The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: TexMex on May 02, 2012, 12:27:03 AM
-
Hi everyone, this is my first post, besides my intro-which I invite you to read before passing judgment on the question at hand. I am hoping to understand the concept of pro-life and how it relates to those communities, states, or groups of people that unwanted pregnancies occurr the most in.
I will preface my inquiry with the following fact: Many lower income Americans vote democratic because they don't want to lose their government benefits. There are many other instances I could state where a certain demographic votes a certain way, or has a part affiliation that suits there particular needs. But this is the exact opposite that we are seeing when it comes to the issue of abortion. One would think that those living in places where unwanted pregnancies are high, would be pro-choice. But this is in fact the exact opposite of what we are actually seeing.
Teen pregnancies, pregnancies out of wedlock, and other types of unwanted pregnancies are highest in rural, conservative communities, such as the area I lived in in Texas. Not only does data support this, but I have witnessed it first hand. In New York, I cannot think of one single person I know who had a child at a young age, or at an age that would be considered too young. And naturally in New York, 75% of the population is pro-choice. Yet, in the rural area of Texas I lived in, I knew many, many people who were in their teens and had kids or multiple kids. In fact, most of the young people I knew had kids or had been pregnant. This is just the fact of the matter and I'm not saying something is right or wrong.
This leads me to two questions:
Why are the conservative rural areas of the country where there are high numbers of unwanted pregnancies generally pro-life?
And secondly, why do those in the liberal northeast receive more childhood education about how to avoid these circumstances, and in rural areas we see less effort to prevent unwanted pregnancies? And I just thought of a third question. If in fact most unwated pregnancies are occurring to conservative communities, why do they want to get rid of planned parenthood which deals vastly with young kids and their pregnancies? Input appreciated!
-
#1. You are observing births.
The unwanted pregnancies in the rural, conservative areas are aborted far less often than in the urban, liberal areas. Thus you see far more teenage "moms." The "moms' in the liberal northeast abort most of their offspring, so they look like they've been using their contraception. They haven't been.
#2. There is more pro-contraception and more pro-abortion education in the liberal northeast than in the conservative areas. The result is, more pregnancies are carried to term where the abortion crowd is not doing so much "educating."
#3. Rural, conservative communities don't want Planned Parenthood operating within them because they promote sexual activity, perverted forms of sexual activity, and abortion.
For example (so many statistics are available, but, just for your info), In 1996 the abortion rate in New York was 37 per 1000 women; in California, 39 per 1000 women.
Contrast this to 4 per 1000 women in Idaho, or 2 per 1000 women in Wyoming.
-
WTF is so hard to understand? Its not a choice its a LIFE! People that were brought up right understand that and take responsibility for their actions no matter how it may inconvenience them.
-
WTF is so hard to understand? Its not a choice its a LIFE! People that were brought up right understand that and take responsibility for their actions no matter how it may inconvenience them.
This.
-
First point, not all teen and/or out-of-wedlock pregnancies are unwanted. Your basic premise is flawed.
Second point, the majority of people in rural, conservative areas are smart enough to know that a pregnant woman is carrying a child, not a "blob." It doesn't matter what stage of pregnancy; the embryo is human, the fetus is human, there is no stage of pregnancy in which the mother is carrying a dog or a monkey or a tumor, so far more women prefer to carry their child, not murder him or her. In fact, a lot of us have trouble understanding why "compassionate, tolerant, loving" Democrats tend to murder so many children. :???: Maybe they just aren't smart enough to understand what a child is until they can actually see with their own eyes?
Third point, many people are smart enough to understand that an unwanted pregnancy does not equal an unwanted child. Conversely, a wanted pregnancy does not always equal a wanted child, as we see from the continuing increase in child abuse statistics. There is no amount of abortion that will cause every child to be wanted.
Fourth point, Planned Parenthood does one thing well... killing children. Well, actually, they do other things well, like absorbing government money and using political clout to keep increasing their revenue, but as far as HEALTH is concerned, their one "claim to fame" is the murder of children. Conversely, Crisis Pregnancy Centers can help pregnant women with free pregnancy tests that are official and can be used for government assistance programs. Many can provide ultrasounds. Almost all can provide many other basic necessities like maternity clothing, baby clothes and blankets, diapers, formula, and will request donations for specific needs like cribs, car seats, preemie clothes, etc. Why would we want a useless child-murdering money-dump instead of a pregnancy center?
Final point, it looks to me as though you are a "typical liberal." You have so absorbed the leftist excuse for logic that you have trouble understanding any other viewpoint. Your attitude seems to be that no one could possibly want a child if they happen to be under 20, or if they became pregnant unexpectedly, or if they don't happen to have enough money to "afford" a child right now. This is simply a false premise entirely.
From a personal perspective, I had my first child at 19. I was unmarried when he was conceived. I never wished I had murdered him, and am immensely proud of that child. He served in the military, is currently a civilian employee of the Navy, and has a beautiful daughter.
Two of my daughters have had children at 19, also. Neither are married. None of their children are unwanted. One has 2 sons, now 10 and 8, and is raising them as a single mom...and doing a good job of it. The other has a 3 year old daughter and is currently pregnant with her second. She can't afford to live on her own anymore, so recently moved back home (an option we prefer over having her on welfare.) We'll help with her expenses until she gets on her feet; or until her boyfriend mans-up, marries her, and starts supporting his family.
My niece recently had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Her mother demanded that she abort for many reasons, including the fact that the mother "didn't want to be a grandmother already." (Need we say that the mother is a liberal?? ::) ) My brother was willing to help her if she kept the baby, so she finally came to visit with me and my daughters. She was close to believing that her mom was right, she was just too young and irresponsible to have a child, but she changed her mind after spending some time with my younger daughter and her baby. She chose to keep her child, Thank God, and is a wonderful, loving mother to that little girl now. Having her baby had "the normal effect" on her, she became far more responsible and was able to get a decent job managing a motel. She is currently pregnant with her second, and planning her wedding to the father of her kids.
