Nice attitude Obama.

Over the weekend, hosting a town-hall meeting in Johnstown, Pa., Barack Obama was asked about how his administration would address HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases among young girls. Obama’s answer didn’t strike me as especially controversial, but the right seems pretty worked up about it.

“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include — which should include abstinence education and teaching the children — teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include — it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”.....

Complete article here: http://www.airamerica.com/blog/2008/apr/01/obama-wouldn%E2%80%99t-want-his-daugh ters-%E2%80%98punished-baby%E2%80%99
(I picked Air America's comments from my Google search, because they are about as far left leaning as possible)

A baby is NOT a punishment. No matter how old or young the person having the baby is.

It might be called the result of some poor choices, but definitely it is not a PUNISHMENT.

This is the typical attitude of the liberals.

Now, to his credit, he does go on to say that steps need to be taken to reduce teen pregnancies AND abortions. And I agree.

But considering a child, ANY child, a punishment is just wrong.

"I don’t want them punished with a baby"

So, I guess that means he would want the baby killed, or does it mean something else?

Now playing Michael Jackson's classic 1983 hit and changing the wording to:

"Spin it, Just Spin it"

"So, I guess that means he would want the baby killed..."

Nice stretch there, Gumby.

Chris nailed it - spin, spin, spin. No matter what Obama says, it must be bad. Why try to understand what Obama was saying? We all know it's a terrible thing for a teenage girl to be burdened with a baby before she is ready. Most of us knew that that's exactly what Obama meant. Only the Obama haters pretended it he meant something else.

Funny how Bush could put his foot in his mouth time and time again and you Republicans really don't give a damn. Like when Bush said in 2004, "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country," I didn't hear a lot of outcry from the right about Bush's suggestion that women should be "loving" their OB-GYNs!!! That's just because you're two-faced hypocrites.

Andrew

OK, but what does he want done with the baby so they aren't punished with it? He wasn't talking about not screwing at all, he said if they "make a mistake" he doesn't want them punished with a baby. I ask again, what does he think should be done with it?

I'll have to start calling you Dr. Deane, as you are the best spin doctor here. If there is no issue, you make one up.

He was only saying no girls has to get pregnant even if she has sex, which he is not even endorsing they do.

If one of his girls did become pregnant, I have no doubt he and his wife would accept that and welcome their grandchild, unless of course, you were the father.

"you are the best spin doctor here"

It's always good to be best at something.

Dr. Deane, I have a pain in my ass, can you get rid of it for me.

Oh, never mind, it will go away in January.

"Dr. Deane, I have a pain in my ass, can you get rid of it for me."

Are you sure you're choosing the right sex partner?

I don't know. I've been fucked by Shrub so long that even Ann Coulter is starting to look good to me.

Wow, just think of it. In bed with Ann Coulter and Randi Rhodes.

I guess I's stick with Shrub until January, instead.

Deane writes:
OK, but what does he want done with the baby so they aren't punished with it?

Who said he wants anything "done" with it? Obama was talking about AVOIDING the pregnancy in the first place.

See, you're the one going out of your way to read something into his words that he never said. The fact that a teenage girl decides, after getting pregnant, to have the baby and raise it doesn't mean suddenly everything is great and wonderful, it's probably still a huge, life-changing burden, and it probably won't be all fun and games for the kid, either.

No doubt you on the right will continue to parse Obama's words for even a hint of something you can intentionally misinterpret to try to smear him. I'm sure this crap is just beginning. That's what happens when you're bankrupt of ideas: you smear.

Andrew

EVERYBODY DESERVES A BIRTHDAY!

The really good news is that this kind of lame ass, willful ignorance crap means they've got nothing of any real substance on the guy.

Obama '08!

Not wanting start yet ANOTHER abortion thread (we have worn that carpet completely out)...

Dan this is about taking a persons words and simply spinning them where no spin needs to go. But we are only going to see more of this as Andrew has stated.

No, half of America sadly has the attitude that a newborn innocent baby is a "punishment" wha-la the performance/acceptance of millions of abortions still in this country alone.

Are you a parent?

Obama hates babies.

Missing-Broadway and I go way back in the broadcasting field. Yes he is a dad. A mighty fine one I might add.

Obama hates babies.

It doesn't say anything like this.

Where did you come up with this? Just stirring the pot, I suspect.

Are you sure you're choosing the right sex partner?

Are you?

Where did you come up with this? Just stirring the pot, I suspect.

Just like you do....

Huh?

I was referring to Marvin's post 2 posts above mine.

You stir the pot....

I was asking Marvin how he came up with the statement "Obama hates babies".

While I don't support Obama, I seriously doubt he hates babies.


You stir the pot....

Occasionally, yes. As we all do!

Broadway, welcome to the list of people I won't waste my time responding to! Blatant partisanship is so boring, really.

Andrew

There is no question that if a woman who gets pregnant and is forced to give birth, that this is punishment. How can making someone do something they don't want to do not be punishment? Hell, I see it as a form of slavery.

Could slavery be the slaughtering of true innocent life within the womb as a form of birth control in most instances? Talk about control of one human over another...Adoption is the major answer from abortion...thousands of married couples in America who can't have children would adopt these "unwanted" children. Sorry...we were all once a fetus.

It could, and it could not.

The key here is there is no definitive answer; leaving the mother to choose.

Adoption is AN answer, birth control is AN answer, abortion is AN answer, assistance is AN answer.

There are no just answers that are one size fits all.

From there EDUCATION about all the possible answers, and more importantly, what the options are for avoiding the problem in the first place, is paramount. More people will make better choices.

Some people marry, some don't. Using birth control is no different than the parents having chosen differently in their youth. Either way, somebody wouldn't exist, and that's just reality.

That "somebody" isn't around to worry about it either, so there is no emotional loss to feel. That doesn't happen until we know them at some level. They have to exist first, for that to happen.

For me, we don't know a few cells, meaning early is better. We do know them later on, meaning the longer it goes on, the more incentive there is NOT to have an abortion.

Ideal solution is the morning after pill, the only post sex contraceptive we have, and very potent for the rape victim scenario.

Given these dynamics, we don't have a solid reason to legislate this stuff. Either we impose slavery on the mother "forced birth", or we see it your way, "control of another person".

It's a nasty split, leaving the choice with mothers.

I can tell you, having adopted and having daughters, I will go the distance absolutely for their choice in the matter. They will be educated, they will get to make choices and they will have absolute and unconditional support for those choices.

Law or no. That's how it will be in my family.

Ya know...were not getting it...it's not a choice...its a real person here were all talking about...unborn life...don't care how old in the womb...we were all once a "few cells".
What part of the word "genocide" don't we understand?
I'll state it again...
EVERYBODY DESERVES A BIRTHDAY!

It's not a "person" until there is a self.

A few cells does not have a self. There is no theory of mind for it, it's not self aware.

Therefore, it's not yet a person. It's a potential person. At some point it becomes a viable person.

We are not going to agree on this one. Clearly.

You do need to realize your view on what is and what is not a person is not the same as everybody elses. Trying to force this via the law is divisive and we all lose.

