Ask Me Help Desk - A Conservative win in UK

Quote:

Lets go back to letting the village raise the children and stop making faults and laying blame. Does it really matter why they are here when they are a blessing either way regardless? When are we going to ACT like it instead of this useless babble into what's good for YOU!

Why do I bring up abortion? Because I'm sick of people who profess to believe in equal justice but who then dodge the question of 900,000 deaths a year by babbling on about villages raising children, or my supposed attitudes about women, or laying blame and finding fault. The truth would be better served if you would simply say that you really don't give a rat's rear end about those 900,000 unborn children and couldn't care less if the number was ten times that high. They're dead, gone, and out of your way, so you don't have to worry about it. Have that attitude if you want to, but don't try to impress anyone with your platitudes about "equal justice" and "equal opportunity", or at least not until you can tell us about where the justice and opportunity for life for the unborn went to.

Old saying is that "God looks after fools and children": I was both....had more than my fair share of promiscuity with promiscuous women.....never had an impregnation because the women I was having these romps with were not trying to "trip" me or trap me, they only wanted to have pleasures of the flesh.....this is a big difference: When pregnancy occurs, many times it was with intent from the female....but it was also a lot of people who got the cart before the horse: There is a right way and a wrong way.....I got lucky because I was a "fool"...it could have gone either way.

Geez JL, I thought a bunch of you have been preaching about out of wedlock sex for a few thousand years and it worked? Or did it not work and was kept a big secret from all you preachers?

Quote:

never had an impregnation

You can never be 100% certain of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Why do I bring up abortion? Because I'm sick of people who profess to believe in equal justice but who then dodge the question of 900,000 deaths a year by babbling on about villages raising children, or my supposed attitudes about women, or laying blame and finding fault. The truth would be better served if you would simply say that you really don't give a rat's rear end about those 900,000 unborn children and couldn't care less if the number was ten times that high. They're dead, gone, and out of your way, so you don't have to worry about it. Have that attitude if you want to, but don't try to impress anyone with your platitudes about "equal justice" and "equal opportunity", or at least not until you can tell us about where the justice and opportunity for life for the unborn went to.

My caring and your caring don't stop NUTIN"! A sad but true fact! Don't blame ME for your misery!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Plainly you don't wish to answer my question which is, "Do we agree that men and women alike need to postpone sex until marriage?"

I don't know how. I suggested reversible vasectomies at puberty. Do you know how to make everyone postpone sex until they're married?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I don't know how. I suggested reversible vasectomies at puberty. Do you know how to make everyone postpone sex until they're married?

Zieg Heil Mine Further. The nanny state at work, forced sterilisation, your solution? Perhaps the girls could have their tubes tied also?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Zieg Heil Mine Further. The nanny state at work, forced sterilisation, your solution? Perhaps the girls could have their tubes tied also?

The girls don't need their tubes tied if the boys get their reversible vasectomies. So you don't have a solution either apart from forced (temporary) sterilization?

Quote:

Zieg Heil Mine Further. The nanny state at work, forced sterilisation, your solution? Perhaps the girls could have their tubes tied also?

Now Clete, you might be on to something! I'm sure WG will agree that forced sterilization for both sexes would solve the whole problem, or at least until she threw in that pesky little "reversible" clause. If all of this is reversible, then why bother?

I'm really disappointed, WG, that you won't answer a simple question. Would you agree to join me and others in encouraging young people to postpone sex until after marriage, or do you insist on maintaining your forced sterilization solution?

Quote:

My caring and your caring don't stop NUTIN"! A sad but true fact!

Sounds like you're suggesting we simply shouldn't bother ourselves to care. That might work for a liberal dem, but the world depends on people who care. I want to be one of those.

COOL, you keep preaching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Now Clete, you might be on to something! I'm sure WG will agree that forced sterilization for both sexes would solve the whole problem, or at least until she threw in that pesky little "reversible" clause. If all of this is reversible, then why bother?