Maybe it's because liberals so often just don't grow up and become responsible adults...but they often seem to be completely self absorbed. Just as the woman mentioned above, she wanted her granddaughter killed mostly because she thought she was too young to be a grandmother, (vain, vain, vain), but also because she just can't understand that most people, when faced with the reality of life, do manage to grow up! It's a good thing that most people grow into conservatives! The world would be a truly sorry place if liberals were anywhere near a majority.
-
:yeahthat:
Excellent post, Mrs. Smith. h5
I'll add my own 0.02 zlotys.
My niece has two children from the same young man. They are not married, but do live together. He works and goes to school and she works as a police dispatcher.
Not too many years ago, I remember my niece being absolutely moronic. Her judgment was flawed and she made wrong choices in many different areas.
But while she didn't necessarily want to get pregnant, she kept both children rather than abort or give them up for adoption and has grown into a much more rational, considerate, and thoughtful young woman. I'm very proud of her for her development.
-
Life begins at conception. A child is a gift from God. Not a mistake, or a blop of nothing. Not one time in the bible is the word fetus used. It stems from when Marry was pregnant with Jesus. I feel a child is a miracle and should be treated as such.
Psalm 127:3 "Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward"
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill"
"Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?"-- Job 31:15
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." -- Jeremiah 1:5:
Read this: http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/abortion.html
Morally, it is wrong.
-
Teen pregnancies, pregnancies out of wedlock, and other types of unwanted pregnancies are highest in rural, conservative communities, such as the area I lived in in Texas. Not only does data support this
Is there municipal- or county-level data that can be cross-referenced with voting patterns to determine red-ness or blue-ness, or are you treating the entire state as a single entity? Are you using per-capita figures or raw numbers to diferentiate between population-dense urban areas that reliably vote (D) from sparsely-populated areas that may vote (R)?
Also, the same people getting abortions may not even be inclined to vote. Have you compared the demographics of women who get abortions to similar age and income groups that turn out to vote (R) regularly? "Unwanted pregnancies" is a pretty broad term. Do you have some way to separate them from "wanted" pregnancies?
I'll be waiting to see that data you mentioned.
-
If you didn't see a lot of teen pregnancy in the city you weren't looking.
-
Hi 5, Mrs. Smith. And how many times do women make the "choice" because of undue influence from their parents or the father of the child?
-
In New York, I cannot think of one single person I know who had a child at a young age, or at an age that would be considered too young. And naturally in New York, 75% of the population is pro-choice.
I guess I can safely assume that you never made it to Harlem........
doc
-
Since you claim to be a poli sci major, why don't you go to these rural areas and do a survey and find out for yourself instead of soliciting opinions?
-
Final point, it looks to me as though you are a "typical liberal." You have so absorbed the leftist excuse for logic that you have trouble understanding any other viewpoint. Your attitude seems to be that no one could possibly want a child if they happen to be under 20, or if they became pregnant unexpectedly, or if they don't happen to have enough money to "afford" a child right now. This is simply a false premise entirely.
I don't think you read my introduction post. I am neither liberal nor conservative. I believe in some of the policies and values of the right, and some on the left, and many in the middle.
And no, my attitude is not "no one under 20 could want a child" but my attitude CERTAINLY is that MOST people who become pregnant under age 20 would consider the pregnancy unwanted, unplanned, or "uh oh".
This is not meant to be a question on the ethics in abortion or choice vs life. This is about trying to understand the question I posed.
The statement "well liberals have the same amount of unwanted pregnancies-they just abort them" is incorrect. It is factually proven in studies that conservative areas of the country have a MUCH MUCH higher rate of unwanted pregnancies than liberal areas. What happens AFTER the pregnancy is irrelevant to that discussion and if you think its not than you are misinterpreting the question I initially posed.
-
I guess I can safely assume that you never made it to Harlem........
doc
To be fair, Harlem doesn't even compare to Trenton, TX in the context of this discussion.
-
To be fair, Harlem doesn't even compare to Trenton, TX in the context of this discussion.
Yet you still made the comparison. Curious, that.
-
Kids have sex. Kids get pregnant. Kids have kids. Kids don't get married because then the government takes care of mom and baby...it's profitable and baby daddy can buy the dope with his income instead of keeping up a family.
Men aren't men and women aren't women anymore....they're democrat voters.
-
The abortion issue is always cast, by the media, as you're either for it or against it. I myself fall in between these. While some may call me pro life others would call me pro choice.
I do not think abortion should be available wily nily and it should never be taken lightly but I feel there are instances where abortion is warranted.
I'm a Conservative. So your premise is wrong.
KC
-
To be fair, Harlem doesn't even compare to Trenton, TX in the context of this discussion.
As Sparky stated, you made the comparison, and while we're throwing numbers around, I'd hazard a guess that there are more unwed teenage pregnancies in Harlem, Bed-Sty, and throw in Newark, than there are in the entire state of Texas.......
It's a liberal welfare state problem......support an activity with handouts, and you're guaranteed to get more and more of it.......cut the incentive off, and the problem will largely go away.....
doc
-
To be fair, Harlem doesn't even compare to Trenton, TX in the context of this discussion.
So, you're neither liberal, nor conservative ? How stupid do you think your audience is ?
-
I guess I have to go against the grain and not h^5 MrsSmiths post. Primarily because of the rash of out of wedlock pregnancy's and single mother households in her family. Not exactly a conservative Ideal. Actually more like something one could expect of the liberal ideology. Nothing personal against MrsSmith just pointing out the disparity.
No one should be congratulated for not killing a pregnancy but on the same token pregnancies don't just happen. They may be unplanned for but this day & age an accidental pregnancy doesn't exist or in the least are infinitely rare.
-
From the introductions thread:
Why is it that lower income conservatives are in fact even conservatives at all given the arguable fact that democratic leadership is probably more suitable to their specific finanical needs?
Maybe because they prefer taking care of themselves? maybe because they're smart enough to realize that the Democrats promoting of social welfare programs aren't done because Democrats care, but are done for nefarious purposes such as making people more dependent on Government and making sure those dependent will continue to vote for the party, which in effect, wants to keep them down?
Which party is actually the party of compassion?
Compassion such as charity? it's Republicans, compassion such as 5 generations of welfare families and the destruction of the black family? it's Democrats then.
