The Way it Was (Pre-Roe v Wade)

[Underhill]

So when does life begin? I seriously doubt you bypassed those first days/weeks. I certainly didn't. Those first days/weeks were just as critical and important to the person you are today as were the last three months of your mother's pregnanacy or all the years you have lived since.

So, what is your point? I'm not arguing when life begins. Of course it does.

I'm saying it is not murder early on. That bunch of cells is a potential human, but so is a unused sperm and egg.

There was a time in America that an honorable man who got a girlfriend pregnant fully expected to marry that woman and take full responsibility for the child. That was the cultural expectation of responsible adults. The only time that wasn't true is if he paid a prostitute or maybe a one-night-stand with somebody he picked up on a business trip. Sure that no doubt resulted in some loveless marriages, but given that the divorce rate then was far less than now, it often worked out too.

And it often meant a lot of miserable marriages. The divorce rate was lower, not because people were happier, but because divorce was right up there on the list of cardinal sins.

Respectable men were taught to respect women and not treat them as just a warm place to put it. And women were culturally expected to respect themselves and it was okay, even the smart thing to do, to say no to a horny boyfriend. Sleeping around or 'putting out' as it was called back then could make a girl very popular. All the guys wanted to date her, but they didn't view her as marriage material. They looked for the girl to marry that they could respect and who respected herself.

Right. I think your view of America never existed anywhere on TV. Yes kids were taught those things. But men often would beat their wives and the wives had no options. Children were molested and it was shoved under the carpet.

It was a society that pretended everything was okay and ignored the deep problems under the surface.

That was pre Roe v Wade.

Yes it was.

You can find anecdotal evidence for any argument. You can look at the anomalies and use that to make almost any case. If you take the tiny number of cases of rape and incest pregnancies out of the equation, medical science has now advanced to the point that we know when the mother's life is in danger from her pregnancy. We know when the fetus is so badly damaged that he or she has no chance for any quality of life. I don't think anybody with common sense would judge any woman who would end a pregnancy under such circumstances and of course it should be safe and legal for her to do so.

Except that it isn't in some red states right now.

But in the much broader big picture, the abortion of 54+ million babies has not been good for the country or us as a people. We need to return to a culture that values life, that values the children, and appreciates the value of the traditional marriage and home as the best situation we can give the kids.

I understand. And it is a lovely picture you paint.

But I think we need a culture that looks at reality and deals with the real issues people face. There are things I don't like about our current culture. But I would much rather have an open and honest society where people express their real wants and needs rather than hide them.

And there are dozens of ways our current culture is so much better than the stepford wives world of the 50's.

 

[Newby]

There was a time in America that an honorable man who got a girlfriend pregnant fully expected to marry that woman and take full responsibility for the child. That was the cultural expectation of responsible adults. The only time that wasn't true is if he paid a prostitute or maybe a one-night-stand with somebody he picked up on a business trip. Sure that no doubt resulted in some loveless marriages, but given that the divorce rate then was far less than now, it often worked out too.

Again, longing for a past that never was. If a girl was lucky, the guy would offer to marry her. If they were in high school, they had to quit school. You couldn't be married or pregnant in high school. So kids were pushed out of school, without a proper education, and often struggled financially and emotionally because they weren't prepared for adult responsibilities. So yes the child had to parents, but hardly the best situation for the family or raising a child.

Often, if the boy were well off, he would get his friends to say they's slept with the girl too. DNA testing isn't what it is today. They could only determine if you weren't the father. If blood types matched, you might be the father, but not test to prove it, so there was no way of forcing the man to support his child.

Respectable men were taught to respect women and not treat them as just a warm place to put it. And women were culturally expected to respect themselves and it was okay, even the smart thing to do, to say no to a horny boyfriend. Sleeping around or 'putting out' as it was called back then could make a girl very popular. All the guys wanted to date her, but they didn't view her as marriage material. They looked for the girl to marry that they could respect and who respected herself.

This is called a "double standard". Men got what they could and then denigrated women who "put out for them". It was disgusting and it still happens today. Women were not taught to respect themselves, rather they were warned that if they were too "easy", they'd never find a husband. Hardly the same thing.

Unfortunately women today see themselves as "the warm place to put it". Women today actually believe they are nothing but the sum total of their genitalia. They just want someone to pay them to be the warm place to put it.

Well your opinion of women couldn't be much lower could it? I know of no woman of any age, with the attitude you suggest here. You have some serious sexual issues going on here.

The feminist movement of the 70s and 80s failed. It was supposed to empower women instead it has reduced them to the value of so many pounds of flesh and silicone. Their value is in their ability to provide sex, at no cost to the user.

Well those of us who have had what used to be traditional male careers would disagree with you. You woman issues are scary.

Have you noticed that the female form of protest has become exhibiting their nakedness? We went from I am Woman Hear me Roar, to I am Woman see my tits.

There is so much misogyny in this post I hardly know how to address it. You hate women. You hate that women have sex. I feel sorry for you.

You seem to hate men, hate the traditional family, and you can't see past your hatred and bitterness. Why do you hate a traitional, stable, and loving family with both a mother and a father? You pretty much go to the point of disparaging that traditional family? You keep saying that 'it wasn't that way', perhaps for your own life it wasn't, but I don't see you posting any statistics to back up your claims either. There's something terribly wrong with our culture today, we are a sick society, and it's only going to get worse the more that human life and the traditional family are torn apart and spit on by people who think they have the alternative answer. You've had four decades of your 'alternative answer' to the traditional family, and it hasnt' worked, you've made a mess of our culture, and we have the statistics to back that up. What is the single parent home rate? What's the abortion rate? What's the teen pregnancy rate? How many children are actively engaging in sexual activity today? How many single mothers are living in poverty? How many kids are dropping out of high school? How many drug addicted teens and adults are in our society today? You call that 'progress'?

 

[Underhill]

There was a time in America that an honorable man who got a girlfriend pregnant fully expected to marry that woman and take full responsibility for the child. That was the cultural expectation of responsible adults. The only time that wasn't true is if he paid a prostitute or maybe a one-night-stand with somebody he picked up on a business trip. Sure that no doubt resulted in some loveless marriages, but given that the divorce rate then was far less than now, it often worked out too.

