I believe that most women want a certain level of security before taking on the
responsibility of motherhood.In ancient times (before 1970, or so),
this meant that she needed to get married and do her best to encourage her
breadwinner to go out an earn a living.But with the U.S.A. becoming
more and more amoral and socialistic, many women can now look to the government
(ie, all the taxpayers in the U.S, both present and future) as her provider, so
she can go ahead and start a family with only the government dole as her
security, and lay the charge to supporting her family to everyone else.So now I get to not only support my own children, but the children of a
growing number of women who look to me, and those like me (in other words, their
fellow Americans), as their breadwinner.
The USA is NOT becoming more amoral and socialistic!Where do you
people get such nonsense?
@A Scientist:Let me just scratch the tip of this iceberg:1) Until the late 1950's, early 60s, prayers were allowed in schools.
Then some amoral group of Supreme Court Justices found out that after nearly 200
years of prayers in school being constitutional, suddenly the Constitution had
mysteriously changed meaning and prayers in school -- which help engender moral
character in students -- was outlawed.2) Until 1973, it was
unconstitutional to kill one's own children. But somehow, after nearly 200
years of the Constitution defending life, some amoral judges decided that the
Constitution had mysteriously changed, and Roe v Wade has resulted in millions
upon millions of children being massacred in the U.S., under state sanction and
support. Moral decline.3) Until the start of the 21st century,
marriage in all countries was between a man and a woman. Now, amoral judges
across America are finding out that the Constitution has changed, and suddenly
one of the most in-your-face types of immorality -- gay unions -- are found to
be constitutionally protected.The USA is definitely becoming more
amoral. I could give similar examples of increasing socialism, but I've hit
the 200 word limit on comments.
Oh no... the sky must be falling.
sjgfThe limit is not on your words, it is on your evidence.Prayers are still allowed in schools. Your kids can pray anytime they would
like. What ceased was the forced, formal establishment of religion in schools by
requiring students to pray. Moreover, prayer does not = "morality", nor
does the absence of prayer = amorality. There are other, more effective ways of
engendering morality than prayer, and just because YOUR "morality" is
not enshrined does not mean there is no morality."kill
one's own children? "amoral judges"? You offer NO support for these
judgmental claims. These are loaded assertions based on YOUR interpretation of
morality. But Roe vs Wade does invoke a morality that balances human rights as
well as they can be balanced for extreme situations of unwanted pregnancy. Just
because it is not YOUR morality that is built into law does not make it
"amoral" nor evidence of "moral decline."Likewise,
same-sex marriage is not "amoral" nor "immoral". There is NO
Judeo-Christian scripture forbidding same sex marriage, and even if there was,
the Bible is not the standard for human morality (thank heaven).You
do not have the patent on morality.
A Scientist,It's attitudes like the one you have demonstrated
that prompt sjgf to make such comments. You are proving his point. However, to
answer your question:"The USA is NOT becoming more amoral and
socialistic!Where do you people get such nonsense?"Here's a portion of a 2010 article that quotes a Gallup survey:"Three-quarters of Americans say the country's moral values are
worsening, blaming a decline in ethical standards, poor parenting, and
dishonesty by government and business leaders, Gallup reports.The
number of Americans who say the nation's moral values are in decline grew
by 5 percent since last year. Other reasons Americans mentioned were a rise in
crime, a breakdown of the two-parent family and a moving away from religion or
God.Only 14 percent of respondents believe that the country's
moral values are getting better. An increase in diversity and Americans pulling
together in tough times are two of the reasons these respondents gave.Pollsters also found 45 percent of Americans believe that current moral values
are in a poor state. . . . Only 15 percent of Americans believe the
country's morality is in an excellent or good state."
Riverton Cougar,Those are opinion polls. Polls of people like sjgf
who THINK the world is getting worse. They are not in anyway actual data proving
anything is getting worse. People fear change. They fear what is different. They
assume it is bad. Especially the older they get. Which is what this article
demonstrates.Once again... Oh no... the sky is falling.
