It depends how you define toxic. Isn't abortion a little bit toxic? That "free love" mode of life from the 60s wasn't exactly without its problems.
It was conquered by people who also had lots of recreational sex. Did you think it stopped recreational sex? !! Did you think there was no recreational sex in the rest of the world?!!!!
No, it isn't but taking away people's rights to their own bodies is VERY toxic. NO era in history was without problems and they ALL still had lots of fun sex.....
Which you do to the unborn when you take away the rest of their entire life. That would be a vast oversimplification of how most ancient cultures worked. There were usually strict rules, procedures, and etiquette for that sort of thing, and likely for good reasons, which the people in those societies might not have even fully realized at the time. In civilized Asian cultures, for example, the woman experienced shame. And just look how successful those cultures were. Although I will admit muslim culture in many parts of the world is totally dysfunctional. Although there may indeed be some good reason for their culture going to such extreme lengths to protect women in those societies. What do you think a free sex culture would actually end up looking like in a place like Pakistan or Somalia? They have enough problems trying to prevent women from being molested by whole crowd gangs of men as it is. Maybe that burka covering their entire body and not going out of the house alone without being accompanied by a male relative offers some measure of protection. Anyway, a lot of this culture originates from the time before cheap DNA testing, when the man couldn't be sure the offspring he was providing for and protecting were his. So for the integrity of the family it was important the women didn't stray too far from the nest. Kind of harsh, but it was a harsh society back then and people were struggling to survive.
No. Abortion is a responsible way for a parent who isn’t prepared or able to properly care for a child to not put a child through that experience and also not threaten her own health via pregnancy. The 60’s didn’t have good sex education or even very good access to contraceptives.
Christians enforced their brand of social conservatism on the Romans, disrupting their culture, while at the same time the wealth outsourced Roman labor to slaves and choose to employ mercenaries rather than professional citizen-soldiers... ...all a couple of centuries AFTER the Romans drove that plant extinct.
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that the barbarians took their marriages seriously, and that this was a laudable virtue lacking in the Romans. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/tacitus1.asp https://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/tacitusc/germany/chap1.htm
More and more I am convinced that people who don't have a sex drive have driven this morality argument. ...and, ironically, people like Moore who have extreme urges. Not to mention all the gay bashers that turn out to be gay!
All you can do is stick to your Morales. There's a descriptive word in the dictionary that describes those born out of wedlock.
The country is split about 50/50 and can't even agree on what terms to use so, yes, debate is useless.
Duh, the unborn have no rights... just because you want to give them more rights than anyone else doesn't mean they have rights now, they don't. Which is why many of them had recreational sex.... So shaming women is a good thing to you!!!??? How about shaming the men who were out having recreational sex at the time...sheesh, talk about oversimplification!!! The idea that for thousands of years humans followed The Roools of Sex is the biggest and stupidest oversimplification. That's al irrelevant but maybe those MEN who molest and rape and harass women should be SHAMED...
Just a quick look through that irrelevant crap got me this : ""The exceptions, which are exceedingly rare, are of men who receive offers of many wives because of their rank; there is no question of sexual passion.""" ...and ALL it talked about was men..... ...and to think an entire culture never had recreational sex is just plain ridiculous...
It's not really a matter of the regulation of sexuality, given that abortions are also desired by women who are married or otherwise in permanent partnerships. So even if we were to say sexuality is out of control, the abortion issue would still be unresolved. Unless you're trying to say that people really should only have sex with the intention of procreating, even when married. Even if we advocated that, it just wouldn't happen. It's not how human sexuality works. But the crux of the issue is when personhood begins, and how to resolve any potential conflicts of rights that ensue. To me it's pretty simple, since personhood cannot occur before an entity achieves a conscious existence, and this will not occur until after 20 weeks gestation. I have trouble understanding why pro-lifers do not see it that way. I'm sure ignorance is often the issue, but not always.
From the Britannica article on Tacitus: "The Germania is another descriptive piece, this time of the Roman frontier on the Rhine. Tacitus emphasizes the simple virtue as well as the primitive vices of the Germanic tribes, in contrast to the moral laxity of contemporary Rome, and the threat that these tribes, if they acted together, could present to Roman Gaul." from the book Sexuality in Ancient Rome: "We may also note that the ethics of the Germans, although contrasted with the moral laxity of the Romans, also correspond closely to Roman law as we understand it from other sources: virgin brides, humiliating punishment for adultery meted out by husband, single spouse (at least at any one time) " So it seems like there was a gulf of difference between what was actually going on in Roman society and what Roman law held up as the ideal. Many of those laws weren't actually being enforced.
Agreed. "Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women." -Alice Paul I think abortion debates are very useful. I supported abortion until two years ago. But the selfishness and hysteria on the part of the pro-choice types in another forum made me rethink my position. I owe them a debt of gratitude.
There was change. In 1920 a state took abortion under it's wings for the first time in human history.
But they do have the right to feel pain, which abortion fanatics don't care about. "It is inherently violent to inject a saline solution into a mother’s womb to kill the human fetus and deliver it once it has died. It is inherently violent to lethally inject a human fetus with potassium chloride and wait for it to die slowly from the poison before dismembering it for removal. It is inherently violent to use suction and forceps to cut apart a living human fetus, piece by piece, and remove it from its mother. Abortion is violence. And it can never be pro-life." https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/danielle-campoamor-abortion-is-not-pro-life/
It may be possible that consciousness does not come into being all at once. And the issue may be capability of consciousness. Just because the switch has not been turned on yet does not mean the neural scaffolding is not in place. For the same reason, a person who is not conscious (sleeping for example) is still a person. I just watched an interesting story about a South African man named Martin Pistorius, who mysteriously started deteriorating until he finally lost consciousness as a boy, was completely unconscious for two years, and then incrementally started slowly regaining consciousness, trapped completely unable to move inside his own body. His family thought he was completely gone and didn't realize he had actually fully regained consciousness until many years later. He says he wasn't aware exactly when he regained brain consciousness because it wasn't all at once. At some point he came to the realization that he was trapped inside his own body unnable to move.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Duh, the unborn have no rights... just because you want to give them more rights than anyone else doesn't mean they have rights now, they don't. WTF? Ancient Romans wanted to give fetuses more rights than anyone else? No, they were smarter than that.
