Grand political roundup

[Idun]

So McCain promised that he would nominate judges in favor of pro-life in order to assist in overturning Roe v Wade on accounts of judges not being the penultimate dispersers of legistlation, but leaving it up solely to the states. Yet his view on the judicial system is that he believes judges have too much power and intends to homogenize it to some undetermined degree (), such as their unstated power of judicial review . . .

Eh, for one, I'm tired of reading the candidate's sites because they never lay out a plan, just bold main chapter words and a quick summary. Secondly, I feel like the Supreme Court has a relatively important and inherent purpose in society - the practice of democracy (being able to establish a precedent based on pass culture and being able to counter them according to the present), but I feel as if he believes that the Supreme Court is too strong, and yet he wants to utilize the Supreme Court to get what he wants (duh), he might as well overturn Brown v BoE, et. al and leave it solely up to the states. If you ask me, I'm for more state autonomy . . .  but I just looked at his plans involving Family/Taxing/Abortion (summaries) on his official website, and obviously he's just stating that to woo voters. Because when you think about it, the majority statistically of women having abortions are black lower and middle class (for multiple reasons, as is with other ethnicities), with an increasing hispanic portion. The lower/middle class are the ones Republicans feel are burdening society by having programs like WIC and Welfare, and his taxing initiatives (besides healthcare which actually sounds like a better idea - extending insurance passed the employer) don't sound to welcoming to those in those classes. Yet, he values the American family, which I want to ask in his opinion, what the "American Family" is. . .

Obviously I support pro-choice, for my reasons, and obviously I hate his idea of overturning Roe v Wade (but I still like autonomy/diversifying states and living where it is more convenient to you in your beliefs/political hemisphere) . . .  now that I think about it, I think a politician's stance on anything that involves abortion is of interest to me. Not because I think it's something that needs to be hammered down, because I don't think it'll essentially ever be hammered down, but one that can get a large percentage of who I would vote for. . . . this notion that banning abortions will "force" (the way I take it) to continue childbirth with all the "oh, but if [health reasons, it's allowable" circumstances is backwards and ludricous. It was banned before, and the only thing that has changed is the conditions in which a woman will get it, confidentiality (which is still oversighted by the government by the ridiculous emotional information a doctor cannot withhold from you - "your baby's heart is beating/etc"), price, and health risks fluctations (legal - safer, illegal - obviously unsafer). Ok, I'm done ranting . . . .

I just did more McCain research, and that's what ws on my mind.

Edit* Pro/Anti choice shouldn't be a main platform initiative, but I feel strongly that as a woman, it's something that needs to be mentioned and discussed. So I guess I counter Grefter's (?) statement that abortion shouldn't be part of the political campaigning strategy.

[metroid composite]

Edit* Pro/Anti choice shouldn't be a main platform initiative, but I feel strongly that as a woman, it's something that needs to be mentioned and discussed. So I guess I counter Grefter's (?) statement that abortion shouldn't be part of the political campaigning strategy.

I think Grefter's more shocked that it's somehting that's being debated at all.  For instance, if sufferage came up in an election campaign, my response would be "WTF?  This was resolved in the 1920s, it shouldn't even be up for discussion anymore."  I mean yes: obviously Sufferage is important, and especially to women, but in no way shape or form should it be an election issue because it should not be changing.

And...while we're on the subject, an interesting point about Abortion is that statistically it's not a gendered issue:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

Abortion should be...
Generally available
Men:40%
Women:37%

Available, but with stricter limits than now
Men:40%
Women:37%

Not permitted
Men:20%
Women:24%

Younger women hold nearly identical views on abortion as do older women. Among women under 45, 38% say abortion should be generally available and one-quarter say it should never be permitted. Among women 45 and older, 36% say it should be generally available and 23% say abortion should never be permitted.

Catholics and Protestants in the survey held roughly the same views on the issue. 36% of Catholics believe abortion should be generally available, and 34% of Protestants agree. 27% of Catholics think abortion should not be permitted, and 24% of Protestants believe this, as well.

You might think "well that doesn't make sense; it's an issue all about a woman's body...shouldn't women have a different view of it?"  Well...not all women have had an unwanted pregnancy, so it's still a hypothetical question to some women.  However the really strange thing is, even women who protest abortions...and then find themselves getting an abortion often don't change their views:
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
It really raises an interesting psychological question of where DO people get their views on Abortion (Gref, any thoughts?)

