Political Crossfire Forums

[AmericaFirst]

steen wrote: Yes, bronze-age beduin societies were not big on women's rights, were they? Now, today you would be hard presssed to find anybody outside of the pro-life community accepting grown, independent women as property. You ARE joking right? What, do you live in a BOX? Women are considered PROPERTY in most places outside the United States and abortion is rampant - China - if it isn't a boy, kill it. Wow, that is sad if you believe this is a "pro-life" issue.

steen wrote: Quote: In terms of the fact that a father had rights to dispose of his children as he saw fit (including selling them into slavery) a woman who denied her husband his rights as a patriarch would be as guilty as the men who strove against her and caused miscarriage. And should also be duly punished, one would expect. Those were the rules back then, yes. And, if I remember right, the principle of setting any kid under 40 days out for the hyenas if it had deformities etc, was also relatively common.

Having an abortion of what would become a healthy child because it is an INCONVENIENCE and an INFRINGEMENT on WOMEN'S RIGHTS is better than the hyena how?

[steen]

AmericaFirst wrote: steen wrote: AmericaFirst wrote: Coral wrote: The abortion debate is an important one to everyone. If the government can force people to give birth they can get away with trashing just about any right you presently take for granted. Force people to give birth - wow, what a bizzare and troubling statement. I am pleased that you have concerns over this pro-life goal. As hard as it must be for you to comprehend, some people actually believe it is a JOY to have a child - and not just us evil, "oppressive" males. Odd self-characterization. That aside, some people indeed find parenthood and/or pregnancy a joy. The majority, in fact. But some obviously don't. SO I am not sure what it is you find it hard for me to believe?

Quote: As a father (of soon to be two), I CANNOT COMPREHEND "terminating" a life. Yeah, I know, I'm a guy, it's a womans "right" :roll: I have no right to have an opinion - heard it all before. Quote: You can have an opinion all you want. And if you don't like abortions, don't have one. No new material? Didn't think so. Likewise.

Quote: I have NO say over what someone else does unless it somehow effects me. That said, it is none of my business except for the callous disregard SOME people have for human life. Quote: Yes, some pro-lifers are so incredibly callous that they unfeelingly argue for the enslavement and oppression of women. I share your disgust with such a misogynistic disregard for women's rights. Womens rights. Huh. So, a man and a woman have sex, she becomes pregnant. It is her RIGHT to kill the life in her - the guy has NO say. It is her right to control what happens to her bodily resources

Quote: A guy and a woman have sex, she gets pregnant and has the child - the man provides financial support. 5 years later he has a paternity test and finds out the kid isn't his and a judge FORCES him to keep paying for it, despite the irrefutable evidence. A problem with the legal system. What is the relevance here? Most pregnancies (Since you used the "most" as valid foundation for generalization) are in families that stay together, and where the father finds it a joy to contribute to their kids wellbeing (Since you are into the joy thing).

Quote: Yeah - rights. Great. Glad to see they only apply ONE WAY. I know it doesn't happen that often but if fair was fair, IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN AT ALL! Agreed.

Quote: I know for some women, probably a lot (if not most) of them, it is a horrible "decision" to have to make. My stance against abortion is not the fact that I find it morally and ethically reprehensible, which I do. Quote: And which, of course, would have no bearing on the attitude, rights and actions of other persons, yes. If you'll get off your high horse for a minute, Huh? :cry:

Quote: you'll see the topic of this thread is essentially "why do you have the views on abortion that you do". Now don't you feel silly for being so self-righteous and smug? This is what I don't get about pro-lifers. If anybody dare top disagree with them, they are accused of being self-righteous and smug. Why is that?

Quote: 46 MILLION MURDERS A YEAR AND YOU MOCK MY POINTS - you really, truly need serious psychiatric help. Mock your point? I disagree with you. :roll: Anyway, abortion is not murder, so your claim is inanely off-track.

Quote: I don't push for more birth control because people don't use it. "Forget" to take it, men decry the feeling of a condom, "it'll be ok just this once" So better education and more birth control might turn some of that around. But I find it telling that you DON'T push for this. Hmm...

Quote: That is a LAME argument and if you had half an idea of what you are talking about beyond "asserting womens rights" you would know that. Ah, more personal attack. :roll:

Quote: And WHY the latter is is of concern to me is because of the HUGE number of people with illegitimiate kids COSTS ME MONEY. Ah, I should have known. It was not out of concern for the wellbeing of others but solely about your wallet. Yes, now I recognize the conservative in you.

Quote: You liberals whine about the war or government spending (which I disagree with right along side you) but have NO problem shelling out cash to support people who aren't in control enough or don't care enough to not have kids they can't support. Hey, they are "life" after all. They are members of the society you live in. If you want to improve society, you have to bring others up to you.

