Were things better in the 50s

@LeopoldBloom If abortion rights are made illegal , it doesn’t matter how popular it is , it will be illegal and punishable with however the law is written. I don’t believe this law will require a police state anymore than any other. There are some things that can’t be answered until the situation arises. A police state is one of those questions for me

Since there is no constitutional right to abortion. Congress can definitely write a new law that bypasses the supreme court’s decision. But like packing the supreme ccourt can have repercussions. The law will have to be worded in a way that still recognizes and or denies some of what medical experts and technology has proven to be factual, and will allow a woman to intentionally and deliberately end a human life and that her rights exceeds the rights of an unborn life.

Rape and incest abortions are less than.05% of abortions performed. It doesn’t matter if there is only one pregnancy under these circumstances. It is still an innocent human life who has NOTHING to do with how it was conceived that is intentionally and deliberately being killed

I have said over and over that an unborn life has never had to be intentionally and deliberately killed to save a mother’s life.. preterm induction and c section should be done even if Drs know that a fetus may not survive. As far as life limiting conditions the life no matter how long it might live still deserves to be born vs being intentionally and deliberately killed by being stabbed in head or the heart and dismembering

Your silly scenario about a woman’s and man’s fertility just proves the point that contraception MUST be used if pregnancy isn’t wanted. But she is still ultimately responsible with consensual sex to say NO if neither are using contraception. This should be easy for anyone consenting to sex to understand Condoms are easy to use and get. I would say that if someone doesn’t have a dollar to go to a gas station and get a couple of condoms they should leave their pants on. I have never heard of death occurring because someone was horney. There is always masturbation

@LeopoldBloom Pregnancy is natural, and abortion is used to end this very natural process. Giving birth is also natural, which is why the majority of women who give birth are able to survive.

Air conditioning was artificially created by men, and it requires electricity to work. A pregnancy is created by us, and all it requires is that two fertile people of the opposite sex, engage in sex.

How many women do you know who have given birth? Is it necessary for women to receive assistance in their pregnancy?

If they are experiencing a healthy pregnancy, why do you think they need to give birth in hospital?

I gave birth without *any* pain medications, and all the midwife did was cut the cord. Giving birth is very easy, and very natural. Complications that will end a woman's life are rare.

14 year olds consent to sex all the time, when they are having sex with someone around their age, or slightly older. If they are having sex with an individual who is their age, or no older than 16, they are able to consent.

There is no age that justifies abortion.

You asked me the "warfare" question in our previous interaction, and I told you that we should avoid ending the life of another person. If you are being attacked, you should escape or subdue your attacker, but not kill them if it can be helped.

A baby, similarly to a toddler, small child, or elderly person (and others), is not capable of attacking other people, so we do not have to use self-defense against them. I anticipate that you will repeat the claim that pregnancy and giving birth can threaten a woman's life, but you must consider the following:

1. A baby, like other young children, lacks intent, and cannot cause deliberate harm.

2. It is the woman's body causing problems for the woman, and not the body of the baby.

3. You are of the view that women can, and do, receive medical care during pregnancy. This medical care makes it, according to you, more likely that she will survive pregnancy. This means that she does not have to kill the baby to be able to live, as medical care can be provided to her during pregnancy and the birth of her baby.

4. Women are not having abortions because they fear pregnancy or birth, or for medical reasons.

Women who have abortions may be seeking to maintain a status-quo in their lives. They are not, though, aborting their babies to defend or protect their bodies or health.

Why am I supposed to care about what you think of Republicans? You are arguing with a human being, not a political party or a "movement." I am a person with views on abortion, and you are responding to me in a way that strongly implies you are incapable of recognizing the unique thoughts in my head, or unique features of my heart. You should not treat people like they are caricatures you have created in your mind, and you should listen to what they say. You continually refuse to listen to what I say, which is why you insist on repeating the same points. I made it very clear that I do not live in the U.S, and do not vote in U.S elections. Why are you trying to force this Republican bashing on me? Do not say it is because "you share their view on abortion!", as that would be abysmally stupid.

Perhaps, you are not as bright as you think you are.

I support the use of contraception, so the paragraph that you have dedicated to mentioning this issue has been wasted. I think you should argue with the image you have created in your mind, instead of real people.


This is an absurd question. Nonetheless, "no" would be my answer. A dictatorship or police state are not necessary to stop abortion. Women being good, kind, and strong people is the way to stop abortion. Families being good and kind is another way. The state interfering less in our lives would make a significant difference. Women can only receive legal abortions with support from the state.

@SW-User Amen to your response. , He loves the police state and dictatorship question and that human pregnancy is unnatural and requires all kind of assistance. For some reason he can’t get beyond it

@ManKing I love your attitude ❤️

@plankter979 Fag

@hartfire Great all around post which most people unfortunately will not read because, as you note, it is not within the character limit of a 45 second attention span. But you touch on one important point few ever do:


When credit cards first came out they were difficult to get; you had to have a very good credit rating. They were envisioned as a convenience and safety net for carrying a lot of cash. But when people started maxing out their credit card debt to live beyond their means, and the banks could charge what used to be illegal usuary interest rates, they realized they were marketing it wrong, and started giving them away like peanuts.

