Annie Leibovitz

lennon.jpgYesterday afternoon, my daughter Daena and I went to the Corcoran Gallery of Art in DC to view the just opened exhibit, Annie Leibovitz: A Photographer's Life, 1990-2005.

I have always loved Leibovitz's work, from the Lennon/Ono shot taken just hours before he was literally shot in 1981, to Queen Elizabeth's portrait taken by Leibovitz just this year, and everything in between.

But I should have known I could not escape the liberal agenda even there.

Naive me, I didn't know until yesterday Leibovitz is a lesbian....

But she infused her entire exhibit with photos of the life and slow demise of her lover, Susan Sontag, who not incidentally died of breast cancer in 2004, prevalent among lesbians because they forego the protection of child-bearing.

It was certainly Leibovitz's right to push her sexual preference on us as well as her pro-abortion position in another photo of a man with a "I am pro-choice" button as his most prominent feature.

It was Leibovitz's right to exhibit several warm photos of the Clintons alongside several harsh, cold photos of the Bush cabinet.

But the exhibit only served to drain me.

Still, there's always hope. Here's a photo from the exhibit Leibovitz took in 1993 of AIDS activist and beseiged Rebecca Denison. I couldn't find a large clear view of the color portrait we saw, so I am including a large b&w so you can read the words on Denison's body with a thumbnail of the color, so you can see the art intended (click to enlarge):

Note one word missing from what comprises a woman: MOTHER.

But in 2001 Leibovitz gave birth to a daughter at the age of 52 with the help of donated sperm and had twins by surrogate in 2004. So she's evolving as a woman in her own lesbian way.

To be fair, Leibovitz celebrated motherhood in 1991 with a nude photo of very pregnant Demi Moore for the cover of Vanity Fair, and there were other photos of pregnant women in the exhibit, including one of Leibovitz nude - who is no Demi Moore, but at least she's honest.

But Leibovitz's polarized polaroid political statements overshadowed all else.


Comments:

Naive me, I didn't know until yesterday Leibovitz is a lesbian. But she infused her entire exhibit with photos of the life and slow demise of her lover, Susan Sontag, who not incidentally died of breast cancer in 2004, prevalent among lesbians because they forego the protection of child-bearing.

Nuns forego childbearing. What is your point?

Posted by: Esther at October 22, 2007 1:26 PM


Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Condaleeza Rice are all child-free.
Conservative Repubs like that.

Posted by: Laura at October 22, 2007 1:28 PM


Esther, my point was my point. Nuns have a high rate of breast cancer for the same reason.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 22, 2007 1:40 PM


Note one word missing from what comprises a woman: MOTHER.

But in 2001 Leibovitz gave birth to a daughter at the age of 52 with the help of donated sperm and had twins by surrogate in 2004. So she's evolving as a woman in her own lesbian way.

So it is your opinion that women who choose to forego childbearing such as nuns, lesbians, and prominent child-free conservative females never fully evolve as women?

Posted by: Esther at October 22, 2007 1:41 PM


"Nuns have a high rate of breast cancer for the same reason."

I never heard this before. How does that work? Thanks.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 22, 2007 2:12 PM


I was actually seriously thinking of becoming a nun at one point. Now I'm glad I didn't. Besides I want to have tons of kids.

Posted by: Jess at October 22, 2007 2:14 PM


Actually, according to Wikipedia (not the most authoritative source, I know, but in this case it probably has the basic facts correct), Sontag did give birth. She had one child in her twenties with her then-husband, to whom she was married for eight years.

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

Posted by: Anonymous at October 22, 2007 2:26 PM


From NCBI - A service of the National Liabrary of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health:

"Hormonal influences that affect growth of the mammary gland increase the risk of breast cancer; for example earlier menarche and later menopause. Childbearing protects against later development of breast cancer, and breastfeeding further decreases the risk. The breast cancer risk declines more with increasing total duration of breastfeeding. "

PMID: 15192054 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Posted by: valerie at October 22, 2007 2:43 PM


Jill, it is always amusing to read you complaining about liberal bias, especially when it is accompanied by a gem like this:

(regarding breast cancer) ...prevalent among lesbians because they forego the protection of child-bearing

If those words don't convey spite toward, and bias against, lesbians, I don't know what would. Aside from the fact that your attempt at a smear was rendered moot by Anon (thanks, Anon), a less offensive, and more completely truthful, way to phrase this, had it been true in Sontag's case, would have been:

...prevalent among women who opt not to bear children.

This would have tactfully acknowledged that nuns and heterosexual spinsters, and indeed all women who do not bear children, lesbian or not, have higher rates of breast cancer, not to mention that quite a few lesbians out there are, in fact, mothers.

Yes, leave it to a religious conservative to take a statistic about minority group completely out of context, and turn it into an insult.

Posted by: Ray at October 22, 2007 2:56 PM


Jill- liberal agenda? It's art. The purpose of art is to expose a person's innermost thoughts and emotions, to make themselves vulnerable in order that someone may possibly look at something in a different light, or see something they've never considered before. I'm sorry that when you look at this artwork, all you can see is "LESBIAN! EVIL!"
I see a wonderful expression of a woman's love for her partner.

Art is expression in it's most beautiful, pure form. As an atheist, I can still see the beauty of religious artwork- one of my favorite pieces of art is a painting called "The Young Martyr" by Delaroche. Just because you don't agree with a portrayal doesn't mean that you can appreciate it's beauty.

Art is a wonderful form of sacrifice on the part of the artist. I will always appreciate it.

Posted by: Erin at October 22, 2007 2:56 PM


That's a "woman"??!!!!???

Posted by: PL Laura at October 22, 2007 3:25 PM


Erin: As an atheist, I can still see the beauty of religious artwork
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unlike the three people in this picture, who are all going straight to HELL! (teehee...)

http://simianuprising.com/images/ymca.jpg

Posted by: Laura at October 22, 2007 3:29 PM


Two notes:

"Unborn in the USA" is being released to home video tomorrow. (You can Netflix it.)
http://www.firstrunfeatures.com/unborn_synopsis.html

FAUX News is running an abortion documentary of its own on October 27th:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303862,00.html

Posted by: Laura at October 22, 2007 4:01 PM


"In the scene FOX does not focus on the surgical details of the abortion procedure, but it is emotionally wrenching, however, as the woman cries through the abortion and her mother, beside her for emotional support, learns this is her daughter's second abortion in less than a year"

Oh boy..this chicks a beauty

Posted by: jessie at October 22, 2007 4:07 PM


What do you consider to be the 'moral' cause of breast cancer in men Jill?

Posted by: Sally at October 22, 2007 4:08 PM



Umm... great work Jill!

Only one thing....

Susan Sontag DID have a child.


Guess its hard to actually RESEARCH something when you're so blinded by being an ignorant homophobe.

Posted by: Amanda at October 22, 2007 4:16 PM


Posted by: Amanda at October 22, 2007 4:16 PM

so does calling Jill a name change the fact that childless women are more likely to get breast cancer?

Posted by: jessie at October 22, 2007 4:21 PM


Um…ok, so I have a question…

Homosexuals say they are born that way, it’s not a choice.

Research is currently trying to ID the “gay gene”.

So hypothetically:

Research ID’s the “gay gene” and now you can test for it when you are pregnant.

Pregnant women start aborting “gay positive” babies.

How does a pro-abortion lesbian spin this one?

Posted by: Theresa at October 22, 2007 5:12 PM


Hell is nothing to TEEHEE about. I hope, in spite of you, you'll never see it.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 22, 2007 5:26 PM


"Hell is nothing to TEEHEE about. I hope, in spite of you, you'll never see it.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 22, 2007 5:26 PM"

it may be for those who don't believe in it. People can believe whatever they so choose.


Theresa, its the woman's choice, even if made for the wrong reasons.

Posted by: Dan at October 22, 2007 6:04 PM


Theresa -

I'm sure aborting because of a gay gene would be wrong but aborting because of down's syndrom would be okay.

You see, if there is a possibility that the level of inteligence of your child is in question, or the level of physical abilities is in doubt, then abortion is okay. Eugenics 101. They will get to the homosexuals after all the mental and physical "defects" are gone.

It is enough to make me sick to think about.

Here's something else to think about - It will be all the so called "homo-phobes" that will disagree with aborting because of a gay gene and all the people who support all forms of "choice" who will not know what to do.

Posted by: valerie at October 22, 2007 6:07 PM


Dan -

Do you have any concept of right and wrong? When does "choice" stop and "wrong" start? When will enough be enough in the name of "choice"? You do realize that there are pedophilic groups that are getting shortened jail sentences in the name of "choice" right? There are other groups of people who are trying to change the laws of consent because they want their "choice" excepted. When does the individual "choice" stop?