[Selfish_Meme]

AmericaFirst wrote: Anyway, the same logic can be applied to the abortion issue. People (yes, women AND men) are careless and thoughtless in their words and actions. HUGE numbers of abortions happen because as a society we have become FAR too promiscuous and permissive. Parents ALLOW their 13 and 14 year old kids to have sex and think it's "cute". Kids are "dating" and "going steady" in elementary school - absurd. I am 40, my wife is 34. Things are a LOT different even from when she was in school to when I was in school.
I have to disagree with you here, I am pretty confident that people aren't anymore promiscuous, but society has changed a lot over the last 200 years.

A. Historically until very recently most girls were married off before they were 20, usually in arranged marriages.
B. The Victorians during their age introduced the 'there is something sinful about sex morality'. Pregnancy in unmarried girls before that was only seen as something the upper classes had a problem with. Which was why they were sent to the 'country'. Also men were made to marry women they impregnated.

Our society has changed. Womens increase in rights has led to better opportunities and better lives for them. However it also has consequences that our male dominated society hasn't dealt with well. I don't think the human race as a whole is more promiscuous, or careless. I would guess that most people take precautions when having sex, especially with the diseases going round. However they are'nt 100% effective as I have found out.

[steen]

AmericaFirst wrote: You ARE joking right? What, do you live in a BOX? Women are considered PROPERTY in most places outside the United States and abortion is rampant - China - if it isn't a boy, kill it. Wow, that is sad if you believe this is a "pro-life" issue. Hehe. Most people, incl. the women in question, are objecting.

Quote: In terms of the fact that a father had rights to dispose of his children as he saw fit (including selling them into slavery) a woman who denied her husband his rights as a patriarch would be as guilty as the men who strove against her and caused miscarriage. And should also be duly punished, one would expect. Quote: Those were the rules back then, yes. And, if I remember right, the principle of setting any kid under 40 days out for the hyenas if it had deformities etc, was also relatively common. Having an abortion of what would become a healthy child because it is an INCONVENIENCE and an INFRINGEMENT on WOMEN'S RIGHTS is better than the hyena how? Sure it is. Non-sentient, non-sensate tissue doesn't suffer. And it allows women to NOT have to go through the dangerous pregnancy first. That is A LOT better.

[cassandrabandra]

Quote: Well, if you want the number to go down, I suggest you start advocating for much better, earlier and more scientifically accurate sex-ed. And then you can push for better, more available and cheaper (or free) contraception.

its about more than sex ed and access to contraceptive actually. its also about a whole range of other issues including self esteem, self image, confidence, fear ... it goes on. You need to do a lot more than sex ed. You need comprehensive personal effectiveness programmes that include goal setting, decisionmaking and assertiveness.

Quote:
And finally, you can puch for better support of pregnant women.

and support for parents (social and emotional as much if not more than financial)

Quote: And WHY the latter is is of concern to me is because of the HUGE number of people with illegitimiate kids COSTS ME MONEY. You liberals whine about the war or government spending (which I disagree with right along side you) but have NO problem shelling out cash to support people who aren't in control enough or don't care enough to not have kids they can't support.

how much is spent on welfare ... and how much is spent on the war machine ... come to think of it, how many subsidies and tax breaks are available to companies and individuals who are already advantaged?

Do you have downward envy?

[steen]

cassandrabandra wrote: Quote: Well, if you want the number to go down, I suggest you start advocating for much better, earlier and more scientifically accurate sex-ed. And then you can push for better, more available and cheaper (or free) contraception. its about more than sex ed and access to contraceptive actually. its also about a whole range of other issues including self esteem, self image, confidence, fear ... it goes on. You need to do a lot more than sex ed. You need comprehensive personal effectiveness programmes that include goal setting, decisionmaking and assertiveness. Agreed.

Quote: Quote: And finally, you can puch for better support of pregnant women. and support for parents (social and emotional as much if not more than financial) Again, agreed.

[cassandrabandra]

AmericaFirst wrote: steen wrote: Yes, bronze-age beduin societies were not big on women's rights, were they? Now, today you would be hard presssed to find anybody outside of the pro-life community accepting grown, independent women as property. You ARE joking right? What, do you live in a BOX? Women are considered PROPERTY in most places outside the United States and abortion is rampant - China - if it isn't a boy, kill it. Wow, that is sad if you believe this is a "pro-life" issue.

steen wrote: Quote: In terms of the fact that a father had rights to dispose of his children as he saw fit (including selling them into slavery) a woman who denied her husband his rights as a patriarch would be as guilty as the men who strove against her and caused miscarriage. And should also be duly punished, one would expect. Those were the rules back then, yes. And, if I remember right, the principle of setting any kid under 40 days out for the hyenas if it had deformities etc, was also relatively common.

