Abortion and gay rights

[quote name='thrustbucket'] I ultimately put the responsibility on parents though. I think it's actually educating parents on the importance of educating their own kids is where society fails most. The fact that parents seem to want to put the burden on schools to teach this stuff seems one of the core problems.[/quote]Thrust, I don't always agree with you or how you word things, but you get a special prize for this.

The breakdown of the family is causing all sorts of problems in this country, mainly because parents don't know how or don't care to be parents. Have a good time with your kids, sure. Be their friend, yes. But letting your child do whatever he may determine to be best all the time isn't a real great idea. You have life experiences for a reason, to help your children make good choices. They'll learn some things the hard way, yeah, and they'll throw your advice or rules out the window from time to time, but kids need some boundaries and need some guidance to grow up to be productive members of society. You don't have to be the greatest parent on earth; but you do need to try.

But I think you're dead on that sex ed needs to not be taboo to parents. Talk with your kids, teach them, help to clarify the things they hear in school from a teacher or a friend. I think they would go a long way in clearing of the teen pregnancy problem.

I would be interested to see some stats of which group is getting more abortions, high school girls and before, or college and thereafter. Obviously, there's a fertility span that's far greater on the one side, but they would be interesting stats to see on a time line.
 
[quote name='daroga']I would be interested to see some stats of which group is getting more abortions, high school girls and before, or college and thereafter. Obviously, there's a fertility span that's far greater on the one side, but they would be interesting stats to see on a time line.[/quote]

Here is a clusterfuck of CDC Statistics - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm?s_cid=ss5609a1_e

It looks like it's as recent as 2004.

From the table I looked at - Table 4 - they have the ages split into 40 (3.2%) and 0.5% unknown.

So it's the college/graduated high school and started working age group that has the most abortions, which makes sense anyway as their reasoning for having abortions is cost, delaying parenthood until later, work/education, etc.

Abortions have been dropping (just like crime) as the family has been breaking down though. They've been declining since around 1990 with a sharp drop in 1994-1995 and has been steady/slowly dropping since then.

And around 86% in the first trimester, 60% within the first 8 weeks.
 
[quote name='daroga']The breakdown of the family is causing all sorts of problems in this country, mainly because parents don't know how or don't care to be parents. Have a good time with your kids, sure. Be their friend, yes. But letting your child do whatever he may determine to be best all the time isn't a real great idea. You have life experiences for a reason, to help your children make good choices. They'll learn some things the hard way, yeah, and they'll throw your advice or rules out the window from time to time, but kids need some boundaries and need some guidance to grow up to be productive members of society. You don't have to be the greatest parent on earth; but you do need to try.[/QUOTE]

I had a good conversation over many many beers Saturday night, where I (and you'd be proud of this, thrust! ;)) without any evidence whatsoever tried to argue that there's a possibility that poor parenting skills during the period of early development (a sort of "here, watch this TV" parenting style instead of "let me read to you every night" parenting style from birth though 3 years, based on Erik Erikson's stages of human development) is what could possibly lead to the development or diagnosis of ADD/ADHD. My premise was simply that fostering skills that emphasize or require concentration early on in life help later. But if TV or games are what a child experiences, they're more prone to passivity (since reading is more active on the participant than TV) and a complete disinterest when it comes time to apply themselves to a task like homework.

Which reminds me: as a pastor, daroga (this ain't a religious book), I can't help but wonder if you'd find any use as a consultant to parents in Annette Lareau's books "Home Advantage" and "Unequal Childhoods."

Also, data on abortions ain't gonna happen period due to the sensitivity of it, let alone data on teenage abortions. The best you could do is random sample all females over a certain age and pray that social desirability bias (giving the answer you think people want to hear, rather than the answer that is true) won't fuck things up too much. Which, unfortunately, it probably would.
 
So, in a thread that was flame bait trying to stir crap up about abortion and gay rights we've all come to agree that parenting in the US needs to improve? Makes sense to me! ;)

Thanks for those book suggestions, myke. I'll take a look and see if either are in the library here to check out.
 