Again, longing for a past that never was. If a girl was lucky, the guy would offer to marry her. If they were in high school, they had to quit school. You couldn't be married or pregnant in high school. So kids were pushed out of school, without a proper education, and often struggled financially and emotionally because they weren't prepared for adult responsibilities. So yes the child had to parents, but hardly the best situation for the family or raising a child.

Often, if the boy were well off, he would get his friends to say they's slept with the girl too. DNA testing isn't what it is today. They could only determine if you weren't the father. If blood types matched, you might be the father, but not test to prove it, so there was no way of forcing the man to support his child.



This is called a "double standard". Men got what they could and then denigrated women who "put out for them". It was disgusting and it still happens today. Women were not taught to respect themselves, rather they were warned that if they were too "easy", they'd never find a husband. Hardly the same thing.



Well your opinion of women couldn't be much lower could it? I know of no woman of any age, with the attitude you suggest here. You have some serious sexual issues going on here.

The feminist movement of the 70s and 80s failed. It was supposed to empower women instead it has reduced them to the value of so many pounds of flesh and silicone. Their value is in their ability to provide sex, at no cost to the user.

Well those of us who have had what used to be traditional male careers would disagree with you. You woman issues are scary.

Have you noticed that the female form of protest has become exhibiting their nakedness? We went from I am Woman Hear me Roar, to I am Woman see my tits.

There is so much misogyny in this post I hardly know how to address it. You hate women. You hate that women have sex. I feel sorry for you.

You seem to hate men, hate the traditional family, and you can't see past your hatred and bitterness. Why do you hate a traitional, stable, and loving family with both a mother and a father? You pretty much go to the point of disparaging that traditional family? You keep saying that 'it wasn't that way', perhaps for your own life it wasn't, but I don't see you posting any statistics to back up your claims either.

I don't see that. People have a tendency to paint a rosey picture of the past. You ask for statistics? How many statistics are there likely to be for unreported child and spousal abuse?

But everyone knows it happened.

There's something terribly wrong with our culture today, we are a sick society, and it's only going to get worse the more that human life and the traditional family are torn apart and spit on by people who think they have the alternative answer. You've had four decades of your 'alternative answer' to the traditional family, and it hasnt' worked, you've made a mess of our culture, and we have the statistics to back that up. What is the single parent home rate?

What is wrong with that? The real problem is poverty in single parent homes, which is a seperate issue.

What's the teen pregnancy rate?

Unchanged in decades.

How many children are actively engaging in sexual activity today?

Unchanged in decades.

How many single mothers are living in poverty?

I agree this is a problem.

How many kids are dropping out of high school?

This is improving.

How many drug addicted teens and adults are in our society today?

Again, a problem but it is improving.

You call that 'progress'?

I think you misunderstand the problem as do most people. There have been a great deal of positive changes. But the shift in societal norms, any shift, creates problems that we have not worked out yet. That does not make the shift wrong just different.

Here is an example.

Woman given equality under the law. Generally a good thing most people support.

But it means more people in the workplace, driving down wages. It also means more kids home alone. It means more divorce because woman aren't subject to their husbands any more.

Do we revert back to the way it was? I don't think so.

And there are a dozen more examples. The internet has huge positives and massive negatives. But the reality is it isn't going anywhere.

And the list goes on and on and on. But this is the world we live in. So we deal with the real issues. Pining for another time will not accomplish anything.

 

[Foxfyre]

To those who take issue with my arguments--did I mention that I HATE interminable nested posts so forgive me if I don't respond to them blow by blow?--I will respond generally:

It is almost amusing that some trying so hard to force their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others in this thread accuse the pro life advocates of 'forcing their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others.' Why is expressing your opinion just having a conversation, but the opposing opinion is somehow coercive?

It is tragic that we have become a culture with so many who close their eyes to 54+ million aborted babies and use all manner of anecdotal or unsuppportable numbers to approve a steady rate of well over a million aborted babies year after year.

It is sad that those who are advocates for the unborn;/ those who appeal for the value of human life; those who see the traditional family as the best situation for most children and also a deterrant to most abortion. . . .it is these being accused of 'hating women' or designated by other unattractive, and mostly ridiculous negative adjectives..

It is an indication of an increasingly selfish, me too, and effectively heartless culture that those who speak for the unborn and who value human life in all its stages of devleopment are being assigned the role of villain by some.

 

[Dragonlady]

You seem to hate men, hate the traditional family, and you can't see past your hatred and bitterness. Why do you hate a traitional, stable, and loving family with both a mother and a father? You pretty much go to the point of disparaging that traditional family? You keep saying that 'it wasn't that way', perhaps for your own life it wasn't, but I don't see you posting any statistics to back up your claims either.

Well there are the Kinsey Reports on Human Sexuality which were very ground breaking:

Kinsey Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have been happily married to the same wonderful man for nearly 29 years and I believe in strong families. But I also know that 50% of all marriages fail, so to suggest if we just go back to strong united two-parent families, everything will be fine is ridiculous because it's not going to happen. Your whole solution for the abortion "problem" is to go back to the way things were in the 1950's. That is simply not possible.

You may think things were wonderful back then. I didn't and I don't think any modern woman wants to go back there. I grew up in a small town with one movie screen that was only open on weekends. I grew up in the exactly the kind of home you describe with 5 brothers and sisters. TV was black & white and we had two channels. Our neighbours had a big roof antennae and they could get 5 channels. We envied them.

Your desire to return to a simpler time when things were less complicated is understandable, but the reality is that the world we grew up in is gone and we can't get it back, even if we wanted to.

There's something terribly wrong with our culture today, we are a sick society, and it's only going to get worse the more that human life and the traditional family are torn apart and spit on by people who think they have the alternative answer. You've had four decades of your 'alternative answer' to the traditional family, and it hasnt' worked, you've made a mess of our culture, and we have the statistics to back that up. What is the single parent home rate? What's the abortion rate? What's the teen pregnancy rate? How many children are actively engaging in sexual activity today? How many single mothers are living in poverty? How many kids are dropping out of high school? How many drug addicted teens and adults are in our society today? You call that 'progress'?

