#Abortion access isn’t the only issue that concerns women

[foreverlogical]

One of the greater indignities of the Dobbs Supreme Court decision—besides stripping millions of American women of their bodily autonomy—was how deeply out of step it was with the majority of Americans’ beliefs. According to a 2023 Gallup poll, a record-high 69 percent of Americans believed that first-trimester abortions should be legal. Considering this statistic, it’s surprising that Democrats haven’t more robustly rallied people around this issue. One reason may be that they just don’t know how.

Roe gave American women decades of false comfort: Abortion access and reproductive rights could remain firmly in the dominion of feminist causes. Keep Your Hands Off My Reproductive Rights T-shirts became nearly as ubiquitous as Girl Boss tote bags. But although most Americans support abortion access, feminism remains more polarizing. Only 19 percent of women strongly identify as feminists. That number is far higher among young women, but among young men, the word has a different resonance: Feminism has been explicitly cited as a factor driving them rightward. Democrats might not like how this sounds, but what they need to do now is reframe a winning issue in nonfeminist terms.

One way is to talk about abortions as lifesaving health care, which more women have been doing. Another model is to talk about it not as a women’s issue, but as a family issue. This is the strategy of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice. For 15 years, NLIRJ has worked in states such as Florida, Texas, and Arizona, training community leaders it calls poderosas to speak with their neighbors. The conversations don’t necessarily begin with abortion at all.

[Read: It’s abortion, stupid]

Most Hispanics in the United States are Catholic. Despite a deeply ingrained religious taboo against abortion, 62 percent now believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That number has risen 14 percentage points since 2007. This remarkable change is partly a reaction to draconian abortion restrictions in several Latino-heavy states. But much credit should also be attributed to years of grassroots work by organizations like NLIRJ to shift the culture.

“We ask them what keeps them up at night,” Lupe Rodríguez, the group’s executive director, told me. Rodríguez holds a degree in neurobiology from Harvard and was a scientist before she shifted into reproductive-justice work. That opening question might yield answers about problems at home or a lack of functioning electricity in their neighborhood. The point, Rodríguez said, is to go past individual “rights” and to connect  “reproductive autonomy and bodily autonomy to the conditions that people live in, right? Like whether or not they’re able to feed their kids, whether or not they have money to pay the rent—like everyday concerns.” In this way, reproductive rights go beyond a niche women’s issue to something that affects every aspect of a community.

None of NLIRJ’s materials uses the term feminist. Rodríguez said this wasn’t a conscious decision, but she stands by it. “Our approach is a lot about certainly freedom, certainly bodily autonomy, certainly folks being able to make the best choices for themselves and their families. But it’s very connected to community and family.”

Poderosas are trained on how to discuss faith and abortion, and voting and abortion. Crucially, they are not required to personally hold pro-abortion views. The organization is nonpartisan. Involvement has no ideological requirement other than believing that everyone should be entitled to make decisions that are appropriate for themselves and their family. “We’re bringing people in that way, by not casting them aside” if they don’t share the same perspectives, Rodríguez told me.

This has proved an effective strategy for Latino advocates across the country, and one that Democrats can learn from. In Florida, NLIRJ and other organizations, such as the Women’s Equality Center, have shifted the narrative around abortion bans to be about the government interfering in private family matters. In Arizona, a recent poll by LUCHA, a family-oriented social-justice organization there, found that 75 percent of Latino voters agreed that abortion should be legal, regardless of their personal views on the matter. In New Mexico, male Hispanic Democratic politicians are campaigning on reproductive rights even in conversations with Latino male voters, whose primary concern is typically the economy. Representative Gabriel Vasquez is banking on this being a matter of family and personal liberty—exactly what drove so many Latino immigrants to America in the first place. “It is not about whether we are pro-choice or pro-life,” he recently told The New York Times. “It is about trusting the people that we love to make those decisions for themselves.”

Latinos have played large roles in getting abortion-rights measures on the ballot in Florida and Arizona this fall. And although just 12 percent of the general electorate considers abortion access a leading issue, according to a 2022 national survey, that number was 19 percent among Latinos.

[Read: Are Latinos really realigning toward Republicans?]

So often, political analysts look at how Latinos vote without asking why. It’s as if they assume that Latinos’ rationales are too foreign to understand. Democrats should not make that mistake now. This pragmatic approach is appealing to Latinos because they are largely politically moderate, working- and middle-class people concerned about their family, and about kitchen-table issues—just like much of the population in swing states. The Republican Party seems to have caught on to this; Democrats can’t afford to miss it.

No self-identified feminist who deserves the title will be supporting the intergenerational-bro ticket of Trump-Vance in 2024. The Democratic Party doesn’t need to pander to those voters, or pass a rhetorical purity test on women’s rights to galvanize them; they’re voting Democratic no matter what. Democrats need to focus on all the other voters—who may not care about feminism but do care about their families’ health and ability to thrive—and reframe abortion as an issue that affects everyone.

[ukrfeminism]

5 minute read

Thousands of protesters marched through central London (Saturday) afternoon as they demanded Carla Foster to be freed from jail, after her sentencing earlier this week reignited calls for abortion to be decriminalised.

Ms Foster was given a 28-month extended sentence on Monday after she admitted illegally procuring her own abortion during the pandemic when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant.

Protesters marched from the Royal Courts of Justice to Whitehall today chanting “Free Carla Foster” and waving signs saying “abortion is healthcare”.

They called for an end to Victorian legislation that renders abortion a criminal act in England, Scotland and Wales, with women granted exemptions in certain circumstances up until 24 weeks of pregnancy.

There are seven exemptions that can be granted to allow a woman to have an abortion, but none stating that a woman simply does not want a baby. For 98 per cent of women who had an abortion last year, it was recorded as being “performed because of a risk to the woman’s mental health”, classified as “F99 (mental disorder, not otherwise specified)”.

Under current legislation, abortions can only take place after 24 weeks in specific circumstances including when the mother’s life is at risk or if the child will be severely disabled.

Labour MP Stella Creasy delivered a speech to protesters who gathered in Whitehall this afternoon, claiming that current abortion legislation is no longer “fit for purpose”.

“This week proves what some of us have been trying to tell, often at length, patiently, to middle-aged men on Twitter,” she said.

“We do not have a legal right to choose in England and Wales, and that has very real consequences.”

She later told i that the significant turnout to the march “shows women aren’t prepared to accept to the possibility of prosecution hanging over their right to choose”.

“Lawmakers who think they can ignore these concerns fail to understand how important protecting a womans right to choose is to so many,” she said. “Parliament has to act as with more prosecutions on the way this issue isn’t going away.”

Lucy Wing, a 21-year-old from Walthamstow in London who attended the march, said she was “outraged” at Ms Foster’s case.

“I am here because I do not believe that the law that Carla Foster was sentenced under was at all just,” she said.

“A legal understanding of what a person is does not encompass a foetus and it does not encompass a child that was born not breathing. That child does not have any human rights because it is not seen as a person.”

Ms Foster was jailed earlier this week after being found to have ended her pregnancy in May 2020 with “pills by post” that allowed women under 10 weeks pregnant to receive abortion medication during the first Covid lockdown, when access to health services ground to a halt.

The “pills by post” scheme, which was intended to be a temporary measure ushered in during the pandemic, has now been introduced permanently.

Ms Foster, a mother-of-three, pleaded guilty to administering drugs to procure abortion significantly beyond the 10-week time limit, contrary to the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. The offence carried a maximum life sentence.

The judge, Mr Justice Pepperall, had received a letter from medical bodies including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives urging him to pass a non-custodial sentence.

However, he said this was “inappropriate” and sentenced the woman on the basis of the law as it stands.

The case has reignited calls to decriminalise abortion in the UK, with charities launching a fresh campaign to reform “outdated” laws that allow woman to face life imprisonment for ending their own pregnancies. 

Ed Dorman, 64, an obstetrician and gynaecologist who also attended the march, said that Ms Foster’s case had “galvanised” the abortion movement and drawn attention to the punity of current laws. 

“As you can tell from today, it has galvanised a lot of very strong feeling about the inappropriateness of the way the law, if it’s applied, can result in somebody being sent to prison for ending their own pregnancy,” he said. 

“I would like to see, as in Northern Ireland, the whole remit of abortion care being taken out of the criminal law and, whilst still regulated, be like any other part of healthcare.”

Abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in October 2019 after Westminster passed laws while the government at Stormont had collapsed.

However, abortion is still technically illegal in the rest of the UK as legislation brought into force in 1861 has not yet been repealed.

No 10 said earlier this week that the Government has no plans to alter abortion laws despite outrage over Ms Foster’s sentencing. 

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said on Tuesday: “Through the Abortion Act, all women have access to safe abortions on the NHS up to 24 weeks and we have made changes so that now includes taking abortion pills at home.

“We think this approach provides the right balance and … there are no plans to change this.”

The spokesman added: “We recognise that this is a highly emotive issue and obviously we recognise that the strength of feeling on all sides.”

[ninjabi-m]

"International" Women's Day

International Women’s Day.

Anti-women abuse Day.

Women-issues Awareness Day.

<insert some random women thing> Day.

Ironic isn’t it?

2 mothers are killed every hour in Gaza - according to statistics.

More than 180 women give birth in Gaza, amidst precarious, brutal and unreliable conditions.

15% of these women are likely to experience birth complications.

Around 70% or more of those massacred in cold blood due to men are women and children. Oh wait, not only men…add women too. Yes, women are killing women. 

Over 700,000 women and girls in Gaza do not have access to women’s hygienic products due to the restriction of humanitarian aid. 700,000 is a rough estimate, in reality, we all know the numbers are greater.

