"Why would people disparage promoting abstinence to our youth?"

Consider the source- Ted Rall (scum):

One of his cartoons includes a frame depicting Condoleezza Rice proclaiming herself Bush’s “HOUSE NIGGA.”

A July 4, 2005, Op/Ed piece[11] accused George W. Bush's chief political strategist Karl Rove of being "more morally repugnant and more anti-American" than 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden

He wrote about the Abu Ghraib scandal, "American troops occupying Iraq have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS." The headline referred to news reports that American troops had systematically sodomized Iraqi prisoners with flashlights and other objects.

shortly after the death of Ronald Reagan, Rall said the former President is "turning crispy brown right about now," implying that he is burning in Hell because of his policies. The post was followed by a comic depicting the President being tormented by the devil, informing him that he has arrived at a heaven that looks like hell because of Reagan-style budget cuts.

He has accused our troops of being murderers for Halliburton, mocked soldiers as sexual deviants, and derided the late Pat Tillman as an “idiot” and “sap”

Because...abstinance only sex ed has been proven to not work?

If abstinence only education doesn't work, and comprehensive sex ed does, then why are kids having more sex today, with comprehensive sex education, than they ever were before, without it?

And why are there more unwanted pregnancies, etc?

He confuses love with lust. Love is an act of the will which desires the highest good for another. Lust is a disordered form of love. If a couple is lusting for each other, they are clearly not ready for marriage. He also implies that the marital act is all about ME ME ME; "I need to be satisfied in bed, pleasure ME, etc." Rather than a total act of self-giving to another, sex is all about feeling good, so why is there any reason to wait?

Very, VERY good point, Bobby.

My sister had an abstinence only curriculum all throughout middle school, and now there is a good number of girls in her class pregnant, some for the second or third time.

"...Married people don't have sex."

Oh, the irony!

What makes cartoons like this one all the more boneheaded is that those of us who prefer not to goosesteppingly subscribe to the notion that Procreation Is Something To Be Avoided At All Costs are so often accused of being irresponsible because we actually enjoy having large numbers of kids.

Consider some of the, um, clarifying comments in response to this article, originally published in The Nation (and which also mentions in passing that the Pro-Life Action League's "Contraception Is Not the Answer" conference last fall served "as a sort of coming-out party for the anticontraception movement" - what a compliment!):

What pisses me off is that I have to subsidize the breeding of little fanatics for the Holy War these people are planning. Credits, exemptions, dependents, property taxes...The list keeps growing.

If they keep clogging up the tax codes with kid-friendly stuff, we'll all have to have 50 kids, just so we can keep some of our paycheck.

And:

This movement is frightening. To top it off, they home-school their litters. Just perfect. Another way to dumb down an already diminished populations intelligence.

It's definitely a race issue, as well. If it weren't, they'd adopt all the children already here who need parents. Oops, most of those are minority or mixed race. Only Aryans qualify.

These people disgust me.

And:

The behaviour of these parents can be summed up in one word - and this is supported by most of the comments in the posts above. They are 'IRRESPONSIBLE'.

Anybody who brings into the world a child whom they cannot properly support - materially, spiritually and psychologically - cannot be described in any other way.

Sir Julian Huxley was right when he said that we cannot hide in the arms of an inscrutable God; yet that is exactly what these parents are claiming they can do.

And this one, which once again proves Godwin's Law:

This sounds much like the rhetoric used by the Nazis to promote their Aryan ideal. Women were encouraged to propagate to produce the Aryan warrior to take over the world.

Frightening stuff.

We're running out of land, fuel, etc. There are too many people on this planet already. It's selfish to have so many children.

The haters need to get their stories straight, 'cause they can't have it both ways. Either we never have sex, or we have too much non-contraceptive sex.

Which is it?

I *hate* the sterotype that quiverful families do not adopt. Take a look at an Above Rubies magazine. ALL of those women have adopted children. Almost all of them have adopted children of a different race than themselves.

Good Point J Jansen,

Having six kids myself, I can assure you that none of them was conceived miraculously...

JK,
Just like contraception, abstinence only works if you practice it.

The point is that with all the sex ed that our children have force fed to them, why are there still so many pregnancies and 45 million abortions?

The answer is, as Bobby pointed out, that like the cartoon, sex is not understood anymore. It is a purely selfish act when it is meant to be a purely self giving act. Until we stop thinking of sex as "just somethin' to do cuz it feels soooo good", we are going to continue to have unwanted pregnancies.

If marriage is no longer something that we honor til death do us part, if having children is looked upon as a disease, and having many children looked at as having "litters", if sex is viewed as the equivalent of baseball and Pinochle (just another way to pass time and feel good) then as I have said before, we are reverting to the most base, animalistic attitudes. This bodes less well for society than home schooling and going to church...unless of course your a moose in heat!

As human beings (PERSONS with dignity, if you will) we are called to much higher standards. Abstinence is a way of practicing self control, self discipline, self mastery and self love. If you can't control yourself, how can you "give" yourself to another person.

The world would be (oh, it already is) a pretty ugly place if everyone just gave into their "lower" urges (oh, they already do)...why, we'd have porn addictions, gambling addiction, suicide,
abortions, drug addiction...(oh we already do)...all things that come from a lack of self control...something that is taught with abstinence but woefully ignored with contraception...

Frankly, Quiver full families give me the shivers. It's a vagina, not a clown car. It's the most disturbing moment I can conceive of: strict gender roles, intolerance for other religions, an "enclave cultures" mentality.

Anyway. As I've previously said, I'd never a virgin. Thankfully, this is no longer an issue with me. Frankly, the idea that not having sex with your partner is "respecting" them is the stupidest idea that I've ever heard: mutual discussions of what is most pleasing, what each partner's comfort zone is, etc, that's respecting. Refusing to have sex because Jesus said so isn't.

Since when is it wrong to give our kids options, that they can say 'no' to having sex?

Wow, Less. That was needlessly offensive.

