On this day of worship and rest, here are great thoughts to ponder, an April 23 Townhall.com column by Dinesh D'Souza.
Speaking as a former fetus, I welcome the Supreme Court's decision permitting regulation of partial birth abortion. Now there's lots of talk about a wider pro-life strategy to build on this victory. Such a strategy must be one of persuasion as much as legislation. I am not an expert on the abortion issue, but I have learned a great deal about it, strangely enough, by studying the Lincoln-Douglas debates. These debates were about slavery. But look at how closely the arguments parallel the abortion debate....
Douglas, the Democrat, took the pro-choice position. He said that each state should decide for itself whether or not it wanted slavery. Douglas denied that he was pro-slavery. In fact, at one time he professed to be "personally opposed" to it. At the same time, Douglas was reluctant to impose his moral views on the new territories. Douglas affirmed the right of each state to choose. He invoked the great principle of freedom of choice.
Lincoln, the Republican, disagreed. Lincoln argued that choice cannot be exercised without reference to the content of the choice. How can it make sense to permit a person to choose to enslave another human being? How can self-determination be invoked to deny others self-determination? How can choice be used to negate choice? At its deepest level, Lincoln is saying that the legitimacy of freedom as a political principle is itself dependent on a doctrine of natural rights that arises out of a specific understanding of human nature and human dignity.
If Negroes are like hogs, Lincoln said, then the pro-choice position is right, and there is no problem with choosing to own them. Of course they may be governed without their consent. But if Negroes are human beings, then it is grotesquely evil to treat them like hogs, to buy and sell them as objects of merchandise.
The argument between Douglas and Lincoln is very similar in content, and very nearly in form, to the argument between the pro-choice and the pro-life movements. Pro-choice advocates don't like to be considered pro-abortion. Many of them say they are "personally opposed." One question to put to them is, "Why are you personally opposed?" The only reason for one to be personally opposed to abortion is that one is deeply convinced that the fetus is more than a mere collection of cells, that it is a developing human being.
Even though the weight of the argument is strongly on the pro-life side, the pro-choice side has until now won politically. This is because liberals understand that abortion-on-demand is the debris of the sexual revolution. If you are going to have sexual promiscuity, then there are going to be mistakes, and many women are going to get pregnant without wanting to do so. For them, the fetus becomes what one feminist writer termed "an uninvited guest."
As long as the fetus occupies the woman's womb, liberals view it as an enemy of female autonomy. Thus liberalism is willing to grant to the woman full control over the life of the fetus, even to the point of allowing her to kill it. No other liberal principle, not equality, not compassion, is permitted to get in the way of the principle of autonomy.
The abortion issue reveals the bloody essence of modern liberalism. In fact, it is the one issue on which liberals rarely yield. Being pro-choice is a litmus test for nomination to high office in the Democratic Party. Liberals as a group seem to oppose any restriction of abortion. They don't want laws that regulate late-term abortion. Many liberals object to parental notification laws that would notify the parents if a minor seeks to have an abortion. We see from their recent reaction that even partial birth abortion is acceptable to the Democratic presidential contenders, like Obama and Hillary. One may say that in the church of modern liberalism, abortion has become a sacrament.
What, then, is the challenge facing the pro-life movement? It is the same challenge that Lincoln faced: to build popular consent for the restriction and ultimately the ending of abortions. Right now the pro-life movement does not enjoy the support of the American people to do this. Neither, by the way, did Lincoln have a national mandate to end slavery. It is highly significant that Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He was resolutely anti-slavery in principle, but his political campaign focused on the issue of curtailing the spread of slavery to the territories.
In my view the pro-life movement at this point should focus on seeking to reduce the number of abortions. At times this will require political and legal fights, at times it will require education and the establishment of alternatives to abortion, such as adoption centers. Unfortunately such measures are sometimes opposed by so-called hardliners in the pro-life movement. These hardliners are fools. They want to outlaw all abortions, and so they refuse to settle for stopping some abortions, with the consequence that they end up preventing no abortions. These folks should learn some lessons from Abraham Lincoln.
Would you maybe agree then that better education about birth control methods might help to limit the number of abortions? There would be less unwanted pregnancies if people were taught to better protect themselves during sex.Posted by: JK at April 29, 2007 7:48 AM
Jk, birth control has not ever decreased unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. It has increased the number of unwanted pregnancies. Over half of all unplanned pregnancies are due to failed birth control. Do you really trust birth control that much, when ever since it has become more widely available, there have been more and more unwanted pregnancies, and more and more abortions?
Jill, awesome article!! We should all learn something from history. Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.Posted by: Bethany at April 29, 2007 8:01 AM
You are really manipulating history here for your own sick ends (not you, Jill, just whomever wrote this article). Douglas supported free choice per state because he wanted to be elected, and therefore he wanted to appeal to more states. However, because of civil unrest (and the author here seems to have forgotten that) his opinions didn't really influence all voters, because the South had their candidates and the North supported Lincoln. Slavery is NOT the same as abortion. How can you compare an issue of race and prejudice to an issue that is based on one's concept of when life begins? I know you all believe life begins at conception, but people who abort do not base their decisions on race. This is a poorly researched article that doesn't list its sources.Posted by: Leah at April 29, 2007 8:24 AM
It's not Klu Klux Klan lynchings but Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood and legalized abortion that have produced a black genocide in America.
In America today, almost as many African-American children
are aborted as are born.
A black baby is three times more likely to be
murdered in the womb than a white baby.
Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.
Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from
AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.
Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than
have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.
Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and
almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.
About 13 percent of American women are black, but they
submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.
What the Ku Klux Klan Could Only Dream About
The Abortion Industry is Accomplishing
This years proposal, which Mayor Marcelo Ebrard says he will sign, will make Mexico City the only place in Latin America outside of Cuba where legal abortions will be available for almost any reason, and free or very cheap at city hospitals.
In an unguarded moment, Dr. Edward Allred, owner of the largest chain of abortion clinics in California, made his racist attitudes frighteningly clear.
Population control is too important to be stopped by some right-wing pro-life types. Take the new influx of Hispanic immigrants. Their lack of respect for democracy and social order is frightening. I hope I can do something to stem that tide; I'd set up a clinic in Mexico for free if I could . . . The survival of our society could be at stake . . . When a sullen black woman of 17 or 18 can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us it's time to stop.(12
The unborn are a class of people that are being persecuted and eliminated for one reason and one reason only...because they are "unborn".
This is the EXACT same mentality that was at work in slavery. A group of individuals being persecuted and/or eliminated because of one thing. Their race.
Not only do I see a DIRECT parallel between abortion and slavery, but I am also amazed that you don't.
Slavery IS the same as abortion. Race and prejudice vs age and prejudice. Persecution based on something that the persecuted have no choice in. Their color, or their stage of development. Being persecuted and executed by those who do have a choice. Oppression, no matter how you spin it.
One groups rights being used to undermine anothers for purely selfish reasons.
You are really manipulating history here for your own sick ends
You want to talk about sick ends?
Jill, show her the video!
mkPosted by: MK at April 29, 2007 8:44 AM
You posted great arguments, but you forgot to mention that African Americans and Hispanics are much more likely to be living in poverty than White Americans, which may lead to more abortions. I am not making this up- you could log on to any federal website that gathers this information and find these statistics.
As far as watching a video, count me out. I had a sick religion teacher do that to my freshman class, and he succeeded in scaring the daylights out of everyone. As a result, many students didn't even bother to question the legitimacy of his assertions and were blindly led along.
And, to let you know, I still believe in what I said earlier- slavery is NOT the same as abortion.Posted by: Leah at April 29, 2007 10:01 AM
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…"
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood
Cruel, cold blooded Edward Allred [abortionist] would love to wipe out all blacks, Mexicans, and Hispanics. Hey,if the mother dies during the abortion, that's just fine by him. This man ref errs to his patients as "dogs" and "tramps" on a regular basis. I can't remember which pro choice person was ranting about RTL's calling women "whores." You had us confused with Edward Allred. This man was nicknamed "Fast Eddie" because he performs his abortions very quickly, and crams in several a day.Posted by: Heather4life at April 29, 2007 11:14 AM
FMI,Google his name.Posted by: Heather4life at April 29, 2007 11:15 AM
As far as watching a video, count me out.
But this is refusing to see the truth of what abortion is. So you are basing your entire argument on something of which you have no "real" knowledge. If you don't even know what abortion is, if you are unwilling to stare it in the face, then how can you defend it so unremittingly?
If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then looking at it would not be difficult.
The fact that you call your teacher "cruel" tells me that something about the movie you saw bothered you. So you refused to look ever again at the very thing that you support so wholeheartedly. Why?
Your teacher wasn't cruel. Your teacher was honest and kind. She was trying to show you something that could help you. She was trying to save you from supporting something that could destroy your soul.
You chose not to see. This, to me, is the cruelty. By your refusal, millions upon millions of children have lost their lives. By your "cowardice", millions more will lose them henceforth.
You have a responsibility to these children. Watch the video. Look at the pictures. Really look. Then come back and tell me that you support the women's right to choose.
Until then, I cannot take your arguments seriously because you do not even know what you are defending.
mkPosted by: MK at April 29, 2007 11:29 AM
You posted great arguments, but you forgot to mention that African Americans and Hispanics are much more likely to be living in poverty than White Americans, which may lead to more abortions.
Yes, they might be poorer, but I was not talking about why Hispanics and Mexicans choose to abort...I was talking about why they are targeted and this has NOTHING to do with their wealth or lack thereof. It has to do with their race and ethnicity. The same power that keep them poor and uneducated, aborts their children. From their point of view, it's a win/win situation. These powers keep them poor and then take what little money they have so they and eliminate them.