Why bother? So the woman doesn't get pregnant before marriage. That was your concern -- and even your demand. It would be really silly for both men AND women to be sterilized. And the "reversible" part was part of the deal, since the married couple would possibly want to have children, but I decided to add that, figuring you would hold that omission over my head.

Quote:

I'm really disappointed, WG, that you won't answer a simple question. Would you agree to join me and others in encouraging young people to postpone sex until after marriage, or do you insist on maintaining your forced sterilization solution?

You can't "encourage young people to postpone sex until after marriage." That's not how it works. Encourage??? Um, try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Why bother? So the woman doesn't get pregnant before marriage. That was your concern -- and even your demand. It would be really silly for both men AND women to be sterilized. And the "reversible" part was part of the deal, since the married couple would possibly want to have children, but I decided to add that, figuring you would hold that omission over my head.

You can't "encourage young people to postpone sex until after marriage." That's not how it works. Encourage??? Um, try again.

well if sterilisation isn't the go how about segregation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

well if sterilisation isn't the go how about segregation?

The Shakers preached celibacy for both men and women. We know where that ended up....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

The Shakers preached celibacy for both men and women. We know where that ended up....

well it would be useless preaching celibracy for only one sex

Quote:

You can't "encourage young people to postpone sex until after marriage." That's not how it works. Encourage??? Um, try again.

What a strange world you live in. We encourage young people not to smoke, not to have unprotected sex, not to drop out of high school, not to break the law and end up in prison, not to take drugs, not to discriminate on the basis of x, y, or z, and not to eat unhealthy foods. I'm sure the powers that be will be surprised to find out about your theory of "That's not how it works."

It's sad to see you so caught up in your liberal orthodoxy that you are too fearful to simply say that the world would be a better place if young people reserved sex for marriage. The benefits would be enormous. You're not being asked to join the republican party, but rather just to agree with a common sense proposition. It's a no brainer for any confessing Christian to agree to. Instead you seriously promote a governmental program to force teen age boys to be sterilized. Unbelievable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What a strange world you live in. We encourage young people not to smoke, not to have unprotected sex, not to drop out of high school, not to break the law and end up in prison, not to take drugs, not to discriminate on the basis of x, y, or z, and not to eat unhealthy foods. I'm sure the powers that be will be surprised to find out about your theory of "That's not how it works."

It's sad to see you so caught up in your liberal orthodoxy that you are too fearful to simply say that the world would be a better place if young people reserved sex for marriage. The benefits would be enormous. You're not being asked to join the republican party, but rather just to agree with a common sense proposition. It's a no brainer for any confessing Christian to agree to. Instead you seriously promote a governmental program to force teen age boys to be sterilized. Unbelievable.

Says the guy who condones the lying cheating ways of the dufus because he thinks it's worth it to have conservative judges who will change the law to favor conservative causes and pet peeves and an economy that serves some that can afford it and others not at all.

Talk about living in a strange world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What a strange world you live in. We encourage young people not to smoke, not to have unprotected sex, not to drop out of high school, not to break the law and end up in prison, not to take drugs, not to discriminate on the basis of x, y, or z, and not to eat unhealthy foods. I'm sure the powers that be will be surprised to find out about your theory of "That's not how it works."

It's sad to see you so caught up in your liberal orthodoxy that you are too fearful to simply say that the world would be a better place if young people reserved sex for marriage. The benefits would be enormous. You're not being asked to join the republican party, but rather just to agree with a common sense proposition. It's a no brainer for any confessing Christian to agree to. Instead you seriously promote a governmental program to force teen age boys to be sterilized. Unbelievable.

How well is all that "encouraging" of your Christian young people working? I was more than just "encouraged"!!!

(P.S. I'm a Republican.)

Quote:

Says the guy who condones the lying cheating ways of the dufus because he thinks it's worth it to have conservative judges who will change the law to favor conservative causes and pet peeves and an economy that serves some that can afford it and others not at all.