On another(of topic) note, have you guys seen the support for Tiller over at Feministing. It's interesting to say the least.

http://feministing.com/archives/007508.html#comments

Hi Less. While I am not a member of the quiver full movement, I don't see how they are intolerant of other religions. They simply believe that life is a gift, and they wish to share that life-giving love. I also think it is disrespectful to refer to their vaginas as "clown cars." They love motherhood, and they don't think that there should be some sort of "two is plenty of children" mentality in their family. Finally, no one claims that we shouldn't have sex because "Jesus said so." Because the love that a couple shares during the conjugal act is something so real and so profound that 9 months later you may have to give that love a name, we communicate in the language of our bodies a life long commitment to that person whom we share the conjugal act with. This is why sex is saved for marriage. A sexual act outside of marriage is a lie with the body. This is the natural law. God love you, Less.

Wow, sorry about the triple post... Man, I suck...

lauren,

I went to that blog. Wow, are they delusional. They are in love with Tiller! Here's one of there comments:

"Awww, that's Dr. Tiller? I seriously, seriously appreciate that man's work and feel bad that he's been put through so much. Anyone know if there's some way to help (donating somewhere, etc)?"

Lauren,

I posted a comment on that blog, but it was quickly deleted and I was banned for a dissenting opinion.

I *hate* the sterotype that quiverful families do not adopt. Take a look at an Above Rubies magazine. ALL of those women have adopted children. Almost all of them have adopted children of a different race than themselves.

Lauren, I LOVE Above Rubies, and I have a subscription too!

Bethany. Me too! It's so uplifting. My husband's cousin introduced us to it. I'm always so excited to get one in the mail.

Bobby- Great post!

Bobby, I deleted two of your three identical posts, so you no longer suck... :)

Less, so you laid your boy. What's the diff between now and after the wedding?

Bobby, you might communicate a life-long love with sex, but I firmly believe that placing that much extraneous emphasis on quite a simple act is needless. That's great if you want to think of it that way, I don't particularly care. But I don't. I hope I never have to give anything a name after sex. I have plenty of sex outside of marriage, and have found that it has only improved the relationship I have with my partner. So, while you might have unnecessary emotional trappings on sex, I tend to avoid them. Sex is sex. Like marriage, sex is what you make of it.

I've read interviews with the Quiverfull members, and have visited their website: I wanted to educate myself. The majority of the families live off donations from their churches, as they often cannot support their large families on their own. They homeschool their children to keep them away from dissenting religious opinions. How can sheltering your offspring so severely be even remotely construed as helpful?

About three years, Jill.

The majority of the families live off donations from their churches,

Prove this.

I saw it on TLC, actually, so it's not online. I can try to find some stuff on the web about it, but as I have a hot date tonight, I doubt I'm going to put much effort into it.

OH LOL! So basically, you watched the show about the Duggars, (or the Arndts), and you heard that the church sometimes donates clothing or something or the other (Something wrong with that?), and you assumed that meant that they are "living off" of churches because of this occasional accepting of donations, and in your mind, that automatically also means that ALL quiverfull families "live off" of churches, because you saw it on a TV show, and you assumed it meant they weren't earning their own income. Wow, you do such clever researching, Less!

No, actually, there were several shows on various programs, though the Duggars was the first one I watched. It's like watching a train wreck, to be honest. Particularly the fact that they make all their girls dress in dresses, shudder. Anyway, there were some other programs about the quiverful movement that I watched, that certainly did mention that quiverful families tend to rely heavily on the church. There's also some interesting stuff published by a formerly-quiverful woman who divorced her husband and left the movement, then wrote about how awful it is for most women. I tend to think that it's a pretty biased source, however, that doesn't really bear mentioning as research--despite the fact that I happen to agree about the damages, both physical and emotional, that tend to spring from constant childbirth and submission.

less,

what happen to your boy? did you dump him for the hot date?

My boy is the hot date, actually. Why do you think I've been gone longer than my one-week vacation?

Less,

My mom had 7 kids..yes, it was tough for a little while, but you just have to learn to manage things correctly...(husband and wife working together, etc). You make it seem like torment. Now she has 20 grandchildren and enjoys it very much spending time with them.

Particularly the fact that they make all their girls dress in dresses, shudder.

Gasp! How cruel! Imagine the horrors of enjoying your femininity!

Anyway, there were some other programs about the quiverful movement that I watched, that certainly did mention that quiverful families tend to rely heavily on the church.

Yes, yes, sure they did, Less. I'm sure you didn't misunderstand what was said or anything....because we we all know how tolerant you are of other faiths. And we all know you never have contradicted yourself or lied on this blog before... mmmm hmm

By the way, even if it were true, so what? Families with 1 child many times receive support from churches. What is the problem? Churches donate out of love and do not do it because they have to. No one is being hurt by it, so what is your problem with it?

the fact that I happen to agree about the damages, both physical and emotional, that tend to spring from constant childbirth and submission.

Oh I'm sure that having parents who think you are a burden rather than a blessing is much more emotionally and physically helpful to children than anything. Give me a break.

That's great if she wants to have six kids. But it certainly isn't for everyone, and I maintain that some women simply can't handle it, or have no desire to handle it. The woman must completely sacrifice any hope of a life outside of the home if she's to commit to having that many kids: and I don't know many women who are contented with staying at home constantly.

Andrea Yates was quiverfull. On the very first quiverfull website that I visited, there was a huge banner asking for donations to help combat the depression of the quiverful sitemaster's wife. Women who leave the quiverful movement constantly comment about how suppressing it is, and how emotionally traumatic it can be.

Why in the hell would I ever want to invest myself in something like that?

Actually, I'd rather know that I'm a choice, and not a grit-your-teeth-and-do-it-because-God-says-so. That's no way to live.

And unless you can prove I've lied on the blog before...I suggest you retract that statement. ;)

Frankly, I tend to think that if you can't support yourself and are relying upon donations, you shouldn't be having any more kids. If you go off having kids and expecting handouts because you're doing God's work, you're off your banana. I'm betting these same people whine about poor people going on welfare.

I enjoy my femininity in jeans, thanks. Dresses are a pain in the butt.

Andrea Yates was quiverfull. On the very first quiverfull website that I visited, there was a huge banner asking for donations to help combat the depression of the quiverful sitemaster's wife. Women who leave the quiverful movement constantly comment about how suppressing it is, and how emotionally traumatic it can be.

Less, you have a very poor understanding of quiverfull if you think that Andrea Yates was such. It's not about having as many kids as you can, it's about viewing your chidren as blessings, not burdens! Obviously, Andrea yates thought her children were burdens!

"Actually, I'd rather know that I'm a choice, and not a grit-your-teeth-and-do-it-because-God-says-so. That's no way to live."

Less, what if you were not a choice. let's say you're an unborn baby in the womb, would you mind then if your mother chooses to abort you?

Somedays (and today is one of those days) I wish my mom had chosen to *not* to try so hard to have kids and just sucked it up and adopted or something.

Blah.

Rae,

Don't think like that. Everybody has problems and feels down time from time. I've had problems with depression. Experiencing some form of pain is part of life. You're not alone.

Well,
I've just been to Quiverfulls website and Above Rubies website, and I didn't see anyone asking for handouts or complaining about depression. Don't know what Less is talking about, but I'm not surprised. It's sad that women who have large families and want to share stories, swap recipes and compare notes are treated by some people as the scourge of the earth, while these same people brag about multiple sex partners, share STD's, swap birth control notes and compare pregnancy to prison time...

I myself would rather have many children than many sexual partners...In 40 years I can sit around and play monopoly, share family dinners, bounce grandchildren on my knee, and have a full house at Christmas. Some people will have venereal diseases, broken homes, no one at Christmas and the memory of many sexual escapades with partners whose names they can't even remember...Good times, good times...

Rae,

What's wrong? Can we help? I'm awfully glad that you're mom didn't adopt instead of having you...but I tell you that all the time! Jasper is right. Weeping may endure for the night, but Joy cometh in the morning.

Don't let what I said about your generation having no hope get to you...there is always hope. I was having a pretty "down" week myself when I said that.
Sometimes, being on here, and hearing how hardened the world has become, makes me really depressed. Sometimes it feels suffocating. You know what I mean? But it passes, and I move on, and get back into the fight...

You have my email if you just feel like venting.

Not really, jasper. I'd not have cognitive thought, and thus, I wouldn't be able to grasp the concept of "minding." As a fully formed, intelligent, individual, I wouldn't mind a bit. I'd rather be a choice than a punishment, and rather die than be said punishment.

I don't care about other women who choose to have huge amounts of children: I just know that I will never do that, that I don't approve of it, and that I do tend to believe that those who do likely suffer for it. And does no one bother to consider how the children feel about it? Having ten brothers/sisters can't be fun. Just throwing that out there.

I hate family dinners; they're always awkward. I don't generally celebrate Christmas, children seem more like a prison sentence than a gift from god, and I remember all the names of my (two) partners. So, guess we'll just agree that we're different?

As for Andrea Yates: if part of being a quiverfull is enjoying children, and she is not a quiverfull woman if she doesn't enjoy children...than why are those who are obviously hateful still called Christian.

@Jasper and MK: I finally quit my medications last week (had a fabboo week of withdrawal *shudder*) and I more or less was informed by one of my closest friends that I am emotionally draining [on her] and that she doesn't hang out with me because I am apparently that insufferable to begin with so please pardon the bad mood, I haven't gotten into therapy yet (procrastination for the lose!), but don't worry, I won't do anything stupid (I'll think it...but never do it. Scout's honor :D).

I hate family dinners; they're always awkward. I don't generally celebrate Christmas, children seem more like a prison sentence than a gift from god, and I remember all the names of my (two) partners. So, guess we'll just agree that we're different?>/i>

sit around and play monopoly, share family dinners, bounce grandchildren on my knee, and have a full house at Christmas

Well, didn't I just say that?

If that floats your boat, then sail away. Let me know how you feel about it in 40 years. I'd be willing to bet you'll be rather lonely and possibly bitter...but I'll be thrilled if I'm wrong. Only time will tell.

And for the record, I don't need your approval any more than you need mine. I love my clown car family, and my kids tell me all the time that they love coming from a large family. What you don't know about love, family, laughter and joy could fill an ocean...I'm sorry for you, that all you know is pleasure and immediate gratification, and have no clue as to what real joy, hope, faith and love are all about. I guess I can just chalk it up to your age, but I get the feeling that the cold, emptiness you exude are more permanent. Mores the pity...

Rae we're here for you.

Less you're being insufferable. Perhaps you need some Whos to grow your heart a few sizes.

Rae,

Perhaps your "friend" is the one who is lacking. Seems to me you are going through a huge trial right now, getting off the meds, and if she can't be there for you now, then what kind of a friend is she?

So, who needs enemies? I hope she remembers the way she treated you when it's her turn to have to work through something. And knowing you, you'll be there for her, even if she doesn't deserve it!

(((big hug)) and kiss on the forehead ((*))! You're an old soul Rae, living amid a bunch of children...one day they'll catch up. Until then, hang with us. (Oh God, that thought even depressed me) Seriously, maybe it's time to reevaluate what you want in friends, partners and even yourself. Expect greatness from all of the above. Better yet, demand it!

And give me this girls name. I'll smack her upside her selfish little head with a mullet!

Less? Rae? Less? Rae? Hmmmm...who would I rather spend my life with? That's a "give me"!

Now see, this is what I mean by God always bein' there...I write that post to Rae and try to think of all the right things to say, then go check my email only to find this. This one is for you Rae...

One day a farmer's donkey fell down into a well.

The animal cried piteously for hours as the farmer tried
to figure out what to do. Finally, he decided the animal was old, and
the well needed to be covered up anyway. It just wasn't worth it to
retrieve the donkey.

He invited all his neighbors to come over and help him.
They all grabbed a shovel and began to shovel dirt into the well. At
first, the donkey realized what was happening and cried horribly. Then,
to everyone's amazement he quieted down.

A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally looked down
the well. He was astonished at what he saw. With each shovel of dirt
that hit his back, the donkey was doing something amazing. He would
shake it off and take a step up.

As the farmer's neighbors continued to shovel dirt on
top of the animal, he would shake it off and take a step up. Pretty
soon, everyone was amazed as the donkey stepped up over the edge of the
well and happily trotted off!

Life is going to shovel dirt on you, all kinds of dirt.
The trick to getting out of the well is to shake the dirt off and take a
step up. Each of our troubles is a stepping stone. We can get out of the
deepest wells just by not stopping, never giving up! Shake it off and
take a step up.

Remember the five simple rules to being happy:

1. Free your heart from hatred - Forgive.
2. Free your mind from worries - Most never happen.
3. Live simply and appreciate what you have.
4. Give more.
5. Expect less.

NOW --------

Enough of that crap . .

The donkey later came back and bit the sh*t out of the
farmer who had tried to bury him.

