Abortion.

[Insidious Rex]

Well its what you make of it really. If two people connect then you can get fireworks and then its great. You cant do it enough. But dont let the sleaze peddlers worry you when the fur is flying. Make your own sexual reality.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

It's incredibly fun! Oh, MAN it is fun, and feels wonderful.

I agree!!!

However, speaking in broad societal terms, nowadays and in our culture especially, the act and idea of sex has been cheapened, degraded, and devalued to the point of sheer ugliness. Worse than ugliness- uglier than ugly.

I agree!!!

[HOBBIT]

that planned parenthood video is funny. if it is for real - its not a very good promotional video.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

BJ, what precisely has changed SO MUCH that comparisons between abortion in the early 1900s and the early 20's are that different? Not in the performance but in humanity per my quotation? That was the mushroom I was referring to growing on the predigested material. (And what did Nurv mean about fruiting bodies and all that botanical stuff?)

women's rights for one... a woman in the 1900s basically lived at the whim of her father or husband... and the idea of her supporting herself was basically out of the question... obviously there are exceptions, but they were few and far between

And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances. Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941

the problem with taking the above quote at face value is that what was considered a "fundamental fact" 100 years ago simply is not one anymore

[inked]

I do not think that women lived at the whim of their fathers or husbands 100 years ago. You'd need to support that rather than assume it! And how does that economic fact affect the morality of abortion? Does it mean they get to do to their embryos and fetuses what you appear to think their male relatives did to them? And that is justifiable as a CHANGE in human nature?

Try harder~ !

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

I do not think that women lived at the whim of their fathers or husbands 100 years ago.

if you can't even admit how culture has changed over time it is very hard to have a civil discussion

Originally Posted by inked

And how does that economic fact affect the morality of abortion?

it means that women in our society have become accustomed to making this choice for themselves (whether they choose to abort or not abort)... they believe it is their moral choice... and i for one know all too well how stubborn people can get when it comes to moral choices

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by inked

I do not think that women lived at the whim of their fathers or husbands 100 years ago. You'd need to support that rather than assume it! And how does that economic fact affect the morality of abortion? Does it mean they get to do to their embryos and fetuses what you appear to think their male relatives did to them? And that is justifiable as a CHANGE in human nature?

Try harder~ !

You do not think that women lived at the whim of their fathers and husbands 100 years ago. Hmm. Why don't YOU try harder?

[Spock]

gotta agree with you "L" on this one......anyone studying history should know this.....unfortunately some like to rewrite history without ever checking into what actually was.

[inked]

Sorry guys, but you have to clarify what that phrase means. I do not know of any historically accurate reports of women being put to death on the whim of either their father or their husband one hundred years ago. Please feel free to enlighten me.

Now, if you mean they were not enfranchised with the vote, why not say that?

Now, if you mean that they had a different cultural milieu, why not say that?

I merely responded to what was actually said, and I stand by that response. Until, you prove the assertion that women were casually flicked off like flies by their fathers and husbands which is what was stated. And they did support themselves and the rest of the family on the farm primarily 100 years ago. Or were you thinking only of women in cities with industrialization?

See what I mean. The statement was so broad as to be meaningless.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by inked

Sorry guys, but you have to clarify what that phrase means. I do not know of any historically accurate reports of women being put to death on the whim of either their father or their husband one hundred years ago. Please feel free to enlighten me..

Did I miss something here? Where, exactly, here on this thread did someone talk about putting women to DEATH on a whim? Please feel free to enlighten US, inked.

Originally Posted by inked

See what I mean. The statement was so broad as to be meaningless.

Your statements are so incredibly broad as to be BELIEVED to be meaningless.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

they had a different cultural milieu

close enough... the point remains the same... how women view something like abortion is vastly effected by the culture they are brought up in

[Lotesse]

Indeed. How anyone views anything about anything, is vastly affected by the culture - and times - they were brought up in.

[Rían]

"a woman in the 1900s basically lived at the whim of her father or husband... "

I think brownie meant "lived her life in accordance with the desires of her father or husband", not that she lived or died according to the whim of her father or husband!

Altho some of that took place, too, in various cultures.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Did I miss something here? Where, exactly, here on this thread did someone talk about putting women to DEATH on a whim? Please feel free to enlighten US, inked.




Your statements are so incredibly broad as to be BELIEVED to be meaningless.

Brownjenkins wrote:
"women's rights for one... a woman in the 1900s basically lived at the whim of her father or husband... and the idea of her supporting herself was basically out of the question... obviously there are exceptions, but they were few and far between"

And, ...... *sexism warning*.......................................... .....................
.
.
.
They ARE "broad" statements!

[brownjenkins]

sheesh... you guys like to split hairs

women were much less independent in those times (in fact, they were 30 years ago too)

what does this mean?

it means that when comparing how "women" viewed abortion in 1950, 1960 or even 1970 to how they would today you have to take cultural factors into account

with all due respect to dorothy, are times are quite unlike those times

[inked]

NO, BJ, I'm just trying to get you to look at your chronological snobbery.

[Spock]

...details, details; it doesn't change the fact stated BJ....you love a diatribe.

[Rían]

Brownie - IYO, is any change in people's viewpoints over time always for the better? IOW, given any particular opinion, say, from 200 years ago, compared to the opinion on the issue today, is the opinion from today necessarily right?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Brownie - IYO, is any change in people's viewpoints over time always for the better? IOW, given any particular opinion, say, from 200 years ago, compared to the opinion on the issue today, is the opinion from today necessarily right?

since society decides "better" and "worse", there is no straight answer accept to say that that is "the way it is"

it's the difference between being a realist and an idealist... the realist says "this is the world we live in now... what are some realistic solutions to today's issues" ... the idealist says "if we could just turn back the clock", but the problem is, we can't

[Rían]

As Lewis says, if the time is incorrect, then it is sometimes very wise to turn the clock back (or forward, for that matter)