The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

Not according to the OP, which is the issue that I have.

The OP was explaining that what we may think is a stable, loving family is anything but. He wrote, "Leave it to Beaver" was nothing but a myth to begin with."

Two men or one woman or an aunt and uncle may supply a much more stable home than the conventional "mommy and daddy" type home. That's what I hear the OP saying.
 
if it can grow into a fully developed human being, it is a human being.

It has to grow into a human being. It has to become a self-contained unit. While it is inside the mother it is not self-contained. It requires the body parts of another human being (the mother) in order to live.
 
The shower wash is a good metaphor and here's why. You need to wash away preconceived notions and beliefs.

Do you live near a major city? During the school year check out the kids at the bus stop going to school. Just look at their clothes and the expression on their faces. Check out after school places where kids go. Talk to the staff. Look at the kids.

When you get "toughened up" go to a hospital that specializes in sick children. I recommend not eating before you go as some folks become physically ill seeing what can only be described as the horror some of those children go through.

Do you know anything about abused children? Have you had any real-life contact? Actually looked one in the eye?

I have. At one time I did mechanical repairs for a school in an economically depressed area. I saw everything from depression causing withdrawal to 6 and 7 year olds acting like little thugs. I spent time conversing with the "Special Ed" teacher. I even supervised her class on several occasions when she was ill and needed a break.

The Principal kept the front door of the school locked as parents would walk in to her office and scream at her. She asked if she could page me if things went out of control.

I've seen it, PmP. I wouldn't subject an animal to such treatment let alone another human being. What's ugly and despicable is people insisting children go through that in the name of morals or some other terribly misguided belief.

If you truly believe what you write and are interested in children's welfare check out what I mentioned. Don't you owe it to yourself?

look, you're a delusional fuckup who thinks we should prevent abuse by killing.....please stay away from the threads where the healthy people post.....
 
I keep waiting for all you biological authoritarians to jump on the Sharon Angle bandwagon and start telling victims of rape and incest that when they get pregnant it was all part of "god's plan". It is the only consistent view in the pro-forced pregnancy camp. A baby conceived of rape or incest is just as innocent as a baby conceived from a one night stand or a marriage. So come on prolifers jump on the Nevada senate candidates bandwagon. Lets pass a law FORCING rape victims and incest victims to have that baby! Goooooooo Zygotes!
 
I keep waiting for all you biological authoritarians to jump on the Sharon Angle bandwagon and start telling victims of rape and incest that when they get pregnant it was all part of "god's plan". It is the only consistent view in the pro-forced pregnancy camp. A baby conceived of rape or incest is just as innocent as a baby conceived from a one night stand or a marriage. So come on prolifers jump on the Nevada senate candidates bandwagon. Lets pass a law FORCING rape victims and incest victims to have that baby! Goooooooo Zygotes!
You've hit the nail on the head were this issue is concerned for me. I personally find abortion on demand as a form of birth control pretty reprehensible. Having said that there are times and places where abortion is appropriate and times and places where abortion is in a grey area morally. In those cases I do not want the state, some legislature or some moralizing politician or preacher making my personal decisions for me.
 
I keep waiting for all you biological authoritarians to jump on the Sharon Angle bandwagon and start telling victims of rape and incest that when they get pregnant it was all part of "god's plan". It is the only consistent view in the pro-forced pregnancy camp. A baby conceived of rape or incest is just as innocent as a baby conceived from a one night stand or a marriage. So come on prolifers jump on the Nevada senate candidates bandwagon. Lets pass a law FORCING rape victims and incest victims to have that baby! Goooooooo Zygotes!
You're a closet Nazi, aren't you?
 
The OP was explaining that what we may think is a stable, loving family is anything but. He wrote, "Leave it to Beaver" was nothing but a myth to begin with."

Two men or one woman or an aunt and uncle may supply a much more stable home than the conventional "mommy and daddy" type home. That's what I hear the OP saying.
Too bad its a lie.
 
you seem to prefer uninformed ethics, then......

