Oh, the pro-aborts will have grand mal seizures about this one, a public service announcement sponsored by www.4parents.gov:

What a great ad! Reader Rosie reported seeing it on ABC Family last night and someone else spotted it on TBS Saturday....

The ad is a collaborative effort by offices within the Department of Health & Human Services: the Administration for Children and Families and the Office of Population Affairs, Office of Public Health and Science.

Interesting side note about the Office of Population Affairs: Dr. Susan Orr was appointed Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary on October 15. I wanted to blog on her then but didn't have time.

Pro-aborts blew a gasket on Orr's appointment. OPA oversees Title X, which provides public funding for "family planning," and contraceptives to low-income girls and women, i.e., Planned Parenthood.

Before joining the Bush administration in 2001, Orr was the Senior Director for Social Policy at the Family Research Council. She's a strong social conservative.

That is why, following Orr's appointment, according to the Associated Press on October 18:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton joined birth-control advocates Thursday in demanding that the Bush administration withdraw an appointment that places federal family planning funds under the control of a woman they consider hostile to contraception programs.

They're all alarmed Orr will thwart their funding, as Barack Obama also stated in an October 25 press release:

I have serious concerns about the Bush Administration's appointment of Dr. Susan Orr to oversee family planning programs and Title X funding....

Her troubling history of opposing federal funding for these programs threatens the right of women and families to access these important resources....

I strongly oppose her appointment.

It's hard to imagine Orr is having this much of an impact already. There are other good people at HHS. But her appointment can only strengthen that segment of the Bush population.

And how can pro-aborts disparage the teaching of that ad anyway? It's no different than the "talk to me" ads about drugs or smoking.

[HT: reader Rosie]

I posted an article about Susan Orr when she was first appointed.
She's an Eric Keroack-style freak:

Birth Control Foe To Head Family Planning
Bush Pick For Contraceptive Program Called Birth Control Part Of "Culture Of Death"
Comments 17
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(CBS) Family planning advocates denounced President Bush’s appointment of a contraceptive critic to be head of the federal program responsible for providing birth control and other family planning services to the poor.

Dr. Susan Orr, an associate commissioner at the Department of Health and Human Services, was named by Mr. Bush to be the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA). She would oversee Title X, the nation's family planning program.

Orr is currently on the board of directors of Teen Choice, a non-profit groups advocating for abstinence in lieu of contraception.

Before joining the Bush administration (where she has served in the Administration on Children, Youth and Families at HHS), she was senior director for marriage and family care at the Family Research Council (a religious advocacy group founded by James Dobson of Focus on the Family), and director of the Center for Social Policy at the Reason Public Policy Institute.

Orr also served in the previous Bush and Clinton administrations as a child welfare program specialist at the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. She received her Masters degree and Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate School, and has worked as a high school principal and adjunct professor at American University and Regent University.

Orr has been criticized for public statements which have indicated an anti-contraceptive view in areas of education, public policy and health insurance.

In 2000, while working as a policy director at the Family Research Council, she objected to a Washington, D.C., city council bill requiring health insurers to pay for contraceptives. By not including a “conscience clause” allowing employers to withhold contraceptive coverage, Orr said the council would force employers "to make a choice between serving God and serving the D.C. government.

"It's not about choice. It's not about health care. It's about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death," she said.

In April 2001, when President Bush proposed ending contraceptive coverage for federal employees, Orr said, "We're quite pleased because fertility is not a disease. It's not a medical necessity that you have it."

In February 2001 she told the Conservative Political Action Conference that President Bush's reinstatement of the "Mexico City Policy" (which prohibits federal funds going to organizations that provide, even as only part of their services, abortion) was proof that he is pro-life "in his heart." She also advocated against administration approval of RU-486.

The appointment of Susan Orr is a nightmare for anyone who believes in birth control and sex ed.

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards“The appointment of Susan Orr is a nightmare for anyone who believes in birth control and sex ed, and further evidence that the Bush administration is intent on appointing an anti-choice extremist to head Title X,” said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. “This is yet another example of the Bush administration putting politics ahead of women’s health care.”

"Dr. Orr should not be entrusted with the oversight of the federal family planning program and the health of millions of Americans," said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation. "For more than 35 years, the Title X program has been a hallmark of quality preventive care, enabling practitioners to provide family planning services to low-income individuals."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., released a statement saying, “This appointment is absurd.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins rallied to Orr's defense, saying her 2000 comments against health coverage for birth control were misconstrued and merely demonstrated her support of consumer choice of coverage. “The real question is why anyone would want to mandate that the insured buy coverage they do not want or currently need,” Perkins said.

Last year, President Bush appointed another prominent abstinence advocate, Dr. Eric Keroack, to head the federal Office of Population Affairs. Dr. Keroack resigned in March after criticism of his statements, including his assertion that engaging in premarital sex suppresses the neuropeptide oxytocin, which he claims subsequently impairs one’s ability to forge long-term relationships.

Orr’s appointment, ironically, comes a week after a study by the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute determined that in areas of the world where contraception was more widely available, such as Eastern Europe, abortion rates were lower than in other areas where birth control was not easily available.

By David Morgan
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Well, I guess abstinence ads don't bother me. What to know why? Because there are also ads for BC and condoms etc.

Yes, she's a "nightmare" to PP, a dream for us. Thanks for posting.

Yes, she's a "nightmare" to PP, a dream for us. Thanks for posting.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 5, 2007 11:59 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You oppose contraceptives?

Without access to contraception, I would have had dozens of abortions by now.

Again, I ask.

Laura,
Were you bit by a rabid bat and didn't know it?
I heard that can easily happen to people who work with animals.

You should get that checked out. I think symptoms of rabbies include foaming at the mouth, irratibility, and not thinking clearly.

I know you have two out of the three symptoms.

Posted by: Sandy at November 5, 2007 8:45 AM

Laura,

1. Only married people get to have sex.

2. Married people must let God decide when to have babies and how many.

3. Only members of opposite sex can get married.

what don't you understand? It's very simple.

I'm not rabid.

Check out the average lifetime numbers of abortions Japanese women had in the 70's and Russian women had up until recently.
When contaraception is unavailable and abortion is free, women have 12, 15, 20 over the course of their reproductive lives.
Outlaw contraceptives and you'll have similar numbers in the good 'ol USA.

Laura,

1. Only married people get to have sex.

2. Married people must let God decide when to have babies and how many.

3. Only members of opposite sex can get married.

what don't you understand? It's very simple.

Posted by: Hal at November 5, 2007 12:13 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, Hal, but once I've broached the ethical, religious, cultural, social, and financial aspects of this dilemma, I'm left with one question: What if I just wanna hump?

Dear Hal:

1) The gov doesn't decide who has sex and when - individuals do.

2) God allowed the creation of birth control and common sense. Combined they work quite well.

3) People of the same sex can get married in Canada, South Africa and a few US states - whether you like it or not.

These fact are also quite simple but they're for people, like me, who live in the real world.

Mary, and Laura, I assume you would know I was taking an outrageous position.

I was trying to be funny. Like saying "abortion is murder, end of story."

You are aware that Planned Parenthood pushes abstinence as the safest, most effective, and cheapest way to avoid pregnancy?
Read all about it:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm

Mary, and Laura, I assume you would know I was taking an outrageous position.

I was trying to be funny. Like saying "abortion is murder, end of story."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh yeah, that's why I thought it would be funny if I turned the lofty moral position into something totally vulgar.

I know you have two out of the three symptoms.

***************************
Again, an antichoicer proving that she was birthed under a porch and needs distemper shots ...

Anyone who would deny women valid medican care - and that includes access to contraceptives - because of her own personal prejudices and religious beliefs has no business being in any form of public office.

Laura, I thought you'd know I wasn't serious. Not sure Mary knows me well enough yet.

PS: I didn't find you vulgar at all.

"Anyone who would deny women valid medical care - and that includes access to contraceptives - because of her own personal prejudices and religious beliefs has no business being in any form of public office."

Anybody know exactly what birth control was being discussed (in context)? That term is often used to describe medications that actually induce abortions (ie RU-486, IUD). As a personal thing, I have no problem with birth control, but consider these medications as abortion. I'd just like more information.

Erin

God allowed the creation of birth control

God allows rape, murder, and the creation of torture devices. This is a theological discussion to explain why (which we can have, if you'd like), but it must be said that because God allows something doesn't imply that He wills or endorses it.

God could allow me to take my car and run over pedestrians. Is that saying He somehow supports that action?

Hal: good joke.

There's nothing wrong with birth control. MY God supports it and supports healthy sexuality --not this sick sex is only for procreation stuff.

Sonya

Mary,

Who exactly is YOUR God?

Jacqueline, her God is the "real" god. No, your god is the real god. No wait, I think the real god and my God have merged to become the super god.

How can you guys discuss "God" with a straight face?

