Page 187 of 201 FirstFirst ... 87137177185186187188189197 ... LastLast
Results 1,861 to 1,870 of 2004

Thread: "It's my body"[W:191, 709]

  1. #1861
    Educator
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    03-25-14 @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    873

    Re: "It's my body"[W:191, 709]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocean007 View Post
    I believe Commie said he objects to the revolting idea of MANDATORY childbirth, where women would be FORCED to continue pregnancies to childbirth, even if it is against their will. I object to that as well.

    Since it is the WOMAN who assumes all the health risks -- and potentially life-threatening complications -- of both pregnancy AND childbirth, it makes sense that ONLY the woman makes the decision whether to continue the pregnancy or not. If it isn't YOUR pregnancy, meaning if YOU aren't the woman who is pregnant, it isn't your decision. Simple as that.
    Exactly! The only thing that surprises me these days about self-proclaimed prolifers, is that they don't even bother to deal with life after birth issues....someone else's problem....or similar selfish, right wing responses. So why are they so concerned about "unborn" life? Simple answer: it's all about their perceived loss of control over women and getting it back again.
    Why should our nastiness be the baggage of an apish past and our kindness uniquely human? Why should we not seek continuity with other animals for our "noble" traits as well?
    Stephen J. Gould

  2. #1862
    Educator
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    03-25-14 @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    873

    Re: "It's my body"[W:191, 709]

    Quote Originally Posted by choiceone View Post
    First, there is no men are from mars, women are from venus thinking in what I said.

    In most species, males have maximal genetic input in reproduction by fertilizing as many eggs or oocytes as possible. If females go through pregnancy, they can only have as many offspring as allowed by body size and various other factors, so care of offspring after birth to insure their survival becomes especially important for maximizing the genetic input of females in species where pregnancy is relatively long and the number of embryos per pregnancy is low. The fact that this means male and female humans may have genetic tendencies toward different behavior is not sexist. It's just realistic.
    It may be realistic....and wrong, if it is not found in human behaviour prior to advanced cultures!
    What I am finding as I have returned to study the subject of anthropology and early human cultures after a long hiatus, is that there is a prevailing orthodoxy of opinion that tries to legitimize modern culture....or at least why modern cultural norms (hierarchies, monogamy/polygamy, capitalist economics etc.) seem to be universal, by what Christopher Ryan called "Flinstonization" of prehistory...or looking for evidence outside of early human culture (since they are rarely found there) and going back more steps to other animals (chimpanzees) and even unrelated animal species for evidence of hierarchical behaviour and other modern universal norms. I didn't get a chance to point out earlier, that Jane Goodall's vicious chimpanzee colony she studied in East Africa may have been anomalous, as other researchers, doing detailed notes on other chimpanzees in other areas are finding them to be much less violent, and even less carnivorous than the chimps at Gombe. This should stand to reason, as chimpanzees are highly developed mammals who's behaviour may be greatly influenced by environmental conditions...much like human behaviour. A space alien who landed on earth in Europe in 1941, is going to have a different view of human behaviour than landing at a time of relative peace and great optimism of the future - like at the turn of the 20th century.

    It has been noted by some of the more recent fans of Lewis Henry Morgan and even Frederich Engels...who himself did not research human origins, but gathered Morgan's, Bachofen's and the writings of missionaries and explorers to build his own theory of prehistory...that it is for the prime reason that Engels, and through him - Marx got involved in this issue, that the western academics tried to minimize the work of Bachofen and Morgan and come up with an alternative theory of early human society supporting capitalism and patriarchy, that works primarily by smuggling in assumptions through other species and other unrelated fields of research. A good explanation of how Morgan was buried in ignomity, while dodgy work by rivals like Westermarck became accepted wisdom, the best brief summary I found is from From Early Human Kinship Was Matrilinial by Chris Knight (2008):