Go and support those doing research into viability. Every year, what we consider a viable person happens earlier! This is good for your cause. I strongly encourage this research as greater understanding of the boundary between a few cells, viable person and complete person helps us in a lot of ways.

eg: complete person. Does this happen at birth, or adult hood, or somewhere in-between. If at birth, why then do we hold kids to lower standards than we do adults?

a few cells: Why then are we not on a campaign to save the blastocysts? People should be up in arms over those innocent lives being flushed every day?

It's not cut 'n dried my friend. Going for the whole enchalada, when we don't even know what that is, means wasting time and energy we could be applying to seriously mitigate the problem.

Really hate abortion? Consider it horrible. Great, join the club. I'll totally work with you to help cut the numbers down to almost nothing. We can do that, right now, today.

We do that by empowering people and educating people so that the right choices are made most of time time. When that happens, we don't have the wrong ones! See how that works?

Trying to do an end-run, mandating something, where we don't have the facts to support such a mandate, divides us, makes us ignorant and promotes the wrong choices.

Uh, Broadway, you don't get it bud. It IS a choice, and it's not yours to make for others. Not your body, not your control.

And if you "force" someone to give birth, it most certainly is a form of slavery. This is why first world countries like the US don't follow the lead of third world countries who enslave women to give birth against their will.

Answer this one...why is it that when there is a planned pregnancy you get all excited about a new addition to the family, but when it unplanned or concieved out of irresponsibility it becomes a "potential person" that we have a right to snuff the very life out of?

Also...please give us your definition of genocide?

Answer: Because it's a choice. If you plan for a pregnancy, then people get excited. If it's an unplanned pregnancy, and one that is not wanted, the person's body that has control of the embryo gets to make the choice of whether it moves forward. Key word here is choice. Theirs not yours.

Genocide: The mass killing of living peoples due to ethnic or religious differences. I don't qualify an embryo as a "living people" nor do people have abortions for ethnic or religious purposes, therefore there is no correlation between genocide and abortion.

If you truly had any interest in reducing abortion, you would focus on sex education and birth control. However, it's the people like you that support abstinence only education and choose to keep women in the dark ages, thereby increasing the amount of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. It's almost like a self fulfilling prophecy for you pro-life militants.

"planned pregnancy you get all excited about a new addition to the family"

There is NO difference. The planned pregnancy might not come to term, it's a potential addition to the family.

As for unplanned, it could be an addition to the family, or result of a rape. That's why choice matters.

I'm not addressing genocide. It's out of scope, and carries with it the assumption that in all cases, persons are killed.

That's not been demonstrated by anybody yet.

>>you pro-life militants.

I love it! Fighting for life...sign me up...just be glad your mom was pro-life and that she gave birth to you as a "potential addition"! It's pretty sad that millions of Americans have such a pro-death attitude about the unborn...considering them "a few cells".
America alone has aborted over 40 million potential citizens since RoeVWade/1973...I think the genocide term applies very well. The most innocent human life is the unborn. Someone needs to speak up for them.

Andrew is correct.

You guys - you turned this perfectly good troll-bait thread initiated by Deanne (after Skybill got the ball rolling), and now we have a pointless debate on abortion. Give it up - no one ever wins these debates. It all comes down to "no it isn't/yes it is," round and round and over and over again.

Andrew

My mom's pregnancy was planned, and she is pro-choice.

I can only hope that your pro-life militancy spills over to real people on the earth. Somehow, I have a feeling you are like the other pro-life hypocrites who champion the unborn and not yet viable, but gleefully send of our troops to get slaughtered in a foreign land for a worthless war.

Missing: thank you for what's gone missing. Good one.

Andrew is correct.

I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't hate babies. He used the word "punished", when he should have said "burdened". The word "punished" triggered a reaction from the evangelicals who get offended whenever it's suggested that a baby is not a 100% positve experience for everyone involved.

It's fine. Obviously he means that there are negative consequences to promiscuous sex.

I totally agree with your first paragraph.

But being "promiscuous" at a young age, is not an exclusive behavior to result in "negative consequences". True, it may increase your odds, but there's more to it than just that.

You can do it once (ala' "Juno").
You can get pregnant without actual intercourse.
You could have been raped (via date, acquaintance, boyfriend/girlfriend, stranger, or family member).
You made a very poor choice while under the effects of drugs or alcohol.
You can be totally in love and not have had any other partner.
Your protection might fail.
You might not use protection.
You might not have a clue what "protection" actually is. Or where to get it.
You might have listened to BS, myths, untruths and incorrect info from your teen friends and/or partner, instead of hearing the facts about sex, STD's and pregnancy from your parents or other trusted adult.

Having sex demands responsibility and thats why it works best in the confines of commitment to your partner in marriage. Your sex life in marriage is not perfect but certainly better than the emotional baggage/drama/desease/guilt that happens with promiscuous activity that has been so promoted in our permissive society.

Yeah?

So, you do it that way, and others do it theirs.

Done, next.

50%+ of marriages in the United States FAIL....
So much for commitment....

Who said humanity was perfect...marriage/the family is the basic unit/structure/foundations of society/civiliations/countrys...anything less has caused moral collapse and sorry to say America is heading that way.

Is Broadway Herb?

Trixter wrote:
50%+ of marriages in the United States FAIL....
So much for commitment....


This is true AND do you know what really galls me? The fact the biggest divorce rates, out of wedlock pregnancy rates AND general violence rates come from the holier than art thou south. Yet those bible thumping nuts want to dictate to the rest of us.

Broadway, I don't subscribe to your beliefs. Since it's a free country, you're able to do what you want, others are able to do what they want. Deal with it.

Your divorce rate data is correct...the rest bogus...not true. The real message of Christianity is redemption from all the trash of life and hell...not perfection. Your looking too low.

No, the real message is to convert and control all people, just like any other religion.

This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again.

John Chapter 3 from "The Message" version...so much for "control of all people"...

Please save your bible passages for Sunday school. Quoting the bible does not prove anything.

Control of the mind is what it's all about, and judging by your posts, you've been had.

"Is Broadway Herb?"

You flatter me.

Broadway is my hero.

Herb

Vitalogy I know Broadway personally. We've known each other for years. He typically posts on the other side of this board because of his years in radio.

He now has chosen the dark side of the PDXradio board.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that the light was good.

Genesis 1:3

Chris...just shedding a little...light...

Only in Oregon could those who defend unborn little children be so disliked.

Herb

Good Bible question....
If we are to believe the Bible for which I do are we not children of incest? My daughter asked me that question the other night. I told her that someone had to populate the Earth. Her response to that was. GROSS!
So.... are we not children of incest?

Only in Oregon could those who defend unborn little children be so disliked.

More lies. Herb your so full of BULLSHIT!

Trixter...just like your name your views/attitudes/opinions cannot be trusted...content so sad anything I would say to respond would not compare.
You need a life change man!

"Only in Oregon could those who defend unborn little children be so disliked."

I disagree.
I suspect that your capacity for being disliked is universal.

"I suspect that your capacity for being disliked is universal."