I don't see single parent families as a big problem. I raised two strong, healthy, productive children as a single parent. I know lots of wonderful people who grew up in single parents homes and they turned out just fine.

Today's culture is hardly a mess. The problems you speak of are AMERICAN PROBLEMS. We don't have many of these problems in Canada because of our social safety net and access to medical care. We teach our children about sexual health without all of the voodoo morality attached to it so they have accurate biological information. Teaching abstinence only is a sure-fire way to arouse curiosity.

I've already told you how you can cut abortions, but you reject the ideas because they don't support your notion of returning to the 1950's. Try reading this:

How I Lost My Fear of Universal Health Care | RH Reality Check

In order to make changes, you can't expect things to go back to the way they were. You have to start where things really are and work with that. Right now, American teenagers need hard facts and access to birth control in order to cut the abortion rate. If you are unwilling to push for that, they I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[Underhill]

To those who take issue with my arguments--did I mention that I HATE interminable nested posts so forgive me if I don't respond to them blow by blow?--I will respond generally:

It is almost amusing that some trying so hard to force their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others in this thread accuse the pro life advocates of 'forcing their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others.' Why is expressing your opinion just having a conversation, but the opposing opinion is somehow coercive?

It is tragic that we have become a culture with so many who close their eyes to 54+ million aborted babies and use all manner of anecdotal or unsuppportable numbers to approve a steady rate of well over a million aborted babies year after year.

It is sad that those who are advocates for the unborn;/ those who appeal for the value of human life; those who see the traditional family as the best situation for most children and also a deterrant to most abortion. . . .it is these being accused of 'hating women' or designated by other unattractive, and mostly ridiculous negative adjectives..

It is an indication of an increasingly selfish, me too, and effectively heartless culture that those who speak for the unborn and who value human life in all its stages of devleopment are being assigned the role of villain by some.

It's not a role of villain. It's a role of someone looking for a time that didn't exist.

I don't know if you were responding to me or others, but the problem with most that are pro life is their position is often inflexible and based upon a morality they imagined existed but really didn't. I understand why. They firmly believe in their position that abortion is murder. I get that.

What I don't get is their insistence that if only we went back to the way things were in the 50's all our problems would be solved.

There is a reason things changed. An awful lot of people were not happy with the status quot.

 

[Foxfyre]

To those who take issue with my arguments--did I mention that I HATE interminable nested posts so forgive me if I don't respond to them blow by blow?--I will respond generally:

It is almost amusing that some trying so hard to force their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others in this thread accuse the pro life advocates of 'forcing their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others.' Why is expressing your opinion just having a conversation, but the opposing opinion is somehow coercive?

It is tragic that we have become a culture with so many who close their eyes to 54+ million aborted babies and use all manner of anecdotal or unsuppportable numbers to approve a steady rate of well over a million aborted babies year after year.

It is sad that those who are advocates for the unborn;/ those who appeal for the value of human life; those who see the traditional family as the best situation for most children and also a deterrant to most abortion. . . .it is these being accused of 'hating women' or designated by other unattractive, and mostly ridiculous negative adjectives..

It is an indication of an increasingly selfish, me too, and effectively heartless culture that those who speak for the unborn and who value human life in all its stages of devleopment are being assigned the role of villain by some.

It's not a role of villain. It's a role of someone looking for a time that didn't exist.

I don't know if you were responding to me or others, but the problem with most that are pro life is their position is often inflexible and based upon a morality they imagined existed but really didn't. I understand why. They firmly believe in their position that abortion is murder. I get that.

What I don't get is their insistence that if only we went back to the way things were in the 50's all our problems would be solved.

There is a reason things changed. An awful lot of people were not happy with the status quot.

I was directing my comments in the interest of general discussion and was not targeting anybody in particular. But the content was specific to comments that have been made here in the last day or two.

I disagree that I refer to a time that never existed. I am old enough to have lived in both cultures. And I can assure you, that earlier time did exist as much as the pro choice with no restrictions group wants to believe that it did not. Was it universal? Of course not, nor have I made any effort to suggest that it was. But was it the norm for the culture of that time? Yes it was.

I don't believe a single one of us pro-lifers has even hinted that going back to that previous culture would solve all our problems. I certainly haven't, and don't recall a single other person making that argument. Building such straw men in an effort to discredit the opposition is not helpful to the debate.

And yes, there is a reason that things changed. But the question remains. Was the change to benefit women? If it was, in my opinion it did not. Roughly half of those 54+ milllion aborted babies were female. Was the change to benefit kids? If it was, in my opinion it did not as the ratio of children living with single parents is unprecedented in the American culture. And those kids are far more likely to be school dropouts, live in poverty, get involved with gangs, experiment with controlled substances, get in trouble with the law, and get pregnant or cause a pregnancy than was ever the case in that culture you say never existed.

And since Roe v Wade, 54+ milllion kids were never allowed to live at all. That is a number that in my opinion should be apalling to everybody.

Disclaimer: I have not even hinted that ALL kids raised by single parents have been disadvantaged or that single parents are not capable of being strong, competent parents. I have made a very strong point that I know single parents who have done a great job raising their kids. But that does not change the fact that within the big picture and all of society, a home with a loving mom and dad is the very best circumstance for any child. Building a straw man that an argument for the traditional family is somehow putting down the single parent is not useful for the debate.

Disclaimer: I have not even hinted that there weren't negatives in that former culture or that some things are not better now. But building an unsupportable straw man that it was all negatives back then is also not useful for the debate.

 

[midcan5]

'The Rise of DIY Abortions' 'An Idaho woman could change the course of American abortion law' By Ada Calhoun

The Rise of DIY Abortions | New Republic

"Techniques for terminating a pregnancy can be found in the Bible, on Egyptian papyrus, and in Chinese records dating to around 500 B.C. There are too many to list, but women have attempted home abortions with mercury, quinine, pennyroyal, iron sulfates, and a mixture of camel saliva and deer hair; Hippocrates once advised a prostitute to jump up and down.

