[flagged]
For most fundamentalist religions, men are almost never penalized for bad behavior. It's nearly impossible to find a man being killed for violating a morality law including selling pornography or engaging in prostitution.
But on the other hand, it's very easy to find examples of women getting stoned for dressing improperly.
Secondly, you posit it's "nearly impossible to find a man being killed for violating a morality law", which is true because of two factors. The first of which is because it's difficult to find any kind of representative sample of justice being meted out in Afghanistan because it's not freely and actively reported on. The second of which is because the punishment for violating moral laws is usually public flogging. The idea that these laws overwhelmingly target women is false, most of the time the people being punished for breaking morality laws are men: https://amu.tv/137185
It is clear to me the only thing you know about Afghanistan is that women unfortunately live as second class citizens. This is clear not only because of the naive things you say, but because you explicitly fall back to painting with ridiculously unspecific brushstrokes. With your knowledge exhausted, you revert to talking about "most fundamentalist religions", despite the domain already being pretty well defined to specifically the Taliban. You shoehorn in the misogyny angle, as though that's relevant to the context and makes your point stronger, but it's just vacuous nonsense. Your entire point seems to be that the justice system in Afghanistan primarily punishes women (which is an silly falsehood in and of itself), and that's why a major public figure enabling mass obscenity would entail no consequences? Are you actually out of your mind? There's simply no way you actually believe this crap. I'm sorry, that kind of naivete is just too ridiculous to buy.
The cherry on top is that you lead all of this crypto neo-orientalist shit with "I don't think you understand how religious fundamentalism works in practice". Give me a break.
I actually find abortion with no exception for rape to be far more ideologically pure position than abortion with exceptions for rape.
The one that makes the least sense is restriction on abortion even in the case the fetus cannot survive. That one is far less defensible than not having a rape abortion exception as it can't be explained from the viewpoint of the rights of the mother nor from one of the rights of the fetus.
It's defensible when you realize that forced pregnancy is viewed by many religious people as a punishment. "If you didn't want a baby, don't have sex" is very commonly heard in private conversations with religious people.
Because pregnancy is a holy punishment, the consequences, even death, are seen as moral.
This is also why the rape exception is more common than the medical exception. A mother dying because of an ectopic pregnancy or because she was too young to have a baby is god's will.
I initially held your viewpoint but after engaging a lot of people I realized they often had pretty similar views on life and liberty as mine, they just were looking at it from the viewpoint of the fetus rather than the mother. From that perspective it just doesn't make sense at all to make an exception for rape.
People will almost never take the "it's a punishment" position in a debate because that's not a popular position to hold and it's pretty weak morally at the end of the day. That's why the "life of the fetus" approach is most frequently taken even though it leads to absurd positions. For example, pro-life people will very often be put into a difficult position when the notion of IVF comes up.
That's what betrays their true views, IMO.
I've simply had a lot of private conversations with people on religion (I was mormon for a long time and served a mormon mission). That's where my opinion on the actual underlying anti-abortion attitude comes from. It's lots of private conversations in safe spaces. The fetus life, frankly, is almost never brought up as a reason.
And, as I pointed out, it pretty well explains why anti-abortion laws have weird boundaries if they were purely about the life of the fetus.
Most nations still have social support and government responsibility as last resort, which equally can do the job of supporting children without willing parents, but then people return to the punishment/moral angle that if men don't want to pay for children then they should not have sex.
Look to how quickly people reaches for the morality position and we see how little friction anti-abortion policies has to overcome.
What I expect to see for those that view it as primarily punishment is little outside of child support for kids. Penalizing the "dead beat dad" as it were. I expect those governments to not provide child support, tax breaks for parents, or any sort of welfare/support/minimum standard of living for parents. That is to say, the answer to "how hard would it be to be a single parent" in those government would be "very hard".
For governments that are solely looking out for the welfare of the kid, I expect to see a large amount of support for kids, especially for poor families. I expect some help with childcare, housing, etc to make sure the kids are well cared for.
The closer people holds to those values, the easier society accept laws like anti-abortion. Religion do play a supporting role in this by holding onto the values, but is itself not always in the center.
We need something. I asked if there was a hot mic because those two have a tendency to get recorded saying stupid things. It coud also be an e-mail, a memo, a recollection by a friend or former colleague, et cetera.
In the absence of evidence, it's much simpler to conclude that at least Musk is just sexist versus trying "to make women afraid to participate in public life."
Okay.
> You expect every bad actor to make a public statement about their vile plans?
Neither Musk nor Miller have exhibited a tremendous amount of discipline in this department.
I don’t expect them to say this. But I do expect someone arguing in good faith to distinguish between plans and effects, particularly when we’re turning what looks like garden-variety sexism into a political theory.
Not being debated here.
OP claimed Musk and Miller aim "to make women afraid to participate in public life."
Musk is 14/14 born male. Its extremely unnatural.
Henry VIII also didn't have 14 children.
Henry VIII also didn't have all of his children by IVF.
Odds of 14 male children is like 1 in 15,000+
It would be remarkably unlikely. It's fair to say Musk is probably sex selecting for sons. It doesn't follow that he has plans "to make women afraid to participate in public life."
No, that follows from his other actions
If it looks and quacks like a Nazi duck, we might be best served by not assuming the troop build up on the border of Poland is a training exercise.
Miller, I'm sure, is mostly focused on his manifesting white nationalist wet dream and murder rampage.