NationStates Jolt Archive

See, here's what I JUST DON'T GET. Are people arguing, really, seriously, honestly arguing, that women would rather go through an invasive, costly, and somewhat dangerous medical procedure over, say, using a condom?

Or, hell, putting in a freaking IUD is cheaper, less invasive, quicker, and less risk of complications than an abortion. Are people REALLY arguing that women would rather have an abortion than use birth control?

Fucking SERIOUSLY?

I just had this horrible thought that they (the men arguing this) are projecting their desire to go bareback.

See, here's what I JUST DON'T GET. Are people arguing, really, seriously, honestly arguing, that women would rather go through an invasive, costly, and somewhat dangerous medical procedure over, say, using a condom?

Or, hell, putting in a freaking IUD is cheaper, less invasive, quicker, and less risk of complications than an abortion. Are people REALLY arguing that women would rather have an abortion than use birth control?

Fucking SERIOUSLY?
Yes.

Except, when you ask "are people seriously arguing...", you need to replace "people" with "dude-people who have never, and will never, go through any abortion procedure, and most likely haven't even so much as been in the same room as a person who was having an abortion, and therefore don't have the least fucking clue what they're talking about."

Yes.

Except, when you ask "are people seriously arguing...", you need to replace "people" with "dude-people who have never, and will never, go through any abortion procedure, and most likely haven't even so much as been in the same room as a person who was having an abortion, and therefore don't have the least fucking clue what they're talking about."

*nod* I just took a quick read on wikipedia of what an abortion procedure actually entails (and having gone through another kind of surgery myself) to realize just how absurd the concept of "having an abortion as contraception" is. Hell even that abortion pill given before the first 4 weeks causes a ton of pain and bleeding, right?

*nod* I just took a quick read on wikipedia of what an abortion procedure actually entails (and having gone through another kind of surgery myself) to realize just how absurd the concept of "having an abortion as contraception" is. Hell even that abortion pill given before the first 4 weeks causes a ton of pain and bleeding, right?

I had a, now ex, who took a plan B pill "just in case" one time. Girl couldn't get out of bed for 2 days.

*nod* I just took a quick read on wikipedia of what an abortion procedure actually entails (and having gone through another kind of surgery myself) to realize just how absurd the concept of "having an abortion as contraception" is. Hell even that abortion pill given before the first 4 weeks causes a ton of pain and bleeding, right?
Yar, the abortion-pill route is NOT FUN AT ALL. People talk about it like you pop a magic pill and all's well, but, um, not so much. It's cramping and it's bloody and it's gross and deeply uncomfortable and you have to go back to the doctor so they can check that it really worked and it's really not a good way to spend your weekend.

Any woman who's gone through an abortion procedure will be quite clear on the fact that using a condom or taking the pill or using contraception of pretty much any sort is a helluva lot less difficult and painful than having an abortion.

All the stories of women supposedly having abortions because it's so much "easier" are flat-out lies. It's not, and nobody who'd ever had an abortion or been with somebody who was having an abortion would claim otherwise.

The sad reality is that some women who've already had one abortion will find themselves in need of another abortion because they couldn't get access to contraception when they needed it. Sometimes they simply can't afford it. Sometimes there's no place nearby where they can obtain it. Sometimes their partner won't let them use it. And yes, sometimes the woman just makes a mistake, or gets caught up in the moment, or forgets a pill, or any of the other HUMAN errors that can happen, but you can be damn sure that when that stick turns blue she's not sitting there thinking, "Oh, tra-la, I'm preggers again! Guess I'll just toddle off for another of those super-easy funtime abortion thingumies! That was quite the lark last time!"

I had a, now ex, who took a plan B pill "just in case" one time. Girl couldn't get out of bed for 2 days.

Geez.

Yar, the abortion-pill route is NOT FUN AT ALL. People talk about it like you pop a magic pill and all's well, but, um, not so much. It's cramping and it's bloody and it's gross and deeply uncomfortable and you have to go back to the doctor so they can check that it really worked and it's really not a good way to spend your weekend.

Any woman who's gone through an abortion procedure will be quite clear on the fact that using a condom or taking the pill or using contraception of pretty much any sort is a helluva lot less difficult and painful than having an abortion.

All the stories of women supposedly having abortions because it's so much "easier" are flat-out lies. It's not, and nobody who'd ever had an abortion or been with somebody who was having an abortion would claim otherwise.

The sad reality is that some women who've already had one abortion will find themselves in need of another abortion because they couldn't get access to contraception when they needed it. Sometimes they simply can't afford it. Sometimes there's no place nearby where they can obtain it. Sometimes their partner won't let them use it. And yes, sometimes the woman just makes a mistake, or gets caught up in the moment, or forgets a pill, or any of the other HUMAN errors that can happen, but you can be damn sure that when that stick turns blue she's not sitting there thinking, "Oh, tra-la, I'm preggers again! Guess I'll just toddle off for another of those super-easy funtime abortion thingumies! That was quite the lark last time!"

Double geez. :(

Geez.



Double geez. :(
Here's the good news:

It is very, very, very, ridiculously easy to help solve these problems.

If you're a dude, YOU use the condom. YOU buy it. YOU bring it with you. YOU remember to put it on. YOU make sure it stays on.

It's your penis, right? And you guys typically don't object to paying attention to your penises, right? So this is really easy! All you must do is give some attention to your own wang!

:D

If only all the world's problems could be solved by telling men to pay attention to their penises. Utopia overnight...

Here's the good news:

It is very, very, very, ridiculously easy to help solve these problems.

If you're a dude, YOU use the condom. YOU buy it. YOU bring it with you. YOU remember to put it on. YOU make sure it stays on.

It's your penis, right? And you guys typically don't object to paying attention to your penises, right? So this is really easy! All you must do is give some attention to your own wang!

:D

If only all the world's problems could be solved by telling men to pay attention to their penises. Utopia overnight...

One might argue the world's problems are due to men paying a little too much attention to their penises. :D

But you're right.

One might argue the world's problems are due to men paying a little too much attention to their penises. :D

You... you will be sigged by me in the near future.:D

That isn't "equal rights to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy." The man never even has to endure the pregnancy.

What you're talking about is giving men a right that women don't have - the right to walk away from a child.

I do not care about preganancy because only women can be pregnant. I care about the effect that a woman's choice has to entrap a man and force him to live with her choice. It is oppressive of a man's rights.

I do not care about preganancy because only women can be pregnant. I care about the effect that a woman's choice has to entrap a man and force him to live with her choice. It is oppressive of a man's rights.

you keep repeating the same tired notion of "a man's rights" and oppression without being able to define either in a way that makes sense

let alone respond to the fact that you are treating a relationship among three or more entities (mother, father, baby) as if it was a zero-sum game between two entities (woman, man).

you keep repeating the same tired notion of "a man's rights" and oppression without being able to define either in a way that makes sense

let alone respond to the fact that you are treating a relationship among three or more entities (mother, father, baby) as if it was a zero-sum game between two entities (woman, man).

I mean, god, look at the language. The woman "entraps" the man. It was "her" decision.

Can you be more fucking mysoginistic?

Edit: Cat Tribes, how DARE you let me punch you in the face? I did NOT consent to hitting you.

I do not care about preganancy because only women can be pregnant. I care about the effect that a woman's choice has to entrap a man and force him to live with her choice. It is oppressive of a man's rights.

.....well, at least you're honest about not caring about anyone but yourself. I'm not sure why we're supposed to respect "fuck the rights of women and children, it's all about ME" as an argument, though.

.....well, at least you're honest about not caring about anyone but yourself. I'm not sure why we're supposed to respect "fuck the rights of women and children, it's all about ME" as an argument, though.

because HE is the man and YOU are the woman. Now get your ass into the kitchen and make us some sandwiches.

Bitch.

I mean, god, look at the language. The woman "entraps" the man. It was "her" decision.

Can you be more fucking mysoginistic?

Sure you can. You can casually use terms like "dumbass woman" and "skank" --especially to refer to any woman that has an unintended pregnancy. :eek:

Edit: Cat Tribes, how DARE you let me punch you in the face? I did NOT consent to hitting you.

You know you wanted to hit me. NO MEANS YES!

Okay, first off, quit spamming the thread.

Second, for once, respect a serious on-topic post by a respected forum member like Poli.

And (c), she's not staying overnight at your house anymore since she learned that you blow your nose in the shower.

So, try and hit on some other little tart, like Ashmoria or Mr. Fap.

Not to threadjack or anything but what is wrong with blowing your nose in the shower. All that steam loosens things up pretty good and it all gets washed down the drain.

Somehow I knew you'd approve of that post. :p

Also, now that I'm thinking of it, I should sing you my favorite Renaissance drinking song at some point. I think you'd like it. It was actually written by Henry Purcell, whom most people know for his Srs Church Music, and it boils down to, quite explicitly, "I totally hit on this girl three separate times, but that bitch wouldn't put out. Fuck her and all you bitches, I'm getting drunk."

This is so unbelievably cool. I want to know more bawdy renaissance songs!

You know you wanted to hit me. NO MEANS YES!

Why did you stop at a red light and let me hit you doing 80? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjjsF5dRfaI)

I find it very hard to believe that these people really believe the words they put up on the screen. I mean, what the fuck -- seriously? Can these people read some frigging history once in a while, or even just some old novels? If they did, they might even learn what "frigging" means. Geez-gods. Compared to earlier generations, we ARE prudes.

We also abort fewer pregnancies, and the babies we do have fare a shitload better, too.

And those Victorians -- don't even get me started. Fucking perverts. They are the ultimate example of why sexual repression is BAD.

Hey why are you dissing the Japanese? Dont they have the Victorians beat six wasys past Sunday?

because HE is the man and YOU are the woman. Now get your ass into the kitchen and make us some sandwiches.

Bitch.

You, I will make sandwiches for.

GF can get his own friggin' sandwich. :p

I don't mean to suggest that men in any way should have control over a woman's body, but to suggest that a woman who has a one night stand with a man and falls pregnant can have the option of aborting that child, but a man cannot sign his parental rights away is a bit of a double standard. Yes I know, biology does not make them equal, but the argument that men and women have equal rights in the reproductive process is not accurate.

