PP's Teenwire at Batavia Library
Posted by Roger on Tuesday, June 17th, 2008
Today's Aurora Beacon had a front-page article about a group of families who are opposed to Batavia's Library link to Planned Parenthood's Teenwire web site. Here's are links to the articles:
The article says that the group of families who are opposing this has put together a PowerPoint presentation to show to the library board as to why they oppose having a link to PP's site. It should be interesting. Hopefully, the Beacon will print a follow-up article tomorrow.
God Bless,
Roger
Great post Roger!
Just wanted everyone to know that the Batavia Library Board is meeting tonight to discuss this issue. Here's the details:
EVENT: Batavia Library Board Meeting
WHEN: Tuesday, June 17, 2008
WHERE: Batavia Public Library, 10 S. Batavia Ave.
MAP: http://tinyurl.com/5v3kng
I'd encourage everyone who can make it to show up and let the Batavia Library Board know that we don't want them promoting Planned Parenthood's radically promiscuous vision of human sexuality.
This should be very concerning, especially if you're a Batavia parent. Great job to the families that have brought this issue to light!
June 17th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Is it possible to put the Powerpoint presentation on your website so we can see it?
Mike
June 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Yes, I would like to see the PowerPoint too. Is there a way you can write about all of this in more detail? I'd like to link to it so folks can get a true idea about how awful the site is. I visited it yesterday. It's both upsetting and troubling to say the least.
http://cathlete.net
June 17th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Did you guys just crawl out from under a rock? Why would you protest a library? That is a place where people that can actually read and comprehend go.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
How horrible that actual information can be found at a library, of all places. Guess what? Teens think about having sex. It is critical that they get correct, accurate information about what can lead to an accidental pregnancy. Otherwise, they will spread wrong and harmful information (you can't get pregnant unless there is intercourse, jumping up and down can prevent pregnancy, etc).
I'm curious what age *would* be appropriate to learn about sex? Do you really want everyone to wait until marriage to even know the facts???
June 17th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Is there a site you WOULD consider appropriate that includes comprehensive sex education? Anything at all? If so, I'd love to see it.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Maybe one that didn't say "don't listen to your parents about sex. Just do what you think is right and be as safe as possible." That's a fair paraphrase of:
"When it comes to discussing sex, parents can be misleading. Angry. Defensive. Clueless. Often, they want to get the whole thing over with in One Big Talk — or they don't want to talk about it at all."
It reminds of the woman who spoke at the City council meeting saying "you're kids are having sex, and I'll be there to teach them about dental dams." Thanks, but no thanks, student.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
"Of the 22 civilizations that have appeared in history, 19 of them collapsed when they reached the moral state America is in today."
Arnold Toynbee
June 17th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
The fact is that many parents ARE angry, defensive, embarrassed, ignorant, and want to get 'the talk' over with as soon as possible. I know many people who had to deal with parents like this. SOMEONE has to fill in the gaps. Let's face it, 'just say no' doesn't work. It is MUCH better to educate kids, in an age appropriate manner, about their bodies. For example, talk about menstruation *before* it happens so girls don't think they have cancer. That means 8 years old. Talk about the risks of sex *before* kids are thinking of being sexually active. That means 11-12 years old. Give *accurate* information about pregnancy and diseases. Most parents don't know the most recent studies.
Once again, what site *would* give the information you would consider appropriate?
June 18th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Karen K, Toynbee died in 1975, before gay marriage was ever an issue, and this quote dates before Roe v Wade. Furthermore, it simply isn't true. Of the civilizations that did collapse, most did so from military issues or from the result of famine. Rome fell, interestingly enough, because it overextended its resources and because it adopted christianity as its official religion, destabilizing the basis of having a caesar to begin with.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:27 am
I, too, would love to see a sex education site that you would deem appropriate. I see a lot of criticism of Teenwire. Can you offer an alternative?
June 18th, 2008 at 7:28 am
You call Teenwire sex education "correct, accurate information" ???
June 18th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Unfortunately, kids are having sex, and it is because of people who instead of teaching that it is wrong tell them go ahead but "play it safe". There is no longer a right or wrong, just do it, act on every emotion and never tell anyone they should not. Planned Parenthood's idea of sex education is to promote every kind of perversion and filth to fulfill their agenda, "we need pregnant people, because how else are we to continue our huge money making business of abortion?" They kill a quarter of a million children a year! If Planned Parenthood's Teen wire site is your idea of "Sex Education" All I can say about you is, "If you sit in the sewer long enough you are going to smell." Something really reeks, the moral decline in this country smells to high Heaven. It is time for those who believe there is a right and wrong given to us by our Creator, to say so and do something about it. Help our children from sinking deeper into that sewer.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am
So nobody here has another site they can suggest? I get that you don't like PP. Ok, give me an alternative sex education site that is acceptable or is it that sex ed simply isn't ok with you people?
June 18th, 2008 at 9:24 am
You said,
“Karen K, Toynbee died in 1975, before gay marriage was ever an issue, and this quote dates before Roe v Wade."
Thank you for saying this, it just re-enforces the fact that we are even worse than when Toynbee said his words. He thought things were bad then, he must be rolling over in his grave now.
You said,
"Furthermore, it simply isn't true. Of the civilizations that did collapse, most did so from military issues or from the result of famine. Rome fell, interestingly enough, because it overextended its resources"
Again, thank you for stating this, it shows plainly, "You reap what you sow" What do you think happens to a country when it is rotting from every kind of malice and sin. It decomposes.
You said,
"and because it adopted Christianity as its official religion, destabilizing the basis of having a Caesar to begin with."
And when we destabilized Nazi Germany, oh, was that a bad thing?
June 18th, 2008 at 9:33 am
AuroraResident, Go to PureLoveClub.com
June 18th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Karen: Thank you for providing a site. I did look at it and found it full of misinformation. This is hardly a sex education site. It is primarily an AO site that also tells kids that there is something wrong with them if they are homosexual. I found it offensive. However, I am not opposed to the Batavia Library making this site available along with Teenwire, nor would I have an objection to my kids viewing same — we would, however, discuss it so that the things I disagree with (on either site) could be further hashed out.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Student, Professor, et.al.,
Well, let's start with the supposed misinformation. What factual inaccuracies are being promulgated by abstinence only sex-ed? (Didn't get an answer last time I asked about that, but I'll keep trying)
But let's examine our assumptions here. No one is saying we should ban Teenwire from the internet, or even ban people being able to access it on the internet at the library! The only objection being raised is that the library is taking a highly controversial site, with material that most certainly could not be shown in a school classroom or even on network television and saying to teens "Here, this is the best site for you to get health information from."
Why does the library need to have a recommended website for teens to get information about sex? Are they unfamiliar with the card catalog system or Google for that matter? Do you really think teens are so computer illiterate that, if the library didn't tell them where to get health information, they couldn't find it?
And, with their $1.1 billion dollar budget and $350 million in government money (read: taxpayer money), why does the Planned Parenthood promiscuity machine need more help from our local library?
The reasons this link does not need to be there are legion. We're not asking for censorship, we're just asking for the library to not promote sexual behaviors that a huge portion of the population finds highly objectionable to our children.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Unless I missed it, I didn't see anyone state that inaccuracies are being promulgated by AO education. Like another poster, I viewed the "PureLove" site and found a lot of partial information, bad information and statement I personally disagree with.
So the bottom line is that you're offended by the library listing TeenWire as a suggested site? Are they forcing anyone to look at it?
I assume you're of the belief that the library should recommend nothing? They should probably not recommend books or websites on topics other than health either, right?
The tax payer argument fails on its face. There are lots of things funded with my tax money with which I disagree.
Yet you truly don't care about exposing other children to things many (if not most) in the general population find highly objectionable. That sounds like a huge double standard to me.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Student,
I'll address some of your other questions later (and you do raise some good ones) but real quick, you said:
Unless I missed it, I didn't see anyone state that inaccuracies are being promulgated by AO education.
A poster before my comment said:
I did look at it and found it full of misinformation.
And Professor said:
It is critical that they get correct, accurate information about what can lead to an accidental pregnancy.
Which, to me, implies that the sources we recommend are giving incorrect, inaccurate information.
I was going on those statements when requesting specifics about the inaccuracies, but it's good to know you're not making that charge.
Btw, is there a difference between accidental pregnancy and the regular kind
June 18th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I just went to purelove.com and in under a minute to the right of the screen there is what appear to be porno web sites.You people are so against PP that you would rather children look at sites like "oral sex"
"The perfect orgasm" "Black Booty" "horny woman" "G-spot".You are insane to even suggest a site like that for anyone to go to.In case you can't find it go to purelove.com and click on sexual relationships.That is what most teens want to know about so that is what they will find.Face it Teenwire is at least informative not vulgar.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I guess to me that meant s/he was looking at the PureLove site — I didn't realize s/he was talking about AO, in general. Perhaps I erred there?
Ok, maybe this is an interpretive disagreement also. I didn't see any sources recommended until after that post was up, thus, I don't know why you would make that assumption.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
June 18th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Kathy,
It appears you went to purelove dot com
whereas karen suggested you go to pureloveclub dot com.
Those two sites are completely different. One is an abstinence education site, the other is something else entirely.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
sorry
June 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Well, I looked that the pueloveclub site. The basic attitude is that sex outside of marriage is wrong and even inside marriage it is wrong if contraception is used. The actual facts at the site were few and far between. Instead, it is mostly Catholic propaganda about sexuality. That's fine for those who want to be strictly religious in that way and are aware of the alternatives, but it shows, in my opinion, a particularly narrow view of human potential. Sex is a good, natural way for people to relate.
Yes, I believe in sex before marriage. I HOPE my daughter has several partners before she gets married (if she ever does). That is how one learns about the beauties of sexuality and the range of possibilities it can allow. I also HOPE my daughter knows about the risks involved (pregnancy, STDs, emotional hurt) and of the range of possibilities (manual stimulation, oral sex, anal sex, etc). You see, I consider a satisfying sex life to be one of the wonderful things about being human and I want her to have that. As painful as it is, I also expect her to go through some emotionally difficult break-ups. That is part of becoming an adult.
Some particular points of misinformation/inaccurate propaganda. The site suggests that AO education is effective. This has been shown to be false by several studies. While it can delay the time of first intercourse, it does NOT decrease the risk of STDs and pregnancy because those who go through AO do not use safer practices when they DO become active.
The site also emphasizes the difficulties of gossip and loss of reputation if you have sex. Sorry, but the gossip of narrow-minded busy-bodies should simply be ignored. Perhaps then we can get away from the lurid sexuality promoted by it being 'wrong' and come to a more healthy sexuality inspired by mutual respect, openness, and an expectation of equality in relationships.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Professor,
Thank you for putting into words what most people actually feel but some are afraid to admit.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Here are some websites and articles with accurate medical information about sex,
Read the article in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Volume 36, Number 1, Jan./Feb. 2004 "Sexually Transmitted Disezses among American Youth: Incidence and Prevalence Estimates, 2000" by Hillard Weinstock, Stuart Berman and Willard Cates, Jr.
Also read National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention, Herndon, WA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001.
Absolutely NO RESPONSIBLE ADULT should be telling teens that condoms or anything else except 2 people saving sex for marriage or a life-long commited relationship and being faithful to that one person for life is safe. Sex education is the ONLY area of health education where adults promote to teens anything less than the safest and healthiest choices.
When condoms or other choices are mentioned they should not be promoted but the fact that they are only possible risk reduction, many of the prevalent STDs are transmitted skin to skin NOT by exchanging body fluids, which means they can be transmitted by areas not even covered by a condom.
Any organization that is going to make millions of dollars off of promoting and teaching teens to engage in risky sexual behavior should NOT be given ANY access to teens period. sorry for the long post.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I submitted a response about the question about what are reliable websites for teens to get factual information about sex. Did you get it? I am sorry it is so long, I do not know how to shorten or add links to my post because I am new at this.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Karen:
The Toynbee quote just points out that if things have gotten worse morally, we still are a viable nation. Toynbee was wrong.
Your response concerning morality and the fall of nations is a non-sequitur; I pointed out that moral decay has NOT led to the fall of any civilization. If anything, Rome points out the danger of allowing religion to become central to a nation.
Where did nazi germany come into the discussion–I was speaking about Rome. Germany didn't fall because of moral reasons, it fell because hitler overextended himself, just like rome did. Just as bush is doing with this country today. And it should be pointed out that one of the first things hitler did was outlaw abortion.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
This pure live club is obviously catholic in nature, but for some reason refuses to just come out and say so. Why is that?
I laughed out loud at this quote: "Romance without regret does exist." Of course it does, and it does whether you've had sex or not. On the other hand, there are purely platonic romances that end bitterly. Sexless romance is no guarantee of happiness.
Abstinence-only education is not a problem because it is inaccurate; it is a problem because it doesn't work. Kids are still having sex and will continue to have sex. Instead of pretending that it doesn't happen, these kids need to have the facts that could protect them from pregnancy and STD's. Of course, much of this could be alleviated if we stopped equating love and sex; they are completely different things that are great on their own and that can complement each other. If a teen understands that having sex is not a reaction to affection OR a substitute for affection, there will likely be less sex going on.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I've been to teenwire several times and have yet to find anything inaccurate. Who cares if you can't find this info in schools? School is there to give the impetus to learn and to provide basic discipline and knowledge, not be the sum total of everything one learns.
Teenwire also addresses the issues facing gay teens; I don't see that on the PLC. But telling a gay kid they can't have sex until marriage and then saying that they aren't allowed to GET married makes the whole catch-22 meaningless.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Educator,
Any posts with lots of links get held for moderation automatically.
Thanks for your post! Lots of great info.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Sorry I did not need to repost. I do apologize you can delete my repost
June 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
No responsible adult should be telling teens that driving is absolutely safe. If they want to completely avoid dying in an automobile accident, they should avoid driving or being driving in a car. But I suspect that you realize that we *do* promote teen driving even though it is NOT the 'safest and healthiest' choice. They way we do this is to inform them of the risks, teach them the rules of the road, place restrictions on their driving at first, and then, after time, allow them to make their own choices.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
No, actually. The only safe sex is masturbation. And, unless your municipality has very different rules from mine, there is no test to insure that two people getting married know anything about sex, relationships, or anything else for that matter.
So why is marriage such a big deal? Don't give me any religious mumbo-jumbo. A marriage contract is NOT a verification of adulthood, nor a test of any knowledge or skill. It is simply a civil contract. But I don't want the government getting involved in who I choose for a partner of why. Even less do I want a church involved. SO, yes, I WILL have sex outside of marriage. I will NOT condemn those who choose to do so also. I will encourage responsible sexuality (avoidance of pregnancies and STIs and communication between all partners). And I will encourage people to use birth control and, if they choose not to have children at all, to get sterilized (yes, I have had a vasectomy-that's the responsible thing to do). I will also fight against the narrow-minded attitudes promoted by certain religious factions that see sex in an inherently negative light.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
I promote PP mostly because it is one of the few organizations that consistently give good information without judgment. They also provide needed services to those in need, from birth control to, yes, abortions.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
"SO, yes, I WILL have sex outside of marriage. I will NOT condemn those who choose to do so also. I will encourage responsible sexuality (avoidance of pregnancies and STIs and communication between all partners). And I will encourage people to use birth control and, if they choose not to have children at all, to get sterilized (yes, I have had a vasectomy-that's the responsible thing to do). I will also fight against the narrow-minded attitudes promoted by certain religious factions that see sex in an inherently negative light."
Bully for you. I hope you didn't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back for taking a stand that no one says you can't take. What's good for you is not necessarily good for others. Why encourage others to use birth control? Why can't you stay out of their business?
You and your friend ask what sites others might approve of. Why do we need to prove to you that their are sites that are good? Why can't we just raise our kids without having them bombarded with a culture of promiscuity from people like you? And if we choose to avoid that culture, who do you think you are to object to the choice to avoid it? Get over yourself.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
You've got to be kidding me, right?
First of all, which "friend" are you referring to. Me, Midnightcyn, Kathy, AuroraResident, or Denise. You spit out that word friend like it's something bad.
Raise your kids any way you like, however, nobody is forcing your kids to look at ANY website at the library. On the other hand, your group forces its opinions on others and FORCES images in the faces of our children that we find offensive and inappropriate. Again, I love your double standard.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Excuse me??!? You, the ones who want to stick your noses into everyone else's business? What business is it of yours if someone has sex outside of marriage? What business is it of yours is they use birth control? What business is it of yours if they choose to terminate a pregnancy in their own bodies? Why don't YOU stay out of everyone else's business?
June 18th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Student,
You're right, there is something of a double standard here, but I'd say it's a morally justifiable one.
Obviously, if you're the German hiding the Jews from the SS soldiers, lying is morally justifiable, though otherwise it would be immoral to lie, right?
Considered from the pro-life point of view, we have a very similar situation on our hands. Millions of people are being murdered under a guise of legality. We pro-life folks feel that something must be done to stop it and that one of the best ways to change people's minds is to show them what abortion actually looks like.
Now, I can't speak for every pro-lifer, but showing people gruesome pictures is not one of my hobbies for its own sake. In fact, while I wouldn't call it "immoral" necessarily, I understand people's outrage at seeing the pictures, especially if they've been caught unawares. But the fact remains that the pictures save lives. Mothers and fathers change their minds about getting abortions after seeing them. It's a fact I've seen several times with my own eyes.
So, weighing the possibility of committing the slight moral offense of upsetting someone or making them lose their appetite against the possibility saving even one innocent human being from murder, I'm probably going to be willing to upset a few people.
Double standard? Sure. But a morally justifiable one if the pro-life position is accurate.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Sorry, Matt, that just doesn't fly. Perhaps if you were simply talking about showing the photos around PP….although even then I don't consider it appropriate. However, you cross the line when you FORCE them on children getting out of school and then turn around and complain about a site at a library that nobody is FORCING children to look at.
Personally, I find religion to be one of the more evil things in the world. I know we very much disagree on this. Given my feelings, would it be "morally justifiable" for me to stand outside of your church/home/school with giant photos showing graphic pictures of people killed in the name of religion? How about giant signs that read "Your Parents Lie To You?"
What you have done is inappropriate and there is no justifiable excuse for it.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Excuse me??!? You, the ones who want to stick your noses into everyone else's business? What business is it of yours if someone has sex outside of marriage? What business is it of yours is they use birth control? What business is it of yours if they choose to terminate a pregnancy in their own bodies? Why don't YOU stay out of everyone else's business?
I don't stick my nose into anyone else's business. If you want to have sex outside of marriage, bully for you. Whether or not I want to raise my kids that way is my business, and I don't appreciate interlopers trying to tell them how to do it (and yes, Planned Parenthood is trying to stick their nose in based on the quote I noted elsewhere).
I don't advocate making birth control illegal. I do think abortion should be illegal because it's taking a life. That is my business.
I know that I'm inundated with a culture saturated in sex, and if I want to opt out of it, don't blame me for trying to get away. I think sex is healthy, but check out the lyrics of the number one song, Lollipop. Good luck trying to raise a moral child in this sewer.
And student, I didn't spit anything. You and the Prof are friends, right?
I wasn't joking in the first sentence you quoted. I also don't agree with the truth tours (as you may have noted). But I don't agree that the government should treat Planned Parenthood as a dispassionate source of information. It has an agenda, and one I disagree with. The government shouldn't endorse PP and it shouldn't give it a dime.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
By the way, I don't think anyone is advocating that teenwire should be banned from the public library, just that it not be linked as a recommended resource. Such a link is an endorsement. I'm sure you'd be up in arms if the library linked to a religious oriented site. That's the difference that I see. If a teen goes to the library (thank God if they do), I don't object to them taking it upon themselves to go to teenwire. I object to the government saying this is the source for information. If you can't see that distinction, if you can't see that PP is an ideological organization, I don't know what to tell you.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
"I love your double standard."
I love your faux-can't we all just get along and try to minimize abortion attituded while simultaneously volunteering for blood merchants. Why should you wish to minimize abortions if it's just a routine medical procedure that has no moral, physical or mental health implications?
June 18th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Some of the posts criticize websites that espouse Catholic teachings about sexuality, as if that automatically disqualifies those sites. I suppose we could spend years talking about what constitutes beautiful and holy expressions of sexuality and never come to agreement. Such is the nature of the subject.
For critics of Catholic teaching on sex I would caution that it would be unfair to summarize those teachings from a strictly negative perspective, as if the church forbids any and all things sexual, except of course the mischaracterization that the church demands we be pregnant at all times. It seems everybody thinks themselves an expert on Catholicism and all of its teachings. Actually, in contrast to what has been reported about the church's uptightness about sex, a visitor to Rome might be surprised at the celebration of the human form found in many of the paintings from Catholic artists over the centuries, in works often commissioned by the church. And sculptures seen in the Vatican and surrounding museums leave little to the imagination. Prudishness was not a hang-up for many of these artists, nor for that matter is prudishness a Catholic virtue.
What IS properly a Catholic expression of virtue is a sense of modesty and self control as found in the balance between suggestive dress and behavior on the one extreme and puritanism on the other extreme. On this and in most things the church is usually a middle ground between "isms." That we (and not only "we" but most Christian denominations) teach sex should be saved for marriage is a direct reflection of our Savior's admonitions and teachings.
Another theme that frequently surfaces on this blog is that kids need more and more info so as to keep themselves out of trouble, and so on. It just seems so unlikely that this is the case. Some 40 years since the beginning of significant sex ed classroom instruction and frankness about sex on TV, movies, magazines, and you name it, we find ourselves in an STD crisis: One in four teen girls has had or currently suffers from an STD.
One would think that with all of this knowledge this would not be happening, but the incidence of teen STDs is worse now than it has ever been. So the solution really is not more numerous and more explicit web sites etc., rather the answer lies in better behaviors and a renewed sense of what is healthy and wholesome. To this end authentic religious values can and should play a huge role in bringing us back to our senses.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Thank you Jerry! Wonderfully said. God Bless, karen k.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Really? Then you're not one of the people picketing outside of PP and yelling at women regardless of whether or not they are there for an abortion, birth control pills or a routine medical exam? If not, you have my sincere apology.
I'm glad to hear it. Does that include the pill as well?
Thinking it should be illegal and attempting to get the law changed is certainly your business. I fully support your right to do that. Harrassing women attempting to get healthcare or even those having an abortion performed is NOT your business.
I'll admit I'm not familiar with that song — we don't listen to much popular music, nor do we watch much television. In fact, I don't recall the last time the sole TV we own was on in our home. I do agree that we are inundated in sexuality which, in my opinion, is all the more reason to make sure our kids know the facts about same. Europe does a significantly better job of educating its youth and their abortion, STI and teen pregnancy rates are significantly less than ours.
Yes, we certainly are. However, we are not the only people on this Forum with a similar opinion. You did spit the word "friend."
I realize that….which is what I find so outlandish.
Truthfully, I hadn't noticed that but am glad to hear it. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about these images being in front of your children?
The government endorses and finances many things I don't agree. Yes, PP has an agenda. I believe that agenda is to provide accurate information and low cost medical services. However, if there is another entity that does the same thing, I would be happy to support them as well.
Actually, you're wrong about that. I do not see it as an endorsement. Further, if the library linked to a particular religious site that was good information about Christianity, Islam, Wicca or any other religion I would have no problem with it. Libraries make recommendations as to where to find information. That is their business.
Why do you think it's a faux attitude? I have no financial interest in abortion and sincerely would like to reduce the number performed. I volunteer for PP primarily because when I was younger and attempting to access birth control I had to walk through a crowd of people just like you. The yelling, taunting, rudeness, etc. is something no young woman should have to endure. Women entering PP shouldn't have to deal with protesters any more than women attempting to get dental care. You have no idea what service any particular woman entering that clinic is getting and the judgmental attitude is offensive. If I can be a buffer to that, I am happy to do it.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:50 am
"Really? Then you're not one of the people picketing outside of PP and yelling at women regardless of whether or not they are there for an abortion, birth control pills or a routine medical exam? If not, you have my sincere apology."
Actually, I'm not out there, and I know your apology isn't sincere. When I've been there, I've seen people asked if they want information. If that counts as harassment, you're too thin skinned.
"I'm glad to hear it. Does that include the pill as well?"
Sure. I don't think it should be illegal even if it can cause abortion.
"Harrassing women attempting to get healthcare or even those having an abortion performed is NOT your business."
Attempting to stop abortion, whether through the political process or through peaceful protest, is within the business of an engaged citizen. I just disagree with you.
"I do agree that we are inundated in sexuality which, in my opinion, is all the more reason to make sure our kids know the facts about same."
Or the reason to opt out and to get the pushy people like the folks at PP out of our face.
"I volunteer for PP primarily because when I was younger and attempting to access birth control I had to walk through a crowd of people just like you."
Just like me, huh? What a silly statement. Go to the drug store and fill your prescription and quit pretending to be a martyr.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Midnightcyn says:
“Karen K, Toynbee died in 1975, before gay marriage was ever an issue, and this quote dates before Roe v Wade.”
Actually, Roe vs. Wade was decided Jan. 22, 1973
When I responded to your statement I was rushing and did not catch that. Our country is already suffering from the affects of its moral decline, and I predict much more is to come.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:22 am
"Judge not lest ye be judged" The only ones who appear to be judgmental are those who are anti-choice."Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" The stones being thrown are in the form of bigger than life size pictures that are grotesque and men and women who feel hey have a right to tell other people what to do.If you are going to quote the bible stop being hypocritical.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
No, if you're not out there then I do owe you an apology — and it is sincere, regardless of what you may think.
When I've been there (and it has been several months), I've seen people yelling, walking 1/2-way across the road and, on one occasion, heard a man yelling baby killer at a young woman going in for birth control pills. For the record, I'm far from thin-skinned and I am not the one being harassed — the harassment is to the women entering the clinic. As to what counts as harassment, I'd go with Webster's definition: "to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute."
Again, glad to hear it. However, if you think abortion is murder and think the pill causes abortion I don't understand your rationale.
Fair enough.
And on this I just disagree with you. I see it as a reason to act as a buffer between the protesters and the patients at the clinic.
If you're not one of them, my apology.
