Thirty Pieces Of Silver

Posted Tuesday, December 22, 2009, at 3:02 AM
View 36 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    Sam said... "Some ask, what we do with those unwanted babies if abortion is made legal? What kind of question is that?"

    Since you aimed your blog somewhat at my earlier question, I want to make a comment, I just want to say I feel it is a perfectly reasonable and responsible question.

    You say... "You men, if you father a child, then take care of that child! How tough is that?", and " How about a little responsibility? Ever heard of that?"

    What kind of reality are you living in Sam?

    As far as I know, every state has proceedures in place to recover child support that has not been paid. This is to force responsibility and support children already born, not the unborn. Responsibility? HA! It doesn't happen with the born so what makes you think there will be responsibility for the unborn? Obviously there isn't based on your own comments.

    Since personal responsibility doesn't work in the real world that I live in, please enlighten me with your wisdom as to what will work, or do you really think it's me that's out in left field here?

    -- Posted by Brian Hoag on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 8:41 AM
  • I cant name a single elected representitive who has saved a baby. You live in Kansas, why dont you worry about your elected officals and not so much about ours. I had not voted for Nelson in the last election but I will in the next one.

    Just more rantings from Sam. Sounds like every other blog he has put up.

    -- Posted by president obama on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 11:59 AM
  • lol dawg. i guess we will cancel each others vote; i have voted for nelson every time he ran for office. it wont happen again

    -- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 12:18 PM
  • Ben Nelson is truly a Democrat, and has always sold his soul and his votes via earmarks.

    I have a personal letter from him defending earmarks as a method to transfer more funding to our low population state from taxpayers in other states.

    With that earmark, his democrat brethren demand quid pro quo, so guess what happens when another Democrat wants a bill with earmarks? Good Ol Ben says yes to the request, and approves another democrat bill loaded with deficit building earmarks.

    Lots of evidence point to the health care bill costing more for Nebraskans, and saving money for other states. That is because those states with high premiums have lots of mandates Nebraska does not. So here, our lower mandates (Chevy Like Insurance) will have higher cost to offset the higher mandates in states like Deleware, where mandates make it higher, (Cadillac Like Insurance).

    Never forget that health insurance premiums are a function of claims experience. This health care bill will elevate claims due to higher mandates, and have hidden premiums to pay for it. Those hidden premiums are called increased taxes.

    -- Posted by shredder09 on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 1:19 PM
  • It was Richard Armitage who outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 2:06 PM
  • And who is Chenney, and Bemn Nelson?

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 2:07 PM
  • May the Birth of Jesus bring Peace on Earth. Soon.

    Merry Christmas, to one and all, as we celebrate His Birth, and soon coming.

    How about everyone taking a bucket of this heated banter out, tomorrow, and melt the snow for the Highway and Road maintenance folk, so they can enjoy the Holiday, Hmmm?


    -- Posted by Navyblue on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 3:53 PM
  • Good thinking Blue,

    One small detail for several others, particularly those who **** those liberal Democrats for swapping vote, "log rolling" and dealing to secure passage of projects important to their districts and states.


    When the richest man in the U.S. Senate, Robert "Sorghum Bob" Kerr sat out to build dams on every section of every river in and around Oklahoma -- He told groups of farmers and ranchers in courthouse basements that he would trade votes with anyone for more usable Oklahoma water and elimination of floods.

    And he did.

    Quite often, he would arrange for the entire Oklahoma delegation to vote for a California project, if California's votes supported a major Arkansas River Navigation Project appropriation bill.

    Conservative Republicans routinely dealt with Bob Kerr, because they knew he could deliver a voting bloc.

    Tee-totalling Bob Kerr routinely dealt with Ev Dirksen of Pekin, Illinois regardless of how drunk the GOP leader was at the moment.

    Ben Nelson did not get to pick any other of his dancing partners in the Senate. Nebraska has sent him up there to wade through the swamps, skin alligators and help the home folks as much as possible, while trying to put the U.S. of A. first.

    Senator Ben wins some, loses some, ties others.

    When his vote counted, he made the best money deal possible for Nebraska and got abortion language in the bill that satisfied a lot of his backers.

    Not since a fellow named Curtis was in D.C., has Nebraska received so much attention.

    Ben is better known this week than the NU football program.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 6:17 PM
  • By the way, Slicker, out on the plains it isn't too diffiult to identify parentage of "surprise babies."

