The Democrats have produced a sweet little paean to the Sexual Revolution, starring our pre-teen daughters.
They're right of course. Contraception means a lot to women. Contraception makes the sexual revolution possible. Plentiful availability of contraception is indispensable to promiscuity and enables men to copulate without commitment, which seems just fine with men, for the most part. Male infidelity is less of a blessing for women. Women suffer disproportionately from the sexual adventurism that contraception enables. Contemporary poverty is mostly female, and mostly because of family dissolution.
Contraception unlinks committed love and sex. Sex usually wins. Women lose.
Talk about a war on women. The Party of Femicide reminds us just what free condoms mean to our little girls, who have been the primary victims, along with little boys with no fathers, of our promiscuous culture.
Suppose, for a moment, that Egnor's wish comes true and contraception of any kind disappears. No condoms, no pills, no nothing. What percentage of young women will be able to make it through college education and get a career? Here is my answer: most will get pregnant and have a child before they can get a decent job. Like in the good old times, a woman will not be able to have a meaningful career. I am sure girls, including Michael's own daughters, will be thrilled at these prospects.ReplyDelete
That's how Jeebus wants it, Oleg. He told me Himself. That settles it.Delete
After their first period, and until menopause, a woman must be permanently pregnant. Any woman giving birth to less than 20 babies has no place in heaven with Jeebus.
Women have choices. The can pursue careers without chemical sterility. Chastity and natural methods are very effective. Women are not farm animals that need to be chemically spayed so they can rut and work.Delete
Contraception is a transformative technology. It is altering human society profoundly. Mostly for the worse.
"Natural methods" are still contraception, aren't they? If people have sex when the woman is not fertile, they don't have it for procreational purposes.Delete
I cannot speak for the Doctor, but in my own view I do not seek to ban condoms or any sort of contraception.
My own view is that promiscuity is the root problem.
The contraceptives are only an enabling factor when they are promoted as 'safe' and 'fun'; or when, for example, they are handed out to school lads.
Abstinence is the key here. Contraceptives should be for people already involved in a loving relationship. They should be available, but NOT promoted as some sort of wonder tool.
The sex act should be a sacred, personal, and deeply emotional event - not something to pass the time.
Abstinence is the key here. Contraceptives should be for people already involved in a loving relationship. They should be available, but NOT promoted as some sort of wonder tool.Delete
Abstinence worked so very well in say, the 1950s, when the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. was double that of today. You live in a world of wishful thinking and rose-colored nostalgia. The "culture of promiscuousness" that Egnor decries is not new, and it isn't the result of the availability of contraception.
So the ones who were practicing abstinence got pregnant...how exactly?Delete
And what is your source that the teen pregnancy rate was twice what it is today? Perhaps the teen birth rate, but not the teen pregnancy rate. That's cause we kill ours these days.Delete
Try the Guttmacher Institute. It may dispel all of your silly misconceptions about reality in this area.Delete
That's cause we kill ours these days.Delete
Not hardly. The teen birth rate in 1955 was about 95 births per thousand teen girls. The teen birth rate in 2009 was about 40 births per thousand teen girls. The teen abortion rate in 2009 was about 20 per 1,000 teens. If you add the 2009 teen births to the 2009 teen abortions, you still get a figure substantially lower than the rate from 1955.
Many of those teen girls were married or became married as a result of their pregnancy.Delete
[Abstinence worked so very well in say, the 1950s, when the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. was double that of today. ]Delete
It wasn't double in the 1950's. It rose from the 50 through the 80's, leveled, and now has declined by about a quarter.
But why choose the teen pregnancy rate as the benchmark? In the 1950's, women married much younger and at a much higher rate. A substantial portion of the "teen" pregnancies in the 1950's were 19 year old married women starting their family. "Teen pregnancy" is a very misleading statistic, because it is influenced by many cultural factors. In a society in which women marry young and at at a high rate, "teen" pregnancy is often normal and healthy. In a society in which women marry older and at a lower rate, teen pregnancy is often pathological.