But I'm getting off-track.  Point-is, the current Abortion system is working very well; significantly better than previous more-restrictive systems.  Hence messing with the system doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Making election promises about messing with such a system also doesn't make a whole lot of sense--these are usually the first election promises to be broken, so they generally only mislead the voters.

[Dark Holy Elf]

And therein you have it. Abortion is a very emotional issue to many Americans, so politicians can appeal to voters' hearts (rather than their minds) by taking a stance on it. It's probably not going to change any time soon (though even the chance of it changing is enough to rile people up, on both sides), due to the the 60/40 split or so (even in the most socially conservative democracy in the world), and the fact that bans on it just aren't a good idea from the pragmatic standpoint.

[Grefter]

But I'm getting off-track.  Point-is, the current Abortion system is working very well; significantly better than previous more-restrictive systems.  Hence messing with the system doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Making election promises about messing with such a system also doesn't make a whole lot of sense--these are usually the first election promises to be broken, so they generally only mislead the voters.

Sociologist in me sides with Weber on this one, it is religion and the way it has become the societal norms (so lose the religious connotations while still being the underlying social norms).  You could add in some cynical functionalist stuff about the state wants all the people it possibly can (ties in with government intervention on Suicide) and place it as part of that.

Psychologist side, well to go with my favourite Freudian thing and tie it in with the Thanatos principle (procreate and achieve immortality through children) or you could go with the blah selfish gene stuff of the survival mechanism of the species.  Depends on how you wanted to look at it.

Ultimately though I think it is just people's inability to disascociate from themselves and feel genuine empathy for other people*.  They are projecting their own personalities, values and circumstances onto someone else entirely unrealistically and demanding the same response from them (I WOULD NEVER KILL MY BABY SO YOU CAN'T).  With that you have people having a strong emotional rejection of what they perceive as someone accusing them of infanticide (or the desire to commit it) on their either idealised or actual born young.

On the flip side of course you can see a large number of people that are pro-choice tending to over intellectualise/simplify the whole process and not consider the emotional trauma of aborting a child or the actual process involved.  There isn't really to much more to it than that.  It is something I fully support and acknowledge the difficulties to go through and just how questionable it does get (especially third trimester abortion) ethically for some people.  It varies a lot on a sliding scale of how idealistic you are towards human life, what you define as life or even what you define as human life and all that other blah blah that is covered a million times. 

I keep trying to flesh that out a bit much but eh, it never comes out cleanly.  I will just leave it at that.

*Disclaimer - Empathy is a very rare skill and not a feeling like sympathy.  There is nothing wrong with being unable to acheive that level of disascociation, it is ultimately more likely to be healthy without it as being empathic tends to gel with a personality type that takes those problems on board as your own and as things you need to fix.  Training to complete the disascociation and attempt to be truely object is one of the key parts of counselling training and one of the hardest to acheive which is ultimately what leads to the high level of burnout in the industry.  It doesn't take great amount of empathy to be completely overwhelmed by how fucked up people are.


As for my point of why is it even an issue?  Well my belief isn't that Abortion should be illegal.  I think it should be mandatory.

[Idun]

Mandatory?


On a side note:
I can empathize with women in those situations. There's just a lot of extremist attitudes out there when it involves anything "ethical/moral." So if someone's combatting abortion, whereas someone is supporting it, statements surrounding "Well if you allow abortion, everyone will get it," compared to someone supporting it saying "If you give them the choice, they'll make the right decisions always." I suppose any decision a woman in that situation is a right one, but there's an undertone of "If they're younger, they'll abort though~" When really, the abortion process is very grinding on one's perceptions and emotions because of societal pressures and fashioning. People want to make the argument that allowing it justifies irresponsibility, but in no way morally do I think the government should be the parents of responsibility, and that those values should be formed in the household to develop the various people and minds that exist today.

On another side note: Read this concerning the stock market falling 504 points yesterday.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=19d8fd27-daeb-4fae-9e1e-4d65cfb85f90

I don't know how partisan Canada is, but if someone says "We're fundamentally fine," when a 138(148?) year old bank files for bankcruptcy, then OBVIOUSLY the fundamentals are super fucked in the ass.