Before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, American women inserted knitting needles and other sharp objects into their cervixes to end unwanted pregnancies. They put dangerous drugs like the tissue-destroying potassium permanganate into their vaginas, which typically failed to terminate pregnancy but sometimes caused hemorrhage. Elihu Sussman, a retired New York City pediatrician who was working as a medical student at Boston City Hospital in the 1960s, says, “There were thirty beds, and some of them were always filled with women who came in because of septic abortions—four, five, six at any given time.” His wife, Geraldine Sussman, was a student nurse at Bellevue in New York during the same period. “They’d use coat hangers, laundry detergent products,” she says. “A lot of them would rupture their uteruses and end up with hysterectomies. People now don’t realize what it was like. It was awful.""


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...way-it-was-pre-roe-v-wade-11.html#post6717483

 

[Foxfyre]

'The Rise of DIY Abortions' 'An Idaho woman could change the course of American abortion law' By Ada Calhoun

The Rise of DIY Abortions | New Republic

"Techniques for terminating a pregnancy can be found in the Bible, on Egyptian papyrus, and in Chinese records dating to around 500 B.C. There are too many to list, but women have attempted home abortions with mercury, quinine, pennyroyal, iron sulfates, and a mixture of camel saliva and deer hair; Hippocrates once advised a prostitute to jump up and down.

Before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, American women inserted knitting needles and other sharp objects into their cervixes to end unwanted pregnancies. They put dangerous drugs like the tissue-destroying potassium permanganate into their vaginas, which typically failed to terminate pregnancy but sometimes caused hemorrhage. Elihu Sussman, a retired New York City pediatrician who was working as a medical student at Boston City Hospital in the 1960s, says, “There were thirty beds, and some of them were always filled with women who came in because of septic abortions—four, five, six at any given time.” His wife, Geraldine Sussman, was a student nurse at Bellevue in New York during the same period. “They’d use coat hangers, laundry detergent products,” she says. “A lot of them would rupture their uteruses and end up with hysterectomies. People now don’t realize what it was like. It was awful.""


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...way-it-was-pre-roe-v-wade-11.html#post6717483

But most women did not. Most women took precautions against getting pregnant or got married and looked forward to their babies joining them in their world. The fact that there were terrible things that happened back then is NOT a reason to celebrate 54+ million aborted babies now. We can do better than we did back then. And we can do a hell of a lot better than we're doing now.

 

[Underhill]

To those who take issue with my arguments--did I mention that I HATE interminable nested posts so forgive me if I don't respond to them blow by blow?--I will respond generally:

It is almost amusing that some trying so hard to force their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others in this thread accuse the pro life advocates of 'forcing their opinions and perceptions and beliefs on others.' Why is expressing your opinion just having a conversation, but the opposing opinion is somehow coercive?

It is tragic that we have become a culture with so many who close their eyes to 54+ million aborted babies and use all manner of anecdotal or unsuppportable numbers to approve a steady rate of well over a million aborted babies year after year.

It is sad that those who are advocates for the unborn;/ those who appeal for the value of human life; those who see the traditional family as the best situation for most children and also a deterrant to most abortion. . . .it is these being accused of 'hating women' or designated by other unattractive, and mostly ridiculous negative adjectives..

It is an indication of an increasingly selfish, me too, and effectively heartless culture that those who speak for the unborn and who value human life in all its stages of devleopment are being assigned the role of villain by some.

It's not a role of villain. It's a role of someone looking for a time that didn't exist.

I don't know if you were responding to me or others, but the problem with most that are pro life is their position is often inflexible and based upon a morality they imagined existed but really didn't. I understand why. They firmly believe in their position that abortion is murder. I get that.

What I don't get is their insistence that if only we went back to the way things were in the 50's all our problems would be solved.

There is a reason things changed. An awful lot of people were not happy with the status quot.

I was directing my comments in the interest of general discussion and was not targeting anybody in particular. But the content was specific to comments that have been made here in the last day or two.

I disagree that I refer to a time that never existed. I am old enough to have lived in both cultures. And I can assure you, that earlier time did exist as much as the pro choice with no restrictions group wants to believe that it did not. Was it universal? Of course not, nor have I made any effort to suggest that it was. But was it the norm for the culture of that time? Yes it was.

I don't believe a single one of us pro-lifers has even hinted that going back to that previous culture would solve all our problems. I certainly haven't, and don't recall a single other person making that argument. Building such straw men in an effort to discredit the opposition is not helpful to the debate.

And yes, there is a reason that things changed. But the question remains. Was the change to benefit women? If it was, in my opinion it did not. Roughly half of those 54+ milllion aborted babies were female. Was the change to benefit kids? If it was, in my opinion it did not as the ratio of children living with single parents is unprecedented in the American culture. And those kids are far more likely to be school dropouts, live in poverty, get involved with gangs, experiment with controlled substances, get in trouble with the law, and get pregnant or cause a pregnancy than was ever the case in that culture you say never existed.

And since Roe v Wade, 54+ milllion kids were never allowed to live at all. That is a number that in my opinion should be apalling to everybody.

Disclaimer: I have not even hinted that ALL kids raised by single parents have been disadvantaged or that single parents are not capable of being strong, competent parents. I have made a very strong point that I know single parents who have done a great job raising their kids. But that does not change the fact that within the big picture and all of society, a home with a loving mom and dad is the very best circumstance for any child. Building a straw man that an argument for the traditional family is somehow putting down the single parent is not useful for the debate.

Disclaimer: I have not even hinted that there weren't negatives in that former culture or that some things are not better now. But building an unsupportable straw man that it was all negatives back then is also not useful for the debate.

It isn't a straw man if you look at post from others here on this forum. Perhaps that doesn't apply to you. I never said it applied to everyone. But it does apply to many who hold the pro life position.

And of course the argument for a traditional family demeans those outside the traditional family. How else can someone take it when the traditional family is vaunted as superior to what we have today?

I have nothing against the traditional family (I am part of one with my wife and 3 kids) but I do not see it as any better or worse than other family structures. I have gay friends with perfectly normal kids. I know single mothers and fathers who hold it together well and have raised normal kids.

Personally I think our culture needs to stop picking winners and losers and accepting every choice (within the law) and move beyond them to finding solutions to root problems.

And since you are fond of pointing out straw men, I would like to point out that many times in this thread I have said I would like to see the number of abortions reduced dramatically. I've even proposed ways to accomplish this goal. So alluding to my supposed indifference to the number of abortions is no less correct than those who would label your position as historically ignorant.

 

[PaulS1950]

I don't believe that anyone celebrates 54 million abortions. I could be wrong but I don't believe even the woman who has the abortion celebrates it. It is a difficult decision to make and very difficult to live with after the fact. I would be willing to wager that some percentage of those who fight against abortion have had one and their anguish is their reason to fight so hard against it.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not a role of villain. It's a role of someone looking for a time that didn't exist.

I don't know if you were responding to me or others, but the problem with most that are pro life is their position is often inflexible and based upon a morality they imagined existed but really didn't. I understand why. They firmly believe in their position that abortion is murder. I get that.

What I don't get is their insistence that if only we went back to the way things were in the 50's all our problems would be solved.

There is a reason things changed. An awful lot of people were not happy with the status quot.

I was directing my comments in the interest of general discussion and was not targeting anybody in particular. But the content was specific to comments that have been made here in the last day or two.

I disagree that I refer to a time that never existed. I am old enough to have lived in both cultures. And I can assure you, that earlier time did exist as much as the pro choice with no restrictions group wants to believe that it did not. Was it universal? Of course not, nor have I made any effort to suggest that it was. But was it the norm for the culture of that time? Yes it was.

I don't believe a single one of us pro-lifers has even hinted that going back to that previous culture would solve all our problems. I certainly haven't, and don't recall a single other person making that argument. Building such straw men in an effort to discredit the opposition is not helpful to the debate.

And yes, there is a reason that things changed. But the question remains. Was the change to benefit women? If it was, in my opinion it did not. Roughly half of those 54+ milllion aborted babies were female. Was the change to benefit kids? If it was, in my opinion it did not as the ratio of children living with single parents is unprecedented in the American culture. And those kids are far more likely to be school dropouts, live in poverty, get involved with gangs, experiment with controlled substances, get in trouble with the law, and get pregnant or cause a pregnancy than was ever the case in that culture you say never existed.

And since Roe v Wade, 54+ milllion kids were never allowed to live at all. That is a number that in my opinion should be apalling to everybody.

Disclaimer: I have not even hinted that ALL kids raised by single parents have been disadvantaged or that single parents are not capable of being strong, competent parents. I have made a very strong point that I know single parents who have done a great job raising their kids. But that does not change the fact that within the big picture and all of society, a home with a loving mom and dad is the very best circumstance for any child. Building a straw man that an argument for the traditional family is somehow putting down the single parent is not useful for the debate.

Disclaimer: I have not even hinted that there weren't negatives in that former culture or that some things are not better now. But building an unsupportable straw man that it was all negatives back then is also not useful for the debate.

It isn't a straw man if you look at post from others here on this forum. Perhaps that doesn't apply to you. I never said it applied to everyone. But it does apply to many who hold the pro life position.

And of course the argument for a traditional family demeans those outside the traditional family. How else can someone take it when the traditional family is vaunted as superior to what we have today?

I have nothing against the traditional family (I am part of one with my wife and 3 kids) but I do not see it as any better or worse than other family structures. I have gay friends with perfectly normal kids. I know single mothers and fathers who hold it together well and have raised normal kids.

Personally I think our culture needs to stop picking winners and losers and accepting every choice (within the law) and move beyond them to finding solutions to root problems.

And since you are fond of pointing out straw men, I would like to point out that many times in this thread I have said I would like to see the number of abortions reduced dramatically. I've even proposed ways to accomplish this goal. So alluding to my supposed indifference to the number of abortions is no less correct than those who would label your position as historically ignorant.

Have I said that you approve of 54+ million abortions? I don't believe I have accused you of that. Or any other member except the one or two who have explicitly said they don't have a problem with it. Have most of the no-restrictions-on-abortion group made reference to those 54+ aborted babies as a problem? No, most haven't. Most have rather diverted to reasons people would have an abortion; reasons that nobody on the pro life side have disputed.

Promoting traditional families is no more disparaging of single parents than is approving of a good education disparaging of those who don't get one or approving of farm raised chicken disparaging of those who buy whatever is at the grocery store. Promoting ways of reducing abortion is not a criticism of those who get them. Believing that abortion for convenience has diminished and damaged our American values and culture is not a condemnation of anybody who has had an abortion for I don't KNOW what reason a woman had for aborting her baby. I am very clearly on record in this thread that I know there are reasons that an abortion is necessary.

If we can't say that a loving mom and dad in a traditional home is the very best circumstances for a child, then why bother with marriage at all? Let's just ignore all the studies and evidence that shows that most--that is most and not all--kids fare better in a traditional home. Let's just ignore all the negatives that we know as fact in the public record that are associated with single parenthood.

Yes there are excellent single parents who have done great jobs raising their kids. I have said that several times already in this thread. So let's just ignore that for many/most kids, there is a downside to not having two parents in the home or we might hurt somebody's feelings? You really have to be kidding. We mght as well say that smoking is a good thing because some smokers apparently suffer no obvious negative effects from it and we might hurt their feelings if we point out that most smokers do.

 

[Dragonlady]

Your focus of the millions of people who never were. My focus on the people who are here and now. The greater tragedy is that these pregnancies happened in the first place in a day and an age where preventing pregnancy is relatively easy. That in the richest nation on earth, low income women struggle to obtain medical care and contraception to prevent pregnancy. That in the information age, teenagers are blocked from getting accurate information on how their bodies function and what they need to do to protect themselves is unconscionable.

