I believe that morality and family values are important. But we must not be too harsh in judging people who fall short of our moral ideals.
Bring back shotgun weddings.
Abortion is worse.
Is the question is which poison would you prefer? That’s not a question that really merits an answer.
Either of the options is doing it wrong.
There’s a third option. Shame is a great inhibitor, as well as cutting off every single fed dime of welfare (the whole spectrum of welfare).
Women should be ashamed to have a child out of wedlock, and men should be ashamed for being sperm donors for out of wedlock children.
Why shouldn’t people be judged if they slut around? It’s wrong, and it ruins lives. Children without fathers have a great chance of becoming dirtbags. Yes sorry that’s a mean word. But they do. Children NEED a father MARRIED to their mother or they suffer terribly.
Do the Koreans force other Koreans to pay for their abortion?
(Did I -- actually you -- really need to ask the Q)
Abortion is infanticide.
false-dichotomy alert.
What’s worse? Dying of AIDS or cancer?
False dichotomies are false.
Single “mothers” are sluts who could not resist spreading their legs. They have already proven themselves to be low and they deserve social scorn. Instead of redeeming themselves, aborting their child is the worst possible thing to do.
Their redemption comes from either getting married and stay in a monogamous relationship, or from giving their children up for adoption to a stable 2-parent home so that the children can be brought up properly.
High abortion rates. Once you kill them those kids are gone and they will never be back.
1. Where there’s life, there’s hope.
2. Since when are those the only two options? How about not conceiving out of wedlock, or adoption, or marrying the father of the child?
I think men need to be held accountable by other men for this. I think a boy needs to know, from other men, growing up that a man who doesn’t raise his children is contemptible.
I think some women think they are better off not having to live with a man and put up with his input on family life. If they could just get him to send regular checks they would be happy, and they could be free to have a boyfriend, or not. That’s selfish and horrible for the kids to be raised by someone who is selfish and immature.
3. This is where people of faith, who seriously reflect on marriage and practice self-sacrificing generosity, really have an advantage over those who don’t. I don’t know how to rebuild that as a cultural norm, however.
Obviously abortion is worse, far worse the a child being born out of wedlock.
And this never was, and never will be a perfect world. Look at President Clinton, just as an example that is known to people. His father was killed in a car accident before he was born. This has happened to who knows how many people throughout history, I’m sure it happens every day, esp. to women whose husbands are in the military or cops, firemen or even not, like Clinton’s father.
Women can die too, and leave their husbands as single fathers.
But, that is not to say that the idea of having a baby “on your own” like Obama’s fictional “Julia” is a good idea, obviously it is not.
And yes, ending welfare would put a stop to a lot of this.
But what is true is that this has all been encouraged, by the Left, who want us all to be like serfs, dependent on and working for the State.
And, no soda either.
If you are merciful to the stupid, you are being cruel to the smart. Yes shame can be cruel, but it motivates parents to be especially attentive to what their daughters are up to. It also forces daughters to resist opening their legs up to any handsome seductive young man who wants to f**k them so they can brag about it afterwards and immediately abandon them when they find out the girl is pregnant. I know my language was a bit harsh (forgive me), but the consequences for the girl and child is even more harsh and forgive will only expand this behavior to the point it will become another burden to the taxpayer who is teaching their daughters to be responsible.
Too many Americans admire the strong family value system in Asian society (Confucius based) but too many do not realize the strict social enforcement mechanism needed to make it work.
Today many woman with college education in big cities go out drinking on weekends till the wee hours of the morning. Some of them wake up surprised they have been raped or worst assaulted or dead. Still many wonder how it could happen. When your society cannot understand that woman have vulnerabilities that are not shared by men, and yet we let them go about free and reckless, well rape, unwanted pregnancies, or rape/death are the consequences. This is true since pre historic times and the savagery do not go away because we have smartphones and ipads.
This is the NY Times talking. I would trust them not to twist things around.
I wonder if the abortion rate in South Korea is actually higher than in the U.S.? Most single mothers abort their children, and I guess I can believe that. But how many single mothers are there?
I do know that in the U.S. before the grand, left-wing, hippie, anti-Christian Sexual Revolution of 1968, there were few abortions OR unwed mothers. Since Roe v. Wade was introduced, there are far more abortion AND far more unwed mothers.
The same thing with birth control. Before you taught kindergarntners how to put condoms on a banana, there used to be FAR FEWER abortions and FAR FEWER unwanted kids. Sexual license is responsible for huge rises in BOTH.
The purpose of these articles in the New York Times is obvious. They want to outlaw Christianity, kill traditional morality, and introduce total sexual license of all kinds. And they don’t give a damn what the actual consequences are.
Because abortion is vitally unknown in the American Black community...
I've never been mugged by a South Korean. You never hear about South Koreans burning down neighborhoods.
Abortion is widely and generally available in South Korea.
Societies that don’t legally enforce laws against abortion may find that abortion rates will be roughly inverse to illegitimacy rates. The less tolerant the society is of illegitimacy, thus helping to minimize the choice of that outcome, the more abortion the society will see, and vice versa.
But if those who commit the crime of abortion have much to fear legally, abortions will generally not be readily available, and women who become pregnant out of wedlock will more often need to find a way to have their babies.
However, over time, women will understand that they don’t have the option of generally-legal abortion available to them, and they will alter their behavior accordingly.
This is certainly what prevailed in the United States pre-Roe, when the rate of abortions was perhaps 10% of the current rate, and when illegitimacy was far lower.
The basic problem is that the human species is programmed to want to start families at age 16 - 20, and not 25 - 35. The solution is that it has to again become both economically and socially possible for people to marry and start families in their late teens and early twenties, as was the norm in 1850.
Your fallacy.