Says the guy who condoned the lying, cheating ways of Obama since he considered it worth it to have liberal judges who disregard the Constitution to allow for abortion and gay marriage, a doubling of the national debt, and a tepid economy which served no one particularly well.

Yearning for those good old days of yester year again? YO, it's 2020, what year would you like it to be?

Quote:

Yearning for those good old days of yester year again? YO, it's 2020, what year would you like it to be?

Yes, the good ole days of Obama lying, a tepid economy, doubling the national debt, and a president who was cheerleader in chief for abortion. I know you miss them terribly.

Quote:

How well is all that "encouraging" of your Christian young people working? I was more than just "encouraged"!!!

It's hard to know how to answer someone whose solution is the forced sterilization of (of course) young boys, but then seems to find the idea of encouraging young people to make quality decisions to be bizarre. I think you have it seriously backwards.

You're a republican? Remember the old saying? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It's hard to know how to answer someone whose solution is the forced sterilization of (of course) young boys, but then seems to find the idea of encouraging young people to make quality decisions to be bizarre. I think you have it seriously backwards.

You're a republican? Remember the old saying? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..?

Young people on dates don't make quality decisions. I am guessing you were pure as the driven snow when parked and alone with a young woman in a dark car? I could keep you up all night, telling you stories about fighting off the CHRISTIAN young men I dated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Young people on dates don't make quality decisions. I am guessing you were pure as the driven snow when parked and alone with a young woman in a dark car? I could keep you up all night, telling you stories about fighting off the CHRISTIAN young men I dated.

What we know is self control is uncommon, however, the problem is cultural, with the worst manifestations of the problem occurring in secular cultures such as the US

It's only a problem to those that don't approve of such a thing as sex without marriage. Religious laws can vary from place to place, church to church. I thought Australia was a land of secular laws like the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

It's only a problem to those that don't approve of such a thing as sex without marriage. Religious laws can vary from place to place, church to church. I thought Australia was a land of secular laws like the US.

Yes it is, but the problem isn't as endemic here as it is there, although the decline in religion appears to be greater than there, but then we have a different ethos

The divorce rate here is between 40 and 50 percent for first marriages and goes up with each subsequent marriage. It's no wonder that as an institution marriage has declined as a viable option for many. Is that the difference in ethos you mean?

LOL, I think every one of our 50 states here has a different ethos.

In 1960 there was no bc pill and far fewer abortions, and yet the out of wedlock birth rate was but a small fraction of what it is now. Now for those of us who actually care about such things, it plainly tells us that the problem is, as Clete said, cultural and linked to changed human behavior. For those who plainly couldn't possibly care less about 900,000 abortions a year and fatherless, disadvantaged children, it's enough to offer up platitudes about villages, government imposed sterilization of teenage boys, and who you used to date in your youth. Well, you don't care, so fine. It's so typical of liberals whose caring is strictly limited to making calls for higher taxes to be imposed on others. For those of us who actually rolled up our sleeves and spent a lifetime working with people, it's a little different story.

Sadly, abortion is also a fact of life in Australia, registering about 50,000 a year. Might add that the out of wedlock birth rate is only marginally lower in Australia than it is here, 34% versus our 40%. As you can see below, the increase world-wide over the past fifty years is breath taking. It's nearly non-existent in Japan and South Korea so yeah, behavior matters.

https://yournotthefather.com/out-of-...hs-by-country/

Not a lot of record keeping on abortions back in those days and most were never reported, and the only ones NOW are those reported by Planned Parenthood, which has shown a decline however slow or small. So really hard to draw conclusions except that science has made it safer for women which ain't a bad thing health wise, but does make PP an easy target. Women with resources don't report it nor use PP, but a lot more than 900,000 woman have had at least one. We could be talking tens of millions here JL, and even you are powerless to change such a situation. It's not a matter of caring, but obviously some care far more than others.