Women and girls are forced to artificially delay their menstruation cycle since there is a lack of these supplies. This leads to numerous health issues,

Palestinian women and girls have been abducted, sexually assaulted and tortured. They have been stripped naked and searched by male Israeli officers, degraded and humiliated.

C-sections have been performed without anesthesia. Babies delivered under bombs.

Let’s visit another side of the world.

The average life of a Uyghur woman under the male-dominated CCP consists of forced sterilisation, forced marriage to Han officials and forced abortions.

Women inside detention centres are injected with a foreign fluid, forcing them to lose their menstrual cycle, and in some instances, bleed to death.

Their clothing is cut short for being “too long” by male Han officers.

Wombs are cut out in an attempt to curtail the Uyghur Muslim population.

There is no International Women’s Day for the Palestinian and Uyghur women.

Feminists constantly speak about male dominance and the understatement of women.

That all women deserve equal social, economic and political rights and freedoms. 

This only applies to the white woman, or the European woman. It could be stretched to the black woman, the brown woman, the Hispanic woman - only a stretch. The Middle Eastern woman is immediately deemed oppressed, there is no hope for her. 

The irony surrounding the Women’s Rights Movement is that these so-called feminists only care about their individual materialistic success. It is only relevant when they’re being harassed by a male co-worker in the workplace or feeling threatened by a man on the street. When it comes to women as a collective, it doesn’t matter. 

Instead, these Western feminists have flooded their social media with blaming men for their problems. In light of recent events, it has turned to them condemning Hamas. Hamas, Hamas, Hamas. Condemning Hamas while they are fully aware of the countless atrocities committed by the Israeli Defense Force against Palestinian women. They call Pro-Palestinians “rape apologists” when they are fully aware that they are inadvertently justifying the heinous degradation of women by the IDF. Many of them are not aware of the sufferings of Uyghur women in China - if they are, they refuse to acknowledge it. 

Why? Why you might ask. It doesn’t hurt them. It isn’t about them and, therefore doesn’t concern them. Their hypocrisy is evident, their pride in their male counterparts committing atrocities against their gender is apparent and yet they still claim to “call for the equal treatment of women across the world.”

Shame. Shame on you all.

You are content with destroying families and brushing the struggles of Palestinian, Uyghur and other non-European women under the carpet since it doesn’t fit under your individualistic and materialistic needs.

There is no International Women’s Day for the Palestinian and Uyghur women. 

There is no International Women’s Day for non-European women.

There is no Anti-women Abuse Day for them.

There is no Women-issues Awareness Day for them.

There is no <insert some random women thing> Day for them.

Ironic isn’t it?

[blackboard-monitor]

ok i’m going to try to frame this in a way that won’t be maliciously misinterpreted

as a PhD student in gender studies and a trans person with a uterus, i think that there are many instances where it’s essential and more accurate to discuss “people with uteruses” and “people who can get pregnant” rather than just saying “women”

however, i also think that we can and should still talk about restricting access to abortion as an attempt to control women’s bodies and to punish women for having sex

while these issues obviously affect people who aren’t women, that isn’t what the people who advocate for anti-abortion are concerned with. many socially conservative people lack the necessary awareness and understanding of trans people and our bodies to take us into account in discourses that are not about trans people specifically

so while restricting abortion and other reproductive rights isn’t an issue that only affects women, and while not all women are affected or are affected equally, women are regardless often the intended target of this attack, and saying as much is not inherently exclusionary

[lepartidelamort]

Trump Issues Radical Demand for “Homosexual Births”

Andrew Anglin

The story probably isn’t that this is a $7 billion entitlement giveaway to old women and homosexuals, but rather that it’s a $7 billion entitlement giveaway at all.

Adding massive amounts of entitlements is typically a Democrat thing. The Republicans are scared to remove them, but they do not generally add them.

Also, while I don’t think most Protestants even know what IVF is, Catholics view it as a type of mass abortion.

New York Post:

Former President Donald Trump proposed Thursday that in-vitro fertilization (IVF) be made free for wannabe parents — a sweeping pitch that could transfer as much as $7 billion in annual costs to the government and insurance companies, experts tell The Post. The Trump team hasn’t specified how the policy would be adopted, but the quickest way is likely through pending legislation requiring insurance companies to consider infertility a covered medical condition or through amending former President Barack Obama’s signature 2010 healthcare law.

It’s funny… I remember the first thing he wanted to do in 2017 was repeal Obamacare.

Now he’s bloating it further.

Strange…

If Trump, 78, manages to become the 47th president, he could also issue executive orders expanding free IVF coverage to all federal workers, military members and veterans, who currently are eligible only in limited cases — though such orders would likely face legal challenges. “Politicians promise and overpromise all the time,” Gerald Kominski, senior fellow at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, told The Post Friday. “In this specific case, what [Trump’s] promising has never been done with regard to healthcare in this country.” The price tag for IVF is hefty — with treatments costing $15,000 to $20,000 per cycle, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. … If enacted, a free-IVF mandate would be a major bipartisan accomplishment for Trump, who in his first term similarly breathed new life into long-stalled criminal justice reforms, forcing through a bipartisan package known as the First Step Act after the policies languished for years. … The Trump IVF plan got a range of reactions from Republicans, with some championing it as a bold pro-family initiative while others — especially abortion opponents —shared concerns due to IVF’s process of creating and destroying embryos.

The Trump initiative is expected to appeal not only to suburban centrists, but more Democratic-leaning voting groups, such as LGBT people who use IVF to conceive children. “Affordable access to IVF is an important issue for the LGBT community across the political spectrum, and President Trump’s proposal would be a game changer for LGBT couples who want to start families of their own,” Log Cabin Republicans President Charles Moran said in a statement.

That’s apparently the core of it.

It’s about gays.

The science has done incredible things with vaccines and changing the weather using a system of windmills, but they have yet to conquer the challenge of anal babies.

I don’t really know that I have any new commentary on this issue. We’ve all seen the way that Kamala has become a hardcore border enforcer and Trump has become the mega-social-liberal.

He wants abortion and anal babies.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Carter Sherman at The Guardian:

The post-Roe v Wade battle over abortion rights may just torpedo Republicans’ shot at the White House next year, and they know it. Anti-abortion activists lost every abortion-related voter referendum last year, while ire over the fall of Roe has been credited with boosting Democrats in the 2022 midterms. Now, Republicans in the presidential primary are scrambling to figure out how to talk about and legislate abortion. But they’re regurgitating some common anti-abortion myths to make their case.

‘Late-term abortions’

At the last Republican debate, the former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley suggested that the United States should ban “late-term abortions”, as a compromise between people who support abortion rights and those who do not. But while Republicans like to throw around the phrase, it’s not exactly clear what they mean – in medicine, “late-term” refers to pregnancies that last beyond 40 weeks, not abortions that occur later on in pregnancy. “‘Late-term abortion’ isn’t a thing,” said Katherine Kraschel, an assistant professor of law and health at Northeastern University. “It’s a term created by people who oppose abortion to spread disinformation and shame people who have abortion. It has no basis in medicine or science.” Moreover, less than 1% of all US abortions are performed at or past 21 weeks of pregnancy, according to Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data. While there isn’t great data on why people seek abortions later on in pregnancy, many of those cases may involve individuals whose pregnancies have been diagnosed with devastating fetal abnormalities – many of which can only be detected past the first trimester.

Women may also get abortions later on in pregnancy because it was too difficult to get one earlier. People who work at abortion funds have told the Guardian that, since Roe fell, they have seen an increase in people getting abortions in their second trimester of pregnancy. “If the concern is really with abortions that happen later on in pregnancy, then the laws that they’re putting in place to restrict access to abortion are only increasing the likelihood that someone has to access abortion further on in the pregnancy,” Kraschel said.

Abortions ‘up until the day of birth’

In the last presidential debate, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis – who signed a six-week ban into law in his state – and the South Carolina senator Tim Scott said that Democrats and the states that they control would like to permit abortions up until birth. There are a few states that do not restrict abortion based on the gestational age, such as Oregon, Colorado and Minnesota, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion restrictions. But most Democratic-leaning states do limit how late into pregnancy someone can get an abortion. States such as New York and California, which Republicans frequently single out, ban almost all abortions after fetal viability, which is generally around 24 weeks into pregnancy.

‘Post-birth abortions’

Earlier this summer, DeSantis claimed on CNN that “some liberal states” allow “post-birth abortions”. That statement is categorically wrong. Killing an infant is infanticide, a crime that is already illegal in all 50 states. This kind of claim, however, has gained some traction within GOP circles; Republicans in Congress have spent years trying to pass legislation that would regulate babies “born alive” after an abortion. [...]

A 15-week abortion ban – and the questionable reasons for it

At the last Republican debate, Scott and former vice-president Mike Pence declared that they would support a 15-week federal ban on abortion (and allow states to restrict the procedure earlier on in pregnancy). Such a law, which is also supported by the powerful anti-abortion group Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America, would be the first nationwide abortion ban in the history of the United States. Even before the supreme court decided Roe v Wade in 1973, states dictated their own abortion laws. When he declared his support for a 15-week ban, Pence said that the idea was “supported by 70% of the American people” and suggested that a 15-week ban was reasonable because abortion should be banned after “a baby is capable of feeling pain”. These are both common anti-abortion talking points among Republicans – and they are both misleading, if not totally incorrect.

Republicans, scrambling to figure out on how to talk about abortion in the post-Roe world, are resorting to pushing myths to justify abortion bans, such as pushing the debunked "post-birth abortion" canard, alongside the usual nonsense about "late-term abortion" and nonexistent "abortion up until the day of birth."