Riverton CougarNeither you nor sgftz are proving your claims, other
than revealing that you continue to believe and insist that you have the patent
on morality and YOUR morality is not being enshrined into law and enforced in
popular behavior.So to support your unsupported claims, you throw
out "a portion of a 2010 article that quotes a Gallup survey"? Really?
Is that supposed to be persuasive because it is from such a credible source?Moreover, opinion polls do not prove actual declines in morality. They
are perceptions, not facts.The fear-mongering emanating from
Republicans in the election cycle can be blamed for a 5% increase in
perceptions. They can only take back the power Bush so abused by convincing the
citizenry that "morality is in decline!"You wrote "45
percent of Americans believe that current moral values are in a poor state. . .
. Only 15 percent of Americans believe the country's morality is in an
excellent or good state."I'm guessing that 45% are the
religious fanatics who erroneously think anyone who does not believe in god
(over 18% of citizens) are fundamentally immoral.You failed to make
Morals are subjective. When you're saying the country's becoming
immoral you're saying it's not aligning with YOUR morals. Stop being
so selfish. Look up ethnocentrism. You're the epitome of it.@sjgf1) It's forcing Christianity on non-Christians. There
shouldn't be mandatory prayers in public schools. You want prayers than
put your kid in a private school.2) For a long time there were no
laws regarding abortions .... for more years than there have been. Again, check
your facts and stop being self-centered on what YOU believe is right and wrong.
3) Gays immoral? Judging is immoral. And you're VERY
judgmental. Very christlike. Gays, like women's rights and blacks wanting
priesthood, are just another growing group that's been discriminated
against looking for equal rights. Can't you see that? Do you even care
about people?"The USA is definitely becoming more amoral." -
To YOU. To others it's becoming more accepting and loving. But to you,
since it doesn't align with YOUR beliefs and views, the worlds falling
apart.Try opening your minds and loving one another. We'll go
much further as a society.
@LValfre:When people mention that the USA is becoming less moral,
that is based on what it used to be. The United States is a Christian nation,
and the moral measuring stick is that of the Judeo-Christian moral code. You can
pretend all you want that we exist in a vacuum of morality, so that there is no
such thing as morals, but that will only fly with a small percentage of people
in this country.Your points 1 and 3 are simply a difference of
opinion, based on your rejection of history. However in point 2, you state,
"there were no laws regarding abortions."I took your
challenge and looked up an authoritative document on this subject. Here are some
excerpts:"Abortion did not burst upon the American scene with
Roe vs Wade.Yet, because the facts surrounding abortion and abortion
law in the first 200 years of our nation's history are not common
knowledge, many are not aware that for nearly all of our country's
existence, taking the life of a baby in the womb was prohibited."continued in next post ...
Continuing:"In fact, to those who have grown up in the post-Roe
era, who have been taught little history, and who listen to pro-abortion
rhetoric, the opposite may seem true. To these young people, it may appear that
the United States was founded upon and has always guaranteed "freedom of
choice" in abortion.Until 1973, however, the pre-born baby was
protected by American law."It sounds like you might be part of
the people who grew up in the post-Roe era, and have no memory of life more than
40 years ago. You might try researching history before making historical
claims.If you'll 'google' the quotes above, you
should be able to find the original article with much more detail on the issue.
"If you'll 'google' the quotes above, you should be able to
find the original article with much more detail on the issue."I
can give you some quotes to Google if you have the courage to read non-approved
literature that in reality was once official church literature.
A lot of it maybe most of it is an economic issue. The republicans some years
ago created something called an "earned income tax credit". The purpose
being to encourage people with young children to work for minimum wage. A single
parent with one to three children making in the range of $20,0000.00 per year
can get a very nice check each year from the IRS. If you don't think it is
significant money go talk to your used car dealer, furniture dealer and
appliance dealer. If the couple mentioned in this article were to marry they
would probably lose a good portion of this "tax refund". On the other
hand college graduates expect and probably do make too much money to get the
benefit of the earned income credit.
