Thread: Girl Guides and God - i smell a rat Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025672
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
So as soon as I found out about this anti-God guides promise, I knew the radical left were behind it and hey-ho, I was right.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2233329/Pro-abortion-campaigner-new-head-Girl-Guides-Which-describes-ultimate-femin ist-organisation.html
So in November the organization was taken over by a pro abortion, pro condoms, pro depraved sex leftist feminist called Julie Bentley intent on making it into "the ultimate feminist organization".
Well, if those are your views, of course you're going to want the All-Holy God out of your life. So sHe becomes a little embarrassing when he condemns sexual incontinency and the slaying of the innocent.
Surprise, surprise.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
And of course everything the Daily Mail says is correct and unbiased.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
I wouldn't even trust the Mail for the cricket scores.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Maybe the Guide Association could hire Indifferently to run their next publicity campaign? I'm sure lots of teenage girls would want to join if they knew it was all about depraved sex instead of learning how to pitch a tent and tie reef knots!
They're not called Girl Guides anymore, btw. Just Guides.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
How is this a Dead Horse subject?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Presumably so that those who are so inclined can foam about the mouth about teh evul lezzers.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I wouldn't even trust the Mail for the cricket scores.
I'm on record as saying that if it published that grass was green I'd stick me head out of the window to make sure.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
So as soon as I found out about this anti-God guides promise, I knew the radical left were behind it and hey-ho, I was right.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2233329/Pro-abortion-campaigner-new-head-Girl-Guides-Which-describes-ultimate-femin ist-organisation.html
So in November the organization was taken over by a pro abortion, pro condoms, pro depraved sex leftist feminist called Julie Bentley intent on making it into "the ultimate feminist organization".
Well, if those are your views, of course you're going to want the All-Holy God out of your life. So sHe becomes a little embarrassing when he condemns sexual incontinency and the slaying of the innocent.
Surprise, surprise.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant, Indifferently. I mean it. Now remove the mask (or sock) and tell us who you really are so that we can applaud your genius for parody.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
An article by the brilliant Peter Hitchens on this very subject appeared just a few days ago:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/06/the-sinister-reason-theyre-robbing-the-guides-of-god.html
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
hosting
This thread topic isn't a Dead Horse and the OP appears to be a rant which belongs in Hell. I'm moving this to Hell.
thanks,
Louise
hosting off
[ 27. June 2013, 11:46: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Indifferently, go choke on a dick. You never know, you might enjoy it and stop with the Po-Faced Miserable Fucker (thanks Karl) act.
Signed, a pro-choice bisexual marxist-feminist.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
An article by the brilliant Peter Hitchens on this very subject appeared just a few days ago:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/06/the-sinister-reason-theyre-robbing-the-guides-of-god.html
Really? Hitchens yearns for disgruntled Guides to quit and form a 'pro-Christian breakaway'. Is he not aware that there are already hundreds of 'pro-Christian' youth organisations up and down the UK, for example the Girls' and Boys' Brigades, the Navigators and all the groups linked with various churches. As for 'pro-British', I'm not sure what he means by that or how he thinks the Guides are not pro-British any more. Can anyone remove my ignorance?
Also, his basic premise is just ludicrous. Girls who are Christians are presumably still welcome to join the Guides, despite this change to the Guide Promise. To talk about the Guides being taken over by 'radical revolutionaries'... It's more pathetically overblown 'Oh no, Christians are being persecuted!' nonsense. IMO of course.... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Indifferently, go choke on a dick. You never know, you might enjoy it and stop with the Po-Faced Miserable Fucker (thanks Karl) act.
Signed, a pro-choice bisexual marxist-feminist.
Ah yet more hateful bigotry from the Marxist left, what a surprise. As for baby killing, I have to confess to not being a fan myself (this post was originally in Dead Horses for that reason). But nice to know that the Guides will now be taught how to have underage, risky sex and then kill their babies when it all goes "wrong" and they actually get pregnant.
Liberation my foot.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Meh. I spent five years in the Guides back in the days when it was supposedly a Christian organisation. When there were church services, approximately three or four girls from our pack used to turn up (at most). I was one of them and I was only there because I felt sorry for the leader.
The good bits of being in the Guides had nothing to do with religion and were all related to camping* and setting fire to stuff.
*By far and away the most useful skill I learned there. Thanks to the Guides, I am very, very good at pitching a tent so it won't leak. My mother hates camping and I never would have learned this without Bev the Guide leader.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
nice to know that the Guides will now be taught how to have underage, risky sex
That seems extremely unlikely.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Indifferently, go choke on a dick. You never know, you might enjoy it and stop with the Po-Faced Miserable Fucker (thanks Karl) act.
Signed, a pro-choice bisexual marxist-feminist.
Ah yet more hateful bigotry from the Marxist left, what a surprise. As for baby killing, I have to confess to not being a fan myself
You're happy enough with it when it's Abraham about to do it or Joshua actually going through with it, so don't give me the fake anguish shite.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Indifferently, go choke on a dick. You never know, you might enjoy it and stop with the Po-Faced Miserable Fucker (thanks Karl) act.
Signed, a pro-choice bisexual marxist-feminist.
Ah yet more hateful bigotry from the Marxist left, what a surprise. As for baby killing, I have to confess to not being a fan myself (this post was originally in Dead Horses for that reason). But nice to know that the Guides will now be taught how to have underage, risky sex and then kill their babies when it all goes "wrong" and they actually get pregnant.
Liberation my foot.
Lesbian sex is one of the least risky kinds of sex, just sayin'.