[fury-justice-feminism]

If it were about babies, the government wouldn't be consistently turning down social programs that would better the quality of life for these newborn babies they are forcing women to have. If this were about babies, they would fix the foster care system. 

on the subject of the foster care system btw... To suggesting adoption or simply keeping the baby is extremely problematic. Having these be the only options is putting a child at risk for abuse & trauma with a lifetime full of mental health issues & failure.

 The adoption & foster system are not only backed up & overworked, but the amount of abuse children go through in the system is outrageous. 32.8% of children are subject to some level of maltreatment, 10.1% are subject to physical neglect only, 9.4% are subject to both physical neglect & abuse, 5.6% are subject to physical abuse only, 4% are subject to sexual abuse & other maltreatment, & 3.7% are subject to sexual abuse only…. keep in mind that these statistics are most likely much higher as abuse of any kind often goes unreported & children are forced to keep quiet. It must also be talked about how 23,000 children age out of the system every year, 20% will become homeless, and 25% of children in foster care grow up having PTSD, & children that are or have aged out of the system have a substantially lower chance at succeeding in life when it comes to education & work. Now, these statistics don’t even touch the statistics of children that belong to families that never wanted them in the first place. Forcing a mother to keep a child she never wanted is putting that child at just as much of a risk for neglect & abuse as well.

Making abortion illegal was never about life or "morals", but rather about controlling women. a woman can't even make decisions about her reproductive organs without a man's permission. if this was about the preservation of life, the woman's life would come first. Furthermore, let's talk about the fact that the decline in birthrates has been a topic of concern with conservatives... making abortion illegal was & isn't about life or "morals", but rather about making sure our capitalist economy survives. the exploitation of the poor & working-class, because let's be real, the rich will still have access to safe abortion.

Periodt!

[warrioreowynofrohan]

I'm a long time follower and I wanted to clarify your position before a misunderstanding gets out of hand. I've seen some recent posts by lie-where-i-land that had your name in them? I'm not gonna lie, it kind of worried me what you said, about it being pressuring or whatever. I was hoping to get a fuller picture and maybe see if your intent had been misrepresented by him?

Okay, here’s the clarification of my position. The short version is that I am not your enemy, but you may not like what you hear. This whole discourse is new to me, and I will freely confess that much of what is said on it does not make much sense to me. Based on what I have read and heard, this is what I do think.

I think that there is going to have to be dialogue and mutual understanding on trans issues between people with widely differing viewpoints. There is real hostility, and trans people genuienly are suffering, but I do not think that everyone who views things differently from you hates you or wishes you ill.

I not think that trans women are a threat to cis women. I disagree with women who do think that. But I think it is at least understandable, and worthy of engagement rather than flat condemnation and ostracism, that some women are concerned that if access to women-only spaces (of varying purposes, from changerooms to shelters to women’s prisons) is based solely on the assertion “I am a woman”, it makes it easier for cis men to access those spaces, with some attendant risks. I can understand why women, especially those who have been harrassed or assaulted by men, would be uncomfortable with that; I can understand why they would lash out at people who call them cruel and hateful and evil for feeling so. I think that, with regard to abused women’s shelters, the presence of someone whose physical appearance is that of a man could be traumatic to some people there. And I think that we need dialogue and an attempt at understanding in order to try to find compromises that fit the needs of all our communities. Cis women escaping abusive relationships need to be able to be and feel safe. Trans women escaping abusive relationships need to be and feel safe. I don’t think those things are incompatible, but I do think they require seriously listening to each other and working together. You may think the concern is invalid, but I think it is unwise to decide that anyone who feels it, or even accepts it as understandable, is your inveterate enemy.

A key point: I am not asking you to engage in this discussion or engagement on your tumblr or other social media. It is perfectly fine for your blog to be a safe space where you don’t have to deal with of this, and you have the ability to block people you don’t want to interact with or see posts from.

I’ve also heard other things from trans activists that feel very unreasonable, such as saying that it’s bigoted not to date people who are a sex you’re not attracted to. If a person, male or female, isn’t into penises, then they have every right not to date or have sex with someone who has one, regardless of that person’s gender identity. (They do not - this shouldn’t need to be said, but given the prevalence of hate crimes, does - have the right to become violent because someone’s body is not what they expected.) Likewise, it doesn’t seem strange or bigoted to me that some marriages would break up when one partner transitions. This seems to me to be of a piece with accepting the concept of sexual orientation. This viewpoint, too, which to me seems trivially obvious, I have seen called cruel and hateful.

Just from my cursory sense of social media, I find the term ‘terf’ overused towards people who aren’t radical feminists by any definition. (For reference, if you intend to use it about me, know that the radical feminists wouldn’t have me; I’m pro-life [on everything: anti-death-penalty, anti-euthanasia outside very limited cicrcumstances, anti-abortion - and pro-adoption, and supportive of giving single mothers all the health care and financial support they need to raise their child; against wars of choice; anti-poverty], which they would comsider an instant disqualification. I’m also not a ‘tradfem’; I haven’t married, don’t currently plan to, never want children, and am extremely glad to live in a time when I can do work that I enjoy and am good at and live largely as I please. I am a fairly normal, mundane feminist who cares about issues like, but not limited to, wage inequality, employer discrimination, and workplace sexual harrassment, as I expect many of you do.)

So, as a consequence of the above, the phrase “this person is a terf” has become something I regard with a degree of skepticism unless I can read and assess the person’s statements for myself, in context; and I very likely have a different standard for what I consider condemnable (or worthy of ostracism) than you do. It feels less like a meaningful description, and more like a cudgel.

I didn’t like what lie-where-i-land had to say, not at all, nor their tactics of vaguing about venwe without providing any clear statements of anything objectionable (stating that sex exists is about as simple a statement as saying that humans breathe oxygen; I’m certainly not going to shun someone for that) and then resorting to guilt-by-association (I don’t, and I expect most people don’t, vet all the political opinions of either the OP or other rebloggers before I reblog something by them; and I have followed and do follow people who I have strong political disagreements with on issues that are very important to me). And I really don’t like them doing it about someone brave enough to consider risking their safety by protesting against a brutal dictatorship. It feels reductive; as though a person can have dozens of good principles and actions, but if they are wanting on one note, they must be condemned and shunned.

Moreover, and finally: I’m not going to rigidly limit my friends or the blogs I follow based on their political opinions. I unfollow a blog if my aggravation from the things I disagree with outweighs the enjoyment of the things I do agree with, but I can follow a person while disagreeing strongly with them on some things. I have red lines, but they are not likely to be the same as yours; and I don’t think that I am obligated or to banish anyone who crosses your lines from the public sphere, or that you have a right to demand that I do so. I’m not even comvinced it’s healthy to do so - people won’t generally become less radicalized as a result of everyone but their fellow radicals refusing to speak with them. If you want me to stop interacting with someone because they have been personally harrassing you by, for example, posting hateful things on your personal posts, that’s reasonable; but none of the accusations made came anything close to that.

There’s a lot else I could say, but I’ll leave things here; I have at least tried to speak delicately and sensitively, though frankly, on the matter, and have held back a lot of frustrations that could be more strongly voiced. Given what I’ve seen elsewhere on tumblr, I suspect that posting this will turn out have been the most unwise thing I have yet done on this site; but you asked for clarification, so here it is.

[thefreakishmuffin]

TW: Rape, Roe vs. Wade being overturned, some mentions of religion, and a whole lot of rage from yours truly.

I was originally going to make a full on rant post about this last night, but I got so worked up over it I had to stop myself. So I decided to take some time to think and properly gather my thoughts before addressing such a serious topic. If you don’t want to ready anything regarding rape, religion, or the recent overturning of Roe vs. Wade, then continue scrolling. I completely understand. But Tumblr is one of the few places I can post this without my religious friends and family seeing. 

As someone who grew up a in a somewhat conservative home and a very Christian family, I remember consistently being told that abortion was murder and that it was completely black and white. And you know what? For a long time as a child I accepted it. I followed after my parents and believed their every word. But of course, I grew up, and came to form my own ideas and opinions as I started to do more research and form my own moral compass, to where I now understand the importance of keeping abortion safe and legal, regardless of any personal religious beliefs. At first I wasn’t too concerned with Roe vs. Wade being overturned because I thought it wouldn’t happen. I thought there was more than enough support and push-back that the government wouldn’t even dare think of overturning something so huge. 

But as we can see, I was wrong. Horribly wrong.

Contrary to what many of my fellow Christians may believe, cutting off a woman’s access to a safe and legal abortion isn’t a black and white issue. Those who believe they are “saving lives” don’t realize the drastic consequences that overturning Roe vs. Wade is going to have. 

Women who need abortions so that they might survive a potentially fatal pregnancy are going to die. And women who receive abortions in any other way for a serious health related reason are going to be treated as criminals and murderers by the law. (Literally my older sister and another friend of mine, who had to get abortions because the pregnancy either threatened their lives or was sure to kill them, would be taken to court).

Babies who are born to mother’s who cannot care for them are going to be handed over to an already overflowing and disorganized foster care system, where we already have plenty of children who need adopting into loving, caring homes. Not to mention we’re still dealing with a baby formula shortage, meaning that many of those innocent babies won’t get the nourishment and health they rightfully deserve. 

There are many other results of Roe vs. Wade being overturned that I can highlight, but I think you get the picture. Especially since I trust that most people on this site have been paying close attention to everything surrounding this issue. 

But here is the bit that really got to me. And I mean really got to me.