Posted by: valerie at October 22, 2007 6:12 PM


*correction: its suppose to be accepted not excepted. Wow, I need some sleep or the websters dictionary implanted in my brain.

Posted by: valerie at October 22, 2007 6:14 PM


Posted by: Amanda at October 22, 2007 4:16 PM

so does calling Jill a name change the fact that childless women are more likely to get breast cancer?

Posted by: jessie at October 22, 2007 4:21 PM
.............................................
Are men without children more likely to 'get' breast cancer?

Posted by: Sally at October 22, 2007 6:22 PM


"Here's something else to think about - It will be all the so called "homo-phobes" that will disagree with aborting because of a gay gene and all the people who support all forms of "choice" who will not know what to do."

Posted by: valerie at October 22, 2007 6:07 PM

Exactly my point valerie....there comes a point at which liberalism implodes on itself. I read a great article a while back where a PP round table was taking place and all the feminists at the discussion got the heebie-jeebies talking about sex-selection abortion....ya can't have it both ways!

Posted by: Theresa at October 22, 2007 6:26 PM


PS--

The silence from the PA's is deafening....

Posted by: Theresa at October 22, 2007 6:27 PM


Posted by: Amanda at October 22, 2007 4:16 PM

so does calling Jill a name change the fact that childless women are more likely to get breast cancer?

Posted by: jessie at October 22, 2007 4:21 PM
.......................................
Look Jessie, since men develop breast cancer, it's pretty clear that gestation or lack there of is of small concequence to the proclivity for breast cancer.
In JIll's apparent zealous need to prove herself the godess of morality, she has completely abandoned all manner of factuality and basic logic. And you are buying into her delusions.
I'm not calling Jill a poo poo head. I am calling her out on her lack of integrity and honesty. And I'm calling you naive.

Posted by: Sally at October 22, 2007 6:36 PM


Um…ok, so I have a question…

Homosexuals say they are born that way, it’s not a choice.

Research is currently trying to ID the “gay gene”.

So hypothetically:

Research ID’s the “gay gene” and now you can test for it when you are pregnant.

Pregnant women start aborting “gay positive” babies.

How does a pro-abortion lesbian spin this one?

Posted by: Theresa at October 22, 2007 5:12 PM
.............................................

Theresa, I'm 50 and my mother 84. Medical science is pretty new at bothering with fetal development and women's gestational problems in our experience. The concept of anyone looking for a 'gay gene' during gestation is a great deal beyond either ability or interest in the general population. Are you afraid that you would have never been if your parents could have anticipated your sexual orientation?

Posted by: Sally at October 22, 2007 6:45 PM


Ya can't have it both ways!

Posted by: Theresa at October 22, 2007 6:26 PM


Like the hate the sin, love the sinner nonsense spoken by those who hate the "sin" of gay sex?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 22, 2007 6:56 PM


Sally,

People of both genders develop all kinds of cancers. Breast cancer is by far more frequent in women and uncommon in men. I think I have personally only seen one case of it in a man in over 30 years of practice.
Hormonal factors and mammary glands put women at greater risk. Gestation and breastfeeding have been found to play a very important role where breast cancer is concerned. Women who, for whatever reason, have never had children are at greater risk. Breastfeeding has also been shown to be another protection against breast cancer.
Jill has a point about childless women being at greater risk. Though we certainly can't limit this category to lesbians, as women of either sexual orientation can be childless and at greater risk for breast cancer. This however does not mean women who have children won't develop it. My greatgrandmother had 9 children, breastfed all of them, and died of breast cancer, as did her childless daughter in young adulthood.
The theories on the cause of breast cancer are numerous. Genetics, environment, underwire bras, diet, and induced abortion all have studies pointing toward them as causes.

Posted by: Mary at October 22, 2007 7:04 PM


"Dan -

Do you have any concept of right and wrong? When does "choice" stop and "wrong" start? When will enough be enough in the name of "choice"? You do realize that there are pedophilic groups that are getting shortened jail sentences in the name of "choice" right? There are other groups of people who are trying to change the laws of consent because they want their "choice" excepted. When does the individual "choice" stop?"
Posted by: valerie at October 22, 2007 6:12 PM

I certainly have a sense of right and wrong. I think aborting because the fetus may be gay is as bad as sex-selective abortion and those who get abortions because the fetus is going to be a special needs child; however, that does not give me the right to say well, because of the abuse of the right, we should take it away". Thats like saying that because someone makes a threat or yells "fire' in a crowded theater we should take away freedom of speech.

As far as I am aware pedophiles have been getting harsher sentences, or go into therapy/rehab. But you know, they also have to register for the sex offender registry, which is a matter of public record and available online, allowing people to avoid them, or at least know where abouts if hey so choose. They are doing it in the name of choice, except it isn't really a choice. It is, however considered a mental defect. Highly unlikely they'll ever be taken seriously. Not to mention that changing the age of consent enough for pedophiles will never happen because of he fact that consent age is based on the understanding that the person has of sex when they engage in it, and what could come from those actions.

Posted by: Dan at October 22, 2007 7:13 PM


Esther, my point was my point. Nuns have a high rate of breast cancer for the same reason.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 22, 2007 1:40 PM

Your homophobic point was certainly loud and clear.

Posted by: Esther at October 22, 2007 7:15 PM


Sally, 6:45PM

Don't be so sure. It was thought that no one would care about gender. According to the late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn in an article written in 1982, 4 out of 5 of the fetuses aborted for being the "wrong" sex in the United States were female. Who knows how many more since then as ultrasound, unlike back then, is routinely used and most mothers have the option of knowing what gender their children will be.
Whoever thought in this great progessive United States that unborn women would be disposed of for being, well, unborn women?
Why is it so unthinkable that unborn gay people would be disposed of for being, well, unborn gay people?

Posted by: Mary at October 22, 2007 7:15 PM


Why is it so unthinkable that unborn gay people would be disposed of for being, well, unborn gay people?

Posted by: Mary at October 22, 2007 7:15 PM

Well, THAT will never happen because being gay is a choice after all.

Posted by: Esther at October 22, 2007 7:20 PM


Esther,

I have no idea if it is a choice or genetic. I'm not inclined to personally believe it is a choice. If it is indeed found to be genetic, I would not be so certain that unborn gay people wouldn't be aborted for being unborn gay people.

Posted by: Mary at October 22, 2007 7:26 PM


Sally,

People of both genders develop all kinds of cancers. Breast cancer is by far more frequent in women and uncommon in men. I think I have personally only seen one case of it in a man in over 30 years of practice.
Hormonal factors and mammary glands put women at greater risk. Gestation and breastfeeding have been found to play a very important role where breast cancer is concerned. Women who, for whatever reason, have never had children are at greater risk. Breastfeeding has also been shown to be another protection against breast cancer.
Jill has a point about childless women being at greater risk. Though we certainly can't limit this category to lesbians, as women of either sexual orientation can be childless and at greater risk for breast cancer. This however does not mean women who have children won't develop it. My greatgrandmother had 9 children, breastfed all of them, and died of breast cancer, as did her childless daughter in young adulthood.
The theories on the cause of breast cancer are numerous. Genetics, environment, underwire bras, diet, and induced abortion all have studies pointing toward them as causes.

Posted by: Mary at October 22, 2007 7:04 PM
............................................................

There are a lot of pop culture/voo doo concepts of what causes cancer of any kind. I find it interesting that you include a 'study' over breast cancer in women that may have aborted by choice. Would that study include woman that have aborted by 'god's' choice?

Posted by: Sally at October 22, 2007 7:26 PM


Anonymous said: "hate the sin, love the sinner nonsense"

The foundation of Christian charity and forgiveness is "nonsense"? Do you expect Christians to love sin when they understand that sin is the source of death?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 22, 2007 7:32 PM


Sally,

I said studies pointed to numerous causes and not any one cause exclusively.
If by "god's choice" you mean miscarriage, the body prepares ahead of time for miscarriage by adjusting hormonal levels, dilatation of the cervix, and uterine contractions, eventually expelling the fetus, for whatever reason. The fetus may have died days or weeks before a miscarriage finally takes place.
During induced abortion, the pregnancy is abruptly and unexpectedly terminated and the body is unprepared and does not make the necessary hormonal adjustments.
One is a biological process, the other an artificially induced one.

Posted by: Mary at October 22, 2007 7:36 PM


The pill also helps reduce the incidence of breast cancer.