@carpediem Agreed.

@carpediem Then came the 60s.

@missyann yeah I remember it when it first came out.

I agree - it would be good if things were simpler.

I think we also put a lot of pressure on ourselves for things that are necessities now that weren't ever 30 years ago.

@Pretzel Yes. I do act like some things are in necessity, but I wonder if they weren’t a necessity, then, are they really a necessity today??

@missyann
You can't put the genie back in the bottle unfortunately

@ManKing Racist much?

@carpediem
Where have you been during the entire "starve the beast" anti-tax crusade that has eroded our ability to maintain our infrastructure, including the public education system, or more recently the debate over the efforts to upgrade and/or replace infrastructure?

@dancingtongue 🤡🙄

@dancingtongue LOL. What a nut

@Richard65 So that would be one drawback of the digital revolution. However, there have also been many benefits.

@LeopoldBloom My original comment says "Technology has brought gigantic benefits".

@Richard65 Like anything else, there's positives and negatives.

@LordShadowfire I did correct “ urines “without attacking . I have been attacked for misspelling and told if I couldn’t spell it have no business on SW. it is easy to do when you use the microphone. It’s ok, I knew what you meant

@missyann Thanks for understanding. I'm starting to think when we're not arguing with each other, we could probably get along pretty well, lol.

@LordShadowfire Absolutely. People can disagree respectfully.😊

@ChipmunkErnie

I haven't seen the term WASP used much anymore.

@SW-User Now it's MAGA?

@ChipmunkErnie

It very well could be... 🤔

@4meAndyou I wholly agree and said other than the way Black people were treated. I didn’t think about one thing you said that black people were very patriotic even with the way they were treated.

Our patriotism and morality is what scared other countries, especially the patriotism that showed solidarity and strength. We are now so divided that we have open the door for other countries to attack us.

@Flenflyys But not the postwar austerity of the UK and its rationing. We were bankrupt.

@Flenflyys then you have not met enough that are either willing to talk about it, or are already losing their memories.

@PatKirby So how did it come to be run by a Portuguese immigrant living in Ireland?

@PatKirby What on earth are you babbling on about?

@Convivial Those "clearly defined roles" were limiting and oppressive for people who didn't easily fit into them.

@LeopoldBloom agree totally... I'm not condoning them, just explaining them

@windinhishair I know that I certainly do.
I have said that the way black people were treated was one of the things of the that era that was bad.
I guess my point is that it was important that when families were a priority, the country was stronger

@missyann I get your point. I think most people still make families a priority. No era is perfect, but I think we are better off now than during the 1950s

@missyann In the 1950s, women couldn't open bank accounts without their husband's permission. It wasn't just Black people being oppressed.

The country was "stronger" because we had no international competition. Europe and the USSR were in a shambles, and China was still undeveloped. The US was the last man standing after World War Two. This had nothing to do with any inherent virtue the country had. Our infrastructure and manufacturing base was intact because we were protected from the rest of the world by oceans on two sides, and friendly countries on the other two sides.

@ManKing

@missyann I reiterate that you are welcome to your opinion, but, i suggest that before you make such statements, look at the literature, and the data. Many people seem to have this mythical love of the 1950s and 1960s. By the way, go back and re-read your original post, the title is was: Were things better in the [b]50s[/b], I put the emphasis on the 50s. To compare the cost of living I did a google search:

"The cost of a house in the 1950s was about $15,000, compared to $200,000 today. The younger family paid $3,500 in down payment and $125 a month. On the other hand, the average household income was $3,300.00, which was $200 up in 1949.Jul 14, 2020" The emphasis on household income was my addition.

another comparison"
"Did Americans have a higher standard of living in the 1950s than current 2020s?
Discussion
lol as strange as it sounds, I have seen countless leftists and neo-nazis say the exact same thing so I am confused.
I do think there was the post-WW2 economic boom but, bloody hell- you were also facing nuclear war with the USSR. Do not even forget the huge sexism, racism, and homophobia...
Ex. leftists will say there was no healthcare debt in 1950s. Ok but, that was because the healthcare was so garbage no? If you had a heart attack in 1950s, you would basically just get a bed and most likely just die. Now in 2020, there are numerous healthcare breakthroughs so you get costly drugs and expensive tests done. Life expectancy is still much higher now than in 1950s especially with things like ACA. https://www.politifact.com/article/2012/jan/20/was-early-1960s-golden-age-health-care/
Likewise, people in 2020 have bigger and better homes (like AC), more safer cars, etc
People in 2020 are working so much less and have much more paid time off than in the 1950s and they have much more food, electronics, and resources.
https://www.dallasfed.org/fed/~/media/documents/fed/annual/1999/ar93.pdf"

other websites that looks at this:
https://thinkbiglivetiny.wixsite.com/thinkbiglivetiny/single-post/2016/09/14/cost-of-living-1950s-vs-now
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-americans-better-off-than-they-were-a-decade-or-two-ago/

@samueltyler2 My original post is about FAMILY life being better. Even those who were considered poor had a strong connection. I grew up in a small mid western town with a lot of farm. They gave more than anyone to help. Those don’t exist anymore because of government takeover.