We pro-choicers use the argument that consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy or babies and that women should not be punished via being forced to carry a child to term as a result of an indiscretion. However, when that argument is applied to men, pro-choicers assert that men make the choice to potentially have a baby when they choose to have sex. I'm a little confused here as to the reasoning behind why men cannot simply sign away their rights if the child is not wanted by them. Why they are forced to support a child borne out of a moment of indiscretion for the rest of their lives?

And I would say that this opinion comes mostly from seeing more than one of my friends or students tricked into having babies they did not want. Girlfriends who pierced condoms, said they were taking the pill and weren't, that kind of thing. Why should these men be forced to support a child they did not want and that they took appropriate steps to avoid, because some girl tricked them?

And yes, I realise that the above is anecdotal, and also not indicative of 99.9% of circumstances. I am not suggesting that men should be able to force a woman to carry to term, but they should not bear responsibility for something due to someone else's sovereign choices.

Hey I am a pro-choicer and I think men should have the choice and women should have the choice. I am no feminazi!

I wasn't aware that men couldn't sign away their parental rights, my father did when I was born. I was adopted by another man when I was eight.

They have to go and get a woman's permission. It is so degrading for an adult to have to ask another adult for permission to exercise their rights. The more Ithink about it the angrier that I get.

Not to threadjack or anything but what is wrong with blowing your nose in the shower. All that steam loosens things up pretty good and it all gets washed down the drain.
did you HAVE to quote that post? ive been trying to ignore being associated with "mr fap"

They have to go and get a woman's permission. It is so degrading for an adult to have to ask another adult for permission to exercise their rights. The more Ithink about it the angrier that I get.

it's remarkably telling that you somehow manage to consider refusal to support YOUR offspring a "right"

Or had sex with a man . . .

ewwwwwwww!

You, I will make sandwiches for.

well...good. I prefer roast beef.

I had a, now ex, who took a plan B pill "just in case" one time. Girl couldn't get out of bed for 2 days.

I've taken it twice. I hope I never have to do it again. The first time wasn't so bad...just massive cramping worse than the labour pains I experienced when I decided to have children, and quite a bit of bleeding. The second time was worse. All the cramping, with a migraine, and because it flushes out your lymphatic system, any little critters hanging around that your immune system was trying to get rid of flood your system...well I was sick for two weeks after. As in fucking nearly bedridden.

They should, however, bear responsibility for THEIR sovereign choices. Those hypothetical men chose not to take responsibility for their own bodies. They could have bought their own condoms and used their own birth control, but (as is very typical in our culture) they left those worries up to their female partner. Since they chose to give up every bit of the responsibility, they also give up their right to bitch about the outcome.

But men should not have responsibilities. The woman has the choice to get an abortion or not. The man should have nothing to do with the decision or the outcome unless it is his wife. We do not want the world to be full of bastard children. I certainly do not want to ever have to have a bastard child be "my problem" even if it did come from my seed.

If nobody bailed out these women that bring bastard kids into the world, the invisible hand and the hand of the abortionist would greatly reduce the number of bastards in the world. It just stands to reason.

Sure you can. You can casually use terms like "dumbass woman" and "skank" --especially to refer to any woman that has an unintended pregnancy.

That is a horrible misrepresentation of what I wrote! It is sheer dumbassery and even worse it is child abuse to have a child that should have been adopted out or aborted because the dumbass was not ready to have the child. You may think that this is somehow noble in your desire to have an overpopulated world full of bastard children but I think it is disgusting. I also think that is very skanky to decide to have a child out of wedlock espescially when someone is young and dumb and poor.

How is it not trashy? How is it an intelligent laudible decision?

You, I will make sandwiches for.

GF can get his own friggin' sandwich. :p

Hey, I like sandwiches too. :)

You... you will be sigged by me in the near future.:D

Yay!

But men should not have responsibilities.

Well...that's a level of honesty that's refreshing. I suppose that just about sums it all up, doesn't it?

I've taken it twice. I hope I never have to do it again. The first time wasn't so bad...just massive cramping worse than the labour pains I experienced when I decided to have children, and quite a bit of bleeding. The second time was worse. All the cramping, with a migraine, and because it flushes out your lymphatic system, any little critters hanging around that your immune system was trying to get rid of flood your system...well I was sick for two weeks after. As in fucking nearly bedridden.

This sounds terrible. You poor thing.:( Women have a lot of pain and unpleasantness involved in reproduction and population control. The worst things that we get are blue balls, nocturnal emissions, and nearly continuous horniness.

But men should not have responsibilities. The woman has the choice to get an abortion or not. The man should have nothing to do with the decision or the outcome unless it is his wife. We do not want the world to be full of bastard children. I certainly do not want to ever have to have a bastard child be "my problem" even if it did come from my seed.

If nobody bailed out these women that bring bastard kids into the world, the invisible hand and the hand of the abortionist would greatly reduce the number of bastards in the world. It just stands to reason.
So you agree that men should not ever have any legal standing whatsoever when it comes to their offspring?

Cause I'm fine with you arguing that. If you want to argue that men should have zero responsibilities and zero rights, fine. We can go from there.

Well...that's a level of honesty that's refreshing. I suppose that just about sums it all up, doesn't it?

Yeah, I think that just crossed the "Poe" line for me, to boot.

This sounds terrible. You poor thing.:( Women have a lot of pain and unpleasantness involved in reproduction and population control. The worst things that we get are blue balls, nocturnal emissions, and nearly continuous horniness.
Just FYI:

Women get "blue balls" and experience nearly continual horniness at roughly the same frequency as men. Women also experience a female version of nocturnal emissions, though it tends to be slightly less, erm, emitted, than the male version.

But see, Demi, biology is unfair in that it forces women to bear 100% of the physical costs of pregnancy, and thus the only way for us to make things LEGALLY fair is to ensure that women also bear 100% of the legal and economic responsibilities for pregnancy and childbirth.

The funny thing is, though, I'd be totally okay with giving women 100% of the legal responsibilities...if they also got 100% of the legal rights. Fine, women bear 100% of the physical, emotional, legal, economic, social, and practical responsibilities for pregnancy; then they also get 100% of the legal rights to children, and men have no legal standing whatsoever with their biological children.

Yet if I propose such a thing, men get all freaked out and suddenly feel that it's very important that they have legal rights to "their" children. Sheesh. Can't make anybody happy.

I agree with you except in situations where the couple is married of course.

So you agree that men should not ever have any legal standing whatsoever when it comes to their offspring?

Cause I'm fine with you arguing that. If you want to argue that men should have zero responsibilities and zero rights, fine. We can go from there.

Like I said earlier, I do not think that men should have any rights to bastard children or any obligations to them. Of course, if a man wants to have rights and obligations and the mother agrees there is no reason for this nasty little family to be interfered with since it is all consensual. It is nasty but hey it is a free country.

Just FYI:

Women get "blue balls" and experience nearly continual horniness at roughly the same frequency as men. Women also experience a female version of nocturnal emissions, though it tends to be slightly less, erm, emitted, than the male version.

I never knew any of that. Arent there doctors who are blue balls deniers? Do female nocturnal emissions also feel unpleasant? I thought that a period was the bodies way of taking out the gamete garbage of a woman. I am not an expert in these matters at all. I have kind of always found the parts of female genitalia deeper than the cervix rather creepy.

Even the cervix is disturbing with its mucus and all. *shudder*

But men should not have responsibilities. The woman has the choice to get an abortion or not. The man should have nothing to do with the decision or the outcome unless it is his wife. We do not want the world to be full of bastard children. I certainly do not want to ever have to have a bastard child be "my problem" even if it did come from my seed.

If nobody bailed out these women that bring bastard kids into the world, the invisible hand and the hand of the abortionist would greatly reduce the number of bastards in the world. It just stands to reason.

That is a horrible misrepresentation of what I wrote! It is sheer dumbassery and even worse it is child abuse to have a child that should have been adopted out or aborted because the dumbass was not ready to have the child. You may think that this is somehow noble in your desire to have an overpopulated world full of bastard children but I think it is disgusting. I also think that is very skanky to decide to have a child out of wedlock espescially when someone is young and dumb and poor.

How is it not trashy? How is it an intelligent laudible decision?

Um. I'll try to control my nausea and respond without flaming.

First, what the fuck relevance does the term "bastard" have to your rant? It's OK to have babies if you are married, but not if you are not? You and AP's views are converging.

Second, why is the woman who has sex and gets pregnant unintentionally a "skank," but the man that got her pregnant is a poor victim of fate?

Third, your Malthusian enthusiasm for abortion is a bit sickening in and of itself and your notion that adoption is an answer isn't realistic.

Fourth, .... I'm running out of polite responses, so I'll stop.

EDIT: Have you ever read A Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)? It seems right up your alley.

I don't have any problems with education, so long as it is done within reason. What is disturbing me, however, is that we are being forced to teach primary school children about sex before the media gets to them. At the very least, we should be able to wait until someone is 11 or 12 before we even get into that area, and in their early teens before we even get into detail about sex.

Why should we wait until after a child has likely started puberty and started trying to find out about sex before we start teaching them about it?

Why should sex be such a taboo subject that we feel it must be hidden from children?

I highly doubt that people would have been having sex in their early teens back in that era.

I don't. But then, I don't buy into a lot of the idealized pictures we get of that era.

Wherever there have been hormonal teenagers, there has been teen sex. I guarantee it. If there was any less of it in the '50's, my guess is that it would have had more to do with parents watching their kids more closely than it would with kids choosing not to engage in it.


here people did have pre-marital sex, it was typically in their later teens. Like I said, pre-marital sex is now far more common than it used to be, and people are engaging in sex in a much younger age now as well.

Again, I don't buy it. Remember, for most of human history, a girl was considered old enough to get married (and have sex) the minute the started puberty.

Like I said before, we talk about it more now - it's more out in the open. I don't think that means it is actually happening any more often.

I don't have a problem with education, but at the very least tell them the whole truth. Teach them about condoms, the pill and so on, but also remind them that none of these methods are 100% fool proof and that there is always a slight risk that you may impregnate the girl.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that we teach comprehensive sex ed without talking about failure rates of various types of contraception.

