Good luck with that. Come, take a look at today's Iran. After three decades of shoving morals down people's throats, this is the condition under which we're living. Hejab was required to fight objectifying women, yet I'm sure 60% women including myself hate it. Some women casually throw something over their head, while they've dressed to go to some bridal party or something, no matter if they're going to work, shopping or anything else. I've heard women saying they feel naked if they didn't use insane amount of make up. That's what you get by forced morals, making abortion illegal and frowning upon premarital sex. Bunch of people keeping the face, doing what they want and then lying to each other about it.

And then you could see a society like Sweden, where a woman can get an abortion easier and safer than anywhere else in the world. At the same time the society would provide for the same woman if she chooses to have the baby. I don't see their society fall into pieces because of that.

I think many of these teen pregnancies in the US is exactly because parents get their panties in the bunch if their kids are taught safe sex, because they think their kids shouldn't have sex to begin with. That's not going to happen. People have sex. We're bunch of animals trying to make it as a society. To fight sex and reproduction outside marriage is more destructive than productive. I think these old laws were good when there was no DNA tests and paternal responsibilities could not be maintained if the couple were not married or if they didn't know who the father was. In this day and age, I think we could get past that.

So here's a question for Americans, imagine a Persian couple trying to abort an unwanted pregnancy. It can happen here, they imagine they can't afford having another child and they sometimes go for abortion. According to their own views of Islam, fetus is not a human being until three months old and it's not a murder. How this abortion equating murder thing is gonna fit into religious liberties of others that are not Christians?

It's no problem of morality for American Christians because quite frankly, most think Islam is a barbaric religion. Or practiced by barbaric peoples, take whatever you shall. Your point would only confirm for them what they think they already know, and might even give a polling bump to bombing Iran. (I can picture the bumper sticker now: "Save a Baby, Drop a Bomb!")

Personally, I would rather pray to Batman before Jesus or Allah. Why? Because nobody in the name of Batman ever bombed anybody or persecuted gays or other minorities. Plus he's got a bitchin' utility belt. And shark repellent spray!

Big government, brought to you by American Conservatism!

Arizona is pushing a bill that would go even more right of that stupid birth control mandate debate and the right's Blount Amendment. If passed in AZ, the new measure wouldn't just allow employers to not cover birth control as part of their healthcare coverage, but if said female employee opts out and purchases an independent health care plan which does cover birth control, said employer can FIRE her.

I understand that, what I'm asking is what about the so called freedom of religion that was being debated here? If that's a constitutional right, then how one religion could pass laws that would restrict another, or those who even don't practice any religion for that matter at all? Making abortion illegal is a Christian agenda, isn't it?

Firstly, this is also a socioeconomic issue. Fact is, birthrates are way higher among poorer regions of the world. In the UK, around half of all pregnancies to under 18s are concentrated among the 30% most deprived population, with only 14% occurring among the 30% least deprived. The numbers of course would be exponentially higher among less developed nations. So instead of just conceding to let this issue spin out of control like you seem to think we should do and let our animalistic instincts prevail (as if we haven't already risen above this level) we can try raising the socioeconomic status of these people as well as education and moral accountability.

And to say that education does not mitigate the problem (atleast in America) is to ignore the fact that the birth rate of black women, which was historically has been exponentially higher than white women in all societies of the world, has dropped considerably over the last decades, and in recent years is approaching and almost equal to the lower birth rates of white women today. Birth control plays a role in this as well, but as the statistics I present below will show, birth control and abortion have not curbed birth rates in America but the false sense of security they create has increased them.

Secondly, Sweden has a population of about 9 million people compared to 313 million in the United States. You're comparing apples and oranges here when you compare us with your nation or those in Northern Europe. In America, the American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic black teen pregnancy rates are more than double the non-Hispanic white teen birth rate. 91 percent of births to black teenagers were out of wedlock, compared with a much lower 53 percent of white ones

These people don't need any encouragement to have more sex. The teenage birth rate in United States was 53 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2002; by far the highest in the industrial world. In Sweden it was 7 births per 1,000 women ages 15-19.

It's projected that 82% of the increase in population from 2005 to 2050 in the United States will be due to immigrants and their children. Let's not encourage this.

Thirdly, we've already had a sexual revolution at various times throughout history. Since 1965, the proportion of births out of wedlock to white teenagers increased sharply from 7 percent to 67 percent. Since 1965, the proportion of black teenage births that were out of wedlock increased from 51 percent to 95 percent in 1994.
Although the total number of births to teenagers declined between 1970 and 1992, the proportion born out of wedlock more than doubled (from 29 percent to 70 percent).

