New Series: Why we are against Planned Parenthood in particular
Posted by Corrina Gura on Wednesday, October 15th, 2008
Over the next two weeks, I will be posting explanations to this blog of why we are fighting Planned Parenthood in particular, rather than simply criticizing all abortion providers. I will be addressing each issue separately and providing a number of links for further information. I look forward to a passionate discussion on these topics!
So first, who/what is Planned Parenthood? Planned Parenthood is the epitome of the abortion-on-demand movement and its goals. They actively seek to bring abortion to the entire world. They perform 197,000 abortions each year; they have performed more than three million abortions since 1970. Operating 855 clinics, they are America's largest abortion chain. And they received $2.2 billion dollars in taxpayer funds between 1987 and 2001. A whopping 30% of PP's income is from the government. The Joint Summit Resolution from the Pro-Life Action League's National Pro-Life Leadership Summit is also very clear about why pro-life groups oppose Planned Parenthood.
We hope that, as we expose the true face of Planned Parenthood to America, people will realize that (in the words of Fr. Frank Pavone), you can't practice vice virtuously . Planned Parenthood not only kills babies, but they hurt girls and women. They lie, deceive, and cheat. They seek profit above all. This series of posts will detail a wide range of immoral, illegal, and deceptive practices that Planned Parenthood is engaged in and connected to.
And once you know how bad PP really is, we hope you will join us in fighting them. Individuals are able to have an impact on Planned Parenthood's abortion business. Despite their desire to do so, PP cannot ignore large numbers of mobilized pro-life activists. In Aurora, our "Planned Parenthood: Bad for Aurora" signs yard signs were so numerous that PP tried passing out its own yard signs-but they had to lie to get their signs into people's yards!
STOPP International documents a great number of success stories on their site of individuals and groups who have been able to impede the opening of new facilities. The 40 Days for Life Vigil is another testament to the success of individuals gathering together-at the midpoint rally on Tuesday, October 14, leaders reported 268 confirmed reports of saved babies! Also tellingly, their clinics have a high turnover rate. Last year 21 clinics closed and 25 new clinics opened to replace them.
We can stop abortion when we work together!
Heh. Everytime you all say that you're against planned parentood, it really makes me laugh. I know that you technically mean the organization, Planned Parenthood, but I have the overwhelming impression from this site and Jill Stanek's that you truly are ultimately against any planning for parenthood. I think it's funny, of course, YMMV.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Oh!! Wow! you've pushed my panic button!
Carol - re: #1 above,
"against any planning for parenthood"
I implore you to view "Foundations of Faith" - "Planned and Unplanned Parenthood" in the "FORUM". thanks & peace!
October 16th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Jerry, you crack me up (in a good way). I'll take a look. Peace to you too.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Carol:
The capitalization of the term "Planned Parenthood" is supposed to give away the fact that I mean the proper noun, the name of the business. Not sure how to be clearer than that…
In fact, I do not support the measures that most people consider to be simply the "planning of parenthood", such as condoms and birth control. PLAL's FAQ page explains pretty clearly why pro-lifers oppose these things. I think if a family *needs* to space children, the Billings Ovulation Method (or another NFP method) should be used–NFP is just as effective as The Pill but there are no moral questions about it and it doesn't fill your body with unhealthy chemicals.
As for me, when I get married, I hope to have multiple children. Children are a blessing, I don't understand why people are so determined to prevent God from blessing them in this way. No need to "plan" to only parent one child!!
-Corrina
October 16th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Planned Parenthood, a plan to kill.
Face it, that is what is being done in their buildings! You can talk about it all night, you can, as my friend puts it, "sugar coat it all you want" but people are loosing their lives in those buildings. It is murder!
I have many and many people who say they will take the child. I will take the child! If it wasn't meant to be, it would not have been conceived. Not every moment of intimacy results in a pregnancy. God has a plan for every child that is conceived. We MUST NOT PLAY GOD! Woe do those who do!
October 16th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
You spelled it all wrong, it is really spelled: "Planned Barrenhood!"
"Marital Union," which should be used as THE proper term, is one man (husband) and one woman (wife) uniting in a free, total, faithful and fruitful "PRO-" creative act for life resulting in a child (Lord willing) which is a REAL REFLECTION of the Holy Trinity–a Spiritual and non-sexual communion of THREE DIVINE PERSONS–GOD!
Got it? Get it? Good, now go and sin no more!
October 17th, 2008 at 6:11 am
(give Vince the entire box of report card STARS!!!)
October 17th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Carol,
as the others stated..you missed the point entirely…
Parenthood involves the married couple cooperating/trusting in God's will when/ if they will be entrusted with the care of His children.
Planned Parenthood destroys that trust by trivializing and eliminating the procreative aspect of that union by giving out BC and doing abortions.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:10 am
No, Ramir, YOU miss the point. Not everyone is an adherent of your religion or even a believer in a god. Thus, your argument is moot. Furthermore, there are people who should not become pregnant for medical reasons.
Planned Parenthood does significant good in the world. It's a pity you're too blind to see it.
October 17th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Student:
What I hope to point out in this series is that the bad things Planned Parenthood does FAR surpass any "good" they claim to do. Keep your eyes peeled for the six posts about different, all bad, facets of PP.
October 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Well, I strongly disagree and hope you won't mind my pointing that out as well. Let me just counter the inaccuracy (lie) in your post. PP did not "lie" to get signs out. MANY people called PP to request signs for their yards. As someone who, in fact, passed out many of those signs, I can guarantee that the home owners requested them in advance of their placement.
You are correct that PP has gone out of their way to offer their services to the world — and those services aren't limited to abortion — in many cases, abortive services aren't even offered. Isn't helping the poor an admirable thing?
October 17th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Hi Corinna -
I thought I pointed out in my earlier post that I know what you intend by saying "Planned Parenthood," but maybe I wasn't very clear.
