48 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
I really don't understand how anyone can stand there
and, with a straight face, talk about poor women who cannot plan their own parenthood (unless raped, of course). It's not like pregnancy happens spontaneously. When did we come to the belief that engaging in sexual activity was the right of any post-pubescent person regardless of marital status or ability to care for a child? This is a sad one, indeed. This lady needs to be reprogrammed or something.
I think it would be better to hand out condoms
and birth control pills to everyone that wanted them. Adults not participating in sex probably isn't the answer.
Before you call them names, remember it takes two to tango.
What you seem to be proposing is that
we should consider doing what is expedient rather than what is proper. Perhaps there's some value to that argument but I'd never want to tell anyone that they have a right to express themselves sexually at no cost or obligation to themselves. Not good, IMO.
Exactly. It's ok to have a kid you can't afford
That means the innocent child pays the price.
Regardless of what we actually do out of expedience
the message must be consistent. We either tell teens and other unmarried persons that having sex is all fine and dandy or we tell them otherwise. The woman in the video seems to think that she and other poor unmarried women were victims of something other than their own bad decisions. She got that notion somewhere and I think it should be corrected.
That is what teenagers do all the time - make bad decisions.
No, tell them there are consequences, and to use protection.
I can understan your point and view
but I'd have to say that if someone is going to have sex, they should plan to prevent pregnancy.
Of course, none of the forms of preventive birth control are 100%, or none of the preventive tempoarary ones anyway.
What is improper about handing out condoms???
They did it during WW2, and reduced STD's to negligible proportions. If there is anything cheaper than condoms as a protection against both STD's and AIDS and pregnancies I can't think of it.. And teach them how to put them on properly, because Black men, some of whom make very bad choices dumping the consequences on women, don't like condoms because they think they interfere with sensation simply because they don't know how to put the damned things on properly.. All that is needed is a longer reservoir area empty of air before the condom is put on to allow room for movement. It's the dumbest easiest solution to a problem which is entirely between men's ears.
So maybe someone should make a law
requiring their use? and that would be a solution and most would adhere? Anyone who'd believe that is at least as naive as anyone who'd believe that telling kids about consequences would get their attention. Unless you're there at the moment of "passion", slip the thing on the parties yourself and monitor their session up to and removal and inspection of the condom's integrity, I think you've got nothing to offer that will be half way successful. Telling them "Please don't but be careful if you do" is just as useless. If nothing else, there must be a clear message of what is acceptable and what is not and let them know that there is no guarantee that someone will provide a free safety net.
Apply their thinking to guns
The best thing is to give all kids guns, because instead of being taught to abstain from shooting someone when angry, they should have adequate means to insure they do it correctly.
Or how about booze? If they are going to drink anyway, shouldn't we make sure they have access to decent store bought booze instead of getting a back alley brand distilled through a leaded radiator or some other unsanitary source? "Save our children from back alley booze!" Above all, don't insult everyone's intelligence by teaching them to abstain, since some will do it anyway.
I could go on, but there's only so much time to waste on the foolishness of such people.
just to clarify the headline, death = abortion in this tale
Now I don't like abortion used as birth control.
I don't want to see it outlawed, I in fact feel unless it's my child, it's not my decision but the parents.
I know you James, and others also, regard it as cold blooded murder, that's your right.
But I want no one's religous views forced on others either.
Maybe this will interest you
Confessions of a Pro-Life Atheist
Too often, I think, people look at religious motivations only and not an individual's moral character as its own entity. One doesn't adopt a religion and suddenly change their moral code. I feel it's more likely that a person's moral code exists before they identify with a religion.
accepted that morals sometimes exist that mirror
a religious stance without that person subscribing to that religion.
Most religions share similar positions on many subjects. Such permeate and become part of society standards, fortunately a majority of the time it is for the benefit of society.
Murder, theif, adultry, etc, are generally considered immoral, and arguably are derived from old religious belief. Or perhaps young religions as they develop also incorporate existing society norms.
And it does seem that for most of humanity there are similar reactions to actions that feel to be intrinstic to being human. However, when different groups have a deep conviction of opposite beliefs each feel to be part of being human is when the worse conflicts occur.
I could easily believe that many religious positions
came from observations of both positive and negative consequences of people's actions with the results attributed to some outside force. This could happen in pagan beliefs, Christian, Jewish, etc. It's my opinion that religion gets used as a scapegoat or blocking attempt in too many arguments just as does racism.
I'll concede scapegoating is often done
Roger's the most...
...religion concerned man in this thread, LOL!
You know, I just had an idea. Make all things we disagree with a positive "religious conviction" instead and watch how those who kneejerk about other's religious beliefs interfering with them, quickly switch their tune.
The problem is that people selectively
use the word "religion" in negative context when, more often, the proper term is "morality" (or morals). Because various religions have adopted or feel strongly about specific moral principles doesn't mean they invented them, have sole ownership of them, or that they offer no benefit to those who don't subscribe to them. We run into conflicts when trying to write secular law that has already been discussed in religious texts as folks can't seem to consider the principle and objective of the proposed law as an entity with its own merit.
Contraception doesn't equal death, it equals good sense.
I think it is referring more to abortion
Many see contraception as murder because a child
If contraception is murder
then wouldn't abstinence be murder also? I really think the concept concerning contraception rests more on licentious enablement than on contraception itself.