    Around the Section Eight areas of Denver, Omaha, K.C., St. Louis, Dallas, Chicago, Minneapolis, Des Moines, Detroit, NYC, Boston, Baltimore, Philly, D.C., Atlanta, Miami and those few hundred other urban areas larger than McCook, Colby, Dodge, North Platte, Sidney, Ogallala, Valentine, Lexington, Cozad, Imperial, Trenton, Cambridge, Wilsonville, Oberlin, St. Francis, Holyoke, Julesburg, Beaver City, Hastings, Norton and Salina --- it is slightly more difficult.

    In the case of the typical urban druggie teen prostitute, DNA offers the only hope.

    Just find a jury which will condemn the "customer" to child support.

    Considering the cost for several hundred DNA tests -- which city and county will volunteer to pay that bill?

    The first requirement is understanding the problem.

    Then calculate the cost of the best workable solution, or the affordable cost of an acceptable policy -- even if it does not solve the problem.

    Then run seek the office where you have the legal authority to carry out an imperfect solution you dislike totally, which will be voted in by other people.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 6:30 PM
  • *


    This article riled me a bit, only to the extent that you are right on the money. However, I sensed in your comments something different. You may have resigned yourself to thinking that our country is lost. I had expectations that you would continue to battle for the cause. Enjoy your Christmas, and think about the positive things that we conservatives can build on. The liberals, excuse me, the libs/progressives, have the upper hand, for now. That is all the more reason not to concede that our freedoms are forever lost. Let me offer one more word of encouragement. If there is one thing that the American Government has proven over the years, that one thing would be its inefficiency.

    -- Posted by Leo.Pold on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 9:18 PM
  • Sam, will outlawing abortions really end the practice in the US? Also, what should be done to those who get illegal abortions?

    -- Posted by npwinder on Tue, Dec 22, 2009, at 10:54 PM
  • *

    npwinder - thank you for your questions.

    "Will outlawing abortions really end the practice in the US?"

    No, I don't think it will. The proponents of abortion use the "what about" defense. Usually what about incest, or rape, or life of the mother? The truth is that the abortions that actually occur do to those reasons, may be anywhere from thirty to one hundred abortions a year. The other 1,499,900 babies that are killed are for convenience. A sick convenience.

    Let me ask you a question? Shouldn't we, as a society, be as concerned for the life of that child, ready to enter the world, as we are for the life of the convicted killer on death row?

    The killer gets years of appeals, and endless supply of tax funded lawyer dogs. What does the child get?

    Outlawing abortion will once again affirm the right to life. As I have explained, the libs/progressives are going after the seniors, and old folks. Maybe you are not old now, but you will be someday, either that or dead!

    Once people realize that abortion for convenience is no more, maybe people will take their actions more seriously.

    Also, I think you forget the libs/progressives agenda when it comes to population controls. They are obsessed with the idea that humans are an evil to this planet.

    Now Npwinder, please bear with me, and let me explain something else. The idea that humans are bad for the planet, and destroying the planet, flies directly into the face of the libs/progressives belief in the fantasy of Darwinism.

    If the Earth is as the libs/progressives say, born of the big bang, and billions and billions of years old, and evolving, then we humans are a product of that cycle. The libs/progressives say that when the Earth's creatures needed eyes, they formed eyes. When the Earth needed to, it adapted, the Earth.....evolved. If that be true, then certainly the Earth, through the magic of Darwinism will certainly evolve an answer or remedy for humans, will it not?

    It is a malignant form of thought, the hatred of ones one species, and to actively seek the destruction of ones own children, also flies in the face of nature.

    Women are told by the feminists that they are "empowered" when they choose to exercise abortion. I have spoken with many women over my lifetime, in my efforts to end abortion, and never once, not one time, have I ever talked with a women who said she felt "empowered" after ending the life of her own baby. No no my friend, they are often haunted for life, and experience other medical problems. Not owning up to one ill-timed pregnancy, led to other ill-timed pregnancy, and other bad behavior.

    Now to answer the second question: "What should be done to those who get illegal abortions?"

    That is not as difficult question as you may suppose. The answer is simple.

    Doctors who perform abortions should go directly to jail. Women who kill their own kids, should not ever be allowed to get pregnant again.

    I know, you're howling at me right now.

    Lets consider what I offered as a pro-lifer some time ago. Would you on the left, allow abortion ONLY for rape, incest and life of the mother in danger? Let's say that I agree to the hideous idea that a child should be executed simply because his/her father was a rapist, who you allow the other 1.5 million kids year to live?

    I have talked frequently about rape babies, and the numerous success stories of women, who although raped, cherished and love the baby. God healed these women emotionally.

    Scott Peterson is a convicted killer in California. He was convicted of killing his pregnant wife. He was charged and convicted of two murders.

