The Christian fetus fetish
Since the post on guns devolved into comments on abortion, and we’ve got some really really anti-woman rights people out there that like to comment, I decided to post on the topic everyone likes to debate - abortion rights.
This issue takes on considerable weight when you have people basing their political preferences and votes on this single issue. Can you imagine a few more judges like Scalia? Can you imagine womens’ abortion rights restricted to just a dozen or so ‘blue states’? Can’t they look past their Christian fetus fetish long enough to care about what overturning Roe v. Wade would do to American society? America would become the largest nation in the world where abortion was not universally safe and legal. These Christian fetus fetishists ignore and refuse to promote sex ed and contraceptives that would reduce abortion. Instead they promote ‘abstinence ed’ which has not only been proven a failure, but has been shown to promote anal and oral sex. The fetus fetishists refuse to acknowledge studies that show that instances of abortion declined the most where abortion was safe and legal. They also ignore studies that show outlawing abortion does not prevent it or lessen it’s instance. Abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. But, because of their Christian fetus fetish, they consider it unimportant that studies showed that the result of outlawing abortion endangers women’s lives. The study indicated that about 20 million abortions that would be considered unsafe are performed each year and that 70,000 women die as a result of complications from those abortions, most in countries where abortion is illegal. Pro-life my ass. Pro-life is anti-women. Pro-life is an irrational contradiction, born most often out of religious conviction.
By all polls ever taken, America supports abortion rights and Roe v. Wade. Have you noticed? The vast majority of anti abortion rights commenters here are Christian conservative parents. You’ll find a much broader demographic on the pro choice side. These are the American Taliban, those that want to force their religious views on society. They are not just happy upholding their own moral compass, they want to force it on all others.
No, a fetus is not a person. Human life, yes, but not a human being, not a person. Big difference. It is a developing person. The science that determines human life from a legal perspective is that of brain waves, the standard by which we can remove a person that is ‘brain dead’ from life support.
Like ‘global warming deniers’ … much anti-abortion psuedo science has spouted fallacies like “At only 40 days after fertilization electrical waves as measured by the EEG can be recorded from the baby’s brain” as proof of life. Yes, it is proof of life but it is not a human being because it’s brain is not fully formed.
For a thorough discussion on this subject see this link.
From the article:
An EEG involves measuring varying electrical potentials across a dipole, or separated positive and negative charges. Any living cell has an electrical potential across its membrane, and any living structure is a dipole, which explains why people have been able to put electrodes on plants, hook them up to EEG machines, and get “evidence” that plants have feelings. But this has nothing to do with “brain waves,” which are a nontechnical term for a particular kind of varying potentials produced by certain brain structures that don’t even exist in an embryo and associated with consciousness and dreaming as well as the regulation of bodily functions.
To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record “brain waves” prior to 20-24 weeks. Period. End of story.
98% of all abortions are performed before the 20th week, before the fetal brain is fully functional. If you want to restrict abortions in the last trimester, I have no problem with that, but abortion should an option in cases of severe fetal abnormalities or a risk to the life of the mother.
So…how may abortions have you paid for, William?
All of your get, I hope…
We know William hates Christians. Now we know he hates parents, too. Except his own, of course, who were brave enough to bring his enlightened being into the world.
Copied from my post elsewhere:
An embryo at its early stages of development will grow to be its size at that stage of development. It will develop “higher order brain function”, as well as everything else, if it goes on unmolested. If the brain dies in an adult, that brain has formed and has gone through all of what is necessary in life before expiring. The brain doesn’t recover and the patient is declared “brain dead”. Doctors only do this when there is no chance for recovery.
In the case of the embryo, we know it will develop a brain in a short course of time. The neural clusters show up rather soon in development, including a spine and other nerves. If a doctor knew a patient had a condition where they were in a coma but were going to make a full recovery in 3 weeks, would the doctor pull the plug? Of course not.
Similarly, if someone takes action to prevent that coma patient from coming to in 3 weeks by killing him, people would consider that murder, not euthanasia.
