South Carolina Supreme Court strikes down abortion ban

[jayem]

Correct, but I was misunderstood

The idea that a fetus is a "potential" living being is nonsense. The fetus is very much alive, developing, and will become a living newborn

I have seen pro-life people use the idea of a "potential human" to mean that the fetus is not alive, isn't a person, etc.

But it's true that nowhere in the Constitution is it stated, or even implied, that the unborn are "persons" as that term is used in the 14th Amendment and elsewhere. In the late 18th century, when the Constitution was written, the unborn weren't even thought to be alive until quickening. Which doesn't usually occur until the 4th month or so of pregnancy.. I suppose that pursuant to the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, a state could recognize the unborn as "persons" in the legal sense. But it would only apply within the state borders. And a provision to allow termination would be needed if continuing the pregnancy would pose a clear and present danger to the mother's health and life. If pro-life interests controlled the Congress and Presidency, and could overcome a Senate filibuster, then personhood could be conferred by federal law. But such a law could be repealed if pro-choice forces were in power, The most secure way to establish nationwide legal personhood for the unborn would be by a Constitutional amendment. Which I don't see happening in my lifetime.

 

[Merrill]

But it's true that nowhere in the Constitution is it stated, or even implied, that the unborn are "persons" as that term is used in the 14th Amendment and elsewhere. In the late 18th century, when the Constitution was written, the unborn weren't even thought to be alive until quickening. Which doesn't usually occur until the 4th month or so of pregnancy.. I suppose that pursuant to the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, a state could recognize the unborn as "persons" in the legal sense. But it would only apply within the state borders. And a provision to allow termination would be needed if continuing the pregnancy would pose a clear and present danger to the mother's health and life. If pro-life interests controlled the Congress and Presidency, and could overcome a Senate filibuster, then personhood could be conferred by federal law. But such a law could be repealed if pro-choice forces were in power, The most secure way to establish nationwide legal personhood for the unborn would be by a Constitutional amendment. Which I don't see happening in my lifetime.

Correct: the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (not a thing in the 19th century). The Roe v. Wade decision rested on an implicit "right to privacy" that was read into the Constitution (for better or for worse), but it was later overturned.

Abortion before Roe was an issue of state law. Even though the fetus is not a person under Federal law, state law dictates that if someone murders a pregnant woman, he will be charged with double murder. So the states have extended this idea of personhood to the fetus for a long time--even the blue states, which is contradictory.

 

[Belk]

Correct: the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (not a thing in the 19th century). The Roe v. Wade decision rested on an implicit "right to privacy" that was read into the Constitution (for better or for worse), but it was later overturned.

Abortion before Roe was an issue of state law. Even though the fetus is not a person under Federal law, state law dictates that if someone murders a pregnant woman, he will be charged with double murder. So the states have extended this idea of personhood to the fetus for a long time--even the blue states, which is contradictory.

Abortion has been thing for thousands of years.


The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE

History of abortion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Merrill]

Abortion has been thing for thousands of years.


The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE

History of abortion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, but it wasn't considered a legal issue in the 19th century. We didn't have abortion clinics

 

[Belk]

Yes, but it wasn't considered a legal issue in the 19th century. We didn't have abortion clinics

True enough. It was not considered an issue and so the law was not involved.

 

[jayem]

Correct: the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion (not a thing in the 19th century)

Abortion was fairly common in the 18th and early 19th centuries. It wasn't particularly commendable, but it wasn't illegal. The link doesn't mention it, but the intention of the first anti-abortion laws were mainly to protect the pregnant woman. Remember, these were the pre-antibiotic days. Surgical/obstetric technique was crude. The risk of a woman dying from septic abortion was significant.

Abortion in early America - PubMed

The Roe v. Wade decision rested on an implicit "right to privacy" that was read into the Constitution (for better or for worse), but it was later overturned.

The right to privacy comes from the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

James Madison wanted a statement that citizens have more rights than those specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And the language makes it clear that these unenumerated rights belong to the people, not the states.

