I don't believe you

[jmccr8]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Did you read any of the sources i gave which explained the different types and conditions of slaves in the greek and roman empires, which is the period I am speaking of 

Hi Walker

Yes of course I did and the links I have responded with are relevant to the time and cultures involved. 

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Remember i am  not arguing FOR slavery, just saying it was not always the evil some insist it was.  and sometimes was better (except for the loss of freedom ) than the life of freemen.

I haven't said you were arguing for slavery and my intent is to show a broader context as to what all is involved in the topic rather than skim past the objection aspects of slavery in those times. Your position is that it was at that time necessary for the advancement of a culture as a whole and I disagree. I was reading this short discussion on the economic aspects of slavery and how it impacted the fall of the Roman empire. You may wish to read it and rethink how it applies to your position.

 This is a part of the discussion.

Background

The Punic Wars with Carthage came to a final end in 146BC, but the devastation still remained. Hannibal had rampaged through Italy half a century earlier, and the Italian farms had not fully recovered, creating poverty. The Roman armies, who had hitherto been taking their food from the colonies of Sardinia and Sicily, returned to Rome, and the grain followed. The mass influx of foreign grain of better quality reduced the price of grain, which further reduced the wealth of Italy significantly. Wealthy Romans began to speculate on the vast reaches of land Rome had conquered, which further exacerbated the divide between rich and poor.

 

The entire Roman economy hinged on grain prices. Their deterioration, coupled with some snubs from elite Romans, angered the Latins in Italy, and created a perfect storm of economic circumstances that could end in only one way for the city of Rome. Revolution. But there was another factor - one far more important:

 

Slaves

Although slavery had a different social function in Roman times, its economic function was identical - reduced price of labor. More slaves in the city means a greater pool of workers for the local farms and such. That in turn meant a greater supply of labor with no change to demand, hence lower prices.

 

All this huge influx of labor was soon bought up by the wealthy Romans, who started for the first time to establish large estates with their armies of slaves doing all the hard work. They took over the public land, that in reality nobody owned but in practice everybody squatted on. Soon the small farmers found that without the capital advantage of millions of slaves, they could not compete in farming.

 

In this way the Italian farmers were rapidly forced off their land entirely. They went to Rome, seeking work, and finding extreme poverty. A huge mass of the ultra poor crowded the city, desperate for any opportunity they could get, and starving terribly. By 136BC, Roman census records show the population of Italy reaching a record low of just below 20,000, and that in turn made the military power of Rome exceptionally weak. As I shall show, these slave-run estates (latifundia) eventually literally destroyed the republic.

 

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Studies of remains show that not just slaves but almost ALL men, other than the very wealthy,  from  ancient societies suffered those sorts of injuries and I mentioned it before. 

it reflects what like was like for all working men, and often women, free or slave  

That is true and to be expected when you displace people and take their employment opportunities away from them making the created poor to compete with slave labor. These conditions were created through greed and not a necessity for the whole but rather for the benefit of the few which is why I have spent the time to show these other aspects as it does not seem to support your position of social and cultural benefits of slavery.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Slaves worked in a wide range of occupations that can be roughly divided into five categories: household or domestic, imperial or public, urban crafts and services, agriculture, and mining.[44]

Epitaphs record at least 55 different jobs a household slave might have,[44] including barber, butler, cook, hairdresser, handmaid (ancilla), wash their master's clothes, wet nurse or nursery attendant, teacher, secretary, seamstress, accountant, and physician.[3] A large elite household (a domus in town, or a villa in the countryside) might be supported by a staff of hundreds.[44] The living conditions of slaves attached to a domus (the familia urbana), while inferior to those of the free persons they lived with, were sometimes superior to that of many free urban poor in Rome.[45] Household slaves likely enjoyed the highest standard of living among Roman slaves, next to publicly owned slaves, who were not subject to the whims of a single master.[41] Imperial slaves were those attached to the emperor's household, the familia Caesaris.[44]

Even though race was not a factor in slavery in Rome, all slaves were property and were treated as such. They had no rights. The danger of violence varied. For some, the monetary value of a good slave ensured that they were treated with a modicum of decency, just as one might be careful not to damage any other expensive piece of property.