What I mean is that when you say that you are against Planned Parenthood, I think you actually reveal more than you intend.
…and to Ramir -
Student pretty much nailed the response to your post.
October 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Student, (I believe I am not being "off topic") will you say anything you want about "nature"? thanks in advance & peace.
October 17th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Sorry, Student and Carol…your non-belief in God IS the moot point here.
And I hope and pray that you realize that before the end of your godless lives.
October 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Ramir - I think you might want to look up what "moot point" actually means. Your comment doesn't make any sense, and I'm too tired today to interpret.
October 17th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Student:
While I don't doubt your sincerity in passing out the signs, not all people passing out the PP signs were as honest as you are.
Eric tells a couple of stories in Action News (link above): one of a sign appearing in the yard of a woman with Alzheimers; another where the family was given only partial information ("put this up because PP provides healthcare for poor women" with no mention of being America's largest abortion chain!); and finally one where they were told she was "from your church," even though she wasn't.
People who were upset to learn what PP *really* does told us that they were asked to put signs in their yard, not the other way around. I have no way of verifying that this was true, but I do believe these people.
But despite all of this, the League's signs overwhelmingly outnumbered the ones PP was pushing! Aurora pro-lifers rock!!!
October 17th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
oh shoot! I may not have been "off topic" but I believe I am "neglecting" ("side tracking") the "main theme" from progressing orderly. Namely, Carol & Corinna have some kind of misunderstanding among themselves….and since this concerns the very beginning of the "argument", for it not to be resolved….we would be "spinning our wheels", to proceed without resolving said misunderstanding.
October 17th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I think Carol and I are now clear on what we both mean.
Yes, I am against Planned Parenthood, America's #1 abortion chain, and yes, I am against the notion of "parenthood" that is "planned" through artificial means.
I guess it's more that PP's name reveals more than it intends. Their name says that they believe a person should be able to choose when and how they should be a parent and that they should choose how many children they have. And I don't think that the way they go about doing such things is moral or correct.
As for the discussion about God: I have written these posts from a standpoint that (I think, at least) even an atheist should be able to agree with. This is about factual information. For example: Should PP be required to report statutory rape? Should PP continue to provide birth control patches and RU-486 when they know it kills women? Although many of us are motivated by our love of God to fight abortion, it's certainly not the only reason that people are (or should be) fighting abortion.
October 17th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Corrina,
I strongly disagree with almost everything you've said.
Thankfully, you are part of a "tiny" minority in this country.
Absolutely and, again, if you don't, you are part of a very TINY minority in this country. Your views are extremist at best!
They are prohibited by law from doing so under HIPAA UNLESS they have the permission of the minor in question.
This is very dishonest of you. As with any medication, there are a few people who have severe adverse side effects — they are, thankfully, in the minority. However, according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RU486 and the patch are both considered safe.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Jerry, in all honesty, I have no clue as to what you are asking.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
The folks that gave out these signs were all volunteers. I know about 80% of them personally and, yes, they are HONEST people. They're not being paid and have nothing personal to gain. Like you, they believe they are doing the right thing.
I suspect that anyone who was upset after the fact (if they exist), were only upset because they received faulty, hysterical and/or inaccurate information from a member of your group.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I love the bigotry!!!
The views I am about to express are not very fashionable. They are certainly not politically correct. But I believe what I am about to say must be expressed to protect the institution of marriage.
Too often in the media, currency is given to the theory that everyone should be allowed to marry regardless of gender, outlook and whether the two people are creating a suitable family environment in which to bring up children.
Well, it is time to ask some hard questions about this attitude. The only way we will save marriage is to reclaim the institution for the mainstream. Marriage is for normal people who want to raise children in a healthy and secure environment. This is why we should ban religious fundamentalists from marrying.
Fundamentalists of all religions engage in unnatural practices. The unconventional views they hold inevitably lead to their children being teased in the playground and, no matter what studies may show, there is surely a greater risk they will grow up to be fundamentalist themselves if they are exposed to dangerous ideas from a tender age.
No matter what fundamentalist propaganda may claim, fundamentalism is not sanctioned by nature. There is not a single species in the animal kingdom which stresses the infallibility of the Bible or adheres to the teachings of the Koran. Even in the higher orders of primate, no species has conclusively shown faith in the virgin birth or the second coming. Animals tend to be atheist, pagan or animist, which shows that these views are surely instinctive, normal, natural and right.
Maybe you think it is OK for humans to differ from animals. Maybe you think consenting adults should be able to do what they like regardless of whether the average person agrees with their views.
Such a liberal approach is a slippery slope. When we allow fundamentalists to marry it says that fundamentalism is OK. It encourages these people to foist the fundamentalist agenda on the rest of the community. Before long they will be trying to "convert" people to their "religions". Should we risk this? Fundamentalists are a small minority of the population, so only a small number of people would be inconvenienced by a ban. It would not even be discriminatory as fundamentalists would still have the right to marry - so long as they renounced their religion.
Let's not forget that we are not just talking about consenting adults. When you allow fundamentalists to marry it encourages them to have children. Sure, they might still have kids even if they cannot marry in the eyes of the law, but why legitimise it? Children are the true victims of fundamentalist marriages. Children don't get a say when they are born into a household practising a fundamentalist lifestyle. Tiny children should not be subjected to cultural experiments and social engineering. Imagine how confused and guilty children would feel when they were indoctrinated with the bizarre idea that they were born with the stain of original sin and were in fact so inherently bad that a man had to bleed to death to make it all OK.
Imagine also the teasing that children who have grown up in these "families" would be subjected to in the playground when other kids find out about their unusual views and practices. What are normal parents supposed to do when their children arrive home asking uncomfortable questions because they have been exposed to these groups at an age when they are too young to understand?