 

[Pommer]

Yes, but it wasn't considered a legal issue in the 19th century. We didn't have abortion clinics

Back when 40% of children born didn’t make it to the age of 5 years? when most Americans lived/worked on farms where another pair of hands to work was welcomed?
Right.

 

[Merrill]

Abortion was fairly common in the 18th and early 19th centuries. It wasn't particularly commendable, but it wasn't illegal. The link doesn't mention it, but the intention of the first anti-abortion laws were mainly to protect the pregnant woman. Remember, these were the pre-antibiotic days. Surgical/obstetric technique was crude. The risk of a woman dying from septic abortion was significant.

Abortion in early America - PubMed


The right to privacy comes from the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

James Madison wanted a statement that citizens have more rights than those specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And the language makes it clear that these unenumerated rights belong to the people, not the states.

The implicit right to privacy can be found in the Third - Fifth amendments, as well as the Ninth.

But the idea was also found within the 14th Amendment, and if memory serves me right, that was where the Roe v. Wade decision focused.

On a side-note, the Right to Privacy is largely ignored by state and federal government. Because it is not explicit in the Constitution, authorities and corporations frequently violate our privacy on all kinds of levels. Examples:

1. Facial-recognition software putting all citizens into a "virtual police lineup". Police departments around the country use this software to collect the image of citizens, and run these images against vast databases of media on the Internet (in both public and private sources). Companies are using this software to identify and blacklist customers they don't like.

2. Schools forcing parents to undergo criminal background checks in order to enter the school for parent-teacher conferences or to view plays, athletic competitions, etc. Our local high school does this. The school uses a company called "Raptor" which scans your license, puts it in a data-store, and then runs your info against police databases, sexual-offender registries, and custom databases.

3. Cities putting "vaccine passports" into place for things like COVID-19. In NYC, you couldn't enter a restaurant without showing your "vaxx-pass", which basically contained health records.

4. Bank regulations involving cash deposits. Banks will report you to the IRS or FBI if you are making too many cash deposits, etc.

5. Warrantless wire-tapping and Patriot Act powers. Intercepting cellular calls of everyone in a small area to find one criminal, etc.

6. Big Tech (like Twitter and FB) sending user data and profile information to the FBI

7. The FBI looking at people's library checkout records. This was called the "Library Awareness Program"

I could go on and one with dozens of other examples, but to think we have privacy these days is a fantasy

 

[BNR32FAN]

The point of contention is that it's a being that's inside of another being that they may not want to be there. So, in that regard, it absolutely is a decision about the woman's body. If you believe that a 10 week old fetus is a separate entity, that's fine, I can't change your mind on that. But the one thing that's undisputable is that it can't live outside the woman, and requires the woman's time & resources (both bodily and financially) to stay alive. You're basically asking a woman to be an involuntary human life-support machine if it's something she doesn't want for herself.

Yeah except 99% of the time it’s her fault the baby got in there in the first place.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah except 99% of the time it’s her fault the baby got in there in the first place.

"Who's fault it is" is irrelevant if one is going to claim "protecting the lives of children is the utmost priority"

Especially if the measures that would be effective in reducing the demand for (and number of) abortions are being outright rejected and limited by the party seeking the abortion restrictions.


Better sex education
Better no-cost contraception options
Better social safety nets
More inclusive adoption policies
Better funding for things like school lunches
Better supplementing of child care services

All things that would either
A) prevent the unplanned pregnancy in the first place
B) make the prospect of carrying to term more approachable for someone who accidentally got pregnant

Rejecting these measures can't co-exist with the claim "protecting the lives of children and preventing as many abortions as possible is the most important thing"...because rejection of these measures means there's something else that one is prioritizing over it.

For instance, if a person says "I don't want want to have publicly funded contraception or help women financially if they opt to have the baby, that'll make my taxes go up", then they've clearly prioritized their finances over stopping abortion.

If they say "I don't want to have to pay for contraception for people, because they shouldn't be doing that before marriage", then they've prioritized their religious viewpoint over preventing abortion.