I reject mythological ethics that believe that we have rights because God made us. That we are separate from the other animals due to his will. That at fertilization a soul is created, which can't be described or identified.

I don't reject any science. I reject the ethics you guys are attaching to your argument.

Our rights come from our rational capacity. It separates from all other life on earth. We live, survive and thrive based on the enormous capacity of our brains. This determines our nature and gives rise to rights, giving us the ability to conceptualize and the need for rights.

All that is a little too complex to be fully explained in this medium.

The facts of this are clear in our culture even though many still try connect it to myths. When you are brain dead, you are dead. A child (born), not likely to have fully developed his/her rational capacities, has limited rights and lives under the protection of an adult. A mental defect does not have full rights and needs help because of it. The elderly lose their mental capacities and we are faced with forcing them against their will into the care of others.

The response will be the ignorant straw man, that I want to kill kids, mental defects or the elderly. No, I said their rights are limited due to their diminished mental capacity. They still have rights. They still have a working brain.

Also, we limit their rights not because we are being dicks or discriminating unfairly. That is the social conservatives method and the reason behind discriminating against racial minorities, women, homosexuals, etc. We limit the rights of these groups in order to protect them. It has been abused, especially on who is a "mental defect" and we should error on the side of letting them fail on their own.

Who is competent to have full legal rights and who is not is arbitrary, which is why we should have a legal processes for it. Also, it should never go to where it justifies limiting the rights of the peculiar. For instance, nAHZi appears to be a mental patient. But unless he is a danger to himself and others we should assume he's just a little strange. We should not lock people up for being stupid and considering the average person that enters law enforcement, we probably would not find anyone to do the job. :)
 
This is the result of "forced pregnancy". This is the legacy of totalitarianism.

BUCHAREST, Romania, Nov. 19— Dorina Ciuplan, a 40-year-old mother of three teen-agers, recalled with a mixture of terror and emotion the nine self-induced abortions she endured during Communist rule under Nicolae Ceausescu.

''I sometimes think I'm lucky to be alive,'' said Mrs. Ciuplan, her eyes watering as she described forcing miscarriages at home and then going to a hospital, where doctors and nurses tormented her with abusive words and rough treatment as they finished terminating the pregnancies rather than let her die.

For more than two decades, contraception and abortions were strictly forbidden by Mr. Ceausescu in an attempt to build his country into a colossus through population growth. His government was overthrown in 1989, and one of its legacies was orphanages filled with unwanted and neglected children.

Another legacy of those horrific years, for Romania's women, is abortion. Some 10,000 women are believed to have died from complications of illegal abortions, and many more were permanently maimed.

Abortions were legalized as soon as Mr. Ceausescu was toppled, and contraception is theoretically available through the state health system.

But overwhelmingly, Romania remains what Western doctors call an ''abortion culture,'' with an abortion rate that remains the highest in Europe. It also has by far the highest rate of pregnancy-related mortality, the strongest indication that Romania continues to lag far behind the rest of Europe and Russia in providing reproductive health services for women.

According to the United Nations Population Fund, Romania had 3.2 abortions for every live birth in 1990. By last year, the rate was 2.2 abortions per live birth. In 1995, the equivalent rate was 2.0 in Russia, 0.67 in the Czech Republic and Hungary and 0.2 in Germany.

The reasons why Romanian women turn to abortion center on the reluctance of the Government to promote family-planning despite healthy doses of Western aid to help the country establish such services, Western and Romanian doctors say. Iulian Mincu, who was Minister of Health until recently and who had been a personal physician to Mr. Ceausescu, publicly stated his opposition to family planning. After a public outcry over poor conditions in the health system, Dr. Mincu was dismissed this summer by Mr. Ceausescu's successor, Ion Iliescu, in an attempt to clean up the Government's image before parliamentary and presidential elections that Mr. Iliescu lost anyway.

The President-elect, Emil Constantinescu, made it clear during his campaign that he would make improved health services a priority, and family planning advocates said they were optimistic that the new Government would be more supportive of their efforts.