Before you know it, fundamentalist parents will be insisting preschool children read storybooks about the fundamentalist lifestyle in order to better understand it. There will be colouring books directed at four-year-olds showing Jesus turning water into wine and walking on water, as if it were gospel.
What hope does a child indoctrinated with this sort of propaganda have of growing up to be normal? Can you really tell me they will not be more likely to grow up fundamentalist themselves?
Before you accuse me of hate speech, I should point out that I bear no grudge against fundamentalists personally. "Love the fundamentalist, hate the fundamentalism" is my policy.
I suppose one chink in this argument is that banning a minority from marrying is utterly unfair, inhumane and intolerant. Kind of like the ban on gay marriage.
Imagine also the teasing that children who have grown up in these "families" would be subjected to in the playground when other kids find out about their unusual views and practices. What are normal parents supposed to do when their children arrive home asking uncomfortable questions because they have been exposed to these groups at an age when they are too young to understand?
Before you know it, fundamentalist parents will be insisting preschool children read storybooks about the fundamentalist lifestyle in order to better understand it. There will be colouring books directed at four-year-olds showing Jesus turning water into wine and walking on water, as if it were gospel.
What hope does a child indoctrinated with this sort of propaganda have of growing up to be normal? Can you really tell me they will not be more likely to grow up fundamentalist themselves?
Before you accuse me of hate speech, I should point out that I bear no grudge against fundamentalists personally. "Love the fundamentalist, hate the fundamentalism" is my policy.
I suppose one chink in this argument is that banning a minority from marrying is utterly unfair, inhumane and intolerant. Kind of like the ban on gay marriage.
October 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
And thru it all the individual can for any reason or even no reason at all, destroy whatever new life comes along (as long as it is done before birth) AND the individual can, also, for any reason or even no reason at all, destroy the reproduction process of new life.
October 17th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
re: above - "no reason at all" is meant in both cases as "simply because 'I want it so'".
October 17th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
(In my humble opinion, #22, #23, and #24 above seem to make the future a crapshoot.)
October 18th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Jerry,
Why does post 22 "make the future a crapshoot?" Can you be specific?
October 18th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Student,
I think I "inadvertently" "interpreted" #22 as being primarily concerning the "contraception/abortion issue, and thus made the "crapshoot" statement.
To correct myself, you start #22 talking about marriage, and end up talking about marriage and I should have focused on just that…..sorry.
In my opinion, marriage, being nature's way to perpetuate the existence of human beings is by definition: a "union between a man and a woman". (Or at least that's been the case from the beginning until now)
I respectfully submit above as an answer to your request "for specifics"…..(sincerely stated).
(Your question came in 10 minutes after my wife and I left to see the movie "DUCHESS"…..just got back.)
October 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
"I have many and many people who say they will take the child. I will take the child! If it wasn't meant to be, it would not have been conceived."
I would refer you to http://www.adoptuskids.org - it is cheap and easy to adopt these children who are desperately awaiting a family. I put in far less time completing my recent adoption than most women do at prenatal visits. It would be easier to sell the 'place them for adoption' argument if there weren't already 450,000 children waiting for homes.
October 18th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Student,
Your #22 rant was just bizarre. When did you start channeling animals to know that they are atheist, pagan, or animist?
October 18th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Student:
Last year I taught Public Speaking at a 4 year college and I found that about 1 or 2 of every 20 students would *actually* read the assigned homework for a class. Based on the amount of time you spend here, I'm going to hazard a guess–you are not a part of that "tiny minority" of students who actually do their work. Significantly enough, just because someone is in the minority, does not mean they are doing the right thing.
I put forth the examples about child rape and dangerous drugs as samples of what I will be writing about in future posts. When I post those I will defend those accusations in detail, but I don't want to get in to that yet.
I see that you haven't responded to the Child Rape blog yet. Student, you claim that they are prevented from reporting child rape when in fact it's exactly the opposite! PP and other health care workers are mandatory reporters. Note that the North Carolina encounter should have triggered mandatory reporting. I'm going to post this part of the comment to that blog–let's move this discussion there.
October 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Green:
Where do you get the number 450,000 from????? The adoptuskids site you refer us to only lists 3,391 kids available for adoption. My own research reveals substantially lower numbers:
Adoption Numbers: Only 1% of all babies—about 40,000—are given up for adoption each year. In contrast, about 600,000 couples are actively seeking to adopt a child/children.
Foster Care Numbers: There were about 815,000 children in foster care in 2006. Only 129,000 of these children were eligible for adoption. (In half of all cases, the goal is to reunite the child with his/her birth parents.) About 51,000 children were adopted out of foster care that year.
When my sister got pregnant out of wedlock, she placed the baby with a couple who had been waiting for YEARS to adopt a baby, but hadn't been able to get one. So many babies are aborted instead of placed for adoption.
October 18th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
If you oppose Planned Parenthood, you must oppose Obama, who supports and advocates for PP - see these videos for yourself. If you vote for Obama, you are not PRO LIFE! Forget about all the other rights - if you take the fundamental right to life away from a newly formed human being in his mother's womb, you cannot possibly claim you are ensuring all of American's rights - which rights … and for whom? If you are a dead American from the beginning - are you going to care about the economic policies or tax credits for those making less than $250,000 ??? Hey, guess what - you won't even get to vote. Obama won't let you speak. WE MUST BE THE VOICE FOR and OF the UNBORN. KEEP ON FIGHTING for LIFE.
http://www.hiswayistruth.com/get%20ready.htm
and
http://www.hiswayistruth.com/SchoolDaze.htm
God bless you for your faithfulness to the Pro Life work
October 18th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
October 19th, 2008 at 11:25 am
You need to work on those research skills! I found significantly different information. This shows 100,000 children in foster care awaiting families.
