What CONCERN it is of YOURS Whether A Woman Elects to Have an Abortion

1. 81

   gmwilliamsposted 10 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 have an abortion.  She knows the reason and the circumstances as to why she elects to have an abortion. 
   
   Abortion in its myriad forms has always existed, especially before the advent of effective contraception.   It is far more preferable for a woman to have an abortion than to have children that she does not want and/or is not ready to care for emotionally, financially, and psychologically.   Many women's lives have been ruined because she had children that she either did not want or was not ready to care for.   Yes, abortion should always be legal and smart women are seeing to that.   Let's discuss this!

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Again?
      
      Is it your business or concern if the Mom next door kills her first grader?  Her husband?  She knows the reason and circumstances, after all.
      
      So, in your opinion, when does a sperm/egg become a person?  When the cell wall is penetrated?  When there is only one complete DNA molecule in the cell?  At 3 months old?  When the heart muscle begins to contract?  When there are brain waves?  When it is free of any physical attachment to Mom?
      
      When does it become a person?

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Grace , I thought that I would weigh in with a comment, most of it from an excerpt of an earlier article that I had written.
      
      My View
      
      
      This is a very contentious issue for us all. While I am pro-choice, I can support legislation that makes abortion more difficult at the late stages of pregnancy. Particularly, at and beyond the point that the fetus can live outside of its mother’s body. The state has a vested interest in preserving life and that is reasonable. But, that has to be balanced with rights of the mother. Thoughtful conservatives and progressives can discuss this and may well agree to disagree. While, I believe that life begins at conception based on philosophical and spiritual beliefs, that is where it ends. My neighbor has a different view and he or she may well not subscribe to the same principles that I do. Being a progressive, I am uncomfortable with those that want to apply their rules and regulations to those most private and intimate aspect of the lives of others. So, somewhere between the point of conception and very late stages of pregnancy, there is room to debate the ethics of this process.
      
      During the last campaign conservatives fielded some candidates that advocated that women carried unwanted pregnancies to term even in cases of rape and incest.
      
      What is the arrogance in thinking that they have a right to force a woman to carry such a pregnancy to term when it is her own physical body involved and the discomfort and mental anguish is hers alone to bear for 9 months. These “fembots” are to be told that ‘lemons can become lemonade’? Yeah, right. The victim bears no responsibility for these kinds of pregnancies, how dare they force the individual to carry to term.
      
      
      Point-Counterpoint
      
      
      Let’s say that the conservatives prevail and the push for the legislation that they all say that they support is successful. Since life starts at conception for these folks, who is going to tell the authorities that a woman is pregnant, so that the state can know to begin monitoring the woman? It has to be possible for a woman to ingest toxins or the RU-486 overnight pill to terminate a pregnancy. So, now, there has to be someone that watches what she eats and drinks. Conservatives have had 40 years to try to overturn Roe Vs Wade. I know that they would prefer a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide. But there are too many progressive states and influences and it just ain’t going to happen. But if they can have the landmark decision overturned and the decision making relegated to states, how would that work? Woman that can’t get an abortion in South Dakota can take the drive to relatively progressive Colorado to have the procedure done, anyway. You still lose. But, the conservatives and their legislatures will want to pass laws restricting the movement of women who are pregnant. I don’t have to tell anyone what that will lead to
      
      
      Our Thoroughly Modern Maidens
      
      
      Not being female, I can only guess. But, I would be concerned that considering the work over the last century to get some degree of parity in a male dominated society, is my life, aspirations and ambitions being firmly linked to my reproductive function? Is it a sinister plan to return me to a domesticated role? How does all of this affect your ability to compete for resources and opportunities outside the affairs of your intimate and personal life? In the interests of my “protection” what other laws are being contemplated that enhances and buttresses the new rightwing abortion laws? It takes two to tango, you know. Are men imposed upon in this manner, commensurate to their role in the pregnancy? It seems like another way to take the already structural disadvantages in the workplace and in life that women have to contend with and exacerbate them ten fold. All this may well need to be adjudicated with my concern of a violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I am adamantly against abortion in the later stages.  I believe in abortion only in the very earliest stages.

         replyreport
   3. 70

      rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I might add to your statement that many a children's lives have been ruined through an unwanted pregnancy. I myself do not believe in abortion. But I also do not believe I have a right to judge or prevent another from their right to one.

      replyreport
   4. 71

      Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Howdy Grace.
      
      It has been some months since you posted this comment. I think I pretty much understand your pro-abortion position and I really do respect your right to believe as you wish. I will try to refrain from taking a position myself. However, I would like to comment on what strikes me as a glaring inconsistency.
      
      In a statement you made not too long ago, you said this about people who make bad choices, “Why it is SO MUCH EASIER for people to make excuses than to take actual responsibility and to be accountable for their life actions and life choices? It seems to be the name of the game these days to make excuses if one's life situation is not the way he/she want it to be.” {1}
      
      Albeit a rather harsh stance, it is firmly against lowering the hurdles faced by people who have made bad choices. In fact, this rather stern theme has been repeated. I remember you saying, “people who knowingly have MORE children than they can afford to provide a good life for” perturbed you. “Now THIS IS my main pet peeve… Haven't these people heard of birth control?” {2}
      
      Hmm. Clearly, you are peeved because you believe people should take responsibility for their actions and, further, birth control should be a priority among their responsible choices. I recall you blasting people less privileged then yourself with critical comments like this one: “the poor are poor in the United States because it is THEIR fault. They refuse to take responsibility for their dire predicament.” To which was added, “Who told them to continuously chose immediate gratification instead of delaying gratification for their future good and advancement?” I believe you chided them for their inability to “plan, organize and strategize” like affluent and middle class people. {3}
      
      I cite these passages from the past, Grace, because the unforgiving harshness of their tone and content are missing from the current message. You acknowledge in your remarks that we are living after “the advent of effective contraception”. Yet, your post supports and empathizes with the woman who presumably participated willingly in the process of conceiving a child “she does not want and/or is not ready to care for emotionally, financially, and psychologically.” However, she is really no different than the group previously chastised for being, “fond of making any excuse for their dire and/or less than positive predicament…when the real reason is their life choices.”
      {4}
      
      Again, I take no position on the issue of abortion but I do see a level of intolerance formerly aimed at people less fortunate that is missing from this thread. I do not see any harsh criticism for those who should have, but did not, avoid their “less than positive predicament.” Could it be a double standard? I can not say.
      
      Today, I hear the message, “Oh, you made a bad choice? No problem. You have a right to a “do-over.” While the reprimands from the past offered no encouragement and no lowering of the hurdles. Period. The message to the poor made clear if you can not afford an abortion, you give birth, and you are unable to work, then you are just a leech mooching off society and you deserve to STARVE, STARVE, STARVE. {5}
      
      In addition, I did not see you mention that an abortion might possibly end a human life in progress. I did, however, find it interesting to read, “It is far more preferable for a woman to have an abortion than to have children that she does not want and/or is not ready to care for emotionally, financially, and psychologically.” {6}
      
      For the record, I find absolutely no evidence anywhere in the world that suggests being born under those conditions is a fate from which death “is far more preferable.” Clearly, you do. Then again, no one actually asks the unborn. It may not be a scientific survey, never the less, I never met a person in all of my years who wished they were never born.
      
      Just another bunch of echoes from my inkwell, Grace. I thank you for stirring the ideas and providing the stimulation. My gray matter needs all the help it can find.
      
      {1}  http://gmwilliams.hubpages.com/question … -and-to-be
      {2} http://dandelionweeds.hubpages.com/ques … swer750105
      {3} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2548233
      {4} http://gmwilliams.hubpages.com/question … -and-to-be
      {5} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2548233
      {6} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2529176

      replyreport
2. 0

   Beth37posted 10 years ago

   Kind of funny. I was watching this show called Continuum where a woman goes back in time. While there she meets her grandmother who is a pregnant, unwed teen and wants to have an abortion. Oddly enough, the granddaughter wasn't supportive of that choice.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      How odd!  Just think of the stress and heartache that could have been avoided.  All those decisions/negative feelings that need never have been made. 
      
      Strange granddaughter!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         It's a great show btw.

         replyreport
   2. 56

      EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe she should have gone back in time and talked with the pregnant mother of Hitler, instead. How supportive would people be of that abortion?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Beth37posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         You might have missed the point. The question was not if "ppl were supportive" of this 'teen g'ma' getting an abortion. It was "Would someone who would never be born, as a direct result of the abortion, be supportive - if she got an abortion?" See, the abortion affected her personally as opposed it it being about some unborn, unknown child.
         
         Along the line of Hitler, what would make an interesting story, would be if his grand-daughter was an assassin from the future and she ended up in the position where she could kill her grandfather, and save millions of lives, but then she would never be born. Or, what if... somewhere still down the line, Hitler's descendant ended up saving the world and the choice becomes, kill Hitler and save the world unspeakable atrocities or let him live and hundreds of years in the future, allowing him to live, means the destruction of the world will be stopped b/c of his descendant.
         
         Either way, the point of it all is... we shouldn't play God, cause there are things we don't know.
         
         Makes a good story though.

         replyreport
      2. 81

         gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Ouch! Spot on comment!

         replyreport
3. 75

   Mighty Momposted 10 years ago

   Abortion has been around since MEN and women have been having sex.
   Restricting access to the procedure or making it illegal again will not change that fact. It will mean that, as in centuries past, more women will die.
   
   You're right gmwilliams. This is the #1 contentious political issue (can we safely say gay marriage is fading into the background?).
   Those who believe every fetus has a "right to life" are, I would hope, doing everything they can to support the mother through her pregnancy and birth. They are adopting or facilitating the adoption if the mother cannot care for the child.
   If she chooses to keep the child, I would hope they are doing everything they can to support the child once it is out of Momma's womb.
   In reality, the same people who insist that a fetus should have rights equal to its incubator turn their back on the baby and mother after the birth. They are the first to scream about lazy welfare queens who breed so they can get more govt money. They close their eyes to child neglect, abandonment and abuse by a mother who was ill prepared for parenthood in the first place.
   I admit this is somewhat of a generalization. But you get the point.
   There is a big difference between being pro fetus and truly being pro life -- pro QUALITY of LIFE.
   One could argue that the one who's truly pro life is the woman who refuses to bring a child into a situation she knows will be injurious, possibly deadly.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

      replyreport
   2. 56

      Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Murder has been around for a long time too, but making it legal isn't really a solution.  Based on this premise, it's okay to murder a neighbor, because they have a bad life. . .
      
      If you are for allowing abortions, based on the premise that some children will have a poor quality of life, then you must be in favor of suicide too?  A lot of people want to commit suicide because of a poor quality of life.  The sixteen year old girl who has an abortion isn't a whole lot different than the sixteen year old girl who wants to commit suicide then? Both should be allowed to terminate a life?
      
      Abortion is not a victimless event.

      replyreport
   3. 96

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Of course!  Society is always responsible to support people after their poor decisions, or if they change their mind.  No one should ever have to be responsible for their own actions!
      
      Why didn't I realize that?! *slaps forehead*

      replyreport
   4. 81

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank YOU, Mighty Mom.  It is far more humane to have an abortion than to have an unwanted child.  It is far more humane to have an abortion than to have a child that you aren't prepared to take care of psychologically, emotionally, and socioeconomically.   So many people do not think of these things.   Each child should have a HIGH quality of life psychologically, emotionally, and socioeconomically.  It is sad that many pro-lifers believe that a child should be born even into the most brutal, heinous, and abject circumstances.  To them, QUALITY of life doesn't matter in the slightest.

      replyreport
4. 56

   Fetus McFetursonposted 10 years ago

   Hey! Don't knock the fetus lifestyle until you've tried it lady! Whadda you got against fetuses anyway? What business is it of yours if I want to be a parasite?  I paint a confederate flag on the ol' placenta, try and stop me! Go ahead, try to abort me, I put up a good fight. I'll kick you in the kidneys lady, I'm a good shot.

   replyreport
5. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

   Murder is when a person kills intentionally for selfish and emotionally derived reasons. Killing is when a person kills to preserve life, as in war, when it is necessary. Perhaps a battle was being waged and the egg was invaded against the will of the egg's creator. Somewhere a battle was lost. The result was fertilization. The loss of life in an abortion is a sad casualty: A very sad casualty of a very sad defeat. (Step away from the sperm! I used to say, "Step away from the eggs!" Perhaps girls are the ones who make their eggs way too available.)
   
   Abortion is not a healthy thing to do to one's own body. Both psychological and physical health are sacrificed. The war should have been fought  B E F O R E  the sperm made it to the egg.
   BEFORE! Is it so hard to step away from the sperm?  I guess so.
   
   FIGHT!  I say to all women for the health and life of your OWN selves. You need to be ready,  willing and able to handle a child. Yes, you can have someone else adopt it… still, you will suffer such deep regret and sadness.
   So, girls, just
                                          Step Away From the Sperm!
   
   And leave the unborn in the arms of the angels... till you are ready to give them the same comfort the angels are giving them.
   
   TWISI
   I  just watched the movie, Lifeguard, with Kristin Bell...
   Now there is a perfect example of girlish stupidity. Perhaps Leigh was on birth control... as most intelligent girls are these days....  Still, she was just pretty darn lucky she didn't get pregnant by her "love Interest!" I know so many cases of pregnancies which occurred despite all methods of birth control!
   In the final analysis, it makes so much sense to wait for marriage to have sex.
   What concern it is it of mine? 
   The child's soul. Why put a soul through that experience? Ever watch any abortions on You Tube? (I recommend this for all teens.)
   When does conception occur? As soon as the egg and sperm unite.

   replyreport
6. 75

   Mighty Momposted 10 years ago

   Right. Poor decisions. On the part of the WOMAN, of course.
   Did the MAN make a bad decision also? Just wondering.
   Here's the reality:
   Inintended pregnancies happen. Frequently, as it happens.
   Unintended accidents happen, too. When you drive your car -- sometimes despite paying attention and following all the rules (e.g., using birth control), your car gets totalled anyway.
   Was getting into your car a "poor decision."
   
   
   Here's an interesting, dispassionate look at who is having abortions, when, why.
   http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
   Many tidbits in here, but these two popped out:
   *28% of Catholics. Uh oh. I wonder if they confess that to Fr. O'Flaherty before mass??
   
   And here's a glass half full/glass half empty scenario.
   Me, I look at the avoidance of 1.94 million unintended pregnancies as a hugs win all around.
   Sex Education is sooo important!!
   • In 2006, publicly funded family planning services helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions.[20]
   
   http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Repeating:
      " Is it so hard to step away from the sperm?  I guess so.
      
      FIGHT!  I say to all women for the health and life of your OWN selves. You need to be ready,  willing and able to handle a child. Yes, you can have someone else adopt it… still, you will suffer such deep regret and sadness.
      So, girls, just
                                             Step Away From the Sperm!"
      KLH

      replyreport
      1. 60

         MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, because only single women get pregnant. And women and men who are married should definitely stop having sex if they aren't trying for procreation. The solution is everyone should just stop having sex unless it's for procreation.
         
         What a brilliant idea.
         
         It shouldn't be hard for the woman that no one wants to be in a relationship with anyway... but some of us do consider a healthy sex life to be necessary in a marriage.

         replyreport
7. 78

   psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago

   I am pro-choice but I have not trouble following the arguments of the other side.  If you consider the fetus a full person from conception, killing it would be murder, and murder is an act against the public interest.  Ergo people should be interested in it.
   
   You can argue about the starting  assumption, but past that it is just logic.

   replyreport
8. 78

   psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago

   So you think all women not ready to raise a child should be celibate.  That would be great except for... reality.  I mean we tried it and it worked about as well as prohibition did for sobriety and lawfulness.

   replyreport
9. 73

   Kathleen Cochranposted 10 years ago

   How many children aren't here because of all the other forms of birth control?
   Can anyone tell me exactly when life begins?
   I love men who feel strongly about this issue - like it will ever have anything to do with them.
   Do we really need to have this discussion for the nth time?  Are we going to change anyone's mind?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      When women clone themselves and have it inserted in their own uterus, then abortion will have nothing to do with men.
      
      Until that time, that child is one half from the male of the species.  And as more and more men are convinced to do the right thing and step up to the plate in supporting their children I expect to see more men demanding their children live rather than be killed offhand.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         In all fairness, child-bearing is not remotely equal. Financial contributions and increased parenting duties still don't make it equal.
         
         Now, if a man is willing to sign a contract that he will be killed on the spot if the mother of his child dies in childbirth, that he will be willing to have every single injury/damage to mother also inflicted upon his body in the event that it happens and that he will endure career damage and pain and suffering equal to the mother, then we'll talk.
         
         Until then, he doesn't get an equal say... and he shouldn't. He is not bearing equal risk.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Equal say - you're probably right.
            
            But the comment was that men have zero say in whether their children live or are killed, and I repeat that I expect that to change within the next decade or so.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Is it so hard to step away from the eggs? playing with fire!

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Some folks find it so.  And some of those are stupid enough to think "It won't happen to ME!".

                  replyreport
10. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

    Yep. Yep, yep and yep.  I recommend watching the movie, Lifeguard. Of course, the main character got away with what she did because she was on birth control… or did she?
    Birth control is not 100 percent safe! Stepping away from the eggs and sperm IS!
    
    In marriage, a couple is in a more favorable position for having a child should the egg and sperm unite.
    How come common sense is so hard to accept?????

    replyreport
    1. 96

       wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Because it doesn't align with wants.
       
       And in a nation of instant gratification and denial of personal responsibility, that's not good.  Not good at all.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          You know, sexual irresponsibility is not the only reason a woman would choose to have an abortion, right?

          replyreport
          1. 96

             wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

             Of course - there must be 5000 unique reasons each year for having an abortion.
             
             Of which 4950 deteriorate to sexual irresponsibility, denial of that responsibility and instant gratification when examined closely.  But yes, there ARE other reasons, and very valid ones.
             
             Your point?  That sexual irresponsibility is not at the root of a great many abortions?  Or even the majority of abortions?

             replyreport
             1. 60

                MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Well, my point I guess would be that it's moral hair-splitting. If it's OK to have an abortion because one was raped or because it's a risk to the mother (which is actually more common than you think) or because the baby is likely going to be born with severe birth defects (which is becoming a more common reason as prenatal tests are becoming more precise) then it comes down to "This reason for killing a baby is fine, but I think you are wrong about THIS reason"
                
                It's also a form of prejudice. It demands that a woman explain her reasons to somebody else for THEM to judge her actions. If she decides to have an abortion because the baby has severe hydrocephalus, she either has to justify herself or risk being labeled promiscuous or irresponsible.
                
                The fact is that nobody is living the life of the women that chooses to get an abortion but that women. Assuming that "most" of those women are having abortion due to sexual irresponsibility requires omniscience. It also requires judgement of whether a behavior is irresponsible or not.  I'm not willing to make that judgement.

                replyreport
                1. 96

                   wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                   You're not willing to make that judgement call, and except in very rare cases, neither am I.  It is none of my business until that fetus is a person - until then "I got up on the wrong side of the bed" or "I just felt like having an abortion" is good enough.  It may be a good reason, it may be a bad one, it may be a smart decision or a stupid one, but it is not my call to make.

                   replyreport
11. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

    "If you're down and confused
    And you don't remember who you're talking to
    Concentration slips away
    Because your baby is so far away
    
    Well there's a rose in a fisted glove
    And the eagle flies with the dove
    And if you can't be with the one you love, honey
    Love the one you're with
    You gotta love the one you're with
    You gotta love the one you're with
    You gotta love the one you're with
    
    Don't be angry, don't be sad
    Don't sit crying over good times you've had
    Well there's a girl sitting right next to you
    And she's just waiting for something to do
    
    Well there's a rose in a fisted glove
    And the eagle flies with the dove
    And if you can't be with the one you love, honey
    Love the one you're with
    You gotta love the one you're with
    You gotta love the one you're with
    
    Oh yea oh yea, yea
    Lord, love the one you're with
    You gotta love the one you're with
    You gotta love the one you're with
    Why don't you love?
    
    Turn your heartache right into joy
    She's a girl and you're a boy
    Did you get it together and make it nice?
    When you ain't gonna need anymore advice
    
    Well there's a rose in a fisted glove
    And the eagle flies with the dove
    Sometimes you can't be with the one you love, honey
    Love the one you're with
    You gotta love the one you're with
    You gotta love the one you're with
    You gotta love the one you're with
    You gotta love the one you're with
    
    You gotta love, oh love
    You gotta love, oh love
    You gotta love, love the one you're with
    You gotta love, love"
    
    Songwriter
    STEPHEN STILLS,
    
    What kind of *love* was he referring to? We took it to mean *sex* in the 70's. Haven't we learned anything from the school of hard knocks YET?

    replyreport
    1. 56

       EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       That's one of the songs we play in our band.
       
       Actually, the phrase was coined by Billy Preston and Stills asked him if he could use it, the rest is history.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Such a great song… just don't interpret love as sex." Love the one you're with enough to respect the other's eggs and sperm."  Maybe you can throw that line in the next time you play that song, E.D 

          replyreport
          1. 56

             EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

             I think Kathryn, that song represents more about the political and social landscape the youth of that time were trying to change, the song is more about relationships than sex.

             replyreport
             1. 81

                Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Well, a widespread phenomenon of free love and living together occurred during that time.  In fact, I wonder if we have even recovered from the free love philosophy.
                "1940s – 1960s
                From the late 1940s to the 1960s, the bohemian free-love tradition of Greenwich Village was carried on by the beat generation, although differing with their predecessors by being an apparently male-dominated movement. The Beats also produced the first appearance of male homosexual champions of free love in the U.S., with writers such as Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs. Like some of those before, the beats challenged a range of social conventions, and they found inspiration in such aspects of black culture as jazz music. The Beat movement led on the West Coast to the activities of such groups as the Merry Pranksters (led, according to Grateful Dead historian Dennis McNally, not by novelist Ken Kesey, but by hipster and driver Neal Cassady) and the entire San Francisco pop music scene, in which the implications of sexual bohemianism were advanced in a variety of ways by the hippies. With the Summer of Love in 1967, the eccentricities of this group became a nationally recognized movement. The study of sexology continued to gain prominence throughout the era, with researchers like Alfred Kinsey supporting challenges to traditional values regarding sex and marriage.
                1970s to today
                Second wave feminism continued to question traditional Judeo-Christian teaching on sexuality, while groups like Moral Majority and the Christian right opposed change, after Roe v Wade radically changed abortion laws." Wikipedia

                replyreport
    2. 82

       grand old ladyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I love that song. Thanks for reminding me of Stephen Stills.

       replyreport
12. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

    "Much of the free-love tradition is an offshoot of anarchism, and reflects a libertarian philosophy that seeks freedom from state regulation and church interference in personal relationships. According to this concept, the free unions of adults are legitimate relations which should be respected by all third parties whether they are emotional or sexual relations. In addition, some free-love writing has argued that both men and women have the right to sexual pleasure without social or legal restraints. In the Victorian era, this was a radical notion. Later, a new theme developed, linking free love with radical social change, and depicting it as a harbinger of a new anti-authoritarian, anti-repressive sensibility.[2]
    Many people believe marriage is an important aspect of life to "fulfil earthly human happiness." According to today's stereotype, earlier middle-class Americans wanted the home to be a place of stability in an uncertain world. To this mentality are attributed strongly defined gender roles, which led to a minority reaction in the form of the free love movement.[3]
    While the phrase free love is often associated with promiscuity in the popular imagination, especially in reference to the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s, historically the free-love movement has not advocated multiple sexual partners or short-term sexual relationships. Rather, it has argued that love relations that are freely entered into should not be regulated by law." Wikipedia

    replyreport
13. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

    There is that word *law* again. Freedom within boundaries.
    In cosidering the *rights of children* should we be rethinking the free-love philosopy / experiment?

    replyreport
14. 79

    Sed-meposted 10 years ago

    According to one article, in 2012, there were 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one baby. There is no reason to take the life of a child. There is no reason to pretend its only alternative is to live a life in poverty. I thank God my daughter wasn't aborted, which I'm sure was one of her birth mom's options. She is beyond phenomenal.

    replyreport