    Let me use a ploy the libs/progressives use all the time, EVERYBODY KNOWS when a woman is pregnant, there is baby inside her. We, as a society, have been trained to look the other way, or make excuses.

    In my opinion, Doctors who rip apart a viable baby inside that mothers womb, tear it to shreds, and suck it into a sink, are murderers. Murder is the shedding of innocent blood. Who could possibly be MORE innocent than that baby?

    Thanks for your questions, and taking time to read. I'd like to know what you think.

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, Dec 23, 2009, at 1:25 AM
  • *

    Yes Leo, I was down a bit. I was more disappointed in myself for actually thinking there was a Democrat politician with some stones.

    I guess what I was trying to say, and I said it awkwardly, is that I am going to try to more earnestly to debate those on the left, (libs/progressives, lol). I will ask God to help me restrain from calling these folks names. We end up in a contest to see which one of us can come up with the best way to call each other a dirty rotten dog.

    So, I will ignore, (God's help again) the name calling and the insults. I will just roll the care of that over to God. You see, I would take the insults personally, but we live in Christ. It is not me that these libs/progressives hate. It's God, and His Son, the Christ.

    Gee whiz bro, I could get all these libs/progressives to love me in an instant. All I need do is betray God.

    I believe my arguments are right, and I further believe that I can defeat the ideas of the libs/progressives, with God given common sense and the truth.

    I have decided for the most part to debate them all, as much as I can with my fourteen hour workdays, and defeat their phony ideas. I will confront the Guillermo's the Fred's, the Carl's, and I am even going to try and actually figure out what Hank says.

    It is a trick of my opponents to drag the conversation down to petty bickering, or the crossfire of insults.

    Thanks Leo for your time. I know you and your business have some interesting days ahead. Thank you for being out there for me. Merry Christmas to you.

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, Dec 23, 2009, at 1:43 AM
  • *

    I am going to try and end the insults fredd. I think I can defeat you in the arena of ideas.

    I am pro-life, and I support the death penalty as you supposed. I find it interesting that libs/progressives are very concerned about the death penalty, for killers. You seem to have no problem with the death penalty given to 3000 kids every day.

    I am not if favor of war. No one in their right mind wants war. However, I am not pacifist. I don't believe that we should stand by while people kill us, or our loved ones.

    I'll tell you something else fredd, when Bush first mentioned going into Iraq, I was against it. I was against the war in Iraq right up until the decision was made to go, and political votes were taken, to go into Iraq. At that point, the decision was made, now you need to win.

    I thought there was a much more humane way to deal with terrorists. That is a discussion we can have down the road.

    Now fredd, I have a question for you. Why it is necessary to kill over one hundred thousand babies a month, because of ten difficult pregnancies?

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, Dec 23, 2009, at 10:20 AM
  • Sam, so you may see where I get some of my thinking process from you may want to read this article . So you know, its about using persuasion versus force to get the changes you want. Also, so you know, While I agree with a lot of the article and especially the theme, I don't agree with all the little things it says.

    Also, after previewing, this gets really long and for that I apologize. It also may ramble at times, and if that is true, I apologize. I lost my train of thought in the middle of typing this out and may have repeated myself in a couple places.

    First, I think there's way too many abortions. And I also don't expect you to agree with my thoughts on the matter, though I do you hope you think about it as a second way of getting to the goal.

    I don't think it will make much of a difference if its legal or illegal. I think these days people who really don't want the baby will go greater lengths to get rid of the unborn baby. I could see more deaths of women who tried to have an illegal abortion thereby also losing the baby. Because of this, personally, I think passing a law would be pointless.

    For me, I think we need to look into why women decide to have abortions in order to actually solve the issue.

    I can come up with a few ideas, do note though I have little to no research as to why. also the number one answer to them will be more support/education.

    I think on thing to think about is that people who are pregnant for the first time and weren't planning on it, are scared to death about being a parent. There's a lot of horror stories, and the people that already have kids joking about the negative aspects. They don't see the thing growing in them as a human yet. Many see this thing as ball and chain that will permanently enslave them and they feel hopeless.

    I think if there was a larger support circle for these people family, friends, church, society in general, they may realize that while they can't go to everything they want to or used to be able to, they can still go out occasionally and have a break from the kid.

    Others are going to feel hopeless because of the lack of resources available. Many feel they won't be able to finish high school, others feel they can get through high school but not college. For the long term they feel better about not having the baby and not being interrupted from continuing on their chosen path. I think too many times people get a set plan in life and no deviation is allowed. Times are changing and no one is surviving with that mindset. Again with a better support group, I think people will realize there is hope in raising the child and that they are not alone.