Now, according to William’s view of “real science”, it’s now okay to kill the mentally retarded, those with brain tumors, those with abnormally shaped brains, those who have had brain surgery, and children up to age 18-20 because the brain is not fully formed until then.
In other words, “Quick! Kill it before it reaches a point where it has enough brain activity where it will make me feel bad about aborting it!”
Again, the intent is there. You’re pulling the plug on a patient who is not terminal.
What I find disgusting is that “prolifers” have been used by the GOP to deny help to those who reach birth. Suddenly the “born” aren’t worth the taxes required to take care of them.. So important as a fetus –just a tax burden after the birth!!!
Yep. The Right-to-Life ends at the exit of the vagina.
.
Thanks Cap’n for the catholic perspective. Instead of address real world implications of illegal abortion in the US, ride your high moral horse and tell everyone I hate christians… yea, thats good.
It is too bad William’s mom didnt have safe legal abortion available to her.
I wish we had ected earlier so Williams mom had safe and legal abortion available to her.
Taxes don’t raise children. Parents do. Taxes get taken from parents trying to raise their children.
Taxes get taken from me to help school other people’s chirrens.
They always have a right to their life you dumb asshole. They don’t have a right to my money.
This stunning display of ignorance is the only evidence anyone needs in order to demonstrate that you don’t have a point to piss in.
In other words, “You’re stupid and wrong.”
But no rebuttal to the point.
As for Christian and Child Hating William (I’ll continue to interject this so long as you try to paint my position as derived from Catholicism), I want all people to understand the logical inconsistency of abortion. If we had less people like you in education, more reason would reach the students, and this argument would be moot. But instead you come here and rant against anti-choicers (from the anti-life perspective no less), when you should realize that abortion itself is merely more of a way for men to objectify women as sexual objects. You’d just like the option of being able to destroy any mistakes you made because you were too selfish to give up your galavanting musician life to be a father.
Captain BS:
It’s not that your “stupid and wrong”, it’s that your sensibilities on this complicated issue are informed more by one-dimentional personal fantasies than any real world considerations.
See there, you’ve proven it again.
That’s very interesting. Considering I’ve given my thesis here in detail, all you can do is call me one-dimensional without offering counterpoints. Citing my mockery of Christian and Child Hating William doesn’t strengthen any argument of yours, but your continued avoidance of debate weakens your stance.
Oh, and I am not rebutting your point (embryo=person) because it is absurd.
If you don’t believe me, why don’t you try luck before a grand jury?
Why, i think I’ve been completely refuted point by point by a superior mind! /sarcasm
Way to prove my point, HBK.
The point is, you don’t have a point to refute. You’ve taken leave of common sense.
You might as well show a proof that 2+2=5.
There is no need for a point by point ‘refutation’.
That would only serve to dignify nonsense.
I postulate you cannot refute my “nonsense”, and that’s why you don’t.
You’d just like the option of being able to destroy any mistakes you made because you were too selfish to give up your galavanting musician life to be a father.
What about the woman? Don’t you care what she wants? It’s her choice ultimately. If a man knocks up a woman and she wants to have a child, it’s her choice. Or should she be forced to have the child because pregnancy is God’s way of punishing girls for being sluts? Woman who are pregnant are very vulnerable, especially if they are young. They are an easy target, picking on young girls becomes an easy job, as compared to ending poverty and feeding the homeless.
Kids make mistakes and they shouldn’t be forced to fuck up their lives by having kids as teens. I had sex before I turned 14 and even then, I wasn’t stupid enough to ever make that mistake, (unlike some anti-women people who comment here). Maybe they are trying to project the lifestyles they have locked themselves into on others, trying to build themselves up as paragons of morality and responsibility because they fucked up and had to live with it.
Hey Cap’n, one more thing. My god has a bigger dick than your god.
Christian and Child Hating William–
Pregnancy is a natural process to reproduce. The process makes more humans. If a woman is pregnant with a human, then the choice to terminate that human’s life leaves one human without a choice. As it’s the nature of all living things to survive, the default position is for it to live. Someone dies because of that choice.
