The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

[Timshel]

It's not a human being. Laws, custom, precedence, accepted practices...rules that govern human beings can not be applied to something that is unborn. The most obvious example is most people agree the life/health of the mother takes priority, in every case, even if it means killing the supposed human being known as a fetus.

If a woman is at great risk of having a stroke due to uncontrolled high blood pressure or at risk of suffering severe consequences due to diabetes those very folks who claim life is sacred have no problem automatically sentencing a fetus to death.

If the pregnant woman is likely to suffer partial or full blindness due to diabetes, kill the fetus. If the pregnant woman is likely to lose a kidney due to high blood pressure, kill the fetus.

It is never contested nor seldom debated. Is one person's kidney worth another person's life? Is it morally correct or even logical for a person with a defective body to have the right to kill an innocent human being? Is that showing sanctity for life......unless the goal is to force a woman to bear a child regardless of the consequences. Or maybe some compromise in between and the occasional woman does suffer blindness or suffers a stroke.

As others have asked where do the "right for lifers" really stand? Like they did in Romania?

You know, it's easy to answer why that is okay only if you consider why I think they really make their demands. The real reason they make their demands is based on their stereotype of the aborting mother. She's young, likely a minority, single or if she is married she's a liberal atheist. She's a filthy whore who has sex just for fun and, therefore, deserves to be punished.

It would be cruel and unusual to make the woman suffer kidney loss for the sin of having sex, without the desire to procreate. Plus, it would punish those who chose to have sex for procreation or were in marriage. It would punish both the person that lives in accordance with their view of God's will and that filthy whore that should be punished. They don't really want that, so....

It's also the only logical reason for an exception in cases of rape. She did not choose the sex and so we can't punish her, unless she asked for it by acting like a filthy whore. Well, no... that won't work... anymore. So they'll just have to let them "get away" with it while protecting the innocent person who was attacked for no reason.

Of course, as soon as that child of the filthy whore is born to what is, stereotypically, a single mother and we know what they think that means about their chances of being raised well, they will argue that it's suffering is due it because of its filthy whore of a mother. They would not piss on it if were on fire at that point, and the little bastard probably will burn in hell with its mother.

It's about their desire to punish, which informs just about all of their political views. It's very sick to see a child as punishment, but...

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Nothing but ad hom. Here is some back at you, but I can back mine up with arguments and all you have is your ignorant assumptions...

You are a lowlife that does not care about the rights of children or the women, but only care about advancing your religion.

You don't care how many women are killed or how they may suffer. Your immoral religion tells you they must be punished for having sex without the intent to procreate.

You don't care about the unborn child if it dies from something other than the woman's choice. You don't mourn it, you probably would not give a dollar to help prevent such an event or offer any aid. The moment the child is born you assholes may very well start your verbal attacks on it and the family on which it depends if that family does not meet your definition of God's will. You will deny the parents many rights that it could use to further the goal of supporting the child.

After it is born, your concern ends, because it no longer affords you any ability to dictate the actions of the mother.

You are not a moral person. Not even your religion is really important to you as you completely ignore its commands to "love thy neighbor" and only use it to find excuses to hate.

It is quite possible to incorporate rights into your religion, even the right to an abortion. It's been done. But that would not give you license to hate and discriminate, which IS your true religion. You are a piece of shit.

/shrugs.....I can back up what I said about you from your own statements......you cannot say the same....you don't hide your total disdain for the unborn....you don't even attribute humanity to them......you advocate the taking of human life without guilt.....there are some folks here I would like to meet......you, I would cross the street to avoid.....

 

[Timshel]

/shrugs.....I can back up what I said about you from your own statements......you cannot say the same....you don't hide your total disdain for the unborn....you don't even attribute humanity to them......you advocate the taking of human life without guilt.....there are some folks here I would like to meet......you, I would cross the street to avoid.....

Just like I would take the life of a brain dead person without guilt and never felt the need to inspect the menstruation of my lovers for the death of my "children." .

