Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Chris'68

....the two children I didn't let her abort don't think it's too bad.

didn't let her abort? i don't mean to pry, but did you really mean that? because it implies that that's what would have happened had you not stopped it.

You understood me perfectly the first time I said it, TK. I wasn't implying anything - I'm telling you flat-out.

"Well, since... <insert excuse here> ...I could just get an abortion...."

I heard this routine at least five times during each pregnancy. And just in case there are some out there who think I "misunderstood" or who think "she said 'could', not 'should' or 'will'...", this is the same woman who, a couple of years later and after I'd spent 6 months in exile following her change of the locks, told me to "come get the kids."

"But I'm not ready yet - I still don't have a place of my own and I'm staying in my parents' small house in Florida." (We're originally from NJ.)

"Come get them, or I'll get rid of them."

Susan Smith had killed her two children (in North Carolina?) the month before.

(me, irritated) "What are you going to do, strap them into a Jeep and roll them into a lake?"

"I just might."

I was on a plane and in NJ within 24 hrs.

I'll admit in retrospect that my judge of prospective mates was pitiful, but even if I could have foreseen these circumstances (or worse), I've never been fond of letting other people relieve me of the pleasures, pains and responsibilities of being a parent to those two "clumps of cells".

The great thing about S&H is that it brings into sharp focus that any discussion of history, sociology, economics, etc. isn't just an obscure philosophical conversation. The wheel of time turns, and we are all teeth on the gears.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

(me, irritated) "What are you going to do, strap them into a Jeep and roll them into a lake?"

"I just might."

damn! that's crazy.

good for you, though, getting on that plane immediately.


TK

Originally Posted by Chris'68

(me, irritated) "What are you going to do, strap them into a Jeep and roll them into a lake?"

"I just might."

damn! that's crazy.

good for you, though, getting on that plane immediately.


TK

Originally Posted by Chris'68

(me, irritated) "What are you going to do, strap them into a Jeep and roll them into a lake?"

"I just might."

damn! that's crazy.

good for you, though, getting on that plane immediately.


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

good for you, though, getting on that plane immediately.


TK

A-Men to that!!!!!

Originally Posted by TrollKing

good for you, though, getting on that plane immediately.


TK

A-Men to that!!!!!

Originally Posted by TrollKing

good for you, though, getting on that plane immediately.


TK

A-Men to that!!!!!

Yeah, that almost makes up for the implications of not having "let" her get abortions (as if it was your decision).

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered

"Squandered" -- you mean there's a limited supply? We have to conserve and hoard our love, or we'll run out halfway through a relationship?

Balderdash.

Yeah, that almost makes up for the implications of not having "let" her get abortions (as if it was your decision).

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered

"Squandered" -- you mean there's a limited supply? We have to conserve and hoard our love, or we'll run out halfway through a relationship?

Balderdash.

Yeah, that almost makes up for the implications of not having "let" her get abortions (as if it was your decision).

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered

"Squandered" -- you mean there's a limited supply? We have to conserve and hoard our love, or we'll run out halfway through a relationship?

Balderdash.

No, it's a reference to the virginity that both generations were taught to devalue, and throw away at the first opportunity, instead of surrendering it only to that one special someone.

No, it's a reference to the virginity that both generations were taught to devalue, and throw away at the first opportunity, instead of surrendering it only to that one special someone.

No, it's a reference to the virginity that both generations were taught to devalue, and throw away at the first opportunity, instead of surrendering it only to that one special someone.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yeah, that almost makes up for the implications of not having "let" her get abortions (as if it was your decision).

I find it so heartwarming to hear that you almost approve of my actions. And I'm so glad I finally learned The Truth - that my two little clumps of cells (now 12 and 10 years old) weigh nothing on The Rush Scale of Justice against my ex-wife's Constitutional right to murder. And that I (silly me!) don't even get the privilage of being weighed on that scale at all.

You have no clue what I might have done to make it my decision, sir. But were I to tell you, would you feel inclined to have me arrested for violating her civil rights? And to make amends for my villainy, perhaps we should impose the Exclusionary Rule, and excise the fruit of the poisoned tree?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yeah, that almost makes up for the implications of not having "let" her get abortions (as if it was your decision).

I find it so heartwarming to hear that you almost approve of my actions. And I'm so glad I finally learned The Truth - that my two little clumps of cells (now 12 and 10 years old) weigh nothing on The Rush Scale of Justice against my ex-wife's Constitutional right to murder. And that I (silly me!) don't even get the privilage of being weighed on that scale at all.

You have no clue what I might have done to make it my decision, sir. But were I to tell you, would you feel inclined to have me arrested for violating her civil rights? And to make amends for my villainy, perhaps we should impose the Exclusionary Rule, and excise the fruit of the poisoned tree?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yeah, that almost makes up for the implications of not having "let" her get abortions (as if it was your decision).

I find it so heartwarming to hear that you almost approve of my actions. And I'm so glad I finally learned The Truth - that my two little clumps of cells (now 12 and 10 years old) weigh nothing on The Rush Scale of Justice against my ex-wife's Constitutional right to murder. And that I (silly me!) don't even get the privilage of being weighed on that scale at all.

You have no clue what I might have done to make it my decision, sir. But were I to tell you, would you feel inclined to have me arrested for violating her civil rights? And to make amends for my villainy, perhaps we should impose the Exclusionary Rule, and excise the fruit of the poisoned tree?

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

No, it's a reference to the virginity that both generations were taught to devalue, and throw away at the first opportunity, instead of surrendering it only to that one special someone.

What the hell is so special about virginity?

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

No, it's a reference to the virginity that both generations were taught to devalue, and throw away at the first opportunity, instead of surrendering it only to that one special someone.

What the hell is so special about virginity?

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

What the hell is so special about virginity?

Actually, the concept we're describing is chastity. "Virginity" is simply chastity before the first time.

Chastity is one of those lovely philosophical and theological concepts that separate us from the dogs, Mr. Jones. Some of us think it's a good thing to avoid plugging every female that strikes our fancy.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

geez, kevin, you make it sound like there's nothing special or intimate to share with a lover besides one's body. even if that were true, it's not really something that one can "squander".

These two statements taken together are almost unfathomable.

TK, whatever you think "it" is that Kevin is talking about, if "it" were an endless resource, by definition "it" would not be special. "It" would then be common, and you could get it anywhere.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

What the hell is so special about virginity?

Actually, the concept we're describing is chastity. "Virginity" is simply chastity before the first time.

Chastity is one of those lovely philosophical and theological concepts that separate us from the dogs, Mr. Jones. Some of us think it's a good thing to avoid plugging every female that strikes our fancy.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

geez, kevin, you make it sound like there's nothing special or intimate to share with a lover besides one's body. even if that were true, it's not really something that one can "squander".

These two statements taken together are almost unfathomable.

TK, whatever you think "it" is that Kevin is talking about, if "it" were an endless resource, by definition "it" would not be special. "It" would then be common, and you could get it anywhere.

Chris:

You have no clue what I might have done to make it my decision, sir. But were I to tell you, would you feel inclined to have me arrested for violating her civil rights?

Without knowing what you did, how can I answer? But your choice of words earlier was quite interesting and revealing.

No, in my view it was her body, and whether your wishes counted at all was up to her. Saving the children later, once they were actual (not merely potential) human beings was another matter. Of which I do approve, of course.

And to make amends for my villainy, perhaps we should impose the Exclusionary Rule, and excise the fruit of the poisoned tree?

How about you make an effort to excise your silly paranoia, instead?

Needless to say (or it should be), the sins of the fathers should not be visited upon the children.

Regarding chastity, one should make a distinction between honoring a relationship with faithfulness (assuming that's expected, which it usually but not always is), and sex before the relationship even begins, or after it ends. There is indeed something that can be squandered while a relationship is going on, in fact several somethings: time, attention, trust, security.

No woman I've had sex with was a virgin the first time I did. My ex-wife had had so many lovers she lost count somewhere after 60 when I (with amazing folly) asked her that question early in our relationship. Did this hurt our relationship? Not in the least. (Although other things did, obviously.) In fact, I'm sure it, and my own less extensive but still substantial experience prior to our marriage, made our sex life better. (And it was fantastic; our problems all occurred out of bed. Sadly, that's where we spent most of our time together, and those problems outweighed the passion.)

But we were both entirely faithful within the marriage, except towards the end when the relationship was falling apart already for other reasons.

Some of us think it's a good thing to avoid plugging every female that strikes our fancy.

Many of us who agree, nonetheless think there are options between that extreme and its opposite.

Chris:

You have no clue what I might have done to make it my decision, sir. But were I to tell you, would you feel inclined to have me arrested for violating her civil rights?

Without knowing what you did, how can I answer? But your choice of words earlier was quite interesting and revealing.

No, in my view it was her body, and whether your wishes counted at all was up to her. Saving the children later, once they were actual (not merely potential) human beings was another matter. Of which I do approve, of course.

And to make amends for my villainy, perhaps we should impose the Exclusionary Rule, and excise the fruit of the poisoned tree?

How about you make an effort to excise your silly paranoia, instead?

Needless to say (or it should be), the sins of the fathers should not be visited upon the children.

Regarding chastity, one should make a distinction between honoring a relationship with faithfulness (assuming that's expected, which it usually but not always is), and sex before the relationship even begins, or after it ends. There is indeed something that can be squandered while a relationship is going on, in fact several somethings: time, attention, trust, security.

No woman I've had sex with was a virgin the first time I did. My ex-wife had had so many lovers she lost count somewhere after 60 when I (with amazing folly) asked her that question early in our relationship. Did this hurt our relationship? Not in the least. (Although other things did, obviously.) In fact, I'm sure it, and my own less extensive but still substantial experience prior to our marriage, made our sex life better. (And it was fantastic; our problems all occurred out of bed. Sadly, that's where we spent most of our time together, and those problems outweighed the passion.)

But we were both entirely faithful within the marriage, except towards the end when the relationship was falling apart already for other reasons.

Some of us think it's a good thing to avoid plugging every female that strikes our fancy.

Many of us who agree, nonetheless think there are options between that extreme and its opposite.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

How about you make an effort to excise your silly paranoia, instead?

Since I'm now simply silly with paranoia, am I excused from being tyrannical?

:lol:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Needless to say (or it should be), the sins of the fathers should not be visited upon the children.

But what you seemingly fail to comprehend sir, is that without those "sins" there would be no children.

Now, then, we are forced to ask - is life in and of itself GOOD? Or is the absence of life sometimes better?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

How about you make an effort to excise your silly paranoia, instead?

Since I'm now simply silly with paranoia, am I excused from being tyrannical?

:lol:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Needless to say (or it should be), the sins of the fathers should not be visited upon the children.

But what you seemingly fail to comprehend sir, is that without those "sins" there would be no children.

Now, then, we are forced to ask - is life in and of itself GOOD? Or is the absence of life sometimes better?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Needless to say (or it should be), the sins of the fathers should not be visited upon the children.

Note how the authoritarian left once more contradicts itself, if doing so suits the purpose. North Korea does it all the time! As did Albania, until their hard-line Stalinist regime fell. And China, during the Cultural Revolution. Not to mention the old Soviet Union (When he first applied for Communist Party membership, Gorbachev as almost turned down flat because his father had been sent to the gulag during one of Stalin's purges.).