You described today's young women as seeing themselves as the sum of their genitalia, a description I find disgusting and misogynistic. In the 1950's, people believed that women didn't get aroused as easily as men, and women were always to blame if things "got out of hand". The boys treated this a free license to try and get all they could, after all, they couldn't help it that they got aroused more quickly. So if things did get out of hand, the girl was always to blame - the boys couldn't help themselves. This is what we were taught in health class. If things got out of hand, and we got in trouble, we had no one but ourselves to blame.

Kinsey's research in the late 40's and early 50's was the first time the doctors and lay people were introduced to the idea that women became just as aroused as men and were every bit as much sexual beings as men. Initially the medical establishment said that these conclusions were false and that Kinsey's sampling included too many "deviants" and sex trade workers to be accurate. Regular women weren't like that. But subsequent research proved that Kinsey sampling and his research were valid. Women are just as sexual as men, but that societal expectations had been so thoroughly imposed and ingrained that women had become sexually repressed from fighting urges that were perfectly natural. It's hardly surprising that once the birth control pill freed women from the fear of pregnancy, they were able to relax and enjoy sex with their partners for the first time.

Marriages benefited from that too. Couples could plan the size and spacing of their families, or postpone having children until they finished school, or established their careers. Professional school were now taking more women, because they didn't drop out due to pregnancy, and they started entering the professions in droves. I remember starting a new firm where I was introduced to the female partner (the one and only). She was one of only two women who had ever been elected to the executive of the Law Society of Upper Canada. She later became one of the first women in Canada to be appointed a judge. I cannot fathom how she had managed to do all of this given the times and circumstances. I am in awe of her.

As a child, I looked around at the narrow lives of the adult women around me. I wanted travel and adventure, and I was called silly for it. I was told I wanted to get married and raise children. My mother suggested I train to be a nurse. I had worked as a candy striper at the hospital and the nurses had the crap job. If I was going to work at the hospital, I wanted to be a doctor. I was told that only boys could be doctors.

As one of the first women bank managers in Canada, and the only one in my district, I attended a lot of management meetings were I was the first and only woman who had attended. Men in these meetings would tell me I should never have been given that job. I was blocking a good training position for some bright young man on his way up. Today we call this "sexual harassment".

Yes, women are much better off today in nearly every way. So are their children. When I was trying to take out a second mortgage to pay out my ex-husband on the house, I was declined for a loan, not because I didn't make enough money, I didn't have equity, or because I had a bad credit history, but simply because I was a woman. The mortgage officer said if I defaulted, he wouldn't be able to bring himself to put a woman and her children out on the street. And that was all well and legal back then. Today, he would be fired for doing that, and the company he worked for sued for discrimination.

I remember after my divorce wanting to join the local curling club (don't ask - it's a Canadian thing), primarily for business reasons and I was told I couldn't join. The only way I could join the curling club would be if my husband joined. It was suggested to me that if I could get the guy I was dating to join, the board might let me join as his spouse, but since we weren't living together, there were no guarantees. The local golf club had similar stipulations.

Yes, women are much better off today in nearly every way. So are their children.

 

[Foxfyre]

DL, you are attributing posts to me that I never made. And you have ignored that I agree there were inequities in the 50's and 60's and 70's that needed to be corrected and have been corrected. And you have ignored the argument I have made that there were definitely some positives in the 50's, 60's, and 70's too. The fact that you were a single mother, and no doubt a very strong, capable, and effective parent, does not in any way diminish the value to children of having it best when there is a loving mother and father in the home. It does not change the fact that an unacceptable number of children of single parents are disadvantaged in important ways and many wind up in trouble with the law, running with gangs, dropping out of school, getting pregnant, and are far more likely to live in poverty.

And it in no way changes or justifies 54+ million aborted babies that nobody should ever see as a good thing.

 

[Underhill]

Have I said that you approve of 54+ million abortions? I don't believe I have accused you of that. Or any other member except the one or two who have explicitly said they don't have a problem with it. Have most of the no-restrictions-on-abortion group made reference to those 54+ aborted babies as a problem? No, most haven't. Most have rather diverted to reasons people would have an abortion; reasons that nobody on the pro life side have disputed.

No, of course you didn't. You simply responded to my post and implied it.

Promoting traditional families is no more disparaging of single parents than is approving of a good education disparaging of those who don't get one or approving of farm raised chicken disparaging of those who buy whatever is at the grocery store. Promoting ways of reducing abortion is not a criticism of those who get them. Believing that abortion for convenience has diminished and damaged our American values and culture is not a condemnation of anybody who has had an abortion for I don't KNOW what reason a woman had for aborting her baby. I am very clearly on record in this thread that I know there are reasons that an abortion is necessary.

If we can't say that a loving mom and dad in a traditional home is the very best circumstances for a child, then why bother with marriage at all? Let's just ignore all the studies and evidence that shows that most--that is most and not all--kids fare better in a traditional home. Let's just ignore all the negatives that we know as fact in the public record that are associated with single parenthood.

Yes there are excellent single parents who have done great jobs raising their kids. I have said that several times already in this thread. So let's just ignore that for many/most kids, there is a downside to not having two parents in the home or we might hurt somebody's feelings? You really have to be kidding. We mght as well say that smoking is a good thing because some smokers apparently suffer no obvious negative effects from it and we might hurt their feelings if we point out that most smokers do.

So now it sounds like you basically agree with me. Okay then. That was informative.

Of course there are negatives to single parent households, but many of those are cultural. Lack of child care for example.

But I would agree with most of what you are saying. But, the government already promotes 2 parent households in every way I know how and look where we are?

 

[Foxfyre]

Have I said that you approve of 54+ million abortions? I don't believe I have accused you of that. Or any other member except the one or two who have explicitly said they don't have a problem with it. Have most of the no-restrictions-on-abortion group made reference to those 54+ aborted babies as a problem? No, most haven't. Most have rather diverted to reasons people would have an abortion; reasons that nobody on the pro life side have disputed.

No, of course you didn't. You simply responded to my post and implied it.