    I also, had a couple other reason on why I think people have abortions, I lost my train of thought though and forgot what they were. If the reasons why people have abortions aren't figured out,

    Sam, I think you know I'm in favor of legal abortions of rape, incest, life of mother. I wont ever consider forcing them too, though I think the option should be available. To the women that have decided to have a rape baby, I have a lot of respect for. There's also the women that wouldn't be strong enough to care for the child forced upon them. I won't ever have a bad thing to say if choose to terminate the pregnancy and will respect them the same.

    I also think many people feel ashamed of an unplanned baby especially young people. Family members will be mad depending on age. others will be elated. Though once the baby is here everyone seems to cheer up.

    I don't think society is completely there yet to helping people considering abortion. I think the church can be wonderful in these situations. Right now, I'm not impressed with organized church though. Don't get me wrong I think faith and religion are wonderful things no matter the religion. However, I think that organized religion has become extremely negative and condemning anything. I don't think that putting a cross on your lawn saying this is for the millions of babies aborted every year will help the situation.

    In my opinion, church should be there for talking about the love god and helping those. That is the way to bring the people back to God. Not condemning everything/everyone left and right. "May the one without sin be the one to cast the first stone" I think that's losing its meaning and stones are flying.

    I don't remember Jesus trying to change laws. Instead, he tried to change people and the way they think. He used Persuasion over force. You can force people to do whatever you want. Look that the purple house in Cambridge. The town said you have to paint. They did. I don't think many people where pleased with the outcome. If you persuade people to act how you think they should, they will follow you and be loyal. They wont follow you while they figure out how to rebel. Jesus also loved the sinners and showed the compassion and forgiveness. Today, I feel like the church does just the opposite.

    Again, I don't hate religion or faith. I think everyone should have some sort of religion. and I know in my mini rant, I focused solely on Christianity, but its what a affiliate myself with and that is what I have a problem with.

    Family is another huge support group. I have a baby who'll be 6 months on New Years. If it wasn't for mine and my fiance's family, It'd be impossible. We're both full time College students, she'll be taking 7 classes next semester, I'll have 4. She's gradating a year early I'll be a year late with how things worked out. But that was also the plan before baby was even in the picture. Plus I'm working two jobs at low wages, ranging a combined 25-35 hours a week. If it was for our families, things would be a lot different and unfortunately, Many people considering abortions don't have that.

    As for what to do with people who get illegal abortions, I don't really care what happens to them. I just asked cause I saw a clip where abortion protesters were asked and none of the ones shown had an answer. Some figured that the deed had been done and that it was between them and God and they shouldn't be punished by law. For me, it would be pointless to have a law and no consequences.

    -- Posted by npwinder on Wed, Dec 23, 2009, at 10:31 AM
  • Ben for sure sold his sole to the devil and hopefully will pay the price come his next election. We need to get rid of the bunch in Washington to get our Country Back under control. If I hear the statement "the Constitution is a breathing document" I will scream. That is just an excuse to ignore those parts that due not support an action. This whole health care bill is unconstitutional.

    -- Posted by TXNebraskan on Wed, Dec 23, 2009, at 10:54 AM
  • *

    I enjoy Sam's passion on abortion. It is rewarding to see someone stand firm in a heartfelt belief. I also agree we much of the comments of npwinder, who I think has the same goals as Sam, or me for that matter.

    The numbers of abortions? Depends on who you get your figures from. Anywhere from 1 to 1.5 million a year. Since we on the right, left, and center, agree that abortion is odious, then it seems we could certainly try and reach an agreement.

    I'd like to address a point Sam brings up that no one really wants to address. Sam referred to seniors being "rationed to death" as a result of the new health care plan. Sam makes the point that since our society allows so many abortions, can the early death of multitudes of the elderly be far behind? Does he have a point? I think so. The young don't know what it is like to be older, they see it as something far away. To a young man of 30, it may seem like a 70 years old has lived long enough. To the 70 year old, the next ten years are precious. Will those years be rationed away?

    -- Posted by backgammon on Wed, Dec 23, 2009, at 2:19 PM
  • *

    Hi, guys I'm new posting but I've been lurking for a while.. I have not been able to decide if I am liberal or not, because I feel that I have some conservative beliefs, too. I guess that makes me somewhere in the middle, or after this post some of you might think I'm crazy but regarding the abortion debate on here recently I think Sam finally said something that gave me the nerve to finally post something.

