12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

I really don't see how not giving the right to a wife to abort without her husband's permission to be a violation of her rights. The baby in question is theirs, not hers.

If I heard that my wife aborted our child without my permission, I will sure get angry. It's not her body we are talking about, it's the child.

[USArmyParatrooper]

The stats you provided did not make your case. The only thing you've provided that directly relates is anecdotes like, "Even apolitical people I know in the ME oppose abortion rights." In all political issues that even remotely relate to religious beliefs, the views of people in the middle east are far to the right of Americans. You say it's not religion, it's culture. I say it's religion having a profound affect on culture.

Either way, when the people's political views side with religion in almost every case it's hard to make the case that their political views are less affected by religion than in the US.

Modifié par USArmyParatrooper, 23 janvier 2011 - 03:22 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...


I fully agree, which is why I wish we would move to fully publicly funded campaigns. Personally I don't consider money to be a form of "speech," which is why the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing businesses to donate unlimited amounts of cash to be shameful. Even IF you consider cash donations to be speech, since when is a freaking corporation an individual with rights? Billionaires already had enough money to influence politicians, but now they can push the weight of corporporate money as well. When companies like Exxon Mobile can reap over $10,000,000,000 of profit in a three month period, what chance to any of us stand to have our voice be heard? It gives the saying "money talks" a whole new meaning.

This I totally agree with. There has to be major reform in how campaigning and political support of various financial and social entities is dealt with. Normally, I don't care how much a business/corprate entity makes, more power to them. Being able to use that money to direct the foreign and domestic policy of any nation is dangerous, and in my opinion, contrary to the principles of both the constitution and rational capitalism/free market economy.

It's one of the reasons I find it hard to support either party come election time, and instead support/vote for various third parties, because both the left and right are comprimised heavily by varying lobbies.

[Xilizhra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I really don't see how not giving the right to a wife to abort without her husband's permission to be a violation of her rights. The baby in question is theirs, not hers.
If I heard that my wife aborted our child without my permission, I will sure get angry. It's not her body we are talking about, it's the child.

It's kind of like militant antitheists telling you that your faith is stupid. Not nice of them, but having it be illegal would be a lot worse.

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I really don't see how not giving the right to a wife to abort without her husband's permission to be a violation of her rights. The baby in question is theirs, not hers.

Single mothers left high and dry would disagree.

If I heard that my wife aborted our child without my permission, I will sure get angry. It's not her body we are talking about, it's the child.

That is if you consider a fertilized egg a child immediately after conception - which is a conversation that can carry on indefinately.

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

The stats you provided did not make your case. The only thing you've provided that directly relates is anecdotes like, "Even apolitical people I know in the ME oppose abortion rights." In all political issues that even remotely relate to religious beliefs, the views of people in the middle east are far to the right of Americans. You say it's not religion, it's culture. I say it's religion having a profound affect on culture.

I provided two pics of stats two pages ago on a specific issue, the question of democracy, and how in Egypt, there is no strong corrolation between views on it and religiousity. The most religious people also tend to be very favorable towards democracy.  As for the rest, likeI said, I don't think stats were made on this.

As for your other comment. I suggest reading Lelia Ahmed's article on Women and gender in Islam. She talks about how it was ultimately culture and tradition that overruled it, and religion was used as a justification of things it sometimes clearly rejects (but for the most part things it's silent on).

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I really don't see how not giving the right to a wife to abort without her husband's permission to be a violation of her rights. The baby in question is theirs, not hers.

Single mothers left high and dry would disagree.

That's irrelevent, you brought up husbands so the wives I had in mind are not single.

And if the husband treats her poorly, she has the right to ask for divorce.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 03:30 .

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

This I totally agree with. There has to be major reform in how campaigning and political support of various financial and social entities is dealt with. Normally, I don't care how much a business/corprate entity makes, more power to them. Being able to use that money to direct the foreign and domestic policy of any nation is dangerous, and in my opinion, contrary to the principles of both the constitution and rational capitalism/free market economy.

It's one of the reasons I find it hard to support either party come election time, and instead support/vote for various third parties, because both the left and right are comprimised heavily by varying lobbies.

