Update III (1/23 @ 4:43 p.m.): I spent the day with a client, a lawyer who does pro bono work on right to life cases. She represents patients whose doctors are about to pull the plug, and she’s in D.C. to speak at an event sponsored by National Right to Life (NRLC).
Bobby Schindler (Terri Schiavo’s brother) is also a guest speaker. We stopped by the NRLC office this afternoon and met Terri’s sister Suzanne Carr, who’s in town for the event. Suzanne and Bobby travel the country talking about pro-life issues and helping families deal with the same problem they faced with Terri.
I need to get more involved with the right to life movement. There are so many people out there doing so much good work, but you don’t hear much about it. For instance, if your family member is in the hospital facing withdrawal of treatment, National Right to Life can put you in touch with lawyers in your state to help extend plug-pulling deadlines so you can transfer your loved one to a different facility.
Check out blogger Barbara Curtis’s photos from yesterday’s March for Life rally. More rally pics at Human Events.
I forgot to mention yesterday that Ramesh Ponnuru, author of The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life, spoke at the Family Research Council’s March for Life conference. I heard only the last part of his presentation (good sense of humor, given the seriousness of the subject matter) and didn’t get to meet him.
Update II (1/22 @ 8:43 p.m.): Must-read post from a commenter, “Changed Life”:
“As to abortion. I can speak as to what is wrong with it because I had one. If some asks now if I have children, I say none living. If they dare ask what happened, I tell them I murdered my children. I say children but I only had one abortion. They make me get off the table and go back into the office and pay them more money because the doctor says I am too big so I am further along than I think and I have to pay more money for him to do the abortion. Pay the money, back on the table, time passes, they wake me up tell me nope they were wrong, I was just having twins. How did they know it was twins…they counted arms, legs, heads of what they vacumned out. (No refund by the way). Guess it wasn’t the mass of meaningless unformed tissue they told me it was if they could count arms and legs.
“30 years ago and it feels like 30 seconds ago.
“I thank God for the peace he has placed in my heart and for his grace. Amazing Grace that saved a wretch like me.”
Update (6:13 p.m.): The panel went well. The discussion focused on blogging in general rather than pro-life blogging in particular. Reminded me that I need to do more pro-life blogging.
Dr. David Prentice’s stem cell presentation was captivating. That may sound like a strong word to describe it, but he talked about things mainstream media don’t report. For instance, did you know that adult stem cells, which don’t involve the destruction of human embryos, heal people, and embryonic stem cells don’t? So much information. Adult stem cell research is supported mostly by private investors because investors want a return on their money. There’s a reason why embryonic stem cell research is supported by taxpayers. Why are so-called scientists salivating over embryos? Why do mainstream media fail to provide balanced coverage of the stem cell research debate?
The new euphemism for cloning is “somatic cell nuclear transfer.” Dr. Prentice said the scientific evidence isn’t there to support embryonic stem research, but even if it were, ethical concerns still remain. Much more later.
Townhall intern Katie Favazza live-blogged the panel and Dr. Prentice’s presentation and will post more text and pictures later. I didn’t get to see the late Terri Schiavo’s brother Bobby Schindler this morning. I met him at last year’s CPAC, but I doubt he remembers me. I may get to meet his other sister tomorrow when I drop by the National Right to Life office.
Blogger Peter Shinn is doing much more than blogging about child killing. He visits the clinics, does some video blogging, and writes representatives, and he’s involved with a group that visits abortion mills on days they do abortions. They pray for the unborn and the women and also counsel the women.
Correction: I called Jill Stanek a “former abortion nurse.” INCORRECT. She was a labor and delivery RN who made a gruesome discovery in 1999. Read all about it.
——————————————————————————-
*** Very important question at the end ***
Black folks sure have come a long way.
We can go anywhere we want to go (except for certain hispanic areas in Los Angeles County, that is), sit at the back of the bus only if we want to, and fornicate with people of different races without fear of incarceration for miscegenation or lynching for race-mixing.
We can vote for the crook of our choice without having to pay poll taxes or take literacy tests, and we can move to any neighborhood anywhere in the United States we can afford. If we want to send our kids to schools with white kids, we won’t be harassed or stoned, and if, on the off chance we are, there’s plenty of legal recourse. If fact, there are whole organizations on call for such occasions, organizations that exist for the sole purpose of uncovering and exaggerating the most trivial racial grievance.
We have overcome, indeed.
(By the way, Barack Obama, white liberals’ Great Black Hype and would-be president, is all for child killing.)
Freedom to Kill
The fight for civil rights, defined as those guaranteed in the Constitution - freedom of speech and religion, the right to due process of law and to equal protection under the law, etc. - was much more than a struggle for equality. The movement was about dignity of the person and first class citizenship in this great country. Blacks were subjugated by law and practice, and people on the front lines of the movement risked life and limb so those coming after them would never experience the outrage of one’s own government treating them as less than human.
Those years of hard work have come to fruition. In 2007 we can, with impunity, kill our babies in a safe, sterile doctor’s office, just like white people.
We have overcome, indeed.
*** The March for Life rally begins today at noon on the National Mall. ***
Perhaps my image of the civil rights movement is overly romanticized. From my perspective, the movement’s appeal to “Christian love” and human dignity included sanctity and preservation of life.
But I’m in error.
Last October, Planned Parenthood joined the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, an organization founded at the dawn of the modern civil rights movement. This isn’t news per se, but I thought it was a timely tidbit for today, the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that fashioned a Fourteenth Amendment “right to privacy” for women to kill their babies in utero.
Says conservative writer and friend Mychal Massie: “How can a civil rights group that claims to support underprivileged blacks embrace an organization created expressly to hasten the demise of black people? People of conscience should be appalled and outraged by this alignment.”
(Hat tip: National Center)
But alas, some blacks only can summon outrage for things like the dismantling race preferences. I know more than a few who become unrighteously indignant at the mention of high crime rates among blacks or the high illegitimacy rate. But they spare no outrage over the fact that Planned Parenthood targets black areas for its abortion mills. (See “Marching for life and against the ‘Negro Project’”and one of my earlier efforts, “Through The Fire: 43 Million Sacrifices”)
But then again, we have overcome.
Abstinence, Anyone?
Some of you may be wondering how I can adamantly oppose child killing and out-of-wedlock birth at the same time. It should be obvious, but if not, allow me to explain. Even if a woman is pregnant without a husband, I would never, under any circumstances, advocate killing the child. There are many steps leading up to pregnancy, and I believe the rate of out-of-wedlock births can be reduced if people learned to make responsible choices about sex. On this issue I am an absolutist: sex is for marriage.
As one who’s decided to obey God and remain abstinent until marriage (after years of debauchery), I can tell you it ain’t easy sometimes. And I’m a Christian, a “new woman” in Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit to understand the things of God and seek him out. I can’t imagine how much of a struggle it might be for those whose moral authority extends no higher than themselves. I can give young women plenty of practical reasons to reserve sex until marriage, but without the spiritual component, the need to live one’s life according to God’s plan, I don’t know how effective those reasons would be.
Blogger Dawn Eden, who wrote The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On, probably is better equipped to help young women and teens deal with responsible sexual choices. I’m too extreme. “No sex before marriage, no in-between, period.” 
(Clarification: That’s not to say Dawn isn’t extreme, but I rarely meet people as extreme as I am.)
I haven’t read Dawn’s book yet, but I’m sure I’ll be able to relate to some of her experiences. She blogs about Planned Parenthood quite often, so if you want to stay informed about what this group is up to, make Dawn’s blog a regular read.
Blogs for Life
This afternoon I’m speaking on a Blogs for Life “new media” panel at the Family Research Council, moderated by the wonderful Charmaine Yoest. There’s a live web feed, I’m told. Panelists include Mary Katharine Ham (who appeared with me on an episode of Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air “Vent;” The main topic was child killing), Rob Bluey, and Tim Ruchti of Pro Life Blogs. Thanks for the invitation, Joe Carter.
Following the panel, Dr. David Prentice of FRC will discuss stem cell research.
Morning speakers include Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo, and nurse Jill Stanek of Pro Life Pulse.
Live-blogging at Pro Life Blogs.
Radio show host and blogger Cindy Swanson posts an ultrasound photo of her grandson.
QUESTION: Sexual abstinence until marriage: unrealistic or do-able?
I was in my early 20s during the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement, and I enthusiastically supported all its ideas and goals. I still do. Back then I was labeled as a liberal, and even a n—– lover by some who disagreed with me. Now I’m a conservative. I didn’t change. The movement did. So, tragically, did a lot of the sociological characteristics of black America and, as a white guy, I’m automatically a bigot if I dare to criticize such things as Affirmative Action or an out-of-control rate of out-of-wedlock births.
Comment by Dave — 01.22.07 @ 11:10 am
La Shawn
Great comment on Town Hall and your blog.
There is an abortion clinic in Shreveport, and late term abortions were done in New Orleans.
I am not convinced that these clinics are targeting Black neighborhoods as much as most people don’t want an abortion clinic in their neighborhood.
Shame on NAACP and Black Caucus for supporting abortion clinics.
But what do you expect from the same people who refuse to condemn the French for naming a street after convicted cop killer Mumia Abul Jamal?
These legislators don’t represent “Black People” yet “Black People” keep re-electiong them.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 01.22.07 @ 11:13 am
La Shawn–Thanks for posting the link to your column on TownHall. I have this argument periodically with pro-abortion acquaintances, and they think I’m making up the racist bent of the baby-killing movement. They may concede that Sanger “didn’t like East Europeans” but insist that the “good” she did making sure they didn’t breed overshadows her prejudice. *gag* They always insist that “women’s clinics” target “poor neighborhoods” which are not “black neighborhoods” (although if you ask them about Hurricane Katrina “black neighborhood” is synonymous with “poor neighborhood”). So frustrating that people can’t think critically! More frustrating that they think “having a baby” is “being kept down.”
Frank–I am not convinced that these clinics are targeting Black neighborhoods as much as most people don’t want an abortion clinic in their neighborhood.
Most people want a “free or reduced-fee clinic for women’s reproductive health” in their neighborhood, which is what they call themselves. “Reproductive health” is a euphemism for “birth control and abortion”–they’re not handing out prenatal vitamins and LaMaze classes. They also do “outreach”–arranging for women to get rides or bus passes if the clinic isn’t directly in their neighborhood.
Mostly, I’m fascinated and disgusted by the whole concept that I, as an adult woman, can make a “choice” about killing my (hypothetical) baby, and this choice needs to be available to me because I am somehow incapable of “choosing” not to have sex with a man who wouldn’t take care of me and a baby. Women are not children, they shouldn’t be treated as such.
Comment by Radish — 01.22.07 @ 11:35 am
You can kill them (babies) but if you spank them, we’ll prosecute…! (I’m from California)
>>Women are not children, they shouldn’t be treated as such.>>
Wow. Such a short sentence with such big consequences. I’ve always wondered about the women’s movement - whether they _really_ wanted equality, or just those perks that seemed to go hand in hand with the responsibility that men assume (or used to assume, anyway) when they marry and start a family. Good husbands and fathers carry huge burdens…I’ve always thought women should work on lightening those - that partnering was a better goal than equality.
Comment by suek — 01.22.07 @ 11:55 am
To answer your specific question:
QUESTION: Sexual abstinence in marriage: unrealistic or do-able?
I hope you meant -until- marriage. Though you may be a bit too close to the truth for comfort.
As for waiting… Yes, it is possible. My wife and I waited, tho it was not easy. But I just kept focusing on the worst case scenario: What an out-of-wedlock birth would do to our lives. I actually think that that is so common today in some communities, that no one considers that a “bad thing” anymore.
Comment by Tom — 01.22.07 @ 11:57 am
First, let’s be clear about something. Aborting a 4 day old zygote is as much “killing a baby” as stepping on an acorn is cutting down a tree.
As to the question of abstinence prior to marriage, I’m trying to figure out why one would avoid safe sex prior to marriage.
Considering that sex is a fundemental part of the human experience that can be enjoyed both recreationally as well as an expression of love, I’m not sure why anyone would avoid it prior to or after marriage.
Comment by Darwin — 01.22.07 @ 12:04 pm
I have followed Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute since the early 1960’s.
They have issued thousands of reports on population data over the years.
You cannot read their data without clearly understanding that their aim is to kill the babies of those in our society who are most likely to increase the population of criminals, drug users, welfare recipients, etc.
There is a huge difference between abortion and “planned parenthood.” You have probably seen the billboard with an ethnic female face and the word: “Late?” You know that the voice at the other end of the phone line in the number provided is not pro-life.
Planned Parenthood could be pro-life. It could be neutral on abortion. It could campaign to make abortion rare. But that is not the case.
Its “clinics” and offices are strategically located. They know what they are doing and who they are after.
I think it was pure calculation that placed Faye Wattleton as President of Planned Parenthood for so many years. She was bright, a stunning beauty and an African American. And she was just right for the coincidental role of Judas goat.
There is very little that needs to be taught in the field of sex education. But when the school makes a course of it, you get condoms on cucumbers, instructions for gays and the like.
Abstinence is deadly for AIDS and many STD’s and it is not a complicated concept. The sociology of teen mothers is a study worth presenting. And there is probably a place for a registered practitioner to work with a girl and her parent/parents/guardian to get contraception. (Notice I have left the boys/men out of this. They are sperm donors and that is idiot’s work.)
The proof of how desperate the abortion lobby is lies in the fact that they go to extremes to avoid identifying what the “mass of cells” in womb really is.
As an Illinois representative, Barak Obama voted to deny medical assistance to a baby who is delivered alive during a botched abortion attempt in a clinic or hospital.
To be consistent, why doesn’t Planned Parenthood promote allowing a child of, say, six months to be sent to the shredder if the burden on the mother is too great? (We aren’t there yet, but the groundwork for the logic of it has been set forth.)
Comment by Heliotrope — 01.22.07 @ 12:04 pm
Abstinence before marriage? Absolutely do-able. The problem is that in our sex-crazed culture withholding sex until marriage is tough and enjoying a lifetime of sex with one person may be even harder. That is, of course, unless you keep things interesting and exciting AND realize that sex isn’t the end all-be all of a relationship.
Great post, as always sister!
Comment by Tony — 01.22.07 @ 12:10 pm
I’m a child of the eighties, born in the UK, so growing up, I never knew anything but the welfare state and to blame others for my mistakes! Before I learnt personal responsibility, I made a lot of mistakes. I drank and did drugs to excess, and I was promiscuous for a little while in my late teens.
When I was 20, I “fell” pregnant, despite being on the Pill AND using barrier protection. My then-boyfriend was a cocaine dealer, so he had plenty of ready money for me to get a private termination. And of course, in the eight weeks before I knew I was pregnant, I had been putting untold quantities of the white stuff up my nose, though the potential health of my unborn baby didn’t figure into the equation when I decided to have the termination. At the time, I didn’t even think of it as being a baby, just a “thing” (I thought just like the feminists wanted me to think) - I was suffering dreadfully from morning sickness (all day long) and had lost twelve pounds where I couldn’t keep any food down. I just wanted rid of the “thing”.
At the private clinics, you are asked, among ohter things, what kind of contraception you will be using in the future. I replied “Abstinence,” and the nurse peered over her glasses at me with a “yeah, right” look and said, “No, really, what kind of contraception will you be using in the future?” I stuck to my guns and made her write “abstinence” on the form, and I’ve been true to my word ever since.
I’ve turned my life around, and my views on most things, especially the issue of abortion, have changed too. I strongly believe that people should be responsible for their actions, in every aspect of life. Easily-available abortion services are a way of avoiding responsibility. You don’t want kids? Well, it’s probably best not to have sex, then, isn’t it? After all, that’s what the act is FOR!
And though I’m not religious, I’ve come to believe that life starts at conception. I see the hi-tech 3D ultrasound pictures of foetuses smiling and sucking their thumbs at just ten weeks or so and I think, well, who’s to say when the cut-off point should be? 24 weeks is ridiculously late. My termination was performed at ten weeks - my unborn child could smile.
And now, health problems (partly brought on by the drink/drug abuse, partly by the termination, and partly by genetic factors) have conspired to ensure that I will probably never be a mother, which, I suppose, is what I deserve.
Comment by Lizzie — 01.22.07 @ 12:53 pm
Of course sexual abstinence before marriage is do-able. I happen to be a testament to the fact that it can be done. Hey, even Jessica Simpson managed to stay a virgin before she wed Nick Lachey.
I never said it was easy. It does take determination and dedication. In today’s world where sex is constantly pushed at young people from every direction, perhaps it’s not even very realistic.
But it has been done, it continues to be done, so it is, in fact, doable.
Comment by Cindy Swanson — 01.22.07 @ 12:54 pm
it is possible in spite of a guy (in today’s day and age) not having to put forth much effort in order to ‘get some.’ a final thing i’d like to add (i’m sure you’ve heard it before): “if it ain’t for sale, don’t advertise it.” please show sooooome self-respect.
Comment by thomas — 01.22.07 @ 1:16 pm
Darwin No. 6:
First, let’s be clear about something. Aborting a 4 day old zygote is as much “killing a baby†as stepping on an acorn is cutting down a tree.
A good illustration of the value that people who favor abortion place on the life of the unborn. I understand that you were making an analogy, but I find it illuminating. I’m confident that if trees were highly valued, acorns would be protected too.
As to the question of abstinence prior to marriage, I’m trying to figure out why one would avoid safe sex prior to marriage.
Three reasons come to mind offhand (although you may not find them persuasive). Others could probably add more:
1. Intentions to the contrary, sex is not always safe. Condoms do fail or can be used improperly. Passion or partner preference can interfere. And a partner may lie about their fertility or lack of disease. Given the potential consequences of unwanted prenancy or STD, avoiding sex outside of marriage seems reasonable.
2. People and their bodies aren’t playgrounds for recreation and there is a social cost for casual sex. Men tend to view women at those times more as convenient receptacles than as human beings who have value. As a male, I can only imagine that the women are thinking “the guys are getting theirs, so I’m going to get mine.” When we view others as objects for sex - as a means to an end - it hurts our ability to see them as the individuals they are and their worth as human beings.
3. For those who believe that we are created beings and that the Bible represents our Creator’s communication to us of his plan, if we recognize and submit to his authority we will abstain from sex prior to marriage because that is what the Bible teaches. c.f. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 18-20 and Eph. 5:3.
I regret that I did not understand these ideas 30 years ago, but I believe I would be happier now if I had. As one who failed badly, I think abstinence before marriage is difficult but do-able and that couples who can make that choice will be glad afterwards.
Comment by B-squared — 01.22.07 @ 1:21 pm
The March for Life
La Shawn Barber is blogging events in Washington. More at Blogs 4 Life. It’s good to see pro-lifers on the New Media playing field….
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 01.22.07 @ 1:26 pm
Is this really “Blue Monday”?
With her customary courage and succinctness, La Shawn Barber isn’t mincing words.
Trackback by Notes in the Key of Life — 01.22.07 @ 1:29 pm
I goofed on the above trackback–the link takes you to a photo of my preborn grandson. It should take you to this post:
http://cindyswanslife.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-this-really-blue-monday.html
Sorry!
Comment by Cindy Swanson — 01.22.07 @ 1:33 pm
I fixed the link, Cindy. Congrats on your beautiful in utero grandson!
Comment by La Shawn — 01.22.07 @ 1:37 pm
Sexual abstinence until marriage: unrealistic or do-able?
It’s do-able, but even among ‘devout’ Christians, we are not seeing it done to significant levels:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/292006d.asp
Comment by Shade — 01.22.07 @ 1:45 pm
Lizzie, #9 — all of us have done things in our lives of which we are not proud, or even lived entire stretches of our lives in ways we cringe to recall. If you have been reading La Shawn’s blog for a while, you know that she is in that boat, too. I know I am.
Please do not believe that childlessness is what you deserve for your past mistakes. You clearly have learned from them and are living your life now like the gift that it is. Know that God forgives sins sincerely repented, and try to forgive yourself. I pray good things for you, dear Lizzie.
Comment by Annie — 01.22.07 @ 1:54 pm
Life…God’s Most Precious Gift
Today marks the 34th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on abortion. The always eloquent, La Shawn Barber has a great post today on the abortion issue. Check it out!
Trackback by Ron's Random Ruminations — 01.22.07 @ 2:03 pm
Great article! Keep up the great work spelling out the truth of the issue!
Comment by bro robin — 01.22.07 @ 2:04 pm
Thanks, La Shawn!
Comment by Cindy Swanson — 01.22.07 @ 2:06 pm
Life…God’s Most Precious Gift
Today marks the 34th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on abortion. The always eloquent, La Shawn Barber has a great post today on the abortion issue. Check it out!
Trackback by Cyber Preacher — 01.22.07 @ 2:07 pm
I hope you meant -until- marriage. Though you may be a bit too close to the truth for comfort.
Since you mention this, I’ve noticed that a growing opinion today that is shared by many young men (and to a lesser extent, women) is that marriage eventually results in unwanted abstinence to at least some degree. Abstinence before marriage is seriously undermined when it is determined that sexual contact is much easier to come by from a girlfriend than it is from your spouse.
Comment by Shade — 01.22.07 @ 2:07 pm
Answer: It’s not only do-able, but people are doing it. They just don’t get a lot of press. Nobody dies for lack of sex!
11 years and counting…
Comment by Mark La Roi — 01.22.07 @ 2:12 pm
#
Darwin No. 6:
First, let’s be clear about something. Aborting a 4 day old zygote is as much “killing a baby†as stepping on an acorn is cutting down a tree.
“A good illustration of the value that people who favor abortion place on the life of the unborn. I understand that you were making an analogy, but I find it illuminating. I’m confident that if trees were highly valued, acorns would be protected too.”
Some trees are highly valued and as a result ARE protected. What makes them valuable is their maturity. A zygote has less protection than a REAL person because the zygote has no self consciousness.
————————————
As to the question of abstinence prior to marriage, I’m trying to figure out why one would avoid safe sex prior to marriage.
“Three reasons come to mind offhand (although you may not find them persuasive). Others could probably add more:
1. Intentions to the contrary, sex is not always safe. Condoms do fail or can be used improperly. Passion or partner preference can interfere. And a partner may lie about their fertility or lack of disease. Given the potential consequences of unwanted prenancy or STD, avoiding sex outside of marriage seems reasonable.”
This is an argument for never flying on a plane or driving in a car. While it would make your life a safer one, it would make it far far less fulfilling also.
———————————–
“2. People and their bodies aren’t playgrounds for recreation and there is a social cost for casual sex. Men tend to view women at those times more as convenient receptacles than as human beings who have value. As a male, I can only imagine that the women are thinking “the guys are getting theirs, so I’m going to get mine.†When we view others as objects for sex - as a means to an end - it hurts our ability to see them as the individuals they are and their worth as human beings.”
If we only viewed our sexual partners as a means to attain sex then you’d be correct. But of course that is not always the case. Also, I’d argue that the human body can indeed be a very good playground for recreation if, like your bike or your monkey bars is carefully tended.
Comment by Darwin — 01.22.07 @ 2:15 pm
Shade, you are all too correct about abstinence not being exactly common among devout Christians. I cannot say I was abstinent until marriage, unfortunately, but I was at least abstinent until I met my husband. The thing that boggled my mind was how many people at church were surprised we weren’t living together when we were engaged!
It is distressing to me that our society seems to expect promiscuity. I have actually been asked, when talking about my husband being my “only”, “Well, what about when you hit your sexual peak and realize he’s the only lover you’ve ever had?” What, indeed!
And it shows up in the oddest places. My mother has almost stopped reading her beloved Regency romances because even they have become sex-laden. I would love to be published in that genre, but the fact that I refuse to write about premarital sex limits me hugely. Indeed, I have regularly found pro-promiscuity and pro-abortion sentiments written into even high fantasy novels. That is how deeply these two expectations are ingrained into our culture!
Comment by Sabra — 01.22.07 @ 2:21 pm
In answer to your question, yes it is doable. And in answer to a previous post by Darwin, here are a couple of good reasons (and not all by a long shot)
1. monogamy (and not sharing needles) would stop the spread of STDs, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancy in its tracks.
2. single parent families, largely the result of premarital sex, virtually condemn the child to a life of poverty. This is not always the case, so don’t bring up anecdotal cases where it is not true, I can show you, or you can find yourself that overwhelmingly it is true.
3. premarital sex diminishes in pleasure as it continues, on the other hand a monogamous, Christian marriage is intended to, and delivers, a greater and greater intimacy and satisfaction. Again, this can be proven with scientific studies.
4. Your flippant attitude, Darwin, is proof that the sexual “revolution” devalues sex. It has become for you, little more significant than a handshake. To your loss. It reflects also in your appreciation of life. Want proof? You compare having an abortion to stepping on an acorn. If you were capable of shame, you would be ashamed of even writing that down.
-Ben
Comment by benm — 01.22.07 @ 2:22 pm
Marking the 34th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
As he has done in the past, President Bush phoned in to today’s March for Life rally in Washington. Here’s the bulk of his statement. It is important for all Americans to remember that our Declaration of Independence states that…
Trackback by The Political Pit Bull — 01.22.07 @ 2:26 pm
Darwin #6:
How many trees would we have if all the acorns of the world were destroyed?
It takes an acorn to make a tree and it takes a zygoat to form a human being.
Great article, LaShawn! Thank you for posting it.
Comment by artbyruth — 01.22.07 @ 2:30 pm
In response to your comments on abortion, an important question remains:
What are the long term effects of abortion on a given population in a society? Will there be fewer in a given group that practices abortion? Overall, to take the racial issues out of the picture for the moment, if one group, say conservatives, in general, doesn’t practice abortion and another, say liberals, more often does, 25 years, 50 years, down the road, which population will be greater? Which voting block?
Since it has become increasingly obvious that welfare actually represses the poor, and keeps them repressed which may actually BE the true agenda (gotta keep our voting block not thinking or they might notice that we’re really not doing anything FOR them), what is the real agenda or at least result of long term use of abortion in a society.
Just a thought, looking beyond 2008 as a be-all end-point.
Comment by eli — 01.22.07 @ 3:01 pm
If that red meat didn’t fill you up, Vent alumnas Mary K and LaShawn Barber (who has a post up entitled “Baby Killing as a Civil Right”) will be participating in a Family Research Council panel discussion at 3:35 ET. You can watch live over the web.
Pingback by Hot Air — 01.22.07 @ 3:01 pm
There is one thing that bothers me about the pro-life movement:
Criminalizing women and their doctors is an ineffective solution.
The Pro-Choice people want to reduce abortion by providing resources for women. It seems to me, if both camps want to reduce the number of abortions, empowering women is a much better stragety.
By fighting for criminalization instead of providing education and health care, billions of dollars are being diverted from the pool of available money that could be reducing the number of abortions in this country right now.
Can’t we find a way to solve this problem without stomping all over the civil rights of women?
Comment by Kelley Bell — 01.22.07 @ 3:07 pm
“Most people want a “free or reduced-fee clinic for women’s reproductive health†in their neighborhood, which is what they call themselves.”
You’ve obviously never been to a zoning meeting in *my* town. People know exactly what that fancy euphemism means, and if not morality then at least plain old NIMBYism will guarantee that it doesn’t end up in a “nice” neighborhood.
Comment by Ralph Phelan — 01.22.07 @ 3:08 pm
Aborting a 4 day old zygote is as much “killing a baby†as stepping on an acorn is cutting down a tree.
Last I checked, humans aren’t plants, and clinical abortions aren’t performed on “4-day-old zygotes” (most women won’t know they’re pregnant four days after conception, unless they’re in some sort of fertility treatment). But anyway…
Following this logic, it should be OK to smash bald eagle eggs, because you’re not actually killing a bird.
Abstinence until marriage:
I believe it’s doable and realistic for motivated individuals who choose to do so. I don’t believe very many individuals will ever be so motivated. I’m not even going to blame our contemporary sex-obsessed culture: in colonial New England–a culture steeped in Calvinism and Christian values, a culture that didn’t gush all over unwed mothers–30% of couples had “premature” first babies (less than 9 months after the marriage). Lust and gratification seem to be inherent in fallen man…
I think if you want to “sell” abstinence, you’ll have better results extolling the physical/emotional/financial benefits than the “it’s a sin” angle…if you’re going to talk sin, a virgin who lies and steals is no better than an honest sexually active woman.
Comment by Radish — 01.22.07 @ 3:24 pm
I have an ultrasound picture of my unborn grandson on my dresser. The mere thought of anyone being able to coldly destroy a life like that, to consider it merely an inconvenience to be eliminated like yesterday’s garbage, is totally beyond my comprehension.
Comment by redbeard — 01.22.07 @ 3:24 pm
#6 Darwin,
Stepping on the acorn is fine - a tree is not made in the image of God, nor is it a soul. A human IS made in the image of God, a human DOES possess a soul,and every deliberate abortion diminishes the sanctity of human life.
Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 01.22.07 @ 3:33 pm
“in colonial New England–a culture steeped in Calvinism and Christian values, a culture that didn’t gush all over unwed mothers–30% of couples had “premature†first babies (less than 9 months after the marriage). ”
That’s still effectively monogamy. Getting wedding night & wedding in the wrong order has a lot less impact than having 3 kids each by a different father, none of whom is the man the kids see mommy with now.
Comment by Ralph Phelan — 01.22.07 @ 3:40 pm
abstinence until marriage is definitely doable. Women need to remember that if he really loves you he’ll wait. Don’t believe the “if you really love me you’ll give yourself to me before marriage” line… It’s hard, but it’s doable.
Comment by kimsch — 01.22.07 @ 3:45 pm
How absurd we are when we assume that we know more about what makes us happy than does our loving creator! Thank God for forgiveness. Several couples in our church who weren’t supposed to be able to have children brought their new babies for dedication within a year of specific prayer for conception on a recent Mother’s Day.
Comment by Dave-m — 01.22.07 @ 3:58 pm
Abstinence is very doable. I met my husband in highschool. We dated for 7 years and after we graduated from college, we consumated our relationship on our wedding night.
Back then, he led the way to saying ‘no’. Besides not wanting to attract his parents scorn, he wasn’t ready for the risk of a child because it would not be fair for a child to be born when he was not able to take care of him/her. Only abstinence could guarantee that for him. His Catholic upbringing and schooling were positive influences on him.
For me, I didn’t want the same ultimatim my parents gave my sister when she became pregnant as a teenager. Twenty plus years later, she is struggling with depression and trust issues and my parents are sick about forcing her to abort her only pregnancy and their first grandchild.
Seeing a picture of a bucket of aborted babies when I was 19 cemented the horrific nature of what abortion is.
Comment by Ann — 01.22.07 @ 4:03 pm
This is an illusion, though. They are not offering them resources, they are instead offering them only one preapproved “choice”–the death of their unborn child. I have been told by more than one woman who went to Planned Parenthood simply for a pregnancy test that she was immediately offered an abortion. Heck, when I went in to get checked out for bleeding while pregnant with my second daughter (I was afraid I was miscarrying), the people in the office–and this wasn’t Planned Parenthood, this was a TriCare clinic–took one look at my year-old daughter and assumed I’d want an abortion, I guess ’cause the kids were “too close” together or something. That’s not resources.
By contrast, your average crisis pregnancy center gives information on adoption and on resources to get help should you decide to raise your child yourself. That is true choice.
Comment by Sabra — 01.22.07 @ 4:05 pm
Darwin throws a stink bomb into the pregnancy mix. His is the “incremental” development argument and there is nothing novel about it.
However, Darwin seems to acknowledge that once the egg is fertilized that the continued development will finally result in a human being outside of the womb. That is to say, the human zygote is not a mystery mix that may end up being miniature poodle.
Roe v Wade played Darwin’s same game. The nine justices wandered out into complex ethical and scientific areas well outside their field of expertise. They decided that the mass of cells in the womb is the private….(property)….of the woman to do with as she wishes during the first trimester.
All sorts of terms get bandied about concerning the “thing” inside the womb during the first trimester. There is the uncertainty of when the change from “embryo” to “fetus” takes place. There is the political pressure of using the embryo for stem cell production. There is the argument about the timing of sentience.
But why are the trimester benchmarks set down in Roe v Wade of any importance? In Roe v Wade the answer is to create a killing calendar. (Kill: to deprive of life.) During the first trimester, the nine robes say the woman has the power to have the “thing” she possesses in her womb to be killed. The law will protect her.
For some reason, the robes believed and ruled that the closer the “thing” gets to emerging from the womb, the more the society has to consider “it’s” “potential” rights. But “it” has no rights until “it” emerges from the womb. Sort of fetal limbo, according to the Supremes.
Roe v. Wade is such bad law that it defies reasonable scrutiny. That is not to say that it is not sacred to the abortion crowd.
As for the idea that hormone raging human bodies are genital romper rooms, I would submit that license and licentiousness are hardly new to our time or culture. Jerry Springer and Maury Povich could fill a 24 hour cable channel with a full orgy of combinations and circumstances. Strange to say, the participants never seem happy, adjusted or purposeful. I wonder why?
Boys and girls will play at sex as they always have. Some per cent of the girls will get “knocked up” as they always have. Mostly, the little boys will run away. Abortion will always be available in some form as it always has. These are truths, so far as I am concerned.
But whether society treats this with tacit approval or not is up to the society. That can not be a frivolous discussion. (Unless we are a ship of fools that has sailed too far into seas of amorality.)
Comment by Heliotrope — 01.22.07 @ 4:06 pm
Here in Kansas we have an abortion doctor known as Tiller the Baby Killer who performs abortions on minors as well as performs late term abortions. This horrible situation has been featured on O’Reilly several times. The people in the conservative ??? state of Kansas tossed out our Attorney General who was prosecuting Tiller because they were concerned about the privacy of the medical records of the victims and now the new guy says he isn’t going to prosecute Tiller. So, we have child rapists running around and near full term babies being aborted because the Doctor cites as her medical condition DEPRESSION. I don’t have the time or space to go into all the details, but they are widely available on line. Our former Attorney General was after Planned Parenthood as well, but he was tossed out of office before he could finish the job.
The Land of Oz has blood on its hands.
Comment by dianne — 01.22.07 @ 4:11 pm
Darwin #6… So… how many aborted babies are 4-day-old zygotes? Answer: NONE of them. ALL of them are at least a few weeks old. MOST of them are recognizable babies with fingers and toes and, as Lizzie pointed out, smiles.
But that’s an emotional response.
Here’s a practical response, something you can check up on yourself when you get the time.
Native Russians are presently aborting themselves into an extinction curve.
There, as a result of the past suppression of religion and reliance upon the State for guidance, abortion has virtually replaced birth control of all types. An extreme example to be sure, but Europe is not far behind Russia on this curve. The demographics are already visible.
However, as the Muslim population continues to grow, the numbers of native Russians are halving themselves every generation. Two Russians are having one or no children, with only a tiny minority having more than one.
By 2050, the ethnic Middle-Eastern population will be the majority in Russia (and possibly in France as well, and the rest of Europe maybe a generation or so later). The demographics are there for all to see.
Of course, the locals in Russia shrug it off saying that there’s nothing wrong with Muslims. And they’re right as far as they’ve gone on that.
What they’re missing is that by 2050, Russia will no longer be Russia. It will be something entirely different… and we don’t know what. Maybe it’ll be an improvement, but the fact is that the current Muslim minority in Russia is pushing for Sharia law in their local neighborhoods. That is one of the sources of the unrest there. And that does not bode well by any Western person’s measure.
So… yes. Go ahead. People who support abortion are driving their own demographic groups to extinction. Perhaps this, too, is a part of God’s plan ;).
Comment by mamapajamas — 01.22.07 @ 4:14 pm
For Lizzie:
God forgave you when he sent Jesus to die for your sins. Now you have to forgive yourself, that may be the hardest thing you ever do. When you forgive yourself realize your are not making excuses for what you have done, all of it, but you are promising yourself not to do it again. And keep your promise. That is your forgiveness. Also remember there are children, new and older, who need a mother, you could be the one they need.
Comment by Ruth H — 01.22.07 @ 4:24 pm
I am pro-choice. Abortion should be a private healthcare issue between a female and her physician.
Politicians are playing pro-lifers for fools; they would never actually ban abortion. It’s more like a carrot dangled in front of you to keep you in their pocket.
Comment by bodemillerjokes — 01.22.07 @ 4:35 pm
>>Abstinence before marriage is seriously undermined when it is determined that sexual contact is much easier to come by from a girlfriend than it is from your spouse.>>
Now _that’s_ an interesting statement. Judaism and Christianity place a duty on a married woman to have sex with her husband, but women’s rights advocates consider that to be a violation of women’s rights. Somehow, rights and obligations have to be balanced, don’t you think?
>>There is one thing that bothers me about the pro-life movement:
Criminalizing women and their doctors is an ineffective solution.>>
I’d say I’m pro-life, but this bothers me too. Maybe not for the same reason, but still…! My problem is that I think that our society isn’t going to enforce a law that would put a woman - and possibly a mother of other children - in jail, or a doctor. If you aren’t going to enforce a law, then don’t make it.
My balancing concern is that if abortions _aren’t_ illegal, then they’re _legal_, and it may become a possibility in the future for courts to require an abortion - especially with the quality of detailed prenatal tests available and the push toward national health care. After all, is it right that someone should knowingly give birth to a child that is so defective that the health care/social security system will have to support it for it’s natural life? We seem to be moving in that direction. If I didn’t think that was a possibility, I would prefer that it not be on the books in any way, and leave it up to each person’s individual morality. I think it’s too late for that, though.
Comment by suek — 01.22.07 @ 4:37 pm
It is doable for some and unrealistic for others. However this question should not be answered in a vacuum. What about marriage rates, family ties,societal values?
Comment by Rick — 01.22.07 @ 5:12 pm
For me, the abortion issue and the abstinence issue nearly unrelated. You have the freedom to do what you want with your own body. You can make all the irresponsible choices you want with it. But don’t force the consequences for your irresponsible choices on me. And don’t kill children. Or babies. Or fetuses. Or embryos. Or zygotes. They are all human lives at different stages of developemet and no one has the right to take a human life.
Comment by Zelda — 01.22.07 @ 5:13 pm
Baby Killing as a Civil Right
LaShawn Barber has excellent post on Abortion here. Here is an excerpt:
The fight for civil rights, defined as those guaranteed in the Constitution freedom of speech and religion, the right to due process of law and to equal protection under th…
Trackback by Conservative Thoughts — 01.22.07 @ 5:26 pm
Abstinence in 2007?
With today’s lack of morals and latest pop princess (whore du jour), it’s a very tough sell to preach abstinence. La Shawn Barber’s excellent post explains it very convincingly. We need more women like her to speak out and fight
Trackback by Blogging United States — 01.22.07 @ 6:01 pm
QUESTION: Sexual abstinence until marriage: unrealistic or do-able?
It’s certainly do-able. If you’re a Christian, it’s what you’re called to do. And, as Paul also writes, you might not be called to marry at all, which might mean you never have sex period (gasp).
It’s always been hard to live up to the ideal of chastity, but it’s even harder in today’s sex-driven culture. Tell a stranger that you are waiting until marriage to have sex, and they’ll look at you funny. Tell them that you’re pursuing lifelong celibacy, and they might just have you committed!
That’s why I think you’re right in saying that faith in Christ must come first. If you want someone to leave a sinful lifestyle (be it debauchery, homosexuality, etc.) secular reasons and statistics won’t be convincing. One has to wait and let Christ enter into that person’s life, and then let Him make the necessary changes in His own good time.
Comment by Jay — 01.22.07 @ 6:01 pm
#49 Zelda states: “You have the freedom to do what you want with your own body. You can make all the irresponsible choices you want with it. But don’t force the consequences for your irresponsible choices on me.”
I agree and I will raise the ante.
If you collapse your veins or rot holes in your septum or get an infection from a cheap tattoo, don’t clutter up the emergency room and burden the seriousness of emergency medicine. If you acquire a gunshot wound or a severe beating from your creditors in the dope gangs, please just go behind the dumpster and open your own first aid kit.
You don’t want to cure yourself of your selfish habits and the government with all its taxpayer’s dollars hasn’t got a chance if you don’t take the lead. Please, take your sorry self off to the land of Puff the Magic Dragon and live by the sea.
And please don’t cripple an innocent child with your retarded choices.
Comment by Heliotrope — 01.22.07 @ 6:16 pm
QUESTION: Sexual abstinence until marriage: unrealistic or do-able?
Very, very tough in our sex-soaked culture. But I will stop short of calling it impossible.
On abortion: I have heard some use the term “self-genocide” when talking about the abortion pandemic in the West. It is a quite accurate description.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 01.22.07 @ 6:28 pm
Sexual abstinence until marriage: unrealistic or do-able?
Completely do-able. Not only did I do it (and I didn’t get married until the matronly age of 30) but I know an awful lot of others who did as well, even some who had had sex before and then made the decision “No More.”
We are human beings, able to discipline ourselves and make choices about our behavior. (and even to change our own behavior) We are not animals, programmed to act one way and unable to do anything different.
In today’s world, though, I will agree that abstinence is harder. It is not supported by the culture, and in some ways is discouraged. So it takes more “stick-to-it-iv-ness” (And luck. And God’s help) to remain abstinent. More intentionalness, whereas before one might remain abstinent simply because you wouldn’t get a chance before hand.
Comment by My Boaz's Ruth — 01.22.07 @ 6:31 pm
Apparently, virginity until marriage is not very popular amongst most Americans:
http://www.purdueexponent.org/index.php?module=article&story_id=3511
Report states that 9 out of 10 Americans have sex before marriage. Apparently, it is only “do-able” for 10% of the population.
Comment by April Prey — 01.22.07 @ 6:54 pm
Heliotrope @ 42 — Nice post.
bodemillerjokes—How is abortion healthcare? It involves neither “health” nor “care.” And don’t say it improves the physical or mental health of the mother. The vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy moms with healthy babies; it is extremely rare for a woman’s life to be endangered by carrying her baby to term. In other words, abortion never improves the health of the mother; on the contrary it often damages her womb or kills her. Here is a list of women killed by “safe, legal” abortions:
http://www.lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/Pro-choice_Women/
It should go without saying that an abortion never promotes the health of the child.
You say it ought to be a private matter. Murder is not a private matter when one kills a five-year-old child; it shouldn’t be a private matter when one kills a child who is waiting to be born.
Comment by wild olive — 01.22.07 @ 7:05 pm
As a conservative, I don’t get wrapped up in the emotional aspects of abortion. That’s why I am pro-choice.
Comment by bodemillerjokes — 01.22.07 @ 7:35 pm
Others blogging about this: La Shawn Barber, FRC VP of communications Charmaine Yoest, E.M. Zanotti, Mary Katharine Ham, Texas Rainmaker
Pingback by Sister Toldjah — 01.22.07 @ 7:50 pm
crook of our choice
I’m going to steal that
Comment by JD Pendry — 01.22.07 @ 7:59 pm
Non-Sequiturs: 01.22.07
Pedophiles are upset to learn that the 12-year-old they’ve been “violating” is actually 29. Another example of how TV and movies featuring twenty-something actors as smooth-faced teenagers warps reality.
Trackback by Above the Law — 01.22.07 @ 8:15 pm
Sexual abstinense before marriage - unrealistic or do-able. I was in a live-in relationship (8 years) when I became born again. What made me born again? I finally started to actually read the Bible and view it as an instruction manual. One morning as I was very conflicted about the book of James the Holy Spirit whispered the question in my ear — Who am I more interested in pleasing, God or the with whom I was living. That night I went home and said no sex without marriage. A year of separate bedrooms and me with no sex (he was having plenty) before he finally bought out my equity in the house and I left. It was tough put I always remember I can please this guy at this moment or please God for eternity — that made it easy.
A few months ago a guy who was hitting on me asked if I ever got lonely, I said no becasue I am not alone. If God ever sees fit to bring a real partner into my life, great. If not, thats okay too. I’ve had plenty of sex in my life and more partners that I would care to admit too — would I trade unlimited nights of even the best sex I’ve ever had to another two seconds of the peace the Lord has put in my heart — NOPE — there is no comparison. I love the Lord so much more than I ever liked sex — and I did love sex.
As to abortion. I can speak as to what is wrong with it because I had one. If some asks now if I have children, I say none living. If they dare ask what happened, I tell them I murdered my children. I say children but I only had one abortion. They make me get off the table and go back into the office and pay them more money because the doctor says I am too big so I am further along than I think and I have to pay more money for him to do the abortion. Pay the money, back on the table, time passes, they wake me up tell me nope they were wrong, I was just having twins. How did they know it was twins — they counted arms, legs, heads of what they vacumned out. (No refund by the way). Guess it wasn’t the mass of meaningless unformed tissue they told me it was if they could count arms and legs.
30 years ago and it feels like 30 seconds ago.
I thank God for the peace he has placed in my heart and for his grace. Amazing Grace that saved a wretch like me.
Comment by Changed Life — 01.22.07 @ 8:37 pm
I married at 43, my wife was forty one. We’d both abstained until marriage. So it is doable, and well worth the wait.
Comment by Loren — 01.22.07 @ 8:40 pm
Excellent La Shawn. I’m glad that this topic is one of your pet outrages.
If there was any fairness to the Fairness (socialist) Doctrine, it would give equal footing to both abortion and stem cell research. There isn’t, but we have your blog and others to keep shining the klieg lights on the subject.
For sure, you guys aren’t lonely voices crying in the wilderness, it’s just that too many who should be responding and speaking out haven’t because;
a) bought into relativism and false teachings,
b) are timid — don’t want to ‘impose’ their beliefs,
c) wish to preserve the right — just in case they need it for themselves, or,
d) all of the above.
So preach on, Sister.
Comment by Andy — 01.22.07 @ 8:41 pm
I read somewhere that Planned Parenthood earned about $900,000,0000. last year. Yes, almost a billion dollars. Hmmmm, are they in it to help people, or make money? Hmmmmmm.
Comment by marty — 01.22.07 @ 9:10 pm
bodemiller said;”As a conservative, I don’t get wrapped up in the emotional aspects of abortion. That’s why I am pro-choice.”
I assume that you would get wrapped up in the emotions of watching a five year old having their limbs torn from their body, their skull crushed, and their brains sucked out. Ergo, I can only assume that you really do not view destroying the unborn as the taking of a life.
Further, folks that pontificate that they simply are more tolerant than “those judgemental right wing whackos” often would not tolerate their own children being criticised, despise conservatives, commit eco-terrorism, want to ban smoking and spankings,…the list is endless of the things which they do not tolerate.
The truth of the matter is that quite often, such pontificators are among the least tolerant of all people, but simply do not view the unborn child as a human being deserving of the same civil right to life that the rest of us share.
Comment by jan — 01.22.07 @ 9:44 pm
bodemiller—-How are the issues I raised “emotional”?
Comment by wild olive — 01.22.07 @ 9:46 pm
#67 wild olive
For some folks emotional neutrality and amoral are the same thing.
Comment by Heliotrope — 01.22.07 @ 9:54 pm
“3. premarital sex diminishes in pleasure as it continues, on the other hand a monogamous, Christian marriage is intended to, and delivers, a greater and greater intimacy and satisfaction. Again, this can be proven with scientific studies.”
I’m not sure why this above point is made. I don’t disagree that sex with a long term partner is better than sex with a casual partner. However, that doesn’t make the sex with a casual partner bad. The notion that we ought o abstain from sex outside a committed longer term relationship, let alone from outside marriage, strikes me as a complete and total denial of one of the best parts about being human.
——————————
“4. Your flippant attitude, Darwin, is proof that the sexual “revolution†devalues sex.”
I’d argue that the sexual revolution enhanced the value of sex as it put it to work for more purposes than just making a baby.
———————————-
“It has become for you, little more significant than a handshake.”
If you actually knew me I’d listen to this comment with interest. But since you don’t, I can only write it off as bluster.
————————————
“It reflects also in your appreciation of life. Want proof? You compare having an abortion to stepping on an acorn. If you were capable of shame, you would be ashamed of even writing that down.”
Actually, I believe I compared a zygote to an acorn. Another poster compared abortion to an acorn. What I would consider shamful is if I found myself comparing a fully grown adult woman to a collection of 100 cells and tried to argue that they had the same rights and the same value.
Comment by Darwin — 01.22.07 @ 10:08 pm
“Last I checked, humans aren’t plants, and clinical abortions aren’t performed on “4-day-old zygotes†(most women won’t know they’re pregnant four days after conception, unless they’re in some sort of fertility treatment). But anyway…”
If pro life folk are going to make the argument that life begins at conception and that that life is every bit as valuable as that of a 30 year old woman then they need to be prepared to defend that proposition. YOu can’ become all practical on the question of zygotes then turn and argue that life begins at conception.
————————————
“Following this logic, it should be OK to smash bald eagle eggs, because you’re not actually killing a bird.”
Society decides the value of certain things. I’m sure if zygotes were endangered as bald eagles we’d be happy to protect them. I’m sure if Oak trees were endangered we’d protect them. But since neither of them are, since both are common, we don’t protect them.
Comment by Darwin — 01.22.07 @ 10:16 pm
“Stepping on the acorn is fine - a tree is not made in the image of God, nor is it a soul. A human IS made in the image of God, a human DOES possess a soul,and every deliberate abortion diminishes the sanctity of human life.
Chuck ”
Chuck,
I look at it differently. While you are right that a tree is not made in God’s image and does not posses a soul, it is equally true that humans do not possess a soul and are not made in a God’s image.
Comment by Darwin — 01.22.07 @ 10:20 pm
“I am pro-choice. Abortion should be a private healthcare issue between a female and her physician.
Politicians are playing pro-lifers for fools; they would never actually ban abortion. It’s more like a carrot dangled in front of you to keep you in their pocket.
Comment by bodemillerjokes — 01.22.07″
This is a fairly astute post. The Republican party really wants no part of what’s coming. What’s coming is an overturning of Roe. And when it gets thrown back to the states, the activists will demand that the Republicans do what they say they would do: ban all abortion. The Republicans know what’s going to happen then: The majority of folks don’t want it banned. In fact, they don’t want it banned so much that we will see Republicans tossed from office by voters of all persuation as they try to either flip flop or ban abortion.
Abortion is a convenent issue for Republicans as long as they can do nothing about it.
Comment by Darwin — 01.22.07 @ 10:30 pm
Sexual abstinence until marriage: unrealistic or do-able?
Do-able. I’ve seen it many times, even people waiting until their late twenties.
Comment by RepJ — 01.22.07 @ 10:50 pm
Abstinence before marraige…
As a pediatrician, I ask adolescent girls in my office what are the three things they have to be concerned about if they are going to have sex. Most get two of three. I have had only one girl get the third one. Read on to find out what it is if you do not know.
First, is pregnancy. Most girls know this is a risk, but they usually say it is not that big of a deal. Their mom will help them take care of the baby. I live in a predominately poor, rural location. About 80% of our births are to unwed mothers. Abortion is rare, but then the closest abortion clinic is over an hour away. And unwed mothers are the norm, and okay by most concerned (expect the fatherless babies, but no one asks their opinion).
The second is usually “AIDS”. Kids today know about AIDS, but not about other diseases. I rattle of the others. Gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, warts, cervical cancer, etc, etc. This really has little impact on an adolescents mind. Most adolescents, as you all will remember from our days as teenagers, are invincible. Nothing can get us…we know better than the adults, and life is for having self gratification and fun. (Adolescent thinking is similar to liberal thinking, but that is a separate thought.)
The third one, as I stated, is not as readily obvious, and only one girl knew what I was getting at.
The third risk you take is to your head, your psyche, your self worth, and yes, your spiritual well being. I have had girls look at me and start crying with self awareness. I have had girls look at me through tears and say that they have never really thought about it that way and how it does make them feel about themselves.
We then talk about how guys are mostly jerks (I am one, so I can speak from a place of true understanding) and guys are just out to get some. We talk about how after a sexual relationship ends, one usually has negative feelings towards the ex, but usually you are left with even worse feelings about yourself (if you are really honest with yourself) for sharing such an intimate part of yourself with that person. You feel cheap. You feel less, not more of a person. How do many women then deal with those feelings? Paradoxically, usually with more sex with more men, thinking that will make you feel better. (Guys do the same thing, but we are too cool to admit it.) All the extra sex partners doesn’t help. It just makes one feel cheaper.
This tactic, by my experience, works and reaches these teen girls. Why? Because they haven’t been pregnant, they have not had a disease, or were treated and it was not that big of a deal. But they have all felt cheap, felt used and felt less of themselves. That what sex is when it is not in a loving, committed relationship. When it is done outside of a marriage. When it is done purely for the “recreational aspect” (AKA: for selfish reasons).
Comment by Patrick Hunter — 01.22.07 @ 10:53 pm
23 years ago I took my wife to an abortion clinic. We were poor college students with a young child and having a second one didn’t fit into our plans. It was “inconvenient”. My wife was actually on the table when she had a change of heart.
Today, my youngest daughter, the one we almost aborted, is a straight-A student in medical school. She is a wonderful, intelligent and loving young woman, so full of promise (yes I’m a proud papa). I thank God for her every day. She is living proof of why abortion is so wrong.
Comment by Lewis — 01.22.07 @ 11:17 pm
“This tactic, by my experience, works and reaches these teen girls. Why? Because they haven’t been pregnant, they have not had a disease, or were treated and it was not that big of a deal. But they have all felt cheap, felt used and felt less of themselves. That what sex is when it is not in a loving, committed relationship. When it is done outside of a marriage. When it is done purely for the “recreational aspect†(AKA: for selfish reasons).”
With all due respect to the good doctor, this notion that sex outside of marriage is cheap and merely being “used”, is really nothing more than a cheap excuse for thinking clearly.
Someone has to explain to me how a 29 yearl old woman having oral sex performed on her by a person she trusts and is attracted to, and enjoying it, and getting pleasure out of it, and not hurting anyone else in doing it, but not being married to the man who she is being intimate with is cheap? What’s with this notion that we should take careful pleasure out of our lives? The pleasure that be attained from sex is among the greatest gifts life gives. Yet, throughout this thread I see folks explaining that the right thing to do is to never experience sex in your life if you never marry.
It’s nearly the most absurd thing I’ve ever read. The fear these folks try so hard to instill in others is purely diabolical.
Comment by Darwin — 01.22.07 @ 11:30 pm
Darwin~
With this audience of conservative Christians, your secular humanist view of sex isn’t going to be agreed with. You aren’t going to change our minds, and apparently, we won’t be able to change yours. You obviously don’t believe in God, or else you wouldn’t be espousing the things you have throughout this thread.
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 01.22.07 @ 11:56 pm
An Irreplacable Generation
La Shawn Barber is liveblogging today at the Pro Life Blogs and poses the following question: QUESTION: Sexual abstinence until marriage: unrealistic or do-able? Absolutely do-able. I did. I simply chose…
And Gribbit’s Word asks if you are in mour…
Trackback by Church and State — 01.22.07 @ 11:56 pm
I suspect many of the “scientists” pushing for embryonic stem cell research are really trying to build a case for abandoning any ethical restraint to any research they want to do.
Comment by Evon — 01.23.07 @ 12:26 am
I was traumatized by the concept of aborting the babies live and shelving them to die. I never knew such a thing went on. Abortions are barbaric in and of themselves, but that is just a new level of horror!
As far as the abstinence before marriage discussion, it is doable. The Apostolic faith is very strict about this. My fiance are very attracted to each other, so it is difficult at times, but we know it is what God expects of us (look in your Bible if you do not concur). I haven’t always been saved, and I did engage in premarital sex. But I always admired women who abstained until marriage, and was even jealous of them and the romance of it all. My fiance and I are happy and secure in the knowledge that we are conducting our relationship according to God’s will. We are also excited that we have a special gift to receive from each other on our wedding night.
Comment by Marta Odum — 01.23.07 @ 12:41 am
“Actually, I believe I compared a zygote to an acorn. Another poster compared abortion to an acorn.” - Darwin
“Aborting a 4 day old zygote is as much “killing a baby†as stepping on an acorn is cutting down a tree.” - Darwin
Comment by Stacey — 01.23.07 @ 1:03 am
“Actually, I believe I compared a zygote to an acorn. Another poster compared abortion to an acorn.” - Darwin
“Aborting a 4 day old zygote is as much “killing a baby†as stepping on an acorn is cutting down a tree.” - Darwin
Comment by Stacey — 01.23.07 @ 1:03 am
Oh, and Darwin, the Doctor didn’t say the girl was cheap..go back and read it.
Comment by Stacey — 01.23.07 @ 1:05 am
Darwin;
I once read a boook about points and lines. they could not even imagine a world with three dimensions and thus their frame of reference was limited to a very angular sharp flat small world.
Have you ever really sat down and asked two people who have saved themselves for one another to describe their deep seated joy? Would you even listen?
Comment by jan — 01.23.07 @ 1:07 am
Darwin,
The differences, if I may point them out, are that a 14, 15, 16 or 17 year old is a child in many respects. They do not fully understand nor possess the maturity and understanding that your 29 year old example “may” have. And, yes, I do use the word “may” with clear intent
The other difference is that your 29 year old is seeking his or her “pleasure” and, it appears, mostly seeking self gratification. Yes, I will concede that sex can be gratifying, from a physical standpoint. You ain’t gonna get an argument from me on that one!
But, in our “me first society”, where my satisfaction and my gratification are paramount, there is more to sex than TV and celebrity portrays.
Sex is even more gratifying when it is in a committed, long term relationship, formally called a marriage, that produces children. (After all, is that not what sex is really for?)
When you realize that its greatest beauty is in the children it produces, and yes, the struggles it takes to care for them and raise them, then you see that indeed “the pleasure that be attained from sex is among the greatest gifts life gives” to use your words. In my life, the pleasure is the children, and yes, the relationship that created and nurtured those children. Your pleasure, I suspect, is more self centered.
Sex that is seen in the simple context of what pleasures physically may be good enough for you, and indeed, much of our society. Have we not learned, though, that this experiment in free sex has not been free? The price we have paid in the last 40 to 50 years seeking “sex for self satisfaction” has results in epidemic disease, abortions, poor self esteem, high divorce rates, the abandonment of marriage and the rise single parent, fatherless children?
Free sex outside of marriage may be the greatest gift you ever received, but society has paid a heck of a price.
Comment by Patrick Hunter — 01.23.07 @ 1:25 am
woot!
Comment by Stacey — 01.23.07 @ 1:37 am
With all respect, Dr Hunter, I somehow doubt Darwin grasps the concept that such things as abortions, divorce, and unwed motherhood are bad things.
I am always a bit mystified by people who were raised in two-parent households pontificating on how it’s OK to be a single mom. I was actually raised by a single mom, and I can tell you it’s no picnic. The truth of being raised by a single mom is poverty, shame, and sadness. (My father only acknowledged me with some people, and my brother not at all.) This is to speak nothing of what it did to my mother, who was held back economically, socially, and romantically. It’s all well and good for people who have never been there to think it’s a good thing, but some of us know what it is really like.
Comment by Sabra — 01.23.07 @ 1:42 am
Sabra,
I have no illusions that Darwin will understand what I am writing about.
I understand where you came from. I too was raised by a single mother, and understand its shame, sadness and effect on self esteem. (Thankfully, my mother was able to protect me from the poverty.)
I see the effect of fatherless homes everyday in my office. Teens may not understand the economic, romantic and social effect of their pregnancy, but their 30 something mother, a former teen mother herself, surely does. She has lived the trauma and hates to see her daughter getting started down the same road to nowhere.
I have also had more than my share of teens (boy and girls) break down crying when asked about their absent father. I am always hopeful for them, because they are aware and more in touch with their loss.
Teens from fatherless homes that are angry and hateful–striking out at school, peers, and society, and yes, seeking comfort is drugs or casual, free unattached sex–(that which brings Darwin so much pleasure and my patients so much pain)–give me less hope.
Sabra, I wish you the best. May God bless you.
Comment by Patrick Hunter — 01.23.07 @ 2:13 am
Life begins at conception, it’s a act of faith but is observable for those that want to see it.
God can’t be deconstructed by a mortal mind. It’s not possible. You can be part of, you can’t exist easily outside of… you know then that other guy,…
The few women that I know that have abortions have all regretted that they had it done. They all wish there had been someone there to give them better advice. They wish the procedure wasn’t so easy to get. I never really think about it much. But it does occur to me that NOW presented some illusions to a lot of women that actually harmed them.
Some men are not meant to be married. Does that mean they should never have sex? What about someone that is mentally handicapped? but I agree there is a spiritual quality to abstinence. It’s a time to look at the other person beyond just their physicality and see if compatibilities exist.
Comment by Jd — 01.23.07 @ 2:39 am
La Shawn,
Thank you for shining the light on the facts.
Re one writer’s comments that:
“I am not convinced that these clinics are targeting Black neighborhoods as much as most people don’t want an abortion clinic in their neighborhood”
Please see the article at the Life Issues website (found at the link below) which clearly presents the facts that Planned Parenthood does target the AA community, and its catastrophic impact to our society.
kind regards,
http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/05oct.htm
Comment by Bob — 01.23.07 @ 6:08 am
Darwin — you talk about sex as this great gift for our enjoyment. I have one question, who gave you this gift?
I was that 29 year old who thought I had the maturity for understanding all about sex and sought to make myself “happy” and another person “happy”. I was a 40 year old going through my sexual peak and finally discovering how good sex could be. Now I am pushing 50 and can’t wait to discover what it is I will learn, God willing, I reach 60, 70, 80. And pushing 50 I look back and 32 years of sex with at least 32 different partners. Meaningless, I don’t remember most of it. I have no interest in living it again. If I could suddenly go back and be that 18 or 25 year old girl with today’s knowledge re-live my life, correct my old mistakes, (buy Microsoft’s first stock issue) but the catch was I still have the same sex partners, even if it was limited to only those I remember fondly — FORGET IT. My regret now is that if a special man comes into my life I have nothing special to give him that I haven’t already given to someone who was so “special” that I no longer remember his name, his face, or his penis.
Thirty, forty, fifty year olds find relationships difficult and hard work. How can a teenager even begin to cope with the emotional, physical, spiritual needs of their partner when they have no clue about their own.
God knew we were selfish creatures that is why he told us to love others as we love ourselves. I love others enough to try to tell them of my regrets and mistakes.
Comment by Changed Life — 01.23.07 @ 7:29 am
Will someone please explain this to me??
link
Working on a post right now. - Admin
Comment by btesh — 01.23.07 @ 8:05 am
Everything we do in life has consequences. Responsible people who recognize that will make choices based upon what is right instead of what feels good at the moment. Our friend Darwin seems to be unaware of how this works.
Freedom isn’t the same as irresponsibility. It’s actually the opposite. Only with responsibility can we find true freedom.
Comment by redbeard — 01.23.07 @ 9:45 am
Darwin No. 6:
“First, let’s be clear about something. Aborting a 4 day old zygote is as much “killing a baby†as stepping on an acorn is cutting down a tree.”
Oh, come on. How many abortions are done in the first 4 days of pregnancy? I’ve also heard that fewer soldiers die in wars that end within 30 minutes of when they start than wars that last for more than 30 minutes and that people who continue to breathe are less likely to die of asphyxiation than those who don’t. Meh.
————————————
B-Squared #12:
“2. People and their bodies aren’t playgrounds for recreation and there is a social cost for casual sex. Men tend to view women at those times more as convenient receptacles than as human beings who have value. As a male, I can only imagine that the women are thinking “the guys are getting theirs, so I’m going to get mine.†When we view others as objects for sex - as a means to an end - it hurts our ability to see them as the individuals they are and their worth as human beings.”
I’ve never bought that argument. It’s a great rallying call for feminists, but I’ve never seen it in the real world. Are there men and women who are inclined to objectify others? Sure. Is it epidemic? I doubt it. If you’re not so inclined to objectify others, I seriously doubt casual sex will cause you to do so.
————————————
IMO, the problem with premarital sex is that most people, most of the time have a hard time NOT forming an emotional bond with the person with whom they’re having the sex. As such, they stay in bad relationships because that bond is hard to break. I firmly believe that there would be a lot fewer divorces if people waited until they were married to have sex.
Comment by Chris V — 01.23.07 @ 10:46 am
Why do Darwin’s comments about the pleasure of sex and the promotional justifications of “open marriage” have so much in common?
Hedonism any one? The orgy is open and there is always room for more in the flesh pile.
Comment by Heliotrope — 01.23.07 @ 10:56 am
Heliotrope, I am well aware, as I am sure you are too, that Darwin is trying to be a witty troll with some of the things he is spouting. He came to La Shawn’s blog, knowing that it is predominately Christians and seekers who post here and wrote the things he wrote for effect, to get a rise out of us. They are drivel and he knows it too. I have responded to him, fully aware of his intention, but with the hope that he wakes up.
I don’t know him, that is true, but I was once as he is, crass, cynical, cheapened by the world, and shallow. I would not wish what God had to do to me to reach me on anyone, but I do pray that God reaches him.
God rescued me from that life, as he has many who posted on this link, may His Name be praised forever! He can reach into this person’s life too. Let’s pray that God does, because without the will of God, Darwin is lost in a cold world.
Now I know that all sounds sanctimonious. I hope it is not received that way. There is a better way.
Comment by benm — 01.23.07 @ 11:15 am
I say this often. People should talk to or read what EMBRYOLOGISTS say. Not just any scientist or biologist. Even those who are not “religious” will tell you that human life begins at conception. Abortion is murder. Even if you feel it is necessary it is still murder.
Zygotes have all the characteristics of a living being…growing, developing, the cells and eventually bodies change and adapt to their environments. They seek and manipulate their surroundings to get food etc. The only difference between them is size and that they are not recognizable as a human person or have brain function. Even brain waves become active within the first 2 months. That does not change the fact that that is what they are.
If it is not a human life, what is it? It is alive, even if it is not self sustaining (neither is a born infant). It is not a dog or cat and can’t develop into either. So it is a human life.
Also, something which people are not seeming to recognize is that an acorn is more comparable to a sperm or egg in that neither one is human and can not grow or develop without the other. Similarly, an acorn without the soil and other factors needed to grow will not become a tree. However, once a sperm and egg join a new human life begins with the changes and development needed to become a mature human. Likewise, an acorn once in the soil, with water an nutrients will grow an in effect become a “pre ground broken” tree. It now has the growth change and development needed to become a mature tree. Smashing an acorn on the ground is more like destroying and egg or a sperm before they join.
Life (growth, change, development) begins at conception. From that day until death we are just in different stages of being alive.
Comment by Heather in MD — 01.23.07 @ 12:05 pm
I don’t advertise the fact that I am 36 and still a virgin. About a year ago, I was at the doctor’s office about a cough or some such thing. As part of the normal series of questions they ask (when was your last period, are you sexually active, when was your lasy gynecologic exam?), the nurse practioner seemed absolutely shocked to learn I have never had sex of any kind. I’ve had opportunities to have sex in the past (not recently - fat girls seem to have a hard time even getting asked out for a date), but I always knew that I wouldn’t be able to separate “the act” from thinking “commitment”. That’s why I plan to wait until marriage, if I am ever lucky enough to find my “Mr. Right”. And if I don’t ever get married, I guess that just means I’ll die a virgin.
Comment by a 30-something virgin — 01.23.07 @ 12:49 pm
>>…they stay in bad relationships because that bond{emotional bond because of having sex} is hard to break. I firmly believe that there would be a lot fewer divorces if people waited until they were married to have sex.>>
Additionally, young women often(usually?) have the idea that “this is the _one_” because to have sex with just anyone may not be acceptable to them.