    "Women who kill their own kids, should not ever be allowed to get pregnant again." --- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, Dec 23, 2009, at 1:25 AM

    OK I'm not howling at all Sam, because regardless of some of your radical beliefs (I have some too) I really respect this blog for the volume and richness of the discussions and the fact that there are people arguing from all over the spectrum. I actually like reading your well-written blogs, as well as your opposition liberals, and even the crazies too, it's serious issue with lots of personality representling. A friend recommended it as a good local political blog.

    Back to radical territory regarding your comment, I guess since it's broached I'd like to take it further and ask how would that be enforced? Would it be possible to simply sterilize people that violated this rule?

    If that kind of science were employed then maybe we should reversibly sterilize the population at birth and require certain conditions met to be unsterilized? If you want to have and raise a child, by reaching a standard that must be proven by testing, just like driving. Make it as universal as booster shots and flouride in the drinking water. I imagine howling from both sides on that idea but is it arguable that this could end the social problems of both abortion and unwanted children? Unwanted children statistically have harder lives growing up and don't have a fair shot. And many people feel that abortion is a holocaust. Wouldn't this phase abortion out over a couple generations?

    OK I guess I'm ready for my ripping, just thought it an interesting idea. I await the religious take on it, because I am also jaded in that area, as well. I grew up in the Christian church but quit going in high school and don't consider myself religious. But I will say Merry Christmas to you, nonetheless!

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Wed, Dec 23, 2009, at 5:16 PM
  • *

    grammar and spelling, sorry I'll try to proofread better next time

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Wed, Dec 23, 2009, at 5:19 PM
  • *

    Jaded - Welcome to the blog! I look forward to hearing more of your points of view.

    Your sterilization example, while seemingly workable, just may be likely to end up as a disaster.

    Medical sterilization can very well be reversable, but in most cases, it needs to be done soon after the sterilization has taken place. A sterilized male (in the case of vasectomy) begins to treat the cessation of normal flow as a type of infection (a very simplistic way of explaining this...but for the sake of will have to suffice) and begins to actually shut down sperm production. Consult a urologist for a better example...

    Women seem to fare better in the reversal department, however the problem of scar tissue (a common side effect) rears its ugly head. Scar tissue has many different effects on the female reproductive system, as well as on the rest of the female body. Hormone levels are one example.

    Infant sterilization would be a bad idea considering that the human reproductive system doesn't even find itself fully formed until well into the toddler ages, and then even beyond.

    Would you like to hear a wild idea that might actually be feasible?

    Abstinence. It works as 100% protection against pregnancy and STD's and it works everytime it's tried.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Wed, Dec 23, 2009, at 10:13 PM
  • It is Christmas Eve.

    Tomorrow, a group of us Un-Christian Liberals will take over preparing Meals on Wheels for the community, so the MOW staff and family of volunteers will have the day off.

    The Loud Mac and boojum can find something to complain about in that.

    I doubt seriously if there are any "bloggers" here with the Gearjammer who do not find the very 'nitty-gritty ideas" of abortion and homosexuality repugnant.

    I know a man who stopped his first wife from having two abortions (The first an illegal back alley crime and the second "legal" -- but with a forged "spousal consent form") -- and then later signed for that wife to undergo two abortions -- because he had no idea who the biological fathers were, just knew they were not him.

    His priorities -- Concentrating upon support for his own children, and not diluting his personal resources to support other men's progeny from his adulterous wife.

    That woman did not care, one pregnancy to the next, be it her husband's child or the product of one of her assorted "men on the side."

    Legally, he was responsible for the support of all, once they were born, even after the third or fourth months.

    Easy decision on his part.


    Did/Does he attempt to make the same decision for any other woman or her spouse or other sperm donor?


    Does this conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court give him that authority?


    This court does not give itself that authority.

    Firmly believing in this nation's system of laws, rather than of man -- While I considered Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and a couple of other Republican nominees to be out of touch with reality when they were nominated.

    They suprised me and the GOP presidents who nominated them.

    The Constitution I believe in and have sworn to protect and uphold repeatedly, allows Senators and Representatives in two imperfect federal legislative houses to develop laws for the Sitting President's signature.

    The rule is --

    The President Proposes, Congress Disposes.

    The Congress Appropriates, The President Administrates.

    The Courts decide if the Legislative & Executive have acted constitutionally and legally.

    Sam doesn't, Mike doesn't, Slicker doesn't, McLoud doesn't, boojum doesn't and I.G. doesn't --and Heretical Hank doesn't.

    The Pope doesn't, Billy Graham doesn't, Oral's son Richard Roberts doesn't, Jimmy Swaggart doesn't and no other ordained or self-annointed evangelists or revivalists do.

