liberalization and the broadening of women's reprodutive freedoms, especially in terms of a woman's right to choose and the issue of contraception? What makes some conservative men view a woman's greater reproductive freedom and/or choice is an affront to "morality" and "family values"?
Let's us go beyond the purview of women's reproductive choice, the very thought of women assuming more dominant roles in terms of their personal lives and careers are viewed by some conservative men as a threat and affront to the OLD ORDER. Let's discuss this.
First off, there are plenty of women who do not support abortion too. Democrats have done well to make this a man versus women issue, but in reality, it isn't that way. It's a difference of belief, not gender. Further, the majority of conservatives don't want to intercede in personal decisions of contraception. We consider that to be a personal choice, a choice that has nothing to do with the government.
Conservatives don't want to take rights away from women; they believe that abortion is murder. Thus, it is wrong. Should we not try to protect children? Should we allow the murder of some people but not others? Please tell me how you can tell when a fetus becomes a person. We set arbitrary, man-made guidelines. Conservatives reject these guidelines and instead believe that human life begins at conception. If you don't want to call a fetus a baby, would you be willing to call it human life? How can anybody willingly support the termination of human life? Conservative men, and women for that matter, have no problem with women doing whatever they want with their bodies as long as it doesn't harm another person. Abortion harms another person, another human life.
Well said. When it comes to abortion the liberals have tried to turn it into "women.s reproductive rights" in a mud slinging effort to paint conservatives a woman haters, but it is not and never has been.
And those wishing to make personal choices for everyone in the matter of contraception are few and far between - hardly worth discussing.
EA, this was a fair and accurate comment on your part. This is a controversy that seems to have no solution. The extremes of using abortion as birth control verses the view of life beginning at conception and all that it implies regarding being female in this country. I have said that Roe vs Wade is a fair compromise, but obviously that is not good enough among many found in conservative circles of thought.
The reality is that what is desired by those on the far right can never be attained to in the current political climate (nobody is in the mood for another prohibition sort of amendment from Washington). The 'human life' amendments and such go down to defeat with far too many progressively leaning states not buying it. We know that patchwork approaches, abortion banned in some states, yet permitted in others is not going to work. Women can take the RU-486 and terminate a pregnancy, how do we stop women from taking pills, or moving to another state to have a procedure done?
Just seems like the battle lines are firmly marked with no armistice coming anytime soon.
In the book, Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 by Neil Howe and William Strauss, both authors predicted that there was going to be a divide between Conservatives and Liberals over sociopolitical issues. This has come to fruition.
It is psychological and psychic civil war if you will. Credence2, do YOU believe that the schism between the Conservative and Liberal elements in the United States will become even wider? It will and it WON'T be pretty at all!
The Russian-German war in World War II will be kindergarten play in comparison to this schismatic war between Conversative and Liberal elements. Neither side is going to grant any quarter to the other side. The Liberals are winning and that does not seat too well with many Conservatives.
Unfortunately, Grace, I do believe that the opposing ideological poles will be more intractable, as middle ground is disappearing in politics and at my neighbor's house. The schism between people probably has no match since the Civil War. It is not pretty now, gridlock in Congress where at one time compromise could be found in even the most challenging of national issues. From fears of a structural welfare state to those that would kill abortion providers and torch their places of business, where is moderation?
I am concerned that what is currently psychological and psychic, can an will become quite tangible and real.
How many states applied for secession from the current union? When was the last time you saw that since the 20th century began? Yes, I too think that the left is winning by shrouding itself in reasonableness as opposed to the other side. But, we are all going to have to gather around the center if we are to survive as a society.
"Just seems like the battle lines are firmly marked with no armistice coming anytime soon."
Why, Credence? Why is that true (and it is)?
Because the far right refuse to accept theirs is only an opinion and that it is no better than anyone else's? Because their invisible friend is infallible and has given orders to everyone, not just the believers?
Because the left is 100% tied up with the idea of "women's reproductive rights", and refuses the entertain or discuss the obvious truth that somewhere along the line it becomes murder? Because it has become such a political tool to throw mud on the right, about a non-existent "war on women"?
Because both sides are SO fearful of losing even a tiny part of what they have? Because both sides continue to fight to gain more? Because neither side is interested in compromise or peace in the country?
What is it about this issue that is so dividing our culture that neither side will even speak to the other?
I sit firmly on the fence in this matter but it constantly amazes me that those who are most vocal against abortion are also the most vocal when it comes to depriving the born children of any sort of quality of life and quite often even wish death on them.
Those that let programs that provide emergency nutrition support for infants lapse during the government shutdown and constantly try and cut them altogether?
Those that think insurance companies should have the right to refuse support to children with congenital illness even when both parents have full coverage with them?
I could go on.
If the Republicans are to blame for that deed, then let them take the blame.
It doesn't seem like any one, democrat or republican, has an actual stance on abortion. The minute he runs for office, his stance changes as soon as he is advised to do so.
I say, we just forget all the titles, pro-life/abortionist and just start taking care of each other.
Your new avatar seems to have brought out your serious side.
I hope the "foil of the forums" Beth37 isn't lost. I'm not used to you advocating campfire sing-alongs.
. . .those who think that government assistance is the solution to poverty?
There are two sides to that coin.
It has become an issue where only emotion, not reason or logic, has any say in the matter. Which results in what you see, as well as the implied statement that because someone has a double X chromosome they have the right to kill as they choose.
Both sides are typically completely free of sense. Just anger, hatred and crazy accusations about the other side. As if those (false) accusations (of evil and control) are going to convince anyone to swap sides!
This argument is just as bad as the "War on Women's Reproductive Rights" argument. I know of absolutely no conservatives, or liberals for that matter, who wish for death or a poor quality of life for a child. I find your statement repugnant and directed at scoring points, a typical argument liberals use to make conservatives seem heartless. It's all politics.
They maybe don't wish it but there very thoughts and actions promote it.
What thoughts and what actions would that be, that promotes a poor quality of life or death to children?
Oh you know, little things like slashing budgets for child nutrition, slashing child tax credits and then when your children grow older sending them off to fight pointless wars, that sort of thing.
Ah. You refer to allowing parents to feed from the public trough rather than support their children.
But that, of course, teaches the adult the child will become to do the same thing, perpetuating a system that will inevitably drag the entire country down.
Still, I guess it's good thinking...for a liberal unconcerned about the future.
A classic example proving my point.
I would say that a liberal (though I'm not in the sense that we know liberals) concerned for the health and education of their children rather than being unconcerned for the future is very concerned for the future.
But then you are a Christian and believe, I suppose, in visiting the sins of the father on to the children
LOL - I make a very poor Christian.
But they aren't concerned for the health and education of the disadvantaged children of their society. They are primarily concerned with maintaining control, and there can be no more effective tool that to addict them to "free" money while at the same time driving down those footing the bills by taking ever more.
The only future they are concerned about is their own; how can I exert more control over more people? Of course there are lots of honest liberals, falling for the PC line from their masters, but they wield no real power.
. . .in your opinion.
Yep, hand out more printed or borrowed money. That's the solution, the only solution!
It's not the only solution but how then would you feed the hungry children?
The short-term solution is assistance. The real solution is jobs or further education for the parents. Giving perpetual handouts isn't helpful or compassionate; it's part of the problem. We need to help people get off of assistance and become financially independent.
Yes, the real solution is jobs, but what jobs? Flipping burgers at a minimum wage or minimum wage at Wal Mart? In case you hadn't noticed there are not enough jobs to go round.
We've already decided that governments can't create jobs and private companies have no desire to create jobs so where are the jobs to come from?
Further education is a great idea as well, but who pays?
When I went to college, I got scholarships, loans, and a job. My dad took on a second job, and he tried to assist whenever possible. It was difficult, but I didn't expect the government to pay for my education. When I found a job, I actually paid my debts, something that seems foreign to many students who seem to be part of a generation of entitlement.
Somebody has to flip burgers. I, in fact, flipped burgers while going to college. By the end, I had moved up to manager. The owner of the restaurant offered a salary that was significantly larger than what I was going to earn teaching. You can work your way up the ladder with hard work.
There are many jobs. In Arizona, we see a lot of jobs go to illegal aliens; some of those jobs are in construction and other fields that actually pay pretty well. As a teacher, I educate some of their children and I can tell you that many of these people who come to America earn more money than I do. Others aren't too far off the mark. Meanwhile, Americans are looking for jobs. It's like putting food on your neighbor's plate while your own child is starving.
Our government can do a lot of things to promote job creation. Obamacare is a job killer. High corporate taxes is a job killer. Generational public assistance is a job killer. Meanwhile, our government's solution is to borrow and print more money to give to people, killing any incentive for these same people to find work or better their own ability to earn more money.
But scholarships are other peoples money too aren't they?
How many children did you have while flipping burgers to pay your way through college?
Remember this discussion was about feeding children.
I had no children, but my parents had two when they went to college and did the same thing.
People can do whatever they want to do with their own money. If they want to offer it as scholarships, great.
Yeah, I remember it's about feeding children. I also know that printing or borrowing money to help these children is a myopic solution, one that perpetuates the problem when it's not coupled with job promotion. We need both a short-term and long-term solution, something that seems to evade the Left. It's not compassionate to addict people to government assistance.
Well I'm of the left and the need to provide jobs with long and short term solutions does not elude me!
You've yet to tell me where you think these much needed jobs are going to come from.
That's not true. I already gave a starting point. I said that Obamacare is a job killer. Having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world is a job killer. Perpetual government assistance is a job killer. I also spoke about how illegal immigration is taking jobs away from Americans.
Where will the jobs come from? They come from businesses that are able to thrive when the government makes smart decisions that actually promote job creation in the private sector.
Corporations don't actually pay tax though do they? Well they seem to manage to void it in the UK anyway.
Corporate tax rate in the UK is 23% but guess what? We've no jobs either!
Perpetual government assistance is a product of the capitalist system that requires profits to be private but losses to be borne by the public.
Yes, most corporations pay taxes. Avoiding taxes isn't a cheap endeavor. However, if corporations are able to avoid paying taxes, that's a problem with the government's tax code. Stop blaming the corporations and get to the heart of the problem, a flawed tax code that allows this to happen.
"Perpetual government assistance is a product of the capitalist system that requires profits to be private but losses to be borne by the public."
This isn't capitalism. This is your view of capitalism and a bastardized version of what capitalism has become in some countries. This is, in fact, what conservatives who love capitalism don't want. Most true conservatives were unhappy with President Bush and Obama for bailing out businesses. We felt that they were given a free pass and a handout for making poor, risky decisions. Now, we also understood that something had to be done to save the world's economy, but absorbing the financial failures of corporations wasn't favored enthusiastically among capitalist-loving conservatives.
More government regulation! You surprise me. Especially when you call for more government regulation to counter act a lack of morality or at least social responsibility..
I'm glad you don't see the recipients of government assistance as purely the underprivileged but what would you had the government do? The wholesale failure of banks would have had repercussions far beyond the bank itself. The resultant bankruptcy of many otherwise profitable small businesses would have been even more devastating to the economy, not to mention the bankruptcy of millions of individuals. No, I don't like the failures of government to properly regulate the banking industry, but I would have liked the unfettered consequences even less.
Yes, I sadly agree that the government had to do something; it did have to help some of these businesses survive. Our tax dollars should have had greater stipulations and consequence; we should have been more interested in seeing whether some of these corporations could have survived by cutting assets and getting private loans when feasible. We should have allowed some businesses to fail. If you mismanage your business, you run the risk of bankruptcy. Government bailouts should always be the last resort. We had too much waste with the government funds, too many people taking business vacations, perks, and checks. Tax dollars were given too willingly and without enough consequence. Businesses learned that if they are "too big to fail," they can do whatever they wish, and the government will bail them out. That's a bad message. The little man may have been able to keep his job, but the people at the top, too often, prospered from financial disaster.
Which is why tax rises have lifted unemployment in the past right? And why tax reductions have increased economic growth right?
Except well.. the opposite is true. Well there goes that theory.
“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/docume … 0Rates.pdf
Yep, this site is overwhelming proof that we should tax every rich person until they are living under a bridge behind a convenience store. The Left loves to think that all conservatives talk about is protecting the rich. I spend most of my time speaking about the average person, you know the ones who can't seem to find jobs and feel like they're being pressed into the lower class? How has tax policy worked under our current president? We have a shrinking middle class and a growing lower class. The rich are getting richer, and our country just raised taxes on those bad, rich people. I guess that means that the rich need another tax increase? That system is great!
Did I say any of those things?
All I did was show there is no correlation in US history between reduced taxes and prosperity but THERE IS a correlation between lower taxes and greater inequality.
Thus proving your statement was incorrect or at least the opposite of what the evidence suggests.
SO yeah historically speaking those taxes on "evil rich people" will reduce inequality from where it would otherwise be but not reduce prosperity.
But this is the usual facts vs. dogma and strawman argument.
Go ahead and tax all the rich people into oblivion, and when they're broke, let's see if we have a balanced budget. There aren't enough rich people; that's why taxes increase for the middle class too. Last January, federal taxes increased by an average of two percent for the middle class. How's that working out for the average person?
Column: Why tax increases don't work
"On the contrary, years of data from around the world show that when nations try to solve a fiscal crisis primarily by raising tax revenues, they tend to fail. In contrast, fiscal approaches based on entitlement reform and spending cuts tend to succeed."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 … k/1746531/
Why Buffett’s Plan To Tax the Rich Won’t Fix the Debt
"In the op-ed, Buffett calls for higher taxes from the rich, to ostensibly bridge the massive U.S. debt gap, which stands at $14.3 trillion this month. But that’s one bridge that could stand too far – even if Uncle Sam went sifting through the Bottega Veneta wallets of every millionaire in the country.
But the U.S. Debt Clock also says that the U.S. national debt is rising, on average, by $3.95 billion per day since September 28, 2007. If Buffett were to offer his estimated $47 billion to the I.R.S. (which he, or any citizen who wants to contribute money to the government can do here), the federal government would use the Buffett fortune up in about 12 days."
http://business.time.com/2011/08/16/why … wont-work/
An opinion column citing a "study" by a conservative think tank of selectively chosen nations...
And another opinion piece.
Meanwhile the 65 year study by a nonpartisan body which uses the US is ignored.
That is pretty typical.
You're still referring to the Hungerford study, a study that was withdrawn by the same government entity that made it?
You like to claim that my sources are opinion or biased, but then you cite a study that was clearly conducted by and named for a man that is highly biased.
Mr. Hungerford contributed at least $5,000 to a combination of Mr. Obama’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
That is pretty typical.
I got married when I was 17. Not b/c I had to, but b/c I fell in love with my best friend. A year and a half later we had our first kid. We made less than $10,000 a year for the 3 of us (in 1987.) My husband worked and went to school. I worked until the baby came then stayed home with her. I was 21 by the time my second came. We have never been rich, but we have always made it. I have never flipped a burger for pay (you make it sound as if those who do are prostituting themselves) but I've had several jobs that didn't challenge me or pay well. Such is life. We have 4 kids. My two that are grown are very respectable, hard working members of society and my two younger ones... are the sweetest babies in the world. My 3rd came along when I was 30 and my 4th was adopted from China when I was 33. How many reasons could you find for abortion in my story?
1) Young mother
2) Having children before college was complete
3) Poor family/couple
4) Possibility that couple, and children might not reach their potential
5) High probability that parents would divorce young
6) Entirely new and ever larger list for Chinese woman who gave birth to my daughter
There are always going to be reasons to have an abortion. But if a woman sleeps with a man, before they are ready to have children together, she knows the possibilities. We need to tell our youth that there are consequences to their actions. We can help them, we can love them, but we shouldn't create quick ways out, that leave them scarred emotionally and sometimes physically. We all know there are alternatives to killing the child. I just think we should stop offering excuses trying to legitimize our bad choices.
Sorry Beth but my argument had little to do with abortion either pro or anti beyond saying that those who opposed abortion tended to be among those who didn't give a monkeys about the children after they were born.
Which makes adoption a good choice for their actions.
Fine, but how do you work that? Government legislation?
Like everything, it starts at home. A parent should teach a child that there are consequences to our actions. If a child is going to have sex, they should know that pregnancy is a probability.
If my daughter got pregnant before she got married, I would tell her it would be her responsibility to raise the child while she finished her schooling. I would help her raise the child and if she didn't want the child, I would offer (I would most likely beg) to raise the child. If that was not acceptable, I would tell her that adoption was the last loving choice. Anything beyond that would leave one scarred woman and one dead child. If we didn't offer our kids a quick way out of their problems, but told them to take responsibility for their mistakes, they might mature into responsible adults.
That's all very noble but not everybody has our advantages. One size does not fit all.
How is taking a life ever a valuable solution?
Let's put it in different terms.
Woman has an affair. (Like a teen having premarital sex.)
Lover threatens to expose her to husband and children and "ruin" her life. (Baby will change the mother's life if she chooses to raise it.)
Woman has a choice. She must decide if she wants to face up to her actions, reveal her mistake and live with the consequences. (Like pregnant mother.)
Or woman can kill her lover and make the whole thing go away. (Like pregnant mother.)
Would the woman's life ever actually return to normal? Would she even survive the action? Would she be better off taking responsibility for her actions and seeking help where ever she can find it?
You're getting confused. I've never in my life argued in favour of abortion.
No, you've said that private business does not wish to expand and make more money. No one else.
And I don't really think that many people will believe that, either.
No, private business doesn't wish to expand and erode shareholders profits.
Tell me then, with a huge pool of unemployed why private business isn't expanding?
I would strongly suggest that you never try to run a business.
Apparently your idea of creating jobs is to hire people to do something that does not need doing and will not earn a profit. A healthy business does not do that.
Instead they look for new opportunities to earn from the labor of it's employees. New products, greater demand, taking market share from other companies, etc. Never, ever, simply pay people to do nothing out of a misguided effort to be liberal somehow. It will always fail.
Private business isn't expanding because it can't make a profit from the new employees, pure and simple. Perhaps the demand isn't there and the product can't be sold. Perhaps new employees (always expensive) come with such onerous government requirements that they will cost rather than provide profit. Whatever the reason, companies aren't intentionally lowering their bottom line to starve people. I never saw you for a conspiracy theorist, but this concept certainly borders on it.
Sorry, I've spent most of my life working for myself, running businesses if you like.
The rest of your post just confirms what I have been saying-businesses aren't in the business of providing jobs-they are in the business of creating profits.
Then why would you ever insinuate that hiring another employee will always result in falling profits? Did you go bankrupt every other year, from hiring unneeded employees?
You have no understand you do not hire without a need, and without an expected profit from the transaction. That doing so will kill the business, and that profit is not the ugly picture you pretend it to be. That profit is necessary to a business that provides jobs. That of course businesses are in the business of making money, not providing charity to the world - if they are to exist they have to see a profit.
Why would you pretend otherwise then? Why sneer at a company owner smart enough to earn a profit, keeping people at work by doing so?
When did I insinuate such a thing?
When have I ever claimed that employers should hire without need?
What am I pretending otherwise?
When you said hiring employees results in lower profits.
Why else would profits drop from hiring, unless it was without need?
You still claim that needing more employees earns the company less.
No, I said when hiring new employees reduces profit, similar but not the same.
One example of profits dropping as a result of hiring-the factory/office working at capacity without room to expand to hire more staff resulting in acquiring new premises with subsequent drop in profit.
Wilderness, why is the question. I don't know about you but I resent those that demand that we all live by the same subjective standards. For example, there are many that say that life begins at conception, those that want to legislate that observation are on the religious right side of the column. We all don't subscribe to the same religion, if not being an atheist or agnostic. Since many of us can look through the same spyglass and see either red or blue or shades in between, who among us corporal creatures has the right to impose his or her subjective viewpoint on the rest of us?
Where the right gets into trouble is its insistence in many states that Roe vs Wade needs to be overturned. I have not seen a faction of the left arguing for more leniency on this issue than what is provided in the landmark Court case. Why can't we leave it as it is? Whenever these states try to legislate more restrictions than that provided by Roe vs Wade, women are going to say that this is an imposition on their reproductive rights. I would, if I were female or even as a fellow, regard this an attack on Judicial precedent established 40 years ago. In THIS CASE, the activists are not on the left. Women just want to keep things from be rolled back by many of the states.
I afraid that this along with contentious issues like Gun control, gay marriage and such are going to have us all on extreme poles. If the past is any guide, say 50 years ago, Goldwater excepted, the two parties were much more in agreement and what ideological differences there were was minor. We all agreed to march arm in arm over issues of great national import, and not let petty differences bring the wheels of governance to a halt. Is it a trend, are we are all lacking in civility that was a given in public discourse not so long ago?
Two separate and distinct America's is in development.. Instead of the Blue and Gray, it is now the Blue and Red. We all may become ungovernable when no one is willing to compromise. There is the beginning of the end of the great American experiment. What's next, anarchy, revolution?
I hope you're wrong. Because my anecdotal evidence also says that most people are neither blue NOR red, but purple. Very few people agree with even half of their parties platform - they just disagree with the other one more strongly. We don't vote for a candidate anymore; we vote against the other.
So maybe it's mostly the politicians we need to whip into line. Maybe we CAN live together (for the most part - there will always be radicals) if we just reign them in, put some controls onto them.
I hope you're wrong, but I am not at all sure you are. The desire to control others is strong, and it is on both sides of the fence.
I know I am going to make a lot of generalizations and there are MANY exceptions to what I am going to write but that is not going to make my point. Conservative men are not ALL dogs As a man I have watched American men feel emasculated and marginalized. After WWII everything changed and men slowly felt themselves as “less than” because women were taking their jobs AND running the house, taking care of the children, etc. and doing very well. They were becoming millionaires and billionaires without our help. What they are busy doing now is trying to get their manhood back which is extremely important to white males and force women to return to the good old days when the little woman stayed at home while they conducted business. We don't want to change diapers , shop or clean. Women tell us we never do it right anyway. So why bother? It makes us feel like kept men when our paycheck is not enough to provide all those wonderful things spoken of when we were courting and before the children come on scene. Men think so long as they work 12-16 hour days to bring home the money she spends that should be enough for her to do all the things she is expected to do in a job that takes 18 hours of her day and still be ready for same kind of sex we had before the children came or when we were courting. They tend to marry according to their time clock and forget that we have one too. We are so close to having a final breakthru to a female president and are insane with the idea that it just may happen and why they are working so hard to smear Hillary before she even announces IF she is going to run. Men have problems sharing with other men let alone a woman. see part 2
Hanging on to the old order is all conservatives do...
That is why conservatives are generally older and whiter and male. Elderly people tend to cling to the past because change is scary and the "old order" was very beneficial to white men (and only white men) so they oppose any change to it.
The Left loves to claim that conservatives don't want change. They "prove" it by posting definitions of what conservative means. Great. Conservatives would love to see plenty of change and progress in the following areas:
Tax Policy That Is Less Restrictive
Less Government Regulation
Foreign Policy That Makes Sense
Greater Energy Production and Decreased Dependency on Foreign Countries
This list could continue and continue. Conservatives want plenty of change and progress. We just don't feel that all change is progress, and the Left doesn't feel that our ideology is progressive enough.
You just can't admit that conservatives want change too, can you?
My statement said that conservatives were afraid of changes to the "old order" and that they clung to it.
Your reply was that actually you wanted to go back to aspects of the "old order" that have already been dismantled...
Honestly you couldn't have proved my point any better.
But...not only are all of those change (in spite of Josak saying that change isn't change), as long as "progressive" means "proceeding to a better country" and not "whatever money a liberal wants to take from the working man" they are all progressive as well! All will produce a better country!
How could they ever say conservatives are not progressive when all they want is to progress to something better than what we have?
This is where I'm at:
While Im glad to hear that someone cares about the mother, there are two lives at stake, both of equal importance.
My husband used to go to an abortion clinic and stand outside with pamphlets for places like Crisis Pregnancy Cntr. He would hand each of the women a paper that stated that he and his wife (me) would be willing to love and adopt her child, would she consider that option in lieu of the abortion.
We have one adopted child and were at one time enrolled in the foster care program in hopes of adopting more, but that's when we had marital difficulties and decided to focus on fixing the marriage before we considered having more kids (obviously.)
I would never wish harm on anyone who is involved in abortion, let alone do something monstrous, like bomb a clinic (though killing babies is just as horrific, imo.) So please don't lump us all together; the extreme vigilantes with those who simply care for the welfare of ALL children, whether in utero or out.
And yet it isn't just the violent vigilantes (bordering on insanity); it is primarily those that care for the welfare of all children that is causing the problem. The ones standing outside clinics and hassling a woman with a ten day old foreign growth in her body and wanting it removed.
Because they refuse to consider that any opinion other than their own on what makes a person might be applicable. They have decided they have all the answer there and simply will not discuss the question except to "prove" their opinion. Compromise is impossible, refining that opinion is impossible. And the fight continues as a result.
You assume a lot. My husband is one of the most gentle ppl you've ever met. He is humble and unassuming. He approached women kindly and respectfully. His wife had been pregnant 3 times. He has 2 daughters. He understands, as well as any kind man, what a woman in that situation might be going thru. He was not there to invoke guilt, he was not there to fight or argue. He was there to offer a different way, out of respect for the child, in case the woman was looking for a last chance before she committed to a decision.
One such woman asked him to drive her to the crisis pregnancy cntr. Who knows that one life wasn't spared b/c that woman just needed one more chance... one more option. He gave her our number and we would have stood by our promise if that was her choice in the end. Cast blame all you want, but there are those of us out there who really do care about life. Adoption is a beautiful concept. It should always be considered.
Would your husband vote to ban all but the most extreme abortions? Because every fetus is a person deserving of life? Then he is a part of the problem.
His actions at the clinic are not what drives that statement even though it can (and will) cause grief and guilt in a lot of women. It's not even because he knows that and interrupts them anyway. It's because he would stop it all if he could, refusing to entertain any opinion but his own.
(And yes, I'm stereotyping your husband based on his actions at the clinic. I recognize I could be 100% wrong there).
I will allow you to entertain your own opinion. It's not for me to sway you one way or the other... just providing data.
Yes. Data which I extrapolated to include that your husband would vote to ban nearly all abortions if he could. Was I wrong?
Nearly all? I imagine so, but I can't speak for him, he has a mind of his own, and the older he gets, the wiser he gets, so where he is on that particular topic, at this particular point in his life, I'm not positive. I will ask him when he gets home and tell him wilderness wants to know.
What is happening now is a repeat of was called the Burning Times in Europe from the 15th through the 18th C when European witchcraft persecution was at its high point. In the earliest times prior there was a goddess culture that was very, very strong. Many of the convents had strong women in charge who wielded a lot of power in getting things done that men didn't like. They may have been Christian but they were a threat. They were not following the teachings of the Bible that said women were to serve men and stay out of the spotlight. These strong women had immediate access to powerful men (and Kings) all over Europe and were getting things done while men had to wait sometimes for days just to be turned down. These women were building hospitals, churches, helping the poor while the men want to build armies with the poor and make the weapons for them to fight with. These jealous men resented that they no longer had the same access. In those times the worst thing for any person was to be accused of being a witch or a heretic. About 75% to 80% of those executed as practicing witchcraft were women, accused and burned at stakes , pressed or hung. Many non-witches were branded heretics and forced to forfeit their lands that these same men lusted after. It was also a good way to get rid of enemies or protectors of women without the cost of waging war. Modern historians and more complete records have dropped the figure of a million to about 300,000 lost in this time. In some villages all females & some young children & girls and “enemies” were accused and killed which meant men had to take over all the tasks themselves or go to another village not affected to find women willing to keep their houses and have more children or find other like minded men. 99.9% were NOT witches but it was a way to weaken female power and take the reins themselves. There was “no bachelor living” because they went from their parents home to a home with their new wife so they were used to a woman being around to take of them. After this time women just gave up. It was not a battle worth fighting if it was going to cost lives.
see part 3
Women woke up in the 60's and men were shocked how quickly their new power grew. What makes some conservative men view a woman's greater reproductive freedom and/or choice is an affront to "morality" and "family values"? They are trying to regain the power they have lost. Don't they have wives or daughters or other females in their lives that can tell them how idiotic they are or were they found under a tree? How about a law that stops their use of Viagra etc? Getting & maintaining an erection for a few hours has nothing to do with male physical health only mental but the 9 months a woman has to carry a baby and next 18 years to raise it, should make men think all women should be ON birth control. Many refuse to use condoms as a sign of their masculinity and are likely to say the child is not theirs if the woman gets pregnant. (regrettably I did it ). God played a major trick on women by giving them the ability to have children after their first period but BEFORE their bodies have fully developed to have a full term baby. If you read the Bible count the number of men whose mothers died delivering them. Men need to stop living in the past. The genii can't go back in the bottle leave our women alone
I'm not sure where you're from, but getting and maintaining an erection has everything to do with male physical health. You might want to check such statements before posting them.
And what in the world does Viagra have to do with abortion or contraception? If you're going to take away drugs, why not make it penicillin and "limit the surplus population"?
Do you own a penis? The lack one doesn't kill you and eunuchs have lived long lives with one. I never write anything I can't prove. Maybe you should check my information before you say I am wrong. Viagra is good for one thing-SEX. If so much of it wasn't being used to excess women wouldn't need to be so worried about getting pregnant and need their pills.
So prove that neither poor health nor old age can ever prevent an erection. That IS the claim - prove it.
You still haven't said what viagara has to do with contraception.
Poor health wouldn't stop me from having sex unless I had something really serious and so far old age has had no effect either. Since I don't sleep with them my buddies SAY they get it anytime they want it. There are mental reasons why we can't get it up not physical. So the Viagra is used to help get past that so you can. But I still use a condom because I don't want to be a senior daddy and be too old to go to the graduation of any child I might produce today.Those days are over. Grandchildren fine but not my own
Oops. You are just a little off-base about Viagra. Of course there are mental causes that kill the desire which in turn kills the erection, but the majority of ED, (erectile dysfunction), are physical.
It is the physical "low-blood flow" cause that Viagra is intended to treat. The mental aphrodisiac-effect of knowing you took a Viagra pill may exist - but it is not the intended purpose of the drug. So no, Viagra is not meant to help you "get past that."
Name a single conservative politician who wants to control women's contraceptives. This argument is liberal fantasy intended to garner votes. Where's the proof that conservatives want to control contraceptives or women's bodies? Is this solely about abortion and contraceptives provided through health insurance? Is that really the liberal argument?
My guess is that you'll only be able to name conservatives who disagree with Obamacare's contraceptive policy for religious organizations. I doubt you'll be able to produce any examples without falling back on Obamacare or calling abortion a contraceptive. The courts have agreed that the Obamacare mandate is an infringement upon religious freedom, so that ship has sailed.
Let's hear some examples of evil conservatives who want to control women's contraceptives and bodies. Where's this war on women? By the way, millions of conservative women agree with conservative men, so is this a war among women too? It seems like a ploy to garner votes for the liberal cause, one based in scare tactics and not reality.
Frankly, as a conservative, I don't care what you do with your body as long as it does no harm to others. Further, I believe that any government that does try to tell you what to do with your body is too intrusive. That's a conservative view. Conservatives want the government to provide services only it can provide. Beyond that, we want the government to leave us alone. What you do with your body is not the government's business. Again, that's a conservative view.
Goddess culture? What goddess culture? What goddess was being worshiped? Where did that take place?
The Great Goddess was Neolithic and most cultures around the world have a time when women ruled their lives and some still do today, not everyone is Christian. Wicca is said to be the modern version of this culture. Marija Gimbutas found remnants of it in Turkey and has written several books about her work.
I am unable to find any information on "The Great Goddess" of the neolithic period outside of a few vague references to modern day people that think they are reviving a religion that apparently never existed.
Can you be more specific? Name, actions, appearance, location, children, siblings, parents, goddess of..., etc.?
There were some matriarchal societies, yes, but certainly not most. It was, in fact quite rare, and apparently nearly unheard of in prehistorical times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_o … Prehistory
Nothing in the prehistory (neolithic) era except a note in Wikipedia than any information about that period is likely inaccurate and/or unbalanced. Which was what the book I referenced said - there appears to be no good information from that time in our evolution and that much of what is passing in today's quasi-religion is nothing more than propaganda from ultra-feminists of a few decades ago.
What bothers me about leaflets outside clinics - do you realize you could be handing that to a woman who is about to abort her wanted and desired baby because her life is at risk or because it's turned out not to be viable with some kind of hideous birth defect?
Legislators should not be making these decisions. Doctors should.
By all means, let's rid the world of ppl with birth defects... and hideous ones for sure! Those ppl are of no value to society and a drain on us all to say the least. And most assuredly they are undeserving of love!
And I love my kids, all of them. And I miss my boy every day. But, his health care costs were in the millions. Yes, I said millions. We had nursing in the home sometimes 24 hours a day... at a huge detriment to my marriage (which eventually ended). The other children were often times neglected, grew up too fast, and in the clincher of all clinchers, my 2nd son actually watched his brother die. He felt responsible and required (is requiring) hundreds of hours of therapy to deal with it.
In addition, my son spent his entire life in pain of one kind or another. He had over 20 surgeries. Had pneumonia dozens of times. Was brought back painfully several times (with cracked ribs from CPR in the process) spend almost 1/4 of his life in the hospital. He breathed through a hole in his throat which was pretty much constantly infected because of MRCA that he left the hospital with.
Then he died fighting for his last breath. In pain until the very end.
Yes, his life had value. Yes, there were smiles. No, I wouldn't change it for the world.
HOWEVER, I would also not force it on anyone (child or parent) because of the choices I would make. Unless you've walked in those shoes, you shouldn't either.
Where did you read that I had tried to, in any way, force any thing on anyone?
We agree your son's life had value. You agreed with the point that I was trying to make which was simply that it was good that your son was fully loved instead of being snuffed out.
Let's not make an argument where there wasn't one.
Non-viable birth defects, Beth.
I specifically said "not to be viable."
There are defects that result in agonizing death within hours of birth, for example. Or ones such as anencephaly where the baby is born with no forebrain and in a permanent vegetative state for however long (not very) they might live.
A woman is having an abortion because if she does not, her child will *die in agony soon after birth* and you'd still be happy about handing her a leaflet about her bad decision, that she's been crying about for days. And this has actually happened. But, oh, right, she'd be loving her child more by inflicting an agonizing death on it, because that's God's will. Forgot that. And if she's going to die, that's God's will too. The God of "love" does things like that.
You don't know what has brought that woman to that clinic that day. You can't know. And while it might well be admirable to try and talk a young woman out of an abortion and into adoption, you still can't assume that's true of every woman you see.
We may disagree on whether or not it would be best to carry a child to full term or not, if it has complications that could lead to death, but that has nothing to do with someone handing someone a leaflet. She is bearing the weight of a great burden. She is going to see strollers, and babies, and commercials and toddlers etc. etc. for years to come. Her heart is going to be broken, no doubt about it. The person who feels convicted to lovingly, and respectfully hand out an alternate choice leaflet is not going to abandon the opportunity to help dozens/hundreds of other mothers just b/c there might be one woman who is facing those specific circumstances.
That's like a person never taking a step outside b/c they have a bee allergy. If the person handing out pamphlets is (as I've said) understanding, respectful and kind... then they can actually be a help to anyone who enters those doors. They can pray for those women, and pray with those women. They can be a shoulder to cry on. The idea is not to be the enemy, but to love them enough to reach out. Ultimately, what they do, is in their own hands.
Do you have any idea how sanctimonious and superior you are to believe that a woman who is walking through the doors of an abortion clinic hasn't already thought about and agonized over the decision to do so? That your leaflet or pamphlet isn't something she's already thought about long and hard? That she hasn't already consulted her doctor (you know, the knowledgeable expert), possibly her spouse or partner and her best friend? How arrogant and ridiculous of you to think that you, a stranger, could offer anything of value to a person who had already made her decision. HER decision. Not yours. The audacity is astounding.
So she already knew a nice guy would be standing in the parking lot, ready to offer her child a loving home without him being there?
So every girl who is bullied into going the abortion route by her boyfriend/parents knew someone would be waiting in the parking lot, willing to give her a ride to a place that offers her other alternatives, including a home to help aid her thru the pregnancy?
It's just an offer... and if she wanted to consider the offer and it helped a baby live, it was worth the while.
I understand your point of view, but the woman concerned said that protestors handing her adoption leaflets and hassling her to change her mind made what was already a terrible situation far, far worse.
And most of these people aren't understanding, respectful and kind.
I can see that. I imagine they meant well... I would hope that what they did, they did out of love, but sometimes in ppl's desire to save a child, they forget that God is ultimately in charge. There are mature and immature Christians, and even non-Christians/non-believers taking on tasks like these. We all need to hear the truth, we all need to be loved, but ultimately every life is in God's hands. I'm sure your friend is still in pain over this. I'm sorry for all she's been thru.
Oh, this wasn't a friend...this story was in the local news somewhere, I forget where. I found it while researching - but it was one of the parts of the country with very few abortion clinics.
I love this video. I know every person is coming from a different belief system, but for believers, this is why we leave things in God's hands... how can we know what He has for us in each situation, if we opt out before the lessons are learned? This child felt his parents arms around him instead of saline solution on his skin... he was loved. To me, this is an incredibly beautiful story.
I'm sorry for going on topic, but here's another neat video I just watched for anyone who's interested.
This is awesome.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … k/5256437/
by Credence25 years ago
Do you think that the ‘pledge" taken by GOP presidential candidates Santorum and Gingrich to support a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions even in cases of rape and incest is a sell out to...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
There are women who do not believe that women should have equal rights as men do. They are strong proponents that the main roles and goals of women are to be housewives and mothers. They further believe that women...
by GA Anderson2 years ago
Prompted by a CNN "The Sixties" segment,I admit I was unaware...That in the 60s women made 59 cents for the same work a man was paid a dollar.That access to birth control. was generally illegal - a long...
by J.R. Smith6 years ago
what are your thoughts on this one?
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
Abortion is THE MOST CONTENTIOUS arena and subject of American politics. Abortion also generates the MOST VISCERAL reaction among people. However, what business and concern it is whether a woman elects to...
by Peeples4 years ago
It bothers me that so many parents are uninformed about basic contraception. Why are so many comparing the morning after pill to an abortion? Do they not understand what the pill is or do they know and just ignore the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.