by LauraLoo
Here’s why Planned Parenthood is synonymous with abortion.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xx2Rq396EQ&sns=em[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: Kelli]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I really love this video!! The real truth about Banned Parenthood exposed (Cha-ching). Dead Babies R Us, the real bottom line. Planned Barrenhood, empty your wallet while they empty the womb with speculums, dialators, curettes. and powerful vacuum suction for about $400-500 a pop or medical abortions provided with powerful chemicals so women cramp and barf their guts out while they expel their unborn baby into a toilet (if you don’t expel it all come back to PP so they can finish the job for a price). I can guarantee you that any procedure that disrupts the normal cycle of pregnancy by expelling an unborn baby embedded into a woman’s uterus is painful, nauseating, sickening, gory and bloody. What was meant to be the safest place on earth has now become a torture and death chamber for the most innocent, vulnerable of human beings the unborn.
What a stunning little compendium of fallaciousness.
I really liked this video.
Reality, vague statement. Do you care to back your comment up with specifics, identifying what is fallacious in this video?
Hi Tyler. unreality can’t back it up at all. Please don’t take my word for it see the article reporting on a “pro-choice woman’s” experience at guess where? Answer: Planned Barrenhood.
http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/09/pro-choice-woman-angry-about-not-being-sufficiently-warned-about-chemical-abortion-dangers-and-side-effects/#.UkD2RB4o7IU
Oh, unreality I took that you were referencing both the video and my comments about what it takes to abort babies surgically or medically. So if you were only referring to the video I am sorry, if not I guarantee you I can back it up what I say having worked in OB/maternity care but I think the article I linked speaks for itself. They lied to this woman at PP. Which is what PP always does like the video says.
Well Tyler, despite the fact that the video kept freezing up (choking on its own tongue?) I watched it three times. Virtually every point it made was fallacious, disingenuous or misrepresentative of the truth.
unreality can’t back it up at all – maybe not, but I can.
It begins by telling us of the range of services that PP do indeed provide. Then it says ‘nup, just abortions’. It claims PP only ‘sells one thing’, which is blatantly untrue.
Let’s start with the mammogram thing. PP provides mammograms. It may not conduct them but it does provide them. My doctor does not conduct colonoscopies, but when age and family history indicated the wisdom of having one, guess who I went to see so one would be provided.
Ah, the vast profits. I guess the shareholders must be well chuffed. What? There aren’t shareholders? And a graph showing abortion numbers skyrocketing? That’s not what I’ve been hearing.
Sex-ed = getting kids hooked on sex? What a delusional fantasy. Biased and subjective, not rational or evidential.
It claims PP only provides low quality contraceptives. It provides no evidence for this whatsoever.
It reminds us that the pill is a type 1 carcinogen. PP didn’t invent the pill. Not all women get the pill from PP. Women request the pill. Are you the least bit aware of the reams of other products containing type 1 carcinogens? Diesel fumes is one of them. I guess we’d better start haranguing deisel engine manufacturers and sellers.
‘79% are within 5 miles of a college campus’. That’s odd, I thought they were all located in black neighborhoods.
‘Sales teams’?
“CPC’s provide ‘real options’ “. Don’t they mean ‘limited options’.
The entire piece is a cacophony of confection.
If it happens that you are intending to address me Prolifer L, my original comment was directed at the cartoon, not your initial comment.
Which is what PP always does like the video says – and you know this is an untrue statement.
I love this video!!
Reality, am I a car salesman because I tell people to go down to the local used car lot to buy a car? While national abortion numbers are down, their PP numbers are skyrocketing. You don’t need shareholders to makes profits, you can check their annual reports for how much profit they make every year and how much their leadership is paid. Consumer Reports said their condoms were cheap, is that not a reputable source? For someone who claims the mantle of reality your lame excuses for them rest largely on fantasy.
Yes, PP really trust women with the truth. Read the article from National Right to Life News it is so full of the “truth” about PP and how much they “trust women” enough to tell them the truth. If they can lie to a woman getting ready to have a chemical abortion (who the doctor didn’t have time to answer her questions) what else do they lie about? EVERYTHING!! PP LIES TO YOU! Carla I love the video too. How can the woman who went through this horrific nightmare still be “pro-choice”?
Reality,
I’ve been to the PP Website and I’ve checked out some of the materials they use to “educate” children about sex. They most certainly DO promote sex. To say otherwise is ignoring their own materials. Sex can, and often does, lead to pregnancy (birth control can, and sometimes does, fail) so they get money for those abortions. The more they promote sex (have you SEEN their Penis and Vagina videos on YouTube?? or their books describing how to masturbate?)
Their chastity education leaves A LOT to be desired (in fact, it’s practically nonexistent…they say very little on the subject and what they do say leaves a lot to be desired in the form of an explanation).
I’ve researched Chastity for years. I’ve spoken on the subject AND attended several Chastity talks, read books on the subject, and listened to talks on audio CD and watched DVDs on the subject. Those materials are far and away more informative on what chastity and abstinence actually are than the small amount PP provides on their website.
Their information on adoption is at best, minimal.
Their information on abortion isn’t about getting the numbers down but touting how “safe, and effective” it is, and downplaying the side effects.
I’ve read their website, so I know what’s there. I’ve made a point of going there more than once to look up things on the Planned Parenthood site to see what they say.
Yes, they are in the business of encouraging sexual activity and abortion. I haven’t seen anything to suggest they are really trying to get those numbers down.
am I a car salesman because I tell people to go down to the local used car lot to buy a car? – what are you on about?
you can check their annual reports for how much profit they make every year and how much their leadership is paid. – indeed, and what happens to those profits. Their clients profit from them. Their leadership is paid on the medest side of comparable roles.
Consumer Reports said their condoms were cheap, is that not a reputable source? – it depends on how the results were achieved, they can be manipulated – and what exactly is implied by ‘cheap’.