A lot of folks in the pro-life camp will often tout that preventing abortion ranks #1 on their list. However, the policy positions and rhetoric on other related issues would indicate that it's actually more like #4 or #5.
(behind things like making sure their taxes don't go up and trying to prevent people from engaging in sexual behavior that doesn't gel with their own ideological viewpoints)

 

[Merrill]

"Who's fault it is" is irrelevant if one is going to claim "protecting the lives of children is the utmost priority"

Especially if the measures that would be effective in reducing the demand for (and number of) abortions are being outright rejected and limited by the party seeking the abortion restrictions.


Better sex education
Better no-cost contraception options
Better social safety nets
More inclusive adoption policies
Better funding for things like school lunches
Better supplementing of child care services

All things that would either
A) prevent the unplanned pregnancy in the first place
B) make the prospect of carrying to term more approachable for someone who accidentally got pregnant

Rejecting these measures can't co-exist with the claim "protecting the lives of children and preventing as many abortions as possible is the most important thing"...because rejection of these measures means there's something else that one is prioritizing over it.

For instance, if a person says "I don't want want to have publicly funded contraception or help women financially if they opt to have the baby, that'll make my taxes go up", then they've clearly prioritized their finances over stopping abortion.

If they say "I don't want to have to pay for contraception for people, because they shouldn't be doing that before marriage", then they've prioritized their religious viewpoint over preventing abortion.


A lot of folks in the pro-life camp will often tout that preventing abortion ranks #1 on their list. However, the policy positions and rhetoric on other related issues would indicate that it's actually more like #4 or #5.
(behind things like making sure their taxes don't go up and trying to prevent people from engaging in sexual behavior that doesn't gel with their own ideological viewpoints)

There are more abortions of black babies in New York than live births. The stats aren't much better for other races.

We have been hearing calls for better sex education, better access to contraception, etc. for decades. None of that has worked.

Outfits like Planned Parenthood simply allow young women to be irresponsible without consequence. I am not saying women shouldn't have access to birth-control, but if society doesn't care how many abortions a women gets, and this procedure is readily available, there will be a lot of abortions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There are more abortions of black babies in New York than live births. The stats aren't much better for other races.

That's not surprising considering that the poverty rate is higher among that demographic and NYC is an extremely expensive place to live.

We have been hearing calls for better sex education, better access to contraception, etc. for decades. None of that has worked.

Hard to conclude that it hasn't worked when it hasn't been given a sincere effort.

"Hearing calls for" something, and actually trying it, are two different things.

It should be noted that abortion stats are only one prong of this conversation with regards to gauging the efficacy of different approaches.

While areas like New York do have a higher abortion rates, when looking at the teen pregnancy rates by state, there's an observable pattern when looking at which states top the list

Clearly the "push abstinence, reject public funding for contraception" approach isn't having stellar results.

And when you take that list in consideration with the poverty rates by state:

With the exception of DC, you'll see quite a bit of overlap there.

Even more telling is the list of states with abstinence only education.

Again, a lot of overlap.


It would seem that:
restricting abortion + shunning the idea of publicly funded contraception + telling poor people they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps + preaching abstinence-only.... is the formula for creating more poor people.

Outfits like Planned Parenthood simply allow young women to be irresponsible without consequence. I am not saying women shouldn't have access to birth-control, but if society doesn't care how many abortions a women gets, and this procedure is readily available, there will be a lot of abortions.

Why is it so important that someone experience "consequences" for behavior someone else doesn't like?

I would add, the "consequences" you speak of in this scenario, aren't ones that are suffered by the person committing the action, alone.

This isn't like armed robbery where the person who does the crime is the only one doing the time.

Making a woman take on motherhood (especially if she's in a poverty situation and already struggling financially) is punishing a lot of other people besides just her.

It'd be one thing if people on the pro-life side were saying "the most important thing is that the abortion doesn't take place, after the birth, we'll do absolutely everything possible to make sure you have the support and resources you need to make this work and take care of the baby", it'd be a different story.


But that's not what's happening. Many in the pro-life camp will take on a "well, after the baby is born, you're on your own, I shouldn't have to pay for that, that's why you shouldn't have sex if you don't have the money to raise a child" stance.