If a woman is raped and impregnated, she will be forced to go through the entire pregnancy and the trauma of childbirth without consent. And this doesn’t just apply to women, either. But it also applies to girls. Children.

I have multiple younger AFAB cousins of whom I love dearly. I would do literally anything for them. And one of the youngest ones who is twelve had started her first period a year ago. Meaning that if she, or any of the rest of them, and any other girls who are minors, were raped and impregnated, they would be forced by the law to not only go through the trauma of being violated in such a disgusting and vulgar manner, but would also have to go through the trauma of being forced to go through the pregnancy process, as well as childbirth, before any of them are physically or mentally ready. 

Can you even imagine how horrifying and traumatizing this would be for not only women in general, but for a literal child? What’s worse is that I get the feeling that some who read this won’t even have to imagine it. 

How can you look a child in the eye and essentially say, “Hey, I’m sorry you got raped. But you’re pregnant now, so this is your problem. I’m sure you understand.”?

No. When you are still so young your brain is still developing. They can certainly think for themselves, but they won’t entirely understand why this is happening to them. What did they do to deserve this? How can you look those children in the eye, who are now irreversibly traumatized, who will never be able to go back to the way they once were, and say, “Oh well.”?

I can keep going on, but I think I’ve made my point.

People try to make Roe vs. Wade this black and white issue, saying that you are either pro-life or pro-choice. But I think the definition of pro-life needs to be reevaluated. As a Christian myself, I believe that all life is sacred. However, there are gray areas that need to be addressed. What if it’s a minor who is pregnant and is incapable of mentally or physically caring for a baby? What if the pregnancy came through rape or incest? What if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother and/or child? There are so many gray areas within this “seemingly” black and white issue. And before anybody mentions it, no, I do not believe that birth control is the same as abortion (though there are unfortunately many evangelicals who believe otherwise and would call me a traitor to the faith).

Not to mention that cutting off access to safe and legal abortions by competent, trained professionals, will not stop abortions from happening. I think this is something we are all well aware of, but banning abortion will cause thousands of women to turn to far more painful and deadly methods to terminate a pregnancy. 

I know a post like this on this particular blog may seem extremely out of place, but as I stated before, Tumblr is one of the only places where I can post this without worrying about my religious friends and family seeing it.

[north-of-annwn]

Ok so I'm not going to do this anonymously because i don't fear getting chastised for my own ignorance but there are other alternatives to abortion aren't there? I mean i honestly don't understand this bill nonsense but it mostly at least to me sounds like it's just to keep children alive. I mean there are adoption centers and people who will actually pay women who are pregnant to act as surrogates. Why is anti abortion so bad? And how is this a woman's autonomy probpem. Please educate me

First, I want to thank you for acknowledging that your perspective on this may be informed from a place of systemic oppression of AFAB people, and for seeking out information. When people add on to this post with the purpose to educate, I implore you all to remember this person is seeking information. Please avoid shaming them or ridiculing them.

Let’s first address your questions:

1) “There are other alternatives to abortion aren’t there?”

Let’s first define abortion. “In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. A spontaneous abortion is the same as a miscarriage. The miscarriage of three or more consecutive pregnancies is termed habitual abortion or recurrent pregnancy loss”  (Shiel MD, MedicineNet).

¼ womxn will have abortions in their lifetime. Abortion is a medical procedure that can be requested or required for a lot of different reasons:

The pregnant person may not be able to carry an embryo to term safely.

The pregnant person may not have the financial support to pay for the medical bills that pregnancy costs in the US (prenatal and delivery alone can cost around $18k).  

I also want to add that people in this country are not given any kind of financial support for the time taken off for prenatal or postnatal care. Being out of work for this time could mean entering extreme poverty.

The pregnant person may not have the financial support or stability of lifestyle to support a child.

The pregnant person may not be physically up to the task of carrying a child to term and delivering. Not all womb-having people are up to what childbirth does to the body. Childbirth is one of the most dangerous things that a body can be put through.  In the US we’re just under 20 maternal deaths per 100,000 births, which is the highest in the developed world. Some undeveloped countries have better stats than we do

Abortion may be required as an emergency life-saving procedure for the pregnant person. And waiting for approval by a committee could mean the death of that person.

Medical interference can also be needed if the embryo has already been determined unviable (basically will not ever have life) because having dead tissue remain in the womb will kill the person. Wombs don’t always do what they’re supposed to and often they will still act as if the pregnancy is going along normally when the embryo stopped growing and forming.

Abortion as a medical procedure is part of basic reproductive healthcare. Denying it is like denying the use of a c-section or blood transfusions.

I also want to add that many of these GOP states are seeking to classify any and all contraceptives as “abortion” as well. This isn’t included in this bill specifically but it’s been named as part of their agendas.

2) “I mean I honestly don’t understand this bill nonsense but it mostly at least to me sounds like it’s just to keep children alive.”According to the CDC, 91.1% of abortions are performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation. At this time, this is an embryo and fetal tissue. It’s not a child. Pro-life people are placing the eventual *possible* life of a being that isn’t even formed yet above the autonomy and rights of a living human being (the pregnant person). A zygote without a brain or the ability to survive outside the womb is not a person, and therefore not a child. We have determined that something without brain activity is not alive. People with wombs are not incubators. This is not the sum of our existence.

Right now you cannot force a person to give blood or organs in life-saving situations. Why should it be okay to force a person to donate their entire body as an incubator if they don’t want to, which has health complications, and long-lasting effects on the body? We even afford humans that are DEAD more rights than womb-having people in this country. It is illegal to take organs or tissue from dead bodies with no brain activity without consent, but it’s legal to force a living person to act as an incubator for tissue and chromosomes that aren’t even formed to make a person yet?

Also, this bill has SO much more nuanced support for the oppression of women than just keeping “children” alive. This affords the state the right to investigate any suspicion of “intentional abortion.” This means, if a person miscarries, they may be subject to invasive investigation and murder charges on top of grieving for their loss and recovering medically. This bill also in no certain terms basically considers all womb-having people in their state to be the property of the state by allowing people to be extradited and charged if they have a LEGAL abortion procedure in another state.

3) “I mean there are adoption centers and people who will actually pay women who are pregnant to act as surrogates. Why is anti-abortion so bad?” We currently have 108,000 foster children up for adoption right this second in the US. This doesn’t even include unwanted pregnancies being given to private adoption agencies. Adopt one if you want to save a child, but forcing people to enter crippling debt, put their body through the abuse of childbirth, and possible forced poverty because of lack of childcare or compensation for missing work isn’t okay.

Additionally, anti-abortion really only seems to be concerned with one thing - popping out children. There is ZERO concern for the health, wellbeing, or survival of that child OR the parent afterward. This is oppressive and forced childbirth expectations. And again, reduces womb-having people as nothing more than a means to an end. Their life and wellbeing aren’t considered - they’re incubators.

4) “How is this a woman’s autonomy problem.”All of the above. The entire idea of denying women normal reproductive medical procedures or criminalize a natural thing that our bodies DO is inherently oppressive. Deciding that a womb-having person is just supposed to do their best to carry to term an embryo regardless of danger to their life, medical needs, e, inability to care for the child, inability to pay medical bills, or the abuse that childbirth puts on the body… and possibly condemning them to death, poverty, or life-long debt removes the ability for a person to choose what is done or what is done TO their body. It’s inherently oppressive.

Make no mistake, these bills have very little to do with saving the lives of children, and everything to do with keeping women impoverished, oppressed, and without any control over their own bodies and lives. These bills are also written and signed without ANY input or oversight primarily by the people they affect. This is not a choice that womb-having people made… these are oppressive laws being forced upon them.

Some final personal notes from me: I am currently in a place where I would suffer greatly from these laws if they were to be implemented in my state. First of all, if I were to get pregnant, mine would be a high-risk pregnancy. It is likely that I could lose the pregnancy anytime within the first two trimesters, which would require an abortive procedure to remove the remaining tissue. If I’m to get pregnant, I need to know that modern medical procedures that are agreed to be the most effective best practices would be available to me by a doctor without the threat of criminalization or debating on whether it’s necessary/legal. This affects all people who may ever become pregnant. This is a clear and present fear for us. It’s not just anti-abortion. If that’s all it was… the answer would be simple, don’t have one. If you need one to save your life, you can choose to say no. But it’s not. This is about controlling womxn, denying us healthcare, and we are afraid. We are all desperately terrified of this becoming the new normal across our country. ONE in FOUR pregnancies ends in the need for abortion. And if you need one, you get one. This is about whether or not we have access to SAFE and MEDICALLY sanctioned abortions. 

I really encourage you to do some additional research and reading from educational sites. Be wary of both FOX News, CNN, major news networks, and any journalists with a religious agenda. Further reading: https://prochoice.org/education-and-advocacy/downloads-resources/https://iwhc.org/2018/09/abortion-normal-and-vital/https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issue/abortion-access/I’d really appreciate if any followers could tack on additional resources, statistics, and personal stories. This is SO important. 

[piccolina-mina]

Hi, im the anon wondering about which character is the favorite. Tbh i was just curious, but i understand how that could create drama 😅 my bad. Youre probably thinking im from the rnm fandom and you would be right. I had a hunch of which character it was, but i wasnt positive. I dont really see them playing favorites in terms of writing but that might just be because the favorite character is also my favorite character. I was curious as to your opinion but I understand if you dont wanna answer

I think narratively the show favors Michael. The writers openly discuss how much they love writing for him. He's everyone's favorite. He's Carina's favorite. He's a fan favorite. And that is fine.