The gash from the bite got infected, and the farmer
eventually died in agony from septic shock.


MORAL FROM TODAY'S LESSON:

When you do something wrong and try to cover your ass,
it always comes back to bite you.

@MK: I'm sending you an email. :)

Bethany: It's not about having as many kids as you can, it's about viewing your chidren as blessings, not burdens!

Well said, Bethany, and that sounds good to me. I'm all for kids being treated well. My wife and I don't have any but there are 21 nieces and nephews. And then there is all the suffering in the world....

Doug

Less: I hate family dinners; they're always awkward.

Less, has the family tried being a little less sober?

Doug

Doug,

It's true that there is suffering in the world. There always has been and always will be. The question is, do you add to it, or help alleviate it.
Do you dwell on it, or rise above it.

Do you welcome the little gifts life offers (be they children, sunrises, popcorn or mullets) or do you reject them, ignore them or worse yet, kill them?

MK: It's true that there is suffering in the world. There always has been and always will be. The question is, do you add to it, or help alleviate it. Do you dwell on it, or rise above it.

Do you welcome the little gifts life offers (be they children, sunrises, popcorn or mullets) or do you reject them, ignore them or worse yet, kill them?

Concerning the abortion arguement, a pregnancy isn't always a "gift." I would rather see 1,000 unwanted pregnancies be ended rather than one born child suffering. Heck, I'd rather see a million ended.

Doug

Really Doug?

Should this happen to this unbaby below because he is "unwanted" ...how about adoption instead of execution
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/24week/01_24.jpg

Jasper, no, I don't think that "should" happen. 24 weeks is right about 50/50 viability now, probably even more than 50%, so if the fetus is healthy I have no problem with the induction of labor (if it poses no undue danger to the woman).

Adoption is fine with me, though there are well over 100,000 kids in need already in the US.

Doug

Doug,

I see, so if the baby can make it outside of the womb, deliver him and hook him up to all kinds of tubes and medications to keep him alive. He's doesn't have any right to use his mom's body.

But if he happens to be not old enough (let's say 18-19 weeks) to survive, it's tough luck for him? Kill him?

You know Doug, I have never seen my family as anything more than a little tipsy. Then my usually Catholic father gets a bit more loud and my mom gets giggly, but dinner is still awkward. It might have something to do with their years in Europe, I dunno.

Hm, MK: so making judgments about a group gets me jumped on, but you making judgments regarding me, personally, gets you agreed with. You know very little about me, and the fact that you assume that, based upon this little information, I don't know anything about love, well...that's a bit arrogant. To say the least. Too bad you think I exude "cold emptiness:" though I tend to think you exude arrogant judgments and reek of lack of empathy, so I suppose we're even.

Ye Gods, I don't even know why I came back here, and I fully understand why Diane left. None of you have any interest in listening to alternate viewpoints: instead of arguing, you pick apart our lives and make us out to be cruel villains, bereft of all human sympathy. Spinning the truth, much? I think I'll go back to my relatively happy, non-Jill life, where at least I can discuss my opinions with those who manage to separate a political discussion from the state of my soul, and I'm respected as an individual rather than treated as an aberration. I thought I'd come back to see if any of you had gained any sort of respect for dissenting opinions, but I suppose not.

"I enjoy my femininity in jeans, thanks. Dresses are a pain in the butt."

Haha! Less, you and I need to sit down and discuss trouser tyranny! It'd be nice to have a woman's opinion on it! If you do wanna talk about it, email me so I don't waste board space with talks of unbifurcated garments for men.

Well said, Bethany, and that sounds good to me. I'm all for kids being treated well. My wife and I don't have any but there are 21 nieces and nephews. And then there is all the suffering in the world....

Thank you, Doug...and wow, you have a lot of nieces and nephews! That is great.

I agree, I hate that there is suffering in the world too, but the vast majority of battered children cases are on *wanted* children. Unwanted children, brought to term, are statistically the least battered children.

I personally think that if people changed their views from "wanted" and "unwanted" to "Welcomed", the world would be a much better place. Our children are not our possessions.

Actually, I'd rather know that I'm a choice, and not a grit-your-teeth-and-do-it-because-God-says-so. That's no way to live.

You obviously have never met a single person who lives this way, in "real life". We do not have children reluctantly because God "makes" us. We have children because we are open to life, and we absolutely ADORE children. We are DELIGHTED when God chooses to bless us with a new baby. I agree with you. Gritting your teeth and doing it reluctantly is NOT the way to live. And that is what you're not getting... The whole idea behind the "quiverfull" name, based on a verse in Psalms, is that your children are blessings, not burdens.
If you view your children as blessings, there is no way you'd be gritting your teeth and "bearing" a pregnancy. You would be happy.

And unless you can prove I've lied on the blog before...I suggest you retract that statement. ;)

Less, a better question for you to ask me is, "can you prove that I've told the truth on this blog before?" The truth comes from your lips very rarely from what I can tell. You constantly contradict yourself. I don't even think you know what you believe.
For a very recent example, go check out the topic below this one.
My comment at 4:25.

Frankly, I tend to think that if you can't support yourself and are relying upon donations, you shouldn't be having any more kids. If you go off having kids and expecting handouts because you're doing God's work, you're off your banana.

How do you know that anyone who receives donations from churches asked for them? The only stories I have heard of any Quiverfull family receiving donations was by surprise. Their church members had brought bags of clothes and laid them beside their vehicle. People do this at churches all the time. Are you saying if they accept this donation, they are expecting handouts?

It's like watching a train wreck, to be honest. Particularly the fact that they make all their girls dress in dresses, shudder.
I enjoy my femininity in jeans, thanks. Dresses are a pain in the butt.

So, what we have here is a case of, Less believes that no one should be allowed to wear dresses because Less said so. Less rules the world, and Less makes all the rules.
No one ever said you can't wear pants. You implied that Christians are horrible people, and a "train wreck", just because they happen to enjoy wearing dresses. And you call Christians intolerant! Sheesh.

Ye Gods, I don't even know why I came back here, and I fully understand why Diane left. None of you have any interest in listening to alternate viewpoints: instead of arguing, you pick apart our lives and make us out to be cruel villains, bereft of all human sympathy. Spinning the truth, much? I think I'll go back to my relatively happy, non-Jill life, where at least I can discuss my opinions with those who manage to separate a political discussion from the state of my soul, and I'm respected as an individual rather than treated as an aberration. I thought I'd come back to see if any of you had gained any sort of respect for dissenting opinions, but I suppose not.

LOL Less. You expect to be able to insult, insult, insult, and you expect us to discuss with you. You are the ONLY pro-choicer here who is considered "cold". Why do you suppose that is? How about showing us a little of that example you want us to set for you?
You come on here, completely insulting Christians, and you expect us to just "discuss" it with you, and be totally fine with it?
You tell us that we're stupid, that we are disgusting, that we all can't take care of ourselves, and that our vaginas are clown cars....and you expect us to say, Oh Less, let's have a nice, polite discussion about what you just told us!"

You have got some serious issues, girl, and all I've got to say about this comment:
" I'll go back to my relatively happy, non-Jill life, where at least I can discuss my opinions with those who manage to separate a political discussion from the state of my soul"
is,
"Don't let the door hit ya, where the good Lord sits ya!"

Less,

I have made my judgments based on the things that you and you alone have shared with us. At times you take crudeness to new levels just to prove to us how very "modern thinking" you are. You say things to make us believe you are a certain way, then contradict yourself, then trip over yourself to prove you didn't mean it...

I am not surprised that you relate to Diana. Of all the pro-choicers here, you are the only two that have never shown one drop of sympathy, empathy or concern for anyone other than yourselves. You don't "believe" in anything other than the rule of "What's best for Less, is BEST" and you come across as an ice queen! If I'm wrong, then show me how. I'd love to see a soft side to you.

You basically have told us that you hate children, think of pregnancy as a disease, hate Christians, (even to the point of destroying the faith of the one person you have ever claimed to care about),you can't even get along with your own family, (having dinner with them is painful), you not only tolerate abortion, you embrace it, you think the ability to have and love a large number of children is a sign of mental illness, you think marriage is a sham, you go on an on about your sexual prowess, your infinite knowledge of condoms, birth control, the desire to sleep with anyone you date (because God forbid you married them and found out they didn't make the earth shake in bed), then tell us you've only slept with two people, hate God, hate us...quite honestly, I get the feeling that you hate life, love and anything that isn't spelled "LESS"...which leads me to believe that you are either the coldest person in the world OR you actually hate yourself and project this on the rest of the world.

I'm sorry that your are leaving, not for myself, but because this may be the only place you will ever be challenged and possibly the only chance you will ever have of melting that frigid heart of yours.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps we have nothing to offer you. But don't kid yourself. You haven't gotten anything from this site, not because WE have no respect for dissenting opinions. Rather, YOU are the one who has no respect for dissenting opinions or anything else in this world.

You want to go back to your "relatively" happy life? You want to go back to where you are respected as an individual? I suggest you go forward, not back, to a place where your happiness, along with your morality, isn't relative. And where you are respected as an individual because you respect others as individuals.

I have treated you harshly, that is true. You and Diana are the first two people I have ever encountered on a personal basis that actually seem to be bereft of human emotion. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that deep down inside, you have a drop of compassion and that it will grow and grow and grow. I wish you'd stick around. If nothing else you make me see things that I usually ignore. It's good for me to get a dose of reality once in awhile. It's good for you too.

Rather than leave, why don't you stay and show us this deeply compassionate and respectful person you claim we aren't seeing. I would sleep better at night knowing that I have misread you, and that there is actually a kind, caring and loving person in there, that I just haven't been "seeing". I'll be thrilled to admit I was wrong. Positively thrilled...prove me wrong Less. Please.

Less, I've read a couple of your blogs, posts you've written going back a year or two or more. (It's been awhile since I read them.)

Less, your issues are not with us.

I was and am happy to see you back. Your comments fascinate me, and I care about you, actually

But MK and Bethany are right, to claim righteous indignation at pro-life responses to some pretty awful mud you've thrown against the wall is misplaced.

Somedays (and today is one of those days) I wish my mom had chosen to *not* to try so hard to have kids and just sucked it up and adopted or something.

Rae, I'm sorry that you're feeling that way. Please know that you have many people who love and care about you. I'm sorry that your friend didn't stay by your side during this difficult time in your life. Please know that you are worth being around regardless of how some people make you feel. I know it's hard to believe sometimes. You are such a sweet person, with such a big heart. I think there is a big purpose in your life that you just haven't been able to see yet. Please continue writing, it is very theraputic. You have a gift!

Lauren,
I checked out that link at Feministing...wow, these women really worship Tiller, like he's some kind of hero! Yucky!

It really is. They act like he's a saint.

How about that one woman who said she wished she could give him a million dollars? These people are insane. To think they actually support killing even a viable baby in the womb, for reasons like terminal illness or deformity. Do they also support infanticide for the same reasons? I still haven't received an answer to that one.

Less,

Just a few of your "sweet, compassionate, rational and enlightening posts..."

f I've pissed off your God by having premarital sex during a long term relatinship, then using a condom because I dislike newborns immensely and dislike the idea of being pregnant even more, that's great. I can live with that. I'm afraid I have no respect for a God that would get so pissy over little ol' me and my sex life. Frankly, I believe that if God didn't want abortion and hated it quite as much as you guys like to think he does, he'd have simply deleted it by now.

That's great that those are the rules that you live by. That's great that you have that faith. But I certainly don't, so why, exactly, should I be forced to live by the rules of a faith I find antiquated and distasteful?

Just one of your MANY contradictions...

Actually, MK, we have similar value systems, neither of us want children, I dislike Christians, not Christianity,
I have no problem with Christians: I have major problems with Christianity.

Which is it? You're bi sexual, have had plenty of sex outside of marriage or you've only had two partners?

As someone who has previously identified herself as bi, I can tell you: it's not a choice. I'm simply attracted to both genders. That's how it is. I didn't wake up one morning and "decide" to be bi any more than people wake up and "decide" to be straight. I am how I am. I've never been in a position to act on it, but that's always how I've been.

Christina, I'd like you to meet me. I'm a woman with plenty of self-respect who would happily have sex before being married, and would happily have sex with a guy in the bar, if I so chose. Why does my enjoyment of sex make me suddenly less respectful of myself?

Yes, Lauren, sex is the most important part of a relationship to me

I have plenty of sex outside of marriage, and have found that it has only improved the relationship I have with my partner.

and I remember all the names of my (two) partners.

You know, my fiance and I were just discussing how we'd raise our kids, in terms of religion, seeing as we are quite different. It's interesting, trying to find a compromise in that situation.

I loathe the idea of a screaming child, no matter how much support I have, and I certainly don't consider it a miracle.

I dislike newborns quite a bit, and would frankly consider it a curse. As I am never willing to get pregnant...

I could go on, but I have a headache now...

I think part of the problem Less, is that you are either contradicting yourself left and right, so that we have no idea what you believe, or you are insulting us for everything we hold near and dear and then get mad for defending ourselves...

How are we supposed to know who you are and what you believe when you obviously don't know yourself?

Thank you, Anonymous!

Does being pro choice give people a free pass to be nasty? It shouldn't! This is not directed @ ALL pro choicers.

Less: "Ye Gods, I don't even know why I came back here, and I fully understand why Diane left"

Less, you're my favorite. I love those quotes MK pulled out. This is classic:
"I'm afraid I have no respect for a God that would get so pissy over little ol' me and my sex life."

What has surprised me at this site is not the differences about abortion, I expect and understand that, but everything else. "God," sex, politics, everything. These people seem "nice" but I wouldn't want to hang out with many of them.

Hal, same goes for you.

Hal, we're approaching the issues from a totally different starting point. We start from God's word and look out, while you are all starting at the world and its problems and going out from there.

hal, for someone who doesn't want to "hang out" with a bunch of loony pro lifers, I can't tell from your frequent visits.

Ok, calm down friends. Maybe I would want to hang out with you guys. My main point is, as Lauren, points out, is we have totally different world views.

It's a strange situation, I don't know anyone who believe in God, who go to Church, who vote for people like Bush, who are pro-life, etc. I know a fair number of people. It would be easy to dismiss you all as loony or crazy, but I know you're not. You seem like decent people who try to do the right thing and live meaningful lives. The fact that you're pro-life doesn't bother me nearly as much as your views on pre-marital sex, gay rights, and politics in general.

Anyway, I didn't mean to offend. I just appreciate Less, and look forward to reading views I can identify with on this site from time to time.

hal, that's okay. I wasn't able to get onto this site d/t problems with my type key. Instead, I decided to research other things. I looked into that Christopher Hitchens guy. I found out that Penn Jillette [Penn and Teller] read his book, and he went public with a lot of venom from that book on Mother Teresa. Actually, his life was threatened by a couple of D.J.'s after Penn commented on air; "Mother F*****g Teresa." The D.J.'s were fired. Penn found himself in a lot of hot water after this. His P.R. people said that all he had done was read Hitchen's book. He formed his own opinions from that book of hate. Oh did I read some hate mail on Penn! I couldn't help but wonder what Hitchens and Penn had ever done for the poor. Probably nothing. BTW, did you know that Penn named his daughter Moxie Crimefighter? And I thought Apple was weird!

hal, valerie had posted about this in some earlier posts. That explains a lot! So, that's where Penn Jillette got it from. He went on to say that Mother Teresa got "sexual pleasure" from looking @ poor people. This guy is sick! Hitchens must be equally sick. The hate mail on those 2 just went on and on. They even said that Penn was despised by Joe Rogan while he was on Fear Factor. I'll bet he made Joe hurl.

Hi Heather. I don't have an opinion one way or another about Mother Teresa. The whole "saint" thing means nothing to me. I don't think we need to debate whether she helped the poor or not. She did the best she could. That's good enough for me.

As for "Moxie Crimefighter," I hestitate to comment b/c my daughters have unusual names. But not THAT unusual. I saw Penn and Teller in NYC a long time ago and was blown away by their magic. I like their new show on Showtime, but don't watch it often. I missed the whole Mother Teresa debate, but I guess you can really upset poeople by attacking their heros.

hal, I guess Penn was told to zip his lip after a while. I see that even George Tiller has a fan club. I understand the whole "hero thing." Yup, you can name your kid whatever you like. I just had to check a few sources before I realized it really WAS "Moxie Crimefighter."

Hal,

You may find Less entertaining, and quite frankly, if the subject matter wasn't so serious, I might find her entertaining myself.

The problem isn't that we disagree with each other.
The problem is that Less disagrees with herself.
It's like arguing with a phantom.

While you were busy laughing at her calling our God "pissy", did you bother to note all the examples of where she says one thing on Tuesday and another on Friday.

How do you have an honest debate with someone that constantly changes what they believe to make it seem like they are "winning the argument"...You and I differ, but you and I are consistent in what we say. We're not talking occasional inconsistencies either. We're talking constant inconsistencies.

How do you argue with someone about the viability of a fetus when one day she says that abortion shouldn't be allowed past viability and the next says that viability is unimportant.

I think the only time she was truly honest, with herself OR us, was when she admitted that this whole thing is a game to her. A way to hone her wits.

Well, it shows. It's hard to respect someones view when even they don't have a clue what it is.

And why I keep coming up as anonymous is beyond me...MK wrote the above post...

Sandy, I have been having computer problems for a week. I was ready to throw mine out the window!

I think that the problem with Less is that she's pessimistic. Oh well.

MK, you certainly track the comments more closely than I do. Constant inconsistencies is a cute oxymoron. Seems to me, and I could be wrong, is that she is constantly pro-choice, and is exploring some different ways to explain (or justify if you will) that positon. This forum is good for that. I can see, how on different days and in different moods, you can say Christianity is the problem, or that Christians are the problem. Of course, it's a contradiction, but it's not about a central life view, it's a rhetorical device. Either way you get the idea that she's skeptical about religion and doesn't model her life around it.
The sex contraditions might be some confusion over terminology. One day it could be sexual contact, one day she might be talking about sexual intercourse. I can't speak for her.

Sure it might be hard to seriously debate her, but we're not getting much progress from our debates here anyway. She sounds healthy, happy, and interesting. I wish her will and enjoy her posts.

I don't think that Less is here to debate. She's here to disagree with pro lifers. What doesn't she loathe? I don't have anything against Less, but I think that she goes out of her way to disagree. She refuses any "meeting in the middle."

"Sandy, I have been having computer problems for a week. I was ready to throw mine out the window!"

Heather, don't feel bad, look what this guy did:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5184957822303751144

jasper, that was me! Did you ever see the movie 'Office Space?'

Well then Hal,
For your sake, I'm sorry she's gone. There are days when I too enjoy debating with her, but most often I am frustrated. If you think it's hard trying to think like a Christian, imagine how hard it is to think like someone that views abortion as a morally justified position.

You say that our views on homosexuality, sex, and abortion "bother you"...

But if you read what we are actually saying you'll see that there are "real" reasons for viewing this stuff the way we do.

We believe that there is an order and purpose to everything under the heavens and that sex, sexuality and life are issues that are all intertwined and inseparable. We're not just pointing fingers at people that "do bad things"...We see the "whole" picture while people like you and Less only see the "immediate gratification" parts. We understand that the decisions that are made by "non-believer" will affect the entire world and our lives as much as they impact yours. I know you think that it's none of our business, but your "choices" affect us!

When marriages disintegrate and kids are raised in broken homes, when 45 million people are wiped off the face of the earth, when teens live in a world where they can do what they want and believe that they don't have to suffer any consequences, when old people are "put out of their misery" like animals, when human beings in the embryonic stage are treated as experiments...well all of this affects society as a whole. I am part of that society and therefore it affects me, and essentially becomes my business.

I wish you could see the "unseen" world as we see it for just five minutes...then you'd know what we're talking about. Until then, I'm afraid we will continue to sound like aliens. Maybe the problem is that you don't know any people that cherish life, respect marriage and believe in God. Maybe you've surrounded yourself with people that think like you and it has made it all too easy to feel comfortable in your error. I have friends from all kinds of religions. I have gay friends. And friends that sleep around. Friends that have been married 3 or 4 times and friends that have had abortions. I treasure them all in spite of our differences. But at least there is variety in my friendships. I don't "hide" inside a cocoon of like minded thinkers. How will you ever understand what we're saying if you only hang with people that confirm what you think you know?

Dang, That was me (MK) again...I'm gonna have to start signing my posts...

Too funny Jasper!

MK

"jasper, that was me! Did you ever see the movie 'Office Space?'"

No, was it funny?

hal, I too have gay friends and friends who have had abortions. I have an HIV + friend. *gasp* We are all people.

Dear God yes. Please rent it! You must see what these 3 guys do to their work computer!!!!

Office Space is one of my husband's favorites. It was just on cable again the other night,and we watched it for the 10th time. It's really very funny. I just don't like how they mistreated the guy who was off a little bit. There's one like him in every office.

I know, Jill, but Milton got his revenge in the end. Gotta love Lumberg!

Jill, oh that was you!! Hello!

"Dear God yes. Please rent it! You must see what these 3 guys do to their work computer!!!!"

thanks, maybe I'll get it tonight....

It really is a great movie Jasper.

Get the pizza and pop!

Jennifer Aniston has a part in the movie. I am not a fan of hers, but she was quite hilarious in the movie!

MK, thanks for your response. I'm not hiding in a cocoon of like-minder thinkers. Not on purpose anyway. Maybe I'll try to get out more.

I could easily be friends with someone who was pro-life and/or believed in a god, but I don't know if I could handle someone who believed that gay people didn't have a right to marry.

hal, the bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. Their union can/will never be blessed. Have you ever seen the lives that gay couples often lead? Most are severely dysfunctional. I must call it as I see it. I also know some converted gays. Hal, I don't have all the answers. I'm still not sure if it's a choice or a genetic thing. I have heard both theories from gays. Unfortunately, my gay friend has contracted HIV. There is no going back now.

the bible says eating shimp is an abomination too. I'm not going to stop.

I've also learned not to debate the bible or religion with you guys on this site. I don't know much, (nor want to know much) about it.

I accept you think it is a sin, and I don't think churches should be force to marry gay people. The happy couple should be able to go to the Justice of the Peace and tie the knot however. And, what about those churches which perform gay marriage ceremonies, don't they have the right to have the state recognize their acts? I think the religious view of gay marriage should be separated from the civil law. Just my 2 cents.

Hal,

Try to see it this way. Not agree, but understand where we are coming from...kay?

We believe that God created man and woman to complement each other. Not only did He create us in His image, but he created us to imitate His relationship with us. Men have certain parts, and women have "clown cars". Mens parts are meant (whether you believe in God or not, it's pretty obvious) to "fit" into a womans parts. When these pieces fit together, in an act of total giving, total "convenant" then the miraculous happens and a new life is created. The culmination of the intimate act performed by "complimentary" sexes. We can see that this is how it was "Meant" to be...because when done correctly, we create (also sharing in God's image) new little peoples. It's like checking your math. Man + woman = baby. If the math is done wrong then man + man = 0. (For the record, the church (woman) + man (Jesus/represented by the priest) = the Eucharist (Jesus made flesh/baby) The "BODY OF CHRIST" is the fruition of the act of intimacy between God and His church the same way a baby is the fruition of Man and his wife...

This is what we mean when we use the term "natural order"...the way it was created to be used.

Men also have certain human traits that women don't have. Sure, women can try to achieve everything that a man can, but it comes more "naturally" to a man. Testosterone can explain some of it. They are more aggressive. Their job (as we see it) is to protect and provide for the family. A woman is not a man. She is softer (thank estrogen) and no matter how good she gets at doing what men do, the bottom line is that "naturally" women tend to be more nurturing, gentler. (I sometimes think that all the estrogen in the pill is messing up our natural tendencies toward femininity and that is why you have so many people acting asexual or unisexual. It's like the differences between men and women is becoming more and more blurred...but I digress)

So you have the male sex, complete with "equipment", providing and protecting.
You have the female sex, complete with clown car and womb, nurturing.

When you put these two complimentary "halves" together, you come up with a "whole"...marriage.

When you put two women or two men together, not only don't their "parts" fit together naturally, but neither do there "roles". You end up with imbalance. It goes against the natural law.

It becomes difficult when you shorten this to "homosexuality is gravely disordered" or homosexuals are sinners...and it makes us look intolerant and beastly!

But this is why we say we don't have anything against homosexual persons, just the sexual act which in our mind is a perversion of the way things were meant to be...

I don't expect you to agree with this, I'm just hoping to shed some light on why we believe what we believe.

Jesus is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. The same act that takes place in a bedroom between a husband and wife (bride and groom) takes place on the altar of every Catholic Mass that ever occurs. We are actually committing the intimate act of sexual intercourse on a spiritual level...The bride (the church - us) comes together in perfect union (communion) with the groom (Jesus) and we join with Him in a perfect complimentary relationship, right there at Mass.