Using your numbers alone,
So let’s do the math.
129,000 (eligible for adoption) - 51,000 actually adopted =
78,000 STILL AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION
Sorry, Corrine, I don’t think this is acceptable. If there are 600,000 couples waiting to adopt they should step up to the plate. Those 600,000 couples are enough families to take each and every one of these children and give them a home. What are they waiting for?
The truth of the matter is, “most” couples want a baby. Once that same baby is a few years out of the uterus, people cease to care. If they did, these children wouldn’t be languishing in state care without permanent homes.
October 19th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Student,
Define Fundelmentalist. Is anyone who is a Christian one?
As for gay marraige;
Up til 2000, the DSM-III still had homosexuality as a disorder, and is was only removed by 1 vote. Even today there is considerable disagreement/debate on this issue, even though the APA has chosen to state otherwise.
I do not belive that homosexuals should be shunned, hurt or teased, but that doesn't mean that I have to accept their behavior as normal or think the definition of marraige should be altered. This is what tolerance is.
The term tolerance has lost it's meaning. Tolerance doesn't mean that I have to agree with you or accept all behaviors as equal. What it doesn mean is that because you are a human being, even in disagreement, I need to show you respect.
I've taught my children just that.
Society's foundation is on the fundemental prinicpal of marraige between one man and one women. Altering this definition allows for the slippery slope. All alternatives would be acceptable, and they are not.
Research continues to support that best enviornment for children to grow up in, is in a married, 2 parent home - meaning Mom and Dad. This provides for the most stable conditions.
I think you wil probably argue that many chilren live in that enviornment and it is totally disfunctional. You would be right, but that is where mentoring comes in. When families used to live close together, there was always support. Now that we've become a much more transitional nation, we have lost that support system.
October 19th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Student:
Sorry the link didn't work before:
1% of children are placed for adoption at birth, according to the CDC (go to p. 34; if that doesn't work, go here and choose #27, then go to p. 34). That's only about 40,000 babies; there are far more couples looking to adopt than there are babies to adopt.
Yes, Student, I agree that it's too bad that more of these people don't look into adopting out of foster care, but that wasn't the original argument. The argument was started when Karen K said that she would adopt the baby, if the woman chose to give birth; it wasn't about older children in foster care/group homes, it was about babies.
The link you provide, student, leads to a site that claims "MORE THAN 100,000 children" are in foster care waiting to be adopted. This completely matches with my number (from the Dept. of Health and Human Services) that estimates about 129,000 children were eligible for adoption in 2008.
PS–You write a lengthy post criticizing us for being fundamentalists and bigots, in other posts you call me a liar who passes out "hysterical information"–but when I comment on your study skills and *I'm* the one attacking *your* character?????
October 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
While I would like to take credit for the post, it was actually an editorial in the newspaper.
My personal opinion is that a fundamentalist is someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible.
Based on what? Where do you get this definition of societal foundation?
These very same arguments were used for the miscenegation laws which were overturned in Loving v. Virginia. The claim, at that time, was made that if blacks/whites were allowed to marry, "all alternatives would be acceptable." It was a stupid argument then and it's a stupid argument now.
The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with you. A two parent home is best — but two dads or two moms works just as well as a mom/dad arrangement.
Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.
And people who hear voices are often defined as schizophrenic? Are religous folks all schizophrenic or suffering from some other form of mental illness.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), delusions are "erroneous beliefs that usually involve a misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g., persecution, referential, somatic, religious, or grandiose)…The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear contradictory evidence regarding its veracity"
According to the DSM-IV-TR, "Clinicians…must take cultural differences into account. Ideas that may appear to be delusional in one culture (e.g., sorcery and witchcraft) may be commonly held in another". Thus, it appears that a belief which would otherwise be considered delusional should not be considered such if it is commonly held within a particular culture. Of course, "commonly held" is never defined. Does this mean that the pope is in good mental health while Tom Cruise is crazy?
Tolerance is defined (Webster's) as "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
My guess is that you are teaching anything BUT tolerance. I hope I'm wrong!
October 20th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Tara,
I've tried to respond to your post 2x, however, it appears neither one was accepted. My apologies. I'm not ignoring you.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
You are the one who originally stated that
Do you define "child/chilren" as babies only? If so, I suppose you're correct. If not, your post was unclear.
Actually, yes. I can back up what I've said with pretty good examples. You have no way to know anything about my study skills. However, feel free to attack them. I see it as behavior typical of many purported christians.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Student,
Thanks for letting me know. I wonder why is wasn't accepted.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Lots of links sent it to the spam queue. Sorry for the delay. Carry on.
October 20th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Student,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I am enjoying our conversation.
Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper?
If I did, I would believe that all those who do not belive in God like you, are trying to strip all references to God that our founding fathers stated out of our country's documents. Those who are trying are fundelmentalists as well. Fundelmentalism on all sides can be harmful.
Well I guess by your definition I'm a fundelmentalist, and proud of it. I do believe the Bible is the inherent, literal Word of God for all mankind. But I don't believe in forcing people to convert to Christianity, like many other religions such as Hinduism and Islam.
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=13497&size=A
I have to strongly disagree with you about tolerance. What is intolerant about respecting a person but disagreeing with there positions? That is the key to tolerance. Websters says nothing about excepting and agreeing. By your definition, you are practicing bigotry because of my faith. You are not agreeing with my faith and opinions with an open mind.
And I am teaching my children to be tolerant, but they won't be wishy washy on their beliefs, and they won't be afraid of expressing them. When they do express their beliefs it will be done with respect and humility.
The AAP is not exactly unbiased. And their own research shows some inconsitancies. I can show you just as many studies that prove that a home with a mom and dad is the best enviornment for children.
As for marriage, all societies have been built upon a stable marraige between a man and women. Families are at the heart of all stable societies. Even in cultures that have allowed homosexuality to be practiced, traditional marraige was protected and upheld as the norm. You can see that when the institution of marraige is destroyed, then a society crumbles.
As for the DSM-IV-TR, one needs to be culturally sensative, but there are common societal norms that are cross cultural.
Also, the APA is also recognizing that for example practicing Christians live longer, deal with trauma, and stress in a much healthier way then those who don't. More and more research show this. Here are two examples:
In 2003 Powell, Shahabi & Thoresen stated that "emerging evidence demonstrates the health value of religious practice, for example, mortality risk is lower among those who attend church services, a result of improved health behavior."
Abraido-Lanza, Vasquez, and Echeverria in 2004 studied 200 Latinos with arthritis. They found that "some view religious belief as promoting acceptance of one's lot in life, but in this study religious coping predicted active, not passivecoping efforts. Active coping, in turn, predicted lower levels of pain and depression.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Comment, (hopefully not somewhat of topic):
Nature of a human being;
The power to grow.
The power to reproduce.
The reproduction requires both a male and a female, and for this reason the definition of marriage is a union of one male and one female.
October 21st, 2008 at 1:33 am
"somewhat of topic" s/b somewhat off topic.
"union of one male and one female" s/b union of one man and one woman.
October 21st, 2008 at 2:56 am
As am I.
It depends on the newspaper and whether or not there is more than one reliable source.
I don’t like to generalize people with the word “all.” Which documents? You certainly won’t find a mention of a god in the Constitution (with the exception of the recitation of the year). It is my personal opinion that there is no place for religion in government.
I fully support your right to believe anything you like (even those things that I find completely wrong). Does that include the belief the Earth is around 6000 years old – which has been proven incorrect? This is, in fact, a literal interpretation.
We agree on this.
There is nothing “intolerant” in disagreeing with another’s position.
That’s incorrect. I would be intolerant of your faith if I actively sought to prevent you from practicing it. And, while I completely disagree with your faith, I would fight for your right to practice it.
I’ve done the same with mine. Neither your children, nor mine, should be afraid to express their beliefs. The difference between us is this: while I vehemently disagree with your beliefs, I support your right to practice them. You, on the other hand, are vehemently opposed to gay marriage and want to IMPOSE your beliefs on others who disagree.
How and why do you consider them biased? Are they so biased that you don’t take your children to a pediatrician?
And gays people are just as entitled to form “families” as anyone else. As you said, “families are at the heart of all stable societies.”
I don’t see anyone seeking to destroy the “institution of marriage.” Please give me a logical explanation as to why your marriage is affected if two, monogamous, committed members of the same sex marry.
Are you under the mistaken impression that there are no committed, gay, "christian" couples?
October 21st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Student, I'm curious. If this "gay marriage" "debate" is resolved 100% as you would like it, could you answer me the following:
Will the word "marriage" still have a definition?
And what would the definition be?
peace
October 21st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Student,
I fully support your right to believe anything you like (even those things that I find completely wrong). Does that include the belief the Earth is around 6000 years old – which has been proven incorrect? This is, in fact, a literal interpretation.
Actually, there is a great deal of disagreement on this. The Bible does say that God created everything in seven days, but I don't know what seven days to God is, since He is not bound by time or space. I have no problem with the idea that 1 billion people years is but a day to Him. So yes I believe He created the everything in seven days.
I don’t like to generalize people with the word “all.” Which documents? You certainly won’t find a mention of a god in the Constitution (with the exception of the recitation of the year). It is my personal opinion that there is no place for religion in government.
The Constitution does talk about God. He's mentioned in the first paragraph of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution states that government cannot force anyone to belive in God or practice a particular faith, but it was never the intention to keep God out of government. Our Founding Fathers were keenly aware that our nation was allowed to be created because of God. They talkerd about God's providence, mercy and grace. God was talked about and prayed to before votes were taken. This country was founded on the Judeao/Christian faith. This is a fact.
As for seperation of church and state, it did not until after 1946. It was then that a bussing case came before the Supreme Court. That is the first time that term was used.
How and why do you consider them biased? Are they so biased that you don’t take your children to a pediatrician?
Actually I do take my children to a prediatrican, but not all peds accept what the AAP stands for or deems appropriate.
I just realized what time it is and I have a Dr's appt. I'm getting over Bronchitis and I'm still not feeling well. I will finish my response when I get back.
October 21st, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Yikes! (I might have "forced a premise unto you"), namely:
"Will the word 'marriage' still have a definition?"
SHOULD BE,
"Will the word "marriage" have a definition?"
peace
October 21st, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Ok. I do worry about those who go with the literal interpretation and ignore geological evidence. Clearly that's not you. *whew*
There is no god mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I assume you mean the Declaration of Independence? If so, the Declaration of Independence came BEFORE the establishment of our government (the Constitution). The Constitution itself does NOT mention god.
I believe you're referring to the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This country was most certainly NOT founded on the Judeo/Christian faith. In 1797 John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli which states, in part: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
It was actually first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, often
wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." Furthermore, SCOTUS first used the phrase in Reynolds v. U.S. — long before 1946. There is significant judicial history on this subject.
This still doesn't explain how/why you believe they are biased.
I'm sorry you're not feeling well. I hope you're better soon.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Tara,
I sent a lengthy reply to Post 47, however, it had a large # of links and is being held for moderation.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Jerry, if you're asking my opinion, I would propose
MARRIAGE: A relationship in which two consenting adults have pledged themselves to each other.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
and no mention of the continuation of the human race???
October 21st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
in the same vein so to speak….there would not be a name for the state of human reproduction?
October 21st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
#52 restated:
Would there be a name for the "state of human reproduction"?
October 21st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
#52 & #53 restated:
Would there be a name for "the state of human reproduction by a man and a woman?"