But I do think there are some days when it's so blatant that it's a clear flaw on the part of those creating the narrative. There are many layers to this too, some more disconcerting then others, but I'll stick to the narrative.

The fact that I (and others I'm sure) don't actually have to mention his name and people automatically know sort of proves the point.

And it's not a slight against his character or the actor, and it's not to suggest that his storylines aren't enjoyable either. Case in point, personally, I think he and Alex are having the strongest personal arcs out of everyone this season.

But then, that isn't exactly surprising is it?

More often than not, I feel like it's Liz's story in name only, but consistent, deep, gritty, well thought out etc storytelling falls on Michael. I can see and feel all the time and energy dedicated to this specific character.

That's cool, but when you have an ensemble cast, the hope is that it's spread out a bit better. The first season is testing the waters. The second season gives you a better idea of how things are and will be now that there is a rhythm.

In the second season, Liz, our lead, has gotten lost and swallowed up in the plot. Jeanine is great and has some shining moments, but she doesn't exactly have her own personal story that isn't wrapped up in alien stuff. This is where it's frustrating that ... we don't spend a lot of time with the Ortechos, something they've attempted to rectify a bit this season, but it's still mostly unsuccessful.

This is where her arc with Rosa has not been as strong as it should be and got lost in Liz trying to bring Max back. This is where I repeatedly point out the lack of focus on her relationships outside of the pod squad. Her friendships with Maria and Alex suffer a great deal and honestly with Kyle as well.

This is where all things alien consume her, and she doesn't seemingly have a life or rather chooses to expend any focus to a life outside of the pod squad and their issues.

And this is where because of all her energy being put into such a narrow focus on solely alien issues often at the expense of every other facet of her life, she often feels decentralized from her own narrative.

But we have Michael, and I do think one of many reasons he's such a favorite is because of all the focus he gets and how well-rounded and developed he is compared to the others. I mean if that's the character everyone pours everything into ... then yeah, he would be the favorite, yeah?

He's fun to play with, the witty oneliners, the bad boy with a heart of gold, the misunderstood tragic not a hero but really a hero, the lovable jackass, the endearing "screwup" so on and so forth. He's wrapped up in a bow, the catnip of all the most endearing tropes.

And they love peeling back layers for him and developing him and expanding on his background and characterization carefully and thoughtfully.

And that's awesome and enjoyable even, but when you have an ensemble cast and it doesn't begin to be spread about evenly, then it's a reasonable nitpick.

I feel like we have a better grasp on his past than any other character. He naturally was the one who wanted to go back home, but almost all of the past alien history and folklore has essentially centered him or involved him more so than Isobel and Max.

He's the one who heads to and finds out about Caulfield. He's the one who sees his mother and where the aliens were held. He's the one who watches her die in front of him. He's the one who continued to be tied into that plot while they hand waved why Max and Isobel weren't interested in learning more when they dropped enough breadcrumbs to support why they should be.

Until this season, until very recently with Isobel, everything related to their origins fell on him, he is the face of the pod squad being invested in finding out about their history. It then ties in with his tragic backstory as the foster kid who never had nor felt "home."

By spending a season and a half essentially centering him alone in a narrative that should involve all of them, it seemingly made it his plot. And that's BEFORE we even get to these recent revelations with Sanders and this implication that Michael was "the special one" not Max (which the mere idea of a special one at all was not and has not been something I particularly care to subscribe to in the first place), so it's doubling down and solidifying something they didn't need to emphasize this much.

The alien past has always felt like Michael's story and Max and Isobel are just hitching a ride. The many ways it was only tied to Michael makes it that way. It was Michael that Jesse had a file on.

It's Michael whose first love is a product of the Manes Project Shepherd element. It's Michael who gets that conflict with Alex.

The Valentis have just as much ties to that as the Manes and yet that angle is barely explored or used to add an extra layer to the tension between Max and Kyle for example.

It was just barely used to flesh out Kyle during the first season, and then seemingly dropped altogether this season when he should have just as much claim in this narrative as all three pod squad members and Alex.

Ironically, this is a big disservice to Isobel. And this is where this exclusive focus on pouring so much into one character comes at the expense of others.

Isobel, people like her and all, but when I look at the actual narrative and her place in it, if not for the fact that she's an alien, she's not a character with much purpose, and that's a huge problem.

Because narratively, outside of being used as a victim, they honest to goodness don't know what to do with her. They barely invested enough in her character to give her a fully formed, consistent personality. There's no real pull there. And as the only female alien, they could have done so much more beyond being a vessel for Noah and an abortion storyline where the only point was to make a statement about women and reproductive rights that didn't land as intended because of Isobel's privileges and access.

Max benefits from being the co-lead and being part of the primary love story. And then of course there is the eternal and patently unfair and imbalanced fraternal angst that ALSO is more often than not used to serve Michael's storyline and development.

It's about Michael working through his resentment. It's about Michael's abandonment issues. It's about Michael's battle with self worth. And 2.05 was about Michael realizing how much his brother always loved him. And him growing from that realization. And him saving his brother.

Just like now, it's about Michael protecting Max and "suffering" for it. It's about Michael being a dark horse martyr and sin eater for his siblings after taking the blame for killing the girls from Isobel and now damning himself to a screwed up life on Max's behalf.

The weight of the revelations geared toward Michael. The Sanders connection was significant and that was ushered in through his connection to Michael.

In the same vein we found out Michelle Valenti has what should be an equally as impactful and longstanding connection with Max ... but did it carry the same weight as Michael and Sanders at all even though those respective relationships have run neck in neck throughout the series? No.

We know Maria was sidelined all first season. This season most of what they've given us feels performative to address the concerns people had because of how things are handled ... with her splitting redundant narratives with side characters, having things happen offscreen, or shuffled to a side, or left on the editing floor.

And her biggest relationship all season is? Michael.

Kyle is getting sidelined this season. There's so much we don't know and could about him. His love interest storyline also feels performative and perfunctory... they didn't invest in it at all. It was like going through the motions.

Rosa's storyline hasn't exactly taken off as you'd have expected given the circumstances. And they just jumped around with key and crucial character building and meaningful moments with that too. They sailed right on past the Maria and Arturo reveals without letting them breathe. Almost like they just didn't have any strong interest in doing much outside of hitting the necessary notes: tell Maria, reunion with Arturo, save Max, overdose.

Liz's core relationships are all over the place. Maria, Arturo, Rosa, Alex, Kyle ... not enough investment in them. Not enough digging deep into them. Not enough exploration. While Max was gone most of the season. And she worked with and provided support to Michael and Isobel, hung out with Cam, but continuously neglects the aforementioned others who should matter.

But Michael's core relationships have layers and stay intact ( Max, Isobel, Alex, and Maria) and he gets substance with other ones ... Kyle ... Sanders ...

So yeah, nothing wrong with having favorites. And if that person is your favorite then maybe it's easier not to care or think too hard about it or whatever.

But the reason I dislike when you can tell when one character is a favorite is because of how it affects the narrative overall.

It seriously impacts the storytelling. It's like writing entire chunks around a character and this specific position you want them instead of writing the story and weaving in the character.

It can take me out of a piece when I can tell the objective is to get to a precise moment with a specific character. When I can tell that some of the writing is obligatory and then "the real fun" happens with X.

It's like stuffing your face with all of your vegetables because you have to in order to get to that ice cream Sundae. Like "if I get through A-W then my reward will be Z."

This is me coming from an objective viewpoint because I can separate when analyzing. I have actually enjoyed Michael a lot this season. He and Alex have had the best character growth this season, in my opinion, and I really love that.

But this is also a glaring issue, and I hate when favoritism bleeds into a series, especially an ensemble cast when it leads to issues with the storytelling.

And despite my enjoyment, that's what I feel is happening here a lot.

It certainly isn't the first and only show I've noticed this with. And yeah, I've even made these same observations and criticisms when it's my favorite character too.

It's the same on another series I watch with one of my favorite characters, and it's so frustrating except in that case, it's a character who can do no wrong even when they're wrong, and ... that's a whole other discussion.

But yeah. I don't expect agreement with this. It's probably one of those unpopular opinions or hot takes that can definitely bug people, especially those whose favorite character is Michael.

But this is my observation and why I feel that like him or not, storytelling suffers, is predictable, or underwhelming, or annoying, or jarring when you can sense the obsession and favoritism.

[beaaareputation]

The Problem Is Ignorance: Curbing Maternal Mortality in the United States

The United States is well known for its striking maternal mortality rates - meaning the number of American women who die during pregnancy or because of it. More accurately, maternal mortality is defined as death while pregnant or within 42 days of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration or site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes, and is recorded using a device called a “maternal mortality ratio”, or MMR. The MMR is the number of maternal deaths that result in 100,000 live births. In 2018, the United States’ MMR was 17.4, and that is an average of all of the rates, between economic and racial status, which vastly affect the statistics. Maternal mortality, like many health issues, is sometimes inevitable. But for the most part, it’s simply an injustice, like in Serena Williams’ case.

On September 1, 2017, the famed tennis player gave birth to her daughter via cesarean section. The next day, she was having trouble breathing and feared a pulmonary embolism, or a blockage in one of the pulmonary arteries, which are connected to the lungs. They are often caused by blood clots, with the main symptoms being shortness of breath, chest pain, and coughing. The nurse to which she expressed her concern dismissed Williams’ worry as confusion from pain medication, even after Williams exhibited more than one symptom.

The nurse was wrong - there were several blood clots in the tennis player’s lungs. Williams’ fear wasn’t irrational. It wasn’t a postpartum symptom or a hormonal defect. She had, in fact, suffered multiple pulmonary embolisms more than 6 years before which had almost cost her her career and her life, and now is hyper-aware of them. It was only after her demands to her doctors that a CT scan revealed the clots and she was put on a heparin drip to thin her blood. Multiple surgeries later, she is still very much at risk for blood clots.

Medically, the causes of maternal death are mainly bleeding or infection, which usually occur postpartum, pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, many times characterized by high blood pressure during pregnancy, and complications from delivery or unsafe abortion. But these are all conditions that are preventable and treatable, yet so many women are dying from them.

Most women who go to the hospital and entrust their healthcare providers with their’s and their baby’s life aren’t experts at what is happening to their body. That is why we have doctors, nurses, midwives, and other healthcare professionals to assist. But what happens when the patient can’t communicate what they are feeling correctly is ignorance. Serena Williams was extremely fortunate to have had that previous knowledge about herself and her past medical conditions. That is not the case with the majority of women. There are, of course, pre-existing conditions that raise one’s rate for maternal death, but many of the aforementioned common causes of maternal death happen to perfectly healthy women who died because their healthcare professional didn’t realize they were bleeding out after delivery.

Take a moment to consider the word hysteria. A noun defined as a psychological disorder whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms, selective amnesia, shallow, volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. This word is derived from the Greek one “hystera”, meaning uterus, or the womb in which a baby grows inside of its mother. And so through time, misogynistic views have categorized hysteria as a side effect of pregnancy, childbirth, or the mere possession of a uterus. And this is how and why medical professionals like Serena Williams’ nurse get away with ignoring their patients and denying them attention or care. While Williams’ condition wasn’t particularly common among postpartum women, she expressed her concern for what she thought was happening, yet she was ignored. The horrific stereotype of women being crazy makes the community mistrust what they say before they say it. You can see that explicitly in fields such as science, math and politics, ones which men have dominated for centuries. And it’s worse for women of color. 

They are placed in the position of “least important” in American society, they face injustice even before they are born, with their mothers. The maternal mortality ratio for Black women is 37.3, three to four times the rate for white women. This is not only because of the natural risk they face, but also that they are blatantly ignored. Continuing with the theme of athletes, who would be less likely to suffer consequences from pregnancy or birth: Simone Biles, who is Black, or Aly Raisman, who is white? Both members of the Final Five, Biles is the world’s best gymnast and a 25-time Olympic medal winner and Raisman is a silver medalist who has captained the United States Women’s team in the 2012 and 2016 Olympics. They are exceptional athletes who have led their teams to victory in more than one Olympic competitions, yet Raisman would still have a better chance of a healthy, uncomplicated pregnancy and birth.

Not because of anything they did, but because of the barriers, norms, and bias that have been placed in society and in the medical community. If we cared, we would do something about it. But we don’t care, so we don’t do anything.

The United States is ignorant of and unresponsive to the needs of women, and has been since before its official beginning. Our country sits among the most well developed countries in the world yet still fails at maternal healthcare. In 1990, Norway’s maternal mortality ratio was 3; in 2015 it was 4, with countries such as Switzerland, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Australia following suit. 

So what are they doing better than us?

For starters, the health of their people in general. Aforementioned pre-existing conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity make a pregnancy more risky, and in the United States it’s much more common for people to have one of these conditions. 1 in 5 American women report having one of these pre-existing conditions whereas it’s 1 in 10 or more in Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia. 

But much of the weight falls on our maternal healthcare workforce itself. In the countries with the best MMRs, midwives are more common than obstetrician-gynecologists or physicians, which promotes natural birth and a simpler process. When medical personnel are involved, the chance of having to perform surgery or use other complex procedures is higher. Additionally, using physicians for every natural birth makes them less available to focus on the more high-risk pregnancies that require specialized attention and care. And midwives aren’t just there for simpler delivery - they are specially trained to care for mother, baby, and family, providing postpartum support physically and emotionally. Lack of communication and trust between the mother and her care providers provokes more situations such as Serena Williams’. 

Subtracting the medical causes of maternal death, the social issues are evident: we haven’t placed enough focus on maternal healthcare and women as a whole to prevent and stop maternal mortality.

So we know what the problem is. What is the solution? After education, first trying to minimize the rate and improve the likelihood of mothers suffering complications, and second, reducing risk of maternal death.

The United States needs to refine its postpartum care system. Postpartum care is essential for mothers and babies. Not only does it give the new parents the much needed assistance from a professional who can help them with whatever they need, the midwife can provide care to the woman who may not know everything that is happening with her body, which is changing from day to day. Scheduled checkups by a maternity nurse or midwife for a set number of days or weeks after the woman and her baby go home are covered by national insurance in Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia where rates of maternal death are at a record low, and here in the United States, postpartum care coverage varies depending on your medical insurance, and only a portion of new mothers can afford a service such as a postpartum doula. Since 52% of maternal deaths in the United States occur postpartum, we should be providing this type of care that seems to improve maternal health in other countries with the best rates.

Once the chances of maternal mortality are lower, we need to lower the risk of more people dying from pregnancy or birth, and a segway to that is to lower the rates of unnecessary or unwanted pregnancy.

A big factor is contraception, or lack thereof. There are two main groups that suffer from an insufficiency in contraception. Firstly, low-income communities where people lack easy or affordable access to contraception have higher rates of maternal mortality because with each pregnancy a woman has, her risk increases, and controlling birth rates can help to control maternal mortality. 

Secondly, a woman’s risk of maternal mortality not only increases the older you are, but also the younger you are. Females within the ages of 10 and 20 are more likely to suffer complications so encouraging and providing contraception at a younger age will not only lower the number of teen pregnancies, but improve the likelihood of adolescent maternal death. 

The vast majority of maternal deaths are preventable, treatable, and completely unavoidable. But the finding a medical solution isn’t the first step. The root of the issue isn’t that doctors aren’t trained to handle these types of scenarios. It’s that they aren’t taught from the beginning, that there is a solution. They are taught that other patients are more important, that pregnancy complications aren’t the most valuable area of study. And the government and medical community need to be held accountable for disregarding what is plainly and simply just sexism, and the icing on the cake is the misogyny within our society that stalls the attention that pregnant women and new moms need and deserve. Maternal mortality, pregnancy, and female reproductive health as a whole shouldn’t be put at the bottom of the pile. It is a severe healthcare issue that accompanies many other women’s rights topics. 

And the denial is impossible to disguise. Remember that postpartum commercial that was banned from being aired during the Academy Awards broadcast last year because it was “too graphic”? It would have reached millions of awards show viewers of all genders and sexes, but network executives, mostly men, reject these types of topics because they feel they are not what they think is family viewing material. Yet unabashed advertisements about erectile dysfunction air on the nightly news networks that play on televisions around the country every day. And what’s so sad is that there are only a fraction of people who are aware of this. Everybody, not just women and girls, needs to be taught about the struggles that females face every day with healthcare and other issues. 

Ignorance starts at the beginning. Solving maternal mortality starts with bringing attention to these problems, and only then can we make efforts to stop the deaths that occur every day unnecessarily. It only gets harder to fight the stigma once people have the idea that maternal health isn’t that big of a deal, that it’s just another radical, made up idea. So we need to educate our community and bring awareness to this, and after that, work towards fighting what is completely inexcusable.

So what would happen if we actually cared? If the entire world held the maternal mortality rate of the European Union, 11,000 women would succumb to maternal death each year in contrast to the six-digit figure that it unfortunately, rounds up to be. 11,000 is still tragic, but it is something, and right now, we need to be anywhere we can. 

We just need to remember that it’s possible.

[serenaleavitt]

South Africa, Apartheid, and EFF

(Source: Landau, Loren. “South Africa’s Democratic Alliance Plays Populist Immigration Card”. The Conversation. October 22 2018. https://theconversation.com/south-africas-democratic-alliance-plays-populist-immigration-card-105222)

Political History and Current Populist Movement

South Africa was initially a British Colony that earned its place in the British Commonwealth in 1909. Shortly after this, in the same year, the South Africa Act was passed, which goal was to merge four British Dependencies. These dependencies were Natal, Transvaal, Cape Colony, and Orange Free State. Instead, this act divided South Africa and made a nation where could not include blacks in political matters. South Africa is well known for Apartheid, which is a racial segregation policy that has been in place since 1948.  Apartheid finally ended after many protests and pressure from outside countries.  Negotiations between then-President F.W. de Klark, The National Party, and The African National Congress are what indeed finally ended this era.  The country is finally seeing some changes after the government resigned from its power in 1994. The difference is the result of large protests that eventually brought some attention to the isolated nation. Since then, South Africa has seen its first non-white leader, Nelson Mandela. The success of ending Apartheid resulted in South Africa becoming a democracy where most of the population was finally allowed to vote.  The country is still facing financial turmoil as it tries to reset its racial wrong-doings. As of February 2018, Cyril Ramaphosa has been President, only to be elected after Jacob Zuma had to resign from corruption charges. (Constitution Net)

Populism is currently leading in one of the world's most populist countries. This ideology tends to form after political uneasiness or economic tension, which the country has its fair history. It's no wonder that in 2019 reports of 39% of its citizens held populist views. The corruption of their past President Zuma stirred some fire, which resulted in many protests and armed forces having to step in. As a result, power outages affected its citizens due to the government not meeting their essential services. Populism isn't going away soon as 84% of its people see their government as part of the greedy and selfish elite. The country is currently a Republic Nation. (The Guardian)

Populist Leaders, Movements, and Parties

One populist leader that is gaining a lot of attention is Julius Malema. He is the leader of the left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters group. This party started as an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist group. This group prioritizes nationalism and hopes to nationalize its banks and mines to free itself economically. They hope to achieve better healthcare services, as many supporters find the citizens' general welfare in South Africa to be poorly cared for and treated. Another goal of EFF is better education as their access is minimal. 