Why is it that the party that is pro-life, is also the party that has the most unwanted pregnancies? (meaning the most unwanted pregnancies occurr in Red states and generally to conservative communities)
Red States, but the major cities where poverty is more rampant is Blue areas within those Red States.
Why is it that there are no overlapping issues between republicans and democrats?
Because I don't like the way the Democrats want America to be.
Also, as a poli sci major, I have done numerous studies on taxation and income that I would like to share for a conservative analysis. I thank you ahead of time for letting me get to know you all!
Share? or preach because you arrogantly think we're easily swayed?
-
(http://schools.monterey.k12.ca.us/~lagunita/Tubman/media/slave.gif) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Human_Fetus2.jpg/250px-Human_Fetus2.jpg)
Some people have to pray
just to be seen as human.
-
I guess I have to go against the grain and not h^5 MrsSmiths post. Primarily because of the rash of out of wedlock pregnancy's and single mother households in her family. Not exactly a conservative Ideal. Actually more like something one could expect of the liberal ideology. Nothing personal against MrsSmith just pointing out the disparity.
No one should be congratulated for not killing a pregnancy but on the same token pregnancies don't just happen. They may be unplanned for but this day & age an accidental pregnancy doesn't exist or in the least are infinitely rare.
Most of our younger generation is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. None are committed Christians. On a different subject, they are a large part of my reason for doubting that the statement, "Christians divorce as often as non-Christians" explains the whole story. Non-Christians just don't marry, therefore don't add to the statistics.
However, in point of fact, only 1 of the non-married mothers is in a single-mother household. Both my younger daughter and my niece live with their "baby-daddies." And for all 3 in question, baby #1 was unplanned, baby #2 was planned.
-
I guess I have to go against the grain and not h^5 MrsSmiths post. Primarily because of the rash of out of wedlock pregnancy's and single mother households in her family. Not exactly a conservative Ideal. Actually more like something one could expect of the liberal ideology. Nothing personal against MrsSmith just pointing out the disparity.
No one should be congratulated for not killing a pregnancy but on the same token pregnancies don't just happen. They may be unplanned for but this day & age an accidental pregnancy doesn't exist or in the least are infinitely rare.
No problem, I H5'd her.
Go **** yourself. I had a child out of wedlock, gave her up for adoption, and am blessed to know her and the parents that adopted her and my granddaughter almost 30 years later.
When we're all as perfect as you, we'll come to you for endorsement. Unless you're Jesus, again, go **** yourself.
-
I don't think you read my introduction post. I am neither liberal nor conservative. I believe in some of the policies and values of the right, and some on the left, and many in the middle.
And no, my attitude is not "no one under 20 could want a child" but my attitude CERTAINLY is that MOST people who become pregnant under age 20 would consider the pregnancy unwanted, unplanned, or "uh oh".
This is not meant to be a question on the ethics in abortion or choice vs life. This is about trying to understand the question I posed.
The statement "well liberals have the same amount of unwanted pregnancies-they just abort them" is incorrect. It is factually proven in studies that conservative areas of the country have a MUCH MUCH higher rate of unwanted pregnancies than liberal areas. What happens AFTER the pregnancy is irrelevant to that discussion and if you think its not than you are misinterpreting the question I initially posed.
No, what is counted is "unplanned" pregnancies, teen pregnancies and out-of-wedlock pregnancies. That number does NOT equate to unwanted pregnancies, and most certainly does NOT equate to unwanted children. Your "attitude" or assumptions are basically incorrect. As I just explained, in my own family, all 3 women made choices to have a second child out of wedlock.
And your question absolutely hinges on the ethics of abortion. The more liberal an area, the higher the abortion rates. Therefore, the actual numbers of unwanted pregnancies do happen at about the same rate in liberal areas, but liberals tend to abort their unwanted children while in more conservative areas many of those pregnancies are actually NOT unwanted or unplanned. All of your foundational assumptions are flawed.
You may deny being a liberal, but you've absorbed enough of their attitudes, assumptions, and thinking patterns to sound very liberal. (that is not a compliment, BTW.)
-
No problem, I H5'd her.
Go **** yourself. I had a child out of wedlock, gave her up for adoption, and am blessed to know her and the parents that adopted her and my granddaughter almost 30 years later.
When we're all as perfect as you, we'll come to you for endorsement. Unless you're Jesus, again, go **** yourself.
Werd.
And h5
-
I guess I have to go against the grain and not h^5 MrsSmiths post. Primarily because of the rash of out of wedlock pregnancy's and single mother households in her family. Not exactly a conservative Ideal. Actually more like something one could expect of the liberal ideology. Nothing personal against MrsSmith just pointing out the disparity.
No one should be congratulated for not killing a pregnancy but on the same token pregnancies don't just happen. They may be unplanned for but this day & age an accidental pregnancy doesn't exist or in the least are infinitely rare.
You're not a conservative.
You're an asshole.
Principles are for when everything travels along swimmingly, they're what you rely on when things don't go as well as they should.
If you can't see that then we'll just add "really ****ing stupid" to the list as well.
-
I can just fee the love. The endorsement of out of wedlock single motherhood pregnancies is truly astounding,or is just bad when a liberal does it. When someone else does it and it's bad but when you do it it's OK is called being hypocritical.
No one is perfect but if one recognizes their own imperfections they should by rights be willing to give that same considerations to others.
Same can be said about opinions, are opinions allowed or only allowed when they jive with hive mindset,something like say Democrat underground.
-
I can just fee the love. The endorsement of out of wedlock single motherhood pregnancies is truly astounding,or is just bad when a liberal does it. When someone else does it and it's bad but when you do it it's OK is called being hypocritical.
No one is perfect but if one recognizes their own imperfections they should by rights be willing to give that same considerations to others.
Same can be said about opinions, are opinions allowed or only allowed when they jive with hive mindset,something like say Democrat underground.
Being sympathetic to someone's plight is not the same as endorsement. Sometimes all you can do is make the best of the situation at hand. In all cases we should look for the best route that will lift up, and not tear down.
-
I can just fee the love. The endorsement of out of wedlock single motherhood pregnancies is truly astounding,or is just bad when a liberal does it. When someone else does it and it's bad but when you do it it's OK is called being hypocritical.