Yes, the advances in medicine a
we’ve made are priceless. But technology in just about everything else is destroying the family, labor’jobs. No one can afford to go to college and there are not enough jobs for them who graduate

Technology is great. I think keeping it out of the hands of family homes especially kids wouldn’t have had negative effects that it has had.

Listen to the song “ in the year 2525 “ Zager & Evan. You tell me these guys were ahead of their times, and didn’t see some thing. This is all beginning to happen. We won’t make it to the year 25,25.

@missyann You can't have one thing without the other. Look at what I posted comparing standard of living corrected for family and year. What I do miss, is that in the 1950s women who worked tended to teach. Many had graduate degrees and taught so they were home when their children returned from school.. I think the average education level of those women is far greater than those now teaching, i remember only one poor teacher of all of those i had. The downside of fem-lib was not the break up of families, it was lowering of the background of the teachers. Many of the advances in medicine were made by women, who, if you had it your way, would have been stuck at home baking brownies!

@ManKing you lost any credibility by responding in the first place and oh by the way,I’m good with that

@LeopoldBloom What is so wrong with desiring the simpler life. I do understand the difference between reality and fiction.

I realize that people would have a total meltdown if their social media and technology was taken away and that there is the high possibility there is going to be a breakdown and we are going to be able to survive without it. I wonder how many will know how to live without it

@missyann There's nothing wrong with desiring a simpler life, and there's nothing stopping you from ditching your phone and social media if you want. But you can't cherry-pick the aspects of the past you like and get society to adopt them. And if there is a societal breakdown, the lack of social media will be the least of our problems. People will be too busy just surviving to worry about that.

@LeopoldBloom I agree with you. 100%. How about that lol 👍

@MistyCee Yawn 😴

@Northwest WTF am I not hearing ? Please, I “ need “your expertise on this

@missyann OK, I'll wrote it one more time: you're tone deaf.

@Northwest Okay, you just can’t tell me what I’m not hearing

@LordShadowfire Eisenhower wasn't a MAGA guy?

Go figure.

Didn't he also send troops to persecute the good folks of Little Rock, and fight Nazis?

Definitely not a Trumpist.

@MistyCee He implemented a lot of programs that Republicans would consider communist in nature today.

@LordShadowfire PLEASE don’t get starred on your forced nationalism

Your pain and agony of childbirth is bad enough.. For someone who has never given birth you seem quite knowledgeable about the

@NativePortlander1970 It started a lot earlier with Reagan's systematic destruction of the middle class in the 1980s. A book by one person didn't have the effect you think it did.

@LeopoldBloom How about we compare primetime tv from 1985 to the 21st century. You assume you're smart, try and figure it out, entertainment has always been the pulse of modern culture.
[media=https://youtu.be/f2_OOt9AlEU]
[media=https://youtu.be/SpD9Wz2txi8]

@NativePortlander1970 It doesn't really make sense to compare "prime time TV" in the past to today, when most people are watching streamed entertainment.

So what's your point? Does popular entertainment shape culture, or merely reflect it?

@jshm2 Wow, what is the abuse any worse than it is today ? Women aren’t happier just because they can go out and work.. kids disappear today and are abused.. are you trying to tell me that children aren’t being molested today?

Women have been voting since 1920 in the United States. White supremacist cops, men abusing their wives. You are using the marginal cases and putting everybody in the same category. And it isn’t true. I

I hope that you are not seriously suggesting that there were more violent gangs in the 50s. . violent gangs and drug dealers are worse now than all of history. Drugs are more prevalent and harder drugs..

I don’t understand why church and religion is such an issue today but if people really did go to church to avoid people talking about them. They chose to do that. It doesn’t sound like anybody held a gun to anybody’s head.. maybe if more people went to church today and believed in God, we wouldn’t have the problems we have especially the hate

Maybe if we had prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance in school and more mother stayed home with their kids. We might just have happier kids..

Why can’t all peaceful religions have prayer in school?? oh, and if a kid doesn’t want to be in the classroom they don’t have to they can step out in the hall. Maybe kids would be interested to learn about other religions. Her kids would be interested to learn about other religions . Why do you think more parents have chosen to send their kids to private schools? Charter schools parochial schools ? And homeschool their kids Even parents who aren’t the religion of parochial schools they still want their kids to have a school that teaches standards and respect . They pay a lot of money for tuition or get in the lottery for their kids to be chosen. This says a lot about some parents today.