Furthermore, in a bizarro universe, if men had to be the ones to have the babies and get stuck with the responsibility, I doubt we'd even be having this conversation. They'd be selling 3-packs of abortion pills at Wendy's. I say that because whenever conversations are had about unplanned pregnancies, the conversation is always around "the irresponsibility of the woman" (despite the fact that it takes two to tango), and people seem to get more bent out of shape about a woman having an abortion (and focusing their efforts there) and there's not really a mention of the 11 million absent men who aren't paying child support.

 

[Merrill]

That's not surprising considering that the poverty rate is higher among that demographic and NYC is an extremely expensive place to live.

Hard to conclude that it hasn't worked when it hasn't been given a sincere effort.

"Hearing calls for" something, and actually trying it, are two different things.

It should be noted that abortion stats are only one prong of this conversation with regards to gauging the efficacy of different approaches.

While areas like New York do have a higher abortion rates, when looking at the teen pregnancy rates by state, there's an observable pattern when looking at which states top the list

View attachment 330058

Clearly the "push abstinence, reject public funding for contraception" approach isn't having stellar results.

And when you take that list in consideration with the poverty rates by state:
View attachment 330059

With the exception of DC, you'll see quite a bit of overlap there.

Even more telling is the list of states with abstinence only education.
View attachment 330060

Again, a lot of overlap.


It would seem that:
restricting abortion + shunning the idea of publicly funded contraception + telling poor people they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps + preaching abstinence-only.... is the formula for creating more poor people.


Why is it so important that someone experience "consequences" for behavior someone else doesn't like?

I would add, the "consequences" you speak of in this scenario, aren't ones that are suffered by the person committing the action.

This isn't like armed robbery where the person who does the crime is the only one doing the time.

Making a woman take on motherhood (especially if she's in a poverty situation and already struggling financially) is punishing a lot of other people besides just her.

It'd be one thing if people on the pro-life side were saying "the most important thing is that the abortion doesn't take place, after the birth, we'll do absolutely everything possible to make sure you have the support and resources you need to make this work and take care of the baby", it'd be a different story.


But that's not what's happening. Many in the pro-life camp will take on a "well, after the baby is born, you're on your own, I shouldn't have to pay for that, that's why you shouldn't have sex if you don't have the money to raise a child" stance.


Furthermore, in a bizarro universe, if men had to be the ones to have the babies and get stuck with the responsibility, I doubt we'd even be having this conversation. They'd be selling 3-packs of abortion pills at Wendy's. I say that because whenever conversations are had about unplanned pregnancies, the conversation is always around "the irresponsibility of the woman" (despite the fact that it takes two to tango), and people seem to get more bent out of shape about a woman having an abortion (and focusing their efforts there) and there's not really a mention of the 11 million absent men who aren't paying child support.

I am not against contraception, nor am I arguing for abstinence-only education

however ...

I'd like to ask you what the teen-pregnancy rate was in the first part of the 20th century, and ask you what changed? Your claim that abstinence-only education, combined with lack publicly-funded contraception, has led to skyrocketing teen-pregnancies needs to be tested against time periods when there was very little sex-education at all, no public contraception, etc. In other words, teen girls weren't getting knocked up left and right in 1925 --even black girls.

The advent of the Great Society, expansion of the welfare state and entitlements, led to a society where young women no longer depended on men to help them raise children. Women were incentivized not to get married, and not to find gainful employment. Multi-generational poverty was the result.

So the political left creates the environment where promiscuity, single-motherhood, and multi-generational poverty are normalized, and then complains about Christians objections to abortion? That is like me starting a building on fire and then blaming the tenants for not having enough fire-extinguishers.

Solving the abortion problem doesn't simply involve handing out condoms and lecturing people about sex-ed. It involves fixing our society, our schools, and our country. And that will involve religion as well

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'd like to ask you what the teen-pregnancy rate was in the first part of the 20th century, and ask you what changed? Your claim that abstinence-only education, combined with lack publicly-funded contraception, has led to skyrocketing teen-pregnancies needs to be tested against time periods when there was very little sex-education at all, no public contraception, etc. In other words, teen girls weren't getting knocked up left and right in 1925 --even black girls.