Although I'm a staunch Democrat, I recognize that the left and right has created enough of a divide that a third party will never be viable. At least, not anytime soon. There is too much fear about the "other" side taking power to allow someone else to come in. Call it the Nader affect. The Green Party took more than enough votes from the left to allow Bush to be President. At the same time, the right has pretty much destroyed any chance for a viable Libertarian party. Just look at Palin at a "tea party" rally, "We have a two party system. It's time to pick a side!" 

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I really don't see how not giving the right to a wife to abort without her husband's permission to be a violation of her rights. The baby in question is theirs, not hers.

Single mothers left high and dry would disagree.

That's irrelevent, you brought up husbands so the wives I had in mind are not single.

And if the husband treats her poorly, she has the right to ask for divorce.

Very well then, "single and divorced mothers left high and dry would disagree." The point still stands.

And I haven't even touched on the toll carrying a baby to term and birthing it has on a woman's body. The day the a fetus can be transferred to the man's body, then we can talk about him having sayso.

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
Very well then, "single and divorced mothers left high and dry would disagree." The point still stands.

The child is still not hers. Even when divorced, the father has a right to determine his child's fate.
If they both agree, then fine. If not, oh well. If she doesn't want to have the kid, she can give him / her to her ex. 

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
And I haven't even touched on the toll carrying a baby to term and birthing it has on a woman's body. The day the a fetus can be transferred to the man's body, then we can talk about him having sayso.

Irrelevent, the child is still not hers, nor is it his. It's theirs.
This is not an issue of her body, this is an issue of aborting something they both cooperated to create. If one of them says no, then it's no.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 03:42 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...


Although I'm a staunch Democrat, I recognize that the left and right has created enough of a divide that a third party will never be viable. At least, not anytime soon. There is too much fear about the "other" side taking power to allow someone else to come in. Call it the Nader affect. The Green Party took more than enough votes from the left to allow Bush to be President. At the same time, the right has pretty much destroyed any chance for a viable Libertarian party. Just look at Palin at a "tea party" rally, "We have a two party system. It's time to pick a side!" 

Oh, I'm aware of the futility of supporting third party candidates, and the dominance/reasons of the general two party system. I still do it out of principle, as I can not justify spending my vote on a candidate who is so very contrary to my own political opinions/views on how things should be handled.

That said, though I vote third party, I do know its either a democrat or republican who will win, and will often unoffically side with whomever I think is the lesser of the two evils, from my perspective.

I do think breaking up the two party dominance is another things that would be beneficial to the political scene. As history shows, Americans do best when faced with competition, and I think having more political choices and influences would also improve the state of both parties and their vision/priorities.

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The child is still not hers. Even when divorced, the father has a right to determine his child's fate.
If they both agree, then fine. If not, oh well. If she doesn't want to have the kid, she can give him / her to her ex. 

She can give him to her ex IF he's not an absusive a-hole and is cabable of being a father, and IF he's anywhere to be found and IF he's willing.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Irrelevent, the child is still not hers, nor is it his. It's theirs.
This is not an issue of her body, this is an issue of aborting something they both cooperated to create. If one of them says no, then it's no.

First of all I disagree with you that a fertilized egg is a child. I also disagree that the tramatic, sometime lethal affect bearing a child has on a woman's body is not an issue of her body.

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
She can give him to her ex IF he's not an absusive a-hole and is cabable of being a father, and IF he's anywhere to be found and IF he's willing.

Then an adoption center.

First of all I disagree with you that a fertilized egg is a child. I also disagree that the tramatic, sometime lethal affect bearing a child has on a woman's body is not an issue of her body.

I don't think it is a child either and most Islamic scholars say that abortion of a fetus up to 40 days after conception (many say 120) is legitimate as long as there is a valid reason for it. It is still however not something that belongs to her for her to unilaterally decide its fate. After the fetus develops, then it becomes sin.

And it's also clear that if carrying the child is going to threaten the woman's life, then termination is legitimate. I think even the most ultra-conservative mathhab says this. 
It will depend on the schools of thought but all of them say that before 40 days at least is legitmate if for valid reasons. Opinion is mixed regarding 120 days (it's believed that this is when the soul develops).

