The President of the United States Asks God to Bless an Abortion Factory
OBAMA: Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It's not going anywhere today. It's not going anywhere tomorrow. (applause) As long as we've got a fight to make sure women have access to quality affordable health care, and as long as we've got to fight to protect a woman's right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you've also got a president who's gonna be right there with you fighting every step of the way. (cheers and applause) Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. God bless America. Thank you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … pm_giEdj0E
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/ … on_factory
Yeah, Obama previously claimed that the abortion issue was "above his pay grade".
Yet he's been paid in votes and political backing for his statements approving abortion.
As far as Planned Parenthood, they should get out of the abortion business. They've always provided, yes, some affordable health care for women, like contraceptives and etc.
But that 3% (if it IS only 3%) of abortions is still too much. Any percentage is too much.
I think Obama's asking God to bless abortion, and asking Him to bless America, even, is waaaay above Obama's pay grade. I cringe every time I've heard him ask God to bless America, because he doesn't mean it and is only doing it for political reasons. If Obama really knew God, he'd know that God isn't gonna keep blessing a Nation that kills its unborn for selfish reasons.
Brenda, I caught that, too. In discussion on national TV AT THAT, as a candidate for US president, that lame excuse was given. WHY? Because taking a real stand and putting his real views out there would have alienated quite a few and the host/asker of that question was one of the most decidedly AGAINST abortion in the country and Obama didn't have to cajunes,and still lacks them, to stick up for his own beliefs, better yet to HAVE a belief of his own, not the polls. The preacher at Sadleback asked a simple question to which he received a FLIPPANT answer, clarified like this:
"I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies,” he said. “I have a 25-year pro-life record. That’s my commitment to you.” This was his response a few days later, when he had had the opportunity to think of the error of his ways and that it just might not win him the Christian conservative note.
How very astonishing. Not surprising though. He said God Bless You to an organization that in 2011 performed 145 TIMES more abortions than adoption referrals and for decades knew about but deliberately ignored the butchery of Kermit Gosnell.
I'm not sure what God the prez prays to, but the God most of us worship won’t be blessing the butchers at unplanned parenthood any time soon.
Planned parenthood is not an abortion factory. It's a place for women with financial restraints and no not just those on welfare to get medical care. If it's a federal program that funds it, it's an abortion factory, but when it's a wealthy person who can afford to pay for private care for the exact same treatment, you never hear about their doctors being called abortion factories.
I believe they said that about Dr. Kermit
Medical care? Can one get a flu shot there?
So the answer was no. According to your chart, they do screening like for cancer, but they do no actual cancer treatments.. Calling them a medical clinic is like calling the CHicken Ranch (Best Little Whorehouse in Texas) a church.
Why is it when PP name is brought up being associated with abortions, they try to change the subject that the are a medical clinic providing medical care? Are you afraid to admit they do abortions? If so, why is that?.
Why wouldn't Obama praise Planned Parenthood? As a state senator he voted three times to oppose a bill that would make infantacide illegal - if he is for infantacide (leaving a viable living baby from a botched abortion to die) why wouldn't he just love abortion? And for you people who think it is the mother's right to murder their baby in the womb for any frivolous reason, just think for one minute...your mother could have prevented you from ever being born simply because if she were to birth you she might not be able to afford her flat screen TV. Yeah, maybe you wish you were never born? If you do , it's not your fault, it's your mother's.
And a pie chart to demonstrate how little of PP's business is abortions is decieving as can be when you consider they perform over 300,000 abortions per year! That's well over 3 million in 10 years. Obama praised the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for saving lives and helping women and families in a 12-minute, 3-second speech on Friday, which was enough time for 7.6 abortions to take place at Planned Parenthood clinics, based upon the abortion data in their latest annual report.
PP just correctly pointed out that Planned Parenthood does much more than abortions and in fact only a tiny percent of what they do comes down to that issue which there is significant division on but which most Americans support the right to.
So what you are saying is that all the rest they do justifies murdering 300,000 babies in the womb per year...nice reasoning. That's what I call "hellthcare".
Actually I think abortion is often immoral but an unremovable right which women have excersized from the earliest of times so I have no problem with an agency that aids that process being safer. Makes it neutral to me, then the rest makes it a big positive, you know the other 97% of what they do.
Btw this is a zygote, the form at which most abortions are performed:
This is a baby:
Spot the difference
Yeah the difference is, you can't have this
Yes and you can't have this :
Does that mean when I burn wood I am burning a house?
No, it means your destroying a valuable resource if wasted.
Wood was designed to be used, babies weren't designed to be destroyed.
Which is my point, burning wood is not burning a house and aborting a five cell zygote is not murdering a baby. Simple as that.
I don't disagree that both are valuable and usually should not be destroyed on moral grounds (excepting rape and health complications for the mother in the case of abortion) but I vigorously oppose anyone trying to make either illegal.
Freedom isn't just a word it means letting others do things you don't agree with.
As for your edit I don't believe either was designed for anything beyond for reproduction and the continuation of it's species so I can't really address that presumably theological argument.
Wood is a tree... it can be left as a tree, used for firewood, used as a material to build thousands of things... When sperm plants itself inside an egg (don't make me go jr. high on you) you got one thing coming. ONE THING! It is on it's way... it is alive. It will either be a baby or it will die.
A zygote can be used for harvesting stem cells.
Ta-da! The firewood metaphor is complete!
Wood has many purposes is not an anti abortion argument...
How many uses a zygote may have (and as already noted by others it can have other uses) is really irrelevant to whether it is a baby, also by most scientific definitions it is not alive, it cannot react to anything nor does it have organizational complexity.
1. *I'm the one who said wood had a lot of purposes. 'Member?
2. I didn't use it in the argument. I just responded to the wood argument. I used cake batter. Chocolate to be precise.
3. Are you saying a human cell isn't living? How does it grow. Not a lot of dead things grow and Im pretty sure there's very little as complex as a human cell, though I doubt that was your point.
Neither of the first two arguments have any relevance to what I said, I noted that wood is necessary for a house and yet when you burn it it's different to burning down a house, therefore aborting a zygote is different to murdering a baby.
All cells are alive by some definitions for example there are lots of blood cells in a drop of blood yet we would not refer to it as a living being, some human cells are relatively complex however those of a zygote are not, they are very simple in fact.
Ok, you don't seem to get this. A zygote can ONLY be a baby. When you destroy one, you destroy a baby. Forget the wood, forget the cake batter and focus on that one fact if it helps.
Next, you didn't say a living being, you said it wasn't alive. It is living and left alone for a few weeks, it will have a beating heart, a few months and it will have all it's little baby parts. I have been pregnant 3 times. I have seen them sucking their thumbs in my womb. I have felt them kick, punch and get the hickups. I understand that many women have felt they had no choice and that it hurt many of them to abort their child. But don't freaking tell me if you kill a zygote, you don't kill a baby.
A zygote is not a baby, or it would be called a "baby." It cannot grow and become a baby on its own; it requires a host. That host is a human being. A human being hosting a zygote.
A host, as in a test tube? Yeah, that would be impossible I suppose. Maybe in a thousand years.
Who's this, then?
What I'm trying to say is that the human being hosts the zygote, which is not a baby, and it is the human being's choice as to whether or not to continue hosting the zygote.
My 4th child is adopted from China. Her birth mom probably had as much or more reason to abort her child than anyone else would. Chinese women are the most devalued ppl on earth with the highest suicide rate. They can have one child if they live in the city and two in the country to work the farm. If they are found to be pregnant after this point, they can be punished. She allowed my daughter to go to full term. She gave birth to her then left her in a box, on some park steps, near an orphanage. I owe this woman the greatest debt I can imagine. She was brave and unselfish and strong and kind. I love her for doing what she did. I understand that women get stuck and make choices they may later regret and I care about them and their hearts, but it is always easier to save oneself, then to save another. My point is that it's noble and good to put others needs above your own when possible.
Viruses aren't living things, but they manage to reproduce and screw us up, anyway.
I love how all the pro-abortion people throw around the term "zygote".
