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?
{ 14 trackbacks }
{ 153 comments }
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I fixed the link, Cindy. Congrats on your beautiful in utero grandson!
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
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.
Great article! Keep up the great work spelling out the truth of the issue!
Thanks, La Shawn!
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.
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…
#
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
#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
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
.
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.
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.
>>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.
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?
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.
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.
#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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a conservative, I don’t get wrapped up in the emotional aspects of abortion. That’s why I am pro-choice.
crook of our choice
I’m going to steal that
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.
I married at 43, my wife was forty one. We’d both abstained until marriage. So it is doable, and well worth the wait.
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.
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.
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.
bodemiller—-How are the issues I raised “emotional”?
#67 wild olive
For some folks emotional neutrality and amoral are the same thing.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
Sexual abstinence until marriage: unrealistic or do-able?
Do-able. I’ve seen it many times, even people waiting until their late twenties.
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).
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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
“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
Oh, and Darwin, the Doctor didn’t say the girl was cheap..go back and read it.
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?
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.
woot!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Will someone please explain this to me??
link
Working on a post right now. – Admin
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>>…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. Admitting that this is _not_ the _one_ is too much like saying “I was an idiot” or “I’ll sleep with anyone” etc, so young women – especially those who have some ideals – tend to hang on to inappropriate relationships (meaning the guy is in no way good marriage material) for too long.
#74..PH…thank you for that beautifully written comment. Copied, pasted and sent on to a young woman I care about.
Suek — A sharp razor of truth. It also works the other way. Before we married the only thing my ex and I had going for us was a good sex life — that is until about six months after we married. We had nothing to glue us together but the sex. Why, because before we married our focus was all on getting into bed. After we married the bloom came off very fast. (Nothing exciting about sex when you spend all day working when he doesn’t come home to a dirty house and a man that just can’t pull it together who then decides that you are his enemy and starts taking his frustrations out on you) I recently came across the results of our marriage prep questionnaire — out of 20/30 compatibility issues the only one we scored above 50 on was sex (in the 90s). Six months after marriage that cooled. We were married for 4 years, the last two years we had sex six times. When dating we use to have this little secret message we closed our cards and letters to each other “LSBSIG” Life sucks but sex is great.
Maybe if I had spent less time thinking about sex and more about whether he was actually good husband material and whether we had personalities that worked well together for a good life together — well I could have saved myself a mistake that totally derailed my life.
My thoughts now — LIGAS___ — Life is Good and sex isn’t _____ (worth worrying about and consuming my total existence). Not that I don’t hope one day to have a loving, caring mutually supportive relationship with a wonderful (Christian) man. Now I believe that God fulfills my needs, desires contrary to God’s plan for my life aren’t that important.
I used to think abortion was OK. Ah, it’s up to the woman, I thought. Between her and her doctor.
Well, something happened six years ago that completely changed how I look at abortion. I now oppose it completely, even in the cases of rape and incest—because neither the woman nor the child has done nothing wrong, so why take the child?—and find it acceptable only in the direst of life-or-death circumstances. Most abortions—like 99.99%—never are life-or-death.
(And please, just because I don’t have a uterus doesn’t mean I can’t have this strong belief. And don’t you find it funny that the same kind of people who say “keep your hands off my body†are the ones trying to legislate what we can eat? But I digress.)
Back in late 2000, my wife was pregnant with our first child. Of course we were thrilled and excited and started making all the plans and started decorating and telling everyone and selecting boy names and girl names and so on.
We saw the ultrasound (the one with the long wand; you ladies know what I’m talking about) and we saw our little peanut with a clearly beating heart.
There was nothing in the world quite like seeing that little independent heart beating like that. That little peanut growing inside my wife’s womb, was the child that my God had seen fit to give me.
Then something went wrong.
Before the end of the third month, she started spotting, bleeding. We went back to the doctor and another ultrasound—but the little heartbeat was gone.
And so was our baby.
Miscarriage.
It’s amazing how common miscarriage is—even in your own family—but you rarely find out about it until you have one.
It seems that her progesterone was the big problem. We hadn’t known that. After the “cleaning†operation—the same damned procedure done for abortion—we went home, with a lot of personal pain. I don’t give a flying hoot what any damn liberal or raging feminist says—that was no clump of cells, or tissue or a damn “fetus.†THAT WAS MY BABY.
And I will see that child in heaven.
But while we cried over a child we couldn’t have, tens of thousands of women were literally THROWING AWAY babies they didn’t want because they were inconvenient.
Don’t EVER tell me that abortion is a “choice†or a “reproductive freedom,†or that my Baby was just a “fetus†or a “clump of cells.†To hell with that.
Abortion is the most crassly selfish act imaginable. (No, I don’t call it murder because it is legal. And NO, liberals, I don’t condone murder of abortion providers or bombing of their clinics. That is equally wrong.) You tell me it’s a choice and I will show you the picture of my first Baby with the little beating heart, then dare you to tell me that killing a child of similar age is a “choice†or call it a “fetus.†And don’t get me started on aborting babies that are “imperfect.†My wife comes from a family that has one autistic and two mentally retarded men in it. Can anyone put forth a reason that is not morally repugnant was to why they should not have the same right to life that you and I have?
There’s one more reason why I oppose abortion:
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.†– Psalm 139:13
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,†– Jeremiah 1:5(a)
If the Father of all creation knew you before you are even made, and He uses His designs to “knit me together†in your mother’s womb, how dare we invade the womb to destroy life, all in the name of “choice?â€
Whew…I know I repeat myself, but thank God for you La Shawn, I so wish there was a way to infuse America with your common sense….you had too many comments for me to read everyone, so I don’t know if this point has been made, but here goes…..My main issue with abortion is that, once again, haven been given an inch, someone is bound to take a mile. With late term abortion, it is now sometimes a matter of weeks between abortion and “murder”…Someone freaks out and bangs their baby against a wall and it is murder, and rightfully so, but had that same woman gone to an abortion clinic weeks earlier, it would have just been state sanctioned murder. I told my mother recently that it would only be a matter of time before a woman can claim “emotional problems” and abort their baby the day before he/she is due…sure enough with in a week there was a doctor on TV talking about giving very late term abortions due to the “mental” conditions of the mother….Geez, when will this all stop…I am afraid it won’t be until the Glorious Second Coming of Our Lord!!!
Big Mo~
It’s called eugenics. The founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist and believed in eliminating “all unfit members of society”. So many people are clueless about the origins of Planned Parenthood and what it’s founder hoped to accomplish through it….