Posted by: Carol at October 22, 2007 7:48 PM


First of all, why did you see it as "pushing an agenda" of pro-homosexuality when you saw the exhibit? If anything, I would have thought it would be seen as a statement about cancer, not homosexuality. If you had not known that Susan Sontag was a lesbian and also Annie Leibovitz's partner, then you would not be complaining about having a so-called "agenda" pushed on you.

Artists are not the media so they are entitled to their own opinions and artistic expressions. Remember you went to this show voluntarily, you could have left at any point had the subject matter offended you *that* much. Believe it or not, liberal minded people don't spend their lives just trying to offend you....

Posted by: JKeller at October 22, 2007 7:51 PM


Check out this free online breast cancer risk calculator.

Type in your info to find your risk.

If you type in longer pill use, you will see your risk rise.

Try it!

http://www.halls.md/breast/risk.htm

Posted by: Anonymous at October 22, 2007 7:55 PM


Esther,

I have no idea if it is a choice or genetic. I'm not inclined to personally believe it is a choice. If it is indeed found to be genetic, I would not be so certain that unborn gay people wouldn't be aborted for being unborn gay people.

Posted by: Mary at October 22, 2007 7:26 PM

Okay. So, in another reality, fetuses with a gay gene(s) are being aborted by anti-gay Christian parents. And? Quite a substantial number of gay offspring are aborted/disowned after birth by their anti-gay Christian parents now, in the real world.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 22, 2007 8:04 PM


Anonymous said: "hate the sin, love the sinner nonsense"

The foundation of Christian charity and forgiveness is "nonsense"? Do you expect Christians to love sin when they understand that sin is the source of death?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 22, 2007 7:32 PM

The "hate the sin AND love the sinner" is nonsense. I could feel the "love" emanating from Jill's Annie Leibovitz article. Couldn't you?

Posted by: Esther at October 22, 2007 8:11 PM


Esther said: "The "hate the sin AND love the sinner" is nonsense."

Again: You do realize that that is the basis of Christian charity and forgiveness, right?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 22, 2007 8:26 PM


Esther said: "The "hate the sin AND love the sinner" is nonsense."

Again: You do realize that that is the basis of Christian charity and forgiveness, right?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 22, 2007 8:26 PM

I'm a former Methodist; you don't need to educate me about the tenets of Christianity. I know what Christians claim they practice and what they actually practice.

Where is the Christian charity and forgiveness toward lesbians in Jill's article about Annie Leibovitz?

Posted by: Esther at October 22, 2007 8:51 PM


Esther said: "I'm a former Methodist; you don't need to educate me about the tenets of Christianity."

If you understood Christianity, you would not have abandoned it.

Esther said: "I know what Christians claim they practice and what they actually practice. Where is the Christian charity and forgiveness toward lesbians in Jill's article about Annie Leibovitz?"

That depends; do you at least acknowledge that Christian theology holds that sin results in death? And that if sin results in death, it's not very charitable to look the other way when it comes to sin?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 22, 2007 8:58 PM


Esther said: "I'm a former Methodist; you don't need to educate me about the tenets of Christianity."

If you understood Christianity, you would not have abandoned it.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 22, 2007 8:58 PM

Nonsense. You have no way of truly knowing my thoughts.

Posted by: Esther at October 22, 2007 9:14 PM


Esther: "Nonsense. You have no way of truly knowing my thoughts."

Your sneering attitude toward Christianity is proof enough that you never really understood it. Instead you have allowed bad personal experiences and half-truths turn you away from it. It's really unfortunate.

Gandhi once said that he might consider becoming a Christian if he ever met one, but does the failure of Christ's followers to listen to and obey him take away from Christ himself? A Christian is supposed to be a follower of Christ first and foremost, and a member of one of the various sects of Christianity second.

In other words, your being a Christian shouldn't have anything to do with me or any other Christian - it should have everything to do with you and your personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If the actions of a third party can drive you away from Christ, then you do not understand him or his message.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 22, 2007 9:27 PM


Esther: "Nonsense. You have no way of truly knowing my thoughts."


Your sneering attitude toward Christianity is proof enough that you never really understood it. Instead you have allowed bad personal experiences and half-truths turn you away from it. It's really unfortunate.

Gandhi once said that he might consider becoming a Christian if he ever met one, but does the failure of Christ's followers to listen to and obey him take away from Christ himself? A Christian is supposed to be a follower of Christ first and foremost, and a member of one of the various sects of Christianity second.

In other words, your being a Christian shouldn't have anything to do with me or any other Christian - it should have everything to do with you and your personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If the actions of a third party can drive you away from Christ, then you do not understand him or his message.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 22, 2007 9:27 PM


Well, I see a sneering attitude toward pro-choicers, liberals, and gay people from several supposed Christians posting on this blog.

Nobody drove me away from Christianity. In fact, the people I have loved and respected most on this earth are Christians.

I simply do not believe in the supernatural. I have earnestly tried, and I cannot.

Posted by: Esther at October 22, 2007 10:00 PM


Sally -

"Look Jessie, since men develop breast cancer, it's pretty clear that gestation or lack there of is of small concequence to the proclivity for breast cancer. "

Perhaps you should try reading my previous post -
From NCBI - A service of the National Liabrary of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health:

"Hormonal influences that affect growth of the mammary gland increase the risk of breast cancer; for example earlier menarche and later menopause. Childbearing protects against later development of breast cancer, and breastfeeding further decreases the risk. The breast cancer risk declines more with increasing total duration of breastfeeding. "

PMID: 15192054 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


"The concept of anyone looking for a 'gay gene' during gestation is a great deal beyond either ability or interest in the general population. "

You really need to read or listen to the news. The Gay Gene theory is all over the place. I went to fox news and typed in Gay Gene and this is what I got:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302066,00.html

Oct 17, 2007

Julio and Mauricio Cabrera are gay brothers ..... They are among 1,000 pairs of gay brothers taking part in the largest study to date seeking genes that may influence whether people are gay.

The federally funded study, led by Chicago-area researchers, will rely on blood or saliva samples to help scientists search for genetic clues to the origins of homosexuality. "

If you go to Google News and type in Gay Gene you will find 991 recent articles on the topic. I would say there is extreme interest and it is in the realm of science, wouldn't you?


Posted by: valerie at October 22, 2007 10:05 PM


Esther said: "I know what Christians claim they practice and what they actually practice. Where is the Christian charity and forgiveness toward lesbians in Jill's article about Annie Leibovitz?"

That depends; do you at least acknowledge that Christian theology holds that sin results in death? And that if sin results in death, it's not very charitable to look the other way when it comes to sin?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 22, 2007 8:58 PM


And what does Jill's Annie Leibovitz article have to do with Christian charity? I detected a tone of pride, smugness, and intolerance from her words. There certainly was no concern expressed about the fate of anybody's soul!

Posted by: Esther at October 22, 2007 10:17 PM


Valerie,

No wonder there is so little health care money for services for the people. Public and private money is poured into research projects with virtually no potential for improving human health.

Just think how many underserved people could be helped by putting that money into health care delivery instead of frivolous research projects.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 22, 2007 10:18 PM


Dan -

"As far as I am aware pedophiles have been getting harsher sentences, or go into therapy/rehab. "

Where do you live? I want to go there. Here is the latest in the teachers sex abuse scandal. But if you only watch liberal TV I'm sure you never heard this before. There aren't any priests in the story - alot of teachers though.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303780,00.html

That story is from the AP and is about research done by the AP. The pedophilia teachers are not only being shuffled around the schools systems, they aren't being punished when the pedophilia is discovered.

There are also many, many, many too numerous to count stories about Judges letting known pedophiles off without a prison sentence. There was a recent one where the judge gave a man 7 days suspended sentence for his 4 years of sexual misconduct with a minor.

"But you know, they also have to register for the sex offender registry, which is a matter of public record and available online, allowing people to avoid them, or at least know where abouts if hey so choose."

There have also been numberous reports of pedophiles not registering and not being found until they find another victim.

From the Salt Lake Tribune: October 22, 2007
Article by Paul Rolly

"Not only is the entire top tier of the Corrections Department administration new to the job, the staffers running the statewide sex offender registry that tells the public where registered sex offenders live have practically no experience either.
The result, say a number of law enforcement officials who deal with sex offenders, is a delay of several months in updating addresses and other ID information on the more than 7,000 registered sex offenders in Utah. "

Also in Utah, two federal judges have just thown out charges against 2 sexual predators for not registering as sex offenders when they moved in accordance with the Adam Walsh Act. They got the charges thrown out because of red tape BS.