Having an abortion of what would become a healthy child because it is an INCONVENIENCE and an INFRINGEMENT on WOMEN'S RIGHTS is better than the hyena how?

actually you raise an interesting point here. In India the ratio of second girls is extremely low - especially among the educated and urban classes. People use ultrasound to sex select babies - and the impact this will have in the future is already being seen in China.

That said, however - it is true that using the bible as a guide of how things should be done is fraught with problems. women were property, and much of what we read in relation to women and children is totally out of kilter with a modern industrialised democracy.

edit: but I for one would prefer women to abort than to have villagers suffocate newborn girls by filling their mouths and noses with sand, as still happens in Rajasthan.

[cassandrabandra]

Selfish_Meme wrote: AmericaFirst wrote: Anyway, the same logic can be applied to the abortion issue. People (yes, women AND men) are careless and thoughtless in their words and actions. HUGE numbers of abortions happen because as a society we have become FAR too promiscuous and permissive. Parents ALLOW their 13 and 14 year old kids to have sex and think it's "cute". Kids are "dating" and "going steady" in elementary school - absurd. I am 40, my wife is 34. Things are a LOT different even from when she was in school to when I was in school.
I have to disagree with you here, I am pretty confident that people aren't anymore promiscuous, but society has changed a lot over the last 200 years.

A. Historically until very recently most girls were married off before they were 20, usually in arranged marriages.
B. The Victorians during their age introduced the 'there is something sinful about sex morality'. Pregnancy in unmarried girls before that was only seen as something the upper classes had a problem with. Which was why they were sent to the 'country'. Also men were made to marry women they impregnated.

Our society has changed. Womens increase in rights has led to better opportunities and better lives for them. However it also has consequences that our male dominated society hasn't dealt with well. I don't think the human race as a whole is more promiscuous, or careless. I would guess that most people take precautions when having sex, especially with the diseases going round. However they are'nt 100% effective as I have found out.

Its interesting if you look at economic history - you find an increased illegitimacy rate in periods of economic uncertainty. If there is an increase in illegitimacy at all, as AF suggests, it may be related to huge disparities in income as much as anything else ... something I wondered if anyone would bring up when I mentioned SES as a variable that should be considered when looking at who has abortions.

Incidentally, those groups who are more highly represented among teenage pregnancies include those from low SES backgrounds , and in the US especially, those belonging to scertain racial and ethnic minorities who experience significant economic disdavantage.

Most figures I have seen suggest increasing income and wealth disparity in the US, which may be a contributing factor in rising illegitimacy - if it exists.

[cadillacricket]

steen wrote: cadillacricket wrote: So according to Exodus a miscarriage (the death of an unborn fetus) is punishable with fines even if "no harm follows"? Yes, No harm to the woman, the one who actually matter here.

Quote: Wouldn't that mean that the old testament frowns upon abortion (also the death of an unborn fetus)? Only as a loss of value, a loss of property. You can get rid of property all you want, but others can't take it from you. That's all.

If you can't actually proove that this is what is meant by this passage in the bible you had better keep quiet.....

Would you mind prooving this? The only way I can think to do that is to find the guy who wrote the passage originally, or do you claim to converse with God himself?

[AmericaFirst]

Cassandrabandra - interesting theory but what point does it prove? You can't honestly be saying that being poor causes people to get pregnant as teenagers? My parents both grew up during the depression - they had NOTHING and NOTHING was done "for them" - they waited until they were financially able to afford children before having them.

My wife and I didn't have children until I was 36 and she was 30. A bit older than most these days but we waited until we could AFFORD to provide for our children. We are not rich- FAR from it. We sacrifice a LOT to have my wife stay home with our kids and not be a 2-income family. I drive a 7 year old Chevy and my wife drives a 9 year old Toyota, we haven't been on vacation since our honeymoon and we live in an old house in DIRE need of updating (including a 50 year old furnace and horrible, faded 40 year old aluminum siding and extensive remodeling). We fix what we can on it OURSELVES. We sacrifice but are glad to do so in order to have the basics.

My mantra - one I am SURE will be mocked incessantly - "if you can't afford them or are unwillingly to take care of them, DON'T have ONE child, let alone 3, 4 or 7...!!!! If you do, don't expect me to pick up your slack"

[Selfish_Meme]

AmericaFirst wrote: Cassandrabandra - interesting theory but what point does it prove? You can't honestly be saying that being poor causes people to get pregnant as teenagers? My parents both grew up during the depression - they had NOTHING and NOTHING was done "for them" - they waited until they were financially able to afford children before having them.