Pregnancy is not a punishment. However, killing someone for simply existing certainly seems like an arbitrary decision.
They are also very vulnerable when they are non pregnant. Due to that vulnerability, is it reasonable to grant them to power to kill?
In that decision, one person’s life is “fucked up” — ended. In rationalizing the taking of life, we’re into dangerous territory.
To the best of your knowledge. Had she gotten pregnant, I’m sure you would have done your male duty and driven her to the abortion clinic to get rid of your mistake. Thanks for showing what a callous, woman hating asshole you are.
Thanks for showing what a callous, woman hating asshole you are.
Says the person who wants to subjugate all women to adopt his bogus view that an undeveloped fetus is a “person” and their repoductive choice is called ‘killing someone’. Hey, if you want a gov’t run by religious principles, I’ve got a place for you: Iran.
Captain,
You’re right, I can’t “refute” a “point” that ignores common sense.
In case you need another example,
AS you never cite the common sense, it’s clear that your “sense” is hardly “common”. Especially if it’s impossible to put into words.
The point of “common sense” is that it is neither practical nor necessary to put it into words. All I can do is give exapmles of your statements that ignore it. I don’t need a scientific explanation to know that an embryo is not a person any more than I need mathematical proof that 2+2=4. Again, I am not asking you to take my word for it. Argue your “point” before a grand jury and see what happens.
One example would be that common sense should tell you it is more likely that the gov’t has recovered alien spaceman than it is that someone died for three days and came back to life 2000 years ago.
This is interesting, Christian, Child and Woman-Hating William. Let’s explore who’s subjugating women, shall we?
Birth control’s advent in 1950s was embraced in the 60’s, leading to the era of “free love” and the feminist movement. In the early 70’s this movement was reinforced by Roe v. Wade, which opened up the US to legalized abortion.
So what has this opened the door to? More women being sexually active. And who are they being sexually active towards? Men. Before the arrival of birth control, men had to court women, ask their father’s permission, be very careful as not to get the woman they were sleeping with pregnant, and when they did, they had a shotgun wedding. It was the right thing to do, at least then.
Now men have unfettered access to women, who have been told to embrace their feminine side by being more in touch with their sexuality. This premise has connected a woman’s self-worth, her femininity, with he sexuality. A majority of women now believe than men will not continue to date them unless they have sex with them. This is especially true of women who believe they have “average” looks.
Now consider the male attitude regarding increased sexual activity. Now that they have a variety of women who are more willing to have sex, there’s less of a regard towards the value of the woman. Men, the horrible, hormone driven creatures we are, want sex with women. If you think you don’t want this, I’d invite you to examine your past relationships and how quickly you progressed to sexual activity. Because men can apply relationship pressure to women, especially in the sexual arena, they get what they want sooner.
Who do you think promoted birth control, William? Men. Why? So they could have more sex with women. Birth control eliminated the fear a man had of having Uncle Seamus standing in row two of the wedding hall with the shotgun. Now men are free to use women as sexual object, and women have been conned by the liberal intelligencia that sex is cool and increases their self-esteem. Many believe that sex is just “something fun”, which is unfortunate, as it shifts the power of the sexual relationship squarely on the shoulders of the male.
So, continue to think I hate women. At least I’m not viewing them a sexual objects while whispering to them that they are empowered– so long as they get abortions, use birth control, and are free with their sexuality– all things men want.
What I want? Sexual responsibility and a return to the strong woman who is in complete control of her sexuality– in that she feels no pressures from society or liberal paragons to “put out”.
Saying “There you go again” may have worked for Reagan. It’s not going to work here.
Either put up or shut up, HBK. If you can’t put your viewpoints into coherence, then you’re nothing but a political parrot trolling message boards.
I have made my viewpoint pretty clear. You can’t understand that because you think that women are basically equivalent to children in their abilty to mange their own affairs, which you have made clear in your last, insanely dumbass, comment
Your viewpoint is “it’s not common sense”. However, you don’t say what is contrary to common sense, so therefore you must object to the entire premise of my argument, which then means you reject basic biology.