October 21st, 2008 at 10:39 pm
#52,#53, and #54 restated:
Would there be a "name, word, label" for the "union of a man and a woman" (The "vehicle" wherein human beings can be reproduced…..thereby insuring that the future of the planet earth is not human beingless)?
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:25 am
How about pregnancy? Do you hold the falacious view that if we allow gay marriage the birth rate will decline?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:31 am
Honestly, sincerely Student, We would, in the very beginning of explaining the union of man and woman we would we would have to start off with "You want to get pregnent?" (Instead of lets get to know each other, reflect on a life of "pregnentcy"?
Gee whiz man, there are abuses, errors, darn right evils galore……but we try to correct them by eliminating what is right in each case?
peace
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 am
The union of a man and a woman…..hence forth shell be called "pregnency"?
peace again
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:47 am
I hope I don't hold any falacious views!
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:49 am
re #56:
"allow gay marriage"
They don't say "you are legally gay married", but rather "you are married"! see what I'm getting at?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 am
the certificate doesn't say "gay marriage"!
It says "marriage"!
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 am
Summation to this point:
If things were 100% to your satisfaction:
1. "Marriage" would be defined as "A relationship in which two consenting adults have pledged themselves to each other."
2. "Union of a man and a woman" would be defined as "pregnancy".
Please correct me if I have misstated above.
peace
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 am
Sorry to go back to the adoption thread - but it is an issue I have never found answered/discussed fully. Does no one else find it hypocritical to tell one family who does not want to parent a child with Down Syndrome or Tay Sachs that it is God's will that they have that baby but not consider that perhaps it is God's will that the thousands of (presumably infertile) families parent one of the thousands of children languishing in foster care or orphanages? Aren't they both making judgements about what is acceptable in their family? One family's decision ends a pregnancy, the other's condemns a child to life in foster care/orphanages when they were ready, willing and able to parent - but only for what they considered an acceptable addition to their family.
Many of these children, whose parents 'chose life' despite being completely unable to care for them leave the foster care/orphanage system without ever being adopted - meaning that until or if they marry - they have no family. No family. No family on Christmas, no family on birthdays, no family to rely on in hard times. It was hearing the testimony of several of these young people who walk in this world alone having been parented only by orphanages that I decided my gene pool was not so exceptional and that my 'quiver' could be full of these children who need families.
Of course, this may not be the path for everyone, but how can anyone even claim to be 'pro-life' and 'pro-children' while skirting the issue of these thousands of family-less children because they are not 'babies.' Pro-adoption is not just pro-adoption-for-perfect-babies-who-will-be-easy-to-integrate-into-my-family no more than pro-life is pro-life for perfect infants only. The church teaches us they are all our children, and they are waiting. How will we answer for allowing them to grow up without a family?
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
Yes, you have misstated #2. That isn't even close to what I said. Please re-read post 57. You asked for a definition of the following:
"Would there be a name for "the state of human reproduction by a man and a woman?"
I stated the name would be "pregnancy." This is very different as defining the union of a man and woman as "pregnancy."
I am trying, but I do have significant difficulty trying to ascertain the meaning of many of your posts.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Green
I also an an adoptive mom. I have two children adopted as infants. I agree that there is a great need for children adopted through foster care and my husband and I are considering it when our children get older. But really, adoption of older children through foster care and adoption of infants through an agency are two very different things.
DCFS's primary goal is to keep biological families together. That means that until finalization of the adoption, DCFS will continue to work with grandparents, parents, aunts/uncles, and siblings of the foster child in order to keep a biological family together. Maybe that is the best thing, I'm not sure, but I do know that the three families I know who have adopted children through foster care went through several years of uncertainty about whether they would be able to permanently parent their children as DCFS continued to interview this or that family member. One family I know had a child they had parented for six years, since he was three months old, returned to his biological family. All three families were supposedly parenting children "available for adoption", but that by no means meant that their years of uncertainty would end with a permanent placement. At the same time, DCFS may continue to order visitation with a biological parent or family member. This could be really stressful because this relinquishment was involuntary. In at least one family that I know, the biological mother actually attempted to sabotage the foster relationship and have the child removed from the foster home.
In contrast, infant adoption is voluntary. Especially if an agency or other counselor is involved, the birthparents know that they are working for the best interest of their child. I have one open and one semi-open birthmother relationship, and both have been positive and supportive. We are all on the same team.
Children in foster care have almost certainly experienced some level of abuse, and the foster family may have no knowledge of what actually occurred and how best to help that child overcome his or her past. One young woman I know has custody of her 5-year-old brother. He incoherently speaks of abuse in a past foster home, but her DCFS social worker will not release details of what actually happened and, so far, is not providing state-sponsored counseling.
The bureaucracy of the State continues much longer for a DCFS placement, with multiple court dates and other court-mandated appointments. An infant adoption is permanent from the time of placement (and signing of birthparents surrender) and is finalized in the courts in six months after one court date.
You are an adoptive parent through the State system. That is wonderful and amazing. Was your experience without a lot of the stress that I am describing? Surely, you can understand that a family willing to parent a child released voluntarily and placed permanently may not be able to take on the uncertainties of the DCFS system. So, I don't think saying "I will parent a baby saved from abortion" means that you don't care about kids in foster care. The issues involved in becoming an adoptive parent through these two different paths are completely different.
(And before you get all "perfect baby, yadda, yadda, yadda" on me I should tell you that both of my children through adoption are African American and both have prenatal substance exposure.)