My position makes sense and is logical from the moment the HUMAN life begins until it ends. It does not conflict with other positions I hold. For instance, should a women be able to risk killing numerous fertilized eggs (unborn babies in your book) in order to achieve pregnancy. Hell, yeah. Your answer? :chirp: :chirp: There are plenty of others that have been noted and I have more.

There is nothing else to connect your positions other than your religion of hate. It is made apparent in every position you take.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

For instance, should a women be able to risk killing numerous fertilized eggs (unborn babies in your book) in order to achieve pregnancy. Hell, yeah. Your answer? :chirp: :chirp:

???....hardly....my answer remains the same.....killing the fertilized eggs remains an immoral killing....that's one of the reasons my children are adopted.....

There is nothing else to connect your positions other than your religion of hate. It is made apparent in every position you take.

right......I'm the hater, yet you're the killer.....how's that work again.....

 

[DamnYankee]

I have way more compassion for children than you do, dick. I care about all of them while your kind belittles all of those that are not in the home as God commanded for them, i.e., one dad - one mom. You attack their parents and throw up barriers to their attempts to establish stable homes, within which to raise their children.

You are an immoral asshole with a hardened heart. But you think your God gives you license to do it.

He (though there is little reason to believe he exists) does not. The word told you not to afflict the fatherless children and yet you insist on doing so in its name.

Part of me wishes he did exist. If he did and he were just, people like you would get a special place in hell.

Awesome that you misrepresent my position with such veracity. It shows the weakness of your argument as well as your character. Dick.

 

[DamnYankee]

No, you all that want to force women to stay pregnant are the totalitarians. See communist Romania for an example ofthe world you want for america.

Awesome that you misrepresent my position with such veracity. It shows the weakness of your argument as well as your character.

 

[DamnYankee]

Bullshit. Where did I say that a stable loving family is not the best choice for raising kids.

Here:

...or it soon will be.

It's time for the social conservatives to face the facts of the world as it now exists. The ideal of the two parent family unit is dead and it is not going to return. "Leave it to Beaver" was nothing but a myth to begin with.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I want a link to your information, so I can examine the information for myself. And PUH-LEEZE stop repeating your supposition and conjecture.....because all you're doing is just giving out generalizations and opinions. I notice that you avoided providing the information I requested...remember, YOU make this statements as fact, so the burden of proof is on YOU. If you can't do this, then you're just blowing smoke.

http://www.census.gov/population/www...lex-poster.pdf

So then I am just guessing that some married couples will divorce, that people lie on surveys or that illegitimacy is something frowned upon in our culture? Okay, whatever...

I made no claims on how many. It is, without any doubt whatsoever, some.

You can guess, assume, suppose until doomsday.....it won't magically make all your beliefs and mantras on this subject come true, or discredit/disprove what I pointing out. You STILL haven't provided where you got that 63% you originally alluded to.....your source material has a LOT of subset percentages that may have confused you enough to make your previously skewed assertions. Here's an example:

Conclusions
The new CPS data allow us to look at the living arrangements
of children and their unmarried parents in greater detail.
• Most children live with two married parents and this
proportion across all age groups is about 7 in 10

Taichiliberal Quote:
Nice try toodles, but a simple examination of the FACTS blows your BS back into the toilet. Gay women who were in the closet and married to straight men conceive kids and then (sometimes) gain custody after the divorce. Gay women who have NEVER been with a man get pregnant through artificial insemination.....the ONLY way they can conceive a child during their gay marriage...unless one the partners goes and has sex with a man....which is pretty schzoid if they are NOT sexually attracted to heterosexual men. Then there's adoption.

First off, it is not necessary that they marry in order to conceive. Most conceived with a man, I never claimed otherwise, so? Are only a child's parents allowed to marry?

First off, you're purposely misrepresenting what previously transpired. I never said gay women had to get married to conceive...I AM DISCUSSING THE CONCEPT OF GAY MARRIED COUPLES "CONCEIVING" CHILDREN. And as I previously pointed out, they can't do that WITHOUT artificial or outside (surrogate or adoptive) means. THAT is the reality that makes trying to put the gay family 100% on par with the heterosexual family a bonafide lie....or an artificial construct, as I stated earlier.

