should African women have access to birth control?
You are wildly mistaken if you think I have an agenda to destroy planned and stable families – actually it’s the futile attempt to sever the link between procreation and sex which does just that very thing. Stop attempting to impose your form of ideological colonisation on a foreign country. Your ideology is nothing more than wishing to adopt a paternalistic approach to poor black women and stop them from breeding by any means necessary. That you want women with little education to be coerced into having contraceptive devices into their body is an absolute disgrace and infringes their dignity. (Blondpidge)
Should women in Africa have access to contraception and legal abortion facilities? Blondpidge argues that it’s paternalistic to give women a choice. She argues that I wish to impose idealogical colonisation on a ‘country’ (ahem) because I suggest every women should have a right to choose if they use contraception, what kind of contraception they use, and if they wish to continue with the pregnancy of any fertilised egg.
Religious campaigners in this day and age are aware that they can’t be entirely open about their agenda. They know it doesn’t work in a discussion like this to say: “My god only wants people to have sex if they are willing to raise a child as a result!” or “Women were designed to breed and breed they must do!“, so they try and obscure their true motivation for entering the public arena with their opinions by throwing illogical secular-sounding arguments around.
So, in the irony of all ironies, I’m accused by a Catholic forced-birth advocate and anti-contraception campaigner of being ‘paternalistic’ and colonial for daring to suggest women should have options to make their own choices.
As I am banned from further inclusion in the discussion on her site, I’ll satisfy myself with pasting my full reponse to her comment here:
Contraception in Africa Melinda Gates and the BBC
I completely understand that you don’t want information that undermines your argument on public display on your page. So, for your private viewing, if you can bear to read it, I’ve answered your questions.
Re the article you’ve read, could you link to it, so we can see the source for this claim?
Here’s the link to the source:
And a WHO factsheets with figures from a few years ago:
You can find more recent estimates (with references) here:
“In Africa, according to the most recent estimates, at least 9% of maternal deaths (16,000) annually were due to unsafe abortion.
About 1.6 million women in the region are treated annually for complications from unsafe abortion.”
I have not once expressed an opinion on when people should or shouldn’t have sex, (if you think this is the case, could you cite precisely where I said such a thing)
When you say “sexual libertinism is inherently unsafe and exposes you to unnecessary risk” – you are giving a clear opinion on when you think people should have sex. Are you afraid to openly clarify that as a campaigner on Catholic families doctrines that you think sex should only be within marriage and, even then, only when people are happy to raise a child as a consequence? Honestly, the fact that you challenge my statement on an obvious part of your belief statement is odd to say the least, and points to the underhanded methods in terms of hiding true intent that go on in these discussions.
You are wildly mistaken if you think I have an agenda to destroy planned and stable families
Okay, I’ll clarify that the obvious result of your misdirected campaign to force women into giving birth to any fertilised egg, is destroying opportunities for people to have children in a planned fashion. I appreciate your religion believes that by attempting to convince people only to have sex within a breeding heterosexual marriage, planned families will be achieved by the god deciding when they have children. But for the rest of us living in reality, we’d rather use the tools available to us to plan for children when we’re in a position to best provide for them.
In summary, do what you want with your own life, but don’t campaign to restrict the options available to any women in any part of the world.
The question of contraception and Africa is not as black and white. First, I am not sure you read what came from the Danish government recently? They give aid for family planning to Africa to stop immigration.
And recently Macron said something in similar vein.
So, while I am entirely pro-choice, the discussion is heaped on racial and neo-colonial undertones that shouldn’t be overlooked.
Foreign intent aside, lack of family planning and poverty go hand in hand. In fact family planning has been accredited with being the number 1 factor in poverty reduction in Brazil. So what is straightforward is access to it should be made available to all.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Were they poor because they had many children or they had many children because they were poor?
And I agree fully that access should be available to all
LikeLiked by 1 person
They started out poor, so having 14 children didn’t help.