I firmly beleive that Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead could teach all of america's youth the benefits of butt sex.
 
Now you're talkin!

Or perhaps dongs and those fake platic butts you see on halloween.

I can see the slogans now:

"Don't be a slut, take it in the butt!"
"Kids take too much loot, so take it in the poop shoot!"
 
I hope you get your wish pittpizza, my butt plug sales will skyrocket!

I think promoting oral would be a better idea though...
 
Unless I missed someone else mentioning it earlier: I find it curious that the same people that say "If they let them there gayz marry, then we should let them there "cousins", man/woman-*animal*, or polygamous marry"; are the same exact ones that said the same thing in opposition to inter racial marriages. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I hope you get your wish pittpizza, my butt plug sales will skyrocket!

I think promoting oral would be a better idea though...[/quote]

Oh, but oral isn't sex! Bill Clinton said so! Oh noes!

heh
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']Unless I missed someone else mentioning it earlier: I find it curious that the same people that say "If they let them there gayz marry, then we should let them there "cousins", man/woman-*animal*, or polygamous marry"; are the same exact ones that said the same thing in opposition to inter racial marriages. The more things change, the more they stay the same.[/quote]

Miscegenation is allowed? :shock: Holy crap... forget the gays and the cousin marrying yokels, we have other things to debate... ;)
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']Unless I missed someone else mentioning it earlier: I find it curious that the same people that say "If they let them there gayz marry, then we should let them there "cousins", man/woman-*animal*, or polygamous marry"; are the same exact ones that said the same thing in opposition to inter racial marriages. The more things change, the more they stay the same.[/quote]


nice point, though i dont think they are exactly the same ones
 
[quote name='billyrox']nice point, though i dont think they are exactly the same ones[/quote]

In some cases it is. But the principle is the same either way
 
similarities can be drawn. :) however, the same principle can be used for drastically different results depending on context/enviroment/modivation. it doesn't mean that a principle is always right/wrong because of the outcome from its prior application in the past.
 
[quote name='daroga']Of course.

When does that switch flip?[/QUOTE]
That is for the individual and their god to decide. Freedom FTW.

[quote name='HumanSnatcher']the same exact ones that said the same thing in opposition to inter racial marriages. The more things change, the more they stay the same.[/QUOTE]
This.
 
My views -- marriage is between two consenting adults. Traditionally, this has been between a man and a woman, but if two people of the same gender wish to come into a binding marital contract, then by all means they should be allowed to do so. For those who think same-sex marriage will lead to man-animal marriage...ponder this, in countries where same-sex marriage is illegal...we see man-animal marriages.

On abortion, I'm a bit more conservative. But, my views are two-fold. First, on case law...I strongly object to the Roe and Griswold decisions because I don't find their reasoning to be in a sound, constitutional basis. The Constitution does not prevent people from making foolish laws, it just prevents them from violating specific inalienable rights as outlined in this document. A right to privacy is not an inalienable right inherent in the Constitution and even if it were, it does not grant one the right to an abortion. Also of note is the fact that Roe only legalized first trimester abortions, subsequent legislation/decisions legalized the rest. You may disagree with some of the rhetoric, but read Rehnquist's dissent and you'll see where I'm coming from.

