Control of women is a very strong statement. In a reading by Karen Brown she tries her best to compare and contrast fundamentlism. The greatest point that I believe she was made the anit-abortion movement in the United States. If you look at, if you are against abortion then you are prolife. Prolife is being for living life and not the ending of it. So if the anti-abortionist are for life how do you support things that are against life. How could they be against welfare which helps support the lives of children, and how could they be for war which takes the life of children. I say that, because every human being in the war is someone’s child. Is there an age limit on how long they support prolife. Also there is the debate on Chrisitianity and Enlightenment rationalism. These religions would be great if they weren’t intrepreted for our own benefit. We change a little bit here and a little bit there, just to satisfy our needs. Whether we are changing it for money purposes and just because. But the most disturbing reason for changing is control, and most of the time, men try to change religion for control of women. Enlightenment only fails because we let it.
December 7, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I have wondered long and long about this same argument. If someone is “prolife” then shouldn’t they support all the programs that will *help* those women who make the decision to terminate their pregnancy? Shouldn’t they be against capital punishment? And the war? And poverty? And…yeah. The reality is that they aren’t, and not enough people realize why this is: the prolife argument is not really about saving the lives of children, but instead, about controlling the lives of women.
Disgusting.
Great post, btw!