that I, being of sound mind and body, chose to gear my life to doing what God would desire, and not man.....any man. That if I truly felt that
God's spirit was telling to to walk down the street and talk to my neighbor, with those hungry kids, and slip her $10 or $20 dollars of my money.....it would be right in HIS eyes that I did it, regardless of weather or not my husband felt it was or not. I also interpreted it to mean, that it was my choice to make, my life that only I could give.....and no man could chose it for me....That if I didn't really want anymore kids....hey, I could practice the ultimate birth control....and say no to my husbands advances during a certain portion of the month when it's the most likely that conception would occur.

I was a member of one of those fundalmentalist christian churches for awhile. I've heard women being told...."Well, if your husband doesn't want you going to church, maybe you shouldn't come.". I've heard the debates on weather or not they have a place in the pulpit. And, I have read the Bible from cover to cover serveral times. I know that a verse in the old testiment will void any vow that a wife makes to man or God if it is proven to be against the husband's wishes, how the wife is to obey in ALL THINGS, and how the husband was susposedly appointed by GOD in a position that very much would resemble that of the high preists of old. Thus the idea that the women should remain silent while in church, and ask her husband any questions she might have at home...the wife is his property, what she knows or don't know should be his decision, shouldn't it. Just like it was against the law to teach any slave how to read without the master's permission? I've also spent quite a bit of time on other boards like this one debating with those fundamentalists. I've come to the conclusion that well, they would very much like to be the king of their castles again.

And, well, let's look at history.....Chinese women were banned from learning the written language for so long that they managed to develope thier own secret language that they would embroider onto the cloths and gifts that would convey messages to other women. Women were allowed into the Jewish Tabernacles, but they were high up on balconies where they could hear nothing and not participate in the proceedure. And,. well, this was the state of women in NY State in the 1800's.....

"So long as by your laws no man can make a contract for a horse or piece of land until he is twenty-one years of age, and by which contract he is not bound if any deception has been practiced, or if the party contracting has not fulfilled his part of the agreement-so long as the parties in all mere civil contracts retain their identity and all the power and independence they had before contracting, with the full right to dissolve all partnerships and contracts for any reason, at the will and option of the parties themselves, upon what principle of civil jurisprudence do you permit the boy of fourteen and the girl of twelve, in violation of every natural law, to make a contract more
[pp. 9]
momentous in importance than any other, and then hold them to it, come what may, the whole of their natural lives, in spite of disappointment, deception and misery? Then, too, the signing of this contract is instant civil death to one of the parties. The woman who but yesterday was sued on bended knee, who stood so high in the scale of being as to make an agreement on equal terms with a proud Saxon man, to-day has no civil existence, no social freedom. The wife who inherits no property holds about the same legal position that does the slave on the southern plantation. She can own nothing, sell nothing. She has no right even to the wages she earns; her person, her time, her services are the property of another. She cannot testify, in many cases, against her husband. She can get no redress for wrongs in her own name in any court of justice. She can neither sue nor be sued. She is not herd morally responsible for any crime committed in the presence of her husband, so completely is her very existence supposed by the law to be merged in that of another. Think of it; your wives may be thieves, libellers, burglars, incendiaries, and for crimes like these they are not held amenable to the laws of the land, if they but commit them in your dread presence. For them, alas! there is no higher law than the will of man. Herein behold the bloated conceit of these Petruchios of the law, who seem to say: "Nay, look not big, nor stamp, nor stare, nor fret, I will be master of what is mine own; She is my goods, my chattels; she is my house, My household stuff, my field, my barn, My horse, my ox, my ass, my anything; And here she stands, touch her whoever dare; I'll bring my action on the proudest be, That stops my way, in Padua."
How could man ever look thus on woman?-She, at whose feet Socrates learned wisdom-she, who gave to the world a Saviour, and witnessed alike the adoration of the Magi and the agonies of the Cross. How could such a being, so blessed and honored, ever become the ignoble, servile, cringing slave, with whom the fear of man could be paramount to the sacred
[pp. 10]
dictates of conscience and the holy love of Heaven? By the common law of England, the spirit of which has been but too faithfully incorporated into our statute law, a husband has a right to whip his wife with a rod not larger than his thumb, to shut her up in a room, and administer whatever moderate chastisement he may deem necessary to insure obedience to his wishes, and for her healthful moral development! He can forbid all persons harboring or trusting her on his account. He can deprive her of all social intercourse with her nearest and dearest friends. If by great economy she accumulates a small sum, which for future need she deposit, little by little, in a savings bank, the husband has a right to draw it out, at his option, to use it as he may see fit."