A racist wet dream...Posted by: MK at April 29, 2007 11:38 AM
I have watched the video, and when I was pro-life I read plenty of material, so I know where you are coming from. I'm not chosing "not to see" because I have seen the pictures and the videos. And the truth is, they (the videos) are disgusting. (IF anything, this should prove to you that I'm not sadistic/cowardly, etc.) Sadly, those videos are the only real tool you have to convince many to become pro-life. I didn't appreciate my teacher forcing us to watch a video and then not providing the other side of the argument. My teacher was keeping us ignorant of the entire situation by presenting it with a bias, something teachers shouldn't do.
And by the way, I wasn't defending abortion when I started posting here. I was simply arguing that slavery is not the same as abortion. Your original comments linked abortion with race with no regard to how poverty affects people's decisions. You said:
"The same power that keep them poor and uneducated, aborts their children. "
Really? Am I supposed to assume that this is true? Because I don't. If anything, the federal government is responsibile for keeping people in poverty and offering no chances for advancement. But that's a very large issue that many disagree on, so I'll stop there.Posted by: Leah at April 29, 2007 12:05 PM
oops,MK I just saw your post about Allred. May I ask what video you guys are talking about?Posted by: Heather4life at April 29, 2007 12:57 PM
Margaret Sanger quote:
• Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most. The average working man can support no more and and the average working woman can take care of no more in decent fashion.
This was wrote by Margaret Sanger and was first published in the Woman Citizen, Vol. 8,
February 23, 1924, pages 17-18. :
There are definite reasons when and why parents should not have children, which will be conceded by most thoughtful people.
First -- Children should not be born when either parent has an inheritable disease, such as insanity, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, or syphilis.
Second -- When the mother is suffering from tuberculosis, kidney disease, heart disease, or pelvic deformity.
Third -- When either parent has gonorrhea. This disease in the mother is the cause of 90 percent of blindness in newborn babies.
Fourth -- When children already born are not normal, even though both parents are in good physical and mental condition.
Fifth -- Not until the woman is twenty-three years old and the man twenty-five.
Sixth -- Not until the previous baby is at least three years old. This gives a year to recover from the physical ordeal of the birth of the baby, a year to rest, be normal and enjoy her motherhood, and another year to prepare for the coming of the next.
We want mothers to be fit. We want them to conceive in joy and gladness. We want them to carry their babies during the nine months in a sound and healthy body and with a happy, joyous, hopeful mind. It is almost impossible to imagine the suffering caused to women, the mental agony they endure, when their days and nights are haunted by the fear of undesired pregnancy.
Seventh -- Children should not be born to parents whose economic circumstances do not guarantee enough to provide the children with the necessities of life.
A couple who can take care of two children and bring them up decently in health and comfort, give them an education and start them fairly in life, do more for their country and for mankind than the couple who recklessly reproduce ten or twelve children, some of them to die in infancy, others to survive but to enter the mill or factory at an early age, and all to sink to that level of degradation where charity, either state or private, is necessary to keep them alive. The man who cannot support three children should not have ten, notwithstanding all pleas of the militarists for numbers.
Eighth -- A woman should not bear children when exhausted from labor. This especially applies to women who marry after spending several years in industrial or commercial life. Conception should not take place until she is in good health and has overcome her fatigue.
Ninth -- Not for two years after marriage should a couple undertake the great responsibility of becoming parents. Thousands of young people enter marriage without the faintest idea of what marriage involves. They do not know its spiritual responsibilities. If children are born quickly and plentifully, people consider that the marriage is justified. I claim that this is barbaric and wrong. It is wrong for the wife, for the man, for the children.
It is impossible for two young people to really know each other until they have lived together in marriage. After the closeness and intimacy of that relation there often comes to the woman a rude awakening; the devoted lover becomes careless and dissatisfied. If she becomes pregnant immediately, she becomes physically disturbed, nervous, and irritable. The girl has changed, and the boy who knew her as a happy smiling sweetheart finds her disagreeable and disgruntled. Of course thousands of people learn to adjust themselves. Nevertheless, I maintain that young people should marry early and wait at least two years to adjust their own lives, to play and read together and to build up a cultural and spiritual friendship. Then will come the intense desire to call into being a little child to share their love and happiness. When children are conceived in love and born into an atmosphere of happiness, then will parenthood be a glorious privilege, and the children will grow to resemble gods. This can only be obtained through the knowledge and practice of Birth Control.
This is the foundation of Planned Parenthood. And you think Pro-Life wants to control your life!
There is extreme predjudice towards children in the article. This is how Slavery and Abortion is linked. Discrimination and predjudice.
Posted by: Valerie
at April 29, 2007 1:00 PM
Concerning the slavery article. Slavery was based on the powerful preying on the weak, not on race and prejudice. Throughout history, no one concerned themselves with a slave's color, only that they were still breathing. That is why people of every race have been both the enslavers and the enslaved. Do you think those involved in slave trading and ownership viewed their captives as human? Hardly. How else could one justify the brutality of slavery? Slaves were non-human, inferior, sub-human, animals, savages, to name just a few. Being they of course lived like animals before captivity, they were being done a "favor" by being "civilized". And besides, if the black slaves were freed, what would happen to all of them? Who would take care of them since everyone "knew" they were totally incapable of fending for themselves. Some of these arguments sound familiar, maybe because we justify abortion the same way.
If one can personally oppose abortion yet at the same time support one's right to choose abortion, then I don't see why one could not have opposed slavery yet at the same time supported one's choice to own a slave.
I still think it is crucial to teach people about birth control. Sure, sometimes it does fail, but it is better than having unprotected sex. It wouldn't hurt anyone for a school curriculum to be "abstinence is the only foolproof way, but if you can't wait here are ways that you can protect yourself from unwanted pregnancies and STDs" In the abstinence only programs kids only get the "don't have sex" line, but if a young girl is being pressured by her boyfriend to have sex it is better that she know about protection if she ends up giving in to him.Posted by: JK at April 29, 2007 1:26 PM
When are you actually going to write something in YOUR blog??Posted by: Cameron at April 29, 2007 1:26 PM
You have it backwards. Forcing a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to term, and endure labor and delivery against her will, is much closer to slavery than abortion is.
Right-to-lifeism, not abortion, makes pregnant women slaves to their fetuses, or rather, slaves to the government which forces them to carry their pregnancies to term and endure labor and delivery.
Americans will never allow women to be enslaved in this way. Nor will we tolerate the black market in abortion services which would arise if abortion were banned.Posted by: SoMG at April 29, 2007 1:32 PM
Americans will never allow women to be enslaved in this way. Nor will we tolerate the black market in abortion services which would arise if abortion were banned.
It seems to me that we "allowed" it for almost 200 years.
Right-to-lifeism, not abortion, makes pregnant women slaves to their fetuses, or rather, slaves to the government which forces them to carry their pregnancies to term and endure labor and delivery.
But you see SOMG, there is a small but crucial difference between the unborn and the pregnant woman.
The pregnant woman got pregnant by choice. The child did not choose to come into existence.
So "forcing" a woman to carry a child to term only counts if you "forced" the woman to get pregnant...which happens rarely and accounts for almost none of the abortions done in this country.
An unborn child, however, much more resembles a "slave" because it, being the weaker of the two entities, and having had no choice in it's predicament is being preyed upon by the stronger entity. The stronger party made the choice to create the child and is now making the decision to kill the child. Exactly how is that enslaving the stronger party?
This would be like saying that the slave owner is really the one that is enslaved because he is being forced to house and feed his slaves.
And we will "allow" it again.
Posted by: MK at April 29, 2007 2:23 PM
I didn't appreciate my teacher forcing us to watch a video and then not providing the other side of the argument.
And after watching this and other videos and seeing the pictures of the brutal aftermath of an abortion, what exactly is the "other side of the argument?"
Mary is right. Slavery is about oppression. Oppression of the stronger on the weaker. In Egypt it was the jews. In America and Europe it was the blacks. Now it is the unborn.
Stronger oppressing weaker. This is slavery.
A form of social stratification in which some individuals are literally owned by others as their property.
Posted by: MK
at April 29, 2007 2:32 PM
Slavery is a condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion. A specific form, known as chattel slavery, implies the legal ownership of a person or persons.
The comparisons of Dread Scott to Roe v. Wade are tenuous, mostly because of how it is employed, but not entirely esoteric given the substantive natures of both rulings. Dread Scott was found to be a human and person, just not a citizen with rights, where as the justices in Roe v. Wade were not actually arguing the status of the fetus, but the rights of the woman, and it is their fetus-centric critics that fault them with "failing to recognize" the fetus. If you focus on that aspect of it, it is boarding on false analogy, as the substance of each decision is different, however, it is a good analogy if you consider the way in which the decisions where made. In this particular case, the proxy author has latched onto the emotionally loaded false analogy end of the spectrum, likely because his readers lack the capacity for the more academic argument.
Interestingly enough, our proxy writer here starts by invoking the recent Supreme Court ruling (Gonzales v. Carhart), which I suddenly realized has many similarities of it’s own with Dread Scott. In the Dread Scott case, the justices were politically biased, and unduly influenced by Buchanan to rule in the way they did. In the Gonzales v. Carhart case, it is also a partisan split in the decision. It was pretty much a wink and a nod to administration which had appointed them, after Attorney General Gonzales had hounded them to hear the case. In this case, the supreme court shouldn’t even have bothered with it though, because the courts (3 district and 3 appeals, and 11 of 12 judges) had unanimously found the ban unconstitutional.