I have no idea what prescription you're referencing unless it's nothing more than your way of taking a shot. If so and it makes you feel better, knock yourself out. I don't get why you think I'm pretending to be or am a martyr. I certainly don't see myself in that light at all. Like you, I'm doing what I believe to be the right thing.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
If you read the post, Midnightcyn claimed that the statement you referenced was uttered prior to RvW.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The pill is legal and is going to remain legal. It's intended purpose is to prevent pregnancy. I understand that it can cause abortion, but that is generally not the intent. Accordingly, I draw the line there. Perfect consistency? No, but from a political and practical point of view, it is what it is.
As to going to the drugstore and the martyr, I was making reference to you going to get birth control pills (as referenced in your previous post).
June 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Ok, I appreciate your honesty. Do you feel the same way about the morning after pill?
That was over 20 years ago and, fortunately, I have the luxury of no longer needing birth control.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Brian,
Pp doesn't get a dme to perform abortions; many of its clinics aren't even set up to perform them. They do get money because they are a good, low-cost health resource for women who cannot afford the costs of regular medical testing. For many women, this is the ONLY way they can get mammograms, pap smears, etc. Moreover, they are also a great resource for prenatal care to ensure that women who choose to carry the pregnancy can stay strong and deliver healthy babies.
As a non-profit, it has to keep scrupulous books concerning its funding. Money from the government goes strictly to the practical side, not to the abortion side.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Karen, I know precisely when RvW was decided, and the QUOTE precedes that decision. Toynbee himself died afterward.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Money is fungible.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I am disturbed at the idea of "engaged citizens" believing that they know what is best for other citizens. In point of fact, these patients have a perfect right to privacy, which extends to their personal medical care.
In the past, "engaged citizens" reported their neighbors as witches, did what they could to make sure that blacks kept away from white people, caused them to be fired if they thought someone was a commie or a homosexual, etc. There is no difference between bind an engaged citizen and a vigilante.
Pretending that you know what is best for a woman entering a clinic when you don't even know why they are there is ridiculous and indefensible.
BTW–most of the pictures used by such groups are bogus; they are usually pictures taken of miscarried mid-term fetuses removed to save the life of the woman. They are far more advanced in development than a 12-week or younger fetus. How noble can a cause be if you have to lie to make your point?
June 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I'm assuming "dme" is "dime"…
In 2004 PPFA performed 255,015 abortions which generated income of nearly $95 million. (This information was obtained from PPFA annual reports and website.)
The "clinics" that are not set up to perform abortions are required to refer for abortions. They are satellite office that feed into the larger ones, although PP seems to be consolidating.
God Bless,
Roger
June 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Roger, Do you have a link where I could check out this information? I looked at the 2005-2006 Annual Report and didn't see anything at all like this. Thanks!
June 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Is there a site you WOULD consider appropriate that includes comprehensive sex education? Anything at all? If so, I'd love to see it.
Student,
Here it is…
http://www.pureloveclub.com/seminars/index.php?id=3
Mike
June 19th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Student,
On the above link I would recommend listening to all the talks on this webpage. If you don't have time to listen to all of them at the very least listen to the "Catholic High School Talk" and fast forward to the ONE HOUR mark and listen for 10-15 minutes. These talks are unbelievable and changing many teens views on sex whenever they are given.
Thank You.
Mike
June 19th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I thought this is something everyone should take a look at…
——-
Sexual Exposure Chart
http://pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=200
June 19th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I listened to the part of the Catholic High School talk you suggested, and truthfully, it was a bunch of hooey.
First, he identifies sleeping together before marriage as a lie. He justifies this by saying that sleeping together is saying that 'you are completely committed to each other'. This, of course, need not be the case. I have had wonderful sexual relationships where the concept of long-term commitment was rejected by both of us. It was still a good thing. The key is COMMUNICATION. Does everyone involved know where they stand and are they honest?
Second, I question his statistics about divorce after living together. Let's face it, about half of all marriages fail for one reason or another. The most common reason is finances, not sex. The second most common reason is infidelity (in other words, dishonesty). I would MUCH rather my daughter, for example, live with someone before she marries than to marry as a virgin with no experience living with another person.
Third, his information on STDs is, at best, distorted. While most sexually active people do have HPV, only certain strains lead to cervical cancer or warts. Those strains can be vaccinated against. But, interestingly enough, that vaccination is also condemned by the very people using scare tactics about sexuality. Most of the strains of HPV are dealt with by the immune system within a year with NO side effects. Is HPV a danger? You bet! Should people be more educated about it and its effects? Of course. But scare tactics are not the way to do this.
Then he identifies birth control with lack of self-control. Again, this is simply foolish. Sex is something that healthy, normal people desire. If done responsibly, honestly, and with education, it is a wonderful way to deepen relationships (even those that are not permanent). Regular sex leads to better mental health. Also, birth control is FAR from being the same as sterilization. The difference, in case you don't get it, is that sterilization is permanent. The speaker seems to miss this subtlety. Finally, sterilization (a perfectly good form of permanent birth control) is not the same as neutering. I have had a vasectomy, so pregnancy is not a risk when I have sex, but I still have my testicles. Big difference.
In general, this guy comes across like someone who has OCD that has to wash their hands compulsively because of fear of contamination. He overestimates the risks and minimizes the benefits of a good, healthy sex life without the risks of pregnancy. With distorted views like his, it is no wonder to me that programs like this fail when the kids realize they have been lied to.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Isn't education about sex and birth control better than an unwanted pregnancy?If a man or woman or both use protection during sex the result is no pregnancy and no need to even consider abortion.You will never be able to stop anyone including teens from having sex outside of marriage,yet you don't condone educating teens or anyone else for that matter with what is truthful information.Your idea of sex ed is DON'T DO "IT".That sure makes me think twice about having sex with my boyfriend.NOT!You need to face this century with an open mind and realize that society is alot different now than it was 40 years ago.With the issue of STD's teens need to know the facts not the old fasioned "Wait till you get married it will be wonderful" attitude that you deem appropriate.Without the "in your face" truth, teens will be going into it with their eyes closed.Don't force them to find out the hard way that not only do you not want to educate them but then you want to meet them outside of planned parenthood and show them a picture of a fetus.Why dont you just tell people that your sorry you didn't want to teach them with any possible means but now you want to make them live with the responsibilities that only someone who is prepared for should have.If you think about it you are probably one of the main causes for unwanted pregnancy because you don't want to tell the truth.An ounce of prevention(birth control)is worth a pound of cure(abortion) Think about it
June 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am
" The key is COMMUNICATION"
—————————-
I beg to disagree…The key is COMMITMENT first (you know, the marriage VOWS do mean something to some people, obviously not you liberal, left leaning,pro-abort radicals) and THEN communication comes next.
If you go into marriage w/ the thought of divorcing/ separating later if finances, bad sex, kids, career, etc..HARDSHIPS/dificulties come your way..then your marriage is DOOMED from the start.
You and your ilk has turned the beautiful gift of selfless marriage and union into something selfish, self-centered, for-my-own-sexual-gratification, living-together w/ no responsibilities "thing".
June 20th, 2008 at 9:45 am
HUH?The key word is "some" people.Most don't put alot of thought into marriage before they do sex.Communication should come first above all else.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Kathy says:
"Most don't put alot of thought into marriage before they do sex."
What a sad statement. And a sign of our times. Most people do not put alot of thought to alot of things they should! That is what the problem is. People run with their emotions. And emotions change from day to day, sometimes from minute to minute. Yes, love for another has an emotional aspect to it, most definitely, but the emotions have to be put into check with a conscious decision as to what and why they feel the way they do about "this person". Why is there such a high divorce rate? Because the idea of living together does not work. Why? Because you cannot practice permanent commitment ahead of time. Compatibility comes with commitment.
Also, Being a Christian, I believe one should look for people who will help them get to Heaven, not pull them in the other direction. And the main aspect of love, and the love that lasts in all relatiionships, be it, with your husband or wife or with just a friend, is a virtuous relationship. Those are the ones that last. Why, because you truly care for one another, because the highest and greatest gift you can give another is wanting them to go to Heaven.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I consider it a FAR worse thing that people don't put more thought into having children than they do as opposed to simply having sex. Yes, many people put too little thought into either one. But the damage done by irresponsibly having children when not prepared is immense. The damage from having otherwise responsible sex is rather minimal. I would much rather people have protected, honest sex, whether in or out of marriage than to have a horde of children without previously thinking deeply about how to raise them. We have FAR too many un-parents.
I strongly disagree that commitment comes before communication. Communication and honesty should be the basis of any relationship right from the beginning, whether it develops into a long-term commitment or not or even whether it becomes sexual or not. It is only through honest, open communication about desires, needs, and preferences that we can hope to form any type of real bond with another. If the relationship does become sexual, communication makes sure that everyone is on the same page. If it does lead to marriage, communication makes sure that everyone has the same goals in mind. If the people in a marriage decide to divorce, communication prevents the divorce from becoming destructive to all involved. And if the relationship stays at the friendship level, communication bonds the friends together.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Very well said Professor
June 20th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Really? Wow! I always thought that one had to be able to communicate before committing to someone.
I don't recall anyone saying that they didn't mean something to some people. Which post are you referring to?
Gee, I would have thought this would violate the terms of the board.
How? Specifics please? How does my living with someone affect "the beautiful gift of selfless marriage?" Am I somehow interferring with yours?
June 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Kathy,
Very well said!
June 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
"…you cannot practice permanent commitment ahead of time."
——————————————-
Amen, Karen.
Their so-called "relationship" is based on satisfying their own needs and wants…and when those personal needs and wants are no longer able to be satisfied by their current partner…they go looking out for another one..and another..and another….and the deadly cycle begins again…
June 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I hate to say it, but you can try and justify your position here til Kingdom come, and that is just it, God, whether you can believe it or not gave us all the answers to what is right and wrong, Telling otherwise is just a way of justifying sin. When people do not listen to the Wisdom of God, they hurt themselves and all those around them. It is amazing to me that people actually think they are smarter and wiser than the one who created them. But that is how we got in trouble in the first place, will we ever learn?
Yes, some will, some will go to Heaven and others choose eternal damnation.
If you don't think there is a God, you better hope you are a 100% right!!Because what if you are wrong? If believers are wrong they are still in no danger, but if you are wrong that is a position you will have to face, and I for one would not want to be in. Also as I pray and learn about God, I do not react out of fear as much as seeing the great love He has for us, and in turn, I want to love and honor Him, because He is all deserving of our love. We are His children, show love and respect to your Father.
“Father forgive them for they know not what they do”, Jesus
June 20th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Professor,
I'm sorry you have never experienced a committed, permanent, married relationship. Given your experiences, you cannot comprehend what you have missed. Unfortunately, this society sets up our young people for the same loss. This is perhaps one of the greatest tragedies of the "sexual revolution".
Without the commitment and total self-giving that sex within marriage is meant to represent, the sexual act loses its meaning and dehumanizes the people involved. It becomes selfish and self-serving, appealing to base, animalistic instinct. Notice the "I" in "I have had wonderful sexual relationships." Would the women you have used say the same? You talk about "deepening" the relationship. What purpose does that serve? Where did that "deeper" relationship lead? Marriage, with a commitment to love and stand by each other till death? Or anger and heartbreak for at least one of you, when you no longer desire to stay together and want to try another person? People become disposable–"sex partners"-instead of the unique, irreplaceable persons they were created to be by God.
And I'm sorry for your daughter, who because of your misunderstandings may never know the protective love a father could and should provide. There's a reason for the stereotype of the father holding a shotgun while waiting for the boyfriend to bring his daughter home. It's called LOVE.
"Regular sex leads to better mental health." ?? Really?? Tell that to the teenagers who have tried to commit or have committed suicide because of a broken relationship. Sex DOES create deeper ties, and the pain that follows the severing of those ties can be unbearable for many people.
Going on, you say, "While most sexually active people do have HPV, only certain strains lead to cervical cancer or warts. Those strains can be vaccinated against."
Check your facts. You are incorrect. The 4 strains covered by the vaccine are thought to be responsible for only 70% of the cancers. What about the other 30%? And the vaccine is dangerous. Numerous deaths already having been attributed to it, causing some states to withdraw their mandates or mandate consideration. And condoms have never been shown to protect against HPV.
By wishing promiscuity on your daughter, you are wishing to expose her to an early death.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Yes, actually. I remain friends with most of my lovers. I strongly disagree that sex outside of marriage 'dehumanizes' those involved. For example, my partner and I are not married, and do not ever intend to become married. We see no reason for the government to get involved with our relationship. And yet, we are committed to each other. We love each other, value the happiness and well-being of the other and BECAUSE of this, do not want to get married. We also have sex. Regularly. But we also have no intention to have children together. That is a choice both of us have made and discussed together. So I have had a vasectomy. That is responsibility. It also allows us to enjoy our sexuality and the wonderful addition it makes to our relationship without having to worry about the pill, condoms, etc.
Again, you completely misunderstand the dynamics. I'll use the example of my second marriage. My ex and I are still very good friends. We were very happily married for many years. But then it became clear to *both* of us that the marriage wasn't working. We had different goals and different dreams (many of which we didn't realize when we got married). While separation was painful in many ways, it was also what was best for both of us (as well as our daughter). My is re-married to someone who is more in line with what she wants out of life. I am in a wonderful relationship which is more appropriate for me. BOTH of us are better off. So was it selfish of us to divorce? I'd say it would have been stupid for us not to. We could have ended up like way too many people: in a loveless marriage that made both of us miserable. To stay in the marriage would have made the world a slightly worse place. As it is, our divorce made it a better place for not just us but for those we have met and also for our daughter.
Thinking of sex as solely a 'base, animalistic instinct' shows a deep-seated negative view of sexuality. I see it, instead, as a beautiful way to share with another person. You seem to see sex outside of marriage as being self-centered. Again, this can be the case, but it need not. It can also be wonderfully other-centered. THAT is how relationships are deepened. People feel closer to each other, feel happier with themselves and the world and THAT is a good thing in my mind.
Not any more than friends are 'disposable'. Like I said, my ex and I are very good friends even 10 years after our divorce. I am friends with most of my previous sex partners. In no way do I consider any of them 'disposable'. Perhaps *you* are the one with an unhealthy attitude towards the possibilities people offer you.
No more than my wishing her to learn how to drive is wishing for an early death. What I want for her is to grow to be a happy, healthy adult that can deal honestly with other people, who knows her body and how to share it with those she cares for enough to do so. I want her to know the possibilities of sexuality, both positive and negative. I want her to know that sex means much more than intercourse and that giving another pleasure can be a wonderful aspect to a good relationship. Sexuality is part of this. Not all of it, of course, but an important part.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Midnightcyn says,
Of the civilizations that did collapse, most did so from military issues or from the result of famine. Rome fell, interestingly enough, because it overextended its resources and because it adopted Christianity as its official religion, destabilizing the basis of having a caesar to begin with.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:27 am
“Moral disorder is the root cause of all disorder”, Father Corapi
June 20th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
You seem to miss the difference between love and wanting to own someone. Fathers like this are simply jerks.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Karen K,
You speak as though you have a direct line to GOD?What about all those people who proclaim the word of GOD in church and then molest the altar boy.They claim GOD speaks through them also.I have no use for what they have to say.How many people that have given their life to GOD have in turn sinned in ways that the average man would rather die than commit?You can interperate the bible any way YOU want because there are plenty of ways to interperate it.What is to say your right.You sound like a very hypocritical woman who thinks that she can tell everyone that if they don't live according to her "rules" then they are condemned to eternal damnation.Well what makes you think you are better than anyone else.who are you to decide for all women what they should or should not do with their own bodies?If you want to tell your children what they can or cannot do,fine,but you have no right to try to preach to people and cause them to do something that they may regret for the rest of their lives.After all your only role is to cause the problem not deal with it.Not all women want children but most enjoy sex.They deserve to protect themselves any way they choose.You don't believe in sex outside of marriage?Then don't do it!
June 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
So here is the consequence of telling kids how wonderful it is to be a parent:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7464925.stm
These girls live in a Catholic community. They are pregnant not because birth control failed or because sex ed failed, but because they thought that pregnancy was a good way to become adults. They knew exactly what they wanted and went out to get it. By one report, the man for several of these pregnancies is a homeless guy.
Do you think perhaps we could let kids know that having kids isn't a wonderful experience as a teenager?? Can anyone here say that these girls are better off than they would have been if they had boyfriends and used contraception? Or lived in a culture that didn't extol the virtues of pregnancy and child-rearing? And, just to make a point, would it be any better if they were married? They would still lose their lives to bringing up a kid rather than learning and improving themselves.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
~Steven Weinberg~
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
~Thomas Jefferson~
June 20th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
"How many people that have given their life to GOD have in turn sinned in ways that the average man would rather die than commit?"
No one is immune to sin.
The best way to "try" and destroy the church is from within. That is why when priests or people who are representing God, when they commit such evil acts, and disobey God, they cause great harm and scandal. They though, no longer represent God. They have sinned against God and His Church. They may claim to still represent God, but through there evil acts that is no longer possible.
"You can interperate the bible any way YOU want"
I try to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church; I do not need to interpret the Bible on my own. The church was set up by Jesus and taught to us through His apostles and the forefathers,and is guided by the Holy Spirit.
"there are plenty of ways to interpert it. What is to say your right."
That is why Jesus set up His Church, because there are many ways to interpert the Bible.
"You sound like a very hypocritical woman who thinks that she can tell everyone that if they don't live according to her "rules" then they are condemned to eternal damnation. Well what makes you think you are better than anyone else."
"her rules" again they are not my rules, and I never claimed that they were. I absolutely do not think I am better than anyone else. I am a sinner, "by the grace of God go I."
"you have no right to try to preach to people"
Jesus said to go out and be fishers of men, love your neighbor as yourself. I am trying to live as Jesus said. You do not have to be perfect to help others to know and love Jesus so they can get to Heaven.
"They deserve"
Everything is given to us by God, we do not deserve anything. We are to serve and not be served. The very next breathe you and I take is a gift from God.
"You don't believe in sex outside of marriage? Then don't do it!"
Because you were created by God, I care for you and hope you can come to understand the ways of Our Lord, so you can have eternal happiness in Heaven when you die. It is ultimately up to you, no one can make you, you have your own free will, but at least you were given the opportunity to hear what Jesus says.
I fear to hear the words from Our Lord," What did YOU do for your brethren?" Wouldn't Jesus think it selfish of me to not have shared what He taught? Especially when He commanded it?
I think this conversation belongs in the Forum.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Student,
Here's the link to PP's 2007 Annual Report.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf
It lists there abortion numbers for both '06 and '07 on pg. 6.
As for the profit, ahem, income for '07, that info is all on pg. 17.
Hope that helps!
June 20th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Thanks, Matt. I will definitely take a look at it.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
In link #82 It should say,
"There but for the grace of God go I." I've spent too much time on this computer, so long for now:)
June 20th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Did anyone else see the story of the Massachusetts town, highly Catholic, where 17 high school girls decided to get pregnant? There were others that were *disappointed* that they didn't get pregnant! According to one report, several of them used a homeless man for the insemination.
This was not a birth control failure. It was not the product of sex ed. It was a bunch of high schoolers that have been told repeatedly how wonderful having a child is and they decided they wanted it. Where do they get this idea? How about from PL films like 'Juno'? How about from a religion that emphasizes having children as the epitome of what a woman can achieve? How about a culture that considers birth control as dangerous but of having a child as something that requires almost no thought at all?
Yes, I know they were unmarried. But would it really be that much better if 17 teenage girls got pregnant after getting married? They would still be losing their freedom by having kids while they are kids. They would still lose many chances at education (no, not all) because they have to focus on child care. And they would still be living in a pathetically narrow-minded world where pro-creation is the only real goal for women (oh, wait, they could also be celibate).
June 21st, 2008 at 8:55 am
Would you include not only the pedophile priests but, more importantly, the higher ups in the church who covered up the abuse and transferred these "priests" to other parishes where they continued their abuse?
I have to say, I still very much agree with Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
And if the Catholic Church has interpreted the bible incorrectly, then what? After all, it is made up of mere mortals who are not immune to error. This sounds more like an excuse NOT to think, which is one of the biggest problems with religion.
Catholics think they KNOW the only way. Pentecostals think they KNOW the only way. Baptists think they KNOW the only way. Mormons think they KNOW the only way.
Muslims think they KNOW the only way. Sorry, somebody MUST be wrong.
And I was taught as a child that Jesus did not condone the Catholic church. I was taught that Catholics and Jews, in particular, where on a one way path to hell. For the record, I don't believe that any more than I do any other religious construct.
They are the "rules" you have chosen to live by. You have no way of proving that they are the only ones or even the correct ones.
Jesus supposedly said a lot of things. Do you following all of his dictates? Wasn't it Jesus who said "Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death." Would you really kill one of your children for swearing at you. That seems pretty severe……maybe I'm too lenient, but I'd just ground mine or take away some privilege that they really cared about.
Nonsense. Prove it.
No, I was created because my mother and father had sex. It's really a pretty simple concept.
“Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given back to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.” (Luke 6: 37-38)
June 21st, 2008 at 9:13 am
See this is what happens when you tie religion too much to your public stance on being pro-life.
you get arguments about religion and the bible on a website that really has little to do with religion.
Why can't we be truly, wholly, and completely pro-life because it's the right thing to do, not because it's a facet of our religion?
Our own religions aren't universal to everyone on this website/in aurora/in the U.S, but doing the right thing is.
June 21st, 2008 at 9:37 am
Very well put Student (not studentfl) I could not have said it better.If only,Karen, you would face the reality that your interpretation of religion could be wrong then you would realize that you could have been wrong this whole time.When you translate into english something that was written in an entirely different language,sometimes things get misinterperated in the translation or "lost".So whos to say whos right and whos wrong?You yourself could be teaching something that is purely wrong in the eyes of your GOD.After all,as student says,all religions interperate the bible different,so whos right?Unfortunately some people are so narrow minded that they refuse to admit that they could be wrong.As a sinner yourself,how can you point your finger at anyone for sinning.That is hypocritical and a sin in itself.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I do not have time right now to talk, I am getting ready for my daughters graduation party. But, I do want to say one thing before I go. Life is precious and defending it is what all humans should do no matter who you are or what religion you are or no religion at all. I do also believe the evil one is lurking about between us enjoying this very much. Also I want to tell you that with all your accusations I hold no hard feelings. We are all in this world together, and no one gets out of here alive:) peace, Karen
June 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
congratulations to your daughter!!:)
June 21st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
KarenK,
I don't think anyone has made "accusations" but, rather, have given their opinions. They simply differ from yours.
Kathy,
StudentFL is one of the nicer, more thoughtful people you will encounter in this forum. While I disagree with some of his opinions, I think he honestly is trying to find solutions and not point out the evils of others.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Nothing against studentfl,just wanted to specify who I was referring to.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Studentfl has the right idea however. Only theres too much religion in anti-choice pro-life.But that seems to be alot of peoples reason for being their opinion.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I do agree with StudentFl this blog is not for long religious discussions. The topic is PP and their teenwire website being a direct link from the public library for Batavia teens (which indeed is an endorsement of this organization). I think we should stick with that topic because so many pro-aborts will use this type of forum to get you off topic so that the logic of the discussion becomes lost. I think they enjoy pulling the chain of prolifers in this way to make it seem that we are trying to ram religion down the throat of others. In actuality, you do not need a religious argument at all, when you are dealing with one of the most divisive, controversial organizations in this nation like PP that makes millions of dollars off of encouraging risky sexual activity by teens and adults, there is a very good reason to protect our teens from them. I will say after spending considerable time checking out their website, I would NOT endorse it to ANY teen because articles like "Foreplay 411", "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Not Doing It" and "Worth A Dam" promote all kinds of risky sexual activity. They lower the standard for teens instead of raising the standard, when teens are already reaping the results of the "sexual revolution" of the 1970's with over 25 different STDs today and the epidemic of over 52,000 cases of STDs per day in the US. If condom usage were the answer the numbers of STDs should have stabilized or dropped not skyrocketed over the last 20 years,(skin to skin transmission because only one area of males is covered, among other reasons).
Adults who are refuse to curb their own sexual appetites is tragic enough but it is their own decision, however when we are talking about immpressionable, underage minors who need and deserve guidance and encouragement to make the safest, healthiest choices and to know how valuable they are that is another matter. The research is solid and irrefutable of what will keep our teens SAFE (www.medinstitute.org, http://www.stdepidemic.com, http://www.teenpregnancy.org, etc. listed in my previous post). No matter how many times you give the evidence pro-aborts will not receive it because they will continue to justify the killing of our children born and unborn, along with ruining their physical, emotional and mental health. Although all of the pro-aborts are dearly loved by God and are so valuable to Him, they reject Him and his teachings, they have been given by Him the free will to do so.
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Let's face it. The problem the protesters have with teenwire is not that it promotes risky behavior. It's that it takes a positive view of sexuality at all. The problem is that this site recognizes that teens DO have sex, have ALWAYS had sex, and will always have sex. The only real difference is that getting pregnant is no longer a formula for getting married like it was in the 1950s. So the site wants to prevent teen pregnancy and transmission of STDs, while the protesters want to shame and condemn those who have sex. By having their primary approach to sexuality being a negative, morality based approach, the protesters marginalize themselves and put teens at risk by condemning the information these teens desperately need.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 am
Educator,
Most people find the word pro-abort offensive. Not only is it offensive, it is inaccurate. I am pro-CHOICE, not pro-abort. I am no more pro-abortion than I am pro-birth or pro-adoption. I refrain from using words like, nuts, crazies, Talibangelists, etc. to describe people with different opinions and would appreciate it if you could do the same.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:51 am
Ad long as we keep makeing teens feel that sex is something that is shameful or should not be done until marriage the more they are likely to try it.Face it,when you keep telling a child not to do something,the more likely they are to rebel and do it anyway.Wouldn't it be better to have them well informed so they can make the sensible choice to use protection that while not 100% safe is still safer then none at all?Teens are teens and naturally they think they are grown.They think they know it all until they are faced with a pregnancy.If they are not ready or old enough or just don't want a child,then they should be aware of all of their options and be allowed to make their CHOICE.With no interference from pro-choice or anti-choice.And just for the record educator,I do not reject GOD,I accept him whole heartedly!I just believe that he is not so cruel that he would cause a pregnancy when the child, that is brought into this world after 9 months, will only suffer from neglect,abuse etc…
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Kathy,
Good post. Please read
http://tinyurl.com/4prs3l
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
Professor,
Your story about the teen girls trying to get pregnant doesn't even contain the word Catholic. Where did you get the impression they're Catholic?