Malema was initially President of the ANC Youth League in 2008. He helped form the EFF in 2014 to fight against the ANC after he got fired from his position. He is a pretty radical leader as he expresses controversial ideology. His tactics are as his numbers of supporters each year continue to increase. His most considerable support comes from the lower and working-class and young adults. Muddle and Kaltwasser (pg. 5) define populism as us vs. the elite. In this case, the elite are the bankers and the government officials, while the people are the unemployed, young hard workers who feel their personal and financial well-being is not being taken care of as well as it should be. Also, because of their definition, we can see that Malema is trying to represent "the pure people" who Ostiguy describes as "genuine citizens."

Apartheid is the result of current segregation and separation between classes. Since the disintegration, many citizens are not getting the pay they have so desperately worked for, and they are angry. They feel there are still a lot of racial issues the nation must address. Xenophobia and homophobia are also some of the other problems that come up a lot from the people. (A.P. News). In South Africa, whites are the minority (only 10%) and make up most of their wealth. In the last election, Malema made headlines by acting aggressively towards white farmers by singing "Kill the white farmer." Some of these derogatory songs stirred many controversies as the EFF is not anti-white, but this painted them. The EFF is looking to end racial discrimination by exposing white privilege.

Challenges to Right-Based Democracy

Like in the United States, police brutality seems to be a big concern for many citizens. Three hundred ninety-four deaths, 124 counts of rape, 270 cases of torture, were all accounted for by police brutality. Women today are still denied the right to safe abortions. South Africa has decreased the number of health care services for women in the past couple of years. Ambulance services have also drastically cut back, resulting in women not arriving safely and on time to the hospitals for any proceedings. As of 2019, abortions, primary health care, and prenatal services fees get paid in full. If you reside outside of South Africa and give birth in a South African hospital, staff can turn you away. (Amnesty International).

Malema's left-wing way of thinking does not come without consequence. Violent uproars result after many of his speeches. Freedom of speech is almost non-existent. As anyone who speaks against their government gets targeted for hate speech, there are practically no laws to protect them. South Africa is still facing racial discrimination problems, granting fundamental human rights to most citizens and allowing access to water. Some of the water supplies surrounding Giyani villages have collapsed, resulting in minimal access to water. Even after the government paid almost $150 million for water to redistribution, the towns still had access to public water. In the 2018 election, the ANC won, which resulted in violent riots against immigrants and refugees. Twelve people got murdered during this time from xenophobic acts.

[jbauer21ahsgov]

Election 2020 Presidential Candidates Assessment

Howie Hawkins/Angela Nicole Walker (Green):

Howie Hawkins��� position on women’s rights: supports the decriminalization of prostitution as long as the worker is safe and the government does not get involved - this would allow a larger possibility of fraud and force. He does not, however, support the legalization of prostitution because it promotes law enforcement in their industry which will only lead to an increase in incarceration. Hawkins supports the Equal Rights Amendment, promotes women’s equality, is anti sex trafficking, believes in stronger law enforcement for discrimination and sexual harassment of women in the workplace, supports equal pay for women, does not support Trump eliminating healthcare because it would limit abortion resources for women, and supports Proportional Representation in Congress.

Do you agree with the position? Why or why not?: I do agree with Hawkins’ position because he takes a very progressive perspective to women’s rights. He addresses the “me too” movement, prostitution, pro-choice, and several amendments that are pro-women’s rights and anti-discrimination. I agree with all of his women’s rights points aside from some government issues he brought up concerning prostitution.

Does their position support/conflict the Green platform?: Hawkins’ position does not conflict the Green platform but rather expands upon it much more than what was disclosed in the Green party platform summary. This is very respectable and I personally appreciate his openness to the movement!

Donald J. Trump/Michael R. Pence (Republican):

Donald Trump’s position on women’s rights: believes that universal healthcare should be replaced with private healthcare, pro-life, supports the defunding of abortion service providers, believes the Mexico City Policy should ban US foreign aid to organization providing abortions, and signed a bill that allows states to restrict Planned Parenthood Funding.

Do you agree with the position? Why or why not?: I do not agree with anything Trump stands by concerning women’s rights. He is pro-life and I am pro-choice. He believes universal healthcare should be replaced with private healthcare and I think healthcare should be more accessible (which is in part because I’m pro-choice and he is pro-life). Trump also believes in the defunding of abortion clinics and services while I think we need more funding and more availability of clinics.

Does their position support/conflict the Republican platform?: Trump rarely speaks upon his support for women’s rights whereas the Republican platform talks quite a bit about their support of equality as well as support abortion, but they will not fund the process. Similar to the platform, Trump does believe in women requiring the father of the child to make decisions alongside the mother during decisions like abortion and lifestyle. 

Gloria La Riva/Sunil Freeman (Peace and Freedom):

Gloria La Riva’s position on women’s rights: has personally defended women’s reproductive health clinics. She supports the Black Fire Fighters Association as they end racism, sexism, and discrimination in the San Francisco fire department. Gloria has participated in marches about LGBTQ rights and has protested the passage of the anti-marriage equality Prop 8 in California. Supports women in the workplace.

Do you agree with the position? Why or why not?: I completely agree with her position towards women’s equality. It’s awesome that she personally marches and protests for and against such progressive issues. She supports women’s rights, regardless of their sexual orientation which is great!

Does their position support/conflict the Peace and Freedom platform?: Gloria’s position does support the Peace and Freedom platform and even takes it a few steps further because she actively participates in the change and promotion of equality.

Roque de La Fuente “Rocky” Guerra/Kanye Omari West (American Independent):

Roque de La Fuente Guerra’s position on women’s rights: pro-choice, believes that government should not intervene in a couple’s religious decisions (regarding same sex marriage). Gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples as long as they pass the same background checks. The government should continue to fund Planned Parenthood. Healthcare insurance providers should offer free birth control, gender identity should be included in anti-discrimination laws, and women need to be equally experienced and trained to enter a workplace (just because they are a woman doesn’t mean they can immediately work in government, for example).

Do you agree with the position? Why or why not?: I do agree with the majority of his position on women’s rights, although some of his points come across a bit terse and stubborn. Although I do agree that there should be no ‘special treatment’ for certain groups, the way he phrases this sounds less supportive and more neutral or indifferent, as though he isn’t as active in his political beliefs.

Does their position support/conflict the American Independent platform?: not entirely, no. The American Independent platform believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and depends their beliefs on God specifically, making the platform less religiously inclusive than Guerra appears. The American Independent platform is also pro-life and pro-constitution.

Jo Jorgenson/Jeremy “Spike” Cohen (Libertarian):

Jo Jorgenson’s position on women’s rights: pro-choice. Government should be kept out of the decision-making process for abortion - it’s a sensitive issue and completely depends on the choice and side of the family. Jorgenson has voted for candidates that are pro-life and pro-choice, the main thing she cares about is that the issue is privately and sensitively addressed according to the family. Jorgenson believes that employers should not be required to pay men and women equal salary because there are too many other variables (education, experience, tenure) that should be the main reason for determining salary. Women should be allowed in the military as long as they have been equally trained and tested as men have. Businesses should not be required to have women on their board of directors - it solely depends on the qualifications the woman has, not their gender. Health insurance should not be required to offer free birth control.

Do you agree with the position? Why or why not?: I generally do not agree with Jorgenson’s position. Although I do agree with her on being pro-choice, the way she addresses the issues surrounding abortion are very vague and borderline neutral. She also does not believe health insurance should offer free birth control which is something I disagree with. I do appreciate how she addresses the sensitivity of abortion, but I would personally support her more if she were to talk about it more and not make it seem so taboo and unspoken.

Does their position support/conflict the Libertarian platform?: Jorgenson’s position mostly supports the Libertarian platform. Of course she has her own other opinions, but the Libertarian platform’s ideology always seems very “you do you”, and Jorgenson is primarily neutral, too.

Joseph R. Biden/Kamala D. Harris (Democratic):

Joe Biden’s position on women’s rights: acknowledges and wishes to address how much women of color have been underpaid, unseen, and undervalued for too long. Women in the caregiving and education workplace are very often underpaid or not paid at all, which is something Biden is against (against discrimination and unequal pay). Supports the increase in recognition and equality for women of color. Equal opportunities for women and men. “Every issue is a women’s issue–health care, the economy, education, national security”. Women are disproportionately treated by many policies. Biden wishes to improve economic security (equal pay, invest in women-owned small businesses, expand access to education/training, strengthen benefits and pay for women in the workplace), more access to health care, overcome health inequities, high-quality and affordable health care for all women, help women navigate the balance between work and family (affordable child care and care for older Americans/people with disabilities, paid leave, benefits, protections), end violence against women, empower and protect women globally.

Do you agree with the position? Why or why not?: I completely agree with Biden. One of the aspects that stood out the most to me about his platform is that he not only dedicated two entire drop-downs to women’s rights, but he addressed women of color, as well (which is something I haven’t seen yet among the other candidates’ platforms). I also agree with Biden’s inclusivity and acknowledgement of a wide variety of women’s rights violations and how he wishes to make it better.

Does their position support/conflict the Democratic platform?: Biden’s position supports most if not all of the points brought up in the Democratic party platform summary.

[laundryandtaxes]

Asking in good faith but do you have any ideas on what would prevent mass shootings? You don't seem to support gun control (and I totally support you having/using guns) but what are the other viable alternatives?