The advent of the Great Society, expansion of the welfare state and entitlements, led to a society where young women no longer depended on men to help them raise children. Women were incentivized not to get married, and not to find gainful employment. Multi-generational poverty was the result.

So the political left creates the environment where promiscuity, single-motherhood, and multi-generational poverty are normalized, and then complains about Christians objections to abortion? That is like me starting a building on fire and then blaming the tenants for not having enough fire-extinguishers.

I'll concede the fact that the sexual revolution didn't necessarily do our society a lot of favors in many areas...

However, the way you worded your statement is rather telling... Framing it around "why women having to rely on men" was a good thing, and why "incentivizing women not to get married" was a bad thing.

Preventing unplanned pregnancies is an onus that should be equally distributed between men and women.

The era your refer to was one where women were also basically "trapped" in bad relationships and marriages because getting out of them would mean they were out on the streets without a penny to their name.


Women having to "keep the man that got them pregnant happy" (in order to stay financially solvent) exhibits some of the same flaws as our healthcare system that keeps people trapped in negative employment situations due to their healthcare plan being tied to their job.

Solving the abortion problem doesn't simply involve handing out condoms and lecturing people about sex-ed. It involves fixing our society, our schools, and our country. And that will involve religion as well

I disagree... the more people using condoms instead of having unprotected sex will definitely reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. As would people being better educated on how the various methods of contraception work. According to CDC statistics, 18% of abortions are the result of people using contraception, but not using it properly. That can be reasons ranging from not knowing that certain lubricants and scented lotions can cause condoms to break, to someone not knowing that taking certain meds may cause the birth control pills to not work as well.

I would also question your assertion that religion is required to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Given that some of the largest religious entities in the world preach prohibition of contraception, I fail to see how a "God Hates Condoms" message will assist in lowering the unplanned pregnancy rate.

Furthermore, one doesn't need to believe in a deity to understand the value of contraception and pregnancy prevention. I'm an atheist...I got snipped some years back because I knew I didn't want kids, and wouldn't want to put that burden on anyone else.

 

[Merrill]

I'll concede the fact that the sexual revolution didn't necessarily do our society a lot of favors in many areas...

However, the way you worded your statement is rather telling... Framing it around "why women having to rely on men" was a good thing, and why "incentivizing women not to get married" was a bad thing.

Preventing unplanned pregnancies is an onus that should be equally distributed between men and women.

The era your refer to was one where women were also basically "trapped" in bad relationships and marriages because getting out of them would mean they were out on the streets without a penny to their name.


Women having to "keep the man that got them pregnant happy" (in order to stay financially solvent) exhibits some of the same flaws as our healthcare system that keeps people trapped in negative employment situations due to their healthcare plan being tied to their job.


I disagree... the more people using condoms instead of having unprotected sex will definitely reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. As would people being better educated on how the various methods of contraception work. According to CDC statistics, 18% of abortions are the result of people using contraception, but not using it properly. That can be reasons ranging from not knowing that certain lubricants and scented lotions can cause condoms to break, to someone not knowing that taking certain meds may cause the birth control pills to not work as well.

I would also question your assertion that religion is required to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Given that some of the largest religious entities in the world preach prohibition of contraception, I fail to see how a "God Hates Condoms" message will assist in lowering the unplanned pregnancy rate.

Furthermore, one doesn't need to believe in a deity to understand the value of contraception and pregnancy prevention. I'm an atheist...I got snipped some years back because I knew I didn't want kids, and wouldn't want to put that burden on anyone else.