I do however like the poxy writer’s conclusion regarding hardliners, and I think these people are ultimately causing more abortions than might have otherwise have happened if it weren’t for the absolutist efforts.
In this case, the supreme court shouldn’t even have bothered with it though, because the courts (3 district and 3 appeals, and 11 of 12 judges) had unanimously found the ban unconstitutional.
Oh of course, these guys weren't biased. They were completely neutral. Just like Justice Ginsberg. She is totally open minded. Has no opinion whatsoever going in. Listens to all the testimony and has no pre-conceived ideas whatsoever.
MKPosted by: MK at April 29, 2007 2:36 PM
"but if a young girl is being pressured by her boyfriend to have sex it is better that she know about protection if she ends up giving in to him."
This is what amazes me about the pro-choice side. Hush up sexual violence at all costs.
Don't you think that a condom would make it easier for her to be pressured? Don't you think if she didn't have the contraception she would be more apt to leave rather than risk disease and pregnancy?
WOW! Lets make it easier for a boy to pressure a girl into sex when she isn't ready and give them condoms and contraception. oh - lets not forget the education on how to properly use it; making it even easier for the predator to get the prey.
Pro-Choice doesn't want parents to know their daughter is getting an abortion. What if she was 'pressured' and the condom broke? Do you really think she will be better off lying to her parents, and having an abortion? Talk about slavery. In your one sentence, you have made girls slaves to the boys.
Thanks feminism!Posted by: Valerie at April 29, 2007 2:41 PM
"Oh of course, these guys weren't biased."
Ah.. the two wrongs make a right thing again, and presuming one of the wrongs to boot. You argue like 3rd grader.
You need to back you BS with actually evidence. For example, I know that one of the district judges was in fact appointed by Clinton. If the 11 judges have liberal links, and the one has conservative links... then you might have an arguement... at the moment though you're just a lazy clod.Posted by: Cameron at April 29, 2007 2:42 PM
How is abortion supposed to make a woman feel more empowered? I always get a real laugh out of that one!!!! Have sex and commit murder.Posted by: Heather4life at April 29, 2007 2:52 PM
Abortion always sends the wrong message.Posted by: Heather4life at April 29, 2007 2:55 PM
To view an actual abortion, Google The Choice Blues. Warning...very graphic!!Posted by: Heather4life at April 29, 2007 3:08 PM
Heather4life, you wrote: "How is abortion supposed to make a woman feel more empowered?"
Try being forced by the government to have a baby--and then ask that question again.Posted by: SoMG at April 29, 2007 3:14 PM
I wouldn't put myself in that position.Remember? Sex = consequences.Posted by: Heather4life at April 29, 2007 3:15 PM
Can you fathom the kind of stomach an abortion provider must have? I dont think there is any other profession that capitalizes off the death and dismemberment of a live human. Even the mob has the decency to leave most of their victims whole.Posted by: SamanthaT at April 29, 2007 3:16 PM
Hi Samantha T. Did you happen to watch that video? I couldn't blame you if you didn't. I have a really strong stomach,and even I had to look away at certain parts.Posted by: Heather4life at April 29, 2007 3:19 PM
I'm curious SOMG, but doesn't the government "force" us to do a lot of things like pay taxes, have licenses and permits, and to follow laws whether we agree with them or not, to name only a few. I mean we have various laws, legislators, police forces, courts, and prisons to keep us all in line. It seems to me the government forces rules and morality all the time.Posted by: Mary at April 29, 2007 3:32 PM
"Try being forced by the government to have a baby--and then ask that question again."
What's fascinating to me, is that we've come to the point where everyone views reality as a place where no cues are taken from nature, and it's all about which side of any issue will end up with legal hegemony.
It used to be that nature, God, reality (whatever) dealt you a deck, and you played your cards. Nowadays, everyone hollers just hollers "misdeal" whenever they don't like their hand.
But to answer the rhetorical flourish, "try being a legal slave," "try being an unborn child," and so forth.Posted by: Scott Marquardt at April 29, 2007 3:43 PM
Heather, yes, I have seen that video, and the first video which it updates, as well. Both are at the very least disturbing. Most of the women I know who have had abortions were given a general anaesthetic so that they dont even recall the operating room. To see the actual procedure...Im at a loss.Posted by: SamanthaT at April 29, 2007 3:51 PM
If the South hadn't seceded, Lincoln never would have outlawed slavery. He was no abolitionist. Garrison, perhaps, would be a better example. Lincoln towed the line just as much as Douglas did. They simply had opposing strategies to gaining a position of power.Posted by: Erin at April 29, 2007 4:45 PM
Mary, when it comes to allowing other people to use our bodily functions, or enduring major medical/surgical trauma, no, the government does not force us to do these things. Nor should it.
SoMG, the government may not "force" you to allow other people to use your bodily functions. I, for one, am personally not for the government's forcing anyone to allow use of her bodily functions. I am simply for the government's illegalizing the use of elective abortion as a means of denying an unborn the use of a pregnant woman's bodily functions.Posted by: SamanthaT at April 29, 2007 5:03 PM
SamanthaT, what's the difference between those two? None that I can see.Posted by: SoMG at April 29, 2007 5:06 PM
Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm not talking about pressure as in physical force, or as in a sexual predator. I'm talking about the "If you love me, you would prove it by having sex with me" kind of pressure, peer pressure if you would. Kids fall victim to this all the time. Because when you're young and have a boyfriend/girlfriend you think you are each others whole world, sometimes not even bothering to find out if the other feels the same way. And when the inevitable break up happens you think its the end of the world. Young girls especially might do anything to please their young boyfriends, whose minds are usually fixated upon sex.
Kids have sex, no matter what adults tell them to do or not to do, kids will still have sex. It even goes to say that if you want to make sure a kid does something, outlaw it, ban it, or make it taboo, all the more inticing for the kid.
Most of the kids who abstain after going through abstinence only education were the ones who would have abstained anyway, for whatever reason.
And I do believe minors should have to get parental permission, even if it goes against the entire point of them getting the abortion in the first place.Posted by: JK at April 29, 2007 5:18 PM
Gestator of 3,
"I wouldn't put myself in that position.Remember? Sex = consequences."
So we should suffer consequences if we have sex... regardless of pregnancy happened??Posted by: Cameron at April 29, 2007 5:46 PM
Speaking about being Anti Pro-Creation, has anyone seen these video's called "It's Elementary: If Every Parent Were To See This Video, The 'Gay' Agenda Would Be Crippled"?
This is ridiculous...
MikePosted by: Mike at April 29, 2007 5:57 PM
Cameron, SoMG, etc ...
I think Jill's quote is not the right analysis for the situation. It seems to me that in American life there is a too strong adherence to the powerful. In a old movie 'Camelot', King Arthur says: "It's might for right not might is right!" Somehow the experience of being human must come from strength ... macho strength.
The easiest example of this can be seen in the overpowering desire to be financially wealthy. It is assumed that this sentiment is pervasive in all people and if you are financially-secure, then you are the happier. Less abhors the 'weakness' that is inherent in pregnancy. Why should pregnancy = weakness?
And now Jill's last post re. Lincoln. Just when are you guys ever going to wake up? Your civil war did not free the black man ... it freed all Americans to share life with all people - and expand their limiting concept that one race/class of people was enough. In a very similar way, in abortion the people physically stronger end the existence of the less powerful. [Why be proud of killing weakness as if the weakness deserves death rather than our protection?] Are we not all weak, when our biggest foe [the ones we proudly extinguish] are defenceless?Posted by: John McDonell at April 29, 2007 6:01 PM
Cameron,I am going to start ignoring you cuz you are full of #$@^@$#$#! You are a liar. Goodbye internet troll.Posted by: Heather4life at April 29, 2007 6:08 PM
Speaking of videos, has anyone seen the one "A banana is an atheist's worst nightmare", it is hilarious to watch Kirk Cameron try not to burst out laughing at this guy giving a banana a hand job.Posted by: JK at April 29, 2007 6:10 PM
SOMG, In the abortion video 'The Choice Blues' [actual abortion in progress] Please explain how the cervix isn't damaged. How about multiple abortions? I'll wait for your reply. This I gotta hear.Posted by: Heather4life at April 29, 2007 6:16 PM
"Your civil war did not free the black man ... it freed all Americans to share life with all people - and expand their limiting concept that one race/class of people was enough."
So why should a fetus have more rights than all other classes of people (i.e. access to anothers unvolunteered organs)??Posted by: Cameron at April 29, 2007 6:18 PM
It's not about who has more rights, it's about the stronger eliminating the weaker ... just as the wealthier eliminating the poor ... stealing what little they do have. A pro-choicer is usually an adult ... who believes himself to be more powerful by eliminating kids ... in much the same way trolls view themselves of superior intellect to everyone else ... run with it, nobody cares usually ... what-a-waste!Posted by: John McDonell at April 29, 2007 6:47 PM
"It's not about who has more rights, it's about the stronger eliminating the weaker"
So by that account... the victors of a war are inherently wrong?Posted by: Cameron at April 29, 2007 6:50 PM
Not to mention that bananas are specifically harvested to be compatible with humans...Posted by: prettyinpink at April 29, 2007 6:51 PM
"A pro-choicer is usually an adult ... who believes himself to be more powerful by eliminating kids "
I've really got say, you have knack for vacuously demonstrating your ignorance. Let me know when you run into an abortion seeker supposedly seeking that power fix.Posted by: Cameron at April 29, 2007 7:08 PM
Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm not talking about pressure as in physical force, or as in a sexual predator. I'm talking about the "If you love me, you would prove it by having sex with me" kind of pressure, peer pressure if you would. Kids fall victim to this all the time. Because when you're young and have a boyfriend/girlfriend you think you are each others whole world, sometimes not even bothering to find out if the other feels the same way. And when the inevitable break up happens you think its the end of the world. Young girls especially might do anything to please their young boyfriends, whose minds are usually fixated upon sex.