Even if they are, they're acting directly contrary to every aspect of Catholic teaching on sexuality, including its attitudes and emphases. That's not the Church's fault in any way.
Btw, if you're interested, I've started a thread in the forum in the Foundations of Faith section entitled "Catholic Teaching on Sexuality". I'd like to get the religion discussion off the non-religious thread, but I'm really interested in picking your brain on this.
Thanks,
Matt
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Matt,
I can't speak for Professor, however, the story I heard on NPR did reference that it is a "very Catholic town." Now, having said that, it doesn't necessarily mean that the girls in question were Catholic.
On another note, thank you again for providing the link on the financial statement. I didn't see anything that linked profits to abortion specifically. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Some teens are going to be involved in risky behaviors that can hurt or kill them. I will say it again, there is NO OTHER area of health or safety education where responsible adults would PROMOTE anything less than the safest, healthiest behavior. Teaching teens "since I know you have no self-control WHEN you drink, do drugs, drink and drive, speed, etc…". Fact: over 90% of teens want a strong abstinence message. Fact: parents who are connected to their teen and are hands-on reduce their risk of involvement in all risky behaviors. Parents are supposed to be the guardians and protectors of their children, unfortunately many have relegated their responsiblity. Fact: Most teens have NOT had sex by the time they graduate H.S., this number has declined along with the teen birth and abortion rates in the last decade that the abstinence message has been given. Fact: 2/3rds of teens who have been sexually active wish that they would have waited. Fact: Good abstinence education gives stategies for beginning and/or maintaining a committment to their future goals and to abstinence from ALL risky behaviors, not sex only. See the websites I listed in my first post, for those of you who are truly pro-choice for saving the lives and health of our kids. (I don't really expect PP supporters to do so.)
I will try not to offend by using the term "pro-abort" However, I think you should fill out the blank for what you are choosing to do when one of the choices includes taking the life of an innocent human being, to me it is like being "pro-choice" regarding the Nazi death camps, Hitler said he had good reasons to take someone elses life also, he considered the people he killed parasites and undesirable. For an abortion to be successful someone HAS TO DIE. I am posting not for the "pro-choice" group because they really don't care but for those who may be trying to figure out why the right to exist is the most fundamental of all rights, without it your life has no value, sex is a meaningless act of self-gratification, our young peoples bodies, minds and hearts have no value either.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I think you were given an example earlier that contradicts this statement. See Professors comments about automobiles.
Source for your fact?
I couldn't agree with you more.
And the source for these "facts" is…?
Why? Do you think we can't read? I have a pretty open mind and, with convincing evidence, I have no problem changing my opinion on things.
Thank you. It is appreciated.
Really? And you know this how? I happen to care very much and would sincerely like to see the need for abortion eliminated — regardless of your judgment.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Thank you Auora resident.That is a case where a decision needed to be made that some people would not be happy about but then again I think that there are alot of things that people do that other people don't like.Thats life.I don't want anyone to think that I want people to have abortions because I want them to kill babies,it's the opposite.There is so much child suffering in the world due to child abuse,neglect,abandonment,children growing up in foster care thinking no one wants them,child molesters,women who kill their children for no apparent reason,children who are schizophrenic due to the possible reason of abandonment or drug abuse during pregnancy,and many more things that children are the victims of.I don't think GOD is responsible for prenancies,he just gave us the ability to reproduce.What men and women do with that ability is another matter.I don't think GOD is all for child abuse in any form.Children are innocent and I personally think some are beter off not to be brought into this world to begin with if the mother doesn't want it.Those who are anti-choice are pro-abuse simply because they would rather a child be born to someone that doesn't want them and did nothing to prevent it and doesn't care once it's here.Most of them resent the fact that someone coerced them into giving birth.And then take it out on the child.Unless you are prepared to follow up with that child for the next 18 years then I suggest that you keep your opinion to yourself.If you really want to save chidren then save those that are already here and suffering from all of the abuses that are possible.
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I don't think that's a fair statement. Other than the abusers themselves, I don't believe anyone is pro-abuse any more than I believe people are pro-abort. Having said that, I would like to see people who do care spend more time actively helping those children that are here and in need. There are certainly plenty of them.
I couldn't agree with you more.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
You ar correct.Thank you for pointing that out.I think I may have gone off the deep end with that statement about pro-abuse.I just feel that no one has a right to try and force their views on someone by making them feel guilt when it's the child that suffers in the long run.And that is all the pictures do is make women feel guilty.It doesn't make them miraculously want to be pregnant and have a child any more than they did before they looked at it.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I agree with you.
Again, I agree. I do think in the long run the photos do the protesters way more harm than good. They have offended more people than they realize and have driven people away from their goal.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
The day I started to visit this site was the day I drove down New York St and a man was holding a HUGE picture.All I could think about was how it made me think that they have gone too far now and I was so offended that they were going to force me to see that when I am no longer able too reproduce that I felt only a fraction of what a pregnant woman feels whether she plans too carry or terminate.I hope that makes sense.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I only became active when I heard about the protesters. I had the experience of having to walk through them when I was younger and didn't want other women to have to face that alone. So, in a sense, I volunteer for PP BECAUSE of the protesters.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
How do I voluteer?
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Kathy,
Contact me at law_research_student@yahoo.com
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I will respond to a request for documentation of the facts I presented to Professor. His analogy of driving was a poor one, but maybe when I have time I will respond to it later.
If you really have an open mind go to:
http://www.4parents.gov on the left of the home page click on read "Talking to Your Pre-teen or Teen About Waiting", then click on the left "Why You Need to Talk", next "Sex and Risky Youth Behaviors" and "The Emotional Risk of Early Sexual Activity", the research sources are cited.
http://www.medinstitute.org on their home page click on Sexual Health there will be a list of researched topics, read "Frequently Asked Questions", "The Facts About Condoms" (especially read the last section of this page titled The Bottom Line), then click on STI Fact Sheets and read about any STI and how to prevent getting them.
http://www.teenpregnancy.org look under National Teen Pregnancy, Birth and Sexual Activity Data to see trends "Teens Sexual Activity in the U.S." reported by the CDC from 1991-2005 etc., there is an excellent article under Science Says "The Relationship Between Teen Motherhood".
BTW I did not say teens do not need any education about contraception. Risk reduction should not be promoted but risk elimination should as with any other health education. "No one rises to low expectations", especially teens. Look at the articles at 4parents.org listed above.
Got to go now. I will try to get back to the poor analogy between teens driving and having sex but don't know if I will have time.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Thank you, Educator, for the links. I did, in fact, read them. The only thing I still take issue with is
While the first part is technicially true, the study you site says 53% have not had sex. This leaves 47% who have. That's almost 1/2.
Additionally, recent surveys show that 70 percent of U.S. teens have engaged in oral sex by the time they reach 18, and more than 45% have had intercourse at least once. More than 70% of young women and 80% of young men approve of premarital sex, according to a study published recently in the Review of General Psychology.
In addition, studies show sexually transmitted diseases are spreading at an alarming rate among young people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that nearly half of the nation's new cases of STDs each year occur among adolescents and young adults. A recent study found that teens who took pledges of virginity as part of abstinence-only sex ed classes ultimately had STD rates similar to other young people and were less likely to use contraception or other forms of protection when they did become sexually active.
I'm glad that you do support contraception information — and I missed that in your prior post (my apologies). I do support teaching abstinance, but ONLY with cmprehensive sex education.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Student says: "Wasn't it Jesus who said "Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death."
Talk about a bad-faith interpretation of the Bible. Jesus was defending his disciples for minor discrepenancies with Mosaic law while accusing the Pharisees of being hypocrites. Matthew 15:4-9
I know you don't care about the Bible, Student, but don't say that Jesus was saying kids should be killed for disrespecting their parents. A fair reading says nothing like what you say it does.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Brian,
I went back and re-read the entire chapter (including the loaves & fishes story) and still came to the same conclusion. Additionally, I did some internet research and found that many others (certainly more scholarly than I), interpreted that passage in the same manner.
I was inundated with christianity as a child and made the mistake of avoiding bible reading. Upon reaching adulthood, I took the time to actually read the thing and that is precisely what made me an athiest. I find it to be highly contradictory and downright evil.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
So you read Matthew 15 and came away with the impression that Jesus was not making a point about hypocrites but that he wanted that children who disrespected their parents to be put to death? That's crazy. He's giving the Pharisees crap for taking that position while simultaneously saying that they won't care for their parents in their dotage, claiming their money is going for religious positions.
If your reading were correct, I'd say it was inconsistent with the rest of Christ's teaching.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Actually, I've looked it up too, and it wasn't even Mosaic laws, it was Jewish tradition to do some profound washing of the hands before eating. Jesus and the disciples didn't do that, it offended the Pharisees, and they rebuked him for it. Jesus said, in effect, how can you be concerned about this when your taking your money for yourselves rather than giving it to your parents in their old age? Aren't you the ones who say kill the disrepectful kids? I've never squared the circle between the old and new covenants, but your reading is absurd.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
GOD commanded honour thy father and mother and he that curseth father and mother let him die the death.
I have to agree with student.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Well, Kathy, in the context, Jesus is saying to the Pharisees, "you're the one's who say …" and calling them hypocrites. It's pretty clear that Jesus wasn't making a statement to kill disrespectful children (or he would have said kill the Pharisees). I think it's pretty consistent with his treatment of the adulterous woman in John.
I'm no Biblical scholar, and like I said before, I don't get how the new covenant can be squared with the old law (as a fulfillment rather than a replacement), but your reading is blinkered by a desire for argument rather than fairness.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Brian,You may want to read it again.I don't need to argue about it because like I said before too much gets "lost" in translation.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I don't disagree with your quotation, Kathy, only the fact that it's in a context of calling the Pharisees hypocrites. Like I said, if he had meant what Student said he meant, he would have said the Pharisees should be killed. Pretty clearly, that's a poor reading.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
"…I find it contradictory and downright evil." So says Student about the Bible.
You have expressed your disdain for the Bible in no uncertain words. Because you are intelligent and very well read, you know that your words are more than just something said in passing. They have real meaning and are designed to have an effect. You know also that the pro-life community is essentially a community of believers and that your comment about the Bible is leveraged against our deepest felt convictions. You have made yourself very clear and we will pray for.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Brian,
I read the passage as Jesus being criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”
Now, even if you don't agree with that interpretation, it seems clear to me that Jesus strongly approved of the OT law and the prophets. I've yet to read anything that shows he has the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."
June 24th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Jerry,
I assume that the words of everyone have meaning and am not trying to tell you what to believe one way or the other. However, if you are going to make a biblical argument, you should be prepared to have it questioned. Pray for me if you'd like. I forgive you. *smile*
June 24th, 2008 at 8:34 am
He is not saying that the Pharisees should be killing their disrespectful kids. He's saying that they are being disrespectful to their parents while at the same time believing that disrespectful kids should be killed.
You're right that Jesus saw himself as the fulfillment of the old law. Even with the adulterous woman, he doesn't say that the law is wrong, only that he wouldn't condemn her.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:49 am
But doesn't the old law state that disrespectful kids should be killed?
June 24th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Well, it also says adulterous women should be killed, but he said he wouldn't impose the penalty.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Jesus is making a point that these sins are deadly ones, to be aware that they are, but He was also showing His GREAT MERCY. He is making us aware that He is a Just God, but at the same time we can rejoice that He is also a loving and forgiving God.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I'm aware of this as well. This, for me, is why it makes no sense. It is so full of contradiction, rape, murder, infanticide, etc. I just don't understand why people use it as a model as to how to live one's life.
As an aside, why is always the women and never the men who are to be killed for adultery?
June 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Women need to realize that they have the ability to help men either be virtuous men or not. Jesus was also making this point, by singling out the women, as you say. Women with the way they dress, act and live their lives have the power to make this world a better place.Modest and virtuous women help to make modest and virtuous men.
Women, let your inner beauty show, guard the gift of femininity,then you will be beautiful in the eyes of God.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Karen,
Sorry, but that is nonsense. I, as a woman, am in no way responsible for a man's behavior. This is no better than blaming a rape victim because of her style of dress. Each individual needs to take responsibility for themselves.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Dear Student, You are not directly responsible for a man's behavior, for he has his own free will. Although, you are an enabler, if your way of dress, talk, acts, etc… and your intentions are not modest and virtuous.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
An enabler of what?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
An enabler of sin.
Just as someone who is struggling with, let’s say alcoholism, if you make excuses for him, even buy him alcohol, you are enabling him, and not helping him overcome that particular destructive vice.
Again I say… because of the way men and women where created and the natural law of things….
"Women need to realize that they have the ability to help men either be virtuous men or not. Jesus was also making this point, by singling out the women, as you say. Women with the way they dress, act and live their lives have the power to make this world a better place.Modest and virtuous women help to make modest and virtuous men.
Women, let your inner beauty show, guard the gift of femininity,then you will be beautiful in the eyes of God."
June 24th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I agree that if I am buying an alcoholic a beer I am certainly enabling him. However, if I choose to wear a bikini, I am not enabling a rapist. People need to be responsible for their own actions. If not, we might as well don our burkas now.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Student,
I've posted on the forum in Foundations of Faith my interpretation of Matthew XV .
As for the punishment of women under the Mosaic Law, both man and woman caught in adultery were subject to the death penalty.
As I believe I've pointed out in discussion with you before, however, it's not as if every adulterer was put to death any more than everyone who goes on trial in our country gets put to death, though we have statutes that allow for it.
In fact, we don't know of a single instance when this penalty was carried out. It might not ever have been. One purpose it certainly did serve, however, was to make it crystal clear to Israel that God is serious about family relationships and not messing them about.
Whether it be by adultery, incest, rape, or dishonoring one's parents, God was deadly serious about the internal soundness of the family.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
MattYonke wrote:
The reasons this link does not need to be there are legion. We're not asking for censorship, we're just asking for the library to not promote sexual behaviors that a huge portion of the population finds highly objectionable to our children.
****************
You're NOT asking for censorship? You sure could have fooled me. Teaching your kids about your antiquated sexual belief is YOUR problem, not the library's. Let's hope you and the anti-PP groups LOSE in this ridiculous campaign to glorify sexual ignorance. Looks to me like the only ones who object to the idea that their kids could have sex without marriage are the anti-choice PARENTS.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Brian wrote:
Bully for you. I hope you didn't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back for taking a stand that no one says you can't take. What's good for you is not necessarily good for others. Why encourage others to use birth control? Why can't you stay out of their business?
****************
Because YOUR anti-contraception and anti-sex without marriage groups are trying to control what a PUBLIC LIBRARY is "allowed" to have on its computer systems, that's why. Some of us don't like being controlled by anti-sex zealots. Keep your bible beliefs to your homes and churches and we will be happy to "stay out of your business."
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
You and your ilk has turned the beautiful gift of selfless marriage and union into something selfish, self-centered, for-my-own-sexual-gratification, living-together w/ no responsibilities "thing".
************
And how does our freedom to decide for OURSELVES when we will have sex, get married or have children (or not) affect YOU personally? Oh, that's right; it doesn't. Not everyone wants to be a slave to church doctrines, whether you accept that or not.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Sorry, KarenK, not every woman chooses to wear the American equivalent of a bhurka to avoid being raped. I'm sure there are some of you who would like women to be forced to wear those ugly FLDS dresses so they can appear "virtuous," but thankfully we are free to say "not a chance."
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
"Women need to realize that they have the ability to help men either be virtuous men or not. Jesus was also making this point, by singling out the women, as you say. Women with the way they dress, act and live their lives have the power to make this world a better place.Modest and virtuous women help to make modest and virtuous men.
Women, let your inner beauty show, guard the gift of femininity,then you will be beautiful in the eyes of God."
Well said, Karen K.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Part of the problem with the Teenwire site is that it does reveal too much of what is special and should remain a mystery–a mystery that a husband and wife should delight in discovering and unveiling in proper time, following their wedding.
We use the term "private parts" for a reason. When the human body is put on public display in a way that denigrates the beauty of its God-given nature and reduces it to parts to be used/abused for self-gratification and the satisfaction of prurient interests, the nobility of humanity is lost.
We see this all around us. People are not becoming kinder and more refined. Quite the contrary. Just look at the newspapers, television programs, and movies. Crudity and coarseneness are becoming the norm. Teenwire is helping to fuel the debasement of our culture. What PP and their ilk are trying to do is convince teens (and adults who are gullible enough) that human beings are mere animals who cannot control their impulses and must indulge their lust at all costs. And they will be there to "help" these poor, uneducated souls, all the while laughing as they rake in billions of dollars.
That is just plain wrong. And I refuse to let them reduce me and my children to the level of mere animals. We are worth fighting for. Hopefuuly the Batavia Library Board will agree.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Not everyone wants to be a husband or a wife, nor does everyone want to be married to have sex. If you don't like Teenwire, fine. No problem. Don't look at it. But that does not give you the right to remove it for those of us who do want it for our children.
Nonsense. You use the words "private parts" because the words "penis," "vagina," "clitoris" and "ejaculate" scare the pants off of you.
Why do you get to determine what "denigrates beauty?" There is nothing wrong with self-gratification ("masturbation"). It is a normal and healthy part of being HUMAN. You are the one who wants to turn it into something dirty.
No, we are not animals incapable of control. However, there are many people who don't share your morality where marriage and sex are concerned. You're free to believe what you believe, but others are also free to disagree. As for PP, they've never made a dime off of me but have certainly helped in the education department.
So now anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is an animal? Wow! I can't wait until my partner comes home so we can go rut outside in front of the neighbors. Jeez Louise!
And hopefully the library will continue their fight against censorship. I know I will.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Sylvia,
You can purchase your burqa here:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7419/159/1600/brkashirt.jpg
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Dear Student, I will pray for God to open your eyes to what is good and decent. You have been led astray and the evil one is glad for this. The evil one HATES marital love. His views on what love is sounds much like what you described in your link 144. If you do not believe in the existance of Satan, that is just what he likes. He has greater success with those who do not believe. I am saddend for all those who live apart from the pure love of Jesus. It may all seeem so FAR fetched to you, but it is not, Jesus is not FAR from you, but you have made yourself FAR from Him. Karen
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Sylvia wrote:
Part of the problem with the Teenwire site is that it does reveal too much of what is special and should remain a mystery–a mystery that a husband and wife should delight in discovering and unveiling in proper time, following their wedding.
*******************
And that is YOUR problem with the Teenwire site, not mine, and probably isn't a problem with many other parents either. Not everyone, myself included, chooses to live by your narrow-minded "shoulds," including the rather ridiculous view that sex "should" be remain a privilege for the married only. Or the equally silly view that everyone should remain ignorant of sex and certain parts of the human body. I'd rather be honest than neurotic.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
So according to you, KarenK, anyone who doesn't live the way you think they "should" is "evil." Got it. @@
And thanks for illustrating why many of us consider the beliefs of so-called "conservative christians" to be highly toxic, and not worth following. Thank goodness those aren't my burdens to carry. If YOU have problems with YOUR teens accessing Teenwire, it's your job to keep your kids from accessing it. It is not the library's responsibility to do your work for you.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Student wrote:
Nonsense. You use the words "private parts" because the words "penis," "vagina," "clitoris" and "ejaculate" scare the pants off of you.
*************
Exactly. To say they have "issues" with healthy and normal sexuality is an understatement, to say the least. Well, if that's the way THEY want to live, that's their right. They just don't have the right to force their neurotic anti-sex beliefs onto an entire town by censoring what its PUBLIC library can and cannot have on their computer.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Ocean says
"So according to you, KarenK, anyone who doesn't live the way you think they "should" is "evil." Got it. @@"
It is not what I think that counts! It is what our creator thinks that counts.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:26 am
KarenK, since some of us, myself included, consider your god to be imaginary, therefore hardly a "creator," what it supposedly "thinks" is irrelevant. PEOPLE think, imaginary beings do not.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:17 am
St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways
——————————————————–
Background:
St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was a Dominican priest, theologian, and philosopher. Called the Doctor Angelicus (the Angelic Doctor,) Aquinas is considered one the greatest Christian philosophers to have ever lived. Two of his most famous works, the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles, are the finest examples of his work on Christian philosophy.
"The truth of the Christian faith…surpasses the capacity of reason, nevertheless that truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know can not be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith."
First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:
1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.
Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.
Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately neccesitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.
Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.
Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Counterview to The Argument From Motion
The argument for a Prime Mover is based on the scientific foundation of Newtonian physics and its earlier predecessors — the idea that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. However, while Newton's ideas survive in physics today, since they conveniently and easily describe the movement of objects at the human (that is, not cosmic or atomic) level, they no longer represent the most accurate and truthful representations of the physical Universe. Some scientists feel that the development of the laws of thermodynamics in the 19th century and quantum physics in the 20th century have weakened a purely scientific expression of the cosmological argument.
Modern physics has many examples of bodies being moved without any moving body, seriously undermining the first premise of the Prime Mover argument: every object in motion must be moved by another object in motion. Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics. He quotes one of many examples — "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku, these particles could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion. It does not provide an explanation for the reason those molecules exist in the first place, though.
Moreover, it is argued that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time, and thus the concepts of cause and effect so necessary to the cosmological argument no longer apply. This has been put forward by Stephen Hawking, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[19] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of branes to give a cause for the Big Bang
July 6th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Counterview to Causation Of Existence
Arguments against God's existence have been given by philosophers, atheists, and agnostics. Some of these arguments find God's existence incompatible with observed facts; some are arguments that God does not exist because the concept of God is incoherent or confused. Others are criticisms of the proofs offered for God's existence.
One of the most influential and powerful "proofs" that there is no God proceeds from "The Problem from Evil." This argument claims that the following three statements cannot all be true: (a) evil exists; (b) God is omnipotent; and (c) God is all-loving. The argument is as follows:
If God can prevent evil, but doesn't, then He isn't all-loving.
If God intends to prevent evil, but cannot, then He isn't omnipotent.
If God both intends to prevent evil and is capable of doing so, then how can evil exist?
Another argument claims that the existence of an all-knowing God is incompatible with the fact of free will — that humans do make choices. If God is omniscient, He must know beforehand exactly what a person will do in a given situation. In that case, a person is not in fact free to do the alternative to what God knows he or she will do, and free will must be an illusion. To take this one step further, if one chooses to commit a sin, how can it then be said that one sinned freely?
Hume provided powerful critiques of the main arguments for God's existence. Against the cosmological argument (Aquinas's third argument), he argued that the idea of a necessarily existing being is absurd. Hume stated, "Whatever we can conceive as existent, we can also conceive as nonexistent." He also asked why the ultimate source of the universe could not be the entire universe itself, eternal and uncaused, without a God?
Hume also criticized the argument from design (Aquinas's fifth argument). In particular, he emphasized that there is no legitimate way we can infer the properties of God as the creator of the world from the qualities of His creation. For instance, Hume questioned how we can be sure that the world was not created by a team; or that this is not one of many attempts at creations, the first few having been botched; or, on the other hand, that our world is not a poor first attempt "of an infant deity who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance."
July 6th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Argument Against Degrees And Perfection
The first argument is based on the idea that a perfect being has no need to create anything at all:
God is perfect. (premise)
God deliberately created the universe. (premise)
Perfection entails the lack of needs or wants. (premise)
Being perfect, God does not now nor ever has nor ever will have any needs or wants.
Deliberate creation entails an effort to satisfy some need or want. (premise)
Being a creator, God at one time had some need or want.
It is impossible to have some need or want and also to never have any need or want.
Conclusion: God, if it exists, is either not perfect or has not created anything.
If God is perfect, then God can’t have any needs or wants; hence, God wouldn’t bother creating something.
If God deliberately creates something, it must be because of some need or want — even if it is as simple as curiosity.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:22 am
This is a statement of opinion and in no way presents ANY facts.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:24 am
KarenK, I am well aware of what is "good and decent." There are many things that you do that I wouldn't consider "good and decent," however, it is not my place to personally judge you. This is the difficulty I have with religion — it makes the believers feel they know so much more than the rest of us when, in reality, you really don't. You have your opinions — which I can respect — but they shouldn't be forced on others. It is patently offensive.
There was significant sarcasm is Post 144. If you need me to go back and point it out, please let me know. For the record, my partner and I DO NOT have sex outside in front of the neighbors. I felt that was obvious — my apologies if it was not. Marital love is fine — it's just not for me. One can experience significant and meaningful love without state sanction. As to "the evil one," I no more believe in that than I do the Easter Bunny and Cupid.
Does the Easter Bunny like that I don't believe in him as well? I am saddened for those who refuse to think rationally for themselves.
I was happy to hear your daughter is better — I hope she continues to progress.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am
You have to be kidding!!! Aquinas? You don't think that, perhaps, we have learned a few things in the last 800 years? Perhaps that scientific revolution that happened 400 years ago has some relevance? Perhaps that scholastic philosophy *might* have made some mistakes?
In case you hadn't heard, Aristotelean physics has been disproved. There was this guy, Galileo, that showed it was wrong. There was this other guy, Newton, that formed a system that completely overturned it. And there was this other guy, Einstein, that did a few modifications past that.
In particular, 1) is false: subatomic particles all experience the uncertainty principle, which actually forces their speeds to be non-zero.
2) Assumes that there can be no infinite regresses AND that every 'motion' is caused. The first is philosophically unjustified (an probably wrong). The second is demonstrably wrong.
Even if 1) and 2) were correct (which they are not), the argument does not show that there is only *one* prime mover. It simply shows that there is some unmoved mover in the history of every moving item, not that all of these prime movers are the same.
This argument suffers from many of the same flaws as the previous one. In particular, 3) is very questionable: why could there NOT be an infinite string of causes going back into the past. But much more fundamental is the assumption that every thing is made by something else and needs a cause. Again, we know this is simply false. It is a fundamental medieval view of the universe which is no longer seen as valid. Finally, just like the previous argument, the argument does not show that there is only *one* uncaused causer. In fact, it is known that most quantum level processes are, in fact, uncaused.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Again, a fundamentally flawed distinction from medieval philosophy. What is it that distinguished a 'necessary' being from a 'contingent' being? Clearly, it is that there is a cause for the contingent beings. But from all we know, ALL beings are contingent, so the rest of the argument fails. In particular, the old problem of the possibility of infinite regresses arises again. Aquinas had trouble with these (as did Aristotle), but there is nothing inherently illogical about them. And again, even if there *was* a consistent definition of 'necessary' and 'contingent' that would allow this argument to work, it STILL doesn't show that there is only *one* 'necessary' being. Is a proton a 'necessary' being? How about a positron? If a bunch of 'necessary' and 'contingent' beings get together to form something else as a group, does that make the group necessary or contingent? Why are necessary beings uncaused? Etc.