We're known not only by who are friends are, but perhaps best by those who attack us.

It's a badge of honour to be attacked by radical, America-hating leftists.

Indeed, I would be concerned for my very soul if baby-killing Castro worshippers such as the diabolical aclu liked me.

Herb

You need a life change man!

Hey!
YOUR the EXTREME radical RIGHTIE not me...
Check YOURSELF!
You and Herb are the EXTREME RIGHT hate America group. Time to make a change and LOVE the country you live in or get out!

Boy you just said a lot of things about me that are not true Trixter. I have a daily peace with the God I serve and are very blessed in the country I live and work in. Just giving some advise cause I sense your there's a war in your heart.

Boy you just said a lot of things about me that are not true Trixter.

Just keep believing that... That's the same thing we say and you guys just beat us down calling us UNAmerican and UNPatriotic for going against DUHbya an Co.

I serve and are very blessed in the country I live and work in.

Me too. But when you EXTREME RIGHTIES talk about how bad we are for NOT thinking YOUR way. That make we wonder what's in YOUR heart????

Just giving some advise cause I sense your there's a war in your heart.

NOT TRUE! Been a believer since I was 5 or 6! Just because I don't subscribe to YOUR MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY bit doesn't mean that I have a WAR in my heart.
You talk about Jesus and God but then you want to blow up people??? YOUR the one that has the war....
Sad... REALLY sad.

>>Been a believer since I was 5 or 6!

What does being a believer mean to you?

I've never even thought of blowing up anybody...It would not be the Christ-like thing to do. I weekly feed the homeless in the town I live in...think I get better results that way practicing Matthew 25. Those that blow up people might be experiencing a different result in their afterlife than expected.

What does being a believer mean to you?

Believing in a higher power than ourselves. Knowing that somebody created us.

Those that blow up people might be experiencing a different result in their afterlife than expected.

Then why do you follow DUHbya and Co.?? Just because he says he is a born-again? Why would you back an administration that has killed THOUSANDS of INNOCENT Iraqis? WHY?

>>Knowing that somebody created us.

Who is that somebody???

>>killed THOUSANDS of INNOCENT Iraqis

Were not thousands of Americans killed on 9-11-01?

Just to clarify; Does anyone here really think that Obama views children as punishment?

I know it will be tempting to quote him - but I'm asking a simple question. Put down your " Gotcha " gun for a second and see if you can just answer the question I asked.

Broadway...
I will repeat this SLOWLY so you can understand it.....
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11!!!!!!!!!!! THOUSANDS of INNOCENT Iraqis have died that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Even YOUR President has said so!

Who is that somebody???

If you don't know then you are NOT a Christian.

No, from everything I've heard from him, or read about him, he genuinely seems like a wonderful, caring and most importantly, a very involved father to his 2 young daughters.

I think he used the incorrect word. It's funny how people, even people like McCain do that as well. (Osama Barack?)

Besides, my 2 year old does "punish" me every time she has a meltdown, which last week was about 2 minutes X 2-6 times a day. Torture. Thankfully, it's just a stage.

Trixter...you can't answer the question!

>>Who is that somebody???

Who is God to you? You answer the question...I am asking you. I serve/honor/love/praise the God as revealed in His word the Bible.

Who is your God? Be specific as you can...

God ... is Wayne back?

Broadway...
You can't answer questions EITHER!!!!
Tell me who YOUR God is? New Testament? Old?

Brrzzzzzzzzzzaacccckkkkkk!

Rolling, rumbling clap of thunder!

Nope, I think God just took care of Wayne.

Jesus said in John 14...

"...I am the way, the truth, and the life."

Jesus, God's Son is my God...and Trixter...when you seek after him with all your might, you will find Him according to Jeremiah 29

"When you call on me, when you come and pray to me, I'll listen. "When you come looking for me, you'll find me. "Yes, when you get serious about finding me and want it more than anything else, I'll make sure you won't be disappointed."

Amen, Broadway.

I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes unto the Father but by me. John 14:6

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. II Peter 3:9

Herb

"Yes, when you get serious about finding me and want it more than anything else, I'll make sure you won't be disappointed."

God is a 56" plasma tv with Hi-Def Cable?

>>God is a 56" plasma tv with Hi-Def Cable?

Exodus 20 (Ten Commandments) You shall have no other gods before or besides Me. You shall not make yourself any graven image [to worship it] or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; You shall not bow down yourself to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God.

That sounds eerily reminiscent of what a crazy ex-girlfriend used to say.

(Dono, are you talking about Exodus 20 or you wanting "it more than anything else, I'll make sure you won't be disappointed."?)


So God came to me last night and said to tell Herbbocrite and Broadway to take the bible verses elsewhere. At least start another thread, she said.

Now please boys, back to the topic and CJ's question:

Does anyone here really think that Obama views children as punishment?

I know it will be tempting to quote him - but I'm asking a simple question. Put down your " Gotcha " gun for a second and see if you can just answer the question I asked.

P.S. God also said that it's "meet and right so to do" to watch the '10 Commandments" on the biggest dam TV that you can find!

now that's my kinda God!

Now if he can just find a way to get Blazer games on DirecTV.

And, no...I do not think Obama believes children are punishment. I think he was speaking metaphorically and the whole thing was blown way out of proportion.

With Broadway joining Herb, I can stop going to church on Sunday.

Thanks, guys, for the extra sleep time now on Sunday morning.

Does anyone here really think that Obama views children as punishment?

No.

I know it will be tempting to quote him...

"I have seen, the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi in much the same way as it does the lives of children on Chicago’s South Side."

"All too rarely do I hear people asking just what it is that we've done to make so many children's hearts so hard, or what collectively we might do to right their moral compass - what values we must live by."

"I'm inspired by the people I meet in my travels--hearing their stories, seeing the hardships they overcome, their fundamental optimism and decency. I'm inspired by the love people have for their children. And I'm inspired by my own children, how full they make my heart. They make me want to work to make the world a little bit better. And they make me want to be a better man."

"This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn, that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st-century economy."

"Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today."

"My little girls can break my heart. They can make me cry just looking at them eating their string beans."

"I've got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

I think he is a compassionate father who is protective of his daughters. He does not want them punished for ignorance like so many other young women in our country. He insists that they are told the truth about reproduction. He loves his kids so he wants them to be able to make informed decisions about their lives. If that message is not plain to some folks, they probably have other prejudices at work that cannot be fixed by facts or reason.

When all logic and rational thought fails, start quoting the bible to prove a point. It's the easiest out there is.

Too bad there's no proof any of it is true.

Words mean things...

>>punished with a baby

Why are we looking at the unborn like this???
Most of abortions are done for birth control on demand so they won't be "punished with a baby".
Just be glad all of our moms were prolife.

Life...what a beautiful thing...

EVERYBODY DESERVES A BIRTHDAY!!!

Do you think that this current "abstinence-only" reproductive education program is working?

I'm sure he is a very compassionate father and loves his girls unequivocally.

Maybe he mis-phrased it, maybe he didn't. I don't really know. I'm not a mind reader.