For additional reading on eugenics, you can go here.
I didn’t finish reading before I posted that link. Have you ever heard of the American Baby Code? It’s chilling, really. Follow that link, then follow the Planned Parenthood — The Founder’s Agenda link. Having the government decide who can and cannot have a child. China does this, with their “one child” policy. Girl babies are aborted because their society places more value on boy babies. Now, there are not enough women for all the young men to marry.
#105 Miss Ladybug: Many in the embryonic stem cell research crowd are working hard to put a happy face on eugenics.
Most of us know eugenics as a pseudo-science used to sterilize or eliminate the “inferior” among us.
You would think that Hitler’s thorough eugenics madness would have ended the charade.
We silently slipped into modern eugenics when science found ways to get genetic information from the child in utero. Many choices for abortion are based on this information. In India, women regularly abort girls. The ultrasound information is more readily available there than access to pure water.
There is a cadre of chic, single women who order up a trophy baby by visiting a discriminating boutique sperm service.
Google “eugenics” and look at how Wikipedia presents it. It is the modern, science as religion, liberal pantheon of truth explanation. (Planned Parenthood literature and the Wikipedia entry are completely compatible.)
I suppose this comes full circle in that (Sir Charles) Darwin’s theory of evolution quickly morphed into “the survival of the fittest.”
It is another tale entirely, but those who worship Darwin might just as well be dancing at Stonehenge during the Vernal Equinox. As much credit as science has given to Darwin, not a shred of evidence has been turned up to help his theory of evolution along.
One final note: the medical researchers have made amazing progress at making cures in utero.
We are not far from being able to keep people from “being born that way.” Like gay.
“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”
Well said, Darwin.
Speaking of keeping people from being born that way…Recently, one of our state representatives had a show about parents who were deaf or dwarves and who were manipulating the genes of their child in utero to ensure that the child would be born deaf or “a two to three foot variation of normal.” Interestingly, a number of deaf and little people called in to say that they did not consider themselves to be handicapped in any way and were simply a variation of normal. However, most were receiving taxpayer funds for the “disabled,” putting thier children in special programs, etc., and could not reconcile this incongruity to a satisfactory level. Natch….
“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”
I’ve know one couple who “saved” themselves for each other. I know far more couples who did not do this. The “saved” couple and the vast majority of non-saved couples are quite happy and don’t express regret that they’ve enjoyed their sexualty prior to meeting.
Have you ever met a couple that had premarital sex, enjoyed it and are not harmed in their minds? Have you ever met a person who enjoys sex and isn’t married? I have many.
What’s your point?
“#
“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”
Stacey: I stand corrected. And, as I look at my comment I see that it’s quite appropriate and difficult to argue with. I find I’m rather glad I said it.
“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 societyâ€, 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?)”
We can say that for some it MIGHT be more gratifying. However, if we conceed that for SOME it MIGHT be more gratifying this is not really an arguement for refraining from something that we both admit is highly satisfying simply becaue we aren’t married. Surely you are not suggesting that if a person goes through their life without marrying they should refrain from experiencing sex for the entirety of their life.
—————————
“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.”
I have two children. I don’t associate them primarily with those two specific times I had sex with my wife. I associate them with my wife, myself, our family and their grand parents and great grandparents. We could just as easily have had these children without having had sex. For me, and I would hope for most folks, sex should be understood in a myriad of ways: as self gratification, as the gratification one can offer another, as a demonstration of both love and passioin for a person, as an experiment, as simple fun…and, if you insist, as a baby making proceedure.
—————————–
“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?”
Their are trade offs for everything we do. The vast majority of folks who have “free sex” (my god that’s a weird way of looking at it) don’t get deseases, dont’ have children, don’t suffer from terrible self esteem, etc, etc. Furthermore, I’d argue that while it would be better to have fewer abortions, it is quite good that abortion is legal as it allows us not to have to deal with consequences we are not in the mood to deal with.
——————————–
“Free sex outside of marriage may be the greatest gift you ever received, but society has paid a heck of a price.”
On the contrary, sex outside of marriage has been a good and liberating turn of events that allows us to experience something we should experience; something that is among the greatest pleasures in life. I’m a big believer is being safe with sex and using birth control. And I’m not arguing for laying down with just anyone. I’m suggesting that sex and marriage are two different things. And to suggest that the latter depends upon the former is simply silly.
Comment by Patrick Hunter
Darwin – I’m jumping in late in this discussion, but I must respond to your ill-formed comment. If I’m misunderstanding your comment, I apologize in advance.
I can’t speak for non-Christians or even for all Christians, but you need to know this: the Bible doesn’t teach that sex is dirty or unpleasant; rather, it teaches that sex outside of marriage is a sin. The point is not whether “saved” or “unsaved” people enjoy it. Sex by design is enjoyable, but that is totally irrelevant to why people should abstain. Some unbelievers tend to believe, quite erroneously, that religious folks think sex itself is bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. Comments like yours are what make running a blog with open commenting frustrating at times.
“With all respect, Dr Hunter, I somehow doubt Darwin grasps the concept that such things as abortions, divorce, and unwed motherhood are bad things.”
They are unwanted things. However, access to divorce and abortions are good things. Please dont’ tell me a woman who is being beat up daily by her husband would be better off in a society that makes divorce difficult to attain. And while I don’t want my daughter to be in a postion to have to consider an abortion, I do want her to have that option…legally. You might want to ask me what I grasp before assuming. It’s only polite.
“Darwin — you talk about sex as this great gift for our enjoyment. I have one question, who gave you this gift?”
No one. That’s like asking who gave us our sight? It’s a function of our bodies.
———————————–
“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.”
You need to worry if the “special” man who comes into your life cares if you are a virgin or not. In fact, my recommendation is that you get far away from this sort of many who is more concerned with the state of your hymen than you.
————————-
“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.”
Those teen years can suck! No doubt about it. And my experience is that teens know little about sex despite their proclimations to the contrary. But let’s make this fair and talk about sex outside of marriage in general. I still argue that the idea that we should not have sex unless we are married can only be described thusly: A waste.
——————————–
“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.”
Let’s face it, this “God” is the selfish, egotistical one. Demanding faith and belief? Insisting we do the wieirdest things presumably just to please him? No…if there were a god it would be those who worship him that were the most generous for worshiping a creature that does not deserve the attention.
““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.â€
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.”
Whether they occur or not in that time frame does not matter. If you are against abortion completely then you really need to explain why a collection of 100 cells needs protection.