Eh, also the Hanafi school of law says that a wife can do so without the permission of her husband, if for valid reasons. Like if the husband is clearly an a-hole.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 04:05 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

She can give him to her ex IF he's not an absusive a-hole and is cabable of being a father, and IF he's anywhere to be found and IF he's willing.

From our own cultural and social views, yes. But it helps to remember that in Near eastern/Middle eastern societies, the issue of deadbeat/absentee fathers is far less a factor than in Western societies.

You have to remember, there is a great fundemental difference between Western social/cultural norms and values as opposed to others. This also includes the position of the individual in relation to society. While the US leans culturally and socially towards heavy individualism in relation to the law and society, in many other countries, this is not the case. The individual is seen more in context to the bigger social picture, and individuals are seen as having obligations to society that trump individual rights/preferences. This applies to both men and women.

Thus, while to an individualist, such systems seem oppresive or unfair, to others, the well-being of the social collective/culture is a far bigger consideration than individual rights. This is actually true of many countries, and even applies alot in Europe, despite Europe being very liberal and progressive in most areas.

Thus, when it comes to marriage in Near eastern societies, it is not a union that is based solely on individual feelings/preferences, but one that is effected by, and effects, society and culture directly. We were discussing this in the Alistair thread, on how the nature of marriage in the Middle East is very different in concept than it is to much of the west.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ok, I just found the abortion laws of Turkey. You're wrong, in some circumstances, the woman can do it without her husband's approval. Like if it's threatening her life.

I think this is true to all the countries adopting the Hanafi school of Law. Aka most of them.
The Shafi'is also have a similar opinion on this.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 04:21 .

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Then an adoption center.

We're discussing whether or not a husband/boyfried/fling - whoever the sperm donor is  - should be allowed to force a woman to carry a pregancy to term. An adoption center doesn't play into the equasion.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I don't think it is a child either and most Islamic scholars say that abortion of a fetus up to 40 days after conception (many say 120) is legitimate as long as there is a valid reason for it. It is still however not something that belongs to her for her to unilaterally decide its fate. After the fetus develops, then it becomes sin.

If you don't think it's a child why do you think the man has a right to force a woman to carry the fetus to term? Who cares what Islamic scholars have to say on the subject, unless of course you're making my argument that religion has a strong influence on policitical beliefs in the middle east? 

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And it's also clear that if carrying the child is going to threaten the woman's life, then termination is legitimate. I think even the most ultra-conservative mathhab says this.

Carrying a child is always a risk to the woman's life. Sure, the risks can be mitigated (if) the mother has access to adequate, modern healthcare. But even under the most ideal conditions there are major health risks to the woman, even the risk of death, and in all cases carrying and bearing a child is physically tramatic to the woman's body. This is only one reason why a man should not be allowed to force a woman to have a baby.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
It will depend on the schools of thought but all of them say that before 40 days at least is legitmate if for valid reasons. Opinion is mixed regarding 120 days (it's believed that this is when the soul develops).

Eh, also the Hanafi school of law says that a wife can do so without the permission of her husband, if for valid reasons. Like if the husband is clearly an a-hole.

That's all fine and good that they have those religious beliefs. Forcing those beliefs on others through the force of a government on the other hand..

Modifié par USArmyParatrooper, 23 janvier 2011 - 05:09 .

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ok, I just found the abortion laws of Turkey. You're wrong, in some circumstances, the woman can do it without her husband's approval. Like if it's threatening her life.

I think this is true to all the countries adopting the Hanafi school of Law. Aka most of them.
The Shafi'is also have a similar opinion on this.

That they make a few exceptions doesn't make me "wrong." Unless there are extenuating circumstances the husband can literally force a woman to carry a baby to term.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Edit: dupe

Modifié par USArmyParatrooper, 23 janvier 2011 - 05:09 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
If you don't think it's a child why do you think the man has a right to force a woman to carry the fetus to term? Who cares what Islamic scholars have to say on the subject, unless of course you're making my argument that religion has a strong influence on policitical beliefs in the middle east?

You are working with the assumption that abortion is a political issue in the Middle East, when it isn't. It's a cultural / legal thing. And it's not the same as in the USA, where the issue is politicized and argued along party lines.
Law in our culture is not as politicized. It's based on schools of law and scholarship, not parties.