Not that the Guides will be taught this anyway, because last time I checked being taught about camping didn't involve sex education, because dude, sound travels between tent walls.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Indifferently, go choke on a dick. You never know, you might enjoy it and stop with the Po-Faced Miserable Fucker (thanks Karl) act.
Signed, a pro-choice bisexual marxist-feminist.
Ah yet more hateful bigotry from the Marxist left, what a surprise. As for baby killing, I have to confess to not being a fan myself
You're happy enough with it when it's Abraham about to do it or Joshua actually going through with it, so don't give me the fake anguish shite.
Pfft, we all know killing heathen babies is Godly and Anointed. It's aborting the WASP foetuses of nice middle-class girls that's really unforgivable.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
Basics:
1: To second Karl, if the Daily Heil claims that the weather's sunny don't forget your umbrella.
2: If you are not pro-condoms then you are objectively pro-forced pregnancy and pro-increasing the number of abortions.
3: Peter Hitchens is a shortsighted curmudgeonly jackass. Calling him brilliant might just be the single most stupid thing you have said on this thread. Which is quite impressive given that you have yet to say anything that makes me think your greatest intellectual achievement isn't learning to type.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
My mother hates camping and I never would have learned this without Bev the Guide leader.
Oh, I don't know: I hate camping and my wife found that out long after she was chucked out of the Brownies. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
2: If you are not pro-condoms then you are objectively pro-forced pregnancy and pro-increasing the number of abortions.
False. There were far fewer abortions when
a) sex outside marriage was disapproved of
b) abortion was illegal
c) contraception was not generally available
Finally enough people did not behave like the sex crazed animals they do today.
As for forced pregnancy without condoms, what are you on about? Nobody is forcing people to be promiscuous.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
1: To second Karl, if the Daily Heil claims that the weather's sunny don't forget your umbrella.
That applies to all media organisations in Britain though.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
2: If you are not pro-condoms then you are objectively pro-forced pregnancy and pro-increasing the number of abortions.
False. There were far fewer abortions when
a) sex outside marriage was disapproved of
b) abortion was illegal
c) contraception was not generally available
Finally enough people did not behave like the sex crazed animals they do today.
As for forced pregnancy without condoms, what are you on about? Nobody is forcing people to be promiscuous.
You don't need promiscuity to get pregnant. Indeed, marriage with no contraception is a very, erm, fertile ground for almost continuous pregnancy and all that entails. With no need to act like sex crazed animals, unless you consider anything more often than once every few years as "sex crazed".
[ 27. June 2013, 13:38: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
2: If you are not pro-condoms then you are objectively pro-forced pregnancy and pro-increasing the number of abortions.
False. There were far fewer abortions when
a) sex outside marriage was disapproved of
b) abortion was illegal
c) contraception was not generally available
Finally enough people did not behave like the sex crazed animals they do today.
As for forced pregnancy without condoms, what are you on about? Nobody is forcing people to be promiscuous.
1) rapists do indeed force people to have sex, and some of their victims get pregnant from that and 2) most women who have abortions are married and already have kids.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
quote:
As for 'pro-British', I'm not sure what he means by that or how he thinks the Guides are not pro-British any more. Can anyone remove my ignorance?
The Guides are a world-wide organisation; the ones in other countries are not required to swear loyalty to our Queen unless she's their Queen too. They have also been a multi-faith organisation for almost a century; the Indian promise allows you to substitute the word 'Dharma' for 'God' if you are a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain.
Speaking as an ex-Guider, I would prefer to have a promise that is as inclusive as possible. The first part of the Guide Law is 'A Guide is honest'; what kind of message does it send out if leaders tell girls who want to join 'You have to say the promise before you can be a member, but if you don't believe in God just cross your fingers when you get to that bit'?!
I smell a rat too, but it smells more like the same old bunch of misogynists objecting to girls deciding things for themselves and doing stuff without getting the boys' approval first. Or maybe their calendars are slow and they think it's still 1913.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
2: If you are not pro-condoms then you are objectively pro-forced pregnancy and pro-increasing the number of abortions.
False. There were far fewer abortions when
a) sex outside marriage was disapproved of
b) abortion was illegal
c) contraception was not generally available
Finally enough people did not behave like the sex crazed animals they do today.
As for forced pregnancy without condoms, what are you on about? Nobody is forcing people to be promiscuous.
You don't need promiscuity to get pregnant. Indeed, marriage with no contraception is a very, erm, fertile ground for almost continuous pregnancy and all that entails. With no need to act like sex crazed animals, unless you consider anything more often than once every few years as "sex crazed".
Indifferently goes for annual Communion in more than one sense of the word, maybe?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
MIND BLEACH! NOW!
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
False. There were far fewer abortions when
a) sex outside marriage was disapproved of
b) abortion was illegal
c) contraception was not generally available
Finally enough people did not behave like the sex crazed animals they do today.
There were fewer abortions, but there was the pain and terror of back-street abortion. And there were also thousands of babies available for adoption because their young mothers were shamed into giving them up for life. I should know: I was one of them. (Babies, I mean.)
I think abortion is a grievous thing. I think adoption is much preferable (I am not sorry I was adopted, I love my adoptive family dearly). But those birth mothers had rights too, and the Church was, mainly, not there for them. And it should have been.
I'm not saying I think the present cultural situation is peachy. But neither do I have much patience with pro-lifers who want to shame single mothers ... either back in 1962, or now.
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
I'm gutted that I was a guide back in the eighties and only got taught how to make bread and toast marshmallows over a camp fire. If I'd been taught about depraved lezzie sex in a useful, educational manner it would have prevented all sorts of embarrassing fumbles.