Yes, Aquinas was a Platonist. The ideas of 'perfect forms', which derived from Plato's philosophy has been pretty thoroughly discarded and/or modified. In particular, the statue argument shows the problem: different people can disagree about which statue is more beautiful. So, beauty is a matter of 'taste', not a matter of 'truth'. There simply is no single standard of beauty. Second, even under Platonic philosophy, there is no reason to think that what *we* regard as 'perfections' are untied in any way into a larger whole. Plato himself did not think this.
A very popular political football today, I might add. The problem, once again, is that there is no good test to distinguish 'designed' things from merely 'complex' things. And we know that complexity can be formed from very, very simple initial structures. If anything, the universe actually looks 'undesigned for life', given that the vast majority of the universe is inhospitable for life. Even life itself shows itself to be a product, not of design, but of the piecing together of available structures that comes from evolution.
A word of advice: get away from medieval philosophy and actually learn some of the things we have found out in the past millennium. The scholastic philosophy went out of favor for a reason: it doesn't work.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I was playing with my two year old grandson and I was just thinking what it would be like to not believe there is a God. Life really would have very little meaning and when your loved one died, your mother, father, a daughter or son etc… that would be the end of that. Never would you see them again, gone forever to nothing. What would be there to look forward to at the end life? Nothingness. Let's say there isn't a Bible, even so there are just too many experiences that I and many other human beings have had through the centuries that cannot be explained. The explanations are not from this world. We cannot just rely on our physical senses. We do have another sense you know, a spiritual sense. Not to mention the fact that I know and have read of many atheists who have searched for the truth of the existence of God, and really searched and found there to be a God, and realized that everything fits together like a big puzzle. But this only happens when someone is honest with themselves and open to see the possibilities. I think that most people who do not believe in God choose to not believe because if they did allow themselves to believe they would lose some control of what they chose to believe is right or wrong. I for one am glad I do not think I have all the answers, and am not in full control of my life. The pressure is off of me to have such a responsibility. I am so glad that I know I have a loving and forgiving Father in Heaven that watches over me and guides me through His Church. Every time I think my way is better and ignore what Jesus is trying to tell me, I learn the hard way. It is freeing to know you are not in charge, it is freeing to give God the keys to your life and ask Him to steer you in the right direction. Thank you Jesus, you are a good driver, I trust in you.
How wonderful and loving God is, to give us a life that NEVER dies.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
And therein lies much of the trouble in the world: It's not my fault, the devil (Satan, evil one, etc.) made me do it.
I prefer to believe in something called personal responsibility. If I'm a good person, it is because I chose to be a good person. If I'm a bad person, it's because I chose to be a bad person. I don't believe in the "get out of jail" free card. Penn Gillette was right on the money in his essay for NPR's "This I Believe." See below (sorry for the length but it's well worth sharing):
I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?
So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.
But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."
Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.
Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Jerry,
When I die, like everything else, I die. I would LOVE to believe in Santa Claus because it would make me feel better, but I know it's not reality. However, if you want to believe I have no problem with that. It only bothers me to the extent that people use it to judge others as evil, etc. when, in fact, whether or not I believe in a higher power in no way affects whether or not I'm a good (or bad) person.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Jerry,
I do understand your question. Yes, I guess I am. I feel incredibly lucky to have "won the genetic jackpot" as it is. I'm very appreciative of the time I have here. I make the most of it and do my best to live life to the fullest. I don't need more. I also believe that the time I've spent here will have touched and helped others. In that way, I will live on.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Are you 'more or less happy' that just a few decades ago, you didn't exist? The non-existence before birth (or conception, if you insist, for the purposes of this argument) is the same as the non-existence after we die.
The point is not whether we are immortal. The question is how we live our lives, how we affect others, and how we contribute to those who will live after us. Can you relate to others with caring and thoughtfulness, or do you relate by being unnecessarily judgmental, trying to exclude people, and generally being nasty to others? Can you contribute positively to society and the happiness of others? Or are you so involved in yourself that helping others is never considered? Can you come up with new ideas that allow more freedoms to those who come after you, or do you try to restrict the freedoms of others for no good reason? Are you moral because it truly comes from your heart, or are you moral purely because of the fear of punishment in the future? THESE are the important questions, in my opinion.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Karen said, “I think that most people who do not believe in God choose to not believe because if they did allow themselves to believe they would lose some control of what they chose to believe is right or wrong. I for one am glad I do not think I have all the answers, and am not in full control of my life."
Student says,
"And therein lies much of the trouble in the world: It's not my fault, the devil (Satan, evil one, etc.) made me do it"
By denying God , in essence you become your own God. That is what I was saying. YOU then decide what is morally right or wrong. With everyone doing that with all their different ideas of what is morally right or wrong, what chaos! Who is really right then?
It is our fault! The devil may tempt us to do something, but it is we who decide to either give in to that temptation or not. We have the gift of free will. How in the world did you get that I do not believe in personal responsibility? That is part of the issue of being pro-life, taking responsibility of one's actions. If one chooses to have sex and then gets pregnant, they should be responsible for the result of their actions; which is the conception of their offspring, a son or daughter, and don't go to Planned Parenthood to snuff that life out and turn in that free " Get out of jail card" you said is wrong to do.
"Not believing in God is easy"
I can picture Satan saying that with a cheshire cat grin on his face.
Relate it to let say an athlete; good things do not come easy, no pain no gain, and with Heaven, no cross no crown.
"Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have."
"Eye has not seen, ear has not heard what God has ready for those who love Him"
"When I die, like everything else, I die. I would LOVE to believe in Santa Claus because it would make me feel better,
but I KNOW it's not reality."
Just as you say to me, how do you know? Well, how do YOU know it's not reality?
Where is your Bible that survived for centuries and centuries?
"I would LOVE to believe in Santa Claus because it would make me feel better,"
Knowing God would make you feel better, and live better,
"When I die, like everything else, I die."
and have life after death, isn't that something worth searching for?
"Are you moral because it truly comes from your heart, or are you moral purely because of the fear of punishment in the future? THESE are the important questions, in my opinion."
When one gets to know Jesus and all His teachings and the great love He has for us, it is about the love and honor you want to give back to Him. A better Christian and the purest form of love is when you do the right thing, not out of fear, but out of LOVE. We are the ones who put ourselves in Hell. In the end, we can either love Him, or reject Him, it is up to each individual.
Doing the right thing out of fear is not a pure form of love. Jesus is all about the heart.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
People confuse being a witness to Christ and being judgemental. If I were doing something that is harming my soul, I would hope someone would love me enough to show me and help me. I would not think of them as being judgemental, if their correcting is done with love. The greatest gift you can give someone is to help them go to heaven. "First take the plank out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of your neighbors." But that does not mean we should stand by and not help each other go to Heaven. Everything must be done with love and compassion, just as Jesus teaches.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Most 'witnesses for Christ' are simply judgmental idiots trying to force their distorted sense of morality on others. They have little true compassion and even less true cunderstanding. Instead they hate.
What about bad deeds? How about forming a justice system that is effective? How about encouraging people to help others rather than pray to imaginary Big Brother? How about looking into the causes of poverty, homelessness, mental illness, etc so we can hope to cure the problems? How about teaching responsibility for one's own actions and judgments rather than forcing a warped morality based on outmoded philosophies and superstitious beliefs?
By denying a deity, we do NOT become our own deity. We are human, with human abilities and responsibilities. But we have the ability to make ourselves and our societies better over time. As I see it, the religious folk seem to set themselves up as the arbiters of morality and hence position themselves as Gods.
"Many people think they are thinking when they are simply re-arranging their prejudices."
The point is that truth is not dependent on whether I like it or not. I don't assume that truth must be comforting or even feel morally right. If I no longer exist after I die, that is simply the fact of the matter. My preferences are irrelevant. Do some bad people get away, literally, with murder? Yes, unfortunately. Do I see that unfairness as a reason to believe in an afterlife? No. It is simply a fact of existence. If anything, it is inspiration to attempt to make our justice system better and more capable. Wishful thinking doesn't solve the problem, which is here and now, not in some imaginary afterlife.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Then whose version of god are we to follow. The christian god? The muslim god? Budha? Why choose your interpretation when others believe theirs to be just as correct?
I apologize, Karen — clearly I phrased that wrong. I didn't mean to insinuate that you didn't believe in personal responsibility. Having said that, I believe you are ok with the "get out of jail free card" and I am not.
Obviously we disagree about unwanted pregnancy, but to make my point, I'll use it as an example. You believe abortion is wrong. Period! Ok, let's say I have 10 abortions during the course of my life time (which you consider murder), all I have to do is be sincerely sorry and ask for god's forgiveness and I get to go to heaven. It doesn't matter that I've had 10 abortions, I'm still forgiven. THAT, to me, is the "get out of jail free card."
If I am a complete horse's a** here on this earth throughout my life time (I lie, cheat, steal, and have total disregard for others) and I repent at the end, everything's ok. But, if I'm a truly good person in the best light possible (I'm honest, hard working, care for my family, give to charity, am kind and generous to others), and I don't believe in god then I am damned to hell for all eternity. Sorry, but to me, that's a complete load of crap.
And I picture a smiling Santa Claus on xmas eve, that doesn't make him real.
You're right on this one — neither of us KNOWS. However, I don't try to force my beliefs off on to others and I'm not going to tell you that you're an idiot who will die a miserable death because you believe what you do. THAT is being judgmental and I see it among most religious folks all the time.
How about the Iliad? Shall we take that for literal truth as well?
Knowing Santa would also make me feel better.
Not for me. I'd rather make the most of the gift of "right now" that I have.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Jerry,
I really have no idea what you're trying to say with the last post. Sorry!
July 6th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
What you seem to miss is the fact that people who don't believe in a deity can love. Love is not exclusive to believers. It is a universal human capability. What matter is NOT believing and loving your imaginary friend. It is caring for and loving real people here and now. In addition, though, is the responsibility to learn about more than your own closed system of beliefs.
"Knowledge without compassion is inhuman. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective".
Both knowledge AND compassion are required for true morality. Religion short-circuits this by denying the value of knowledge.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
No offense taken, Jerry. It was good chatting with you.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Student wrote:
"And therein lies much of the trouble in the world:
It's not my fault, the devil (Satan, evil one, etc.) made me do it"
KarenK wrote:
By denying God , in essence you become your own God. That is what I was saying. YOU then decide what is morally right or wrong. With everyone doing that with all their different ideas of what is morally right or wrong, what chaos! Who is really right then?
*************************
That's right, KarenK, my freedom to NOT believe in the christian god gives me the freedom to decide for MYSELF what rules to make for my own life. That means the highly personal choices, such as when to have sex, when or if I want to get married, how many children I want to have, etc. Last time I checked, there are NO criminal penalties for making any of those personal choices without the so-called "authority" of a church or religion. MY life, therefore MY rules.
If YOU want to submit to the "authority" of a church and give away all your personal power to make your own choices, that is entirely your decision. Happily, I am free to avoid those churches, and make my own choices for my life. Why you or anyone else would have a problem with that is beyond me.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Student says: "Not for me. I'd rather make the most of the gift of "right now" that I have."
In order to receive a gift there has to be a giver.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
KarenK wrote:
That is part of the issue of being pro-life, taking responsibility of one's actions. If one chooses to have sex and then gets pregnant, they should be responsible for the result of their actions; which is the conception of their offspring, a son or daughter, and don't go to Planned Parenthood to snuff that life out and turn in that free " Get out of jail card" you said is wrong to do.
***********************
Those are YOUR "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" not mine, and I don't want your beliefs about sex and pregnancy forced on me. Neither, I would think, do many other people, who want others in turn to have the knowledge necessary to PREVENT the outcomes of unwanted pregnancy (not everyone considers children a "gift") and sexually transmitted diseases. The antiquated concept of "just say no until marriage" doesn't work for those who don't desire marriage.
Girls and women go to Planned Parenthood for other reasons than to have an abortion, including getting the pill and various contraceptive methods to prevent the outcome of unwanted pregnancy. Some PP facilities perform women's health services, which women who don't have medical insurance and therefore NO access to a good doctor or nurse badly need. If YOU have objections to regular and emergency contraception, you have the personal choice NOT to use it. Other women have the right to make a different choice.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
That isn't what I meant, but if you insist upon looking at it this way, I suppose I should thank my parents who had sex and brought me into the world.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
yes, some go to Planned Parenthood for other things than abortion. To that I say, would you go to a known murderer's house and ask for help?
"
July 6th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Science teaches that human life begins at conception. If it is also true that it is affirmed by religion, it does not for that reason cease to be a strictly scientific truth, to be transformed into a religious opinion. He who denies that human life begins with conception does not need to contend with religion, but science. To deny this certainty of biology is not to express a lack of faith, but a lack of basic knowledge of human genetics, something that is even known by the general public."
~ Ecuadorian Federation of Societies of Gynecology and Obstetrics, April 17, 2008 ~
"We cannot but recognize that, in practical terms, defending human life has become more difficult today, because a mentality has been created that progressively devalues human life and entrusts it to the judgement of individuals. A consequence deriving therefrom is lessened respect for the human person, a value that lies at the foundation of any form of civil coexistence, over and above the faith a person may profess."
~ Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to the Italian Movement for Life, May 12, 2008 ~
"All who are genuinely committed to the advancement of women can and must offer a woman or a girl who is pregnant, frightened, and alone a better alternative than the destruction of her own unborn child."
~ Mary Ann Glendon, Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, September 5, 1995 ~
"Find the courage to proclaim Christ, … and the unchanging truths which have their foundation in Him. These are the truths that set us free! They are the truths which alone can guarantee respect for the inalienable dignity and rights of each man, woman and child in our world - including the most defenseless of all human beings, the unborn child in the mother's womb.
~ Pope Benedict XVI, Homily at Yankee Stadium, April 20, 2008 ~
More proof that science…
"More proof that science is the enemy of the pro-abortionists can be seen in reading their reaction to sonograms. NARAL and Planned Parenthood have done everything they can to keep women ignorant about the latest scientific advances. That is why they oppose virtually every state and federal law allowing for informed consent. They are positively frightened by ultrasound pictures. Indeed, an abortionist from Long Island recently admitted that 'no woman is going to want an abortion after she sees a sonogram.' He’s afraid he may lose his job."
~ Science Undermines Abortion Activists, Catalyst, January-February 2008 ~
July 6th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Student says:
In order to receive a gift there has to be a giver.
That isn't what I meant, but if you insist upon looking at it this way, I suppose I should thank my parents who had sex and brought me into the world.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Which came first the chicken or the egg?:)
July 6th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"
~ Susan B. Anthony, The Revolution, July 8, 1869 ~
July 6th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
"An abortion kills the life of the baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health."
~ Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 1963, as quoted in Catalyst, January - February 2008 ~
"You destroy those who are tiny in body because fear is destroying your heart."
~Saint Quodvultdeus (in reference to Herod and the Holy Innocents)~
"And it is today, in the present that we decide our future destiny. It is with our concrete everyday behavior in this life that we determine our eternal fate. At the end of our days on earth, at the moment of death, we will be evaluated on the basis of our likeness or otherwise to the Baby Who is about to be born in the poor grotto of Bethlehem, because He is the measure God has given humanity."
~ Pope Benedict XVI, Christ is the Measure God has Given Humanity, December 9, 2007 ~
“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
~ 2 Chronicles 7:14 ~
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves"
~ Proverbs 31:8 http://www.40daysforlife.com ~
"Not even one abortion per week is acceptable. Not one per month. Not one per year. Not one in our lifetime…The dignity of the human person begins at the moment of conception, not at birth. The dignity, as recognized by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, is bestowed by the Creator, and no one has the right to destroy innocent unborn life."
~ Bishop Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop Encourages all Priests to Imitate Him by Spending One Hour in Front of Abortion Facility ~
"The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right — it is the very opposite. It is a deep wound in society."
~ Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Says Abortion is "Deep Wound," Opposite of a Human Right, Zenit, September 10, 2007 ~
July 6th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Technological Advances Settle Question of When Life Begins - Abortion was legalized more
than thirty years ago. Since 1973 there have been major breakthroughs in medical technology.
We can now detect a fetal heartbeat only 5 weeks after conception and fetal brain waves can be
measured at just 8 weeks. Ultrasound allows us to see a baby as he moves, sleeps and sucks his
thumb in the womb.
Today human DNA is used as irrefutable proof of a criminal suspect’s guilt or innocence. The
fact that each of us possesses a full and unique set of human DNA from the moment of
conception is irrefutable proof that we are members of the human race or “persons.”
Most Americans Agree that Life Begins at Conception.
Recent polls have demonstrated that a clear majority of Americans believe that life begins at the
moment of conception. One such poll, conducted by Newsweek and published as a cover story,
showed that 58% believe that at the moment an egg is fertilized a new human life begins.
National Pro-Life Alliance
July 6th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
KarenK wrote:
yes, some go to Planned Parenthood for other things than abortion. To that I say, would you go to a known murderer's house and ask for help?
*********************
Since I don't consider Planned Parenthood to be a "murderer," yes I would, if I couldn't get access to a doctor or a nurse.
In fact, I often went to PP long ago, when I was much younger, and making far less money at my job. They always gave me the medical information and assistance I needed at the time. Oh, and since I was able to get reliable contraception and information on STD prevention, I never had the problem of an unwanted pregnancy OR a sexually transmitted disease. Go figure.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Karen K,
Thank you very much for your time, patience and perseverence. Your quotes and information are excellent. I haven't had time to read or respond to posts, as my family and children have needs that can't be met while I sit in front of the computer.
However, your discussions (and my previous ones) with Professor and Student reminded me of the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant:
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
–John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887)
Without the eyes of faith, we are all blind.
And no matter how well one tries to explain God and Truth, hardness of heart keeps another trapped in darkness.
There is one more stanza that summarizes the moral of the story from the original source's perspective:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
However, as this is a version of an old Indian legend, it is incorrect. For we know, as Christians, we have seen our God in Jesus Christ.
Karen, keep up your good work if you have the time. Perhaps maybe once, one of your seeds (and prayers) will find fertile ground. Especially in this year of St. Paul, we are reminded of the ability of God to bring conversion to souls.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Student says: "Obviously we disagree about unwanted pregnancy, but to make my point, I'll use it as an example. You believe abortion is wrong. Period! Ok, let's say I have 10 abortions during the course of my life time (which you consider murder), all I have to do is be sincerely sorry and ask for god's forgiveness and I get to go to heaven. It doesn't matter that I've had 10 abortions, I'm still forgiven. THAT, to me, is the "get out of jail free card."
If I am a complete horse's a** here on this earth throughout my life time (I lie, cheat, steal, and have total disregard for others) and I repent at the end, everything's ok. But, if I'm a truly good person in the best light possible (I'm honest, hard working, care for my family, give to charity, am kind and generous to others), and I don't believe in god then I am damned to hell for all eternity. Sorry, but to me, that's a complete load of crap."
Dear Student, To address your not understanding a God who would let someone as you described into Heaven etc…
Well, let’s say you have a brother who did horrendous things to his parents. Stole from them, hit them, and said terrible things to them. But see you grew up with this brother, knew him when he was a little baby, and child. And for whatever reason he turned to the dark side. Let’s say he then learned the hard way and found the love of Jesus. And he came back to his parents and begged to be forgiven. And because his parents love him and could see his sorrow, they embrace him and forgave him. Now you never caused a moments trouble for your parents. And they love you too. Wouldn't you want to love your brother and be glad he has changed; wouldn't you want him to go to heaven with you and your family? Jesus loves us even more than that. And he knows are every thought, so there's no fooling Him. That is why He is the God of Mercy. We should be glad and rejoice in it!! Karen
July 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Thanks Syvia, I can relate to what you said about not having time. You should see me. My computer is in the basement, and I go down there read, write like a maniac, and then run upstairs, do stuff and then run back downstairs. I tell you, I never knew I had this much energy, it is weird, but Jesus has blessed me sooo much, because before I had a bad heart, and was told I needed open heart surgery. But I was healed, believe it or not people. We have the before and after pictures on the eco-cardiograms. I still have other heath concerns, but I am so filled with complete joy to be able to be alive with so many wonderful people in this world, and doing good things. God bless, Karen
July 7th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Jerry Vilt wrote:
To me as a observer, blogs 1-193, all put together, do not equal in curiosity what your answer to the following 2 questions are, namely:
1. What is your definition of "abortion"?
Ocean: Simple; the termination of an unwanted pregnancy, which is usually done in the very first weeks.
2. What is your definition of "murder"?
Ocean: The intentional killing of a BORN person, which does NOT include abortion. Hope that helps.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
P.S. Sylvia, thanks for the story, it is a good analogy.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
What is your definition of "abortion"?
Ocean: "Simple; the termination of an unwanted pregnancy, which is usually done in the very first weeks."
Termination: ending, stop, finish(off)
Murder- finish(off)
(Merriam Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus)
in other words STOP FROM LIVING
MURDER of a living being, if it was not alive there would be no need for an abortion.
It is human from the moment of conception not any other form of creature, cat, bird etc…(duh)
Ocean says: "The first few weeks"-
Third week- the heart begins to beat: neural folds and major divisions of the brain appear, as well as somites(neural crest and beginnings of the internal ear and eye) O'rahilly and Muller, op. cit., p.35
Ocean, would you have the guts to go in a mother's womb and stop what you just read with a knife or suction device or chemical burn?
It is a invasion, an attack on the child. It is MURDER.
Science teaches that human life begins at conception. If it is also true that it is affirmed by religion, it does not for that reason cease to be a strictly scientific truth, to be transformed into a religious opinion. He who denies that human life begins with conception does not need to contend with religion, but science. To deny this certainty of biology is not to express a lack of faith, but a lack of basic knowledge of human genetics, something that is even known by the general public."
~ Ecuadorian Federation of Societies of Gynecology and Obstetrics, April 17, 2008 ~
July 7th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
KarenK,
Your analogy doesn't work unless the "loving parents" are going to send the sibling (who never caused them any trouble and is a great person) to burn in hell for all eternity because that sibling doesn't believe in something. However, the rotten kid gets forgiveness and all is right with the world. Even if you disagree with my position, do you see why I find that scenario a bit screwed up?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I don't think so by Ocean's definition. It seems to me a miscarriage could also occur with a wanted pregnancy. However, Webster's defines the terms as follows:
MISCARRIAGE: the expulsion of a fetus before it is viable, esp. between the third and seventh months of pregnancy; spontaneous abortion
ABORTION: (1) Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy; (2) any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months; (3) Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage
July 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
If A miscarriage is by definition an abortion than wouldn't that mean that GOD preforms abortions?What about still-birth when the child is viable.Should that fall under the same catagory?There are alot of reasons for a fetus to leave the body,when GOD take them what does that make HIM?When a woman wants to have a child but GOD decides differently is that fair or right?I still think that a woman should be allowed to make her own choices because after all is said and done it is HER body.NOONE should have a right to decide what she should or shouldn't do.There are too many chldren in this world that if given the same attention that pro life gives to standing outside of PP
could have a much better life than the one they have now.What about homeless children,hungry children,neglected and abused chldren?They are left to society while you (pro-life)put your time,money and energy into fighting for something that could possibly just add to the number of children that are already suffering.10 years ago my daughter was still born at 26 weeks.GOD took her from me when I wanted her so I guess GOD is just a cruel and careless being that would give children to people that don't want them and take them from those who do.Everything that I've ever learned about GOD is so cotradictory.He cares but he takes unborn children from loving mothers.He cares but he allows so many children to suffer.I've done alot of thinking since I read what educator wrote however even though it affected me deeply I still always come back to the same conclusion.There are too many children suffering today that need help but pro-life turns their back on them for a child that doesn't exist yet.If I am to believe that the unborn feel pain or suffer in any way than I have to believe that my little girl suffered and I don't believe she did.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
KarenK, it was Jerry Vilt who asked for my definitions of the words abortion and murder, and I gave you my answers. Obviously, you don't like them, or are not satisfied, or something. Not my problem. Those are my personal definitions for each, whether you like them or not, and I have no intention of changing them.
As for your "attack on the child" definition, that is also YOUR belief, and no doubt the beliefs of other pro-lifers. I don't share it, and it is my belief that EACH woman gets to make her own choice whether she will continue a pregnancy or not. If she decides to continue it, that is HER decision; if she decides NOT to continue it, that is also HER decision. Your view that it is "murder" is irrelevant to any woman who doesn't want to stay pregnant or give birth.
PP doesn't ONLY provide abortion services; in fact, it is my understanding that few PP facilities actually do abortions. Most offer contraception and other health services for women as well, although your group doesn't seem to be in favor of reliable contraception either. Well, too bad. Not everyone chooses abstinence from sex until marriage, and not every woman wants to get married. Your group just seems angry that it can't control what this library chooses to have on its computer system. What a public library chooses to show on its computer isn't for YOU to decide, or any other individual or church for that matter.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Student says: "If I am a complete horse's a** here on this earth throughout my life time (I lie, cheat, steal, and have total disregard for others) and I repent at the end, everything's ok. But, if I'm a truly good person in the best light possible (I'm honest, hard working, care for my family, give to charity, am kind and generous to others), and I don't believe in god then I am damned to hell for all eternity. Sorry, but to me, that's a complete load of crap."
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337 Catholic Catechism
July 8th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Kathy, It is not her body, a mother's child in the womb has its own body, separate from the mothers. It has its own DNA, its own blood system etc… When during an abortion and the child is being torn out, section by section, arm, leg, torso, etc… It is not the mother's arm, leg, torso that is being torn out. Luck for her she still has her arms and legs!