Below is a zygote:
This is a 6 week fetus:
And finally, a 12 week fetus (perfectly legal mind you)
You really should google aborted fetus and look at the images just so you know exactly what you are supporting.
The only line defining the "life" of an unborn child is if its mother wants it. There are people in prison for killing unborn children, because their mothers' wanted them. Yet, that same mother can kill that unborn child, at the same term, and it is fine. So why not just let mothers kill any of their unwanted children? Pretty much amounts to the same thing.
No not at all. There is no reply button showing here for Josak and PP, the ones using the old stand by argument of a "zygote". So I went to the first one that showed a reply button lol
We are not aborting zygotes.
Neither are living but just the kind of comparison I would expect from a moron. Life means nothing to your ilk. To you a human is nothing more than dead wood.
You shouldn't call ppl morons... they will shut down, you are shooting yourself in the foot.
As soon as you lose the rational argument resort to insults, personal attacks and appeals to emotion, how typical.
Just calling a spade a spade, not a personal attack and any rational person who follows Josak's reasoning would agree - you can't shut down a moron. So Beth, you agree he is a moron but you say you shouldn't call anyone a moron, not because they are but because they'll shut down? As you see this moron hasn't shut down and it is to everyone's benefit he doesn't . People need to see the idiocy of his "logic".
I agree that his points are not valid and detrimental to human life... A moron is a word I don't think I would use although I understand how these issues become emotionally charged. I called ATM a male appendage the other day (without the vowels!) And he had me banned. lol But he attacks ppl personally, although he pretends he doesn't. I assume you and Josak just don't agree on an issue. He's not going to hear you if you call him names without provocation.
"Actually I think abortion is often immoral "so I have no problem with an agency that aids that process being safer" . If you feel that abortion is often immoral, that there are times when it IS acceptable? Who decides who is given that and who does NOT?
Don't you feel just a LITTLE miffed that your tax dollars go to someone/thing that you morally disagree with, but is the law?
As I have expressed my personal view (which is that excepting rape and medical complication abortion is usually immoral) is irrelevant because I believe in the basic right to self determination, rights can only be removed when someone commits a crime and sex is not a crime. Making it unaffordable would be effectively be removing that freedom to self determination just as much as banning it.
However I think we should do everything we can to reduce abortions without restricting people's freedoms.
Ok, this is the one thing I do not get.
Why do pro abortionists always say it is *her body. We are not talking about her body being destroyed, we are talking about the body of the baby. Yes, she would be affected if she kept the baby, but she would not die. We are talking about destroying a baby, but no one ever says that the baby has rights... only the mother... They are both human lives. Why is one more valuable than the other? If a mother was going to die... I could understand that argument, but for convenience or whatever the reason may be... why does the baby become so worthless it can be destroyed while the mother is so valuable we give her the right to have martial law on other humans?
I have a friend who was aborted and lived. Her mother injected saline into her womb and burned my friend and deprived her brain of oxygen until she had cerebal palsy. Here is her story if you're interested.
Josak, One thing that can be done is instilling a little personal responsibility. I know, teens can only be taught so much, but you don't WAIT until they're teens. Teaching responsibility and respect can happen from day one.
I know prepubescent teens have urges (we were all teens once) , but they can be taught from day one that actions have consequences. But, our society has come to accept that it's okay to have an unwanted pregnancy at 13.
Why? Why have they come to accept a pregnancy at 13 as OK? Hey, because if it (pregnancy) turns out to be more than the kids can handle, or they don't want in a few weeks next year: they can easily 'dispose' of it through abortion. It is has become too common a practice to think that anything we don't want is disposable. A pregnancy. Disposable. Clothes that no longer fit. Disposable. A bike. Disposable.
Even though Mom and Dad may be working 2 jobs and things are chaotic at best at home, they made a committment when they made and had the child. Mom and Dad must be responsible parents who teach their kids values during their first few years on this planet. More than a college education and nice clothes and toys, values trump all and there is not much greater a gift..
Too often these days, parents seem to abdicate the throne of responsibility. (which teaches the child the same thing-"hey, if you don't want to be on the train, it is so easy to hop off!)"
But, that responsibility to parent NEVER left. It was there when they 'made' the child and it'll remain until the day they die. Abdicating that is complete and utter irresponsibility.
No, I'm not afraid to admit they provide abortions to women who otherwise could not afford one. I'm glad they do. You asked about medical care, which is what I responded to.
Come on PP, you know that pesky little things like mammograms and pap smears are just something us girls do for fun.
Mamagrams by Planned Parenthood, really? From PP website
Where Can I Get a Mammogram?
Ask your health care provider, health department, or staff at your local Planned Parenthood health center about where you can get a mammogram in your area.
Seems all PP does is tell you where you can go get a mammogram, not perform on themselves. In October, 2012 PP released a statement admitting so.
“In short, Planned Parenthood helps women nationwide get access to mammograms, as part of the range of health care Planned Parenthood health centers provide to nearly three million people a year. Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses do this like any other primary care provider or ob-gyn does,” it admits.
“Women rely on Planned Parenthood for referrals,” the abortion business admits. “Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses refer patients to other facilities for mammograms.”
Meanwhile, Factcheck.org confirms Planned Parenthood does not actually do mammograms
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/19/plan … or-women/.
You realize that referrals for mammograms are important right? Also that Planned Parenthood does provide pap smears to find cancer.
More evidence that they REFER everything out. Our tax dollars pay for referrals? When ACA becomes fully in effect, all will be covered, right? In that case, there will be no need for a referral place. See your PCP, after all, no charge to get that referral. People will be able to go to a PCP for free according to the ACA and get that referral. So, where's the plan to stop funding PP because referral services will no longer be necessary? THERE IS NO PLAN!
Obviously referrals are important, but the statement was they PERFORMED mammograms which they do not. BTW when they admitted they do not do mammograms they also admitted they did not have personnel that were qualified to check for breast cancer. .
Where was that said? I've search the thread and can't find it.
It was you responding to Panther
No, I'm not afraid to admit they provide abortions to women who otherwise could not afford one. I'm glad they do. You asked about medical care, which is what I responded to.
Come on PP, you know that pesky little things like mammograms and pap smears are just something us girls do for fun.
Panther was responding to medical treatment that PP offered. You made a sarcastic comment about Planned Parenthood providing mammograms.for girls because it was fun.
I know why you responded, do you believe they give medical care, can you get a flu shot? the answer even provided in your chart, is no they do not. What they do is a misdirection as to their true reason to be in business, abortions. They and everyone who tries to defend them by claiming they are medical clinic should just be honest about what they do and what their main focus is on. Look itis true they get grief for what they do, it is a hot and personal issue for people on both sides of the fence, but they would get less grief if they did not try to hide behind a false front of what they do. IMO
So, their true reason to be in business is abortions, yet abortions comprise about 3% of their services. Huh?
Hiding behind a false front? Being a nonprofit, they must provide a detailed accounting of what they do. How are they hiding? I see "abortion services" right there on that pie chart.
How r they hiding? Do women's health, but no mammograms is one. Women's health, but no chemo for that breast tumor. AHA, you can get a REFERRAL for that mammogram. In 2014, people will be able to get that referral for free under the ACA. Where is the plan to defund PP? IMHO,the Federal government was established to GOVERN, not fund healthcare. It was created to GOVERN, not fund the arts. Both can be funded by private monies. Susan Sarandon and Barbra Streisand talk the talk; but when the rubber hits the road, have they stepped forward to fund PP, NEA? Or is it easier to let you and me who have NO money, continue to foot the bill? Of course, if I'm 'wrong, I'll admit it. But please give all of us REFERENCED facts, not pie charts,
I'm confused. If you have no money, how are you footing the bill?
As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're asking, but if you have questions about how Planned Parenthood operates you can look it up.
If you are a proponent for it, you should know that stuff... not b/c you have to supply us all with the info. We can google it, but if you support it, you should know more about it. At least that's my opinion, of course you can do as you please.