As you’ve provided no contrary argument, nor have you bothered to try, I must conclude you have no contrary argument and you can only parrot talking points. All of this confirms my belief that you’re disinterested in engaging any debate, and all you are is a message board troll.
Thank you for making that abundantly clear, luddite.
HBK,
My wife, along with 50% of American women, is pro-life. And, assuming for the sake of argument that a grand jury would side with you, I guess you’re asserting that a jury is always right? or that the term “person” is immutable? Give me a break.
JP, flyers4n,
Re. “pro-life till birth” . . . there are all kinds of logical replies to that (Brian provides one; e.g., I’m not liable for thieves’ sustenance by virtue of outlawing thievery; the Red States are more charitable than the Blue States). But I’ll take off the gloves: For the record, I will bet that I give more or at least as much in the way of time and money to support the less fortunate than you do. And I will bet that my church (or the people assembled in my church) gives more or as much as any comparable association to which you belong to help the less fortunate. That argument is a red herring . . . it distracts from the issue . . . it is, at best (assuming its true–which I don’t think it is) an ad hominem attack.
William,
The fact that CBS’ views are similar to or informed by or even exactly the same as those of Catholic social policy is only marginally relevant to whether they are correct.
My views on policy are based on my worldview, not on my religion. Your views on policy are based on your worldview. Man, you are a walking fallacy.
And, it bears repeating: It’s not evil, or a crime, or a mental disorder to disagree with William or HBK.
Who do you think promoted birth control, William? Men. Why? So they could have more sex with women.
Holy shit Cap’n, I guess in your world only men enjoy sex and have orgasm. I feel sorry for you. Your post is so incredibly male-view dominated, you haven’t a fucking clue about women. Birth control was “the male conspiracy to get women to have sex”?? What !!?? Man are you sheltered and fucked up. Get a clue, the world doesn’t revolve about what men want. Was it the catholic guilt thing that sex before marriage is bad? Yea right, women only ‘put out’ because they want to please men, of course we couldn’t allow women to enjoy sex, that would be slutty. I guess it’s not surprising since you must have about zero sexual experience outside of the woman you knocked up. Pathetic.
Women, Christian, and Child Hating William–
If women have more sex, who benefits? And who is put at greater risk?
CBS,
I am open to debate, as long as there is something to debate. William is right, your comments have revealed that you are completely ignorant of certain perspectives that are necessary in order to carry on an informed “debate.”
Why don’t we just roll the clock back to arranged marraiges. That would fit your mindset even better than eliminating birth control and healthy sexual activity between responsible consenting adults.
If women have more sex, who benefits?
The Cap’n apparently believes that women shouldn’t enjoy sex too much. Talk about a women hating and an archaic mentality… you’d fit right with the Puritan witch burners. Of course that is a biblical principle that women are subjugated.
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. –Ephesians 5:22-24
Funny you should quote Ephesians, Woman, Child, and Christian Hating William. Especially that you leave off 25-28.
Ephesians 5:25-28 : Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Men who use women for sex don’t love women as themselves. Men who encourage women to have sex as much as they want are only making themselves open to objectification by males.
Women have always been the gatekeepers of sex, Women, Child, and Christian Hating William. The can have it at their whim. By having it more often, and in a casual setting, all it does is empower the men by giving them what they want more often.
Ephesians is usually completely misunderstood by Christian haters such as yourself, and you bring it to light here by twisting the words to fit your agenda.
The relationship is all about love, which is a passive state of being. If the emphasis of the relationship becomes sex, then the partners are swarmed by the passions of the flesh (the active state of being), and do not get to experience the deeper love that comes from the spiritual and not the physical. In the deeper agape love, the bonds are solid and the foundations of the relationship are strong, built on love, trust and strength. In focusing on lust, the mind is clouded by the actions of the physical, and the deeper, quieter-but-stronger emotions cannot be dealt with in an honest manner.