    The reaction
    Around the turn of the century, virtually all those who had helped found the
    discipline of anthropology converged around the fundamentals of the Bachofen-
    Morgan theory. As Murdock (1949: 185) subsequently observed, the ‘extremely
    plausible’ arguments in its favour included (a) the biological inevitability of the
    mother-child bond (b) the intrinsic difficulty in establishing biological paternity
    and (c) numerous apparent survivals of matrilineal traditions in societies with
    patrilineal descent groups. ‘So logical, so closely reasoned, and so apparently in
    accord with all known facts was this hypothesis’, continues Murdock, ‘that from
    its pioneer formulation by Bachofen in 1861 to nearly the end of the nineteenth
    century it was accepted by social scientists practically without exception’.
    So, what changed everyone’s mind? As we review the historical evidence, it
    becomes clear that political passions were never far beneath the surface and
    ultimately played the decisive role. With regard to the topic of ‘primitive
    promiscuity’, Engels (1972b [1884]: 47) commented:
    It has become the fashion of late to deny the existence of this initial stage in the sexual
    life of mankind. The aim is to spare humanity this ‘shame’.

    Once Engels had incorporated Morgan’s findings into the socialist canon,
    however, no one could write neutrally on such topics any more. Morgan’s Ancient
    Society, as Robert Lowie (1937: 54-5) was later to comment,
    attracted the notice of Marx and Engels, who accepted and popularised its evolutionary
    doctrines as being in harmony with their own philosophy. As a result it was promptly
    translated into various European tongues, and German workingmen would sometimes
    reveal an uncanny familiarity with the Hawaiian and Iroquois mode of designating kin,
    matters not obviously connected with a proletarian revolution.
    Once Engels had endorsed it, Morgan’s theory was destined to become a casualty
    of the central conflict of the age. Social anthropologists may like to imagine that
    their discipline became shaped in its modern form quite independently of
    Marxism. It would be more accurate to describe it as moulded specifically in
    reaction against the ideas of Engels and Marx.
    ‘With Morgan’s scheme
    incorporated into Communist doctrine’, observes Marvin Harris (1969: 249), ‘the
    struggling science of anthropology crossed the threshold of the twentieth century
    with a clear mandate for its own survival and well-being: expose Morgan’s
    scheme and destroy the method on which it was based’.
    When it comes to human hierarchies...obviously we have them now, and they are impossible to negate in human societies, other than closed, highly ordered religious communities who shut out all outside influence and have little contact with the outside world. But, is this because we are biologically programmed to be hierarchical or because we are socialized along hierarchies of relative wealth and status in modern societies? The question is: why don't immediate-return hunter/gatherer societies show evidence of hierarchies now or in the past? Why do so many anthropologists continually describe both the males and females of these basic, primitive societies engaging in "status-leveling" behaviours to try to prevent some exceptional individuals from excelling or rising to high level of importance in the community? The answer is simple, if we accept that these societies which constantly move and search for food every day, have such high need for cooperation, that competition cannot be allowed by members of the group! This may not impact on the way we live today, except that, if we want to understand what is good and what is bad about today's culture, we have to understand our roots and accept that as the starting point.
    Last edited by Commie; 02-23-14 at 05:39 PM.
    Why should our nastiness be the baggage of an apish past and our kindness uniquely human? Why should we not seek continuity with other animals for our "noble" traits as well?
    Stephen J. Gould

  3. #1863
    Educator
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    03-25-14 @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    873

    Re: "It's my body"[W:191, 709]