Kathy, there are not too many children, just like Mother Theresa said that is like saying there are too many flowers. I would adopt a child that wasn't wanted by a pregnant mother, and I am a sidewalk counselor. I also am asked many times by people who know I sidewalk counsel to also tell the girls they would adopt their child as well. Yes, there are children who live in terrible conditions, but you cannot think that murder is the answer for life. That is incompatible. We need a culture of life not a culture of death, that is a slippery slope to more evil. Adoption is the better option! Who are we to decide who may have life and who may not? Who are we to decide what a quality life is or not. That is so subjective.
Where are you getting your information that pro-lifer's don't help children? And the child in the womb very much does exist, or there would be no reason for an abortion.
Maybe you know in your heart that you can’t take care of your baby. There’s not enough time, money, or help. Maybe you already have children and one more baby would be too much stress on you.
The good news about your situation is that there are so many families all over the country that would love to have a baby of their own, but can’t due to infertility. They are waiting for a person like you - a person that wants to give a baby life, and share that baby with them.
You are doing the right thing by researching all of your options. Adoption is a choice that you need to think about carefully, but if you can’t parent, no matter what the reason, adoption may be the right choice for you!
Bethany Christian Services is one of the nation's leading providers of adoption and crisis pregnancy support information and an adoption agency we refer to. They operate a national hotline which is active from 8 AM to 12 PM, 7 days a week (1-800-Bethany). This hotline routes callers to one of 56 local offices which can then provide local and regional information. We also refer to another adoption agency, Adoption Associates, Inc. They can be reached at http://www.adoptassoc.com or 1-800-677-2367.
Kathy, no kidding my sister just called at 12:54 this evening, and said a little 3 year old boy is lost right now and the state police are looking for him. They have helicopters out looking for him in the Kendall County area. I am going with my 20 year old son now to help look for him. Everyone who is reading this start praying for this dear little boy’s safe return. I thought something happened in my family when she called. Well, I hope I can be of some help. St. Anthony, please help us find the the precious liitle boy.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:12 am
From my post #210 I am sorry this was confusing, this is from Priests For Life: "Maybe you know in your heart that you can’t take care of your baby. There’s not enough time, money, or help. Maybe you already have children and one more baby would be too much stress on you.Etc…
I just got back home from trying to find three year old Ryan. After driving around for 2 hours we then came apon a police officer. He said they had the blood hounds out, and they did not pick up a scent. The family of the missing boy have large ponds in their back yard and they fear the little boy went there. It is very sad. I will keep praying and get some sleep and then go back and see what we can do when it is light out. There is always hope. please pray.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:18 am
KarenK,
Perhaps you're misunderstanding. Let's use the same scenario above. This is, by anyone's standard, a wonderful human being. However, after being informed of the "gospel" just simply doesn't believe it. Now, this same wonderful human being gets to burn in hell. Correct? Now you see why I think it's garbage.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Student wrote:
KarenK, perhaps you're misunderstanding. Let's use the same scenario above. This is, by anyone's standard, a wonderful human being. However, after being informed of the "gospel" just simply doesn't believe it. Now, this same wonderful human being gets to burn in hell. Correct? Now you see why I think it's garbage.
*******************
I reached that same conclusion (that it's garbage) over 25 years ago, and was happy to toss all of it OUT the door at that point. I find it interesting, to say the least, that this group objects so strongly to abortion, yet it condemns contraception, which PREVENTS abortion to a significant degree, just as strongly. The polite term is "interesting." The IMpolite term is HYPOCRITICAL.
Personally, I think this group should lose in its efforts to control what this particular library should have on its computer system, and I believe and hope that they WILL lose. Just because they believe sexual knowledge is "harmful" (to THEM and their church, obviously) doesn't make that belief a fact.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Just another friendly reminder that nobody wants to censor the availability of teenwire on the library's computers. To state that the Batavia parents are seeking to "control what this particular library should have on its computer system" is simply an inaccurate description of their position.
That aside, let me throw this out there and see if anyone bites: Let's say the library had a section on their website about religion. Let's say that in this section, they linked to a site that promoted Christianity as the only true faith, mocked atheists, and encouraged children to become Christians no matter what their atheist parents said. Let's further suppose that all the information on the site was factually accurate.
Am I truly to believe that none of the atheists and agnostics here would bat an eye? I have to believe that perhaps on so personal and controversial issue as religion, you might want the library to avoid recommending one particular option. You might just want them to have the books on the shelves and not push an agenda? Let people make up their own minds, perhaps?
Just curious.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:12 am
They found little Ryan!! He is ok! I went back to the site this morning at around 7:00AM and signed up to be part of the search and rescue. We waited until the officials told us what to do. Then around 8:30AM we were told they found him! He had wandered off more than a 1 mile from his home. This area in Oswego is is full of forests, corn fields, hills and ponds. Thank God he was alright. I woke dear Father Matt up at around 2:00am in the morning and asked for him to pray. All life is precious, and God does care, but He also wants us to care. These times are an opportunity to share your love with others. And life many times is unpredictable and we don't understand why things happen as they do, but what is for sure is how we react to life's trials is what is most important. God doesn't always intervene in our lives. He may allow certain things to go there natural course; ex. a miscarriage, but He does have our best interest at hand. There is the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. One is the natural course of things, the child for whatever reason was not thriving, and with abortion there is a perpetrator that deliberately expels the child from the womb.
Thanks for your prayers, and for caring for someone else.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Karen,I don't know where you got the idea that I'm pregnant butI'm not!I am quite capable of taking a child financially,mentally,etc….
However GOD doesn't give me a choice because he took my ability to concieve when he took my daughter.You are right that there are plenty of people willing to adopt,unfortunately they want a baby not the little boy or girl from a broken or abusive home.They don't want the child that may give them problems.People are selfish ,and I mean ALL people,in one way or another.They think only of their own desires not the needs of someone else.How easy it is to turn your back on children in need and then justify it by saying you would adopt a child.How many have you adopted?Yet you keep trying to convince women to continue a pregnancy that they obviously don't want.If they wanted a child they would not even consider going for an abortion.A fetus is conected to a woman via the umbilical cord.Doesn't that make it part of her body.It gets all it needs to grow from the woman.So………As I write this my granddaughter is on my lap.Where would she be today if not for me? I would not give her up for the world but how awful she will feel from the time she is old enough to understand that her mother didn't want her.NOONE should hav to go through life feeling not wanted therefor a woman should have the right to choose what to do about her pregnancy.You say every pregnancy is given by GOD?Well he is either uncareing or careless to give pregancy to a woman that doesn't want a child.GOD knows all?Then he knows a child may have to suffer if a woman doesn't want it.So………….Teenwire is so helpful to the young peeople that don't want to get pregnant and yet you look at it as EVIL?Isn't it better to prevent a pregnancy than to abort one?Pro-life is so contradictory.Either abstain or have a child you don't want?As I've said before you need to face reality and get into the 21st century.You cannot stop sex but prgnancy can be prevented.Pro-life needs to back off and stop trying to control peoples lives.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Kathy, A baby in the womb's survival should not be because it is wanted or not. That is the ultimate selfish act. Hey, little one, you get to live because you are wanted, and as for you, we need to kill you because we don't want you! Think about it!
I know a couple that adopted 10 children and all of them were either from abusive homes or physically handicapped OR both. There ARE CARING AND LOVING HEROES OUT THERE!
PS Kathy, I corrected that mix up on post 211, you must not have read it. Sorry for that, but I was distracted by the phone call from my sister about the lost little 3 yr. old boy near our town. God Bless, Karen
July 8th, 2008 at 11:00 am
VIDEO: Denver "Fort Knox" Planned Parenthood opens; protests spread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=3900381
Mike
July 8th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Unfortunately there are not enough LOVING AND CARING PEOPLE out there!You only address part of my statements.Why?
July 8th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Kathy….I hear ya. I'm still waiting for a response to 212—-perhaps I'm wording it in a confusing manner?
July 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
maybe she hasn't thought of anything to say because maybe,just maybe,we have a point?
July 8th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Three cheers for Jeffery Ward!HIP HIP HOORAY!!!!
HIP HIP HOORAY!!!! HIP HIP HOORAY!!!! He told it like it really is!!!!!(Batavia Sun)
July 8th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Or maybe I have been out there trying to help a family find their precious 3 year old. Oh, but I forgot us pro-life people don't really care about the children already born. You could be a little more charitable, I haven't had much sleep and have not been home much today. I have been busy rejoicing with the family over the fact their little 3 yr.old son is not dead, and survived a whole 24 hours out in the wilderness during a thunderstorm, and where there are coyotes, timber wolves and many ponds.
"NOONE should have to go through life feeling not wanted therefore a woman should have the right to choose what to do about her pregnancy."
Through adoption, that would not be a problem for the child, because they are very much wanted and then loved. What kind of love is it to kill your child, because you think no one would want them! Can you imagine if a mother was able to talk with her child she aborted and say I killed you because no one would want you?
July 8th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
what guarentee is there that the child would be adopted?It could end up,like so many do,in foster care where, I'm sorry to break it to you but,most children feel unwanted!Of course you wouldn't worry about that because your too busy trying to stop web sites and close the doors on places that give women options like birthcontrol to give them much thought.There will never be enough of you to change much so it's not like it's a real concern for those of us that want women to have a choice.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
By the way,I'm sure there were pro-choice on that search also so don't pat yourself on the back too hard.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I hope there were pro-choice of death of the unborn voluteers out there, but it is too bad they don't have the same compassion for that same child when it was growing in his mother's womb.
Oh, but they might, I forgot, because it was wanted.
If a baby in the womb is not wanted, its off to the garbage can. "Take out the garbage," says a abortion "doctor"
God forgive us!
July 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Let the name calling begin. *sigh*
July 8th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
MattYonke wrote:
Just another friendly reminder that nobody wants to censor the availability of teenwire on the library's computers. To state that the Batavia parents are seeking to "control what this particular library should have on its computer system" is simply an inaccurate description of their position.
******************
Oh PLEASE. I read enough of the "prolife" posts against PP and teenwire to recognize a censorship campaign when I see one. But if you want to deny that's what your group seeks to do, be my guess. Not all of us are stupid enough to believe that.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
MattYonke wrote:
That aside, let me throw this out there and see if anyone bites: Let's say the library had a section on their website about religion. Let's say that in this section, they linked to a site that promoted Christianity as the only true faith, mocked atheists, and encouraged children to become Christians no matter what their atheist parents said. Let's further suppose that all the information on the site was factually accurate.
*********************
I've seen more than one site on the web that proclaims christianity as the only "true faith," and constantly mocks atheists and agnostics.
Big deal. Those of us who ARE atheists, agnostics, and other freethinkers know that christian BELIEFS aren't facts, so we don't put much, if any, stock in what christians choose to believe. So no, I wouldn't waste my time campaigning for a library to NOT offer such a link on their website. It's not for ME to decide what a library chooses to offer or not. That was my point.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Abortion: A Choice Against Women
By Dr. Frank A. Pavone
Abortion is often presented as an issue of "women's rights". It is seen as something desirable for women, and as a benefit to which they should have as much access as possible. In fact, to be "pro-life" is seen by some as being "against women's rights".
If you sometimes feel this way, examine the facts presented here. You will see that, in fact, abortion harms women, ignores their rights, and exploits and degrades them. Anyone concerned about women will do well to know these facts.
Surveys of women who have had abortions, (see, for example, David Reardon's book, Aborted Women, Silent No More), show that abortion is not a question of giving a woman a "choice." It is, tragically, a situation of women feeling they have NO CHOICE, feeling that nobody cares enough about them and their child to give them any alternative besides going to the abortionist. The woman feels rejected, confused, afraid, alone, unable to handle the pregnancy — and behold, in the midst of all this, she is told by society, "We will eliminate your problem by eliminating your child. Go get an abortion. It's a safe, easy, and legal solution."
The fact is that though abortion is legal, it is NOT safe and easy, nor respectful of the woman.
Carol Everett used to run an abortion clinic. She is now pro-life, and she tells how women are not given the full truth about the abortion procedure. When they ask "Will it be painful?" they are told "No", even though serious pain is involved. When they ask, "Is it a baby?" they are told "No". Many women have found out only AFTER their abortion that their baby already had arms, legs, and sucked its thumb, before they aborted it. The clinic workers are told not to volunteer any other information if they are not asked. Why can't we respect women enough to tell them the whole truth?
Women are not told of the many harmful physical and psychological effects of abortion. It is NOT safe. There are, for example, fifteen psychological risk factors that need to be investigated before this procedure. They usually aren't. Women who have abortions are twice as likely to have a miscarriage if they get pregnant again. One of the reasons for this is "cervical incompetence". During an abortion the cervical muscle is hastily stretched open, and hence can be rendered too weak to stay closed for another pregnancy. Another complication is ectopic pregnancy, a life-threatening situation in which, due to scar tissue in the womb from the scraping of the abortion, a fertilized ovum is blocked from entering the uterus and so begins growing in the fallopian tube and eventually ruptures it. Since abortion was legalized, ectopic pregnancies have risen 300%. Many other physical complications can arise, as the chart below shows. It has also been proven that complications and deaths of women from abortions are UNDER-REPORTED, and recorded under different causes than abortion.
Psychological effects are also very real. Women suffer from PAS (Post-Abortion Syndrome). They experience "impacted grief"; that is, grief which festers within them like pus because they and others deny that a real death has occurred. Because of this denial, mourning cannot properly occur, yet the pain of loss is still there. Many have flashbacks to the abortion experience, nightmares about the baby, and even pain on the anniversary of the due date. One woman testified that she still suffers from her abortion of 50 years ago! Nobody concerned about women can responsibly dismiss these facts.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Effects of Abortion
(Prepared by WEBA, Women Exploited by Abortion, as a warning to other women to avoid the risks of abortion surgery.)
Physical Effects Psychological Effects
Sterility
Miscarriages
Ectopic pregnancies
Stillbirths
Bleeding and infections
Shock and comas
Perforated uterus
Peritonitus
Fever/Cold sweat
Intense pain
Loss of body organs
Crying/Sighing
Insomnia
Loss of appetite
Exhaustion
Weight loss
Nervousness
Seizures and tremors
Vomiting
Gastro-intestinal disturbances
Guilt
Suicidal impulses
Mourning/Withdrawal
Regret/Remorse
Loss of confidence
Low self-esteem
Preoccupation with death
Hostility/Rage
Despair/Helplessness
Desire to remember birth date
Intense interest in babies
Thwarted maternal instincts
Hatred for persons connected with abortion
Desire to end relationship with partner
Loss of sexual interest/Frigidity
Inability to forgive self
Nightmares
Decreased work capacity
Feeling of being exploited
Horror of child abuse
What kind of concern for women is shown when we put more stress on killing the child than helping the woman to bear her child? The abortion mentality looks on pregnancy as a disease. It does not take women seriously in their unique privilege and power of bearing new life! Some say that the pro-life movement is run by men trying to control women. But did you ever realize that the abortion industry is run primarily by men, who make a lot of money by performing this degrading operation on women? Abortion does not take sex seriously, either. Instead, it makes it easier for men to exploit women sexually. As Rosemary Bottcher, a Feminist for Life, has written, "Abortion reduces women to the status of sex machines which can be 'repaired' if necessary. Abortion helps ease his (the man's) anxiety about sex and relieves him of the last vestige of responsibility. At last sex is really free!"
Many women are coming to realize these facts, and have formed the National Women's Coalition for Life (703-960-4519). Let's stop fooling ourselves that abortion is a woman's "right". The pro-life movement offers women over 3,000 centers throughout the country where they can find compassion, assistance, and real alternatives and life-giving choices. The abortion movement offers them no choice except a wounded body, a scarred mind, and a dead baby. The choice is obvious.
If you need someone to talk to about alternatives to abortion (parenting or adoption) please call us at (269) 345-1740.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Matt,
You once asked what "misinformation" was being spread by the protesters. Please see KarenK's post #233. It's a perfect example.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
KarenK:
It's interesting that most of the effects you list in @233 are also strongly correlated with pregnancy and childbirth. In fact, the risks are higher to continue a pregnancy than to have an abortion.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I think that is a whole lot of crap pro-lifers came up with to help their "cause".You need to understand that you are also against any kind of birth control except abstinance.That seems like a catch 22 to me.If women are ging to have sex you need to let them have a choice of whether to take a pill,insert a diaphram,or have the man wear a condom.Your even against vasectomy which,if a man doesn't want children,he should have done.After all,aren't there enough UNWANTED children in the world.(pregnancy isn't the only thing some women don't want!)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Professor says,
"In fact, the risks are higher to continue a pregnancy than to have an abortion."
You are wrong again.
Fact: "The mortality was lower after a birth (28.2/100,000) than after a spontaneous (51.9/100,000) or induced abortion (83.1/100,000)" –American Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology. 2004 Feb;190(2):422-7. Study by Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P.
You shouldn't have any problem with that source.
Note the risk of death after an abortion was roughly 3 TIMES!!! that of birthing.
Fact: “Abortions increase the risk of low birth weight in future pregnancies by a factor of three, and of premature birth by a factor of two, according to the largest U.S. study of its kind. The study…shows one of the strongest links yet between…abortion on premature birth and low birth weight — major risk factors for infant death or sickness.” And "The risk of premature birth increases with the increasing number of abortions," —as reported by TIME/CNN 12/18/07, from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (JECH)
Of course you won't see these bits of information on TeenWire/PP. Bad for business…
And Mrs. Knott had, in those 59 pages given to Batavia Library Board members, documented evidence of the psychological trauma caused by abortion. Of course Teenwire/PP fails to document ANY of its claims.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Regarding 212,
I don't know the mind of God, but it makes sense that if you spend your life telling God that you don't need Him, He's not going to force Himself on you for eternity. Love doesn't work that way. Love must be chosen. That's the free will part. So you choose where to spend eternity–with God or without God. Without God is known as "Hell". And, as God is Love, eternity without Love leads to "weeping and gnashing of teeth".
God doesn't condemn you to Hell. You choose it. It's the ultimate "Freedom of Choice".
July 8th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
What is the problem with birthcontrol?Is it considered a sin?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Abortion: A Choice Against Women
by Frank Pavone
Quote:
"If you sometimes feel this way, examine the facts presented here. You will see that, in fact, abortion harms women, ignores their rights, and exploits and degrades them. Anyone concerned about women will do well to know these facts."
**********************
Oh PLEASE. I have never felt harmed or degraded by MY right to have an abortion, IF I so choose. As it happened, it has never been necessary, as the use of reliable contraception has prevented the unwelcome outcome of an unwanted pregnancy from ever happening.
I would feel harmed and degraded if the options of contraception and abortion were NOT available. Thankfully, both of them are. If some women feel abortion is wrong, nobody forces them to have one. If some women choose NOT to gestate and give birth, nobody forces them to do that either. See how well CHOICE works?
July 9th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Your source is good, however, this comparison includes more than just first trimester abortions. Obviously, when LTA's (which PP DOES NOT perform) are included, the #s get significantly higher. You do know that 97% of abortions prformed are during the first trimester?
July 9th, 2008 at 8:08 am
So even if I'm one of the best people to ever walk the planet, if I don't believe in god I've "chosen" to burn in hell for eternity. You call that love? I call it sick.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Sorry, Jerry, not everyone believes the religionist scare tactics some churches want to brainwash their members into believing. As far as I'M concerned, your god, heaven and hell are IMAGINARY, so your implied threat of "heaven" and "hell" signs have as much impact as sticking pins in one of those silly voo-doo dolls. @@
July 9th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Student says:
I don't know the mind of God, but it makes sense that if you spend your life telling God that you don't need Him, He's not going to force Himself on you for eternity. Love doesn't work that way. Love must be chosen. That's the free will part. So you choose where to spend eternity–with God or without God. Without God is known as "Hell". And, as God is Love, eternity without Love leads to "weeping and gnashing of teeth".
So even if I'm one of the best people to ever walk the planet, if I don't believe in god I've "chosen" to burn in hell for eternity. You call that love? I call it sick.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:10 am
You question that a good person who doesn't believe in God would then go to Hell. Well,
Good in the eyes of whom? Where do you get the definition of good from?
Classic example of people who don't believe in God are the Communists who where the biggest mass murders of all time and the biggest enslavers. And they thought they were doing good. (Check your history books)
Good cannot be described by any one person or people, that is where God comes in. Or then you have the "religion" of relativism.
PS Ryan was missing for 12 hours not 24, (typed it wrong)
July 9th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Just a friendly reminder:
This thread is about the Batavia library situation. If you'd like to discuss religion, contraception, or anything else, take it to the forum.
Let's keep comments here about the Batavia library.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Good in the eyes of just about everyone (unless, of course, you don't believe the above description as "good." I defined this person as someone who doesn't lie, cheat or steal; who is hard-working, honest, cares for others, contributes to charity and goes out of his way for his fellow man. Someone who is pro-life and a vegan because of his concern for animals. This person goes to hell, right? Or can we not even agree that this would be a "good person."
July 9th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Eh, come on now, religious discussion goes in the forum. There's a whole section for it. Tell you what, I'll start you a thread, you can run with it there. Any more OT comments and I'm closing comments on this thread.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
MattYonke wrote:
Let's keep comments here about the Batavia library.
***********************
Okay. How about this one; FAPP's campaign to control what the Batavia library keeps as links on its website will probably lose. At least, I hope it does. Is that better?
July 9th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
It is indeed better Ocean! Opposing viewpoints are welcomed, most especially when they're on topic.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Ocean:
I QUITE agree! Personally, I wouldn't mind if the library ALSO provided links to other sites that might be more acceptable to people with other viewpoints. To me, the essential role of the library is to provide information, preferably from many, different, independent sources and to make that information available to those who want it. I also am strongly against content-based censorship, particularly in a library.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Hi Professor! I agree with you as well; I think a library should always try to provide something for everyone. Those who find certain sites and subjects objectionable probably won't go to them, which is fine with me.
But it seems to me that FAPP is trying to get this library to erase the Teenwire link simply because THEY object to its content. Didn't the oh-so-simple solution of NOT going to it and NOT reading its contents ever occur to them? Obviously not!
July 10th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
What about a library having a "agenda" about it's goal of having something for everyone?
Seems I keep hearing one "side" complaining about control being attempted.
And the other "side" complaining about selected site being pushed by the library.
I feel the exact same thing is NOT being agrued by both!
July 10th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
That is, each side are talking about something slightly different from what the other side is talking about.
From what I can gather there seems to be TWO issues:
1. Having freedom to have something for everyone.
2. "Pushing" ("agenda") a certain site unto the patrons.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Sorry, Jerry, but neither of your arguments are valid, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I think they are lame and rather absurd. How is it an "agenda" for a public library to offer something for everyone? It isn't, of course, except to those individuals and groups who simply dislike or even hate the idea that a website THEY don't like can be accessed by teenagers at that library. Well, here's a simple solution; if you don't like it, DON'T go to it.
I know; you're worried about CONTROL; the possibility that your own teenagers could access the information at the PP Teenwire site. Well, they're YOUR children, therefore it is up to YOU to keep them away from it. It is NOT the library's responsibility to do your work for you. That's what FAPP IS seeking to do, despite your constant claims that "this isn't about censorship." Not everyone is stupid enough to believe that.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Wow! All you have to do is "put" a TINY something in every community service I would like to available myself of, and my only solution is to write said service off….that is stay away!?
July 11th, 2008 at 8:51 am
not "my only solution" but rather "my best solution". sorry for that.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:53 am
" 'put' a TINY something" meaning…."intentionly cause a somewhat unsubstantial something" that's the best way I am trying to explain myself.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:04 am
"NOT the library's responsibility to do your work for you"
Do you agree that it is the "library's responsibility to be 'impartial'….to 'not take sides by their actions'?"
July 11th, 2008 at 9:15 am
"actions" above…..much better to say "by their procedures".
July 11th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I don't think it's the teenwire website you all disagree with so much as it's the fact that it's from PP.You use the website as your "tool" in your fight against Planned Parenthood.LAME!
July 11th, 2008 at 11:54 am
It seems to me the 'best' solution is for FAPP to propose a site for the library to ALSO offer.
Yes, if you want complete control over what your children see and do, you will have to watch them ALL of the time. If you want to completely avoid information that you find embarassing or unpleasant, you will have to avoid the library. In fact, you will have to avoid newspapers, magazines, and pretty much anything that tells the truth about the world.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
It is the library's responsibility to make available as wide a range of opinions and information as is feasible under its budget. In terms of recommending websites, I think it should give a list of potential websites to visit for those interested in various subjects, especially the controversial ones. These websites should be viewed as staring points for further research, as any book or magazine articles would be. In deference to the idea of 'protecting' children from certain types of information, there can be a special 'children's' area that does not deal with certain types of subjects. But the 'adult' area should not have any content restrictions on information.
The idea that the library should refrain from recommending an informational website because people object to the contents of that website is COMPLETELY against the whole purpose of a library in my mind. Instead, those with differing views should ask for one or two of their websites to be added to a list of recommendations.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
If we have a problem wherein we need to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong", well, our work is cut out for us. BUT what about a problem wherein we need to decide what is "legal" and what is "illegal"?
Here is a few comments about our "approach" to the solving of the problem, namely:
Legality is about Law
Law is about guides
Good law - guide to morality
Bad law - guide to immorality
July 12th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Sounds like exactly the type of thing that democracy was invented to do.
July 12th, 2008 at 7:50 am
It seems that the whole idea of the protest is being missed. Whether PP or any other organization is behind Teenwire is not the issue. Rather, it is that a) Teenwire has material that many of us find offensive, if not potentially injurious to teens, and b) as taxpayers we have a right, indeed a responsibility to voice our opinions when we feel the public weal is not being served. That being said we understand that others are very much in favor of Teenwire and they too have their right to weigh in on the matter.
But in all things there is a point at which a line is not crossed. For example, some here argue that the library should provide something for everyone, and yet even most of them would not suggest we fill up the magazine racks at the library with porn from a to z to satisfy porn addicts. Or, looking at it from another perspective, if the library started to shelve only books on Catholic devotionals, one would presume opponents would line up on that as well.
So the question comes around to what is in the public interest, and that is why we have library boards and public discussions which provide a mechanism for review of management decisions. That a group feels the envelope has been pushed too far with the inclusion of Teenwire as an offering and seeks redress the matter is certainly within their rights.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Ridiculous JerryN.But then again most of this is.If you don't approve don't go to that website.People like you surf the web just to find things to complain about.Get a life.