That's the reason you used the statistic. To mislead. Why not choose the out-of wedlock birth rate, which has exploded by more than an order of magnitude? It is not influenced by such confounding factors.
The reason of course is that you meant to mislead.
But why choose the teen pregnancy rate as the benchmark? In the 1950's, women married much younger and at a much higher rate. A substantial portion of the "teen" pregnancies in the 1950's were 19 year old married women starting their family.Delete
Your source for this assertion? How many of those 19 year olds got married in shotgun style weddings after they got pregnant? In a society in which forced marriages are the result of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, marriage is often pathological.
Why not choose the out-of wedlock birth rate, which has exploded by more than an order of magnitude? It is not influenced by such confounding factors.
Except that it is. If you don't think the out-of-wedlock birth rate is influenced by "many cultural factors" then you are more deluded than I had thought.
"The sex act should be a sacred, personal, and deeply emotional event - not something to pass the time."ReplyDelete
Oh, should it? Thanks for sharing your opinion, but each to his own. If others want to enjoy recreational sex, let them be I say. I guess it doesn't strike you as perverse that a bunch of (allegedly) sexually inexperienced old men in funny dresses pretend to have the moral authority to pontificate about the sex lives of others?
BTW, why do you address Egnor as Doctor, but Oleg not likewise? Egnor is just an MD, a Master of Disease, while Oleg is a Philosophical Doctor.
Oleg, I made it through college without birth control.ReplyDelete
Other girls can do it the exact same way that I did. Or we can keep on enjoying the so-called benefits of a society that offers a wild array of contraceptive choices. Those contraceptive choices have not eliminated teen pregnancy, unwed pregnancy, or abortion. All have gone up.
If the goal of birth control is to keep such things from happening, then obviously the drug-em-up approach hasn't worked. My approach did work, however.
Congratulations, TRISH! (So did I.)Delete
College is the first step in building a career. Women who want to make it in the workplace have to postpone child birth until they are in their late twenties and even thirties. Should they be abstinent until that ripe age? I don't think your recipe would work all that well for them.
Incidentally, what is your status? Do you work? Are you a stay-at-home mom? Something else?
Those contraceptive choices have not eliminated teen pregnancy, unwed pregnancy, or abortion. All have gone up.Delete
Well, if the truth doesn't get the answer you want, I see that you have no objection to lying. Teen pregnancy has not only not "gone up", it is lower than at any point since 1972. Teen pregnancy in 1972 was 95 pregnancies per 1,000 teen girls. Now it is 75 per 1,000. Fewer babies were born to teenagers in 2010 than were born in any year since 1946, which is an impressive decline when you consider that the U.S. population has more than doubled since then.
The teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is twice that of the U.K., four times that of France and Germany, and ten times that of Japan. All of those countries provide easy access to contraception. Teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. are higher in states that are more religious than in states that are not.
The "drug-em-up" approach, as you call it, not only works, it has demonstrably worked in reducing teen pregnancy.
But keep lying. It really is the only thing you have. So you may as well keep at it.
Okay, Anonymous, let's straighten out a few things that you said.Delete
"Teen pregnancy has not only not "gone up", it is lower than at any point since 1972"
Source, please? I don't honestly believe that we know how many pregnant teenagers there are in the age of abortion, only how many live births. Interestingly, you chose the year before Roe v. Wade as your baseline. Are you perhaps confusing teen pregnancy rate to live birth rate? Are you the same anonymous, who wrote above, that the teen pregnancy rate was double in the 1950's what it is today? Why move the baseline around?
"Fewer babies were born to teenagers in 2010 than were born in any year since 1946, which is an impressive decline when you consider that the U.S. population has more than doubled since then."
Ah...so you really DON'T understand the difference between teen pregnancy rates and teen birth rates. The number of children born to teens is not the yardstick by which we measure teen pregnancy. Plenty of pregnant girls abort their children.
"The teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is twice that of the U.K., four times that of France and Germany, and ten times that of Japan. All of those countries provide easy access to contraception."