    situation of communality such that offspring will all be communally cared for would not change the fact that male rape could be evolutionarily favorable to males and not to females and that monogamy would prevent the spread of STDs. It's worth knowing that the risk of STDs and some forms of cancer for women increases based on the number of her sex partner's previous sex partners. I do not know of research related to health risks to males based on the number of his sex partner's previous sex partners. However, it is just common sense that, the more partners the other has had, the more likely he or she is to have an STD. The increased risk of some forms of cancer has not yet been explained, but since childbirth associates with a higher risk of cervical cancer, it is possible that this is related to the fact of higher likelihood of exposure to an HPV virus.
    The sterile, self-interested moral theories advanced by evolutionary psychology have no adequate explanation for why rape isn't the universal norm for human males! If we accept their claptrap about 'spreading our seed' far and wide, it would make sense if all men were rapists, and went about stealing and killing for food and raping any and all females they found. The fact that rape is a long-established taboo, and is unacceptable to most men, should tell us that our morals were not founded in the modern values of the cult of the individual. As for STD's, it needs to be emphasized and underlined again, that what was described as promiscuity by western observers, was not considered promiscuous by native hunter/gatherers and horticulturalists, because they were not engaging in indiscriminate sex with strangers....like modern swingers. Instead, they were familiar with any and all sexual partners they might have in these communities, and the sexual relationships were used to strengthen family bonds - not as alternative to them! For example, among the Senecas that Morgan lived with that he described, a new husband would be expected to have sexual relationships with his new wife and her sisters as well. In the matriarchal household of the longhouse, this would minimize tensions and rivalries. The new husband had to introduce his brothers to his new family, and they were free to have sex with his wife and/or her sisters...providing they were in agreement on the relationships. Just as the bonobos, the sexual relationships were intended to unite both families. And when it came to the children...even if they had developed concepts of paternity prior to the arrival of Europeans, no one would know exactly who fathered which child...which would be of no consequence anyway, in a society where family inheritance and lineage was through the mother, not the father, as in European society.

    It is believed that the STD - Gonorrhea, originated in the New World....unlike every other sexually-transmitted disease, but it is unknown where it arose, and how widely it spread until the arrival of Europeans...who despite their sexually repressed religion and culture, were highly promiscuous, and became the greatest disease vectors in the history of the human race! Not comforting info for us who are of European descent, but for once, we should be honest about our history and culture!


    I have heard women who prefer monogamy say, if the guy can sleep with just anybody, then you don't know where his penis has been - ick. I understand that men, having external sexual organs, may not have the same response. But when you put something six or more inches inside of your body, you want to have some control over whether or not it's contaminated by something you don't want to put in there. That is not sexism. It's just common sense. And I suspect that the same free-for-all would be especially bad for females because males would have no reason for not committing acts of violence when they could not have their way. And for me, that's just common sense, too.
    Yes, I am well aware of that; and that's why I venture into the subject of human origins to understand where we came from, but not necessarily how we should live now! I have been in a monogamous marriage for over 25 years...and I'm pretty sure we were monogamous from the time we decided to move in together three years prior to formal marriage. The casual attitude that Morgan and others described of native women they encountered, may have been due mostly to the fact that they had little fear of sexually transmitted diseases, and even more important - they were not dependent on any one man for their livelihood. It's easy to understand how women became fiercely monogamous in patriarchal societies...and even our somewhat more egalitarian society today, women still have more at risk if a marriage fails....and that is why so many of my friends continually bitch about what they have to pay for alimony and child support. But, when the marriage dissolves, their obligations are mostly financial....they are not stuck investing the time in the years needed to raise the children to adulthood.
    Why should our nastiness be the baggage of an apish past and our kindness uniquely human? Why should we not seek continuity with other animals for our "noble" traits as well?
    Stephen J. Gould

  4. #1864
    Educator
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    03-25-14 @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    873

    Re: "It's my body"[W:191, 709]

    I for one do not think that the communal model with people just having sex with multiple partners in an unregulated free-for-all is the healthiest approach, even though I do think that communal care of offspring can be a stellar idea.
    Furthermore, sleeping around is a very undergraduate approach to sexuality. Longer term specialization in sexual relationships are less superficial. And this benefits women, in as much as it involves men finding out how to sexually satisfy them, which is objectively a trickier matter than sexually satisfying men, and can lead toward treating sexual activity as a partner art form, which is thus humanized sex. Which is not to say that monogamy has to last a lifetime - that depends on how the partners feel about it.
    As mentioned earlier, communal life of our ancestors is not the same thing as communal life of hippies that moved out into the countryside to commune with nature.
    We have almost no evidence of how people lived more than 5,000 years ago. If you claim that men had no sense of paternity before 6,000 years ago, you need to provide a link to a site that can prove that, and I for one know of no evidence of men's thought or anybody's thought about that in archeological remains and relics.
    Do you realize your question is a double negative? Since there are primitive societies described as having concepts of shared fatherhood of children, I would argue the burden of proof is on the side of paternity-certainty...and it is less likely to have been a concept formulated in societies that were not patriarchal...as it is hard to explain patriarchy without a sense of owning or possessing children. Since western culture begins with patriarchy, it's a safe assumption that some sort of concept of paternity existed prior to the development of our cultures. But, they are not universal, and it's a dubious assumption that the theories of parental investment advanced as a standard model by evolutionary psychologists like Pinker, explain human development.