“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 ”
Assuming a couple is emotionally capable of having an “open marriage” and assuming they are capable of maintaining their marriage well in an “open marriage” and assuming both enjoy orgies and it hurts no one, I don’t see the problem.
QUESTION: Sexual abstinence until marriage: unrealistic or do-able?
Yup. Quite doable, actually. I did it myself a little over two and a half years ago at the age of 22.
It can work, assuming the following:
1) You get married at a reasonable age, not in your late 20’s/30’s as most people now seem to do, putting off marriage so they can (in many cases) continue childhood at all costs, or until they are “financially secure enough” (you never have enough money) or until they’ve finished their education (more reasonable, but hardly a prerequisite). You don’t need to date for years and years – a reasonable dating period followed by a short engagement should be sufficient, and if it’s been going on for more than 12 months, it’s commitment time.
2) You have reasonable financial expectations: You do not need a $25,000 wedding (for the record, ours ran $2,000). You do not need to make six figures before you get married. You don’t need a 2 carat engagement ring for your wife. You won’t be able to have all of the nice things your parents have, if you were blessed with well-to-do parents. While it would be nice, you don’t even have to have enough to buy a home – rent for a while. Struggle together – it will build your relationship for the tough times ahead.
3) You both are willing to actually sacrifice for each other. I’ve heard so many people try to make relationships where they don’t want to “get in each other’s way” or prevent each other from taking any opportunities that might arise. That idea, quite simply, is idiotic. Relationships of any kind require give and take, and human relationships aren’t something you can pick up when you like and then put down when it’s convenient. Selfishness makes this largely impossible.
4) You have a moral compass, something dearly lacking today.
5) You are willing to leave behind baggage. Your parents divorce doesn’t mean your marriage will be a wreck. Just because an old girlfriend/boyfriend dumped you doesn’t mean the same thing will happen to you with your spouse. You have to be willing to actually TRUST your spouse, and demand the same of him or her.
6) You have to know your spouse, but it’s not necessary to know EVERYTHING, and you will likely never know everything about your spouse. If you think you’re at the point you need to move in with your significant other to learn more about him/her, it’s time to get hitched.
7) You’re devoted to making it work. No throwing in the towel, no planning for failure (in my opinion, a pre-nup is a plan for failure in many, but not all, cases) and no exit plan. You’re all in, or you’re not.
Those are my thoughts on marriage, at least, as a rather young man who did practice complete abstinence before marriage.
Selfishness, a lack of a moral compass, and the unrealistic expectations of most couples are what seem to cause people to keep putting off marriage in this day and age. Many women don’t make it any easier by handing out the “goods” to just about anyone, and the vast majority of men now expect sex without commitment (as do a great many women, for that matter). Humans have become disposable – in utero, as children, and as adults. How sad a state of affairs.
“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.”
One assumes that posters like to discuss issues…even with one who tends to disagree with you on some issues. I might also note that in posting there is the faintest hope that I might instil some reason into the likes of you and others who hold similar opinions as yours.
——————————
“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.”
Perhaps you’d like to discuss “crass” in its correct context, such as callling others names…something I tend to avoid. Why don’t you?
——————————
“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”
Oddly enough, my family, children, friends and colleagues, those who know me far better than you, have no such opinion of me. I can only hope that reason and compassion somehow reach into your heart and mind and pull you out of this fantastical and mythical abyss you clearly find yoruself in. All the best with that.
“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.”
No one is arguing that a human zygote isn’t human. Rather, the argument is that the value of a 2 day old zygote is so insignificant conpared to the value of a 29 year old woman that ther should be no questin that the 29 year old retains its right to do with their body what they want…including aborting the zygote…despite it’s human dna. Simply put, the value of the 2 day old zygote is only as significant as the mother chooses.
“Darwin – I’m jumping in late in this discussion, but I must respond to your ill-formed comment. If I’m misunderstanding your comment, I apologize in advance.”
No need to apologize for anything. It’s your blog and a damn good one at that.
————————————–
“I can’t speak for non-Christians or even for all Christians, but you need to know this: the Bible doesn’t teach that sex is dirty or unpleasant; rather, it teaches that sex outside of marriage is a sin. The point is not whether “saved†or “unsaved†people enjoy it. Sex by design is enjoyable, but that is totally irrelevant to why people should abstain. Some unbelievers tend to believe, quite erroneously, that religious folks think sex itself is bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. Comments like yours are what make running a blog with open commenting frustrating at times.”
Your point is taken. However, I’d argue that the very notion that sex outside marriage is a sin, whether offered by this God or that God, is nothing more than a means to induce guilt where it need not be induced. Saying it’s wrong because some God said so only tells me that some one has read a book and believes what they read.
Now, I’m married and I’m monogomous. Why? Because sex is for me not merely a pleasure but a bonding experience. That is to say that sex in marriage for me takes on a dimension it did not always take on when I had sex before I was married. On occasion there was a great bonding quality and spiritual qualtiy that came with the physical pleasure when I engaged in sex outside marriage. But now it’s always so.
Yet this is not an arguement for keeping sex inside marriage. What bothers me is when religious folks try to tell OTHER people they are bad for having sex outside marriage when in fact they don’t know anythig about that other person. Why impose such a condemnatin on another person when it’s none of your business and you are not affected by their sex life? It strikes me as an indication of some sort of expression of knowledge that simply cannot exist.
My recommendation is for people to use their sexual abilties as often as their emotions, body and disposition allows them to because they won’t always be able to.
ALthough I do think abstinence before marriage is a noble concept, I think it is very difficult and probably unnatural for men with the sheer number of hormones that run through their body. We have recently witnessed what happened with Ted Haggard, and I often have wondered why there are so many similar stories in other churches, mosques, or other particularly conservative settings. It seems that in many cases, a lot of males who have unwanted same sex desires use the guise of abstience till marriage as a reason for their virginity. Unfortunately, if the truth is ultimately exposed, you see many women end up getting hurt. I often wonder if the women would be able to tell that their soon to be partner was gay if they knew what normal male sexual desire was like. Sadly, in a lot of conservative societies, particularly in Middle Eastern societies, sexual repression which results from strict segregation and rigid enforcement of abstinence before marriage usually results in homosexual attraction, because you’re almost exclusively around men at a time you’re hormones are raging.