I don't recall seeing the word "endorsement" or any of its derivatives ANYWHERE in this discussion until now. Project much?
No one is perfect but if one recognizes their own imperfections they should by rights be willing to give that same considerations to others.
In other words, it's okay to be judgmental especially when seeing the same sin in others. Is that about right?
Same can be said about opinions, are opinions allowed or only allowed when they jive with hive mindset,something like say Democrat underground.
You can be an asshole all day long and walk in lockstep with everybody else. The inverse is also true - you can be an asshole and NOT walk in lockstep with everyone.
Bottom line is - it's okay to be an asshole and not walk in lockstep with everybody else. Might want to grow a thicker skin.
-
I can just fee the love. The endorsement of out of wedlock single motherhood pregnancies is truly astounding...
If you want to feel loved go jerk-off in front of a mirror.
Who has endorsed out of wedlock pregnancies, Scarecrow?
You stated your opinion. Your opinion was received as an unfounded, baseless insult mixed with arrogance. If you're so goddam hung-up on respect for opinions then accept the fact that people's freely-formed opinion of you is pretty low because of how you choose to present yourself (kinda like how I expect you to not like me very much).
Now you're just adding whiny little bitch to the list.
-
If you want to feel loved go jerk-off in front of a mirror.
Who has endorsed out of wedlock pregnancies, Scarecrow?
You stated your opinion. Your opinion was received as an unfounded, baseless insult mixed with arrogance. If you're so goddam hung-up on respect for opinions then accept the fact that people's freely-formed opinion of you is pretty low because of how you choose to present yourself (kinda like how I expect you to not like me very much).
Now you're just adding whiny little bitch to the list.
With a little care and gentle handling we could prevent this from ever getting close to being personal.
-
With a little care and gentle handling we could prevent this from ever getting close to being personal.
An admirable quality and I genuinely applaud you for it...
...BUT...
...Zeus wore out his welcome well-before your arrival to our shores. He's here because we don't ban as readily as DU. He is not here for any virtue he possesses and he remains at the grace of others as well as his own obstinance.
For a thing to be wanted it must first be valued.
-
I don't recall seeing the word "endorsement" or any of its derivatives ANYWHERE in this discussion until now. Project much?
In other words, it's okay to be judgmental especially when seeing the same sin in others. Is that about right?
You can be an asshole all day long and walk in lockstep with everybody else. The inverse is also true - you can be an asshole and NOT walk in lockstep with everyone.
Bottom line is - it's okay to be an asshole and not walk in lockstep with everybody else. Might want to grow a thicker skin.
So all the invective directed toward an opinion that out of wedlock single motherhood is a bad thing isn't an endorsement of same.
If it wasn't for being judgmental all sin & lawlessness would go unanswered.
More invective.
Ok I'm not a conservative , I'm an asshole, I can go **** myself etc because I don't believe out of wedlock single motherhood is good for the mother , the Child or society in general then so be it. I respect the right for all the posters who disagree with my opinion on the matter I just venture most conservatives would agree with my stance.
-
Quite often what we want is irrelevant. What we have is what is at hand.
-
So all the invective directed toward an opinion that out of wedlock single motherhood is a bad thing isn't an endorsement of same.
If it wasn't for being judgmental all sin & lawlessness would go unanswered.
And how would you answer the out-of-wedlock pregnancy of a young woman?
Stoning?
Public shaming?
A demand the parents settle down and provide a life for their child?
Ok I'm not a conservative , I'm an asshole, I can go **** myself etc
Finally we agree.
because I don't believe out of wedlock single motherhood is good for the mother , the Child or society in general then so be it.
No, it's because you're an asshole because you made an asshole-ish point in an asshole-ish manner. Now you can add liar to your resume because not one person here endorses out of wedlock pregnancy or refuses to acknowledge the harm it imposes on all parties.
Having children that fell short of the mark does not invalidate Mrs S's post anymore than a person's history of alcoholism invalidates their warnings against strong drink.
For ****'s sake, the point of the thread is about NOT aborting children in the name of personal convenience. What greater example of this than people who acknowledge their mistake and DO NOT impose the penalty on the child but see it brought to life to be raised, loved and valued over their own self?
If life is so ****ing perfect on your planet please feel free to return and not trouble yourself with our lowly kind.
-
The ideal would be the nuclear family, and it would have been formed by proper courtship, a long engagement, with sweetness and innocence. But then we don't hardly ever get to deal with the ideal. You have to meet every situation on it's level.
-
The ideal would be the nuclear family, and it would have been formed by proper courtship, a long engagement, with sweetness and innocence. But then we don't hardly ever get to deal with the ideal. You have to meet every situation on it's level.
And you made your point excellently without being an asshole.
Some day when I grow-up I wanna be just like you. :-)
-
And how would you answer the out-of-wedlock pregnancy of a young woman?
Stoning?
Public shaming?
A demand the parents settle down and provide a life for their child?
Finally we agree.
No, it's because you're an asshole because you made an asshole-ish point in an asshole-ish manner. Now you can add liar to your resume because not one person here endorses out of wedlock pregnancy or refuses to acknowledge the harm it imposes on all parties.
Having children that fell short of the mark does not invalidate Mrs S's post anymore than a person's history of alcoholism invalidates their warnings against strong drink.
For ****'s sake, the point of the thread is about NOT aborting children in the name of personal convenience. What greater example of this than people who acknowledge their mistake and DO NOT impose the penalty on the child but see it brought to life to be raised, loved and valued over their own self?
If life is so ****ing perfect on your planet please feel free to return and not trouble yourself with our lowly kind.
a little tough love, be it a stern rebuke, conditional support or perhaps even shunning dependent upon the situation would perhaps prevent the situation from reoccurring.
Abortion is killing but that's hardly an excuse to excuse out of wedlock single motherhood. yes it happens but being an enabler doesn't prevent the situation nor does it curtail additional occurrences. Neither will cussing and swearing and name calling at those who speak out against it.
Does the invective make you feel bigger,badder, more relevant.
I never said MrSmith point was invalid I just made a rationale observation that was met with cussing & swearing and attacks. before you say I need to grow a pair perhaps you should direct that comment to the posters that apparently came unglued at my observation.