I know how it sounds to me though. To me, it sounds like well, if they make a "mistake" then it's OK to go to the clinic and "fix" the mistake.

I think it would be better to teach them how not to make the mistake in the first place.

A child is not a "punishment". It is a consequence of your actions, whether it's planned or not.

I know this first hand. My 16 year old daughter had a baby yesterday.

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=24184806 8&albumID=411971&imageID=8651293

Was I happy when I first found out she was pregnant? Not really. She's my baby and for her to be having a baby was a lot to deal with.

I got past the initial shock, and dealt with it. I'm extremely proud of her for handling it the way she did and not "fixing" the "problem".

Trenton Riley Woods will be welcomed into our family with open arms, not as a punishment.

OK, Broadway, we heard you the first time. We get it.

You're new here but feel free to go back to any one of the literally hundreds of other hijacked threads here that reference abortion, and add to those. Or once again, start your own.

MM
One of the few posters here who can actually get pregnant. Unlike you. (Unless you're that "Whatever" in Bend.)

Words do mean things:

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” W.

He was not saying babies are a punishment, but rather a consequence for not making a right choice.

If "Words do mean things" see example B from Mr. Asscroft:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5bf_1207329595

When all logic and rational thought fails, start quoting the bible to prove a point. It's the easiest out there is.

Too bad there's no proof any of it is true.

And there is no proof it isn't.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Congratulations Grampa Sky!

You're going to be in big trouble though if you continue to have more pix of your Bruiser 'Cruiser than of the baby on there!

P.S. He's adorable, and I hope all are fine!

Congrats! That's great news, Skybill. I'm sure you are the picture of "Proud Grandpa"! Glad they're both doing well and have a supportive family.

I'll gladly support the pro-life position when every one of those "unwanted" babies has a warm, safe home to go home to, and no baby is born just to support someone else's control issues. You people DO see these babies as a punishment for your notions of choice and the reasons for it. "You got knocked up. Deal with it." is all I really hear when you speak.

Until then, I will support the right to choose, as another one of the "few posters here who can actually get pregnant".

Yes, words do matter a great deal, but I believe that the context of any speech makes it clear what is being said.

Obama was reacting to a question rooted in a recent survey of Florida teens that showed kids were drinking bleach to prevent HIV and Mountain Dew to prevent pregnancy. My linked query showed the horrors of ignorance in that state due to silence on prevention.

When I was in school, the government was still in denial about AIDS. Sexually transmitted diseases were introduced as cartoon characters in health films that might have been war surplus. Kids were not routinely told the plain truth by teachers, the nurse, or a coach. So, conjecture was the word of the day.

Did kids I know growing up have abortions? Absolutely. Were the vast majority of them due to rape and incest? Almost every single one. Did I have a dear friend who got pregnant in school? Yes I did, and all of us were damn proud to walk with her for our diplomas on her due date. She had a wonderful son a few days later.

Skybill, I wish you and your newly expanded family all the best!

Not being a Myspace expert, I don't know if the link worked properly or not.

Here is a link to a photobucket picture;

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc66/Skybill/IMG_1680.jpg

Thanks everyone for their good wishes!

My daughter and the baby will be coming home tomorrow and I'm excited and thrilled!

Congrats, Grandpa Bill.

I don't think Obama was pushing abortion, just the importance of birth control and not having sex as such a young age.

When a woman is forced to give birth, this is punishment. The baby itself is not punishment, it's the action of being forced to have the baby that is punishment. I don't like abortion and those who rely on it cavalierly, but I further dislike the notion of the government mandating by law that every woman who gets pregnant MUST give birth.

And, my mom was and still is ardently pro-choice. My sister and I are both happy knowing we were planned pregnancies, not accidents.

Great pic, Skybill.

Even the most ardent pro-life sentiments can't compare to the sheer miracle of a new born baby.

And the dastardly pro-abortion crowd is clueless.

Herb

Herb- THERE IS NO pro-abortion crowd! It is a figment of your imagination, and your desire to twist reality to match what you wish to believe.

And on-topic: Obama CLEARLY said that he wanted his daughters to be educated about birth control, so if they make the mistake of having sex, their mistake will not be compounded with an unwanted pregnancy.

Reading comprehension skills are important, mkay?

Herrbocrite, please read TadC's post a few more times. Right now.

I hate your passive-aggressive posts that always have an big implied "BUT" in them. Shame on you.

The first sentiment is usually kind and/or deserved.
The second or third always has some other agenda (uh, yours).

I remember well when someone here passed away and you did the same thing, you've done it too many times and it's an insult to the one you're addressing, congratulating, or sympathsizing with. Not every post needs your personal contradictory viewpont, especially when those events are pertaining to real people here in our little community.

Jesus, God's Son is my God...and Trixter...when you seek after him with all your might, you will find Him according to Jeremiah 29

Have YOU found him? NOBODY needs to question if I have because I know. I do NOT need to preach to the persons on this message board. If they want to find the way they will.

"THERE IS NO pro-abortion crowd!"

Right....scammed parenthood alone makes 1 BILLION dollars largely from killing unborn babies.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3822.html

Go tell your tall tales to someone who fell off the turnip truck yesterday.

Herb

Good!

They educate, they provide alternatives and they empower young women to make the choices they feel they need to make.

https://secure.ga0.org/02/sprg08_join_web_ppol_splash?url=http://www.plannedpare nthood.org/ppcw/donate.htm

HerrB:

Please go visit the other current thread here regarding the difficulties ADULT MEN have in purchasing contraception/STD protection. Even though you've never needed or purchased either.

Or, just STFU.

Deny, deny, deny.

Kind of like Mr. Clinton wagging his finger whilst lying to the American people.

That didn't change the facts then, and it certainly doesn't change the facts when human life itself is at stake.

Fact is, the blood of innocents is on the hands of the pro-abortion crowd, those heartless profiteers who worship at the altar of killing unborn little kids. Rather than believe in a God, they try to play God...except they're not creating life. Instead they're the executioner.

If theirs was a religion, the left would be up in arms. But because it's a leftist cause, they deem the shedding of innocent blood a non-issue. That is, unless we're talking about dogs and cats, for at least they have 'animal rights.' According to these blackhearted aclu types, the innocent unborn child have none whatsoever.

Shine a little light on those who profit from snuffing out life and watch 'em scatter like rats.

Herb

"Shine a little light on those who profit from snuffing out life and watch 'em scatter like rats."

That's exactly what happened to the Bush Administration. They've snuffed out more life in the last 7 years than any profit seeking abortionist could ever dream of.

Mr. Bush has reduced the killing of innocents, especially women and children.

Leftists work hard to pile the bodies up higher and higher by dehumanising the unborn.

I'd want to change the subject too, rather than attempt to defend the indefensible.

Herb

Are you really that ignorant? Mr. Bush has killed more people than any terrorist or abortionist could ever dream of. 4000+ US troops to start with, not to mention the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children that are DEADER than DEAD and were already on this earth. The body count for Bush continues to stack up every single day of his pathetic fucking presidency and dipshits like yourself gladly support it. If there is a hell, people like you will be there with Bush.

https://secure.ga0.org/02/sprg08_join_web_ppol_splash?url=http://www.plannedpare nthood.org/ppcw/donate.htm

Wanna keep it up Herb, Broadway, et al?