William~
Don’t paint with too broad of a brush about why people are waiting longer to get married. I never expected (when I was younger) to still be single at my age. It’s not because I’m extending a childhood or waiting to be financially secure. I don’t expect to have an expensive wedding (yes, it is a once in a lifetime thing, but it’s only a single day – no sense in acquiring debt equal to a monthly payment for a decent new car). I have a moral compass. And I’m not the only woman I know like this. Sometimes, it’s hard to meet men (especially ones that are “marriage material”), or to meet men and catch their interest, romantically. Like I said, I never expected to still be single at this point in my life – I figured I would be married with children. I am not single by preference, but for reasons known only to God.
Oh, Darwin. whereforth art thou? A true secular progressive, it appears.
Sex outside marriage? Fine. (Would you have anything beyond “protection” as advice for your daughter? At what age shall her adventure commence? The wife is with you on this? Pregnancy is a nasty situation, but abortion is cheap and easy if she “messes up?” There is love and there is sex and there is the love of sex and there is love without sex and there is sex and love and…..oh, forget it.)
Divorce: a good thing. The sex gets boring and it is time to move on. The kids will get over it and if they don’t, well nobody promised a rose garden. But then, if there is thrashing and beating and mayhem, then divorce is a great thing. Unless, of course, rough sex is part of the attraction. Then divorce reverts to being a good thing.
Honestly, Darwin, you should reread your catharsis, because everyone else has.
You are in need of at least one small epiphany.
Darwin,
I invite you to spend a week or a month with me in my clinic. You will see that sex outside of marriage is not without its costs.
I am looking at data from the last 44 births I attended to this past December.
Only 14 of the mothers were married (31%). Of those 14, one was separated. 10 of the 44 mothers were on drugs during the pregnancy or at the time of delivery. 12 of the 44 had been treated for STD’s during the pregnancy.
Now, for what should be the most shocking. 13 of the 44 mothers were teenagers. 11 more were not teenagers, but had been teen mothers. These mothers were in their early or mid 20’s and giving birth to their second, third and in one case, a 26 year old with her 8th pregnancy, and 6th live birth. That makes 24 of the 44 (or 54% of the births in a 16 day period in my practice) to teen or former teen mothers.
(I live in a predominately rural, poor area of the county, but then you must ask, what makes people poor? Decisions and lives that I have just described!)
I have to vehemently disagree with you. This issue is not “simply silly”. You are out of touch with the real costs. Sex may not have cost you much, but these girls have and will be paying a heavy price for the rest of their lives.
Sex outside of marriage is a real issue, it is a profound issue and it has real impact on people’s lives. Spend time with me, and I guarantee your attitude will be turned around 180 degrees.
Our “free sex, sex for personal gratification” culture has had many, many costs. The “trade offs” have been huge–you have just been shielded from them. In my profession, I cannot hide from them–abortion, STD’s, teen pregnancy, unwed pregnancies, fatherless homes, high school dropouts, prison time, etc are all linked to teen pregnancy and unwed, fatherless homes.
These are the “consequences (you) are not in the mood to deal with”, but Darwin, I have to deal with them everyday.
Darwin, if you have all the answers, please help me deal with all the consequences I have mentioned above, and please don’t tell me all those babies should have been aborted. They won’t be. I have counseled these girls while they are pregnant and the last thing they want is an abortion. As the saying goes, “he is my baby’s daddy and I have his seed. I know he will come around.” He never does. Our society won’t make him, and as I said earlier, most guys are jerks, especially without the civilizing effect of marriage.
You and your family appear to being doing quite well, and I am happy for you and your children and their grandparents but you are not the rule. Your experience cannot be extrapolated to society as a whole. You view, I suspect, is very narrow, and dare I say, self centered.
I feel for these girls and their children. I desperately want them to have better lives. This issue is not about me, and my beliefs about premarital sex and abortion. It is not about you or your life. I am not suffering, and it sounds like you are not.
This issue is about the ones who are suffering because of the sexual mistakes that have been made. The issue is a culture that promotes sex to pre-teens and adolescents without identifying any of the negative consequences. (Negative consequences…yes, Darwin, there are negative consequences, and I hope I have changed you mind on that–even though I said earlier that I have no illusions that I can do that.) . The issue is a society that denigrates marriage and the role a father has in the upbringing of children. The issue is a society that sees abortion as a valid form of birth control. I consider abortion the most selfish act one can do in their pursuit of “self gratification”.
Darwin, this issue is not about me, and this may be hard to hear, it is not about you. It is about the mother’s and, yes, it is about the babies, those that are born and yet to be born.
Patrick – thank you for the work you do. We need louder, stronger voices in this world that repeat what you have said over and over again.
Darwin wants to pretend that premarital sex is harmless because I suspect that he also wants for all sexual acts to be ruled harmless. He is the point of view expressed by pedophiles.
Ladybug -
Thanks for the correction. You’re right – I shouldn’t have said that and, to be honest, did not intend for it to come across that way. My mistake. Rest assured that’s not what I believe. Obviously, many people simply aren’t going to find “the one” (I don’t think there’s any specific “one” person out there, but you know what I mean) at a young age, or necessarily at all. My complaints are aimed especially at those young men (and women) who live at home until their mid-20’s, avoiding the responsibilities of adulthood.
Basic point – when you find the right person, settle down and get married. Don’t wait around for something “better” to come along, don’t avoid it so you can keep mooching, just grow up, be a man or woman, and make a commitment to something. If you’re going to put an age limit on marriage, make it reasonable – say, 20 or 21, not 30. Obviously, it takes two to tango, and if you’re still looking for a partner, no need to start the dance yet. But make sure you’re actually looking, not sitting home watching tractor pulling on ESPN 2 with your roommates (which I did a fair amount of when the girlfriends of a roomy and I had left town for summer, but that’s another story… good times, good times…) or eating ice cream and feeling sorry for yourself. The Good Lord isn’t going to plop the right person down in front of you one day, you’ve got to do your part, too
Hope that clarifies!
“Oh, Darwin. whereforth art thou? A true secular progressive, it appears.
Sex outside marriage? Fine. (Would you have anything beyond “protection†as advice for your daughter? At what age shall her adventure commence? The wife is with you on this? Pregnancy is a nasty situation, but abortion is cheap and easy if she “messes up?†There is love and there is sex and there is the love of sex and there is love without sex and there is sex and love and…..oh, forget it.)”
You assume too much. We’ve told our daughter that sex is not somethng to engage in lightly. We’ve explained the tendecies of boys to…how shall we say…talk a good game. And yes, there are all sorts of contexts for sex as you suggest. Nobody denies that.
———————————-
“Divorce: a good thing. The sex gets boring and it is time to move on.”
Divorce is something that allows one to fix terrible mistakes, not to simply embrace willy nilly. However, it can be a lifesaver. And anyone who denies that simply has too much care for philosophy and too little compasion for their fellow human being.
——————————
“The kids will get over it and if they don’t, well nobody promised a rose garden. But then, if there is thrashing and beating and mayhem, then divorce is a great thing. Unless, of course, rough sex is part of the attraction. Then divorce reverts to being a good thing.”
Very little sense being made here.
—————————
“Honestly, Darwin, you should reread your catharsis, because everyone else has.
You are in need of at least one small epiphany.”
Aren’t we all!
Abstinence before marriage–doable. Short engagement–preferable.
Speakin’ from personal experience.
“The pleasure that be attained from sex is among the greatest gifts life gives.” –Darwin
Amen!
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. For someone who is essentially godless, sex is probably the pinnacle of the human experience. It’s the closest thing to ecstasy you can get (drug-free, I assume, although I have no experience with drugs & don’t know what they are like).
However, I can only imagine that the pleasure is fleeting with uncommitted sex. Marriage adds the component of true intimacy and oneness. Ideally, marriage is the safest context for sex, emotionally speaking, because of the protection of the covenant that is in place. He is mine and I am his, and *no one else’s*! He owes me his body and I owe him mine. Nothing can replace that kind of sex. Truly “safe sex”–emotionally safe. Pleasure that changes and grows and lasts, not a few minutes, or one night, but a lifetime: “as long as you both shall live.” Sex in any other context would be a poor substitute.
But to go even further than that, marriage is really only a foretaste of the soul’s truest union. Anyone who has experienced the joy that comes from being in the presence of God finds the greatest pleasure that this world can offer a distant second at best. That is why, I believe, the godless cling to sexual experience for their fulfillment. It’s actually the best life has to offer for them. They don’t know that ultimately, nothing can fulfill the human spirit but its Maker.
As for the pro-abortion comments here, I can only say that I have been through something similar to Big Mo’s experience (though later in pregnancy). Having actually seen my child’s face, it’s all the more horrifying now to think of the children (yes CHILDREN, with all their essential human parts, including fingerprints unique to them–not “acorns” or “zygotes”) thrown away by the *millions* in this country.
I fail to see why the rights of women have to be at odds with the rights of children. Surely a rational, free society can find better ways of handling crisis pregnancies than pitting women against their own children. I am appalled at the “it’s a parasite” type of talk I hear from pro-abortion folks. How can anyone become so darkened in their thinking and so hard of heart? My DH says that deceiving others is one thing, but when you deceive yourself, there is no hope for you; you are truly lost. He’s right, of course.
BTW, yes, Planned Parenthood makes a profit off its abortions. Not only that, they profit from the sale of fetal remains. It’s unconscionable.
I don’t believe a word a politician says about “standing up for the poor and afflicted and weak and disenfranchised in society” if that politican is not courageous enough to vote pro-life. Put your vote where your mouth is, and I’ll respect you. If Darwin and others think that pro-life conservatives won’t go all the way with it, they have seriously miscalculated. Just go on thinking that, ‘kay?
It takes firm principles and convictions to be pro-life in this wacked-out day and age.
I have to vehemently disagree with you. This issue is not “simply sillyâ€. You are out of touch with the real costs. Sex may not have cost you much, but these girls have and will be paying a heavy price for the rest of their lives.
Sex outside of marriage is a real issue, it is a profound issue and it has real impact on people’s lives. Spend time with me, and I guarantee your attitude will be turned around 180 degrees.
Our “free sex, sex for personal gratification†culture has had many, many costs. The “trade offs†have been huge–you have just been shielded from them. In my profession, I cannot hide from them–abortion, STD’s, teen pregnancy, unwed pregnancies, fatherless homes, high school dropouts, prison time, etc are all linked to teen pregnancy and unwed, fatherless homes.
These are the “consequences (you) are not in the mood to deal withâ€, but Darwin, I have to deal with them everyday.”
Well, perhaps the first thing that should be done is to assure that these kids have an eduction about sex, how pregancy happens and how birth control works. Furthermore, sex does not lead to all these things you describe. Stupidity does. Pardon me for appear a tad above it all, but let’s face it, premarital sex is not the cause of fartherless homes, poverty or any of the other things you’ve mentioned. Stupidity is…as well as poor parenting.
————————–
“Darwin, if you have all the answers, please help me deal with all the consequences I have mentioned above, and please don’t tell me all those babies should have been aborted. They won’t be. I have counseled these girls while they are pregnant and the last thing they want is an abortion. As the saying goes, “he is my baby’s daddy and I have his seed. I know he will come around.†He never does.”
I refer you to my comment about stupidity.
——————————
“You and your family appear to being doing quite well, and I am happy for you and your children and their grandparents but you are not the rule. Your experience cannot be extrapolated to society as a whole. You view, I suspect, is very narrow, and dare I say, self centered.”
Of course it’s the rule. Are you tryng to suggest there are more single mothers in poverty than not. There are populations in which single parenthood appears to be the norm, but not most populations.
—————————-
I feel for these girls and their children. I desperately want them to have better lives. This issue is not about me, and my beliefs about premarital sex and abortion. It is not about you or your life. I am not suffering, and it sounds like you are not.
This issue is about the ones who are suffering because of the sexual mistakes that have been made. The issue is a culture that promotes sex to pre-teens and adolescents without identifying any of the negative consequences. (Negative consequences…yes, Darwin, there are negative consequences, and I hope I have changed you mind on that–even though I said earlier that I have no illusions that I can do that.)”
No one, including me, has ever suggested that there can never be negative consequences to sex. Clearly there are. But defining premarital sex as bad…and that’s it..well, that’s ridiculous. What’s bad is being stupid about the kind of sex you engage in and being stupid about the partners you with whom you have sex. Teach your children common sense, lay down hard and fast rules, make sure they know you have expectations, make sure they know there are consequences for disobeying and being stupid, love them every day, and give them the right amount of freedom and they’ll be fine.
—————————-
“The issue is a society that denigrates marriage and the role a father has in the upbringing of children.”
How does society “denigrate marrige”?
—————————–
“The issue is a society that sees abortion as a valid form of birth control. I consider abortion the most selfish act one can do in their pursuit of “self gratificationâ€.”
I know nobody who sees abortion as a form of “birth control”. I know many people who understand it as a solution to a problem. And please, tell me what’s wrong with a little self gratification now and again. Folks around here talk about it as though a little here and there is a bad thing.
———————————–
“Darwin, this issue is not about me, and this may be hard to hear, it is not about you. It is about the mother’s and, yes, it is about the babies, those that are born and yet to be born.”
Premarital sex is all about this? No. Premarital sex is about enjoying the gift of life….responsibly.
“Darwin wants to pretend that premarital sex is harmless because I suspect that he also wants for all sexual acts to be ruled harmless. He is the point of view expressed by pedophiles.
Comment by Changed Life”
I’m impressed that this thread of comments was able to go this far without someone calling someone a pedophile. Ya blew it, ChangedLife. It was a nice conversation up till this point. Why not simply deal with the specific comments and views of someone rather than resorting to making some up about someone or insinuating something you think will discredit them?
“I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. For someone who is essentially godless, sex is probably the pinnacle of the human experience. It’s the closest thing to ecstasy you can get (drug-free, I assume, although I have no experience with drugs & don’t know what they are like).”
I presume ecstasy comes in different forms for different people. In my case, it comes when watching my children laugh uncontrolably.
I can imagine however that for those who buy the myth of God, ecstacy would be the feeling they are doing the bidding of their sadistic diety even while harming fellow human beings.
But like I said, It must be different for different people.
“If Darwin and others think that pro-life conservatives won’t go all the way with it, they have seriously miscalculated. Just go on thinking that, ‘kay?
It takes firm principles and convictions to be pro-life in this wacked-out day and age.”
I have no doubt that pro life conservitives will “go all the way” with it once abortion gets thrown back to the states (and it will…soon). The problem is that these pro life conservative will be thrown out of office because they will be voicing ideas that are in the plain minority. And when they try to flip flop to soothe those who disagree with them that won’t bring back the reasonable, enlightened voters they are trying to soothe. It will only alienate the pro life conservative voters who they once had.
It’s rather disturbing, repulsive actually, to read Darwin supporting the possible killing of his own grandchild. I know I’m too close to the situation to be coldly objective, with a grandson due in two months, but I get physically ill at the mere thought of someone being so sociopathically murderous that he could throw a life like that into the trash.
Darwin, I think you are wrong about what the majority in this country wants. Repeated polling has shown that most people support at least some limitation on abortion. Feminists, however, will brook no limitation on the killing of unborn children. *They* are the extremists.
I am a pragmatist when it comes to saving the lives of children, and would accept even limitations placed on abortion if its complete eradication is not possible at this point on the slippery slope. There are countless people just like me, not all of them in the thrall of a “sadistic deity,” as you describe Him, who are utterly repulsed by your own sadistic point of view. When you have looked into the perfectly formed face of a 32-week-old stillborn baby, your own child, and realized that children just like those can be killed at will and have *no* protection under the law, it brings it home. I’ve always been pro-life, but never so strongly as since then.
Ms. Barber, I really appreciate your insight on your blog and, in particular, this post.
Children are a blessing FROM THE LORD. He is the One that creates life to begin with. People have become SO selfish and now it leads to murder being okay?? Sad.
As a soon-to-be adoptive mother, my heart aches for all the murdered children. Children that would happily be adopted into families and love oh so much.
His,
Mrs. U
“Darwin, I think you are wrong about what the majority in this country wants. Repeated polling has shown that most people support at least some limitation on abortion. Feminists, however, will brook no limitation on the killing of unborn children. *They* are the extremists.
I am a pragmatist when it comes to saving the lives of children, and would accept even limitations placed on abortion if its complete eradication is not possible at this point on the slippery slope. There are countless people just like me, not all of them in the thrall of a “sadistic deity,†as you describe Him, who are utterly repulsed by your own sadistic point of view. When you have looked into the perfectly formed face of a 32-week-old stillborn baby, your own child, and realized that children just like those can be killed at will and have *no* protection under the law, it brings it home. I’ve always been pro-life, but never so strongly as since then. ”
I also support limitations on abortion. However, the vast majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal to a point. The problem for concervatives will come when they ask for the whole shooting match. When that happens, the games over. They will be seen as extremists and voted out of office.
So Darwin, at what point in its development, specifically, does an unborn child earn the right to be protected from being killed?
“So Darwin, at what point in its development, specifically, does an unborn child earn the right to be protected from being killed?
Comment by redbeard — 01.24.07″
This is the question, isn’t it. I know for sure that the 2 day old zygote doesn’t deserve protection. I further know that a 7 month old fetus does deserve protection.
Another interesting question, assuming the issue goes to the states, is who best to decide this. I presume it will end up being decided by both legislators as well as by a vote of the people. By best guess is that the majority of states will make abortion legal in the first trimester, whether it’s the people or legislators who decide.
So you don’t have a clear idea of what is murder and what is simply akin to spring housecleaning? I assumed this would be a stumbling block for you.
“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.” Darwin
“The creation of a thousand forests is in one acorn.” Ralph Waldo Emerson
Darwin is reading the polling correctly.
If Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue will revert to the states. Roe is such bad law (how it was reached, not the subject of the decision) that even the libs know it will be overturned. That is why they are so frantic to make it a “decided issue.”
A voting majority of the people in the US are willing to permit abortion in some form.
The radical pro-choice voices oppose parental permission, informed consent, waiting periods, etc. They promote partial birth abortion, because any restriction on abortion means we are immediately going back to the dark alley, the coat hanger and bleeding to death.
Pro-life people have watched the growth of Planned Parenthood and its agenda and the advent of the neighborhood abortion shop. It is not beyond the scope of reason that local government health clinics will begin to offer the “service.”
There is a natural tension between those who are flippant about when life begins and those who want to wait and see what develops before deciding what to do with the “thing.”
It stands to reason that if a person sees a pregnancy as a crisis of the contraception failure, that abortion is a form of personal salvation. That person will see the flushed “thing” as so much protoplasm and “good riddance.”
There are lots of folks like that. When you listen to them opine, you soon see that they will cloak themselves in all manner of expression that help them avoid facing reality.
“Honey, I’m pregnant!” “No. you’re not. We’ll let it ride for a while and if we decide to keep it going, then you’re pregnant.”
Darwin said;”This is the question, isn’t it. I know for sure that the 2 day old zygote doesn’t deserve protection. I further know that a 7 month old fetus does deserve protection”
Given that you don’t have the foggiest notion of what arbitrary timeline to force down the collective throats of America, why do you find it acceptable to just concoct a “timeline acceptable” with little or no basis in science?
The only thing we know for sure is that life begins at conception.
The debate, contrary to what most folks think, has always been about at what stage do we protect that life, NOT at what stage does life begin. As far as I can see, all other times are purely arbitrary and based upon opinion.
Helio, Jan, you’ve both hit upon very pertinent points.
The debate on abortion can only be an honest debate when the so-called pro-choice people are willing to admit that there is a life in the womb. It’s not a lump, nor a parasite; it’s a human life, despite the stage of development. Once that basic truth is established, then we can debate about when and under what conditions it’s ok to end that life.
“A woman’s right to choose” is a flagrant lie by its deliberate omission of the child from the equation, a child who has absolutely no “choice” in the matter whatever.
Redbeard;
I inteviewed a Muslim doctor from Holland once to see what her views were. She said that from a doctor’s point of view there has NEVER been a debate about when life begins though she thought that the soul did not enter the body until twelve days later (if I remember correctly).
And, we all know, viability shifts with the advent of scientific discoveries so that is out as a metric (horrendously flawed as it was in the first place).
As it is obvious, we cannot drag religious presumptions into the mix, I really do not see how anything but conception makes sense.
Why can’t we just be honest and admit that we are willing to sacrifice the lives of the unborn on the altar of supposed economic well-being (which by the way, cannot be conclusively said to accomplish that goal overall, however widely trumpeted the benefit) of these mothers.
Here is a dirty little secret about “the woman’s right to choose.” She is choosing what to do with something she possesses in her womb.
If you want to argue that concept to its logical conclusion, your best source is the reasoning used successfully in the Dred Scott decision. It is all about her right over “chattel.”
Now, just to carry the parallel to the logical end, which gets the worse deal: 1) The slave who is dragged from the arms of the family to the auction block, or 2) the fetus that is torn apart and sucked into the trash?
Both are being subjected to the decision of their “owners.”
Oh, I know, the zygote is not a person. It is not “chattel.” It is an annoying zit in the womb.
Move along, folks, nothing to see here.
Hope it’s okay to point people to (not my website; it’s just really really good) to abort73.com, where you will get a great education on abortion and what exactly they do to these babies. you’ll see that a 7-week baby has a head, arms, legs, feet and toes and in fact looks like far more than the “clump of cells” people get told that it is. I saw that site and went from being pro-life to VERY pro-life.
I haven’t completely thought this ALL the way through but- What about the right not to have to reproduce? Does consent to sex also mean consent to produce offspring? Shouldn’t that mean that birth control interferes with a baby’s right to life? Science has definitely provided more information and capabilities over the years. Now we can reproduce using a skin cell (or something like that). Who owns whose DNA?
I believe in abortion with some restrictions.
#150 – you are absolutely right. you haven’t thought this all the way through.
Every action has consequences. Even the act of sex. You are saying that in this case, you don’t want there to be consequences (pregnancy) and that is natural. We do not, by nature, want the consequence for our actions.
For justice to prevail, the consequences of any action must be directed at the one who made the choice to perform that act, I think you would agree. For example, if someone commits murder, shouldn’t the guilty person go to jail, rather then an innocent bystander? Well, in this very way, abortion advocates want to assign the consequence for engaging in sex on the most innocent person in the equation, the unborn baby. Not only that, but they elevate the consequence for performing sex to a death penalty. They do, not Christians, not the Right-to-life movement; but pro-Choice people actually advocate the killing of the baby. This is what I find so repulsive.
If a woman finds out that she is pregnant, she can choose an abortion and kill a fetus. Why? The vast majority of the time it is just an act of convenience. She doesn’t want to deal with it. It is not life and death for her, but it is for that child.
Now it is at this point that most pro-Choice folks will put up an argument like this, “What about the case of rape, or the case where the mother’s life is in jeopardy?” These are valid questions and need to be answered seriously, but they are, in essence, anecdotal, the rare cases. Cannot we agree that in the vast majority of cases, this is not true?
As to who owns who’s DNA, I think my answer may surprise you. The logical answer (not mine) is that the person to whom that DNA belongs to does. But at the moment of conception, a completely new set of DNA exists, the child’s. This DNA is absolutely unique, it is not the mother’s, it is not the father’s. Now a mother or a father have the right to make decisions for their child for the child’s protection. For example, I decide where my son goes to school, what type of medical treatment, if any he needs, etc. In what case is it in the child’s interest to be aborted?
But my real answer for the question, “Who owns whose DNA?” is the one who created it owns it. We cannot create life, we can only manipulate it. The Creator of life, Almighty God owns every single DNA molecule in existence.
Not a popular answer in this modern world where embryo’s are not celebrated as little people who have infinite worth before there creator, rather our world sees them as potential spare parts or blobs of flesh. But I truly believe it to be true.
In a response to Tristan in Comment 123:
I learned the hard way when my husband came out after I learned he had been having an affair with another man. We were both abstinent till marriage. I’m not sure I entirely agree with your argument, but I guess it does happen, and I guess at the time we were married, I really didn’t know what a normal male sexual appetite was like.
There’s another part of the equation here too.
Don’t people have the right to protect themselves from harm?
Let’s face it, pregancy can be a dangerous business. It can be a debilitating business. One’s body can be transformed in very negative ways. Some of the changes are life long AND negative by any definition.
If a zygote or embryo has some sort of “right” to live, doesn’t the person carrying that zygote or embryo, and who does not want it, have the right to protect themselves from what is clearly imminent danger to their body?
I think they do.
Darwin, I think you make a valid point (#153). As I said in my earlier point (#151), questions like these need to be discussed and reasoned.
When a woman’s health is in danger, an abortion changes from a choice to a medical procedure that may be necessary to save a life. This, by the way, was not legalized by Roe v. Wade. It has always been true that doctors can take extraordinary measures to save a life.
-Ben
In any discussion of overturning Roe and restricting abortion there is general consensus on the exception to protect the life of the mother if things go wrong in the pregnancy. Always has been. Non-issue.
That could mean for at least two qualifiers for the right to terminate pregancy. One, health, many women over maybe 40yr should be included here. I know quite a few grandmothers who have yet to go through menopause but would be surprised to learn that sex with their partners is for reproduction purposes only. This should free up a lot more of their time; and, two, the rich.
I don’t remember signing up to be [here].
“I know quite a few grandmothers who have yet to go through menopause but would be surprised to learn that sex with their partners is for reproduction purposes only.”
I don’t think anyone (I admit I haven’t reread the entire thread, above) said that sex is for reproductive purposes only.
“This should free up a lot more of their time; and, two, the rich.”