The problem is poverty and with it comes many problems like access to education, health-care. Basically, there is no guarantee of access to services. To this person then, many children provides an insurance to many things among them infant mortality. At least one or two may survive
Being able to choose exactly when you have children reduces infant morality:
“By preventing unintended pregnancy, family planning /contraception prevents deaths of mothers and children.”
You’re not proposing that’s a good strategy, right?
Having many children as a strategy, of course not. What will they eat if they all survive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It should be mandatory around here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree this should be brought into the conversation. There are shocking attitudes still remaining. In terms of the ‘pressure’ on immigration that the Danes referred to when ostensibly plugging the gap that the US withdrawal has left for family planning in developing countries, I would see that as an ignorant-European-voters gesture (not excusable) at a time in Europe where anti-immigration isolationist policies are proving popular. Horrible as it is, quite often people want to know what is in it for them – why do their taxes go to other countries. We’re a long way from the secular humanism ideal, where everyone acknowledges on principle that that those who can should contribute to improve living standards generally.
Access to family planning is vital, and the Catholic Church is exploiting every angle it can to ensure that women everywhere have no choice when it comes to sex and breeding. I’m not buying their narrative – there’s no negative side-effect to offering women choice in their own lives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the thing. Christians are worried about “colonial influence” when it’s birth control, but not when they’re sending their missionaries to convert people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
They’re not worried about it at all, they’ve just discovered it’s a line of argumentation that brings pause for thought in discussions where they should be rightly dismissed on the basis of ‘we don’t take orders from other people’s invisible gods’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again I agree with you that access to family planning is vital. Either last year or the year before there was a very serious problem that the donors through the government in their drives for family planning were instead trying to sterilize women. I need to see where this ended.
On people asking where their tax money is going, maybe it is time to ask what their governments are getting out of Africa. Last report I saw indicates that what leaves Africa is several magnitude what we receive in aid. But this a discussion for another day.
Let me know if you find the links about sterilisations. I can only find an unverified Catholic conspiracy about tetanus vaccinations being infected.
In any case, I don’t see the point in confusing ensuring people have options, with any actions that have removed their options. Again, playing into the Catholic propaganda hands.
I believe in free movement, and hope human society can one day achieve that. But how do we protect people from the horrors of desperation that lead to the images we see of thousands of people risking their lives and the lives of children to cross the seas and enter Europe? Ideally people will migrate when they want to and can do so safely, not when they have no other option. How do humans help each other out of poverty? Research shows us time and again that access to family planning is key in this.
You are right, I think it was the Catholic church and tetanus vaccine.
Family planning is not key in reducing poverty. It is one of the measures. Reminds of what the World Bank and IMF sold for ages that privatization will lead to poverty reduction.
Wow, can’t believe you’re saying that. Seriously, I’m stunned. And comparing it with a politicised economic policy? You’ve been spending waaaay too much time with the Catholic Church.
“Family planning plays a pivotal role in population growth, poverty reduction, and human development. Evidence from the United Nations and other governmental and nongovernmental organizations supports this conclusion.”
“Decades of surveys have documented the association between poverty and high fertility, and underscore the importance of expanding family planning services in poor communities. Women from poorer households have more children than women from wealthier households. In a study of 56 surveys from around the world, the poorest women had about twice as many children, on average, as the wealthiest women. While poor women often desire a larger family than wealthier women, they typically have more children than they wanted or intended to have. Poor women often begin childbearing at a young age and have more closely spaced pregnancies. High fertility, young childbearing, and short pregnancy intervals tend to be associated with poor child and maternal health, lower educational attainment, lack of economic opportunities, and restricted social mobility.”
Violet, I wish it were true that I spent a lot of time with the Catholic Church or any other but I don’t. I spend it in school.
So first, your line of reasoning appears to be there is one cause of poverty and that is having more children than one can take care of. But that’s just one of the causes. The reason why they address contraception or access to family planning is because women & children are more vulnerable.
The world Banks core mandate is poverty reduction and I don’t think their number one priority is family planning.
The sdgs, at least the first six have something to do with poverty.
For example among the urban poor, you are likely to find their biggest expenditure is on housing. Providing affordable housing for them would go along way to reducing poverty among them.