And so do we. You aren't comparing countries with wide access to birth control to a birth control desert (USA). You're comparing countries that share one thing in common--birth control galore-- and yet have different teen pregnancy rates. Don't be surprised if it comes in our Happy Meals next. We have it in every shape and size. It's free too.
Washington DC hands rubbers out to kids for free in school. They recently decided to change from Durex to Trojan because some students were complaining that the brand makes the difference. I suspect that they were trying to find a rationalization for why Washington DC still has an appalling teen pregnancy problem despite handing out jimmies to kids. Hint: the problem is not DESPITE the fact that they're handing out condoms to kids, but rather because of it. Don't blame the brand.
By the way, if abstinence supposedly fails because some people don't practice it, do condoms fail because some people don't use them?
From the Washington Examiner: "In 2005, Washington, DC had the highest teen birth rate in the country, with a pregnancy rate of 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000 females ages 15-19, according to the DC State Department of Health Statistic."
Here's my source. I won't produce stats out of thin air like you do: http://www.examiner.com/article/teen-pregnancy-not-just-for-the-lower-class-and-underprivileged
Why does the school with the highest teen birth rate in the country have a free condoms program? I understand that other schools may have higher pregnancy rates, but Washington has to be up there too. If free contraception fixed the problem, Washington DC would be a model.
I graduated from college at the age of twenty-two. Some women stay in college longer and that's their choice. They can choose to use whatever birth control they want. It's their "right."
Some get married during their grad studies, and others actually forgo sex until the unthinkable age of twenty-eight. It's rare, but it happens.
That doesn't, however, negate Egnor's point. If I might paraphrase it, his point is that the explosion in birth control methods is what gave birth to (sorry for the pun) and continues to fuel the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution is, in the bluntest terms, a phenonema of people experimenting with sexuality--at a younger age, with more partners, with essentially no commitment. It's one night stands and swinger parties. If you can't be with the one you love, then "love" the one you're with, etc.
The point that Egnor has made is that the sexual revolution hasn't really benefited women. I agree. It has, however, "benefited" a lot of piggish men who like to get laid and with no consequences. There are consequences, of course, but it's usually the women who are left to deal with them.
I wonder why you don't compare the teen pregnancy rate of Japan with the teen pregnancy rate of Washington DC? That would be illustrative.Delete
Ha! I can see that Anonymous confuses teen pregnancy rate with teen birth rate. That's his first problem.Delete
That's why he's so lost.
That was a devastating response. You completely destroy the logic of 'Anon'.
Just FYI to you and KT (I think it is you two!) who have been promoting 'For Greater Glory'... I managed to obtain an early release disc from a friend of mine who is taking them into Cuba for the faithful there (he is connected with the producers somehow). I hope to get my hands on it this week!
Looking forward to it.
I don't honestly believe that we know how many pregnant teenagers there are in the age of abortion, only how many live births.Delete
Then you are sadly misinformed. You see, we have a good idea how many abortions there are in the age of legal abortions. The teen abortion rate in 2009 was about 20 per 1,000 teens. What we don't really know is how many abortions there were in the age of illegal abortions (and if you think the number was even close to "zero" then you are deluded)
The teen birth rate in 1955 was about 95 births per thousand teen girls. The teen birth rate in 2009 was about 40 births per thousand teen girls. The teen abortion rate in 2009 was about 20 per 1,000 teens. If you add the 2009 teen births to the 2009 teen abortions, you still get a figure substantially lower than the birth rate from 1955.
That was a devastating response. You completely destroy the logic of 'Anon'.Delete
It was an inane response that only shows Trish to be sadly misinformed. Your "kudos" show you to be the same.
Abstinence is the key here. Contraceptives should be for people already involved in a loving relationship. They should be available, but NOT promoted as some sort of wonder tool.ReplyDelete
Abstinence worked so very well in the 1950s when the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. was double the current rate. You live in a world of delusions and rose colored nostalgia. The "culture of promiscuousness" that you and Egnor decry is not some new phenomenon, nor is it the result of the availability of contraception.
"Oh, should it?"ReplyDelete
"Thanks for sharing your opinion,"
You're very welcome.
".. but each to his own."
So long as it does not screw society along with the 'date', I don't care what anyone does for kicks. People have the right to choose.
"If others want to enjoy recreational sex, let them be I say."
Recreational sex? That is a bit subjective. Love play between two committed people could be considered 'recreational sex'... so, for me it would depend on your definition of that term, as to whether your position is a moral one or not.
"I guess it doesn't strike you as perverse that a bunch of (allegedly) sexually inexperienced old men in funny dresses pretend to have the moral authority to pontificate about the sex lives of others?"
If you're referring to the 'scientific' experts on the subject, yes - sometimes it bothers me.
If you're referring to a body of clergy, not really.
Not usually. Besides, the old men in the funny clothes (not all so old, actually) are usually married (with kids) in my Church.
Why the bother with science eunuch and not the with celibate priest, you may wonder?
The academic caste of ethicist bothers me for two central reasons. First, the inexperience is not a matter of choice or commitment and thus festers. The involuntary lack of social and sexual activity could very well stunt the growth of that individual by making them resentful, jealous, and other various emotional (and unstable) manifestations. Secondly they seek to modify sexual ethics by forwarding promiscuity as 'natural' and 'safe'. Such a position is utter madness from the perspectives of health and social cohesion.
Why not the celibate priest or friar? Simple. They CHOSE to abstain. In other words they are not BORN that way. They have had lives previous to the seminary and monastery and chose to follow a different path. Their contemplations are not coloured by the same selfish and jealous desires as that of those strange, androgynous looking 'experts' we hear from so often.
"BTW, why do you address Egnor as Doctor, but Oleg not likewise?"
As far as I know, Oleg is a research scientist. I am not in his field and have no idea what his credentials are (is he a PhD?). Further he has never made issue of it, to my knowledge.
So I would no think of referring to him as 'The Doctor' than I would expect for him to call me 'Captain' or 'Sir'.
As for why I call Doctor Egnor 'The Doctor'; this is a matter of expression. In the English language it is quite common (etiquette, in fact) to refer to a physician in the third person as 'The Doctor', or 'The good Doctor'. It is more descriptive and far less lazy than 'him' or 'her'.
It is the title of his profession, and this is his blog. I suppose I could refer to Dr Egnor as 'the Professor', but people may get confused and may imagine us all on Gilligan's Isle - Especially with all these coconuts about!
Make better sense now?
Here's a question to you: Why do you care what I call Dr Egnor?
"Egnor is just an MD, a Master of Disease.."
JUST a medical doctor? Master of Disease? LMAO What a line!
"...while Oleg is a Philosophical Doctor."
Again. Not aware of Oleg's qualifications (specifically), but I deeply suspect you are wrong. He may well hold a doctorate in something, but I cannot imagine it being philosophy.
Best let him speak to that himself.
But more to the point: Oleg is Oleg, I am CrusadeRex. We can make reference to each other, and communicate (or not) accordingly.
You have no pen name, Anon.
Yo Captain, Sir,Delete
"Recreational sex? That is a bit subjective. Love play between two committed people could be considered 'recreational sex'... so, for me it would depend on your definition of that term, as to whether your position is a moral one or not."
I include one night stands in recreational sex. If that is between consenting adults who are not otherwise committed to another partner who would object, then I see no harm in that. I guess you were once a college student and had the occasional one night stand. Did that do any harm? I strongly suspect that such experiences and the improvement of sexual techniques enrich the sexual life with one's permanent partner later on. Wouldn't you agree? Contraception is a great tool to prevent pregnancy of women that are not ready for motherhood yet, but who do want to enjoy safe sex.
Oleg has a PhD. You must have figured out by now that he is a physics professor. What do you think "Ph.D." stands for?
I'm Troy (PhD, Professor), Crusader.