For someone who claims the mantle of reality your lame excuses for them rest largely on fantasy. – no, what is lame is the delusional and dishonest video.
Hardly surprising you don’t like what you see MIT. It’s not the ‘ignorance is bliss’ approach to sex-ed. Chastity and abstinence programs don’t work.
Reality,
A 5 paragraph comment from me and all you could say is that chastity and abstinence education is about “ignorance is bliss”?
I also know that abstinence is only ONE part of the equation when it comes to chastity. And it’s not just about “Don’t have sex” it’s about a lot of things…including respecting one’s body and other people’s bodies particularly them as human beings.
You didn’t even address the materials I mentioned that PP uses, or the penis and vagina cartoons. You picked ONE item from my list of complaints and decided that was my entire post, which isn’t true. Did you miss my opening paragraph where I talked about those things? That was the biggest paragraph in the post and it was at the BEGINNING of the post. Yet you didn’t even try to address them.
And how do you know chastity and abstinence programs don’t work? I know people who have practiced chastity and abstinence–I’m one of them. I know people who after having engaged in premarital sex decided to wait until marriage. I know plenty of people who WISH they had waited until marriage. It’s not just about abstinence and it’s not just about “Not having sex”. It’s about more than that.
Jason and Crystalina Evert are a good resource on chastity (Many of their books and resources are sold on Amazon). You can also get their resources on this site: http://chastity.org/node/442 And their talk “Romance Without Regret”(which I’ve seen) is available from Amazon (I’ve condensed the link because it’s very long): http://tinyurl.com/m2fuv4g (I think the DVD was filmed before he and Crystalina got married).
Christopher West’s talk “Women: God’s Masterpiece” was something that reminded me what a PRIVILEGE (not a right) it is for me to be a woman. (His resources are available both on Amazon and on his website: www.christopherwest.com ). But I’ve heard many of his other talks (which were also excellent. He primarily addresses Pope John Paul II’s “The Theology Of The Body” but he does talk about chastity).
MIT, It’s not the ‘ignorance is bliss’ approach to sex-ed was my response to your ‘opening’, biggest’ paragraph – because you view the material with a pre-determined attitude.
And how much info on contraception etc. do all those sources of chastity info contain? PP cover all aspects and areas, not just one.
That’s the first two paragraphs. The other three contained subjective opinion driven by your dislike of the services PP provides to the community. That’s ok.
From all I’ve read, unplanned pregnancy rates are higher amongst those who practice abstinence. They are also at greater risk of STD’s. I also note that in the states where faith and abstinence are strong, people wed young (cos they can’t wait) and the divorce rate is higher.
I know folk who have expressed how pointless it was to wait for marriage.
what a PRIVILEGE (not a right) it is for me to be a woman – that explains a few things.
Reality,
Why should contraception be covered by chastity speakers? If people are practicing chastity they’re placing sexual activity for marriage, therefore, unmarried people NOT having sexual activity don’t need any sort of “prevention”. It’s not their job to teach contraception, it’s there job to teach chastity. It’s the job of the listener to decide if they’re going to receive and listen to the message or not. The chastity speaker can’t MAKE them listen and can’t MAKE them follow it, they can only teach it.
I’m a Natural Family Planning user. There is a period of abstinence during the most fertile time of a woman’s cycle if the couple decides to have a baby. This isn’t meant to be used as contraception, but rather to work with God’s plan for marriage. Those who have a problem with being open to the possibility of conceiving a baby perhaps should rethink getting married since the reality of marriage is that children sometimes do happen. It’s part of having a family. It’s one thing if the couple discovers they CAN’T have children, but to willfully do things to ensure they aren’t open to the possibility of children is counterproductive to one of the finer points of what marriage is. Whatever God calls me to do, I will do. If He calls me to have more children, then whom am I to argue with my Creator? After all, if I’m going to be a believer in God, I might as well follow Him. Every time I’ve given up my will for God’s, my life has been full, rich, and happy. Every time I’ve tried to do it all by myself, I’ve gotten into trouble. So why would I want to go opposite of God’s plan–as best I can decipher it? It wouldn’t make any sense based on experience and what I know.
The divorce rate among NFP users is actually LOWER (I’ll have to look up the exact numbers, but that’s the research–I can easily obtain that information. I just don’t have it right in front of me right now (and it’s late and I haven’t felt well–I had a reaction to something and had to talk to my doctor).
What, exactly, does my comment about it being a PRIVILEGE to be a woman explain? That I don’t view everything as something that I should have no matter what simply because I’m a woman? Because that’s what it means to me. Being privileged to be a woman means I’m granted certain gifts, things that are my responsibility to use for building up those around me, for trying to be the best me I can be. Some women view being a woman as some sort of thing they did by themselves (never mind biology or even God). I don’t view being a woman that way. I view it as that I have a specific purpose. That I’m a unique being. Nobody is exactly like me, but that means I have a responsibility to be the best me I can be.
If that’s what you thought it explained, then you got it right.
I’ve long been under the impression you are not truly interested in what I have to say. You keep saying the same things and you keep coming back here. For what? To convince us you’re right and we’re wrong? That hasn’t happened. Are you hoping we can offer you a reason to change your mind on your stance? That’s completely up to you. We can’t MAKE you see the pro-life point of view. I can’t MAKE you see what I see, anymore than you can change my mind.
So what’s your point, Reality? Really…I’ve often wondered why you’re here. Sometimes I wonder if you’d get it…if you’d understand. But you don’t seem to. You seem intent on telling us we’re wrong. For what purpose? Do you think you can bring down Jill Stanek blog?
The pro-life movement has grown over the years. I have heard of more people interested in chastity and abstinence than when I was in high school (seriously, that’s what I’ve heard). whether or not that’s true–I can only hope. If it’s not, then I guess I’ve been misinformed, but that only makes me more determined to keep hoping and keep praying for people to be pro-life, to be chaste, to make society BETTER than it is.