[Luther Lansfeld]

People don't want people to abort but they are the same people who bitch about "omg that goddamn welfare sucking off the government".  They want to interfere in our personal lives but don't want to be fiscally responsible in any way for doing so. I am admittedly somewhat cynical about this issue.

I am pro-choice (?) but I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with personally getting an abortion.

[NotMiki]

I feel as if he believes that the Supreme Court is too strong, and yet he wants to utilize the Supreme Court to get what he wants

It is a bedrock conservative argument that courts should exercise restraint and that "Activist judges" are a liberal plague on the judiciary.  Of course, their definition of activism is, "Kennedy votes with the liberals" or more broadly "Someone voted the way we didn't want."  Activism in their eyes is defined entirely by whether or not they get the result they want, regardless of the soundness of the legal arguments that achieve it.  The irony is lost on them.  (and let's not even start talking about the interplay, or lack thereof, between states' rights and gay marriage.)

This kind of thing isn't limited to conservatives of course; liberals read the 1st amendment as giving broad protection, but disdain the idea that the 2nd could possibly grant individual rights.  Thus restrictive gun control laws = good; Patriot Act-enabled probably-cause-supplanting National Security letters = very, very bad.

---------------

As for abortion, it's an issue that public opinion shows very little movement on; you're unlikely to convince a pro-choicer to convert and vice versa.  American opinion is completely unified, however, behind the idea that abortion is a difficult choice to make.  It's worth noting that people in other countries don't have such reservations.  In China, for example, abortion is for most people just another birth control tool.

[BaconForTheSoul]

Joining late, throwing in my 2 cents.

Abortion:
Abortion is a fun issue to discuss.  Biologically, a baby is alive before the mother knows she is pregnant.  This makes abortion murder.  Economically, abortion becoming legalized lowered adult crimes of all form and adult poverty rates exactly 18 years later.  This isn't a coincidence.  The parents most likely to get an abortion are the ones most likely to have criminal/poor kids.  What's funny, is these issues are NEVER brought up.  It's either A. Woman's right to choose.  or B. Bible says no.
A. The woman has the right not to have sex.  If she is raped, she has the right to take the morning after pill sometime in the next 48 hours.  If she is raped and held hostage for 48 hours for some reason, then she's in such an obscene minority then making laws specifically for her are ridiculous.
B. Bible says to knock up your dead brother's wife.

In conclusion, weighing murder vs the good of the country... is tough for me.  As of now I think I'm for it for the same reason that I'm for immigration control.  The country is being over flooded with people, jobs are being shipped out anyway, obviously the quality of life for everyone goes down.

Selling out:
This election was gonna be close for me, until Palin was named.  JM didn't choose a VP that he thought would be the best choice, he picked who he thought would win him the election.  A. She's a female and can steal Clinton diehards.  B. She's super conservative and can ensure those votes for him.  C. Shes anti-abortion and pro guns, which covers the South.  Now, this plan is probably going to work and may win him the election, but I refuse to vote for him now.  Selling out the good of the country to win is bullshit.  I'm not a Biden fan, but at least Obama picked someone that can do the job.

[Grefter]

A foetus at that age is alive like a blade of grass.  There is no sentience.  Cutting the lawn is not murder.  Euthanasia is not matter.  Do I think it is fair to euthanise something before birth?  Yes.  It isn't just it is the females body, it is the parent/s choice based on their circumstances and how they wish to make that ultimate judgement of worth for themselves and the child.  Fuck society.  Second Trimester is a bit messier, but it is still at a point that it is questionable either side.  Third Trimester is just ick.

Life is cheap.  Sentience is the oddity.  This has nothing to do with an election.

Mandatory abortion was a poorly misappropriated Bill Hicks joke twisted to a negative sentiment where his is positive (about drugs).

Edit - And to rephrase, every death is a good thing for society and the species at this point.

[Idun]

A. The woman has the right not to have sex.  If she is raped, she has the right to take the morning after pill sometime in the next 48 hours.  If she is raped and held hostage for 48 hours for some reason, then she's in such an obscene minority then making laws specifically for her are ridiculous.