So again, I insist family planning is one of the key strategies in poverty reduction because poverty is a multidimensional problem requiring several approaches.
What do women themselves want? Given the risk of becoming pregnant and the option of limiting that risk, I would want that option. If there was public shaming, I would want to be able to keep quiet about it.
That’s a good question. If they have the choice, they can made that decision on an invididual level. If they don’t have the choice, blondpidge’s god decides for them. 🙂
Your arguments echo some I’ve been making myself – the idea that sex is about procreation, that abstinence is a valid form of birth control, that women are vessels for babies, and so on, is a set of arguments I frequently come across on religious sites and discussion groups. It’s ironic for them to complain of interfering in other cultures, when they want nothing more but to interfere.
It’s almost safer when they’re open about their motivations on religious sites. Keeps it in context. People are Blondpidge are approaching the discussion with their motivations tucked out of sight, and attempting to sway public opinion by claiming it’s an interference in another culture. Choice in birth control is human progress, regardless of the location – basic healthcare.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why don’t we white privileged Europeans just leave the African women alone.
If they want to hump like little bunnies, who are we to judge?
The truth is that like most animals (including bunnies) we all like to hump – it’s a feature of our expansion as a species. However, most of the time we’re humping, most of us aren’t quite prepared to provide for new human beings. Certain religions may think we should never make the separation, but, let’s be honest, it would be ignorant barbarism not to embrace human advances that improve quality of life for everyone. Curiously enough, only religions rooted in ignorant barbarism go to any lengths to deny women the choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The truth is, man is a product of evolution, of the natural world.
What animal in the natural world uses condoms or commits genocide on its unborn children?
If you are a champion of evolution, you cannot be a champion of condoms or pre-natal genocide.
For mankind, it’s a humpin’ and a thumpin’ au natural just like all the sexually reproducing creatures.
From a logical standpoint, of course you can embrace evolution and be pro birth control. From a practical point of view almost everyone on this board is a champion of both.
If you believe in evolution and that man is part of the natural world, then you CANNOT believe in birth control.
My previous comment is an example of logic.
Your comment is composed of two false claims only.
And you don’t support your claims with any reasoning whatsoever.
You just make a claim and demand that everyone except it as true.
But Violet does believe in both. How is that possible?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is exactly my point.
Violet’s position on this subject is irrational.
So it is not impossible to hold both views it is simply irrational?
It is not rational to hold two views that are the exact opposites of each other.
Yes…but it’s not impossible :). Still, I think you would have to convince me that it’s irrational. It would seem to me that if a person believed in evolution they could also come to the conclusion that since humanity had evolve to such a high state they couldn’t determine that birth control could be a good thing to utilize.
It is possible to hold to opposing views at the same time only if one violates the rules of logic.
That rule of simple logic being just what I said:
It is irrational to hold two opposing views at the same time.
You people need to go to school and study logic like I did.
I do understand that. What I would like to see you prove that the two views are indeed opposed to each other. Other than simply stating that the are.
To understand that the two views are opposed to each other, one must understand the theory of evolution.
Ask Violet to explain it two you since she is a prime advocate of it.
Also, it is obvious that holding two opposing views is irrational.
You need to stop for a moment or two and think about it.
For example: I believe in human rights for all.
I also believe that people who don’t look like me, think like me, have the same needs as me can be murdered by the State which not coincidently holds the same views as I do.
Those two beliefs are opposed to each other yet the leftist believes them both.
Logically then, leftist ideology is irrational.
Logic is not something that I can convince you about.
You learn and accept it as an intellectual treasure or you don’t.
Leftist thinking rejects logic, rationality and reality in favor of ideology and personal bias.
That is why leftist thinking is retrograde and a trip back to the future of brutality, poverty and tyranny.
Oh, Silenceofmind, recognizing that something is a part of the reality does not necessarily mean we need to adhere to it and follow it. Even if we ever come to recognize that the Biblical god is actually an existing entity, that does not mean we instantly fall in love with such a moral monster, even though that seems to be the starting position of Christians, now does it? If you recognize that the object coming towards you is a train, it does not mean you have to wait for it to run you over. Or does it? That would actually be contradictionary to evolution, would it not?