Although I like Mary's god better than Jasper's, I find it all a bit strange.

"Again, an antichoicer proving that she was birthed under a porch and needs distemper shots ..."

Posted by: TexasRed at November 5, 2007 12:39 PM

"Good One." *rolls eyes*

"Again, an antichoicer proving that she was birthed under a porch and needs distemper shots ..."

Posted by: TexasRed at November 5, 2007 12:39 PM

"Good One." *rolls eyes*

Posted by: Sandy at November 5, 2007 1:41 PM
*********************************
considering the nasty comments spewed, I complimented the O/P - she deserved to be called much worse

How can you guys discuss "God" with a straight face?

ooooooooh. you's gonna be surprised when you die.

"ooooooooh. you's gonna be surprised when you die."

Yeah, Zeus is gonna be pretty mad at me, and probably you too.

Yeah, Zeus is gonna be pretty mad at me, and probably you too.

Hal. I'm honestly sick for you right now.

Hey, Jill, I'm wondering if you have any stance on The Golden Compass thing going on with the catholic church, or might you do a piece on it?

Hey, Jill, I'm wondering if you have any stance on The Golden Compass thing going on with the catholic church, or might you do a piece on it?

I agree with Erin. That would be good.

How can you guys discuss "God" with a straight face?

ooooooooh. you's gonna be surprised when you die.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 5, 2007 1:47 PM
********************************
Hell would be spending time around you and the people like you, for eternity or 'right now'. Youre the kind of person who reminds me why I want nothing to do with what is typically presented as 'christianity'.

:-(

See, I'm pretty sure if I die and there ends up being a hell and I go there...that's where all the interesting people are going to be anyway.

:-(

See, I'm pretty sure if I die and there ends up being a hell and I go there...that's where all the interesting people are going to be anyway.

Posted by: Erin at November 5, 2007 2:34 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Erin, on another board we used to have a "Lake O'Fire Club."
Since we were all going to end up in a burning lake of sulphur, we assigned everybody something to bring; sunscreen, margaritas, chips, asbestos floaties, etc.
I'm sure you'd be welcome as long as you are willing to chip in.

Erin, 2:12p, said: "Hey, Jill, I'm wondering if you have any stance on The Golden Compass thing going on with the catholic church, or might you do a piece on it?"

Erin, I'm an Evangelical, and my pastor has warned us away from it, too. But the film has nothing to do with abortion, unless I'm told otherwise, so I won't be blogging on it, sorry.

Whoo! I am totally all over that.

Erin, on another board we used to have a "Lake O'Fire Club."
Since we were all going to end up in a burning lake of sulphur, we assigned everybody something to bring; sunscreen, margaritas, chips, asbestos floaties, etc.
I'm sure you'd be welcome as long as you are willing to chip in.

Posted by: Laura at November 5, 2007 2:42 PM
************************************
Yup - I already promised to handle the steaks and fajitas - and we have four guys who agreed to make beer runs. Didnt Doug say he'd tend bar? or was that Ken? All the interesting, intelligent, decent human beings will be there. Most of the real riff raff manages to *find jeebus* on their death bed and assure themselves a harp and a white fluffy cloud ....

Laura,

Without access to contraception, I would have had dozens of abortions by now.

You sound sooo proud...

Erin,

Do you think it's like a sauna?

. Youre the kind of person who reminds me why I want nothing to do with what is typically presented as 'christianity'.

I rejected Jesus too because I didn't like His followers---until I realized that I was responsible for myself and no one else. So passing up a lifeboat when you're sinking because you disagree with or dislike others in it doesn't hurt them, but you end up drowning.

For the record, TexasRed, you decide you hated me before I spoke one word to you. That's fine, but I didn't do anything to offend you- you came at me and I responded.

Frankly, TexasRed, you don't know me. You don't know the "kind of person" I am.

Jacque- I don't think it's anything. I don't think it exists.

They know not what they do.

Actually I think Marys god was actually Sonyas god which is to say not my God or Jacquies God. The jury is still out on Mary's God.

I'm confused- is Mary pro-life?

considering the nasty comments spewed, I complimented the O/P - she deserved to be called much worse

Posted by: TexasRed at November 5, 2007 1:46 PM
Hell would be spending time around you and the people like you, for eternity or 'right now'. Youre the kind of person who reminds me why I want nothing to do with what is typically presented as 'christianity'.

Posted by: TexasRed at November 5, 2007 2:31 PM

Texas Red,

Hell would be spending time around you and the people like you, for eternity or 'right now'. Youre the kind of person who reminds me why I want nothing to do with what is typically presented as 'christianity'.

And yet here you are...it's like we always say...God doesn't send you to hell, you choose to go their.

So you really are pro "Choice"...

Oh, OK, Jill! I was just curious, I'm trying to find a good place to debate on that.

As someone who depended on Title X services in the past, and whose life is better because of access to reproductive healthcare, OF COURSE I (and many others who have depended on these services) would oppose someone who in the past had advocated for limiting or eliminating those services!

Yes Bobby,

Mary is pro-life, but I think she was reposting something that Sonya has said...maybe not.

Is there a Mary on here who is pro-life (besides you)? I thought there was...

Sorry Bobby, I meant pro life. I just changed it.

I'm Mary Kay (MK) and am obviously pro-life.
There is also a Mary that is pro life.
She gives awesome arguments.

Without access to contraception, I would have had dozens of abortions by now.

You sound sooo proud...

Posted by: mk at November 5, 2007 2:46 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MK, I had to spend time and money on court waivers, a psych evaluation, legal consultations and various other BS in order to get my tubes tied. I have gone WAY out of my way to be a responsible contraceptor (contracepteur?)
No one has done more than myself to maintain a healthy sex life while avoiding unwanted pregnancies, but if abortion was my only option, that's what I'd use.

Do you really believe that I'm the only one?

All those Japanese and Russian women didn't choose abortion out of pride, they chose abortion out of need. Had contraceptives been readily available they would have been more than happy to use that instead.
(I bet that after 12-13 abortions you could pretty much blow out your uterus with a violent sneeze...)

Hiiiii, MK

Posted by: doula-in-training at November 5, 2007 2:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Doula, do you post on the AOL boards?

Hiya Erin...how's the play?

Laura,

(I bet that after 12-13 abortions you could pretty much blow out your uterus with a violent sneeze...)

Now there's an image that gonna leave a mark...lol.

Sorry for the above incomplete post.

Here is what I meant to post.

"considering the nasty comments spewed, I complimented the O/P - she deserved to be called much worse"
Posted by: TexasRed at November 5, 2007 1:46 PM

then we read.......

"Hell would be spending time around you and the people like you, for eternity or 'right now'. Youre the kind of person who reminds me why I want nothing to do with what is typically presented as 'christianity'."
Posted by: TexasRed at November 5, 2007 2:31 PM

and again........

"All the interesting, intelligent, decent human beings will be there. Most of the real riff raff manages to *find jeebus* on their death bed and assure themselves a harp and a white fluffy cloud .... "
Posted by: TexasRed at November 5, 2007 2:45 PM

Nasty....Nasty....Nasty

Jesus suffered and died and does everything He can short of messing with free will to see that no one suffers damnation. All humans have to do is accept and follow a loving God, and still they joke about Hell.

I weep for you guys, I really do.

Amazing, MK. We premiere in less than a month. Also, the leading guy is SO pretty. He throws me around like a rag doll in one of the swing numbers. It's awesome!

Jesus suffered and died and does everything He can short of messing with free will to see that no one suffers damnation."

Like what? what has he done to see that I don't "suffer damnation."

If he really cared, all he'd have to do is drop into Times Square one day and give a press conference.

Everyone,

There seems to be another Mary on this board beside me. Any suggestions as how to tell the two of us apart?

Hal,

He already did that. They crucified Him. Once bitten, twice shy.

Mary,

If she shows up again (I think she might have been a hit and run) then we'll add something to your name...(Like totallyawesomeprolifecoolfabulousMary)

"He already did that. They crucified Him. Once bitten, twice shy."

well, then he shouldn't have promised to come back.

Why Hal?

Are you busy that day?

Should he come back just for you?

If you don't believe in Him, then you have nothing to worry about. If you do, then I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry for Him to come back. Cuz when He does, it means that Mercy has ended and Justice has begun.

I get the feeling you think this whole thing is a really simple concept followed by simple minded people.

But listening to you talk, I think of myself weighing in on things like splitting atoms. I have no clue about any of it, and wouldn't exactly be qualified to give my opinion.

Forming an opinion based on what you read in the media, or hear on the street is really not very wise. This is deep stuff. Really deep. While the simplest mind can understand the basics, the idea of Him coming back and appearing in times square because you want proof, just shows how very little you understand this.

It's right up there with trying to say that a sperm is a full fledged member of the human species...