All of that said, I'm not here to discuss abortion law...but my views on the act itself. I don't find it to be necessary with the vast access to birth control we have today, we shouldn't be seeing the number of abortions we're seeing. Also, the disproportionate number of minority women seeking abortions is awful. We need to find ways to minimize abortions because until that happens, there can be no effective ban on the act. Yes, keep partial birth abortions illegal and the BAIPA is 100% fine with me (in fact, I think the BAIPA is important), but let's figure out ways to minimize them before trying to ban anything. How so? Make domestic adoption easier. As a person who comes from a family with 5 adopted siblings, let me tell you...it's not easy domestically. If you choose not to go through and be a foster parent, as my parents did not, it can take years to adopt domestically...plus, the biological parents have more rights than they really should. All 5 of my adopted siblings are from foreign countries (Russia, Kazakhstan, and El Salvador). On another note -- I know a family which adopted both domestically and through Russia...including travel expenses, translational expenses, etc, the Russian adoption cost less than the domestic adoption. Think about that. We need to do the following -- 1. take away any rights biological parents have to the children the moment the child is given up; 2. cut back on the paperwork; and 3. allow same-sex couples to adopt. Between these three things, it will cost a lot less to adopt and increase the amount of children adopted. Then we need to go on a national campaign to remove stigma's away from adoption as an option instead of abortion (films like Juno unintentionally help with this).

This needs to be coupled with better education in the schools with regards to sex. I think sex and drugs need to be taught about in the same vein -- tell them not to do it as little kids, tell them what the consequences can be if you do it when they're in middle school, then say nothing about it in high school. By high school, there's not much you can do to change their minds. Of course, this needs to be tailor-fit to the needs of the school. If you have a high school with a massive outbreak of VD or a ton of teen pregnancies, perhaps in high school you should discuss birth control and have big jars of condoms in your nurses' office. As I said, it has to be tailor fit to your school...but it needs to be better than what we have and I still think telling little kids to just "don't do it" is enough at first and then middle school discuss the possible consequences. Abstenince education doesn't work on it's own...it has to be coupled with something to help people realize the consequences and to help keep those who will do it anyway protected.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I wonder if your fiancee feels the same way[/quote]


That's none of your business!!!

I will tell you this though: You can't turn a ho into a housewife.
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']Unless I missed someone else mentioning it earlier: I find it curious that the same people that say "If they let them there gayz marry, then we should let them there "cousins", man/woman-*animal*, or polygamous marry"; are the same exact ones that said the same thing in opposition to inter racial marriages. The more things change, the more they stay the same.[/quote]


Bit of a tangent, but it still amazes me people have hang-ups about "interracial" relationships. I actually had a girl tell me she thought I was great but couldn't date me because her father would flip is she dated a black guy (I have 1/4 German blood but I guess it isn't enough). Her father would have prefer a white man that beat her over me who would treat her right. Ridiculous.
 
Interacial couples deal with a lot of shit. Society as a whole looks down upon them, similar to how they look down upon children born out of wedlock or homosexual couples. I wouldn't want my child to have to deal any with that.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']You can't turn a ho into a housewife.[/quote]Hos don't act right. There's hos on a mission, and there's hos on the crackpipe.
 
[quote name='speedracer']That is for the individual and their god to decide. Freedom FTW.[/quote]So life is subjective?

Interesting. You realize what happens if you take that to its natural conclusion, right?
 
[quote name='lanzarlaluna']Hos don't act right. There's hos on a mission, and there's hos on the crackpipe.[/quote]

You can't take a ho to a HO-tell, because hos tell everybody, even the mayor, then reach up in the sky for the HO-zone layer.

Yous a ho. HO! Yous a ho. HO! Yous a ho. HO! I said that yous a ho!
 
daroga, if you want to see an abstinence-only program that doesn't work, come to Lubbock, TX. We have out of control teen pregnancy and teen STD rates, with the primary population being late middle school/early high school age. Teachers can be fired for discussion contraceptives, unless the students ask them about it. This has been a serious issue for years. A lot of the Ob/Gyn docs in town are very disturbed by the school district's insistence of abstinence-only. It's a big problem.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Interacial couples deal with a lot of shit. Society as a whole looks down upon them, similar to how they look down upon children born out of wedlock or homosexual couples. I wouldn't want my child to have to deal any with that.[/quote]

You mean if you had a son that fell in love with a Japanese woman you would frown on that? Society looks down on that? I wonder how Cheapy would feel about that?
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']You mean if you had a son that fell in love with a Japanese woman you would frown on that? Society looks down on that? I wonder how Cheapy would feel about that?[/quote]

Actually I mean what I said, no more, no less.