I think that scientific studies have shown that you are incorrect. If I remember right, people with more casual partners and later marry are more likely to divorce or have less sexual satisfaction with their mates.
Collin, I'd be interested in seeing some references to such studies.Delete
"I include one night stands in recreational sex."Delete
Well then, that form of recreational sex is immoral. It can result in a pregnancy (a new life) between two people who do not love each other. Further it results in the spread of disease - with or without contraception. Think new spread of oral syphilis for an example.
"I guess you were once a college student and had the occasional one night stand. Did that do any harm?"
More than once, actually. I hold letters from more than one university, as well as the RMC.
But, no one night stands - not in college. I was in my late 20's at that point (poor, you see) and was already married.
I was much younger than that when I indulged in promiscuity. So were most of my friends, and many of my peers.
And to answer your question: Yes, it did do harm. When in high school, for example, I knew a girl (through the guy) who killed herself after being dumped after a fling. She threw herself of a bridge into traffic and left a note. She was 17 and a really nice kid who was dumped, ridiculed, and laughed at by people who she thought were her friends and a guy she felt she was in love with. There were other problems too. People I knew who ended up with STD's (after using a rubber), teen girls who ended up pregnant (while on the pill), abortions, broken friendships, fights, even an expulsion.
"I strongly suspect that such experiences and the improvement of sexual techniques enrich the sexual life with one's permanent partner later on. Wouldn't you agree?"
No. Sex is instinctive and there is plenty of literature and pornography to 'educate' the horny young mind in this matter. Talking to and love play with your partner also works (ie asking her/him what they like.) I do not think one night stands have any educational value other than as a contrast to the moral behaviour.
"Contraception is a great tool to prevent pregnancy of women that are not ready for motherhood yet, but who do want to enjoy safe sex. "
Well, see I HALF agree with you here. I agree it is a great tool for women to help avoid pregnancy, but I do not think sex is ever 'safe'. By this I mean that there is no way to make promiscuous sex safe physically, emotionally, or morally.
There is no device that is 100% safe for diseases, and certainly there is no obsession or heartbreak proof devices.
"Oleg has a PhD. You must have figured out by now that he is a physics professor."
I know he is an intelligent, educated guy. I know his field is NOT philosophy. As for his exact tenure or work - he has not revealed it here, and even if I did know (or had deduced) it is not my place to divulge his identity. He is anonymous for a reason - as am I. I respect that.
"What do you think "Ph.D." stands for?"
There are plenty of people who hold doctorates that did not major in Philosophy. The reference to P is the same as when we refer to 'the natural philosophy' which is, of course, science.
TBH, I think calling Oleg a professor of philosophy would probably result in a negative response from Oleg :P
Call me a professor in Law for the same result.
"I'm Troy (PhD, Professor), Crusader."
Pleased to meet you, Troy. what do you teach/study?
Perhaps you would do me and the others the courtesy of signing your name (eve with a T or something) so we know who we are conversing with? There is so many Anonymous posters on blogger, and many of them are just trolls and lunatics, you see. It would be nice to know you are you!
A suggestion to Dr. Egnor:ReplyDelete
I don't like all of these people who identify themselves only as Anonymous. I have no idea if I'm speaking to the same person. Is there anything that can be done about this?
I agree. I don't know how to fix it, except to ask commentors to please get a moniker to identify themselves. It really helps communication.
Address your answer at the argument not the person. I don't recognize authority. No matter how many honors, degrees, or whatever, a person has, if a person's argument is bogus, then it's bogus.
I don't refer to Mike as a doctor, because he's rarely blogging about his specialty, neurosurgery. He knows a lot about neurosurgery, and I'd give respect to any pronouncements he makes in that very limited field.
Anything else he writes is fair game, because I suspect that he doesn't actually have a clue. Whenever he mentions a doubtful 'fact' my first reflex is to check it.