Which brings me back to my original argument, just to make it clear what I am talking about. That religiousity is not enough to know political views, on strictly political issues.
Culture is a different thing in our context.

Carrying a child is always a risk to the woman's life. Sure, the risks can be mitigated (if) the mother has access to adequate, modern healthcare. But even under the most ideal conditions there are major health risks to the woman, even the risk of death, and in all cases carrying and bearing a child is physically tramatic to the woman's body. This is only one reason why a man should not be allowed to force a woman to have a baby.

When the risk is clear, with medical experts validating it, then it's legal.
We don't operate with the supposition that the fact that it might be risky to her life makes it acceptable, unless a medical experts says with reasonable certainty that it can.

The man cannot have a child without the consent of the woman in the first place. If she didn't give her consent, then this is a different issue. She can't change her mind every day on this. Having a child is a commitment and responsability.

That's all fine and good that they have those religious beliefs. Forcing those beliefs on others through the force of a government on the other hand....

Not the issue and I do not mind.
You can mind all you want. That was not the point I was making, and quite frankly I don't really care.

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
 Unless there are extenuating circumstances the husband can literally force a woman to carry a baby to term.

No, conception will require the woman's consent. 
If her consent was not taken, then it's a different issue.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 05:14 .

[Sarah1281]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The man cannot have a child without the consent of the woman in the first place. If she didn't give her consent, then this is a different issue. She can't change her mind every day on this. Having a child is a commitment and responsability.

I don't know about the Middle East but I know that here a lot of abortions aren't a case of someone changing their mind about having a baby but not having intended to conceive in the first place. People should be more careful about sex but, well, they aren't.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

She can give him to her ex IF he's not an absusive a-hole and is cabable of being a father, and IF he's anywhere to be found and IF he's willing.

From our own cultural and social views, yes. But it helps to remember that in Near eastern/Middle eastern societies, the issue of deadbeat/absentee fathers is far less a factor than in Western societies.

You have to remember, there is a great fundemental difference between Western social/cultural norms and values as opposed to others. This also includes the position of the individual in relation to society. While the US leans culturally and socially towards heavy individualism in relation to the law and society, in many other countries, this is not the case. The individual is seen more in context to the bigger social picture, and individuals are seen as having obligations to society that trump individual rights/preferences. This applies to both men and women.

Thus, while to an individualist, such systems seem oppresive or unfair, to others, the well-being of the social collective/culture is a far bigger consideration than individual rights. This is actually true of many countries, and even applies alot in Europe, despite Europe being very liberal and progressive in most areas.

Thus, when it comes to marriage in Near eastern societies, it is not a union that is based solely on individual feelings/preferences, but one that is effected by, and effects, society and culture directly. We were discussing this in the Alistair thread, on how the nature of marriage in the Middle East is very different in concept than it is to much of the west.

I agree with everything you said, but I wasn't applying anything I was saying to Alistair or any situation in Dragon Age. I was simply disagreeing with the claim that religion has a stronger influence on political beliefs in the US than it does in the middle east. Many of those cultures condone very harsh and restrictive practices of the government in the name of religion.

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
 Unless there are extenuating circumstances the husband can literally force a woman to carry a baby to term.

No, conception will require the woman's consent. 
If her consent was not taken, then it's a different issue.

That's called a strawman argument. I never said conception is the choice of the man in Turkey, although in some countries if they're married that's the choice of the man as well.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The man cannot have a child without the consent of the woman in the first place. If she didn't give her consent, then this is a different issue. She can't change her mind every day on this. Having a child is a commitment and responsability.

I don't know about the Middle East but I know that here a lot of abortions aren't a case of someone changing their mind about having a baby but not having intended to conceive in the first place. People should be more careful about sex but, well, they aren't.

I think taking pills right after is legitimate to prevent pregnancy. It's really after fecondity, that it's about abortion. It's allowed up to 40 days or 120, with the consent of  both parents, unless under extreme circumstances.

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
That's called a strawman argument. I never said conception is the choice of the man in Turkey, although in some countries if they're married that's the choice of the man as well.

No, because you are implying that the woman did not agree with the conception in the first place, hence "force".
That kind of vocabulary is implying that it's the husband who forced her to get pregnant.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 05:26 .