July 12th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I have a friend who use to go to tanning salons. I suggested she instead go to Planned Parenthood.(whatscha talken about Willis?)
Get a tan, save a life!
Pray for the unborn!
July 12th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
JerryN says:
It seems that the whole idea of the protest is being missed. Whether PP or any other organization is behind Teenwire is not the issue. Rather, it is that a) Teenwire has material that many of us find offensive, if not potentially injurious to teens, and b) as taxpayers we have a right, indeed a responsibility to voice our opinions when we feel the public weal is not being served.
**********************
If you find Teenwire so offensive, then it is YOUR responsiblity to control YOUR children not to access that website. How to do that? Well, Jerry, that is YOUR problem, since they are your kids, not ours. Not everyone finds Teenwire offensive, even if YOU do.
Bottom line; those other teenagers who WANT to access Teenwire have every right to do so at the Batavia library, whether YOU object to the website or not. You DON'T have the right or authority to make the choices for ALL the teenagers in your town.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Here is some REAL sex-education that could save our children from hormonal cancers and bone diseases and melanomas and who knows what else is going to happen to this porr guinea pig birth control and get an abortion when it fails generation.
I was on the Truth Tour today.
When my two and half year old girl asked what the signs were pictures of I told her they were babies that were hurt and we are trying to get people to help them.
My eight year old girl already has a real understanding how awful abortion is and feeling a genuine desire to change the hearts of people who choose death. Sometimes people would drive by and flip us the finger and I would tell her that those people are probably feeling the hurt of bad choices they made in the past so they are striking out.
My thirteen year old boy is not even phased by the pictures. He is very mature for his age. I had mentioned the Truth Tour to him last week and today it was actually his encouragement that got me off the couch when he asked me to take him out on the Truth Tour.
High school is definely an undeniably appropriate age at which children should be educated as to what abortion is. It wouldn't be fair t them and doesn't make sense not to inform them. I find it very ironic that the same people who want these children to be taught bthat they can get birth control in high school and be taught that they have access to abortion if the birth control fails; are the same people who don't want them educated about what an abortion really is. They are laughable in their "disgust". And they want to "educate" our children that high dose hormone cocktails are "healthy" for them. They actually want to pass laws that make it legal for them to push steroids on our children without parental consent. And I was watching baseball this weekend they had commercials about how steroids should be banned for athletes in baseball cause they are not healthy. O.K.
Lets get this straight. Steroids are unhealthy for adult athletes but healthy for young girls to take on a consistent basis during their adolescense and through adulthood. What is wrong with this picture. Let's keep the truth about abortion in the schools, and keep Planned Parenthood and the drug pushers out of the high-schools so that don't "educate" our children into the unhealthy practice of a lifetime taking high-dosages of steroids.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Ocean,
By having the link, the LIBRARY is making the choice for ALL the teenagers patronizing the library's web site. How is this any different? Is it only because you agree with the link?
God Bless,
Roger
July 14th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Sorry, Roger, your so-called "argument" doesn't wash. You don't know if all teenagers in that town will access that website.
Do they have the CHOICE to access it? Yes they do, whether YOU approve of that choice or not. The FAPP group is just mad that the choice is available at this library in the first place. Too bad. It's not for FAPP to make the library's decisions on what they "can" or "cannot" have on their site.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Isn't the dispute whether or not there should be a link, not whether or not teens should be able to access it? You can access it without a link, obviously. I think the link indicates approval on the part of the library of Teenwire. Considering it is a taxpayer funded entity, members of the community have every right to protest that.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
John wrote:
Considering it is a taxpayer funded entity, members of the community have every right to protest that.
*****************
They can protest until they're blue in the face. If the library is a public (ie GOVERNMENT) entity, no church or "faith-based" group has any legal right to control what links that library puts on their computer system. I hope FAPP loses this campaign to control what teenagers are "allowed" to see on a public library's computer. It's not for this group to decide, and I hope the library's administrators won't wimp out and cave in to FAPP's censorship demands.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Roger wrote:
By having the link, the LIBRARY is making the choice for ALL the teenagers patronizing the library's web site.
**********************
And you "know" ALL the teenagers patronizing the library's web site will access PP's TEENWIRE site…how, exactly? @@
July 14th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Well, it has gotten an awful lot of free press lately!
July 14th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Actually, the citizens of any community, whether religious or not, have a right to try to control what their local governments endorse. Hopefully, Planned Parenthood won't be an endorsed entity of the Batavia Library. The First Amendment does not restrict political action on the part of religious-motivated citizens. Good try, though.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
PP. Keep your dirty hands and minds off our kids!
July 15th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Brian wrote:
Actually, the citizens of any community, whether religious or not, have a right to try to control what their local governments endorse. Hopefully, Planned Parenthood won't be an endorsed entity of the Batavia Library. The First Amendment does not restrict political action on the part of religious-motivated citizens. Good try, though.
*****************
The First Amendment DOES restrict religions and churches from DIRECTLY interfering or influencing government entities. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…" did you miss? Oh, and I know about the second part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" as well. But free exercise of religion doesn't mean FORCE of religion, which religious groups are trying to do with this library. I'm hoping this library doesn't wimp out and cave in to religious demands the groups had no right to make to begin with.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:59 am
truthseeker says:
PP. Keep your dirty hands and minds off our kids!
******************
How can giving the facts about sex, sexually transmitted diseases, how unwanted pregnancy could occur, etc. be considered "dirty?" I would think any concerned parent would want their kids to get facts about sex rather than listening to inaccurate myths.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Yesterday's edition of the Wall Street Journal's "Main Street" column by William McGurn had this to say of Teenwire: "teenwire…offers adolescents tips on everything from anal sex to a crude, animated condom game." It appears that more than just a few Batavia parents are not pleased with the content of Teenwire.
Some of our bloggers continue to insist the issue is a matter of "faith based" groups trying to impose their will on the public. When a major secular newspaper with no formal ties to any church or religious organization of any sort and a readership in the millions recognizes Teenwire for what it is it should be obvious that this matter resonates much further than one might think.
Another claim we see here is that the activist parents are guilty of trying to engage in "censorship." And yet are not those making the charge of censorship guilty of trying to censor those of us who feel we have a right to demand accountability for how our tax dollars are spent?
Our having just celebrated July 4th might be an advantageous time to recall that our strength as a republic comes from our right to redress grievances. The absence of that right is tyranny.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Just a small clarification…
The initial article said that "Concerned Families for Batavia, made up of five families who live in the city," want to get rid of the link, not FAPP.
Did it say anywhere that these 5 families are all motivated by their religious views? Would it matter? Aren't most people motivated by their views/morals/"faith"?
For a refresher, here's what the article quoted as one of the group's reasons for removing the link:
The fact that it is inappropriate to some parents is just that, a fact. No, it would not be seen as inappropriate for all parents, nor are these 5 families saying that all parents find it inappropriate.
Even if they are in the minority, why squash the minority? They find it offensive and inappropriate.
Let them have their say and try, as any citizen has the right, to change the library's policy on this. Those citizens who have a differing opinion have a right to express those thoughts too.
God Bless,
Roger
July 15th, 2008 at 9:29 am
The First Amendment DOES restrict religions and churches from DIRECTLY interfering or influencing government entities. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…" did you miss?
Citizens attempting to influence government on the basis of religious belief does not constitute the establishment of religion. Your view on this issue is the view of many, I admit, but it's ahistorical and certainly not mandated by the actual text of the constitution.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:19 am
In other words, Jerry N., the religious fundamentalists in this country are still ticked that the First Amendment, which PROHIBITS religion from interfering with and/or controlling government, is still intact. Which means that FAPP can't control what government entities offer on their computer systems or websites.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
John says:
Citizens attempting to influence government on the basis of religious belief does not constitute the establishment of religion.
**************
Oh PLEASE. Do you really think we're stupid enough to buy that ridiculous story? Isn't FAPP attempting to force its religious beliefs on this PUBLIC (ie government) library? Not everyone is as gullible as you'd like us to be.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
First of all this is an OPINION piece — nothing more. Is it surprising that OPINION columnist William McGurn would take this position. He's a former speechwriter for Bush, a Catholic and a PL speaker. Big surprise he feels this way.
I did attend tonight's meeting at the library. One thing that became quite obvious is that you are not a happy group. Nobody smiles and everyone, in general, seems just plain angry. I almost felt bad for you.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Student,
I'm really sorry the pro-lifers at tonight's meeting came across that way to you.
Unfortunately I couldn't attend tonight's meeting, but I'm eagerly awaiting a recap from those who were there.
Thanks for playing nice in my absence!
Matt
July 15th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Student,
What meeting were you at? People smiled at the Batavia Library Board meeting. They even cracked jokes about the salary of the library board (a cup of coffee). The one gentleman talking against Teenwire proposed the board, for their time tonight, should have their salaries doubled, to which someone else shouted "two cups of coffee", and everyone laughed.
Maybe if you were hanging out with the people in the pink PP shirts, you didn't see smiling. Or maybe you just didn't get the jokes.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Yes, Sylvia, jokes were made with the board. I did, in fact, see that. I'm talking about the overall demeanor of the folks there — yourself included. Regardless, it appears from this morning's news reports that the library unanimously decided to retain the link. I'm glad they stood their ground against censorship!
July 16th, 2008 at 7:22 am
There is no sense of decency anymore, America the Beautiful is now becoming America the Ugly.
That is something to be sad about.
God help us!
As for the gentleman at the meeting who said his mother had to leave the state to have him, because of "shame" ("lets not go back there") is he saying he would have rather been aborted?
I do not believe in hating the sinner, but instead hate the sin. But the problem today is there seems to be no shame.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Student says:
Regardless, it appears from this morning's news reports that the library unanimously decided to retain the link. I'm glad they stood their ground against censorship!
*******************
YAAAAAAAAAAAAY! I'm also relieved the library didn't wimp out and cave in to this group's religionist demands. This is very good news, Student, thanks.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:53 am
KarenK, in response to your statement, I'll just say this; "There was a time when religion ruled the world. It was called the DARK AGES."
Not everyone chooses to have their lives run by the toxic beliefs of hard-line churches, and I'm glad this library's administration was one of those who stood their ground against FAPP.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:58 am
"I'm talking about the overall demeanor of the folks there — yourself included."
I hope we'll never hear you whine again about personal attacks, Student.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:59 am
PP pushes drugs and promiscuity on our kids and spends millions of dollars in efforts to do it without parental notification. Rational thinkers understand that pushing steroid cocktails on children is toxic and discoraging steroid use is common sense. Your belief and Student's belief that you are doing good for these children by "educating" them to stay on BC is the toxic belief around here and it is not only toxic but has a palpable stench when you speak it.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Ocean says:
"There was a time when religion ruled the world. It was called the DARK AGES."
On the contrary, we are now entering into the darkness, the Father of Lies, is throwing out the bate with his hook and catching many.
Jesus is the Light of the World!
July 16th, 2008 at 9:47 am
"I'm also relieved the library didn't wimp out and cave in to this group's religionist demands"
—————————————-
I didn't realize that restricting kids' access to online porn in a public library is now considered "wimping out".
July 16th, 2008 at 10:07 am
John,
Do you consider pointing out the obvious a "personal attack?" I was at last night's meeting too and very much agree with Student's assessment.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Just to clarify, the result of the meeting was neither a total victory nor a total defeat for either side. Yes, the library retained the link, but moved it to an area less likely to be accessed by children. The "web reference" section is much less appealing, even by name, than the "young adult" section. It's not an ideal solution, but it is better.
What is very sad is that the board members and pro-TeenWire peaople are so blind to truth and decency. I provided plenty of factual, credible citations as to the medical inaccuracies on the site, including the failure of PP to list ANYWHERE on its "Getting Treated for STIs" 7/8/08 article that HIV/AIDS is FATAL! Now, don't you think that teens deserve to know that HIV/AIDS WILL KILL YOU? How is hiding that fact accurate?
And in the same article Teenwire spews garbage like, "Latex condoms reduce the risk of getting infected by 10,000 times". Huh? What does that mean? I can tell you (citations provided to library board) that a 2001 report by a congressionally convened panel, which included the NIH and Dept. Health and Human Services, concluded that condoms reduce HIV transmission by 85% (and reduce gonorrhea transmission for men, but could find no conclusive evidence that they prevent any other STDs). So be honest. Tell a teen that condoms leave you with a 15% chance of catching a disease that could leave you dead in 10-15 years. If you believe teens are mature enough to make their own decisions, they need to be given factually correct information so they can make informed decisions. Stop lying to them. But like one speaker said, there is no money to be made from chastity. And that's what it comes down to.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Ocean,
Two corrections:
1. The group is not making "religionist" demands, but making moral ones.
2. The group is not "FAPP" but "Concerned Families for Batavia".
At least try to get this right as you espouse your views and opinions.
God Bless,
Roger
July 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
After hearing the results of the board, I was reading my emails and thought this was extremely appropriate. Without faith, reason is lost, and people are blind. Whether it is a library board or PP employees and supporters, without faith, reason fails. Desires and base instincts prevail. This helps answer the whys of abortion and the acceptance of sites like TeenWire by people who should know better.
an excerpt: "Why Is the Pro-Life Movement So Christian, and Should it be?"
Commentary by John Jalsevac
July 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)
…I have always been surprised at how simple and elegant the rational pro-life arguments are. Start with the premise that human beings possess the right to life, prove that human life is a seamless continuity that begins with conception (a fact which science wholeheartedly affirms), and conclude that the unborn child is a human being and, therefore, possesses the right to life. Answer a few objections, make your clarifications, and the argument is, according to all of the principles of logic, flawless.
And yet, try it some time, and see what happens. Gently but firmly guide a convinced pro-abortionist through this argument, and despite all your best efforts you will always end up at the same place, that pesky "right to choose." Try as you might to demonstrate that the right to choose is a meaningless concept without the preeminence of the right to life, it is to no avail. The abortion supporter wants abortion to be permissible, and permissible it will be. In this matter they can no longer see reason through the murkiness of their desires.
Those pro-life activists who become infuriated that abortion supporters are so "blind," however, should think for a moment of the thousands, perhaps millions, who argued in all seriousness against the humanity of the African slave.
The unborn child cannot speak; in its beginning stages it doesn't even look like a human being. The African slave, however, could speak for himself, could sing, could love, could hate. He looked and behaved exactly like a human being, except that he was black, and not white. And yet many intelligent people, including many respected scholars, argued that the African slave was not human, and did not, therefore, possess human rights.
How can we explain this uncomfortable historical fact? Easy. People wanted slavery to be ethical, because slavery was extremely profitable. And to abolish slavery would have been to reorient the entire economy of the West. Just like most arguments about abortion end up at the non sequitur of the "right to choose," most arguments about slavery ended up at the non sequitur of "the economy."
Truth be told, we are all, every one of us, like this. We all, because we are human, and fallen, wish to put reason at our service, instead of serving reason.
There is an old saying, abhorrent to modern philosophers, but almost a mantra to the medieval philosopher, that goes, "Believe that you may understand."
The simplest interpretation of this adage is this: religious faith, if it is a true faith, clears the darkness of the intellect, and gives us the freedom and the ability to think straight and to see the truth.
Until we depend upon something higher than ourselves - namely the true God - we look at the world through the dirty lens of our own desires, attachments, and weaknesses. Without the light of faith we can rarely be sure that what we think is rational is not simply what we want, dressed up in the guise of reason.
Religious faith puts the intellect in contact with the highest Truth, and the sight of that Truth humbles the one who believes; it leads him to put his intellect no longer in the service of his own ego or desires, but at the service of Truth itself.
Very few people will ever arrive at the conclusion that abortion is evil entirely through the use of their intellect. This is made abundantly clear in the fact that most people who convert to the pro-life cause do so only after experiencing a religious conversion. And then, with the eyes of their mind wiped clean by faith, they look at the world and say (how many times have we heard this before?), "I can't believe I never saw this before. It is so obvious."
I do not in any way mean to discourage those who believe that reason will save the day. For indeed, there will always be those abortion supporters who are exceptional thinkers, and who have not had their ability to think clearly corrupted by their ego, and who will respond positively and honestly to well-phrased rational pro-life arguments. There may even be some audiences for which the most effective arguments are those that make no mention of religion, and appeal only to reason. But such as these are few and far in between.
The irony is that most of the pro-life activists who wish to demote Christianity to a mere supporting role wouldn't be pro-life if they hadn't first been given the gift of their Christian faith. This doesn't mean that their pro-life position isn't rational; what it means is that most people are only capable of clearly seeing reason once they have embraced faith.
The pro-life movement will always be a heavily Christian movement. Indeed, the final victory of the movement will only come when pro-life activists recognize that without the assistance of the God, there can be no victory. Any concerted efforts to downplay the religious element of the pro-life movement, while well-intentioned, are ultimately misinformed and very possibly self-destructive. For by downplaying the religious element we may convert a secularist or two, but, at the same time, we may very well find that we have cut the very umbilical cord of the pro-life movement.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Student,
And I still don't know what meeting you were at. I saw no difference between the demeanor of the people speaking against TeenWire and the people with the pink PP shirts–most of whom were NOT from Batavia, it is worth noting. (See, you had to get people from outside our community through a "PP action" item to support your view, because the residents of Batavia know better.)
What I did notice was some nervousness, more so on the anti-Teenwire side (but maybe that was because there were more of them) speaking in front of a microphone. We had some very courageous people who had probably never spoken in front of a crowd before, who knew they were going to be labeled "nincompoops" with the rest of us. Yet they spoke. And they made excellent cases. Unfortunately their arguments fell on deaf ears.
There was even a gentleman who wrote a superb speech that included an analogy likening the dereliction of duty of the library board members to remove the link to city workers leaving a man-hole cover open. He was excellent–well-thought out, relevant, well-spoken.
Really, those who spoke against TeenWire should be congratulated. They did well. They brought many solid arguments against the link. (And they didn't have to keep repeating the same argument, like the pro-Teenwire, "censorship" people.)
July 16th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
There was significant misinformation and outright lies on the part of many (not all) of those opposed to the site — not to mention the woman who had to toss around your beloved gore porn (to quote a response from the paper). I did notice that you gave the Board information that wasn't available to the rest of us. I'd love to see it (assuming you wouldn't mind sending me a copy — my e-mail is law_research_student@yahoo.com).
I agree. He was very well spoken, however, his analogy was poor.
And many of them used the same tired "abortion" argument regardless of the fact that abortion is only a very small percentage of what the website discusses.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Aren't they all members of FAPP as well?
July 16th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Two corrections:
Roger says:
1. The group is not making "religionist" demands, but making moral ones.
2. The group is not "FAPP" but "Concerned Families for Batavia".
At least try to get this right as you espouse your views and opinions.
1. Roger, you can make whatever religionist claims you want, many of us aren't buying them. A religionist's ideas of "morals" stems from their religious BELIEFS and laws. Not everyone in your town wants to be governed by the "morals" of so-called gods, religions and churches. Including this public library's staff, which is a good thing.
2. "Concerned families for Batavia" sounds exactly like that other christian fundamentalist group "Concerned Women For America." Hardly any difference.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I believe the point is that perhaps if information on birth control had been available, perhaps his mother WOULD NOT have gotten pregnant as a teen. Isn't that something both sides could agree should be discouraged?
Yeah, no judgment here at all. Wouldn't you be offended if I said, "I don't believe in hating stupid people, but hating their stupidity instead?" There's really no difference in what you're saying.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Student, I think it's safe to say that this group "Concerned Families for Batavia" opposes contraception as well as abortion. And premarital sex, and the idea that women can aspire to other careers besides marriage and motherhood. Would I be far off the mark in those assessments?
July 16th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Sylvia says:
After hearing the results of the board, I was reading my emails and thought this was extremely appropriate. Without faith, reason is lost, and people are blind. Whether it is a library board or PP employees and supporters, without faith, reason fails.
******************
REALLY. Tell me how much "reason" the islamic "faith-based" jihadists had on September 11, 2001 when they crashed those planes into the Twin Towers in New York City. Or how much "reason" Timothy McVeigh, who may or may NOT have been "christian" but certainly was NOT muslim, had when he and his buddy bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK in 1995 (I believe that was the year). See the point? Probably not, but I just thought I'd ask anyway. Keep your "faith," I'd much rather have reason.
Bottom line; some of us, myself included don't WANT to be ruled by someone else's idea of "faith." Neither did the staff of the Batavia Library, who decided it had the right to make its OWN decisions.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I am the gentleman in question. I would much rather that my mother had good information about birth control, that the society was much more open about the facts of sexuality, much less inclined to judge, and that she had more options. If I had been aborted, I would never have existed, so your question is identical to asking whether I wish she had never had sex as a teenager. I am happy to be alive, but if she had an abortion OR had not had sex, I would not have existed, so no harm would have been done to me. Would her life have been better if she could have aborted? Almost certainly. It should at least have been an option.
Do you have any idea how condescending and patronizing this is? How about saying that there *was* no 'sin'? How about not making judgments condemning other people for being in love? True morality is not rule based, it is not based on condemnations. It is caring and compassionate and aware of the difficulties *people* face in life. True morality is about making our lives better and helping each other out. You are so obsessed with your religious rules that you forget to care about real life people.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
My interpretation is exactly the opposite, however. Reason is the way we should find morality. It should be based on caring for each other and thinking about the consequences of our actions. Religion messes up this process by presenting mythology in place of religion, setting up in place of morality a moralistic, rule bound system that ultimately cares more for the rules than for people. This is, ultimately, immoral to the highest degree.
That a person cannot come to see your viewpoint about abortion through reason is EXACTLY the point. Our laws should not be an 'establishment of religion'. Instead, they should be based on rationality and caring. The phrase 'mind wiped clean by faith' is telling, don't you think?
July 16th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
No, they are making moralistic demands based on their interpretation of their religion. That *is* religionist.
And yet, I suspect that there is great overlap of membership and of goals. Splitting hairs to keep the opposition busy??
July 16th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Professor says:
"Our laws should not be an 'establishment of religion'. Instead, they should be based on rationality and caring."
Whose rationality and whose idea of what caring is?
Hitler and Stalin based their laws on rationality and caring, at least their viewpoint of it. A person can rationalize just about anything to their way of thinking. Hitler thought he was caring for the pure German race by weeding out the people he thought were inferior and a detriment to his idea of life.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Professor said: "You are so obsessed with your religious rules that you forget to care about real life people."
I never forget to care about real life people, and I ask God to give me good health so I may do more to care and help. I ask Him to show me where I can do more good and help me along in doing it. I and other people of God do not pick and chose who we will care for. We care for all humans born and unborn. The unborn need someone to care about them, do you care? Do you care that their lives is being taken from them? Do you help to save their lives? Do you help the mothers who are suffering the effects of an abortion?
Whether they remember being in their mother's womb or not has no bearing on whether someone should be allowed to live or not. I don't remember being a baby, so if my mother killed me that wouldn’t make it any less wrong.
If you follow and I mean really take to heart the teachings of Jesus, you will be caring for real life people. Mother Theresa was a perfect example of someone who followed the "religious rules".
July 16th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Ocean(264): How did you get that out of my 261?
Student(266) says: "…a Catholic, and a PL speaker. Big surprise that he feels that way." In the interest of full disclosure, what does his being Catholic have to do with it?
July 16th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Student,
I've sent the citations as you've requested. I'll gladly share. I have nothing to hide. My research is solid.
Actually, if anyone wishes to fight their library over the Teenwire link, I'd gladly save them some work by sharing my research from sources like the World Health Organization and the Am Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that contradict PP. But as has been shown, if you, like PP, say something often enough and loudly enough, like stating you provide "accurate" information and are "trusted", throw in some of your lawyers and doctors to do the same, add a slick campaign program, and some people will forget that you still don't back up what you say with factual evidence. "Dazzle and confuse" works too well. Hmmm…Maybe next time someone tries to remove a TeenWire link, they should try that tactic.
And no, not all of the members of CFB are part of FAPP, though they believe the same. In fact, Kerry Knott, the spokesperson, was forwarded FAPP's emails when they concerned Batavia. As far as I know, I am the only member of CFB that has been actively involved in FAPP on a regular basis.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
How about an educated populace in a representative democracy?
And the only reason Torquemada and Calvin didn't rack up just as many deaths is because they didn't have modern technology to help them. Hitler and Stalin used exactly the same mindset that those pushing religion use: respect for authority and unquestioned following of that authority. This is the mindset that is so dangerous, whether it is used by the religious or the non-religious. Instead, I am in favor of skepticism of all authority, of a populace that is encouraged to stand up to their government, whether it is secular or religious. I am in favor of relying on evidence and reason rather than faith and blind obedience. For me, the religious nuts are in the same category as Hitler and Stalin.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Until their brains are developed enough to feel pain, to have emotions, or even begin to have experiences AT ALL, I don't see there as being a moral agent in the fetus. After that, while I think the woman has the absolute right to have the fetus removed from her body, I do think that transfer to an incubator or artificial womb would be allowable, perhaps preferable.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
FYI
For anyone living in Kane County Board District 2, which covers part of Aurora and Batavia, DOUG SULLIVAN is the Republican candidate for Kane County Board in November's election.
Doug sits on the Batavia Library Board and voted to KEEP TEENWIRE ON THE "YOUNG ADULT" PAGE!!! He was only one of 2 to vote to keep it there instead of moving it to a safer location. Just one more instance of a Democrat in Republican clothing.
REMEMBER HIS VOTE ON ELECTION DAY!!!!
July 16th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
It isn't whether there is a memory of the experience. It is whether there is any mental capacity AT ALL. Until the third trimester, there simply aren't the brain structures to support any type of mental state. Until there were, I simply didn't exist. What makes a person is much, much more than mere genetics. It is ultimately brain functioning. Until that exists, there simply isn't a person. And without a person, there is no moral aspect.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Sylvia,
Thank you for sending the e-mail. I do appreciate you taking the time to send it. I gave it a cursory look and already see problems (or differences of opinion, if you prefer). If you're interested, I'm happy to relay them — although I imagine when it comes right down to it we're going to disagree.
There were many people at the meeting who were not affiliated with PP AND who were doctors, teachers and specialists in the field. They saw no inaccuracies with the website. What do you think they have to gain by saying this? I've also looked at the site and have yet to see anything medically inaccurate (but I'm not a doctor).
