Planned Parenthood

Discussion in 'Killingsworth Court, Formerly The General Forum' started by TCUSA, Feb 18, 2012.

  1. You are capable of most interesting jumps in logic!

    Incidentally, I would attribute this much more clearly to the conservatives since that is what has actually been most predominant and indeed rising to nearly half over the last few decades! But who's counting?...not you, apparently!

  2. Political affiliation of voters is hardly germane to the all-out assault on American institutions by an organized left that has made nihilism and narcissism its rallying cries. Marriage didn't crumble on its own--it was destroyed by those who declared it a brutal, one-sided institution hostile to women, gays, and the power of the state. So congrats--you must be so proud.
  3. Actually, I would "blame" economics, technology. and general progress that had these side effects. Some of the side effects are "good" others are "bad". That's the general finding when there are economic, technological, and general progress sorts of things going on. Child labor, for example, was a pretty direct consequence of improved technology and changed economics. A bad one, incidentally, that we're kinda relivin' today in a related sort of way w.r.t. males in the blue collar workforce in particular.

    Your conspiracy theory is rather over the top.
  4. Incidentally, the most clear nihilism I see on this board is the "Pfft! Science?!? We don't really know anything!" sentiment that seems to pervade the minds of a certain cadre of folks on here ...
  5. Pretty strong words coming from someone who's idea of science is to conduct bogus google searches and read junk science blogs, never bothering to analyze any data for himself. But for leftists science is not important - at least compared to social justice.
  6. How does that make any sense at all? Or do you think it is the conservatives that are preaching that line?
  7. Yes, folks! A "side effect" of "general progress" is making babies out of wedlock! Or, if you really want to be on the cutting edge of "progress", the ultimate "side effect" is not making babies at all!

    Muddled-thinking saps call this sort of demographic collapse "general progress." Sober people call it Greece.

    Speaking of Planned Parenthood, here's what they're tweeting to your teenage kids:

  8. An analogy for you: Who, relative to the society of the time, "preached the line" that child labor was wrong? Who took (quite rationally, BTW) advantage of the economic situation to destroy families?

    There are pretty clear parallels today to that and other previous periods of "progress" which had rather severe effects on families.That said, there are other things going on. The Pill downright remolded society well. The Pill in and of itself is not a "liberal conspiracy" but it you don't think it has had massive side effects you are simply not looking. As I spanned the era of the introduction of the Pill in my adolescence/early adulthood, I can definitely see that!

    "Preaching" godliness is cheap. Acting to make society a better place is a lot harder. For example, if you were really concerned about unexpected pregnancies, you would support PP fully and wholeheartedly. You might look at ways to support the formation and stabilization of young families by, for one example, slowing the concentration of economic capital and power into fewer and fewer hands--something that has clearly led to negative effects on the family repeatedly at various points in the history of the industrial revolution..."progress", as it were. There's a wonderfully interesting book by a Memorial prof called The Ice Hunters which traces this effect in the microcosm of the history of the seal hunt here. But it is a widespread phenomenon well described in many places. You might support a lot of things you do not.

    Another analogy: The family dislocations in the black community post Civil War and continuing to this day had nothing whatever to do with a liberal conspiracy. A conservative conspiracy probably contributed to some degree as it kept positive actions from occurring, But again, in the main, rather larger things were going on. That said, conservatives were rather unhelpful then too: People of my age will remember the "man-in-the-house" disqualification for family support that outraged conservatives pushed through in the 60's. That sure helped form stable black families!

    Anyway, the notion that a "liberal conspiracy" is causing all of the changes in society is conspiracy thinking at it best. Face it, real liberals--as opposed to imagined ones--are actually a pretty rare bird in the US. I provided you numbers on that. It gives you something to blame, but the cost is that you fail to even dimly glimpse what is going on. And, what is going on is something rather larger: Among other things, the "man problem" is real and will continue to warp society and family structures

    In a recent column, the fairly conservative--by Cdn standards--Margaret Wente writes:

    The recession has been particularly hard on guys like Ben... In Canada, the jobless rate for young adults is a relatively low 14 per cent. Across the European Union, the jobless rate is more than 20 per cent. In the U.S., the jobless rate for high-school-educated men between 20 and 24 – Ben's generation – has reached 22.4 per cent. That's more than double what it was four years ago. The situation of young American blacks is much worse. In Illinois for example, only about 25 per cent of young black male adults have a job. And this time, nobody, anywhere, expects the job market to pick up any time soon...

    Young men without work are trapped in a twilight world of failure to achieve adulthood. They don't move out and they don't get married (although they're increasingly likely to have kids). In the U.S., four out of 10 men between 18 and 30 are living with their parents. In Britain, it's five out of 10. In Italy, it's eight out of 10 (although that also reflects the extraordinary attachment of Italian parents to thei grown-up kids).