    The Courts Do!!

    Is this system perfect?


    Want a perfect system in your eyes?

    Get to work, volunteer to take an active part in the political/election systems and work for perfection in your eyes.

    Lots of luck -- You'll need it, whoever you are.

    The courts do.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Dec 24, 2009, at 4:55 AM
  • *

    Carl - I find your mantra to be a bit ironic. You shout for safe sex education yet are unwilling to even advance abstinence.

    What could be safer than not getting jiggy?

    Because abstinence is not always followed, you believe it shouldn't even be discussed. The same argument could be made in the case of condoms; which don't provide safety for 100% of STD's and are not 100% reliable in preventing pregnancy. So why not just throw that out the window as well? If it isn't infallible just forget it, right?

    And are you seriously advocating that because teen sex is viewed as a right of passage that we should just grin and pass out the condoms? What would be wrong with helping these people to respect themselves as well as respecting others? What would be wrong with portraying sex as a safe and sacred act that is best complimented by marriage instead of turning it into a mere physical act?

    I never said to not teach people sex-education. But I don't believe showing them how to put a condom on a banana trains them to have a relationship either. If young people had more respect for themselves and for others, I beleive you would see the numbers of abortions go down.

    I could live with that...could you?

    -- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Dec 24, 2009, at 10:14 PM
  • Abstinence should be, and is, a part of any sex education and should be the ultimate goal. And their is no disputing the fact that it 100% prevents any negative with sex.

    However, most students, now are not waiting til marriage, a lot can't make it to their high school graduation, the rest not even by their college graduation. It's a day of age where one virgin getting married is a minor national headline while two virgins marrying each other will be a major headline.

    Birth control and STD failure be it by condom or the pill is extremely well known these days. That was one of the things stressed by the abstinence class I took at MJHS is like 2000 or 2001 (7th/8th grade, I think we had to do it twice)

    Plus, kids can find whatever they want online. My fiance's niece is 11. The kids in her class are doing searches on what they see/hear on tv or the radio or whatever else then spreading it around. Who knows though, what those sources are like. The kid's are going to be looking this stuff up while their parents are watching them, and lets face it, parents are not always monitoring what kids are doing online. There's no dialog on these sites, just whatever is fed to them. Kids don't have a reasonably safe place to ask questions.

    With a comprehensive Sex-ed class, that should include abstinence if its worth anything, it'll open a channel for those questions. That is especially beneficial to those that can't talk to their parents for whatever reason, be it embarrassment or its a topic their parents wont talk about or any other reason you can come up with.

    -- Posted by npwinder on Sun, Dec 27, 2009, at 12:11 AM
  • *

    So - according to local liberal board - abstinence concerning sexual activity is a really bad idea.

    The lefty viewpoint seems to say that people are going to have sex anyway, so we dare not take steps to discourage out of marriage sex. Those randy (wink wink) teenagers should be taught how to put a condom on a banana because that's effective at lowering STD's and abortions.

    If the goal is lowering the abortion rate and STD's then abstinence must be a key component. Here is a stat that GI can't deny - abstinence works 100% of the time it's tried. Abstinence prevents STD's and pregnancy 100% - Sorry GI, your overblown stats and comments fall in the face of 100%.

    Funny how libs want 100% abstinence when it comes to firearms - but lets just wink and pass the KY when it comes to sex.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Sun, Dec 27, 2009, at 4:10 PM
  • -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Wed, Dec 30, 2009, at 8:37 PM
  • npwinder, navy blue, jaded american, michel, even Hank, i've enjoyed reading many of your comments.

    Outlawing abortion will not stop it, but it will take it out of mainstream, remind people that it is wrong because it is murder.

    Right now there are 30 abortion clinics in the state of Washington alone. Doesn't that sound like more than enough to take care of the "typical" urban druggie teen prostitute?

    We say we long for God's Glory, so it's about time we start living in the Light of His Love.

    Trust and Obey. Peace On Earth, Goodwill Toward Men

    -- Posted by tiney56 on Wed, Dec 30, 2009, at 9:15 PM
  • *

    GI - Your "generalization" that abstinence doesn't work and is even harmful is laughable.

    Exodus 20:14 Because God loves us, and wants what is best for us; he gave us laws to give us guidance. God by His very nature would not harm us, but instead would bless us. God looks at the big picture, and I believe that we should as well. Our quirky little wants and desires must be superceded by aligning our lives to be within Gods will.

    There is not even a remote chance that abstinence doesn't work. Let's take another example. 100% of automobile accidents could be avoided if 100% of the people never got into their automobile.