I see nothing wrong with promoting abstinence. I think it's a good idea, to be honest. I have always thought the best education we can give is comprehensive sex education with a large, overwhelming emphasis on abstinence. Warning about the risks associated with any type of sex, talking about how abstinence can prevent them, and offering methods of safer sex practices is a good way to keep people safe and responsible. I'm pretty much with Rae on this idea. :D

MK,

A tad long but thank you! While I have been known to toot my own horn I'm afraid that would make me sound more like a brass band.

Is it just me, or do any of you have a problem with sex ed (abstinence or otherwise) being taught in schools?

I just don't see why it's their place to begin with.

mk, I like you, I really do. But why do you think this has to be "really deep stuff?" Why would God want to make it so hard to comprehend? Why is all the stuff that doesn't make any sense passed off as a "mystery?" Why is it Jesus/God has to rule the universe from a hidden perch?

[I keep getting myself into these religious debates that I swear I'll stay out of. It started with

Mary,

Who exactly is YOUR God?

and went downhill from there.]

Abortion/birth control/war/sleeping late on Saturday/drinking fine wine is either good or bad. Saying God approves or disapproves makes no sense to me. People who believe in God can't agree, so how are we non-belivers supposed to sort out which side God is on?

mk, I think sex ed definately belongs in schools. It's part of biology. Students need to understand sperm meets egg, etc. I started in 6th grade I think. The basic science of reproduction is just that, science. I gather it has gone beyond that a bit, but my girls are in public schools and I haven't seen anything too controversial in the ciriculum.

People who believe in God can't agree, so how are we non-belivers supposed to sort out which side God is on?

It's irrelevant to you, anyway. Or so you think.

Like what? what has he done to see that I don't "suffer damnation."

He was crucified for you, for starters. All you have to do is believe in His divinity, death and ressurection and respond accordingly to be spared damnation. But you've made it abundantly clear that you don't believe that you have guilt nor is there Hell.

Note: I'm not a believer to avoid Hell. I might very well still end up there. I'm a believer because God loved me and now I love Him. Even if there was/is no afterlife, this is still the way I'd live.

“The enjoyment of sex was not man’s idea, but God’s. But to enjoy it by ungodly means is man’s idea, not God’s.”

"Pleasure always has a price. For legitimate pleasure, you pay beforehand; for illegitimate pleasure, you pay afterwards..."

- Ravi Zacharias

I don't think that anyone here has said that "sex is only for procreation".

But it is the normal, natural means of procreation, and the separation of sex from the likelihoodand responsibility for procreation endangers human life. It reduces what God designed as a natural and sacred bond between two committed partners of the opposite sex to the level of a competitive sport, which tends to become increasingly predatory when cut loose from the moral moorings, which in turn leads to more and more victims; more murdered children, suicides, deaths from AIDS & other stds, etc.

Which, of course, is what the abortion profiteers/proponents and other population control freaks want; more destruction of the "surplus" human population they consider "expendable", and thus wider acceptance of the pernicious acts that further their agenda, and wider persecution/rejection of both the Judeo-Christian moral code and the Hippocratic Oath, since they challenge that agenda.

That is why artificial birth control is not "valid medical care". Once medical practice abandons the life-affirming principles taught in the Bible and affirmed to a great extent in the Hippocratic Oath, Galen's FIRST DO NO HARM axiom and the Geneva Code following "therapeutic killing" was taken to its logical end by the Nazis (strong proponents of artificial birth control and it's back-up lynchpin, induced abortion...for non-Aryans, of course), it abandons the humanity those writings were intended to protect and serve, and dehumanizes itself as it attacks, destroys and exploits them instead.

Margaret Sanger, probably the world's leading proponent of artificial birth control admitted, no, boasted, the anti-human purpose of it when she said, "Birth control itself... is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."

"More children from the fit,less from the unfit---that is the chief issue of birth control."

The term "unfit" is, of course, is an arbitrary excuse for killing off/ "getting rid of" anyone you don't like, or whom you find inconvenient. It can mean anything from someone(s) not as wealthy, not as bright, not as tall, not of the same race, not as privileged as the killer. It's very elastic that way, as the Third Reich's infamous progression from T-4 to Auschwitz has clearly shown world history; however, it does tend to stop at one line, and that is that the victim class is typically victimized for something they cannot help, not for something heinous that they have done...unlike their killers. And, unlike the killers, the victims are not given a choice. Oh, and TexasRed, since the victims tend to greatly outnumber the killers, your moniker "antichoice" is certainly incorrect. Aborted children far outnumber abortion profiteers; so if one were truly in favor of optimal choice, one would logically favor the choice of the vast majority (the victims) than that of their murderers.

Of course, the equation of "choice" with medical extermination, especially in the form of induced abortion, is a cruel hoax and farce on other grounds as well. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who helped coined the phrase along with PC freak Lawrence Lader, has admitted as much:

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion vanguard group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."

How cynical?

Aside from the fact that murder is the ultimate denial of the victims' choice, and every abortion is deliberate murder, consider that of the millions of Americans registered to vote in 1973, exactly nine of them were allowed to cast a vote on induced abortion...and ALL NINE OF THEM WERE MEN!

Then factor in that the ubiquity of elements of deception, coercion, ignorance, desperation, fear, manipulation, etc. at work in most induced abortion "decisions" render it virtually impossible for any intelligent person to link the concept of "induced abortion" with "free choice" with a straight face and clear conscience.

Add to this the fact that women typically do not try to get pregnant on purpose so they can have abortions. I have heard of a some extreme/bizarre cases where a young woman will conceive in order to prove her womanhood, then abort in order to prove her "independence" or rebellion; and some occult groups exploit women as breeders who conceive children for the express purpose of providing ritual sacrifice victims; but NORMALLY, if a couple is intentionally trying to conceive, they want a child, not an abortion.

That mother receives a positive pregnancy test result with joy. The mother who is using birth control, or has otherwise somehow separated the idea of sex from the possibility of procreation, receives the same news with dread...just as planned.

Carol Everett, former owner of several death mills in Texas, has testified how birth control was used as a resale technique for abortion in her "clinics". The profiteers knew, of course, that the low-dose pills they gave their quarry would not prevent them from becoming pregnant, even if used as directed. But they would ensure that the women who used them would remain sexually active and that any children they did conceive would be unexpected, unprepared for, viewed as an inconvenience, and more likely end up as grist for the death mills...with all its dangers to the mother...exactly as planned.

This is why anyone who views artificial birth control as either an antidote to abortion or as valid medicine for humanity would be better advised to try to fight forest fires by pouring gasoline on them.
Interestingly, Planned Parenthood, the world's largest proponents and profiteers of induced abortion and population policing, pushed that view in a "good cop/bad cop" 1962 pamphlet which stated, “AN ABORTION KILLS THE LIFE OF A BABY AFTER IT HAS BEGUN. IT IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR LIFE AND HEALTH. IT MAY MAKE YOU STERILE, SO THAT WHEN YOU WANT A CHILD YOU CANNOT HAVE IT…”. Of course, now that the blood and money are flowing into their mills unabated since Roe v. Wade, they aren't quite so forthcoming about that information about the true nature of their flagship "service", though it hasn't altered a bit...and they know it better than anyone else.

If contraception were unavailable and abortions were free, not so many women as lying Laura would have us believe would have 12, 15, or 20 over the course of their reproductive lives. Oh, sure, some would; some do now. But many don't survive their first abortion, and many post-abortive women without Laura's viciously vested axes to grind have stated that had abortion been illegal, they would not have considered it, but would have terminated their pregnancies the natural, normal, and healthiest way: by giving birth.

Speaking of giving birth, I'll repost an interesting historical commentary on the eugenist's notions of "fit" and "unfit", though it's been posted recently on this site before...it bears repeating until sanctity of life has fully replaced “quality of life” as the ethical basis of our laws for all human life from conception to natural birth.
----------------------------------------------
Do you treat, care for, and help a sick or disabled person, or do you kill him? Do you measure the value of a person’s life in money? Or in utilitarian usefulness? The cost to society to care for all the physically and mentally handicapped among us is but a tiny fraction of the cost to society for the morally deformed among us. Professor Jerome Lejeune, discoverer of the chromosomal pattern of Down’s syndrome once related to us a story he had heard from a geneticist colleague which illustrates this well:
"Many years ago, my father was a Jewish physician in Braunau, Austria. On one particular day, two babies had been delivered by one of his colleagues. One was a fine, healthy boy with a strong cry. His parents were extremely proud and happy. The other was a little girl, but her parents were extremely sad, for she was a Mongoloid baby. I followed them both for almost fifty years. The girl grew up, living at home, and was finally destined to be the one who nursed her mother through a very long and lingering illness after a stroke. I do not remember her name. I do, however, remember the boy’s name. He died in a bunker in Berlin. His name was Adolf Hitler."
------------------------------------------------

And right up to the last, Hitler would have much preferred the kind of health care the little girl would have provided, for himself, than the atrocities which he and his regime inflicted on so many millions as innocent as she in the name of “national health”.

Speaking of which, special thanks for today's quote of the day, Jill.

MK, it's not just you. I agree that the place for sex education is in the home, not in the schools...as well as most other K-12 education these days...though I would agree that children need to be taught sperm+egg=baby in an appropriate time and manner. Since it's essentially family-related, it should be taught in that context. Big Brother bites generally, and especially as a substitute for real, responsible, loving natural parents.
-------------------------------------------------

INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE.

If he really cared, all he'd have to do is drop into Times Square one day and give a press conference.

I like that image, Hal!

He already did that. They crucified Him. Once bitten, twice shy.

MK, that's a reason for reneging on the second coming? "Dad, I don't want to go down there again...they nailed me to a stick the first time!" ??

Regarding the original subject of this post, Jill you still don't get it.

1) Nobody is pro-abortion. Safe, legal, and rare is the goal.

2) Nobody is anti-abstinence. Abstinence is great, and is an important message for kids not yet emotionally ready for sex, but those kids also need information about sex and birth control so that the the ones who decide to experiment or are emotionally unable to say "no" don't get themselves into trouble with an STI or a pregnancy.

That said, as a firm pro-choicer, the commercial you think will whip me into a frenzy looks just fine to me. Sorry to disappoint you.

“The enjoyment of sex was not man’s idea, but God’s. But to enjoy it by ungodly means is man’s idea, not God’s.”

JT, several species other than humans engage in masturbation and homosexual behavior. Are God's creatures, enjoying sex "by ungodly means", as you put it, sinning?

Hi Ray.

"1) Nobody is pro-abortion. "

Have you ever spent any time at http://feministe.powweb.com/blog/ or http://www.feministing.com/ ? Because I've been in conversations there where people (not everyone, but some) defend the fact that they call themselves "pro-abortion." They are proud to be called pro-abortion. So, for what it's worth... God love you, Ray.

MK, that's a reason for reneging on the second coming? "Dad, I don't want to go down there again...they nailed me to a stick the first time!" ??

The second coming won't be grace and mercy. Jesus won't get nailed. The world will.

Reasons Teens give for Having Sex [Lewis Harris Poll 1986, by Planned Parenthood]

Peer/social pressure
It feels good
Pressure from partner
No longer a virgin, so what's it matter?
Lack of understanding about real love
Rebellion
Curiosity
An expression of love & a response to the need to be loved

This list begins with the most cited reason first.

Based on the reasons given, family can help teens abstain by making sure that they get enough attention from family so they don't need as much attention or approval from others.

what are you going to do about the second most popular reason?

The second coming won't be grace and mercy. Jesus won't get nailed. The world will.

As someone who doesn't believe in the second coming, I am more afraid of us nailing ourselves.

Ray,

Like you care.

Ray,

Why aren't you pro-abortion? Safe, legal, and rare? If its such a great thing why do you want it to be rare?
I'm sure we would all agree with freedom of speech, religion, and the press. Do we want these rights to be rare as well?

"Jesus won't get nailed. The world will."

Oh man, i so took that the wrong way...

Bad brain!

Bad Rae!! Bad!!

:)

Mary, some of us would like freedom of religion to be safe, legal, and rare.

@Lyssie: I think that thought just gave me the express ticket to the great Inferno below...

:-3

Like you care.

What kind of statement is that? Just because I don't believe in your religion does not mean that I don't care about humanity. Christians have no monopoly on values or compassion.

Hal,

Why?

family can help teens abstain by making sure that they get enough attention from family so they don't need as much attention or approval from others.

Hippie, that is oh-so-true, and permit me a generalization here - so many of the problems that kids have today is from a lack of parental involvement.

My wife teaches high schoolers, and there is an often tragic lack of attention and knowledge of what the kids are doing/feeling/facing, etc., on the parents' part.

There are some tough cases - single mother, working two jobs because she just has to, and not much time or energy left for the kids.

Doug

safe, cause no one should get hurt. Legal, because people should have the right to believe whatever they wish about whatever they wish. Rare, because it's a bit..shall we say....insane?

Hi Ray - good posts from you.

I agree - what is the big problem with the commercial? While abstinence-only education has been shown to be a failure, telling kids about abstinence, that it is a good way to prevent pregnancy, getting certain diseases. etc., isn't a bad thing.

Doug

Hal,

I may disagree with certain religious beliefs, but I wouldn't go so far as to call people insane because of their beliefs.

No!! Rae can't go to the big inferno below..you're supposed to go to the first level with me and the righteous non-believers!!

*hug*

@Lyssie: I'll try! I'll try!

(it's not "righteous non-believers" it's "virtuous non-believers")

Mary, I regretting my choice of words after I posted. In some ways, it is certainly possible to be sane and believe in God. However, I struggled to find a nicer way to answer your question. Rare, because I think all worshiping of the supernatural is unhealthy. Is that better? Probably not.

I don't mean to be insulting, but it's a tough subject to debate.

I have absolutely no issue with the ad. You guys don't have a monopoly on abstinence, PP emphasizes that as well. The only difference is PP recognizes people are going to have sex and offers safer alternatives than simply having unprotected, and many times uninformed, sex.

And if my Catholics have hell all pegged down, I was screwed from the beginning, and it won't make any difference that I don't follow the bureaucracy, agenda, etc of the church anymore.

And are christian sects flipping out about The Golden Compass now too? What the heck! I don't remember any complaints when it was released as a book. And once again, its FICTION. Jeez, why the church seems to think people can't think for themselves, and feels the need to warn them about the media is beyond me. Just because the church is essentially portrayed as the bas guyd throughout the series means nothing, its simply how the idea came into the writer's head.

Jeez.

Hal,

As you have probably noticed, I stay out of all religious debates on this blog and my posts are not religiously based. Even Rush Limbaugh is adamant about no religious debates on his show. I don't think you meant to be insulting.
If you view worshipping of the supernatural unhealthy, I have no issue with that. This is America, and we all have a right to believe or disbelieve as we see fit.
Personally I feel tolerance of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Pagans, agnostics, and atheists is what makes our country so unique, and very great.

Hey Dan.

"And if my Catholics have hell all pegged down, I was screwed from the beginning..."

There is nothing in the Catechism or any other Catholic teaching that condemns you to hell, if thats what you're saying. No one is damned who doesn't damn themselves. You may be confusing Calvinist teachings with Catholicism.

I don't know anything about the Golden Compass, but if it says things about the Catholic Church that aren't true (which I have no idea if it does or not) it's insulting and offensive. The DaVinci Code was extremely offensive in that respect. This is because Catholics view the Church as their mother. Now if someone were to write a movie claiming that your mother was a liar and a whore (like the DaVinci Code did to the Church), you would have every right to be infuriated, and I wouldn't simply tell you that it was "just fiction." Again, though, I don't know what the Golden Compass claims, I suppose I'm just still ranting about Dan Brown. Alas, I must get home to the wife. God love you, Dan.

Mary, how right you are. Bobby, how many more days?

Baby is due on Thursday! Oh yeah!

Bobby, congratulations again on the upcoming birth of your child. As you know, I don't pray, but I'll send all my very best wishes. One thing I share with my pro-life friends in the belief that our children our blessings. Enjoy the moment my friend, it's the start of a wonderful and crazy journey.

Bobby, that's great! Keep us posted.

well, I can't type today,but you know what I mean.

Bobby, essentially the church is portrayed as evil because it attempts to eradicate the root of sin at the expense of human lives, or something like that. Its been awhile since I've read it. I don't even know if it singles out a certain sect or not, and I don't even remember it mentioning Jesus once (though, once again, its been awhile).

Though, it also portrays witches, though not in the same sense as they usually are. Yes they still have magic, etc, but they are portrayed a bit more human than in other books I have read.

As for Dan Brown, the Da Vinci code, etc, that stuff still makes me angry (that people fight for public bans of it). Its ridiculous, you don't want to read it, go ahead. But don't try and choose what I am going to read. I can figure that out for myself thanks. And even with the Da Vinci code, it blatantly says it is a work of fiction, and (I think) it says it means no offense.

As for the mother comment, yeah id be ticked. But I wouldn't go around telling people they cant see it just because it says my mother is a whore or a liar.

As for the catholic bit, no, I am aware of the difference, its just that I am aware I sin each day, and though I avoid it i inevitably end up doing it anyway. What damns me according to Catholicism is that I see no issue with many things that are deemed sins, and have been fine with since the beginning (i.e. condoms and birth control).

Hal,

mk, I like you, I really do. But why do you think this has to be "really deep stuff?" Why would God want to make it so hard to comprehend? Why is all the stuff that doesn't make any sense passed off as a "mystery?" Why is it Jesus/God has to rule the universe from a hidden perch?

I like you to Hal.

I don't think it has to be really deep stuff. It just is. It can be simplified, so even the smallest mind can grasp it, but the whole of it? No way.

I can't even tell you how a television works, let alone God.

God doesn't make it hard to comprehend. But just like the stars and galaxies, can be comprehended to a degree, do you really think that if we live forever, we'll know everything there is to know about "space"? It is so vast, so far reaching, that I don't think so.

Well, if you can glimpse the hugeness of outer space, can see how intricate and complicated and overwhelming it is, then how much more intricate, complicated and overwhelming do you think the guy that created it would have to be.

He has actually done a great job of bringing things down to our level, when you think about it. He very patiently laid out laws, and when that proved to difficult, He came down Himself and gave us a clear and simple way to "figure it out"...Basically saying, here's the rules, but if you screw up, here's a way to make it all new and start from scratch. Simple? yes. But also, Deep.

We call things mysteries because we don't understand them. Not because God did anything wrong. Someday maybe He'll let us in on all of it. Maybe not. But it is, after all, His call.

When a 2 year old watches his daddy "go to work", do you think he really comprehends where daddy is going? I mean he knows he is leaving the house and won't come back til dinner time, but he doesn't really understand what "going to work" means, now does he? No. To the child, this thing called "work" remains a mystery. Who is flawed here? The father, that goes to work? Or the two year old who just doesn't have enough experience to understand what that means?

Who is flawed with us? God, the creator of everything including us? Or us, because we simply aren't built to comprehend these great mysteries?

As to: People who believe in God can't agree, so how are we non-belivers supposed to sort out which side God is on?

The same way you find out anything about anybody. By asking them. By talking to them. In this case, Him. Ask Him yourself. Talk to Him. Build a relationship with Him. Trust Him...even if it's only going through the motions at first. Like anyone, He likes to be asked. You ask, He showers you with Graces. You get showered with Graces, you suddenly are able to see things that were hidden from you before.Then you talk some more. Then you get more Graces...and on and on...

MK,

"Well, if you can glimpse the hugeness of outer space, can see how intricate and complicated and overwhelming it is, then how much more intricate, complicated and overwhelming do you think the guy that created it would have to be."

Why did anyone have to create it? Just because we (humans) cannot comprehend creation without a creator (here I'm addressing the "building" argument: if there's a building, there had to be a creator, so we can know that if there is a universe, there is a creator) not mean that it is not possible.

Rae,

What makes you think He reneged? He said He'd come back. Never said when.

The thing is, once He comes back it's too late.

When I start getting really down about the world, I'll have a conversation with Him and ask Him why He doesn't hurry up and get down here and clean up this mess...and then I think, except wait until I get my brother back to the church. Oh and my son Michael. But after that, come down. No, scratch that, I forgot my friend Tina. And all the guys on Jill's site, and Leonard and Lefty, my homeless guys in the woods, and ... ah never mind, I need more time...Don't come back yet...

It's how He feels too. He's torn between coming now, and waiting so that just that many more souls will make it.

The next time He comes is for the Judgment. It will be too late then. And while every age has thought that they would be the "time" He came back, there have been some truly startling prophecies about the times we live in now. Faustina, Medjugorje, Fatima, Lourdes, Akita Japan, Rwanda...all of these apparitions have warned us that time is running out. Is it true? Who knows. But eventually one of these times the prophecies will be right. Why not now?

The kids in Medjugorje were each given 10 secrets. She promised that the 'secrets" would take place in their lives. They are about 40 now. The apparitions will end when the last child has recieved his 10th secret. I think 2 have 10 of their secrets, and 4 have all but one secret.

In Rwanda she warned of rivers of blood, headless bodies, trees on fire...the 7 children had visions of bodies just floating, thousands upon thousands of them, in red rivers...4 years later...well, you know what happened in Rwanda. At least 2 of those visionaries died in that genocide.

She's appeared in Egypt, and was videotaped. You can watch the video yourself.

Faustina says this is the time of His greatest Mercy. He'll forgive ANYTHING these days. Because, He told her, time is short.

The point is, she keeps saying that there is no time left. If she's right, it makes sense that we push so hard. Doesn't it?

Enigma,

I wasn't arguing whether or not He exists. Just answering Hal on why if He exists, everything is so complicated. Of course it all falls apart if you don't believe He exists. I was going on the pretense that for the moment Hal was suspending belief and asking, IF HE DOES exist, why is it so complicated.

MK,

"The point is, she keeps saying that there is no time left. If she's right, it makes sense that we push so hard. Doesn't it?"

On one hand, yes. On the other, I'm reminded of Ireland and England in the middle ages (aka the Dark Ages). People back then were convinced that the end was coming as well. Did it? No. Did their conviction that the end was coming and the actions that they took because of this belief negatively effect their world? Yes.

Ray,

JT, several species other than humans engage in masturbation and homosexual behavior. Are God's creatures, enjoying sex "by ungodly means", as you put it, sinning?

These "creatures" do not have souls. They are not moral beings. They were not created in the "image" of God. They are not accountable for their actions. They cannot reason. They do not feel guilt, because guilt is something that is restricted to human beings.

Enigma,

On one hand, yes. On the other, I'm reminded of Ireland and England in the middle ages (aka the Dark Ages). People back then were convinced that the end was coming as well. Did it? No. Did their conviction that the end was coming and the actions that they took because of this belief negatively effect their world? Yes.

There are also times in history where religions got out of control that had nothing to do with "end times"...

People are people. Passion is passion. Put them together and you will always find someone who takes things too far.

You got the Phelps who are like the witch burners, but you also have many of us, who sincerely want happiness, safety and joy for everyone.

We must do our discerning as to which prophecies are true, but you must do your part too. Discerning, I mean. You need to look at people that you admire within the church. And look at her teachings. It's all too easy to constantly pick out the flaws. But look at all the good the church has done. And the good works mesh with the good message. The bad stuff is directly opposed to the message.

So, read the message and embrace those that you believe are following the message. That's the true church.

MK,

"You need to look at people that you admire within the church."

There are very few people that I actually admire. I do admit, however, that some religious individuals have had an incredible impact upon the world.

"And look at her teachings. It's all too easy to constantly pick out the flaws."

You really wouldn't want me to do that since I argue that much of what she promotes is immoral. Specifically, I'm referring to her condemnation of condemn usage in Africa when AIDS is literally decimating the continent.

"But look at all the good the church has done. And the good works mesh with the good message. The bad stuff is directly opposed to the message."

Not always.

Enigma,

The church teaches that contracepting is wrong. She is consistent on that. But having said that, She is assuming that you are on board with all of her other teachings. Like, monogamy. Respecting your spouse. Marriage between a man and a woman.

As someone pointed out a while ago, If people are fornicating left and right and raping women and having homosexual sex, I hardly think they are going to forgo using condoms cuz the Catholic church says so.

You have to take their teaching on contraception in context. It is speaking to Catholics.

While it can never condone birth control, I hardly think it is speaking to the secular world and expecting them to follow Her teachings. If you are Catholic in Algiers, you won't be using a condom because you won't need to.

If you're not Catholic, then I guess the teaching won't apply to you, now will it?

Enigma,

The message is, live a clean life, sleep only with your spouse. Respect your spouse. Don't use condoms.

Why is that message bad?

MK,

I take issue with anyone who can only deal with the world through an idealistic standpoint.

Would it be nice if the ideal world really existed? Absolutely. But refusing to deal with the world as it stands because we're so caught up in our idealism ultimately serves no end.

MK,

"Respect your spouse. Don't use condoms."

Are these two related? Does the Church teach that is is somehow disrespectful to your partner to use condemns?

Enigma, if I remember correctly, using a condom means you don't love your partner enough to give all of your self to them.

"Bobby Bambino at November 5, 2007 6:30 PM"

Amen brother! and good-luck on Thursday!

Thanks Dan.

That's an interesting thought...forgive me if I choose to disagree.

Enigma, I disagree as well, one of the many reasons why I am no longer catholic, and chose not to get confirmed.

Dan,

Was it difficult not to get confirmed?

I know one girl whose parents are Catholic and she had to jump through a lot of hoops before they would let her get out of it.

"I know one girl whose parents are Catholic and she had to jump through a lot of hoops before they would let her get out of it."

Good for her parents, they're trying to save her from eternal damnation.

Jasper, Jasper, I was feeling all warm and fuzzy about MK and the interesting theological discussion, and you go and ruin it by asserting a young girl who doesn't get confirmed is heading for "eternal damnation."

These "creatures" do not have souls. They are not moral beings. They were not created in the "image" of God. They are not accountable for their actions. They cannot reason. They do not feel guilt, because guilt is something that is restricted to human beings.

MK, in the creation myth held by my tradition, it is exactly the opposite. At one time, all of creation (animals, plants, stones) shared a council fire and there was harmony. But man walked away from the fire and forgot who he is, and now the rest of creation is working to try to bring us back and help us remember that we are a part of it. Personally, I think that in most religions God was created in the image of man, not the other way around, and I especially find the Christian paternalistic view toward animals offensive.

But to get back to the reason I posed the question about the animals in the first place, where you see them as soulless and not accountable for their actions, I see the masturbation and homosexual behaviors that occur among them as a confirmation that these things are natural and not sinful.

Nice seizure comment, Jill.

Though it's a little out of date. The correct term is "tonic-clonic."

"1. Only married people get to have sex.

2. Married people must let God decide when to have babies and how many.

3. Only members of opposite sex can get married.

what don't you understand? It's very simple."
Hah! Totally!!

but seriously abstinence should be promoted, but..

...wait, I've explained this before. The birth control Catch 22!

And the winner of the most reduced intelligence award for Nov.5.2007, goes to................. Enigma, for stating "I take issue with anyone who can only deal(like cards being dealt?) with the world through a idealistic standpoint". Imagine this thought controlling agent in the U.S.S.R.!!!
The NKVD would have found a young stooge in Enigma, who would have suffered for his/her idea that Enigma has "issues with anyone who can only deal with the world through a idealistic standpoint".
But, we all know Enigma would have kept his mouth shut, "about that issue", and joined his fellow apparatchik, Hal, in destroying 500 year old art,such as ikons of mother Russia.
Or would you have fought to save those ikons Enigma? Or would you have avoided "those issues", and fled the communist who could "only deal with the world through a idealistic standpoint"?
Another words, Enigma, would you have fought and died for YOUR IDEA, "that you take issue with anyone who can only deal with the world through a idealistic standpoint"? Or at least opened your mouth, and been sent to Kolyma, for your idea of taking issue(disagreeing) with those "who could only deal with the world through a idealistic standpoint".
Yes or No, Enigma the reduced intelligence award for nov.5,2007.
Remember Enigma, no means your a hypocrite to your own idea, and yes means you died for nothing, since those communist "who could only deal with the world through a idealistic
standpoint" died off from being idealistic atheistic, materialist. . Take issue with that Enigma?
Ps. Enigma.
Imagine your shame in being unable to stop the destruction of irreplaceable art,such as those Fabrege eggs, from being a coward to your OWN idea of taking issues with those "who can only
deal with the world through a idealistic standpoint. You would have crawled around, babbling about abortion, and never stood up for your standpoint issue. Or, murdered fetuses for the idealistic atheist, since they could not crawl away from a hypocrite, named Enigma, who can only deal with the world through a idealistic standpoint of abortion. And if you can't understand what a Kolyma is, it assures your ignorance of history of those who could only deal with the world through a idealistic stanpoint.
Kolyma znaczit smert. Abortion znaczit smert.

Enigma,

I take issue with anyone who can only deal with the world through an idealistic standpoint.
*
Would it be nice if the ideal world really existed? Absolutely. But refusing to deal with the world as it stands because we're so caught up in our idealism ultimately serves no end.

But isn't this Doug's whole valuation argument? I mean, don't we all "only" deal with the world through our own idealistic veiwpoint? Doug's ideal is a world based on individual valuations and desires. Your's is a world with no established religions. Ray's is a world where people act like animals.

Mine is a world where we all strive to be like Christ.

What is the alternative to striving for ideals? Giving up?

And yes it would be nice to live in a world closer to the ideals that Jesus put forth, but we'll never even get close if we give up before we start.

Plus, the "real" world involves people who live by their ideals. Wishing us away, ignoring us, or dismissing us, is not "living in the real world".
We acknowledge that "you" are out there. We see the results of secular humanism everyday. We deal with reality every moment.

If the Catholic Church was over in Africa with guns, forbidding anyone to use condoms upon pain of death, then I could see what you were saying.
But we don't interfere, except to give our opinion.

How hypocritical would it be for the church to say Birth Control is bad, except for such and such or so and so.

She must stand by her ideals. Anything less and She would cease to be the church. She would cease to exist. What would be the point?

It kind of addresses what Hal was saying. The world shouldn't ask God to adapt to it. The world should adapt to God. Simply because He is God.

As Ray would have humans become more like animals, would you have God become more like humans? This would be to deny the very essence of who we/He are/is. We would no longer be human, and He would no longer be God.

The next thing you know, we'll ALL (God and Man) be acting like Texas Red.

Enigma: Would it be nice if the ideal world really existed? Absolutely. But refusing to deal with the world as it stands because we're so caught up in our idealism ultimately serves no end.

This world could definitely be better, from a variety of standpoints, but I don't see the "ideal" as being "nice." IMO somewhere in there the difficulty in having joy without the possibility of sorrow would become profound.
.....

MK: But isn't this Doug's whole valuation argument? I mean, don't we all "only" deal with the world through our own idealistic viewpoint? Doug's ideal is a world based on individual valuations and desires. Your's is a world with no established religions. Ray's is a world where people act like animals.

Mine is a world where we all strive to be like Christ.

I'm definitely up for that turning water into wine deal, but it's all the same thing, even if what we desire and value positively is that which we think is being like Christ.

Doug

Hal,

you wrote

what are you going to do about the second most popular reason?

Posted by: Hal at November 5, 2007 5:14 PM

Lots of things feel good, not just sex.
Lots of kids use drugs or alcohol too and we find that if they have good healthy relationships that also feel good, they have less need for these destructive substances.

If we can expect kids to abstain from drugs that feel good, we can help them wait a while before having sex even though it feels good.

We are not 100% effective in discouraging people from smoking drinking, drugs, numerous sex partners, but the message is still correct. These activities are physically and or emotionally destructive.

I said kids, I really meant teens.

The older I get, the younger they get!

Jasper,

"Good for her parents, they're trying to save her from eternal damnation."

I completely disagree. Isn't the point of confirmation that the individual is question is confirming that he/she wants to live according to the ideas and the ideals of the church? That's a personal decision and no one else should have any say.

MK,

"But isn't this Doug's whole valuation argument? I mean, don't we all "only" deal with the world through our own idealistic veiwpoint? Doug's ideal is a world based on individual valuations and desires. Your's is a world with no established religions. Ray's is a world where people act like animals."

I think my words were misinterpreted slightly. I have nothing against ideals. Ideals are wonderful things. Heck, if I didn't have my ideals I would be even more of a disillusioned cynic than I am.

When ideals become a problem is when they blind a person to the extent that he/she can no longer address conditions on the ground and is incapable of realizing that policy decisions which are purely idealistic fail to address them.

Perfect Example: abstinence-only education

Would it be preferable if teenagers abstained from sex? Depending on who you are, the answer may range from no to absolutely. For sake of argument, let's go with absolutely. Addressing the issue of teens having sex from this idealistic standpoint ultimately serves no one. Teen still have sex and now they don't know anything about protection or STDS. (A little off topic here, but I dislike abstinence-only education for another reason as well. The most effective way to get someone not to do something is to them why they shouldn't do it. Don't just go through the "don't say no" song and dance. It accomplishes nothing.)

"What is the alternative to striving for ideals? Giving up?"

Striving for ideals is not the problem; the problem is when one strives for those ideals so hard that he/she blinds herself to reality.

"Wishing us away, ignoring us, or dismissing us, is not "living in the real world"."

I may lament the fact that you exist, but I am aware.

"If the Catholic Church was over in Africa with guns, forbidding anyone to use condoms upon pain of death, then I could see what you were saying.
But we don't interfere, except to give our opinion."

No, you simply teach that everyone is going to hell if they even consider using a condom. That's spiritual and emotional warfare.

"The world shouldn't ask God to adapt to it. The world should adapt to God. Simply because He is God."

The world shouldn't ask God to conform to it because we created God and therefore can make him/her do anything we wish.

Doug,

"This world could definitely be better, from a variety of standpoints, but I don't see the "ideal" as being "nice." IMO somewhere in there the difficulty in having joy without the possibility of sorrow would become profound.
....."

True. The biggest problem that I see in ever creating the ideal world is that people disagree about what, precisely, that ideal world is. As long as that disagreement exists, we can never have an ideal world because it won't be universally ideal.

Enigma,

No, you simply teach that everyone is going to hell if they even consider using a condom. That's spiritual and emotional warfare.

That's untrue, and unfair. We teach that you choose to go to hell by rejecting God. If you don't believe in God, then why to you care what we teach?

I couldn't tell you anything about baseball. I can't stand it. It bores me to tears. So I have no opinions about it. If the pitcher for the white sox claimed that all people that don't like baseball are going to hell, I wouldn't even entertain the thought, let alone be bothered by it. I'd go right on continuing to be bored to tears by baseball.

The fact that it bothers you at all, tells me something. Does it bother you that Muslims tell you that you are an infidel? And that you will suffer damnation? Does it bother you more or less than when a Christian says it?

Enigma,

Striving for ideals is not the problem; the problem is when one strives for those ideals so hard that he/she blinds herself to reality.

But aren't we striving for our ideals in order to change reality? Isn't that the whole point of having ideals?

MK,

"But aren't we striving for our ideals in order to change reality? Isn't that the whole point of having ideals?"

Yes, but one cannot achieve those ideals by allowing them to prevent one from addressing the problems that preclude the realization of those ideals

Doug,

"This world could definitely be better, from a variety of standpoints, but I don't see the "ideal" as being "nice."

No one said that the "ideal" would be nice. We said it would be "nice" if it lived up to our ideal.

And you are too funny. I swear you are a Buddhist.

ELIMINATE SUFFERING AT ALL COSTS!

IMO somewhere in there the difficulty in having joy without the possibility of sorrow would become profound.

That would be called "heaven". And it's what I am striving for too. I just have the common sense to realize that it ain't gonna happen here. Talk about not facing reality. If you spend your whole life trying to live in joy and eliminate all sorrow, you're sort of missing the point.

There is sorrow in joy, and joy in sorrow. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had some things happen that brought me such joy, I almost couldn't contain it. It was actually physically painful.

The two go hand in hand. Understanding that is part of facing reality. There is redemption in suffering. There is joy in suffering.

Enigma,

True. The biggest problem that I see in ever creating the ideal world is that people disagree about what, precisely, that ideal world is. As long as that disagreement exists, we can never have an ideal world because it won't be universally ideal.

On this I agree. Only in heaven will the "Ideal" be agreed upon. Until then, we can create our own little heavens here on earth by being true to our personal ideals. The best we can do is create our own realities. I can't change you. But I can change myself.

MK,

"That's untrue, and unfair."

It depends on which side you're sitting.

"We teach that you choose to go to hell by rejecting God. If you don't believe in God, then why to you care what we teach?"

Honestly? It's annoying, I'm tired of having to hide my beliefs from people to avoid becoming a pariah, pressure of any kind is unwarranted and unwanted, and because I believe that you're wrong anyway.

"The fact that it bothers you at all, tells me something."

And what should it tell you? That I have a grudge against Christianity? That's undoubtedly true and I've had it for a long time.

"Does it bother you that Muslims tell you that you are an infidel? And that you will suffer damnation? Does it bother you more or less than when a Christian says it?"

Slightly, since there isn't that whole resentment issue behind whatever they me.

I left out a few words there. My last comment is supposed to read:

Slightly less, since there isn't that whole resentment issue behind whatever they tell me.

Enigma,

What I mean by that tells me something, is that if it bothers you, you haven't really resolved all of your issues after all. The idea of rejecting Christianity seems to still bother you.

Why?

As a prolifer I am constantly treated like a pariah. Told that I am out of touch with reality, that I am a religious freak, that I live in la-la land, that I am intolerant...

Couldn't care less.

You say that you are tired of being made to feel that way because you know we are wrong.

I know abortion is wrong, and I never feel that way. Because I am sure of my convictions. I believe that it is doubt of ones convictions that make them "feel' vulnerable to criticism.

If you were truly certain that you are right and I am wrong, then our criticism would roll off your back. But it doesn't appear to. It seems to stick in your craw.

Why is that? Why aren't you comfortable enough in your own beliefs to just ignore what others say?

I know I am.

MK, how true.

MK,

"What I mean by that tells me something, is that if it bothers you, you haven't really resolved all of your issues after all."

I never pretended that I had. We all have our demons.

"The idea of rejecting Christianity seems to still bother you."

Somewhere it still does.

"Why?"

This one I'm going to leave to your imagination.

"You say that you are tired of being made to feel that way because you know we are wrong."

No, I believe that you are wrong. In my opinion, it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

"I believe that it is doubt of ones convictions that make them "feel' vulnerable to criticism."

Depends on the person.

"Why is that? Why aren't you comfortable enough in your own beliefs to just ignore what others say?"

Sometimes I am, other times I am not.

Ray's is a world where people act like animals.

Nice misquote, MK, but that is not what I said.

As Ray would have humans become more like animals, would you have God become more like humans? This would be to deny the very essence of who we/He are/is. We would no longer be human, and He would no longer be God.

1) Man is but a part of creation. The animals and plants are our brothers and sisters. Whereas you are derogatory toward them ("act like animals"), I honor (not worship) them and look to them for what they have to teach us.

2) God is God, but we can really have no idea as to its true nature. To personify it and assign it a gender as Christianity does is to remake it in our image. It is not me that is making God human, it is you.

Why aren't you comfortable enough in your own beliefs to just ignore what others say?

I am, MK. But when you try to impose your beliefs/morality on the rest of us, I stand up for freedom of and from religion.

Enigma: The biggest problem that I see in ever creating the ideal world is that people disagree about what, precisely, that ideal world is. As long as that disagreement exists, we can never have an ideal world because it won't be universally ideal.

Yeah - I think that if there weren't those disagreements, we wouldn't be people.

Doug

Man is but a part of creation. The animals and plants are our brothers and sisters. Whereas you are derogatory toward them ("act like animals"), I honor (not worship) them and look to them for what they have to teach us.

I love animals. I thank God for them regularly. I've hand-raised and rescued dozens of all species, but I have the intellectual advantage over them that allows me to do so. Some use this advantage to exploit, kill and abuse animals, others use it to protect and care for animals. Either way, humans have dominion over the Earth.

Humanity is not "but one," but the pinnacle of creation. We're made in God's image.

"This world could definitely be better, from a variety of standpoints, but I don't see the "ideal" as being "nice."

MK: No one said that the "ideal" would be nice. We said it would be "nice" if it lived up to our ideal.

What's the difference? I think The Law of Diminishing Returns would apply, that's all.
......

And you are too funny. I swear you are a Buddhist.

I'm more of a Miller Lite man.
......

ELIMINATE SUFFERING AT ALL COSTS!

Ain't no way to do it.
......

"IMO somewhere in there the difficulty in having joy without the possibility of sorrow would become profound."

That would be called "heaven". And it's what I am striving for too. I just have the common sense to realize that it ain't gonna happen here. Talk about not facing reality. If you spend your whole life trying to live in joy and eliminate all sorrow, you're sort of missing the point. There is sorrow in joy, and joy in sorrow. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had some things happen that brought me such joy, I almost couldn't contain it. It was actually physically painful. The two go hand in hand. Understanding that is part of facing reality. There is redemption in suffering. There is joy in suffering.

MK, I think we're really pretty much agreed on much of that. Yes - regardless of what we believe and what we argue about, the "ain't gonna happen here" is correct. There is no "eliminating all sorrow" - not sure how this would work, i.e. sort of a gut feeling, but seems to me that much or all joy would be eliminated right along with it.

I would say that while there can be redemption or even "joy" in suffering, in no way is it necessarily so. An example is female genital mutilation - while considered "right" in a religious sense by some people, what joy and redemption is there, really?

Doug

We're made in God's image.

Jacqueline, not sure about that, but you're ******* cute.

Doug

"Jacqueline, not sure about that, but you're ******* cute."

Oh my!

Humanity is not "but one," but the pinnacle of creation. We're made in God's image.

Well Jacqueline, I would say we have a basic point of disagreement there. Sadly, to my judgement it comes down to humility versus hubris, with you and Christianity on the side of hubris, certainly not one of the teachings of Christ, but that is beside the point.

This is why the Founders made certain that freedom of religion was part of the Constitution. There is no resolving differences like these, and government must not take sides.

Ray,

It is not me that is making God human, it is you.

Actually, it wasn't me or you that made Him human. He made Himself human. I just embraced it.

Ray's is a world where people act like animals.
Nice misquote, MK, but that is not what I said.

I was just teasin' you...takin' a little poetic license. I have no problem with animals. I love them. I just think that they are different than human beings. I don't think they are capable of rational thought, or moral thought or of creative thought.

I most definitely think humans are superior to them on the hierarchy of God's creation, but that they deserve respect as they too were created by God. My perspective is just a little different than yours. It's not like I torture bunnies.

"JT, several species other than humans engage in masturbation and homosexual behavior. Are God's creatures, enjoying sex "by ungodly means", as you put it, sinning?"
-------------------------------------------------
I don't presume to speak for JT, or for God where His Word is silent but, if you are right about this, from what He does say on these behaviors generally, I think it's safe to say that they are not functioning as He intended, as a result of the fall. I think that affected all creation, and not for the better. It might also explain why some species have gone or are going extinct.

It might also explain why some species have gone or are going extinct.

Thank you, Flynn. I have read some funny things on this site before, but this one might be the first that ever drew an audible laugh out of me. You have truly made a remark worthy of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, and my liberal friends will chuckle over it for some time to come.

Still waiting for Enigma to answer a simple question. Would you have died/fought, or even said I disagree(have a issue) with you communist/atheist, because you communist, are only dealing with the world through a idealistic standpoint.
Well, Enigma? Shall we change those atheist/materialist into Nazi's? Then you can have issues with them too.
I believe Enigma, holds a belief(taking issues with those who can only deal with the world through a idealistic standpoint) that he professes(openly affirms) that Enigma does not possess or hold. That Enigma does not do things(practice) that affirm(profess) his belief of taking issues with those who can only deal with the world through a idealistic standpoint.

There is no resolving differences like these, and government must not take sides.

Ray, the government has taken a side. They have since Hammurabi. Taking human life unjustly is punishable. Taking the life of an animal is lunch. So clearly governments take the side that their is a distinction between humanity and no-humanity. This is also why my lost dog doesn't make the news, but lost people do.

Jacqueline, not sure about that, but you're ******* cute.

Why the flattery, Doug. You know I don't put out! :)

Ah, so it's not just me who thought Doug was being flirtatious...

Ahhhhh....Doug was just being Doug...

Jacque,

The guy's not blind, you are an attractive lady!

I know... that's my Doug!

Thank you, Mary. That's sweet of your to say!

Ray,

You might have mentioned, and if so sorry for the redundancy, but I don't recall you mentioning which religion you followed.

Based on what you said, I find that I'm quite intrigued by your religion. Do you think that you could elaborate?

I'm guessing that Ray's a pagan. He's all about birds and trees and human sacrifice.

Ray, the government has taken a side.

I beg to differ. Reread the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

Taking human life unjustly is punishable. Taking the life of an animal is lunch.

This has nothing to do with religion. I agree that murder is wrong, and I eat meat (after honoring the life of that which died to provide it for me). But abortion is a massive gray area, and our debates about it here tend to be circular and unproductive.

Enigma, I follow the tradition of one of the Native American tribes, moderated with a bit of Buddhism and Univeralism. I believe in one god, and that all religions honor that god just like different rivers all flow to the sea.

Jacqueline, strictly speaking, yes, that makes me a pagan. I wear the term as a badge of honor. My favorite definition of it is: one not enrolled in the army of Christ.

I'd say Ray sounds like he follows a new age version of a Native American Tradition...shamanism, earth/nature worship...

And I won't diss him, because I can't very well expect him to respect me and my beliefs if I disrespect him and his.

While I do not agree with 100% of any religion except the Catholic Faith, I recognize that all faiths have a grain of truth. It is that grain that keeps us brothers and sisters.

I will add Ray to my prayer list however and ask God to bring him closer to the fullness of truth.

As Bobby would say: God Bless You Ray.

Ray,

We posted at the same time...jinx, you owe me a coke!

"He may wear a merry laugh upon his lip/ But his laughter has an echo that is grim"...Gilbert

Enjoy the laugh while you can, Ray of darkness.

God will have the last one; and I'm content to wait for it, because it will definitely be the best one. Just make sure it isn't on you. If my cautious "it might explain" provokes you to ridicule and derision, though, it probably will be.
-------------------------------------------------
Jaqueline, I think Ray worships himself. "I am my own" is the first principle of hell. That's why a God he has to account to for disobedience, and any who worship Him instead of Ray elicit such derision and scorn, yet (surprise, surprise!) no actual refutation. Ray cares about Ray, and noone else except to use as dildos with which Ray pleases himself.

Enigma, anyone, especially any woman, who finds that 'religion' 'intriguing' is in for a rude shock...

Flynn,

Don't you think our faith sounds just as corny to Ray, as his does to us?

I'm not comfortable blasting someone else for their faith.
I think he is wrong 21 ways to Sunday, and I'll debate his actual faith with him, but I won't make fun of him. Because to do so, says more about the person doing the belittling than the person being belittled.

Don't you think it is possible to disagree without attacking Ray himself.

And don't you think that as a Christian it is our responsibility to present ourselves in such a way that others would want to share our Faith.

I'm pretty sure that two people, Ray AND Enigma have just been confirmed in their perception that Christians are judgmental nutcases.

Enigma, Ray,
You know that I am a Catholic. You know that I believe in Jesus, the Trinity and the truth of the Catholic teachings.

Our Faith does not teach us to besmirch others in their faiths. It teaches us to love each other in spite of our differences. Not to agree, but to love.

This is what I meant, Enigma, when I said find people you admire and listen to the message. Ignore everything else.

Flynn,

Please. Dildos? This should be beneath you as the Christian you claim to be. This is America and Ray has the same right as you, me, and everyone else to believe, disbelieve, and worship as he sees fit.
MK also disagrees but is respectful of Ray and his beliefs. She's quite correct when she points out that if she wants her beliefs respected, she should show others respect for theirs, and does.
In my line of work I encounter beliefs that include Christian and non-Christian. I make every effort to respect religious objects a patient may value and ask how I should treat them while the patient is in surgery. I would want myself or loved ones shown the same respect.
We can't agree with the religious beliefs of everyone but there is something in this country called religious freedom. There's also something called respecting one's right to their religious beliefs.

flynn, do you ever blog on Operation Rescue?

"Jacqueline, not sure about that, but you're ******* cute."

Why the flattery, Doug. You know I don't put out! :)

Just havin' a good time, Jacqueline,and harking back to the "friggin' huge" status of the feline.

I'm happily married and I think I'm old enough to be yo' pappy anyway.

Uncle Doug

Doug,

...and I think I'm old enough to be yo'pappy anyway.

But you ain't dead yet!

Ray, 2:25PM

In all fairness, I think you can show more respect for Flynn's beliefs as well.

to whom it may concern, my comments about Ray's worship were based on the cavalier attitudes towards various people and issues reflected in his posts. I've heard these same things so many times before, and the profile of those who say them is quite consistent and predictable...I'd be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong, but then the attitudes would be out of character.

I've seen plenty of proaborts actually waving dildos in the faces of pro-lifers, and they seem to especially get a perverse kick out of waving them at the young children; it's the symbol of the "ME" cult that seems to comprise at least the majority of the proabortion community.

Heather: yes, occasionally.

Flynn,

As you will notice in the previous post, I told Ray he should also be respectful of your beliefs.
Religious tolerance is a two way street.
Wherever we stand on the issue of abortion, we should be able to argue intelligently on the issue of abortion without disrespecting or insulting anyone's religious belief or lack thereof. And that goes for both sides.

In all fairness, I think you can show more respect for Flynn's beliefs as well.

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, so I know the tenets of the religion pretty well, and respect them, even though I don't believe them. But the statement Flynn made is in no way Catholic, and what's more, it is testable. Remember, we were talking about whether masturbation and homosexual behavior in animals is sinful, and he said:

It might also explain why some species have gone or are going extinct.

If you really want to know how absurd that statement is, take a look at these two articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Autoeroticism_.28masturbation.29

These are not rare phenomena, but instead are rather widespread throughout nature. If God was making species extinct because of their sexual behavior, man would be pretty lonely on this planet.

Ironically, the vast majority of species going extinct are doing so because we destroyed or altered their habitats, not because of anything they did.

As for my religion, or as I prefer to call it, spirituality, I appreciate the acknowledgment from those who have expressed it. One small point -- I dislike the term "new age." There is nothing new about my traditions. I am part Native American, and I find that that some native ways, which are ancient, just make sense to me. And let's not forget that Buddhism is older than Christianity.

flynn, I thought so. Yes. That sounds like something that pro aborts would do. Evil!

Enigma wrote a statement of a idea which follows.
"Yes, innocence has nothing to do with it;imposing on another's body in that manner is simply not acceptable without the individual's consent". Is there any offense created by "imposing on another's body...without the individual's consent" Yes or no Enigma? Why is it not acceptable? Because it is a offense, a offense againest the consent of another. Yes or no Enigma.
Is there any guilt; "imposing on another's body in that manner is simply not acceptable without the individual's consent"?
Guilt. the fact of being responsible for the commision of an offense. Houghton Miflin.
Responsible. Liable to be required to give account,as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
Yes, there is guilt. The baby in the womb is being required to give account for it's action of the offense of "imposing on another's body in that manner(superflourous redundency) is simply not acceptable without the individual's consent".
Is it not a offense againest the consent of another person? Yes or no Engima?
What were those actions of the baby in the womb Engima, that created a offense againest the consent of another's body?
Now, offend is defined as; to cause displeasure,anger,resentment, or wounded feelings in. 2) to transgress, violate. Houghton Miflin.To keep it simple for Enigma, I shall leave out, let alone, the definition which states; to violate a moral law or divine law.
Enigma, has reduced intelligence from being only able to "deal with the world through a idealistic standpoint",(own words of Enigma) of abortionism.
A offense has been created, by action.
The offense is "imposing on another's body without consent of the individual's consent".
A offense must have a judgement/opinion of guilt or innocence. Especially when one's body is being imposed upon by another body. It is comparable to not having a judgement/opinion of guilt or innocence, on the offense of rape/murder.