Iran’s parliament has continued to follow the religious dictates of the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali no matter how bizarre or repressive. So, when Khamenei ordered people to procreate “strengthen national identity” and counter “undesirable aspects of western lifestyles,” the parliament responded by banning permanent forms of birth control like vasectomies and tubal ligations while also banning advertising of birth control in the country.
Khamenei direction to procreate reverses the earlier policy of “fewer kids, better life.” If that seems an odd contradiction, just remember that is why he is “supreme.”
Khamenei wants to reverse a decline in Iran’s population. Some reformists however believe it has a different purposes. Iranian women continue to seek higher education and leadership roles. The new directive is viewed as a conservative effort to force women back into more traditional roles.
Of course, it also denies one of the most basic human rights over privacy and individual rights in the area of procreation. However, when you have an individual setting government policies in the name of good, such individual rights become virtual blasphemy in the eyes of the faithful.
Source: Salon
I’m surprised that Iran still allows its people to f-u-c-k! Isn’t pleasure banned by the Koran, except when old perverts are banging 9 year old wives……
Mike Appleton,
It’s interesting you even bothered to weigh in on the thread given the fact it’s a waste of your time. You and other “so-called” pro-choice supporters apparently have no problem opining without opposition. The moment a fly lands in your intellectual ointment you wave your hand and dismiss it as folly. Perhaps you should tell our host to cease with the redundancy; after all, MA has deemed this case closed.
You want to send me off to the archives but I’m guessing you don’t want me to go too far back; like to the 18th or 17th century. I should refrain from those old-timey philosophies and stick to the great-thinkers of modern liberalism. Does the JT blog archive hold the unquestionable definition of “LIFE”? You know; the opposite of DEATH? Will I find, once and for all, the logical explanation as to why an industry exists to create the latter when our “Supreme Law of the Land” was designed to secure the former? Maybe the archive is the fountain for a new enlightenment, which provides all who read it extraordinary clarity as to the alienability of life, liberty and property. I’m not holding my breath.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton understood Khamenei completely without ever having met him. Her views on women’s suffrage apply with equal force to the contraception debate. She wrote, “Here is the secret of the opposition to women’s equality in the state. Men are not ready to recognize it in the home.” All of the silly rants against feminism by counter-revolutionary fundamentalists are of a piece with the equally silly rants against the fanciful war on white males. Those of us who actually lived through it recognize that the ’60s represented a rejection not of values, but of social, religious and political hierarchical structures inimical to personal autonomy and human dignity. The right has been fighting for the last forty years to restore those structures and the settled order of life they represented. That is what I meant when I referred to the “principal function of conservatism.”
And John Oliver, your comment and the article you cited both reflect a lack of understanding of the legal and religious history of abortion and the underlying question. I have expressed my thoughts numerous times on this site prior to your arrival, as have a number of other so-called “pro-life” supporters. Perhaps you should spend some time in the archives.
I turned off the Dogalogue Machine so my above comment which got moderated will be repeat after me:
Woof, bark, growl, grooooowwwl. woof woof off off woof growl wwweeel woof growls, woooof.
There, those of you will a Dogalogue Machine can translate and we can thus beat the moderator.
Everything in moderation. Including moderation. If I talk about religion I get moderated cause I am a dog. Keep the faith. I might have to bark elsewhere.
I wear a turban on my head at dog parties. I am the High Priest of 8th Day Dog Adventists. We believe that on the 8th Day God Created Dog and Placed Him on Earth To Guide Man. I got the turban in the middle east on a trip. The turban on a dog gives him some protection from all the perps who want to kill dogs and eat them in those muslim cuntries.
No, Beldar, that’s nonsense. There are millions of upstanding Seiks & others too.
[music–to the tune of Love and Marriage– Go Together Like a Horse And Carriage]
Perps and turbans, Perps and turbans, go to together like a horse and carriage!
One cant have any other. You cant have one,
You cant have one, without the oootther!
Try, Try, Try to separate them. Its an illusion.
etc.
Where’d all the pro-choice defenders go? I’m a bit surprised a mention of unalienable rights has the same effect in legal blogs as it does in more pedestrian blogs. It’s somewhat excusable for those outside the legal profession to treat it like a stink bomb, but not with this body of deep thinkers.
This article provides another perspective other than believing;
“the principal function of conservatism, whether expressed in political, social, economic or religious terms, is and always has been to control the distribution of power.” Mike Appleton
http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/12/yes-people-believe-abortion-is-murder/#disqus_thread
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Lots of babies and you rule the world!
BarkinDog…. Never mind Iran… we should fly over Texass, and drop 100 million Condoms….
Compared to radical muslims today, Iran is a softie. I’m more concerned with what our own interfering government is doing. When, oh when will the world understand that you don’t have to police everyone on anything except when they hurt their fellow man, are cruel or wasteful to animals or destroy other life on the planet? I consider the under 21 ban on alcohol in this country as a major affront to our adult youth.