The primary problem I have is that when "gun control" means banning scary rifles and normal capacity magazines, it's not a viable alternative because it does literally nothing for several reasons. 1, nobody including me is giving up shit if certain rifles or mags get banned. 2, ARs are not magical super powerful rifles. 3, Normal capacity magazines are not extra dangerous when I can shoot a round from a handgun, load a new mag, and shoot another round in 2 seconds with minimal effort and training. AR-15s were not always popular- the best chance the country had to limit their availability was when they were banned from 94 to 2004, and during that period mass shooters just switched to handguns and still managed to rack up large numbers of dead people. There were a few of them in the country then but probably a gopd 7 million now, and they aren't going anywhere. Anyway, banning scary guns just means hoping people get shot with less scary guns. That means just a bunch more people getting shot with handguns, like in the case of that Texas school shooter who killed a bunch of people with a revolver and a shotgun. That's the safe stuff! The hunting and self defense stuff! The human body does not do well with holes in it that it didn't come with- there are no guns that are magically not lethal. So my opposition to gun control is not about what I like or dislike. If I thought banning ARs would prevent mass shootings I would very likely support banning them. The problem is that banning certain kinds of rifles does absolutely nothing. A bunch of people getting shot with deer hunting rifles or shotgun slugs is not better.

Somewhere I have a gun control tag you could check out, but for a short version: the only thing mass shooters largely have in common is a history of a desire to commit violence against women. The way you handle that is

1) You mandate that all states share a definition of domestic violence, since contrary to what liberals think convicted domestic abusers are ALREADY not allowed firearms and have not been allowed to in my entire lifetime, but states use different definitions

2) You broaden that definition from the federal definition of spousal violence to include any violence in a relationship

3) You strengthen protections for women as a protected class, against whom hate speech is taken seriously. "I wanna go kill a bunch of women" should be taken as seriously as "I wanna go kill a bunch of x racial group" and it straight up is not

4) You create a system whereby SOMEBODY is actually accountable for forcibly removing firearms from the homes of "prohibited persons." Say Johnny is a dude who owns 10 guns. Then one day he gets a domestic violence conviction. Every time he walks into a gun store he will be turned down for a sale. Cool right? Except 1) private sales are a thing- not sure how you actually enforce universal background checks but sure in theory they are a good idea, and 2) he already owns 10 guns. Currently there is no real system in place for what happens when the ATF realizes a person is a prohibited person. They're an enforcement agency and they have their own guns. Frankly I think this is something that should be their responsibility. But if they'd like to delegate that to local PDs then fine but. Somebody's gotta put bodies on the line. A case in Illinois just happened where a dude's firearm owner's card was revoked, but nobody went to remove his firearms, and the dude went and shot up his workplace and killed more than 10 people with guns he bought beforehand. Big hole there. You could close it and probably not even have that many cops die.

5) I am anti pornography anyway but I think there needs to be a very seripus consideration even among pro porn people of at least placing limits on what can legally be done to real live women for porn purposes because, while I think blaming incels on porn is stupid as shit, so is acting like it isn't a major factor.

6) This one you can't legislate but we need large scale mobilization of women in defense of our own personhood in the face of increasingly violent male supremacy. Men aren't going to do that for us. We need more women's shelters, women's communes, womens consciousness raising groups. There is just so little real and radical and intense women's activism on any issues other than abortion access and that's with good reason right now but it's not enough. And, in my opinion, we need arms to guard those spaces against those who see them as easy targets. Let's be real- women have been getting killed for years and it has been background noise. Now that misogynists aren't just killing individual women it's become a public concern. But the people most at risk from these men are the women close to them, not random people on the stret.

7) We need to stop acting like it is possible to legislate safety in a country with a good 350 MILLION guns in civilian hands. Anyone who owns one gun has the means to kill several people in their hands. Most people choose not to. Most people have chosen not to for many many years. But someone who decides to do so cannot be stopped from doing so once they are already armed, whether with a handgun or an AK. For this reason I generally oppose so called "gun free zones," places in which people are prevented from legally carrying firearms. I understand property rights and that private places can ask you not to bring anything they like (guns, or red shirts, or blue jeans) into their establishment, but public spaces should be almost entirely fair game for concealed carriers. Many concealed carriers carry in places we aren't supposed to anyway because we'd rather not die. I carry a gun every day because, in the event that somebody decides to hurt me or someone I love or innocent people, I plan to so my best to pump a lot of lead in that person and leave them with a lot of holes in them. I don't think increased concealed carry rates means fewer of these shootings but it is a fact that lots of people try to follow the law and not carry where they shouldn't and that these people don't generally shoot up gun ranges for a reason. This is obviously more personal opinion than policy suggestion.

Basically the goal should be to spot these men and prevent them from getting armed or staying armed using mechanisms we already have in place, because no gun is a good or safe gun to be shot with. There may be typos but generally trying to get mass shooters to switch to different guns is the unstated goal of just banning certain guns and accessories and it's a useless goal.

[academicatheism]

Bad Reasoning on Display

logan-smarter-than-you-sanders:

Okay listen, it’s really not, I don’t know what Christains you are talking to, but clearly not very many. This is a HEAVILY overgeneralized my dude, majority of Christians, their end game is to love people, while there are plenty of them who take the Bible and God’s word and use it in a twisted and corrupt way, but those who don’t, God calls us to love thy neighbor as thy self, whereas, it is human greed and selfishness that wants the control. Don’t try and shove that solely on christains.

Every human ever created has sinned at least once. It is inevitable, we are flawed creatures. But to say that Christians only want control and power, that is an overstatement and honestly kind of hypocritical. You cannot look someone in the eyes and tell them honestly you have never, not once in your life, taken control or wanted to take control of someone or their actions.

Here Logan is saying he’s smarter than “you,” which I take to mean pretty much everyone, but his reasoning betrays his hubris. This is a clear case of Dunning-Kruger Effect. His entire first paragraph is a No True Scotsman. Apparently he thinks the “love thy neighbor” sort of Christian outweighs the Christians that have killed non-Christians throughout the centuries. He thinks there are more “love thy neighbor” Christians than Christians in the United States who hate immigrants, homosexuals, atheists, and anyone who practices another religion. If they don’t “love thy neighbor,” then they’re not a real Christian. Unfortunately for smart Logan here, Christianity has been the religion of hate since the Dark Ages. I think Galileo put it best:

Christians suppressed and silenced their adversaries by murdering them. In the US, now that it’s against the law to do that, they try to do so by foisting their conservatism into politics. Christians are the primary reason why women haven’t secured full reproductive rights in this country. The fetus, to the Christian’s mind, has more rights; that is, right up till it’s born because after that, the Christian doesn’t give a damn about it. The Christian’s pro-life stance perpetuates poverty the world over, so when women die because they don’t have access to safe and legal abortion procedures, the blood is on the Christian’s hands. So it looks like Christians throughout history in countries like the US, Brazil, Chile, England, Northern Ireland, The Republic of Ireland, Argentina, and so on, weren’t really Christians because “love thy neighbor” didn’t extend to poor women who needed abortions.

I don’t believe in “sin.” It’s a nonsense Christian concept. Yet here’s another example of smart Logan’s egregious reasoning: tu quoque. He’s basically saying “yeah, it’s wrong to want to control other people, but you’ve probably done it and other people have done it too.” Two wrongs don’t make a right! Also and more importantly, it’s one thing to want to control someone when you know for a fact they’re making a terrible decision(s). When you care about someone, you want the best for them, so when you see someone’s decision(s) hurting them in the long-run, you want to step in. That’s not what Christians do! Think again of abortion. 

Christians basically tell poor women to stay pregnant and give birth. In doing so, they’ve perpetuated the cycle of poverty for centuries. Abortion is a quality-of-life issue. In most cases, the woman in question can’t afford to have children or she’s in a toxic relationship that isn’t conducive to her raising children. If Christians “loved thy neighbor,” they would be concerned about the role of domestic violence in the decision to have an abortion; they would be concerned  about physically, mentally, and sexually abusive partners who not only abuse the women, but sometimes the children in the household! Yet Christians have overlooked pedophilia in their ranks for years! Catholics defend their priests and nuns and Protestants wave their hands in satisfaction because to their minds there are no such scandals in Protestant churches. Yet they ignore Pastors who abuse underage girls. They ignore the thousands of stories of sexually perverted congregants who sexually abuse their own family members even....

So at what point do you realize that, from the Christian point of view (!), someone’s capacity to sin doesn’t disqualify them from being a Christian? In fact, smart Logan is far off from the Christian message, which I think is best captured in Jesus drawing the line in the sand. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! Just because someone molests underage congregants or tortures or murders or lies or steals doesn’t disqualify them from being a real Christian! The issue is in Christianity. The issue is that Christians are shameful people. Christians confuse guilt for shame, so that’s why they “repent of their sins,” but there’s no corresponding change in their immoral behavior. A lot of them think it’s enough to ask for forgiveness and not change their behavior. It’s a cycle of shame. Never mind the role of sexual repression, especially in Catholic and Jewish circles. I can go on, but smart Logan here has no grasp of the tenets of his own religion and even less of a grip of logical reasoning and the history of his religion. In a nutshell, if it’s too much for smart Logan to read, this is what I intend to say:

A lot, dare I say, most, Christians are terrible people who do repulsive, unspeakable things! According to the Bible, that doesn’t disqualify them from being Christians. All a serial rapist or murderer has to do is convert on their death bed and they’re forgiven! The very idea of vicarious redemption is what makes Christianity such an ugly religion! That’s why so many Christians are ugly people and they are as real as smart Logan here claims to be. Not so smart from what I gather.