Promoting traditional families is no more disparaging of single parents than is approving of a good education disparaging of those who don't get one or approving of farm raised chicken disparaging of those who buy whatever is at the grocery store. Promoting ways of reducing abortion is not a criticism of those who get them. Believing that abortion for convenience has diminished and damaged our American values and culture is not a condemnation of anybody who has had an abortion for I don't KNOW what reason a woman had for aborting her baby. I am very clearly on record in this thread that I know there are reasons that an abortion is necessary.

If we can't say that a loving mom and dad in a traditional home is the very best circumstances for a child, then why bother with marriage at all? Let's just ignore all the studies and evidence that shows that most--that is most and not all--kids fare better in a traditional home. Let's just ignore all the negatives that we know as fact in the public record that are associated with single parenthood.

Yes there are excellent single parents who have done great jobs raising their kids. I have said that several times already in this thread. So let's just ignore that for many/most kids, there is a downside to not having two parents in the home or we might hurt somebody's feelings? You really have to be kidding. We mght as well say that smoking is a good thing because some smokers apparently suffer no obvious negative effects from it and we might hurt their feelings if we point out that most smokers do.

So now it sounds like you basically agree with me. Okay then. That was informative.

Of course there are negative to single parent households, but many of those are cultural. Lack of child care for example.

But I would agree with most of what you are saying. But, the government already promotes 2 parent households in every way I know how and look where we are?

No. The government does NOT promote two parent families. Other than a tax break for joint filers, the government has been promoting single parenthood ever since the so-called "Great Society" initiatives. Single parents are eligible for all manner of government subsidies that most two parent homes are not. Agencies that support single parent households get government funding while those promoting traditional families do not. Alternate lifetstyles have been promoted and applauded while you never hear of the virtues of the traditional family from the bully pulpit. It is considered politically incorrect and old fashioned to push getting married before you get pregnant and have kids. Nobody even blinks anymore when yet another single celebrity announces a pregnancy--it is considered fashionable. And it is a rare classroom in which any teacher will applaud the traditional family lest it hurt somebody's feelings who doesn't enjoy that. And kids are being programmed to see the father as unnecessary and unimportant and the school is so approving of them having as much sex as they want that they get free condoms, no questions asked. And, if those who get pregnant didn't plan it or change their mind, then have an abortion and all is well.

And I think that is a huge reason we have 54+ million aborted babies with more than a million additional every single year.

P.S. I try very hard not to imply something. I try to say my intent straight out. When I say that 54+ million aborted babies should bother everybody, it is not an indictment of you until you say you don't have a problem with it. When I say the traditional two-parent family is the very best circumstance for most kids, that is not saying that all single parents are bad parents and/or are incapable of successfully parenting their children nor is it saying that all traditional two-parent families are great.

 

[Underhill]

Have I said that you approve of 54+ million abortions? I don't believe I have accused you of that. Or any other member except the one or two who have explicitly said they don't have a problem with it. Have most of the no-restrictions-on-abortion group made reference to those 54+ aborted babies as a problem? No, most haven't. Most have rather diverted to reasons people would have an abortion; reasons that nobody on the pro life side have disputed.

No, of course you didn't. You simply responded to my post and implied it.

Promoting traditional families is no more disparaging of single parents than is approving of a good education disparaging of those who don't get one or approving of farm raised chicken disparaging of those who buy whatever is at the grocery store. Promoting ways of reducing abortion is not a criticism of those who get them. Believing that abortion for convenience has diminished and damaged our American values and culture is not a condemnation of anybody who has had an abortion for I don't KNOW what reason a woman had for aborting her baby. I am very clearly on record in this thread that I know there are reasons that an abortion is necessary.

If we can't say that a loving mom and dad in a traditional home is the very best circumstances for a child, then why bother with marriage at all? Let's just ignore all the studies and evidence that shows that most--that is most and not all--kids fare better in a traditional home. Let's just ignore all the negatives that we know as fact in the public record that are associated with single parenthood.

Yes there are excellent single parents who have done great jobs raising their kids. I have said that several times already in this thread. So let's just ignore that for many/most kids, there is a downside to not having two parents in the home or we might hurt somebody's feelings? You really have to be kidding. We mght as well say that smoking is a good thing because some smokers apparently suffer no obvious negative effects from it and we might hurt their feelings if we point out that most smokers do.

So now it sounds like you basically agree with me. Okay then. That was informative.

Of course there are negative to single parent households, but many of those are cultural. Lack of child care for example.

But I would agree with most of what you are saying. But, the government already promotes 2 parent households in every way I know how and look where we are?

No. The government does NOT promote two parent families. Other than a tax break for joint filers, the government has been promoting single parenthood ever since the so-called "Great Society" initiatives. Single parents are eligible for all manner of government subsidies that most two parent homes are not. Agencies that support single parent households get government funding while those promoting traditional families do not.

Care to offer examples? Because I have no idea what you are talking about.

In our area (Western NY), a couple can get all the aid a single person can. Aid is determined by income level and has nothing to do with marital status.

Alternate lifetstyles have been promoted and applauded while you never hear of the virtues of the traditional family from the bully pulpit.

By whom? I hear it every time I listen to a mid west republican give a speech. Alternative lifestyles are applauded simply because it wasn't that long ago that they were shunned.

As is usually the case our culture over reacts. Give it 20 years and things will normalize.

It is considered politically incorrect and old fashioned to push getting married before you get pregnant and have kids. Nobody even blinks anymore when yet another single celebrity announces a pregnancy--it is considered fashionable. And it is a rare classroom in which any teacher will applaud the traditional family lest it hurt somebody's feelings who doesn't enjoy that. And kids are being programmed to see the father as unnecessary and unimportant and the school is so approving of them having as much sex as they want that they get free condoms, no questions asked. And, if those who get pregnant didn't plan it or change their mind, then have an abortion and all is well.

I don't know if I buy all that. Sure fathers are ridiculed on TV, have been since the TV was invented but I don't see it having any meaningful impression on kids. And I'm not sure I want a teacher singling out a kid because he has two parents living with him. How does that have anything to do with teaching?