I just don't think blasting and bad mouthing others who aren't as caring as you are is a good solution regardless, but do your own thing.

Quote:

Not a lot of record keeping on abortions back in those days and most were never reported,

How do you know that?

Quote:

and the only ones NOW are those reported by Planned Parenthood,

Completely, totally, 100% untrue.

Quote:

science has made it safer for women which ain't a bad thing health wise, but does make PP an easy target.

For the unborn baby, fully a living human being, it is always fatal. Sadly, you don't seem to care one whit about that. Hopefully I am wrong about that.

Quote:

Women with resources don't report it nor use PP,

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Individuals don't "report" to someone that they have had an abortion.

Quote:

We could be talking tens of millions here JL, and even you are powerless to change such a situation. It's not a matter of caring, but obviously some care far more than others.

Sadly, that's what it all comes down to. We don't want to have to take care of millions of children, so let's just kill them. "Having a baby is inconvenient, so I'll just have my baby killed, and then I can go back to doing what I want." What a sick world we live in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

How do you know that?Completely, totally, 100% untrue.

Did my homework and recognize those numbers as ones reported by PP

Quote:

For the unborn baby, fully a living human being, it is always fatal.

Correct. Depending on when you believe life begins.

Quote:

Sadly, you don't seem to care one whit about that. Hopefully I am wrong about that.

I care but as helpless as you are, so a lot less emotional about a simple fact of life and human history of behavior.

Quote:

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Individuals don't "report" to someone that they have had an abortion.

That was my point, we really don't know who has an abortion.

Quote:

Sadly, that's what it all comes down to. We don't want to have to take care of millions of children, so let's just kill them. "Having a baby is inconvenient, so I'll just have my baby killed, and then I can go back to doing what I want." What a sick world we live in.

Women often make choices for their own situation, so don't include me in the don't want to take care of the kids. We should all want the kids taken care of no matter what the circumstance or the costs, or the state of the world. You seem to have your own limits as to what that entails and that's fine with me. I will just submit though if you get a tax refund then taking care of those kids costs you nothing tangible. Even if you don't it's a small price to pay for caring for that precious child.

The way you holler and complain though JL, one would think YOU didn't care.

Quote:

Did my homework and recognize those numbers as ones reported by PP

The figure of 900,000 comes from the Alan Gutmacher Institute. They get their figure by surveying many abortion clinics and not just the PP ones.

Quote:

Correct. Depending on when you believe life begins.

The only answer to that which makes any sense at all is that life begins at conception. It is plainly true, and the only reason to believe otherwise is in an effort to justify abortion.

Quote:

I care but as helpless as you are, so a lot less emotional about a simple fact of life and human history of behavior.

But I'm not helpless, and neither are you. I don't vote for those who support abortion. I bring up abortion when I can (like here) and try to affect people's views on the subject. I go to an abortion clinic regularly and register my opposition. I pray frequently. Because there have been those who believe they are not helpless, we have seen a significant drop in abortions in the past twenty years. There is only one such clinic left in our state and we are working to get rid of it. I am not helpless. Neither are you.

Quote:

The way you holler and complain though JL, one would think YOU didn't care.

I think your silence speaks volumes. If you really want children taken care of, then wouldn't you oppose this sexual revolution which has resulted in so many kids born fatherless? That would require you to question your liberal credentials and beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

In 1960 there was no bc pill and far fewer abortions

If only you men had known about the abortions that were being done secretly. Toilets and bathtubs had to be thoroughly scrubbed so there was no evidence. How many teen girls moved in with out-of-state relatives (until the baby was born and given away)?

Quote:

If only you men had known about the abortions that were being done secretly. Toilets and bathtubs had to be thoroughly scrubbed so there was no evidence. How many teen girls moved in with out-of-state relatives (until the baby was born and given away)?