"If there is a hell..."

Oh there certainly is. And here's what happens to those who shed the innocent blood of children, spoken by Jesus Himself:

"It would be well for him if a great stone was put round his neck and he was dropped into the sea, before he made trouble for any of these little ones." Luke 17:2

Vaya con Dios.

Herb

OK Herb, chew on this one, straight from the Bible:

Then God said, “Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.� And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Adam was first created and THEN given life. Adam could not stand on his own until God gave him breath. A baby does not breath until he exits the womb and God gives him breath.

Missing, we (the American Tax Payers) already contribute over $300 Million annually to them.

They are a private corporation that makes a healthy (not literally) profit. Why do they need a tax handout?

Adam was first created and THEN given life. Adam could not stand on his own until God gave him breath. A baby does not breath until he exits the womb and God gives him breath.

No, but the baby has a heartbeat and can feel pain in the womb.

I don't know that they do, but I thought it was a nice alternative to the usual mud-slinging! It's snarky, so I did it!

Hey, congrats BTW!

Now you get to spoil the crap outta your grandkid, with few worries!

Oy! I'm trying to avoid this thread, but quoting scripture is a trap to avoid when possible.

e.g. (and not to pick on Herb) There is no mention of hell in the Old Testament, which is 2/3 of the Bible. The King James version incorrectly translates the word "Sheol" as hell but it means "grave."
Also note that the NIV (New International Version) corrects this.
Also note that the word "Hel" is from Norse mythology.

Any translation of ancient scripture is circumspect, so any point made with it is open to criticism based on translation alone.



Learning about where all the origins of the answer to the question of when life begins is more valuable to me than jumping into a fray of mostly moral rhetoric.

If you're interested in a great comparative article:

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

In this country we live by the law of the land or risk prosecution.

Here Herbie, read this (from the above link, but only a part of some great information if you are thirsty for knowledge beyond what you think is a complete picture of this issue):

The Jewish interpretation of when human life begins is extracted predominantly from three sources: the Torah, the Jewish Talmudic Law, and the rabbinical writings. Since the Torah does not make any direct references regarding the beginning of human life, the inferences as to when human life begins has stemmed from the Torah's stated position on the issue of abortion. In the Torah, there is not an explicit prohibition directed against a voluntary abortion. The legislation in the Torah makes only one reference to abortion, and it is through implication (Jakobovits 1973):

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with a child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then shalt thou give life for life... (Exodus 21: 22-23; as cited by Jakobovits 1973).

According to the Jewish interpretation, if "no harm follow" the "hurt" to the woman resulting in the loss of her fruit refers to the survival of the woman following her miscarriage; in that case there is no capital guilt involved, and the attacker is merely liable to pay compensation for the distress that the miscarriage may cause the family (Jakobovits 1973). "But if any harm follow," i.e., the woman is fatally injured), then the man responsible for her death has to give "life for life"; in that event the capital charge of murder exempts him from any monetary liability for the aborted fetus (Jakobovits 1973).

From the interpretation of this passage it can be concurred that the killing of an unborn child is not considered murder punishable by death in Jewish law. What is explicitly stated in the Jewish text, is that murder is an offense that is punishable by death: "He that smiteth a man, so that he dieth, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:12; as cited by Jakobovits 1973). The Rabbis had to reconcile the contexts of these two passages, and reached the conclusion that the capital charge of murder should be used for death of "a man, but not a fetus" (Mekhilta; as cited by Jakobovits 1973). In reaching this conclusion, the fetus was designated a status that was below that designated for a human. In essence, the interpretation of the Torah led the Rabbis to come to the conclusion that human life does not begin at the fetal stage of development.

The Jewish Talmudic Law assumes that the full title to life arises only at birth. Accordingly, the Talmud rules:

If a woman is in hard travail {and her life cannot otherwise be saved}, one cuts up the child within her womb and extracts it member by member, because her life comes before that of {the child}. But if the greater part {or the head} was delivered, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person's life for the sake of another (Talmud, Tohoroth II Oholoth 7:6; as cited by Jakobovits 1973).

This is the sole reference to abortion in the principles of Jewish law, and it is more explicit in emphasizing the belief that human life begins once the head of a full term baby emerges, because once the head emerges the infant is given the same status of human life as the mother. Yet even in this context abortion is only considered acceptable if the birth of the child threatens the life of the mother. The fetus must maintain some form of perceived life, otherwise the destruction of the fetus would be acceptable under any circumstances, rather than only under the conditions of a mother's imitable health. Also, an argument has been put forth that declares the child as being in "pursuit" of the mother's life; therefore, it may be destroyed as an "aggressor" following the general principle of self-defense (Jakobovits 1973). The need for this argument indicates that abortion may have been considered the destruction of a human life, and this belief had to be reconciled with the practice of abortion to save the mother's life. Generally, it can be viewed that the fetus is granted some recognition of human life, but it does not equal that of the mother's, and can be sacrificed if her life is in danger.

While the Talmud gives the full status of humanness to a child at birth, the rabbinical writings have partially extended the acquisition of humanness to the thirteenth postnatal day of life for full-term infants (Jakobovits 1973). This designation is based on the viability of the infant, so the acquisition of humanness occurs later for premature infants, because the viability of premature infants is still questionable after thirteen days (Buss 1967).

Rabbinical writings have established that viability of a child is not fully established until it has passed the thirteenth day of its life. Extending from this idea is that if two lives are at stake, the one that is certain and established, the mother, overrides the infant's life, which is still in some doubt (O'Donovan 1975). Under these circumstances, it may be that the sacrifice of the child must result to save the life of the mother (Jakobovits 1973). This slight inequality in value is too insignificant to warrant the deliberate sacrifice of the child for the sake of the mother if, without such sacrifice, the child would survive; but it is a sufficient factor to tip the scales in favor of the mother if the alternative is the eventual loss of both lives (Jakobovits 1973). The sense that priority belongs to the weaker and younger of the two claimants is balanced, and in most people's judgment overruled, by a strong sense that the self conscious humanity of the mother, who has already established pattern of relationships, demands more attention than the yet unconscious humanity of the infant (O'Donovan 1975).

Note:The Talmud is a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs, and history.
The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE)
The New Testament texts were written in Koine Greek by various authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140. Its 27 books were gradually collected into a single volume over a period of several centuries.

BTW AD=CE so that means the Talmud is as old as the New Testament.

"Missing, we (the American Tax Payers) already contribute over $300 Million annually to them."

Guess how many hours it takes to spend $300 million in Iraq? 20 hours. That's right. $300 million is blown in 20 hours over in Iraq.

Planned Parenthood would have been happy to provide your daughter with birth control or some basic sex education. Instead, you have the unplanned pregnancy of a 16 year old to deal with. While I honestly do not mean any disrespect, a 16 year old delivering a baby, whether planned or unplanned, is not an event to be celebrated. Statistically, it typically leads to a life of poverty for both mother and child. I hope your daughter can buck the trend for the benefit of herself and her child.

