Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think that statement really holds up, especially when we look internationally. Why does the Netherlands, for instance, have such a low rate of both abortions and teen pregnancies? Why is the US so high amongst developed countries in both areas?
Maybe because we teach all this abstinence-only sex ed bull.
States that teach abstinence-only TEND to have higher teen pregnancy rates.
Why would you use racism as the moral pretext to promote degeneracy? These are two completely divorced concerns. Society feels so guilty about dropping the Christian moral law and all of the damage it is brought upon the family that it over reaches in protecting special groups. Social engineering like affirmative action, hate crimes, school busing and housing projects have been a impotent replacement for the moral order. By dropping the moral law more damage has been done to these groups than any Jim Crow law could ever have. The truth is that these liberal concerns have nothing to do with protecting black families and selfishly ensure the sexual revolution can continue so that the powerful can push their degeneracy on the rest of us. The moral law is the only protection the poor will ever have in this world and sadly it has been taken away from them.
The primary thing that the civil rights movement was concerned about was co-opting the loose sexual morals of the most unbridled elements of the black community and transposing them on the mainstream. The civil rights social engineering was the moral (but weak)justification for the crime of subverting moral law. They promoted the worst of African American culture while ignoring the best of it. This is why pop culture is now dominated by images from the black community. This was the Harlem Renaissance and it was more about the guy on the corner getting high or unending transient relationships, than any productive segment of the black community educating themselves and climbing the social ladder. Black people in media are promoted as the gangster, the sexual Mandingo and masters of Dionysis. It is a portrayal that is mostly fiction and has ruined the fiber of the black community. Read Norman Mailer's "The White Negro" or Kerouac's "On The Road" to see the birth of what was known as "spade kicks" to be integrated into the mainstream.
The stable elements in black society were not helped by the civil rights movement. In fact they were crushed by the civil rights movement. Before the civil rights movement the illegitimacy rate in the black community was 70%+; now it is hovering at 20%. The civil rights movement has destroyed these people by crushing the moral law and co-opting the worst parts of the black mores; transient sexual relationships, use of drugs, and selling them to the mainstream as normal. The civil rights movement has been an abject failure for the black community precisely because it was more about enslaving all of us to the worst of the African Passions than freeing anyone. The blacks have suffered the most under this regime.
Using racism as a pretext to giving license to sexual degeneracy is not a valid argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl
And when exactly did this "moral authoritah" cease? The 1950's ... are you suggesting that we go back to those wonderful halcyon days of lynchings and Jim Crow? Is that the moral fibah that you are seeking to return to? Yep, keep those darkies and women in their places ... yea, the 1950's was AWESOME!!! If you were a white man. The sexual revolution started when women achieved the right to vote ... it was the first step in giving women voices in their futures and this obviously askeers you and your ilk, study your history ...
Oh no abortions were ever performed in the 1950's ... no teenage pregnancy ... nooooooooo!!!! no sex drugs or rock and roll ..... OMG ... I'm thinking about Barney Frank and what he said about a dining room table right now.
You sound straight out of O Brother Where Art Thou.
Last edited by samyn on the green; 10-18-2009 at 04:33 PM..
States ranked by rates of abortion among women age 15-19 (pregnancies per thousand):
New Jersey (47)
New York (46)
Maryland (38)
Nevada (36)
California (36)
Hawaii (34)
Florida (33)
Delaware (31)
Connecticut (30)
Illinois (27)
That's what it looks like -- non-religious states have very high abortion rates even with plenty of sex ed crammed down children.
It should make sense that the birth rate is higher in states where religion is more important because the girls are raised to value the life of their child even if "inconvenient".
I don't know, to be honest, what the practical application would look like. It is not something that can be "imposed" from on high. It requires a revolution, a revolution of thought among people. Society can change. Often we speak of it changing for the worse, but it can change for the better. I have to believe that.
There are individuals who come to the realization that choices they made in their life or choices their parents made were ultimately destructive, and so they seek a better way, for themselves and for their children. In our religion, there is a saying, "first, acquire for yourself a teacher."
It would help if the "adults" in these children's lives were capable of directing them with wisdom and inspiration. That would be one practical application.
I just find it appalling that the best we can do is hold up a banana and put a condom on it.
Oops, EDIT: I saw that you said "parents" and not teachers. Sorry, I misread that. There is a LOT that parents can do practically speaking. They can spend time with their children. They can align themselves with community support such as a church or other worship communities, in order to bolster their own efforts. Even more liberal religions such as Buddhism emphasize self control and discipline. They first have to believe that teen sex is harmful, and then they can begin to arm themselves with knowledge and convey that knowledge and the appropriate values to their children. They can keep an eye on their children. In my opinion, teens should not be unsupervised. Teens who have pursuits such as musical training or sports are less likely to be bored, and boredom leads to trouble. There are countless other things that can be done. If you are the only family in the school or neighborhood who has values, you are at high risk of failing, so the first thing I would do is relocate my children to a different environment, one where they will meet others who model the values I want to convey.
I think one problem is that values are different now than in the past. In the past people knew more what it was they wanted and marriage was not delayed until ridiculously late ages.
Kids today are told not to marry until they finished a masters degree at least, even people will talk as though age 25 is terribly young to be getting married. It used to be almost over the hill.
In the past girls of 17 or 18 were contemplating when they would marry - one year? two years? three years? A life-long mate was just around the corner. They could wait for sex.
Biology didn't change, people didn't change but some kids are still told abstinence but they should wait until they're 35 to marry so it won't work waiting for marriage.
Also in the past boys were expected to be responsible, to be like men, if they sired a child, then they should do the right thing and marry the girl and raise the child.
The problem isn't so much that there are young mothers, there were always young mothers but in the past they weren't expected to go it alone.
That's what it looks like -- non-religious states have very high abortion rates even with plenty of sex ed crammed down children.
It should make sense that the birth rate is higher in states where religion is more important because the girls are raised to value the life of their child even if "inconvenient".
Or maybe these states make it harder to have an abortion without parental permission or some parents force the girls to bring the fetus to term.
Sex ed isn't a bad thing. What is so wrong about telling kids about abstinence along with condoms, birth control, IUDs, etc?
I find it odd that these states that claim to be so religious have girls going around having sex before they're married (not that it matters to me but some religious people care about that sort of thing).
I think one problem is that values are different now than in the past. In the past people knew more what it was they wanted and marriage was not delayed until ridiculously late ages.
Kids today are told not to marry until they finished a masters degree at least, even people will talk as though age 25 is terribly young to be getting married. It used to be almost over the hill.
In the past girls of 17 or 18 were contemplating when they would marry - one year? two years? three years? A life-long mate was just around the corner. They could wait for sex.
Biology didn't change, people didn't change but some kids are still told abstinence but they should wait until they're 35 to marry so it won't work waiting for marriage.
Also in the past boys were expected to be responsible, to be like men, if they sired a child, then they should do the right thing and marry the girl and raise the child.
The problem isn't so much that there are young mothers, there were always young mothers but in the past they weren't expected to go it alone.
There were also pregnancy farms back then too, right?
Send little Susie off and then she comes back with the kid, her mom say it's her child....or Susie has the kid and some infertile couple adopts her child.
That's what it looks like -- non-religious states have very high abortion rates even with plenty of sex ed crammed down children.
It should make sense that the birth rate is higher in states where religion is more important because the girls are raised to value the life of their child even if "inconvenient".
I suspect this is more an access issue than a religion issue.
So my question to you both is not what can the parents do, but rather, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FORCE these parents to carry out the type of discipline that will be most effective?
You bring up really good points and I don't have a good answer. It just further demonstrates how complicated the whole mess is. I think when parents are as far gone as the two you described, there's really no way to force them to be good parents. They can't give what they don't have.
Peer pressure (among adults as well as children and teens) can be effective in changing behavior. So can establishing social norms, so that people who are not taught by their families can at least look to someone or someplace to answer the question "what am I supposed to be doing?"
People are at different levels of capability, but everyone can do better than they are doing.
just end welfare and make these idiots responsible for thier behavior and things will change
No, you can still receive food stamp. But after permanent contraception procedure done with proof issued by OB/GYN doctor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
racism a pretext to subverting the moral law?