"Not to mention that changing the age of consent enough for pedophiles will never happen because of he fact that consent age is based on the understanding that the person has of sex when they engage in it, and what could come from those actions."

In Connecticut a case went all the way to the state supreme court because teachers wanted to be able to have sex with their students who were 16 years old and older. 16 is the legal age of consent, therefore they believed they had a right to have sex with them. One teacher who was convicted of 13 counts of second degree sexual assault with 2 female students aged 16 and 17 said that his case was unconstitutional because consenting adults have the right to sexual privacy and their relationshiop deserves goverment protection. He was out on bail while this was in appeals. Did I forget to mention that in Connecticut three of every four teacher certification revocations since 1983 involved alleged or proven sexual misconduct.

"Thats like saying that because someone makes a threat or yells "fire' in a crowded theater we should take away freedom of speech."

No...freedom of speech isn't taken away, but that person does go to jail for endangering lives of civilians. You see, even though that person's choice was to yell fire, it was still and illegal act and has absolutly nothing to do with freedom of speech.


Posted by: valerie at October 22, 2007 10:38 PM


Carol -

"The pill also helps reduce the incidence of breast cancer. "

From NCBI A service of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health"

"Use of oral contraceptives and risk of breast cancer in young women.Ursin G, Ross RK, Sullivan-Halley J, Hanisch R, Henderson B, Bernstein L.
Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles 90033-0800, USA"

"Among women below age 35 years at diagnosis, compared with never users, women who had used OCs (oral contraceptions) for 1 year or more before the age of 18 years were at almost twice the risk of developing breast cancer (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.90-4.32). Among women over age 35 years at diagnosis, compared with never users, those who had used OCs for 3 or more years during the past 5 years were at a 2.54-fold increased risk (95% CI, 0.94-6.88). Analyses by cancer stage, body weight, and family history failed to detect any significant effects."


PMID: 9822222 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Posted by: valerie at October 22, 2007 10:47 PM


Haha a "liberal agenda" at an art show? You guys are really stretching it here.

Come on. You can do better with that. I have a recipe for you:

Take a liberal artist's art show.
Add a sprinkle of "liberal media bias" complaints.
Blend with a large heaping "vast liberal conspiracy" tub of lard.
Dump it in front of congress and the public and pretend to be surprised when people laugh.


Anyway. Should be noted- things aren't either "genetic or choice." There are a lot of other factors, such as environmental and embryonic. It might even be a combination of all.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 22, 2007 11:36 PM


About to go to bed and came back to this, and I just wanted to add,

I too think that an art show should be completely politically neutral. I mean COME ON!

Everybody knows it is only okay to have a point of view if it is the RIGHT one!

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 23, 2007 12:45 AM


Anonymous 8:04PM

On what do you base your assumption that it would be "anti-gay" Christian parents aborting gay fetuses? I've read some very interesting accounts of how devastated some liberal celebrities were on finding out their children were gay. You know, those people who so pride themselves on their enlightened attitude.
I wonder who was aborting the female fetuses mentioned by Dr. Mendelsohn(7:15PM post).

Posted by: Mary at October 23, 2007 4:01 AM


"The United States has grown more sympathetic to victims of sex abuse over recent decades, particularly when it comes to young people. Police have made pursuing Internet predators a priority. People convicted of abuse typically face tough sentences and registry as sex offenders."

Seems that your own source seems to confrim what I've been getting at. The arrest rates of sex offenders are going up, and from that point is a responsibility of the state to convict them.

I gota go, I'll address the rest of the post later

Posted by: Dan at October 23, 2007 5:10 AM


DAN -

Stop doing drive by reading! The police are arresting, the judges are releasing! What part of that do you not understand? what part of the sex registry is a joke and not even up to date do you not get? What part of sexual predetors moving and NOT registering in their new county of residence and not getting in trouble for it is confusing you?

The predetors "face" tough sentences, but they ARE NOT getting them! THAT IS MY POINT! There is a movement in America to allow these people a "choice" on who they can have sex with regardless of age.

There was a guy in Washington, then Oregon and then California who has a website that describes how an adult can "cuddle" with a child and how to confront little girls and avoid arrest. He takes pictures of little children at playgrounds and posts them on his website. He rates the playgrounds on how many cute children play there on a regular basis. It has been up to the people in the community who have to join together to get that pervert out of their parks because "the law" protects HIM not the CHILDREN! He has been arrested several times only to be let out by Judges. His name is Jack McClellan. He hasn't "committed a crime" yet so he is free to walk the streets. Basically the guy is announcing his intentions, but he has to violate a young girl (he is attracted to girls aged 3 - 11 ; his own words, not mine) before anything can be done. On jackmcclellan.com, which is a website devoted to his arrest, the very first words are: "I NOT against pedophilia" Why would somone have to write that at the very beginning of his website!???? The media has been referring to people who want to put this guy away as "anti-pedophiles"! Who the hell isn't an anti-pedophile with the exception of the pedophiles!

Give me a break!

oh - then there is this on crimelibrary.com/news/original/1007/1202_jack_mcclellan1.html

"An attorney responsible for getting a statewide restraining order against self-professed pedophile Jack McClellan has quit his crusading efforts due to threats against his 13-year-old daughter."

"Pedophile sympathizers have threatened to rape his daughter, have called his home in the middle of the night on an unlisted number and published his address on the internet. "

McClellan, 45, became a national posterboy for the pedophile community in March after news of his Seattle-based "Girl Love" web site became public. Days later, he freely admitted to Fox News that "there is kind of an erotic arousal there" regarding young girls. He moved to Los Angeles in May, launched a new version of his web site and defended his position in dozens of television and print media interviews.

Zinnanti said his daughter's picture has been disseminated throughout the internet, placing her in danger.

"This has affected her life," he said. "We had to curb what she is able to go out and do. It used to be she could go out with a group of friends and act like a normal teenager. She is no longer able to do that."

"Uh-huh — just like I 'went down hard' the last time he targeted me. Yeah — I had to leave California because of a questionable judge who apparently cares more about public opinion than the constitution but I'm still a free man, still legally attending children's events, and now even have my GL Web site back up," McClellan wrote. He then proceeded to list another dozen or so links to various media outlets that had quoted him. Like it or not, he was a celebrity of sorts."

The group of people who are threatening Zinannti are a small group, but they have many supporters. Just go to the bloggospher to find out.

And why is the media giving this guy his 15 minutes of fame? It is because people think he should be allowed to walk the streets, but don't give a rats behind that a 13 year old girl has LOST her freedom because of him. He has contitutional rights, but the children DO NOT!


Posted by: valerie at October 23, 2007 8:25 AM


Oh - and here is my favorite pedophile who gets off with probation instead of prison time. Why? Because he is too short for prison:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12969163/

SIDNEY, Neb. - A judge said a 5-foot-1 man convicted of sexually assaulting a child was too small to survive in prison, and gave him 10 years of probation instead.

His crimes deserved a long sentence, District Judge Kristine Cecava said, but she worried that Richard W. Thompson, 50, would be especially imperiled by prison dangers.

"You are a sex offender, and you did it to a child," she said.

But, she said, "That doesn't make you a hunter. You do not fit in that category."

Thompson will be electronically monitored the first four months of his probation, and he was told to never be alone with someone under age 18 or date or live with a woman whose children were under 18. Cecava also ordered Thompson to get rid of his pornography.

Posted by: valerie at October 23, 2007 9:07 AM


Pedophiles that got off with no jail time:

Debra Lafave - this is the teacher that was too pretty to go to jail

Pamela Diehl-Moore
Heather Ingram
James Arthur Clark


In the Neatherlands there is a pedophila group that started there own political party called (translated) Charity, Freedom and Diversity.

The ACLU have many cases where they side with the pedophiles instead of the victim. The ICLU (Indiana Civel Liberties Union) took the government to court because the law says that pedophiles cannot receive visitations from their victims while in prison. The ICLU said this was against the pedophiles rights.

And there is this report from the Houston Chronicle:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5232562.html

DALLAS — Despite new get-tough Texas laws aimed at harshly punishing child rapists, many offenders sentenced in the most heinous of child sex crimes initially receive no prison time at all, according to a newspaper analysis published today.

Research by The Dallas Morning News found that in 13,000 cases involving aggravated sexual assault of a child since 1991, four of every 10 sentenced offenders received deferred adjudication.

Posted by: valerie at October 23, 2007 9:30 AM


Theresa: Pregnant women start aborting “gay positive” babies.