These statistics show that abortion and birth control can have the reverse effects of their intent. Moreover, many teenagers report that they were using a contraceptive at the time they got pregnant but that it failed. Contraceptive failure rates within the first year of use are higher for teenagers, particularly poor ones, than among "typical users" in the general population. Twelve percent of typical users experience a condom failure in their first year of use.

Lastly, to suggest open sex is somehow healthy and natural denies the studies and is just sad. For younger teenagers, too-early sexual experiences can be emotionally distressing and inconsistent with healthy development. For disadvantaged teens of all ages, sex too often leads to an out-of-wedlock birth and long-term welfare dependency. The statistics support this. Among young teenagers sex is also associated with other risk-taking behaviors such as smoking, drinking, and using drugs. The YRBS found, for example, that the proportion of 14- and 15-year-olds who had had sex was 87 percent among those who smoked marijuana regularly, compared with 36 percent of those who never did so.

And the costs that society has incurred due to unprotected sex in the post roe v wade world is frightening. In 1992, for example, there were about 1 million pregnancies, resulting in over 300,000 abortions, 134,000 miscarriages, and 500,000 live births. Of the births, 70 percent were out of wedlock. And about 3 million teenagers suffered from a sexually transmitted disease such as chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and even AIDS. These numbers promise to only be much higher today and in the future.

And not to be just a total Debbie Downer, but of the estimated 150,000 abortions that occurred annually in the US during the early 20th century, one in six resulted in the woman's death.

Wow, I feel like my old sex-ed teacher Mrs. Crimley after reading all of that.
I think I need a cigarette.

Afs, it's really nothing new.

In the 19th century, the Mormons were persecuted and driven out of towns and communities (including the Federal government) all across the country until past the Rocky Mountains at an area where they were allowed to basically be themselves. (No other reason why a civilization would by choice be cultivated and flourish around a bigass salt lake.)

Why the violent reaction to them by America? Polygamy, a marriage practice that's been practiced by countless people across distant lands over thousands of years. And one that in itself, I have no philosophical qualms with. (Though why one wants 3 nagging wives instead of 1, I don't get. :p) But not OK with the Protestants back East.

From wikipedia:



So yeah, that's why I raised an eyebrow when during a debate, the Mormon Mitt Romney claimed Obama has been the greatest violator of Religious Liberty in American history. I would consider that bullshit I copy/pasted above to be a whole lot worse and despicable in retrospect than women using pills. (Hell Mitt's ancestor fled Utah for Mexico because of the Feds forcing Utah to accept bigamy.)

The irony is, one of the arguments used by the East against the Mormons were thay they treated their women like shit. Yet the Utah Territory gave them the right to vote in 1870. Which Congress negated in 1887 with the Edmunds-Tucker Act which did the following:



Jesus. Mitt, you're definately wrong in your pandering to the people who's ancestors persecuted yours. The same Evangelicals who're voting against you in the primaries.

It may be part of the Christain agenda. However, in America religion only finds its way into statutory law through statute making bodies. Religions do not possess statutory law-making ability. The members of those bodies may be influenced by an infinite number of variables including their religion. However, being an atheist, if I were ever a member of a statute-making governing body, I would seek to eliminate abortion except when the mother's life would be endangered, per medical opinion, by giving birth.

Frank, in a nutshell, you're saying that the reason abortion rates in Sweden are low even when the abortion is available, has to do with their race and wealth. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Why don't you look at it the other way around? Why don't you see that when there's a strong social security system that makes a right winger in the US cringe, vast majority of people are prosperous, get better educations, live in better neighborhoods and therefore make more rational and responsible decisions, and end up having less abortions as the result?

When someone is poor, he couldn't get a proper education, lives in a poor neighborhood with bad influences and ends up doing messed up things which leads him to become a heavier burden down the road.

Anyway you look at it, this would not be solved unless people are willing to take care of each other.

Oh, please, it is. It's not may be, it sure is. And I'm an atheist too, though if I'm debating with a philosopher I'd have to say I'm agnostic. But let's be truthful here, the way we look at abortion and the differences we've is because of the religion and customs we're born into. Specially you, because an atheist wouldn't believe in soul. Therefore enlighten me how an organism that's bunch of stem cells to a certain point can be considered a human being? Or being a man you have this irrational fear that no woman in their right mind would go through pregnancy if given a choice?