That's weird, I never actually heard the latter paralleled like that. What a good percentage of people don't know is that the over-the-counter morning after pill just inhibits progesterone level strikes. It doesn't guarantee the result of "abortion" or not. It's like a month's worth of birth control bundled into one pill. The other one disallows any progesterone strikes which nourish the egg, thus the egg cannot be maintained and "aborts."

On Paiin, I've heard from a few people that they believe McCain just went for Palin to recruit HIlary's supporters, when I believe Hilary and Palin are quite different women. It's just hard for me to wrap my mind around situations like these - where blacks will vote for Obama just because he's black/african descent, whereas women will vote for whichever woman who has the potential to be in office blindly.

[Sierra]

The sad fact is, most people like having someone like themselves in office. This why some politicians try so hard to come across as a "regular joe." Hell, that's pretty much the entirety of how Dubya was sold.

As for the morning-after pill...well, some people are just against any kind of birth control, for reasons Grefter outlined a few posts back (I wholly agree with his reasoning there and he said it better than I ever could).

[Grefter]

Euthanasia is not matter.

  How can you possibly say that was better expressed than you could have?

That said, I would be in heaven if they discovered a Euthenasia element.

It isn't so much the people like people like them in power thing really El Cid.  Regular Joe thing is that in western society it has a concept of "Honest" matching up with "simplicity" for some reason (I blame Machiavelli) and people think that a Regular Joe won't absolutely screw them over when they are in power.  This is of course an absolute fabrication.

The kind of person that would vote for Palin purely because she is a woman is a highly unenlightened Feminist who either wants to do it just to get a female of ANY kind in ANY kind of power so they can go "LOOK WE ARE JUST AS GOOD AS MEN" when in reality they shouldn't need that kind of validation anyway and avoids the actual realities of the candidates for that position.  I imagine similar parallels can be made for people voting based purely on a different ethnicity.  I wouldn't assume that it is just females that would do it for Palin and just black people that would do it for Obama though, both could get some horribly misguided idiots from the various more militant movements associated with them.

[Sierra]

Euthanasia is not matter.

  How can you possibly say that was better expressed than you could have?

Man, don't you know who you're talking to here?

Also, one grammar disaster doesn't offset me agreeing with the reasoning behind the rest of the post.

[Idun]

The kind of person that would vote for Palin purely because she is a woman is a highly unenlightened Feminist who either wants to do it just to get a female of ANY kind in ANY kind of power so they can go "LOOK WE ARE JUST AS GOOD AS MEN" when in reality they shouldn't need that kind of validation anyway and avoids the actual realities of the candidates for that position.  I imagine similar parallels can be made for people voting based purely on a different ethnicity.  I wouldn't assume that it is just females that would do it for Palin and just black people that would do it for Obama though, both could get some horribly misguided idiots from the various more militant movements associated with them.

Is it me, or are you grouping all women who would vote for Palin as an unenlightened Feminist when they may not even be so, with your first statement? You said it yourself, both could just get horribly misguided idiots and people make their judgements based off of the extremes.

Lol: Edit " are you group." :|

[NotMiki]

People who say gonna vote for Palin because she's a woman, more likely than not, don't mean that exactly.  What they mean is this:  they're gonna vote for her because she's a woman they can relate to.  She talks like women they know.  She dresses like women they know.  She has priorities similar to theirs.

On a vaguely related side note, Obama's lead among African Americans is absolutely huge, about 80-20, possibly higher.  Pretty huge, right?  Not exactly evidence that people are voting their race, however.  His numbers are almost identical to Kerry's in '04.

[superaielman]

IIRC Kerry won the black vote by something like a 10: 1 margin. (Hilariously enough Bush is probably one of the least racist presidents ever on a personal level.)

[Otter]

Biologically, a baby is alive before the mother knows she is pregnant.  This makes abortion murder.

To you, maybe.  "Murder" means different things to different people.  Some ultra-liberal vegetarians think it's murder when you kill chickens.  Lots of people don't think it's technically murder to kill other human beings if it happens to be part of a war (or if it's an example of capital punishment).  The fact that something's alive doesn't come close to cinching the "murder" case on any kind of universal level.

The biological facts of abortion are one thing.  Towing them out as if to say "Science proves that my opinion about what constitutes murder is objectively true" doesn't work especially well.

[BaconForTheSoul]

Biologically, a baby is alive before the mother knows she is pregnant.  This makes abortion murder.