Mr. Bush has reduced the killing of innocents, especially women and children.

WTF???
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING RIGHT???? This is an OUTRIGHT lie!

.... 16 year old delivering a baby, whether planned or unplanned, is not an event to be celebrated. Statistically, it typically leads to a life of poverty for both mother and child. I hope your daughter can buck the trend for the benefit of herself and her child.

Well, the baby is healthy and beautiful, so yes we are celebrating those facts.

Do I wish that it was 8 or 10 years from now? Originally yes and maybe a little now too, but it isn't and we're going to make the best of it.

No matter what she does, she will ALWAYS be my daughter and receive 100% support and encouragement from my wife and me.

To that end, we will support her and the baby in every and any way we can until our daughter can finish her education and be gainfully employed and support both of them on her own.

She wants to be a police officer. If she can do it when she's 21 great, if it takes her until she's 25 that's fine too.

Skybill,
You and your family are a breath of fresh air!
God Bless you and your new addition to your family...glad that your acknowledging the upcoming challenges...never give up in showing your kids righteousness...right choices...God has a purpose for everyone. I am also bless like you...will be celebrating my grandson's first birthday next week...life...what a wonderful choice for all...in the end not punishment!

"A baby does not breath until he exits the womb and God gives him breath."

I'll take God's Word over yours or mine:

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

Yeah, well ok.

If God is all powerful, how come God is so damn needy?

One would think such a being would not have all the ego issues we hear about.

It appears Mr Obama blames the baby for someone getting pregnant. Well they baby had nothing to do with it, so why do people want to punish the baby?

Missing_kskd

What part of the word "God" don't you understand?

If you truely knew God as revealed in His Word the Bible...you would not be asking/stating such.

Bravo your comments Nwokie!

"If God is all powerful, how come God is so damn needy? One would think such a being would not have all the ego issues we hear about."

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5).

http://www.gotquestions.org/jealous-God.html

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=240

thump, thump, thump...

Skybill best of luck to you, your daughter, and grand kid. Not all 16 year old mothers are as lucky to have family support.

Broadway, the part of god I don't understand is why there are so many variations of him or her. Are you willing to say that other religions are wrong and you are right? And if so, please show us proof. Otherwise, spare us your bible gibberish. Quoting Superman from a comic book holds as much truth as your bible passages. Both are fiction created by man for use by man.

http://www.spike.com/video/bible-reliability/2847389

I'm going to keep this brief, then ignore future commentary along these lines, for the time being. I value the company here way more than I value this line of discussion.

The "word of God" that we have is hearsay. Don't believe me? Go find God, on the public record, and I'll take it back.

What we have today is essentially, Bob said God said. That's it.

For this reason, we consider this a matter of faith and not rational fact. That is the absolute brutal truth my friend.

Now, that leaves all of us to decide how and what we choose to believe and it leaves us free to act on those beliefs to the maximum extent possible. This does not mean it's true, nor does it mean it's not true. What it does mean is that we do not hold these things as established, known true facts.

I don't like it when people choose to mis-represent their faith as fact. I really don't like it when they do so in an attempt to regulate my life and my beliefs, or marginalize my life and my beliefs. At the root of that lies a control issue; specifically, your attempts to control others being THE ISSUE.

...and yes, that is unabashedly liberal. I am liberal because I value personal freedom of thought and action. I want you to hold your faith strong just as much as I do my own. I want it because it makes all of us strong, vibrant and free to live and be who we are, not some lie.

My post above was a tongue in cheek response to things heading in a bad direction, nothing more.

Now, you clearly have made the choice to live your beliefs in a way that fits your faith. Good! I encourage you to do exactly that. Again, I do it for the reasons I just gave above.

However, with that respect comes an obligation to return the favor in like kind.

Really, your question is: "What part of my belief in God, don't you understand?"

I decline to answer that, nor hold it in any kind of significant regard, until such time as you show the respect for others due. I'm happy to return the favor in like kind, and am doing so in this post.

Live well my friend, but know I'm absolutely not going to entertain this at this level.

Want to talk Religion and explore some ideas, maybe learn some more about one another? That's welcome --and I would enjoy it. Go back in the archives, we've got some great threads on that stuff.

We've also got some seriously horrible ones. Those are the point of my post here.

Save the "power and fear of God" stuff for your favorite Sunday service please.

Lee Strobel has no more an idea of what he's talking about than Superman or the Incredible Hulk. Nice try. It's all made up and fools like yourself fall for it because you're weakminded (and so are people like Lee Strobel). You are fellow travellers who believe in the same hoax.

Herb...you hit the nail with the hammer!
ALL THOSE WHO POST ON THIS BOARD NEED TO SEE THIS!

"After evaluating all the scientific evidence—the studies done by reputable institutions on the power of prayer; the writings of philosophers who have puzzled over the problem of God and of good and evil; the efforts of biblical scholars to prove the accuracy of holy scriptures; and the work of biologists, geologists, and astronomers looking for clues to a creator on Earth and in the cosmos—Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God. He convincingly shows that not only is there no evidence for the existence of God, but scientific observations actually point to his nonexistence."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/pb-spe013007.php

God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.1 In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God.3

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_21_1.html

There's a reason why the world's top scientists don't believe god exists, and that jails filled with newly born again christians believe in god. That's the difference between ignorance and education. I'll side with the educated...

It's interesting that the right leaning folks wish only to vilify the words of politicians caught up in a campaign where they must speak and answer questions 16 hours a day, a process so brutal that constantly choosing exactly the right words is quite a challenge.

People on the extreme left wish to challenge all the ideas and opinions as non-facts and aberrations as founded in nonsense or misdirected research.

You all need to get a grip. I've never seen a thread that needed to be locked and parsed more than this one. There are too many issues flying around here.

Skybill's original post hinges on one word. Punishment. This word rubbed Sky the wrong way. I understand that. Then he goes on to say "A baby is NOT a punishment. No matter how old or young the person having the baby is. It might be called the result of some poor choices, but definitely it is not a PUNISHMENT."

Again, I follow Mr. Bill. Although there is something to be said for an unplanned pregnancy being a penalty for not planning.
Simply put, Obama's choice of one word might be arguably a poor choice, and had SBill so stated that, I would understand. But he just had to add:

"This is the typical attitude of the liberals."

Now that's a crock of shit and all Skybill did was demean his own point. Before anyone even responded to his post, it was a case of SBill's poorly written response to Obie's poorly worded statement.
Period.

You all need to move on.

Addendum on the existence of G-d issue:

Believe or don't believe, but don't think for a minute that what you write hasn't been written and argued a thousand times before over the history of time.

