What are conservatives trying to conserve?
Gender oppression? Racism? Religious fundamentalism? Or are conservatives really trying to keep everything wholesome and pure? Is it the dominance of the white race they want to conserve, or is it a particular way of life that seems right to them? It obviously isnt fiscality since our current progressive administration inherited the worst financial situation possible.
While I disagree with the Conservative mindset, Joe is right. A major focus of Conservatives is to maintain the traditions and morals of mainly the family of America.
The Economic views of Republicans and Conservative tend to be closer to Libertarian, but really, there is no way of describing it as Conservative. Conservative/Liberal has little to do with economics.
Those who call themselves Conservative would have to agree with the Social views of a Conservative.
Morals: principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
Way back.... when it was wrong for a woman to have a child out of wedlock, and when it was wrong to kill a fetus, abortions were considered immoral and thus, illegal.
Why was it wrong for women to have children out of wedlock? Because the brief pleasure achieved through the sexual act is not worth the problems created by a one parent household.
Why was it wrong to kill a fetus? Because life was held to a higher standard.
Now that it is not wrong for a woman to have a child out of wedlock and abortions are no longer immoral and thus legal, innocent fetuses die.
Why are abortions no longer immoral and legal? Because it was reasoned that we can all enjoy the brief pleasure achieved through the sexual act if we allow abortions and force fathers to pay child support on the off chance that the woman does not chose to abort.
But doesn't this shift the woman's half of the responsibility for getting pregnant onto the father's shoulders? Absolutely.
But is killing a fetus worth the brief pleasure achieved through the sexual act? It is if you reason that the fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells that are not alive and claim that the fetus is a parasite.
I don't like to see women die, moral or immoral but if I had a choice as to who should live, I'd pick the innocent fetus. Why? Because a woman can chose when to get pregnant simply by waiting until she's married to a man who wants to start a family with her. Abortions not only allow a woman to enjoy sex before she is married but also to enjoy this sex with a man that doesn't want to start a family with her. The sacrifice for all of this sex is the life of a fetus when the contraceptives fail.
In other words, a fetus has no control over the sex but he is made responsible for the consequence of that sex. If the couple had acted responsibly and waited until they were married and committed to each other, then there would be no need for an abortion, no need to make the fetus responsible for something it has no control over. The couple, however, do have control over the sex and are capable of making a choice over whether or not to have sex and therefore it is ultimately the couple who should be held accountable and made responsible for the consequences of that sex, namely the fetus.
It is thus wrong for a man and a woman to make a conscious choice to have sex out of wedlock and then, when things go wrong, to deny the father any rights to the baby and (on top of that) to kill the fetus.
If, on the other hand, you make the couple accountable for their role in the pregnancy, you will then see people acting more responsibly.
"Way back.... when it was wrong for a woman to have a child out of wedlock, and when it was wrong to kill a fetus, abortions were considered immoral and thus, illegal."
In most parts of the world, including the US, abortion wasn't illegal anywhere until the late 1800s. If you didn't want to be pregnant, you went to your local apothecary and got an abortifacent and took care of it, and then you weren't pregnant anymore.
"Why was it wrong for women to have children out of wedlock?"
Because women were treated as sexual property. Note that it was not "immoral" nor illegal for men to have sex out of wedlock. This had nothing at all to do with single parenting and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Taboos on women's sexuality had everything to do with ensuring that women's sexuality was entirely under the control of whatever male had authority over them, be it father, husband, or priest.
"Why are abortions no longer immoral and legal?"
1) Because women are not the sexual property of men, and 2) because women have a right to bodily integrity and bodily autonomy, and 3) because it is the most pragmatic solution to the problem of unplanned pregnancy that we have available at this time, and 4) because we know from experience that when abortion was illegal, women died from attempting to abort unsafely.
"But doesn't this shift the woman's half of the responsibility for getting pregnant onto the father's shoulders?"
Uh, NO. Not in any way. Historically men have taken no responsibility in the majority of unplanned out-of-wedlock pregnancies. If she aborts, she is certainly not giving the man any additional responsibilities. So no. Your argument here makes no sense.
"But is killing a fetus worth the brief pleasure achieved through the sexual act?"
Whether or not a woman should have an abortion is a decision that must rest in her own hands because there are so many complex factors that go into the decision to have or not have a child. You oversimplify -- dramatically.
"Because a woman can chose when to get pregnant simply by waiting until she's married to a man who wants to start a family with her."
First, a great many women simply won't do that. Second, we live in a culture that demands that women present themselves as if they are sexually available. Third, women are fully entitled to sexual self-expression and have the right to determine when and how to exercise their sexuality. Fourth, you have no right to make sexual lifestyle choices for an entire gender. Fifth, rape happens. Sixth, I see no similar moral proscription for men.
"If the couple had acted responsibly and waited until they were married and committed to each other, then there would be no need for an abortion"
Dude, newsflash: Not all married couples want kids. Not all married couples want more kids. Not all married couples can afford kids at any given point in time. Not all marriages are happy. And not all marriages are free from abuse.
"It is thus wrong for a man and a woman to make a conscious choice to have sex out of wedlock and then, when things go wrong, to deny the father any rights to the baby and (on top of that) to kill the fetus."
None of your premises support your conclusion.
You keep on obfuscating the issue.
A man should either be granted full custody of the baby if he requests it or he should not be liable for child support if he requests an abortion. One or the other. I really don't care which.
A woman should either not have the right to chose an abortion when the father requests full custody of the child or she should not be granted child support if the father wants an abortion.
Currently, if the woman wants an abortion and the father wants the child, the father is screwed and she wins.
Currently, if the woman wants to keep the child and force the father to pay child support but the father wants an abortion, the father is screwed and she wins.
This situation should not be allowed to continue. However, in the event that it does continue, I would counsel young men to not allow a woman to have control over his sperm until there's a legal contract between them. One way this can be accomplished is by given the woman facials instead ;)
Well, when you think about it, the woman already had her chance at life. The poor little fetus should be given a chance at life as well. I mean, the fetus is innocent (since he hasn't had a chance to be immoral) while the woman and her partner already screwed it up by choosing to commit an act that put them in the position of wanting an abortion. They could have chosen to go oral but instead decided to make the fetus pay for their lack of good, sound judgment. ;)
Conservative morals are historically oppressive. Conservative morals allowed slavery and impeded the civil rights movement. Conservative values allowed us to go to war with a country that never did anything to us, resulting in thousands of American deaths.
Conservative values kept science in the dark for a thousand years (or so). Conservatives like to hide under the the guise of morality, but their morality is flawed. We can learn from the history of conservative morality: Its immoral.
Well... The Republicans were AGAINST slavery while the Democrats were FOR it. But even if you want to go to technical definition of Conservative, even then a Conservative mentality would not be to have slaves.
It would be to maintain the State and protect resources. It would also mean to stay by the Constitution. So, Conservative does not equate maintaining slavery.
And, let's keep in mind that ideological terms differ for each era and country. A Conservative in Cuba is the exact opposite of a Conservative in America. BUT, a Conservative before the Cuban Communist Revolution would probably be more similar to today's American Conservative.
Oh just the country our founders created, .....that's all. l: Actually at this point we need a re founding, it's like it's too late, I mean look around!
And no that doesn't mean I'm a racist that wants slavery or unequal rights. So don't even!
Side: the country our founders created