I'd like you to explain to me, an atheist to another how you arrived at this opinion (if you were not already there to begin with) and were not influenced by religion.

Ronnie, wow, I didn't know this. That's really awful. Thanks for the info.

The US Constitution's first amendment and its interpretations are only a constraint upon governments. It does not constrain government's decision-makers from basing their decisions on religious beliefs.

Once the zygote is formed, it is a human being and its right to life is as inviolate as yours. As any society progresses toward a standard that devalues life, that progression may eventually encompass your life and a decision to terminate it. Of course, the Iranian national government has a quite liberal standard, doesn't it?

So you accept that it's because you were born a Christian that you have this opinion. If you were born on a stranded island and were raised with no specific moral values, you may have thought differently. That's all I'm saying.

Abortions are illegal as far as government is concerned. But so many other things are illegal too. We're used to do illegal things.

As far as views of religion goes, Shiites ask their own designated mullah (lol sorry, don't know what to translate that). It's someone you follow in details of the religion. Those mullahs usually have a far more laxed view on abortion than Pope. They consider fetus not with a soul before there's a distinctive heartbeat that can be heard outside the womb. The fine for aborting a pregnancy according to their ruling in that time is around $3000, which must be paid to the parents. If parents are the one wanting the abortion, well, it's not advised to do so. Must be discussed case by case. If one fears the woman can't make it, it's always okay to abort. If there's fear of great discomfort, it's okay to abort in 1st trimester.

Stem cell research has been green lighted by all Muslim sects I think. It's certainly legal here.

As a Mormon, myself, the above is certainly true. Fast-forwarding to the present, what I've found rather ironic is, when you mention polygamy to those who go on about the rights of gays to marry, their reaction is, "Uh...er...well...."

This is interesting. I agree, it's like African American vote against gay marriage in California. You wonder how an oppressed minority can be so insensitive to the plight of another one.

I'm digressing here from the topic, but if you don't mind answering, what if I ask you about that woman who was living with two men shown in the CNN? Is that yucky to you who is lax toward polygamy? Do you consider it to be okay only for men, or do you consider it to be okay for anyone regardless of their gender?

To me, the black vote against gay marriage is very understandable because they believe it to be morally wrong; as do I. The attempts by some to draw a parallel to racism in the past notwithstanding.



I don't consider myself lax toward polygamy. I'm certainly not advocating for it. Simply pointing out the hypocrisy by those who try to argue for gay marriage but don't say anything about polygamy. As far as legally recognized marriages go, I think 1 man and 1 woman.

What was not noted however is that the United States was already on the verge of Civil War with the Utah territory in 1857,58, until Abraham Lincoln decried slavery a greater crime than polygamy, and declared war on the Southern Confederacy in 1861.

Not to say Lincoln was exactly amicable toward the Mormons, just consider the fact that the original Mormon homeland was in Lincoln's homestate of Illinois before they were mostly all driven West.

Even Mormon leader Brigham Young said in 1861, "I do now, and always have, supported the Constitution, but I am not in league with cursed scoundrels as Abe Lincoln and his minions who have sought our destruction from the beginning."

Has to do with socioeconomic status and differences in culture (e.g. can't tell Catholics to use birth control); Entitlement programs are already 60% of federal spending.

Well, I think their/your morals lack understanding of sex orientation issue. It's not a choice to be gay, or black or a woman, etc. We're what we're. These are dictated to us by our DNA. Being gay is not a choice like polygamy is. Therefore according to universal morals (if something like that existed!) it's wrong to discriminate against gays to marry the partner of their liking, when others have the right to do so.

That being said, I think it's not business of state to dictate the number of spouses in a marriage. If someone doesn't like polygamy, they could simply stay away from such an arrangement.

[Argumentum Ad Nauseam] A society which incurs the costs of homosexuality, excessive abortion, polygamy, or any other objectively poor choice that statistically threatens the health and financial sustainability of the individual and/or society, has the right and obligation to mitigate such costs.

(Polygamy's illegal cuz it's bad for their kiddos, tho. Breaking up 4 way marriage is hard to do.)

People certainly have a choice/control over what they do. And people being "born gay" doesn't mean government and society in general should give equal recognition to a gay relationship as it does to a heterosexual relationship. Because, to do so does three things:

1. Minimizes the role of choice people have in their actions.
2. Minimizes the inherent differences between men and women.
2. Minimizes the aspect of child bearing in marriage.