My life is far from perfect even if it was it doesn't invalidate my position.
-
For someone crying about invective why do you keep using terms like "enabler" in reference to Mrs S? How did she enable anything?
And to recall, you said, "... because of the rash of out of wedlock pregnancy's and single mother households in her family. Not exactly a conservative Ideal. Actually more like something one could expect of the liberal ideology."
Sure, sure, you said, "nothing personal" after that but personal is all you've got (unless you're just too ****ing stupid to understand what it is you're writing).
Please, oh great keeper of all conservative piety, explain to us how independent actions by free-willed individuals invalidate what Mrs S has said. What has she done to enable them? Assuming her messaging is as consistent in her home as it is on this board: what hallmarks of liberal ideology are ascribed to her by means of her family members actions?
Have you ever told a child to not touch the hot stove? The little ****ers are all but guaranteed to reach up and touch it. Does the burn make the parent negligient or an enabler?
BTW -- lest you think this is personal for me in some other regard please understand that more times than not I find Mrs S a less than delightful conversant. It's not her, it's you.
-
You're not a conservative.
You're an asshole.
Principles are for when everything travels along swimmingly, they're what you rely on when things don't go as well as they should.
If you can't see that then we'll just add "really ****ing stupid" to the list as well.
H5 for this.
-
For someone crying about invective why do you keep using terms like "enabler" in reference to Mrs S? How did she enable anything?
And to recall, you said, "... because of the rash of out of wedlock pregnancy's and single mother households in her family. Not exactly a conservative Ideal. Actually more like something one could expect of the liberal ideology."
Sure, sure, you said, "nothing personal" after that but personal is all you've got (unless you're just too ****ing stupid to understand what it is you're writing).
Please, oh great keeper of all conservative piety, explain to us how independent actions by free-willed individuals invalidate what Mrs S has said. What has she done to enable them? Assuming her messaging is as consistent in her home as it is on this board: what hallmarks of liberal ideology are ascribed to her by means of her family members actions?
Have you ever told a child to not touch the hot stove? The little ****ers are all but guaranteed to reach up and touch it. Does the burn make the parent negligient or an enabler?
BTW -- lest you think this is personal for me in some other regard please understand that more times than not I find Mrs S a less than delightful conversant. It's not her, it's you.
I hven't directed any of my posts toward MrsSmith since my original post everything since has been general. I also never said or implied anything she said or done invalidates her situation.
It really bugs you that I won't stoop to name calling and cussing doesn't it.
I will stand behind my observation that the prevention of out of wedlock pregnancies is more a conservative hallmark than a liberal one.
The child/stove question is irrelevant to the current discussion.
I'll try not to loose any sleep because you won't be my best buddy.
-
I hven't directed any of my posts toward MrsSmith since my original post everything since has been general. I also never said or implied anything she said or done invalidates her situation.
Are you playing us for stupid?
I guess I have to go against the grain and not h^5 MrsSmiths post. Primarily because of the rash of out of wedlock pregnancy's and single mother households in her family. Not exactly a conservative Ideal. Actually more like something one could expect of the liberal ideology...
No implication from you that her family life invalidated her message? Let's repeat that:
I guess I have to go against the grain and not h^5 MrsSmiths post. Primarily because of the rash of out of wedlock pregnancy's and single mother households in her family. Not exactly a conservative Ideal. Actually more like something one could expect of the liberal ideology...
It really bugs you that I won't stoop to name calling and cussing doesn't it.
No. it bothers me that you're a whiny, obnoxious, two-faced, self-martyring, self-righteous, arrogant asshole.
I will stand behind my observation that the prevention of out of wedlock pregnancies is more a conservative hallmark than a liberal one.
The child/stove question is irrelevant to the current discussion.
It's an analogy, you twit. Though I suspect you know this and are just refusing to acknowledge it.
But just so there are no doubts: other people will do what they want regardless of what you tell them.
You have no reason to impugn Mrs S or her message because free-willed individuals did what they wanted to do.
I'll try not to loose any sleep because you won't be my best buddy.
If I've already stated I'm pursuing my side of the argument out of my principles rather than for any personal desire for Mrs S's friendship what the **** makes you think I give a rat's ass about how you see me? Damned if that doesn't bolster the entire contention you're an arrogant prick.
-
With one or the other on the defensive, there will be only monologue. Turning loose of win or lose might be the hot ticket.
-
First point, not all teen and/or out-of-wedlock pregnancies are unwanted. Your basic premise is flawed.
Second point, the majority of people in rural, conservative areas are smart enough to know that a pregnant woman is carrying a child, not a "blob." It doesn't matter what stage of pregnancy; the embryo is human, the fetus is human, there is no stage of pregnancy in which the mother is carrying a dog or a monkey or a tumor, so far more women prefer to carry their child, not murder him or her. In fact, a lot of us have trouble understanding why "compassionate, tolerant, loving" Democrats tend to murder so many children. :???: Maybe they just aren't smart enough to understand what a child is until they can actually see with their own eyes?
Third point, many people are smart enough to understand that an unwanted pregnancy does not equal an unwanted child. Conversely, a wanted pregnancy does not always equal a wanted child, as we see from the continuing increase in child abuse statistics. There is no amount of abortion that will cause every child to be wanted.
Fourth point, Planned Parenthood does one thing well... killing children. Well, actually, they do other things well, like absorbing government money and using political clout to keep increasing their revenue, but as far as HEALTH is concerned, their one "claim to fame" is the murder of children. Conversely, Crisis Pregnancy Centers can help pregnant women with free pregnancy tests that are official and can be used for government assistance programs. Many can provide ultrasounds. Almost all can provide many other basic necessities like maternity clothing, baby clothes and blankets, diapers, formula, and will request donations for specific needs like cribs, car seats, preemie clothes, etc. Why would we want a useless child-murdering money-dump instead of a pregnancy center?
Final point, it looks to me as though you are a "typical liberal." You have so absorbed the leftist excuse for logic that you have trouble understanding any other viewpoint. Your attitude seems to be that no one could possibly want a child if they happen to be under 20, or if they became pregnant unexpectedly, or if they don't happen to have enough money to "afford" a child right now. This is simply a false premise entirely.