But then I wasn't a guide for very long. Apparently calling the leader a cunt is not allowed and so maybe I just missed out on the perversion.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I'm gutted that I was a guide back in the eighties and only got taught how to make bread and toast marshmallows over a camp fire. If I'd been taught about depraved lezzie sex in a useful, educational manner it would have prevented all sorts of embarrassing fumbles.
But then I wasn't a guide for very long. Apparently calling the leader a cunt is not allowed and so maybe I just missed out on the perversion.
It was a long time ago and you still haven't got over bragging about your bad manners? You rebel you.
Posted by squidgetsmum (# 17708) on
:
Congruatulations Indifferently! You've managed to post such utter bullshit that you've persuaded me to stop lurking. Awesomez!
I personally believe that taking the Daily Mail for source material should have been mentioned in DSM-V, but it's hard to believe quite how wrong they actually got it. I've been a member of Girlguiding UK for quite some time, so let me try to disabuse you.
Whatever you think of Julie Bentley's previous job, she didn't rewrite the promise. It's been something we've asked for for several years. This version was written in response to 44,000 responses to a consultation. Fairly safe to say this was neither new, nor unsupported.
Now, I actually wrote some of the material available to Guides on sex. If you can point me to any point where we advocate risky sex and then abortion, I'll give you a prize. You can't though. You'll find it centres on safe, informed, legal sex - and even includes abstinence. I realise that's a bit radical for us ugodly types..
Simce we've never been a religious organisation, but a spiritual one, you're talking crap. Some of us even manage to be Christians and guides - and to be honest, it feels a lot more honest using this promise, knowing that some girls just can't make the old one in good faith.
Posted by Mrs Shrew (# 8635) on
:
I'm sure I will regret this, but Indifferently, you could not be more wrong if you tried.
Firstly, being feminist has always been part of Guiding. When the Guides first started it was because women wanted the chance to be involved in Scouting but it was considered scandalous to let them do that. So we started our own movement.
Secondly, Guiding is not, and never has been, a Christian organisation. It is an organisation that values spiritual development, which has historically in the UK meant Christian, but in other countries in the world the majority of guides are of other faiths.
This change means that we will not be forcing those whose beliefs can't be expressed by 'love my God' to promise something meaningless. It is quite possible for a Christian to feel comfortable promising to 'be true to myself and develop my beliefs'.
For that matter I would like to call to he'll whoever thought the phrase 'to love my God' had meaning in the first place. As an adult you can understand that it includes activity spiritual commitment but as a child I never thought it meant more than a fluffy wuffy feeling.
Finally, as for all your "sex education encourages risky sex and abortions" crap - please feel free to fuck right off and get yourself a clue stick. Can you not even see how counter intuitive stating that safe sex education will encourage risky sex is?
Moron.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I'm gutted that I was a guide back in the eighties and only got taught how to make bread and toast marshmallows over a camp fire. If I'd been taught about depraved lezzie sex in a useful, educational manner it would have prevented all sorts of embarrassing fumbles.
But then I wasn't a guide for very long. Apparently calling the leader a cunt is not allowed and so maybe I just missed out on the perversion.
I know right? I missed out on both Brownies and Guides due to my anti-monarchist stance. If only I'd known what dens of vice they were.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Out of interest, Jade, are your parents active Socialists?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Welcome, welcome squidgetsmum! The kind of cheerful, confident first post that one would expect of a Guide in Hell.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Out of interest, Jade, are your parents active Socialists?
My dad is, my mum isn't. Why? Anti-monarchism isn't purely a socialist stance (as Americans would tell you), and my dad was quite happy for me to join. I just decided that I couldn't truthfully swear the oath, which given that all the Scouting groups are supposed to be honest first and foremost, seems like a good and Guide-worthy sentiment.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Oh, ok. It's a while since I was nine, but I don't remember any vocal republicans back then (to the extent that it would affect whether they joined an institution) and so presumed it was the result of some kind of parental influence.
In a British context, I'd say that socialism and republicanism often go hand in hand. (Though not always - there are, for instance, some Conservatives who are republicans.)
Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on
:
If only I'd known what was going on in Guides, I might have joined instead of giving up after Brownies. All I remember from Brownies is playing Chinese ladders, which is a good game but not exactly... wait! It was CHINESE... it was secretly encouraging us to become COMMUNIST ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
And my daughter's first Girl Guides badge was for wielding an axe - I thought it was for chopping wood for a fire but obviously it was for BABY KILLING
And all that non-stop, crazed, lesbian sex, no wonder they were all tired by the end of camp ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
As a scouting leader with many friends in the Guiding movement, I am
Keep it up! Hell needs you more than they need Incomprehensible.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Which is quite impressive given that you have yet to say anything that makes me think your greatest intellectual achievement isn't learning to type.
Intellectual achievement? Surely Indifferently is the result of using too few monkeys.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Sex crazed animals? Oh, damn and blast, a sudden surge of nostalgia.
Posted by squidgetsmum (# 17708) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
If only I'd known what was going on in Guides, I might have joined instead of giving up after Brownies. All I remember from Brownies is playing Chinese ladders, which is a good game but not exactly... wait! It was CHINESE... it was secretly encouraging us to become COMMUNIST
And my daughter's first Girl Guides badge was for wielding an axe - I thought it was for chopping wood for a fire but obviously it was for BABY KILLING
And all that non-stop, crazed, lesbian sex, no wonder they were all tired by the end of camp
Oh God yeah. What d'you think we needed the campfire for? Roast babies...yumm.
As for the lesbian sex...it's very hard to have crazed lesbian sex all week and abseil too. We Guides have stamina, I tell you.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I'm confused. How are you going to get pregnant from lesbian sex? We need to fit the abortions into the schedule here.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
2: If you are not pro-condoms then you are objectively pro-forced pregnancy and pro-increasing the number of abortions.