"The era your refer to was one where women were also basically "trapped" in bad relationships and marriages because getting out of them would mean they were out on the streets without a penny to their name"

and the era we live in now is one where a woman is trapped in no relationships, with no kids, dead eggs, a track-record of abortions, and mediocre careers. The golden age of the suicidal cat-lady

you tell me which one is worse

I am an unapologetic traditionalist. I believe in the nuclear family, traditional courtship, and personal-responsibility

This whole thing reminds me of the quote from Rev. Fulton Sheen: "If you do not behave as you believe, you will end up believing as you behave". Christianity is a moral framework, a way of life, and a "map" to Christ. It isn't moral relativism, something we do on Sunday, or some virtue-signaling nonsense --it is hard work, but very rewarding.

I understand full well the realities of life, and the need for practical approaches at times --which is why I said I wasn't against contraception. But that doesn't mean I support things like teenagers having sex, getting abortions, etc.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"The era your refer to was one where women were also basically "trapped" in bad relationships and marriages because getting out of them would mean they were out on the streets without a penny to their name"

and the era we live in now is one where a woman is trapped in no relationships, with no kids, dead eggs, a track-record of abortions, and mediocre careers. The golden age of the suicidal cat-lady

you tell me which one is worse

I am an unapologetic traditionalist. I believe in the nuclear family, traditional courtship, and personal-responsibility

This whole thing reminds me of the quote from Rev. Fulton Sheen: "If you do not behave as you believe, you will end up believing as you behave". Christianity is a moral framework, a way of life, and a "map" to Christ. It isn't moral relativism, something we do on Sunday, or some virtue-signaling nonsense --it is hard work, but very rewarding.

I understand full well the realities of life, and the need for practical approaches at times --which is why I said I wasn't against contraception. But that doesn't mean I support things like teenagers having sex, getting abortions, etc.

The nuclear family unit has definite benefits. There's value in having both a male and female leader in the home. I won't deny that.

In fact, the biggest predicter of being successful in this country (apart getting a high school diploma) is growing up in a house with a mother and father.

But I don't think women are "trapped" in "no relationships", they simply have the ability to not be in one if they don't want to be. As far as "dead eggs and a track record of abortions", I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

But, I would suggest that your stance of understanding practicalities and "understanding the realities of life" requires one to also make pragmatic concessions...like understanding that human urges are going to take over and people are going to have sex, even if it's under conditions that one may not agree with.

Acknowledging that reality, there are certain things where the most pragmatic approach is to mitigate the worst effects of something rather try to prevent it altogether as the latter would be a fool's errand.

For instance, I could solve obesity and type 2 diabetes "if everyone would just listen to me and do what I tell them", but knowing that it's impractical to expect that to happen, it's nice to have blood pressure meds and insulin available to be the primary strategy for mitigating the worst effects (despite it not being the ideal scenario)

 

[Merrill]

The nuclear family unit has definite benefits. There's value in having both a male and female leader in the home. I won't deny that.

In fact, the biggest predicter of being successful in this country (apart getting a high school diploma) is growing up in a house with a mother and father.

But I don't think women are "trapped" in "no relationships", they simply have the ability to not be in one if they don't want to be. As far as "dead eggs and a track record of abortions", I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

But, I would suggest that your stance of understanding practicalities and "understanding the realities of life" requires one to also make pragmatic concessions...like understanding that human urges are going to take over and people are going to have sex, even if it's under conditions that one may not agree with.

Acknowledging that reality, there are certain things where the most pragmatic approach is to mitigate the worst effects of something rather try to prevent it altogether as the latter would be a fool's errand.

For instance, I could solve obesity and type 2 diabetes "if everyone would just listen to me and do what I tell them", but knowing that it's impractical to expect that to happen, it's nice to have blood pressure meds and insulin available to be the primary strategy for mitigating the worst effects (despite it not being the ideal scenario)

You said yourself the sexual revolution has issues. Now you claim you don't know what I am talking about when I speak of childless women who never married, and who were sold a bill-of-goods about hedonism, sexual liberation, and self-exploration?

I know several women like that. Their lives are disasters. They had abortions, failed relationships, etc. --now quality men, or any men at all, won't look at them.

you are not speaking practically or pragmatically --you are painting some leftist Utopian vision of the world where liberated women have harems of adoring men and live in some dream of luxury. We don't live in that world.