Might make a difference, might not. Many pregnancies are ended because they are unwanted, regardless of anything proven or suspected about the embryo or fetus.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 23, 2007 9:31 AM


Note one word missing from what comprises a woman: MOTHER.

Jill, that's putting the cart before the horse. Mothers will be women (or girls) but not all women are or will be mothers.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 23, 2007 9:32 AM


Posted by: Sally at October 22, 2007 6:36 PM

There are different causes of breast cancer..there are genetic which is the type a man would get and there is breast cancer that is caused by hormone issues..hence one of my girlfriends who has breast cancer cannot eat soy because it can trigger a resurge of her cancer. Her cancer was caused becaue of hormone issues. Suzanne never had kids of her own.

My aunt, who has breast cancer running in teh family, can eat whatever she wants. Soy doesn't affect her.

Men getting hereditary breast cancer is very rare and that's why you don't see as many men getting breast cancer.

Posted by: jessie at October 23, 2007 9:58 AM


Doug

"Jill, that's putting the cart before the horse. Mothers will be women (or girls) but not all women are or will be mothers."

Not all women will be or are wives and/or sisters either, but that was included.

Posted by: valerie at October 23, 2007 11:13 AM


Doug -

"Might make a difference, might not. Many pregnancies are ended because they are unwanted, regardless of anything proven or suspected about the embryo or fetus."

That's not the point. The point is that abortion has the potential of eliminating a group of people based on genetic testing. The CDC and the Guttmatcher Institute report that approxamatley 90% of all test for Down's Syndrom that are positive end in abortion. Even though that test is not 100% accurate and can have an error rate of over 10%.

So, this idea is not above the realm of posibility considering it is already happening today.

Posted by: valerie at October 23, 2007 11:19 AM


Valerie: That's not the point. The point is that abortion has the potential of eliminating a group of people based on genetic testing. The CDC and the Guttmatcher Institute report that approxamatley 90% of all test for Down's Syndrom that are positive end in abortion. Even though that test is not 100% accurate and can have an error rate of over 10%.

So, this idea is not above the realm of posibility considering it is already happening today.

The point is that it's up to the woman or couple. That's how Pro-Choicers feel about it, as Theresa was asking about.

If there are ,200,000 abortions in a given year in the US, for example, and they include most of the pregnancies identified as Downs Syndrome, is that somehow "worse" than if it included no Downs pregnancies at all? I don't think so - and I don't think it really would be, both from the point of view of pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike.

We don't know how many abortions would be chosen due to a "gay gene" being detected, either. Perhaps some would be, but seems to me that the people most likely to do it would also be the ones more opposed to abortion in general on religious grounds.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 23, 2007 11:48 AM


it may be for those who don't believe in it. People can believe whatever they so choose.

Yes they can. That doesn't make them right.

You don't believe in Hell, so you TEEHEE about it. If you didn't believe in gravity and TEEHEE'd about it your lack of belief in it, I would warn you about the consequences. If your lack of belief in gravity finally resulted in you waltzing off the Sears Tower and splattering on the sidewalk, I'd like to think that I at least warned you before you did yourself in via your lack of belief. Moreover, I hope your beliefs and actions will change.

Hell, like gravity, is real. It's nothing to joke about. Just because you don't beleive in it doesn't mean you'll be spared an eternity there- in fact, it almost guarentees you'll spend an eternity there.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 23, 2007 11:49 AM


"Hell, like gravity, is real. It's nothing to joke about."

Says you. I love a good Hell joke.

Posted by: Hal at October 23, 2007 12:57 PM


Saying that Hell is real is like saying that gravity is not. There's no proof of either of those.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 23, 2007 1:51 PM


Says you.

Says God.

Saying that Hell is real is like saying that gravity is not. There's no proof of either of those.

Alright then, hop on the ceiling, Hal! Jump off a bridge. There's no proof of gravity, but the end is the same. YOU DEAD.

Likewise, keep denying God, rejecting Christ and killing your own kids- and you'll see whether Hell is real or not.

I'll warn you: It ain't like a sauna.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 23, 2007 2:12 PM


As much as I hate to say it, they really had no reason to arrest the guy, as he had yet to commit a crime. Until law catches up wtih the technology, there are going to be cases like this where it seems the perpetrator should be arrested, but the law has yet to define something as illegal.

As for the threats, those can be, and should be, investigated by police and those making the threats should be fully prosecuted.

As for those released. Convicts have rights too, however I think these were handled in te wrong way. They should face the jail time and serve the jail time. Send them to a jail where they are less at risk because of their physical attributes. Not that it really matters because if other convicts find out, its likely the pedophile will be dead within a matter of days to weeks.

As for this supposed movement. Want to give me some data on that? Because honestly, I don't see an overwhelming majority, or even a significant minority fighting for that.

And valerie, the ACLU tends to side with those charged with a crime or are, they believe, unfairly punished. Civil Liberties mostly come to light when protecting the one charged with the crime, and it seems most of the constitutional ammendments do as ell, protecting us from the power of the state.


And it is no longer all the judges fault. There are guidlines and set criteria the judge must follow when sentencing. The system has its issues, but it seems a majority of the time it works. Of course now prisons are getting over crowded, so I'm wondering if there is any pressure on judges to give lighter sentences wth little r no prison time, if it is an option.

Posted by: Dan at October 23, 2007 2:17 PM


Jacqueline, there is proof of gravity is what Hal is saying, but no proof of hell. He is rational in that if there is enough verified, supporting evidence he will believe it, otherwise he is skeptical, and he has every right to be if he so chooses.

Posted by: Dan at October 23, 2007 2:21 PM


Says you.

Says God.

Saying that Hell is real is like saying that gravity is not. There's no proof of either of those.

Alright then, hop on the ceiling, Hal! Jump off a bridge. There's no proof of gravity, but the end is the same. YOU DEAD.

Likewise, keep denying God, rejecting Christ and killing your own kids- and you'll see whether Hell is real or not.

I'll warn you: It ain't like a sauna.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 23, 2007 2:12 PM

why can't you just be nice and

Posted by: Esther at October 23, 2007 3:17 PM


Jacqueline, there is proof of gravity is what Hal is saying, but no proof of hell. He is rational in that if there is enough verified, supporting evidence he will believe it, otherwise he is skeptical, and he has every right to be if he so chooses.

Absolutely. But the consequences are the same whether one believes in something or not. Someone falling to their death because they didn't believe in gravity is equally as dead as the person falling to their death because who believe in gravity.

My point is this: You can not believe in Hell all you wish, but that won't spare you from an eternity there.

Esther-

I think being warned and given the chance to repent is a lot nicer than leaving someone to their own devices so that they end up spending an eternity in a lake of burning sulfur.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 23, 2007 3:48 PM


Jacque, well said!

Posted by: heather at October 23, 2007 3:51 PM


Jacquline, what would you do if I told you that I believed in God, but no, or a highly selective, hell? I haven't quite figured out that one myself yet. But honestly the way I see it it seems highly unlikely its as easy to go to hell as everyone thinks.

Posted by: Dan at October 23, 2007 4:03 PM


"But honestly the way I see it it seems highly unlikely its as easy to go to hell as everyone thinks."

What do you base this on, Dan?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 23, 2007 4:09 PM


Thanks for supporting me Dan: "He is rational in that if there is enough verified, supporting evidence he will believe it, otherwise he is skeptical"

I'll go even further. I don't need "enough" evidence. I'd be impressed with "any."

If I bet you a million dollars there was no Hell, what besides the bible would you point me to in order to collect your money?

Posted by: Hal at October 23, 2007 4:30 PM


Well, I'd say the authority of the Catholic Church, Hal, but I'm pretty sure you don't accept that :) Do I get a million dollars for at least coming up with an example other than the bible, though? I'd give me the money if I were you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 23, 2007 4:49 PM


well, maybe Bobbie. But remember I said "IF" I bet you a million dollars.

Does the Catholic Church have authority it points to other than the Bible for the existence of Hell? (I'm really asking, I don't know much about these things)

Posted by: Hal at October 23, 2007 4:52 PM


Jacquline, what would you do if I told you that I believed in God, but no, or a highly selective, hell?

I would say your belief is irrelevant to reality. An unbelief in something real won't protect you from it any more than a belief in something that isn't real will protect you. You can believe AIDS isn't real and continuosly expose yourself to it. That doesn't change the fact that you will likely contract it and die. Likewise, I can believe that I am actually an immortal and thus impervious to AIDS and so I continuously expose myself to it. That, too, won't change the fact that I will likely contract it and die. Belief and unbelief do not dictate reality.