What’s your motivation? To make sure women have access to abortion? It’s already here. It’s already passed. But will it last? I don’t know. I hope not. I can’t predict the future, I can only hold onto hope for something better.
P.S. I don’t know what you’ve been reading about abstinence but if people aren’t engaging in sexual activity how can they get an STD? That doesn’t make any sense. Also, if they’re not having sexual activity, how can they be married unless they have a Josephite Marriage? Somewhere along the way, they aren’t practicing abstinence anymore, if they’re getting STDs and getting married without having a Josephite Marriage.
From all I’ve read, unplanned pregnancy rates are higher amongst those who practice abstinence. They are also at greater risk of STD’s.
LOL. Did you even read what you wrote? Abstinence is 100% effective against pregnancy. The people getting pregnant are the ones that didn’t “practice abstinence”.
For what other life skills do we expect years of practical success after one 2 week period of instruction? The supposed failure of abstinence education is a failure of an education model, not a failure of abstinence.
Shucks! I should’ve said “THEIR job, not THERE job.” I DO know the difference from “there”, “their”, and “They’re”. Ugh. I hope none of my former English teachers see that. They’d be appalled. LOL Especially someone I know who is very good at Grammar. It’s too late to correct it (no option to edit). But seriously, I do know the difference.
Also, my post should read: ”There’s a period of abstinence during the most fertile time of the woman’s cycle if the couple has decided NOT to have a baby.” I forgot the word “not”. Darn it.
That’s what I get for writing the post at–what? 2:30 a.m.?
you can check their annual reports for how much profit they make every year and how much their leadership is paid. – indeed, and what happens to those profits. Their clients profit from them. Their leadership is paid on the medest side of comparable roles.
I truly think you are from infinity and beyond “reality.” How do PPs “clients” profit when these “clinics” are constantly cited for inadequacies in equipment and failure to comply with health/safety regulations? You purport to be well-read so you surely realize that that is the case nationwide. Their profits are not re-invested into these so-called “clinics.” But you are correct that PP pays its employees a lousy dollar: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Planned_Parenthood/Hourly_Rate– so what does it tell you about the dishonesty from PP leadership?
On the other hand, “clinic” owners and top-level exec reap in never-ending-millions. I am just so glad so many states have defunded or are in the process of defunding PP, aka the Abortion Factory.
I have such a hard time understanding how some people still believe the lies PP continually puts forth when they’ve been caught and called out for them so many times. As a designer I really enjoyed this video and thought it quite well done, though personally to address the naysayers I would have added some citations/references at the end.
Of course abortion supporters will call this sort of work propaganda, but it’s much more accurate than most of the multimedia PP produces. I think we need people, and especially young women, being exposed to work like this before they find themselves in crisis and sitting face to face with a PP counselor. Personally had I known even a fraction of what I now do about PP and their practices, I would never have walked through their doors twelve years ago.
Why should contraception be covered by chastity speakers? – indeed, but why should chastity be more than a small element of the vast range of information PP provide. They’re not just a chastity organisation.
Yep, I’m well aware of NFP and the reasons why folks use it. I don’t have a problem with people choosing to do so.
The divorce rate among NFP users is actually LOWER – yes, but it’s not because they use NFP, it’s because of the raft of reasons which also bring them to use NFP. They’re usually catholic for a start, which supposedly precludes divorce itself.
I’ve long been under the impression you are not truly interested in what I have to say. – if I wasn’t interested I wouldn’t respond.
You keep saying the same things and you keep coming back here. For what? To convince us you’re right and we’re wrong? – not that. I’ve stated my reasons more than once. Other topics are discussed too, and sometimes there is agreement between myself and others here on some of those other topics.
That hasn’t happened. Are you hoping we can offer you a reason to change your mind on your stance? – no. I’m open to being convinced otherwise but to date my position has become more entrenched.
Do you think you can bring down Jill Stanek blog? – hardly. The thought never occured to me actually. I don’t think anyone here thinks that would be in the least bit possible.
Why have you asked What’s your motivation? To make sure women have access to abortion? when you then say But will it last? I don’t know. I hope not.
Yes yes Lrning, you are quite right (this is for you too MIT), practicing abstinence will preclude pregnancy and STD’s. It’s the abstinence programs which don’t actually deliver all that well on their intent. And are you aware of some of the ‘practices’ that people participate in thinking that they are practicing abstinence because they aren’t indulging in penis to vagina intercourse?
You can think what you like Thomas R., your propaganda statement doesn’t cut the mustard. Most of the stories I’ve seen here relate to non-PP clinics. Same goes for the wealth generation of the doctors. PP uses its profits to provide services for those who aren’t well off.
to address the naysayers I would have added some citations/references at the end. – I think that speaks for itself.
Reality,
Actually, the unfortunate thing is, getting married in the Catholic Church does not guarantee the couple won’t get divorced. There have been instances of Catholics getting divorced and not going through the annulment process (Catholic annulments are NOT divorces–Divorce is a purely legal matter, and very, very different from what an annulment is).
The fact is, NFP opens the lines of communication about a woman’s cycle, possible problems, and gets both the man and the woman on board with family planning, fertility, and what the couple’s future may or may not hold. It’s a partnership. That’s what brings people who find NFP helpful get out of it. Not just as a means to either achieve or avoid pregnancy, but as a means to have those conversations that are so important in marriage about health and family, and family. Depending on how closely the couple practices/how cautious the couple is, it has up to a 98 percent success rate. With any family planning method, there is room for human error. The only completely effective method of avoiding pregnancy and STDs is full and complete abstinence from all sexual activity, which in marriage, generally doesn’t happen.
My focus of that part of my post was to ascertain your purpose in being on here. No, I admit I haven’t read every single post you’ve ever posted on here–just like I’m certain you haven’t read absolutely every post I’ve ever posted on here. Based on my experience with what I HAVE read of your posts, your purpose seems to be to just plain disagree with us and not offer anything new to the conversation. But perhaps I missed a post where you offered something new. However, the posts I’ve read of yours haven’t.
