RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women

RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News

Message

thetammyjo -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/17/2008 7:15:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch the thing with outlawing abortion is that you don't stop it you just drive it underground where it may potentially start killing women. i would rather have it legal and safe than illegal and dangerous. Historically speaking this is 100% true. Outlawing abortions or preaching that it is immoral never stops it. It just makes it more dangerous for the woman. That danger may result in her death, an illness, and even the inability to have future children when she feels she is capable of raising them. Abortions by the way only became an issue in the USA in the 19th century. Before then it was considered a private matter between family/woman and doctor/midwife. Other cultures had other practices and laws ot customs. I don't recall any early Christian writings on the issue which leads me to suspect one of two things: they followed Greco-Roman traditions where life of the offspring wasn't important but father's rights and mother's life was OR it was folded into the general sex is bad because Jesus is returning ideas. So I would say that current debates about abortion are not about religious traditions or morality at all but about the modern desire of some religious groups to enforce their own moral codes onto others whom do not share their beliefs. As I said earlier which has been ignored: "Plus if the government can tell you that you must give birth, what prevents them from then saying you can't or you must give up your unborn child when it's born? Or that only people with certain genes can have children or a certain income? Yes, I would agree that all societies need some regulation in order to function but I think we need be wary of how far that goes."

Amaros -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/17/2008 9:33:16 AM)
Some early Christian sects practiced infanticide, see Tertullians Apologia. The arguments he offers are remarkably similar to modern defneces of family planning. It got them in trouble with the Romans, particularly the Italians, who are very pro-family and were always getting upset if the birth rate fell. Eventually, the Church adopted largely Italian values, while retaining a lot of the early duallism: Priestly abstinence, a general dissaproval of heterosexual sexuality: better to be celibate than married, better to be married than fool around, etc., ala Paul. It's even possible that homosexuality was informally encouraged, as it doesn't result in procreation, which in duallism, is considered to extend Satans reign on Earth snce in most duallism, The World, i.e., the corporeal realm, is considered to be the province of Satan. It was an ideology attractive to people whose lives were pretty terrible by any modern standards. The Apologia is also why Tertullian was never sainted, but it reflects the Gnostic duallist origins of Christianity.

thetammyjo -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/17/2008 2:09:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Some early Christian sects practiced infanticide, see Tertullians Apologia. The arguments he offers are remarkably similar to modern defneces of family planning. It got them in trouble with the Romans, particularly the Italians, who are very pro-family and were always getting upset if the birth rate fell. Eventually, the Church adopted largely Italian values, while retaining a lot of the early duallism: Priestly abstinence, a general dissaproval of heterosexual sexuality: better to be celibate than married, better to be married than fool around, etc., ala Paul. It's even possible that homosexuality was informally encouraged, as it doesn't result in procreation, which in duallism, is considered to extend Satans reign on Earth snce in most duallism, The World, i.e., the corporeal realm, is considered to be the province of Satan. It was an ideology attractive to people whose lives were pretty terrible by any modern standards. The Apologia is also why Tertullian was never sainted, but it reflects the Gnostic duallist origins of Christianity. That's really weird because Greco-Roman practice was routinely infanticide or more specifically infant abandonment. Using an abortion method risked the mother's life and took away the father's right to decide if the offspring should live or die. When one looks at the world through those concerns, infant abandonment was very acceptable. But I'm talking mostly per-5th century Greco-Roman attitudes before they were corrupted by the new monotheism of Christianity (my opinion only is that it corrupted the Greco-Romans not an undebated fact).

fluffyswitch -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/17/2008 5:17:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch the thing with outlawing abortion is that you don't stop it you just drive it underground where it may potentially start killing women. i would rather have it legal and safe than illegal and dangerous. Historically speaking this is 100% true. Outlawing abortions or preaching that it is immoral never stops it. It just makes it more dangerous for the woman. That danger may result in her death, an illness, and even the inability to have future children when she feels she is capable of raising them. Abortions by the way only became an issue in the USA in the 19th century. Before then it was considered a private matter between family/woman and doctor/midwife. Other cultures had other practices and laws ot customs. So I would say that current debates about abortion are not about religious traditions or morality at all but about the modern desire of some religious groups to enforce their own moral codes onto others whom do not share their beliefs. from the historical viewpoint, at least in america, it also really became an issue when middle class educated women began decreasing their fertility at the turn of the 20th century. american culture has had a trend of only becoming interested in something when it begins interfering with current modes of behavior in the upper classes--lesbianism and boston marriages are another example. abortion only really came under pressure when it came to light that there were large numbers of middle and upper class women who were using it as a birth control method at a time of a concern over racial purity. d'emilio's intimate matters: a history of sexuality in america has a really interesting discussion about it, and how it did come to be viewed from a moral standpoint and not a health/economic one.

thetammyjo -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/17/2008 5:56:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch d'emilio's intimate matters: a history of sexuality in america has a really interesting discussion about it, and how it did come to be viewed from a moral standpoint and not a health/economic one. Cool. Thanks for the book information.

Amaros -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/17/2008 8:22:49 PM)
My source is Rereading Sex by Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 2:12:39 AM)
quote: Outlawing abortions or preaching that it is immoral never stops it. Following this logic, lets not make homicide illegal because....it never stops it!! Speaking from no particular religious perspective I think that abortion for convenience is wrong. Sanctity of life and all that. As for not sending women into combat I think Huckerbee is right.....again lol Real combat is not as glamorous as Hollywood portrays and woman are physically wanting when compared with the toughest most brutal men. Also lots of combat is not as dangerous as some of its apologists like to proclaim. eg dropping bombs from a B52 or firing at targets 1000 yards away from a highly armoured vehicle. Just thinking aloud here.

AbsitInvidia -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 5:45:50 AM)
I didn't realize that one must be a conservative Christian in order to consider abortion immoral. I guess the Muslims would be surprised to hear it. I know I am!

Dari -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 6:04:45 AM)
quote: As for not sending women into combat I think Huckerbee is right.....again lol Real combat is not as glamorous as Hollywood portrays and woman are physically wanting when compared with the toughest most brutal men. Also lots of combat is not as dangerous as some of its apologists like to proclaim. eg dropping bombs from a B52 or firing at targets 1000 yards away from a highly armoured vehicle. Just thinking aloud here. Women should be allowed in combat under two conditions: 1) That they are required to pass the same physical tests, at the same physical level as the men for whatever job they'll be expected to do, and 2) That they have the ability to haul a buddy's ashes out of a tight spot as needed. My ex was a 6'8" Army Ranger. Had he been injured in the line of duty, serving next to a 5'6" bit of nothing who knew her weapons and how to use them, he'd have been a goner if he couldn't get himself back to base under his own steam. I'm all for women being whatever we're going to be, whatever we dream to be - but if we dream of being in combat, we damn sure better be able to take care of our buddies as well as ourselves. It's not fair to sacrifice other people on the altar of our own ideals, and more things are at stake than "can you take care of yourself in a firefight."

thetammyjo -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 6:26:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: Outlawing abortions or preaching that it is immoral never stops it. Following this logic, lets not make homicide illegal because....it never stops it!! Do you know what homicide and all of those "crimes" are illegal? It has nothing to do with morality or the idea of life. It has to do with social stability. When the state says "we will get revenge for this crime" it is supposed to remove the need for the individual and the family to seek personal revenge and hopefully stop the cycle of violence. Same reason for "crimes" about property rights -- if the state steps, it hopes that the person who was robbed won't go out and rob the other family or kill the robber creating another cycle of revenge over and over and over again. To completely ignore my entire post to cite one line a though it is my reason is setting up a strawman to knock over. Nice attempt at rhetoric but it doesn't always fly when the reader is aware of the trick. Again no one addresses this concern: "Plus if the government can tell you that you must give birth, what prevents them from then saying you can't or you must give up your unborn child when it's born? Or that only people with certain genes can have children or a certain income? Yes, I would agree that all societies need some regulation in order to function but I think we need be wary of how far that goes." Are people just unwilling to question the almighty state and it's sway over the individual? You tell me why this isn't being addressed on that level and why some people want to only focus on questions of "sanctity of life"?

seeksfemslave -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 7:43:10 AM)
Well Thetammyjo if you think that the creation of life is a trivial matter, which I dont suppose you do but your attitudes seem to point that way, then you are wrong. Also if you believe that a modern society could function without some form of centralised control then you are wrong again. eg organisation of Legal system Education Infra Structure, roads electricity gas etc etc etc etc Which is worse a straw man or the thin end of the wedge quote: Plus if the government can tell you that you must give birth, what prevents them from then saying you can't or you must give up your unborn child when it's born? Or that only people with certain genes can have children or a certain income? Pregnancy is not an illness or something to be terminated for convenience. Were it more difficult to get pregnant then world would undoubtedly be a more civilised place .

thetammyjo -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 8:58:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Well Thetammyjo if you think that the creation of life is a trivial matter, which I dont suppose you do but your attitudes seem to point that way, then you are wrong. Also if you believe that a modern society could function without some form of centralised control then you are wrong again. eg organisation of Legal system Education Infra Structure, roads electricity gas etc etc etc etc Which is worse a straw man or the thin end of the wedge quote: Plus if the government can tell you that you must give birth, what prevents them from then saying you can't or you must give up your unborn child when it's born? Or that only people with certain genes can have children or a certain income? Pregnancy is not an illness or something to be terminated for convenience. Were it more difficult to get pregnant then world would undoubtedly be a more civilised place . You're dancing around my entire point about why laws are created (historically) and the dangers of the state and its laws. Why are you dancing around it? Are there inconsistencies in your views? Are you one of those people who support war, the death penalty and can't stand the thought of social welfare but damn abortion better be illegal? No where in this thread have I stated my own position on abortion. I've asked questions and made historical observations. I'd be surprised if you actually could figure out my personal opinion about abortion though I suspect making claims about my attitude toward life was another attempt to rhetorically damage me.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 11:23:13 AM)
Thetammyjo: laws have been enacted in the past for a myriad of reasons, which means lots and lots lolAll I did was pick up on the illogicality of someone's (yours it turns out) remark about "abortion being illegal will not stop it" I support some wars, I support the death penalty under certain circumstances and yes I think killing an unborn child for convenience, or destoying the fusion of cells that will produce life, is wrong. I support some welfare and totally oppose other aspects of it. In other words I am not doctrinaire. Are you one of those droopy drawed Liberals who can always find excuses for the most heinous acts and never pass judgement on any body or anything ? See I can make things up just as well as you can. [sm=boxer.gif] I visited your website and found the following... I dont care what people do sexually so long as it is consensual. A basic Liberal attitude if ever I heard one. How about if masochist B wants sadist A to kill her ? Happened in Germany quite recently.

whenstarscollide -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 12:59:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dari Women should be allowed in combat under two conditions: 1) That they are required to pass the same physical tests, at the same physical level as the men for whatever job they'll be expected to do, and 2) That they have the ability to haul a buddy's ashes out of a tight spot as needed. There is no shame in admitting that women are built differently than men, and, in general, they do not have the same physical capabilities as they do. This is not to say that they cannot do just as well, if not better than men, with the correct physical training, and/or that they are incapable of doing hard work. Hel, do you realize just how much physical work women did before all of this modern technology came to be?! They were cooking and cleaning, hauling firewood and water for miles, engaging in various aspects of farming and animal husbandry, and taking care of gods know how many kids - they did most of the grunt work that gave men the leisure to do other, occasionally misconstrued as more important things. But I digress. If a woman can show that she is capable of doing all of the things that her male counterparts can do, than there should be nothing stopping her from serving in the armed forces and on the front lines.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 2:16:15 PM)
quote: whenstarscollide Hell, do you realize just how much physical work women did before all of this modern technology came to be?! Which silly men created. Housework/cooking/shopping is a doddle. Done with children they may be bit more difficult. But not much.

thetammyjo -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 2:17:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Thetammyjo: laws have been enacted in the past for a myriad of reasons, which means lots and lots lolAll I did was pick up on the illogicality of someone's (yours it turns out) remark about "abortion being illegal will not stop it" I support some wars, I support the death penalty under certain circumstances and yes I think killing an unborn child for convenience, or destoying the fusion of cells that will produce life, is wrong. I support some welfare and totally oppose other aspects of it. In other words I am not doctrinaire. Are you one of those droopy drawed Liberals who can always find excuses for the most heinous acts and never pass judgement on any body or anything ? See I can make things up just as well as you can. [sm=boxer.gif] I visited your website and found the following... I dont care what people do sexually so long as it is consensual. A basic Liberal attitude if ever I heard one. How about if masochist B wants sadist A to kill her ? Happened in Germany quite recently. And again you ignore my points in an attempt to attack me personally. I guess you can't figure out where I stand on that issue so you attempt to bring in other things. Nice try.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 2:32:03 PM)
As you wish. We must leave CM readers to recognise that I am right and you are wrong lol

thetammyjo -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 5:42:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave As you wish. We must leave CM readers to recognise that I am right and you are wrong lol shakes head at the sad response

fluffyswitch -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/18/2008 5:55:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave As you wish. We must leave CM readers to recognise that I am right and you are wrong lol you are neither right nor are you wrong. you are asserting your opinion and nothing else. you obviously hold strong views, kudos to you, but having a strong opinion does not make you right. this is a much too complicated issue to have a purely right and a purely wrong view, and frankly to assert that you are right because you hold a polar opposite opinion of someone is just as flawed as the 'flawed' logic that you were asserting against. to be honest you have not presented any evidence as to why your position is 'right' other than your personal opinions. so be it. however i hope you do not speak for me in your assertion that the 'readers' will find you 'right'.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women (1/19/2008 2:49:09 AM)
My whimsical attitude Fluffy, nothing more. adding: thats why I ended the statement with a "lol" I have no reason to believe anyone will agree with me. I am not an active outraged crusader against abortion .....but ...... Also using Thetammyjoe's "thin wedge"..... if abortion is OK lets kill off old people, the sick, the depressed, those in wheel chairs or suffering any disease that cant be cured but can be held in abeyence. Cant see any difference in principle....can you ? Funnily enough I do believe in Euthenasia, under strict controls ! By the way in 99% of cases the issue of abortion is not complicated. It is done for no other reason than convenience. Is that statement wrong ?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875