Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 16, 2019 7:37:42 GMT -8
The increase in unwanted pregnancies accelerated after Wade. I believe that was a result of providing a safety net for the consequence of having sex outside of marriage.
If you believe in the notion that all activity is a function of incentive, or risk v reward, the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy was greatly reduced, and that led to females, primarily, becoming less judicious about their sexual behavior. The result, more unwanted pregnancies that are resolved by either abortion or welfare to single moms. It's pretty well documented what happens to kids of single moms, so I won't get into that consequence.
What used to be the hope of a good night kiss at the end of a first date, has morphed into how many minutes before sex on the first date... assuming it's even a "date". I think this is VERY unhealthy, for both the young man's respect toward females, and the female feeling of self worth.
I think we both come from a Hispanic background, and agree with you to an extent that once married, there are many men that become abusive. I don't know how widespread it is / was, but I can say with integrity it wasn't widespread or tolerated in my family. I know of 1 guy that married my aunt, and another that married a cousin. Both died in their 40s. One from alcoholism, the other at the hand of my cousin who took exception to his sister being hit.
Long story, long, I think legalizing abortion has had a catastrophic impact on our country.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 16, 2019 9:23:13 GMT -8
That is exactly why the left refuses... steadfastly refuses to call the unborn a “child.” In all the years since Roe v. Wade, I have tried countless times to get even one of them to refer to the unborn as a child. They will not do it. it is like they believe, if they humanize the child, they will have to accept the pro-life position. So they refer to it as a fetus (or, in Fordama’s case, a “zygote”). It's not just the left. It's a whole lot of people on the "right" as well. I frankly don't care what you call it. I believe firmly that the woman has the primary right in the relationship. We have legal precedent that some lives are worth more than others. This is one of them. For clarifications n, Does that “primary right” include killing the child if he or she is inconvenient? |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 16, 2019 9:25:55 GMT -8
... Long story, long, I think legalizing abortion has had a catastrophic impact on our country. It definitely has, including a disastrous impact, emotionally and sometimes even physically, on the woman who kills her child. this is something the pro-abortion crowd will not talk about. |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Jun 16, 2019 10:53:34 GMT -8
That is exactly why the left refuses... steadfastly refuses to call the unborn a “child.” In all the years since Roe v. Wade, I have tried countless times to get even one of them to refer to the unborn as a child. They will not do it. it is like they believe, if they humanize the child, they will have to accept the pro-life position. So they refer to it as a fetus (or, in Fordama’s case, a “zygote”). It's not just the left. It's a whole lot of people on the "right" as well. I frankly don't care what you call it. I believe firmly that the woman has the primary right in the relationship. We have legal precedent that some lives are worth more than others. This is one of them. Wow! Seriously? "Some lives are worth more than others." What makes this statement so absurd, is that only your way leads to the death of one of the two lives involved. In the pro-life policy both lives get to live. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 16, 2019 11:38:59 GMT -8
It's not just the left. It's a whole lot of people on the "right" as well. I frankly don't care what you call it. I believe firmly that the woman has the primary right in the relationship. We have legal precedent that some lives are worth more than others. This is one of them. Wow! Seriously? "Some lives are worth more than others." What makes this statement so absurd, is that only your way leads to the death of one of the two lives involved. In the pro-life policy both lives get to live. I'm curious what legal precedent of some lives being worth more than others is similar to abortion. I can only think of the death penalty, and the right to self defense as being some form of statute that supports that idea. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jun 16, 2019 13:36:57 GMT -8
... I am sure it is possible to argue that ANY time sex occurs a woman should understand that pregnancy is possible and therefore simply abstain altogether unless she wants a baby. In fact, I think that's the very argument you are making. Women are not simply vessels for human life... The primary reason for intercourse is reproduction. The pleasure one derives from it is designed to further the species and is not the primary reason why it exists. Therefore, one should abstain from intercourse altogether unless one is willing to be responsible for the results. You can gamble and have intercourse without the goal of wanting to have children, but if you end up rolling boxcars and creating a life, you have a moral responsibility to not kill it. This does prevent people from enjoying sexual activity, it just removes one activity from the menu. Heck, homosexuals never have intercourse and they have such great sex lives that they hold parades. As far as those pregnancies caused by rape, incest or other instances where the woman does not want to have intercourse, what is the percentage? I don't have the stats and am too lazy to google, but I would bet that less than 1% of abortions are for cases of involuntary intercourse. To build a case that all abortion must be legal based on such a minority is disingenuous. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 16, 2019 14:23:58 GMT -8
... I am sure it is possible to argue that ANY time sex occurs a woman should understand that pregnancy is possible and therefore simply abstain altogether unless she wants a baby. In fact, I think that's the very argument you are making. Women are not simply vessels for human life... . I'm sure that's what the rule book says, but man, that's pretty much an impossible sell to most Americans regardless of spirituality. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 16, 2019 15:54:54 GMT -8
... I am sure it is possible to argue that ANY time sex occurs a woman should understand that pregnancy is possible and therefore simply abstain altogether unless she wants a baby. In fact, I think that's the very argument you are making. Women are not simply vessels for human life... The primary reason for intercourse is reproduction. The pleasure one derives from it is designed to further the species and is not the primary reason why it exists. Therefore, one should abstain from intercourse altogether unless one is willing to be responsible for the results. You can gamble and have intercourse without the goal of wanting to have children, but if you end up rolling boxcars and creating a life, you have a moral responsibility to not kill it. This does prevent people from enjoying sexual activity, it just removes one activity from the menu. Heck, homosexuals never have intercourse and they have such great sex lives that they hold parades. As far as those pregnancies caused by rape, incest or other instances where the woman does not want to have intercourse, what is the percentage? I don't have the stats and am too lazy to google, but I would bet that less than 1% of abortions are for cases of involuntary intercourse. To build a case that all abortion must be legal based on such a minority is disingenuous. Last figures I checked were hampered by the unfortunate fact that not all states require women to report their reason. However, in those states that do collect such statistics, fewer than .7% (that’s point seven of one percent) reported “rape” (and for statistical purposes, incest was counted as rape) as the reason for seeking an abortion. you also raise an interesting perspective on sexual intercourse, a variation of which I have raised with the ardent leftist defenders of abortion and to which they will not offer a response: Sex is not a biological imperative. We human beings can choose to engage (presupposing a willing partner), we can choose to not engage. It is pleasurable, it is sought after, and it has a sociological, cultural, and biological purpose, but it is not something we MUST do... not something we cannot avoid. and, so, “choice” is something we do before a child is conceived, not after. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jun 16, 2019 19:58:41 GMT -8
The primary reason for intercourse is reproduction. I'm sure that's what the rule book says, but man, that's pretty much an impossible sell to most Americans regardless of spirituality. I have alot of faith in Americans as a group and I can see a majority understanding & accepting the biological facts about intercourse. Since sodomy laws in most states have been repealed, there are plenty of sexual acts available for consenting adults to participate in if they 100% do not want children. It is actually extremely selfish to then demand to participate in the one particular act that can lead to procreation, but not be responsible for anything it creates. Imagine being told you can play on any golf course in the world, however, if you choose to play Pebble Beach and inadvertently hit a ball in the ocean, you must spend some time helping clean the ocean of pollutants. I know it is a silly analogy, but it is the exact same concept. Intercourse is the Pebble Beach of courses, unique and fantastic, with the potential of forcing you to step up to the responsibility of its consequences. And for those of you who know the joke "Kawasaki, Kawasaki!!" |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Jun 16, 2019 20:17:26 GMT -8
"What do you mean 'wrong hole?'"
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Jun 20, 2019 22:35:15 GMT -8
Pro Abortion forces are having a very bad week.
First the Hyde amendment passed yesterday in the House, and now,
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jun 21, 2019 7:35:13 GMT -8
It's interesting that the ruling came down from the 9th Circuit Court. I guess they know that by lifting those injunctions they will cost Trump millions and millions of female votes next year. Pretty smart of them.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Jun 21, 2019 9:00:21 GMT -8
It's interesting that the ruling came down from the 9th Circuit Court. I guess they know that by lifting those injunctions they will cost Trump millions and millions of female votes next year. Pretty smart of them. I'd look at this way: Any women who oppose Trump's pro-life policies are already voting against him. On the other side, this is the biggest hit to Planned Parenthood by any Republican president ever, so it's going to bolster his base and further demonstrate that he's serious about delivering on his campaign promises. Overall another tally on the plus side for the Donald. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jun 21, 2019 10:52:13 GMT -8
It's interesting that the ruling came down from the 9th Circuit Court. I guess they know that by lifting those injunctions they will cost Trump millions and millions of female votes next year. Pretty smart of them. I'd look at this way: Any women who oppose Trump's pro-life policies are already voting against him... I'd agree that it won't change ones opinion, but it may make pro-choice women who are agnostic about voting instead make the effort to actually show up at the polls. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 22, 2019 12:45:59 GMT -8
My body... but not really my choice?
|
|