The theory of evolution tells us how we came to be, but as such it does not tell us what we should do next, even though it informs us in our choises about the future and what shall follow from our chosen actions. Including procreation. The theory of evolution is not a religious text, even though you seem to view it as one.
You are not putting forward logic, you are being silly. Why? Is it deliberate or unintentional? Is your goal to prove your own irrational beliefs by appealing to childish nonsense and putting up the most obvious strawmen, just like the example in the topic post from Blondpidge? Do you not see yourself, that you are doing exactly what Violetwisp referred in the post to as ” trying to obscure true motivation for entering the public arena with their opinions by throwing illogical secular-sounding arguments around”? Have you not just proven her topic point? I think you have.
What you would call logic sounds like a rather well known logical fallacy “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. In your case it seems to be, that: If there is evolution, then we must follow a particular path of evolution to determine our behaviour in the future as it has brought us here. Perhaps that is a trick your conservative mindset plays on you. Unlike in the conservative mindset, in reality something is not good just because it has been good enough before. That is why we today value human rights, even though such were not much in fashion when the Bible was written. We have evolved culturally. Have we not? Evolution has led us to a position where we as a species are able to be fit enough to survive and prosper as individuals by limiting our population growth by our tools, just like thousands of years ago our evolution led us to a position where we could inhabit almost the entire planet by the tools we made and eventually have almost unlimited population growth. That path of evolution has come to an end, and we as a species now need new survival methods. Human rights and the right to choose to have sex without procreation are among those, just like advanced agriculture and clean energy are. But we do not choose them just because evolution tells us so, rather because we as evolutionary beings are able to enjoy such and like to give a chance to survive also to our future generations. Right?
On a nother note, what do you mean by claiming the “leftist” believes in: “I also believe that people who don’t look like me, think like me, have the same needs as me can be murdered by the State which not coincidently holds the same views as I do.” Because in my experience and knowledge of history, it is far more often the right-wingers who believe in that. Who advocates for the capital sentence? How did the Fascists and Nazies identify themselves and still do? Because the answer to those questions is the extreme right. Is it not? Or was this just a nother attempt at throwing illogical secular-sounding arguments as red herrings, when you realized you had taken a ridiculous position on the topic?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Oh, Silenceofmind, recognizing that something is a part of the reality does not necessarily mean we need to adhere to it and follow it. ”
I never said that. You said that and then assigned it to me.
And now you expect that I explain what I never said but what you said I said.
Welcome to the wonderful, wacky world of the irrational where any hallucination will do because everyone knows it has to be true!
Silenceofmind, so, if you would not agree with what I thought you meant, then you DO realize, that recognizing biological evolution as a fact (like pope John Paul II did) does not require a person to assume our cultural evolution has to follow exactly the same path, that our biological evolution has brought us thus far? Do you?
1. Do you agree, then with pope John Paul II, that biological evolution is indeed true?
2. Is it because you think we are so bound to our biological evolution, that we should not work against it through our cultural evoloution – In practice would you consider providing all women (including African women) with the choise of contraception?
3. Are you against African women having that choise, or just women having that choise, or in just anyone having any choises at all, in regards to biology, or choises in general?
4. Do you think adult people should be able to make such choises about their OWN lives, when technology (contraception) makes it possible, and if not, then why?
5. Do you realize, that the biological evolution is not a pre-set thing with a particular goal as such other than the survival of the species and that our cultural evolution is a result of our biological evolution so they are infact not in contradiction to each other unless our culture demands that we do something that shall extinguish our species – like for example destroy our environment by overpopulation? Or are you planning your genes will continue in some artificial environment where the overpopulation is not going to be a problem?
6. Do you realize, that the humankind has doubled it’s number in just a matter of few decades? What do you think is going to happen next, if we do not help people to stop such exponential growth by their own volition?
Even if you were one of those numbskull Theists who think the world is only 10- to 6-thousand years old, you should be able to grasp that this much population growth is going to lead to hunger, famin and war – insurmountable suffering. You would not want that, would you?
