Time To Admit It: the church was right on birth control

[bshole]

Your small sampling is just that, a small sampling.

Single mothers make up the vast majority of people living in poverty and drawing welfare than any other group.

...and it is just breaking your heart isn't it? You care so passionately about poor single women.

And if you really support the notion that a modern first world nation is ever just going to let people starve to death, you are living in your own sick fantasy world. If you loathe the safety nets of a civilized nation, you are always welcome to move to a country in Africa where the weak and poor starve and die off.

Nobody really gives a rats ass about conservative mores anymore, they are almost universally reviled as immoral and evil. As with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, conservative thoughts on human morals have no place in a decent society.

 

[Texashiker]

<snip>

What I took from the linked article in the opening post was that widespread acceptance of birth control has lead to a moral decay of society, with especially disastrous effects on children.

Rather than looking at women as potential mates, partners and wives, men look at women as nothing more than sexual objects.

When a child comes out of that one night stand, neither parent is willing to accept responsibility for their actions. If the mother does not have an abortion, then the dad pays child support and goes on his way.

...and it is just breaking your heart isn't it? You care so passionately about poor single women.

Did you read this article? http://phys.org/news197644722.html

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Stoning happens today in some places around the world. Especially some religious middle east countries.

Also, what happened during that time frame was a lot of infanticide.

The first isn't really relevant to this thread as we're discussing Tex's linkage between contraception and all sorts of evil. The Pope's influence on anything in the ME Islamic world is nil, as are our views towards contraception. We might as well include ancient Mesopotamia if were going to bring up stonings from an irrelevant culture.

As to the second I suspect abandonment and subsequent death was not uncommon among the poorest classes of any society, but I'm not seeing a link between birth rates and a decrease in infanticide which could nearly account for increased birth rates in our society in modern (read post industrial revolution)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sexual revolution, television, music, womens rights groups, feminist,,, teach girls it is ok to have out sex with no commitments.

Men naturally want to have sex. Its what we do.

Birth control is wide spread and socially acceptable.

When you combine all of those, things can and will go wrong.

Did you read the linked article in the opening post?

I read the article and if you note the increase in birth rate declined about 1990. There was an increase in accessible contraception, but it sharply increased when "abstinence only" Bush came to power.

Did people become more moral during the Clinton years and go off and then Bush told them to get busy?

 

[HumblePie]

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/babyboom.htm

From here. Lets assume an average of 3 million births/year between 1940-1960. With a claimed bastard rate of less <5%. Which means 150,000 bastards born per year. Now lets assume the rate was really secretly 20%, still 1/2 of todays. That would mean there would have to be 450,000 cases of infanticide a year necessary to cover things up.

So you are claiming that over 2 decades 9 million infants were murdered. You are essentially making a claim of secret American baby holocaust. It should be easy to find evidence for that. :awe:

Infanticide wasn't the only way to get rid of unwanted births. Also, in older times, there weren't as many people either as there are today or even the 1940's. The argument by the OP is that birth control proliferation has led to women more willing to have out of wedlock sex (duh no one is arguing that) and more out of wedlock children. That last point I'm arguing against because it's impossible to accurately compare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Abortion has been around for a long long time. Not all methods used the past were really that safe or effective though. If anything, home-done abortion methods were far more common in the past than they are presently. Also, many women of the past used all sorts of different methods of birth control. Some actually worked, and some like magical charms or potions didn't.

Again, recording for older time periods aren't exactly what they are today for things like out of wedlock birth rates, birth control usage, abortion rates, infanticides, and abandonment.

 

[Darwin333]

No.

My stance is people should take responsibility for their actions. If a woman gets pregnant, then the two people should get married and take care of the child.

Provide the child with a stable home, stable family, uncles, aunts, grandparents,,,,. That is the responsible thing to do.

And if said people, after conceiving the child, discover that they are not "stable" together and thus can not provide the child with a "stable home and family"?

Birth control actually allows people to do what they are biologically programmed to do while not getting themselves in the above situation. Given your above stance I would think that you would be all for it.

And the children produced from that sex? What is to become of them?

With birth control children don't need to be "produced" just about everytime people do what they are programmed to do.

The mom has 3 or 4 children by 3 or 4 different men. None of the men play active roles in raising the children.

According to you it is perfectly ok to ignore the results from careless behavior?

No, I am in favor of giving them decent options to not get into that situation in the first place. I hate to break it to you but telling people not to fuck isn't an option, at least not one that will work.

 

[Texashiker]

There was an increase in accessible contraception, but it sharply increased when "abstinence only" Bush came to power.

Abstinence only programs do not work.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Neh,

The difference is now women are having children out of wedlock ON PURPOSE. Christ I know a slew of women who have done just that. It is the new normal and there isn't damn thing wrong with it. Their kids are happy and well-adjusted. You are an anochronism. Your mores have come and gone. The world has moved on and it is a better world for it.

Now I'll take issue with this. Women are having more children without a father around. Why not? They are in some cases a financial incentive. I also reject your implication of fathers being anachronistic. I would like you to post evidence that a family is better off for losing or never having a caring, loving father. I want to see your arguments against having one, or that there's no positive influence to be had. I don't agree with Tex, but yours is not a better world at least in this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Abstinence only programs do not work.

No they do not. Contraceptives and their availability do as demonstrated by the graphs posted in the relevant time frames. That is of course the Clinton years were more moral than those of the Religious Right and influence which mimics to a large degree the sentiments of the Pope.

 

[Texashiker]

And if said people, after conceiving the child, discover that they are not "stable" together and thus can not provide the child with a "stable home and family"?