False. There were far fewer abortions when
a) sex outside marriage was disapproved of
b) abortion was illegal
c) contraception was not generally available
Finally enough people did not behave like the sex crazed animals they do today.
As for forced pregnancy without condoms, what are you on about? Nobody is forcing people to be promiscuous.
Ah, I love the smell of a know-nothing reactionary in the morning. Actually I don't. They stink the place up.
If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know that "Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates." The main thing that banning abortion does is causes people to resort to wire coathangers.
And if you had a damn clue what you were talking about rather than being one of the few surviving brain donors, you'd know that there The decline in US adolescent pregnancy rates appears to be following the patterns observed in other developed countries, where improved contraceptive use has been the primary determinant of declining rates. In other words contraception is massively correlated to a decrease in pregnancy.
You would also know that abstinance-only sex education simply doesn't work. "This assessment of the impact of formal sex education programs on teen sexual health using nationally representative data found that abstinence-only programs had no significant effect in delaying the initiation of sexual activity or in reducing the risk for teen pregnancy and STD. In contrast comprehensive sex education programs were significantly associated with reduced risk of teen pregnancy"
(Note that my lins above are all professional peer-reviewed research).
As for "sex crazed animals", this is a product of your fevered imagination. If I'm looking for the sex-crazed, I look at the "cover the piano legs" Victorians. I'd also say that they had their own solution to unwanted pregnancies - dumping them on doorsteps.
But I wouldn't expect any actual facts and evidence to have penetrated the ignorant and false prejudices you claim in the post I'm replying to to be fact. The closest to the truth you've managed is that there were indeed fewer abortions when the population was under one billion as opposed to over six.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
All that stuff about abortion being illegal, contraception being restricted, sex disapproved of outside marriage - this is a nightmarish right-wing fantasy. I remember the 50s, when some of this operated, and why anyone would see it as something to go back to, is beyond me. Disgusting really, anti-human, anti-women, anti-soul.
[ 27. June 2013, 15:40: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
The wonderful thing about prejudice is that you already have The Answers or can get them from the right wing tabloids so there is no need for thought. Having to look at things like evidence and research and analysis is thus avoided and this saves massive amounts of time that can then be spent writing Angry of Tunbridge Wells type posts.
[ 27. June 2013, 15:46: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
All that stuff about abortion being illegal, contraception being restricted, sex disapproved of outside marriage - this is a nightmarish right-wing fantasy. I remember the 50s, when some of this operated, and why anyone would see it as something to go back to, is beyond me. Disgusting really, anti-human, anti-women, anti-soul.
Vogon philosophy? "All shore leave is cancelled. I've just had an unhappy love affair so I don't see why anyone else should have a good time!"
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
All that stuff about abortion being illegal, contraception being restricted, sex disapproved of outside marriage - this is a nightmarish right-wing fantasy. I remember the 50s, when some of this operated, and why anyone would see it as something to go back to, is beyond me. Disgusting really, anti-human, anti-women, anti-soul.
Vogon philosophy? "All shore leave is cancelled. I've just had an unhappy love affair so I don't see why anyone else should have a good time!"
I think in the UK, it's often treated as comedy, as there is little likelihood of any of it coming to fruition. But in the US, it ain't funny, as these right-wing twats are always one step away from power, I suppose, or actually in power.
Having said that, I suppose UKIP show some signs of it - I mean a right-wing radicalism, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-trade union, xenophobic, and so on.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
The wonderful thing about prejudice is that you already have The Answers or can get them from the right wing tabloids so there is no need for thought.
Need for thought? Surely they are not read by anyone capable of thought.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[great gobs of links]
I could never host Dead Horses. Somebody send Louise and Tony triple chocolate. Christhamercy you're a wordy and linky bunch of losers.
hate all of you.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
One person mentions the "A" word and the thread goes clippety-clop, clippety-clop on the track that leads only to the knacker's yard.
There's no way this is going to return to Dead Horses (Louise and TonyK don't deserve it for a start), so please broaden the outlook of this thread. The OP had plenty of 'other' lines of argument, so use them.
In short, you're gonna have to think before you post. Aren't we bastards?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
My daughter is at Guides right now. She has promised a full and frank disclosure when she gets home. She says she'd welcome the introduction of depraved sex 'cos Strip Poker with the Scouts is getting tedious.
She's also pleased that the Wail is presenting Guiding in a more appealing light, unlike previous headlines "Campfire smoke gives you CANCER!" "'Smores give you CANCER" etc etc etc.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Would the Fail even know what smores are? I've never seen anyone in Britain actually eat them, I just know about them from pinterest....
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Things that we can rely on: death, taxes, the sun rising and Indifferently being offended sometime before breakfast about how the world has deteriorated since 1735.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Would the Fail even know what smores are? I've never seen anyone in Britain actually eat them, I just know about them from pinterest....
They were called smores when I was at Guides, and my daughter's Guides call them that, too.
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Would the Fail even know what smores are? I've never seen anyone in Britain actually eat them, I just know about them from pinterest....
Alright you just proved that the Guides are satanic. Not only that but most of Britain is as well. Not eating or knowing what s'mores are is truly heretical.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Google says they involve Graham crackers, but we made them by heating a marshmallow over a campfire and squashing it between two chocolate digestive biscuits.
Sticky, melty, glorious.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Especially with artisan marshmallow, small batch chocolate and homemade grahams, drool
Best, post lesbian orgy snack ever!
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on
:
Oops, cross posted you can exclude Scotland from my conclusion.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Would the Fail even know what smores are? I've never seen anyone in Britain actually eat them, I just know about them from pinterest....
They were called smores when I was at Guides, and my daughter's Guides call them that, too.
Clearly, some kind of Episcopalian conspiracy! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on
:
Okay multiple cross posts. Jade is the only heretic and everybody is apparently trying to hide the fact that s'mores exists from her.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
If you make your s'mores with Hershey's, than I shall have to convert so that I may properly damn you to Hell.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed, marriage with no contraception is a very, erm, fertile ground for almost continuous pregnancy and all that entails. With no need to act like sex crazed animals, unless you consider anything more often than once every few years as "sex crazed".
Lactational amenorrhea can easily result in a natural 2-4 year spacing between children.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Not necessarily. My grandmother thought she couldn't get pregnant when nursing, which is why her second child was born scarcely a year after the first.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not necessarily. My grandmother thought she couldn't get pregnant when nursing, which is why her second child was born scarcely a year after the first.
Quite. "can". It varies a lot, depending on the woman, and on how much and how often the child nurses. I also understand that some women find it easy to tell when they have ovulated, but others find it difficult (so you might not get any warning of when it stops working).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not necessarily. My grandmother thought she couldn't get pregnant when nursing, which is why her second child was born scarcely a year after the first.
Quite. "can". It varies a lot, depending on the woman, and on how much and how often the child nurses. I also understand that some women find it easy to tell when they have ovulated, but others find it difficult (so you might not get any warning of when it stops working).
As Missus says in 101 Dalmations, how can you depend on something that depends?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Daughter is home from Guides. No depraved sex tonight, lesbian or otherwise. Perhaps it'll take another week for the new pro-abortion, pro-condoms, pro-depraved sex, left-wing, manifesto to be imposed at grass roots level.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I suspect that Indifferently doesn't like the idea of women/girls getting together somewhere doing stuff and talking about stuff where neither he, nor any other similar superior being can find out what it is.
Rather like the Roman emperors not liking people having dinner clubs, or Charlemagne not liking gilds, or Charles II not liking coffee shops. "It happens where I can't see or hear so it must be subversive or perverted, or in some other way WRONG."
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As Missus says in 101 Dalmations, how can you depend on something that depends?
If you want to depend on it, I'd recommend additional measures. If you're just asking what the natural consequences of "marriage with no contraception" are, then averages and spread are more relevant.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As Missus says in 101 Dalmations, how can you depend on something that depends?
If you want to depend on it, I'd recommend additional measures. If you're just asking what the natural consequences of "marriage with no contraception" are, then averages and spread are more relevant.
If the claim is made, You don't need "artificial" birth control when you're breastfeeding, then averages don't mean a thing; it's a lie.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the claim is made, You don't need "artificial" birth control when you're breastfeeding, then averages don't mean a thing; it's a lie.
Years ago I had a part-time job typing up research papers in reproductive biology. One was a study on the contraceptive effects of breast feeding, and the mechanisms (eg frequency of suckling, levels of various maternal hormones etc) whereby it was effective - or not.
I don't know where that line of research is at currently, but it tended to suggest that you could discover that.
But possibly the level of monitoring would be too intrusive, so practically you would have to recommend breast feeding+
[ 28. June 2013, 06:16: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
My nephew's wife is a midwife and thought when breastfeeding her first that she was safe - there are exactly 11 months between her first two!
Her response when finding herself pregnant with her second was suitably hellish but he has grown up into a lovely young man.
p.s. I don't think she was ever a Guide so never had the chance to experience Hot Lesbian Sex - pity that.
[ 28. June 2013, 08:18: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Let's suppose that a two year gap is on average created by lactation. That still means that a woman marrying at 25 in Indifferentlyland will quite possibly have a baby every two years from 25 to around 50, which is around 12 pregnancies.
Of course she probably won't; I know a number of women who after their third or fourth pregnancy would be in risk of their lives if they got pregnant again. What Indifferently's ideal would actually mean would be more deaths in childbirth, more orphans, more families stretched into poverty by the size of their families, and more coathanger jobs in the back alleys. It's not somewhere any rational person would want to go.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I forgot to mention - it does also guarantee that women will be pretty much forced into being housewives, since a good proportion of the time they'd be pregnant or nursing and it would be virtually impossible for both partners to work and also afford childcare. It's no mistake that the sorts of people who advocate this "morality" are also the ones who view feminism with disdain and rail against parents who use childcare so that both can have a career. It all fits together, and the picture it reveals is not a good one.
[ 28. June 2013, 08:30: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's interesting that capitalism has forced women into the workplace in many ways; so that conservatives are caught in a kind of trap, since most of them support capitalism, yet it has brought about this (partial) emancipation of women, which perhaps some of them fear and hate.
But I suppose there are Christian right-wingers who detest capitalism also, and yearn for some weird kind of pseudo-feudal regime, well, I'm not sure what it is really. The Nazis had similar yearnings, didn't they, OK, Godwin, etc.
Kinder, Küche, Kirche, (umlauts rule ök).
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I think that there have traditionally been plenty of right-wingers* who detest capitalism, and most of those (who remain) are, I would have thought, likely to identify themselves as Christian. Capitalism- certainly neo-liberal Anglo-Saxon capitalism- almost by defintion challenges the kind of settled, hierarchical, but interdependent, relationships that underpin traditional conservatism.
There's a strong current of opposition to or at least scepticism about capitalism in a lot of traditional (Roman) Catholic thought; other positions which spring to mind are Southern Agrarianism and its heirs in the US, and the earlier C20 Green movement as developed by people like Lord Northbourne and Rolf Gardiner, and continued by e.g. Roger Scruton in the UK. Many of these certainly are or were neo-feudalists, but British one-nation Conservatism has accepted capitalism but always thought that it needed to be kept under tight control and subordinated to a wider notion of the common good: and as I think Adrian Hastings has pointed out, the British Conservative governments of the 1950s (which are seen as the epitome of this kind of Conservatism in the C20) were dominated by serious practising Anglicans like Macmillan, Heath, and Butler.
*If 'right wing' is taken as referring primarily to social rather than economic values.
[ 28. June 2013, 09:49: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
Ok, firstly there no contraceptive method that is one hundred percent foolproof. Even total abstinence has failed on one occasion.
So utilising breast feeding as contraception is a recognised form of contraception. It just has a high failure rate. But all forms have a failure rate.
Now, back to your bickering; so you can get your argumentative merit badge.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
(muses on what a "depraved sex" badge might look like....) (wants to get one for camp blanket)
(tangent - any Guide person who wants to swop badges, pm me. I have swopsies!!)
Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on
:
My (GG-belonging) daughter's prospective high school has a debating club - and wanted to know what 'debating' was...
So, given the connection between 'debating' and 'arguing', I am happy to report that arguing is part of the Commonwealth Award badge
Not that she needs any encouragement...
Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
(muses on what a "depraved sex" badge might look like....) (wants to get one for camp blanket)
(tangent - any Guide person who wants to swop badges, pm me. I have swopsies!!)
The winning entry will win the Very Graphic Designer badge...
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Let's suppose that a two year gap is on average created by lactation. That still means that a woman marrying at 25 in Indifferentlyland will quite possibly have a baby every two years from 25 to around 50, which is around 12 pregnancies.
Of course she probably won't; I know a number of women who after their third or fourth pregnancy would be in risk of their lives if they got pregnant again. What Indifferently's ideal would actually mean would be more deaths in childbirth, more orphans, more families stretched into poverty by the size of their families, and more coathanger jobs in the back alleys. It's not somewhere any rational person would want to go.
Totally agree with that, but must add the issue once heavily hinted at as "women's troubles". My mother had a prolapse some time after the third of us, and it wasn't the worst sort.
I heard on the radio once, long ago, reference to aa report (possibly a Rowntree one) on women's lives in the East End of London. There the women were expected to submit to their drunken husbands every Friday night, even when they had such bad prolapses that they could hardly walk. Some had to go up and downstairs sitting, because they could not manage them standing. they were also expected to keep the place spotless (in the days of smokey fires, smoke from the trains and the power stations), do the laundry (in the days of coppers and mangles) and have a meal on the table for the male when he got home from work. I dare say these were exceptional cases, and there were loving relationships in those tiny terraces, but this is where masculism of Indifferently's sort leads for some, and enough women for it to be written up as a characteristic of an area. While they could be made pregnant, they were made pregnant, and one thing is fairly obvious, that the female human body is not made to bear multiple pregnancies. And it's no use looking at Genesis for an explanation, because that just makes God nasty.
Of course, in the past, many were not aware of this sort of appalling physical cost of pregnancy because of that coyness about "women's troubles", and now people are not aware because it is so much less frequent, so it might be possible to excuse Indifferently for his indifference to the tremendous amount of suffering his beliefs would be imposing, and which he would never himself experience.
[ 28. June 2013, 11:27: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Ok, firstly there no contraceptive method that is one hundred percent foolproof. Even total abstinence has failed on one occasion.
So utilising breast feeding as contraception is a recognised form of contraception. It just has a high failure rate. But all forms have a failure rate.
But do you not see the difference between "has a failure rate" and "has a high failure rate"? If we're going to recommend a birth control method to someone who wants or needs birth control, shouldn't we be recommending ones with a low failure rate? (If only relatively so speaking?)
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Daughter is home from Guides. No depraved sex tonight, lesbian or otherwise. Perhaps it'll take another week for the new pro-abortion, pro-condoms, pro-depraved sex, left-wing, manifesto to be imposed at grass roots level.
Sometimes I'm SO glad that my daughters joined the Scouts instead...
I don't like the new promise but more for its wishy-washy 'be true to my beliefs' approach than the exclusion of God. It sounds like management-speak taken to new heights (or depths) to avoid meaning anything. And while I'm sure that 'serving my community' made sense in the eyes of the writers as (cliché alert) helping little old ladies cross the road, the use of 'community' nowadays could mean it covers any number of things.
Perhaps the OP is right, and the new promise allows Guides to help the crazed lesbian community develop their baby-killing beliefs? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Ok, firstly there no contraceptive method that is one hundred percent foolproof. Even total abstinence has failed on one occasion.
So utilising breast feeding as contraception is a recognised form of contraception. It just has a high failure rate. But all forms have a failure rate.
But do you not see the difference between "has a failure rate" and "has a high failure rate"? If we're going to recommend a birth control method to someone who wants or needs birth control, shouldn't we be recommending ones with a low failure rate? (If only relatively so speaking?)
Absolutely. I wouldn't recommend it alone unless the parents accepted they may become pregnant again utilising it. For parents planning multiple children, often the contraceptive approach is not actively trying as opposed to not actively preventing.
Nor do I recommend the Billng's method.
But neither are a lie.
[ 28. June 2013, 19:54: Message edited by: Patdys ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
But neither are a lie.
It depends on how honestly they are presented.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
I think you may be being a little dogmatic on this topic mousie. As I suspect so am I. There is probably a merit badge for that too.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I think you may be being a little dogmatic on this topic mousie. As I suspect so am I. There is probably a merit badge for that too.
right next to the Anal-Retentive Douchebag Badge.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I think you may be being a little dogmatic on this topic mousie.