Without guidance from the Government, many Romanian doctors have been more enthusiastic about the more lucrative work of performing abortions than about recommending birth control, said Daniela Draghica, one of the administrators of 12 pilot family-planning clinics in Romania opened in 1995 and financed by the United States Agency for International Development.

The state pays for abortions, but as with almost all public health services women say they feel obliged to give the doctor a sizable extra payment, thus making abortions more financially rewarding.

A 28-year-old woman who would give only a first name, Adina, was at the gynecological clinic at Giulesti Hospital in Bucharest. She said she had had six abortions. An abortion costs 3,000 lei, a little less than $1, at public hospitals, where the vast majority of Romanians get their health care. But she said she had paid an additional $7 as a ''gift'' to the doctor.

On top of this, many doctors, repeating myths from the Ceausescu years, tell women exaggerated stories that oral contraceptives are deleterious to their health, Mrs. Draghica said.

''Women had these myths about contraception,'' Mrs. Draghica said. ''The doctors had told them that pills were bad because they made women fat and gave them heart disease. It's a battle to get their confidence.''

Some women are beginning to look for other alternatives. Maria Staicu, 41, who lives in the city of Sibiu and has two children, said the pain and debasement she endured in 1991 when she had a legal abortion left her determined not to go through it again.

''They did 20 women in a few minutes: 'Ready, go; ready, go,' '' she said, describing the atmosphere in the state hospital. In the last five years of the Ceausescu regime, she had managed to buy Hungarian-made oral contraceptives on the black market, she said. After her abortion in 1991, she was fitted with an I.U.D.. ''I would prefer anything else than an abortion,'' she said.

Romania remains the only country in Eastern Europe not to manufacture any kind of contraceptive. Thus supplies, including condoms, must be imported and are too expensive for many women, who say they have trouble even getting food on the table in the chaotic Romanian economy. Birth control pills imported from Hungary, the Netherlands or Germany cost as much for a month's supply -- or in many cases up to two or three times as much -- as an abortion, even though Western aid helps subsidize some of the cost.

The Western aid stems from publicity in 1990 about the plight of the unwanted Romanian children. Foreign assistance was sent to help care for the children, and for a longer-term solution, funds were offered to create family- planning services, including a $14 million World Bank loan and a $5 million grant from the United States Agency for International Development.

In the last year, a little progress has been made, but not enough given the resources that have been made available, those who work in the program say.

According to a report by Adriana Baban, a psychologist who counsels at one of the Romanian family-planning clinics funded by the A.I.D., and Dr. Henry P. David, director of the Transnational Family Research Institute, a nonprofit group in Washington, Romania had at least 445 deaths attributable to illegal abortion in 1989. By 1992, the number had been reduced to 120 and last year to 59.

But despite these reductions of deaths from self-induced abortions, the pregnancy-related mortality rate remains startlingly high. The World Health Organization reported that in 1990, for every 100,000 live births in Romania, 84 women died in childbirth. By contrast, the rate in Poland was 19. Last year, the number in Romania was 48. In the United States last year, the rate was 8, according to the Population Reference Bureau.

Photo: Abortions and contraceptives, banned under Communism, are now legal, but old habits and a creaky health service have kept Romania's pregnancy-related death rate one of the world's highest. Two women -- one awaiting an abortion, the other recovering from one -- shared a bed at a Bucharest hospital. (Caroline Penn/Impact Photos) Graphs: ''STATUS REPORT: Abortion Picture'' shows abortion rate for various countries. (Source: The Alan Gutmacher Institute)

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/21/w...ortion-culture.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

This is the world you prolifers are going to get. Most of you have never in your life taken a government class so you know nothing about unintended consequences. This is a lesson in that.
 
The OP was explaining that what we may think is a stable, loving family is anything but. He wrote, "Leave it to Beaver" was nothing but a myth to begin with."

Two men or one woman or an aunt and uncle may supply a much more stable home than the conventional "mommy and daddy" type home. That's what I hear the OP saying.