If you are interested in historical data on teenage pregnancies you can find them in this report by the Guttmacher Institute: U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2008: National Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity. See Table 2.1. It shows that the rate went from 95 per 1000 women in 1972, topped at 117 in 1990, declined to 70 in the early 2000s, and has been there for a decade.
could you remove from the data the married women?Delete
or could you say to the Guttmacher Institute (affilied with Planned Parenthood) to remove them?
take also note that in the last years sexual intercourses among non married youngs aged 15-19 are falling and that teens wait longer to have sex:Delete
this of course influences teenage pregnancies.
I, for one, am not trying to stop people from having promiscuous sex. I am simply pointing out that it is immoral and self destructive. I have a problem with people trying to teach MY children that it is okay.
That it is the problem.
I would LIKE them to stop rutting like animals, but that is their own business. When they push that behaviour on my kids, it becomes MY business.
I see this in the same light I see morbid obesity, bulimia, chain smoking, or other compulsions.
Women need to understand they are MORE than simply sex objects, and that reciprocating the pig like behaviour of young males they simply become what they (the suffragists and real feminists) fought against.
Also they should be taught that childbearing is a gift - not a risk or curse. It is a gift to be cherished and only shared with a loving partner.
I see this whole 'safe sex' line as a means to divert women and con them. It is a classic example of the Hegelian dialectic.
I would use an example of the Hegelian nature of the 'rights' BS we are all being fed.
'Girl Power' as it was once known is a prime example. In order for girls to be 'free' they dress like cheap whores. GIRLS, not women. How does this advance them? Sold as some sort of protest, they are reduced to sex objects in the eyes of their male peers. Sex for power or recognition is not exactly the ideal for women, is it? I sure don't think so as a man, a father, a husband, or an uncle.
My first son, now a university student, was very recently a high school senior. During that time I was very involved in his school. During this time I became quite aware that boys now generally only date girls they know will 'put out'. Girls react accordingly to snag the boy they like.
This is freedom? Of course not, but it sure sells.
The dialectic: Abstinence + Promiscuity = Synthesis ('safe sex').
You say ‘Also they should be taught that childbearing is a gift - not a risk or curse. It is a gift to be cherished and only shared with a loving partner.’
‘Women need to understand they are MORE than simply sex objects, and that reciprocating the pig like behaviour of young males they simply become what they (the suffragists and real feminists) fought against.’
A pig like behaviour is a pig like behaviour. I’m against that for girls or boys. I brought up my two boys to be gentlemen, and they are.
'Girl Power' as it was once known is a prime example. In order for girls to be 'free' they dress like cheap whores. GIRLS, not women.’
Why ? You’re giving an extreme example. Yes, some girls dress and possibly act like whores, but not all, and certainly not those in my circle.
I also have a young adult boy, now 25, and I’ve met his friends, girls and boys, and no, the girls are not whores. Far from it, they dress sexy, just like the boys, and have fun, just like the boys. A young girl has just as much right to have an intense sexual life as the boys do. Why should it be otherwise ?
Michael might think that because I’m an atheist, I engage in promiscuous sex with goats, but he’s off, real off. Michael thinks all atheists are monsters, but he’s dead wrong.ReplyDelete
By the way, there’s one thing I would like to clarify with you CrusadeRex. I’m not sure how to classify myself, I’m not religious, but I’m not sure I’m an atheist either. I do believe there is more to life than mathematics, but I do not believe in the church, any church, much less the Catholic church. I’ve seen up front the monstrosity of what Christianity is, and I do want that for my children.
"A pig like behaviour is a pig like behaviour. I’m against that for girls or boys. I brought up my two boys to be gentlemen, and they are."ReplyDelete
Good! A good relationship with mum is half the battle for boys.
"Why ? You’re giving an extreme example. Yes, some girls dress and possibly act like whores, but not all, and certainly not those in my circle. "
Why? Because it is not in their best interests to table sex as a tool. The reason I give an extreme example (admittedly) is to illustrate the point clearly.
My sons friends do not come off that way, either. At least not many of them.
" Far from it, they dress sexy, just like the boys, and have fun, just like the boys. A young girl has just as much right to have an intense sexual life as the boys do. Why should it be otherwise ?"