7. Do you expect the world to end soon? Do you think that would be a good thing?
Was your response an actual and honest representation of your position, or was it an attempt to simply evade my point?
Whether I believe in evolution has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is how Violet can believe two things that are mutually exclusive.
You need to argue with yourself against her, not me.
On the contrary, Silenceofmind, for you even to be able to evaluate wether Violetwisp believes two mutually exclusive things, you first need to understand what those things actually are. Do you not?
However, bear in mind, the question of evolution is not a question of faith. It is a scientific fact, that evolution happens and that the theory of evolution is the only scientific explanatory theory on how we have come to be as we are biologically. Infact how everything living in the universe (that we do know of) is as it is. Even dogs, that are quite altered in their form by artificial evolution by humans are still a product of evolution. Both cultural and biological evolution.
Cultural evolution affects the most complicated organisms just as it affects the most simple of all organisms on the planet. A disease is often caused by a virus or a bacteria, but how we humans react to the disease, wether we try to heal the sick or not affects wether the disease even exists or not, just as much as it may affect us as a species. It is within our choise to deal with our own biology, from hygieny to contraception. Is it not? Why should we not provide for better living for all living? How would that be in contrast to evolution?
You have tried, but utterly failed to show how Violetwisp is in any way in contradiction with herself. To me it seems very much your failure in this matter is a result of your misconception of what evolution actually is. Is it because, unlike pope John Paul II, you do not even understand evolution enough to even accept it as true? Or is there some other misconception about it, why you would demand that evolution would – somehow – require we do not allow women the choise to contraception?
Now you have two choises: Either try to make a better argument why you still think she is in contradiction with herself, or concede to the fact that you were wrong? Are you able to perform either?
Your own argument here is an example of irrationality.
You cite the Pope’s teaching on evolution, but you don’t cite his teaching on birth control which is consistent with the theory of evolution.
The Pope’s position is rational:
If evolution is true, then man is a product of nature.
Since nowhere in nature does any animal commit genocide on its unborn children or use condoms, then so must it be for mankind.
Silenceofmind, the pope is rational in accepting that evolution is true as that is the scientific fact. Do you accept it as the pope John Paul II did? He accepted it in face of becoming the laughing stock of the civilized world and because he really could not argue against it with any even remotely plausible arguments. Or do you think the pope was wrong? As to contraception that pope was simply wrong and so is the new one. If John Paul II had come to his conclusion about procreation and contraception through his views on evolution, he did not expressed it. Did he? No, he rather made a lot of “huuhaa” about religious morals. It is you alone who thinks evolution demands us not to use contraception, wich is an absurd and baseless assertion. I would argue the opposite. That evolution is about survival of the species and in our case that means contraception, since otherwise the overpopulation will destroy us eventually. But as for morals, that is not about the guessed and assumed will of any gods, rather it is about the rights, liberties and responsibilities of the individual and the society. Is it not? Those are the result of our cultural evolution to wich we apply what we know about our biological evolution.
Let me give you an example of your own failure to use logic. Think about what you wrote abowe while reading the next thought: Since nowhere in nature does any animal provide education of written languages on its children or use medicine, then so must it be for mankind. Would that make any sense to you? Me neither, but it is exactly as stupid what you tried to pull in your previous comment. Is it not? Can you see the parallel?
You have no idea what evolution is, do you? To you it simply seems to be something that somehow challenges your religiously held superstitions. Right?
There you go changing the subject.
You, Violet, Jim and rest have shown categorically and without a doubt that you are irrational.
Instead of assigning me the task of explaining the Catholic Church position of evolution…
…you folks need to get a brain and teach it how to explain your own position on things.