Addendum for Herb:

You take things way out of context, Herbie. I certainly can and do respect your beliefs, but don't you claim that the words in your scriptures have any more weight or accuracy than other words written thousands of years before, at the same time, or after. Interpretations abound, and there is no proof, only faith.
Hell was a mythological place long before the New Testament was written, long before Jesus was born, long before printing presses and the English language. But the key word is "myth."
The Old Testament never mentioned hell. The struggle to overcome evil existed long before Christianity, and yet you fail to respect that. Your constant obsession with a few narrow interpretations of a few issues regarding reproduction and when life begins is shared by many right to life advocates, however that doesn't 1. Give you the right to impose said interpretations on anyone else 2. Make it the law in the United States 3. Make a legal abortion murder. Your pipedream of the overturning of Roe v Wade is just not going to happen. The list of reasons why have already been spelled out many times for you. In a nation as advanced as we are, forcing pregnant women seeking abortions back into dark alleys and Mexican clinics is a piece of the past. I suggest you consider the reality of the next election and the next Democratic President as a harbinger of the right to choose.
There will always be unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. The population explosion on earth is not myth. G-d gave us science and technology to help make the Earth better. Note the capital E in Earth. Your antiquated perception of the Lord needs a little updating. Interpretations from two thousand years ago have limited applicability today. We can't run the country the way you think we should. It's wrong for you to continually indicate that your interpretations are the only answers, the only correct path, the only solution to living a good life. Shalom.

With the loving support of Skybill, his daughter is very lucky.

But I now think it would be seen as punishment for a young girl to have a baby out of wedlock without support of such a great father as Bill. The girl and her baby would face a tragic life without such support. And not every girl has such a great parent.
I do not, though, think she must have an abortion, as there is a great demand for newborns in this country. Adoption is the answer.

I don't think anyone has advocated that she should have had an abortion. She should have been on birth control, then abortion is not in play anymore, and neither is a baby at age 16. I hate to say it, but this is a real life example of why abstinence education fails young teens. They are gonna have sex, therefore they should be educated and equipped to deal with the consequences of sex rather than those consequences becoming a reality they can't change.

You are right on the money Vitalogy, if the neocons did not oppose sex education and birth control, there would not be as many abortions sought.

"...there is a great demand for newborns in this country. Adoption is the answer."

Amen.

Herb

"...there is no proof, only faith."

No. There is both proof and faith.

If someone chooses to selectively ignore archaeological, historical, prophetic and all sorts of additional evidence, that's their mistake.

Herb

Sex education, I doubt if there is a 12 year old in this country that doesn't know what causes babies.

Birth control, the schools give out various birth control devices.

What we need is a national DNA database, and any one fathering a child, 10 percent of his income goes to that child, until he/she reached 16 or 22 if they go to college.

Herb, do you support birth control?, ie, pills and condoms.

Personally, I hate abortion as birth control, but support the others so girls and women do not have to face the latter option.

"Herb, do you support birth control?, ie, pills and condoms."

I have no major issues with most birth control.

Nor do I have a problem with sex education, PROVIDED it is given in an age-appropriate health class without normalising deviant behaviours.

Kids should have ample health resources available to them, and be able to ask whatever questions they have of parents, licensed educators and counselours.

This doesn't mean schools should be laboratories for secular leftist agendae.

Herb

Thanks, Herb.

No problem, Radioblogman.

Herb

And I agree with Nwokie about the national DNA database. That would help catch many criminals, not only missing fathers.

"Nor do I have a problem with sex education, PROVIDED it is given in an age-appropriate health class without normalising deviant behaviours."

What a load of shit! How about you come out and say what you really feel?

1. What is age-appropriate?
2. What do you consider to be "deviant" behaviors?

Give us a clear answer rather than a non-answer with several qualifiers.

I already know the answers to my questions, but I want to see if you're man enough to put it out there in writing.

When I joined the military, they took my fingerprints, and those are now available to carious law enforcement agencies, same when I worked for the DOD as a civilian, and later the Agriculture dept and comptroller of the currency.

In my later military years, they took a dna sample, only to be used for identification in case of death or serious injuries, that info is not available to law enforcement, why not?

Why not take a dna sample of everyone at birth, and when receiving any federal benefit, that would quickly give law enforcement a reference to help solve crimes.

Well, Nwokie, I am surely a neocon on this issue. I agree with DNA samples taken at birth. Think of all the sex crimes and murders that would be solved, not to mention kidnapped kids found again.

Some might think this is a violation of our freedoms, but true freedom comes with a price and that is a price I am willing to pay.

"1. What is age-appropriate?
2. What do you consider to be "deviant" behaviors?"

That's the problem with leftists. It always ends up a slippery slope. Everything's grey. No boundaries, even for kids.

But that gargantuan blind spot is revealing, whilst shining a glaring light on the only way liberals could possibly attempt to justify killing babies in the womb. So get back to us when you actually care about kids, not merely mimic some aclu/naral/scammed parenthood talking points.

Herb

You were the one that gave it qualifiers, Herb. You were the one that suggested grey areas and boundaries. Asking you what those are is not, at least to me, a slippery slope.

Since you won't, I will; 18 and gay, right? Correct me if I am wrong.

Okie: "I doubt if there is a 12 year old in this country that doesn't know what causes babies."

Once again, you're wrong. While the 12-year old Fundamentalist Mormon girls may know, MANY average 18 year old college freshman taking a "family life" class at the U of Utah (NOT EVEN BYU) did not know factually how or where babies come from.

Did you read that one of the CHILDREN removed from the FLDS compound was 16 years old and had 4 kids?

"as there is a great demand for newborns in this country. Adoption is the answer."

Only for perfectly HEALTHY (white) babies, right, Herb?

Not so much for the ones testing positive for drugs at birth, born with STD issues, or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or other medical issues, such as having no prenatal care because the birth-mom never told her parents that she was pregnant.

P.S. My sister and BIL have been waiting for a long, long time for a heathy baby. Any color.

Talk about slippery slopes! You're so slippery you can't answer a basic question.

1. What is age-appropriate?
2. What do you consider to be "deviant" behaviors?

You listed these qualifiers and it would help us all to see what you really think with a CLEAR answer. Otherwise, don't bother accusing liberals of slippery slopes or being grey.

I certainly understand age-appropriate conversations when it comes to many subjects’ involved parents need to discuss with their children.

Sex education has been a topic almost from the time our kids were old enough to engage in conversation. But talking to a 5 year old answering the classic question "where do babies come from?" will be far different when talking to my 15-year-old daughter about what happens if you get pregnant?

It's a gentle balance that as a parent you should know what your child can handle and what can wait.

The health classes our kids have already taken were beneficial and in many ways complimented what we had been discussing all along.

What makes a slope slippery here is when a child is uneducated about their bodies and makes decisions that are not in their best interest.

Also I believe young men in particular need more attention to sex education as well as issues of power and control. Sex for many young boys and men is all about power/control. Hence the polygamist situation in Texas.

Stopping unwanted pregnancies before they happen has always been the best form of birth control. How that happens has many avenues.

The fact remains teens have sex. Research is beginning to indicate they are having less sex or at least the teen birth rate has dropped a bit so hopefully some are getting the message.

Herb-Under a law that would criminalize abortions and put doctors who perform them in jail and services to assist the girl/woman who had the abortion, what are your thoughts on the boy/man who got the girl/woman pregnant in the first place?