I am not referring to dressing in a way that is attractive. I am referring to those hordes of young women easily found in any major urban region that dress (or should I say UNDRESS) in a fashion that is designed to advertise their sexual availability.
As for the intensity of their sex lives, I wish them well. Understand, though, that I do not mean QUANTITY of sexual union, but QUALITY of sexual union.
"Michael might think that because I’m an atheist, I engage in promiscuous sex with goats, but he’s off, real off. Michael thinks all atheists are monsters, but he’s dead wrong."
I cannot speake for Dr Egnor, but I can for myself. I do not think atheists are evil. I think atheism is a paradoxical and potentially morally dangerous position. The Atheist himself/herself causes me only a brief pause. My feeling for them is that I hope their eyes are opened to a much bigger, richer world.
"By the way, there’s one thing I would like to clarify with you CrusadeRex. I’m not sure how to classify myself, I’m not religious, but I’m not sure I’m an atheist either."
Good! That certainty held by those folks is more fanatical than ANY major religion. In my circles we would refer to you as 'agnostic'. I have many friends in that camp who are deep and intelligent people.
"I do believe there is more to life than mathematics,"
Well, mathematics is an important part of our reasoning, but certainly not all. I agree with you as far as that goes. Math (and language) is also a BIG problem for hard Atheists - as it is IMMATERIAL.
" but I do not believe in the church..."
Well, I do you see. I have seen great work done by many Churches and enjoy the fellowship and communion of my own. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I do consider myself a Catholic (high church) and do see much good in what they (Rome) do. I also see flaws (and in my own church). But that is the HUMAN aspect of our collective endeavour shining through.
" I’ve seen up front the monstrosity of what Christianity is, and I do want that for my children."
You have seen what Christians and Christianity CAN be when manipulated by fanatic elements and cynical powers. I did too, in West Africa. It can also be just the opposite when expressed in it's true form by sincere and humble believers. I also saw this (among other places) in West Africa.
For my own part I have seen the evils of Islamic fanaticism up close, but I am aware of it's positive aspects also. The exception to this is the Atheist state. I have yet to see a positive side to that ideology, and have spent several months of my life in one.
Try to keep that in mind, Iko: We are not all like that. Not even most. Most Muslims, Christians, and even Atheists are just normal folks.
I have also been the victim of intolerance (many times) by FELLOW Christians.
This does not shake my faith in God, or even the various branches of the Church of Christ. It simply affirms my beliefs in the fallible nature of mankind.
Again, we are not all fanatics and bigots, not even most of us.
But we are human, and there I would agree we have been used in the past, and will no doubt be in the future. All human beliefs - whether we talk about science, religion or philosophical systems - are susceptible to such manipulations.
PS I think you have Mike all wrong.
You are making the same error Egnor made a bazillion times. Atheism is a worldview, but it is not an ideology. That I do not believe in God does not mean that I advocate the methods of Stalin or the Kims.
Actually I wrote that most atheists (the vast majority) are normal people. I decried STATE atheism, and to a lesser extent the potential blinders/limitations that atheism as a 'world view' (or belief system). My use of the word 'ideology' was in relation to state Atheism. That specific ideology would be communist. I knew Iko would understand that.
It seem you have made the same error that the poster formerly known as Bachfiend has a gazillion times: You have misread or misunderstood my comment! :P
Egnorance, if you really care about women then what happens when they are denied access to contraception should apalll you. We need look no further than what happened to women under the hideous Ceausecu. Women both married and un married were forced by financial circumstances to have many many abortions. In the case of my good frien, more than a dozen. The orphanages were full and notoriously cruel. I don't know about you but I refuse to see that future for my daughters or their partners.ReplyDelete
"...what happens when they are denied access to contraception should apalll you. We need look no further than what happened to women under the hideous Ceausecu. "
An excellent example of state-Atheism. This is what happens when human life is devalued. Thanks, Yoyo.
"Women both married and un married were forced by financial circumstances to have many many abortions."
The same happens in China today, except that it is not concern over personal finances but police that force them too.
I am sure Ceausecu would approve!
Worse still the corpses of the unborn are often used as a resource for various 'medicinal' and 'cosmetic' applications. Apparently in some cases EATEN.
"In the case of my good frien, more than a dozen. "
How horrific. My heart goes out to the woman, but even more so to all her little ones that could have been. What a hell to have to live through, and what a way to die.
"The orphanages were full and notoriously cruel."
I bet. Even modern western orphanages are scary places. Better than death, though.
"I don't know about you but I refuse to see that future for my daughters or their partners. "
Nor would I. That is why I teach my children to abstain from sex unless it is with a loved one, and to defy ANY sort of dehuamizing or totalitarian push by the authorities - neo 'secularism' and state atheism included.
"In the case of my good frien, more than a dozen";Delete
could I remember that a woman for at least 2 weeks any months could have sex without pregnancy risk?
Supposing that your friend is not a Catholic could I remember that there are types of sexual intercourse without risk of pregnancy?
back to Ceauşescu: for what strange reason Romanian women could have illegal and clandestine abortions but not illegal contracceptives or condoms?
but why Romania?Delete
Let's take a civil and modern country where abortions and contraceptives are legal:
With all due respect, Romania was a shit-hole before, during and after Ceausecu.
I merely point out that the example given is YET ANOTHER Atheist regime, and that the same kind of horrors are ever present in the modern versions of those regimes.
In a region were life is valued poorly and in addition to this a materialist doctrine is introduced.... you get this kind of thing.
Ceausecu had a weird compulsion about contraception because they thought it was a sign of western decadence (sound familiar Egnorance). However unlike mike they did promote abortion, probably because the orphanages were full. Like most societies where contraception is limited the male dominance became stronger. Even without that, so called natural contraception, billings etc does not work (and by the way seems to be avoiding that whole idea that all sex should be procreative hmmmm).ReplyDelete
Romania is what happens to women and children without contraception and it is foul and a shame to all human beings.
"where contraception is limited the male dominance became stronger"...Delete
do you know Ceauşescu's wife?
do you know that the banning of the abortion was one of the many ideas of Elena?
"Among her ideas was the systematization of the Romanian countryside - eliminating 7000 villages and erecting 3500 agro-industrial centers; elimination of the Romanian foreign debt by starving and freezing the population; demolition of the historic Bucharest in favor of their megalomaniac Civic Center-project; banning abortion, leading to overfull mismanaged orphanages etc."
no, Romania is what happens to women and children when we have two atheists governing with communist principles.
Ito of course Romania was a shit hole so was Albania which is why my country is full of refugees from these places. My point is that no matter what the reason for the ban be it catholisism, population "management" or fascism, denial of contraception to women leads to this.ReplyDelete
"In 1966, the Ceauşescu regime, in an attempt to boost the country's population, made abortion illegal, and introduced other policies to reverse the very low birth rate and fertility rate. Mothers of at least five children would be entitled to significant benefits, while mothers of at least ten children were declared heroine mothers by the Romanian state. Few women ever sought this status; instead, the average Romanian family during the time had two to three children (see Demographics of Romania). Furthermore, a considerable number of women either died or were maimed during clandestine abortions.
The government also targeted rising divorce rates and made divorce much more difficult - it was decreed that a marriage could be dissolved only in exceptional cases. By the late 1960s, the population began to swell. In turn, a new problem was created by child abandonment, which swelled the orphanage population (see Cighid). Transfusions of untested blood led to Romania accounting for many of Europe's paediatric HIV/AIDS cases at the turn of the 21st century despite having a population that only makes up around 3% of Europe"
Whatever your philosphy keep your hands off my daughters options.
in Russia, a country where abortions and contraceptions are allowed (there is one of the higher rates of abortions in the world today: one million women have abortions every year!) we found the same problems of the Ceausescu's Romania:
so please do not blame 'denial of contraception to women' for these tragedies.