To pervert the sexual act between a man and a woman by performing it between a man and a man is in essence perverting the act of communion between God and man...does any of this make any sense?

This is why marriage to us is a sacrament and not just a civil act. Because it is an physical expression of the spiritual marriage between us and our creator...

I guess we sound pretty crazy to you, huh?

Oh for heaven's sake...that was posted by me, MK...

MK, it does sound a bit crazy to me, but harmless from my point of view and if you get something from it, I'm fine with it. It seems to me that people with your views shouldn't be practicing homosexuals. And I'm even okay with you expressing your views that homosexual pratices "prevert the act of communion between God and man" if that's your view. To take your religious views (which you know are not universal, even among "maintream" religions) and turn that into a ban on civil gay marriage seems unnecessary and improper.

A Catholic marriage can be a sacrament and not just a civil act. No one (well,some people, but nto most) wants to force the Catholic Church to marry gay people. As an example, I believe a marriage between a jew and a Catholic would not be allowed in a Catholic ceremony without conversion. A jew and a Caltholic can be married by a Justice of the Peace, and the government would recognize it, but the Church would not. A divorced person would be another example. In the eyes of the Church a second marriage would not be a "marriage." In the eyes of the law, it would be. Can't gay people have that too?

there is a bit of a problem here - the Catholic Church being highly academic prone has several decades (if not centuries) work devoted to the psychology of homosexuality ... and it was done not-so-much re. gay-marriage as it was to discern suitability to be ordained, especially promising to be celebate. In both instances, a predisposition to fidelity towards one other being and exclusivity to this other, were found wanting.

In entering this field into civil law .... the Church does so, not necessarily from a theological perspective but from a lot of work on the psychological/psychiatric perspective. When anyone uses the word 'marriage' or 'love' they have some implicit parameters as to what this means. If this term is flexible, does a human relationship involving multiple sexual partners a marriage? How about between the human species and another animal species?

The very word 'catholic' means universal and was used at the very earliest Christians in a sea of non-believers. They did so with confidence that they were at the very center of what it means to be human. The Church still operates with this mindset. I'm afraid it not a matter of imposing their will, but they ask anyone (and I mean ANYONE) to PROVE them wrong! There is lots of nays for this stance ... but little proof ........

But John the paraenters are *not* the same, when the church says Marriage they mean between two people who have never been married to anyone else. (because the first marriage is forever, I suppose) When the government says marriage, it can include marriages of divorced people. That's not a marriage in the eys of the church.
The church's view of marriage is not the state's view. So, it follows that the chuch could keep it's view (like it does now in regard to divorced people) and the state could let gay people marry. Who could oppose that?

Hi Hal. In order to see the problems with gay marriage and homosexuality, one does not have to refer to a church or "rules" that may seem to come out of nowhere. One of the essential aspects that makes marriage marriage is that it is open to the creation of new life. This is impossible with a man and a man or a women and a women. They simply cannot begot new life. Without being able to share in a life-giving embrace, an act which can renew their wedding vows as well as potentially bring new life into the world, a marriage cannot occur. Even from a Darwinian standpoint, the most basic need of humans to go on is continuation of the species. Now, can homosexual acts meet this need? Never. Survival of the species cannot continue through homosexual acts.

If all this doesn't mean anything to you, consider some of the consequences of homosexuality. In America, it is now politically correct to not only be anti-smoking, but anti-smoker. You can say any sort of derogatory remark to someone you see smoking and be totally justified. So what is wrong with smoking? Well, it leads to cancer, and it can shorten life-span by 1-7 years. So, take the same, objective criteria and apply it to homosexuality. Look at the spread of AIDS in homosexual communities, men with anal cancer- unheard of in men. Not to mention that there have been studies which show that practicing homosexuals have a lifespan that is 20-25 YEARS shorter than the average person. I don't approve of homosexual marriage because I love homosexuals too much to simply look the other way and say "I'm okay, you're okay, whatever makes you happy." They deserve better than all the disease and death that comes with the gay lifestyle. They need support and counseling to break free from the bondage of same sex attraction, but most of all love. I hope this makes sense. I can find sources, I think, for some of the claims I made if you wish. God love you, Hal.

Bobby, excellent post!

John, yours to!

Bobby, great post. Bobby is right. Homosexual behavior is physically destructive. It's unhealthy.

In our culture we condemn all physically destructive behaviors like smoking, overdrinking, overeating, drug use.

The only destructive behaviors we avert our eyes to are those that are sexual.

Bobby, thank you for your polite reply. However, I don't agree. I've heard some heterosexual couples have anal sex, I've heard some homosexual couples don't. I think lesbians are pretty healthy, do we love them enough at least to let them have the right to get married?

I'm not worried about the species failing to procreate. I think we're doing fine at that.

Gay people will be gay people whether we let them have the right to marry or not. So, we're not "loving" them more by denying that right. They're still gay. We're just denying some rights.

Hal, lesbians have their own health woes, breast cancer being a biggie. Since they don't have children, they don't get the breast cancer protection pregnancy provides.

Although nuns get a lot of breast cancer, too.

Hi Hal. I forgot to mention it before, but first I wanted to say to you that I greatly appreciate how tolerant you are of others belief that homosexuality is wrong. In this day and age, so many people subscribe to the notion of "tolerance, tolerance, tolerance" yet they refuse to tolerate any beliefs that are different from their own, as can be seen in so-called "hate-crimes" legislation." So thank you.

So I suppose the question is "do homosexuals have the right to marry? (someone of the same sex)." If you're able to find the time, I think this article http://catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp really gives the best, and most rational, loving look at the question. It asks and answers what marriage is supposed to be and do, and then looks at the issue of homosexual marriage. Although it is on a Catholic website, it really refers very little to God and yields to arguments that anyone should be able to agree with. It explains (with sources) all the health, interpersonal, and societal problems that it would create. So if you're interested, I'd highly recommend that for reading. Also if you have anything you'd like me to read, I would love to. God love you, Hal.

Jasper: Less, what if you were not a choice. let's say you're an unborn baby in the womb, would you mind then if your mother chooses to abort you?

No, there would have never been a "him" to mind or care about anything at that point.

Doug