Don't know where you heard that unless someone
hasn't figured out the definition of conception. Those who believe contraceptive drugs or devices facilitate killing or murder also understand that it has to do with conception taking place but implantation being denied.
Mostly from the Catholic heirarchy
Don't know where you heard
that "Catholic heirarchy" (sic) stuff either because it's actually a medical reality. Conception is the process of fertilization and the beginning of growth activity which progresses from the zygote to the blastocyst with the next steps being transportation and possible implantation. This all may take a couple of weeks, during which time, growth and cell division continues. Even before implantation, the mechanisms of a living organism are in process. Conception is already old history though some folks want to use twists of linguistics to say otherwise. Any chemical or compound used to arrest development after cell division is in progress or to prevent implantation would cause death of the growing organism...or whatever you want to call it. Causing it to die could be accidental or deliberate but the end result is the same. Something alive and growing dies.
so the only contraceptive actions that aren't murder
would be condoms, when they work,or sterlization?
That's beside abstinence of course.
Though when you look around some definitions of contraceptive define it as preventing pregnancy and some define it as preventing conception, two different things actually. Then there are definitions of conception being of preventing fertilization and some as preventing pregnancy, again not exactly the same thing.
Does preventing fertilization from occurring break any rules? if prevented by anything other than abstinenance that is.
Not sure what you're asking or from what perspective.
Why do you ask about preventing fertilization as it pertains to rule breaking? Whose rules are you referring to? My reply to Diana wasn't about any position other than that of established medical science using the recent biological information. AFAIK, pregnancy is still defined as beginning after successful implantation and when a specific hormone is detectable (I forget it's name but it's usually expressed as a three letter abbreviation). We will hear the term "contraception" expressed in very broad ways with the end result being prevention of pregnancy but a lot happens prior to the "official" condition of being pregnant and there is more than one way to arrest that condition such as;
You can prevent gametes from being produced
You can prevent gametes from meeting up with one another to become a zygote
You can prevent a zygote from completing it's growth and journey to the implantation site
You can prevent a developed blastocyst from being able to implant itself and grow further
There may be more and creative means but the end result is no pregnancy.
Now Diana made a dig at the Catholic Church as possibly having its own definitions. I can tell you that it has batted that ball around and bantered about life's beginning for many centuries. From what I understand it was once considered that the life began at the moment of "ensoulment"...thus when a soul is received by the developing child. What criteria was used to determine this is something I'm not educated in but it might have been thought to be simultaneous with the moment of "quickening" which is when the mother first felt movement. In any event, the Catholic church does avail itself of scientific findings and now accepts life to begin at conception...the successful union of the male and female gametes, as it were.
As for Catholic church rules, it's not valuable to just try and come up with list of dos and don'ts but rather to give the larger picture and perspective of where any such positions would come from. In a nutshell, I'd have to sum it up by saying that the church position is that we shouldn't monkey around with sexuality and use it wrongly and nor should we mess with normal reproductive functions by trying to manipulate or defeat them out of selfish purpose.
You are the one
bringing religion into this. I didn't.
Are you saying you need religion bashing as an excuse to argue against something? Or just reinforcing stereotypes, as if anyone who objects to abortion does so for religious reasons alone?
I suppose however by that woman's outburst about Ramen noodles I shouldn't have my youngest daughter. Sometimes I think she lives on Ramen noodles, even though there's what I consider better quality food available. Her other favorite after school food is Giant store's canned chili, adding cheddar and crumbled saltines into it. It makes me wonder just how many black children hate having Ramen noodles at the end of the month?
ok, a bit of an assumption but you have expressed
yourself freely enough in the past regarding this topic.
Or am I mistaken about past opposition to abortion?
Now someone can be against abortion without being religious, I'll grant that.
How often though here have you bought religion into a discussion? don't you based many or your replies on scripture? I don't see that I really bashed your religion either.
And the discussion about abortion have more people invoking religion than any other I know. I'm not sure you can separate religious belief from the people's position on whether or not a fertilized egg is a human or not.
Most vocal arguments you hear, read, etc against abortion are by people that freely involve their religious belief in the argument.
So I made an assumption that is only 95% or so true.
I know polls aren't facts, and people generally only believe the poll when they agree with the results, but the public opinion about pro-life vs pro-choice seems to wander around 50% for over a decade.
Given that, I'm not inclined to want law to dictate the choice. Should there be restrictions? on that question I'm sure you can get over 50% support. Then you get into the argument about when is an embyro human? then you normally get religious arguments on the pro-life side. Would you deny that?
My first abortion wasn't religious based
Personal instead. When I was younger, the idea that someone might conceive by me and then kill the baby before it was born was repugnant. At that time my view was any such decision should be mutually made, each having a veto over it. I also looked on it as guys trying to shirk their duty to support their children, since paying for an abortion would save them 18 years of child support. The concept of killing a baby instead of putting it up for adoption seemed crazy to me since there are always more wanting to adopt in today's world than there are babies available for adoption. When I finally looked at it religiously, I discovered an abortion was not labeled as murder, but the same as the death of a slave, a monetary loss. If a woman was struck in such a way she lost the child (fruit of the womb) the punishment was a monetary fine, the same as for a slave.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)