My guess is your biggest problem is the definition of when pregnancy occurs — and this is one we're not going to resolve. However, perhaps if I explain it in a different way you can at least try to see it from another perspective. I have a good friend who could not get pregnant. She and her husband opted for invitro. When she went to the doctor and had the fertilized eggs implanted, she had to wait an additional week to find out if she was pregnant. Her doctor DID NOT tell her she was pregnant right after insertion. It wasn't until he had confirmed that two of the eggs had implanted on the uterine wall that he confirmed her pregnancy.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
KarenK,
You can't claim to care about people and then make statements such as the folowing:
Again, how is that any different than my saying, "I do not believe in hating stupid people, but instead hate their stupidity?" I'd really love your thoughts on this.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Of course you can care about people and disagree with you about that statement.
I don't hate people with cancer but I hate cancer. How is that any different than not hating the sinner but hating the sin or not hating stupid people but hating stupidity? Sinfulness is not the essence of the person, stupidity is not the essence of the person. You can love the essence of the person but hate that which is a secondary and unfortunate characteristic belonging to that person. You may love an alcoholic but hate his addiction to alcohol and in fact be unable to tolerate the person when he or she is the grasp of alcohol. I guess I don't get your objection to the hating the sin/love the sinner distinction (other than that it has been attached too often to homosexuality, which in my opinion is innate and can't fairly be called a sin).
July 16th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Whose rationality and whose idea of what caring is?
Professor says:
"How about an educated populace in a representative democracy?"
Are you saying Germany, one of the most advanced countries in the world in the 1920's and 30's did not have an educated populace? And wasn't the Weimar Republic a representive democracy?
And they produced Hitler!
The Soviet Union obsessively pushed education and they were paragons of virtue right? Since when does education = morality?
"Hitler and Stalin used exactly the same mindset that those pushing religion use: respect for authority and unquestioned following of that authority. This is the mindset that is so dangerous, whether it is used by the religious or the non-religious. Instead, I am in favor of skepticism of all authority, of a populace that is encouraged to stand up to their government, whether it is secular or religious. I am in favor of relying on evidence and reason rather than faith and blind obedience. For me, the religious nuts are in the same category as Hitler and Stalin."
How can you govern a country without any authority? Why do you think everyone blindly follows things? Do you think you are the only one who isn't blind?
July 16th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I do not believe in hating the sinner, but instead hate the sin. But the problem today is there seems to be no shame.
Again, how is that any different than my saying, "I do not believe in hating stupid people, but instead hate their stupidity?" I'd really love your thoughts on this.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
You do not hate the student who is stupid, you hate the fact that he is stupid and then you try and teach him.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Professor says:
"It isn't whether there is a memory of the experience. It is whether there is any mental capacity AT ALL. Until the third trimester, there simply aren't the brain structures to support any type of mental state. Until there were, I simply didn't exist. What makes a person is much, much more than mere genetics. It is ultimately brain functioning. Until that exists, there simply isn't a person. And without a person, there is no moral aspect."
July 16th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Under your definition of a person then that means we should do as the Natzi's did and clean out all the institutions of people who's brains are not functioning to your standards and also old people etc…
"It is ultimately brain functioning. Until that exists, there simply isn't a person. And without a person, there is no moral aspect."
Person: HUMAN, being, life, individual, mortal, personage, soul (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus)
If it is not a person, then what species is it?
July 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I am happy to be alive, but if she had an abortion OR had not had sex, I would not have existed, so no harm would have been done to me.
Posted by Prof. July 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
So your logic is that it is o.k. to wipe peoples existense out from the face of the earth as long as you do it prior to the third trimester after conception. Well I got news for you Prof. I lost a baby at 22 weeks and I loved him very much. He did exist. I songs to him and comforted him in the womb. I had his body cremated and buried in the cemetery and his name is registed in the cemetery records. Fortunately your denial of my sons existence in your miond has no effect on the FACT that he existed, he was loved, and he made a difference in a lot of peoples lives. Amazing for somebody who never existed huh. You might want to review your definition of existense there Prof. lol
July 16th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I thought this was an interesting take, written by Jonah Goldberg:
"People who don't have children, particularly those of a libertarian bent, can be quite romantic — and arrogant — about the power parents have. They talk piously about how it's "up to the parents" to protect children from the seamier aspects of culture, without appreciating that, given the culture, such protection is impossible. I'm not proposing a solution here. I'm not even sure there is one. But I suspect that a lot of what passes for the "culture war" is actually the natural response of parents who think the culture has declared war on their kids."
I think there is a lot in this that is exactly right and applicable to the Batavia dispute and the larger argument of who is trying to foist their views on whom. Those who object to the link are looking at the issue as "can't we have a refuge at a library from a culture of smut or at least keep the library from tacitly endorsing this view of sexuality?" Those who disagree say "don't like it? Keep your kids away from it then. Don't impose your view on us." The counter to this is that the libertarians are imposing a culture that is largely inescapable on the rest of society.
Like Goldberg, I don't have a solution. But I'm not looking forward to the day when I'm watching the All-Star game with my son, and I have to answer his question about what erections lasting over four hours are. Thanks for that, Pfizer.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Person: HUMAN, being, life, individual, mortal, personage, soul (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus)
It's alive but not a person?
According to the Thesauras person and life are used as synonyms, SO:
It's alive (or there wouldn't be a need to kill it)
but not a life(alive) That is contradictory
July 17th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Your neurosis should not become public policy.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:14 am
When there are no regular brain waves, the person is already dead. Yes, that is an appropriate time to send them to thew mortuary. They are gone. It isn't a question of even higher brain functioning. A fetus before the third trimester doesn't even have regular brain waves; doesn't have the capacity to feel pain or any other sensation; and it otherwise exactly like someone who is brain-dead.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:18 am
An educated populace is not sufficient, I agree. "Eternal vigilance is the price of democracy".
We have to continually fight those who would impose censorship, who would agree to torture of prisoners, who would flaunt international standards of conduct, and who would try to impose their warped views on everyone else. Sounds like the religious right and the Bush administration, doesn't it?
July 17th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Even assuming that your timeline for the beginning of brain functions is correct, the analogy to brain death is wrong. Unlike a brain dead individual, a fetus will soon develop the brain function. I don't suppose you think that a person in a coma or someone who is unconscious can be killed and have his personhood denied because his brain is not functioning at a sufficiently high level?
July 17th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Even someone in a coma has more brain functioning than a fetus before the third trimester. Yes, if someone had the same level of functioning as, say, a 5 month fetus, I would say they were already dead. And that would be a medically justified conclusion. As for what a fetus will develop into, I am much more concerned about what it is at the time. Yes, it will eventually be a person, if the woman carrying it decides to continue to carry it. But it is not, before the third trimester, a person as yet.
And even if it was, the woman within whose body it resides STILL has the right to demand that it leave. NOBODY has the right to remain inside your body without your *continuing* permission. So, truthfully, in regards to the abortion debate, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant to me. Like I said, if an artificial womb is ever constructed, I could see requiring a a late term fetus to be transferred to such as a reasonable option. But let's face it, the vast majority of abortions are in the first trimester, where even these concerns are irrelevant.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Good answer. I guess I look at it this way: Cancer is something that I'm willing to bet everyone can agree exists. It's something you can test for…..either you have it or you don't. "Sin" is very subjective. Not everyone will agree as to the definition of "sin."
This is what I'm saying. I'd guess that many (if not most) here would consider homosexuality a "sin." Again, it's all about "judging" others and THAT is what I find so personally offensive.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:53 am
"As for what a fetus will develop into, I am much more concerned about what it is at the time."
Why?
"And even if it was, the woman within whose body it resides STILL has the right to demand that it leave. NOBODY has the right to remain inside your body without your *continuing* permission."
Who says?
For a Professor, you beg a lot of questions.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Honestly, those are assertions…that brain activity is the test for personhood at both the start and end of life rather than a genetically distinct developing human, and that a woman has an ultimate eviction right from conception to birth.
Those are certainly defendable positions, but they are not the sole rational position.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Professor says:
We have to continually fight those who would impose censorship, who would agree to torture of prisoners, who would flaunt international standards of conduct, and who would try to impose their warped views on everyone else. Sounds like the religious right and the Bush administration, doesn't it?
******************
Sounds exactly like the parties you mentioned, Professor, although I'm sure the "christian" family groups would keep trying to deny that fact. Also, Hitler HATED democracy, he far preferred the "law and order" that a dictatorship provides. So he made it a priority to destroy democracy in Germany and created his customized Nazi dictatorship to replace it. People ignored the signs that it was happening right under their noses then too.
As far as I'm concerned, Bush and his ilk are no better. But then some religionists really DO think a dictatorship is better. Just like the catholic church, who created two of the most hideous terrorist campaigns in history, the INQUISITION and the MALLEUS MALEFICARUM. These were nothing more than torture and murder campaigns against innocents whose only "crime" was disagreeing with or dissenting from "holy mother church."
July 17th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I wasn't involved with the library meetings in any way, I have just been reading the comments here. It seems to me that those citizens who wanted the LINK to come down (not access to the site, mind you, just the LINK), were not trying to get around the democratic process, they were participating in it. Disagree with them all you want, but don't get fired up because they are participating in their own community and using the democratic process to do so.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:28 am
A fetus before the third trimester doesn't even have regular brain waves; doesn't have the capacity to feel pain or any other sensation; and it otherwise exactly like someone who is brain-dead.
Posted bt Prof. July 17th, 2008 at 6:18 am
You don't have a clue wether my 22 month old son, who claim a have a "neurosis" over, could feel pain. You are ignorant and state things like that as fact. We only use a very small portion of our brains as it is. So you think you know exactly which brain waves give a person the ability to feel pain. I guess the heart beat increasing and the baby kicking and pulling away as the baby gets torn to pieces and an increase in "brain activity" while being dismembered doesn't qualify in a Professors mind as being able to feel pain or sense that you are being slaughtered. For a Professiryou sure are an ignoramous. And if you ever had the nerve to "dis" my son like that to my face you wouldn't be able to feel pain for much more than another 60 seconds yourself. But most of your reaction would be involuntary too. You might want to think twice before you insult somebodys pre-born. You may get away with it in your circles with Ocean and Student, but your homocidal tendencies and insults about the value of others unborn children wouldn't fly well around the majority of loving fathers. And if you said something to degrade my son in front of me or my wife or my children you wouldn't be so smug about in the future.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Student,
I thought you were all about stopping the spread of STD's. Gay sex is a breeding ground for all kinds of sexually transmitted viruses, diseases, and infections. Why would you encourage an activity like that to anybody who you care about? It is a scientific fact that a man's sperm and male hormones are super-accelerants to the spread of AIDs. Wether or not you think the homosexuality is a sin, you should still look at the act and it's results on the basis of the facts and discourage the destructive behaviour, that is if you really care about the people more then you care about your political agenda.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Ocean,
Why such bigotry towards Christians? Why do you do this?
God Bless,
Roger
July 17th, 2008 at 9:47 am
There have been babies born who survived at 22 weeks of gestation age. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ND737G0&show_article=1 How is it possible that the baby could live outside of the womb without a functioning brain?
I'd also say that the emotional trauma of losing a 22 week old child is not neurosis, and those who say so are probably people who could stand a little more humility.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Student,
http://tinyurl.com/2ojvp8
ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24
The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:
Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25
Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26 And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.27
July 17th, 2008 at 10:05 am
And as far as teenwire. Teaching children that it is o.k. to engage it these abnormal behaviours. Or healthy to be on a high dose steroid regimen throughout adolescence and into adulthood. All the while knowing that sexual intercourse in children is detrimental and dangerous. Premature sexual activity damages self-respect and self-esteem due to their lack of readiness.
You willingness to promote adolescents to the risky behaviours endorsed on teenwire shows you have either a vested interest in Planned Parenthood or a willingness to overlook the facts for some other political agenda.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Professor,
My 22 month old baby had a huge impact on my life and the lives of my family. And according to you he never "existed". How does a professor rationalize that?
Look, next time you get called on making such a ridiculous statement as the baby doesn't "exist" until the third trimester, either reply wity sound reasoning to support your claim or admit what you said was preposterous. Don't ignore it try to change the subject with personal attacks.
The peace of Jesus Christ be with all on this blog today
July 17th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Truthseeker,
I am well aware of your bigotry toward homosexuals. I sincerely hope that none of your children ever have to face you with the news that s/he is gay. Homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle. People are born this way. Furthermore, not all homosexuals are "disease ridden" as you would like us to believe. I have friends who have been together for over 8 years and were married in California a few weeks ago. Neither has any disease and they are faithful to each other. I find your bigotry and hatred to be disgusting, vile and all too typical of so-called "christians."
July 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I have no vested interest in PP whatsoever. I do have a vested interest in my children. Giving them access to information about sexuality IS my political agenda. They know how to protect themselves AND how to behave responsibly. Furthermore, they know how to THINK critically for themselves as they haven't been spoonfed nonsensical mythology their entire lives.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Isn't the universe made up of TWO kinds of existence? (mutually exclusive):
Actual and Potential
A rosebush long before blooming gives no apparent evidence of ever producing a rose. It certainly is NOT a rose. But doesn't the potential demand many of the "rights" of the actual?
July 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I should have related to "rosebud, very early on", NOT to the rosebush. sorry
also, "mutually exclusive" should have been "mutally inclusive" giving respect to that "third kind of existence" namely "becoming"???
July 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Student says:
I find your bigotry and hatred to be disgusting, vile and all too typical of so-called "christians."
**************
So do I. Which is why I kicked the spiritual toxic waste dump of gods, religions and churches out the door over 25 years ago. I still consider that to be one of the best decisions I ever made. It's great to be free from the miseries of religionist slavery.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Truthseeker says:
Premature sexual activity damages self-respect and self-esteem due to their lack of readiness.
****************
It depends on how premature the sexual activity begins. I don't recommend anyone have sex under their state's legal age of consent, due to the ridiculous age of consent laws, in addition to the unwanted burdens of STDs and pregnancy. But after that legal age is reached, and a girl or boy can obtain contraception without needing the consent of her/his parents, they're no longer under the parents' control. Why any rational person would have a problem with a legal adult's using contraception is beyond me, but I often find that christian fundamentalists would rather keep their children sexually ignorant until they finally marry, even when those "children" have become legal adults. I guess you have to decide for yourself how "childhood" is defined.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Roger says:
Ocean,
Why such bigotry towards Christians? Why do you do this?
*******************
Which post are you referring to that showed "bigotry towards Christians?" Interesting that you included NO quotation to reference from.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Truthseeker says:
For a Professiryou sure are an ignoramous. And if you ever had the nerve to "dis" my son like that to my face you wouldn't be able to feel pain for much more than another 60 seconds yourself. But most of your reaction would be involuntary too. You might want to think twice before you insult somebodys pre-born. You may get away with it in your circles with Ocean and Student, but your homocidal tendencies and insults about the value of others unborn children wouldn't fly well around the majority of loving fathers. And if you said something to degrade my son in front of me or my wife or my children you wouldn't be so smug about in the future.
***********************
Truthseeker, do you always threaten people with implied physical violence when they don't agree with every word you say? That's quite a temper you have there.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
No, it doesn't. Potential is only that: potential. It is not reality. There are NOT two forms of existence, there is simply one. There is ACTUAL EXISTENCE.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
First, I'm curious what 'abnormal behaviors' you are talking about? It is normal for teens (and everybody else) to masturbate. If anything it is 'abnormal' to not. It is normal for teens to be thinking about their place in society, how they will interact with other people, and about how their sexual desires fit into their whole personality.
Where do the problems with self-esteem come from in those having sex early? My guess is from one of three places: 1) Having sex before they are truly ready. If they are not ready, the feeling of 'being used' would be common. This is why we have to teach them to say no until they know what they want and to wait until they know who they want to lose their virginity to. 2) Judgmental parents or other adults. Instead of supporting the teen with good advice about how to avoid pregnancy or diseases, a parent can be judgmental about even considering having sex. This can often lead to family strife and self-esteem problems in the teen. This, in my mind, is COMPLETELY the fault of the parent. 3) Self-esteem often is hurt during break-ups. This can be deeper when the relationship has been sexual. Truthfully, I see this as part of growing up. Yes, it is painful, but so are many aspects of becoming an adult.
I see the role of an adult in this process to give good advice about how to avoid difficulties associated with sexuality, to give advice about how to handle the emotions, not just of sexuality, but of trying to relate to other people, and to teach from an early age how to make good personal decisions. But then, I see sexuality as a normal part of being human, whether or not a person is married.
As an example, I certainly HOPE my daughter (who is now 12) will have sex before she gets married. I fully expect her to have sex before she is 18. In any case, I HOPE she has at least half a dozen different partners before she even considers getting married. Anything less is unfair to her and to whoever she chooses to marry. I also wouldn't see it as bad if she NEVER decides to get married, or if she discovers she is lesbian and chooses to be with another woman. In any case, I also hope that she feels free to come to either me or her mother with questions and with the knowledge that we will give her the best advice we can. We will also support and comfort her when she either makes a mistake or has her heart broken. That is part of the learning process.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Or perhaps I consider sexuality to be an important part of being an adult. Perhaps I want my child to learn how to be fully sexual and not ashamed of it. Perhaps I want my daughter to have *all* the information she needs to be safe while being a sexual person. Perhaps I consider information about birth control, typical sexual responses, different ways to enjoy sex, and different types of STDs, their symptoms, and how best to avoid them as BASIC information that everyone should have before they are an adult. Perhaps I am fed up with certain parts of this society that still think that sex is shameful, still want to keep it in the closet and hidden from polite conversation, and who want to restrict it for religious reasons to only those who want to marry and even then only those they 'approve' of (heterosexuals, for example). Perhaps my ideas are why I support the mission of PP. I have no 'vested interest' in PP other than the fact that I want this information to be out there and available to all who want to find it. If it wasn't PP, it would be necessary to find someone else to distribute this NEEDED information.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Clearly you wanted to have that baby. I'm sure you wrapped a lot of emotions into that possibility. That in and of itself does not mean there was a feeling person inside. There was a fetus. There was NOT a person. Your emotions are inspired by your hopes, but do not change the facts. While I am sorry for your loss (because you clearly wanted to have a child), you let your emotions get ahead of the reality.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Wow.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
In a sense I agree with you. But we also realize in this country that certain values cannot be over-ruled by the majority. Among those values is a deep dislike of censorship in any form. We should also remember that the Bill of Rights is at least partly because we *don't* want the 'tyranny of the majority' to reign.
So, yes, both sides were participating in the democratic process. On that score, I see this as much healthier than, say, bombing a library. But we also have to realize the fundamentally un-American nature of those promoting less information availability rather than more. I, personally, would not have been troubled by the suggestion that a link to a Catholic (say), abstinence-only sex-ed site be included on the library's page as an alternative.
In contrast to those against the link, I do not see a link on a library website as an endorsement. It is a starting point for research, not an ending point. If another starting point can be put up, that would be even better.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Ocean,
Your posts link Christianity with being a "slave" (#140), it's teachings with being "toxic" (#148, #272), it's people to be deluded (#151), mocking it's "authority" (#172), "brainwashing" it's members (#225), it's members "fundamentalists" (#264), linking it to Timothy McVeigh (#287) implying he did the bombing because of Christian beliefs, and most recently, and the one that prompted my question to you, calling the catholic church a "terrorist" organization (#316).
Do you see the pattern here?
I can understand that you are not a fan of the Christian religion, but this is no cause for your pattern of blogging.
God Bless,
Roger
July 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
to Professor:
If a potential something is not a reality, is it therefore nothing? And if it is nothing what's with the name "potential"?
From nothing comes nothing.
Can an apple blossom become a rose? A rosebud can. That rosebud "ability" to become a rose is nothing?
July 17th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
"ability" above should be "potential". sorry
July 17th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
"Among those values is a deep dislike of censorship in any form."
Obviously, we censor child porn, and traditionally, speech could be banned if a typical person applying the community standards of the time found that the material appealed to prurient interests.
In any event, no one is looking to censor teenwire–anyone could access teenwire, with or without a link. It's about whether or not a library should link to it and whether or not that constitutes tacit endorsement.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Roger, you appear to have glossed over the bigotry toward non-christians on this blog.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Just a clarification, I wasn't saying that Teenwire would qualify as obscene, just that it isn't the case that censorship of all kinds has been traditionally found unconstitutional.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Brian says:
It's about whether or not a library should link to it and whether or not that constitutes tacit endorsement.
******************
Whether a public library "should" link to a site YOU don't like isn't a call for you and your group to make. The library didn't want to be controlled by your group's "shoulds" either.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Well, they didn't decide to take the link down. However, the Aurora Public Library, to my knowledge, has not linked to it. Evidently, they have used their judgment not to do so. Are they therefore "censoring" Teenwire? If you petitioned them to put up the link, would they be required to do so? If Batavia's trustees had decided to take down the link would that action be legally actionable? Of course not.
Citizens have a right to try to convince government officials to do things that they want them to do. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But it's as much my right to convince them one way or the other as it is yours.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Actually I disagree with you on this one. They should have the right to speak up about it — just like anybody else — however wrong I (or we) believe they are (although I do think the library made the correct decision in retaining the link). It's not unlike my strong moral objection to the use of their gore porn — with one exception — the library isn't forcing their children to go to Teenwire. They are, in fact, forcing their gore porn on the children of others.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Student says: Homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle. People are born this way.
This is not true!
Show proof with scientific evidence from a repreable source that supports your belief.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
professor says: "Would her life have been better if she could have aborted? Almost certainly."
I am sorry you feel this way about how you perceive your mother feels about your existence. That is hurtful, and sad. You may not realize it, but it is sad that you believe your existence is not worth what your mother had to endure. All the girls I know who kept their baby said it helped them in many many ways; helped them grow up and also they learned that there are consequences to their actions. That their child that they thought was really nothing inside them when they were considering an abortion really was something, a someone, their child!
There is no greater love than to lay down your life for someone. I would die for my children in my womb or out.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Study indicating that sexual orientation has a biological substrate. See Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA Science, Vol 253, Issue 5023, 1034-1037
Copyright © 1991 by American Association for the Advancement of Science
Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain.
The psychobiology of human sexual orientation.
Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, De Crespigny Park, London
Personality and Individual Differences
Volume 34, Issue 8, June 2003, Pages 1337-1382
Now, would you like to show me proof "from a repreable source" that it is a "chosen" way of life and NOT biological?
July 17th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Given that you don't know him or his mother who are you to make such a judgment call? I really feel sorry for YOU playing the good christian with that judgmental attitude of yours.
Well good for you! Unfortunately, I've picked up this nasty habit of reading the newspaper. If you ever get the chance, check one out. It's full of stories about neglected children, murdered children, sexually abused children, etc. by some girls/women who never should have had children in the first place.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Student said:
Neither has any disease and they are faithful to each other.
Then they most likely don't engage in gay sex.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Ocean said:
Truthseeker, do you always threaten people with implied physical violence when they don't agree with every word you say? That's quite a temper you have there.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Ocean,
Pretty much only the ones that degrade my loved ones. And I wasn't threatening anyone, I was just letting him know that degrading other people will get you into trouble so he would be better off biting his tongue. He can get away with it on the net but in a social invironment he had better bite his tongue.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
"Study indicating that sexual orientation has a biological substrate."
"evidence suggests"
Indicating and suggests are not scientific words used are a proven. The scienctific world has many times suggested something or indicated something only to later find the exact opposite.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
How come NONE of you teenwire fans even tried to address the highly likely probable negative health effects of adolescents ingesting high dose steroid cocktails, the BC you want to put your daughter on Professor. You think her sexual experimentation with multiple partners is more important to her health then the negative effects of pumping her up with estgrogen and progesterone. Have you watched any baseball on TV the past few weekends. They are doing public service bulletins discouraging the adult athletes from taking steroids because of the negative health effects. I HOPE your daughter gets some guidance from a responsible adult who helps her understand that when it comes to taking steroids the less you take the better it is for your health. I can understand that sometimes they are required for serious medical conditions. But to encourage taking high dose regiments of them on a regular basis just so you can participate in recreational sex is no different then taking any other harmful drug for recreational purposes. You put an inordinately unhealthy stress on sexual experimentation. It goes way, way beyond your point of not thinking sex is shameful and take it to an unhealthy extreme almost to the point of having a fetish about it. There is a lot more important things then sex in a relationship. Do you really want your daughter thinking daddy tells her to her fidelity to a relationship with her partner should be based so entirely on her partners ability to satisfy her sexually. Is that what you you think she should value most in a relationship. I mean, to the point where it is worth keeping her body pumped up on a high dose steroid regimen from adolescense into adulthood. WOW
July 17th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Professor said:
There was a fetus. There was NOT a person.
Oh, the great professor has spoken. My 22 month old baby and anybody elses is not a person. He has used his great powers to define when personhood begins based upon his clinical studies of the brainwaves of 22 week old feti to say without possible rebuke that it is impossible the baby could have felt pain or responded to comforting stimuli at 22 weeks.
Hey, when I was at work today I saw a girl ask another girl who was pregnant how her baby was doing. She said my baby is doing good. I suppose you would have corrected her andtold her that her "baby" was not a person but only a fetus because she was only 22 weeks pregnant.
Professor, you are an arrogant, arrogant person who goes around stating things you have no way to prove as though they are fact. Any idea why?
July 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Dear student, these were professor’s words, not mine: "Would her life have been better if she could have aborted? Almost certainly."
For all I know his mother may not even feel the way Professor has expressed. I was not making any judgments on that, I was merely reading what he wrote and it sounds sad. Life isn't easy, especially being a single mother; my own daughter chose life for her child and is a single mother. And love for your child can produce miraculous results.
What comes to mind are recorded episodes when a mother's child is pinned under a car and the mother is then able to lift the car up to save her child's life. How is this possible? Love is the only explanation!
The problem with the children who are abused and harmed by their mothers is not because they were allowed to be born, but because of the lack of love, a spiral downward to evil ways of life. Their evil life style controls them and suffocates out or supersedes the love for their child. You knock the Christians, but yet you cannot seem to make the connection that those who are Christian and who live as Christ says are not the ones abusing their children. If they say they are Christian and are abusing their children they are hypocrites and are lying. Those children should have been put up for adoption with a loving family, or the mother should have received counseling and sought help. You know there are many organizations ready to help, many of which are Christian.