    But young men who live at home also have less incentive to find work. The longer they go without work, the dimmer their prospects become. And the more likely they are to drink, do drugs and develop other habits that will make them even less employable.

    ... a British study ... blamed the men's underachievement on complacency and "general hopelessness...

    Joblessness is not the same as poverty. It's worse. There's lots of evidence to show that the scars of joblessness can last a lifetime. And fixing the problem will be very hard, because the problem is not simply economic. It's also structural and social. We'll need more than an economic upturn to reconnect a lot of our young men to work. But it matters more than we think – because without work, there's no path to manhood.

    In other words, it's not a liberal conspiracy. It's something rather larger.
  9. Child labor had absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of the nuclear family--in fact, it was the family's survival that made it necessary.

    And the pill was not itself a negative. The feminist and liberal propaganda that accompanied it was. Radical feminism sought to exploit the relative sexual freedom the pill provided and make it into a political statement, radicalizing a whole generation of young women and convincing them to discard their upbringing and defile their bodies and their consciences in order to prove they weren't "old-fashioned" anymore and "liberated." Liberated from what? The traditional values of husband and family.

    As for the support of Planned Parenthood, I don't know how a rational person can look at the material above and think that Planned Parenthood has the slightest interest in preventing unwanted pregnancies. They LOVE unwanted pregnancies. They practically PREACH unwanted pregnancies. They hand out contraception with little to no advice only as window dressing and a way to soak the taxpayers--their real business is unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

    Post-slavery, the destruction of the black family was largely a result of liberal and feminist social policies. The "man-in-the-house" disqualification (also known as the "substitute father" regulation) was a STATE DEMOCRAT initiative opposed by Republicans and came later (in that the legitimate fathers had already been driven from the home). Prior to that regulation, liberals and feminists had driven the legitimate fathers from their families with their "progressive social policies" intended to remake black families in their own image (white). Any form of discipline of the kids was seen as abuse and an excuse to exile the husband from the household. Any domestic disagreement was blamed on the husband/father and the heavy hand of the state was there RWA to send him packing. And who was there with the resources to replace the husband (the REAL substitute father)? Your helpful social worker, of course. And oh, don't worry about having babies--the more you have, the more you get (so much the better to make you dependent on the state).

    And if, as you claim, economic pressure is the destructive force that's causing the family to disintegrate, why is it the more prosperous we've become, the more illegitimacy we've had? The economic downturn we've experienced has been all of four years, ending the longest period of prosperity in our history. The family has always been the smallest unit of survival--the city, town, village, tribe might have to break up, but the family ALWAYS survived--until you "progressives" started you claptrap. You are the people that have made this lifestyle "acceptable" over the years. You are the people who have normalized hedonism and commitment-free sex. Not conservatives.
  10. + 10,000 !!
  11. Im a simple man at heart. All I know is..........there is the way things are SUPPOSED to be,........and the way things are. Lemme tell ya,.........the way things are, are FUBAR...BIGTIME!

    I live in small town USA, a place where that other " bad stuff" always happened somewhere else in a distant place. Not so anymore, and hasnt been for a very long time.

    My son is in the minority at his school because he lives in a household that has BOTH biological parents. How screwed up is THAT?

    The answer to literally EVERY problem this country is experiencing can all be traced back to ONE THING..........The abandoning of Traditional Christian values. The left can deny this all they want to,.........but that would be a LIE, even they know its a LIE.

    Worst part is..........they would much rather sit and watch this whole country go down in flames than to EVER admit they might have been wrong,.......even though they KNOW they are wrong. THAT right there is as hedonistic as it gets.
  12. Wow. How many child laborers working 10-12 hours, 6 days a week went on to found successful, middle class or above, stable families? What made child labor "necessary" according to the economics--but not conservative values--of the time, was that it was cheaper and equally effective.
    Wow again. You take a rather patronistic view of women here. And you quite clearly miss the old order with you on top and being "valued" by default. I don't really think that women are quite this gullible. Some are capable of making rational choices for themselves based on their own judgments of what they want and need. A few special ones anyway. But we'll see what any here women may say about your analysis of their individual weak wills and licentious behavior.

    Nor is a forced value--i.e., the completely asymmetric pre-Pill consequences of sexual activity for women--a "value" at all. It was a real world situation that all women had to deal with pre-Pill. You are quite happy with that, apparently, as "normal". Surely this has nothing whatever to do with the fact that as a slight side effect the old situation put you in a "natural" position of power.