First of all, everyone is aware that women had illegal abortions. That is not a great secret. They were not nearly as common as abortions are now and that is also not a great secret. As to women who gave birth and then gave them up for adoption, that is what is known as an out of wedlock birth which is what was being measured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

First of all, everyone is aware that women had illegal abortions. That is not a great secret. They were not nearly as common as abortions are now and that is also not a great secret. As to women who gave birth and then gave them up for adoption, that is what is known as an out of wedlock birth which is what was being measured.

How many fathers stepped up and put a ring on their finger before an abortion was needed? And btw, those secret births at Grandma's or Auntie Jane's weren't measured.

Quote:

How many fathers stepped up and put a ring on their finger before an abortion was needed? And btw, those secret births at Grandma's or Auntie Jane's weren't measured.

Even if both of those arguments are valid, and I'm sure to some degree they are, they cannot come even close to explaining the absolute explosion of out of wedlock births we have seen the past fifty years. The occasional "secret birth" or the forced marriages just can't do it. You have to have an explanation that has the power to explain going from about 8% in 1960 to the current rate of over 40%.

But aside from all of that, what is your point? Are you really trying to suggest that moral values have not changed, or that the sexual revolution has had no impact, or that the constant, widespread depictions of casual sex in movies and on television has made no difference, or that the broad dissemination of the idea that women are "mighty" and thus need no husband has provoked no change? Sometimes I think you are so eager to defend your liberal orthodoxy that you trip over the truth which is standing in broad daylight right before you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Even if both of those arguments are valid, and I'm sure to some degree they are, they cannot come even close to explaining the absolute explosion of out of wedlock births we have seen the past fifty years. The occasional "secret birth", or the forced marriages just can't do it. You have to have an explanation that has the power to explain going from about 8% in 1960 to the current rate of a little over 40%.

But aside from all of that, what is your point? Are you really trying to suggest that moral values have not changed, or that the sexual revolution has had no impact, or that the constant, widespread depictions of casual sex in movies and on television has made no difference? Sometimes I think you are so eager to defend your liberal orthodoxy that you trip over the truth which is standing in broad daylight right before you.

We haven't even touched on why. You've been arguing the what and who.

My liberal orthodoxy??? That if the males kept their pants zipped up, there wouldn't be a problem! That's liberal orthodoxy???

Of course we have. You did it when you posted, "How many fathers stepped up and put a ring on their finger before an abortion was needed? And btw, those secret births at Grandma's or Auntie Jane's weren't measured." You were trying to explain why the rate has risen so dramatically. If you weren't, then what on earth were you trying to explain?

Quote:

My liberal orthodoxy??? That if the males kept their pants zipped up, there wouldn't be a problem! That's liberal orthodoxy???

Men exercising self control is not being argued. I agreed with that months ago. No, I mean your liberal orthodoxy of holding doggedly to the idea that women have no responsibility in this issue. That's a shame since women stand to lose far more than men do. You seem to care nothing at all about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Of course we have. You did it when you posted, "How many fathers stepped up and put a ring on their finger before an abortion was needed? And btw, those secret births at Grandma's or Auntie Jane's weren't measured." You were trying to explain why the rate has risen so dramatically. If you weren't, then what on earth were you trying to explain?

I was responding to you.

Quote:

Men exercising self control is not being argued. I agreed with that months ago. No, I mean your liberal orthodoxy of holding doggedly to the idea that women have no responsibility in this issue. That's a shame since women stand to lose far more than men do. You seem to care nothing at all about that.

If men kept their pants zipped, problem solved! After all, the men are the strong ones, right? The ones who demand order and abhor chaos. Men are the ones in charge. Women are submissive and busy in the kitchen making them nourishing meals.

Typical woman wanting to blame all ills on men, man is not to blame for the nature of women which is to lust after men and try to dominate them with the lure of sex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Typical woman wanting to blame all ills on men, man is not to blame for the nature of women which is to lust after men and try to dominate them with the lure of sex.

Typical man wanting to blame all ills on women, woman is not to blame for the nature of men which is to lust after women and try to dominate them with the lure of true love.