I work in a public high school- we do NOT have a significant rate of teen
pregnancy, but I do keep in touch with my students when they leave, and many of
them begin families before they marry. I can tell you that for every single
unmarried couple that I know with children, the issue is money. They receive
many benefits from the state, such as free or reduced childcare, free health
care for their children, food stamps, WIC, etc. And yes, the Earned
Income Credit is part of it all- but since it is collected only once per year, I
can tell you that it is not the prime motivator. Young women cannot afford to
stay home with their children, nor can they return to low-paying jobs that do
not justify the cost of child care. We have created a system that makes it more
fiscally prudent to live together, rather than marry. This is a huge societal
mistake. It has marginalized marriage to the prosperous- and the documented
benefits of growing up in a married family unit are lost for the children. We
should shift those benefits to those who choose to marry.
Reading these posts just makes me laugh. One day we will all understand how
wrong our personal perceptions were. As has been foretold, he is raging in the
hearts of men.
That is fine.. let people do as they wish. But don't make the American
Taxpayer pay for that process.
My question is why are women the only ones being given this distinction for out
of wed lock pregnancy, parenting, and giving birth? I think the men deserve just
as much consideration for active participation equal to a women. Women
can't do this alone so I think men should be given equal credit so they can
qualify for a $50,000 permanent job with the state and federal welfare
department. Why is a $50,000 entitlement job benefit limited to the
women? Men deserve the same entitlements so they can help support their out of
wedlock or divorced children. There is a lot of discrimination and prejudicial
crimes by blocking the fathers from receiving equal rights as women receiving
jobs in government. Or at least a shared financial entitlement so these unwed
mothers can have the fathers active in these childrens lives. Welfare departments are home wreckers and family destroyers because of their
prejudices and bias preventing the parents from getting married as joint
custodians and care takers. Job entitlements should not be based on gender, its
When you don't have morals, then you are immoral. And who decides morality?
Not the immoral or government, they don't know what morals are nor can they
be legislated.Abstinence has been the only true birth control
mechanism for 10,000 years and when the pill arrived it led to the abolishment
of abstinence, called it unconstitutional violation of civil rights to
procreate. The consequences were not acceptable either, pro-lifers say
abstinence is not legal to prevent unwanted children from being created so the
next best solution the creation of fetus abortions by medical experts being
legalized to replace abstinence. Now we are in a dilemma, do we
allow abortion or unwanted children or do we legalize abstinence and do more to
make that a socially acceptable birth control system that worked for 10,000
years? Of course "Kill Pill" and remover from the market. Abstinence as
birth controls would apply to pro-lifers and men/women who don't want to
have a baby.Though attraction and hormones are a normal human
process, education to control emotions and animal instincts should be taught in
schools and the news media as choices to control equal to other social crimes.
Re: LValfre CHICAGO, ILThose with failed marriages to minimize
traditional marriages, and the advantages they bring when raising children.The liberals tell us "not to judge" while they look down their
nose at conservatives. We refer to it as the double standard.
@Rifleman"Those with failed marriages [tend] to minimize
traditional marriages, and the advantages they bring when raising
children."I'm engaged to an ex-Mormon, we have no kids,
don't live together, and we've waited for marriage. BUT ... this
doesn't make me better or more moral than anyone else."The
liberals tell us "not to judge" while they look down their nose at
conservatives. We refer to it as the double standard."I've
never seen more judging than these boards and these kind of people. No offense.
If you're going to follow Christ and the Gospel and constantly push it on
people .... actually follow it and quit the constant judgments, generalizations
(the liberals!), and double standards.