Thank you. Why is it so hard for them to get that? The important part is STABLE and LOVING. They instead focus on "one mommy and one daddy" which is not key at all.

Even though it will probably draw more personal attacks, another anecdote... I only had mom. She was loving. She provided a stable home, largely because she was not going to bring anymore men into the house and put us through the potential turmoils of finding a working relationship. We did fine. Better than many of our peers who had had the traditional home only to watch it disintegrate in front of them with bickering and, sometimes, violence.

The households with marriages that did work had a leg up on us. Why? Financial reasons including the resource of time. It is not easy for one person to raise kid(s). Also, they may have had happier parents. My mom suffered loneliness and it did effect me, but not that badly and that was certainly easier to take than watching two adults fight.

One mom , one dad is not necessary. It never was. Two parents are better than one. It's probably preferable that both have a biological connection to the child, but not necessary. All you really need is love. And some cash, cash is good. But, first love.
 
Stringfield, why do you hate children? Dick.

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.
 
And one other thing IDiot...
Science can not win any ethical arguments. Science can give us plenty of information that may inform ethics. But, alone, science in an ethical argument is unarmed.

The hair-splitter rides again~~~

Yes, dorkpuss, science can and does inform on ethical arguments and in the case of the abortion debate science has empirically weighed in that the unborn, from the moment of conception is an individual new human life.
 
The hair-splitter rides again~~~

Yes, dorkpuss, science can and does inform on ethical arguments and in the case of the abortion debate science has empirically weighed in that the unborn, from the moment of conception is an individual new human life.

Don't make the mistake of cherrypicking the science for your own agenda, though. Science also weighs in on issues like viability and sentience, which are also integral to the discussion.

In general, those on both sides of this debate tend to be too entrenched, and have a tendency to paint things as more black & white than they are. This is one of the most complicated debates out there, if not the most complicated, and there is more gray area & uncertainty than either side wants anyone to believe.
 
The hair-splitter rides again~~~

Yes, dorkpuss, science can and does inform on ethical arguments and in the case of the abortion debate science has empirically weighed in that the unborn, from the moment of conception is an individual new human life.

Without the capacity for rights. It's a human life in the same way that a brain dead person is a human life.
 
Don't make the mistake of cherrypicking the science for your own agenda, though. Science also weighs in on issues like viability and sentience, which are also integral to the discussion.

In general, those on both sides of this debate tend to be too entrenched, and have a tendency to paint things as more black & white than they are. This is one of the most complicated debates out there, if not the most complicated, and there is more gray area & uncertainty than either side wants anyone to believe.

Onceler, I would appreciate your criticisms. Since I doubt they will be based on willfully stubborn religious bs, I will try not to get upset if we disagree.

I acknowledge it is not black & white. I touched on that with regards to the born who either have not developed or who suffered loss of mental capacity. It is arbitrary and the legal process is the best way to protect against abuses of that.
 
Onceler, I would appreciate your criticisms. Since I doubt they will be based on willfully stubborn religious bs, I will try not to get upset if we disagree.

I acknowledge it is not black & white. I touched on that with regards to the born who either have not developed or who suffered loss of mental capacity. It is arbitrary and the legal process is the best way to protect against abuses of that.

I understand that; on the pro-choice side, the person I actually always think of is a former co-worker who used to yell out "Abortion on demand at any time!"

I'm a practical person, and always see this as an issue of competing rights. The idea of forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term, to me, is Draconian and not the kind of country I want to live in; conversely, there is no question that an aspect of "human-ness" comes into play at some point during the development of the fetus, that makes the morality of abortion murkier & murkier as a pregancy develops.

I see Roe as an outstanding compromise. Yes, it's an arbitrary point, but there is no other point - barring the intervention of God if you believe in him/her - that could work. Roe gives women a window to opt out, and takes into consideration factors such as viability & sentience, which I think are extremely important when weighing competing interests & rights.
 
Back
Top