I'm speechless. People have a choice over what they do to some extent, but that was not the point. The point was, people don't have a choice on what they ARE.

#1 is irrelevant. To accept the fact that a person is black, gay, etc. doesn't give them cart blanch to act criminally.

#2 is downright ridiculous. How a gay person is going to tone down me being a female or you being a male (I assume)?

#3 is irrelevant again. I don't get it. Are you trying to say if gay people can not get married, then they would have to marry straight and then have children? Why then so many gay couples still have children through surrogates, adoption, and sperm banks? Why should a straight person get stuck with a gay partner that's not into them? Is that fair to them? Is it fair to anyone in that relationship?

And why a gay citizen who pays taxes should not benefit the marital status with his or her partner just like you do?

Poor choice? Says who? You? Spoken like a true xenophobe. That's your opinion. None of these are poor choices. Polygamy is bad for the kids? How's that bad? Having a couple of more parents might provide more time with kids, and still have a bit of fun. You don't need a sitter, there would be more income and a bigger stronger family. Nothing wrong with that if every spouse is happy with that arrangement.

From your sociological perspective I can see how you'd more or less lean to anarchical beliefs.Just like I always argue the finances of things, Ivy argues based on his faith, your perspective is definitely influenced from living in a rigid society.

However Polygamy is in fact still illegal in the United States, and homosexuality is still more medically and statistically dangerous to the nth degree than is heterosexuality.

I'm a leftie, pinko liberal. In economical issues I'm center of the spectrum though.

You know that I've lived in Alabama for about 15 months too, right? Oh, well, B'ham is not center of the free world either. I'm getting more disappointed by reading some opinions on civil liberties on this board from some members. Hard to believe they're from the US and not some Mullahs from Iran. And I don't mean that to offend Ivy, but his views could sound just like a Mullah and you couldn't tell them apart if you don't know who is who. Before I ever come to the US, I had this picture that I now have of France and I am a bit disappointed. This fear keeps me from ever visiting France.

People being whatever they "are" doesn't mean society has to officially recognize or sanction it.



My point was, even if somebody is born gay, they have a choice on whether they act on those feelings.



I'm talking about the inherent male and female roles in both marriage and child-bearing, which "pinko liberals, such as yourself, like to minimize and regard as "irrelevant" or "ridiculous."



I'm saying child bearing is a fundamental part of marriage and to equate a homosexual relationship - which can't produce children - to that of a man and a woman is wrong. I know, I know, child bearing is also an outdated, irrelevant notion by your liberal, pinko thinking.



Though I don't agree with it on moral grounds, gay people having relationships is tolerable. But not them trying to be officially recognized by the government or receiving equal benefits on similar "marriage" grounds.

First of all, I'm proud to be a pinko liberal. Beats being a mullah.

Secondly, still you have not elaborated as to why a homosexual person who pays taxes just like any heterosexual, shouldn't be benefiting from a marital status with a partner of his/her choice.

If society wouldn't recognize that right for him, why would they accept his taxes? And why don't you stop acting on your feelings? Why do you feel that you are entitled to do something like that? Because you can reproduce? What's next on the list of people who can't get married? Those who are barren? Is reproducing more important or actually raising a human being, even if it's not of your own flesh and blood? How is having kids relating to being married? Marriage is a partnership. It recognizes the role of your spouse when you are incapacitated to make a decision for yourself. Spouses could inherit from each other. Having kids is just one aspect of it.

Taxes? What, you think paying a certain amount of money can change nature? Simply paying taxes doesn't mean a homosexual relationship should be viewed the same way as a heterosexual one. To do so would give equal sanction to both and, though some just don't want to believe it, a homosexual relationship is not equal.

And once again, I happen to have two gay brothers. And I'm fine with them living they way they want, though I don't agree with it. But that doesn't mean I think they have the "right" to be married to another guy or have their relationships recognized by the government or society as the same as mine - because they're not. No matter how much taxes they pay.

And me saying so doesn't make me a mullah. It just means I haven't thrown what is right out the window in the name of political correctness or subjective morality.

No, who said it changes nature? And why we want their nature to be changed? When they pay like you do, they are entitled to have their right recognized by the society, just like you are, plain and simple.

And saying that makes you a mullah. Not sure what your beef is with them. They want women in the kitchen, having no right over their body, keeping homosexuals in the closet and fight the infidels with their subjective morals that make it okay for all parts of society to have their rights recognized. You sir, are a certified mullah.