I am a man, I am married, and I am LDS. I have spent decades launching new
products and building businesses. That said, if I have a product
that is no longer selling, the usual suspect is that the product isn't
adding the value it used to, or the customer has new options. For centuries,
women who wanted families had to marry to have that happen, there were no
options. I am not talking religiously, by economically. Lets be honest, women
had to put up with some pretty useless and in come cases bad relationships to
have families. Today, women have options. They don't have to
put up with men who bring little value to the relationship in order to have
kids. Yes, there are huge downsides to trying to raise kids alone. But what
this says is in many cases, the men involved are worse options than going it
alone. To me, this is a sad statement about many of my fellow men, that they
are failing to live up to what would needed to be considered life partners.
this makes libs happy. looks like 40% of pregnant women are doing a great job
controling their bodies
NCmarriage and babies are products? maybe you ought to rethink your
Ute Alumni.... nope, not products, but what make people commit to something,
same dynmaics apply... and when "men" don't add any value to a
family.... yeah, women will choose otherwise. And what I love about
this "looks like 40% of pregnant women are doing a great job controling
their bodies".... these women didn't get pregnant by themselves. What
about men taking a little responsibility here? That is the whole
problem. If men respected women, most of this problem would go away. It takes
two, and either side could curtail this problem dramatically... including the
men in the equation.But i love teh current thinking... lets blame
someone, rather than taking responsibility. It took two to make a baby, that
hasn't changed. It will take two to fix the problem - neither side is
exempt from responsibility.
Wouldn't it be nifty if when a woman had a baby and she left it at the
hospital instead of taking it home, that the father would be arrested for child
And they'll all be voting for Obama!
@LValfre:"Morals are subjective. When you're saying the
country's becoming immoral you're saying it's not aligning with
YOUR morals. Stop being so selfish. Look up ethnocentrism. You're the
epitome of it."Morals are absolute AND you believe deep down in your
heart that they are absolute despite what you think you believe. One moment you
say that morals are subjective, and the next you tell sjgf to stop being
selfish. You believe in absolute morality that dictates that sjgf should not be
selfish. That in itself is a projection of your belief in an absolute
morality."Look up ethnocentrism." That is a reference to
multiculturalism Dogmatists have hijacked multiculturalism as a way to say that
there is no absolutes. That all behaviors are equally neutral. The point of
multiculturalism was to be exposed to different cultures to adopt better
paradigms and values. But that view presupposes an absolute standard of right
and wrong. How else can one study poetry written by cannibalistic societies and
recognize that the poetry is good but the way of dealing with enemies is bad?
Unfortunatley, most dogmatists never get that deep into multiculturalism.
Reality. We just don't do it very well anymore.
sjgf: you write: "When people mention that the USA is becoming less
moral, that is based on what it used to be. The United States is a Christian
nation, and the moral measuring stick is that of the Judeo-Christian moral
code."We also used to allow slavery. Child protection agencies
did not exist. African Americans could not vote. Beating your wife was legal.
Is all of that moral? That is, after all, what "used to
Pipes: Those voting for Obama believe in a fair equitable society where
citizens have opportunity to get ahead economically according to desire and
ability and the cards are not stacked against them at birth due to social
status, gender, or skin color. We believe women should be able to decide IF
they birth children, and WHEN they give birth, and HOW MANY children they want
to have if they so choose to have children. We do not believe it is the place
of religion to decide that for all Americans. Religion can certainly provide
guidelines for its members who are members of that religion by choice and who
are then free to choose to follow those guidelines or not. Religious people can
be moral or immoral. Nonreligious people can be moral or immoral. But your
religious views cannot dictate the rules that all Americans live by.
Sigh......I think people get a little enthusiastic about their own religions and
forget that part of our constitution sometimes.
"PipesSalt Lake City, UTAnd they'll all be voting for
Obama!"That is really funny. I am adopted myself, and we have
adopted a chile. In both cases the mothers were active LDS young ladies. You
really think that only liberals get pregnant out of wedlock? Good grief the
rose colored glasses have gotten thick.
Two things:1) The United States is NOT a Christian nation. It was
never intended to be that way by the founding fathers. It has slowly evolved
into that over the last century. 2) Many of you should be ashamed of
yourselves. You are so unbelievably judgmental with regard to anyone that is
different than you are. You seem to think that your jacked up sense of morality
is justified because it was derived from a religious text.