HELLLLLOOOO...this is why they SHOULD NOT be having sex. You just said yourself that they are NOT READY!!!!
Do you realize how ridiculous you just sounded.
These kids are peer pressured. They aren't ready emotionally. They aren't mature enough to understand relationships. They just do it to keep the guy.
SO LETS GIVE THEM A CONDOM!!!!!
Oh My God...
Nuts! It's just Nuts!
mkPosted by: MK at April 29, 2007 7:23 PM
you know, condoms are for putting over you head ...
(you can write 'STUPID' across it too!)
and I've been keeping my feet dry with 'em in winter...
Well, you learn something new everyday. If only I'd had sex-ed in third grade...
mkPosted by: MK at April 29, 2007 8:12 PM
I've really got say, you have knack for vacuously demonstrating your ignorance. Let me know when you run into an abortion seeker supposedly seeking that power fix.
Cameron, meet SOMG.
SOMG, meet Cameron.
There, that about covers it.Posted by: MK at April 29, 2007 8:14 PM
ever find it strange that the victor in war is usually proud of its accomplishment. I visited Germany in 1981 and was talking to a man who lived there during WW II. His recollection was of the blitzkrieg .... the allies dropped a humongous amount of incendiary bombs all over a defeated country. So many were dropped in fact that the oxygen levels in many towns was zero. Many unnecessarily died for lack of oxygen ... the war was over - just needed some papers signed ... Did we ever teach them, eh? ... to one-day seek revenge. This is what he remembers of the war ...
In a much similar way ... will abortion ever free a person to experience the fullness of their humanity or be constantly engaged (at least subconsciously) in "I've murdered my own kid!"Posted by: John McDonell at April 29, 2007 8:31 PM
Sex causes pregnancy. You may argue that the fundamental cause for sexual intercourse is not reproduction; that is at best a matter of opinion and one that is negated by most of the multicellular world. However, to a sperm and egg who have somehow in the grand scheme of the universe managed to miss the memo that "women have the right to decide to choose whether or not they want to get pregnant," a woman who engages in sexual intercourse is effectively posting a sign in neon letters on a billboard on the side of I-40 that says, "There is an egg here ripe for penetration and a nice, warm uterus in which you can implant once you have united!" Your spouting all this crap about choice and whatnot does not change the biological fact that sex leads to pregnancy, and people who are not willing to risk pregnancy should not have sex. When the government takes away a woman's ability to choose whether or not to have sex and in addition takes away her ability to have an elective abortion, the government has taken away her right to bodily autonomy. Until such time the government has forced no definitive restriction on the woman.Posted by: SamanthaT at April 29, 2007 8:58 PM
See MK's response about your 1st paragragh. She is 100% telling the truth. And that was my point! They are being pressured into having sex. Exactly how much further does one have to go before it is considered rape? What part of the predator getting the prey is confusing you? I will be happy to go into it further if you need me to.
"Kids have sex, no matter what adults tell them to do or not to do, kids will still have sex. It even goes to say that if you want to make sure a kid does something, outlaw it, ban it, or make it taboo, all the more inticing for the kid."
About 60 years ago, before contraception was readily available, not all kids had sex. A few did and even a few got pregnant. But the majority did not. Why? Because even with being pressured, they didn't want to get pregnant or get an STD or both. This knowledge overpowered the fear that a boy would leave them. Let's come back to today - we say all kids will have sex. And you dont' think this just adds to the preasure? Listen to yourself! We throw condoms at them and tell them they will be okay, but we are lying to them! Condoms do not protect from all STD's. Nor are they full proof with pregnancy. We are lying to our children. We might as well keep the belief that Santa Clause is real since we enjoy watching them living in LaLa land!
"And I do believe minors should have to get parental permission, even if it goes against the entire point of them getting the abortion in the first place. "
You need to tell your democratic (and possibly republican) representatives that. Because they are still pushing for a little law that would allow an abortionist to give a minor an abortion without consent. See, here is how it goes: A girl gets pregnant and cannot tell her parents. No one has ever been able to give me a reason for this outside of abuse in the home. So, we help her cover up her mistake by allowing her an abortion without any parental knowledge. Than what is the big plan? oh yea - Send her back to the abusive home where she was so terrified to talk about the truth. That sounds like such a good idea, doesn't it? Why do we even care if there is abuse anymore. We just say, cover it up! and continue to live in hell!
Maybe one day you will wake up and realize that you are giving our children permission to destroy themselves. I said this in another post today (actually about 15 minutes ago) and I will just keep on saying it. Because to me, this is the most important piece of information an adult needs to know. 9.1 million new STI's in people ages 15-24 in 2000. In one year, 9.1 million NEW STI's. How's that for "they are going to do it anyway?" Let's just keep killing our kids. No biggie.Posted by: Valerie at April 29, 2007 9:01 PM
The government doesn't force anyone that I've ever known of to endure major medical/surgical trauma. What bodily functions of yours does the government use or has it ever attempted to use, other than the money you make working to pay taxes? The harder you work the more the gov't takes. That's one function of my bodies I wish they'd leave alone!
Please, I've seen you present many an intelligent and convincing argument for the pro-life cause. You may disagree with or not like another poster but can we keep it polite?
There is a great deal of debate over what Lincoln would or would not have done concerning slavery. The Civil War was certainly over several issues, slavery not being the main one. The point is he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, and I'm sure the newly freed slaves could have cared less what motivated him to do so.Posted by: Mary at April 29, 2007 9:07 PM
My bodies! I meant our bodies. While I know I'm putting on weight I'm not quite to the point of "my bodies" just yet!Posted by: Mary at April 29, 2007 9:10 PM
I just found this info on Guttmacher.com
• In the United States, more than 65 million people are currently living with an incurable STI.
• More than half of Americans will have an STI at some point in their lifetime.
• Some 19 million new STIs occur each year, almost half of them among young people aged 15–24.
• The United States has the highest STI rate of any industrialized country.
 Cates W, Jr., et al. Estimates of the incidence and prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases in the United States, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 1999, 26(Suppl.):S2–S7.
 Koutsky L. Epidemiology of genital human papillomavirus infection. American Journal of Medicine, 1997, 102(5A), 3-8.
 Weinstock H, Berman S and Cates W, Jr., Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2004, 36(1):6-10.
 Eng TR and Butler WT, eds., The Hidden Epidemic: Confronting Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.
So, am I to believe that all of these people were not properly educated on contraception? Exactly how much contraception education needs to be done to stop this?
(If anyone is sensing some hostility in me about this. A very good friend - one of two people who stuck by me in my time of need - has Cervical Cancer by HPV. She uses condoms all the time. And now, she may have to have a full hysterictomy because they can't stop it from spreading. So, yes, I'm pissed right now! She was told, in her high school sex ed class, that condoms would protect her. She met me and found out the truth when it was too late.)Posted by: Valerie at April 29, 2007 9:12 PM
"My bodies! I meant our bodies. While I know I'm putting on weight I'm not quite to the point of "my bodies" just yet!"
hahahahaha... Thanks for the explenation. I thought the entire world had lost it!
;-)Posted by: Valerie at April 29, 2007 9:16 PM
SamanthaT, you wrote: "...a woman who engages in sexual intercourse is effectively posting a sign in neon letters on a billboard on the side of I-40 that says, "There is an egg here ripe for penetration and a nice, warm uterus in which you can implant once you have united!"
But if you read the fine print on the sign it says: "I will only allow you to REMAIN implanted in my uterus if I so choose. Otherwise, you get aborted after a short intrauterine life. Be grateful you get that (the short intrauterine life)!"Posted by: SoMG at April 29, 2007 9:27 PM
Yes, SoMG, it does say that on the billboard in fine print, because in an effort to save face in your drowning morality, you snuck up the ladder in the dead of night, dressed in your blackest burglar gear, and painted the murder clause on there of your own free will. The day is coming when women are taking their bodies back, not from unborn children but from a society who tells them they need to be promiscuous and irresponsible to be fulfilled. When that day arrives and your hand-painted slander is whitewashed, where will you run?Posted by: SamanthaT at April 29, 2007 9:35 PM
To the back alleys...Posted by: Bethany at April 29, 2007 9:40 PM
Is that supposed to be an argument, SamanthaT?Posted by: SoMG at April 29, 2007 9:40 PM
(Just kidding, of course. We all know most of those abortions back then were performed in doctors offices. )Posted by: Bethany at April 29, 2007 9:41 PM
No, SOMG, she was just letting you in on your future.Posted by: Bethany at April 29, 2007 9:43 PM
Sounds more like a threat or self-serving phrophecy to my SoMGPosted by: Cameron at April 29, 2007 9:43 PM
"(Just kidding, of course. We all know most of those abortions back then were performed in doctors offices. )"
The alternative being dissappearing young women to distant locales in order to save face for the familyPosted by: Cameron at April 29, 2007 9:44 PM
I personally am from the deep south and am not familiar with this practice of sending women away for their pregnancies, Cameron. Up until the 1950s, they didnt have regular preachers because the churches were too poor and could only afford circuit riders. The couples would get engaged and shack up, and they wouldnt get married until the preacher rode back thru. Sometimes they would already have children before they were married. So you see, we arent unfamiliar with unwed mothers.Posted by: SamanthaT at April 29, 2007 9:57 PM
And Cameron, I personally do not make threats. It ruins the element of surprise...Posted by: SamanthaT at April 29, 2007 9:59 PM
I was surprised to learn that 1918 had one of the highest illegitimacy rates of the century. I believe I saw that on TV. That would have included my grandmother who gave birth to an 8 pound "preemie", my mother. Also, that 65% of new brides in colonial times were pregnant when they married. Everything old is new again!
Cameron has a point though about sending young pregnant women to "visit relatives" and I well remember the practice as well as the unwed mother homes in my hometown. I also remember people who "had to get married", not like anyone couldn't count. There were a very large number of healthy full term "preemies" being born.
I only have one sane state representative. And my senators are two of the most incompetent, Bunning and McConnellPosted by: JK at April 29, 2007 10:14 PM
I find it rather sad that women would feel obligated to get married after becoming pregnant. How does having a forced marriage make it okay? Personally, I'd love to see this ancient stigma against unwed mothers disappearing. If pregnancy is healthy and natural, so is sex.Posted by: HumanAbstract at April 29, 2007 10:15 PM
The fact that they are not ready is not going to make them not do it. Teaching them about condoms just prepares them in case they do have sex. I would rather have my kid learning to put condoms on a banana rather than becoming a 35 year old grandparent.
Less, I absolutely agree with you! If people are not going to get married without a pregnancy in the picture, they sure as the devil dont need to get married when an unplanned pregnancy springs up.Posted by: SamanthaT at April 29, 2007 10:28 PM
Yes, that was very common, almost expected. It was absurd since you knew so many of these marriages were doomed and you were certainly not hiding anything. My sister had such a marriage over 40 years ago and was embittered about it. I think her children suffered too, though I can't imagine our lives without them. My sister had wanted to place the baby for adoption, and love him as I do I really feel this would have been best for all involved. She has long since divorced and remarried and the children are all adults and doing very well.Posted by: Mary at April 29, 2007 10:29 PM
Mary, I know many adult couples in similar situations. The vast majority are quite bitter about it, have divorced their previous spouses, and have trouble with the kids that "caused" the marriage. It really does affect all involved, and most of the time, in a negative way.
Samantha, I just don't understand why a marriage certificate suddenly makes having kids okay. I mean, I frequent relationship message boards, and for the longest time I couldn't figure out why I had such an avoidence to posts that involved a couple having a child "out of wedlock." Then it finally dawned on me that I felt better than they! It took a while, but I'm glad I recognized that particular predjudice of mine and have worked to rid myself of it.Posted by: HumanAbstract at April 29, 2007 10:44 PM
Less I could not imagine having grown up without both my mom and dad in my home, and I really would have been devastated if they had separated. However, I understand that often this simply is not the best situation for the parents or the children, and therefore I advocate responsible sex across the board. The Bible is pretty clear on extramarital sex in the NT, at least, but I have a hard enough time interpreting for myself, much less for everyone else. I just believe that, married or not, if two people are not prepared for a pregnancy, they should not have sex. At least we agree on the marriage part...Posted by: SamanthaT at April 29, 2007 10:49 PM
Cameron: What on EARTH? Your posts clearly indicate two people using the same posting account. Or are there two Cameron accounts here? I mean, half your posts show some intelligence, and the other half are snide, sophomoric tripe. Dude. Dudette. Whatever. What's going on?
What's interesting is the way the niave Cameron seems almost triumphalist on the heels of the intelligent Cameron's postings. Is this some kind of sycophantic appreciation for a proxy poster who makes you look good?
I'm quite serious. What's going on?
"No other liberal principle, not equality, not compassion, is permitted to get in the way of the principle of autonomy."
Which is striking, since the communitarian impetus in liberalism has been fairly strong. What communal ties could be stronger than those between a mother and her unborn child? It may take a village to raise a child, but it only takes one abortionist to see to it that the village never needs to.
"you forgot to mention that African Americans and Hispanics are much more likely to be living in poverty than White Americans, which may lead to more abortions."
Actually, it's because Planned Parenthood et al. locates most of their facilities in Black neighborhoods. Helpful to have genocidal maniacs right next door, no?
"As far as watching a video, count me out. I had a sick religion teacher do that to my freshman class, and he succeeded in scaring the daylights out of everyone. As a result, many students didn't even bother to question the legitimacy of his assertions and were blindly led along."
Um . . . they were precisely the ones who were not BLINDLY led along. That would be those who DIDN'T get to see the video.
As for not questioning the legitimacy of assertions, that happens all the time in academe. Worse, try questioning PC orthodoxy (a decidedly non-conservative frame of reference) at any ivy league school. You'll be scheduled for special indoctrinations -- which are precisely the kinds of sessions where you're intimidated into questioning nothing.
I mean, face it -- pro-choice is the reigning orthodoxy. Right? Isn't the helpful voice of dissent precisely the pro-life view, just now? Academe nowadays has been celebrating the veritably bizzare in the name of academic diversity and independent thinking. Why on earth wouldn't the minority report be given a hearing on the abortion issue as well?
"Your original comments linked abortion with race..."
I think you're missing the point entirely. Screw race. The issue could be slavery if the slaves were WHITE. The issue of slavery is racial because the slaves were Black and their owners were White. But the analogy to slavery doesn't depend on that racial difference -- it only depends on that the slaves were considered sub-human. The REASON they were considered sub-human was racial, but that's incidental to the analogy.
"If anything, the federal government is responsibile for keeping people in poverty and offering no chances for advancement."
Good heavens, why does everything have to be THE FED'S fault? I'm so sick of this particular idiocy. No offense intended, but seriously. I mean, why is it that people continue to imagine that a huge federal bureaucracy (with its inefficient machinery half a continent away) is the best way to deal with local problems? Hello? Is it because you nod in agreement when your local officials and state legislators whine about the fed's failure to solve local problems in lieu of, themselves, making unpopular decisions (taxes, etc) that may lose them the next election but will make progress on those local issues? I mean, you know -- legislators who are damn glad to have a lotto they can let take the fiscal heat, instead of taking it themselves?
My God, we've come to a place where everyone thinks the Fed is the teat. I mean, really. This gets so old.
Illinois is a Dem state where Dems can do whatever they want. And what do they do? Give cousin Tony a $60K job sitting in a snowplow on sunny days, that's what.
"but if you can't wait..."
Please: "if you won't wait."
Even speaking as if humans with free will "can't" wait, is just wrong. Part of the pedagogy needs to include the notion -- radical to some, I know -- that one is still a chooser when considering whether to have sex. I mean, if we don't grant that, the jig's up. It's not "if you can't say no," it's "if you refuse to say no." It's even worth speaking judgmentally -- "if you're stupid enough to crawl into bed with a guy who only wants to brag about it the next day to his friends," etc.
One huge problem with single mothers -- there's no man in the house to have "the conversation" with the daughter's date. "Son, I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. If you treat my daughter right, I'll do anything for you -- get you a job, grease the rails in social circles for you, help with tuition -- anything. But if you have sex with her, I'll cut your throat. Understand? And if SHE wants sex, your behavior damn well better have her wondering if you're gay by the end of the night, because you're going to be saying 'no, I can't do that.' Understand? Now, go and have a fun night." ;-)
One last thing: my view is that a pregnant woman has incurred a de facto social contract with a human being having a just communitarian claim on her provisions of life-sustaining service until the child is born and, indeed, grown. My view is also that the child's father is obligated to provide and care for this child until grown. Given the idiotic way relationships play out nowadays, I hardly think that marriage between the two is always a great idea -- but this doesn't absolve the man from responsibility for the child. Nothing does.Posted by: rasqual at April 29, 2007 10:56 PM
You can't take for granted that teenage girls are as wise and strong willed as you are. Obviously you can't police what each and every teenage couple does. You guys talk like its so easy, but you don't know the mindsets of other people, and you can't presume to think that they'll choose what you want them to choose just because you want them to choose it.
Actually, Samantha, I believe marriage to archaic and not particularly necessary. I don't have incredibly strong opinions on the matter, and I'm not looking for an argument, I just don't see the point of marriage. You can promise to love someone forever without all those silly vows and dresses and churches. Now, I know this seems odd, as I am myself engaged, but like I said: I have no strong opinions upon the matter. I understand that in most religions, marriage is a big deal. My fiance is religious, I understand it's important to him, and it's certainly not a big deal to me. I want to be with him forever anyway.
And for the record, the translations for many of the NT renderings of "fornicators" actually refer to pedastry. I've researched it a few times, not enough to really make a strong argument for it. Just putting that out there.Posted by: HumanAbstract at April 29, 2007 11:07 PM
Raquel, if my father ever said that to any of my dates, I would have moved out immediately. My virginity and sex life is none of his business. None. If I discovered that he was that obsessed with who I was sleeping with, I'd question his motivations, big time.Posted by: HumanAbstract at April 29, 2007 11:10 PM
"I think you're missing the point entirely. Screw race. The issue could be slavery if the slaves were WHITE. The issue of slavery is racial because the slaves were Black and their owners were White. But the analogy to slavery doesn't depend on that racial difference -- it only depends on that the slaves were considered sub-human. The REASON they were considered sub-human was racial, but that's incidental to the analogy."
No, that is my point! You are casting a huge part of the slavery issue off to the side as "incidental to the analogy" just because this horrific situation in world history seems to (in YOUR opinion) compare to abortion. Pick up a college-level history book and read about it. It wasn't a matter of strength, because Nat Turner's Rebellion in the 1850's clearly shows slaves were willing to overpower their owners. White slave owners often saw themselves as patriachs looking over the more "savage" race, whereas they saw themselves as pure because of their skin color. White slave owners saw themselves as many different things, which you can look up in college-level history textbook.
I have posted on here long, long before when Jill said that abortion was worse than the diseases that wiped out millions of Native Americans (diseases we brought over to North America, but that's common knowledge anyhow). Just don't take history and manipulate it like this- it only proves your ignorance in this subject area. I think I've said this about three times now.
Ayers, Edward L., et al. American Passages: A History of the United States. Volume I.
3rd ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007.
There's the information on the history textbook I used last semester, to cite my sources.
Yes I am certain slaves were only too willing to overthrow slaveholders, and there were slave rebellions, but they were put down. Punishment was swift and brutal for disobedience and this kept rebellion to a minimum and slaves in line. Throughout history slavery has always been about the powerful of every race preying on the weak of every race. You didn't pick a fight with a more powerful neighbor no matter what race they were. The people of West Africa were vulnerable to powerful African tribes and kingdoms who captured them and sold them into slavery to European traders. Those not sold were left to perish or killed. The majority of those sold were prisoners of war.
We have to dispense with the notion once and for all that slavery was a racial issue. Are you aware that thousands of black slaves were owned by black freedmen in the antebellum south? That Native American tribes owned black slaves, as well as white and Native American ones. When you lost a fight you were at the mercy of those who defeated you. The Romans were among the most brutal slavers on the planet and just what color do you suppose most of their slaves were?
Slaves anywhere and any color were for the most part viewed as inferior, not just in the American south. How else could their treatment be justified? Southern slave holders who took a paternalistic and racist view of slaves were trying to justify the unjustifiable, and had southern slaves been black, white, or purple, they would have been viewed the same paternalistic, racist way.
JK: "You can't take for granted that teenage girls are as wise and strong willed as you are."
Of course. But the probability that they're not only counsels all the more for careful language in their instruction -- truthful language, even. And it's not true that they "can't" wait. It's precisely against the forces of hormones and male persuasion that this truth needs to be celebrated.
Ironically, I think this is a point where pro-life and pro-choice differ. Pro-life folks would generally insist that kids have a choice, whereas some pro-choice folk talk of their need for reproductive assistance as if they're rutting beasts that will inevitably breed like rabbits before they're 14; they're not choosing, they're following some determinate script.
JK: "You guys talk like its so easy..."
Whether it's easy or difficult, it's less easy and more difficult for them when opportunities to teach truly about human freedom and responsibility are lost because of our careless lack of attention to detail in how we speak.
Less: "I believe marriage to archaic and not particularly necessary."
Sometimes our board of directors wants to implement something, and on some of those occasions I'm in on the meetings. On rare occasions, some of these things aren't really necessary. My counsel at such times is consistently, "if we're not going to depend on it enough that we'll fail without it, why would we want it?"
Marriage begins with what you think of it, and ends with what you make of what you think of it. I'd advise thinking of it as more than a meaningless institution that begins with a fun party.
As for your response on the father thing -- do you imagine that I'm surprised? Any dumb kid would resent it. Parenthood so often isn't about making your kids gleeful with joy at how libertine you are.
You're not getting it.
Let's start with some feedback: what, do you think, is the point of comparison pro-life people find compelling in the analogy?
Leah, Cameron, SoMG:
You're wrong saying that pro-lifism is akin to slavery.
At least in slavery, the slave has a chance at freedom.
With abortion, no such opportunity is given the murdered baby.
I really worry about you guy and how you will handle the Living God when He calls you to account.
You couldn't be MORE wrong about sex outside the bounds of marriage.Posted by: His Man at April 30, 2007 2:02 AM
Scott, marriage isn't something I "depend" on. I wouldn't "fail" without it. It's a social institution with a few tax breaks. I'm not religious, and attach no specific meaning to marriage. Much more important to me is the commitment of individuals willing to spend their lives together, and this can be accomplished quite well without ever marrying. Marriage doesn't suddenly make love last: it's a piece of paper that saves you a few bucks come tax time.
I'm no dumb kid: I've been on my own for several years. My relationship with my parents was very much fractured for a long time due to their incessent prying into my personal life. How I conduct myself sexually is none of their concern: it directly affects no one but me. So long as I'm safe and knowledgeable, they have nothing to fear from me having sex. If they consider themselves bad parents because I have a healthy sex lives, than they need more things to worry about. Attitudes like the one you put forth are the reason why children and their parents do not have open communication, and why girls can go months without their parents ever realizing their pregnancies.Posted by: HumanAbstract at April 30, 2007 2:06 AM
HisMan, I don't particularly care to hear your views on sex outside of marriage. I'm clean, fetus-free, and quite content, and desire none of your preaching, thanks.Posted by: HumanAbstract at April 30, 2007 2:28 AM
Somehow you think that you can just deny the existence of God and therefore any restrictions He places on sex.
When you think about it, this is not a very wise choice and really makes you look supremeley arrogant.
So what's the result? He'll give you up to your own desires and say, "Have it your way". However, that statement comes with a caveat which is, "Without Me".Posted by: His Man at April 30, 2007 2:42 AM
His Man, I think it's extremely arrogant to think you have it right when it comes to the Supreme Creator.
HisMan, have you ever thought about going up for judgement and God telling you that you got it all wrong?
I guarantee you that will probably happen to me. But I accept the errors of my own humanity and know I do not own the corner on knowledge of being just because I can read a book of scripture.
I hate it when Christians tell other people they are arrogant for not believing in the Christian God. My but you'll look foolish when we all find out the real entity in charge is closer to Allah or Krishna or skip the whole process and get reincarnated.
Sorry but that was a religious rant. I can't help it. And before you call me an atheist, know I do believe in a higher power. Just not the one you are so dedicated to.Posted by: Jen C at April 30, 2007 2:51 AM
I still wonder how you can call yourself a Christian, HisMan.
Calling people "arrogant" because they refuse to share your religious views is something god wouldn't really like, don't you think? I distinctly remember something about "not judging others" and being judged yourself.
I distinctly remember something about "not judging others" and being judged yourself.
You remember it distinctly because it seems to be the only comeback you have when refuting HisMans arguments.
I'm sure by that by now, what we've have written explaining this particular biblical verse could fill a volume, but you don't seem to want to understand.
We are not only justified in judging certain types of behavior, but we are obligated to do so.
Condemn the person? No. Condemn the behavior Yes.
Sound familiar? It should. We've said it enough times.
mkPosted by: MK at April 30, 2007 6:54 AM
I'm no dumb kid: I've been on my own for several years. My relationship with my parents was very much fractured for a long time due to their incessent prying into my personal life. How I conduct myself sexually is none of their concern: it directly affects no one but me. So long as I'm safe and knowledgeable, they have nothing to fear from me having sex. If they consider themselves bad parents because I have a healthy sex lives, than they need more things to worry about.
Your parents sound like they really care about you, Less.Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2007 7:21 AM
Jen C: When Christians cite scripture, it's precisely at that moment they're not being arrogant. They're deferring to a source of knowledge they believe to be far closer to God than whatever random thoughts they might come up with themselves. In fact, the more credence they give such texts, the less arrogant they're being.
Now, can Christians be arrogant in HOW they do this? Yes, of course.
"Much more important to me is the commitment of individuals willing to spend their lives together, and this can be accomplished quite well without ever marrying. Marriage doesn't suddenly make love last: it's a piece of paper that saves you a few bucks come tax time."
As I said, marriage is what you make of what you think it is. What you can make of that, I don't know. Best of luck (sincerely).
I've already gathered that you're no dumb kid. As for whether kids are more or less willing to communicate with parents having my attitude, for all I know you could be right. Perhaps my children would communicate with me much more if I didn't possess attitudes I possess. But just now that doesn't seem a problem, so in the "who are ya gonna believe -- you or my eys" department, I'll go with my eyes. ;-)
How does the pro life side gives kids choice and the pro choice side give them no choice? I am honestly curious. I thought the key word in abstinence only education was ONLY. The kids' only choice is abstinence. The pro choice side doesn't give kids a handful of condoms, lock them in a hotel room and force them to engage in premarital sex against their will. Giving kids a comprehensive sex education is giving them more choices, including choosing to abstain.
You sound like you have the capacity, but we've yet to see it. I dare you to actually discuss a point or argument for once rather than childishly resorting to finding fault with me personally all the time. It's flattering, but redundant: His Man's got the name-calling niche... though a modest and juvenile vocabulary.
Perhaps... maybe...you'd like to comment on the following comment from the article seeing how you've expressed a concern for unfair characterizations:
"This is because liberals understand that abortion-on-demand is the debris of the sexual revolution."
There seems to have been plenty of unwanted pregnancy and illegal abortions going on before Roe v. wade, and before the sexual revolution. In fact... if you use the exagerated social alarmist estimates appearing in publications back in the 1950's it looks our Leave To Beaver era had thick seedy under belly. Is unwanted pregnancy and promiscuity really different before and after the sexual revolution?
I'm sorry it's so scary for you to turn that critical analysis on your own camp.
"One last thing: my view is that a pregnant woman has incurred a de facto social contract with a human being having a just communitarian claim on her provisions of life-sustaining service until the child is born and, indeed, grown. My view is also that the child's father is obligated to provide and care for this child until grown. Given the idiotic way relationships play out nowadays, I hardly think that marriage between the two is always a great idea -- but this doesn't absolve the man from responsibility for the child. Nothing does."
My bad... all this time I thought you were concerned about the fetus... but I guess it's more about people having sex, since, apparently, adoption would remove that "responsibility" you seem to think they are so obligated embrace. Great colors... I love the way you say the most simple minded things so elaborately.. but are you sure you want to call the fetus a member of the communist community??
Posted by: Cameron
at April 30, 2007 8:11 AM
"You remember it distinctly because it seems to be the only comeback you have when refuting HisMans arguments."
That's because all he does is quoting the bible, preaching and attacking us for having other believes - which I don't see as "arguments".Posted by: Ingrid at April 30, 2007 9:05 AM
HisMan, if God really didn't want me having premartial sex, he should have invested in an off switch.
Bethany, sure my parents care. But because of the choices they made, our relationship was very shakey for a very long time. It wasn't until I moved out that they started respecing my privacy and realizing that not only did I have completely different views that they did, but they had no right to push their choices on me. Now we get along much better: they might disapprove and tell me so, but they understand that it's my choice.
Scott, good luck with your kids. Sincerely.Posted by: HumanAbstract at April 30, 2007 10:42 AM
"Somehow you think that you can just deny the existence of God and therefore any restrictions He places on sex.
When you think about it, this is not a very wise choice and really makes you look supremeley arrogant."
I'm sorry HisMan, but it is you that appears very arrogant. In every comment, you assert you know what god wants, you express no doubt ar curiosity about the world.
You've got it all figured out. Good for you. But it sounds a lot more arrogant than anything Less is saying.
A world without premarital sex is not a world I want to live in.
If God is that offended, he can strike me dead anytime. I'll just wait and see.Posted by: Hal at April 30, 2007 11:00 AM
I feel so sad that you don't see the power of marriage. I'm not saying you are wrong in how you feel, because it is really what has happened to society as a whole that has made people view marriage the way you do.
Marriage USED to mean something. It meant till death do us part. It meant for sicker and poorer. It meant so much. Now, it means nothing. No one takes the vows seriously. All you have to do is pay $250 to the courts (In Indiana) and if neither party contests you are divorced. It shouldn't be that easy. (oh - I know some divorces can stretch out years and are not easy, 3 years and going for my sister-N-law). The leaving shouldn't be that easy. You used to have to have a reason to get divorced. Now, we have irreconsible differences. No one tries anymore. You have a huge problem in the marriage, it is extrememly difficult to fix, its easier to just walk away. I know, I almost did it. Divorce on demand has taken promises and thrown them out the window. No one's 'word' means anything anymore.
(please no - what if there is abuse? of course divorce should be granted for that. so don't go there.)
Now - I would like to respond to this:
"Raquel, if my father ever said that to any of my dates, I would have moved out immediately. My virginity and sex life is none of his business. None. If I discovered that he was that obsessed with who I was sleeping with, I'd question his motivations, big time. "
What if your Dad never really 'said' it? What if it was just implied?
I'm asking because this conversation brings back memories of high school. My Dad is a retired Marine. He also served in Vietnam. He has some memorbilia from this time. Guess where he liked to put all his memories? yep - in the family room where we all would hang out. No boy could miss the Marine sword hanging on the wall. Or the plaques of my Dad's "expert markmanships". Or the pictures of bootcamp and his Vietnam days. And to make matters even worse - Dad has a voice about as deep as James Earl Jones but with the power of a drill sargeant.
None of us really dated until college. I can't figure out why the boys didn't want to chance it? hmm....
Posted by: Valerie
at April 30, 2007 11:53 AM
Actually, we have a very good idea of what Lincoln would have done about slavery. It was called the Compromise of 1850. You're a slave and escape north? They ship you back. Lincoln passed that. If the war hadn't begun, that would have remained in place.Posted by: Erin at April 30, 2007 1:16 PM
What do you mean "Lincoln passed it?"
Posted by: Hal
at April 30, 2007 1:21 PM
Returning to Springfield after his single term in Congress, Lincoln found himself adrift. While the rest of the country debated the Compromise of 1850, Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin and personal liberty laws, Lincoln withdrew from politics. Without politics, he channeled his energies into the practice of law.
Valerie, my fiance and I will likely do a prenup, not necessarily for the sake of finances (we both like keeping our own accounts anyway) but to mandate that, should either party want a divorce, there must be at least six months of counseling prior to a legal seperation, except in the case of abuse. I've never seen anyone get divorced on a whim, but because we're both wanting this commitment to work, we want to make sure to try everything to fix it if it seems to be failing: even if we don't want to at the time. We're both very much in love, but realistic enough to know that sometimes, that just won't carry us through.
My dad did imply it, once, on my first date. My mom and I both came down so hard on him for it that he never did it again. Of couse, I also warned all of my dates how to deal with my dad, had them all call me when they pulled into the neighborhood so I could be ready to leave when they got there, and generally minimized contact. Now that the relationship has been firmly established, my fiance is fine with my parents: but until that point, there was very little contact.Posted by: HumanAbstract at April 30, 2007 1:52 PM
I'm vet too -- but I don't give the commanding presence such Marine regalia would have.
Implicit indeed!Posted by: rasqual at April 30, 2007 2:44 PM
"My bad... all this time I thought you were concerned about the fetus... but I guess it's more about people having sex, since, apparently, adoption would remove that "responsibility" you seem to think they are so obligated embrace. Great colors... I love the way you say the most simple minded things so elaborately.. but are you sure you want to call the fetus a member of the communist community?"
What amazes me is that you can imagine that a single comment assuredly exhausts my opinion of a particular issue's concomitants.
Cameron, it makes for sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship, but it's hardly substantive engagement with my point.
And there you go again -- ignoring what's said and prefering to draw gossamer inferences. One might almost say that you say elaborate things simple-mindedly. ;-)Posted by: rasqual at April 30, 2007 2:49 PM
My first reply to your "can't wait" locution was very clear in just what sense I meant this. I was describing a consequence of emphasis, not a held position. It's an effect of practice, not a motive for practice. However, even believing that myself, it IS hard to avoid wondering whether some pro-choice people believe humans to be little different from rutting elk, incapable of self-control.
In context --
"Even though the weight of the argument is strongly on the pro-life side, the pro-choice side has until now won politically. This is because liberals understand that abortion-on-demand is the debris of the sexual revolution. If you are going to have sexual promiscuity, then there are going to be mistakes, and many women are going to get pregnant without wanting to do so. For them, the fetus becomes what one feminist writer termed 'an uninvited guest.'"
Truthfully Cameron, I don't so much see a problem with the comment you quoted, as that this isn't an especially meaningful paragraph. I wouldn't defend the remark -- nor, frankly, criticize it -- because I'm not sure what "it" is driving at.
Your own objection to the comment you quote is that it claims a demarcation line which, you assert, is likely mythical. That's well and good as far as it goes -- but does it qualify the argument of the article? Not obviously.
I have no idea why it would be scary to critique what you cite. It's not a substantive part of the article's argument. Elide it and nothing changes.Posted by: rasqual at April 30, 2007 3:04 PM
Well, this is the first time I've been able to look at this since I last posted, and while Mary made some great points that I remember learning in my history class, I still don't see how abortion and slavery are similar. Abortion= terminating a fetus in the first two trimesters. Slavery= a horrific situation that affected Native Americans and African Americans, the effects of which many feel still exist today. Has anyone read Elizabeth Barrett Browning's poem "The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim's Point"? I think it may give anyone a different view of slavery; even though the poem was written by a white woman, she still lived during this period of unrest and observed what was happening. Even if you won't listen to my views, the poem is an excellent read.
His Man...hmmmm...does your name imply that YOU are God's "Man"? If so, I disagree with you...surely there are better candidates for God to choose from.Posted by: Leah at April 30, 2007 6:21 PM
Why do you need a pre-nup? It's just a piece of paper. It doesn't change anything. If you're committed, you're committed. Signing a piece of paper is meaningless....Posted by: MK at April 30, 2007 8:14 PM
One might almost say that you say elaborate things simple-mindedly. ;-)
Or you could say he talks just like a pre-adolescent trying to impress a roomful of adults.
Wasn't there a guy in the East Side kids that was always usin' big words wrong?
mkPosted by: MK at April 30, 2007 8:17 PM
MK, it protects me legally in case of a divorce: it's most certainly not meaningless. As I generally think my fiance is a good guy, and I'm not as much concerned about the financial aspect, I just want it written down somewhere that we'll both put our best effort in.
The difference between a prenup and a marriage? A prenup has legal ramifications for the future. A marriage liscence has implications for taxs and certain legal issues, but many people can and do live without those tax breaks, and the majority of the legal issues can be resolved in other ways. In case of a divorced, however, I could be loosing half of my income, a house, maybe more. A marriage means I'm gaining things: a divorce makes me loose things. I have every intention of protecting myself from loosing things.
You're right, I don't need a prenup. Honestly, I'd rather have neither a marriage nor a prenup. But as I've agreed to one, I want the other.Posted by: HumanAbstract at April 30, 2007 8:36 PM
I still go with the theory that it's two people -- an elder mentor of some kind, and a younger sycophant who enjoys the reputation of having some proxy intelligence writ for 'em. Seriously. I mean, I also vacillate between careless idiocy and recondite wisdom ;-) but I think I still come across with the same attitude, character, and commitments (and typos) regardless. But the discontinuity between the two Camerons is weird.
It's my current theory, anyway.Posted by: rasqual at April 30, 2007 8:43 PM
"His Man...hmmmm...does your name imply that YOU are God's 'Man'? If so, I disagree with you...surely there are better candidates for God to choose from."
If he means it in the sense of Robinson Crusoe's "Man Friday," it makes a different kind of sense.
Biblically, God seems to cite not the qualities in those he chooses, but His own virtues as the rationale for the choice. And He gives no further explanation at all.Posted by: rasqual at May 1, 2007 12:11 AM
Cameron, because of your threatening and obscene posts last night, you are now banned from this site.Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 1, 2007 6:46 AM
Erin and Hal,
You both make my case concerning Lincoln. There has been much debate, and very convincing arguments on both sides as to how Lincoln viewed slavery, and what he would have done under what circumstances. I guess its just a matter of what arguments you choose to believe. Its possible the man may have changed his mind one way or the other over the years. Its like the debate over what John Kennedy would have done about Vietnam had he not been assissinated. We just can never know for certain. I'm just certain the black slaves freed by the Emancipation Proclamation could not have cared less what motivated Lincoln to issue it.
I haven't read the poem but I have never disputed that slavery was a very great evil, no matter who enslaved whom.
Since slavery was universal, practiced in every area of the world by people of every race, we are ALL descended from slaves. In colonial times, white indentured servants, people who were paying off a debt in the "Old World" by selling themselves, or being sold by the person they owed, to a "New World" master were among the first slaves. Unlike the black slaves who became more abundant and economical than indentured servants, the indentured servant could anticipate freedom, though it may be several years away. Like the black slave, they were subject to the control and mercy of the "master".
An interesting note Leah on the origins of the word "slave". In both the English and Arabic languages, the term "slave" is derived from the word "Slav", a frequently enslaved East European people who happen to be my ancestors. As I pointed out, slavery has never been about race.
Posted by: Mary
at May 1, 2007 8:49 AM
You asked about the similarity between abortion and slavery.
Like abortion, there was no agreement on the morality of slavery. Not everyone thought it was wrong, and had you and I lived in that era, we may have been of the same opinion. There was also no agreement on the humanity of the black slave or to what extent, if any, that they had rights. Under these circumstances, couldn't one argue that while being personally opposed to slavery, one can still support another's right to make the decision of slave ownership for themselves. After all, who's to say slavery is wrong? It not for me to impose my personal beliefs on others. Slavery was legal and no one was forced to own a slave. Also, since the Quakers formed the first anti-slavery society in the colonies, and remained a very active force in the abolitionist movement and underground railroad, then couldn't one have accused the Quakers of imposing their religious beliefs on others? If I could find religious justifications for slave ownership, then what right did the Quakers or anyone, including that annoying preacher who condemns slavery from the pulpit, have to impose their religious beliefs on me?
I raised this question in an earlier post and it was never addressed.
You're right about everything you said relating to history, but indentured servants were allowed to live freely after serving the required number of years as stated in their contracts, so they weren't really slaves. For women, this was quite a problem, since their "masters" often raped and impregnated them, therefore extending their contract because they couldn't perform all their duties. However, it is important to note that indentured servants entered into the contract with their own consent, whereas slaves did not.
As far as the morality of slavery goes, you are also right- people did disagree on that issue in the pre-civil war era (which the article refers to). I'm sorry I missed the comment earlier, but too many people are posting here and I probably didn't see it. Those who were abolitionists saw it as a matter of human rights, that all people were God's people regardless of skin color. Those who supported slavery didn't see slaves as being able to care for themselves, and slaves were treated much worse than indentured servants. Slaves didn't have contracts that they willingly signed- they were sold into the market.
You posted some interesting information on the origin of the word slave, but if slavery has nothing to do with race, then where does racial prejudice stem from? You can't say that the two are not related, because that would be disregarding the civil rights movement and the equality that African Americans fought through the late 1960's (and in some areas of the country, still fight for today. I've met many racially prejudiced people in my time, and who hasn't? It's quite sad, in my opinion). What about John Crow laws that kept African Americans from claiming many rights (especially voting) for decades?
Also, I'll try to find an online text of EBB's poem and post the link here.Posted by: Leah at May 1, 2007 10:46 AM
Found a great online text with annotations! It has a lot of extra information on EBB and events surrounding the historical era as well, although I haven't read over them all yet.Posted by: Leah at May 1, 2007 10:50 AM
Oops, I meant Jim Crow laws, not John Crow. Sorry about that...Posted by: Leah at May 1, 2007 11:40 AM
Indentured servants could also be sold by those they owed a debt to, and had no choice but to be subject to a new "master" even if that meant being shipped overseas, so they did not always enter the contract willingly. Also circumstances beyond their control may have forced them into indentured servitude as well, and there was no guarantee of their humane treatment. Yes, they could count on their freedom as I pointed out after a certain number of years but until that time they were subject to the whim and control of their master. Certainly not something that is considered acceptable today. Like female black slaves, the female indentured servants could legally be subjected to sexual abuse by the "owner". To a degree, indentured servitude could be considered slavery, depending on the circumstances under which they lived and served.
Concerning racial prejudice, unfortunately that is as old as the human race and has nothing to do with slavery. Tribal and ethnic wars were and still are waged between people of the same race, just the ethnicities, culture, religion, or language are different. People have never been fond of those they perceive as "different". During WWII the Japanese, like the Germans were brutally racist and viewed the Chinese as little more than dogs, and as such inflicted unspeakable brutalities on them, though they were the same race of people. The same can be said of the Germans with their fellow Europeans.
There was no dearer soul on this planet than my German American great aunt but you never wanted to get her started on other European ethnics. Or her sister, my grandmother either! They were far more tolerant of racial minorities.
Concerning black Americans. Jim Crow laws were established to keep the newly freed black slaves in their "places" after state governments were taken over by Southern Democrats. Ironically it was Republicans who fought for the rights of freed blacks. The KKK was formed as the terrorist arm of southern Democrats as well, who would later vigorously oppose the civil and voting rights acts, which were eventually passed in 1964 and 1965 with Republican help. One of the southern Democrats, and former Klansman, who filibustered the voting and civil rights acts remains in the US Senate today. His name is Robert Byrd. By the way, the KKK loathed Jews, immigrants, and Catholics as well so it seems they hated on an equal basis.
I would recommend you view the History Channel's series on the US presidents. Its fascinating and informative and is where I obtained much of my info.
Well, I actually watch the History Channel quite a bit and have seen many of their documentaries on the presidents. I think it's important to note that JFK (with the urging of his brother, Bobby) introduced the Civil Rights and Voting Acts, although he never lived to see the two passed in Congress. Woodrow Wilson actually did a lot to keep African Americans out of the Democratic Party for years by taking away their federal government positions after his election.
I also am well aware that prejudice based on ethnicity and (especially) religion still exists today. It's on the news quite a bit, but anyhow...
Did you read the EBB poem? It really contains some beautiful verse. The poem is written from a female African-American slave's point of view.Posted by: Leah at May 1, 2007 12:36 PM
Did you know that the immigration problem has sparked a rise in KKK members?
People call us sensitive when we tell politicians they are being racist, but their hate spreads farther than they realize.Posted by: prettyinpink at May 1, 2007 1:09 PM
You're right about Kennedy but its highly doubtful he had the political pull to get the legislation passed. Nor were the Kennedys exactly the champions of racial equality they've so often been protrayed as. JFK's father was fearful of Southern Democrat reaction to black entertainer Sammy Davis Jr. campaigning for JFK and neither Bobby or John protested when Sammy Davis Jr. was humiliated at the JFK inauagaral. After his election JFK distanced himself from Davis, and preferred other presidential responsibilities over the civil rights issue and being bothered by Martin Luther King and "his Negroes".
Bobby had MLK wiretapped as well.
About the presidential documentary, it also pointed out that Lincolns's successor, Democrat Andrew Johnson, was an avowed racist who wanted to send the newly freed slaves back to the plantation.
One more note on indentured servitude. Children and teenagers were often contracted into servitude by their parents, usually in times of great economic hardship and/or hunger, to save the family from starvation, or to just spare the family another mouth to feed. A not uncommon practice over the centuries was to sell children into slavery. These indentured children and teens were then forced into servitude, certainly not by their own choice, and could well spend most of their lives in what one could certainly consider slavery.
Yes I read the poem and thank you for the referral. Very heartrending and beautifully written. Consider too that this woman was most likely self taught in reading and writing, and may well have risked her life to do so.
That's news to me though I can't say I'm surprised. Personally, I have absolutely NO problem with immigrants who are here legally. I have every problem with those here illegally and I don't care where they came from or what color they are.Posted by: Mary at May 1, 2007 1:21 PM
I think, because there are so many of them, that we should try to make them BECOME legal citizens. Then they won't be a "burden" on the tax system.Posted by: prettyinpink at May 1, 2007 2:01 PM
I totally agree with you on that front, although if illegal immigrants work normal jobs (and many of them do), federal and state taxes should be deducted from their paychecks. The sad part is that the situation may already be too out of control for the government to really solve anything. That, and Congress can't seem to pass any concrete decisions concerning illegal immigration.
Well, the poem was actually written by an English woman who was well-schooled in classical studies. Elizabeth Barrett Browning is usually known for her Sonnets from the Portugese, but she also wrote many political poems as well.
Have you studied history at the university level, or do you watch the History Channel really often? You have a vast knowledge of American history.
Do I feel like an idiot. I believe you did tell me who the author was. It just seemed like it actually was written by a slave woman, its descriptiveness, beauty, and heartbreak. I didn't know that Elizabeth Barrett Browning also wrote political prose as well. Whatever, it is very descriptive and heartrending. I was right about one thing though, slaves did risk their lives to learn to read and write. I learn something new on this site every day.
Thank you for your compliment. In fact, I have a fascination with history and love historical trivia. I also love to be politically incorrect, and point out to people those facets of history that they would rather ignore. Its gotten me in trouble a few times but facts are facts. I did attend college but didn't study history extensively. Also, I've lived quite a bit of it as well, being I'm pushing 60. I love the history channel too though I don't watch it extensively.