    Finally, you rather gloss lightly over the fact that a significant portion of men had been "defiling their bodies and their consciences" just fine since time immemorial. They may have had "family values" after they "settled down" or in their family life but not their outside the family life. But I'm sure you see the quandary here.
    As I've said before, there comes a point when you really need to stop believing your own propaganda. Listen to the women here, for example. Or is that too liberal?
    Let's just say I have a slightly different memory here and I did live through the times. Southern democrats, in particular, of course were just filled with liberal, feminists starting in 1865. Uh do you have any notion of the positions within the dems on race around the Civil War era on up to the early 60s? They were not exactly "liberal" nor "feminist" and remained that way for many decades on into the 20th century. You are confusing party with philosophy here.
    A side effect of prosperity--the relative prosperity anyway that we have--is in fact that it may well have changed the definition of "the smallest unit of survival". Together with the culture and philosophy in the West that has always trended to individualism, it does not surprise me at all that as individuals feel they can survive on their own that they choose to do so. Japan has gone through this "marriage crisis" for some decades now as young women simply refuse to take up their traditional societal roles as they can and do support themselves. And, if they do get married they are forced to give up their relative freedoms. Their decision not to has precious little to do with "liberals" infecting Japanese society. In their case, they have also not been having children, but the effects on the family are equally severe as the fertility rate is presently 1.39/female--no where near replacement. The phenomenon is Asia-wide. And note that "Christian values" or lack of them are irrelevant here. It is part and parcel of the same societal changes.

    It simply is a fact that no woman really needs to ally herself with a man out of necessity in order to function in our society or most Western societies. That fact really is changing society. But again, this is not a liberal conspiracy, it's a fact of life. And men, in particular, are having a rather large problem with it.
  13. Not to open a whole new can of worms,.........but interesting and somewhat related none the less.

    In 1950 , women in the prime working years range " 24 to 54 " worked outside the home at a rate of around 34%.

    In the last 60 + years we have seen that percentage increase over time to a rate of about 72% or so.

    Would be interested to hear others opinions on this matter. If they feel this is generally a good thing or not? Its effects on the economy? Job creation? The family unit? WHY this happened? Ect ect..........

    I will say this, and take it with a grain of salt because its coming from a Mans point of view.......

    I fully believe that the once traditional role of a homemaker is most probably the most rewarding, but toughest job you can have. Its danged hard work, and its constant!
  14. My wife and I raised four children. All through the kids younger years " before they hit high school" my wife was a stay at home mom. I brought home the bacon,.......she provided the environment. The two work hand in hand together. Looking back I must admit,..........her job was much tougher than mine.
  15. It takes a certain amount of faith to put your trust in a guy with a giant orange head, and no neck.
  16. This is just one man's POV but I was in high school during Reaganomics. I went to a generally well to do school. It seemed like there was a lot of many out there to be made, then again I was just a kid. As I went through college the perception was there was money to be made when we got out.

    Fast forward to now I see a lot of women and minorities in positions that they might not have had, but the overall pie is smaller. Many of my friends have post grad degrees and a lot have PT jobs to bring in cash. I think we are moving from a W2 world to a 1099 world.

  17. Not to totally derail this thread but it is my opinion that inflation is eating working class families alive.

    Case in point............the year was 1984, I was 20 years old. At the time I was employed as a non union construction laborer at a small construction company. I was paid a whopping 6.50 an hour. Took home around 200 bucks a week after Taxes.

    I rented a small 2 bedroom home. My rent was 200 dollars a month INCLUDING heat and lights. Bought a nice used car that was less then a year old. My loan payment was 79 dollars a month. LOL Cant remember the cost of food back then but seemed as though it was pretty cheap,.......lets say 45 bucks a week. Im sure my cable bill was only about 15 bucks a month or so back then, phone around 20 bucks a months or so, maybe a little more, cant remember.

    Seems to me that gas was only around 90 cents a gallon or so back then if memory serves.

    Point Im making is this.........back then I could have lived pretty decent for a young kid working at a fairly menial job. Probably could have even SAVED 25% or so of my takehome pay if I had wanted to.

    Today...........there are millions of people all across this country working for not much more than I made back then.........TWENTY EIGHT YEARS AGO. I believe minimum wage is around 7.50 an hour these days.

    Difference is...........I could live and SAVE back then.........while those folks today couldnt do that in a million years working the same type job. WHY? ........... Inflation . INFLATION eats the poor and middle classes alive.
  18. Lack of corresponding wage increases was the problem. Why didn't wages increase with everything else?

    The need for ever increasing profits have to come from somewhere. The weakest link is where they'll take it from. The 1984 you is the weak link they can push and squeeze. Just like Walmart does it to their people.

Share This Page