I said teen sex, not teen pregnancy. Let us not forget that in the 1950s, you didn't have the pill, or condoms.

You didn't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoms

And I believe the first birth control pill began sales during the 50's. Of course, it was rather stigmatized at first, so it wasn't in much use. But condoms (and other forms of birth control) have been around for centuries.

I don't mean to suggest that men in any way should have control over a woman's body, but to suggest that a woman who has a one night stand with a man and falls pregnant can have the option of aborting that child, but a man cannot sign his parental rights away is a bit of a double standard.

Only if you consider choosing not to have a child and choosing not to support a child that exists to be the same thing.

Yes I know, biology does not make them equal, but the argument that men and women have equal rights in the reproductive process is not accurate.

Actually, it is accurate. Biology makes the results of those rights different, but the rights are the same.

We pro-choicers use the argument that consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy or babies and that women should not be punished via being forced to carry a child to term as a result of an indiscretion. However, when that argument is applied to men, pro-choicers assert that men make the choice to potentially have a baby when they choose to have sex.

Since when has anyone argued that a man should be forced to carry a child to term as a result of an indiscretion? I wasn't aware that men could get pregnant...

I'm a little confused here as to the reasoning behind why men cannot simply sign away their rights if the child is not wanted by them. Why they are forced to support a child borne out of a moment of indiscretion for the rest of their lives?

Society has determined that a child is entitled to proper care up until that child becomes an adult. Society has also determined that, in the absence of someone else taking over those responsibilities, the parents of the child are the ones responsible for doing so.

If you think that this requirement should not be in place, by all means, make that argument. But don't try to pretend it's a matter of equality.

And I would say that this opinion comes mostly from seeing more than one of my friends or students tricked into having babies they did not want. Girlfriends who pierced condoms, said they were taking the pill and weren't, that kind of thing. Why should these men be forced to support a child they did not want and that they took appropriate steps to avoid, because some girl tricked them?

I feel bad for the guys whose girlfriends pierced condoms (assuming it actually happened) and I think they could make the argument that they should not be held responsible (although you could also argue that, even without the piercing, the condoms are not 100% effective).

However, I don't really have much sympathy for the guy who wanted to go condomless and therefore decided to leave the full responsibility for contraception up to his partner. Yes, she lied to him. Yes, that was bad. But he shouldn't have been abdicating his own responsibility either.

The closest proof that we have is a closer examination of your pregnancy statistics. We do know that back in the 1950s, the pill was non-existent, and condoms were very difficult to grab. Thus, we can safely say that there wasn't any form of contraception. We also know that the failure rate of most modern contraception (i.e. condoms, the pill et cetera is less than 10%). Therefore, the teen pregnancy rate of today must be 10% what it was in the 1950s, give or take a few percentage points for those who fail to use contraception and/or use it properly. IIRC, your pregnancy statistics indicate a mere 50% decline in teen pregnancy, meaning there must have been a five-fold rise in teen sexual activity.

Why are you assuming that most teens engaging in sexual activity use protection, or use it correctly? Often, they don't have access to it. And, thanks to Bush and his ilk, they're often under gross misconceptions about it and thus skip it altogether.

Finally, the best proof that we have is anecdotal; all the stories I get from my parents generation indicate to me that sex was uncommon outside of marriage, and even where it happened outside of marriage, it didn't occur at the very young ages we get today. The tricky thing is that you are demanding proof when the proof doesn't exist, except in scant anecdotal form.

I'm sure they also tell you how children were more polite back then. And all sorts of more idyllic pictures than what really happened.

And then you look at how many people had babies well within 9 months of getting married, without any indication that the children were early....

I do not care about preganancy because only women can be pregnant.

Then this discussion has nothing to do with abortion, since we can't discuss abortion without discussing pregnancy.

I care about the effect that a woman's choice has to entrap a man and force him to live with her choice. It is oppressive of a man's rights.

So what you want is a completely responsibility-free situation for men, and men alone. Gotcha.

But men should not have responsibilities.

And here we get to the crux of the matter - the real goal.

Figures.

The woman has the choice to get an abortion or not. The man should have nothing to do with the decision or the outcome unless it is his wife.

Why should he suddenly have responsibilities if she is his wife? It's still her decision.

We do not want the world to be full of bastard children. I certainly do not want to ever have to have a bastard child be "my problem" even if it did come from my seed.

Oh, so it isn't about "rights" anymore? Now it's about "bastard children"?

Then this discussion has nothing to do with abortion, since we can't discuss abortion without discussing pregnancy.

"Let's talk about gravity...but I don't want to discuss mass."

Um. I'll try to control my nausea and respond without flaming.

First, what the fuck relevance does the term "bastard" have to your rant? It's OK to have babies if you are married, but not if you are not? You and AP's views are converging.

Second, why is the woman who has sex and gets pregnant unintentionally a "skank," but the man that got her pregnant is a poor victim of fate?

Third, your Malthusian enthusiasm for abortion is a bit sickening in and of itself and your notion that adoption is an answer isn't realistic.

Fourth, .... I'm running out of polite responses, so I'll stop.

EDIT: Have you ever read A Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)? It seems right up your alley.

Marriage is the union from which babies should probably spring forth. Unwed preganancy is a wicked thing and quite avoidable.

Johnny Swift's staire is ok. I hope you are not suggesting I want to eat babies though.

It is true that I am all for abortions but as was pointed out contraception is more pleasant than abortion. Abortion is invasive and painful but is a necesssity.

And here we get to the crux of the matter - the real goal.

Figures.



Why should he suddenly have responsibilities if she is his wife? It's still her decision.



Oh, so it isn't about "rights" anymore? Now it's about "bastard children"?

How arrogant is it to think that your position cannot create two evils instead of just one. There are actually three problems: inequlity between the sexes, bastard children, and overpopulation.

Then this discussion has nothing to do with abortion, since we can't discuss abortion without discussing pregnancy.



So what you want is a completely responsibility-free situation for men, and men alone. Gotcha.

We can discuss reproduction without pregnancy. To think otherwise is pregnancy-centered thinking that worships a 9 month gestation period at the expense of justice, the environment, and the importance of having children within the ties of marriage.

Any analysis that solely focuses on preganancy is going to be a bunch of feministy hogwash.

Why are you assuming that most teens engaging in sexual activity use protection, or use it correctly? Often, they don't have access to it. And, thanks to Bush and his ilk, they're often under gross misconceptions about it and thus skip it altogether.



I'm sure they also tell you how children were more polite back then. And all sorts of more idyllic pictures than what really happened.

And then you look at how many people had babies well within 9 months of getting married, without any indication that the children were early....

There is no shame in marrying a woman you impregnanted. in fact it is the honorable thing if you love her. If you do not love her she should get an abortion or the couple should adopt the baby out. Children deserve a loving home with strong family values. They should not be raised in front of a TV set while mommy is out partying or whatnot.

We can discuss reproduction without pregnancy.

I'm curious to know where you think this whole "reproduction" thing happens.

I mean, I suppose it's true, we don't have to bring pregnancy into a discussion of reproduction....of lizards. With us mammals however, it's sort of an indespensable part of the process.

I never knew any of that. Arent there doctors who are blue balls deniers?

Yes and no.

The reason I put "blue balls" in scare quotes is because it's a foggy term.

The claim, made by some guys, that "blue balls" can cause serious and permanent damage, is crap. It may sometimes feel uncomfortable if you get very worked up and yet cannot climax, but it won't hurt you or render you infertile or anything of the sort. Guys who claim this are liars and have been scientifically proven to be lousy in the sack.

However, the FEELING of "blue balls" is of course real. Both men and women can experience physical discomfort and extreme frustration if they are close to an orgasm but then are not able to get off (for whatever reason). Men are actually LESS likely to experience this than women.


Do female nocturnal emissions also feel unpleasant? I thought that a period was the bodies way of taking out the gamete garbage of a woman. I am not an expert in these matters at all.

Female nocturnal emission doesn't involve shooting out gamete the way male nocturnal emissions do. The female version is a direct parallel to the male version; it's when the body becomes aroused during sleep. Female nocturnal "emissions" would be when a girl/woman becomes extremely lubricated during sleep. Of course, because of how female genitals are set up, this tends to be a lot less messy than male wet dreams.


I have kind of always found the parts of female genitalia deeper than the cervix rather creepy.
From a purely medical standpoint, the vagina is badass.

We tend to think of the penis as a sign of virility and strength, but the reality is that male genitals are kinda fragile. The vagina, on the other hand, is freaking tough. It's one of the most durable and adaptive human body parts, and can recover from a degree of injury that would cripple most other body parts.

Even if you don't find vaginas sexually interesting, I think they're pretty cool from a technical perspective. :P

I'm curious to know where you think this whole "reproduction" thing happens.

I mean, I suppose it's true, we don't have to bring pregnancy into a discussion of reproduction....of lizards. With us mammals however, it's sort of an indespensable part of the process.


Nuh uh. Reproduction is what happens when a MAN plants his seed. That's where babies come from. Pregnancy is just the woman's way of stalling and trapping the man into buying her disgusting pickle-and-ice-cream type foods.

I'm curious to know where you think this whole "reproduction" thing happens.

I mean, I suppose it's true, we don't have to bring pregnancy into a discussion of reproduction....of lizards. With us mammals however, it's sort of an indespensable part of the process.

It is obvious that pregnancy occurs. The point is that pregnancy has nothing to do with the rights of the man. Preganancy is a female issue. It cannot be allowed to be an event that gives women power to control the destiny of a man.

You guys may have a hard time realizing this but there are plenty of men who want sex but do not want to have a baby with the woman they are having sex with. A man should have a legal right to remove himself from any obligations to any chidlren that he does not explicitly consent to producing. Consent to an orgasm is not explicit consent to anything other than having an orgasm. You people make way too big deals about sex. What it means to have sex. Whether it is good or bad. Sex is just sex. Reproduction is something else entirely.