Huh? I don’t get where you get either of these two points. Please clarify.
benm,
I was being somewhat facetious but I didn’t mean to distract from a in-depth and already informative discussion. However, I still stand by the over 40yr club exclusion and the rich, who can go elsewhere, to terminate any unwanted pregnancy.
After apologizing for that one distraction, here’s yet another hypothetical. If I stated that I wish my mother had aborted MY own childbirth instead of sentencing me to a life of service, suffering, and a commuted death sentence should it change the scope? Could it be possible that MY rights were violated in that I don’t remember agreeing to being born, into this cold cold world? Do I have any legal grounds for unwillful ‘kidnapping.’ We’ve all heard at least one person during our lifetime say, “[they] wish they’d never been born,” and by God mean it.
At the very least, we were sinless before. I really appreciate and respect most all the posters here so I’m grateful for your comments and feedback on these final thoughts.
Well, I don’t want to get melodramatic, but I lost a son to SIDS many years ago (our third). We thought long and hard before having another and one of the things that I struggled with was whether or not I had the right to bring someone into this world who was doomed to die someday. I finally decided that life, no matter how short or hard, is a precious thing. I know this is true because I have seen people cling to a life which I know would be hopeless to me and from that fight to survive, we see the most beautiful people emerge.
I am sure that you know people like that, people with severe disabilities, but beautiful souls. That is why God lifts up the humble.
We (the church I attend) go on mission trips to Guatemala and Haiti, and I can tell you that the gentlest people that I know, are the poorest materially. This is why our God exalts the poor.
Even if you were born into a very tough situation, you can have hope. And even if you are born into a very tough situation AND that situation never changes during your lifetime, because of the work that Jesus did on the cross, you can still have hope. Really, what happens on this rock over the seventy or so years you might walk it, don’t really compare to your eternal destiny. And each one of us gets to choose that destiny.
So, if you say, “well I didn’t choose to be here,” that is true. But we do get to choose how to live it and we do get to choose the next life. Make the best choices you can make, forget about the ones you can’t make, they aren’t really choices anyway.
moreprochoicethannot (#156 & #158) must have missed the part about the stork.
The stork drops you where you land: Dafur, a gated Hollywood community, India in mid-Monsoon, the deep jungles of Brazil.
You do not get to choose your color, your parents, your chances for survival.
There is no state sanctioned or provided retroactive abortion. Such things are up to the individual. Of course, you can settle for something less, such as perpetually whining about your existence, staying drugged up, being a sociopath or just staying stuck on sophomoric argument as a preening process.
God help the parents who catch one of these stink bombs from the stork.
I’m searching through my bible…page by page…still trying to find out where we have a “right to life”????
Can someone point this out to me?
Hmmm….
Helio,
I don’t believe in storks.
I believe in choice.
I also uphold quality over quantity.
I’ll be sure to extend your condolences to my parents.
thanks.
moreprochoicethannot;
Do you believe that a mother should have the choice to destroy their infant immediately after birth if that infant is born with defects?
Do you believe that a mother should have the choice to destroy their infant immediately after birth if that infant is born and is deemed not as perfect as wanted (as you uphold quality over quantity)?
Do you believe that a mother should have the choice to destroy their infant in the last three months of gestation for emotional reasons?
Do you believe that taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions for those 1)who essentially use it for birth control? 2)securing a gruesome barbaric partial birth abortion procedure ?
Do you believe that parents should have a choice about surgical procedures such as abortion being performed upon the children in their care?
#162 moreprochoicethannot:
Good luck to you and any procreation activities you may choose to undertake. You make yourself perfectly clear and perhaps you can paddle your way through life and its complicated relationships without being nagged by doubt or conscience in regard to “quality over quantity” and abortion as an alternative to responsibility.
Jan,
I think more attention should be directed at both better medical and preventive measures. Abstinence is great and should be promoted. But since we can say sex isn’t just for reproduction, birth control measures should also be made available to. Recent medical advancements are encouraging but in many cases it’s still not as available or accessible as it should be. It’s such a personal issue. I hope for new and improved alternative options.
[1-N] [2-N] [3-N] [4-Y,N] [5-Y]
Helio,
None of my replies contained enough specific information for you to form any such condescending conclusions or sexual innuendos.
“Choice” is such a sleazy word when it comes to killing life in the womb.
Many of us realize that abortion has always been around and that it always will be with us.
Do insurance companies cover the costs of an abortion? Is an abortionist able to carry malpractice insurance? Do they teach abortion techniques in medical schools. Is there an abortion code of ethics. Does the state health department issue regulations for abortion clinics? Why do so many abortion clinics carry the name “pregnancy center”? Is there an abortion board of examiners? Has the state have any interest is the procedure?
If a woman is going to abort her child, she should have a clean, safe medical environment in which to end the life. There is no real purpose to be served in sending her or the abortionist and the staff to prison. So, we have to face the reality that some women will have the child in their womb killed.
The conundrum is how to make abortion possible, but rare. Abortion is not a “choice”…….it is a decision. It should be an informed decision. It is for so many a haunting decision.
People who focus on “privacy” and “choice” are whistling past the grave yard. They need to face reality. Abortion is not so flippant as being a mere “choice.”
I think the biggest problem with the anti-abortion pro-choice debate is that we tend to talk past each other and not listen. We fail to earn the right to be heard. Now I am very, very anti-abortion, for many of the reasons that have been put forward here. But having my position and throwing stones at all of those who have another is what is keeping us here, right where we are. With innocent babies dying every day.
I do not want America to be a country where abortion is illegal, I want it to be a country where abortion is unthinkable.
I think it starts with understanding that the focus of the ‘pro-choice’ folks is the rights of the mother and the focus of the ‘pro-life’ is the rights of the child. If we are going to make any headway it is to convince the pro-choice camp that it is actually in the interest of the mother not to kill her child. That shouldn’t be hard to do in most cases, should it? After all the physical, spiritual and emotional cost of abortion on the mothers is easy to demonstrate.
Lets save those children being aborted by mothers who would clearly benefit from not have a life of guilt, possible sterility and increased risk of cancer, among other benefits of carrying thier child to term. Show them the benefit of having someone to show love to, and show them a way out delimna of not being able or ready to care for the child.
If we could stop these women from making a choice that would haunt them for the rest of their lives, we could save millions of babies. But if we keep drawing hard lines in the sand, every day three thousand or so babies die.
I think the pro-choice people (not the abortion industry, which is only after dollars, or the pro-abortion groups which is only after influence) can be reached, after all they want choice. Let’s give them a better choice.
Comments on this entry are closed.