"Herb-Under a law that would criminalize abortions and put doctors who perform them in jail and services to assist the girl/woman who had the abortion, what are your thoughts on the boy/man who got the girl/woman pregnant in the first place?"

The boy/man needs to take responsibility. Step up and make it right.

For an adult male who fathers a child, child support should be a given, prison time if he's molesting underage girls.

For a minor male, I would trust a common-sense judge who weighs the situation.

Perhaps there is a chance both youths wish to marry. If it's money they need to get on their feet, I'm for helping them out.

Herb

18 and gay.

Herb, I'm not letting you off the hook. It would take only a few seconds to put your true answers in writing:

1. What is age-appropriate?
2. What do you consider to be "deviant" behaviors?

"18 and gay."

CJ, I erroneously thought you were older than that. You learn something every day.

"Herb, I'm not letting you off the hook."

ME off the hook?

You're fine with offing kids before they're born and you try to DEFEND it!

Off the hook, indeed.

Problem is, you want no boundaries. Most parents don't want their elementary and grade school kids learning about unsavoury, inappropriate behaviours.

If you have a problem with 'age-appropriate' then you have a problem with Mr. Obama. Even a lefty like him understands limits:

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is 'age-appropriate,' is 'the right thing to do.'"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html

Herb

Why not tell us Herb? Because you know you have an undefensible position?

Re: the Bible, it's a documented fact that it's been changed numerous times by numerous people throughout history. Heck, the book wasn't even put together until HUNDREDS of years after it was proportedly written (in fact it was clearly written and re-written over a long period of time).

"18 and gay."

CJ, I erroneously thought you were older than that. You learn something every day."

You wish I was. I know. I have that effect on you. Resisting acting on being gay is SUCH a challenge. I mean, that's where a lot of the right is; " It's a temptation that needs to be resisted."

I picture you as the dad with the Nazi stuff in American Beauty. You probably haven't seen it. So I'll try the " Gomer Pyle " reference...or Hoover...or Noah.

Now come on and kiss me with tongue, you. My smooth skin is just begging for your attention. I'm so clean.

Get out the Herbictionary and decode the question first.

Age-Appropriate = the age of the student at which I feel comfortable talking about the subject, regardless of the students need or ability to take in the information.

Deviant behaviors = behaviors that make me want to say "ick" when described or shown to me.

"Because you know you have an undefensible position?"

Of course this is the reason. I knew this the first time I asked him. Herb is simply too chickenshit to answer a basic question because he can't defend his position. Like a slippery and sleazy politician, he avoids answering questions that will make him look like an idiot.

"I picture you as the dad with the Nazi stuff in American Beauty."

Exactly. I recently watched this movie and thought the same thing.

If you have a problem with 'age-appropriate' then you have a problem with Mr. Obama. Even a lefty like him understands limits:

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is 'age-appropriate,' is 'the right thing to do.'"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html

Herb

Please define age appropriate. I'm not a mind reader, and there is some subjectivity with the term "age appropriate." And, I'm not concerned with kindergartners...I'm talking 6th grade and up.

Community standards, with guidance from the local school board, parents and local citizens should control what is age appropriate, not some leftist bureaucrat with an agenda.

Normalizing aberrant behaviour is popular with many on the left because they see nothing as aberrant. As a result, many liberals are fine with lowering the age of consent to 15 or lower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/16/nsex16.xml

Paedophiles would welcome this change. Consequently, it was pushed through in the UK. Such jaded souls are thankfully in the minority here. Most parents believe children should be protected from laws that encourage predators.

The push to teach about topics like buggery to 12 year olds is simply not a community standard outside of possibly San Francisco. It is, however, a paedophile standard. NAMBLA would love it.

http://www.nambla.org/

Herb

"Community standards, with guidance from the local school board, parents and local citizens should control what is age appropriate..."

You're ok with that, even in some leftist hotbed like San Francisco?

Nobody is asking to change the age of consent though. Why are you bringing this up? We teach children things well before they get apllied in real-life all the time. That is what school is for, no? So why not prepare them for sexual things too?

So your position is don't teach anyone under 18 about sex? Is that the bottom line for you?

How about 16 and no NAMBLA speakers in class? Would that work for you?

"You're ok with that, even in some leftist hotbed like San Francisco?"

Community standards are likely to be the best way to provide information that is in line with parents and local educators. The alternative is for a 'one-size fits all' approach from radicals like the nea, naral, or the aclu.

"Nobody is asking to change the age of consent though. Why are you bringing this up?"

You under-estimate those who would do harm to children. Look. Many kids have fragmented families, with maybe one parent and a lot of issues to deal with. Whether it's irresponsible parents, the 'pro-choice' crowd, Hollywood, television, rap music, or your average predator, none of them has the interest of kids at heart. Kids are minors and need some protection. Otherwise, they fall through the cracks.

"So your position is don't teach anyone under 18 about sex? Is that the bottom line for you?"

No, but I'm not about to repeat myself if you won't bother to read what I've recently posted.

Read my post on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 2:06 PM.

"How about 16 and no NAMBLA speakers in class? Would that work for you?"

Again. Read my post.

Herb

Herb, I'm simply asking for what age you, as a community member, would support. The lowest number YOU would support. YOU.

If they want to talk about the birds and the bees at 12, that's fine...maybe earlier. Especially if it's in the context of birds and bees.

But let's not have them putting condoms on bananas in front of 7 year olds.

Herb

OK!

That's PERFECTLY reasonable. A healthy compromise. That wasn't so hard, was it?

"That wasn't so hard, was it?"

Not at all. I'm a parent.

Once the agendae of nambla, the nea, aclu, naral and even big business are off the table, and it becomes TRULY about looking out for kids...and not about those who line their pockets whilst railing about 'the children,' I can be very agreeable.

I'm a parent.

Herb

"You under-estimate those who would do harm to children. Look. Many kids have fragmented families, with maybe one parent and a lot of issues to deal with. Whether it's irresponsible parents, the 'pro-choice' crowd, Hollywood, television, rap music, or your average predator, none of them has the interest of kids at heart. Kids are minors and need some protection. Otherwise, they fall through the cracks."

They also need protection from religious fanatics that will do them harm. The sect from Texas is a prime example of how religious fanatics do far more harm than anyone in Hollywood, pro-choice crowd, etc. And they do it in the name of god, just like you.

Children are becoming sexually mature at very young ages now adays. Its not uncommon for a girl as young as 9 or 10 to start physically developing the traits of a woman. Or a young boy having the capability to have sex.

Someone has to give these kids the basics, as to what can happen, if they engage in certain activities.

"They also need protection from religious fanatics that will do them harm."

Charge them, then, and try 'em in a court of law.
Take away freedom of religion and we become no better than China.

Herb

"Or a young boy having the capability to have sex."

I sure hope you're not a reputable source.

I say take care of them like we did in Waco.

Herb- "The legal age of consent should be lowered from 16 to 14 for young people who are less than two years apart in age, according to an academic."

Reading comprehension man! Did you even bother? Or were you assuming nobody would read your link?