Some owners, however, had little regard for their slaves. Some were beaten or even killed for amusement. For female slaves, rape was an ever-present danger. Early Roman laws did not allow for slaves to give their testimonies in court against their masters. Slaves that tried to escape were hunted down and, if they weren't killed, they were branded with a FUG (fugitive) on their foreheads.

Jobs

In America, many slaves performed primarily agricultural and domestic work. In ancient Rome, however, slaves took on a much wider range of responsibilities; their jobs could divided into five main categories:

• Domestic - Domestic service meant a life in a Roman house as a personal servant to the owners. Slaves that worked in a Roman home had the easiest lives because they ate the same foods as their masters and weren't normally put in dangerous situations.
• Public - A public servant was owned by the government and was considered a personal servant to the royal family. Public servants could be educated people who taught Latin, mathematics, and philosophy to young Romans.
• Urban crafts and services - Urban slaves were generally craftsmen, but they could also be prostitutes or even gladiators.
• Agricultural - Most farms were worked purely by slaves, including the foreman. These positions meant longer hours and lots of manual labor.
• Mining - Mining was considered the worst job. Working conditions were extremely dangerous and life expectancy was very low. Those who were sentenced to slavery by criminal law were often sent to the mines.

 

Massimo, A Slave Actor

jmccr8

edit to add

Table 1 Hypothetical distribution of the free and slave population of the Roman Empire (in millions) Urban Rural Free Slaves Free Slaves Italy 1.3m 0.6m 3.5m 0.6m Egypt 1.25m 0.25m 4.2m 0.3m Others 4-5m 0.4-1m 42-45m 2.5-5.5 Total 6.5-7.5m 1.3-1.9m 49-52m 3.5-6.5m Key: Italy: Scheidel 2004b (free population), 2005a (slave population). Egypt: Scheidel 2001: 246-7 (total population); Alexandria (guess; cf. Scheidel 2004a): 350,000 free + 150,000 slaves; other cities (above): 890,000 free + 110,000 slaves; villages (above): 4,220,000 free + 280,000 slaves. Other provinces: Scheidel 2007 (total imperial population, provincial breakdown, and urbanization rates); low estimate: slaves are 10% of urban population (~ Egypt) and 6% of rural population (~ Egypt); high estimate: slaves are 20% of urban population (~ Italy/Egypt mean) and 12% of rural population (~ Italy/Egypt mean).

Obviously, the majority of slaves were not in the better-treated categories as agricultural and mining were at high risk with poor living conditions and life expectancy.

This link has some interesting information. I find it interesting that Egypt/Roman Egypt managed to develop into the powerful culture that it did without such a heavy dependence on slavery so it would seem that slavery is not all that essential in a solid cultural development and economic stabitity

The Roman slave supply

 

Edited April 21, 2019 by jmccr8
added context

[jmccr8]

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Generally the societies did not collapse because slavery was never abolished UNTIL it became economical to do so. My point was what could happen if slavery had been suddenly outlawed in places like ancient Rome and Greece where most of the workforce were slaves

Hi Walker

If slavery displaced working citizens and created larger numbers of poor in a culture the economic value is in favor of a select few and causes a greater social burden, on the whole, lessening the quality of life of its own citizens which is why people were put in prison for unpaid taxes and several other monetary reasons beyond the control of the individual.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It is not a politically acceptable argument but economically it can be modelled and consequence predicted.

Even the sources you gave admitted that removing slavery could cause social chaos but they had an absolutist moral value tha t it was more important to end slavery than maintain a social structure.That was never going to happen, and still would not happen today, or we would not have modern slavery 

• An estimated 40 million people are in modern slavery all over the world. This generates an estimated $150 billion in illegal profits every year, making forced labor the second largest international crime.
• Bonded labour or debt bondage is when a workers’ labor is demanded to repay a loan. The person is usually coerced into working long after the loan is repaid. Often, the debt is passed on to the next generation.
• Forced labor is any work which people are forced to do against their will. 16 million, or 64% of of people in forced labor are in the private economy, exploited by individuals or enterprises. According to the United Nations International Labour Organization (ILO) there are 24,900,000 people in forced labour.
• Child slavery is one of the most shocking forms of slavery. Worldwide it is estimated that that one in four victims of slavery are children. Children’s labour is exploited in many jobs, including physical labor and domestic slavery.
• Live-in migrant domestic workers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation because, confined to a private home, they are isolated from protections offered in a regular workplace.
• Child marriage can be another form of slavery, if the following three elements are present: if either party hasn’t given their free and informed consent, if either party is being subjected to control and a sense of ownership, and if either party cannot realistically leave or end the marriage. Servile marriage can affect adults too.
• Human trafficking is the act of recruiting or transferring a person by means of coercion, abduction or deception for the purpose of exploitation. Although most people assume sexual exploitation to be the most common reason for trafficking people, it is in fact for forced labor.