    The Concept of Partible Paternity among Native South Americans
    Stephen Beckerman and Paul Valentine

    The Doctrine
    Inhabitants of the modern Western world are well aware that each child has one biological
    father and one only. We know that, in sexually reproducing organisms, only one sperm
    fertilizes the egg, and we know this rule holds for people as well as penguins. The doctrine
    of single paternity, as a folk belief, goes so far back in Western history and is so extended
    through our social and legal institutions that it is difficult for us to imagine that anyone could
    entertain any other view of biological paternity. Nowhere in all the begats of the Bible do we
    find any hint that a child might have more than one father. Aristotle (1992, 53-54) offers no
    suggestion that a human child might have multiple fathers – although he does hold out that
    possibility for birds. The Law of the Twelve Tables, the oldest surviving codification of
    Roman law (451 B.C.), clearly assumes that a child is the product of a single biological
    father:........................................... ...
    The idea is roughly that men provision women and their
    children with foods that the women cannot obtain on their own, because they are
    burdened with dependent children. Men are willing to share their food because the women,
    faithful to their mates, provide the men with a high degree of paternity certainty. When a
    man brings his game home to his woman, he can reliably assume that the children it feeds
    are his own (Alexander and Noonan 1979; cf. Washburn and Lancaster 1968.) This
    scenario, now two decades old, is sometimes called the Standard Model of Human
    Evolution. It remains the dominant version of the story of the evolution of food sharing and
    the human family............................................ ............

    These views of universal human nature, as well as the male-female bargain behind the
    Standard Model of Human Evolution, are called into question by decades of ethnographic
    research among tribal peoples in lowland South America. Some of the older work is cited in
    this introductory essay. Recent findings, particularly those directed to the issues raised here,
    are reported in this volume. This work, old and new, has made two relevant findings about a
    substantial number of lowland South American societies. First, the people of these societies
    have a different doctrine of paternity, one that allows for a child to have several different
    biological fathers. Second, these people act on that doctrine in such as way as to confute
    such statements as Pinker’s that “in no society do men readily share a wife.”
    In addition to the societies discussed in this volume, there are quite a few other societies in
    lowland South America where the idea that paternity is partible, that more than one man
    can contribute to the formation and development of a fetus, has been reported. These
    societies are dispersed over much of the continent, and represent many different languages
    and language families.
    The distributional evidence argues that it is
    possible to build a biologically and socially competent society – a society whose members
    do a perfectly adequate job of reproducing themselves and their social relations – with a
    culture that incorporates a belief in partible paternity......................... A decade
    and a half ago, Counts and Counts published a report on the ideology of the Lusi of West
    New Britain Province, Papua New Guinea:1 “The notion that the foetus grows as a result of
    multiple acts of intercourse seems to prevail, for the Lusi – even the young people who
    assert that only one act is required – generally agree that it is possible for a person to have
    more than one father” (1983, 49). All these findings seem all the more expectable in the
    light of recent calculations by Wyckoff, Wang, and Wu (2000), which are compatible with
    the proposition that a good deal of human evolution may have been marked by a reproductive pattern in which semen from multiple
    mates may have been present at the same time in the female reproductive tract. Indeed, even
    in the present day there is reason to inquire whether belief in partible paternity may not
    provide some advantages that are lacking in cultures whose theories of conception are
    limited to plain-vanilla single paternity. There are a couple of ethnographic cases in South
    America where we can explore this claim, although we cannot test it directly among all the
    peoples who profess a belief in partible paternity.........................................
    Frequently, pregnancy is viewed as a matter of degree, not clearly distinguished from
    gestation. For the Kulina, for instance, all sexually active women are a little pregnant. Over
    time, as Pollock reports, semen accumulates in the womb, a fetus is formed, further acts of
    intercourse follow, and additional semen causes the fetus to grow more. Only when semen
    accretion reaches a certain level is pregnancy irreversible.
    Lea reports somewhat similar ideas among the Mebengokre, where there is “neither a
    notion of fertilization nor of subsequent ‘natural’ growth; rather the fetus is built up
    gradually, somewhat like a snowball.”........................................ ....
    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...61725948,d.aWc