    I'm not suggesting that there is a reasonable possibility that people will not drive, and that people will not have sex. However, the principle still stands, and it is irrefutable. Abstinence concerning sex outside of marriage works every time it's tried. The best way to teach abstinence to young people is with the truth. The truth about STD's, the truth about pregnancy and abortion, the truth about respecting oneself and the respecting of others. Focus on the Family is a good resource for statistics and information. For Faith and Family is another. Pam Stenzel has a book that is a fascinating pairing of statistical fact with practical application titled "Sex Has a Price Tag". A very good read for teens and adults alike.

    In regards to the statement about liberal gun-control; I'll stipulate that there exists an unknown number of firearms proponents/owners who happen to be liberal.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Dec 31, 2009, at 10:24 PM
  • Mickel, he isn't saying that abstinence doesn't work. He's saying that abstinence only education doesn't work.

    Here's a google search I did on the question "does abstinence only education work"

    (Let me know if the link doesn't work, I see a lot of things that maybe added in the URL from my browser)

    -- Posted by npwinder on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 12:52 AM
  • Tiney, First, you have to convince people an abortion is murder. There is too much debate on when a baby is a baby, conception, a few weeks, when it can survive outside the womb ect.

    There is more then your ""typical" urban druggie teen prostitute" getting abortions.

    If the church wants people to follow god, they will have to start looking more friendly and inviting.

    God gave us free will. He had every opportunity to make it so we all believed in him and still has the opportunity. But he didn't force us. He wanted to know who would really follow him and who wouldn't. I also don't remember Jesus ever trying to change laws. I'm not an expert in the bible either, so please, do correct me if I'm wrong. Instead, he tried to show/persuade people to follow him and his beliefs. To love and respect each other. He gave us rules to live by if we want to make it to the Kingdom of Heaven, and told us of the consequences if we break them.

    The church needs to quit worrying so much about changing laws and strongly condemning actions and showing love, respect, forgiveness, and salvation before it will grow in numbers. Preaching against actions is fine, condeming in church is fine, even taking your message to the mass public is great. But the church is overstepping it's boundary and becoming too pushy.

    Changing laws to follow God, doesn't bring people closer to him, it'll divide the church and non-church goers farther, and numbers will start to dwindle even more.

    Helping the sinners, and showing compassion will bring people around a lot faster. "May the one without sin be the one to cast the first stone."

    Instead of making abortions illegal and forcing things to into back alleys and putting women at risk of death, lets lend a helping, supporting hand to those that are looking at getting one. If the support can be put into place, the number will fall. Probably not to Zero, but it won't ever be zero, illegal or not. Then you don't have to worry about throwing doctors in jail for murder, or sterilizing people, and expensive lawsuits costing the taxpayers money, or the Supreme Court saying that the new law is illegal, or worst of all, the Scared Mothers dying also along with the baby because of a botched back alley abortion.

    -- Posted by npwinder on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 1:18 AM
  • Back when the idea of "Co-ED College Dorms" first appeared, there were a bunch of us Old Grads who made considerable noise on the subject.

    Fortunately, we did not get our way.

    I had three children attend good universities and all lived in co-ed dorms.

    I observed the interaction within all of those student dorm groups.

    Male and female, they were far more respectful and considerate of the other gender and of themselves, than in the good old days of rigid dorm curfews and bed checks for women.

    The unplanned pregnancy rates at universities with co-ed dorms have been unfailingly far below those of rigidly separated male and female students, even in church supported schools.

    There are generations of products to prove that simple fact.

    Early and common sense training for children by their parents is the primary means for reducing unbridled pre-marital sex.

    There are numerous "age appropriate" books and sets of books which explain the mysteries of sex and reproduction -- ideal for mothers and fathers together to read with the kids, individually.

    There are instructional videos, which can be paused while parents answer questions and ask their own.

    Fortunately I benefited greatly from a campus marriage course taught by an awesome retired Presbyterian minister.

    His knowledge and understanding effectively offset my own parents' repressive and old-line traditional attitudes. Basically, he repaired two decades of damage they had unwittingly caused.

    Teen age pregnancies out of wedlock are not prevented by "Just Say NO" -- no more than Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" had any serious impact on increased drug abuse.

    My own attitudes about the risk of casual sex were shaped by knowledge of the old bronc riders hanging around 1940s to 1960s rodeos, many crippled with syphilis, some blind from the disease.

    That -- and seeing a good friend in my FFA chapter caught in a shotgun wedding with a casual sex partner who was lacking in all important qualities.

    Until parents take the lead, possibly with grandparents' encouragement, and make certain their pre-school children get their questions answered -- With ONLY the information they need at that time, and continue with common sense in-home education through the years -- the current epidemic will continue.