Slavery is illegal and yet there are 40 million still subjected to slavery, please do show the social benefit of this illegal activity. It is now as it was then for the financial benefit of a few and not the whole.

jmccr8

[Habitat]

6 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

That would be a limited view of what all is entailed on the subject

Limited perhaps, but relevant. Adoption is virtually non-existent in Western society. If women abort because they think they are not in a position to raise a child, that really can be avoided by having someone else raise the child through adoption. The child lives, the adoptive parents have the joy of a child to raise and hopefully love. But this is just too much inconvenience for most, they don't want the bother, and they certainly don't want people seeing them desert a child. But abortion is the complete desertion of that child. It is very hard to justify abortions of convenience, morally. And morality is claimed by many here as paramount, if slavery can't be justified on economic grounds, neither can abortion, when people are clamouring to adopt children.

[onlookerofmayhem]

12 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Adoption is virtually non-existent in Western society.

Could you be more specific with what you mean by "western sociey"? Please and thank you.

http://archive.pov.org/offandrunning/fact-sheet/

About 135,000 children are adopted in the United States each year. Of non-stepparent adoptions, about 59% are from the child welfare (or foster) system, 26% are from other countries, and 15% are voluntarily relinquished American babies.

[Jodie.Lynne]

33 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Could you be more specific with what you mean by "western sociey"? Please and thank you.

http://archive.pov.org/offandrunning/fact-sheet/

About 135,000 children are adopted in the United States each year. Of non-stepparent adoptions, about 59% are from the child welfare (or foster) system, 26% are from other countries, and 15% are voluntarily relinquished American babies.

Aw gee, there you go overturning Habitats neat little morality play with bothersome facts!

Edited April 22, 2019 by Jodie.Lynne

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Could you be more specific with what you mean by "western sociey"? Please and thank you.

http://archive.pov.org/offandrunning/fact-sheet/

About 135,000 children are adopted in the United States each year. Of non-stepparent adoptions, about 59% are from the child welfare (or foster) system, 26% are from other countries, and 15% are voluntarily relinquished American babies.

Adopted at birth I am talking about, or wasn't that obvious enough ? I know it has dwindled to tiny numbers in Australia, there would be a hundred who would adopt a baby, for every one available, locally, virtually all such adoption is from overseas countries. Of course where a single parent dies, becomes incapacitated, whatever, it is not uncommon for a close relative to then adopt the children, but I am talking about women who give up their baby at birth, voluntarily, extremely rare today. Foster situations are common, but not relevant here.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Limited perhaps, but relevant. Adoption is virtually non-existent in Western society. If women abort because they think they are not in a position to raise a child, that really can be avoided by having someone else raise the child through adoption. The child lives, the adoptive parents have the joy of a child to raise and hopefully love. But this is just too much inconvenience for most, they don't want the bother, and they certainly don't want people seeing them desert a child. But abortion is the complete desertion of that child. It is very hard to justify abortions of convenience, morally. And morality is claimed by many here as paramount, if slavery can't be justified on economic grounds, neither can abortion, when people are clamouring to adopt children.

You just make stuff up Habbie.

There are 135 thousand  adoptions a year in the US, this is hardly non existent. 

https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

You just make stuff up Habbie.

There are 135 thousand  adoptions a year in the US, this is hardly non existent. 

https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics

How many are of newborn Americans ? That is the only relevant figure in this discussion.  I can tell you that in Australia it is something like 300 per annum. Those wanting to adopt such a baby, well, many don't even bother to try, it would be like winning a lottery.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Habitat

[jmccr8]

15 minutes ago, Habitat said:

How many are of newborn Americans ? That is the only relevant figure in this discussion.  I can tell you that in Australia it is something like 300 per annum. Those wanting to adopt such a baby, well, many don't even bother to try, it would be like winning a lottery.