Silenceofmind, I am not asking you what the position of the Roman Catholic Church is on evolution. I never have. I know what it is. I ask you yours, since it would seem you are in grave disagreement with the pope John Paul II, but you would not want to acknowledge that. Now is that not revealing about the problem of your position? The one you have made up for yourself, and nobody else, not even the pope, accepts. Do you not recognize the pope as an authority on such matters? I really do not, but how about you? I am asking your personal position mainly though to make you aware that before you are able to even evaluate wether Violetwisp really has double standards on evolution – as you have asserted – you need to understand evolution yourself, do you not? But you already know this, do you not? That is why you evade my question by any means necessary, is it not? You really do not even want to know about evolution, nor understand it enough to know Violetwisp was never in any contradiction with herself. It is just something you try to use as your hobby horse to ride against the windmills. Who is it that you are trying to convince here? Yourself? Are you not convinced enough of your faith based beliefs, that you need to go on this elaborate path of empty claims, assertions and evasions?
Nor am I trying to change the subject as you are in a habit to do. It was you who brought up evolution, as if that had anything at all to do with the question wether African women should have the right to choose wether they use contraception. It really does not, exept that in evolutionary terms it would be better for all of us, if they and all women across the globe could. We are rapidly facing overpopulation, are we not? Contraception is not some sort of “genoside of the unborn”, it is preventing the “unborn” from even ever emerging as anything in the real world, it is preventing unwanted pregnancies, it is preventing abortions, both legal and illegal, it is preventing poverty, misery and overpopulation. Why would you ever want to stop it even though evolution is true? I am merely trying to explain to you that much. That is not too complicated, is it?
Once again: Evolution does not demand we should not use contraception as you have suggested. Have you not? On the contrary, it is well within the bounds of evolution, that we strive for better and more social lives among many other things through the use of contraception and in addition; it is indeed quite an evolutionary survival mechanism for us to limit our rate of birth voluntarily to stop the catastrophy we might cause by overpopulation to our environment, ourselves and ultimately to our species.
Now, why is it, that you seem unable to discuss the issue, and go on these wide perths of evasion tactics? Is it because you are intelligent enough to realize such discussion might end up in you recognizing your faith based beliefs about gods, womens rights and contraception bunk, or because you are too stupid to even understand what it is we are discussing? Or some other reason?
I am Catholic and believe in Catholic doctrine both on evolution and family planning.
Yes, Silenceofmind, and neither of those positions is rational. Most people who hold such beliefs have simply inherited them. Does that include you?
You have already expressed that in addition to the two church doctrines you have a third belief, wich is that the evolution somehow demands African women should not have the freedom of choise, when it comes to contraception. This is not a Roman Catholic Christian doctrine or even commonly held belief. Is it?
The Roman Catholic Christian church keeps the scientific facts – such as evolution – at least an arms length from their metaphysical gueswork – such as why they oppose contraception. The church as a system is clever that way. Have you not noticed? The religious system and the vast bureucracy we call the Roman Catholic Church (which lives of the gullibility of the masses, that hold it sacred out of cultural tradition), does not want to become ridiculed in such a manner. They seem to have all sorts of problems in that department already without adding new ones. That is why you are so alone with your third view. The Roman Catholic church does not link these two together as you have. Does it? You may hide behind their backs all you want, but it does not make your position logical, nor does it magically turn the position of Violetwisp in any way irrational.
I have already explained abowe why evolution has no such demands. As you have not been able to even try to debunk my views, I assume you have either accepted, that I am correct about evolution in this issue, or that you disagree though you have no logical arguments for your position. Wich is it, or is there a third option?
Let me explain why the Roman Catholic doctrine about evolution is actually quite irrational. It is that, because even though it acknowledges the scientific theory to be true (wich is more than one can say about a good lot of other Christian denominations, as you have propably noticed), it adds on it an unnatural element of a creator entity, that supposedly is also the god they have worshipped as a social system and as a vast money making bureaucracy for centuries before any understanding about the evolution was known to mankind. There is no logic, that supports assumptions of creator divinities. Or do you have any good logical arguments for it? Guesses are a poor way to come to any even remotely reliable truths. Are they not? Demands of faith in metaphysical guesses are demands for irrational behaviour. Same applies to the guesses about divinities as much as it applies to guesses of inception of a human as an individual (and as such having any rights we assign to human individuals) long before any actual human brainfunctions appear in a fetus.
Fact of the matter is, that religious systems be it the Roman Catholic church, Shiite Islam, or any other organized religion have a tendency to try to protect the interrests of the system, rather than the members or believers in the relgion. This may include moralist nonsense, that confirms the beliefs of the members through conservativity in opposition to the natural fear of changes, or that a continuous growth of members is more easily achieved through procreation than through religious conversion – as religions do not have such convincing messages to offer. Most people who are convinced by a religion have simply inhereted the values of this or that religion through cultural indoctrination. Have they not?
Personally I find it a bit odd, that any healthy adults would even want to consider advice about sex from dudes who have voluntarily given up having sex in preference to a job wich includes wearing skirts and pretending they know what a particular god wants from humans. I guess there has to be some heavy cultural indoctrination involved, or a personal crisis of some sort for a person to resort to such irrational method of trying find out how to behave in their most private of affairs.
“If you believe in evolution and that man is part of the natural world, then you CANNOT believe in birth control.”
And you can’t go in a plane, and you can’t go to the cinema, and you can’t use money. As an atheist who believes in evolution, do I need to become Amish? Or just go live in a cave?
As a Christian who believes your god is looking after you, do you reject all forms of modern medicine and healthcare? Do you source your own food or wait for it to fall like manna? I’d hate to think your world view is somehow contradictory. 😀
I don’t know how to respond to your comment.
To the logical mind your comment is irrational gibberish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me explain.
Nowhere in your comment is a defense of your position.
And your argument has nothing to do with any of my comments.
That is why it’s gibberish.
Why don’t you take this opportunity to support your position:
That you believe in evolution and that man is part of the natural world yet at the same time you believe in birth control which is man-made, not a product of the natural world.
Yes, and planes, TVs, vaccinations and any number of human developed aids to life improvement. Your point is…..?
I asked you to explain your position.
You can’t, obviously.
You simply believe stuff because it feels good to you.
That is an example of personal bias.
All your beliefs have their source in personal bias.
That means they are true only to you and other irrational people.
That means please leave African women alone.
To be fair. ..she also believes in airplanes and vaccines and they to are man made
Airplanes and vaccines have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Irrational people simply can’t tolerate having their beliefs questions.
When people like me do so, people like Violet change the subject or move the goal post (two examples of logical fallacies).
They are both examples of man made things that everyone believes in.
You introduced the concept.
I did not introduce the topic. You did.
I simply stated the logical conclusion that it is not rational to believe in two ideas that are opposed to each other.
I even gave you examples.
Why can’t you people stay on the subject at hand?
Did you not imply in your comment above that it’s irrational to believe in evolution and at the same time believe in things that are man-made?
Things that are man-made are not products of the natural world.
The reality of that concept throws a monkey wrench into the theory of evolution which requires man to be a product of the natural world.
But Violet want’s it both ways.
She believes that man is a product of the natural world (evolution) but at the same time he is not (he makes his products and rules, etc.).
I understand what you are saying. I’m not sure you have proven that she can not have it both ways.
It is possible to “have it both ways” as you say, but that is not rational.
Here is another example:
I believe that all men are created equal except for black people.
That contradictory thinking was the basis for Southern slavery.
Logical thinking on the other hand says if all men are created equal, then one man cannot own another as property.
The reason for that is that if one man can own another, that violates the self-evident truth that all men are equal.
And by the way, “All men are created equal,” is an example of a natural law.
All people have the same human nature therefore no single person nor group of people, nor class of people, nor race of people is more privileged than any other.
SOM, I think you’re right. I’m throwing my computer away and going to live in a bush. I am a product of evolution and therefore cannot in all conscience use things that humans have developed. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is exactly right!
Atheism is mankind’s long, brutal trip back to the bush.
And it’s because you folks are religiously, scrupulously irrational.
“Should women in Africa have access to contraception and legal abortion facilities? Blondpidge argues that it’s paternalistic to give women a choice”
🙂 Nobody likes it when other people label them! In this case, I think they have a point. Albeit a very trivial point. It is not forcing the West’s view about contraceptive on the African culture, but it certainly is promoting it, isn’t it?