Read this article, pay attention to where it talks about the crime rates from the 1950s and 1960s.

http://phys.org/news197644722.html

When parents married, future murder rates went down.

When parents did not marry, future murder rates went up.

No, I am in favor of giving them decent options to not get into that situation in the first place. I hate to break it to you but telling people not to fuck isn't an option, at least not one that will work.

It is called taking responsibility for your actions.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Abstinence only programs do not work.

Wait, I thought your contention was that the Catholic church was right on birth control? Perhaps you should look up what the Catholic church was saying in the 1960s. Because the entire basis of their platform was "abstinence until married."

 

[Texashiker]

Wait, I thought your contention was that the Catholic church was right on birth control?

The title of the thread is the same as the linked article.

I got a warning from a moderator on another thread when I inserted my opinion in the thread title. To stop from getting a warning, I make the thread title the same as the linked article, or I ask a question in the title.

I fully agree with using birth control.

I however disagree with sleeping around and not taking responsibility for the children that come out of that hookup. If someone is going to sleep round, even if they are using birth control, take responsibility for your actions.

 

[Munky]

Easily available contraceptives are simply supply items fulfilling a demand. This is what people want. To really see the big picture, you should consider how this issue fits into the social change that's been happening for the last 5 or 6 decades. You have:

1. Women wanting to screw around with as many men as they please in their young, most attractive years. But still wanting some man to commit to them when they can no longer compete with younger women.

2. Women fighting for a no fault divorce. Which they also happen to initiate about 75% of the time.

3. A legal system which caters to women at every opportunity, like child support, alimony, primary custody of children, rape accusations, and the like.

4. A culture that willfully blinds itself to the biological nature of gender and how it manifests itself through behavior. Society would rather pretend that gender is a social construct, and enforce female-empowering gender discrimination in pursuit of the religion of "Equality."

Now if this sounds like a bunch of offensive "musojuny," remember I'm not the one shaming men for pursuing strategies beneficial to their gender, while kowtowing to women as they pursue the strategy beneficial to their gender. So all this supposed moral decline is simply an inevitable outcome from the conditions which society has created.

 

[bshole]

Now I'll take issue with this. Women are having more children without a father around. Why not? They are in some cases a financial incentive. I also reject your implication of fathers being anachronistic. I would like you to post evidence that a family is better off for losing or never having a caring, loving father. I want to see your arguments against having one, or that there's no positive influence to be had. I don't agree with Tex, but yours is not a better world at least in this.

I said out of WEDLOCK, the fathers live with the unwed mothers. I should have made that distinction.

 

[mchammer187]

Study: Crime rates linked to out-of-wedlock births



The world is a soulless mess on a downward trajectory. This current liberal society is unsustainable and will collapse. What will rise up from the ashes will be more traditional and in line with Nehalem's thinking.

If you have read enough of his posts and truly believe that than I feel sorry for you.

 

[Texashiker]

<snip>

One of the best post I have ever read.

 

[etrigan420]

One of the best post I have ever read.

Which is, ironically, the most scathing review of a post *I've* ever read.

 

[Matt1970]

Nobody really gives a rats ass about conservative mores anymore, they are almost universally reviled as immoral and evil. As with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, conservative thoughts on human morals have no place in a decent society.

There you go baby. There probably are a couple people on this forum that still take you seriously but at this rate even they will think you are a nutbag.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I said out of WEDLOCK, the fathers live with the unwed mothers. I should have made that distinction.

Gotcha

 

[Texashiker]

There you go baby. There probably are a couple people on this forum that still take you seriously but at this rate even they will think you are a nutbag.

Bshole is an internet tough guy.

He talks about conservatives this and that, but deep down inside he wishes he could live a conservative lifestyle.

 

[brycejones]

Damn, I hate it when A420 gets a hold of TH's login.

 

[zinfamous]

 

[nehalem256]

Neh,

The difference is now women are having children out of wedlock ON PURPOSE. Christ I know a slew of women who have done just that. It is the new normal and there isn't damn thing wrong with it. Their kids are happy and well-adjusted. You are an anochronism. Your mores have come and gone. The world has moved on and it is a better world for it.

Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri data published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.

Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center.

Girls whose parents divorce face significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21838575/...igher-risk-nontraditional-homes/#.UM9XfIM701J

Well except for children dying and getting raped. But other than there is no problem with it :thumbsup:

 

[nehalem256]

Infanticide wasn't the only way to get rid of unwanted births. Also, in older times, there weren't as many people either as there are today or even the 1940's. The argument by the OP is that birth control proliferation has led to women more willing to have out of wedlock sex (duh no one is arguing that) and more out of wedlock children. That last point I'm arguing against because it's impossible to accurately compare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Abortion has been around for a long long time. Not all methods used the past were really that safe or effective though. If anything, home-done abortion methods were far more common in the past than they are presently. Also, many women of the past used all sorts of different methods of birth control. Some actually worked, and some like magical charms or potions didn't.

Again, recording for older time periods aren't exactly what they are today for things like out of wedlock birth rates, birth control usage, abortion rates, infanticides, and abandonment.

Abortion prevents out-of-wedlock births. Your argument makes no sense. Access to legal abortion should drive down the rate of out-of-wedlock births, but that is not what happened.

 

[piasabird]

I don't plan on defending birth control and abortion other than to say it is legal. However, there were other Changes in politics and the law behind some of this. Part of the problem with our society today is that paying women welfare has encouraged women to live off the government and to not get married. It has become more economical not to get married and this is destroying the Family.

I guess you could say this all started with Birth Control. However, making it easier for women to compete with men for jobs was also a factor. This was not very common before World War II.

I cant really say this was good or bad. However, when we made it possible for women to have sex without consequences the world changed forever.