    Every attempt to control with abstinence only preaching has failed.

    It failed with Queen Victoria, who imposed a hundred years of rigid thinking upon the English speaking world -- while entertaining assorted lovers and banishing Prince Albert.

    It is the rare young, or older, couple today which does not cohabit before marriage.

    About half of all children are born out of wedlock and more than half of all marriages end in divorce.

    Common sense provision of real knowledge, with early and often influence of parents is the only hope.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 2:15 AM
  • You know, the thing that is laughable throughout the entire debate here is that people think that they have the right to dictate how others live their lives. I was back in the US this last two weeks, Nebraska for 6 days of it, and I find the state of the US to be shaky at best. No one has the spine to stand up for what they think.

    Nebraska is one of the most reliable red states in the union, and yet they have anti-smoking laws that prohibit smoking in public places?? At least Texas got it right and said that as long as you don't serve food your patrons can smoke in your establishment. Government in control right?? But at least it's for the common good, right?? Posers....

    People like Sam tend to favor legislating through morality. Well Sammy boy that crap already happens throughout the Middle East. They're called Shoura Councils. The things they legislate are fine as long as you agree with their ideology. Even criminal sentences are passed through the Shoura Councils. If a man killed his daughter in an "honor killing" the Shoura Council would not hand out a meaningful punishment because it would be against their faith.

    Wake up and get a clue people!! The radicalization of the US towards conservative Christianity is just as bad as the radicalization of the Middle East towards fundamental Islam!! They are the same package wrapped up in a way that is more familiar to you. It plays on your fears and your insecurities. It makes xenophobes out of all of us until we don't trust anyone. Is that the world you want the future generation to inherit? We, as a country, have truly lost all of our free thinking ability and I hope for all of our sake we get it back.

    We as a society are infected with ignorance. Sciences and Engineering are what made this country great, not the blind embrace of religion. We are thinkers, and right now this country is lacking the thinkers that will take us forward.

    Thinkers are not people like me, or Sam, or GI, or anyone else on this blog. We need to nurture the thinkers in our country (and around the world) to get things going. We need to attract them to us. That's how we won WWII, that's how we won the space race. Talent!!!! Not ideology...

    -- Posted by jeffhager on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 8:07 PM
  • Fair enough. I was jet lagging pretty bad and in a foul mood when I posted last night. Didn't mean to offend anyone. Happy New Year.

    -- Posted by jeffhager on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 4:05 AM
  • No, I think the real jeffhagar came through loud and clear.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 12:11 PM
  • Jeffhager,

    I really liked your post. Thank you. I'm familiar with the Shari'a (Islamic Law) and the practices of "folk" Islam in remote villages of certain countries of the Middle East, and you're right, certain ideologies are akin to some of our more conservative religious practices in the US. There are many ideological commonalities amongst different societies across the world, even if they differ culturally. Your perspective is important because you see things differently (and perhaps in a more nuanced way) after having been away from the United States, and that's always a helpful critique on this blog. Res Just

    -- Posted by Resilient Justice on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 9:05 PM
  • *

    I agree with some of what Jeff said. Parallels can definitely be drawn between the U.S. and the middle east as far as religious zeal in the political realm and that is scary. I do hope we can get back to being competitive on a innovative scale instead of getting hung up on religious legislation while allowing the ethically bankrupt to drain our economy and start wars.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Mon, Jan 4, 2010, at 2:40 PM
  • As a reserve officer with a Sun Belt police department--small, rural town of course -- a weekend night routine was patrol officers taking "lunches' and coffee thermos out to a shadowed spot overlooking the gravel pit a mile out of town.

    That gravel pit was the local "lovers lane", mostly for high schoolers, but also for some older couples. Young marrieds living with parents and wanting some privacy, unavailable in an 800 sq. ft. house with a noisy hide-a-bed, were often seen.

    Badge toters would ease in where they could observe at a distance from the shadows and make certain no would be tough guys were involved in strong arming anyone. Obviously, it had happened.

    Every regular and reserve officer recognized cars and knew who was in the car, routinely.

    What we were able to do was get local JayCees to sponsor sessions providing sound education and understanding.

    Yes, some old timers objected.

    But virtually every teenager in the county attended at least one of those two to three hour sessions with doctors, ministers, nurses and trained counselors.

    I know in my daily rounds I received many thanks from individuals teens.

    Another small detail.

    Teenage pregnancies in the community were reduced by 80%.

    Common sense works.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Jan 4, 2010, at 6:18 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: