The sexual revolution was the first step in a conspiracy to destroy our way of life - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The sexual revolution was the first step in a conspiracy to destroy our way of life (Page 2 of 6)

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:35:35 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That was another thing I learned growing up, when to recognize that there are situations where it is necessary to put aside emotions and think in cold, hard terms to arrive at a workable solution.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Putting away emotion and thinking in cold hard terms would mean leaving that mother to fend for herself.

Not stealing from others to help her idiocy.

Not necessarily. It could also mean being a leader and providing people with ways to improve themselves instead of enforcing a party or religious agenda.

Quoted:
So, if we are thinking in cold hard terms, why stop at abortion?

If you have a 2 year old who is holding you back, keeping you in poverty, why not just kill him?

That is probably the best way to get out of poverty. Then you can go back and get your education, get a good job, and leave all these mistakes behind you.

It makes just as much sense, doesn't it?

That is against the law and is legally usually called murder.

Abortion is not necessarily in that definition. That is the difference.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
("You will participate in various fun college pranks......during wartime, these are usually called atrocities."––(w,stte), a MAD satire on fraternity life)

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:36:01 AM EDT

[#2]

You know what could help fix this?
Actual sex education, not just the "abstinence only" malarkey they teach in schools.
You can't expect teens to have safe sex if they've never been taught about it.

Not everyone holds the same values as you, and they are and should be free to do as they wish with their own body.

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:40:53 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
How is that for a title?

No amount of money thrown at the problem is going to fix it. The only real solution is rebuilding that family, and the concepts of responsibility, commitment, and self sacrifice.

I don't have much hope of those ideas making a come back in our society these days, as we are too busy enjoying the "freedom" that the 1960s gave us, as our nation slowly becomes enslaved to its' government.

The 'sexual revolution' was the second wave. The take over of the seminaries after WWI by liberals and the subsequent destruction of the mainstream churches made the 'sexual revolution' possible.

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:42:01 AM EDT

[#4]

So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Right and wrong exist outside of laws. They are much bigger than our society. Just ask any Jew who lived in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

I didn't mean for this to become an "abortion" thread, but it is definitely a part of the whole issue.

Hopefully we can keep it civil.

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:44:42 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

A fetus (that is not capable of living away from the womb) is not the same as a living being, as has been established by the medical field and the judicial system.
Your personal beliefs do not belong in the making of laws that affect others.

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:48:42 AM EDT

[#6]

What is the solution?

In my opinion, the solution is the rebuilding of families.

We need to support those who are in bad situations, but in such a way that encourages responsibility, not irresponsibility.

A lot of this, I believe does lie at the feet of the churches in America, who aren't involve in the problem. These girls need people with stability in their lives to invest in them, and to provide role models for their kids who encourage responsibility and good decision making.

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:49:22 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__PJ8ymliw

That Women ROCKS!!!!

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:50:46 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Right and wrong exist outside of laws. They are much bigger than our society. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

Well, A and B.......and C.

A: Calm down. This topic is showing signs of debate statements being made in anger.

B: One does realize, yes, that in the pre 1900's, children were often not named till about their 10th birthday due to high child mortality rates. This was in pre sexual revolution days, at least by some measure, so for what is suggested might have been okay and it would have been in the era one is suggesting that we return to. Afterall, before Charles Darwin, the first child psychologist, children were seen as just "little adults". Hence the situation of child labor. Killing a 3 year old might not have been okay but sending him off to work in the factories as a virtual slave could have been.

.....C unless there is a link to the Holocaust and the sexual revolution, that statement is disregarded.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
("I am the law here, professor, and I will determine if you stay or return to our time."––Captain Lambert, (w,stte), Timetrax, "The Gravity of it All")

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:51:33 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
All I heard was "I hate sex"!

I don't hate sex, I actually really enjoy it- with my wife, and I hope that some day my kids do the same thing with their spouses, instead of getting pregnant at age 19 trying to find someone who says they "love" them.

Newsflash:

Your kids aren't gonna wait until marriage.

Deal with it.

Has NOTHING to do with FUCKING––

It's about Getting Knocked Up with NO means of Support!! (over and over and over)

Get Educated!!!

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:52:02 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

A fetus (that is not capable of living away from the womb) is not the same as a living being, as has been established by the medical field and the judicial system.
Your personal beliefs do not belong in the making of laws that affect others.

We have already gone well beyond this definition. Plenty of abortions are of children who could survive outside the womb. Using this idea just doesn't work as it is a moving target anyways. As technology improves, and children who are born at younger and younger ages are able to survive, will you ratchet down the gestational age at which abortion is legal?

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:53:57 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
What is the solution?

In my opinion, the solution is the rebuilding of families.

We need to support those who are in bad situations, but in such a way that encourages responsibility, not irresponsibility.

A lot of this, I believe does lie at the feet of the churches in America, who aren't involve in the problem. These girls need people with stability in their lives to invest in them, and to provide role models for their kids who encourage responsibility and good decision making.

You can't blame the "church", the U.S. isn't a theocracy.
The only thing to blame is the education system.
We need more and better sex education classes.

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:55:40 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Right and wrong exist outside of laws. They are much bigger than our society. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

Well, A and B.......and C.

A: Calm down. This topic is showing signs of debate statements being made in anger. No anger whatsoever

B: One does realize, yes, that in the pre 1900's, children were often not named till about their 10th birthday due to high child mortality rates. This was in pre sexual revolution days, at least by some measure, so for what is suggested might have been okay and it would have been in the era one is suggesting that we return to. Afterall, before Charles Darwin, the first child psychologist, children were seen as just "little adults". Hence the situation of child labor. Killing a 3 year old might not have been okay but sending him off to work in the factories as a virtual slave could have been.

.....C unless there is a link to the Holocaust and the sexual revolution, that statement is disregarded. You made the statement that a society's laws determine right and wrong. The holocost is merely the best most recent example of how this is not true. You give your own example in B above. Is child labor "right"? Even if the "law" says that it is "right"?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
("I am the law here, professor, and I will determine if you stay or return to our time."––Captain Lambert, (w,stte), Timetrax, "The Gravity of it All")

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:56:16 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
What is the solution?

In my opinion, the solution is the rebuilding of families.

We need to support those who are in bad situations, but in such a way that encourages responsibility, not irresponsibility.

A lot of this, I believe does lie at the feet of the churches in America, who aren't involve in the problem. These girls need people with stability in their lives to invest in them, and to provide role models for their kids who encourage responsibility and good decision making.

Please define your role model. What would she be like? What does she do?

Are/were Sally Ride, Ingrid Betancourt, Audrey Hepburn, Valerie Taylor, Robyn Davidson, Jane Goodall good role models?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
("I have been admiring your from afar."––Hogan charming his way into her apartment so he can rob the bank next door, (w,stte), "Hogan's Heroes")

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:57:39 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

A fetus (that is not capable of living away from the womb) is not the same as a living being, as has been established by the medical field and the judicial system.
Your personal beliefs do not belong in the making of laws that affect others.

We have already gone well beyond this definition. Plenty of abortions are of children who could survive outside the womb. Using this idea just doesn't work as it is a moving target anyways. As technology improves, and children who are born at younger and younger ages are able to survive, will you ratchet down the gestational age at which abortion is legal?

Any child that is aborted after it is able to live outside the womb is considered a murder, and is treated as such. And unless you have statistics to back that statement up you should retract it.

And no, viability is determined by the court, by precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade.
It is not a set number.

Posted: 8/14/2012 12:59:25 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What is the solution?

In my opinion, the solution is the rebuilding of families.

We need to support those who are in bad situations, but in such a way that encourages responsibility, not irresponsibility.

A lot of this, I believe does lie at the feet of the churches in America, who aren't involve in the problem. These girls need people with stability in their lives to invest in them, and to provide role models for their kids who encourage responsibility and good decision making.

You can't blame the "church", the U.S. isn't a theocracy.
The only thing to blame is the education system.
We need more and better sex education classes.

The "church" has responsibility reguardless of whether we are a theocracy or not. One of the problems is that the church is not engaged on this issue, and so the government has stepped in, or perhaps the government has pushed the church out?

"Education" is not the answer. We don't need more KNOWLEDGE, we need more WISDOM. We need PEOPLE to be involved, not more PROGRAMS.

I will be surprised if this thread continues, now that we have crossed over into both abortion and religion.

I hope, however, that we can have a civil discussion about things.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:02:12 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

A fetus (that is not capable of living away from the womb) is not the same as a living being, as has been established by the medical field and the judicial system.
Your personal beliefs do not belong in the making of laws that affect others.

We have already gone well beyond this definition. Plenty of abortions are of children who could survive outside the womb. Using this idea just doesn't work as it is a moving target anyways. As technology improves, and children who are born at younger and younger ages are able to survive, will you ratchet down the gestational age at which abortion is legal?

Any child that is aborted after it is able to live outside the womb is considered a murder, and is treated as such. And unless you have statistics to back that statement up you should retract it.

And no, viability is determined by the court, by precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade.
It is not a set number.

You are way behind the times my friend. Look up late term abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

The classic rationale is "mental health". It would be bad for the "mental health" of the mother to continue the pregnancy. This is exactly the issue I started with.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:03:34 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Right and wrong exist outside of laws. They are much bigger than our society. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

Well, A and B.......and C.

A: Calm down. This topic is showing signs of debate statements being made in anger. No anger whatsoever

B: One does realize, yes, that in the pre 1900's, children were often not named till about their 10th birthday due to high child mortality rates. This was in pre sexual revolution days, at least by some measure, so for what is suggested might have been okay and it would have been in the era one is suggesting that we return to. Afterall, before Charles Darwin, the first child psychologist, children were seen as just "little adults". Hence the situation of child labor. Killing a 3 year old might not have been okay but sending him off to work in the factories as a virtual slave could have been.

.....C unless there is a link to the Holocaust and the sexual revolution, that statement is disregarded. You made the statement that a society's laws determine right and wrong. The holocost is merely the best most recent example of how this is not true. You give your own example in B above. Is child labor "right"? Even if the "law" says that it is "right"?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, we are in an interesting point, here are we not?

On one side, it seems to be argued that the time before the sexual revolution was right, but what determines that right? On the other side, it is being argued that the decisions of the present to how social life should be conducted are wrong, but what determines that wrong?

Basically, it is the society that determines what is right and what is wrong. Hopefully, society has a means to change that, preferrably peacefully, when enough disagree what is right and what is wrong. Such, however, is usually the price of living in a group; one either accepts the definition of what is right and what is wrong or pays the price should they decide otherwise.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
("You are fortunate to live in a country where the individual's rights are protected regardless of what they have done. I wish I could put you in jail but instead, I must release you."––Judge to drug dealer who was arrested in an improper search, (w,stte), "Adam 12")

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:03:43 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

What is the solution?

In my opinion, the solution is the rebuilding of families.

We need to support those who are in bad situations, but in such a way that encourages responsibility, not irresponsibility.

A lot of this, I believe does lie at the feet of the churches in America, who aren't involve in the problem. These girls need people with stability in their lives to invest in them, and to provide role models for their kids who encourage responsibility and good decision making.

Churches could be more involved in the problem if shitty people weren't always dragging them down and berating them. I'm not Super Church Guy by any means, and hated going when I was younger, but you can't deny there's some connection in morality and religion, or lack thereof in America these days.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:04:17 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What is the solution?

In my opinion, the solution is the rebuilding of families.

We need to support those who are in bad situations, but in such a way that encourages responsibility, not irresponsibility.

A lot of this, I believe does lie at the feet of the churches in America, who aren't involve in the problem. These girls need people with stability in their lives to invest in them, and to provide role models for their kids who encourage responsibility and good decision making.

You can't blame the "church", the U.S. isn't a theocracy.
The only thing to blame is the education system.
We need more and better sex education classes.

The "church" has responsibility reguardless of whether we are a theocracy or not. One of the problems is that the church is not engaged on this issue, and so the government has stepped in, or perhaps the government has pushed the church out?

"Education" is not the answer. We don't need more KNOWLEDGE, we need more WISDOM. We need PEOPLE to be involved, not more PROGRAMS.

I will be surprised if this thread continues, now that we have crossed over into both abortion and religion.

I hope, however, that we can have a civil discussion about things.

The "church" has no place in the matter, whatsoever, it never has and never will.
"It" has no responsibility to the citizens of the U.S.
You also seem to forget that not everyone shares the same faith as you.
Knowledge is the only way to prevent accidents, "wisdom" is a buzzword.
Programs get results, when enacted effectively.

As I have stated, your personal beliefs and feelings have no place in decisions that affect others.
I am a religious man, but I do not seek to impose my beliefs on others.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:06:48 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

A fetus (that is not capable of living away from the womb) is not the same as a living being, as has been established by the medical field and the judicial system.
Your personal beliefs do not belong in the making of laws that affect others.

We have already gone well beyond this definition. Plenty of abortions are of children who could survive outside the womb. Using this idea just doesn't work as it is a moving target anyways. As technology improves, and children who are born at younger and younger ages are able to survive, will you ratchet down the gestational age at which abortion is legal?

Any child that is aborted after it is able to live outside the womb is considered a murder, and is treated as such. And unless you have statistics to back that statement up you should retract it.

And no, viability is determined by the court, by precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade.
It is not a set number.

You are way behind the times my friend. Look up late term abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

You could read the sources you cite, it says in the first paragraph "sometimes viable," which, as I already stated, was addressed in Roe v.Wade.
It also states that most of these do not occur at a stage when the fetus is usually viable.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:11:15 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What is the solution?

In my opinion, the solution is the rebuilding of families.

We need to support those who are in bad situations, but in such a way that encourages responsibility, not irresponsibility.

A lot of this, I believe does lie at the feet of the churches in America, who aren't involve in the problem. These girls need people with stability in their lives to invest in them, and to provide role models for their kids who encourage responsibility and good decision making.

You can't blame the "church", the U.S. isn't a theocracy.

The only thing to blame is the education system.

We need more and better sex education classes.

We don't need to give the state any more responsibility in raising our children. Parental guidance FTW! (unless your family is garbage, then i dont know what the best option is)

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:13:41 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What is the solution?

In my opinion, the solution is the rebuilding of families.

We need to support those who are in bad situations, but in such a way that encourages responsibility, not irresponsibility.

A lot of this, I believe does lie at the feet of the churches in America, who aren't involve in the problem. These girls need people with stability in their lives to invest in them, and to provide role models for their kids who encourage responsibility and good decision making.

You can't blame the "church", the U.S. isn't a theocracy.
The only thing to blame is the education system.
We need more and better sex education classes.

We don't need to give the state any more responsibility in raising our children. Parental guidance FTW! (unless your family is garbage, then i dont know what the best option is)

Advocating actual sex education is not advocating the state raise your child.
There is a difference between "raising" and "educating."
Maybe the current generation of parents didn't learn the difference because they weren't properly educated, eh?

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:14:00 AM EDT

[#23]

So, you belong to a church which does not have any belief that it should help and care for those around it who are suffering?
As a "religious man", you don't feel that you have any responsibility to help others around you?

That is interesting, but I don't think it is typical.

Most churches would at least claim to care about the people around them, and even claim that they are doing something to help them.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:16:32 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

A fetus (that is not capable of living away from the womb) is not the same as a living being, as has been established by the medical field and the judicial system.
Your personal beliefs do not belong in the making of laws that affect others.

We have already gone well beyond this definition. Plenty of abortions are of children who could survive outside the womb. Using this idea just doesn't work as it is a moving target anyways. As technology improves, and children who are born at younger and younger ages are able to survive, will you ratchet down the gestational age at which abortion is legal?

Any child that is aborted after it is able to live outside the womb is considered a murder, and is treated as such. And unless you have statistics to back that statement up you should retract it.

And no, viability is determined by the court, by precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade.
It is not a set number.

You are way behind the times my friend. Look up late term abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

You could read the sources you cite, it says in the first paragraph "sometimes viable," which, as I already stated, was addressed in Roe v.Wade.
It also states that most of these do not occur at a stage when the fetus is usually viable.

The typical age of viablity is considered 20 weeks. The reference stated that in the US 1.4% of abortions were performed at or after 21 weeks. It goes on to say that in 1997 there were an estimated 1032 abortions per year after 24 weeks in the US.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:17:09 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

"Education" is not the answer. We don't need more KNOWLEDGE, we need more WISDOM. We need PEOPLE to be involved, not more PROGRAMS.

That could solve half the problems with the country. Our

wise

"elected leaders" could care less, as long as they make it seem like they're doing something about the problem.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:17:11 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
So, you belong to a church which does not have any belief that it should help and care for those around it who are suffering?
As a "religious man", you don't feel that you have any responsibility to help others around you?

That is interesting, but I don't think it is typical.

Most churches would at least claim to care about the people around them, and even claim that they are doing something to help them.

What part of "I don't impose my RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on others," translates as "I don't give two shits about others,"?

The U.S. is NOT a theocracy, laws are not ground in your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Perhaps you should see what happens when religious beliefs are used to govern a populous, it turned out incredibly well for the Middle East.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:19:11 AM EDT

[#27]

Thanks to everyone for keeping this civil. Obviously some strong opinions here.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:19:54 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

A fetus (that is not capable of living away from the womb) is not the same as a living being, as has been established by the medical field and the judicial system.
Your personal beliefs do not belong in the making of laws that affect others.

We have already gone well beyond this definition. Plenty of abortions are of children who could survive outside the womb. Using this idea just doesn't work as it is a moving target anyways. As technology improves, and children who are born at younger and younger ages are able to survive, will you ratchet down the gestational age at which abortion is legal?

Any child that is aborted after it is able to live outside the womb is considered a murder, and is treated as such. And unless you have statistics to back that statement up you should retract it.

And no, viability is determined by the court, by precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade.
It is not a set number.

You are way behind the times my friend. Look up late term abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

You could read the sources you cite, it says in the first paragraph "sometimes viable," which, as I already stated, was addressed in Roe v.Wade.
It also states that most of these do not occur at a stage when the fetus is usually viable.

The typical age of viablity is considered 20 weeks. The reference stated that in the US 1.4% of abortions were performed at or after 21 weeks. It goes on to say that in 1997 there were an estimated 1032 abortions per year after 24 weeks in the US.

"Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week."
Again, you fail to read your source.There is no commonly accepted date for viability, because every pregnancy is different.
Also, 1.4% is "plenty,"?

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:21:34 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So, you belong to a church which does not have any belief that it should help and care for those around it who are suffering?
As a "religious man", you don't feel that you have any responsibility to help others around you?

That is interesting, but I don't think it is typical.

Most churches would at least claim to care about the people around them, and even claim that they are doing something to help them.

What part of "I don't impose my RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on others," translates as "I don't give two shits about others,"?

The U.S. is NOT a theocracy, laws are not ground in your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Perhaps you should see what happens when religious beliefs are used to govern a populous, it turned out incredibly well for the Middle East.

Sorry, I was responding to your statement that the church has no place in this matter and never will.

I interpreted that as the church has no responsibility to care for the people around it who are suffering (in this case, unwed mothers). I must have misunderstood what you were saying.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:23:52 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So, you belong to a church which does not have any belief that it should help and care for those around it who are suffering?
As a "religious man", you don't feel that you have any responsibility to help others around you?

That is interesting, but I don't think it is typical.

Most churches would at least claim to care about the people around them, and even claim that they are doing something to help them.

What part of "I don't impose my RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on others," translates as "I don't give two shits about others,"?

The U.S. is NOT a theocracy, laws are not ground in your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Perhaps you should see what happens when religious beliefs are used to govern a populous, it turned out incredibly well for the Middle East.

Sorry, I was responding to your statement that the church has no place in this matter and never will.

I interpreted that as the church has no responsibility to care for the people around it who are suffering (in this case, unwed mothers). I must have misunderstood what you were saying.

I was saying religious beliefs cannot be used to govern and educate a populous.
It never ends well.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:30:38 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

A fetus (that is not capable of living away from the womb) is not the same as a living being, as has been established by the medical field and the judicial system.
Your personal beliefs do not belong in the making of laws that affect others.

We have already gone well beyond this definition. Plenty of abortions are of children who could survive outside the womb. Using this idea just doesn't work as it is a moving target anyways. As technology improves, and children who are born at younger and younger ages are able to survive, will you ratchet down the gestational age at which abortion is legal?

Any child that is aborted after it is able to live outside the womb is considered a murder, and is treated as such. And unless you have statistics to back that statement up you should retract it.

And no, viability is determined by the court, by precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade.
It is not a set number.

You are way behind the times my friend. Look up late term abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

You could read the sources you cite, it says in the first paragraph "sometimes viable," which, as I already stated, was addressed in Roe v.Wade.
It also states that most of these do not occur at a stage when the fetus is usually viable.

The typical age of viablity is considered 20 weeks. The reference stated that in the US 1.4% of abortions were performed at or after 21 weeks. It goes on to say that in 1997 there were an estimated 1032 abortions per year after 24 weeks in the US.

"Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week."
Again, you fail to read your source.There is no commonly accepted date for viability, because every pregnancy is different.
Also, 1.4% is "plenty,"?

So the 24 week old infant who was shipped out of our NICU last week on a ventillator is going to die? What about the 24 week infant who I happened to go to college with (that was 25+ years ago mind you- technology has advanced a bit since then)? I deal with the issue of viability pretty commonly in my line of work, so I am not just making stuff up. The rule for most hospitals is that a pregnant woman who is 20 weeks pregnant and bleeding has a "viable pregnancy", those who are under 20 weeks are not.

I would say that if your are talking about "murding children" then 1 is plenty. For sure over 1000 per year is "plenty", and if we use the 1.4% number and there are say 1.3 million abortions per year in the US, then that is around 15,000 18,000 per year? If my math is right. That seems like "plenty" to me, when you are talking about something you defined as "murder".

Sorry, didn't mean to get side tracked here. We were talking about whether something is right or wrong based on a society's laws, and again, before that, how the sexual revolution has led to dependence on our government, Just to get back on track.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:38:16 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

A fetus (that is not capable of living away from the womb) is not the same as a living being, as has been established by the medical field and the judicial system.
Your personal beliefs do not belong in the making of laws that affect others.

We have already gone well beyond this definition. Plenty of abortions are of children who could survive outside the womb. Using this idea just doesn't work as it is a moving target anyways. As technology improves, and children who are born at younger and younger ages are able to survive, will you ratchet down the gestational age at which abortion is legal?

Any child that is aborted after it is able to live outside the womb is considered a murder, and is treated as such. And unless you have statistics to back that statement up you should retract it.

And no, viability is determined by the court, by precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade.
It is not a set number.

You are way behind the times my friend. Look up late term abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

You could read the sources you cite, it says in the first paragraph "sometimes viable," which, as I already stated, was addressed in Roe v.Wade.
It also states that most of these do not occur at a stage when the fetus is usually viable.

The typical age of viablity is considered 20 weeks. The reference stated that in the US 1.4% of abortions were performed at or after 21 weeks. It goes on to say that in 1997 there were an estimated 1032 abortions per year after 24 weeks in the US.

"Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week."
Again, you fail to read your source.There is no commonly accepted date for viability, because every pregnancy is different.
Also, 1.4% is "plenty,"?

So the 24 week old infant who was shipped out of our NICU last week on a ventillator is going to die? What about the 24 week infant who I happened to go to college with? I deal with the issue of viability pretty commonly in my line of work, so I am not just making stuff up. The rule for most hospitals is that a pregnant woman who is 20 weeks pregnant and bleeding has a "viable pregnancy", those who are under 20 weeks are not.

I would say that if your are talking about "murding children" then 1 is plenty. For sure over 1000 per year is "plenty", and if we use the 1.4% number and there are say 1.3 million abortions per year in the US, then that is around 15,000 per year? If my math is right. That seems like "plenty" to me, when you are talking about something you defined as "murder".

Putting words in my mouth won't make you right.
I said that there is no commonly accepted date of viability, and there isn't.
Also, from your own source, "...no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week..." so why do hospitals consider a 20 week pregnancy viable when that is impossible?
If you don't like that, it's one thing. It's quite another to counter points I never made.

1.4% of anything s not "plenty", in my opinion.
Do you have a statistic for which percentage of LTOP's are of viable fetuses? If not, you should not refer to the fetus as "child".

ETA: Again, in my opinion the only way to better society is through education.

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:38:59 AM EDT

[#33]

Again, please, define one's role models for this situation.
__________________________________________________________________________
("Why? I looked up to you!"––Rick finding out that Gus Gray took a bribe during the Berlin Olympic Games, (w,stte), "The Haunted Tank")

Posted: 8/14/2012 1:56:50 AM EDT

[#34]

No woman should get welfare benefits for her children unless the father can be identified. Women who refuse aid in establishing the fathers receive no welfare benefits. Then the father will given a choice. Either he pick up the tab for kid or of put the kid into the welfare system. If the kid goes into the system then the father gets sterilized. If he fathers a second child then said deadbeat gets castrated. No lower or upper age limit either. Women will be automatically sterilized after their second child goes on welfare. Same age rules apply to them. No upper or lower limit. I am fucking sick and tired of having to pick up the tab for all the bastard children running around this country.

If some person or group thinks this is wrong then let them found a private charity to pick up the expenses of said adults and their bastard children. Said charity to be financed by private donations only. Doctors who use artificial insemination to impregnate a woman must be willing to pay all medical expenses of the mother and child support for any resulting children. The procedure to be taxed at a rate of 100%. I don't need to pay for anymore children for octomom.

Married couples have no limits on children but in the case of divorce same rules apply to them if their children go into the system..

Posted: 8/14/2012 2:02:04 AM EDT

[#35]

So, this has gone pretty far astray from where we started.

I guess the summary of what I was trying to say was,

Weaker family = Stronger government

When the family does not function correctly, supporting children, and raising them to be contributers to society, the govenment will step in to help do the job. This means that more money, more authority and more control flow from the individual to the government.

I don't think this is going to end well, the way it is headed, so mods feel free to lock it.

Posted: 8/14/2012 2:12:37 AM EDT

[#36]

The sexual revolution did not cause this....remember the sexual revolution was actually caused by the availability of birth control

What changed was:

A) The fact that it became socially acceptable to have a child out of wedlock (I blame both feminists AND the choose life movement)

B) The fact that through social programs it became economically feasible to raise multiple children out of wedlock (I blame the left)

C) Somehow it became more socially acceptable for men to abandon their responsibilities.....not sure on this one, maybe a more mobile, less family centered population

Posted: 8/14/2012 2:21:25 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
So, this has gone pretty far astray from where we started.

I guess the summary of what I was trying to say was,

Weaker family = Stronger government

When the family does not function correctly, supporting children, and raising them to be contributers to society, the govenment will step in to help do the job. This means that more money, more authority and more control flow from the individual to the government.

I don't think this is going to end well, the way it is headed, so mods feel free to lock it.

A lot of these problems started reaching epidemic proportions when just such a thing happened. How can government freebees help raise responsible children? What programs would recommend? What would these programs be allowed to teach?

The following was written in the 1820's. A Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville was touring our young republic to see how we were doing. He wrote about his experiences in a book called "Democracy in America".

Alexis de Tocqueville Quotes (Author of Democracy in America)

It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public ... “Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom.” ... “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” ...

Posted: 8/14/2012 2:36:21 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I agree with the OP. One of the big difference between teens from the olden days and today is there is no consequences for knocking a chick up. My wife sees it all the time at the health center where she volunteers.

Wife: So do you have a boyfriend?

New 17yo mom: "No we broke up and he has a new girlfriend now"

Wife:

Perfect example. Odds are, that girl will spend the rest of her life in poverty, and dependent on the government. Obviously not true in every case, maybe she has parents who will support her, and give her stability. Maybe she will find a responsible guy who will actually love her, and give her and her child some stability, but the odds are definitely more likely that she will "get by" depending on the "system" for the next 20 years.

She was looking for someone who loved her, who would make her happy, and instead she ended up alone except for a child she has to provide for when she is totally unequipped to do so.

Interestingly enough, this touches on one of the counter arguments I have to "a beating heart" in abortion and pro life.....there is more to life than a beating heart. By compelling a woman to bear a child that she does not want, one is removing the chance (high probability) that she may have to advance herself, to make something out of her life.

Now, in relation to this topic, abortion can also be seen as a product of the sexual revolution, so where does that take the point? To remain in the beliefs of a religious past and confine people to poverty because of errors in judgement or accept the possibilities of the revolution and allow people to take corrective action?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
("You are a viscious little person, aren't you?"––Diane, (w,stte), "Cheers")

You go out of your way to try and find solutions that are just another crevice in the valley of immorality. Want to fix it? Then society needs to quit paying even one thin dime for someone else actions and force them to accept the consequences. Mean? Not really, no one forced them to have sex, it's far more cruel to force others to pay for someones stupidity, especially when most won't learn a damn thing the first time around. It's just not that hard NOT to get pregnant. Take away the rewards of having a kid while young and single [welfare, food stamps, section 8 hsg, WIC, ect] and you would see a change in a generation or two because it would take that long for idiots to figure it out. Idiocy SHOULD be hard, it should be so hard that others should look at it, think twice, and choose your decision wisely.

Posted: 8/14/2012 2:39:31 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Why would you be using county resources instead of paying at your private physician?
Also, women's suffrage was the first step.

Yup, kinda negates the rest of the rant.

I hope I don't end up like this when I'm old.

Posted: 8/14/2012 2:47:58 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I agree with the OP. One of the big difference between teens from the olden days and today is there is no consequences for knocking a chick up. My wife sees it all the time at the health center where she volunteers.

Wife: So do you have a boyfriend?

New 17yo mom: "No we broke up and he has a new girlfriend now"

Wife:

Perfect example. Odds are, that girl will spend the rest of her life in poverty, and dependent on the government. Obviously not true in every case, maybe she has parents who will support her, and give her stability. Maybe she will find a responsible guy who will actually love her, and give her and her child some stability, but the odds are definitely more likely that she will "get by" depending on the "system" for the next 20 years.

She was looking for someone who loved her, who would make her happy, and instead she ended up alone except for a child she has to provide for when she is totally unequipped to do so.

Interestingly enough, this touches on one of the counter arguments I have to "a beating heart" in abortion and pro life.....there is more to life than a beating heart. By compelling a woman to bear a child that she does not want, one is removing the chance (high probability) that she may have to advance herself, to make something out of her life.

Now, in relation to this topic, abortion can also be seen as a product of the sexual revolution, so where does that take the point? To remain in the beliefs of a religious past and confine people to poverty because of errors in judgement or accept the possibilities of the revolution and allow people to take corrective action?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

You go out of your way to try and find solutions that are just another crevice in the valley of immorality. Want to fix it? Then society needs to quit paying even one thin dime for someone else actions and force them to accept the consequences. Mean? Not really, no one forced them to have sex, it's far more cruel to force others to pay for someones stupidity, especially when most won't learn a damn thing the first time around. It's just not that hard NOT to get pregnant. Take away the rewards of having a kid while young and single [welfare, food stamps, section 8 hsg, WIC, ect] and you would see a change in a generation or two because it would take that long for idiots to figure it out. Idiocy SHOULD be hard, it should be so hard that others should look at it, think twice, and choose your decision wisely.

My mother once said that when she was young, the sheriff would pick up the bums and drop them on the edge of town, telling them to get out. Why couldn't we do that now?

Well, if I was in the next town over, I'd really resent that Sheriff dropping his bums on my door step.

Similar thing here. What do you expect to happen to them if you tell them, tough luck, no one is going to take care of you now. What do you expect them to do? Not in a generation but NOW? Where do you expect them to go? How do you expect them to survive? Does one really expect them to just disappear or die quietly?

One other thing. If one is expecting in a generation or two that they would get the message, how is one sure that they will get the message that you want?

Just saying, in the a nutshell version, this is like people who say "We have to make prison so bad that no one will ever want to go back" and expecting that such will make people behave; it doesn't quite work like that.
___________________________________________________________________________
(" Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!"––Higgins, CIA, (w,stte), "Three Days of the Condor")

Posted: 8/14/2012 2:52:24 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Why would you be using county resources instead of paying at your private physician?

Also, women's suffrage was the first step.

I don't know about the OP, but no local Dr's office carries the Tetanus vaccine. The Health Dept is the only place to get one and I paid $10 for mine.

Very well said, OP. Your moniker is fitting.

Posted: 8/14/2012 2:55:53 AM EDT

[#42]

I guess you did not read where I said that the county health department is also the location for the local travel medicine clinic, or that I paid them $750 for the immunizations?

Posted: 8/14/2012 3:01:39 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Right and wrong exist outside of laws. They are much bigger than our society. Just ask any Jew who lived in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

I didn't mean for this to become an "abortion" thread, but it is definitely a part of the whole issue.

Hopefully we can keep it civil.

Well, there have been societies which defined personhood differently. For example, in Viking culutre, an infant didn't become a family member until the child was accepted by the head of the household. Before that time, the child could be "set out" for the gods to determine its fate. This was done so that in lean times, the child (and the rest of te familyfor that matter) wasn;t doomed to starve by stretching resources too thin. They believed the gods would defend the child if they wanted it to live.

Were they wrong?

Posted: 8/14/2012 3:02:56 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
All I heard was "I hate sex"!

I don't hate sex, I actually really enjoy it- with my wife, and I hope that some day my kids do the same thing with their spouses, instead of getting pregnant at age 19 trying to find someone who says they "love" them.

Newsflash:

Your kids aren't gonna wait until marriage.

Deal with it.

Has NOTHING to do with FUCKING––

It's about Getting Knocked Up with NO means of Support!! (over and over and over)

Get Educated!!!

And still we have poeple resisting sexual education which includes birth control education.

Posted: 8/14/2012 3:04:04 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What is the solution?

In my opinion, the solution is the rebuilding of families.

We need to support those who are in bad situations, but in such a way that encourages responsibility, not irresponsibility.

A lot of this, I believe does lie at the feet of the churches in America, who aren't involve in the problem. These girls need people with stability in their lives to invest in them, and to provide role models for their kids who encourage responsibility and good decision making.

You can't blame the "church", the U.S. isn't a theocracy.
The only thing to blame is the education system.
We need more and better sex education classes.

I agree. But the limits on sex education arem mostly the fault of social conservativews who think no one will fuck if we don;t have sex education.

Posted: 8/14/2012 3:04:29 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So if we changed the LAW to say that you can kill your child up until their third birthday, and it is called "an abortion", not "murder", would it be ok to do it then?

It is not a LAW that determines right or wrong. Just ask any Jew who live in Germany during WW2 if a law is what determines right and wrong.

A fetus (that is not capable of living away from the womb) is not the same as a living being, as has been established by the medical field and the judicial system.
Your personal beliefs do not belong in the making of laws that affect others.

There are many who are unable to live unassisted. Hitler exterminated these (along with the Jews). Could his effort be construed as abortion by the definition you propose?
If inability to live outside the womb (without the aid of a host), then anyone without this ability could legally be aborted, regardless of age.

... wait, I hear hospice calling.

buckmeister

Posted: 8/14/2012 3:43:27 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
You know what could help fix this?
Actual sex education, not just the "abstinence only" malarkey they teach in schools.
You can't expect teens to have safe sex if they've never been taught about it.

Not everyone holds the same values as you, and they are and should be free to do as they wish with their own body.

Someone get that Southpark clip where the teacher puts a condom on a banana with his mouth.

As for this chart, I find it interesting. Spain is one of the most nominally Catholic countries on the planet, but has a very low birth rate. Czech Rep. and Hungary, however, are less theist, I guess in large part to their communist past.

Posted: 8/14/2012 3:45:22 AM EDT

[#48]

SOCIETY IS COLLAPSING

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57411981-10391704/u.s-teen-pregnancy-rates-at-an-all-time-low-across-all-ethnicities/

Posted: 8/14/2012 4:12:08 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nice opinion.......it falls right in line of why, if asked, I would support gay marriages. Not necessarily because for them but because I see "the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman" as a war against singles as well. This opinion rather verifies that.

___________________________________________________________________________________

So gay men are becoming single mothers and ending up in poverty?

Not necessarily.

Rather,

"The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend."
_____________________________________________________________________________
("Captain, there is an old saying.....,"––opposer to the group that holds Federation hostages, (w,stte), ST:TNG "Legacy")

the enemy of your enemy is your enemy's enemy.

Posted: 8/14/2012 4:12:14 AM EDT

[#50]

I hate these horseshit threads!

OP's going to a public clinic for reduced cost shots while bitching about the rest of those there also getting reduced cost medical care.

Next, a diatribe on how personal responsibility's gone, then proceeds to blame everyone for it. We apparently forgot the good old days where a teen in trouble was lucky if she was only married to the boyfriend (or someone else) just long enough to have the kid, then get an annulment or divorce later. Otherwise the teen father got his buddies together to claim they all got a piece, labeled her a slut and she got packed off the some "Aunt back East" for the resulting childbirth and subsequent adoption.

Yeah, we did it so much better back then, didn't we?

Then we make it sound like the teen birthrate's going through the roof, yet it's crystal clear that teen pregnancy's at it lowest point now since it started being recorded.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The sexual revolution was the first step in a conspiracy to destroy our way of life (Page 2 of 6)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us