    Why should our nastiness be the baggage of an apish past and our kindness uniquely human? Why should we not seek continuity with other animals for our "noble" traits as well?
    Stephen J. Gould

  5. #1865
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: "It's my body"[W:191, 709]

    Quote Originally Posted by Commie View Post
    You obviously don't know what I believe or what my objections are to mandatory childbirth
    "mandatory childbirth"

    I know what you believe. You believe that during our lifespan we are mere property to be killed on one of our parent's whims. Which is ironic of course, given your stance on property.

    I am highly skeptical of your personhood beliefs that you have glommed onto for rhetorical purposes
    No, I don't believe in equality and human rights for rhetorical purposes. I oppose people like you because you have no regard for them and I do.

  6. #1866
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: "It's my body"[W:191, 709]

    Quote Originally Posted by Commie View Post
    Exactly! The only thing that surprises me these days about self-proclaimed prolifers, is that they don't even bother to deal with life after birth issues....someone else's problem....or similar selfish, right wing responses. So why are they so concerned about "unborn" life? Simple answer: it's all about their perceived loss of control over women and getting it back again.
    Absurd and stupid.

    The issues of social(ist) welfare programs and abortion are distinct.

    One could theoretically oppose abortion and promote socialism, promote abortion and oppose socialism, promote both, or oppose both.

    Just because I consistently oppose violations the right to property and violations of the right to life (as I favor equality and human rights), while you promote such violations (due to your lack of respect for human rights) does not mean that the issues are linked.

  7. #1867
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: "It's my body"[W:191, 709]

    Quote Originally Posted by choiceone View Post
    All the more reason to remove it from the woman's body.
    No, there's never "all the more reason" to kill another human being in aggression, especially when their predicament is entirely your own fault.

  8. #1868
    Educator
    Michael Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Unknown
    Last Seen
    04-29-15 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,042

    Re: "It's my body"[W:191, 709]

    Quote Originally Posted by Commie View Post
    Shut up! I wasn't even talking to you, and I don't usually even bother responding to your stupid posts, because all your tiny brain can come up with
    As predicted, you fail to produce a compelling argument about the topic and instead opt for bland retorts and whiny rhetoric.

    is the 'innocent babies' bs over and over again.
    This is is nonsensical and ridiculous. How are these vulnerable life forms not innocent?
    If you're not ready to die for it, put the word 'freedom' out of your vocabulary. - El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz

  9. #1869
    Educator
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    03-25-14 @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    873

    Re: "It's my body"[W:191, 709]

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    "mandatory childbirth"

    I know what you believe. You believe that during our lifespan we are mere property to be killed on one of our parent's whims. Which is ironic of course, given your stance on property.



    No, I don't believe in equality and human rights for rhetorical purposes. I oppose people like you because you have no regard for them and I do.
    Next!
    Why should our nastiness be the baggage of an apish past and our kindness uniquely human? Why should we not seek continuity with other animals for our "noble" traits as well?
    Stephen J. Gould

  10. #1870
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: "It's my body"[W:191, 709]

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    No, there's never "all the more reason" to kill another human being in aggression, especially when their predicament is entirely your own fault.
    just tell them that testing has shown that the fetus might be gay, then they'll be all about protecting it....
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •