Today is the anniversary of Roe V. Wade.. - Page 4

pensacola_niceman · 01-23-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

...fine!!!

Now why don't you read that article that I felt was important to share, and tell me what you think of it? I mean, "Please Pen..."

OhDear

The reason I didn't read the article is because it's too fucking long. This time of the evening I have no patience for long-winded posts. I'm here to relax and enjoy myself - not argue the merits of Roe vs. Wade.

fxashun · 01-23-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

If I was the mod, I would just delete all your macaroni is all.

OhDear

Macaroni? What's wrong with macaroni?

pensacola_niceman · 01-23-2008, 10:07 AM

One way to stop the need for abortion is to have more women who look like this:

CrazyFlamingos · 01-23-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

CF, I don't mind saying, if I am wrong, that I am...

Still, I do not see abortion ushering in to our society a stronger youth. And if children now are born only out of truly being wanted, I would believe to see most young people having that foundation of self-worth that comes from parental love.

OhDear

So is that an admission that you were wrong?

OhDear · 01-23-2008, 11:42 AM

I truly have no idea where my post went! I had posted here and then went on to some other threads and now I see that my post here is gone.

I guess now to keep it shorter, I will just say that I am not exactly retracting my previous post, CF. But I do believe that the "long article" that I posted, that no one wants to read, makes some valid discussion.

I actually did at the onset believe I came upon your article about the crime rate diminishing. But the article does continue and gives other valid explanations.

I had written in a post here to share my history of thinking on this issue. And really the message that I want to convey is that I do believe that this issue cannot be debated on a religious foundation since we do not want to have legislation shaped by the personal faith of any of our citizens. But I do see pro-choice promotes a personal moral tone that also is an affront to many.

OhDear

CrazyFlamingos · 01-23-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

I guess now to keep it shorter, I will just say that I am not exactly retracting my previous post, CF. But I do believe that the "long article" that I posted, that no one wants to read, makes some valid discussion.

So you stand by your statement that juvenile crime has increased but you have nothing to back that up?

Nice.

Grace · 01-23-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

There are innocents being murdered everyday in Iraq, piad for with your tax dollars. I don't hear the protests from you about that.

Well I dont think that would be called for here in the ABORTION sec of this MB.

Quote:

I was making a point about God and how many innocents he directed his people to kill in his name. I'm only referring to the Bible, not what people have done in his name in later years. He had no problem with the murder of innocents.

Is that really your justification to murder? If thats the case, and you want to play God, why only the unborn? You can kill anyone you wanted.

Quote:

I am not the brainwashed one here.

Well it surly isnt I who had to be reeducated by the millions spent by folks like PP. If this "right" was so obvious why all the need for advertisment?

Quote:

I don't need to quote scripture to back up my opinions.

Me either, I just really like to.

Quote:

And for a woman to have equal staus means murder?

No. Abortion means murder. And equal status???? Who the hell do you think your kidding? Tell that to the piles of MILLIONS of dead babies. Where is there equal status???? What if your mother decided to kill you???Think about it.

Quote:

That's ridiculous. And I find your version of Christianity to be the very kind that ignores the teachings of Jesus.

REALLY???? Please, do tell. I would love for someone to justify the deaths of millions apon millions of his innocent children through his teachings. I cant wait to hear this.

Quote:

You seem very judgemental and angry. Is this what Jesus would do?

Thats offten the reaction of people when faced with the truth. Im not angery or jugdmental, the word of God is. Dont confuss the message with the messanger. BTW you will find out soon enough what Jesus "would do". And I dont think your going to like it.

Quote:

Maybe you should repent.

I do. Everyday. But it isnt me with the blood of the innocent on my hands.

OhDear · 01-23-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

So you stand by your statement that juvenile crime has increased but you have nothing to back that up?

Nice.

No. I am relying on your stats now...

Nice.

OhDear

OKgrannie · 01-23-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

I had written in a post here to share my history of thinking on this issue. And really the message that I want to convey is that I do believe that this issue cannot be debated on a religious foundation since we do not want to have legislation shaped by the personal faith of any of our citizens. But I do see pro-choice promotes a personal moral tone that also is an affront to many.
OhDear

Could you expand on "pro-choice promotes a personal moral tone that also is an affront to many"? I am not sure what you are saying here.

I did skim your article although it IS very long. The author is mistaken about some things:

Quote:

Before the New Morality of the late 1960s, our society had actually done a very good job of suppressing unwanted pregnancies without abortion -- and without the Pill. We hear it like a mantra today: "You can't stop teenagers from having sex." But we did.
Birthrates among unmarried women were very, very low back in the 1950s. And most such children were given up for adoption, because the social penalties for unwed motherhood were so harsh.

This is not so. Teenagers were not stopped from having sex, birthrates for unmarried women were low because far too many of them had sex and were rushed into shotgun marriages as teenagers. This was not exactly an ideal solution but I guess it made the statistics look good.

Quote:

So were the social penalties for promiscuity. They were unfairly borne by women, of course, but even among man, there were many who regarded extramarital sex as always being wrong, and censured those who broke that rule

.

That's just hogwash. Women who were promiscuous were sluts, easy, and shunned by those who knew. Men who were promiscuous were admired.

Quote:

Teenagers were also chaperoned and didn't start dating until they were much older than today. By the time they were free to date without supervision, far more of them had matured to the point where they could much better control their sexual impulses. In other words, we as a society helped parents protect their children from their own desires until they were old enough to be likelier to control them.
So the primary mechanisms that prevented promiscuity were social controls, internalized belief in moral stories, and fear of the consequences of pregnancy

.

Teenagers were not chaperoned on dates, and boys were dating by the time they could drive (16) or younger if they had a friend who could drive, and girls were dating by 14 or 15. In my observation, there was more dating then, as kids just seem to gather in groups and pair off without any formal dating today.

Extracts - "Silent " Sexual Revolution Began In The 1940's and '50s

U.S. Census Bureau statistics on premarital pregnancy and vital statistics on single motherhood between 1940 and 1960 point to the unexpected conclusion that there was much more sexual activity during those decades than Americans were willing to admit, said Alan Petigny, a UF history professor whose research was published in the fall issue of the Journal of Social History.
“People didn’t start having sex because Elvis Presley was shaking his hips or because Hugh Hefner came out with Playboy,” said Petigny, who said he is the first historian to use census data focusing on premarital pregnancies. “After 15 years of Depression and war, there was also a desire on the part of Americans to live in the moment and enjoy life, and they were accordingly less likely to defer to traditional restraints on their behavior.”
According to Petigny’s research, the sexual revolution actually began during World War II, which had a great liberalizing effect on values, affecting everything from child-rearing to religion......
He relied on vital statistics and census data rather than sexual surveys, such as those completed by Alfred Kinsey and his staff in the ‘40s and ‘50s because the government’s hard numbers are likely more reliable. “Because rates of single motherhood focus on what people have done as opposed to what people claim to have done — or not to have done — they are significantly more reliable than either subject interviews or polling data,” he said.
“The evidence from our study using census data suggests that the ‘40s and ‘50s experienced a sizeable increase in the frequency of premarital intercourse,” he said. “To argue otherwise, one would need somehow to reconcile the more than doubling of illegitimacy among whites, the more than tripling of all out-of-wedlock births and the evidence of a dramatic increase in premarital pregnancies.”
Between 1940 and 1960, the frequency of single motherhood among white women increased from 3.6 to 9.2 newborns per 1,000 unmarried white women of childbearing age, Petigny said. Among all women, single motherhood rose from 7.1 to 21.6 newborns per 1,000 unwed women, he said.
“Between the beginning of World War II in 1941 and the inaugural issue of Playboy in 1953, the overall rate of single motherhood more than doubled,” he said. “The silent generation may have been silent about what they were doing, but they weren’t all that complacent.”
The crucial distinction between the ‘40s and ‘50s and the 1960s are in differences between conventions and conduct — what people said versus what they did, Petigny said. During the ‘60s, Americans simply were more willing to acknowledge the extracurricular sexual activities of the young than they had been during the previous decades, he said.

CrazyFlamingos · 01-23-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

No. I am relying on your stats now...

Nice.

OhDear

I am finding what you say very confusing. Either you are backing off your previous statement about juvenile crime or not.

"My stats" seem indicate that you were wrong when you said, " Also juvenile crimes have risen since then too," even though they address crime overall and do not single out juvenile crime.

And the same website where I found those stats said that they were unable to find any reliable data regarding the rate of child abuse since 1973. ( FactCheck.org: Abortion Distortions )

Yet you, in the same post, said, " Child abuse stats are higher now that there is no need to birth "unwanted" children."

Then you said, " I will just say that I am not exactly retracting my previous post."

So which is it? Standing by your previous post or relying on "my stats"?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode