Legal restriction of abortion doesn't change the rate

[CoryKS]

well, I think that's one of the big gripes that many of the pro-choice women have. They feel that until men start getting pregnant and dealing with all the issues that go along with that and childbirth, they really have no grounds to tell the women what to do and how to do it. I think they have a good point...

Yes, but they never complain about the men who support their position, do they? This particular stance is why I have bowed out completely.

 

[Flying Crane]

Sadly, far too many abortions are issues of convenience not life or death for the mother. Believing in personal responsibility also means believing one must take the proper precautions in every part of life.

I actually agree very much with what you are saying here. The thing about abortion that is actually very sad is that the vast majority could have been avoided. Proper education and understanding of birth control, as well as access to birth control is key, but elements in our society seem to want to work against this. Those people never should have gotten pregnant in the first place.

Preventative birth control, when used correctly and consistently, is very reliable. Yet we have "sex education" classes in our schools teaching that contraception is unreliable and risky, and often the religious element is brought in and teenagers with raging hormones are simply told "don't have sex because it's a sin". But as we all can see, that just doesn't work. It goes directly against human nature and at that age, under the influence of hormonal changes in teenage bodies, it's the rare individual who is able to actually resist the urge completely.

A friend of ours confided that she and her husband were trying to buy condoms in a Walgreens. They wandered all over the store and couldn't find them. They finally discovered that they were in a locked case behind the cashier station, and they had to ask the cashier for them. They were told by the cashier that they are kept locked away to prevent the teenagers from stealing them.

OK, much of this scenario is, in my opinion, just asking for trouble. First off, everyone, including an embarrassed teenager, has to face the cashier and deliberately ask for the condoms by name and type and size, and I think for most teenagers that is a real deterrant. These things should just be made free for the teenagers for the taking, because the embarrassment prevents them from buying them, but it sure as hell doesn't prevent them from having sex. If these things were just happily given out, no questions asked, I am sure a lot of unwanted pregnancies, and by extension, unfortunate abortions among teenagers, could be prevented.

I am not advocating that teenagers should be having sex. I think they would benefit by waiting until they are older and more mature emotionally and better able to deal with it. But I think we need to be realistic and accept the fact that as much as they are told not to, no matter what threats and hellfire and brimstone they are faced with, a certain fairly high percentage is still going to have sex, and a certain percentage of those are going to become mothers before they graduate from high school.

For the love of god, let the teenagers have contraceptives, make sure they understand how to use them, and don't embarrass them into not getting them. It's better for everyone, and it reduces the rate of abortions.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, but they never complain about the men who support their position, do they? This particular stance is why I have bowed out completely.

why would anyone complain about anybody who agrees with them about anything?

 

[CoryKS]

why would anyone complain about anybody who agrees with them about anything?

I suppose it depends on which is more important: integrity or winning. If the argument is that men, who cannot become pregnant, are not qualified to be agin' it, it follows that men, for the same reason, are not qualified to be fer it either.

 

[Flying Crane]

I suppose it depends on which is more important: integrity or winning. If the argument is that men, who cannot become pregnant, are not qualified to be agin' it, it follows that men, for the same reason, are not qualified to be fer it either.

No, I don't think it can be simplified in that way.

I think it's a valid argument to say that men should not dictate how women handle their pregnancies, because men cannot experience pregnancy themselves and they are speaking from an outside and disconnected point of view.

I think it's also valid for other men to understand this point, and stand in agreement with those women.

I also think it is valid for men or women to say "Hey, some people are just irresponsible, they are fully educated and capable of avoiding pregnancy yet they don't even try, and then they want to just use abortion to clean up their problems. So and So has had 8 abortions of convenience, and that's not right" I would agree with this kind of statement as well, that this kind of behavior is inappropriate, altho I suspect it is not common.

It has little to do with integrity or winning. It's understanding the different aspects of the issue. Abortion is an issue that raises many considerations, and it can be an emotionally charged issue. Some people are only able to approach the issue from one angle. Others from a different angle. Still others try to consider all (or at least several) of the angles and then take a position after weighing all aspects of a difficult problem.

I personally don't like abortion, I don't think anyone would claim to LIKE it. But I also believe it is an unfortunate necessity at times, and it should be legal and safe, and ultimately it should be a decision between the mother, the father, and her doctor, but I would ultimately give more weight to the mother than the father.

 

[CoryKS]

No, I don't think it can be simplified in that way.

I think it's a valid argument to say that men should not dictate how women handle their pregnancies, because men cannot experience pregnancy themselves and they are speaking from an outside and disconnected point of view.

I think it's also valid for other men to understand this point, and stand in agreement with those women.

Then is it also valid that some women are opposed to abortion? And, if so, is it not valid for some men to understand this point and stand in agreement with those women?

Keep in mind, I'm not debating whether abortion should be legal or not, whether it's bad or not. I fall into the category of "don't oppose, but won't support your effort". And the "you have no womb to talk" argument is why I won't support.

 

[Flying Crane]

Then is it also valid that some women are opposed to abortion? And, if so, is it not valid for some men to understand this point and stand in agreement with those women?

yes, I think there is room for that, tho I personally lean toward the other side in this point. It's one of the many facets of the issue, and some facets mean more to some people and less to others.

Keep in mind, I'm not debating whether abortion should be legal or not, whether it's bad or not. I fall into the category of "don't oppose, but won't support your effort". And the "you have no womb to talk" argument is why I won't support.

sure, I think everyone finds their own way to deal with it. I think it's an ugly issue no matter what. In a perfect world it would not be necessary at all, but that's not reality.

 

[tellner]

It's interesting how many things go together in the anti-choice camp.

• Feminism of all sorts is a dirty word
• Contraception is bad.
• Non-abortifacient contraception is really abortion
• Comprehensive sex education is bad
• Sex is bad unless it's between married couples
• Homosexuality is particularly bad. Male homosexuality is the worst
• Anything that doesn't punish non-marital sex is bad
• There are very strict and distinct roles for men and women
• Women should generally defer to men and submit to their husbands
• Men should be in most positions of power in the economy and government
• A general hostility towards science insofar as it challenges their beliefs
• The Church should have a much greater role in the State than it is currently permitted

It's amazingly consistent.

For a very succinct view of the whole thing read How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex

 

[Big Don]

It's interesting how many things go together in the anti-choice camp.

The liberal version of that is "Traditional morals are limiting and thus illegal"

 

[CoryKS]

It's interesting how many things go together in the anti-choice camp.

• Feminism of all sorts is a dirty word
• Contraception is bad.
• Non-abortifacient contraception is really abortion
• Comprehensive sex education is bad
• Sex is bad unless it's between married couples
• Homosexuality is particularly bad. Male homosexuality is the worst
• Anything that doesn't punish non-marital sex is bad
• There are very strict and distinct roles for men and women
• Women should generally defer to men and submit to their husbands
• Men should be in most positions of power in the economy and government
• A general hostility towards science insofar as it challenges their beliefs
• The Church should have a much greater role in the State than it is currently permitted

It's amazingly consistent.

For a very succinct view of the whole thing read How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex

Of course it's consistent. Every point you've enumerated is a factor in maintaining a high birth rate. Which is something that is a concern to those who wish to "conserve" their culture. Conservative, get it? But don't take my word for it, check out the birth rates in the Islamic countries. They have this **** down to a science.

btw: you forgot masturbation. Big no-no there. Same reason.

 

[shesulsa]

Hello? The point here is not whether it is good or bad, right or wrong - the point is that it will happen regardless. Women who are opposed to abortion GET abortions whether the procedure is legal or not.

Is it not, then, incumbent upon us to focus on preventative medicine as a public health concern? Can we not make abortions legal and safe so that we may make a transition from a world waging war on sex, conduct and feminism to a world where families have the best chance of remaining intact, mothers whole and healthy, children care for?

I think we have to stop standing on our spiritual soapboxes and start paying attention - unplanned pregnancy is the most common health concern in the world - it beats AIDS, cancer, communicable diseases, birth defects, Down Syndrome, Autism.

I think everyone believes that unwanted pregnancy is something that only happens to loose women who get drunk in bars and have sex in the handicapped spot in the parking lot or teenage girls who want desperately to be in fairy-tale love with the football team captain. Look around you.

Secretaries.
Sunday School teachers.
Dentists.
Neurologists.
Rocket Scientists.
Accountants.
Store clerks.
Manicurists.
Construction workers.
Financial consultants.
Insurance Agents.
Firefighters.
Police women.
Black belts.
White belts.
Cooks
Waitresses.
Lawyers.
Physical Therapists.
Professional athletes.
Sister Mary Margaret.
Politicians.
Right-wing activists.
Feminist Suffragettes.
Railroad workers
Truck drivers.
Mechanics
...

name a profession - a woman likely has it - and someone in that profession has likely had an unplanned pregnancy.

If it's no big deal, let's plop another several million orphaned children onto the face of the planet. Right now. What crises would we be dealing with then?

The point is UNPLANNED PREGNANCY IS AN EPIDEMIC CRISIS and we are not doing anything to stop it with the limits on sex education. Are we going to honor the life-givers with the care and prevention they require? Or are we going to thumb our nose at them, indicate they are not good enough to care for, but they are good enough to pop out another consumer?

 

[tellner]

Of course it ties in with high birth rates. And that is great if you're an ignorant, backward, peasant with nothing to look forward to in your short life but drudgery and pain.

The thing is, we have brains. One of the things we do with these brains is make things easier. So let me introduce you to the Demographic Transition.

Most societies stay somewhere around replacement.

When lives are short and infant mortality is high people have lots of children, particularly when they are agrarian and every child is an economic asset. In hunter-gatherer societies mortality isn't quite as high, and women space their children by extended nursing and modifying their sexual practices.

When development and urbanization start in earnest birth rates stay high, and infant mortality goes down. Population skyrockets.

After a generation or so women start to realize that there is more to life than churning out babies like it was Barnum and Bailey and their uterus was a clown car. They get education and become more independent. They see that if they cut down on the number of children and space them out more of them have a chance at education and a prosperous life. So they catch on and stop having five or six They have one to three. They still have about the same number of children surviving to adulthood, but they aren't tired and worn down by forty.

We saw it among the subhuman Irish, the degenerate Mediterraneans, the uncivilized Americans, the primitive Russians, and the Endless Hordes of Asia. It's universal. And it even happens mirabile dictu among the Swarthy Oriental Islamic Terrorist Fiends. Look at Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and quite a few of the emirates.

It was happening when my wife grew up in Darkest Africa during the 1970s. The girls she went to school with came from big families. Eight to twelve children wasn't all that uncommon. They didn't want any part of that. Two, maybe three so they could give them all a good life and have one themselves.

That's how it is. It's universal. The only way to stop it is by vicious and brutal repression. Even that is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. Appeals to propaganda and ideology only work for so long when basic self interest is at stake.

 

[tellner]

Is it not, then, incumbent upon us to focus on preventative medicine as a public health concern? Can we not make abortions legal and safe so that we may make a transition from a world waging war on sex, conduct and feminism to a world where families have the best chance of remaining intact, mothers whole and healthy, children care for?

No, we can't. By "we" I mean those to whom keeping women in their "proper" place is fundamental. You see it right here with the people who decry anything else as racial suicide and "liberal". They do not want women who are happy, free, independent and healthy. They want women to shut up, do as they are told, have as many babies as possible and go back to being their husbands' property.

Women like you are the enemy. Men like me are traitors.

It really is that simple.

The point is UNPLANNED PREGNANCY IS AN EPIDEMIC CRISIS and we are not doing anything to stop it with the limits on sex education. Are we going to honor the life-givers with the care and prevention they require? Or are we going to thumb our nose at them, indicate they are not good enough to care for, but they are good enough to pop out another consumer?

If unplanned pregnancy were the issue they would be up front demanding comprehensive sex education and easy access to affordable contraception. But that is not the issue. Look at the previous posts. It is part of a wider urge to make sure women have one role and one role only: baby factories owned by their men, first their fathers, then their husbands, then their sons. Those who step out of that tiny box must be punished. And we must make it as difficult as possible for them. Kinder, kirche, und kuchen for the Glory of the Race.

That's why Ms. Sanger was arrested and more than once. She gave women the means to have as many or as few children as they wanted when they wanted. According to Comstock and the rest of that crew that was indecent.

 

[tellner]

[/list]The liberal version of that is "Traditional morals are limiting and thus illegal"

First of all, do you have any idea what "traditional morals" are? They've been so far over the map that you need a telescope to see the edges. One thing that's absolutely certain is that you wouldn't recognize them if they came up and bit you on the butt.

Let's just stick to the United States. You're probably not interested in the rest of the world for these purposes.

Up until the twentieth century most men's first sexual experience was with a prostitute. And a very good case can be made that most men got most of their sex from whores. The family was primarily an economic unit. Romantic love between man and wife was not expected or even something to be valued. As long as they made money and raised children it was all good. It was common for men to have mistresses but not acceptable for women to have lovers of their own.

A woman was a man's property from the day she was born until the day her last husband died. Assuming, of course, that anyone would want to marry a widow who was "spoiled goods". Most states had laws against married women owning property, entering into contracts, or acting independently in any legal setting. The original American laws concerning a woman harming or killing her husband were not assault or homicide but petit treason. A woman had no right to deny her husband sex under any circumstances. She had no right to her own children. They were her husband's.

Women couldn't vote. They couldn't have a drink in a bar. Many places they couldn't order a meal in a restaurant. They couldn't get a diaphragm to prevent pregnancy. They couldn't vote. They were barred from almost all professions. If they did have a job they could be raped by their employers. And they had no right to object or to demand the same pay for doing the same job as a man.

On the upside, female homosexuality was pretty much ignored. "Boston marriages" as they were called were common and unremarkable. Physical romantic friendships among women of the upper middle classes and up were tolerated, even indulged. And there was good money for doctors. Treating "hysteria" (cf. The Technology of Orgasm) through manipulation until "crisis" was the single biggest moneymaker for American physicians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The vibrator was invented to speed up the process.

Slaves were fair game. Once we got radical and untraditional it was barely a crime to rape a Black woman. The races were kept separate in the name of Traditional Moral Values.

In fact, I ran smack into the last vestiges of Race Law here in Oregon when I got married. The Radical Liberal Supreme Court destroyed the Republic in 1954 by saying that miscegenation laws were illegal, thereby trampling on Sacred States' Rights and allowing God-Fearing Whites to pollute themselves with lower races. At the time Oregon's Constitution forbade a "member or the White Race" from "marrying a Mulatto, Free Negro, Chinaman or Kanaka". When Tiel and I went to get our marriage license the tail end of that law reared up and flashed its last fang. The law still required that the County collect racial data to prevent this Sin against God and Nature. I am proud to say that we got that law changed.

Those are your "traditional morals" with all the glitter and makeup removed and laid bare for everyone to see. They are foul and ugly in their nakedness. They are based on turning half of the human race into things, not people. They are every bit as bad as the treatment of women in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Arab world which the Right now uses to justify its military adventures.

 

[crushing]

It's interesting how many things go together in the anti-choice camp.

• Feminism of all sorts is a dirty word
• Contraception is bad.
• Non-abortifacient contraception is really abortion
• Comprehensive sex education is bad
• Sex is bad unless it's between married couples
• Homosexuality is particularly bad. Male homosexuality is the worst
• Anything that doesn't punish non-marital sex is bad
• There are very strict and distinct roles for men and women
• Women should generally defer to men and submit to their husbands
• Men should be in most positions of power in the economy and government
• A general hostility towards science insofar as it challenges their beliefs
• The Church should have a much greater role in the State than it is currently permitted

It's amazingly consistent.

I see the stereotype you are working, but people don't have to be in agreement with any of those bullet points, nor be religious to be opposed abortion.

Additionally, the "general hostility towards science insofar as it challenges their beliefs" works both ways on this one. Science has given us the ability to see the process of the human life-cycle up close. But, DO NOT use that information to help educate the host organism about the life ending choice. We'd hate for people to start thinking that the living growing thing is a unique human with its own human DNA. That it's not a pig, a tadpole, or otherwise apparently more easily killable animal. The DNA difference between it and its host organism confirms its not a hangnail nor a verifrom appendix to be dumped in the biohazard bin.

 

[tellner]

Next, of course, is the ridiculous lie that everyone besides you - which seems to be what you mean by "liberal" - is trying to keep you from exercising your own morality over yourself. When you actually start to look at facts rather than blind faith and blinder hatred for everything that is different it doesn't even come close to looking like that.

Want to have lots of children? If you can find a like-minded woman it's your right. Of course, the Bible Belt, which practices this is also the biggest suckler on the Federal teat when it comes to welfare. And your marriages are shorter. And you have more children out of wedlock for every hundred functioning fannies. But that's irrelevant, of course.

Want to have creepy "Purity Balls" with fake silver Purity Rings? Not a problem. Most decent people think the whole thing has some nasty overtones, but it's not any of our business unless you try to make us pay for them or drag decent people to them.

Don't want to use contraceptives? Fine.

Want to remain virgins until you're married? Cool. "Marry in haste. Repent at leisure." It's your marriage. And, like I noted above, gawdless liberal states tend to have longer more stable marriages. That's just reality's well-known liberal bias, so we'll ignore it.

A woman wants to give herself utterly over to the Dominion and Loving Discipline of her husband who is like a g-d unto her as G-d is to him? Fine. If you like that sort of kinky edge-play it's your scene. Thank goodness nobody else's family is forced to do it.

Do you want to believe that a literal interpretation of the writings of semi-literate sheep shaggers in the Middle East is the way to govern your life? Fine. In fact, great. Those semi-literate sheep shaggers were my ancestors! Just don't force me to live the same way. I like wool blend fabrics and cheeseburgers and don't believe that anyone who smashes babies' heads against the rocks and rapes captive women is "blessed" for doing it.

Let's look at what people like you want to make illegal:

• A woman wants to vote.
• A woman wants to own her own property.
• A woman wants to wear pants.
• A woman wants to limit or space the number of children she has.
• A man and woman want to make love without engaging in a permanent irrevocable contract.
• A man and man want to make love and not be murdered for it.
• A Catholic, Jew, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist or Pastafarian wants his religion to receive just as much official protection as yours.
• A Black man wants to marry a White woman.
• A woman wants to leave an abusive brute whom she had the poor judgment to marry and have her own life.
• A woman hasn't met a man she wants to marry and wants to have a life including a sex life.
• A man wants to marry two women, just like they did in the Bible
• A scientist wants science taught in science classes, not superstition
• A school board wants children to be taught the truth about reproduction and given accurate information rather than "just say no"
• A couple wants to add a toy to spice up their bedroom routine.

All of these are or were illegal under your "traditional morals". Who is bringing the terrible coercive power of the Law down on the heads of people who want to live according to their values? Who is standing up for freedom? About the only one where your values trump the "liberal" ones is in the freedom to kill in self defense and to have the tools to do so. And some of us are coming around on that one.

 

[tellner]

I see the stereotype you are working, but people don't have to be in agreement with any of those bullet points, nor be religious to be opposed abortion.

The problem is that it's not a stereotype. It's point-for-point, fact-for-fact precisely what the prominent anti-choice groups espouse. There are certainly people who are against abortion who do not support all or even most of these. But the organizations are right down the line in accord with all of them. And they are, every single one I've seen, motivated by religious fundamentalism with close ties to religious organizations, almost all Christian.

That is the face and history of the movement as a movement. It is fundamentally opposed to women's rights, hostile to contraception, sexuality outside very strict bounds, pluralism and science. It is significant that not one single anti-choice pressure group supports comprehensive sex education or easy access to non-abortifacient contraception. Once in a while you get a standout like C. Everett Koop. But when he took his duty as a physician over his personal political beliefs he was disowned by the same people who gave him the job.

Additionally, the "general hostility towards science insofar as it challenges their beliefs" works both ways on this one. Science has given us the ability to see the process of the human life-cycle up close. But, DO NOT use that information to help educate the host organism about the life ending choice.

Don't make me laugh. Honestly.

If you liook at the Right's view of science it is hostile without exception. From Galileo to Darwin, from heliocentrism to biology to modern physics to geology, physical anthropology, global warming, neuro-science and more science has always had to fight hard for the right to approach truth. Dogma has always fought it, often with the most brutal and crude tools.

I've said it many times before and will say it again.

Revealed religion is hostile to science and always has been. Science forces you to ask inconvenient questions and take the facts and data over the authority of the Church. There is, in the end, no question that can not be asked and no dogma that can not, must not, be discarded when it is proven to be in error. Revealed religion gets its authority from things that can not, must not ever be questioned. If it's Holy Writ it is Right, no matter what.

The two worldviews are fundamentally incompatible.

The best you get is a pathetic version of Cargo Cult Science. Its perpetrators pick and choose from scientific results to find comforting words that seem to support whatever delusions of which they are most fond. They lack the fundamental courage and honesty to take science's fundamental challenge and say "It might or might not be true. Let's see where the information leads us."

Another unbridgeable gap between Revelation and Science is that the Believer is fundamentally in search of certainty. He is looking for things that he can believe now and forever. Science is just the opposite. No matter how good the theory is and how well it's supported one inconvenient fact can overturn it. Your magnum opus may be revolutionary. Sooner or later it will be extended, disproven, or incorporated into something else. And that's fine.

Nobody has been able to reconcile them so far. I doubt that anyone ever will.

 

[crushing]

The problem is that it's not a stereotype. It's point-for-point, fact-for-fact precisely what the prominent anti-choice groups espouse. There are certainly people who are against abortion who do not support all or even most of these.

Maybe more than you realize, but it's tough to tell because of the straw (wo)men that are built. Someone speaks up about traditional values (whatever that means to that individual, I am not sure) and the next thing you know the person is being called out as a racist, misogynist, homophobe. I guess that is one way to try to shut up those that are opposed to abortion. At least it didn't go to Godwin levels. . .yet.

Don't make me laugh. Honestly.

If you liook at the Right's view of science it is hostile without exception.

I can't speak for and won't defend what you call 'the Right', so I guess that's it.

 

[Big Don]

Let's look at what people like you want to make illegal:

• A woman wants to vote.

• Which Republicans voted for and Democrats voted AGAINST, just like Civil Rights...

  [*]A woman wants to own her own property.

  Uh, it is liberals, that is democrats telling ALL Property owners what LEGAL activities are not allowed on Private property. Otherwise, be kind enough to cite proof.

  [*]A woman wants to wear pants.

  You know what, you cannot honestly compare Christians to Muslims any more than you can honestly compare apples to oranges.

  [*]A woman wants to limit or space the number of children she has.

  Andrea Yates is not a good role model. Saying the killing of absolute innocents should not be allowed is not saying a woman cannot control the spacing or number of children she has. Abortion is NOT a contraceptive! http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contraceptive a contraceptive PREVENTS conception an abortion KILLS the result of conception. Rubbers, the pill, the patch and every other method of birth control, except abstinence, have a statistical failure rate even when used correctly. However, people who abstain from sex don't have children

  [*]A man and woman want to make love without engaging in a permanent irrevocable contract.

  Can you name five states where this has been prosecuted in the past 20 years? Post proof or retract.

  [*]A man and man want to make love and not be murdered for it.

  Aside from the idiot Phelps clan, post proof of any republican member of congress, blogger, or conservative radio host advocating that. Because, that is a bs assertion, and you well know it.

  [*]A Catholic, Jew, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist or Pastafarian wants his religion to receive just as much official protection as yours.

  Catholics and Jews are made fun of all the time, as a matter of fact, those telling the most, and arguably the funniest, Jew jokes are Jews. Name five instances of anti-Catholic, Anti- Mormon or Anti-Buddhist hate crime prosecutions. Whats a matter, can't find what doesn't exist?

  [*]A Black man wants to marry a White woman.

  Another example of something Democrats voted to keep illegal.

  [*]A woman wants to leave an abusive brute whom she had the poor judgment to marry and have her own life.

  No one in any free country would stop her

  [*]A woman hasn't met a man she wants to marry and wants to have a life including a sex life.

  Who is stopping her? Is calling a promiscuous woman a promiscuous woman now a hate crime too? Gee, honesty is outlawed?

  [*]A man wants to marry two women, just like they did in the Bible

  The insane should never be coddled. No sane man wants more than one wife...

  [*]A scientist wants science taught in science classes, not superstition

  Like Man made global warming? Coming Ice ages? those superstitions?

  [*]A school board wants children to be taught the truth about reproduction and given accurate information rather than "just say no"

  Why is the FACT that it is well nigh impossible to become pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease without sexual contact so threatening to you?

  [*]A couple wants to add a toy to spice up their bedroom routine.

All of these are or were illegal under your "traditional morals". Who is bringing the terrible coercive power of the Law down on the heads of people who want to live according to their values? Who is standing up for freedom? About the only one where your values trump the "liberal" ones is in the freedom to kill in self defense and to have the tools to do so. And some of us are coming around on that one.

There are ways in place to change laws. Get enough people to agree with you and change the laws you don't like. Don't ***** and moan and whine about how unfair life is. Life is unfair, get a helmet!

 

[Ray]

Catholics and Jews are made fun of all the time, as a matter of fact, those telling the most, and arguably the funniest, Jew jokes are Jews. Name five instances of anti-Catholic, Anti- Mormon or Anti-Buddhist hate crime prosecutions.

Funny you should mention the law and different relgions including Mormons. Q: Why did the Mormons leave Missouri in the 19th century? A: The govenor issued an extermination order. I copied this text from wiki:

The following order was issued by Governor Lillburn Boggs:

Copy of a Military Order by the Governor of Missouri. HEAD QUARTERS, MILITIA, City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838. Sir:--Since the order of the morning to you, directing you to cause four hundred mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Rees, Esq. and Wiley E. Williams Esq., one of my aids, information of the most appalling character, which changes the whole face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made open war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operations and endeavor to reach Richmond, in Ray County, with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good. Their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may think necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Wallock, of Marion County, to raise 500 men and march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with 500 men to proceed to the same point, for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the North. They have been directed to communicate with you by express. You can also communicate with them if you find it necessary. Instead, therefore, of proceeding, as at first directed, to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond, and there operate against the Mormons. Brig. Gen. Parks, of Ray, has been ordered to have four hundred men of his brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command. L. W. BOGGS, Gov. And Command-in-chief. To Gen. Clark.
​