Hi Habitat

Just wondering what you or anyone you know has done to change the situation besides criticizing how no one else is doing anything, charity starts at home.

jmccr8

[onlookerofmayhem]

16 minutes ago, Habitat said:

How many are of newborn Americans ? That is the only relevant figure in this discussion.  I can tell you that in Australia it is something like 300 per annum. Those wanting to adopt such a baby, well, many don't even bother to try, it would be like winning a lottery.

What do you mean, at birth? Adoption happens anywhere from birth to teenage years? Do you think adoptive parents are waiting at the hospital to be handed a baby minutes after birth?

Why the stipulation? So it fits your misconceived notion of it being almost nonexistent? 

[Aquila King]

27 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Adopted at birth I am talking about, or wasn't that obvious enough ? I know it has dwindled to tiny numbers in Australia, there would be a hundred who would adopt a baby, for every one available, locally, virtually all such adoption is from overseas countries. Of course where a single parent dies, becomes incapacitated, whatever, it is not uncommon for a close relative to then adopt the children, but I am talking about women who give up their baby at birth, voluntarily, extremely rare today. Foster situations are common, but not relevant here.

This could be in reference to anything. Number of children alive. Number of children who don't floss. Number of children who have a full meal in Cambodia. 

If you're gonna post a graph, it'd be wise to have it be a coherent one with a proper title and citation added.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

What do you mean, at birth? Adoption happens anywhere from birth to teenage years? Do you think adoptive parents are waiting at the hospital to be handed a baby minutes after birth?

Why the stipulation? So it fits your misconceived notion of it being almost nonexistent? 

It certainly is virtually non-existent in Australia, about 300 per year from a population of 24 million. Of course the baby is handed over as soon as practicable, if the mother does not want the baby, why delay ? It is readily seen that for every baby so adopted, there would be at least a hundred abortions.

[Habitat]

38 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

This could be in reference to anything. Number of children alive. Number of children who don't floss. Number of children who have a full meal in Cambodia. 

If you're gonna post a graph, it'd be wise to have it be a coherent one with a proper title and citation added.

Read the text above the graph...…"Adopted at birth I am talking about,"...….

……".but I am talking about women who give up their baby at birth, voluntarily,"...…….

In one year in Queensland, out of a population of 4 million or more, around a dozen such adoptions.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Habitat

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Why the stipulation? So it fits your misconceived notion of it being almost nonexistent? 

Because he has an agenda to fulfill, and from his POV, any adoption other than 'at birth', doesn't fit his narrative.

In many childbirthing classes, they have a 'pregnancy vest' that mimics, somewhat, the difficulties that women undergo through pregnancy.

The item is designed to add weight, place pressure on the kidneys and back, and cause a redistribution of 'center of mass'. After 15 or 20 minutes, most guys want it off.

I've also seen video articles of men who through electrical neurological stimulation get to experience some of the pain that a woman goes through while experiencing the 'miracle of childbirth'. Oddly enough, the guys couldn't handle it.

 

[jmccr8]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Read the text above the graph......

……".but I am talking about women who give up their baby at birth, voluntarily,"...…….

In one year in Queensland, out of a population of 4 million or more, around a dozen such adoptions.

Hi Habitat

So outside of the 3 hundred locally how many adopt from other countries where children are at high risk of the abuses like in the links I gave you earlier?

jmccr8

[Habitat]

9 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Habitat

So outside of the 3 hundred locally how many adopt from other countries where children are at high risk of the abuses like in the links I gave you earlier?

jmccr8

As I understand it, overseas adoptions have also dropped somewhat, but for some time has been about the only option.

[Habitat]

15 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Because he has an agenda to fulfill, and from his POV, any adoption other than 'at birth', doesn't fit his narrative

It certainly does not fit the narrative of a woman who has decided to adopt, to be bonding with the baby, simple ! Your agenda seems to be to contradict me at all times, which does not worry me in the least.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

How many are of newborn Americans ? That is the only relevant figure in this discussion.  I can tell you that in Australia it is something like 300 per annum. Those wanting to adopt such a baby, well, many don't even bother to try, it would be like winning a lottery.