"There is nothing that an unruly wife might do against which the husband has not sufficient protection in the law. But not so with the wife. If she have a worthless husband, a confirmed drunkard, a villain or a vagrant, he has still all the rights of a man, a husband and a father. Though the whole support of the family be thrown upon the wife, if the wages she earns be paid to her by her employer, the husband can receive them again. If, by unwearied industry and perseverance, she can
[pp. 11]
earn for herself and children a patch of ground and shed to cover them, the husband can strip her of all her hard earnings turn her and her little ones out in the cold northern blast, take the clothes from their backs, the bread from their mouths; all this by your laws may he do, and has he done, oft and again, to satisfy the rapacity of that monster in human form, the rum-seller."


"Nature has clearly made the mother the guardian of the child; but man, in his inordinate love of power, does continually set nature and nature's laws at open defiance. The father may apprentice his child, bind him out to a trade or labor, without the mother's consent-yea, in direct opposition to her most earnest entreaties, her prayers and tears.
He may apprentice his son to a gamester or rumseller, and thus cancel his debts of honor. By the abuse of this absolute power, he may bind his daughter to the owner of a brothel, and, by the degradation of his child, supply his daily wants; and such things, gentlemen, have been done in our very midst. Moreover, the father, about to die, may bind out all his children wherever and to whomsoever he may see fit, and thus, in fact, will away the guardianship of all his children from the mother. The Revised Statutes of New-York provide that "every father, "whether of full age or a minor, of a child to be born, or of any "living child under the age of twenty-one years, and unmarried, "may be his deed or last will, duly executed, dispose of the custody "and tuition of such child during its minority, or for any "less time, to any person or persons, in possession or remainder." "2 R.S., page 150, sec. 1."

Address of Elizabeth Cady Stanton to the Legislature of the State of New York, Feb 1854".

www.alexanderstreet6.com...

Well, to put it mildly, I have come to the conclusion that according to Christianity at least, God has ordained that women's place in society, as well as her relationship with God be placed into the significant males hands......her treatment, her salvation, everything. Find one bit of biblical scriptures----"God's Word" that says otherwise. Of course, most of the churches today have softened that stance up quite a bit, but they haven't wavered from the position that Man has been set above women in the scope of things...

Well, since the mid 1800's man has given women these rights, often through court battles that referred to constitutional principles instead of God's word. The same constitutional principles that christian women (as well as men, but that is beside the point) are hoping that Bush will ignore to protect them from the horrible dangers of....."homsexuality".... umm.....I think think more christian women need to read their bibles and see just what "God's Word" says about them, and their place in the world.
What option does it give to the pregnant women who's alchoholic husband is demanding her paycheck for the trip to the bar when she needs it for food for her kids and he pushes her down the stairs because she refuses? (this actually happened to a women I know ...she lost the baby) Is there anywhere in the Bible words written that ensures her that she has permission to say no to him? And, gee, back before the women's rights movement, did she have any legal recourse? Oh, ya, she should be praying that God will touch his heart!!

Where in "God's Word" does it give the women any kind of permission to refuse any request from her husband, whatsoever....including sex!!

If indeed, these fundamentalists have made moves to make "God's Law" supreme and above our constitutional laws, which I believe they are doing, what, they have bills in both houses of Congress saying as much....because they know danged well, that as far as constitional law, there is no way on this earth that they can withhold "marriage" from the gay community! SO, many christians will be happy with the claims that are being made that they are just there to circumvent "liberal activist judges" who are desiring to write their own laws....

To me, they seem to be handing much more back.....including the right for women to even practice any faith....except of course the one that their husband wishes they practice.....all because they just can't have enough faith in their God to think that he can't handle of small number of gays being married in this country.....

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
...Excuse me. I had my last baby at the age of 42 when my marriage was crumbling. And we got through that too, by the Grace and Mercy of God. He is now a wonderful young man, despite all the trouble I had to deal with. I never got pregnant except that God and I had taken the time to talk it over, first.

..."Act in haste; repent in leisure."

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]

Well, if you read any of what I have read above, you might be getting the idea by now.....

Personally, I am in my mid 40's, and well, sometimes I have problems walking. I really have no one with me most of the day that would be able to help me care for a baby. Just how responsible would it be for me to get pregnant at the present time? And, well, why is it that the christian churches seem to be requiring such an act of faith on the women's part.....hey, technically, it really shouldn't be her who decides weather or not to have sex....but fails to show even a small amount of that same faith? I mean, God could just as easily negate any harmful effects that homosexuality might cause our society. He could circumvent any type or birthcontrol used if he really desired for you to have a baby.

And, yet, it's seems to be more acceptable for them to relinquish the rights granted to them in their constitution....one of which is to act as christian as you are!!..because they don't like homsexuality...

-----
"I never got pregnant except that God and I had taken the time to talk it over, first. "
-----
What if your husband has forbidden you to pray?