I'm not going to endlessly debate abortion and women's rights. I don't believe a woman has a right to kill an unborn child. The child is a consequence of her actions and has a right to life. The responsible thing to do is avoid the problem, particularly considering the resultant consequences. If women don't have the intelligence to figure this out then stop shouting equality

To be clear, I completely agree that men have a responsibility in this situation. We tend to look at women as objects for our gratification, yet they end up with most of the responsibility. It is an unfair situation. My appeal is for us to exercise some common sense.

I think requires a very different moral code

After the deed is done what's the next step? Geez JL after you get all riled up your capacity to become VERY reasonable is commendable. Glad you're here, love the back and forth.

Whose moral code is the question.

PS

Glad you're here too Clete, just want to take a minute to tell you that as I pour my second cup. I know once we get warmed up the knives will come out, but for now can you put another shrimp on the barby for me?

I Thai red curried the prawns last night Tal, possibly still paying for it, but I reserve my barby for snags and T-bone.

The moral code I was speaking of is the one where you avoid getting the girl pregnant or getting pregnant. Used to be it had serious consequences both socially and sometimes physically. As I said earlier a reinvention of the chastity belt for those who can't control themselves and an absence of enticing the other sex

Here is my objection to your position.

1. You believe that out of wedlock births is not a bad thing. That is easily proven to be a false argument.
2. You seem to think that people just have to have sex outside of marriage because they just do. All of history argues against that, especially with women. Prior to the last fifty years of so, it was common for a woman to be a virgin when getting married. Even today it is still true in many other parts of the world.
3. You seem to downplay the responsibility which rests on the shoulders of men and women to be sure, it they are engaging in sex outside of marriage, that the woman does not become pregnant. Your excuse-making for poor women becoming pregnant is lamentable.
4. You do not acknowledge the devastating consequences of a single woman becoming pregnant. Statistically, she has chosen, for both herself and her child, to live a life of much greater difficulty.
5. Your believe that, when a woman becomes pregnant outside of marriage, she then is somehow endowed with a legal right to a part of the wealth and income of other Americans. But you don't seem willing to part with a portion of your own income in order to be helpful to that woman. Your charity, as is common with liberals, only extends to the pockets of other Americans.

I'm not sure who you are answering, but if you are answering me you completely misrepresnt my position.

Out of wedlock birth unless people are in a committed relationship is undesirable
Yes people do have sex because they are unable to contain their emotions
I believe the responsible attitude is to abstain from sex outside of marriage
I don't think unmarried mothers should be supported by the state, however you cannot allow the family to starve
I am not a "liberal"

It is time for there to be a social compact and that might include sterilisation of those who continually wantonly add to the population, men and women both.

I was answering Tal. I would think you and I are in general agreement.

jlisenbe; Here is my objection to your position.

1. You believe that out of wedlock births is not a bad thing. That is easily proven to be a false argument.

Where are your links to back that up. For one out of wedlock is a term you need to define because modern couples find that a committed relationships without the religious attachment, pomp, or ceremony works for them. Does it work for you?

2. You seem to think that people just have to have sex outside of marriage because they just do. All of history argues against that, especially with women. Prior to the last fifty years of so, it was common for a woman to be a virgin when getting married. Even today it is still true in many other parts of the world.

Again you need to define your terms because despite your implications it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with your long term partner.

3. You seem to downplay the responsibility which rests on the shoulders of men and women to be sure, it they are engaging in sex outside of marriage, that the woman does not become pregnant. Your excuse-making for poor women becoming pregnant is lamentable.

We can agree on that, but stuff happens and a few women on this forum have used more than one form of birth control and gotten pregnant.

4. You do not acknowledge the devastating consequences of a single woman becoming pregnant. Statistically, she has chosen, for both herself and her child, to live a life of much greater difficulty.

That's not written in stone, and is but a challenge that MANY have overcome to find happiness and fulfillment. Goes back to what I said, learned from real life experience, a mistake is human and it's how you deal with it that counts.

5. Your believe that, when a woman becomes pregnant outside of marriage, she then is somehow endowed with a legal right to a part of the wealth and income of other Americans. But you don't seem willing to part with a portion of your own income in order to be helpful to that woman. Your charity, as is common with liberals, only extends to the pockets of other Americans.

That's not what I said, nor is it my position. I explicitly said we should have a strong social safety net for those AMERICAN can get help in hard and bad times and that is not restrict to unmarried woman, but unemployed men and children, and old people. Hey guy stuff happens.

We already have a process for that which doesn't include knocking on your door and handing over money. Its called welfare, Medicaid, and social security and there is an orderly process of application and acceptance with guidelines for compliance. How a nation treats the least of us and strangers is a good window into the morals and values of that country.

Is it any of my business what consenting adults do behind closed doors or what religion they adhere too? NO! So bring on those links so we can get to the facts of the matter. And read what I wrote more closely.

We have a social compact in America, though sterilization is NOT a part of it unless that's what a female wants, otherwise it's illegal and punishable by law. The social contract though not enough for some, and too much for others, so we debate.

It is rather amusing that you seem unable to see that having a poor person come to your door is the same thing, functionally, as having the taxman come to your door. It is still the idea that a one American has some legal right to the wealth and income of other Americans. Unless, of course, you believe that there is a money tree located somewhere in Washington.

Even more to the point, how TAL treats the least of us and strangers is a good window into his soul. When your moral point of reference is what others do, then it just becomes empty platitudes.

By the way, where did you get that moral value you are expressing, and why do you believe you have the right to impose it on the rest of the country? It's strange to me that so many people are quick to protest the imposition of moral values such as restricting abortion or marriage, but are enthusiastic about imposing their moral values of welfare and social nets on the rest of us.

I will agree fully that all us have a moral obligation to the poor, but that is for individuals to carry out. It just means nothing when one person attempts to force a second person to take care of a third person.

It came from my Christian upbringing by my parents, if you want to know, and boggles my mind that you are so hyped up over this out of wedlock sex thing taking your money yet say NOTHING when a huge international company just takes your local tax money to build a place where the workers need welfare to have food shelter and clothes.

HMMMM?

,

So why do you get to impose your moral value on the rest of the country?

I'll say if for about the fifth time. I would like for you, or anyone, to justify how any one American can lay a legal claim on the wealth or income of any other American. Slice it any way you want, but that is exactly what welfare is.

That has not happened in my area, at least not to my knowledge. If it has happened in yours, and you feel strongly about it, then raise it as an issue. I can understand that. Frankly, if we could get a "huge international company" to come in to our area and pay 20 or more dollars an hour to several hundred workers, then I would vote personally to give that company a short term (which is what most of them are, at least to my understanding) tax break. A business creating jobs benefits the entire community and is the best welfare program I know of.

Aren't we all in this together? If someone needs help, I'm more than willing to help in any way I can, and would like to think I would receive help if/when I need it. Isn't that what our taxes do?

That is a wonderful, charitable sounding reply, but it is not consistent. You say you are more than willing to help in any way you can. That is good, and I agree with you. But then you change direction when you say, "Isn't that what our taxes do?" Now you are wanting to get other people to help, and in fact force them to help. That is a moral position, and I'll ask you what I asked Tal. What gives you the right to impose your moral value on others?

Since you believe we are all in this together, and that other Americans have legal claim to your income, are you OK with one of them coming by and insisting you give them money? That is precisely what is happening, except that the feds wash it through the government to make it look OK.

I love charity and engage in it, but I'm hesitant to impose my belief in that regard on everyone.

tal there is no virtue in giving because you are compelled to do so .

Did we not duly elect a government of the people to make such a compact that was agreed and voted on lawfully? Then you should DROP that compelled to crap and simply follow the law. You know the rules! If you want the laws changed you vote in your rep to change it!

That's how it's done in America so quit the right wing bellyaching and the notion of being compelled. Or go tell your boss to stop taking out taxes. Let me know how that works out for you.

Well said!

You don't pay taxes?

Does that also apply to your incessant harping about corporate welfare? We are discussing policy. That's how it goes.

Funny. I am to drop the "compelled to crap", but then you tell me to see what happens when I stop paying taxes. That kind of comes from the "compelled to" part.

Still haven't heard how it is that any American has a right to the income of another American.

Wondergirl, I'll ask it again. "That is a moral position, and I'll ask you what I asked Tal. What gives you the right to impose your moral value on others?"

Neither of you has bothered to answer that.

I pay taxes. I have no idea where your question came from. We are all compelled to pay taxes.

What are those taxes used for?