Teach us Lord how to love.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Student,
I would like to see you refute my sources. Show me where oral contraceptives are said to NOT cause breast cancer. The WHO and NIH both say they do. (Right, Truthseeker?) Show me why I shouldn't believe drug manufacturers when they tell me their products (hormonal contraceptives) prevent implantation of an embryo (= early abortion). Tell me why you'll not believe the Alan Guttmacher Institute (PP's research arm) when it says that emergency contraceptives prevent implantation (again, early abortion). Then tell me why Teenwire denies ECs cause early abortion. (OK, there you can use the excuse that since they have redefined pregnancy as implantation rather than conception, they do not consider it abortion. But redefining pregnancy is a bunch of crap, a way to rationalize away the gravity and immorality of their actions with, "But it's not 'abortion'". Please tell me, if flushing out a newly conceived, genetically unique human being is not "abortion", what is it?) Etc., etc. Refute my research for all to see.
If I were to show Teenwire to someone not well-versed in Biology, of course it looks good. Some of it is true. But some of it is not. Omission is probably the site's biggest fault. It leaves out the most serious consequences of the choices they're telling kids to make, leaving them incapable of making a truly informed decision. Besides that, if you want to believe there are few serious consequences to extramarital sex, they agree with you. ("See, PP said so, and they're 'trusted'.")
If you believe teens are mature enough to make their own choices, tell them the truth. For crying out loud, at least tell them that HIV/AIDS WILL KILL YOU! Will teens still take the risk if they know that HIV kills, oral contraceptives can cause breast cancer, stroke, heart attack, cardiovascular disease, etc., abortion can kill the mother, abortion can cause future premature births, there's no evidence that condoms can do anything against STDs besides reduce HIV transmission by maybe 85% and reduce gonorrhea transmission in men? Maybe. Maybe not. But you see, PP makes no money if teens choose "not". Can't you see the conflict of interest? If you're so against censorship, tell PP to quit censoring medical information.
As for doctors who think it's accurate, what are their areas of specialty? An orthopedist will probably not know the gory details of birth control. And doctors are not gods. They are not omniscient. Nor are they infallible. Anyone who does enough research can know more about a particular subject than an average doctor. Medical school gives cursory instruction in most subjects, with more detail in specialties. How much do you think a med student can learn in 4 years? How much do they retain? A good doctor will spend his/her life learning more, but will never know all there is to know.
I had considered veterinary medicine at one time. I spent several years working with veterinarians. Much was fairly routine. But on occasion, I saw vets looking through books to teach themselves procedures that weren't covered in vet school. I'm sure human doctors do the same. Again, let the doctors, teachers, etc., show me evidence that contradicts my research.
As for the "doctor" who said abortion does not cause breast cancer, I can show you studies that show it does. Then he can show me studies that say it doesn't. In this case, as I plainly say in my documentation, there is controversy. So he is incorrect to definitively assert there is no abortion/breast cancer link.
Finally, when you take a natural biological event (fertilization) out of its normal context and environment (following sexual intercourse and within a woman's body), of course you're going to have to redefine terms. The natural, normal progression of events has been interrupted. The woman is not "pregnant" while the embryo is outside her body. Technically, I guess the petri dish would be–that is, if you consider pregnancy to mean "with child".
And with high IVF failure rates, redefinition seems more of a convenience for IVF doctors. Imagine the confusion and pain a doctor could cause a couple if he were to say right away, "You're pregnant", a phrase they'd longed to hear, then "No, you're not pregnant" when the babies fail to implant and die. Words have meaning–sometimes very powerful ones.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Sylvia,
The detrimental effects of the high dose steroid these girls these days are taking are going to be numerous and may take a couple generations before we know them all. This generation is a guinea pig generation. Brittling of the bones is another side effect that has become known. But you won't find any of that on teenwire, Oh yeah, they are the ones pushing the drugs, no wonder they leave it out.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Yes, they engage in sex with each other. Are you really that naive or are you going out of your way to be ridiculous?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:48 am
KarenK,
And your studies and authorities on this subject are where? Still waiting….
July 18th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Actually, you are a couple of generations behind the times. Oral contraceptives became available in the 1950s. Since then, the dosages used have *drastically* decreased. Yes, there is an increased risk of certain cancers, especially if one is also a smoker. However, never getting pregnant also carries an increased risk of such cancers, and oral contraceptives are less risky that simply not getting pregnant. Yes, osteoporosis is another risk factor, especially for those who are older and calcium supplements should be taken by most women anyway (most women in this society do not get enough calcium).
But have you looked at the risks associated with pregnancy? Eclampsia is one risk that even today can cause death. Increased risks of diabetes during pregnancy, increased blood pressure, the possibility of ectopic pregnancy, and you want to talk about a does of steroids? The progesterone that is produced by the uterus during pregnancy is a steroid. During pregnancy, there can be as much as 3-400mg per day delivered to the woman. In contrast, the highest level I found in any of the modern pills is 9mg. In other words, during pregnancy, you are getting 3-40 times as much as the 'high' dosage birth control pills.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:20 am
The anabolic steroids taken by athletes are quite different in effect than the sex steroids in birth control pills. There are several very different types of steroids with a wide range of effects in the body. The risks very much depend on the type taken, the dosage, and the length of time they are taken. In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:28 am
You haven't read many scientific articles have you? The words 'indicating' and 'suggests' are actually VERY common in scientific papers. That is the natural cautious attitude that scientists bring to their studies.
The evidence of a developmental aspect to male homosexuality is consistent and clear. It is NOT genetic, but developmental (i.e. because of conditions in the womb). There are very specific changes in the brain structures of male homosexuals that are midway between those of male heterosexuals and female heterosexuals. This is very well documented. But, as usual, you ignore the research that disagrees with your biases and promote that which agrees (no matter how sparse).
July 18th, 2008 at 8:35 am
But the worst things she had to endure were from moralistic busy-bodies. They were pretty common back in the early 1960s in Kansas, don't you know. If it wasn't for *their* attitudes, I think her life would have been a LOT better even though she had a child that early. You see, it was the religious know-nothings that caused her the most pain, starting with HER mother. Now I see exactly the same attitudes in the FAPP and other religious organizations and I know they are fundamentally evil and need to be fought.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Student,
My question was directed to Ocean, who has not responded.
God Bless,
Roger
July 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Professor,
Are you saying that FAPP and religious organizations are fundamentally evil, or the moralistic busy-bodies? Who are you fighting?
God Bless,
Roger
July 18th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Yes. They are fundamentally evil, moralistic busy-bodies.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Yes, they engage in sex with each other. Are you really that naive or are you going out of your way to be ridiculous?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Student,
Not to be vulgar, but are you referring to sodomy? Cause that is scientifically PROVEN to be extremely high risk behaviour.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Professor,
Sorry, but your response to me is still unclear or ambiguous:
1. Are you saying that FAPP and religious organizations are fundamentally evil?
(Your response here is what?)
2. Are you saying that moralistic busy-bodies are fundamentally evil?
(Your response here is "yes"?)
3. Who are you fighting?
(Your response here is "moralistic busy-bodies"?)
Did I get the second two correct?
Or are you actually saying, as it is written, that FAPP and religious organizations are moralistic busy-bodies who are fundamentally evil?
God Bless,
Roger
July 18th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Professor says: “Now I see exactly the same attitudes in the FAPP and other religious organizations and I know they are fundamentally evil and need to be fought.”
I am sorry your mother did not receive love in her difficult time. That is not God's way. He is a loving Father, but He is also just that, a Father. One who loves, but also corrects us, for our own good.
And in relation to FAPP
you are seeing things that are not there. FAPP are a group of loving individuals who care very much about the mother. They offer hope and help, without judgment. It seems as though you believe that there better not be a right or wrong, because then you are judging. Could it be you just don't want there to be a right or wrong, because of those people who rejected your mother and hurt her?
It was difficult to learn of my daughter's pregnancy with her being not married. There is an element of shame. Why? Because there is a right and wrong. Because God loves us and He knows she will have a much more difficult life and her child will as well. Also, her being away from His love and wisdom can further her pain in life and ultimately her after life. So He teaches a way of life that will bring more peace and well being to His people, and bring them back to Him in Heaven. A loving married couple who care for their children are better suited for the job of raising their children. Especially a Christian family, because of the many graces they receive through the Sacrament of Matrimony. But all those graces cannot be utilized if the people just go through the motions and do not really love the Church and all it has to offer. Yes, there is a right and wrong, we must be kind and loving, but at the same time not condoning. Why? Because that is real love.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Not ALL religious organizations are evil, but a good number are. FAPP is.
2. Are you saying that moralistic busy-bodies are fundamentally evil?
(Your response here is "yes"?)
Yes, you are correct.
Actually, I am fighting both moralistic busy-bodies AND the whole religious mindset which encourages the busy-bodies. I consider 'religious faith' to be evil.
Yes, in particular, I do consider FAPP to be a collection of moralistic busy-bodies that are fundamentally evil.
Is that clear enough for you?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Now I see exactly the same attitudes in the FAPP and other religious organizations and I know they are fundamentally evil and need to be fought.
Posted by Professor July 18th, 2008 at 8:40 am
The all-knowing Professor who has decreed that nobodys 22 month old child can possibly feel pain or respond to comforting stimuli has now also professed by decree that organizations who try to stop the slaughter of same babies are fundamentally evil. Does that mean you think the act of sucking babies out of women's wombs in bloody pieces is a show of affection and love? I HOPE your daughter gets away from you if she gets away from your "love" if she ever gets pregnant.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Should have read:
I HOPE your daughter gets away from you and away from your "love" if she ever gets pregnant.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I very much think that there is a right and a wrong here. I think that FAPP is on the side of wrong.
Truthfully, I see nothing wrong (on the face of it) with what your daughter did. While you 'don't condone', and are thereby judging negatively, I see her as simply someone who is in a bad situation which, with some extra information about birth control, she could have avoided.
While I agree that there IS a right and a wrong, I disagree that your daughter did anything wrong (at least based on what you have said).
July 18th, 2008 at 10:23 am
IF my daughter ever gets pregnant, I will support her choice, whether she decides to complete the pregnancy or not. I certainly will not see it as shameful for her to get pregnant, whatever the circumstances. I won't see it as shameful for her to keep the child, whatever the circumstances. I won't consider it as shameful for her to give the child up for adoption if she so chooses. And I won't consider it shameful for her to have an abortion if that is what she chooses. All of these are possibilities for her whether or not she is married.
So why, exactly, do you consider this to be worse than the judgmental attitudes you promote?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:29 am
The risks very much depend on the type taken, the dosage, and the length of time they are taken.
Decreed by Professor July 18th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Professor,
The type taken are powerful enough to suck the calcium from the womens bodies and disrupt their biorhythms to the point where normal mentrus is completely disrupted if not stopped all together. That sounds like really powerful drugs. And the length of time taken is on a permanent basis with out missing otherwise you are compromising the effectiveness of the drug. According to your own decree these characteristic would make birth control extremely dangerous to the health of the girl who takes them.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:32 am
So why, exactly, do you consider this to be worse than the judgmental attitudes you promote?
Posted by Professor July 18th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Umm, professor, You refuse to even acknowledge that a 22 week old baby has any value at all because you decreed that it is impossible for them to have some what you deem as the necessary brainwaves to even be considered as having an "existense". That position seems a lot more judgemental to me then FAPP position of protecting babies from being slaughtered in the mother's womb.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:39 am
From the British Medical Association on the topic of fetal pain:
Their conclusion:
But then, anyone who disagrees with you is biased, right?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:44 am
It is not my determination that they don't have brain waves. It is the determination of the researchers in the field. Do you want me to post links (that can be difficult here)? A fetus before the third trimester simply has not developed enough to have the experiences you claim.
Also, my position is that even IF the fetus has any sort of consciousness (which is not established and the evidence is against it), it still doesn't matter because the woman has the right to determine who or what uses her body. If you can supply an alternative that would keep the fetus alive and still be removed from her body, that is fine with me (assuming it does not put extra risk to the health of the woman).
July 18th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Have you actually been with a woman taking birth control pills? No, the menstrual cycle is NOT 'completely disrupted or stopped all together'. Yes, we have the technology to do that safely, that is not what most pills do. No, birth control is NOT 'extremely dangerous' to be on for the long term. The dosages are small and adrenal suppression does not occur.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am
to Professor:
Does a woman have the right to cut her hand off, for whatever reason she may have?
July 18th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Decreed by professor July 18th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Did you even read what you posted. It said pain can be felt at BY 18 weeks and pain equal to what an adult feels BY 26 weeks. And FYI By 18 weeks means it could be sooner. So even the study you provided shows you were WRONG. But then, you are allowed to disagree with yourself, right?
July 18th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Also, my position is that even IF the fetus has any sort of consciousness (which is not established and the evidence is against it), it still doesn't matter because the woman has the right to determine who or what uses her body. If you can supply an alternative that would keep the fetus alive and still be removed from her body, that is fine with me (assuming it does not put extra risk to the health of the woman).
July 18th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Professor,
What would you think of a paternal rights law. The law would define if either of the parents who enter into the consentual procreative act is willing to take resonsibility then they have a right to protect that child from abortion. If there are no paternal "rights" or ownership of baby until said baby is born, then shouldn't the man be able to legally opt out. It would still then be the woman's decision but the man would get "off the hook" and have no legal financial responsibility if the woman decides to continue "HER" pregnancy. If the pregnancy is HERS alone then the baby is HERS alone. If she has a legal right to abort then it is completely her decision wether or not to accept financial responsibility. To hold a man responsible for the care of the baby only if the woman decides he should have to is discriminatory and makes no sense to me at all from a judicial perspective.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Have you actually been with a woman taking birth control pills?
Posted by professor July 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am
No professor, I don't need multiple partners to figure out what kind of sex I like. And my wife doesn't take birth control. But I blog with a LOT of young girls who do and they always state how they like the fact that their menstrual cycle is almost non-existent. Maybe your wife uses a pill and they use the shot or the patch though. The drug comapnies find so many different ways for girls to to injest steroids.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am
First of all, I would hope that the decision to abort or not is made as early as possible, preferably in the first couple months. But, yes, I would support a law stating that a man can, within the first month or two of pregnancy, opt out of ALL parental rights and responsibilities. He should be required to do so in time for the woman to still have a safe, first trimester abortion if she then decides to based on his decision.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Actually, I am not married and I have a vasectomy, so hormonal birth control is not necessary for my girlfriend and I. However, I have many female friends who do have to worry about birth control and I do discuss the effects with them. One of my ex-girlfriends uses the pill and has used the ring. She actually likes the regularity they give to her periods. Also, before I got the vasectomy (which was difficult to find a doctor to do), my wife and I did have to consider birth control options.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I would even more be in favor of a legally binding agreement made by the couple *before* having sex that would describe the responsibilities or both parties in the case of pregnancy.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Professor,
Yes, Professor, this is pretty clear. You have judged FAPP, me and those involved with FAPP, most of whom you have never met, to be fundamentally evil.
This states pretty clearly where you are at, which is not very objective.
God Bless you anyway,
Roger
July 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Oh, I'm sure you love your family, are nice to your pets, are charming with your friends, etc. But your support of a frankly bigoted (what do you think about gay marriage?), nasty (what do you think about the gore porn displayed at clinics?), judgmental (what do you think about non-marital sex?), and yes, evil organization puts you on the side of 'wrong' in this case.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:42 am
"Also, before I got the vasectomy (which was difficult to find a doctor to do)"
That is such BS. You can't get vasectomies or tubal ligations done at Catholic hospitals, but go to Rush/Copley or any secular hospital and you can get it done. Complaints like this are intended to make the case that because of minor inconveniences, all doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists cannot choose to follow their conscience when it comes to providing health care. Not very pro-choice at all but a commandment to follow the dictat of the secularists.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Yes, I did. I did not give the complete article, which perhaps I should have. I can do so if you'd like. One of the things they concluded was that the 18week reactions were primarily mediated by the brainstem and are NOT pain perception, which required frontal lobe involvement. From a fairly large number of articles I have read, the conclusion seems to be that pain perception starts around the 24-26 week of gestation, although even then it does not have full frontal lobe activity. Regular brain waves tend to not appear until about the 30-34th week of gestation. The absolute EARLIEST that even midbrain responses occur is that 18 week number.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I was in Kansas at the time. There was ONE urologist in town and he refused to give a vasectomy because I was 'too young'. I was 23. I did not have other options until I moved to Illinois, at which point I got it done as quickly as I could. This was much more than 'minor inconvenience'. Some places in the country simply don't have the resources available near big cities.
I make no claim about whether the doctor could refuse or not. For such elective surgery, I think he had the right to do so. I simply wish I had had more options at the time.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Professor says: "it still doesn't matter because the woman has the right to determine who or what uses her body."
That only holds true in the case of the man. She should not let a man use her body for his own satisfaction and then abandon her when they conceive a child. Or then takes her to have an abortion. How convienent for him, he's not the one going through any of it. It's all fine for him, What a MAN!
Hey, girls! Real men don't kill their kids! They face their responsibilities. They aren't users. THAT is a real Man! Wake up girls, you deserve better than that!
Oh, and that "Who" is her child. When the "Who" is taken out of her body that is killing that "Who" But you don't have a problem with killing the ones who cannot defend themselves, I forgot.
I forgot you think human life should be that disposible.
"I won't see it as shameful for her to keep the child, whatever the circumstances. I won't consider it as shameful for her to give the child up for adoption if she so chooses. And I won't consider it shameful for her to have an abortion if that is what she chooses."
Well, at least you are using the word, child. And that "child" would be your grandchild. Oh, but you don't have a problem with condoning the killing your own grandchild either.
"While I agree that there IS a right and a wrong,"
Along with you there are millions of other people who have their own version of what is right and wrong. Whose right and wrong is right then!
Relativism!
July 18th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I can hear it coming, "I'm being responsible by having a vasectomy" What is responsible about that, it just makes it easier on your conscience to continue using them.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
And here we finally get down to the essence of it. YOU see sex as 'using' a woman. I and my partner(s) see it as a mutual connection between people. YOU see it as purely selfish pleasure. WE see it as an expression of love and respect. YOU don't see the possibility that a woman can actually enjoy sex. I place my partner's pleasure and happiness above my own. YOU see sex outside of marriage as a sin. WE see it as a beautiful thing between people who care for each other. YOU see sex as only valid in a marriage. WE see it as one of a variety of ways we can show love for each other. YOU see morality as being set by an invisible space daddy. WE see it as something determined by the happiness and well-being of people. YOU see a hoped-for afterlife as being the be-all and end-all of our lives. WE see the here and now as being more relevant. YOU see sex as being solely for reproduction. WE see it as one expression for love and reproduction a possible, but un-required aspect.
Yes, I believe in right and wrong. And yes, I see your mindset as definitely in the wrong.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Roger, if people have "judged" you and the members of FAMILIES AGAINST PLANNED PARENTHOOD, it is your own words and those of your like-minded members which have invited that judgment.
You and other FAPP members make it abundantly clear what you think of homosexuality, sex without marriage, sex without the intention to procreate, etc. You're entitled to believe whatever you want, but you and other "christian" groups want to force those beliefs onto everyone else. This attempt at censorship of a public library's computer website is just one part of it. What was it your bible says again? Oh, that's right, something about "judge not, lest ye be judged." I guess THAT part of the bible isn't worthy of consideration when you decide you don't approve of something.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Just wondering, Professor, under your view of existence, did anyone have a moral duty to that baby who was born at 21 weeks, 6 days and survived? Did that baby not exist in a meaningful way?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ND737G0&show_article=1
July 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Karen K that is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard,"That only holds true in the case of the man" in response to Professors statment.I guess you feel women don't have a choice in whether they have sex or not.They only do it because the man wants to? You are so way out of touch with reality that it is unbelievable!Heres a question for you,If a woman was pregnant,and you knew that the baby was the anti-christ,would you talk that woman out of abortion?
July 18th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
" YOU see sex as 'using' a woman."
WRONG!
"YOU see it as purely selfish pleasure."
WRONG AGAIN!
"YOU see sex as being solely for reproduction."
WRONG A THIRD TIME!
You so enjoy twisting what I say.
THIS IS WHAT I SEE SEX AS:
A Definition of Marriage
Marriage is the intimate, exclusive, indissoluble communion of life and love entered by man and woman at the design of the Creator for the purpose of their own good and the procreation and education of children; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.4
Intimate communion of life and love: Marriage is the closest and most intimate of human friendships. It involves the sharing of the whole of a person's life with his/her spouse. Marriage calls for a mutual self-surrender so intimate and complete that spouses — without losing their individuality — become "one," not only in body, but in soul.
Exclusive communion of life and love: As a mutual gift of two persons to each other, this intimate union excludes such union with anyone else. It demands the total fidelity of the spouses. This exclusivity is essential for the good of the couple's children as well.
Indissoluble communion of life and love: Husband and wife are not joined by passing emotion or mere erotic inclination which, selfishly pursued, fades quickly away.5 They are joined in authentic conjugal love by the firm and irrevocable act of their own will. Once their mutual consent has been consummated by genital intercourse, an unbreakable bond is established between the spouses. For the baptized, this bond is sealed by the Holy Spirit and becomes absolutely indissoluble. Thus, the Church does not so much teach that divorce is wrong, but that divorce is impossible, regardless of its civil implications.
Entered by man and woman: The complementarity of the sexes is essential to marriage. There is such widespread confusion today about the nature of marriage that some would wish to extend a legal "right" to marry to two persons of the same sex. The very nature of marriage makes such a proposition impossible.
At the design of the Creator: God is the author of marriage. He inscribed the call to marriage in our very being by creating us as male and female. Marriage is governed by his laws, faithfully transmitted by his Bride, the Church. For marriage to be what it is, it must conform to these laws. Man, therefore, is not free to change the meaning and purposes of marriage.
For the purpose of their own good: "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Gn 2:18). Conversely, it's for their own good, for their benefit, enrichment, and ultimately their salvation, that a man and woman join their lives in marriage. Marriage is the most basic expression of the vocation to love that all men and women have as persons made in God's image.
And the procreation and education of children: "By their very nature, the institution of marriage itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children and find in them their ultimate crown."6 Children are not added on to marriage and conjugal love, but spring from the very heart of the spouses mutual self-giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. Intentional exclusion of children, then, contradicts the very nature and purpose of marriage.
Taken From Christopher West
July 18th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
In other words, we are not to USE each other for our own selfish gain, as I see people doing today, but truly love one another, a sacrificial love, the purest form of love.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Karen K:
Thank you for sharing your mythology. Now could we get back to reality where marriage is a *civil* institution and sex is something that adults do?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
So do you, or do you not, see sex outside of marriage as 'using the woman'? or as about 'selfish pleasure'? or as 'sinful'? or that sex within marriage should always leave open the possibility of conception?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
<Not to be vulgar, but are you referring to sodomy? Cause that is scientifically PROVEN to be extremely high risk behaviour.
Yes, Truthseeker, I am. What you seem incapable of realizing is the fact that two healthy individuals, in a committed monogamous realtionship, who are disease free CANNOT infect each other with an STI. Perhaps you know of some biological process through which this is incorrect? If so, please enlighten me. If not, perhaps you can keep your nonjudgmental, xtian bigotry to yourself.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
And WHY are you blogging with "a LOT of young girls" on the internet?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I can tell you, from the female perspective, that finding a physician to do a tubal ligation was difficult — and I was living in the City of Chicago. I was told that I was too young (age 34) AND that I might want more children (I already had two). I was not being seen at a Catholic hospital — my doctor was Jewish.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
And if he hadn't had a vasectomy you'd be complaining that he wasn't being responsible. You are quite a piece of work! Who are you to judge whether he is using someone or not? Wouldn't that determination get to be made by his partner? In fact, what does it mean to you to "use" someone?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
You mean that the doctor told you he/she was hesitant to do it, but then you had it done either by this or another doctor shortly thereafter? Does this slight inconvenience mean that the state or federal government should mandate that doctors, hospitals and other medical providers should be mandated to assist in what they consider unethical conduct?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. You state "THIS IS WHAT I SEE SEX AS" and then go on to give "A Definition of Marriage." Sorry, sex and marriage are different things.
According to Webster's Dictionary:
MARRIAGE = the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
SEX = to engage in sexual intercourse
July 18th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Please see comment #393 where Professor specifically stated:
Does this clarify things?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Sex Is For Marriage
God created sex. As the Creator, He knows more about His design than anyone.
GENESIS 1:31 NKJ
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
GENESIS 5:2 NKJ
2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.
GENESIS 2:24 NKJ
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
The instructions God gave in the Bible are for our good. One is that sex should occur exclusively in marriage between a husband and a wife.
God is not trying to keep us from happiness, but to protect us from harm and unhappiness.
God is not against sex, only the abuse of sex — which always has harmful consequences.
Any form of sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage is wrong, and dangerous. Human history is filled with examples of the disease, heartache, and misery caused by it.
God Is Not Against Happiness
JOHN 10:10 NKJ
10 "The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
PROVERBS 14:12 NKJ
12 There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.
JEREMIAH 29:11 NKJ
11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.
MATTHEW 7:13-14 NKJ
13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
14 "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
2 PETER 2:19 NKJ
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage.
Consequences
1 JOHN 1:9 NKJ
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JOHN 8:3-4 NKJ
3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst,
4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.
We can receive forgiveness for our sins, but there are still consequences.
Venereal disease, unwanted pregnancies, broken hearts, and inner guilt are just some of the possible consequences of sexual sin. It is always best to follow God's instructions!
Just because you seem to have escaped any bad consequences so far, does not mean you will always. God has been merciful to you, and given you time to repent — to change. Don't despise God's merciful patience.
REVELATION 2:20-22 NKJ
20 "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and beguile My servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat things sacrificed to idols.
21 "And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.
22 "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.
Believers.org
July 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I didn't know that I had to assume that you and Professor agree on everything. The reason I ask is that a lot of legislation coming down has been written to mandate actions that medical professionals find immoral. See the Freedom of Choice Act (fortunately, it's just a bill sitting on Capitol Hill), as well as the mandate to pharmacists that they be involved in dispensing birth control and/or the morning after pill.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
This thread is now closed. Take the off-topics subjects to the Forum.
For specific comments regarding the Batavia Library story, use this blog entry.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:11 pm