If reading Jill Stanek’s blog has done more to entrench you in the pro-choice mindset you probably came to the blog with the whole “Okay pro-lifers surprise me!” Then when it didn’t happen the way you thought (whether consciously or subconsciously) you decided we had nothing to offer you in the way of changing your mind. However, there’s a problem in this. 1. We can’t change your mind. We can’t unless you want to change it. If you don’t want to change it, then nothing we say will. (As a Roman Catholic Christian, I believe the Holy Spirit is what changes minds–sometimes the Holy Spirit works THROUGH a person, but it’s not the person him or her self that changes the mind, it’s what the person says or exemplifies that inspires a person to change their mind, and whatever is good is Holy Spirit–God–inspired) 2. If you came on here searching for answers, but not sure which way you stood, the likelihood is you either decided based on attitudes and background you already had and depending on what you thought sounded good you made your decision.
I came on here because it’s a Pro-Life Blog and I’m Pro-life. Having a place where I could commune with like-minded people was important to me. In so much of what I encounter I’m seen as uncaring towards women simply because I’m pro-life. Nothing could be further from the truth. I care deeply about women. I care a lot about women who are in hard situations. But also know there are wrong ways and right ways of doing things. And I’m all for doing what’s right and good. (I get not everyone agrees with me on what that might be, but that isn’t the point).
Actually PP didn’t have anything in the way of chastity that could see. Whether or not they’re a chastity organization isn’t the point. They and their supporters brag that PP offers women ALL the information. If they aren’t including chastity, then they lied. Chastity and Abstinence go hand-in-hand. To have abstinence without chastity is only part of the story. Chastity gives a sense of respect for oneself and others–purity of “mind, body and spirit.” and it’s not just a Catholic/Christian thing, either. Atheists (and other religions) could practice chastity by deciding that they’d rather view the person as much more than just someone to alleviate sexual stress or to allow themselves to be used in that way. Chastity offers a person a way to see a bigger picture than just “getting rid” of sexual desires. It offers a chance to look at those desires and find productive uses for them–ways of channeling that energy for the positive rather than just to alleviate those sexual desires. It’s far more than just abstinence, and PP has NOTHING on it. Abstinence is only PART of the picture. A lot of people have misconceptions about chastity. Yes, it’s true that IN GENERAL most chastity speakers are Catholic Christians. However, that doesn’t have to be the case. Other people can step up and learn about chastity. Sure, if you are a Catholic Christian the Holy Trinity comes into play, but if you’re teaching chastity from that mindset what else do you expect? However, chastity itself doesn’t have to just be about religion, and be about the bigger picture. About true respect and consideration.
Jason and Crystalina Evert have many resources speaking on chastity. True, a lot of it is from the Catholic perspective, however there ARE things that aren’t just Catholic perspective. http://chastity.org/node/442
Same with Christopher West: http://www.christopherwest.com/
(Those two were the chastity resources I came up with off the top of my head. I know I have others, but I don’t have the list in front of me).
MIT, a healthy relationship of communication and genuine partnership should not need something like NFP as the driver. General care and concern about a partner and their health overall would include understanding of a woman’s cycle and possible problems. Discussions about and choices of contraceptive use also gets both the man and the woman on board with family planning, fertility, and what the couple’s future may or may not hold.
Which of my posts you read and what you make of them is entirely your choice. It would also appear you haven’t absorbed all that I said about this in my 7:02pm post.
Actually PP didn’t have anything in the way of chastity that could see. – that’s not what you said before – Their chastity education leaves A LOT to be desired (in fact, it’s practically nonexistent…they say very little on the subject and what they do say leaves a lot to be desired in the form of an explanation).
PP are providers of sexual and reproductive health services. People seek their services because they are, or intend to be, sexually active. Not chaste. Not abstinent. There are other groups which offer those services. To expect PP to extol chastity or criticise them for not doing so is an unrealistic expectation. Just like expecting a chastity group to hand out condoms would be.
you are quite right (this is for you too MIT), practicing abstinence will preclude pregnancy and STD’s.
PP are providers of sexual and reproductive health services. …To expect PP to extol chastity or criticise them for not doing so is an unrealistic expectation.
Does not compute. PP doesn’t have to extol chastity (which is not at all the same as abstinence), but certainly anyone in the “sexual and reproductive health services” business would extol abstinence since it’s the only method that will 100% “preclude pregnancy and STD’s”. And when that “sexual and reproductive health services” business gets involved in going to schools and presenting comprehensive sex-ed, certainly they should spend a commensurate amount of education time on the ONLY method that will prevent pregnancy and STD’s with 100% accuracy. This would, of course, necessitate teaching that prevention of STD’s includes more than just abstinence from vaginal sex. In fact, it’s the fact that PP has no interest in encouraging teen abstinence that shows us they are truly NOT in the business of promoting sexual health.
certainly they should spend a commensurate amount of education time on the ONLY method that will prevent pregnancy and STD’s with 100% accuracy. – whose measure of “commensurate’?
This would, of course, necessitate teaching that prevention of STD’s includes more than just abstinence from vaginal sex. – perhaps this needs to be expressed more clearly to some of those who claim to be practicing abstinence.
In fact, it’s the fact that PP has no interest in encouraging teen abstinence – why cover material which other groups are already covering? The chastity groups don’t teach about condom use.
they are truly NOT in the business of promoting sexual health. – not everyones idea of sexual health is ‘one partner for life within the confines of holy matrimony’.
Reality,
I read your post. Parts of it I didn’t get what you were driving at, so I left them alone. My comments are long enough without me trying to explain all that, (particularly trying to figure out your motivations for being here–I don’t think that’s going to make sense to me, so I’m moving on). (My computer makes the copied-and-pasted comments highlighted and looks weird which makes it hard for me to type up my comments–maybe it would come out okay when I posted, but having it highlighted in gray with all kinds of mumble jumble attached to it while I’m trying to organize my responses is highly distracting and makes it hard for me to focus on what I’m trying to say, so when i respond to anyone when this happens, I have to go back over their post and type it up manually–so if I don’t quote, that’s why).
What Lrning said about PP touting sexual health and chastity being a part of that is on target. Chastity IS a part of sexual health. It is because it gives a body the opportunity and room to view another person as more than a means to the end of their sexual desires. It takes sexual activity out of “mere pleasure” and elevates it to what it is. A way that human beings bond and reproduce. As to me saying that their chastity information leaves much to be desired–I stand by that. Much to be desired because it’s NON EXISTENT! If it existed, I could say “add to it by saying x, y, z” I could say whether or not it was accurate. But if it doesn’t exist, then the education the presence of chastity education on PP website does leave much to be desired–a desire to even exist on there in the first place.
Some people who are sexually active do seek out chastity. I’ve had people who have said that to me. Where is PP’s services for these people wishing to have healthy sexuality by waiting for marriage or by not having extramarital affairs, which chastity provides for by promoting “purity of heart, mind, and body” (I think that’s even in the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary under the 3rd definition, which should actually be the first because it’s more of an explanation of chastity than the other 2 definitions–I studied chastity for a long time and it’s way more than just abstinence and unfortunately people keep confusing it with abstinence only). To cover the broad spectrum of sexuality, sexual activity and sexual health chastity definitely fits right in and should be there. To deny it a place is to only offer part of the information to a person, which is like offering a person only a crumb of something fulfilling and denying them the rest–simply because they arbitrarily decided it didn’t matter. If PP is so much about letting women decide, why don’t they put chastity on the website and let people decide if that’s what they want. Some people don’t realize they’re seeking chastity until they get to really know it. (I’ve heard stories about that, so I know it exists. I’ve seen it with people I know, as well).
You, and other PP supporters have touted that PP gives every option, all information to women, and they don’t. They leave out chastity, they don’t list adoption agencies, and their other materials for children is inappropriate (You still don’t address the whole penis and vagina cartoons. You can’t tell me there aren’t other effective ways to educate on sexual organs and sexual activity–I mean a cartoon? I get there are other tacky methods out there, but this is one that’s high up on the list of tacky, and if you don’t believe me that they exist, just look them up on Youtube).
I didn’t say NFP was the only way a couple could talk about family planning–I said it gave the couple a way to talk about family planning by involving both the man and the woman. It maps out a woman’s cycle and gives the couple a chance to see if there’s anything of concern. I know someone who got breast cancer diagnosed EARLY (in fact, apparently the doctor said they’d never heard of it diagnosed that early before) because she noticed something wrong on her NFP chart. My medical doctor is trained in NFP and she reads my charts and can tell just by looking at them some of what my body is doing and going through. My husband has a better idea of what’s going on with me because he looks at my chart. He knows when I’m not getting enough rest because my temperatures go all over the place. He knows when I’m doing what the doctor says because my temperatures make better sense. If he has a concern he can look at it and say “Hey what happened here. I know such-and-such was going on, was it that, or was there something else.” and we can discuss it. In some cases it’s been an ice-breaker. No, I know it’s not the only way for a couple to discuss family planning or a woman’s health, but I do know it’s been very helpful in that. I don’t always have to guess what my questions are. I can look at it and say “Okay, this is how I was feeling, this was what was going on, is this a problem?” I have more information on my body with NFP than I would without it. (It’s proven helpful when I visit the doctor, too). My point? It’s a useful tool for couples. I know many couples who have found NFP extremely helpful.
As far as contraceptives are concerned. I don’t understand why women would choose to put powerful artificial hormones into their bodies, or why men would want to wear latex on their penises (or whatever condoms are made out of these days–all I know is that it would probably irritate my skin). But then again, I guess I just have enough problems health issues in my life without adding to the list. I had a cousin who took birth control pills and she’s dead (yes, the pills played a role, how big, I don’t know, but I know they did). I have a friend who took them and was a mess until she got off of them. So I figure, knowing myself, and knowing what happened with those people, it’s just as well not to unnecessarily add to the mix of my own health concerns. (Plus I’ve seen the lawsuit stuff going on and I’d rather not risk it).
Sure, I have religious reasons to avoid contraceptives. But the religious reasons aren’t the only reasons, which is why I listed the paragraph above FIRST.
:) At least some of the familiar faces from months gone by are here, I see! Hello again, everyone!
(I’m not quite certain how much time I’ll have on the blog, but I *did* miss the lot of you!)
As to the point at hand: Reality, you seem to be under the impression (especially given your portrayals of Planned Parenthood as a “fair distributor of needed information”–an idea which begs more questions than I can easily count) that the presentation of sexually-suggestive/charged material is somehow “impact-neutral” (in the sense that a child [or other] can consume and absorb it as clinically and objectively as one might absorb the multiplication table); and I really don’t know how that can be maintained. Are you unaware of the fact that people–and teens especially [most notably teen boys, who are very visual-dominant in their processing of data]–get stimulated by sexual content when it’s presented to them in any sort of encouraging/enticing way, and that this is a near-certain recipe to get them to shut off their heads in favour of their hormones and passions? And if you truly suppose that PP does NOT portray sexual behaviour in an enticing way (cf. the talking cartoon genitalia, etc., in their materials), then I really don’t know what to tell you.
I think that you are the most dishonest person I have ever had the displeasure of engaging with in cyberspace ”reality.”
The nationwide efforts to defund PP speaks for itself, the fact that “clinics” that have all these violations are PP-affiliated speaks for itself, the way profits are not re-invested into women’s
“health services” but these poor women pay exorbitant fees for abortions speaks for itself, the below the market pay for PP employees I cited through payscale.com on another thread speaks for itself (9% below market as of 9/20/13)., and finally the profit margin and uncovered insurance billing abuses speaks for itself.
People know how you like to twist the truth “reality” but you I will not allow you to succeed.
Hello again, Paladin! It’s always a pleasure.
and that this is a near-certain recipe to get them to shut off their heads in favour of their hormones and passions?
A difference among the genders? Surely you jest! Out of 100 average teen boys, how many do you think shut off their heads when exposed to enticing materials or while in enticing situations, Paladin? I’d ask my husband but I took some lumps for him in a different thread when I asked him a similar question . . . .
Having raised two teen boys and one teen girl, my personal experience is this:
Two of my three youngsters attempted and succeeded, six years apart, in getting around parental computer controls, getting into some low-budget, no plot, visually clear and close-up videos that made their momma gnash her teeth and pull at her hair. It was the youngster who did not attempt to get around parental computer controls who tipped the momma off to what the other two were up to.
Quiz questions:
What is the gender of my first little short-film buff?
What is the gender of my second little short-film buff?
What is the gender of my little snitch?
Oh, Thomas R., I’d be interested on how you’d do on my quiz, too.
Don’t over think it. (:
In attempts to keep this thread from going into topics that another thread did, I want to make clear that when I said ’average teenage boy’ above, I am excluding all teens who are being manipulated, coerced and forced by others into behaving inappropriately and/or viewing inappropriate materials against their will. That is a different topic altogether.
Greetings to you again, too, Milady Praxedes! The pleasure is mine! :)
Out of 100 average teen boys, how many do you think shut off their heads when exposed to enticing materials or while in enticing situations, Paladin?
:) Er… as I have an innate loathing of statistics (which is seen as something of a drawback in math teachers, I admit), I’m a bit afraid to guess… though I’d estimate (if I must) some number “cozily close” to 100%…
Welcome back, Paladin! (I get on here off and on in spurts).
You gave away the answers to this quiz 2 sentences above the questions Praxedes: male/male/female. I hit the Jackpot or what!
I had to give you hints, Thomas R. or you would have never gotten them right. (:
Nobody said there were zero differences between the genders. All we said is both genders have equal responsibility to avoid inappropriate sexual activity.
Its probably because I am a man Praxedes? I am so ”offended” right now. But to my defense, my male brain made me do it (LOL)…
Some males don’t use being male as an excuse for behavior Thomas, but to each their own I guess.
Hello, Jack! Good to see you, after these many months!
Just for reference: there’s a bit of joshing going to and fro on this point (of gender differences) between some of us (cf. Praxedes, Thomas and me), which wasn’t meant to be taken completely literally.
One main point among these details, though, is the idea that–while males and females are certainly both morally bound to avoid sexual sin–the males are more susceptible to certain types of sexual stimuli and advertising (such as the type which Planned Parenthood uses with rather ruthless abandon), especially when they involve visual components. This is one reason, by the way, why [visual] pornography is so aggressively addictive for men (on a par with cocaine/heroin, by some accounts).
Hi Paladin, good to see you too!
They were referencing a thread that got rather heated, unfortunately, about the subject. But no one said that males and females had the same sex drives or were stimulated the same way. I and some others DID say that teen boys are perfectly capable of not seeking out or giving into sexual stimulus, and that both genders are responsible for whatever consensual sexual activity they get up to. We also mentioned that the idea that males can’t resist such things or that they are always seeking sex is a damaging message to be sending to boys. Oh, and we mentioned that there’s an issue with young females being more sexually aggressive lately, though they don’t initiate as much as males do, which apparently some people don’t like to hear. I’m quite annoyed that the position is being misrepresented here.
Seriously Jack, my male brain makes me do the things I do all the time. Is some of it mediated by the frontal lobe? I sure hope so, but I would have to verify the accuracy of my supposition with my wife and will get back to you. LOL…
In case you need to know, I am getting rather goofy about this whole thing. That thread was such a testasterone-filled battle btw Jack and Truthseeker, that it drained all my male energy to the point of just wanting to chill.
Testosterone didn’t make me battle truthseeker, rationality did!
I would not classify TS as irrational. One that has a strong belief system maybe? Or perhaps “overly” protective of the male ego? Or maybe just someone who as I said in that thread, is just all over the place. You have a very strong worldview formed by your experiences and TS has his (I don’t even know what his are so I will give him a pass for now).
Testosterone regulates some cognitive functions in the frontal lobe thus the reason for my “testosterone-filled” analogy.
Hi again, Jack!
You wrote:
We also mentioned that the idea that males can’t resist such things or that they are always seeking sex is a damaging message to be sending to boys.
I agree wholeheartedly; a susceptibility doesn’t at all mean “inevitable” or “helpless”; rather, it means that we (males) need to exert our efforts to fight such things beforehand, as often as possible. As a rather off-the-beam example: I have numerous food allergies (some of which are fairly serious); and while this certainly isn’t a death-sentence, even if I do ingest some of the allergens, it does mean that I can’t be chevalier about it. I simply can’t eat what others eat, and I need to accept that fact. Just so: men simply can’t consume pornography (for example) and then pretend that they will be just as free to “stroll away with a light heart” from it as they would have been had they never picked the bloody stuff up in the first place! It will make a rather permanent mark on their psyche, I’m afraid. That doesn’t mean that any such man is doomed to consume pornography always and forever, any more than it means that an alcoholic will be forever drunk for every moment of every day until his death; rather, it means that such a man will need to be much more proactive in his fight and vigilance against it in the future, and he will need to make use of many things which are not dependent on “will-power-of-the-moment” (e.g. filters of internet, changing driving habits so as to avoid that XXX movie store, having a chum in the car while driving past that part of town, etc.).
Oh, and we mentioned that there’s an issue with young females being more sexually aggressive lately, though they don’t initiate as much as males do, which apparently some people don’t like to hear
That’s also true… but for reasons which are too psychologically murky for me to do anything more than guess at them.
Thomas, I really have no use for victim blaming, so if truthseeker wants to blame people for being sexually assaulted and then oddly go on to claim consensual sex is sexual assault I simply am not going to let him get away with saying such things. But that was another thread that’s hopefully over, so it can die.
And Paladin I do agree with everything you wrote, men can’t go around watching porn with no consequences, can’t get half naked with attractive ladies and expect that’s a great idea, yes, I get it. What I don’t like is when people send the message that “boys will be boys” (no they won’t, they can be expected and required to have self-control, there’s nothing intrinsic in being male that makes you a rutting animal) or that ALL men will take sex that’s offered by females (no, not everyone will and all men should be expected and required NOT to). I wouldn’t have a problem with what you said, that men should be careful about what situations they involve themselves in, that’s completely true. I just have a problem with the “lol boys are such man whores lol amirite?” attitude that certainly doesn’t teach responsibility and does send the message that there’s something wrong with men or boys who don’t want to take sexual offers or be in sexual situations. No one likes to be “abnormal”, and young males are affected by these messages that they won’t control themselves.
And abou porn… It’s probably a good idea to have filters on the computers and supervise your teen boy when he is using the Internet (and your teen girl for that matter, there are things besides porn she could get into, those pro-anorexia sites are gettin horribly popular). But I don’t believe for a second that an adult man can’t keep himself from checking out porn sites without filters or his wife watching him or whatever. I had a porn problem as a teenager but quit before my oldest kid was born, and I surf the Internet frequently with no filters and manage to avoid porn. You can have self-control, though if you really have an addictive problem filters might be best, just like avoiding your old friends is best if you had a heroin addiction.
Oh, and I mentioned it on the other thread but it bears repeating. I do think the “men are just horndogs and never turn down sex and always go for it” thing feeds into victim blaming of both male and female victims of sex crimes (before anyone jumps on me, no I’m not accusing any of you of victim-blaming, I’m just saying that I think it can be related to this line of thinking). I think it feeds into the “Well, of course he raped her, what did she expect being alone with him?” and “Of course he wasn’t raped, you can’t rape the willing!” victim blaming stuff that’s so prevalent.
you seem to be under the impression…..that the presentation of sexually-suggestive/charged material – or to put it another way ‘you seem to be under the impression…..that the presentation is of sexually-suggestive/charged material’
I think that you are the most dishonest person I have ever had the displeasure of engaging with in cyberspace ”reality.” – your not liking the truth doesn’t invalidate it Thomas R.
The nationwide efforts to defund PP speaks for itself – no, it speaks of the anti-choice agitators and their captive politicians, operating with dishonesty and a repressive agenda.
People know how you like to twist the truth “reality” but you I will not allow you to succeed. – I refer to my eralier comment.
Regarding my statement of 09/26/13 on this thread in which I attempted to justify Truthseeker. I hereby proclaim, afer reading further comments from TS on the other thread – that he no longer has my support. I have given him the benefit of doubt but it expired 1 minute ago.
Truthseeker please seek professional help.
Did you leave my supported by facts reference to PP’s constant failure to comply with health/safety regulations and insurance billing abuses that are among the reasons for defunding efforts on purpose “reality.”
Picky about which statements you “disect” and which ones you avoid, aren’t you. And you still support and defend an organization that reaches for tax dollars in such a dishonest way?
Did you leave my supported by facts reference to PP’s constant failure to comply with health/safety regulations and insurance billing abuses that are among the reasons for defunding efforts on purpose “reality.” – did I leave them where? Facts, what facts. You made some assertions, that’s all.
Picky about which statements you “disect” and which ones you avoid, aren’t you. – not particularly.
And you still support and defend an organization that reaches for tax dollars in such a dishonest way? – I don’t defend any organizations which receive tax dollars in a dishonest way. What are you on about.
Reality wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
you seem to be under the impression…..that the presentation of sexually-suggestive/charged material
[Reality]
or to put it another way ‘you seem to be under the impression…..that the presentation is of sexually-suggestive/charged material
(*sigh*) I don’t suppose you could have troubled yourself to read even two more sentences down, in my comment?
—quote —
And if you truly suppose that PP does NOT portray sexual behaviour in an enticing way (cf. the talking cartoon genitalia, etc., in their materials), then I really don’t know what to tell you.
— end quote —
Given the vast array of evidence which shows PP to be using word choices, media styles, etc., which portray sex as “good, exciting, etc.”, along with cartoon-based visuals of how to do any/all of the above, I do think that the burden of proof for anyone (*ahem*, Reality!) who claims that the presentation and/or content is NOT sexually-charged and designed to be enticing would be on THEM. Are you game to try>
I read it all Paladin. I just found that the bit further down constituted the same opinion as the first bit. My response addressed your overall opinion that the material is suggestive/charged and intended to entice.
Actually, unless you want your claims to appear to be nothing more than the subjective opinion they are, the burden of proof is on you to deliver the “vast array of evidence which shows PP to be using word choices, media styles, etc., which portray sex as “good, exciting, etc.” which you claim exists.
Y’know… the “hope springs eternal, maybe he’s not a troll anymore” reflex is still alive, but I really should know better. Ah, well.
Here’s a chance for you to show your intellectual honesty, Reality, and prove that you’re not simply a troll being contrary by knee-jerk reflex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j7XR9yH2ETk
(WARNING [to those who care about morality]: GRAPHIC CONTENT!)
Now… are you going to reject the source out of hand because it’s from a pro-life source (and the presentation is crafted that way), or are you going to consider the actual citations (video clips, text of materials, etc.), and address it to your most recent challenge for me?
“I don’t defend any organizations which receive tax dollars in a dishonest way. What are you on about.”
Are you playing dumb “reality” or just want to assault the facts of PP taxpayer funding? You support PP although it continually attempts to reach for tax dollars and uses it for abortions.
http://onenewsnow.com/pro-life/2013/01/08/planned-parenthood-record-year-for-abortions-taxpayer-funding
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=18705
http://washingtonexaminer.com/planned-parenthood-reports-record-year-for-abortions/article/2517801
So are you still steadfastly going to deny that you support a dishonest organization?
Great video Paladin, thanks for posting the link.
Well Paladin, I did manage to watch all the way through the diatribe of propaganda constructed by a group which is well known for its regressive and narrow-minded policies. Do the terms selective, out of context and misrepresentative mean anything to you? Homophobia too?
The makers of the video believe masturbation is sinful, homosexuality a perversion and sex before or outside of marriage is also sinful. We know that. We also know they have a strange idea of what sex-ed should consist of.
We also know that virtually every teen explores and indeed pleasures themselves sexually. It is a normal part of growing up. Some people are born same-sex attracted, it is not a perversion. Sex before or apart from marriage is not something most people consider noteworthy. Sex did exist before marriage was invented.
As best I could ascertain, the PP sex-ed material was factual and accurate. It addresses the realities of people, sex and society.
I don’t believe that all the visual and graphic material portrayed was PP derived. I am quite confident some pieces were examples of posters, activities and such created by groups conducting their own events.
What it amounts to is a bunch of self-appointed, moralistic, wowsers whining about knowledge, facts and reality. You agree with them, I don’t. Subjective opinion, as I said.
Are you playing “ignorant” Thomas R.? Yes PP receives tax dollars. This is so it can assist the less financially fortunate with an array of services. It is not a dishonest organization, nor does it receive tax dollars in a dishonest way.
“One of Planned Parenthood’s gateway drugs is masturbation”.
Omg I’m dying, seriously. I mean, I dislike PP as much as the next pro-lifer but seriously guys.
Honestly, I can’t take that video seriously with that kind of stuff. I’m not going to reach my fellow secularists with “omg masturbation and homosexuality are bad!” type of stuff. I need a better article/video to show people if I’m trying to explain the (very real) concern with what PP thinks is appropriate sex education for children. I’ll see what Secular Prolife has, Kelsey is pretty good at finding non-religious types of things like that.
“This is so it can assist the less financially fortunate with an array of services.”
I guess that is the reason PP charges exorbitant fees for abortions “reality.”
Hi, Jack,
:) I do realise that this would be hard to swallow, based on secular premises… but I’d gently point out that logic only works if one has a *correct* set of premises from which to work. Working from a secular set of premises (which excludes God, by definition) is a bit like trying to work geometry while denying the existence of numbers! (You can do it for a bit, but you can only get so far–which isn’t very far at all.)
Secularism (with all due respect–and I, of all people, appreciate your sincerity) has never been a logical construct; it’s a sociological construct (albeit a non-logical one) whose purpose was to try to find a way for people with differing views to talk together without getting irate at or hopelessly confused by each other. That’s well and good, so far as it goes; but hard-core secularists go further, and mistake the part for the whole (and assume that it explains all relevant things–which is silly). It’s a bit like playing exclusively with odd numbers for a bit, and finding some true facts about them (e.g. two odd numbers always add to make an even number, etc.), but then forgetting all about even numbers in general, or non-whole numbers, etc.; such a person might (if sufficiently impulsive and rash) go on to say that “all other numbers are unprovable opinions, jokes, religious balderdash concocted by celibate old Pythagoreans in Athens”, and other such rubbish.
It’s just so, with talk about God. When a theist and non-theist get together, they might well abstract from a belief in God for the sake of making progress with what they have–and that’s well and good, for a temporary crutch; but eventually the rest of the data set (e.g. the true existence of God) really does need to make an appearance, in order for any logical claims about “universal things” (like the nature of man, the sanctity of sexuality and sex, etc.) to make any sense.
I do realise that this would be hard to swallow, based on secular premises… – you’ll understand that I find it to be hard to swallow based on anything rational.
but I’d gently point out that logic only works if one has a *correct* set of premises from which to work. – you do understand that logic paths aren’t always identical or singular? But if there were only one ‘correct’ set, there is nothing which supports it being based on any god. The pointlessness of filling gaps and spanning unknowns by applying a ‘spiritual’ construct is being demonstrated more and more as time goes by.
Working from a secular set of premises (which excludes God, by definition) is a bit like trying to work geometry while denying the existence of numbers! – I find that including god is like making up your own numbers, or creating absurd equations to achieve the result you want.
Secularism (with all due respect–and I, of all people, appreciate your sincerity) has never been a logical construct; it’s a sociological construct (albeit a non-logical one) – I think you’ll find that theism is the sociological construct. Atheism is the natural condition.
whose purpose was to try to find a way for people with differing views to talk together without getting irate at or hopelessly confused by each other. That’s well and good, so far as it goes; but hard-core secularists go further, and mistake the part for the whole (and assume that it explains all relevant things–which is silly). It’s a bit like playing exclusively with odd numbers for a bit, and finding some true facts about them (e.g. two odd numbers always add to make an even number, etc.), but then forgetting all about even numbers in general, or non-whole numbers, etc.; such a person might (if sufficiently impulsive and rash) go on to say that “all other numbers are unprovable opinions, jokes, religious balderdash concocted by celibate old Pythagoreans in Athens”, and other such rubbish. – This just sounds like some fanciful prose which has no basis in fact or logic. It’s funny that you speak of ignoring or forgetting about certain numbers given the propensity for some of faith to ignore or reject certain aspects of science and such like.
It’s just so, with talk about God. When a theist and non-theist get together, they might well abstract from a belief in God for the sake of making progress with what they have–and that’s well and good, for a temporary crutch; – I generally agree, if a rational discussion is to be conducted. For it to be more than temporary the theist needs to accept facts.
but eventually the rest of the data set (e.g. the true existence of God) really does need to make an appearance, in order for any logical claims about “universal things” (like the nature of man, the sanctity of sexuality and sex, etc.) to make any sense. – no, this bit is inverted. Your claim for ‘the true existence of god’ simply isn’t required for universal things to make sense. It is the ‘appearance’ of god which removes logic from these things.