 

[FireDragon76]

You said yourself the sexual revolution has issues. Now you claim you don't know what I am talking about when I speak of childless women who never married, and who were sold a bill-of-goods about hedonism, sexual liberation, and self-exploration?

One doesn't have to become a traditionalist to push back against uncritical acceptance of hedonism and libertarianism. Marianne Williamson, in her younger years, lived a libertarian, hedonistic lifestyle promoted in California in the late 60's and early 70's, but she went on to do alot of philanthropy in the 1980's. However, her politics is left of center and she wasn't involved with traditional religion (she was raised Jewish but is more closely aligned with the New Thought movements, such as A Course in Miracles or the Unity church).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You said yourself the sexual revolution has issues. Now you claim you don't know what I am talking about when I speak of childless women who never married, and who were sold a bill-of-goods about hedonism, sexual liberation, and self-exploration?

I know several women like that. Their lives are disasters. They had abortions, failed relationships, etc. --now quality men, or any men at all, won't look at them.

you are not speaking practically or pragmatically --you are painting some leftist Utopian vision of the world where liberated women have harems of adoring men and live in some dream of luxury. We don't live in that world.

I'm certainly not advocating a "leftist utopia".

There's a lot of middle ground between that and strict traditionalism.

One doesn't need to be a "free love hippy" to hold the view that society doesn't need to be structured around a belief system that says "Men are above women, and womens' happiness is contingent on how happy they can keep their man"

When I talk to a lot of the "trad bros" online in other forums, they seem to advocate for the "trad" ideology
A) Because it's easy, one can simply appeal to tradition, and it doesn't involve a lot of thought or planning and there aren't a lot of dynamics to account for
B) Because they're the main benefactors of it


However, they overlook a lot of negatives when they appeal to certain time periods as "the ideal".

Domestic violence was extremely common in the 1950's, and women had very little legal recourse when it happened.

While the sexual revolution had some serious issues and introduced some problems, a lot of it was an overcorrection to the issues present in the "trad" system.


And I notice the rhetoric is still surrounding the expectations of womens behavior with regards to how it attracts a partner, and the same tone isn't there when discussing the inverse. For instance the type of behavior that gets labelled as "guys being guys", gets framed in a portrayal of "damaged goods" when referring to women who engage in the same behavior.

Or, to put it more succinctly, the "trad bro" mentality seems to be centered around "I get to sow my wild oats from age 18-20, but when I'm ready to settle down, I want a woman who's a virgin and who's content with keeping the house clean and respecting my authority"

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm certainly not advocating a "leftist utopia".

There's a lot of middle ground between that and strict traditionalism.

One doesn't need to be a "free love hippy" to hold the view that society doesn't need to be structured around a belief system that says "Men are above women, and womens' happiness is contingent on how happy they can keep their man"

When I talk to a lot of the "trad bros" online in other forums, they seem to advocate for the "trad" ideology
A) Because it's easy, one can simply appeal to tradition, and it doesn't involve a lot of thought or planning and there aren't a lot of dynamics to account for
B) Because they're the main benefactors of it


However, they overlook a lot of negatives when they appeal to certain time periods as "the ideal".

Domestic violence was extremely common in the 1950's, and women had very little legal recourse when it happened and the entire.

While the sexual revolution had some serious issues and introduced some problems, a lot of it was an overcorrection to the issues present in the "trad" system.


And I notice the rhetoric is still surrounding the expectations of womens behavior with regards to how it attracts a partner, and the same tone isn't there when discussing the inverse. For instance the type of behavior that gets labelled as "guys being guys", gets framed in a portrayal of "damaged goods" when referring to women who engage in the same behavior.

Or, to put it more succinctly, the "trad bro" mentality seems to be centered around "I get to sow my wild oats from age 18-20, but when I'm ready to settle down, I want a woman who's a virgin and who's content with keeping the house clean and respecting my authority"

I agree. Especially the "damaged goods" bit. It comes from misogynistic, and wildly outdated, notions of purity. Women and men are people, not sticks of chewing gum, and having coroful or complex histories doesn't take away from the value people can bring to real, loving relationships.