Your reasoning here is getting more and more tortured. Gay women have kids. Those kids need a stable home as much as anybody. If the state has an interest in the stability of a child's home then it doss not change based on the sexuality of the parent or how they are conceived. Your attempts to stand in the way serve absolutely no useful purpose, nor are you stupid arguments of any relevance.

What's torture is your lame attempt to AVOID the FACTS of my statements with repeating your mantras and platitudes and painfully obvious smokescreens. What's standing in the way of your revisionism is simple biology and logic. TFB if you don't like it, because there's not a damned thing you can do about it except blow smoke and demonize those that point out a simple truth. And as I've pointed out previously and above, the truth is not going away because you and others deem it's irrelevent.

Taichiliberal Quote:
So no matter how you slice it, the gay marriage is an artificial construct when it comes to producing children from that union. Remember toodles, heterosexual couples have the OPTION of adopting, or using surrogacy or artificial insemination IN THE EVENT THAT ONE OR BOTH PARTNERS ARE MEDICALLY IMPAIRED FROM BEING ABLE TO PERFORM TOWARDS CONTRACEPTION. Gay couples, as dictated by biology, do NOT have that option.

So what? Why is that important?

Because it is a REALITY that you and other like minded folk try to hide and avoid when it comes to rearing children. In short, creating a little world based on the selfish need to prove "normalcy" in all aspects of the human condition despite biological impossibilities.

Taichiliberal Quote:
A flowery speech that dodges my main point. No matter what you say, you CANNOT change facts of biology....gay couples by themselves CANNOT produce children...EVER. So to say they are "normal" family..as you did...is incorrect. As I've explained above, it's an artificial construct.

Fuck you and your definition of the "normal family," motherfucker! You, obviously, are no more concerned with the children than the religious reich.

Oooh, I'm sooo impressed with the "logic" of this retort of yours. Seems I touch a nerve with jokers like you when I point out a simple truth that interferes with your rose colored world. Riddle me this, Batman.....why is it that for decades we've read volumes on the angst that gay kids go through having parents that are not like them. What makes you think a straight child of gay parents won't go through a similar process? And why should a child be put into an artificial construct that WOULD NOT NORMALLY OCCUR IN NATURE? As I said above, the gay marriage/kids advocates seem bent on creating a little world based on the selfish need to prove "normalcy" in all aspects of the human condition despite biological impossibilities. The Stacy/Biblarz study is just one of the items that folk like you avoid like the plague...which is pretty pathetic on your part.

Taichiliberal Quote:
And why do you imply that gay parents are any more stable than heterosexual? Do a little honest homework on the divorce rate of gay unions/marriages and you'll see my point. Also, after YEARS of reading and hearing testimony by gay folk about the trials and tribulations of being raised by straight parents, why is it suddenly okay to put straight kids into a situation where their parental role models are gay? Are you saying there's no angst or emotional changes there? Like I said before, the Stacey/Bilblarz study is the thorn that pops the hot air mantras you spew here.

I implied no such thing.

I have no clue what you are talking about with the trials and tribulations of being raised by straight couples. My guess is, you are just using another straw man and that they actually complained about being raised by parents that did not understand homosexuality. I am sure gay parents (of which most conceive in a heterosexual coupling) can understand heterosexuality just fine.

Sorry to inform you, but as the chronology of the posts shows, it is YOU who keeps interjecting these little paragraphs about gay parents and stable homes..as it was YOU that interjecting the incorrect percentage about traditional marriages on the decline and such. My point was about the simple incorrect statement of a gay family as being on par with a straight family, since a gay couple can't reproduce naturally. You should lay of the pontificating mantras if you can't defend your position or stay on topic.

Taichiliberal Quote:
Gay marriages...no problem. Gay couples and kids....pretty much nothing can be done outside of draconian laws. I am just not going to let all the mythology and BS about it go unchallenged. TFB if you don't like it...but you can't logically disprove what I point out here.

You are sick and demented.

Ooh, I'm slain by your rapier wit and razor sharp deductions! (this is sarcasm, by the way)

Your point is not relevant to anything. Your denial is what is not relevent, as the chronology of the posts show. Two women can't conceive. Okay, now tell us why that means they can't marry?

Who said they couldn't marry, genius? I didn't....all I did was point out that they couldn't natually conceive and therefore trying to equate their "children" with the traditional heterosexual family is fallacy and folly. Your schizoid attitude is to acknowledge a fact and then pretend it does NOT affect everything else.... and you lash out in frustration when someone points out your error. Raising kids in a lie never bodes well down the line, be it in the first of second generation. Get a grip and deal, String.

 

[Socrtease]

Genetically from conception it is a human. On a genetic level. However, there is a huge difference between these:

This is an Anencephalic infant. It was this very early on in it's gestational life. It is in this picture gentically a human being, but it was NEVER a person. It lacked all possibility of being a person. It has no higher brain function. It could be a republican vice presidential nominee, but it was never a person. You prolifers want to force women to carry these to term.

This is a fertilized human egg with multiple pronuclei. Gentically human at this point, but not ever going to make it to personhood, but you would pass laws to protect this as well.

First trimester embryo. Unable to feel pain, does not know it exists, until the 8th week it has not even begun forming its organs. 80% of miscarriages occur at this point, and 88% of all abortions occur at ths point [1]

13-28 weeks, After 24 weeks, this little critter has a chance to survive outside the womb. Only 8% of all abortion providers perform abortions at 24 weeks [2]

Only 1.5% of all abortions are performed AFTER week 21.

Abortion is at an all time low in this county. The bulk of my facts came from www.abort73.com. A prolife organization. Abortion is the last worst choice a woman should ever have to make. Most women don't choose it. I hate that there are as many as there are in this country. But we live in a world where lots of people, ironically most of which are pro-forced pregnancy, are also againt providing contraception for sexually active teens, which by the way only account for 1% of all abortions. Also an abort73 stat. It should remain safe and legal. As technology gets better, the viability date should go down. At some point, they will be able to transplant embryos from women who don't want to be pregnant into women that do. I will be interested in seeing how many pro-life women will jump to the challenge. My guess is as many pro-choice women would volunteer for that as pro-life. As I pointed out much earlier, Romania experimented with criminalizing abortion. It failed. They became a nation of orphans after the collapse of the communist government and they still have an abnormally high number of abortions now because they too, don't believe in contraception. It is the unintended consequence of criminalization. It failed there and it will fail here.

 

[Timshel]

Here:

Not there.

 

[Timshel]

???....hardly....my answer remains the same.....killing the fertilized eggs remains an immoral killing....that's one of the reasons my children are adopted.....

So, you think in vitro fertilization should be illegal? You have my respect for your act of adopting.

How about rape? Can the victim abort?

 

[Timshel]

ditzyliberal, learn how to use the quotes. Not cleaning up your mess anymore.

There is absolutely no doubt that within the population of people now married with children, some will divorce. To argue otherwise is simply idiotic.

The same is true concerning lying on any survey data. Census data has always been highly suspect. I have read censuses doing genealogical research. People lie or misstate all forms of data. No doubt about that.

67% or 63% do you really believe that makes much difference. It does nothing for your point. Here you go 63%...

http://www.mndaily.com/2009/07/07/study-children-thrive-calm-two-parent-households

You are arguing statistical certainties and 4% which other studies show.

Who has tried to hide the fact that two women can't have children through homosexual sex? No-fucking-body. My point is and always has been, who fucking cares? You have not answered.

There are plenty of couples that cannot conceive without outside help, asshole. You are telling them they are not on par with a couple that can? Again, fuck you and your normalcy.

You don't understand simple language. I said homosexuals ARE procreating. That is a fact. Their kids need a stable home as much as anybody.

If you are not arguing that homosexuals cannot marry, then I don't care about your other stupid points.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

...or it soon will be.

It's time for the social conservatives to face the facts of the world as it now exists. The ideal of the two parent family unit is dead and it is not going to return. "Leave it to Beaver" was nothing but a myth to begin with.

Much of the change in the social dynamics was due to equal rights for women. Basically, they no longer have to put up with our shit and can leave us at anytime. Now, don't get it twisted, I am not sorry about it. It was necessary. They should have never been treated as they once were.

The social upheaval in the wake of women's liberation has passed. The family unit has moved on and I am often struck by the fact that many of the children that surround me are better behaved than I was. I was hell on wheels and many of my peers were worse. Nowadays it is hard to get the kids off the xbox long enough for them to get into much trouble. Even my nephew, who is a bit rough around the edges and was raised mostly by a single mother of 6 boys, is probably a little better behaved than I was.

This is not just anecdotal as crime rates have dropped, tremendously, since the 80s-90s and continue to in rough economic times. Why is that? In my opinion, it is largely due to the fact that this generation of parents is better suited for the new realities, having been raised under them. There is also the fact that we are better at detecting crimes, which probably plays a part. Also, we have at least somewhat relaxed the drug war. But I think the last two are lesser factors.

So here are some facts you need to accept...

Abortion is not going to be outlawed. Shut up already.

The major fighting in the drug war is approaching it's sunset. It was stupid to begin with and it did not stop drug use. Local and state governments across the country are finding they no longer have the money to fight it.

Homosexuals will be allowed to marry. That mythical family unit should not be a road block any longer. It never existed and the realities were nowhere near ideal. It certainly does not exist now, nor will it appear if we just keep the homosexuals down.

You are not going to reclaim the public spheres, where you once brainwashed the children with myths and false fears. You are certainly free to practice your faith and/or strive for your ideal family. But, to hell with your religion forced down our throats by the force of law.

The social conservatives need to sit down and shut up. We are not going back through it. It's over, you lost, move on and don't worry so much. It's gonna be alright.

But I will make a NEW, stronger, liberal consensus, if it's the last thing I do! One that will last a millenia, unlike the one that was quickly struck down by evil. I seek nothing less than the complete and total annihilation of conservatism as a political force in the united states! If even one conservative is still in congress in the next 20 years, I will have failed, for by then the conservative virus will be unstoppable. We have to stop it at its core, RS. Are you with me?

 

[Minister of Truth]

stronger, liberal

Waterdork, these two words do not belong in the same sentence.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The we have ALREADY FAILED, and the United States IS DOOMED.

 

[Timshel]

But I will make a NEW, stronger, liberal consensus, if it's the last thing I do! One that will last a millenia, unlike the one that was quickly struck down by evil. I seek nothing less than the complete and total annihilation of conservatism as a political force in the united states! If even one conservative is still in congress in the next 20 years, I will have failed, for by then the conservative virus will be unstoppable. We have to stop it at its core, RS. Are you with me?

They will be gone soon enough. They have only one issue left and the tide on it has started to turn. It was their best weapon and soon enough it will be kryptonite, like all the rest.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The we have ALREADY FAILED, and the United States IS DOOMED.

Well, that's good news.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

They will be gone soon enough. They have only one issue left and the tide on it has started to turn. It was their best weapon and soon enough it will be kryptonite, like all the rest.

LOL, thanks RS.

The hippie Boomers turned out to be ridiculously conservative, maybe as a reaction to the Best Generations liberalism. I think that Gen Xers are turning out to be libertarian, and Millenials will turn out to be a new, less authoritarian version of liberalism.

 

[DamnYankee]

... You prolifers want to force women to carry these to term.

....Gentically human at this point, but not ever going to make it to personhood, but you would pass laws to protect this as well.....

Again a mischaracterization of the Conservative position. Why do you hate the truth?

 

[Topspin]

the hippy boomers chose greed over weed!!!