And I was referring to the society I live in (along with probably about 90% of the rest of CAGs).
 
[quote name='daroga']So life is subjective? Interesting. You realize what happens if you take that to its natural conclusion, right?[/QUOTE]
No, but freedom is. That's the whole point.

And if you want to take "it" to its natural conclusion, don't forget every single issue under the sun. Economic, social, and every little bit of minutiae imaginable. Watch your step, you might sever a vein on Occam's razor trying to make a very negligible point.
 
[quote name='speedracer']No, but freedom is. That's the whole point.

And if you want to take "it" to its natural conclusion, don't forget every single issue under the sun. Economic, social, and every little bit of minutiae imaginable. Watch your step, you might sever a vein on Occam's razor trying to make a very negligible point.[/quote]That is a danger.

So, let me get this straight. Life isn't subjective, it's objective. But, "freedom" overrides that and my "freedom" can subjectively say when and where life begins (or ends as the case may be)?

Which freedom(s) are you referencing here?
 
[quote name='daroga']So, let me get this straight. Life isn't subjective, it's objective. But, "freedom" overrides that and my "freedom" can subjectively say when and where life begins (or ends as the case may be)?[/quote]
In this situation, yes.

Which freedom(s) are you referencing here?
Click to expand...
The problem with this position is that honest men, patriots (in my opinion) can't trust partisans not to turn on them. Partisans will play against the rules whenever they can. They will muddy the water with bullshit like subjective/objective instead of educating themselves to see what the real issue is.

The first one is free.

Griswold v. Connecticut
Eisenstadt v Baird
Roe v Wade
Stenberg v Carhart
Casey v Planned Parenthood
Gonzalez v Carhart
Lawrence v Texas

Now, you tell me on who's side the objective is and where the subjective is. While you're at it, give me one good damn reason to trust "you" people. You read those opinions and then honestly present to your fellow Americans that these assholes wouldn't have us partying like it's 1799. It's not a slippery slope. I guaran-goddamn-tee you the day the keystone is chipped out, contraception will go back on the table immediately (each spermie is sacred!!!1!). At least one state will try to recriminalize homosexuality.

I'm sorry, but objective/subjective in this context is for the uninformed, the informed unethical, and fascists. I choose to believe you're uninformed.
 
There are just too many goddamnned topics in this one threadd. Freedom, homo-love, marriage, abortion and buttsex is more than any one threaad should have to handle.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']homo-love[/QUOTE]

Don't let anyone ever tell you you're not classy. Not that it's true; I'm just sayin' don't let anyone tell you that.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']There are just too many goddamnned topics in this one threadd. Freedom, homo-love, marriage, abortion and buttsex is more than any one threaad should have to handle.[/quote]

You forgot interracial relationships ;).
 
[quote name='speedracer'] I'm sorry, but objective/subjective in this context is for the uninformed, the informed unethical, and fascists. I choose to believe you're uninformed.[/quote]Thanks!

You never answered my question, though. How does one's opinion on something objective change said objective thing? I have the freedom to think that China doesn't exist; that doesn't make me right. What if I want to think that people ages 11, 42, and 67 are not alive and therefore it's alright for me to "clean up" those age brackets? I think we'd say the objectively those people are alive, right? But does my opinion and my "freedom" allow me to do whatever the heck I please?

What you gave me were legal cases, which are all fine and good for establishing precedents and what the law allows. But I'm talking about deeper, more fundamental issues here. Were those interpretations of the laws and those legal decisions right?

I'm sorry that you fear that there might be objective truth that sits contrary to your subjective opinions, but there's really no need to lash out at people. It saddens me that you seem to be so uncertain about your position that you assume people who disagree with you are either ignorant or fascists.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Actually I mean what I said, no more, no less.

And I was referring to the society I live in (along with probably about 90% of the rest of CAGs).[/quote]


You didn't answer my question.

"You mean if you had a son that fell in love with a Japanese woman you would frown on that?"

It's either yes or no.
 
[quote name='daroga']...[/QUOTE]
You want a philosophy of abortion debate. I didn't realize that.

No thanks. Natural law arguments make me nauseous.

I'm sorry that you fear that there might be objective truth that sits contrary to your subjective opinions, but there's really no need to lash out at people.
Click to expand...
There is no objective truth outside myself. Right?
 
[quote name='speedracer']There is no objective truth outside myself. Right?[/quote]So you define objective truth as "subjective"? You realize objective truth by its nature is universal, not personal, right?
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']You didn't answer my question.

"You mean if you had a son that fell in love with a Japanese woman you would frown on that?"

It's either yes or no.[/quote]

No, of course not! Why? Would you? What are you racist!?


[quote name='pittpizza']Interacial couples deal with a lot of shit. Society as a whole looks down upon them, similar to how they look down upon children born out of wedlock or homosexual couples. I wouldn't want my child to have to deal any with that.[/quote]

What in that post says "I would frown on my son falling in love with a Japanese woman"???????? You're making a big assumption here Guile, and you know what happens when you assume.

Learn to read statements in their narrowest contexts and you'll avoid misunderstandings like this in the future. I say what I mean, no more no less.

"I wouldn't want my child to have to deal with any of that" does not equal "I would frown..."
 
pitt, Guile's issue was with your overtly vague "I wouldn't want my child to have to deal any with that."

My first impression of that is, "Since society hates it and will scorn them for it, I don't want my kids to even mess with that."
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']You didn't answer my question.

"You mean if you had a son that fell in love with a Japanese woman you would frown on that?"

It's either yes or no.[/quote]

I think what he's saying is he wouldn't want that for his kid - not that he'd frown upon it. I have a son and I don't want him to be gay because he will have a harder life ahead of him (and as a parent you want nothing more than for your kids to be healthy, happy and not ever have to struggle). If my son is actually gay (he's 9 months so it's a little early to tell) I will support him 1,000,000% but I certainly don't wish it on him.

As for the interracial thing... maybe I'm just used to people of all backgrounds because I grew up just outside NYC but I don't even see it as an issue at all. My best friend married a white girl and their interracial kid is my goddaughter. Never once thought it was weird or even really thought about it. Actually this is the first time I've ever considered that there might be people out there who frown upon them as a couple/family. Hmmm....
 
[quote name='daroga']So you define objective truth as "subjective"? You realize objective truth by its nature is universal, not personal, right?[/QUOTE]
Depends on how we approach it, right (if you get my meaning)?

I also realize that my previous posts have come across quite curt. I apologize for that.

The problem with an objective/subjective approach concerning this is that, as I crudely put, ultimately the arbiter is only me. There's little if any room for debate when that approach is used. How do you debate the philosophical objectivity/subjectivity of:

"Life begins at the point of conception."
"Life begins at the end of the first trimester."
"Life begins at the quickening." (to use the millenia old European standard)

?

You can't.
 
[quote name='daroga']pitt, Guile's issue was with your overtly vague "I wouldn't want my child to have to deal any with that."

My first impression of that is, "Since society hates it and will scorn them for it, I don't want my kids to even mess with that."[/quote]

Vague to you maybe. See below.

[quote name='javeryh']I think what he's saying is he wouldn't want that for his kid - not that he'd frown upon it. I have a son and I don't want him to be gay because he will have a harder life ahead of him (and as a parent you want nothing more than for your kids to be healthy, happy and not ever have to struggle)....[/quote]

Leave it to another attorney to read something correctly, based only on the words that the author uses, and not interject meaning, implications, or false assumptions and conclusions that are not present in the words themselves.

I wish everyone on CAG had these skills: to say what they mean, and read only the meaning that is on the face of the words, no more, no less.

I guess for most...shall we say...less critical readers, I need to spell things out more and pretty much assume that CAGs are going to interpret and read things into it that aren't there.
 
Simply because one person understood what you vaguely stated in the way you meant it to be understood doesn't mean it wasn't vague.

Is it really that hard to say "Oh, yeah, let me clarify what I meant with that?" as opposed to insulting people and just dieing on the mountain of your original statement? It doesn't mean you were wrong before, nor does it mean that everyone lacks reading comprehension.

[quote name='speedracer']The problem with an objective/subjective approach concerning this is that, as I crudely put, ultimately the arbiter is only me. There's little if any room for debate when that approach is used. How do you debate the philosophical objectivity/subjectivity of:

"Life begins at the point of conception."
"Life begins at the end of the first trimester."
"Life begins at the quickening." (to use the millenia old European standard)

?

You can't.[/quote]Yeah, I understand that. Would you like to take back your claim that the definition of "life" is objective then? Because it seems like your arguing the other side of that argument now.

And I, too, apologize if I've been short. :)
 
[quote name='daroga']Simply because one person understood what you vaguely stated in the way you meant it to be understood doesn't mean it wasn't vague.[/quote]

How I meant it to be understood has nothing to do with it. The words used have everything to do with it. You can't know what goes on in my head, you can only see the words I put on the screen. If CAGs would just read the words, and then think about what only those words mean, like Jav, and every other critical reader, a lot less stupid misunderstandings would occur.

[quote name='daroga']Is it really that hard to say "Oh, yeah, let me clarify what I meant with that?" as opposed to insulting people and just dieing on the mountain of your original statement? It doesn't mean you were wrong before, nor does it mean that everyone lacks reading comprehension.[/quote]

No, and you're right. I didn't mean to be insulting and have no clue what your getting at with your mountain metaphor. But if just one CAG reads what I'm saying and takes it to heart, then their reading and writing will be improved, and it will help them in life and CAG as a whole.

You'll have to please excuse ME if I've been short, poor reasoning, logic, and reading comp are pet peeves of mine, amongst many others.
 
[quote name='daroga']Yeah, I understand that. Would you like to take back your claim that the definition of "life" is objective then? Because it seems like your arguing the other side of that argument now. [/QUOTE]
When I go to Christmas dinner with my Roman Catholic Italian side of the family and ask aloud whether "life at conception" is objective, I would get a strong and rousing affirmative. It's not for me. It is for them.

It's like light. It's a wave and a particle.
 
One problem I've always had with the "culture of life" is how that life is defined.

Was Shaivo really alive? Is the life of an unwanted fetus more important then the life of a soldier that is put on the line as a result of poorly accumulated and analyzed information (or more cynically, access to oil and dreams of controlling the middle east). What about the lives of all the animals that are killed and processed by agri-business, do they have a right to a life that is humane and an end that is dignified? If an elderly person lives in constant pain and desperation with no hope of recovery, is that really exemplary of the type of life that must be protected at all costs? Does the state really possess the right to keep that person alive against their will?

Based on the voting record of the "compassionate" christian voting bloc, they surely have a very unusual definition of life.
 
[quote name='speedracer']When I go to Christmas dinner with my Roman Catholic Italian side of the family and ask aloud whether life is objective, I would get a strong and rousing affirmative. It's not for me. It is for them.

It's like light. It's a wave and a particle.[/quote]

I think you two are asking the wrong question. Everyone would agree that "yes, life exists" but the rub is defining when it begins to exist, at least it is in the abortion debate, if that's still what you two are talking about.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Learn to read statements in their narrowest contexts and you'll avoid misunderstandings like this in the future. I say what I mean, no more no less.[/quote]

I can't do that. You know what happens when you assume. You yourself told me. Unless that was a fib...:lol:

Thanks for answering my question though.
 
^ Sure no problem. I think it is (or hope it would be) evident that I'm a very open minded liberal. I have stated more than once that I hate racism, prejudice, and injustice.

Jav did sum it up well: while I wouldn't frown upon my son being ______ (
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top