It is obvious that pregnancy occurs. The point is that pregnancy has nothing to do with the rights of the man. Preganancy is a female issue. It cannot be allowed to be an event that gives women power to control the destiny of a man.

You're absolutely right.

And look at that, it doesn't. No matter how much mysogynistic, bigoted ranting you do.

Sex is just sex. Reproduction is something else entirely.

You're, once again, absolutely right. Sex is just sex. Reproduction is reproduction. A man consenting to sex is not consenting to parental obligations.

A man consenting to do his part to reproduce, however, is.

It is obvious that pregnancy occurs. The point is that pregnancy has nothing to do with the rights of the man. Preganancy is a female issue. It cannot be allowed to be an event that gives women power to control the destiny of a man.

You guys may have a hard time realizing this but there are plenty of men who want sex but do not want to have a baby with the woman they are having sex with. A man should have a legal right to remove himself from any obligations to any chidlren that he does not explicitly consent to producing. Consent to an orgasm is not explicit consent to anything other than having an orgasm. You people make way too big deals about sex. What it means to have sex. Whether it is good or bad. Sex is just sex. Reproduction is something else entirely.
Ok, that's far enough, I'm at the Poe point as well.

It's like somebody took all the male entitlement that has ever existed, put it in a jar with two mouldy copies of The Fountainhead, and then let the whole mess ferment into a highly concentrated moonshine of juvenile irresponsibility.

Yes and no.

The reason I put "blue balls" in scare quotes is because it's a foggy term.

The claim, made by some guys, that "blue balls" can cause serious and permanent damage, is crap. It may sometimes feel uncomfortable if you get very worked up and yet cannot climax, but it won't hurt you or render you infertile or anything of the sort. Guys who claim this are liars and have been scientifically proven to be lousy in the sack.

However, the FEELING of "blue balls" is of course real. Both men and women can experience physical discomfort and extreme frustration if they are close to an orgasm but then are not able to get off (for whatever reason). Men are actually LESS likely to experience this than women.


Female nocturnal emission doesn't involve shooting out gamete the way male nocturnal emissions do. The female version is a direct parallel to the male version; it's when the body becomes aroused during sleep. Female nocturnal "emissions" would be when a girl/woman becomes extremely lubricated during sleep. Of course, because of how female genitals are set up, this tends to be a lot less messy than male wet dreams.


From a purely medical standpoint, the vagina is badass.

We tend to think of the penis as a sign of virility and strength, but the reality is that male genitals are kinda fragile. The vagina, on the other hand, is freaking tough. It's one of the most durable and adaptive human body parts, and can recover from a degree of injury that would cripple most other body parts.

Even if you don't find vaginas sexually interesting, I think they're pretty cool from a technical perspective. :P

Yes blue balls is painful emotionally and physically. I once had a case of blue balls that resulted in a reverse ejaculation and a couple of weeks of importence. This was minor though.

I think it is the technically interesting things about the vagina that make me dislike them. That and the possibility that they can give you an unwanted baby. As my posts no doubt show I fear the uterus. I think that a more progressive policy proptecting men's reproductive rights would greatly reduce my fear of that organ.

Yes blue balls is painful emotionally and physically. I once had a case of blue balls that resulted in a reverse ejaculation and a couple of weeks of importence. This was minor though.

I think it is the technically interesting things about the vagina that make me dislike them. That and the possibility that they can give you an unwanted baby. As my posts no doubt show I fear the uterus. I think that a more progressive policy proptecting men's reproductive rights would greatly reduce my fear of that organ.

Yup, that's it, I'm out too. Poe.

You're absolutely right.

And look at that, it doesn't. No matter how much mysogynistic, bigoted ranting you do.



You're, once again, absolutely right. Sex is just sex. Reproduction is reproduction. A man consenting to sex is not consenting to parental obligations.

A man consenting to do his part to reproduce, however, is.

No now you are splitting hairs again. We will keep going around and around with that type of implicit consent argument. Why are you so afraid of freedom that you must define freedom in terms of implied consent vs. explicit consent? Talk of implied freedoms is the language of oppression.

No now you are splitting hairs again. We will keep going around and around with that type of implicit consent argument. Why are you so afraid of freedom that you must define freedom in terms of implied consent vs. explicit consent? Talk of implied freedoms is the language of oppression.

nah, that's ok, I'm done playing this game. You're either a troll or a reprehensible human being, and I'm not giving you any further attention. Ignored.

I am pro-choice. I am for the explicit choice of people regardless of their gender to have a child or not. I point out that something is not fair and oppressive to me and I get responses of "you are a troll" or "men implicitly consent to having children when they just want some sex". That is all nonsense.

I am sure that John Brown was called a troll before abolitionism caught on. Now we look back and think of the slave catchers as the monsters and the abolitionists as the good guys.

There are monsters on both sides of the abortion debate. There are the pro-life nutcases and then there are the feminazi pro-choicers. The sad thing is that these views are held by decent people who actually believe this stuff.

I disagree with Bottle on her feminazi views but I would never claim hat she is dishonest, unintelligent, or a troll. She is the opposite of those things. She might be a little less open-minded than would be ideal in her view that those who do not share her feminist views are trolls, but nobody is perfect. Bottle is pretty close to perfect though. I would never call "Poe" on anything she wrote regardless of how much I may disagree with her at times.

Why should we wait until after a child has likely started puberty and started trying to find out about sex before we start teaching them about it?

Why should sex be such a taboo subject that we feel it must be hidden from children?

To protect the innocence of children. Why can't we just let children be children and shield them from such matters? Also, if they don't know about it, why would children start searching for it?

I don't. But then, I don't buy into a lot of the idealized pictures we get of that era.

Wherever there have been hormonal teenagers, there has been teen sex. I guarantee it. If there was any less of it in the '50's, my guess is that it would have had more to do with parents watching their kids more closely than it would with kids choosing not to engage in it.

Or the kids didn't know about it until much later on and had a greater degree of self-control. The problem in this day and age is that we are overwhelmed with sexual images thanks to the media. I didn't know that sex even existed until I was 12, and I didn't know about the mechanics of it until much later; my nephew (now 12) first found out about sex when he was 10. I doubt my parents would have known about sex until their mid-teens.

Again, I don't buy it. Remember, for most of human history, a girl was considered old enough to get married (and have sex) the minute the started puberty.

Like I said before, we talk about it more now - it's more out in the open. I don't think that means it is actually happening any more often.

I would not disagree with your first comment, however, like I said, in the 1950s sex would have been far less common than it is today.

You didn't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoms

And I believe the first birth control pill began sales during the 50's. Of course, it was rather stigmatized at first, so it wasn't in much use. But condoms (and other forms of birth control) have been around for centuries.

I know you have had some form of condom since the 17th Century, however, like the article said, they didn't become commonplace until after the war and even then you still had legal restrictions. Likewise, with the pill, it was difficult to get - in New Zealand, you needed a doctor's prescription to get it. Essentially, for your teen having sex, they were having it without contraception.

Why are you assuming that most teens engaging in sexual activity use protection, or use it correctly? Often, they don't have access to it. And, thanks to Bush and his ilk, they're often under gross misconceptions about it and thus skip it altogether.

I don't know what it is like in the States; here in NZ, you can get a packet of condoms in the supermarket - heck, it is in the impulse bar.

Also, I am assuming it because of these statistics:

- The majority of sexually experienced teens (74% of females and 82% of males) used contraceptives the first time they had sex

- Nearly all sexually active females (98% in 2002) have used at least one method of birth control.

- At most recent sex, 83% of teen females and 91% of teen males used contraceptives. These proportions represent a marked improvement since 1995, when only 71% of teen females and 82% of teen males had used a contraceptive method at last sex.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html

I'm sure they also tell you how children were more polite back then. And all sorts of more idyllic pictures than what really happened.

And then you look at how many people had babies well within 9 months of getting married, without any indication that the children were early....

And children were more polite back then; compare the current generation of children to what the Baby-Boomers were like.

To protect the innocence of children. Why can't we just let children be children and shield them from such matters? Also, if they don't know about it, why would children start searching for it?

You haven't met many children, have you? There's nothing more fascinating to the average 10-year-old than things some other kid mentioned on the playground and Mom & Dad won't talk about.

Further, honestly, why do we need to "shield" children from knowing how their bodies work? Why are they not "innocent" if they have a passing understanding of human anatomy?


Or the kids didn't know about it until much later on and had a greater degree of self-control. The problem in this day and age is that we are overwhelmed with sexual images thanks to the media.

Read my previous post on this subject, please.

I didn't know that sex even existed until I was 12, and I didn't know about the mechanics of it until much later; my nephew (now 12) first found out about sex when he was 10. I doubt my parents would have known about sex until their mid-teens.

Again, your personal speculations about the past have nothing to do with reality.

I would not disagree with your first comment, however, like I said, in the 1950s sex would have been far less common than it is today.

Nope. Read my previous post, please.


And children were more polite back then; compare the current generation of children to what the Baby-Boomers were like.

How would you or I actually do that? I think perhaps you are comparing "what actual children are like now" to "what Beaver Cleaver was like." Also, what the hell does this have to do with anything?

How arrogant is it to think that your position cannot create two evils instead of just one. There are actually three problems: inequlity between the sexes, bastard children, and overpopulation.

The inequality comes from biology - and would be made worse by your proposal, not better.

We can discuss reproduction without pregnancy.

No, we really can't. Besides, the topic here is abortion, not the entirety of reproduction.

To think otherwise is pregnancy-centered thinking that worships a 9 month gestation period at the expense of justice, the environment, and the importance of having children within the ties of marriage.

Wait.....what?

There is no shame in marrying a woman you impregnanted.

There is if you wouldn't have married her otherwise. At that point, it's a bad decision that will likely cause problems for everyone involved - including the child.

Children deserve a loving home with strong family values.

I agree. They also deserve to have the basics, like food and shelter, provided. Ideally, both parents would be able to provide for these things on their own, in case the other wasn't present for whatever reason. Of course, we don't live in the ideal world.

It is obvious that pregnancy occurs. The point is that pregnancy has nothing to do with the rights of the man.

And, thus, neither does abortion. Hence the reason that the man's ability to stop himself from becoming a father happens at sex.