From a personal perspective, I had my first child at 19. I was unmarried when he was conceived. I never wished I had murdered him, and am immensely proud of that child. He served in the military, is currently a civilian employee of the Navy, and has a beautiful daughter.
Two of my daughters have had children at 19, also. Neither are married. None of their children are unwanted. One has 2 sons, now 10 and 8, and is raising them as a single mom...and doing a good job of it. The other has a 3 year old daughter and is currently pregnant with her second. She can't afford to live on her own anymore, so recently moved back home (an option we prefer over having her on welfare.) We'll help with her expenses until she gets on her feet; or until her boyfriend mans-up, marries her, and starts supporting his family.
My niece recently had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Her mother demanded that she abort for many reasons, including the fact that the mother "didn't want to be a grandmother already." (Need we say that the mother is a liberal?? ::) ) My brother was willing to help her if she kept the baby, so she finally came to visit with me and my daughters. She was close to believing that her mom was right, she was just too young and irresponsible to have a child, but she changed her mind after spending some time with my younger daughter and her baby. She chose to keep her child, Thank God, and is a wonderful, loving mother to that little girl now. Having her baby had "the normal effect" on her, she became far more responsible and was able to get a decent job managing a motel. She is currently pregnant with her second, and planning her wedding to the father of her kids.
Maybe it's because liberals so often just don't grow up and become responsible adults...but they often seem to be completely self absorbed. Just as the woman mentioned above, she wanted her granddaughter killed mostly because she thought she was too young to be a grandmother, (vain, vain, vain), but also because she just can't understand that most people, when faced with the reality of life, do manage to grow up! It's a good thing that most people grow into conservatives! The world would be a truly sorry place if liberals were anywhere near a majority.
More power to you.
-
So all the invective directed toward an opinion that out of wedlock single motherhood is a bad thing isn't an endorsement of same.
If it wasn't for being judgmental all sin & lawlessness would go unanswered.
More invective.
Ok I'm not a conservative , I'm an asshole, I can go **** myself etc because I don't believe out of wedlock single motherhood is good for the mother , the Child or society in general then so be it. I respect the right for all the posters who disagree with my opinion on the matter I just venture most conservatives would agree with my stance.
Well, I see that Snugs has pulled out the K-bar and gotten up close and personal in eviscerating you, so I won't belabor the point.
For one, I don't have a problem with assholes -- except when they make a continual habit of going down that particular road.
You've worn ruts in it.
Especially wearisome is this kind of statement from you:
I respect the right for all the posters who disagree with my opinion on the matter I just venture most conservatives would agree with my stance.
This smacks of elitism, arrogance, and pomposity. This is the kind of thing that Snugs is talking about.
Own it. Embrace the suck.
-
Well, I see that Snugs has pulled out the K-bar and gotten up close and personal in eviscerating you, so I won't belabor the point.
For one, I don't have a problem with assholes -- except when they make a continual habit of going down that particular road.
You've worn ruts in it.
Especially wearisome is this kind of statement from you:
This smacks of elitism, arrogance, and pomposity. This is the kind of thing that Snugs is talking about.
Own it. Embrace the suck.
Ah I see calling my conservative credentials into question and my defense of smacks of elitism, arrogance, and pomposity. So how do you propose one answers to the charge ? obviously you disagree that most conservatives disagree with out of wedlock single motherhood. what in your mind is the conservative stance,overall,on the issue?
I proudly own the stance.
-
Ah I see calling my conservative credentials into question and my defense of smacks of elitism, arrogance, and pomposity. So how do you propose one answers to the charge ? obviously you disagree that most conservatives disagree with out of wedlock single motherhood. what in your mind is the conservative stance,overall,on the issue?
I proudly own the stance.
Yep, you own it. The suck, that is.
Nobody called your "conservative credentials" -- whatever the hell THOSE are -- into question. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal or something in between is something between you and your principles -- whatever the hell THOSE are.
When you get right down to it, nobody gives a shit whether you're a "conservative" or not.
So why do you and many other faux conservatives who come wading into this site (I say "faux" because, as we all know, only those who are truly uncertain about their own principles find it necessary to bray left and right that they're "conservative) find it necessary to do that, apart from my own observation?
Let's not stray too far from the point -- nobody "endorsed" having children out of wedlock. Mrs Smith has children who have done so for reasons that are their own. My own children, ditto. I shall not burden you with their rationale because it's unimportant.
As has been said already quite eloquently, what is, is. Nothing you say is going to change any of that and pompously braying about your own opinions merely isolates you from those who embrace those children irrespective of the facts that brought them into this life.
Bitchslapped for continuing to be an asshole. Stubbornly continuing to be an asshole. Steadfastly continuing to be an asshole.
-
Yep, you own it. The suck, that is.
Nobody called your "conservative credentials" -- whatever the hell THOSE are -- into question. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal or something in between is something between you and your principles -- whatever the hell THOSE are.
You're not a conservative.
You're an asshole.
Principles are for when everything travels along swimmingly, they're what you rely on when things don't go as well as they should.
If you can't see that then we'll just add "really ****ing stupid" to the list as well.
I don't have to lie and ridicule to defend my position.
Obviously we disagree on what conservative positions are and that's fine.
-
I don't have to lie and ridicule to defend my position.
Obviously we disagree on what conservative positions are and that's fine.
Let me get this straight, Zeus.
You're basing your entire argument as to what constitutes a conservative on whether or not he/she condemns or supports the practice of having children out of wedlock?
Seriously?
:muahaha:
-
Let me get this straight, Zeus.
You're basing your entire argument as to what constitutes a conservative on whether or not he/she condemns or supports the practice of having children out of wedlock?
Seriously?
:muahaha:
You can laugh all you want at least I don't have to lie to support my position.
let's leave it at that ok.
-
You can laugh all you want at least I don't have to lie to support my position.
let's leave it at that ok.
Sure, no problem.
:lmao:
-
So all the invective directed toward an opinion that out of wedlock single motherhood is a bad thing isn't an endorsement of same.
If it wasn't for being judgmental all sin & lawlessness would go unanswered.
More invective.
Ok I'm not a conservative , I'm an asshole, I can go **** myself etc because I don't believe out of wedlock single motherhood is good for the mother , the Child or society in general then so be it. I respect the right for all the posters who disagree with my opinion on the matter I just venture most conservatives would agree with my stance.
I don't believe it's good for the mother, the child, or society either. However, it's a lot better than murdering the child, especially if said mother is able to raise her child without depending on the government for everything. Of those I mention, 2 are employed full-time and do not receive any government assistance at this time. The 3rd is living in our house, and she is on our insurance, so only the grandchild receives any assistance in the form of health coverage.
And I do believe it is a conservative value to avoid murdering children, and to support your own as much as possible. I can't force the next generation to follow Christian teachings any more than I can force any other adult, so instead we do all we can and work to provide a good example.
-
Ah I see calling my conservative credentials into question and my defense of smacks of elitism, arrogance, and pomposity...
Not exactly a conservative Ideal. Actually more like something one could expect of the liberal ideology...
Do you get to drink twice as much Sacramental Wine having two faces like that?
-
Conservatives don't support out of wedlock pregnancies, but if they occur, do not support aborting the innocent child. Neither do conservatives use a person's current situation to beat them over the head with it. Conservatives will try to meet people where they are, and uplift them to higher level. Zeus, if you ever get to read the book "Balcony People", you will have a much better idea of what I am trying to convey.
Elect Steve Dawes !
-
Quote from: Zeus
Ah I see calling my conservative credentials into question and my defense of smacks of elitism, arrogance, and pomposity...
Quote from: Zeus
Not exactly a conservative Ideal. Actually more like something one could expect of the liberal ideology...
Do you get to drink twice as much Sacramental Wine having two faces like that?
What's two faced about it ? You said I wasn't a conservative and when I defended myself I was accused of being elitist , arrogant and pompous. The other was an observation and I haven't made any condescending remarks regarding any further posts from MrsSmith. Matter of factly I acknowledged the right to differing opinion in the thread. If you can't see a difference between the two then that's on you not me.
-
Conservatives don't support out of wedlock pregnancies, but if they occur, do not support aborting the innocent child. Neither do conservatives use a person's current situation to beat them over the head with it. Conservatives will try to meet people where they are, and uplift them to higher level. Zeus, if you ever get to read the book "Balcony People", you will have a much better idea of what I am trying to convey.
Elect Steve Dawes !
Affirmation comes in many forms,normally in a powerful statement and/or judgement. lot of touchy feelly stories in the book book but the underlying theme of power of affirmation is hard to miss.
-
Affirmation comes in many forms,normally in a powerful statement and/or judgement. lot of touchy feelly stories in the book book but the underlying theme of power of affirmation is hard to miss.
So you read the book ?
-
So you read the book ?
Not in it's entirety. Skipped around to a few of the the different stories. Did the cliff notes version of a read while undergoing one chemo treatment. Normally wouldn't read something like that but forgot my reading material and a nurse offered it to pass some time.
-
Not in it's entirety. Skipped around to a few of the the different stories. Did the cliff notes version of a read while undergoing one chemo treatment. Normally wouldn't read something like that but forgot my reading material and a nurse offered it to pass some time.
Ah.
-
From: http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,72667.msg862386.html#msg862386
I just recently got raked over the coals and called everything imaginable for daring to say out of wedlock single mothers was a bad thing and not necessarily a conservative trait. Calling them sluts will bring out the long knives.
just sayin'
Stay classy, Zeus. :whatever:
-
Just can't let it go, can ya, Zeus?
The Butthurt still stings, doesn't it?
You really need to stand in the corner and think about your behavior on this thread (and elsewhere).
-
It's hard for a guy to admit he's wrong, even harder when he is currently being beaten over the head about it.
-
It's hard for a guy to admit he's wrong, even harder when he is currently being beaten over the head about it.
Wrong about what. Are out of wedlock single mothers a good or bad thing. Is it more of a liberal Ideological viewpoint or a conservative one. Are opinions a right or wrong thing or are they just that opinions to be agreed with or disagreed.
I did not attack MrsSmith or talk disparagingly about or toward her or anyone else on this board I simply made an opined observation. If she felt I personally attacked or berated her I invited her to post openly or send me a msg in that regard. I wouldn't disclose what she said if she had sent me a msg but I will say as of yet she hasn't.
I don't mind the pile on but I do think all the self congratulatory cutesy lil catch phrases and vulgarity doesn't add anything of value to the discourse.
-
I think you were wrong to say the majority of conservatives would berate a woman who claims to be conservative, but doesn't seem able to enforce her conservatism within her immediate family. I know I certainly wouldn't agree with that. I would hope the vast majority of conservatives would agree with me, and not you on this point.
-
Hi everyone, this is my first post, besides my intro-which I invite you to read before passing judgment on the question at hand. I am hoping to understand the concept of pro-life and how it relates to those communities, states, or groups of people that unwanted pregnancies occurr the most in.
I will preface my inquiry with the following fact: Many lower income Americans vote democratic because they don't want to lose their government benefits. There are many other instances I could state where a certain demographic votes a certain way, or has a part affiliation that suits there particular needs. But this is the exact opposite that we are seeing when it comes to the issue of abortion. One would think that those living in places where unwanted pregnancies are high, would be pro-choice. But this is in fact the exact opposite of what we are actually seeing.
Teen pregnancies, pregnancies out of wedlock, and other types of unwanted pregnancies are highest in rural, conservative communities, such as the area I lived in in Texas. Not only does data support this, but I have witnessed it first hand. In New York, I cannot think of one single person I know who had a child at a young age, or at an age that would be considered too young. And naturally in New York, 75% of the population is pro-choice. Yet, in the rural area of Texas I lived in, I knew many, many people who were in their teens and had kids or multiple kids. In fact, most of the young people I knew had kids or had been pregnant. This is just the fact of the matter and I'm not saying something is right or wrong.
This leads me to two questions:
Why are the conservative rural areas of the country where there are high numbers of unwanted pregnancies generally pro-life?
And secondly, why do those in the liberal northeast receive more childhood education about how to avoid these circumstances, and in rural areas we see less effort to prevent unwanted pregnancies? And I just thought of a third question. If in fact most unwated pregnancies are occurring to conservative communities, why do they want to get rid of planned parenthood which deals vastly with young kids and their pregnancies? Input appreciated!
Can you link to anything that backs up your Libtard talking points crap?
-
I don't think you read my introduction post. I am neither liberal nor conservative. I believe in some of the policies and values of the right, and some on the left, and many in the middle.
Sure. uh-huh. :whatever:
The very nature of your first post in this thread clearly shows your thinking and the political tilt of the same.
And no, my attitude is not "no one under 20 could want a child" but my attitude CERTAINLY is that MOST people who become pregnant under age 20 would consider the pregnancy unwanted, unplanned, or "uh oh".
Show me one person who isn't surprised by becoming pregnant and I'll show you a liar.
This is not meant to be a question on the ethics in abortion or choice vs life. This is about trying to understand the question I posed.
It IS about ethics. Something tells me you're tied into the DUmp thread about abortion being an ethical choice.
The statement "well liberals have the same amount of unwanted pregnancies-they just abort them" is incorrect. It is factually proven in studies that conservative areas of the country have a MUCH MUCH higher rate of unwanted pregnancies than liberal areas. What happens AFTER the pregnancy is irrelevant to that discussion and if you think its not than you are misinterpreting the question I initially posed.
Link?
-
I think you were wrong to say the majority of conservatives would berate a woman who claims to be conservative, but doesn't seem able to enforce her conservatism within her immediate family. I know I certainly wouldn't agree with that. I would hope the vast majority of conservatives would agree with me, and not you on this point.
Where did I say that ? Y'all can claim I attacked MrsSmith all you want,it doesn't make it so. should be a simple thing to show.
I know I did say something to the effect that most conservatives would agree out of wedlock single mother situations are not a good thing.
-
Yep, you own it. The suck, that is.
Nobody called your "conservative credentials" -- whatever the hell THOSE are -- into question. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal or something in between is something between you and your principles -- whatever the hell THOSE are.
When you get right down to it, nobody gives a shit whether you're a "conservative" or not.
So why do you and many other faux conservatives who come wading into this site (I say "faux" because, as we all know, only those who are truly uncertain about their own principles find it necessary to bray left and right that they're "conservative) find it necessary to do that, apart from my own observation?
Let's not stray too far from the point -- nobody "endorsed" having children out of wedlock. Mrs Smith has children who have done so for reasons that are their own. My own children, ditto. I shall not burden you with their rationale because it's unimportant.
As has been said already quite eloquently, what is, is. Nothing you say is going to change any of that and pompously braying about your own opinions merely isolates you from those who embrace those children irrespective of the facts that brought them into this life.
Bitchslapped for continuing to be an asshole. Stubbornly continuing to be an asshole. Steadfastly continuing to be an asshole.
QFT ^5
-
I know I did say something to the effect that most conservatives would agree out of wedlock single mother situations are not a good thing.
Out of wedlock kids isn't a conservative or liberal "thing". It's bad regardless. But sometimes the situation doesn't allow the two people to get together.
The TexMex troll is trying to say there's some kind of hypocrisy in "rural" i.e. "Conservative states" about out of wedlock births. That's what the focus should be here.
And to counter the trolls argument I'd point out that perhaps the rates are higher in rural areas because they don't believe in murdering the unborn like the Libtards do.
-
Where did I say that ? Y'all can claim I attacked MrsSmith all you want,it doesn't make it so. should be a simple thing to show.
I know I did say something to the effect that most conservatives would agree out of wedlock single mother situations are not a good thing.
The first quote, you berated her...
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,72513.msg860854.html#msg860854
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,72513.msg861586.html#msg861586
The second, you allowed that most conservatives would agree with you, with a slightly amended stance from the first post.
My stance, yes, out of wedlock is not a conservative ideal, but to use someone's less than ideal situation os a cudgel to beat them over the head with, no, I wouldn't agree with that. It's not good people skills. In the end, building people up should be the goal, not beating them up for their shortcomings.
-
I don't mind the pile on
and now you're a liar too.
I just recently got raked over the coals and called everything imaginable for daring to say out of wedlock single mothers was a bad thing and not necessarily a conservative trait. Calling them sluts will bring out the long knives.
just sayin'
But please, keep whining about it. It's entertaining.
-
The first quote, you berated her...
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,72513.msg860854.html#msg860854
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,72513.msg861586.html#msg861586
The second, you allowed that most conservatives would agree with you, with a slightly amended stance from the first post.
My stance, yes, out of wedlock is not a conservative ideal, but to use someone's less than ideal situation os a cudgel to beat them over the head with, no, I wouldn't agree with that. It's not good people skills. In the end, building people up should be the goal, not beating them up for their shortcomings.
H5 because you mean well but you're wasting your time. Zeus doesn't want to be convinced of anything, it's about him being the victim here.
-
H5 because you mean well but you're wasting your time. Zeus doesn't want to be convinced of anything, it's about him being the victim here.
Oh I'm not a victim. If one needs to lie, curse and obfuscate the issue then that person is their own victim.
Has anyone bothered to ask MrsSmith if she felt affronted or insulted or whatever or all you so busy chest thumping and circle jerking it doesn't really matter what she thinks.
just sayin'
-
Oh I'm not a victim. If one needs to lie, curse and obfuscate the issue then that person is their own victim.
Has anyone bothered to ask MrsSmith if she felt affronted or insulted or whatever or all you so busy chest thumping and circle jerking it doesn't really matter what she thinks.
just sayin'
Mrs Smith is a classy lady who responded to your having berated her, and did so quite well all by herself. She doesn't NEED to be asked if she felt affronted by you or anybody else, for that matter.
You simply can't take your asswhipping and leave it well enough alone. You've got to continue looking like an idiot.
Well, like CactusCarlos said, it is entertaining. :rotf:
-
(http://katdish.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beating-a-dead-horse-horse-demotivational-poster-1267844749.jpg)
-
^While circle jerking.
-
It seems TexMex didn't like the answers here. Surprise, surprise... ::) :rofl:
-
It seems TexMex didn't like the answers here. Surprise, surprise... ::) :rofl:
"Didn't like" or "was wholly unprepared because they did not meet the prejudices inculcated by his would-be masters"?