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
re: #65 Student,
Thanks much….You figured out exactly what I was trying to say up to that point. (in SPITE OF my "jumping the gun" in explaining myself.)
re cap:
Marriage - A relationship in which two consenting adults have pledged themselves to each other.
beautiful! but what I was trying to ask what would be the word, whose definition would be "Union of a man and a woman" (the word used before was "marriage", but it's been "reasigned" as stated above).
again, thanks & peace
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Jerry,
I'm confused. Why does there need to be a special name to specifiy whether a marriage is between two people of the same sex, or two people of opposite sexes? Why can't they both be 'marriages?' Unless you want to assign a higher value to one over the other, I don't see why a special term is necessary.
If we are friends, we call our relationship a "friendship." There is no reason to spell out the sexes of those involved in the friend-relationship. I don't see why a marriage needs to be any different.
I know that there are religions that teach that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. If it's that important to make that clear to all, maybe they can call their union a "Catholic Marriage," or a "Muslim Marriage" if they want. Or a Opposite-Sex Marriage.
S
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
That should say "an" opposite-sex marriage. Oops!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
In one case, perpetuation of the human race is possible.
In the other case perpetuation of the human race is impossible.
Isn't that reason for distinction?
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
(should be - "Isn't that reason for substantial distinction?")
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
No, I do not think that is reason for distinction. Procreation is not mandatory, and many same sex couples have children through adoption or other means, like sperm donors. My (opposite sex) husband and I have decided not to have children.
You may not agree with their lifestyles, but their families are no less valid than what you see as legitimate.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
"Marriage - A relationship in which two consenting adults have pledged themselves to each other."
The concern about this definition that I haven't heard mentioned yet is that it seems to put marriage at the same level as "serious dating" or "engaged couples." Is the fact that it's a "pledge" that significant? I guess in my book a "pledge" doesn't seem to be as big of a deal as the commitment married couples currently make (though perhaps some might use the word pledge for that too…)
Though the definition would seem to exclude 17 year olds in a serious relationship, even though some states allow them to marry (they're not "adults").
Just throwing it out there.
***
ERIN: Terrific post! Thank you so much for sharing your experiences with us!!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Sherrie, where are these adoptees coming from?
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
mandatory…..legitimate….etc. I am simply talking possible or impossible!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
there's 5,000,000,000 people on the planet…..the race is going to be perpetuated by "sperm donation"?
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
re: #72 Sherrie,
"their families are no less valid"
It's impossible for them to perpetuate the race, whereas it is possible for the alternative. And thus they have the same validity???
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
It's impossible for them to perpetuate the race, whereas it is possible for the alternative. And thus they have the same validity???
Are you saying that heterosexual couples who, for medical reasons or otherwise, cannot conceive do not have valid marriages???? Really????? It is impossible for them to "perpetuate the race," right?
And I wrote out and submitted another, longer response to you, but it is not posting for some reason. It only had one link in it so I do not know what is going on.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Jerry,
Please show me where I suggested that sperm donation alone "perpetuate the race."
I was merely giving an example of one way a same-sex couple could become parents.
Thanks
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
(I just finished publishing a nine page report on my condo ass'n board of directors monthly meeting of last night……up untill now was trying to do 2 things at once!…..thus the 45 minute delay in responding)
re: #79 Sherrie - "Please show me where I suggested that sperm donation alone 'perpetuate the race'".
reply:
your #72 - "Procreation is not mandatory, and many same sex couples have children through adoption or other means, like sperm donors."
re: #78 Sherrie,
In theory it is possible with man & woman unions.
In theory it is always impossible with same sex couples.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Sherrie:
I checked the admin page and there are no posts there waiting to be approved. Sorry your message didn't post…I guess your computer/our page/some combo of both was being cranky.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
re: #78 Sherrie - In summation are you saying that when one gets right down to it…..same sex couples procreate just as much (at least in theory) as different sex couples?
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Jerry,
It is no more possible for an infertile couple to conceive a child than it is for a same sex couple to do so.
You have not given me a valid argument as to why opposite sex couples deserve a special name for their marriages, or why their marriages are more valid, or more special than those of gay couples. Some opposite sex couples do not have children, some do. Some same sex couples do not have children. Some do. How they go about becoming parents may be different, but they are all parents.
reply:
your #72 - "Procreation is not mandatory, and many same sex couples have children through adoption or other means, like sperm donors."
Please, please, please explain to me how you take this to mean I expect the entire population to perpetuate using sperm donation. Please??? You are making crazy assumptions based on my suggestion for one way a same sex couple could have a child.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
re: #78 Sherrie - In summation are you saying that when one gets right down to it…..same sex couples procreate just as much (at least in theory) as different sex couples?
Exactly where did I say this?
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
peace! It seems to me you keep giving exceptions as a reason to disprove the rule!
by nature - two males or two females are not capable of producing a human being.
by nature - a male and a female are capable of producing a human being.
I can't think of any way to say it!
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
(I can't think of ANY OTHER way to say it!)
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Yes, those are exceptions to the rule. But just because a person has made an exception (invitro fertilization, or adoption) does that make their marriage less meaningful??? Does a couple who cannot have children have an invalid marriage? By saying that opposite sex couples should have a special name for their marriage because they can have biological children you are saying just that.
And you didn't answer my question:
reply:
your #72 - "Procreation is not mandatory, and many same sex couples have children through adoption or other means, like sperm donors."
Please, please, please explain to me how you take this to mean I expect the entire population to perpetuate using sperm donation. Please??? You are making crazy assumptions based on my suggestion for one way a same sex couple could have a child.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Would you make a distinction for an infertile heterosexual couple? I wouldn't.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Does "serious dating" include a legal contract? Marriage does. Your comment as to 17 y.o.'s is irrelevant. States mandate the legal age at which one could marry.
***************
Sherry — excellent posts. There should be no difference between hetero/homosexual marriage in name (I do like your suggestion of Catholic marriage, etc.)
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
This is true, however, but after the parental ties have been severed by the courts, the adoptive process is really quite simple – and there are significant #’s of these children awaiting homes. I know from personal experience as I adopted one (at the age of 15).