According to their report, they performed 329,455 abortions which the chart you showed was 3% of their business. That would mean that they did over 100 million other services. That would equate to Planned Parenthood sees about 1/3 of the US population every year as patients. . Not bad for a group that does not practice medicine.
BTW, several years ago PP funding came under the spotlight. There was major talk about cutting off funding. That came as a result of an audit by the US GAO showing that PP used funds for abortions.. I just tried to find it on google but could not.
It seems to me, that in the absence of a 'yes' they do flu shots, they might well not. Although only 3% of their work is abortion, that is 3%. We know they don't do mammograms, it seems that they SCREEN 4 everything, but SPECIFICALLY, what do they do? I'm curious, CONVINCE me.
If you're so curious, do the research. I'm not a Planned Parenthood expert.
Who submitted the chart. People are all gun-ho tossing stats and things they read trying to defend a position they take. When they get challenged to provide it out comes the "do your own research" card. .I think RN deserves an answer.
I provided the chart of my own free will in response to your comment about medical services. If she wants to know more, she can find it herself. I don't owe her anything. She didn't "challenge" the data on the chart anyway; she asked a question about services.
Have no desire to convince you. Have no need.
Believe whatever you like. It isn't going to affect planned parenthood and it isn't going to affect me.
This is cake batter.
This is cake.
You can't get the latter without the former. Throw out one, you throw out the other.
You may think curb appeal has to do with value, but it doesn't.
If you want abortion to be illegal, go for it.
Until it should be available to everyone, not just wealthy people.
...PP and other similar groups also provide women information and referral on their options around pregnancy as well...planning around the pregnancy e.g. raise the child, let someone else raise it, abortion...the woman considering the context of her life and the pregnancy, is then better able to make a choice for herself in most cases....in some cases women choose abortion....her choice...no one else should make that decision....the abortion piece is the service area is that is most disturbing to some people...however PP does not just deal with abortion options...these types of groups have a breadth of services...the word abortion alone makes some people focus only on that word and everything else appears to be 'white noise' to them....they can't see anything else unfortunately.
Yes they do offer choices, 329,455 abortions, 814 adoption referrals. We can see where they put their emphasis. ..
you've missed my point.....the women made the choice...not PP. With your stats above, I wonder how many women
a) opted to raise their own child and
b) how many women opted to raise their own child only to find 'authorities' took the babe away as soon as it was born because 'authorities' made that decision for them
It would be interesting to see those numbers as well.
Yes, Obama is right. Planned Parenthood (Planned Extermination) is not going anywhere. As long as Black babies are heavily aborted in the inner cities, it has to stay.
Im so glad you brought that up. I held my tongue, but youre right.
http://www.amazon.com/Killer-Angel-Biog … 1581821506
Years ago, it was put to me RATHER crudely, that, 'until girls are taught to keep their legs together and boys are taught to keep their pants up, there will always be some unwanted pregnancies." How crude is that. But, aptly put.
Instead of dancing around the problem, this approach cuts to the chase. You were a teen, I was a teen, we've been there. What kept us out of harm's way (or at least me) was parental or authority figure guidance that certain things were NOT acceptable.
By making it easy (except in cases of rape/incest/health of the mother), to have an abortion, it also makes the ANY progress we make getting to the root cause and need for an abortion , THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT, because there's always an out.
So, go to PP to get your BC (WHICH YOUR PARENTS TOLD YOU ABOUT) but not the abortions they're handing out like candy.
There are not always 'do-overs' as an adult; we grow out of that. If you want a do-over story, see "City Slickers" with Billy Crystal. Abortions should not be a
'do-over" thing where you practice until you get it right. If we always get do-overs and passes, we begin to think the world GIVES them out and always OWES us something; and then, when it stops giving, and we have to work for what we want, we see things a bit more clearly.
Yet the very opposite is true, states that teach "until girls are taught to keep their legs together and boys are taught to keep their pants up, there will always be some unwanted pregnancies." (as in abstinence) have much higher unwanted pregnancy rates, the children of parents who recommend it have higher unwanted pregnancy rates and the children of Christian families (which more commonly teach that) have higher teenage pregnancy rates than non Christian families.
Josak, it has NOTHING to do with Christian or non-Christian. It is impossible (except in cases of rape and incest) for their to be a pregnancy if there is abstinence. Teach children that actions (sex) have consequences( (a child) that there will be the need to care for the child for the rest of their lives, and the moral responsibility that it involves; and all of a sudden, sex becomes more than that wild, passionate irresponsible love-making. It is returned to the beautiful thing it should be.
Check this out... seriously. It's quite amazing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … rgery.html
The babies heart beats outside her chest. Inside or out, it's still a living, beating heart. It needs it's host to live. I don't know why the baby seems so unreal to ppl b/c it's on the inside. The mentality reminds me of 1400 where ppl thought the earth was flat.
I thought we were talking about zygotes?
It's a comparison b/c Im not sure you understand the worth of a baby as it's being formed.
Do you understand the worth a woman who is already a fully formed adult?
I am a woman. I have a mother, two grand mothers and two daughters. I have female friends and I have seen many Lifetime movies... Im pretty sure I get it. Do you get that many unborn babies are female? The male ones are pretty special too.
Yes, babies. But, again, a zygote is not a baby.
I tried the whole... "cake batter isn't a cake, but if you throw out the batter, you have no cake" argument, but you dismissed that so... we'll just go with denial.
Beth, I believe that a baby is a baby from the time it implants... however I am also aware that my opinion conflicts with both science and the law. As such, I am pro-choice. I actually prefer to not have my personal opinion on the matter determine what is right or wrong morally, as I feel that my morals shouldn't be applied to anyone facing such a personal and life-changing choice.
If it is a sin, then God will figure it out. It's not my place.
But it's not legally murder and it's not scientifically murder.
Some day euthanasia will be legal across the board. That doesn't make it right. But knowing you love your kids and that you're a mother, I know that you are aware of the value of our kids lives. I wish there were a common ground when it came to the value of an unborn child, but I do agree with you about the value of the mother. It strikes me interesting that you could call her that while she's pregnant, and no longer after she has aborted the baby.
Yes, denial works both ways.
I understand that this is an emotional issue and that you sincerely believe a zygote is a baby and that somehow that collection of cells has a right to live, a right that trumps the rights of a living, breathing woman who may or may not be able to provide for a baby. I understand that you believe a woman who doesn't really want a baby, but ends up pregnant through her own actions, or maybe even actions that were against her will, should be responsible for that collection of cells and let it grow inside her body and take care of it once it is born or give it up for adoption. I understand all of that.
However, in the real world, if a legal abortion cannot be had, and a woman truly does not want that collection of cells inside her to become a baby, she will find a way to prevent it. In the real world, if that woman is wealthy, she can find a nice, private place with a reputable doctor and comfortable surroundings to have her abortion without legal scrutiny and in secret. In the real world, if that woman is poor and desperate, she will find a way to have an abortion, and it won't be in a nice, pretty clinic with a real doctor. It will be ugly, risky, and quite possibly lethal. Planned Parenthood provides a place for that woman--who is someone's wife, daughter, girlfriend, mother, sister--to have a safe abortion.
I understand that for some, the rights of that collection of cells trumps the rights of a fully formed human being. I disagree.
In the real world a rich woman finds a psychiatrist and a poor woman slashes her wrists.
In the real world a rich person dines on caviar while a poor person digs in the garbage.
In the real world a rich person retires at 55 while a poor person works into her 60's with cancer until she dies. (I happened to meet that one.)
This is not a rich/poor argument. This is a lack of American education concerning responsibility.
A woman should be taught that sex will always lead to the possibility of pregnancy and that any man she sleeps with will possibly/likely leave her with no help.
Then she should be taught that a baby has as much value as she does.
Then she should be taught that if she finds herself pregnant that she should take responsibility and seek help, whether that means adoption or raising it.
Yes, she may be shamed by her parents... or kicked out. That is an evil on them, but there are places that will take her in and help her thru the birth, adoption and finding a job/furthering her education. All PP does is abort her child and leave her with a wounded heart... many unable to give birth again. We need to teach our daughters that there are consequences to our actions and to have mercy on those who can't defend themselves.
It is a rich/poor argument because Planned Parenthood provides services for women who cannot afford them elsewhere.
I agree with you about responsibility, but again, this is the real world we're dealing with.
Crisis Pregnancy Center as well as many religious organizations provide help for the poor too... PP is not the only option. Women need to know they have other options than destroying their children. It is for their own emotional and physical well being as well.
I have spoken to many of these women and more often than not, they would break down in tears over their past abortions. They were broken and my heart broke for them. I didn't judge them. I told them God loved them despite any and all past mistakes, but that's just the spiritual side... some couldn't have children b/c they had been rendered barren b/c of the abortion process... It's not the best choice. We need more education. It shouldn't start and end with PP.
See this is all wrong #1 Planned parenthood provides contraception which reduces pregnancies and thus abortions #2 Planned parenthood provides sex education (you know the kind that actually works rather than the abstinence kind which produces more unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions) #3 Planned Parenthood conducts adoption services and have adoption specialists you can visit too.
#4 Planned parenthood also supports and sometimes manages those women's shelters that you were suggesting women should go to. All of that is great but none of it takes away the fundamental right to an abortion.
Do I think it's the right choice? No except possibly in case of rape or medical complication, I don't like it but that does not change that I have no right and neither does anyone else to force a woman to give birth is she does not want to. (Not to mention we can't really and people will simply seek illegal abortions).
Fundamental 1. Something that is an essential or necessary part of a system or object.
Right 1. Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality
a. Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.
b. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy. Also called induced abortion.
2. See miscarriage.
3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
4. The premature ending or abandonment of an undertaking.
5. Something that is regarded as poorly made or done.
Uhuh... way to not address what I said.
Abortive control over the reproductive cycle is something women have done as far back as history goes and probably a lot further women have the fundamental right to decide if they want to go through a pretty dangerous ordeal to give birth that may well kill them or a much safer abortion.
Actually, I pointed out specifically what you said, in case you didn't really recognize exactly what you had said. Don't get smart with me Mr. Ill put you straight over my knee.
No you just defined three words I used in a hundred word post, not that the definitions changed anything.
It was the only thing I felt like commenting on. Just b/c you think you're offering pearls of wisdom, doesn't mean you are. lol... The contradictions in the words "fundamental right" and "abortion" are ludicrous. Read them... by definition, they do not belong together.
I did not offer pearls of wisdom just proof that what you said was incorrect and that in fact planned parenthood funds, support or runs the programs that you wanted women to use for support when they got pregnant.
It makes no sense to bash on Planned Parenthood while claiming people should use the services provided by planned parenthood should they get pregnant.
I see no contradiction between them actually, fundamental as in essential for freedom, right as in moral and legal right and Abortion as in definition A or B.
Planned Parenthood does so much more than just provided a safe abortion clinic.
Have you ever read up on the history of that sick organization?
People (Eugenicists) started that. They were trying to wipe out the the criminally insane, the insane, Black people, poor people in general and Asians. Just because the name has changed and time has moved on does not mean that their agenda has changed.
Planned Parenthood should be shut down immediately. Why don't I ever see the NAACP and LA RAZA boycotting Planned Parenthood?
It is a woman's right to dispose of her body. Who are we to judge her? If she decides to kill her unborn, it is her right.
You can find it sick all you like but it doesn't make it any less true, if you respect basic freedoms to self determination you cannot FORCE people to give birth against their will, both ethically and practically.
You don't have to force ANYONE to give birth... as long as she keeps eating, that baby's going to grow and come out. Life is in motion. The only way to stop it is to kill the life inside her.
Legally, she cannot take her own life, but yes, she can do that without me stopping her too, but I would still try to dissuade her b/c every life has value!
Unless someone FORCED them to have sex, they have a responsibility to the child growing inside them.
Yes, it's a child. It's amazing how many people claim to not know the facts of life.
Ah, the old "Sex is for procreation only" answer.
I tried using it on my husband, he disagrees.
Something about it being my biblical duty and some such... He's a religious nut case like that.
lol... Im 44 and I could be pregnant right now. Ack! I swear I wasn't trying to pro create.
My daughter was a result of an ear infection. With all my wisdom, I didn't know that birth control pills had issues with antibiotics. Go figure.
My 8 month old was conceived while I was implanted with an IUD.
Um... congrats on the possibility of impregnation... er.. I hope.
I like religious nut cases better than atheist nut cases.
Maxomam, is taking the life of her unborn (the woman) really her right? Then you wouldn't disagree with those who feel that taking the life of convicted 3rd degree murderer is a state's right, then? That may seem way out of place in a discussion about PP, but I'm just responding to your comment.
I object to capital punishment but not because I believe that the state does not have the right to take the life of a murderer but because it provides no deterrent at all, is costly and has the possibility of irretrievably executing innocent's (we already know of several people who have been put on death row and later found innocent).
So what is the baby guilty of? What is more innocent or vulnerable than a baby in it's mother's womb?
It is more costly to keep people in prisons. Capital punishment saves tax payer's money.
Ah so wrong as usual
In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
(2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)
In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case.
(Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008)
In California the current system costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.
(California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, July 2008)
In north Carolina an execution costs 2.16 million more than lifetime imprisonment.
Executions are incredibly expensive due to the massive number of appeals and legal hurdles to them which seek to prevent innocent people from being executed.
I normally stay out of this issue (it gets way too emotional for me, from people on both sides), but I have to comment on those pictures. A fetus at 12 weeks is only about 2 inches long, so that pic can't be right. WebMD has a cool slideshow that shows the stages of development.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow- … evelopment
We must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder. Remember that if you know someone who is murdered.
Just as lifetime incarceration does exactly the same.
Hey Josak, we should have a city to jail the worst criminals. Ever see Escape from New York. That type of incarceration would be grand.
Sounds like you need to watch some Penn & Teller:
It'll clear up some of your delusions about the death penalty actually being a deterrent of any kind, and entertain at the same time!
A deterrent can't be gauged especially by Penn and Teller.
It's a deterrent for that particular killer though isn't it? No more killing innocent people for them. Perhaps if our prisons were more like prisons and less like a cheap vacation hotel, complete with free cable tv, elective medical care (you know, taxpayers recently paid for a prisoner's sex change operation at a price tag of over $1 mil), free room and board, recreational activities etc. it might be a more effective deterrent in and of itself. That isn't the case though.
Except the data shows the exact opposite, the worse prisons are the worse people come out of them and the higher the crime rate, now for people who are serving consecutive life sentences and are never getting out I agree (those are a tiny proportion of inmates) but for people who will be released one day prisons need to be much better, nations that have instituted such programs have seen massive decreases in people being re-convicted after serving time.
So the right answer is better prisons which don't harden criminals and further turn them to the criminal lifestyle but rather which give them opportunities for education and learning a profession.
I have a solution for less prisons; More death sentences.
For harden criminals, it will not be very hard to receive a swift death. They deserve it.
I also have 1001 ways those criminals losers can die too.
Actually, that is not factual in the least.
The only country to have such resort prisons as you claim is Norway and it's only been in effect for around 2 years. Hardly enough time to say "oh look! This works! " Plus, the re-entry numbers are skewed because their laws do not punish repeat offenders with prison time as our laws do here. You cannot take such a small sample size anyway and deem it will be the same globally.
First off the Norwegian prison experiment began with the opening of Bastoy as an open prison in 2000 so it has been thirteen years not two, as the program has been successful it has slowly been expanded and is expected to encompass almost half of the Norwegian prisons by the end of next year. It is completely usable as experimental data we are talking about a whole country not a small sample.
Even ignoring that however it's a trend repeated around the world, the tougher the prisons are the higher the recidivism rate, other Scandinavian nations have instituted similar if less extensive programs even earlier and had similarly positive results.
It really is a no brainer, put prisoners in a violent environment full of sexual abuse force them to stay there for several years and then unleash them on society and you can hardly help getting worse people than went in, on the other hand treat them with dignity protect them from violence and rape (one of the major things that Norwegian prisons have done is institute private showers) and educate them in a trade or profession and the people who come out are a lot less likely to end up right back in.
On the other hand the evidence for tougher prisons is "well it sounds better" or more accurately "the states with tougher prisons and harsher punishments in the US have higher crime rates".
Oh and longer prison terms equals more recidivism too:
I was speaking on a large scale about how long it has been in practice. Again, the recidivism rates are skewed as well as the length of initial prison terms. The longest sentence in Norway is 21 years, even for murder. Plus, as I stated, where we send repeat offenders back to jail for lesser crimes, Norway does not. That sort of skews your recidivism rate greatly.
Here's the question.
How many abortions does Planned Parenthood prevent?
Ask yourselves that.
Every time a woman who cannot afford to raise a child uses proper contraception, you are preventing an abortion.
PP's most used services are STD/cancer screenings and...contraception. The only women I've ever known go to PP went there to get a prescription for the pill.
On the death penalty: I'm against the death penalty. And I DO know somebody who was murdered. I know somebody who was shot down in the home of her first husband's mother, along with that murder, in front of her children. I know the woman who is struggling to raise those children - who have PTSD and other problems as a result.
I am STILL against the death penalty.
The death penalty should be in every state. Second, it should be telecasted. I want to see criminal punks get what they have coming. Ask yourself why crime is not really that bad in where Muslims dwell.
It is not messed up. It is called "justice previals." You steal, you lose your hands, you rape, you lose a penis. I am like Hammurabi.
If the law states that a man should lose a life for taking a life, I will support that. And I have always thought a man should lose his weapon for rape, but you wanting to watch it is a bit perverted. It should not give anyone any sense of satisfaction to see another human being suffer. I don't care what they did. Even if you were the person he hurt, I would hope you would not allow their actions to fill you with that kind of darkness or they've had another victory.
I want the filthy criminal to remember my face as the last one he sees before he goes to Hell. Nothing perverted about that.
So you want me to be nice?
I grew up around scum.
I want you to increase in understanding.
There is compassion, forgiveness and simply not sinking to the deepest darkest level that will change your life, if not just your perspective. Wishing death on ppl is a dark road to go down. Im not trying to dissuade you from your right to support the death penalty, but allow the law to deal with their crimes, free yourself from dwelling on it. And for sure, don't revel in it.
I tried, but criminals know only violence. I just want them to be dealt with in the manner of their demeanor. They must go violently and I must be the executioner.
So, you punish cold-blooded violence...with cold-blooded violence?
What a moral person you are.
There is a line. It is just blurred for me because you I believe in dealing with crime up front other. I know how to be edgy when I must. I fight fire with fire. All criminals who do much wrong will feel the rolling sensation of the steamroller.
So you are legally empowered to bring about their demise or you are a criminal? (Are you a kid?)
That's funny right there. I don't care who you are.
"rolling sensation of the steamroller."
There's a professional wrestler out there somewhere just dying for a line like that.
Beth, I agree with you on allowing the law to deal with deciding who is guilty, etc
But, for your opening remark, "I want you to increase in understanding." What kind of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou crap is that?
*Increase : to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or intensity)
*Understanding: a mental grasp : comprehension
I believe you have a problem with me wanting him to understand a different perspective. However, it would appear you are now wanting me to understand something from your perspective. I wonder if the next person will stop by to reprimand you for being verbally aggressive. This kind of communication is never ending isn't it? Attack, defend, counter-attack, defend. So pointless I think. We can only share our thoughts... others are left with the choice to strive to understand or strive to be understood. I wish you well.
Beth, it was this statement that I had a problem with and I imagine others had a problem with it, "I want you to increase in understanding"
That statement was followed by YOUR understanding of what Marquis says or does. Sure, on these boards, we want to change a mind, but NOT because WE want that mind changed, but because the mind's 'owner' sees a lightbulb go on and says CLICK!
The statement, "I want you to increase in understanding." presumes that YOU have the 'understanding' market cornered and that Marquis is flawed and needs your and ONLY your help. Rough words, but from where I'm sitting, that's what I see. And I say what I see.
I think it was Bob Dylan,"only believe half of what you see and NONE of what you hear..."
You are just a really nice person.
I say that with a slight awe...
haha... you're sweet. Im watching Le Mis... must have affected me. Surely our little squabbles here are meaningless in the long run.
Some are more meaningless than others.
I have never seen Les Mis in any form. It's a conscious choice. I'm moody enough as it is. Have fun though.
My understanding increases with everyone I talk to, even if I don't agree with them. Right now my understanding is increasing in buckets.
I guess yours doesn't change with interactions with other people?
Les MiserablesI never saw the one w/ Liam Neeson. I'm kind of particular to the London 25th anniversary concert. What it lacked in story telling, it MORE than made up for in stellar vocals. The recent US production (with a lot of non-American actors) put in the lapses in Victor Hugo;s story. Without a doubt, one of the most religious/spiritual productions, without being overtly so.
Consider me daft, but I don't see the reason for the sudden change of subject. But it's one that I like!
Computers are illegal, so many criminals can just fake their identities and get away with it?
Crime becomes easier to detect and easier to quantify as technology increases, and Muslim-centric countries are infamous for being low-tech.
You seriously need me to explain this?
Marquis, I'm in agreement with you there. There is talk that the death penalty is not that much of a deterrent. I think that is for several reasons. Condemned men/women know that it will be broadcast in some places, so those who get their 'jollies' on posters and lights and infamy will play to the crowd.
Another reason that it doesn't serve to deter is that the wheels of our justice system turn so slowly and give more rights to criminals (I'M NOT SAYING THAT ALL MEANS POSSIBLE SHOULDN'T BE USED TO see if the accused is innocent).
I agree that convicted felons should have to watch them. If I knew WHAT awaited me, I mean precisely what ("Green Mile" fashion), you'd best believe I'd think twice before I allowed someone else to glamorize a life of crime for me and push me to join a gang.
jennnifer, that question,"how many abortion s does PP prevent?" is silly and like trying to prove a negative. It's so much (and I tried to keep politics out of this) like President Obama justifying his anemic unemployment numbers by pointing out the number of JOBS SAVED.
I didn't get farther in your post than that first line. Now. I'm off to read more. Will keep you posted.
"Every time a woman who cannot afford to raise a child uses proper contraception, you are preventing an abortion." And how often does PP sit down in a room filled with cookies and doughnuts and coffee and conduct 1:1 sessions or even group sessions with truly, truly disadvantaged women to ;splain the B and B? How often to they reach out to the community to find women and girls and boys at risk and make it entirelly possible for them to benefit from that kind of service? I'd venture a whopping ZERO.
instead they take the easy way out, 'say' they explain the options to a woman, and talk her in to signing on the dotted line before she can think about what she;s doing. Heck, they don't need to notify her parents so a life ends and noone's the wiser. if I'm incorrect in my thinking, all there needs to be is a rep from PP to say, that not the way it comes down, but we haven't heard them come to their own defense. The absence of ANY kind of defense speaks volumes.
PP has really gone off course from the time of Margaret Sanger who was about BIRTH CONTROL Her methods were, eh, a bit strange and I question seriously, her state of mind. I mean saying that her only purpose in lfe is to control births.
I do what I must to end the reign of criminals. What I would do is for the best for the community as a whole. The only way to eliminate crime and criminals is to be edgy and deal with it in the extreme. No more babying criminals. Make them pay with their screams and lives!
cause you're either playing games, a total sicko, or completely obtuse and I don't know how to deal with any of those things... except maybe the gamer, but this isn't really the thread for that I spose.
Why would I play games? I am being casual here. So that means I am young all of a sudden or a total socko or even obtuse? Nope, what is sick are doctors who perform abortions and terrorists who get special treatment after they have taken lives.
Ok, Im with you on that... dont like abortion, dont like terrorism... but its a bit of a stretch and taking joy from watching criminals die or participating in their death.
Beth, it would help if you just got a feel for it. It is like pulling the trigger of a gun for the first time at target practice.
Memes are good. Condescending can be fun. Poking until you get a good facial froth and batman-like statements is always good for a laugh.
Just some ideas. Ignoring works too, but I lack entertainment today.
Its so hard to be a snarky Christian... you have to allow so many good comments to go by. lol
I have no problem at all with it.
God promised me he'd ignore my snarkiness and sarcasm if I promised not to run anyone over with my car.
I know. I once lost a girlfriend talking like this. She was a Jehovah's Witness. She could not deal with it either. But some people agree with me. if I ever ran for office, all criminals would be in trouble.
Marquis make sense (which is why 'you're done!?'
The movies over. Everyone's dead. Good movie still.
Have a good night.
If you haven't seen the play, rent it from Amazon, $3.99, to your 'puter' and crank on the sound. A treat, a real treat, the one with Alfie Boe, Nick Jonas (weak link), Ramin Karimloo, Norm Lewis, Lea Salonga; vocal heavyweights except for Nick Jonas.
lol... I was literally just thinking captain america... yours was better cause it had the voice attached in my head.
There seem to be lots of voices echoing in heads on the forums today.
Did a pharmaceutical company go out of business somewhere?
lol... no I meant the low husky christian bale voice saying "Im Batman"
I always hear Keaton. I guess that pretty much gives away my age.
I suppose it could be worse. It could be Adam West.
hahahahaha... no, my first thought was keaton too, but you have to admit bale had it down. don't think I didn't watch the adam west reruns. I was 5. bam!
Wow, I didn't watch the West Batmans until I was in my 30's. But if you were watching them when you were 5, that means my parent's hadn't even met each other yet.
*ducks and runs*
I think what I saw where the reruns... in the 70s? In your 30s huh? lol
I am currently 29 for the 9th time.
Bat Man was in syndication when I was little. So was other shows such as Leave It to Beaver, Green Acres, The Green Hornet and Star Trek.
Today, twenty years olds only rarely know of Bat Man with Adam West.
Wasn't Christian Bale great and quite a hunk. But Michael Keaton wasn't bad in that part. Like you, I might be 'dating' myself with that one!
Yes, I always thought that Adam West would make a good Comissioner Gordon.
I was laughing too when I came up with the steamroller.
I sort of knew bat man would be up next.
I know this girl who is 20 and she is VERY liberal. She is beautiful. She has heard a fraction of my views and is still trying to get her breath back.
I guess I am nice at first until...
I made the comment of my former Jehovah Witness girlfriend leaving me. She was shocked that I am not as forgiving as she was taught.
I am known as The Ram. I never fall off the side of the mountain.
You'd be surprised how one little butt can make a ram tumble... yours has yet to come. God isn't finished with you yet.
I am no ordinary ram. I am the Iron Ram.
You know rams like to charge into things. I was once attacked by a ram.
I got bored and decided to climb a mountain. There the ram waited for me. We were friends at first until I talked about hamburgers and sheep. After that, he would charge and attack me when he saw me.
Why? Is it because I lost my mind because I climbed a mountain and a goat would attack me later?
No, cause you are telling me that story on an abortion discussion thread, or maybe b/c you became friends with him and talked to him... or maybe b/c you are telling me the story of a ram you befriended after you said you wanted to personally, violently kill everyone on death row. Maybe I missed a post that would explain all this... I miss a lot of stuff.
I think that's in the hands of a judge a jury and our judicial system... I think forgiveness is an amazing thing and if you can't find it within you, you're in a dangerous place.
Did you see the movie Dead Man Walking. Forget about how well acted it was etc. The movie was kind of great. Its about (if I can remember the story correctly) a real life story of a man who (I think he was with others) raped and killed a woman brutally. He's on death row and a nun takes an interest in him. Grows to care for him as a human being. Finds there is good in him. They take this amazing journey thru the movie whilst he's still incarcerated, of course. The amazing thing is, as they show you he still has value, they never let you forget he's committed a heinous crime. And though they could have shown the crime scene at the beginning, letting you forget the horror of what he had done, they save it till the end when he's being executed so you can remember what he is dying for. It was a very good movie. You should check it out if you haven't already.
Yes I did. I knew he was lying about not doing what he did. Violent rapists who all of a sudden become philosophers on life make me laugh. They are fools.
I was very happy that he got the death penalty. He deserved it. I only wish that EVERY state had the death penalty.
As much as I hate the thought of anyone dying, even criminals who've committed such heinous crimes, I agree with you that the death penalty is necessary.
I did think that that movie was a good movie for the most part. I was really into it until the very last scene where the camera pulled back and showed the crime victims' bodies in the shape of a cross (martyrs) but also showed the killer's body the same way, revealing that the movie's intent was to speak against the death penalty.
And while the young people who were killed were sinning (fornicating), they were innocent as far as the story's focus was------in other words, the killer in the movie was the specific one who (by man's laws) deserved to die because he murdered people, and they did not, so he wasn't on an equal scale with them. Our human justice system has a job to do. And in rare cases, the death penalty is part of that job.
But the saving grace of the movie was that the nun was concerned about every soul, even the killer's soul. So it has some merit amidst the political activism it portrays.....
I didn't "get" the ending the first time I watched the movie years ago. But a couple of months ago I watched it again and realized the political activism message it portrayed. The Casey Anthony trial reminded me of the movie, kinda. As she was being freed, her lawyer made a statement opposing the death penalty. Seems he wasn't really trying to see justice done at all. Of course, as her lawyer he had to defend her. But I think his focus was to be an activist for his cause. And in the meantime, I believe he may have did a total injustice-----Casey wasn't convicted of killing her daughter, even accidentally!---she was freed with no justice forthcoming for the death of an innocent child.......
That is the ultimate horror of situations where liberal activism takes over an individual case----it tries to do good, or claims to, but downplays the actual issue at hand so that justice cannot be served to protect the innocent.
Same with the abortion issue. Quite glaringly, actually.
teamrn, you're missing Josak's point, which is not that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy (it is), but that teenagers taught that abstinence is the ONLY way to avoid pregnancy are more likely to get pregnant.
Abstinence-only sex education does not work because it goes against how teenagers are. If all you say is "don't have sex don't have sex don't have sex" teenagers will go try it, because teenagers ALWAYS do what adults say to not do. I sure as heck did quite a few things adults told me not to do when I was a teenager. Irresponsible sex was not one of them, but I did some pretty dumb things.
Now, there ARE forms of abstinence-first sex education that do work, but the US is not using them. What worked on me was being introduced to women who had gotten pregnant whilst still in school and "oh man, look how far behind they are. I don't want that to be me." But I'm not sure that would work on other girls - or would it? Would it be helpful to have pregnant high school students talk to middle school students about how much of a struggle it is? Would any of those girls volunteer to do it?
All I know is that just telling teenagers "Sex is immoral" simply does not work. Just telling them "It's stupid" won't work either. Their brains aren't finished yet and they don't have the same grasp of danger and consequences as full-grown adults.
It will work. Especially if you explain why waiting is important along with marriage, career, etc.
No, Jenniferpovey, I think you and Josak are missing my point. I'm not so naive as to think that if we just hammer 'SEX IS IMMORAL, SEX IS IMMORAL' into teens heads 1000 times, they'll buckle up.
I believe, as do many: a goal of our society should be a minimum # of unwanted pregnancies. And parental responsibility BEGINS with that wild night of love-making that creates that child. THE RESPONSIBILITY STARTS THEN.
It is the parent's responsibility to make sure the child go to school and lern right from wrong, It is the parent's responsibility to make sure they learn their ABCs and all the rest. Even if the parents are dead tired and working 2 jobs, they are parents FIRST AND FOREMOST.
There responsibility does not stop with the ABCs and ferrying the children to baseball and soccer practice. Even if they have to work 2 jobs to make family financial ends meet, they have a responsibility to teach their children. Why not teach them work ethic from that?
There may not be time for much in today's busy world and kids give into peer pressure (heck, we were all teens and NEVER listened to our Ps). Too many times I see Moms and Dads dying to be their kids best friend and to be idolized by their kids. That can happen in the form of mutual respect and when the children RESPECT their parents and REALLY respect them, they listen to them.
They need to be taught that from day #1 that there are reasons to respect Mom and Dad. Once children really in their souls make the mental shift to respect an authority figure, so much is different and they will understand (or die trying) what the authority figure has to say.
The need to be taught from day one that when Mom says "IT'S WRONG." that it is wrong. If they don't understand her reasoning, IT IS WRONG BECAUSE SHE SAID IT IS WRONG. CAPICHE? Questions come as kids age, but at the end of the day, when Mom and Dad, teacher and coach, say IT'S WRONG,, the reason isn't to be questioned. That's a right children earn when they reach an age of majority. If it sounds like 'tough love, it is and needs to be for a few years.'
I used the word parent a bit loose, because sometimes there is NO PARENT. There may be a school teacher, a coach, a minister, a neighbor. But one who will hold a child accountable for his actions.
Sure, there are bound to be kids who fall through the cracks,, there are kids born at a disadvantage, but have you not heard of rags to riches stories and people working themselves out of squalor? If we accept mediocrity (aka abortion) as the easy answer, the end -game; than we get what we ask for.
And if we accept as 'ok' that EVERYONE will fall through the cracks and accept the lowest common denominator as the norm, and don't expect anything of each other, we'll continue to get what we don't want: abortion on demand. We asked for it; we got it..
We've all heard the saying, "IF YOU AIM AT NOTHING, YOU'LL HIT IT EVERYTIME." Is that what we want for out society. I happen to think Americans are better than that.
Independent, nuanced thinking not allowed. That explains a lot.
I've always been curious whether the "Do as I say, even if you don't know why, because I said so." approach works on ANY child.
The next question is always "Would I really want a child that follows obscure, meaningless orders blindly?"
I know the answer to the second question is no, so I've never tried the approach.
I don't think it comes down to teaching right or wrong. It comes down to teaching responsibility and consequences.
You tell your child not to stick things in electrical sockets. You tell them (simplified naturally for age) because it will electrocute them. Consequences.
Your child picks up a piece of candy at the dollar store which you discover when you arrive at the car. You take them back in and make them apologize and return it (or pay for it if they receive an allowance). Responsibility.
Any choice has consequences and there comes a responsibility with any choice. These are the things that need to be taught.
Instead we teach them quick fixes and make them take no responsibility for their actions.
Sure it isn't true of all cases, but I see it more and more.
I agree with all of that
I am also not above scaring the crap out of my (older) kids by explaining in great detail and sometimes with pictures the natural consequences of their behaviors.
My 16 year old (now 19) got a very in-depth and illustrated lesson on sexually transmitted diseases. I don't think he walks into a public restroom without a condom on now.
My opinions on the matter were irrelevant. What I'm going to do to them is very rarely a motivation to my kids. What the world is going to do to them? Yep, that matters.
"Because I said so." has always been an indication to me that parents are randomly choosing rules.
I know it wouldn't have worked for me as a child and I'm thankful I had parents who treated me like a person with my own mind and my own will. I've tried to do the same with my kids.
No, Marquis, it *doesn't* work. That's the thing. People would very much like it to work, but it doesn't.
Abstinence only does not work.
Virginity pledges do not work.
The statistics, not me, say it does not work.
Comprehensive sex education works much, much better. I'm all for telling teenagers it's better to wait and all for discouraging them from having sex, but most abstinence-only programs boil down to
"It's Wrong To Have Sex Before Marriage."
We also tell teenagers it's wrong to drink before you're 21 (or whatever the age is where you are). In 2010, 71% of high school teenagers had tried alcohol. (It's actually down quite a bit, but it's still pretty dang high).
Of course they don't work. We place too little in the expectation department that they ARE going to work and we expect so little of our teens who are able to give us so much. Americans should be ashamed of allowing teens to settle for the lowest common denominator when they're young. Then, in there 20's they've been there, done that and nothing is special anymore, nothing is sacred anymore. We're shooting ourselves in the foot by having these short term fixes.
It worked for my mother.
It worked for my father.
It worked for me.
And countless others I know. I know a woman who just got married. Before she did, she finish college, got a career and married a man with a similar career. They can afford children now because each make 55k annually.
It works. You just have to know HOW TO TALK TO THEM AND EXPLAIN WHY WAITING IS IMPORTANT.
Enough of the silly excuses.
Only Liberal nonsense does not work.
Then you got a proper explanation. Or were different from most kids.
And try again on liberal nonsense. Please peruse this:
http://www.livescience.com/27417-teen-p … state.html
Highest rates of teenaged pregnancy: Conservative states.
Lowest rates: Liberal states.
Okay, that's a generalization - Utah also has a low rate, as do both Dakotas (But the Dakotas are kinda weird with their very low population anyway) - but it's a very real generalization. Liberal states that offer comprehensive sex education have lower teen pregnancy rates than conservative ones with abstinence only. Now, agreed, those states could just be Doing It Wrong.
On the other hand both teen pregnancy and abortion rates ARE in steady decline. Why? Contraceptives. Face facts. Some teenagers are going to have sex, and you'll do a better job of preventing pregnancies by handing out condoms than shaking your head disapprovingly.
I am not opening up any links.
How do I know it does not lead to some malicious bug or something?
Liberal states have run-away abortions, high out-of-wedlock rates too. Wow, and they call themselves progressives.
" Utah also has a low rate" Yes, Utah does. Utah is largely Mormon and Mormons may BELIEVE in polygamy, but few practice it. My hairdresser, almost 30 had never slept with her fiancé, never slept with anyone and now it's beautiful to watch as she is pregnant and the desire for her child and to have a family with her husband grows gy the days, IInn't that what it should be?
Why would I send anyone to a malware site?
That's slightly older, but it's .gov. If you won't check that then I'll know the real reason is that you're too lazy and/or don't want to face reality.
I also pre-armed myself with this, assuming somebody would try to say I was using a liberal source:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/2 … y-rate-is/
You make me laugh Jennifer. If things were practiced right, none of that would be so high. People learn self-control, things would be better. There would be no excuses.
There ARE no excuses. You sound like one of my friends that I warned NOT to have sex with some chick he met on My Space. The idiot is complaining after 2 years. I warned him.
The problem with abstinence-only sex education as currently practiced is two-fold. First of all, they often give no argument other than "it's wrong." Second of all, they claim contraceptives don't work, which means that when those kids DO have sex - they don't use condoms, greatly increasing their risk of pregnancy and STDs.
Now, to be fair, contraceptives are not 100%. However, they are 99% better than prayer as a contraceptive method (and don't even go to the rhythm method, which is incredibly hard to do right).
The statistics I linked were nothing more or less than evidence that this kind of "sex education" doesn't work and may even be worse than no sex education at all.
Things that do work?
Telling kids they'll end up falling behind in school and poor might work - for some kids. Assessing which kids? Schools can't do that. They have too many kids. These kinds of messages need to come from parents.
Making sure young people have better things to do with their time. I just talked to a friend who grew up in one of those dormitory suburbs with nothing to do. The teen pregnancy rate was extremely high - until they reopened the bowling alley. At which point it dropped 80%. Okay, this is anecdotal evidence (but so is you saying that being told to keep your legs closed worked for you, so I figure we're even on that). A lot of the high rates are rural states (although not the Dakotas) and I do wonder if they're highest in small towns where most of the businesses have closed and there really isn't much for teenagers to DO. Could a proper youth community center or similar help?
Contraceptives DO work to lower teenaged pregnancies (and thus teenaged abortions). I personally think the approach should be "Look, at your age, you shouldn't be having sex, but if you absolutely have to, then use a condom - or I'll have no sympathy if something bad happens."
I know a lot of conservatives don't like contraceptive use because they think it encourages kids to have sex, but I don't think there's any real evidence of that. Teenagers have high hormones and a low sense of responsibility. You aren't going to stop all of them.
Good parenting, of course, always goes a long way.
Well when YMCAs and YWCAs were open, things were different. I can't even fine one that exist in the city anywhere. I guess getting rid of Christian messages is one reason behind eliminating the Christian organizations.
Listen, all you have to do ie explain WHY and what will happen. Show them the hardships, the venereal diseases etc. It works when people put will power into it. If you do not, it won't work.
There is one in every town where I live... more like country clubs then the old gyms they used to be. You couldn't find any YMCA's? Or did I misunderstand?
I agree that telling kids today that premarital sex is wrong wont work. after all they have been told all of their lives that their wants and needs trump any moral or decent behavior.
Yes and that animalistic approach to life is so sad.
". after all they have been told all of their lives that their wants and needs trump any moral or decent behavior." Who the heck told them that? Their liberal, love child, Dharma's Mom's kind of parents?
Oh my, you do know that teen pregnancy rates are higher in red states, right?
It's a republican plot to increase their constituency.
As with most Republican plots, it is inherently flawed and doesn't work. lol
I am a liberal and here is what I've told my kids (the abbreviated version).
Sex, even casual sex, cannot completely be separated from emotion.
It is best to wait until one is emotionally "ready" to have sex. I believe teenagers are not mature enough to handle a sexual relationship; you undoubtedly have friends who will tell you otherwise. You will experience a lot of pressure to have sex before you are ready. You are the person in control of your own body and mind and only you can make the right decision about your life. Do not let others pressure you into doing something you don't want to do. If your boyfriend/girlfriend is pressuring you, it is for their own selfish reasons. You might consider whether that is a person you want to be with.
If or when you decide to become sexually active, use birth control. I will help you get it. While I might not agree that you are ready, I am a realist and would rather you not add unwanted pregnancy to your list of life mistakes. We all make mistakes, but we can minimize the risks associated with them.
If you ever have a question, problem, or are in a scary situation, talk to me. I will do my best not to judge you and I will help you through it.
This is how I handled it with my kids and I have quite a few friends (yes, liberal friends) who did the same. And, guess what, no teen pregnancies among any of us.
I didn't even bring morality into the discussion. Instead, the discussion is about making good decisions for your own well being and the well being of others, with an acknowledgment that even the best of us make stupid decisions sometimes. And, we must live with the consequences of our decisions, good and bad.
That first sentence is flawed, "Sex, even casual sex, cannot completely be separated from emotion."
What is casual sex if it is not sex devoid of emotion, but just going through the 'motions for animalistic pleasure? I'm not saying that in judgement of others, as I went around the block a few times when I was young. Was that wrong" Yes. I'll now grant you that.
As far as waiting until one is emotionally ready to have sex, that's a tough call; I wouldn't deny the 35 year old woman the right to have sex until she meets Mr. Knight in Shining Armor, but having made that choice, his armor won't be so shiny if she does give in. However, if she chooses to have sex, who am I to say that her mature choice is WRONG?"
Well, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have casual sex with someone I dislike or am not attracted to, so to me, that involves emotion on some level. Also, I wouldn't "give in"; I would choose of my own free will. Lastly, a woman viewing a man as "Mr. Knight in Shining Armor" is rather, ahem, old-fashioned and will undoubtedly result in disappointment, but even so, simply having sex with Mr. Knight won't necessarily dull his armor unless of course he is lousy in bed in which case it's probably good that she found out sooner rather than later.
It is unrealistic and simplistic to think that just because you tell your teenager that sex outside of marriage is wrong that they will not do it. Look at you; you did it, even though you said you think it is wrong.
I wasn't aware that there was a decline in YMCAs.
I'm not Christian, but I'm in favor of anything which gives teenagers something to do. Only way to keep them out of trouble, to be honest. Community centers, bowling alleys, laser tag arenas...
And maybe it does, Marquis. Maybe the schools are just doing it wrong. Maybe it's another symptom of how dis-engaged many parents seem to be these days?
I remember when we use to go to the YMCA on Saturdays. It kept a lot of teens out of trouble.
I stop seeing YMCAs around the late 1980s.
Planned Parenthood should be a function of the name that it sports...instead, it is just the opposite. If the government is to use taxpayer funds to support anything relative to birth, it should be related to counseling potential new parents on parenthood duties and responsibilities or focused on the adoption process to find these unwanted children new homes with loving parents. The president has remarked regarding gun control that "if he can save just one child's life, then it is worth it". Here, we have the lives of potentially thousands of children being destroyed each year with the assistance of the American taxpayer. If we want abortion legal....fine, if a woman wants an abortion...fine, if Planned Parenthood wants to keep supplying abortions...fine, but stop doing it with American taxpayer money...it's disgusting, and to use the president words, "if by stopping federal subsidies we can save just one child's life, it will be worth it". ~WB
Actually, I'm an American tax payer and I have absolutely no problem with my taxes going to fund abortions. I do have a problem with them going to fund tax exempt churches.
The point being that as a tax payer you will always have something to disagree with about how your dollars are spent because no one will ever agree 100 percent with the government budget.
My solution... There is a very nice bridge built recently on a road that I use often. It had one of those signs saying how much it cost. I will never pay that amount of taxes in my life. So for the rest of my life I consider my taxes as paying for that bridge.
It gets the tree out of my ass about having to pay for idiots to build a new church, tax free, that could easily house 10 homeless families.
Hey Wayne, it is ironic. They had to fool people. They could not call themselves American Eugenics Society anymore. When the Civil Rights Era was taking full swing, American Eugenics Society had to change its feathers. The New Left were not really racists or into eugenics.
It was very clever for those elite members in the American Eugenics Society to use the New Left's agenda to push their extermination of the poor and minorities. Even leftist environmentalists agreed with the extermination of people.
The clever tag lines here was "too many people" and "reproduction rights."
If it weren't for Planned Parenthood, I probably would have had an abortion when I was a teen.
The need to be taught from day one that when Mom says "IT'S WRONG." that it is wrong. If they don't understand her reasoning, IT IS WRONG BECAUSE SHE SAID IT IS WRONG. CAPICHE? Questions come as kids age, but at the end of the day, when Mom and Dad, teacher and coach, say IT'S WRONG,, the reason isn't to be questioned. That's a right children earn when they reach an age of majority. If it sounds like 'tough love, it is and needs to be for a few years.'
You want to train your children that they are to do whatever they are told by any authority figure.
Way to make your children into victims of the next coach, teacher, or boss who is a bully.
What if the coach is telling them to beat an animal? What if the coach is getting them to haze the newest member of the team? What if the teacher is encouraging them to laugh at the disabled kid in the class? But oh, COACH said it, so it's fine! TEACHER said it, so it's moral.
Furthermore, a child raised to follow orders from authority figures...when do they learn to think through the consequences of their actions? (A study in England indicated that teenage pregnancies could be reduced by making teenagers list reasons to and not to have sex - it works because it makes them THINK about the issue).
I feel sorry for your kids.
by Asa Schneidermann 4 years ago
Before, it was all kind of fuzzy. We knew that abortions took place in Planned Parenthood facilities and fought against it, but other activities were unclear. Now, we have clear, undeniable evidence of the evil - and I mean evil - practices taking place using our own tax dollars. It is not an...
by AnnCee 9 years ago
The House will vote, perhaps today, on Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to the Continuing Resolution which would zero out taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood last year received $363 million in money yanked out of the wallets of Americans, many if not most of them pro-life, and...
by myvoternation 8 years ago
Let's debate this issue!
by Kebennett1 9 years ago
Do you believe that the government has a right to allow planned parenthood to open health care cliniThis will mean our children will be given birth control and abortions without parental consent or knowledge.
by Onusonus 3 years ago
A poll for the ladys out there.Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of their services are for abortion. The rest is for cancer screening and other unrelated health services.So how many of you women out there actually use planned parenthood without the intention of getting an abortion?
by Josh Ratzburg 4 years ago
Should we stop funding Planned parenthood?The House has passed a bill to cease funding for Planned Parenthood. I personally think this is a huge mistake... what are your thoughts?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|