Ephesians asks that the couple submit to each other and experience love and not dwell on the physical. Ephesians 5: 1-21 delivers warnings on not to dwell on materials of this world and pleasures of the flesh as they distract from the greater being of spirit and understanding of Christ (or Love).
True students of Christianity would know that subjugation of women is not what the Bible teaches. In fact, Ephesians is clear in the equality of men and women in their roles as followers of Christ in the Church.
Were you a student of the Bible you’d understand this, but you’re a man who hates Christianity and tries to use its words to undermine the faith of others. Only the truly petty would do something like that.
Let me also point out that Women, Child and Christian Hater William didn’t answer my questions. Not a surprise, really. I think I’ve managed to expose that William has absolutely no sense of introspection, amongst other character defects.
But he had bigger, evil-er fish to fry!
Either that, or a plain recognition that human sexuality is healthy and natural, and that includes female sexuality as well.
The bible is about as “clear” as a horoscope, it sayys what you want it to.
I never said it wasn’t. Thanks for putting words into my mouth. But that’s how you and William operate. Avoid questions and topics and make accusations and insults.
You two are better than arguing with JP, I must admit. You and W,C,C-Hating William don’t swear nearly as much.
Men who encourage women to have sex as much as they want are only making themselves open to objectification by males.
OMG!!
True students of Christianity would know that subjugation of women is not what the Bible teaches.
Right - “wives should submit to their husbands in everything. “
THAT is the word, no matter how you’d like to twist it Cap.’n
from William
“I had sex before I turned 14 …”
One handed liasons dont count
Well, if you know so much, why aren’t you running Catholicism?
Oh, that’s right, you’d have to study the Bible, not just pick fun verses out of it.
And you still haven’t answered these questions:
If you ignore this, I’ll just add “Question hating” to the list of your new title. Perhaps even “Introspection hating”.
CBS:
So you agree that sexual activity between responsible, consenting adults requires no government or church sanction to be healthy, natural, and basically none of your business.
I am just trying to figure out where you stand on the concept of basic liberty.
Well, no Ned, I am not asserting that a jury is always right.
However, if the American justice system isn’t working out for you, perhaps you would be more at home in a place more accomidating to your mindset, Iran perhaps?
Sex? Sure. Gay sex, your sex, sex with monkeys– it’s not something I have an issue with. What you do in your own time is your own business.
I have an issue with the societal perception of sex as a whole. It’s a destructive course– look at the disintegration of the family as well as rising numbers of STDs, as well as the sexual escapades of minors, who seem to be doing things at younger and younger ages. And, as I mentioned, it objectifies women.
To repair this I’m not talking about passing laws, but instead speaking of reason applied to relationships. Passing draconian laws on sex will not prevent people from having sex (we learned that lesson in Prohibition). Instead it needs to be a cultural change to truly address this issue.
All of this culminates in abortion, which is a human rights violation of the highest degree.
Instead it needs to be a cultural change to truly address this issue.
All of this culminates in abortion
Great Cap’n… choice for only those who can afford to travel to a state where it’s legal, right? Speaking of draconian laws, you just contradicted yourself since we know -
1) Abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it, and 2) abortion declined the most where abortion was safe and legal.
Game over cap’n you lose. Find another issue. You’re a chauvinist pig.
All of this culminates in abortion, which is a human rights violation of the highest degree.
At least it’s not murder. Or if it is, you’re too chickenshit to say so.
.
I would like at this moment to illustrate that JP, HBK and Introspection, Women, Child and Christian Hating William have offered no rebuttal to my arguments that show the embryo/fetus is a human. I’ve dismantled their “brain wave” arguments, to which the closest I got to a nullification was “it’s against common sense’.
All of them changed the subject. Why? Because they couldn’t argue it. So they have to argue that safe & legal abortion lower the rate of abortion, or complain that I don’t say abortion is murder.
It seems each one of them knows abortion is murder, and they’ve desperately tried to avoid the subject, paint me as a Catholic pig, or rationalize keeping abortion legal. None could dispute my argument or the biology that surrounds it.
The game is over. Now it’s just wondering how long all three of them will live in a state of denial.
Captn Brainfart - I answered your question in my post:
No, a fetus is not a person. Human life, yes, but not a human being, not a person. Big difference. It is a developing person. Human life but not a viable person.
Now go to church and pray to Bush.
The game IS over.
It seems each one of them knows abortion is murder
Yet YOU seemingly do not (or if so, it’s murder you can live with seeing go unprosecuted, oddly enough).
.
CBS,
I agree with you that societal perceptions about sex are generally fucked up, and I agree with you regarding some of the consequences. I also agree that these matters can not effectively be addressed by criminalizing natural biological urges.
Of course, I think your perceptions about sex are equally fucked up, and I certainly don’t advocate proposing one set of misunderstandings about a complex social issue over another one.
For example, there are a lot of factors at work and simplistic notions involving rolling back the clock to an idealized past merely serve to waste resources that could be put to more effective use.
In the mean time,
Let’s keep Jaheezus in his proper place…
Once and for all, Inreospection, Child, Woman, Christian Hating William shows that he’s a true moron.
I asked: If women have more sex, who benefits? And who is put at greater risk?
And ICWCHWilliam answered:
No, a fetus is not a person. Human life, yes, but not a human being, not a person. Big difference. It is a developing person. Human life but not a viable person.
That’s kind of like me asking “What time is it?” and you answering “Trenton is the capital of New York!”
Thanks for putting the notion to rest that you read and comprehend anything written from anyone beyond Think Progress/Media Matters/Democratic Underground.
JP: I’ve said it. You missed it. Same school of reasoning as IICWCHWilliam.
Seems I’m the only one offering a solution, though.
Seems I’m the only one offering a solution, though.
I must’ve missed that while I was laughing, Capt. Brainstem. What was your proposed solution?
Mine’s like this: Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!
Don’t like others having abortions? Move somewhere where abortions are not legal. They’ll still be going on, but at least the government won’t just cluck their tongues when they catch one being performed.
Otherwise, I believe this is an issue between a woman, a doctor and a diety of choice.
.
If women have more sex, who benefits? And who is put at greater risk?
Everyone benefits … sex is good. Women are at considerable more risk when options that are available to them are taken away by people who think like the Capt… the guy who wants to punish women for having sex.
The first thing is to recognize that, like it or not, due to historical forces by-and-large puritan based morality is no longer going to be an effective mechanism for regulating sexual behavior. Actually, it was never that effective to begin with. Some of these historical forces involve the fact that women have come to expect an equal share in the quality-of-life department. For example, people are not going to stay in life long miserable marriages.
Culturally, we must adapt. Now, I can’t say I have a “solution” in the sense that I know how to make it happen, but I know what has to happen.
Parents are going to have to radically alter the way they deal with the topic of sex. Children are going to have to enter adolescence already armed with real knowledge and facts about all things relating to sex and relationships. This means the process has to start before then. No more stork. They have to learn the truth about conception, diseases, etc., as well as other things, like the fact that soap operas do not portray normal relationships and also the role advertising plays in attempting to use sex to manipulate behavior. Also, it must be recognized that, while abject sexual hedonism undoubtedly brings negative consequences, the idea of “no sex before marriage” is a ridiculous extreme that is no longer going to serve society’s interests in any truly constructive way. Those that insist on attempting to roll the clock back to an idealized past are just going in circles, while real problems go unaddressed.
I was watching “jaywalking” a while back. The segment was about parents and “the birds and the bees”. Some of the ignorance these people related to their kids about sex was appalling, and a in my opinion indicates a total lack of parental responsibility.
Well, no Ned, I am not asserting that a jury is always right.
Then your argument is fallacious. And wrong. Sure a grand jury today in a certain jurisdiction might find that a human in the womb is not a “person.” That’s an awful weak foundation for abortion-on-demand. And what will you say if a majority of Americans (or of legislators or of jurors) ever comes to believe that an innocent, distinct, living human in the womb is a “person”? Will you change your view on abortion?
Also, it must be recognized that, while abject sexual hedonism undoubtedly brings negative consequences, the idea of “no sex before marriage” is a ridiculous extreme that is no longer going to serve society’s interests in any truly constructive way.
How does “abject sexual hedonism bring[] negative consequences”?
1) Abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it, and 2) abortion declined the most where abortion was safe and legal.
I’m glad you brought these assertions up again, because I was thinking they were the only logical (non-fallacious) element to the post. But then I just read them again, and I realized that they seem to contradict one another. Please clarify if you can.
But there’s something I think you’re overlooking. Just because there is a segment of the population that refuses to obey a law doesn’t mean that we have to jettison the law. People will always do unlawful and/or immoral things, and no law (in this life, I believe) will go un-violated, but we as citizens don’t have to accede (and become complicit) to the lawlessness or immorality by lowering the standards. In addition, the PROscriptive nature of law should not be ignored. A culture’s social norms and mores are affected by perceived social norms and mores.
ICWCHWiliam said:
Something you’ve defined earlier by stating “brainwaves” shows viability, and the compare the fetus (incorrectly I may add) to a brain dead human.
Which shows again you don’t read what I post. You’re too busy trying to fit me for the Pope hat.
I’ve said nothing about taking away options. What I have done is condemn a culture which objectifies its women as sexual objects all in the pursuit of “good sex”. There’s inherent abuse in keeping women as sexual objects, and making it easier for them to have sex opens them up to greater risk of exploitation by sexual predators like you, ICWCHWilliam. Because of your disdain for children, you only see sex as a pleasurable activity, and as such, you seek women for your own sexual desires. Instead of sharing on a deeper level with women, you’re using them as your own sexual playtoys, and as you haven’t settled down in a meaningful relationship and brag about your pre-teen sexual exploits, I can only surmise your “relationships” focus on sexual activity over formation of bonds.
Bear in mind I have two little girls myself, and I want them to grow up as women, not sexual objects of selfish men.
But then I just read them again, and I realized that they seem to contradict one another. Please clarify if you can.
Links to studies/facts in the post.
What the Capt and Ned don’t seem to want to touch is the very result societal impact of what they are pushing for - illegal abortion. The captn acuses me of not answering questions but thinks it perfectly fine to make abortion illegal in America when 2/3s of Americans support choice. (Kind of like invading a country without an adequate plan for the aftermath).
Ned lied or was passing misinformation when he said 50% of American women, is pro-life.
Absolute bullshit unless you can find isolated poll form 9 yrs ago that says that, here is the reality:
‘03 ABC poll:
77% of women say abortion should be available or available with stricter limits.
21% of women say abortion should be illegal
same poll different question:
58% of women say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
40% of women say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases
——-
CBS Poll - women on abortion
38% - Abortion should be available
37% - Abortion should be available with stricter limits
11% - Abortion not permited
HBK said:
Now this I enjoy. Debate to form a common conclusion to societal problems.
I disagree to an extent. I feel children are learning more and more about sex earlier and earlier. In fact, I’m reasonably sure that by the time they get out of high school, they are masters of human sexual behavior. Education is commonplace, and it’s been placed there by parental neglect (where I agree with you).
With parents unable or unwilling to have an honest dialogue with their offspring about sex, and especially unwilling to seem like hypocrtites, they’re more permissive, often cowed into submissive positions by their own sense of shame. Children are manipulative bastards, and they’ll behave in manners to get what they want, and the lack of balls by parents to discipline their children effectively has led to an emboldened generation that has gotten by with little discipline or supervision (I see this clearly in my classes).
Parents need a more active role in the child’s life, and this is far more than driving them to gymnastics, dance class, T-ball and kinderscouts. While we teach the kids all they need to know about sex, they learn virtually nothing about healthy relationships (and, God help us all, they get that from Gossip Girl, the Hills, and Dr. Phil).