Preganancy is a female issue. It cannot be allowed to be an event that gives women power to control the destiny of a man.

You guys may have a hard time realizing this but there are plenty of men who want sex but do not want to have a baby with the woman they are having sex with.

And there are plenty of women who want sex but do not want to get pregnant. Like it or not, pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex. And since a man can't get pregnant, he doesn't get a say in the matter once pregnancy occurs.

We do things all the time that have consequences we don't really want. I've jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, knowing that an equipment malfunction could leave me maimed or dead. Interestingly enough, I had to sign a waiver that said, "I KNOW I COULD DIE DOING THIS." Men essentially do the same thing when they consent to sex. They know that a possible consequence is becoming a father.

A man should have a legal right to remove himself from any obligations to any chidlren that he does not explicitly consent to producing. Consent to an orgasm is not explicit consent to anything other than having an orgasm. You people make way too big deals about sex. What it means to have sex. Whether it is good or bad. Sex is just sex. Reproduction is something else entirely.

Something else entirely? You mean sex and reproduction aren't linked at all?

I am pro-choice. I am for the explicit choice of people regardless of their gender to have a child or not.

And that choice is made when they decide whether or not to engage in the reproductive process. For men, that means having sex. For women, it means having sex and carrying a pregnancy.


To protect the innocence of children. Why can't we just let children be children and shield them from such matters? Also, if they don't know about it, why would children start searching for it?

Knowledge does not make one less innocent. And if we try to "shield" children from such manners, that leads to them having all sorts of misconceptions, being ashamed of their bodies, and ending up in dangerous situations. Not to mention the ridiculous way in which it means we treat sex in our society.

And why would children start searching for it? For one, they are naturally curious and, like other human beings, drawn to anything "taboo". For another, when their hormones start going, they are well aware that their bodies want something. They'll go looking for it, believe me.

Or the kids didn't know about it until much later on and had a greater degree of self-control.

Yes on the first (which led to all sorts of problems, since they had no idea what they were doing when they started experimenting) and no on the second.

The problem in this day and age is that we are overwhelmed with sexual images thanks to the media. I didn't know that sex even existed until I was 12, and I didn't know about the mechanics of it until much later; my nephew (now 12) first found out about sex when he was 10. I doubt my parents would have known about sex until their mid-teens.

You apparently led an incredibly sheltered life - much more sheltered than children in pretty much any era.

Now, if "know about sex", you mean "know the mechanics", your parents probably didn't know much about it until well after they'd already done it. That was (and still is) all too often the norm.

I know at least one baby-boomer who didn't know what technically constituted sex until after she'd done it (and, surprise surprise, gotten pregnant). She also had no idea that she was pregnant until her older sister noticed.

On an interesting note (and, of course, this is only anecdotal), my experience has been that the more young people know about sex, the more likely they are to wait to have it. Apparently, having all the information leads to better decision making. Go figure.

I would not disagree with your first comment, however, like I said, in the 1950s sex would have been far less common than it is today.

And like I said - I don't buy it. I think it's a myth perpetuated largely because there was even more of a taboo about sex then than there is now.

I know you have had some form of condom since the 17th Century, however, like the article said, they didn't become commonplace until after the war and even then you still had legal restrictions. Likewise, with the pill, it was difficult to get - in New Zealand, you needed a doctor's prescription to get it. Essentially, for your teen having sex, they were having it without contraception.

Just for the record here, you still need a prescription to get the pill - pretty much anywhere.

I don't know what it is like in the States; here in NZ, you can get a packet of condoms in the supermarket - heck, it is in the impulse bar.

Yes, but thanks to the taboo you and others want to place on sex, most teens are far too embarrassed to buy condoms anywhere that they might have to look someone in the face while doing it. This is made even worse by the "what if my parents find out?" fear.

I had a friend who was sexually active in high school. I begged her to let me drive her to Planned Parenthood where she could get on the pill, get condoms, etc. Her response? "I can't! My parents might find out!"

And children were more polite back then; compare the current generation of children to what the Baby-Boomers were like.

I don't know about you, but I didn't know any of the baby-boomers when they were children.

But, given the stories I've heard from some of the baby-boomers about their childhood days, I get the impression that they were quite often less polite than most of the children I know today.

But, given the stories I've heard from some of the baby-boomers about their childhood days, I get the impression that they were quite often less polite than most of the children I know today.

Don't be silly! What could be more polite than throwing rocks at the nasty darkies (something my father remembers some kids he knew doing)?

I really don't understand why people think the 50s were so great.

Knowledge does not make one less innocent.

That is a very unscriptural thing to say.

I'm going to send you a coupon book for Steven Baldwin's Fundamentalist Faith Based "Forget To Be Aware of Your Own Nakedness" Sex Ignorance Prayer Pancake Breakfast and Book Burning.

Last year, they had Kirk Cameron and a Kenny Rogers cover band!

Also, I am assuming it because of these statistics:

- The majority of sexually experienced teens (74% of females and 82% of males) used contraceptives the first time they had sex

- Nearly all sexually active females (98% in 2002) have used at least one method of birth control.

- At most recent sex, 83% of teen females and 91% of teen males used contraceptives. These proportions represent a marked improvement since 1995, when only 71% of teen females and 82% of teen males had used a contraceptive method at last sex.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html


Um. Dem1 is more than adequately handing you your ass, but we are back to that cognitive dissonance again. Remember the statistics from the beginning of the thread AND that you seized on recently that show percentages of incorrect use of contraceptives? Your mantra THEN was that simply having tried to use contraceptives was next to nothing because it didn't work.

Your feeble attempts to justify a nostalgic assertion that there was less teen sex "in the good old days" are patently pathetic.

I am pro-choice. I am for the explicit choice of people regardless of their gender to have a child or not. I point out that something is not fair and oppressive to me and I get responses of "you are a troll" or "men implicitly consent to having children when they just want some sex". That is all nonsense.

I am sure that John Brown was called a troll before abolitionism caught on. Now we look back and think of the slave catchers as the monsters and the abolitionists as the good guys.

There are monsters on both sides of the abortion debate. There are the pro-life nutcases and then there are the feminazi pro-choicers. The sad thing is that these views are held by decent people who actually believe this stuff.

I disagree with Bottle on her feminazi views but I would never claim hat she is dishonest, unintelligent, or a troll. She is the opposite of those things. She might be a little less open-minded than would be ideal in her view that those who do not share her feminist views are trolls, but nobody is perfect. Bottle is pretty close to perfect though. I would never call "Poe" on anything she wrote regardless of how much I may disagree with her at times.

Can you hear me from up on that cross?

Let's see you call those that disagree with you monsters, nutcases, and feminazis, but are hurt that your views are being dismissed as trollish.

You advocate abortion of all "bastards" by those "skanks" that get pregnant without a man's permission, but equate your views to the abololitionists.

"Not fair and oppressive to [you]" is fucking meaningless when you can't articulate in a rational fashion what is actualy unfair or oppressive about having an obligation to one's born children.

'Nuff said.

<snip>

Women and men also have precisely the same legal obligations to any biological child they produce.

<snip>
This is the one detail that drives me nuts about this whole stupid side argument claiming that men carry some extra burden in regards to children.

Do they think women just get to walk away from their parental obligations? No, they do not. A mother is just as bound TO THE CHILD SHE MADE as a father is to THE CHILD HE MADE. Even if she doesn't want to be. These people who bitch endlessly about men being made to bear the exact same potentially unwanted burden that women have to carry are just fundamentally unrealistic.

See, here's what I JUST DON'T GET. Are people arguing, really, seriously, honestly arguing, that women would rather go through an invasive, costly, and somewhat dangerous medical procedure over, say, using a condom?

Or, hell, putting in a freaking IUD is cheaper, less invasive, quicker, and less risk of complications than an abortion. Are people REALLY arguing that women would rather have an abortion than use birth control?

Fucking SERIOUSLY?
Well, of course, because the safer preventive measures don't allow us the joy of brutal infanticide which, as the anti-choicers tell us, women just live for.

I just had this horrible thought that they (the men arguing this) are projecting their desire to go bareback.
Gosh, ya think?

Hey why are you dissing the Japanese? Dont they have the Victorians beat six wasys past Sunday?
Actually, no, not really. *shudders*

Well, of course, because the safer preventive measures don't allow us the joy of brutal infanticide which, as the anti-choicers tell us, women just live for.

And how many of our bastard love children have you aborted because there was nothing good on at the movies?

How many third trimester naked paintball games with Lunatic Goofballs?

How many Extreme Uni-Cycling Baja Distance Jump and Full Contact Pogo Stick Mixed Martial Arts Biathalon events?

Wretched woman.

<snip>
How would you or I actually do that? I think perhaps you are comparing "what actual children are like now" to "what Beaver Cleaver was like." Also, what the hell does this have to do with anything?
Duh, Poli, everybody knows, when you break the hymen, it lets all the rudeness out.

Your feeble attempts to justify a nostalgic assertion that there was less teen sex "in the good old days" are patently pathetic.
Somebody never saw "Peyton Place", apparently.

And how many of our bastard love children have you aborted because there was nothing good on at the movies?

How many third trimester naked paintball games with Lunatic Goofballs?

How many Extreme Uni-Cycling Baja Distance Jump and Full Contact Pogo Stick Mixed Martial Arts Biathalon events?

Wretched woman.
O.O

Bu--bu---but-- YOU'RE DEAD!!! AAAGHGHGH!

Somebody never saw "Peyton Place", apparently.

Lana Turner or Mia Farrow?

Besides, that's all fiction.

In reality, the 50's were a pure time, a simpler time, when teen pregnancy never happened, except in godless communist countries.

Lana Turner or Mia Farrow?

Besides, that's all fiction.

In reality, the 50's were a pure time, a simpler time, when teen pregnancy never happened, except in godless communist countries.
Lana Turner, of course.

And I suppose you're right. Peton Place was a notorious Red commune. I mean, just look at those hats. And the way their shoes and purses matched. They were almost as commie as the Real Housewives of Orange County.

Lana Turner, of course.

And I suppose you're right. Peton Place was a notorious Red commune. I mean, just look at those hats. And the way their shoes and purses matched. They were almost as commie as the Real Housewives of Orange County.

"Let's all co-ordinate our accessories in accordance with socialist lifestyle!" -Kimberly Jong Ill.

Seriously, you and Cat-Tribes don't seem to realize how perfect the 1950's were. Things were black and white. Especially in the south...

Kids didn't put their business in one another's hoo hoo dillies...

"Let's all co-ordinate our accessories in accordance with socialist lifestyle!" -Kimberly Jong Ill.

Seriously, you and Cat-Tribes don't seem to realize how perfect the 1950's were. Things were black and white. Especially in the south...

Kids didn't put their business in one another's hoo hoo dillies...
No, they were too busy fucking like minks. :p

No, they were too busy fucking like minks. :p

Gee, Wally, there's this girl at school, see, and she said I do bad job wolfing pussy, and if the other fellas find out, they'll make fun of me and give me the business!

Gee, Wally, there's this girl at school, see, and she said I do bad job wolfing pussy, and if the other fellas find out, they'll make fun of me and give me the business!
Ah, nostalgia. :D

Gee, Wally, there's this girl at school, see, and she said I do bad job wolfing pussy, and if the other fellas find out, they'll make fun of me and give me the business!

I am so, so glad I finished my glass of water before reading this post, or I would have been cleaning water off my keyboard now.

This is a long thread so I don't know if this has been raised already. Abortion rates are lowest in those countries where it is legal and safe.

Last year the Victorian Parliament de-criminalised abortion. I work for an MP and helped her prepare her speech. Here is an extract:

Today this house has heard principled positions put by members on both sides of this debate. No-one holds the moral high ground or, I hope, would claim to do so. However, there is one significant piece of common ground all sides of this debate share -- namely, a desire to reduce the number of abortions. Too often extremist views and misinformation can cloud this important objective and the common goal held by all. For example, worldwide data shows that decriminalisation of abortion along with wide knowledge of and availability of contraception and sexual health education are the surest ways to reduce abortion rates. Let me make it clear: abortion rates are lowest in countries that have legalised abortion. According to the World Health Organisation there was a decline in the number of abortions worldwide between 1995 and 2003. The decline in abortion was greater in developed countries, where nearly all abortions are safe and legal, than in developing countries, where more than half are unsafe and illegal. The lowest rates in the world are in western and northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions.

This worldwide trend has led some anti-abortionists to support the decriminalisation of abortion. This downward trend is also reflected here in Australia. According to the Medical Journal of Australia the abortion rate in Australia declined from 21.9 per 1000 in 1995 to 19.7 per 1000 in 2003. In Western Australia the decriminalisation of abortion did not buck this trend, with abortions falling from 8217 in 1999 to 7828 in 2005. There is no evidence to suggest that the decriminalisation of abortion in Victoria will do anything to increase the number of abortions, and it is expected that our rates will continue to decline.

However, there is evidence to show that where abortion is illegal it is often unsafe. Perhaps the strongest voices in support of the bill come from women who remember the challenges facing women prior to the Menhennitt ruling of 1969. From their stories we learn that criminalising abortion in Victoria did not reduce the abortion rate, but it did endanger the health and lives of women.

The imposition of legal sanctions, the pushing of women into backyard and life-threatening abortions has never been and could never be claimed as a pro-life position. However, no matter on what side of this debate you fall, we must build on the common ground of seeking to reduce the number of abortions. That search will not be aided by adopting extreme positions, and historically we know that extreme positions do not generally lead to good policy outcomes.

This is a long thread so I don't know if this has been raised already. Abortion rates are lowest in those countries where it is legal and safe.

Last year the Victorian Parliament de-criminalised abortion. I work for an MP and helped her prepare her speech. Here is an extract:

I do believe the point has been raised, but thanks for sharing that extract. The speech is awesome. :hail:

This is a long thread so I don't know if this has been raised already. Abortion rates are lowest in those countries where it is legal and safe.

Last year the Victorian Parliament de-criminalised abortion. I work for an MP and helped her prepare her speech. Here is an extract:

Very nice.

All of this talk about women having a right to end a pregnancy and a man being slave to her decision is pure garbage. It seems to be premised on the right to end a preganancy and teh body's participation in reproduction. That is garbage and oppressive to men. Women do not get abortions because they do not want to be pregnant. They get abortions because they do not want to contribute to overpopulation and or they just do not want to have a baby. Women do not think "I want to stop participating in the reproductive process. Feminists conjure up this view to back up the feminazi claim that a man should be the slave to the woman and be forced to go along with what she wants.

I get so angry when I hear these offensive arguments that a man cannot consent to have an orgasm in a vagina without cosnenting to go along with the responsibilities that the woman chooses that he has towards a resulting child.

This idea by AP that children should be shielded from knowledge of sex sounds perverse. It makes no sense to purposefully create barriers to information regarding the body. There is also this idea that knowledge of sex or sex itself deprives people of their innocence.

People are innocent when that have not done bad things. Sex is not a bad thing. It is a good thing.

All of this talk about women having a right to end a pregnancy and a man being slave to her decision is pure garbage.

The former isn't garbage at all. The latter, on the other hand, certainly is. And you're the only one claiming it.

It seems to be premised on the right to end a preganancy and teh body's participation in reproduction. That is garbage and oppressive to men.

The right to use one's body as one wishes is garbage and oppressive to men? How so?

Women do not get abortions because they do not want to be pregnant.

Women get abortions for all sorts of reasons.

Feminists conjure up this view to back up the feminazi claim that a man should be the slave to the woman and be forced to go along with what she wants.

Funny. The only person I can recall ever saying anything like that is....well...you.

I get so angry when I hear these offensive arguments that a man cannot consent to have an orgasm in a vagina without cosnenting to go along with the responsibilities that the woman chooses that he has towards a resulting child.

The woman doesn't choose that he has any responsibilities towards a resulting child. Society as a whole has already made that decision.

If you would like to argue that the parents of a child do not have any responsibilities to it, by all means, go ahead. But don't pretend that a woman exercising her rights over her own body somehow amounts to enslaving men. It's ridiculous.

All of this talk about women having a right to end a pregnancy and a man being slave to her decision is pure garbage. It seems to be premised on the right to end a preganancy and teh body's participation in reproduction. That is garbage and oppressive to men. Women do not get abortions because they do not want to be pregnant. They get abortions because they do not want to contribute to overpopulation and or they just do not want to have a baby. Women do not think "I want to stop participating in the reproductive process. Feminists conjure up this view to back up the feminazi claim that a man should be the slave to the woman and be forced to go along with what she wants.

I get so angry when I hear these offensive arguments that a man cannot consent to have an orgasm in a vagina without cosnenting to go along with the responsibilities that the woman chooses that he has towards a resulting child.

Apparently it makes you so angry that you keep repeating the same type of statements without responding to the many flaws pointed out in your reasoning.

Apparently it makes you so angry you have to refer to anyone that thinks women and men should have equal rights as a "feminazi."

Apparently it makes you so angry you say incredibly stupid things like "[w]omen don't get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant."

In other words, you appear to be so angry you have lost your mind.

You know, there's a guy in my finance class who, when the topic of the coming social security crunch came up, raised his hand and said that it wouldn't have been a problem if we'd have only outlawed abortions, because there'd be forty million more americans.

He tries to turn everything to abortion, regardless of how unrelated it may actually be. I despise him.

YES. The so-called "pro-life" crowd has an anti-sex, anti-woman agenda
We respect the sovereignty of women over their own bodies
We believe women are in a superior moral position to decide what happens to their own bodies
Most anti-abortion arguments ignore the actual statistics on when abortions occur during the development of the unborn
As you yourself have pointed out, restrictions on abortion are counter-productive in addition to endangering women
Zygotes and embryos aren't persons




1. No, they don't. If your going to make accusations like that, please bring proof.

2. Am I in a moral position to murder my children? The baby inside a women is not a parasite, its not just a useless piece of flesh, its a child.

3. Once again, you make an accusation, but you don't bring proof. Here is a stat, the majority of abortions take place late in the first term. By that time, the fetus has a nervous system. So to say his/she can't feel pain is absurd.

4. Every time I see this argument, I die a little inside. If the state bans abortion, and a women takes a knife to her uterus. She dies. You want to blame the state?

5. Yes, they are people. Do you feel good when you push little children down? I bet you or someone close to you have had an abortion, so you say theses things because you refuse to admite that you or someone close to you killed someone. I recommend you read Horton Hears a Who.

2. Am I in a moral position to murder my children? The baby inside a women is not a parasite, its not just a useless piece of flesh, its a child.

....which doesn't give it any right to the woman's body.

You are in a moral position to control the use of your own body. Now, we can argue over whether or not you should let someone or something else use it, but the decision is ultimately up to you.

3. Once again, you make an accusation, but you don't bring proof. Here is a stat, the majority of abortions take place late in the first term. By that time, the fetus has a nervous system. So to say his/she can't feel pain is absurd.

The fetus has nervous tissue by then, but does not have a fully developed nervous system. The ability to feel what we would call pain doesn't develop until after week 20.

4. Every time I see this argument, I die a little inside. If the state bans abortion, and a women takes a knife to her uterus. She dies. You want to blame the state?

Yes. The state restricted her actions, causing her to take more desperate actions.

5. Yes, they are people.

By what definition?

....which doesn't give it any right to the woman's body.

You are in a moral position to control the use of your own body. Now, we can argue over whether or not you should let someone or something else use it, but the decision is ultimately up to you.



The fetus has nervous tissue by then, but does not have a fully developed nervous system. The ability to feel what we would call pain doesn't develop until after week 20.



Yes. The state restricted her actions, causing her to take more desperate actions.



By what definition?

1. The child is a child, not a tumor on the woman. She by having sex, consented to having a child grow inside her.

2. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp

3. She took a knife to herself. That is in no way the problem of the state.

4. This is where religion comes into it =P
My answer is, it has a soul.

4. This is where religion comes into it =P
My answer is, it has a soul.

And this is where we leave the land of logic and enter the world of magic, and that's not a place I, as a woman who has a right to control her own body, will follow you.

And your source is clearly not impartial. Nor is it accurate. It talks about "sticking the palm of an 8-week fetus with a pin" and reactions. An 8-week fetus is roughly and inch and a half long. It doesn't have a palm.

And this is where we leave the land of logic and enter the world of magic, and that's not a place I, as a woman who has a right to control her own body, will follow you.

Atheist on a mission!:p

1. No, they don't. If your going to make accusations like that, please bring proof.

I've already given proof in this thread of so-called "pro-life" leaders that are anti-sex, anti-contraception, anti-family-planning, etc. Rather than focus on proven solutions to prevent unwanted pregancies, the "pro-life" movement focuses almost exclusively on denying women the right to control their own body. Thus, my statement that "pro-life" crowd is anti-sex and anti-women is amptly supported.

(A word of advice to a newcomer, if you continue to press me for "proof," beware what you ask for. I can bury you in proof if necessary.)

2. Am I in a moral position to murder my children? The baby inside a women is not a parasite, its not just a useless piece of flesh, its a child.

You apparently combined two points that I had made separate:

We respect the sovereignty of women over their own bodies.
We believe women are in a superior moral position to decide what happens to their bodies.


Your responses are silly for numerous reasons: 1) Abortion is not murder; 2)No, you can't kill your children once they are born (or even prior to birth once they are viable); 3) you are sovereign over your own body; 4) between the state and the individual, the individual is in a better moral position to decide what happens to her own body; and 5) if you want to get technical an embryo is more like a parasite than it is a like a person.

3. Once again, you make an accusation, but you don't bring proof. Here is a stat, the majority of abortions take place late in the first term. By that time, the fetus has a nervous system. So to say his/she can't feel pain is absurd.

Your "stat" is nonsense. According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm), in the U.S., over 60% of all abortions occur in the first eight weeks of gestation and about 90% occur within the first 12 weeks of gestation. An unborn isn't a fetus until the 9th week and its nervous system is not complete at 12 weeks.

No one said an unborn can't feel pain. Neither of us have specified at what point in gestation an unborn can feel pain, but it isn't particularly relevant. The ability to feel pain does not equal personhood. We kill things everyday that can feel pain -- for sport, for food, etc. I wish for abortions to be rarer in part because I don't like the idea of causing something pain, but that is hardly a trump card for youl.

4. Every time I see this argument, I die a little inside. If the state bans abortion, and a women takes a knife to her uterus. She dies. You want to blame the state?

If you were trying to reduce traffic accidents and you knew that one policy would only decrease accidents slightly but would cause more fatal accidents and you knew another policy would greatly decrease accidents and decrease fatal accidents, if you deliberately chose the first policy your choice can be correctly criticized--regardless of who is at fault in individual accidents.

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html) and here (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html) are articles about one study of global abortion laws and their effects which makes clear that abortion is just as common but far more dangerous where abortion is outlawed. And here (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract) is a link to the study itself (but I think a free subscription is required to read it).

The fact that abortion is just as common -- but far, far more dangerous -- where abortion is outlawed is an independent reason why abortion should be legal. (Note: legal abortion is among the safest of surgical procedures, but illegal abortions kill about 70,000 women every year!)

Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives, not by attempts to enslave and endanger women.

5. Yes, they are people. Do you feel good when you push little children down? I bet you or someone close to you have had an abortion, so you say theses things because you refuse to admite that you or someone close to you killed someone. I recommend you read Horton Hears a Who.

Nice combination of ad hominem and strawmen. Most women that have abortions already have one or more children they love. Respecting a woman's right to choose is not to delight in bullying or killing children.

Regardless, by what criteria is a zygote a person? An embryo?

Horton Hears a Who is a fine book, but a poor analogy for abortion. In Horton, the people in question are fully functional adult people that differ only in size. Thus, "a person is a person no matter how small" works. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that "everything small is a person." To the contrary, a clump of cells has almost no (if any) characteristics of personhood.

4. This is where religion comes into it =P
My answer is, it has a soul.

Prove it. I made far more reasonable claims and you demanded proof.

Prove it. I made far more reasonable claims and you demanded proof.

Proof of soul:

http://www.nysdta.org/Determinations/820562.det.htm

Proof of soul:

http://www.nysdta.org/Determinations/820562.det.htmProof of soul = DNS look-up error?
Alrighty.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp

Read your own source (and remember that over 60% of abortion occur in the first 8 weeks and 90% in the first 12 weeks of gestation) (emphasis added below):


"By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980


In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, "and so by the close of the first trimester [12 weeks] the fetus is a sentient, moving being."


"The cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and (see above) is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain. "Indeed there seems to be little evidence that pain information reaches the sensory cortex." Patton et al., Intro. to Basic Neurology, W. B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178


"The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain." R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case Western Univ.


"Far from being less able to feel pain, such premature newborns may be more sensitive to pain"...that babies under 30 weeks have a "newly established pain system that is raw and unmodified at this tender age." P. Ranalli, Neuro. Dept., Univ. of Toronto


Note that throughout the website they refer to fetuses and fetal pain. The fetal stage begins at 9 weeks.

Proof of soul = DNS look-up error?
Alrighty.

Huh, weird, link works for me.

Here's an alternate proof the soul:

http://z.about.com/d/crime/1/0/t/6/brown.jpg

Huh, weird, link works for me.

Here's an alternate proof the soul:

http://z.about.com/d/crime/1/0/t/6/brown.jpgI think you just scared mine out of me.

Atheist on a mission!:p

:rolleyes: Goodbye.

:rolleyes: Goodbye.

Especially since Jahka apparently didn't read well enough to understand you weren't going to follow him off to fantasy land.

This is a long thread so I don't know if this has been raised already. Abortion rates are lowest in those countries where it is legal and safe.

Last year the Victorian Parliament de-criminalised abortion. I work for an MP and helped her prepare her speech. Here is an extract:
Well done. Thank you very much for that excerpt. An excellent presentation of a sound pro-choice view.

Atheist on a mission!:p
Troll on a spree!

4. This is where religion comes into it =P
My answer is, it has a soul.
Just for the sake of this one point, I'm going to set aside the fact that you are completely wrong because US and most of European law and governmental policy is SECULAR, so religion does not come into this issue properly at all.

I'm also going to set aside the fact that it is impossible for you prove the existence of souls, and therefore impossible for you to demonstrate why anyone should care about them.

I will further set aside the fact the law, which is what we care about in this debate, only affects matters of the material world, not the spiritual, therefore your mention of souls is irrelevant.

I'm going to set all of that aside and instead focus on just TWO flaws in your statement:

A) Which religion? There are thousands of religions and sects of religions in the world, and not all of them take the same view of life, death, souls or abortion as you apparently do. So WHICH religion do you think should dictate the rules for everyone in the world to follow?

AND

B) What possibly effect can abortion -- or any other manner of death, for that matter -- have on a soul?

See -- and again, I'm setting aside the fact that none of this can have any evidence presented to back it up -- I happen to follow a religious system that does believe in souls. And how, brother. We practically obsess over them. And in my belief system, souls are immortal. Bodily form is fleeting. Souls exist forever. Life, death, this world or another, this form, that form -- it makes no difference. The soul is the soul.

So, explain to ME then why I, a believer in souls, should think that the existence of a soul should matter in deciding whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not, if I believe that ending the pregnancy will not have any particular detrimental effect on any soul that may or may not be involved.

<snip>

Horton Hears a Who is a fine book, but a poor analogy for abortion. In Horton, the people in question are fully functional adult people that differ only in size. Thus, "a person is a person no matter how small" works. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that "everything small is a person." To the contrary, a clump of cells has almost no (if any) characteristics of personhood.
Silly Cat-Tribe. Don't you know that all that conceptus/embryo/fetus gestational stages stuff is just a bunch of lies propagated by baby-killers? Everyone who knows the truth knows that what is implanted in a female vessel is a perfectly formed little homunculus, made in God's image, and fully endowed with everything he will need in life right from the moment the magic sperm takes root. It's in all the medical books, right next to the chapter on balancing our humours.

See -- and again, I'm setting aside the fact that none of this can have any evidence presented to back it up -- I happen to follow a religious system that does believe in souls. And how, brother. We practically obsess over them. And in my belief system, souls are immortal. Bodily form is fleeting. Souls exist forever. Life, death, this world or another, this form, that form -- it makes no difference. The soul is the soul.

So, explain to ME then why I, a believer in souls, should think that the existence of a soul should matter in deciding whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not, if I believe that ending the pregnancy will not have any particular detrimental effect on any soul that may or may not be involved.

I actually had a question about that. In your particular view of animism, what sort of afterlife do you believe in?

I actually had a question about that. In your particular view of animism, what sort of afterlife do you believe in?
"Afterlife" is a very problematical concept for me, as an individual, because, since, in the way I understand and experience my animist beliefs, "life" is the life of the soul, which is never ending, therefore, technically, there is no afterlife, because there is no end to life for something to come after. So, if I talk about "this life" or the "next life", etc, I'm just talking about temporary incarnations of something that is continuous, chapters within a story. That's the big spiritual hair that I split, and yes, I know I'm being a pain in the ass. I can get away with it because I spend hardly any time thinking about what will happen after I die unless someone asks me about it. My interest in religion is 100% focused on dealing with what happens during THIS lifetime in THIS world. I'll cross the bridge of the next when I get there.

That said, my type of animism, which stems from certain old European folk beliefs, posits a "spirit world" plane of existence in which the spirits of the dead live pretty much exactly the same way we do here in this reality. However, just like this plane of existence, we are not especially bound to that one, and souls may move on to other planes, reincarnate in various forms in this plane, etc. How or why or when that would happen, I have no idea, nor have I ever thought about it much. But essentially, unless and until you reincarnate in some form, in some place, you will be a spirit, in which case, the lines of spiritual connection that we all exist within (family/ancestry, as well as various other spiritual affiliations) will determine what kind of a spirit you will be and what kind of a life as a spirit you will likely live. Human spirits tend, it is believed, to live human lives in close connection to their physically incarnated human relations and fellows.

EDIT: But essentially, animism is a religious philosophy of the HERE and NOW, not the post-physical-death future. Old European animism emphasized ancestor veneration, but really the most important part of that was/is communicating with the dead for the purpose of dealing with present physical world issues -- like seeking the assistance of an ancestor in dealing with a god or other spirit, or seeking the validation of one's ancestors for one's present actions, or consulting a medium to find out where Uncle Vitto hid that deed before he died, or to make sure Aunt Agatha had all her affairs here in order before she died and that she is happily ensconced in wherever she is now, so that she will have no need at all ever to come back. For that kind of thing, it is assumed that the recently dead go somewhere, but but it is not particularly assumed that they will stay there forever, or be forever available to the currently living -- on account of they do have lives their own, after all.

1. The child is a child, not a tumor on the woman.

Irrelevant. No person has a right to use another's body against her will either.

She by having sex, consented to having a child grow inside her.

(a) No she didn't. She consented to sex - to allow the man to enter her body. In doing so, she consented to the possibility of becoming pregnant, but did not consent to stay that way.
(b) Even if this were true, she can withdraw consent at any time, just as she can with any other use of her body.

2. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp

Why don't you try looking up actual scientific sources - particularly ones that are actually up-to-date?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

^ Pubmed is a good place to start searching.

While some of the receptors necessary for pain are developed earlier, pain requires both those receptors and the cortical connections to be aware of it. The fetus does not have the latter until after 20 weeks.

3. She took a knife to herself. That is in no way the problem of the state.

She only did so because of state intervention, therefore making it the problem of the state.

4. This is where religion comes into it =P

Then this is where it has no meaning in law.

"Afterlife" is a very problematical concept for me, as an individual, because, since, in the way I understand and experience my animist beliefs, "life" is the life of the soul, which is never ending, therefore, technically, there is no afterlife, because there is no end to life for something to come after. So, if I talk about "this life" or the "next life", etc, I'm just talking about temporary incarnations of something that is continuous, chapters within a story. That's the big spiritual hair that I split, and yes, I know I'm being a pain in the ass. I can get away with it because I spend hardly any time thinking about what will happen after I die unless someone asks me about it. My interest in religion is 100% focused on dealing with what happens during THIS lifetime in THIS world. I'll cross the bridge of the next when I get there.

That said, my type of animism, which stems from certain old European folk beliefs, posits a "spirit world" plane of existence in which the spirits of the dead live pretty much exactly the same way we do here in this reality. However, just like this plane of existence, we are not especially bound to that one, and souls may move on to other planes, reincarnate in various forms in this plane, etc. How or why or when that would happen, I have no idea, nor have I ever thought about it much. But essentially, unless and until you reincarnate in some form, in some place, you will be a spirit, in which case, the lines of spiritual connection that we all exist within (family/ancestry, as well as various other spiritual affiliations) will determine what kind of a spirit you will be and what kind of a life as a spirit you will likely live. Human spirits tend, it is believed, to live human lives in close connection to their physically incarnated human relations and fellows.

EDIT: But essentially, animism is a religious philosophy of the HERE and NOW, not the post-physical-death future. Old European animism emphasized ancestor veneration, but really the most important part of that was/is communicating with the dead for the purpose of dealing with present physical world issues -- like seeking the assistance of an ancestor in dealing with a god or other spirit, or seeking the validation of one's ancestors for one's present actions, or consulting a medium to find out where Uncle Vitto hid that deed before he died, or to make sure Aunt Agatha had all her affairs here in order before she died and that she is happily ensconced in wherever she is now, so that she will have no need at all ever to come back. For that kind of thing, it is assumed that the recently dead go somewhere, but but it is not particularly assumed that they will stay there forever, or be forever available to the currently living -- on account of they do have lives their own, after all.

Hmm, interesting. So you believe that some spirit mediums are legit? Or is that mainly do-it-yourself, ancestor shrines and incense and the like? And in the context of reincarnation out of the spirit world, is there any sort of theology underlying why one stays in the spirit world or why one should reincarnate? Is life seen as sort of a "soul refining" experience or what?

Um. Dem1 is more than adequately handing you your ass, but we are back to that cognitive dissonance again. Remember the statistics from the beginning of the thread AND that you seized on recently that show percentages of incorrect use of contraceptives? Your mantra THEN was that simply having tried to use contraceptives was next to nothing because it didn't work.

TCT, you are trying to misinterpret everything to fit your case. It was earlier stated that 20% of pregnancies in the US end in abortion; and based on the statistics provided in the OP, about 94% of those were due to incorrect or non-use of contraceptives. The statistics I provided indicate that about three-quarters of teens use contraception, and that would be reasonably consistent with earlier statistics as well.

Remember, we are talking about a sub-category of a sub-category. You have thousands who engage in sexual activity, use contraception correctly and never get pregnant as a result. You also have thouse who engage in sexual activity, fail to use contraception or use it incorrectly, and get pregnant as a result.

Your feeble attempts to justify a nostalgic assertion that there was less teen sex "in the good old days" are patently pathetic.

Now, aside from pregnancy statistics (which can easily be countered by the fact that contraception wasn't easily available in the 1950s), where are your statistics to indicate that there was an equal amount of teen sex in the 1950s and on top of that, that it was occurring at a similar age to today?

Now, aside from pregnancy statistics (which can easily be countered by the fact that contraception wasn't easily available in the 1950s), where are your statistics to indicate that there was an equal amount of teen sex in the 1950s and on top of that, that it was occurring at a similar age to today?
Calling for proof on either side of this argument is, I would imagine, rather pointless.

How many surveys, never mind accurate surveys, of the sexual behaviour of teens could there be prior to the 1950s? Heck, even the concept of a teenager, much less their sexual behaviour, can't really be found until the latter half of the twentieth century.

How many surveys, never mind accurate surveys, of the sexual behaviour of teens could there be prior to the 1950s? Heck, even the concept of a teenager, much less their sexual behaviour, can't really be found until the latter half of the twentieth century.

Thank you for agreeing with my earlier statements. The earliest data that I have seen (admittedly on a quick Google search) about teen sexual behaviour dates to the mid 1980s.

Hmm, interesting. So you believe that some spirit mediums are legit? Or is that mainly do-it-yourself, ancestor shrines and incense and the like? And in the context of reincarnation out of the spirit world, is there any sort of theology underlying why one stays in the spirit world or why one should reincarnate? Is life seen as sort of a "soul refining" experience or what?
Isn't this straying a bit drastically off topic?

Short answers:

1) I believe mediumistic abilities are possible, but that doesn't mean that I believe necessarily that any given person is really able to do it.

2) DIY ritual observances are kind of a hallmark of animist religions.

3) There are uncounted numbers of animistic religions. There is no one animistic theology about death, spirits, reincarnation. As I said, animism does not really care that much about that stuff.

4) Life is seen as just being what it is. Animistic religions do not typically have a concept of "salvation" or "nirvana", etc., except in a vague, mythic sense (if at all). Like I said, animism is about the here and now, not the someday.

I could talk more about all of those, but I'd rather not hijack this thread. I really appreciate your interest though. Maybe in a thread about religion, I could answer more questions.

Thank you for agreeing with my earlier statements. The earliest data that I have seen (admittedly on a quick Google search) about teen sexual behaviour dates to the mid 1980s.
Aye, but that in no way supports your assertion that there was less teen sex prior to the 1950s.

Thank you for agreeing with my earlier statements. The earliest data that I have seen (admittedly on a quick Google search) about teen sexual behaviour dates to the mid 1980s.
Then on what do you base your claims about the better and more chaste behavior of past generations of teens?

Then on what do you base your claims about the better and more chaste behavior of past generations of teens?

The media wasnt ebil in the '50s.

Then on what do you base your claims about the better and more chaste behavior of past generations of teens?

Leave it to Beaver, obviously.

I mean, hell, sex was so uncommon in the 50s, married people slept in separate beds

Leave it to Beaver, obviously.

I mean, hell, sex was so uncommon in the 50s, married people slept in separate beds
I don't know, man. I've watched "Leave It to Beaver" on tvland, and I gotta say, Ward copped some pretty good feels on June in the kitchen now and then.

Also, I'm guessing a certain poster who has bizarre fantasies about a sexless teen golden age has never seen "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis."

Isn't this straying a bit drastically off topic?

Short answers:

1) I believe mediumistic abilities are possible, but that doesn't mean that I believe necessarily that any given person is really able to do it.

2) DIY ritual observances are kind of a hallmark of animist religions.

3) There are uncounted numbers of animistic religions. There is no one animistic theology about death, spirits, reincarnation. As I said, animism does not really care that much about that stuff.

4) Life is seen as just being what it is. Animistic religions do not typically have a concept of "salvation" or "nirvana", etc., except in a vague, mythic sense (if at all). Like I said, animism is about the here and now, not the someday.

I could talk more about all of those, but I'd rather not hijack this thread. I really appreciate your interest though. Maybe in a thread about religion, I could answer more questions.

Interesting (and incredibly nuanced). And yes, sounds good. :)

Leave it to Beaver, obviously.

I mean, hell, sex was so uncommon in the 50s, married people slept in separate beds

Am I the only one who wonders if "Beaver Cleaver" was a euphemism one of the producers intentionally threw in? Though maybe I'm applying a modern euphemism to a phrase from before anyone ever started using it. :$

Interesting (and incredibly nuanced). And yes, sounds good. :)
Nuanced? Okay, if you say so. *shrugs*

Nuanced? Okay, if you say so. *shrugs*

I dunno, maybe I used the wrong word there.

Am I the only one who wonders if "Beaver Cleaver" was a euphemism one of the producers intentionally threw in? Though maybe I'm applying a modern euphemism to a phrase from before anyone ever started using it. :$
Yeah, I think you're the only one who wonders about that. ;)

And no, that is not a new euphemism.

At what age, out of curiosity, does NSG think sex education should start?


If the parents/guardians are attentive.. as soon as the kid recognizes sex as ... well something interactive and not just something they see on tv or their parents doing? Which btw if they aren't aware of what sex is, they will not understand what's really going on .. until that time comes in their brain that it 'hits' them .. like ohh!