135 thousand, I personally know several people who have adopted successfully. 

I am sorry to hear it is so difficult to adopt in Australia, why is this?

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

135 thousand, I personally know several people who have adopted successfully. 

I am sorry to hear it is so difficult to adopt in Australia, why is this?

135 thousand is the total figure for all adoptions, is it not ? The only relevant figure is newborn adoptions. The difficulty of adoption is simply a reflection of mass terminations, rather than going to term. In the 60's abortion was very difficult to obtain, and some poor single teenage girl, had little option.

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

The only relevant figure is newborn adoptions.

Why?

 

[Habitat]

8 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Why?

 

Because if you don't want the baby, you don't keep it after the earliest opportunity to be rid of it. With abortion, that opportunity is brought forward. 

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Habitat

That would be a limited view of what all is entailed on the subject and am giving these links to give a better overview of what some of the problems are within a global context.

Global Report on Children 2018

Most children in orphanages are not orphans - World | ReliefWeb

Street Children - Brazil

The House, the Street, Global Society: Latin American Families and Childhood in the Twenty-First Century on JSTOR

It is a sad condition that children are born into these conditions and I think that there are many who consider these concerns prior to having an abortion. Is it selfish?

jmccr8

My point is that IF a society loved and cared for  all it's children, then there would be even less need for abortions. While children are  treated like this, it creates some excuse/justification  for people to approve of abortion. 

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

You have posted there are very good reasons for rape in marriage, this is what is being addressed, your counter  that the rapist didn’t see it as rape, therefore it is not “really” rape. 

I certainly hope that you actually do respect women. 

 

 

 

ALL such  things are names or constructs of human minds The y are and become how we perceive or see them to be 

i repeat there was no such thing  as rape within a marriage,  either legally or in concept, until the 1960s because marriage was seen to give ongoing consent to sex and this was a known part of the marriage contract.

Rape is non consensual sex, and in modern terms the consent  must be both informed, and freely given 

Marriage conferred informed, ongoing, consent as part of the deal. 

You don't need to worry about my attitudes to women.

I've been partially reconstructed, and now only give them the same respect and place of honour as I do men.    

 

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Because if you don't want the baby, you don't keep it after the earliest opportunity to be rid of it. With abortion, that opportunity is brought forward. 

That doesn't answer the question. You stated that only "new born adoptions" were relevant.

A woman gets pregnant, does not want the baby but decides to carry it to term and give it up for adoption. If no one steps up to adopt the child within 24 hours of its birth, you discount that adoption?

 

According to what you are saying, a woman has to:

1 - get preggers

2- decide to carry to term and give up her child for adoption

3- seek out adoptive parents that will adopt her child.

4- suffer through all the difficulties of pregnancy and childbirth to deliver a child to the adoptive parents..

 

What happens if the adoptive parents back out?

What happens if there are complications, either during pregnancy, childbirth, or the formation of the fetus?

What happens if the woman's body isn't strong enough, and she dies?

 

Let me ask a hypothetical, to all the males who are soooooo opposed to abortion.

If it were possible, medically, for YOU to carry a feotus to term, and be delivered by C-section, would you volunteer your body?

If it were YOUR offspring, and the woman didn't want it, would you? What if it were a random stranger?

 

Since this medical miracle is impossible at the present time, I suspect that many, if not all of the pro-life males would eagerly say "yes", since they don't have to make good on their claim.

BUT, how many of you men would volunteer to wear a pregnancy vest for 9 months? Since that is very do-able. Or, face electro-stim simulation of labor pains, for say.... 12 hours?

[+Sherapy]

31 minutes ago, Habitat said:

135 thousand is the total figure for all adoptions, is it not ? The only relevant figure is newborn adoptions. The difficulty of adoption is simply a reflection of mass terminations, rather than going to term. In the 60's abortion was very difficult to obtain, and some poor single teenage girl, had little option.

“The number of infant adoptions in the US has increased very slightly from 18,078 in 2007 to 18,329 in 2014, the last year data is available. Domestic infant adoption comprises only .5% of all live births in the US and only 1.1% of births to single parents” (https://creatingafamily.org/adoption-category/adoption-blog/adoption-cost-length-time/j.