[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 66°F  
High: 78°F ~ Low: 47°F
Thursday, Oct. 23, 2014

In Search of Senator Johanns - UPDATE

Posted Friday, November 5, 2010, at 12:17 AM

(Photo)
Well, dawg gone it, I must confess that I blew it. In my last blog, I was rather upset at what I thought was RINO (Republican in Name Only) behavior by Senator Johanns.

Now, I see, after further investigation, that I was wrong. I am happy to announce to one and all that Senator Johanns IS in favor of repealing the entire ObamaCare Disaster.

I now know this because several folks have reported to me that the Senator, at almost every single town hall meeting that he held since the government Health Care takeover was stuffed down the throats of the American people, strongly stated his desire to see this disaster corrected.

I am guilty of jumping to conclusions, and for that, I owe Senator Johanns, and you readers, an apology for shooting off my big mouth before I had all the facts.

Please, accept my apology.

After further investigation, which I should have done prior to my last blog, I found that Senator Johanns had voted in favor of repeal when Sen. Jim DeMint sponsored repeal legislation in March of this year.

Also, I found that Sen. Johanns had stated, quite clearly, in an interview with The Hill earlier this year, that he would prefer to repeal the entire law, but since repeal was unlikely because of the Obama veto, he had to use different tactics to stop the bill.

And there is more, I am sad to say. The bill Senator Johanns is working on to "Protect Unborn Children From Unnecessary Pain" is really a good idea. I was wrong to slam the Senator on this legislation.

Do you remember the Partial Birth Abortion legislation? The thing is, no babies were saved from death because of that bill. The only thing that bill did was forbid one method of executing a late term abortion. All the abortionist did was change methods of killing the child.

Yet that legislation cost the pro life movement untold millions of dollars and hours of labor. Yes, it's true that a particularly odious method of killing a human child was forbidden, but many pro lifers were fooled into thinking that late-term abortions were going to be outlawed.

My first reaction to Sen. Johanns bill was to think that pro-life forces were going to get fooled again.

I had the opportunity to speak with Sen. Johanns Press Secretary, Chris Hunt today. I was able to gain a glimpse of the Senator's heart in this matter, and understand that I was wrong in my criticism.

Like it or not, abortion, the right to have your own innocent baby executed, has been found in the Constitution by leftist activists. I have read the Constitution several times, and I never saw that particular right in there. But wacko leftist Judges have, and much to this country's dishonor, fifty million have been killed.

Senator Johanns is simply doing what he can to be humane, and end the end, maybe some lives might be saved once the mothers understand the truth of what is happening.

So, I owe the Senator, and you, another apology, and I do hereby sincerely apologize.

Abortion is a real serious topic with me. I still find it hard to believe that so many gifts from God have been so cold-bloodily slaughtered, and it bothers me. I think abortion affects this country's soul, and I further believe that we, as a nation, will find difficult to get anything right as long as we show such little respect for life.

One thing I have always tried to do, is be truthful in this blog, but in this case, I really blew it. I promise to try and do a better job in the future.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Great column, Sam. Everyone makes mistakes, but it takes a good person to admit them and apologize! Why, there are some that blog or comment on this site that seem to be completely unable to do either!

:-)

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 7:48 AM

I am very pro-life... But who are we as humans to judge someone for decisions they have made in their life. Who am I or who the heck are YOU to tell a woman she can or can't have an abortion?? Are you GOD or consider yourself one?? It is between a woman her immediate family and GOD. and thats it.. don't let anyone judge you or let anyone tell you what is right or wrong.. listen to your heart and hope you make the right choice.. The woman will one day go before GOD and be judged for her life and it's events. No HUMAN pro-life or pro-abortion has the knowledge of what will happen when you go before GOD on the decisions you make in your life. - (BETWEEN A WOMAN AND GOD SAMMY) no excuses no well what ifs no its wrong no its right no well it has to be this way or it can't be that way... no way no how in any shape or form (BETWEEN THE WOMAN AND GOD).. she as will all of us be judged in the eyes of GOD someday.. until that day comes just worry about you and your loved ones and try and do the best you can and make the right choices and live life to the fullest.. life is way to short to not live and love and be happy than to try and worry about other people and what they are doing and trying to convince them something is wrong or right. WE ARE ALL SINNERS.. WE ARE ALL HUMAN.. WE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT JUDGE.. LETS LEAVE IT UP TO GOD AND TRY AND LIVE YOUR LIFE AS GOD WOULD WANT YOU TO AS MUCH AS YOU CAN...

-- Posted by CLUELESS SW NE on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 8:33 AM

Always fun to hear from Chris Hunt huh Sam? I got that opportunity a while back as you may recall.

One thing I wonder about when you say... "But wacko leftist Judges..." when describing the SCOTUS decision on abortion makes me wonder...

In 1973 when the initial 7-2 decision was made, the SCOTUS was made up of nominationed judges by 3 Democratic and 8 Republican presidents. On top of it, the two dissenters were on opposite sides of the political appointments list. Based solely on the wide margin of the majority on the decision, the fact that the courts members were overwhelmingly Republican nominees, and the two dissenting votes were split down party lines, could you defend your statement please?

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 9:46 AM

Personally I don't really like abortion. Killing babies is never really a good idea in my opinion.

However, having it legalized is I would argue better for society. Prior to the legalization of abortion you had women going into back alleys and getting "coat hanger" jobs done. In my opinion this is much more detrimental to both mother and baby along with society as a whole. If the mother chooses to do it, then being in a hospital environment is really the best option.

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 11:45 AM

Yes, Senator Johanns is a fairly conservative guy both fiscally and socially. I like that and will vote for him.

Abortion is a sensitive subject, and this is where I will probably break from many of my Christian brothers and sisters. Yes, abortion should be kept legal, that way is can be monitored for safety and sanitation standards, much like all health care providers. Abortion doctors, let them answer to God only. As for those who seek abortions, I would rather see my Christian brothers and sisters meet them at the exit door with open arms and help them rebuild their lives, than yell at the at the entrance. Otherwise, those who have had an abortion will live a life of guilt and shame, which often leads to self destructive behavior, and we are not to allow that.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 5:16 PM

Point taken Brian. I remember too that is was Ronald Reagan that gave us Sandra Day O'Connor. It was George HW Bush that gave us a liberal judge upon the recommendation of John Sununu. The point I was trying to make, and I did it poorly, was this, anytime to have judicial activism, that Judge, in my not-so-humble opinion, becomes a leftist activist Judge.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 3:17 PM

Dear Clueless - I understand that people are faced with difficult decisions. What I have a hard time understanding is why three thousand kids, every single day, die. How can that be? Is this day and age, with so many ways to prevent pregnancies.

Anyone who has read my blogs know, I confess to breaking all of the commandments. Those that I did not actually break, I wanted too, and that is the same thing.

I am not trying to judge any woman who is faced with a difficult pregnancy, instead, I am trying to offer a different outcome.

Many women suffer emotionally from the abortion for decades after the deed. Many suffer health problems and problems with relationships and guilt. There are two victims when an abortion happens.

Fifty million babies killed. Not a very good record, is it?

I have in the past, outlined what I think would be a very good program that would allow the "right" to abortion, yet RESPECT life, and end using abortion for birth control.

My son, many years ago, went to jail for twenty days for giving a minor ONE beer. He was young and stupid, as we all are from time to time. You mean to tell me, that when a young person commits an irresponsible act that causes the death of a human being, we cannot offer the same type of punishment?

When my daughters were under the age of 18, they could not get their ear pierced without my permission, yet they can terminate a life?

There is room to work here. We do not need to just sit back and accept that 3,000 kids every damn day, have to die.

Oh, and just for the record, I have stated this in the past as well...We Christians could deal a severe blow to the abortion industry, if Christians would stop having abortions.

Thank you for your comments!

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 3:32 PM

Chunky and Damu, very good comments, and thanks for making them.

Abortion is a sensative subject, and I agree, we Christians can help women that have suffered through an abortion. We certainly should, and that would help the problem more than we know.

For the record, the former director of NARAL admitted, several years ago, to inflating the number of these "backroom" or "coat-hanger" abortions prior to Roe v. Wade, to promote legalized abortions.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 3:37 PM

I ask you this Sam, let's say abortion was illegal. With the number of kids already in foster care, what do you think another 50 million would do to the system? What would another few million families on welfare do to the system?

If abortion was illegal, should the mother be charged with murder? What kind of penalty would having an abortion entail? I wasn't around when it was illegal, I'm curious what was done to people convicted?

-- Posted by Damu on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 7:53 PM

Damu - thank you for the excellent questions.

Abortions are not only performed on the poor. Many a rich woman or middle class woman has made her way to the abortion clinic because the unwanted pregnancy would ruin their figure, or interfere with vacation plans, or force them to get a bigger house or car, or because too many fathers are not living up to their responsibility.

Here is what I think should be done.

Government has a responsibility for protecting life. Abortion should be heavily regulated. Unless the abortion was done because of a threat to the life of the mother, or due to rape or incest, the mother could get the abortion, however, she would have to go through the penal system. Murder would be way too strong a charge, rather a month in jail, or community service for having an abortion.

Allowances could be made for women who used birth control and the birth control failed. The father of the child should also be held to answer for the taking of a human life.

If you ask for a second abortion, then the penalty gets more severe. Folks that perform "back alley" or "illegal" abortions would face much stiffer penalties.

Respect for life is the goal.

I would submit that not every child born, instead of aborted, would end up in a foster home.

Some would say that I am being hypocritical, asking for government regulation because I am against over-government. But protecting human life IS a legitimate function of government.

"We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them LIFE..."

Also, don't you think that many of these children killed off would now be productive members of society, producing, paying taxes, etc.?

If my son, and others, have done twenty days in jail for giving a minor a beer, then could we not agree that you should do twenty days when your actions caused a death?

Look at how our society cracked down on drunk driving. Sure, it has been a steady fight to get people to stop drinking and driving, but we are making progress.

Back when Roe v. Wade was made the law of the law by judicial fiat, many folks opined that millions would be killed. They were laughed at by the pro-abortion forces. They were accused of exaggeration and fear-mongering, yet look at what has happened.

Please indulge me a minute more when I talk about women who are the victim of rape. A hundred years ago, the rapist was killed and the baby saved. Yet, today, the baby is killed and the rapist shown mercy. Does that appear odd to you?

I have tremendous faith in womanhood. I think women are much stronger and capable of love than even they may think. In my work as a pro-life guy, I have met women who kept the baby produced by rape, and they all tell me that the child was a blessing to their lives.

But considering how awful and traumatic rape is, I don't think this society could tell a raped woman that she MUST keep that child, but as Chunky mentioned above, that would be an excellent place for Christian people to stand in the gap.

One of the most successful evangelists of all times, Dr. James Robinson, is a product of rape. His mom put an add in the paper asking for a Christian couple to adopt the child. This man has gone on to start a feed the children program in Africa that feeds 400,000 hungry kids every month. God has the ability to take something horrible, and make something beautiful from it.

And one more thing...It is absolutely and without question, necessary for men to start owning up to the children they father. We must put an end to deadbeat dads.

Many women are having abortions because the men fathering these children are acting like Azzholes, thinking that they can use women, and walk away by throwing enough money for an abortion at the pregnant woman.

Our society was founded upon personal freedom for sure, but with freedom comes responsibility.

Of course, in my short answer, I have somewhat oversimplified my answer, but, I don't want to bore you!

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 8:59 PM

@Sam I would agree that abortions aren't only performed on the poor. The figures I've seen though show that they are the most prevalent group to have them. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-chen/demographics-of-abortion_b_567915.html)

I would wager then with these kinds of stats we could reliably say that 50% of the non aborted babies would be either put up for foster care, or the families would have to join welfare, or get an increase in the welfare benefits already being received. In that aspect I believe it would cost the nation more financially to rescind or redact the roe vs wade ruling.

I'm curious if your in the majority in your opinion of the mothers not being charged with murder? (I realize you can't really answer that, more of an interesting question to ponder) The majority of the protesters I've seen all mention baby murder ect with their sign-age. Perhaps that is just protester hyperbole though?

What do you think about statistics that show that abstinence only classes don't work? I find it interesting that the majority of countries that teach actual "sexual education" have lower teen pregnancy and thereby abortion rates than we do. Personally, I think that by educating the youth in contraceptives ect we would do more to prevent abortion that by changing the legality of it. (Nicely enough the majority of the scientific evidence on the subject backs me up as well.)

-- Posted by Damu on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 9:48 PM

Why do you think that poor women are inclined to have unwanted pregnancies? That is curious. Is it because they do not have money to have proper contraception? Or is it because the same "flaws" (for lack of a better word)that have caused them to be poor, also cause them to be cavalier about contraception.

Please allow me a day or two to review my sources on who is getting abortions.

Naturally, as a conservative, the Huffington Post would not be a source I trust, however, that does not necessarily mean they are incorrect in their assertions.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 10:49 PM

I would actually argue a few points with that. Studies I've seen have shown that poorer people are statistically considered more religious. A large percentage of them being catholic. I think you can see what I'm saying here.

I would also say by far the largest contributor was the previous presidents mandate to only fund Abstinence only education in public schools with federal money.

Although we can discourage kids from having sex, we will fail with the majority. I know, teaching about abstinence feels good. It doesn't work though. Areas that have these types of programs have higher birthrates and therefore higher rates of abortion than places with comprehensive sex ed classes.

-- Posted by Damu on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 11:32 PM

The problem with many sex education classes is that they mingle a bunch of gobbledygook about the wonders of homosexuality in with the education.

Still when abortion was illegal, the numbers of single mothers was down. Now, with abortion run amok, more and more babies are born out of wedlock.

Just like the states with lots of toll roads have the worst roads. (See Oklahoma, NY, Illinois and Pennsylvania)

I disagree about sex education. I think there is way too much education, so much in fact that kids almost feel obligated to have sex. Kids are considered weird or strange if they are not sexually active, plus you have a media and entertainment industry that glorifies sex out of marriage, and promotes promiscuous behavior.

You see movies and sitcoms where people meet, have one or two dates and jump in the sack.

It is almost like the abortion industry, which has turned into a big business, is purposefully stirring the pot so to speak, to get more customers.

Then there is the Lefts tendency to portray humans as an evil on the Earth, so that people "feel" that the one less human they abort is a noble thing to do...there are too many people anyways.

Also, with the rising costs of a bigger and bigger government, and a rising tax burden, this puts people in a position where they must chose which they will support, government or children.

Also.........the more and more we spend on education, the worse it gets, and the dumber our kids get.

No, education is not the key here. Morality is. Please don't tell me that we cannot legislate morality, because we do it all the time.

Look at this stupid new law in San Fransisco. They just legislated the Lefts morality on Happy Meals for crying out loud.

And since the right to life was specifically spelled out in our founding document, that is a moral we can and should legislate.

Besides, since classrooms have become more and more the indoctrination centers of leftists theology, mother Earth and Government god, I don't trust the schools to do the right thing.

Some could make the argument that an alcoholic cannot help but drink, and an addict cannot help but do drugs, no matter what laws we pass, no matter how much education we give. YET, we still pass and enforce laws against harmful drinking and drug practices, don't we?

Religion was once a powerful tool to help folks do the right thing, but since religion, and faith in God has come under constant attack from the left, this has helped turn younger folks into amoral robots, led around by their desires, and free to kill an unborn child whenever they feel like it.

The one thing that parenthood used to stand for was the notion that once you entered parenthood, you lived for the child, not yourself. In today's culture, we are told that our own selfish desires are what we should follow after, and thus you have the killing of three thousand babies a day.

The left always talks about "the Children" but talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. The left says that children are the future but killing them off, or if they survive pregnancy, slapping the newborn with hundreds of thousands of dollars in government debt, really kicks their future in the ass, doesn't it?

Thanks for taking time to discuss this issue with me.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sun, Nov 7, 2010, at 1:01 AM

Sorry, one more point. Those of us who oppose abortion are more interested in saving lives, not so much interested in punishing people. Whenever I speak with other pro-life folks, our focus is almost exclusively linked to trying to save these precious gifts from God. I see no desire to run out and punish women.

Although, I do see a desire to stop the doctors and planned parenthood from getting rich on the blood of innocents.

The perky Katie Couric, in her exuberance to mock and embarrass Sarah Palin, kept focusing in on the rape issue, and yet, rape and incest account for less than 1/15th of one percent of the abortion killings every day.

We do not need to kill three thousand babies a day, to help one rape victim.

Again, thanks for the debate, and I mean no offense by this, but God Bless.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sun, Nov 7, 2010, at 1:09 AM

"The problem with many sex education classes is that they mingle a bunch of gobbledygook about the wonders of homosexuality in with the education."

I'm not entirely certain what your saying here? The majority of evidence points that homosexuality is genetic. I would think that including a section on that within a sex education course would make sense.

"I disagree about sex education. I think there is way too much education, so much in fact that kids almost feel obligated to have sex. Kids are considered weird or strange if they are not sexually active, plus you have a media and entertainment industry that glorifies sex out of marriage, and promotes promiscuous behavior."

Honestly, I'll have to disagree with this based on personal experience. I went through the sex ed course here in Mccook not that many years ago. Believe me when I tell you they were completely abstinence based (Not to mention Jesusy). We also had a gay person in our class. I honestly can't recollect them mentioning homosexuality one way or the other in the class though.

"Also.........the more and more we spend on education, the worse it gets, and the dumber our kids get."

I don't think these two are related. I think you can actually make a much better case for the dumbing down of America on the rise of television and the assorted garbage programming from that.

"Besides, since classrooms have become more and more the indoctrination centers of leftists theology, mother Earth and Government god, I don't trust the schools to do the right thing."

Personally, I think schools should teach verifiable science. Creationism is not verifiable science. It's not really science at all. If you want simple verification of that, look at the list of other nations that teach it.

"Some could make the argument that an alcoholic cannot help but drink, and an addict cannot help but do drugs, no matter what laws we pass, no matter how much education we give. YET, we still pass and enforce laws against harmful drinking and drug practices, don't we?"

I would honestly argue against what you've mentioned above and the McDonald's law. I think that as Americans we should be able to do whatever we like, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. I don't understand how we can't have these principals and consider ourselves a free nation.

"Religion was once a powerful tool to help folks do the right thing, but since religion, and faith in God has come under constant attack from the left, this has helped turn younger folks into amoral robots, led around by their desires, and free to kill an unborn child whenever they feel like it."

Religion isn't needed to teach morals. Morals can be taught without using the fear of religion. Personally I blame the parents for this. Although, I'm not sure if the actual numbers really change. Their have been children like this in every generation.

"Those of us who oppose abortion are more interested in saving lives, not so much interested in punishing people. "

I find this kind of interesting actually. You say repeatedly that abortion is murder above. Shouldn't the crime be the same across the board?

"The perky Katie Couric, in her exuberance to mock and embarrass Sarah Palin, kept focusing in on the rape issue, and yet, rape and incest account for less than 1/15th of one percent of the abortion killings every day"

I believe this was more so over outrage of the context. Forcing a mother to keep a baby after rape is pretty extreme if you think about it. Especially for some people, think about a racist white person getting raped by a black person or vice versa.

-- Posted by Damu on Mon, Nov 8, 2010, at 10:25 PM

Abstinence, without the teaching of morality, cannot work. You cannot teach a teenager and have them possibly take you seriously by telling them simply that they should abstain from sex until married.

You must first tell young women why premarital sex is wrong. How young women are used by weak men for their own sexual pleasures. By weak men, we mean those who cannot or will not control their sexual urges. That weak men will use lies, and deceit to get their sexual pleasures. Weak men will use alcohol and drugs to weaken otherwise strong young women's defenses. And in necessary, violence to get it. The acts by weak men will distort young women's view on what a healthy sexual relationship within a marriage is to be like, as told by God. That is why their virtue, moral excellence, is absolutely important.

Young men must also be told of the same things. Strong men must contain their sexual urges. If you are a man of weakness, your actions will lead the woman you abused to a failed marriage. Her family will splinter, and her children will have an unhealthy outlook on sex and marriage. How can you possibly live with yourself knowing that? I would ask, young man, are you a man of strength, or a man of weakness.

This can be taught without becomeing "Jesusy". However, without the inspiration of Jesus Christ, this seed of thought would never sprouted. Man with the Trinity, is a mere animal. Come to think about it, isn't that what the humanist have been trying to teach.

Young women who would choose a lifestyle of abstinence, purity, or virtue, tell all male friends of this lifestyle. See what kinds of men will run from you. Answer, the weak ones. Only the men of strength will now be interested. If you begin dating, ask them to join you as an active participant in your lifestyle. Often times, they will. Forgive them of all their sexual sins of their past, and leave it in their past, never bring it up again or used it against them. Your married life will be blessed.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 10:10 PM

@CPB I'm curious then, where exactly do homosexual people fit in here?

-- Posted by Damu on Tue, Nov 9, 2010, at 11:29 PM

This is the blueprint I gave my daughter for successful dating and subsequent marriage to a man. I asked her to scrutinize it completely, finding holes in my logic that needs to be addressed. She found none.

I do not know, nor do I understand the homosexual's moral beliefs of sex and love. Given the short term and polygamous nature of their relationships, I would say there is none.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Nov 10, 2010, at 3:59 PM

@CPB Do you know quite a few homosexuals who fit the description you just laid out? I'm curious because the homosexuals I've met throughout my life have been exactly the same as heterosexuals in regards to relationships. Save the one obvious caveat of their mating preference.

-- Posted by Damu on Wed, Nov 10, 2010, at 7:45 PM

I don't know "quite a few", but I do know some, and sadly, they fit this mold. Sorry.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Nov 10, 2010, at 7:52 PM

@CPB Would you say you have a large enough sample to make a generalization about a whole group of people like that?

Also, can married homosexuals be Christians also? I'm somewhat curious how this works?

-- Posted by Damu on Wed, Nov 10, 2010, at 11:50 PM

I found some excellent reading for you also!

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/09/wh...

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Nov 11, 2010, at 8:15 AM

Damu,

I would say, yes, to your first question. I would say no to your second question, from my world view. Some could say yes, those would be the pick-n-choose" "Christians, also known as the "boutique believers".

As far as your Time article, is that something you would want your daughter involved with? Is that all you would expect from her? How about the boyfriend? Wouldn't you want him to view your daughter as more than a piece of meat? Is this all you believe love is about? Is this all you want your children to believe about love? If this is so, your will fail as a parent.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Nov 11, 2010, at 9:45 AM

@CPB

Don't you want to help lower the number of abortions though? I'll admit that letting my son or daughter sleep with there significant other in my home is a bit far fetched in my opinion. The biggest take away from the article would be in the form of a difference non abstinent based education makes on both the pregnancy and abortion rates.

I would also argue that although love and sex go together well. One does not necessarily beget the other. All one has to do is look at the number of failed marriages we have in this country for an excellent count of that.

Your homosexual response sounds kind of bigoted to me. I'm not sure how many homosexuals you know or where they are located. I can however state that isn't the norm with their behavior.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Nov 11, 2010, at 1:24 PM

Damu,

Where in the world could you have gotten the idea I don't want to reduce the number of abortions? I really don't like to keep reminding you that abstinence, or sexual purity as some call it, works every time it if properly taught, as I demonstrated above. An argument that so far you have failed to pick apart.

If the Danish model is more than you think even you can handle, then why did you bring it up? If you cannot support the idea, then it damages your credibility on the subject at hand. On the other hand, I fully support and believe my plan as infallible.

I see the "bigot" word was brought up, indicating the debate is not going your direction. I simply stated my observation in the subject of homosexual sexual relations, and if for that I am a bigot, I will concede.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Nov 11, 2010, at 2:14 PM

@CPB I find you don't want to reduce the numbers, because even with overwhelming evidence that your idea doesn't work, you still cling to it. Sure, in a perfect world abstinence and jesus would be all people need. This however is not a perfect world. Regardless of what you teach kids, the majority of them will have sex.

I said I didn't agree with having children sleep together knowingly under my roof. The paper is fairly long, this is however one aspect of it that I didn't agree with. The rest of the paper I find to be spot on though.

I call you a bigot because your preconceptions based on the bible are blinding you to the truth in the matter. I understand that is difficult to understand, but it is fact.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Nov 11, 2010, at 3:30 PM

Those who choose to abstain from sex still get pregnant? I know human biology and sexual reproduction very well, but come on! Yes, some will choose to give in to worldly lusts, and find themselves pregnant, they choose to reject abstinence, and that is the price.

What about adoption? I notice you atheists rarely mention this choice. Countless studies have shown the emotional damage women who undergo abortions endure. It is not from the extremely isolated protest at clinics or other social pressures, but from the knowing they have diminished humanity by killing an innocent. Nine months out of a lifetime is a fair price to pay for weakness. It's a solid choice.

In a perfect world, condoms pill, and Dutch parental supervision would be flawless. But guess what, condoms break and fall off. Girls forget to take their pill, and biologically speaking, they fail. Sometimes Dutch parents don't pay full attention to their teens. And really, who are the Dutch?

I kept God in out discussions to a minimum, you however kept bringing Him in. Why?

I also noticed that when I brought in the emotional bonding, that only Godly sex within the marriage can bring, you flinched. It is this moral and emotional component to love and the sex within the married that the atheist/humanist fear the most. Atheism/humanism exits only when they can convince the world we are merely animals who got lucky and evolved. Rather, we humans with our humanity, are truly special.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Nov 11, 2010, at 4:52 PM

@CPB If you abstain from sex you will of course not get pregnant. Well, actually there are the odd exceptions http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/te...

but what I'm saying is the majority of teens don't or won't do this regardless of what you try to tell them. Education is the only option if you want to reduce the instances of teen pregnancy and abortion.

Adoption is great, don't get me wrong. The situation though is one of shear numbers. They currently can't handle the number of kids that are up for adoption right now.

I was actually wondering about that myself. The basis of the majority of your points comes from the bible, god, your faith, correct? Why wouldn't you be using it as a reference?

Do you believe that life long pair bonding is only seen within the homosapien species? Science has shown us that although it doesn't happen very often, the same phenomenon can be observed in other species.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Nov 11, 2010, at 11:37 PM

I'm sorry Damu, but your reference to the abc news story has nothing to do with sexual purity. I agree, education is the only tool we have to ensure our teenagers safe journey to a healthy marriage, as only my example displayed. And that should be our ultimate goal. My plan ensures it. It is a plan of strength through virtue, and my daughter agrees.

Yours is a plan of weakness. The only hope your idea offer is that our sons and daughter know how to use a condom, and not to forget to take the "pill". Yours is a plan where your daughters become mere prey to the sexual predators that lurk in our schools. Their trophy case is on display walking in humiliation in our schools. Your daughters then become a target of predators evening the score, and the cycle continues. Perhaps you even want your sons to become a predator. Your lack of wisdom proves it.

I purposely chose not to us my God, my Bible and my Faith a a reference to prove that it can be done.

Yes there are few instances of monogamy in the animal kingdom, but not the type that human have.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Nov 12, 2010, at 5:08 PM

@CPB Do tell chunky what is the difference between bonding for life between humans and other animals?

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Nov 12, 2010, at 6:50 PM

@CPB I've been waiting for a response for a few days now. Perhaps you haven't taken the time to look. I'll provide a few examples for you out of the goodness of my heart.

http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2010...

I'm anxiously awaiting your answer!

-- Posted by Damu on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 7:19 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Hot topics
Aaaaaarrrgg!
(9 ~ 5:13 PM, Oct 18)

Elizabeth Warren's Eleven Tenants of Moonbattery
(7 ~ 5:23 PM, Sep 1)

The Politics of Divsion
(4 ~ 6:40 PM, Aug 13)

They Are in it Together
(9 ~ 8:47 AM, Aug 6)

The Savage Truth
(3 ~ 10:08 PM, Aug 2)