My wife and I didn't have children until I was 36 and she was 30. A bit older than most these days but we waited until we could AFFORD to provide for our children. We are not rich- FAR from it. We sacrifice a LOT to have my wife stay home with our kids and not be a 2-income family. I drive a 7 year old Chevy and my wife drives a 9 year old Toyota, we haven't been on vacation since our honeymoon and we live in an old house in DIRE need of updating (including a 50 year old furnace and horrible, faded 40 year old aluminum siding and extensive remodeling). We fix what we can on it OURSELVES. We sacrifice but are glad to do so in order to have the basics.

My mantra - one I am SURE will be mocked incessantly - "if you can't afford them or are unwillingly to take care of them, DON'T have ONE child, let alone 3, 4 or 7...!!!! If you do, don't expect me to pick up your slack"
Were you or she virgins?

[cassandrabandra]

AmericaFirst wrote: Cassandrabandra - interesting theory but what point does it prove? You can't honestly be saying that being poor causes people to get pregnant as teenagers? My parents both grew up during the depression - they had NOTHING and NOTHING was done "for them" - they waited until they were financially able to afford children before having them.

My wife and I didn't have children until I was 36 and she was 30. A bit older than most these days but we waited until we could AFFORD to provide for our children. We are not rich- FAR from it. We sacrifice a LOT to have my wife stay home with our kids and not be a 2-income family. I drive a 7 year old Chevy and my wife drives a 9 year old Toyota, we haven't been on vacation since our honeymoon and we live in an old house in DIRE need of updating (including a 50 year old furnace and horrible, faded 40 year old aluminum siding and extensive remodeling). We fix what we can on it OURSELVES. We sacrifice but are glad to do so in order to have the basics.

My mantra - one I am SURE will be mocked incessantly - "if you can't afford them or are unwillingly to take care of them, DON'T have ONE child, let alone 3, 4 or 7...!!!! If you do, don't expect me to pick up your slack"

There are statistics that show that during times of greater social inequity the levels of bastardy are higher. from the 1840's there was a decline in Britain from a rate of 6.8 to 4.0 around 1900. It began to climb again early last century. There are other graphs that show similar trends in family disintegraion, alcohol abuse, homicide, suicide, violent assault etc ... some going back several hundred years. There are correlations between all these and higher rates of poverty.

Family disintegration is particularly relevant when talking about teenagers and sexual activity.

You may think you are poor by todays standards, but really, compared to people in the lower quintiles of your society you are not. The depression was a period when there was also a great deal of family disintegration, I've seen stats somewhere on that, too ...

I know its tempting to judge others by our own experiences, however experience has taught me that the ones who can maintain their 'integrity' as a family unit generally are those who have good resources. Here I am not just talking material - but inner, personal, psychological and emotional resources as well. There are many who don't have that, and those who experience intergenerational poverty tend to have lower levels of these non tangible resources than most of us. Assisting people to build these up is one way of preventing the cycle continuing into the next generation.

In particular, I think young women especially who lack these inner resources are extremely vulnerable in the highly sexualized consumption oriented society we live in. They often represent themselves as 'products' or consumption items without even realising this is what they are doing. A self concept that was deeper than one based on appearance and defined by relationships with males would afford some degree of autonomy that would reduce the incidence of sexual risk taking.

[AmericaFirst]

Selfish_Meme wrote: AmericaFirst wrote: Cassandrabandra - interesting theory but what point does it prove? You can't honestly be saying that being poor causes people to get pregnant as teenagers? My parents both grew up during the depression - they had NOTHING and NOTHING was done "for them" - they waited until they were financially able to afford children before having them.

My wife and I didn't have children until I was 36 and she was 30. A bit older than most these days but we waited until we could AFFORD to provide for our children. We are not rich- FAR from it. We sacrifice a LOT to have my wife stay home with our kids and not be a 2-income family. I drive a 7 year old Chevy and my wife drives a 9 year old Toyota, we haven't been on vacation since our honeymoon and we live in an old house in DIRE need of updating (including a 50 year old furnace and horrible, faded 40 year old aluminum siding and extensive remodeling). We fix what we can on it OURSELVES. We sacrifice but are glad to do so in order to have the basics.

My mantra - one I am SURE will be mocked incessantly - "if you can't afford them or are unwillingly to take care of them, DON'T have ONE child, let alone 3, 4 or 7...!!!! If you do, don't expect me to pick up your slack"
Were you or she virgins?

Neither of us :shock: I said that in an earlier post. I think I know where you are going. Yes, we both used protection. I'm a Christian but not a Catholic - although I know pre-marital sex is considered wrong for anyone. Never said I was perfect.

It is MY OPINION that there are FAR too many people out there having casual sex with no thought for the consequences - i.e., too interested in "getting busy" to bother with birth control...

[steen]

AmericaFirst wrote: It is MY OPINION that there are FAR too many people out there having casual sex with no thought for the consequences - i.e., too interested in "getting busy" to bother with birth control... But then, by last CDC data, something like almost 60% of abortions were of unwanted pregnancies after the use of contraception.