God is real- He sent His Son who healed the sick, raised the dead and rose Himself. He said belief in Him and submission to His Lordship is what saves. This is what I know to be true. If I'm wrong and it's not true, my believing in it won't change reality. Perhaps I will burn in an eternal fire for those that denounce Islam. Perhaps I will simply rot in the ground. But if I am right and it what I believe is true, the wicked will burn eternally.

Note that it isn't my belief that makes it true or not- I am bound by consequences, same as you.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 23, 2007 4:55 PM


Damn! I was hopin to make a quick buck...

Anyway, Hal, we Catholics would argue that the authority of the bible is actually given to it from the Catholic Church. We believe that the CC was given authority from Jesus Christ, who is God. So we would argue that the bible supports the Catholic Church's teaching (as we believe the bible does for all things that the CC teaches de fide), but it is nonetheless true because the CC has the teaching authority from God, not the bible. It becomes quite a sticky point when discussing these kinds of things with Protestants, but that's neither here nor there. I hope that makes sense (at least in theory).

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 23, 2007 5:01 PM


We're really getting into a religious fight again, which never goes anywhere.

I don't really care if you believe in God. Whatever makes you happy. whatever.

Posted by: Hal at October 23, 2007 5:05 PM


Doug 11:48am

You might want to ask strongly PC feminists how they view sex selection abortions that dispose mainly of females, especially here in the USA.
Also, ask PC gays if they would strongly support the choice of disposing of unborn gay people.
Don't be so certain this would never happen. I doubt feminists anticipated the selective destruction of unborn females when they fought to legalize abortion.

Posted by: Mary at October 23, 2007 5:06 PM


Yes, Bobby, that helps. Thank you.

Posted by: Hal at October 23, 2007 5:07 PM


You're welcome, my friend.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 23, 2007 5:07 PM


Bobby, because it seems the way God is portrayed, He could not punish us all eternally for things we did that, in His time frame, occurred within the blink of an eye. Now think about it, if people are inherently sinful, and all during life we all sin sometimes (after all, no one is perfect), and all Jesus preaches is love and forgiveness, why would He go against His own doctrine and let us all burn in hellfire forever for what we did in a 90 or so year period? It makes no sense that we get eternity for a 90 year life. I could see some corrective punishment or something of ha sort. But hellfire for eternity because of the past mistakes of generations and our own mistakes? Doesn't click with me. And if we are expected to forgive all for any sin they commit, you would think He would be able to do the same and not simply cast people into Hell. I simply doesn't make any sense to me.

Posted by: Dan at October 23, 2007 5:39 PM


Esther-

I think being warned and given the chance to repent is a lot nicer than leaving someone to their own devices so that they end up spending an eternity in a lake of burning sulfur.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 23, 2007 3:48 PM


I think it is nasty beating people, who are obviously JUST as aware as you are of what the Bible says about hell, over the head with obnoxious threats of fire and brimstone.

I am no more assured of YOUR salvation than YOU are of MINE, by the way.

Posted by: Esther at October 23, 2007 5:42 PM


Hey Dan. Thanks for sharing your understanding of hell with me. I don't want to get into too much back and forth argumentation, but I think your idea about the purpose of hell is not the same as the historical understanding of hell. Hell is not a place to punish bad behavior, like sitting in a corner. Hell by definition is a state of being (open to the possibility of a physical place) where one is cut off from God. Since human beings were created for the sole purpose of being with God, not being with God would be the worst possible state that one could be in. Hence, hell is not a place of punishment, but a place of choosing. God respects our free will, and he respects those who do not wish to be with him for all eternity. It's a classic line, but one often hears that "God does not send people to hell; we send ourselves to hell."

BTW Even though I write all this and believe that many people could end up in hell, I sincerely hope that you are correct and very few people go there. Actually, no. I hope that no one goes there. I pray for this everyday, that not a single soul will be lost. God love you, Dan.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 23, 2007 5:51 PM


"I am no more assured of YOUR salvation than YOU are of MINE, by the way."

Indeed, Jacquelin does not believe in OSAS.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 23, 2007 5:53 PM


well Bobby, in that case, couldn't one make a case that earth is possibly hell? Or that its incredibly close to hell?

If I remember correctly, someone asked that in my catholic elementary school in 6th grade, I just want to see if what you say agrees/comes close to his answer ;)

Posted by: Dan at October 23, 2007 5:54 PM


"couldn't one make a case that earth is possibly hell? Or that its incredibly close to hell?"

Oh no, not at all. Even though we don't "see God face to face" here on earth, we are by no means cut off from him. Since you mention Catholic school, I will say that we have access to his grace through the sacraments, his grace being his own life in us! In fact, we believe the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, and so anytime one receives communion, they literally have Jesus dwelling within them. Not to mention his omnipresence, which touches all people.

So do I pass 6th grade catechism? :)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 23, 2007 6:04 PM


lol Bobby.


Essentially my teacher had said that this is as close as we could get to hell without actually being there as God is absence, even with the grace of God we do not fully experience Him as we would in heaven.

Posted by: Dan at October 23, 2007 6:29 PM


"
Essentially my teacher had said that this is as close as we could get to hell without actually being there as God is absence"

Hmmm, I don't know if I'd agree with that, but interesting nonetheless...

"...we do not fully experience Him as we would in heaven."

The beatific vision is very exciting to [God-willing] look forward to. God love you, Dan.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 23, 2007 6:33 PM


Dan -

"As much as I hate to say it, they really had no reason to arrest the guy, as he had yet to commit a crime. "

Stalking little girls, taking there picture and then publishing these pictures without parental or custodial consent is indeed a crime. It is also a crime to suggest a location where a crime can be commited. This is how most pedophiles are caught. The police set the person up to go to a location where a crime "will be" committed, but that crime never takes place. That person is still charged. He is indeed committing many crimes, but as you see, no one wants to be the one to follow through with a charge.

"Convicts have rights too, "

Since when? Going to prison is taking their rights away. The only rights they have are the basic human rights. They do not have freedom, they cannot vote etc.... These people were found quilty in a court of law by their own peers as stated in the constitution and then by the whim of a judge they are not even receiving the minimal sentence. The guy that was too short had a minimal sentence of 10 years in prison that he was facing. He got 10 years house arrest with only 4 months on a monitor.

"As for this supposed movement. Want to give me some data on that? Because honestly, I don't see an overwhelming majority, or even a significant minority fighting for that. "

Please tell me you are joking. There was a small movement of woman who thought woman should have rights too. They believed a woman should be allowed to vote. Do you have any idea how small that movement was when Susan B. Anthony went to jail for voting in an election? VERY small. It grew and grew and grew. That is what movements do. It is when people think the movement has to be massive in order to make changes is when everything happens. The women who wanted to make abortion legal for any reason in the first trimester of pregnancy was initially a very small group. Believe it or not, it was only when Roe V Wade got huge media attention is when the group grew. But that was in the last moments of the movement getting what they wanted. I have given you many examples, here in America, Canada and overseas - you just don't want to open your eyes and see that this movement is growing and they are gaining legal ground.

"the ACLU tends to side with those charged with a crime or are, they believe, unfairly punished. "

You didn't even read what I wrote did you? The ICLU was trying to say that the pedophiles victim should be allowed to visit. Usually it takes several years for these victims to realize the full reality of their situation. They think they are in love and it takes awhile for them to realize how used they were and only then can they start to heal. This is basic psychology 101. Yet, the ICLU wanted this abuse to continue after the perv goes to jail! If the underage child was able to get to the pedophile before conviction, they would find a way to get to the jail. If there was no law to prevent this, the abuse would continue even though the adult has been CONVICTED of crimes against that child. Do you get it? This has nothing to do with receiving humane treatment in jail and everything to do with pedophiles continuing to abuse children.

"There are guidlines and set criteria the judge must follow when sentencing."

A guideline is a suggested route that a judge may consider taking. It is not mandatory in some states. The judge that gave the pedophile 10 years house arrest with no way of monitoring his movements had a "guideline" of minimal jail sentence of 10 years.

"Of course now prisons are getting over crowded, so I'm wondering if there is any pressure on judges to give lighter sentences wth little r no prison time, if it is an option."

Yes, Judges have been encouraged to go light on sentencing NON - Violent offenders. Pedophilia is a Violent offense.


Also, regarding the Hell conversation. There is an excellent documentary that the history channel has on Hell. It should be available to check out at your local library. It is facinating and tells of how all the major religions view Hell and how the imagery of fire and brimstone came about. I highly recommend it.

Posted by: valerie at October 23, 2007 7:08 PM


Doug -

"If there are ,200,000 abortions in a given year in the US, for example, and they include most of the pregnancies identified as Downs Syndrome, is that somehow "worse" than if it included no Downs pregnancies at all? "

Yes it is. Why? Because that is the difference between an unwanted pregnancy and Eugenics. A woman who doesn't want the pregnancy has an aboriton. A woman whose life is at risk has an abortion. A woman who wants a child but then finds out that the child is going to be handicaped and not what society considers as perfect no longer wants that child so she has an abortion.

See the HUGE, MASSIVE difference? Women who want a child but then have an abortion becaue they don't want to deal with the complications of being a mother of a handicapped child is an active supporter of the ideology of a perfect race. Eugenics 101.

Posted by: valerie at October 23, 2007 7:13 PM


Valerie, if the pregnancy is unwanted, what real difference does the woman's reason make? You neither need her to continue a "normal" pregnancy nor a Down's pregnancy, IMO. And you don't want her to have an abortion in either case. Down's or not really doesn't make a difference.

It's farfetched to act like the woman wanting to end the pregnancy is "eugenics." Wanting to improve the human race is one thing, and her not wanting a given pregnancy is quite another. Yes - some people may not decide to end a pregnancy until they think the risk of Down's is really there. I know you don't like that, but it's no surprise to me. They don't want to have a kid with Down's Syndrome. They're not thinking about "eugenics."

Posted by: Doug at October 23, 2007 9:43 PM


"No stop signs... speed limits..."

Posted by: Doug at October 23, 2007 9:44 PM


"We sure wish John would have never got messed up with that Yoko...."

Posted by: Paul, George, Ringo at October 23, 2007 9:45 PM


"No stop signs... speed limits..."

Doug, Black Sabbeth?

Posted by: jasper at October 23, 2007 9:52 PM


Doug -

Why dont' these women want a child with Down's Syndrom? Because they are not going to be perfect. What is the definition of Eugenics? A science that involves the improvement of the human race. How do you "improve" the human race? By not allowing defects to be born. Eugenics 101. It really isn't that difficult.

But I'll make it easier for you. Some excerpts from Wikipedia:

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons who are claimed to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized population and, in some cases, outright genocide of races perceived as inferior or undesirable.

Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories:

Positive eugenics is aimed to encourage reproduction among the genetically advantaged. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.[5]

Negative eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[6]

Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive. Abortion by "fit" women was illegal in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union between 1936 and 1968.

There are 3 main ways by which the methods of eugenics can be applied. They are:

mandatory eugenics, in which the government mandates a eugenics program.
promotional voluntary eugenics, in which eugenics is voluntarily practiced and promoted to the general population, but not officially mandated.
private eugenics, which is practiced voluntarily by individuals and groups, but not promoted to the general population.

Now from answers.com

Eugenics proposes to improve humanity's future by increasing the number of children produced by persons who are, by some definition, superior and by reducing the number produced by persons who are physically or mentally deficient.

Finally there is the advocacy of greater use of contraceptives by persons likely to transmit hereditary weaknesses.

The development of molecular biology and embryology since World War II have greatly enhanced the possibilities of genetically engineering future populations. While genetic counselling has currently been limited to providing prospective parents with advice about known hereditary diseases, such as Huntington's Chorea and Cystic Fibrosis, there has been popular speculation about the possibility of ‘designing’ the babies of the future. Tests for fetal gender have already resulted in controversial abortion practices amongst communities throughout the world who place a higher cultural value on a male than a female life.


Now some things for you to think about:

Modern uses of Eugenics focus on prenatal testing. Exactly how could prenatal testing alone be a form of Eugenics if it wasn't used to encourage abortion. Do I even have to list the Down's Syndrom support websites where all the mothers have the same story about their Doctors advising them to abort?

Isn't the elimination of 90% of a specific group of people "outright genocide of races perceived as inferior or undesirable"?

In the definition of negative Eugenics abortion is mentioned. If abortion was mearly a "choice" and there isn't anything wrong with aborting because your child will not be "perfect" it wouldn't be listed in the group would it?

2 of the 3 methods listed that apply to modern eugenics states voluntary practices that are either promoted to the general population but not mandated, or just a voluntary practice that is not promoted. Basically - it is the voluntary choice of the parent(s) to deliver a unfit child into the world or not. Aborting of a Down's child is promoted to the general population by the way. Again - just go to any Down's Syndrom support website and read what doctors said the the mothers when they discovered the "problem".

If testing for fetal gender and aborting the females because males are more desirable is considered a form of Eugenics, how is aborting because a child has Down's Syndrom not Eugenics when a non-down's Syndrom child is more desirable?

Any more questions I can answer?

I believe I have proven my point - repeatedly!

Why don't you answer my questions now -

When does "choice" stop and "wrong" start?

When will enough be enough in the name of "choice"?

Posted by: valerie at October 23, 2007 10:46 PM


I believe the answer is AC/DC. :D

Posted by: Lyssie at October 23, 2007 10:49 PM


Doug,

So you have no issue with sex selection abortions that dispose mainly of females and if a "gay" gene was discovered, well fine. What difference does it make why a woman aborts, right?

Posted by: Mary at October 24, 2007 5:24 AM


""No stop signs... speed limits..."

Doug, Black Sabbeth?"

Oh Jasper... no... Lyssie is correct. "Highway to Hell" by AC DC.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 24, 2007 8:38 AM


I think it is nasty beating people, who are obviously JUST as aware as you are of what the Bible says about hell, over the head with obnoxious threats of fire and brimstone.

I am no more assured of YOUR salvation than YOU are of MINE, by the way.

I never claimed to be assured of my salvation. Bobby was right when he said that I don't believe in Once Saved Always Saved. I have to persevere to the end, like everyone else. At 27, I might be quite far from the end.

Furthermore, I can not threaten anyone with anything that I don't wield. I can't save or damn anyone- God does that. I'm merely saying what God Himself says, which is that Hell is nothing to joke about and your absence of belief about Hell won't save you, but only your presence of belief in Christ and following Him will save you.

But let me ask you this, Esther, if Hell isn't real, why do you care what I say?

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 24, 2007 9:23 AM


Valerie: Why dont' these women want a child with Down's Syndrom? Because they are not going to be perfect. What is the definition of Eugenics? A science that involves the improvement of the human race. How do you "improve" the human race? By not allowing defects to be born.

There is no "perfect." Many people don't want to have a Down's kid - it's as simple as that. It's an individual deal. If somebody wants women in general to screen out certain conditions to improve humanity, okay - that'd be being for eugenics, but many times a woman or couple will simply not want to have a kid, or have a kid with such-and-such conditions. There are many things that could cause a pregnancy to be unwanted.

I would think that most people who choose to end Down's pregnancies are not advocating that others do it. IF they did, then that'd be advocating eugenics, and it wouldn't even be Pro-Choice in the first place.
......

When does "choice" stop and "wrong" start?

Obviously, that's in the eye of the beholder. Many people right here on this board think that just about any choice is "wrong" in the matter.
......

When will enough be enough in the name of "choice"?

We already have enough. There are enough pregnancies being willingly continued, due to the wishes of the woman or couple. There are, in general, enough pregnancies being ended, for the same reason.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2007 9:39 AM


So you have no issue with sex selection abortions that dispose mainly of females and if a "gay" gene was discovered, well fine. What difference does it make why a woman aborts, right?

Mary, I'm fine with the restrictions that most states have, by law, and that all have, in practice, i.e. in general no elective abortions after viability.

Prior to viability, I leave it to the woman, and her reasons are up to her.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2007 9:42 AM


*sigh* I am trying not to get involved in the discussion about babies with Down's being aborted. It makes me very sad. I see it as indicative of how many in society view the disabled, as somehow less than...

Posted by: Carrie at October 24, 2007 10:04 AM


I think I will wear my son's Special Olympics medal next time I do a prayer vigil infront of a mill.

Posted by: Carrie at October 24, 2007 10:34 AM


Carrie, my apologies on behalf of the bigoted.

Your son is a valuable human being. Simply because certain people have inflated their worth above others and insult humanity in the process says nothing about your little boy and everything about their cold, black, arrogant hearts (or lack thereof).

I weep with you that people could kill those that would rely on them more because they're too self-interested to provide that care to their own flesh and blood. I'm waiting for them to realize that they are selfish bastards.

Any moment now...

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 24, 2007 11:24 AM


Jacque, please read my post. 1 post up.

Posted by: heather at October 24, 2007 11:30 AM


Jacqueline, thanks.

Posted by: Carrie at October 24, 2007 11:53 AM


Doug -

"I would think that most people who choose to end Down's pregnancies are not advocating that others do it. IF they did, then that'd be advocating eugenics, and it wouldn't even be Pro-Choice in the first place."

You didn't even read the description of Eugenics did you? Or you are just unwilling to understand it. However, I am not one to let people remain in a self - induced state of ignorance.

I will re - post the 3rd type of Eugenic:

"private eugenics, which is practiced voluntarily by individuals and groups, but not promoted to the general population. "

Get it yet?

ADOPTION if you don't want to raise a handicapped child. ABORTION because ONE or TWO people decide a handicaped child is unworthy of life is EUGENICS.

Just because THEY do not want to raise a less than perfect child, doesn't mean someone else won't.

"There is no "perfect." Many people don't want to have a Down's kid - it's as simple as that."

They wanted the child until they found out that the child had Down's. Why would a Down's Child be less desirable than a non-Down's child if there is no such thing as perfect?

Doug - One day you will realize how much cowardice is in your answers. One day you will realize that if everyone left the definition of wrong to the individual we will be resorted to the "Wild West" mentality. Shoot first, ask questions later.

One day you will realize that you have been a supported of Eugenics all along. I wonder if you will hang your head in shame or continue to say that the wrong is a right because one person said so.

Posted by: valerie at October 24, 2007 3:02 PM


Carrie -

What sport did your son get the medal in?

I am sorry you have had to read some of this, it must be difficult.

Posted by: valerie at October 24, 2007 3:09 PM


valerie, he has medals in the walk and the run. He has four in total. It is very difficult to read some things,yes.

Posted by: Carrie at October 24, 2007 4:23 PM


Sally,

People of both genders develop all kinds of cancers. Breast cancer is by far more frequent in women and uncommon in men. I think I have personally only seen one case of it in a man in over 30 years of practice.
Hormonal factors and mammary glands put women at greater risk. Gestation and breastfeeding have been found to play a very important role where breast cancer is concerned. Women who, for whatever reason, have never had children are at greater risk. Breastfeeding has also been shown to be another protection against breast cancer.
Jill has a point about childless women being at greater risk. Though we certainly can't limit this category to lesbians, as women of either sexual orientation can be childless and at greater risk for breast cancer. This however does not mean women who have children won't develop it. My greatgrandmother had 9 children, breastfed all of them, and died of breast cancer, as did her childless daughter in young adulthood.
The theories on the cause of breast cancer are numerous. Genetics, environment, underwire bras, diet, and induced abortion all have studies pointing toward them as causes.

Posted by: Mary at October 22, 2007 7:04 PM
....................................

Mary? Underwire bras? It's purple socks I tell ya! Not having ever worn them, I will never develop breast cancer.

Posted by: Sally at October 24, 2007 5:02 PM


Sally, 6:45PM

Don't be so sure. It was thought that no one would care about gender. According to the late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn in an article written in 1982, 4 out of 5 of the fetuses aborted for being the "wrong" sex in the United States were female. Who knows how many more since then as ultrasound, unlike back then, is routinely used and most mothers have the option of knowing what gender their children will be.
Whoever thought in this great progessive United States that unborn women would be disposed of for being, well, unborn women?
Why is it so unthinkable that unborn gay people would be disposed of for being, well, unborn gay people?

Posted by: Mary at October 22, 2007 7:15 PM
..................................................

I was unaware that ultrasounds were capable of detemining the sexual orientation of an embryo. Being an old chick I was first exposed to ultrasound for diagnosis of pain caused by spinal stenosis. My second exposure was due to a 'late life' pregnancy. The possible sex of the fetus was never determinable at 12 weeks. I'm sure that you know that.

Posted by: Sally at October 24, 2007 5:10 PM


ally,

I said studies pointed to numerous causes and not any one cause exclusively.
If by "god's choice" you mean miscarriage, the body prepares ahead of time for miscarriage by adjusting hormonal levels, dilatation of the cervix, and uterine contractions, eventually expelling the fetus, for whatever reason. The fetus may have died days or weeks before a miscarriage finally takes place.
During induced abortion, the pregnancy is abruptly and unexpectedly terminated and the body is unprepared and does not make the necessary hormonal adjustments.
One is a biological process, the other an artificially induced one.

Posted by: Mary at October 22, 2007 7:36 PM
...........................

Mary, you are completely ignorant. A woman's body is completely incapable of determining the viability of a conceptus.
Where did you come up with this absolute bull crap?

Posted by: Sally at October 24, 2007 5:14 PM


Posted by: Sally at October 22, 2007 6:36 PM

There are different causes of breast cancer..there are genetic which is the type a man would get and there is breast cancer that is caused by hormone issues..hence one of my girlfriends who has breast cancer cannot eat soy because it can trigger a resurge of her cancer. Her cancer was caused becaue of hormone issues. Suzanne never had kids of her own.

My aunt, who has breast cancer running in teh family, can eat whatever she wants. Soy doesn't affect her.

Men getting hereditary breast cancer is very rare and that's why you don't see as many men getting breast cancer.

Posted by: jessie at October 23, 2007 9:58 AM
.....................................................

I believe that all cancers are hereditary. There is no breast cancer in my family. Dad's cancer started in his throat and spread to his lungs. Being a Polio surviver, not suprising. Auntie Phil's cancer started on her tailbone and spread up her spinal cord to her brain. Explain that one to me.
Hormone issues? Please! Hormones are natural Hormonal fluctuations are natural. Men also possess hormones. You are suggesting that 'female' hormones cause disease.

Posted by: Sally at October 24, 2007 5:30 PM


ays you.

Says God.

Saying that Hell is real is like saying that gravity is not. There's no proof of either of those.

Alright then, hop on the ceiling, Hal! Jump off a bridge. There's no proof of gravity, but the end is the same. YOU DEAD.

Likewise, keep denying God, rejecting Christ and killing your own kids- and you'll see whether Hell is real or not.

I'll warn you: It ain't like a sauna.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 23, 2007 2:12 PM
.................................

You know as much about hell as you do sauna or gestation. Jackie, those ovums aren't getting any younger or more viable. Can't you hear them screaming, 'find me a sperm or I will die a meaningless and lonely death'? Murderer!

Posted by: Sally at October 24, 2007 5:50 PM


No stop signs... speed limits..."

Doug, Black Sabbeth?

Posted by: jasper at October 23, 2007 9:52 PM
............................

I think that is AC/DC. An Aussie band. You know. Down Under MUUHHAAHAAA

Posted by: Sally at October 24, 2007 5:55 PM


Sally 5:14PM,

Sally, what exactly do you think a miscarriage is? Its the body recognizing a fetus that is a genetic aberration, malformed, or dead and expelling it naturally through fluctuating hormonal levels, uterine contractions, and cervical dilatation. I'm certain this is information you could get in any high school biology book.

Sally 5:10 PM

I'm not talking about ultrasound. I'm talking about amniocentesis. Ultrasound has become more precise in determining the sex of the baby earlier in gestation. Years ago if a woman wanted to determine the sex of her baby, she had to find a physician willing to do amniocentesis for that purpose alone. Not all would. I know one such doctor who refused to when a patient told him that if her fetus was female she planned to "get rid of it".
Since amniocentesis is becoming more routine, and if a gay gene does in fact exist, what would stop a woman from determining if her fetus was gay or straight?

Sally, 5:30 PM

All cancers are not hereditary. They don't always show up where expected and may show up where unexpected. Some cancers, such as breast and colon, do run in families and people will need to be especially cautious, but none of us can assume we are immune in any way.

Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 8:36 AM


Doug, 9:42am

So be it. Though I'm sure PC feminists and gays would have an issue with this.

I remember years ago PC columnist Ellen Goodman was writing on sex selection abortion. While she acknowledged sex selection abortions in Asia were disposing mostly females, she insisted they were "very rare" here in the United States. Since she obviously needed some updating, I sent her a copy of Dr. Mendelsohn's article. She wrote back that while yes they may occur here, sex selection abortions are the "rarest of the rare" in the US.
I wrote back and asked how she knew this for certain, since no woman has to give her reason for an abortion, much less sign any sworn statements. Did she have any studies or statistics to back her claim as to the "rarity" of sex selection abortion?
Apparently it was little more than wishful thinking on her part since I never got an answer. I don't recall that she named a source in her original article either.
It certainly is easy to understand how a dedicated PC feminist such as Ms. Goodman can find this situation a tad awkward.

Posted by: Mary at October 25, 2007 8:53 AM