Our government is ill-equipped to deal with relationship training, and our public school system is producing a horrible product as it stands, so it’s to the parents and local community to help establish in children what healthy relationships are.
I agree that the Puritan model is ineffective. As the axiom goes, the genie is very difficult to get back into the bottle. New solutions need to be made, and one part of my solution is de-objectifying women in culture (something ICWCHWilliam seems to object to). Part two is relationship education as well as sexual education. Women need to recognize abusive relationships, as do men, and both need to recognize that sex does not make a relationship, but other factors do.
I am not arguing a foundation for “abortion-on-demand”.
My “argument” can not be “fallacious” because I am not arguing anything. There is no argument, just like the intelligent design nonsense. You may *think* there is, good luck with that. Either aborting an embryo is murder, or its not. If one happened to erroneously believe that it is, then the proper place to make the dubious case would be before a grand jury, as opposed to a legislative body, for example. If not, then criminalization is clearly an unjust intrusion of government where it has no business at all.
Common sense, in the philosophical context, is not contingent on how many people believe such-and-such a thing. For example, a majority on Americans believe a godman died and was resurrected 2000 years ago when common sense should inform them that this is bunk.
condemn a culture which objectifies its women as sexual objects all in the pursuit of “good sex”.
What about women that objectify me? You have a problem with that?
You seem to think that marriage is required for love or a deep meaningful relationship. Is that because us single people aren’t as good, giving or capable as the captn? The captn reveres himself as a moral leader that is better than all of us.
Captn:
While we teach the kids all they need to know about sex
That would be some education!! lol
I think that it is immoral to manipulate and deceive people for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification (or anything else, for that matter).
I do not think it is immoral for responsible, consenting people to engage in whatever behavior they want on whatever terms they want.
It’s never too early to talk to the kids about sex. Seriously, as soon as a kid is old enough to ask “where do I come from”, there should be a straight answer, right then and there, and that should be merely the start of a complete education regarding sexual behavior and relationships.
Of course, this isn’t going to happen, so I think it is a good idea to cultivate quality comprehensive sex-ed in the public schools, and as far as I am concerned the churchies can send their kids to private schools if they don’t like it.
Agreed. However, many think that “The Talk” is something that only should happen once. It has to be a continuing dialogue between the child and the parent.
As a parent & Christian, I’m all for comprehensive sex ed and relationship education throughout middle school & high school, be it public or private school.
Marriage isn’t required, but ask any woman or man who’s been cheated on, and you’ll discover that promiscuous sex damages relationships. A relationship without committment is hollow. And don’t fool yourself that there’s sex without deeper connection. I’ve known far too many women who were into “just sex”, some talked about the guys they slept with as though there was something more there, and others had horrible self-esteem problems.
I think we finally agree on something Captn.
CBS,
You do realize that “comprehensive sex ed” covers the use of birth control?
It does, doesn’t it? Well, in that case I’m TOTALLY AGAINST IT! ENSLAVE ALL WOMEN NOW! ALL HAIL THE UBERSEX!
Unfortunately, now that sex is prevalent, it’s best to focus on adjusting social norms steps at a time. While I’m not a proponent of birth control, as it has societal consequences, attempting to remove all birth control is silly, and it also runs into religious conflicts (while Catholics may not like artificial birth control, Protestants, modern Jews, and non-religious certainly use it).
The major problem I have with birth control classes is the maturity level of those teaching and those being taught, as well as the limited information that comes from it. While BC may be advocated in these classes, healthy relationship practice is hardly mentioned.
First, get rid of abortion. Work with sex and relationship education with teens and pre-teens. And talk about birth control — starting with abstinence, then about condoms, the pill, IUDs, etc., and then sexually transmitted diseases. Emphasize that 1 in 4 people has herpes, and herpes is for life. Don’t scare the kids, but make sure they know that sex isn’t all fun & games.
And while we’re at it, someone tell that to William.
now that sex is prevalent
Jesus Christ. You think sex hasn’t been “prevalent” until modern times?
.
CBS
Uh, exactly how do you propose to “get rid of abortion”?