On the topic of dishonestly presenting something as more efficacious as it really is? Yes, I am a little dogmatic on dishonesty. Mea culpa.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
(I would be interested to know how total abstinence failed once.)
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(I would be interested to know how total abstinence failed once.)
I suspect it involved a girl named Mary who said she talked to angels. she said they all know her name.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
comet: I suspect it involved a girl named Mary
D'oh! Is that it?
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Really? Hitchens yearns for disgruntled Guides to quit and form a 'pro-Christian breakaway'.
*sigh* Of course- of course!- this has already happened in the States. They're called "American Heritage Girls". They claim to have been disappointed by the "increasing secular focus" of Scouting which I assume means environmentalism and Girl Power. (The Girl Scouts still promise to serve God and country, and they still can earn religious badges, but that's not good enough for some people...)
Posted by squidgetsmum (# 17708) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by North East Quine:
[qb] (muses on what a "depraved sex" badge might look like....) (wants to get one for camp blanket)
It's gotta be party badge one, surely? I mean, there are parties and then there are parties..
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
The Party badge involves a list of invitees and 3 different activities...Yup, you're right, it would be the Party badge.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The Party badge involves a list of invitees and 3 different activities...Yup, you're right, it would be the Party badge.
If it involves the "Can I bring a friend?" question, that would be a very valuable badge.
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
Well, darn...the Girl Scouts of the USA isn't anywhere near as deprived...
We still have God in the promise and don't have a party badge at any level. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
We do have a badge for using good manners with strangers (Brownie) and one for having a dinner party (Ambassador).
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Good grief, I HAVE the Depraved Sex badge and never knew it until now! Except in my day it was called the Hostess Badge...
(this seems to be turning into a Circus thread)
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Good grief, I HAVE the Depraved Sex badge and never knew it until now! Except in my day it was called the Hostess Badge...
Obviously there are some usages of 'Hostess' with which Senior Guiding circles were unfamiliar.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by squidgetsmum (# 17708) on
:
Shit, me too!
Grooming. By God, we really are depraved...
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
I got the hostess badge too - but there was no depraved sex; I remember having to write out different styles of invitations. I was obviously deprived of the full guiding experience- do you think I could claim my subs back?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Goodness Gracious .... are they letting rats into the Guides as well now?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]2) most women who have abortions are married and already have kids.
What's the evidence for that please Jade?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried; 67% have never married, and 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed.4 Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.6
This is from prochoice.org. Link: abortion facts
Posted by sophs (# 2296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I got the hostess badge too - but there was no depraved sex; I remember having to write out different styles of invitations. I was obviously deprived of the full guiding experience- do you think I could claim my subs back?
I got my laundress badge. And this was at guides in the 90's - we had to take in a pair of our fathers socks to wash and my mother thought this was stupid so sent me in with a pair of her socks. I got told off but still managed to get the badge. No depraved sex from my unit either....
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I got the hostess badge too - but there was no depraved sex; I remember having to write out different styles of invitations. I was obviously deprived of the full guiding experience- do you think I could claim my subs back?
A good hostess should be able to sort out the depraved sex herself - clearly you shouldn't have got the badge.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
The Phantom Flan Flinger ?
OMG. That's the coolest name ever.
Fer sher.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Enough chitchat. You know where groupies belong.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
huh?
No chit chat allowed in hell now? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
And what groupie belongs what were?
[ 05. July 2013, 13:51: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Enough chitchat. You know where groupies belong.
Hell?
Wait a minute...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Enough chitchat. You know where groupies belong.
Hell?
Wait a minute...
Isn't there a Private Board for that sort of thing? If there isn't then you could set one up.
FYI, this does mean "Get a room!".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Boy I'm glad that announcement got the thread back on track.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
Evensong, just sent you a pm, but your box is full :-(
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried; 67% have never married, and 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed.4 Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.6
This is from prochoice.org. Link: abortion facts
In that case, jade please get your facts right - otherwise you don't look good and your contribution effectively goes down the toilet.
The figures on the number of "back street" abortions are also suspect as they have, by their nature, to be estimates. Depending on who makes that estimate (and an account of any deaths arising from them), the figures may be higher or lower than reality.
I haven't really got much in this debate except for a relative who was prosecuted for arranging illegal abortions in Cambridge England in the 1950's/60's ..... her view and yes it's anecdotal, was that it was common enough but not as common as people thought. As for the Vera Drakes immortalised in film - sorry to destroy an illusion but they were out for the cash.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sophs:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I got the hostess badge too - but there was no depraved sex; I remember having to write out different styles of invitations. I was obviously deprived of the full guiding experience- do you think I could claim my subs back?
I got my laundress badge. And this was at guides in the 90's - we had to take in a pair of our fathers socks to wash and my mother thought this was stupid so sent me in with a pair of her socks. I got told off but still managed to get the badge. No depraved sex from my unit either....
And I bet that EVERYBODY going for that badge brought in a pair of socks that were already clean.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Having depraved sex with dirty socks on would just be immoral.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Having depraved sex with dirty socks on would just be immoral.
Having chaste, Christian sex with dirty socks, on the other hand, is just fine.
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Having depraved sex with dirty socks on would just be immoral.
Having depraved sex with ANY socks on is just immoral!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: Having chaste, Christian sex with dirty socks, on the other hand, is just fine.
Darn! I had a silent hope that depraved sex with clean socks would be acceptable.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Darn! I had a silent hope that depraved sex with clean socks would be acceptable.
I think if you are having sex with socks in any condition then it counts if not as depraved, then extremely sad.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Firenze: I think if you are having sex with socks in any condition then it counts if not as depraved, then extremely sad.
D'oh! I should have put the word 'on' there somewhere. You got me there.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
What if the sock is consenting? And has a really soft, supple weave?
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
... and paid for all the drinks that night?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Hmmm... what could this Guide song be about? It sounds so innocent, but who knows to what depths of depravity it refers?
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Somehow I knew exactly what song that link referred to!
I sometimes still sing that when I am doing my laundry.
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
Not here, thank God, my ears couldn't stand it!
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Did Indifferently smell socks, not a rat?
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Since Indifferently is on enforced shore leave for a few more days, I hope that you were not expecting a response to the cheese you've left dangling. Also, regardless of what you feel about him, it is conventional not to bring him up in conversation to which he cannot respond.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried; 67% have never married, and 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed.4 Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.6
This is from prochoice.org. Link: abortion facts
In that case, jade please get your facts right - otherwise you don't look good and your contribution effectively goes down the toilet.
The figures on the number of "back street" abortions are also suspect as they have, by their nature, to be estimates. Depending on who makes that estimate (and an account of any deaths arising from them), the figures may be higher or lower than reality.
I haven't really got much in this debate except for a relative who was prosecuted for arranging illegal abortions in Cambridge England in the 1950's/60's ..... her view and yes it's anecdotal, was that it was common enough but not as common as people thought. As for the Vera Drakes immortalised in film - sorry to destroy an illusion but they were out for the cash.
Iirc, most women *worldwide* who have abortions are married. However, my argument still stands since a woman's sexual activity is irrelevant to whether or not she 'deserves' an abortion.
I am under no illusions as to what having an abortion was like before legalisation - although even if I was, Vera Drake is not the only portrayal and the one in Call The Midwife is more accurate - and it has no impact on my argument. Abortion should be free, safe, legal and rare, and that's all there is to it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Iirc, most women *worldwide* who have abortions are married.
Unless you can back this up, you're just talking out your ass (arse).
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Since Indifferently is on enforced shore leave for a few more days, I hope that you were not expecting a response to the cheese you've left dangling. Also, regardless of what you feel about him, it is conventional not to bring him up in conversation to which he cannot respond.
I am sorry, I had misremembered the time of his leave.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. Iirc,
2. Abortion should be free, safe, legal and rare, and that's all there is to it.
1. You don't seem to.
2. Others' mileage may (and does) vary - and so that's not all there is to it. It's your opinion. Mine might well be otherwise or it might not.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. Iirc,
2. Abortion should be free, safe, legal and rare, and that's all there is to it.
1. You don't seem to.
2. Others' mileage may (and does) vary - and so that's not all there is to it. It's your opinion. Mine might well be otherwise or it might not.
That would appear to mean that you (may) think abortion should be one or all of expensive, dangerous, illegal and frequent.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. Iirc,
2. Abortion should be free, safe, legal and rare, and that's all there is to it.
1. You don't seem to.
2. Others' mileage may (and does) vary - and so that's not all there is to it. It's your opinion. Mine might well be otherwise or it might not.
That would appear to mean that you (may) think abortion should be one or all of expensive, dangerous, illegal and frequent.
Yes I may or may not think that but that's the point I was trying to make. Jade said "....that's all there is to it..." - my issue with her post was her assumption the debate was over, not that I actually disagreed/agreed with her viewpoint.
As to belief on this issue, I'm never entirely convinced that Abortion is legal - as (from memory) I think the 1967 Act could at least be read as giving immunity from prosecution for procuring an abortion, not actually making that act legal. I think that's wrong: abortion IMO should be legal, free and with the benefit of modern medicine, safe.
Above all it should be a possible response to a set of circumstances, not the only (or first) one. It should be rare and not used as a contraceptive safety net or lifestyle choice - neither of which were in David Steele's mind when he framed the 1967 legislation. Cases of rape, incest and life/death health matters cry out for deep compassion which would IMHO allow for abortion. But, since this makes up a very low % of terminations each year (most are "for the health of the mother" reasons), you then have your rare occurrence of legal abortion.
I've walked a very personal journey in this area of life - 4 years ago my daughter was pregnant. In her late 20's married, working in the NHS/Social Service sphere. Throughout her pregnancy she had all sorts of health problems including bleeding, threatened miscarriages, high blood pressure etc. At about 30 weeks she was very ill and asked (told, rather - I was there) to have a termination. It was a choice: have a termination or you may die - effectively it's the baby or you.
Her choice? To put her own life on the line for the sake of the child. Admittedly she had a husband and a family who supported her, unlike so many others. She had a 3 year old daughter who she loved dearly - yet she was prepared to risk her life so as not to bring another to an end. That was her choice not ours and others may well have chosen differently.
Both survived in spite of not taking the easy way.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I don't have an axe to grind - and here would not be the place to grind it in any case. I was just applying the Hoggart Test.*
*orig Simon Hoggart. Basically, for any ringing statement (esp by a politician) formulate the opposite.
Mostly this works to expose the essential meaninglessness of much rhetoric 'I support freedom and prosperity' - as against being in favour of slavery and penury? But it also works the other way.
I think if I were taking issue with Jade's statement (ah, the certainty of youth), I would go with what my views actually are rather than what they hypothetically may be.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Cupcakes, consider taking Abortion discussions to the knackers (Dead Horses).
The rest of you may continue discussing the Guide Promise (though that seems lost in the mists of time) or discussing the real meaning of Guide badges and songs.
Many, many, thanks in advance
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Songs like this? Love this one.
Though we do the end scream more convincingly.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Does anyone else sing (to the tune of "fluffy sheep) about Highland cows which are wonderful because they are ginger and they are horny? Very popular here.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Being ginger and horny makes you wonderful? Did you have bit of a thing for Robin Cook, then?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0