To you, maybe.  "Murder" means different things to different people.  Some ultra-liberal vegetarians think it's murder when you kill chickens.  Lots of people don't think it's technically murder to kill other human beings if it happens to be part of a war (or if it's an example of capital punishment).  The fact that something's alive doesn't come close to cinching the "murder" case on any kind of universal level.

The biological facts of abortion are one thing.  Towing them out as if to say "Science proves that my opinion about what constitutes murder is objectively true" doesn't work especially well.

On a side note, I did forget to add in that I agree that abortion is a fucking ridiculous topic to come up during an election.

Technically killing chickens is murder.  The problem is, evolution has taught us to slaughter everything not human!  We may not need to anymore, but it'll take centuries, probably longer before that starts to kick in.  Abortion is kinda counter productive in terms of evolution since the whole point of a species is to reproduce.  However, I guess you could look at it from the point that aborted babies help prevent the dumbing down of a nation, raising the quality of life for the rest of the species.

Humans do condone murder for tons of different reasons, which is why I really don't care when people are all for abortion.  I just don't want them to be for abortion because "It's a woman's body and her right to choose."  That logic is just fucking retarded and horribly flawed.  These same idiots should be pro drugs, pro suicide, pro wrist cutting, pro fast food, pro prostitution, pro everything.

Abortion is actually a really interesting topic to discuss.  The problem is, 99% of the population falls back on A. Woman's right to choose or B. Bible says so.  Kinda kills the fun of an interesting concept.  (Also this topic opens a whole bag of worms that draw Hitler comparisons, despite the fact that Hitler just killed people out of spite.)  Even a fairly harmless comment like Grefter's, "There is no sentience" could be taken as "Kill retarded people, brain dead people, etc."

In the end, long as you have a legit reason for your belief, then enjoy your belief.  (Yes, I am the final word on what is legit.  My A and B examples above are not.)

Umm... go Obama for the simple fact that I hope America isn't stupid enough to fall for the Republicans ploys.

[Otter]

Humans do condone murder for tons of different reasons, which is why I really don't care when people are all for abortion.  I just don't want them to be for abortion because "It's a woman's body and her right to choose."  That logic is just fucking retarded and horribly flawed.  These same idiots should be pro drugs, pro suicide, pro wrist cutting, pro fast food, pro prostitution, pro everything.

Uh, we're talking about the legality of abortion.  Are you saying fast food should be illegal just because it's awful for you and kind of disgusting?  It's a person's right to choose to eat disgusting fast food if he or she wants to and I support that 100% even if I don't like fast food myself.  It's not the federal government's place to make laws about whether or not I squander my health by eating poorly and neglecting exercise.  In the same way, it is a woman's choice to abort her own pregnancy and I don't see what's "fucking retarded and horribly flawed" about that.

Are you just not into personal freedoms or what?

Technically killing chickens is murder.  The problem is, evolution has taught us to slaughter everything not human!

Yeah, I guess that's why there's no such thing as domesticated dogs or cats.  And if you want to say that killing a chicken is an act of murder, go ahead, but it doesn't make you right about it.  Murder, as I said, means different things to different people; it's not as simple as "if any sort of life is being ended, that's murder" which seems to be your stance.  For example, there's always the legal definition of murder, which is to say, the unlawful and malicious killing of another human being.

[Dark Holy Elf]

"There is no sentience" could be taken as "Kill retarded people, brain dead people, etc."

Just want to jump in on this. "Retarded" people are very much sentient. They're actually often capable of much more thought than they are casually given credit for, though depending on the type of disability they may be slow to learn or have trouble communicating or with motor abilities in general. Soo yeah this parallel doesn't even begin to hold water.

(The one with braindead people does, though it's a separate issue. I don't view euthanasia of the permently brain dead as murder myself, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.)

[Excal]

In the same way, it is a woman's choice to abort her own pregnancy and I don't see what's "fucking retarded and horribly flawed" about that.

That's right, because all men are emotional troglodytes that have no interest in whether or not their child survives if they have the means and interest to look after it.

To move past the sound byte on this, I do take some issue with the idea that abortion is only a woman's issue, and that the best thing a father can do is butt out and passively accept whatever decision he's told is going to happen.  Yes, there is a certain amount of weight to be gained by the fact that the woman has to carry the child for nine months and then recuperate.  But, this doesn't mean that they should have a monopoly on the topic as well.

