Should the 19th Amendment Be Repealed?

[Always in His Presence]

Do you think we should abolish the 19th?

There is merit to the argument - the objections has caused me to think about it. Valid arguments both for and against.

Regardless the genocide has to stop.

 

[RileyG]

Do you think Jesus intended no-fault divorce, sexual “freedom”, and abortion on demand to occur? Because those are the fruits of feminism.

Nope.

 

[RileyG]

Obviously not, that’s sexist.

 

[durangodawood]

Related:

Should we permit a woman's hair to be visible in public?

Should we permit a woman to be out in public without a husband or other male relative?

 

[Hammster]

The fruits of feminism are equal opportunities in education and in the workforce, financial independence.

But it seems obvious that women still lack the respect they deserve, and that many men resist treating them as equals. The media cooperates by sexual advertising and R rated movies and TV shows, and the easy availability of pornography objectifies women and puts every woman at risk. There is still domestic violence--although with "no-fault" divorce, it is easier for women to leave their abusers.

Second-Wave Feminism: History, Main Ideas, Impact

www.humanrightscareers.com

And the nuclear family is a relative 20th century phenomenon, occurring after the industrial revolution. Previously, children grew up surrounded by extended family. If you go back further, polygamy was the common family arrangement in Biblical times. Jacob had twelve sons--not only with Leah and Rachel, but with two slave women.

In the extended family situation there was more support for young families. A nuclear family can be very stressful, especially if there is no extended family nearby.

Nuclear Family Functions In Sociology

A nuclear family is a family unit consisting of an adult male and female and dependent children. It is regarded by some sociologists (in particular functionalists) as the basic universal form of family structure.

www.simplypsychology.org

At this point I’m not surprised that you’ve taken such a worldly, anti-biblical stance.

 

[Hammster]

Men always had sexual freedom, why not women too. No fault divorce finally allowed women the choice to leave a bad marriage. Men have also taken advantage of no fault divorce. Why anyone wants people stuck in bad marriages is beyond me.

I know it’s beyond you.

 

[Hammster]

Interesting how you think girls and women only chose to abort their babies. Parents, partners,husbands,employers, friends, family etc. are just as culpable in influenceing or demanding abortions.
Please get informed.

Forced Abortions in America

by Susan Dammann RN LAS, Medical Specialist Did you know most abortions are unwanted, including as much as 64 percent of U.S. abortions involving coercion? Abortion-related coercion can lead to violence, including even homicide—the leading cause of death among pregnant women. Do you kn...

www.heartbeatinternational.org

I’m explaining the fruit of feminism. Just because weak-willed men went along doesn’t change anything.

 

[comana]

I know it’s beyond you.

It sounds like you are for forcing people to stay in bad marriages.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I am somewhat shocked that this would even be an issue, but it has surfaced on this site.

Who is making it an issue. If we did anything it should be a civics test for voters.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not in favor of rolling back anyone's right to vote who already has it...to be clear.

But, if I was going to pick a voting expansion to roll back (or re-restrict), it wouldn't be the ones pertaining to sex, race, or land ownership status.

The one I'd revert if I was going to pick one, would be reverting the minimum voting age from 18 back to 21.

They originally lowered that as a means of appeasing people due to the draft age having been lowed to 18.

The whole "old enough to fight, old enough to vote" slogan...

But to me, that never sounded like a good justification for expanding the voting age...to me, that always sounded like reverse logic, and an appeasement tactic.

Expanding the vote to a group that didn't have it previously should be for reasons that can stand on their own merits, and not merely be based on "well, I changed this law that now states that I can make you go shoot people overseas against your will, so I guess you can vote now... so all's fair"

If it were up to me, we'd be abolishing the concept of a draft altogether, and putting the voting age back to 21. (but as I noted, it's been at 18 for a long time now, so can't really un-ring that bell)

I don't think the expansion of anyone rights (of any kind) should be artificially tied to an "eligibility to get shot at"...that just means the government is foisting people into the theater of combat when they shouldn't be.


Technically the same dynamic exists with alcohol and tobacco laws. "If 18 is old enough to fight in a war, that means 18 is old enough to drink whiskey"... No, it's the other way around, if we have good reasons for saying 18 isn't old enough to make the choice to drink, that means many of those same reasons suggest that they're not old enough to be thrust into life & death situations thousands of miles away from home either.

 

[comana]

I'm not in favor of rolling back anyone's right to vote who already has it...to be clear.

But, if I was going to pick a voting expansion to roll back (or re-restrict), it wouldn't be the ones pertaining to sex, race, or land ownership status.

The one I'd revert if I was going to pick one, would be reverting the minimum voting age from 18 back to 21.

They originally lowered that as a means of appeasing people due to the draft age having been lowed to 18.

The whole "old enough to fight, old enough to vote" slogan...

But to me, that never sounded like a good justification for expanding the voting age...to me, that always sounded like reverse logic, and an appeasement tactic.

Expanding the vote to a group that didn't have it previously should be for reasons that can stand on their own merits, and not merely be based on "well, I changed this law that now states that I can make you go shoot people overseas against your will, so I guess you can vote now... so all's fair"

If it were up to me, we'd be abolishing the concept of a draft altogether, and putting the voting age back to 21. (but as I noted, it's been at 18 for a long time now, so can't really un-ring that bell)

I don't think the expansion of anyone rights (of any kind) should be artificially tied to an "eligibility to get shot at"...that just means the government is foisting people into the theater of combat when they shouldn't be.


Technically the same dynamic exists with alcohol and tobacco laws. "If 18 is old enough to fight in a war, that means 18 is old enough to drink whiskey"... No, it's the other way around, if we have good reasons for saying 18 isn't old enough to make the choice to drink, that means many of those same reasons suggest that they're not old enough to be thrust into life & death situations thousands of miles away from home either.

I think your argument would have more merit if you were also suggesting that the age of majority be moved to 21. If an 18 year old can be legally held as an adult, then they should also have a voice in elections.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think your argument would have more merit if you were also suggesting that the age of majority be moved to 21. If an 18 year old can be legally held as an adult, then they should also have a voice in elections.

That's the issue with the "patchwork style" laws we have in the US surrounding age.

Age to be "tried as an adult in court for heinous crimes" as low as 14.
Age of consent 16
Age to see certain movies 17
Age to see the "really naughty movies" 18 in some states, 21 in others
Age for military service, voting, marriage, 18
Age for tobacco and alcohol, 21 (though it used to vary by state)
Age to be a house rep, 25
Age to be a senator, 30
Age to be president, 35


The way Canada does it is much cleaner. 19 - you're an adult and can do all of it. I think 19 is too young for some of that stuff, but at least they're consistent.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

Dude, not all feminism is bad or wrong. Sure, a lot of feminism is gross but some places like Iran etc *need* feminism because women are not property/chattel. When Christianity first began it was incredibly feminist especially Ephesians 5:25, Galatians 3:28, 1 Peter 3:7, Titus 2:3-5.


Even the Old Testament says some pretty feminist things: Proverbs 31:16, Deuteronomy 24:17, Numbers 36:6, Proverbs 31:10-12.

That’s not to say there are lots of bad things about feminism like the pro-choice movement. But women have rights, my dude.

 

[Fantine]

Who is making it an issue. If we did anything it should be a civics test for voters.

I forget which Cabinet nominee spoke on ending women's vote.
Vance also had said in the past that voting should be weighted on family size with the male head of household deciding for everyone.
And as we see here, there are some men who agree.
Women I know have commented that men have been more aggressive since the election.
Are these ominous warning signs?
Best to nip them in the bud.

 

[Hammster]

Related:

Should we permit a woman's hair to be visible in public?

Should we permit a woman to be out in public without a husband or other male relative?

Not related. You can take the straw man elsewhere.

 

[Hammster]

It sounds like you are for forcing people to stay in bad marriages.

Nope.

 

[Hammster]

Dude, not all feminism is bad or wrong. Sure, a lot of feminism is gross but some places like Iran etc *need* feminism because women are not property/chattel. When Christianity first began it was incredibly feminist especially Ephesians 5:25, Galatians 3:28, 1 Peter 3:7, Titus 2:3-5.


Even the Old Testament says some pretty feminist things: Proverbs 31:16, Deuteronomy 24:17, Numbers 36:6, Proverbs 31:10-12.

That’s not to say there are lots of bad things about feminism like the pro-choice movement. But women have rights, my dude.

The thread is about the right to vote.

 

[Chesterton]

Who is making it an issue. If we did anything it should be a civics test for voters.

I could definitely get behind a civics test. You have to pass a civics test to become a citizen, seems like you should have to pass one to become a citizen who makes important decisions. It would eliminate all those people we use to see on the Jay Leno show who think America was founded in 1962.

The one I'd revert if I was going to pick one, would be reverting the minimum voting age from 18 back to 21.

21? Nah, man.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It seems like a waste of ressources to conceive children and then abort them when you can just no longer get pregnant at all.

It is in that simple logic we would end over 92% of deaths by abortion.

 

[rjs330]

The fruits of feminism are equal opportunities in education and in the workforce, financial independence.

But it seems obvious that women still lack the respect they deserve, and that many men resist treating them as equals. The media cooperates by sexual advertising and R rated movies and TV shows, and the easy availability of pornography objectifies women and puts every woman at risk. There is still domestic violence--although with "no-fault" divorce, it is easier for women to leave their abusers.

Second-Wave Feminism: History, Main Ideas, Impact

www.humanrightscareers.com

And the nuclear family is a relative 20th century phenomenon, occurring after the industrial revolution. Previously, children grew up surrounded by extended family. If you go back further, polygamy was the common family arrangement in Biblical times. Jacob had twelve sons--not only with Leah and Rachel, but with two slave women.

In the extended family situation there was more support for young families. A nuclear family can be very stressful, especially if there is no extended family nearby.

Nuclear Family Functions In Sociology

A nuclear family is a family unit consisting of an adult male and female and dependent children. It is regarded by some sociologists (in particular functionalists) as the basic universal form of family structure.

www.simplypsychology.org

None of that is an excuse to kill your babies. Since the founding of this country there hasn't been huge supports for everyone. Yet people still.had children and made it through. We have more support, more conveniences and more money, resources than ever.

This is about convenience and selfishness. Thats all it is.