Aren’t these children even more in need of homes?
My adoption was finalized in the courts w/I the same 6 month time. Three were no other court mandated hearings/appointments.
They can be, but aren’t necessarily different. My experience was a simple, straightforward process.
I think this is great. However, I believe you are the exception rather than the rule. There are far more people protesting abortion than are willing to put themselves out there and actually adopt a child.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
re: #88 Student - I wouldn't either.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
(one last shot at this)
By nature - one or more males OR one or more females are NOT capable of producing a human being.
By nature - one male and one female are capable of producing a human being.
If nature takes it course…Case one above results in an actual existing human being.
And in Case two above…..results in NOTHING.
The distinction between AN ACTUAL EXISTING HUMAN BEING and NOTHING is not sufficient to warrent different names???
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:35 am
oh! re: above, "If nature takes it course….." should simply be, "In time….."
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Perhaps there should be a different name for marraiges between people who have children, and marriages between people who do not, regardless of the sex of the two individuals involved.
That's the only solution I can see following your logic, Jerry, if you insist on two different terms.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Sherrie, please give me a definition of "marriage".
(hint - (I am MOST CURIOUS how above definition includes the group I include AND also the group you feel should also be included…..honestly, friend…..this I gotta see)
October 24th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Marriage: a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law between two consenting adults.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Jerry,
Will you please be more specific about the two different groups you refer to above?
Also, you did not answer the questions I posed to you at 5:01, 5:02, and 5:15.
Thanks
October 27th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Sherrie, I never dreamed the definition of marriage was (to me!!!) so "extremely broad" (and "extremely broad" is a gross understatement).
I had thought it refered to the nature of humans, male & female, purpose & causes and I was prepared to argue about this issues.
But the above definition BLOWS ME OUT OF THE WATER, so to speak, in establishing a starting point for any arguement.
Because of this I have NO RESPONSE to your questions……I don't have any idea on how to even attempt a start. sorry, Jerry
October 27th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
oh, and….peace!
October 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
That's funny. It seems to me I asked you those questions long before I answered your's. I don't see how my definition would have any bearing on your answers, especially this one:
I said - "Procreation is not mandatory, and many same sex couples have children through adoption or other means, like sperm donors."
Jerry says - there's 5,000,000,000 people on the planet…..the race is going to be perpetuated by "sperm donation"?
I said: Please, please, please explain to me how you take this to mean I expect the entire population to perpetuate using sperm donation. Please??? You are making crazy assumptions
I guess you just can't answer that one, because your statement made no sense. You just decided to put words into my mouth. Thanks. I'm blown out of the water that you think that's a valid form of argument or debate.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I don't consider what I said a valid or invalid argument….my point is I am totally lost if I can't "latch" unto clear, exact, precise, unequivocal definitions, using same as a base to then argue.
I asked for trouble back when I made a comment about the future being a "scrapshoot", I was accused of being "off topic", which I accepted, but didn't bow out then and there, but rather made an "impulsive", "off the cuff" remark about what I thought the topic was.
Isn't this getting "crazy"?…..(I think we have too much time on our hands!)
October 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I'm sorry, Jerry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I guess I am totally lost.
I would appreciate an answer to at least that one question, though. I'm sorry If I'm nagging, but I do not like words put in my mouth, as I'm sure you wouldn't either.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
"I don't consider what I said a valid or invalid argument"…..as in "I don't consider it worthy to be even called an argument….much less valid or invalid."
Again, if this continues on….I really, truly, surely, believe we have too much time on our hands!
peace
October 27th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
ok….but just that one question!…..could I impose upon you the task to repeat your request?
October 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
ok….it's all in your #100…..am I correct?
October 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
ah…..towards the end of your #100:
"I guess you just can't answer that one, because your statement made no sense". Beautiful…..can't we end it with that?
peace
October 27th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I think we are dangerously close to making this "blog" site (and off topic to boot) into a "chat" site!
October 27th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Thanks for answering my question, Jerry. Huh.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Re: #78 Sherrie,
"It's impossible for them to perpetuate the race whereas it is possible for the alternative. And thus they have the same validity???"
"Are you saying that heterosexual couples who, for medical reasons or otherwise, cannot conceive do not have valid marriage???? Really????? It is impossible for them to 'perpetuate the race'. right?"
The NATURE of a heterosexual couple has a CAUSE to perpetuate the race.
Whereas the NATURE of a same sex couple DOES NOT have a CAUSE to perpetuate the race.
In the first case we have possiblilty, in the second case we have impossibility. This distinction is as "strong as it can be" and therefore I feel one should be called marriage, and the other any OTHER then marriage….perhaps "a same sex union".
(So much for your "huh", why are you making me work???)
October 30th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
and the "flow" from above would seem to indicate that a definition of "marriage" would suitiabily be:
"A union of one man and one woman."
October 30th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
That was not the question I was referring to, Jerry, although that is one of my questions that you ignored. I am aware that your homophobic nature makes it impossible for you to wrap your brain around the idea that two people of the same sex can love each other romantically.
I have asked you multiple times to answer this one:
I said - "Procreation is not mandatory, and many same sex couples have children through adoption or other means, like sperm donors."
Jerry says - there's 5,000,000,000 people on the planet…..the race is going to be perpetuated by "sperm donation"?
I said: Please, please, please explain to me how you take this to mean I expect the entire population to perpetuate using sperm donation. Please??? You are making crazy assumptions
That is the question I am asking you to answer, Jerry. Where did I say that I expect sperm donation to perpetuate the earth's population, as you insinuated I did?
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "the flow from above," unless you mean the flow of nonsense coming from your keyboard.
Again, thanks for ignoring my question. Huh.
November 1st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Your welcome. Huh
November 1st, 2008 at 5:17 pm