[Grefter]

I said voting for Palin purely because she is a woman, not any other intrinsic marketted or emotional reason.  -Purely- because she is a woman.  This is the market that you are aiming for by putting her up to take away from remaining Clinton supporters who refuse to follow the sentiments that Clinton herslef put forwards by backing Obama.  Palin is an entirely different kind of politician with an entirely different image and background to Clinton.  To vote on a person based entirely on a single ideal that is an intrinsic part of their biology is by default unenlightened, stupid and an extremist point of view.  These candidates of course have policies that are entirely contrary to your ultimate goals.

For Obama and the "black" vote, well yeah, it is unsuprising just based on a history for that portion of voters and voting Liberal anyway.  I am thinking more something more ala Black Panthers members than your every day voter.

Anyway to get back to the latest trend in the Abortion topic (Other than the one NEB covered.  Euthenasia is a double plus good thing) I will quote a smart man.

It isn't just it is the females body, it is the parent/s choice based on their circumstances and how they wish to make that ultimate judgement of worth for themselves and the child.

Parent/s implies both parties involved in the fuckings.  I think some credence needs to be given to the mother for having to carry the child for 9 months (forcing a woman to carry a child for 9 months that she did not want anything to do with would be a VERY special kind of abuse), but ultimately everyone who will directly be doing some of the raising of the child should have some input.  This could lead to some cool interesting checks and balances for a theoretical society that was far more communal parenting based than the Atomic familly style thing we do in the west.

[Sierra]

Abortion is kinda counter productive in terms of evolution since the whole point of a species is to reproduce.

Bwuh. Most everything else in the post has been addressed by this point, but I had to pick this out as a notion that particularly annoys me. In many ways, unfettered reproduction (read: overpopulation) is far more counter-productive in regards to maintaining a healthy society.

[Idun]

Excal, I just read your post and I see that response from many guys when it bogs down to it really only being the woman's choice. Because it really only is. The final marker, after discussing this with the male if he has any involvement, with the parents, if they have any involvement, and with any other person the female may care enough about to discuss her feelings with, is that the woman is the last, ultimate person to decide. I don't believe if someone is in a relationship that they should just overshadow and never dicusss it with persons involved, but I also don't think someone should be "convinced" to do something of that magnitude either, especially if it is a younger and more impressionable woman (and the woman is more bent on abortion than delivering).

 That being said, just because two people made a baby doesn't imply that two people have equal say in the matter, considering the woman carries the child for 9 months, and if the parents kick her out, and if her boyfriend (or whatever, you get what I'm saying) runs off, the last person in responsibility besides the two that fucked, is just the woman. I do believe firmly that if the girl has any questions as whether to keep it (being single or not) or any doubts on if it would be good for the parent and child involved, that discussing it with her direct family if they had a big role in raising her (and if she lives there) and telling the man involved (same thing/cept not the raising part) would be the noble and more pan-responsible action. Words of support or discontent can definitely help someone's mental status during issues like that (or tube tying vs. vesectomy, etc). I totally didn't mean to derail the thread into abortion though >>

[Dark Holy Elf]

To move past the sound byte on this, I do take some issue with the idea that abortion is only a woman's issue, and that the best thing a father can do is butt out and passively accept whatever decision he's told is going to happen.

Actually it kinda does.

Okay, first of all, I'll say that I see where you're coming from. If you're the man involved in the equation, of course you'd like to have your opinion the matter heard. And for what it's worth, I suspect it would be - most women, if still on speaking terms with their boyfriend (or one-night stand partner, whatever), would certainly weigh his opinion on the matter and talk it over with him. I'd imagine that, when appropriate, the decision would be reached and agreed upon by the two of them (as well as family, etc.).

But ultimately, if the two can't come to an agreement? Woman decides. I don't see any way you can say otherwise. A man has no right to demand a woman undergo a surgical procedure to suit his desires, and a man has no right to demand a woman go through months of disruption to her lifestyle and the dangers of childbirth if she doesn't wish to. I'm all for equality between the sexes, but this is an innate imbalance. A woman has to put up with the rigours of pregnancy and childbirth, and in return she gets authority over it.


Largely parroting Idunie here, but it bears saying anyway.