 

[Dragonlady]

P.S. I try very hard not to imply something. I try to say my intent straight out. When I say that 54+ million aborted babies should bother everybody, it is not an indictment of you until you say you don't have a problem with it. When I say the traditional two-parent family is the very best circumstance for most kids, that is not saying that all single parents are bad parents and/or are incapable of successfully parenting their children.

No one has said they don't have a problem with the number of abortions performed in the US, but instead of focusing on the outcome, why are you not focusing on prevention? As soon as anyone suggests measures that have reduced the number of abortions around the world, you wring your hands and say "it's wrong, women should respect themselves and abstain". Or people should take more responsibility, and I agree, they should, but they're not. So if you want to prevent millions of abortions, you have to find a way to help people to become more responsible so you make access to birth control easy and cheap, meaning FREE.

You give lip service to single parents and then say we should be promoting marriages so children have two parents. There are multiple ways in which marriage is promoted constantly as the ideal. Churches certainly promote it, TV, movies, government gives numberous tax advantages to married couples that single people never get. You say how awful the poverty of single parenthood can be, and yet your solution is not to provide support for single parents, but rather to make sure every child has two parents. It's not going to happen, so let's deal with reality instead.

If you don't want women to have abortions, give them birth control and teach them to use it. You don't want children in single family homes growing up in poverty, provide supports for those families.

You cannot change the way things are without meeting the people where they live.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, of course you didn't. You simply responded to my post and implied it.

Promoting traditional families is no more disparaging of single parents than is approving of a good education disparaging of those who don't get one or approving of farm raised chicken disparaging of those who buy whatever is at the grocery store. Promoting ways of reducing abortion is not a criticism of those who get them. Believing that abortion for convenience has diminished and damaged our American values and culture is not a condemnation of anybody who has had an abortion for I don't KNOW what reason a woman had for aborting her baby. I am very clearly on record in this thread that I know there are reasons that an abortion is necessary.

If we can't say that a loving mom and dad in a traditional home is the very best circumstances for a child, then why bother with marriage at all? Let's just ignore all the studies and evidence that shows that most--that is most and not all--kids fare better in a traditional home. Let's just ignore all the negatives that we know as fact in the public record that are associated with single parenthood.

Yes there are excellent single parents who have done great jobs raising their kids. I have said that several times already in this thread. So let's just ignore that for many/most kids, there is a downside to not having two parents in the home or we might hurt somebody's feelings? You really have to be kidding. We mght as well say that smoking is a good thing because some smokers apparently suffer no obvious negative effects from it and we might hurt their feelings if we point out that most smokers do.

So now it sounds like you basically agree with me. Okay then. That was informative.

Of course there are negative to single parent households, but many of those are cultural. Lack of child care for example.

But I would agree with most of what you are saying. But, the government already promotes 2 parent households in every way I know how and look where we are?

No. The government does NOT promote two parent families. Other than a tax break for joint filers, the government has been promoting single parenthood ever since the so-called "Great Society" initiatives. Single parents are eligible for all manner of government subsidies that most two parent homes are not. Agencies that support single parent households get government funding while those promoting traditional families do not.

Care to offer examples? Because I have no idea what you are talking about.

In our area (Western NY), a couple can get all the aid a single person can. Aid is determined by income level and has nothing to do with marital status.

Alternate lifetstyles have been promoted and applauded while you never hear of the virtues of the traditional family from the bully pulpit.

By whom? I hear it every time I listen to a mid west republican give a speech. Alternative lifestyles are applauded simply because it wasn't that long ago that they were shunned.

As is usually the case our culture over reacts. Give it 20 years and things will normalize.

It is considered politically incorrect and old fashioned to push getting married before you get pregnant and have kids. Nobody even blinks anymore when yet another single celebrity announces a pregnancy--it is considered fashionable. And it is a rare classroom in which any teacher will applaud the traditional family lest it hurt somebody's feelings who doesn't enjoy that. And kids are being programmed to see the father as unnecessary and unimportant and the school is so approving of them having as much sex as they want that they get free condoms, no questions asked. And, if those who get pregnant didn't plan it or change their mind, then have an abortion and all is well.

I don't know if I buy all that. Sure fathers are ridiculed on TV, have been since the TV was invented but I don't see it having any meaningful impression on kids. And I'm not sure I want a teacher singling out a kid because he has two parents living with him. How does that have anything to do with teaching?

You can look up the benefits as easily as I can. Just type "benefits available to single parents" into your browser and you'll get all kinds of hits. As for the rest, I acknowledge that you disagree with me and that you seem to mostly miss the point I have been attempting to make. I believe over the course of this thread I have already argued all those points, however, and that part of the discussion has become too "Is too - is not" circular to be helpful.

My opinion remains unchanged.

I believe when the cultural norm is a two parent family with a loving dad and mom in the home, the children greatly benefit. And I believe there is an attitude promoted making it politically incorrect to value the traditional two parent home. And again, I acknowledge that not all two parent homes are good for kids. Mine wasn't.

I believe a large majority--not all, but a majority--of kids doing poorly in school, who drop out of school, who get in trouble with controlled substances and otherwise with the law, who run with gangs, and who live in poverty correlate to their living with a single parent. (Again this is not true of ALL kids living with single parents.)

I believe we have a culture that promotes instant gratification and in order to have that, the baby in the womb must be downgraded to a clump of cells and a non person.

I believe the demise in the cultural preference for a two parent traditional family has resulted in far more negatives than positives. And that has been amplified by putting emphasis on sex as recreational and socially expected rather than an expression of closeness and love.

And I believe all of the above is why we have 54+ million babies aborted since Roe v Wade with an additional average 1.3 million added to that every year. And only the pro lifers on this thread seem to have a serious problem with that number. And again being pro life is not the same thing as wanting to make all abortion illegal.

 

[Underhill]

You can look up the benefits as easily as I can. Just type "benefits available to single parents" into your browser and you'll get all kinds of hits.

Yes, and I get very little. A few grants. Some tax sites.

Perhaps what you are talking about is a state issue as I know states handle the details of their benefits.