I have made a complete 180 on this issue personally. I do think contraception should be available anywhere and everywhere. If one believes that less abortions are better than more abortions, it is the only reasonable position to take.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting Jim. If I read you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that we should withhold the option to make use of technological advances proven to raise living standards, from only certain parts of the world (what are the criteria to qualify for this denial?) in case it’s ‘paternalistic’ for people to be given the opportunity to make choices about their own lives.
Glad to hear you see some logic in making contraception available though. 🙂
No …I’m not making that suggestion at all.
Okay, just re-read extra carefully. I’m not there so I don’t know how much it’s being promoted. It’s being made available, like any other healthcare should be made available where there is opportunity to do so.
Hello Viotetwisp,wow what an important subject! I think women should be treated dignified always even in the pro creation arena.Their choices need to be protected also,in poor economic climates women have been exploited young women forced to have sex and to start or not start families.
I think it Isa case of proper leadership,strong forces need to control the men of exploitation and enable women to live and choose how to live.
Africa suffered to much at the hands of greedy men!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comment, choice is indeed key.
I have dropped a comment or two. So far I am still moderated but not banned….
I saw, same with me. I suspect my latest comments won’t make it out, so I’ll paste it here so I don’t lose the thread of the discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Latest comment in moderation from blondpidge post:
If my figures are inaccurate, please do correct them and quote your reliable source. I have no idea why you claim death or serious injury by unsafe abortion figures can be inflated by including unsafe abortion figures. Abortion-relating mortality figures may well decrease due to the availability of reliable abortifacients online – that doesn’t make the criminalising of abortion any less concerning.
I advocate for sexual behaviour change too, in fact I have several posts about the importance of taking sex seriously and the importance of working towards lowering the numbers of unwanted pregnancies. The difference is that I never campaign to deny women the right to choose what is best for them and their family at any point in their lives.
Agreed. But be aware that many people use contraception effectively (I used condoms for 15 years before choosing to have children and conceiving within two months on each occasion). Also be honest enough to admit that a developing fetus isn’t anywhere approaching sentient until at least 20 weeks, and the vast majority of abortions happen before this period – that’s no pain and no awareness, only the ‘what ifs’ of the average monthly menstruation (unless you believe invisible creator gods are implanting souls on conception).
The reason I bring your religion into this argument is because I know it underpins every keystroke. However much you attempt to separate this argument from your religious dogma, its foundation in your world view is key to your passion on this subject. And your passion to force women to conceive and given birth to unplanned, unwanted children, is a tradegy for many lives.
I’m not campaigning to impose values, I’m arguing to allow women to have freedom of choice, in a world where not everyone shares your religious beliefs. Can you truly not see the difference?
LikeLiked by 1 person
And here was my last comment that has not yet been released.
In a great many instances across the world, being overburdened with many children goes hand in hand with poverty.
Being tied down with children, especially at an early age, is not conducive for a women to flourish in an environment where she is so often regarded as a second class citizen, little more than property in some instances, as is often the case in such a paternalistic culture as we have here in certain parts of Africa.
And it gets worse in countries that are are strict Muslim. I note you avoid the topic of forced brutal genital mutilation.
I fully acknowledge that many forms of contraception are not ideal for all women, but we are talking largely of CHOICE here, and I don’t hear the women’s side of this discussion?
If you have overwhelming evidence from African women that they are 100% against introducing any form of contraception into their culture then I would say you most definitely have a case. Still may be regarded as a shaky one, but a case nonetheless.
So, do you have this percentage backing your position on this issue?
And if there was only 1% that disagreed and desperately wanted contraception, would you still deny them?
Yes, men should most definitely be part of the discussion, but not the final arbiter … and neither should the church or religion.
Under the circumstances it seems that one should put aside all personal and religious ideology in this matter and consider the women involved first and foremost.
This seems to be the ethical thing to do.
Wouldn’t you agree?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can see that staying in moderation. I suspect she was hoping for angry explosions rather than reasoned argumentation.
Makes change from moi, right? lol