Biblical gender roles #fundie #sexist

Biblical gender roles #fundie #sexist biblicalgenderroles.com

The Arguments Against the Marriage of Pubescent Women Are Faulty
[…]
When we acknowledge the fact that worldwide a total of 0.2 percent of women die from pregnancy related deaths, and that includes pubescent mothers, then the even if they represent a higher proportion of that 0.2 percent it does not make a strong case against pubescent women marrying. Instead we can respond with that fact that at least 99.8 percent of pubescent women worldwide will survive their pregnancies.
When we acknowledge the fact that only 2 percent of all infants worldwide die in the first year of their life and even if children from pubescent mothers make up more of that 2 percent than children from postpubescent women, we can rightly say pubescent mothers have at least a 98 percent chance of their children surviving their first year of life. A difference somewhere within the 2 percent range between two groups of women having their children survive is not a strong argument against pubescent women marrying.
Some may respond that these are numbers that mix the developed world and undeveloped worlds. But let me remind you of the WHO numbers which stated even in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest MMR in the world, only 500 women out of 100,000 died from pregnancy related complications in a given year over the last decade.
[…]
Now that I have shown the arguments against pubescent women marrying to be faulty and weak, we will now present strong arguments for the marriage of pubescent women.

13 comments

So argue the toss outside Scotland Yard: with the press present, bgr.

Especially in these post-Jimmy Savile times here in Britain.

Your attempt to throw cold water on the fact that death from pregnancy complications is a thing runs into a few immediate hurdles, not the least of which being you’re deliberately avoiding how those stats relate to age and are just hoping people get bored and disinterested with numbers from reports you’re not representing with any honesty and only hope to duck behind the good name of the entities that performed the studies hoping people are dumb enough to think that confers legitimacy on to you for no reason other than referencing them. And that this disinterest and attempt to hide in another entity’s shadow prevents them from realizing that you’re ducking the only actually relevant point of data to your entire sick premise.

1) Those deaths and post birth life shortening defects are still quite pointedly massively more likely for the tweens you want to knock up no matter how you try to dismissively frame the numbers.

2) When complications are seen coming abortion is an option, thus preventing that death. That prevention is 99% of the reason maternity appears less lethal in more developed countries. You’ll notice in a country where abortions are severely restricted but all other facets of medicine are up to Western standards the odds of a woman dying in childbirth skyrocket.

3) Surviving a live birth despite complications drastically reduces the viability of the next pregnancy. You’re trying to downplay 500 deaths for every 100,000 births but seem to be forgetting not only that women are capable of getting pregnant more than once in life but are often expected to whether they like it or not. . Your own “logic” about raping little girls is disguised as trying to maximize the number of pregnancies to get out of them. And each pregnancy, even a perfectly healthy one, adds a compounding probability of something going wrong in the next. And with that in mind? A woman’s lifetime chance of dying in childbirth in sub-Saharan Africa is 1 in 39, not one out of the thousands you’re trying to trick people into thinking it is. And again the cumulative damage from a pregnancy is quite predictably more extensive to someone whose body hasn’t even finished developing preventing that development from finishing as it was meant to and thus is FAR DEADLIER TO A CHILD especially if you figure ‘alive’ is all you need to try and have a second or third go. It’s the leading cause of death for women in an area plagued by poverty, war, AIDS, rapists, and dipshits spreading disinformation that exacerbates all four of those things while pretending their agenda is about morality the way you pretend your agenda is about marriage or God or population growth or anything other than exerting your dominance over little girls who can’t fight you off.

“then the even if they represent a higher proportion of that 0.2 percent it does not make a strong case against pubescent women marrying. Instead we can respond with that fact that at least 99.8 percent of pubescent women worldwide will survive their pregnancies.”

No, you cannot! YOU JUST ALLOWED that they might be an larger than average portion of .2 percent. That means
1) You CANNOT say 99.8 of pubescent mothers will survive, as a fact, not even as a hope.
2) You’re willing to DOOM a certain (unspecified) portion of future mothers to death.
Which makes me think you’re not flogging pubescent women marrying for the benefit of the women.
It can only mean you, or your target demographic, wants to pork girls.
A practice that WILL get some of them pregnant, and thus WILL actually KILL some of them.

Hell, the US has some of the worst rates of pregnancy-related deaths. The answer to that is either less sex or LOTS of money spent on health care for women.
I assume neither one sits well with you.

I see you're playing games with statistics again. Instead of dealing with region specific statistics that would put the lie to your claim it's safe for pubescent girls to have children of their own, you simply use global statistics - and not very well. Other posters here have already pointed out what you've done so I won't rehash that. Instead, I'll question your motives. What motivates a grown ass man to want to marry a child? The answer is control. You have no right to that, no matter how you interpret documents eons old.

A difference somewhere within the 2 percent range between two groups of women having their children survive is not a strong argument against pubescent women marrying.

It is if you value women and children.

Blessed be the fruit! Then if the young mother dies from childbirth, this is just fortunes of war, right? GTFO, paedo!

Pubescent Women

AKA girls. As in, not adults for somewhere between half a decade and a decade yet.

When we acknowledge the fact that only 2 percent of all elephants are african elephants and even if elephants from africa make up more of that 2 percent than elephants from asia, we can rightly say elephants from africa have at least a 98 percent chance of not being african elephants.

Replaced the words to make sure everyone realizes what kind of self defeating argument is being made here

"Biblical gender roles" is obviously not a web site to obtain credible scientific information from. It starts from ideology then attempts to justify it using both old human tradition and pseudoscientific arguments, like the misrepresentation of statistics. While forced and early marriage still exists, in a society where girls have access to education and have better prospects, it would be unacceptable to return to such practices.

Other commenters told us about medical arguments but what about the psychological readiness of a girl to raise children?

I'm fine with removing the pedo flag. It makes sense. But I can still say, look at this guy, right?

Look at this guy.

No amount of statistics will hide the fact that you want to fuck little girls. You want to be allowed to buy a child and rape her, and if she dies in childbirth then you just shrug and buy another one. You don't actually care about the viability of the pregnancy, any health consequences for the child-mother or the health of the resulting infant, all you want is to be legally allowed to buy a child and rape her.