Boots and Sabers - The blogging will continue until morale improves...

Budget Lines Drawn | Home | 1950's - "Briefing Booklet"

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Planned Parenthood Encourages Underage Girls to Lie About Age

Wow. Michelle Malkin is highlighting an amazing story.

A college girl called several Planned Parenthoods and claimed to be a 15-year-old who was pregnant with a 23-year-old’s baby. Instead of reporting the statutory rape to the authorities, the Planned Parenthood folks encourage her to lie and say that she was 16. If she’s 16, then they don’t have to report. This happened time and time again in multiple states, so it seems to be a matter of policy.

But it gets even worse. The report goes on to detail how the Planned Parenthood staff discourage the girl from trusting her priest, parents, or pro-life people. Instead, the girl should only trust the Planned Parenthood staff. Furthermore, the staff goes through some lengths to tell the girls how adoption is a difficult and unrewarding process while abortion quick and easy. If you think that the reporter is making this up, you can hear the recordings here.

Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood receives a fair amount of tax dollars. Rather than giving girls all of the information to make an informed decision, they are actively pushing girls to get abortions.

Stories like this make me doubt the rhetoric from pro-abortion folks that they abhor abortion but want it to be “legal, safe, and rare.” Stories like this reveal that many people on the pro-abortion side (not all of them) think that abortion should be “legal, convenient, and cheap.”

(70) Comments

Posted by Owen at 1903 hrs

Culture + Politics + Politics - General

Don’t be surprised.

There’s an old saying to the effect that ‘where there are lies, there, too, is death.’
Posted by dad29 on May 15, 2007 at 1933 hrs

I understand the Justice Department has a lot on its plate, but you’d think they could devote more focus to such grievous conduct against minors and obstruction of justice from a group getting funding from we the people (and that’s just the legally-recognized wrongs they do!).
Posted by Calvin on May 15, 2007 at 1938 hrs

I don’t suppose it’ll do much good, but ...

1. This is in direct conflict with their stated policies, and

2. I am ardently pro-choice and I do want abortion to be rare. But it is my honest and thoughtfully arrived at opinion that the only just and humane way to do this is to make sure that no woman ever becomes pregnant unless she wants to and to cure.

Well, you could think over my remarks and at least acknowledge that we on my side of the debate are engaging these weighty issues as seriously as you are - even if you vehemently disagree with our conclusions. Or, you could just call us liars and murderers and dismiss it all as subterfuge in our attempt to destroy everything that is good. Choice is yours I guess. Although for some of you I hold out little hope for the former.
Posted by scott on May 15, 2007 at 2004 hrs

Well, you could think over my remarks and at least acknowledge that we on my side of the debate are engaging these weighty issues as seriously as you are - even if you vehemently disagree with our conclusions.

I actually agree with you. I think that Planned Parenthood is warped by the profit motive. They get paid for abortions - not adoptions.
Posted by Owen on May 15, 2007 at 2008 hrs

This story makes me sick to my stomach.

Sadly, I don’t foresee any ramifications coming for PP. But I hope I’m wrong.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 2110 hrs

“cure” pregnancy?
What cure is there beside murder of a human being? Thats a thoughtful statement? May be you missed some punctuation or I’m reading it wrong but that sure is how it reads to me.

Planned Parenthood is the less radical arm of NARAL, their policies are one in the same. This does go against their stated “public” policy but not against the policy of the clinics or NARAL or planned parenthood themselves. That is a dishonest claim. Planned Parenthood was founded so they could garner taxpayer money by informing (through safe sex and abstinence programs), counseling all options (adoption) and lending support (follow on treatment). The counseling all options and informing have gone out the window and only through ambiguous claims can you even slightly claim that lending support happens.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 2133 hrs

ched: the “cure” bit is part of another point I was making and decided was irrelevant after all. It concerned the fact that some abortions are done because of horrible birth defects which, if we could “cure” would eliminate the need for those abortions, too. But I decided it was “out of scope” and thought I’d deleted it entirely.
Posted by scott on May 15, 2007 at 2159 hrs

I think that Planned Parenthood is warped by the profit motive.

Where did you get that warped fantasy Owen? That’s the kind of nonsense that passes for truth in the Right to Lie world.

PP is largely donor supported.

By the way, I love my submittal word below is “choice.”
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2007 at 2250 hrs

From a conservative perspective, PP is one of the most hated organizations. But come on kr, the PP that does provide abortions do make a lot of money off of abortions- that cannot be disputed. And you have to admit, this report is pretty disgusting. Instead of apologizing for their screw up, they blame the messenger. What a screwed up organization.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2007 at 0034 hrs

But it is my honest and thoughtfully arrived at opinion that the only just and humane way to do this is to make sure that no woman ever becomes pregnant unless she wants to
I absolutely agree with this, Scott. I don’t think it’s really possible though unless we force people to stop getting it on unless they’re looking to have kids. Correct me if I’m wrong but there is no foolproof birth control other than abstinence.
Posted by Matt on May 16, 2007 at 0810 hrs

I don’t think it’s really possible though unless we force people to stop getting it on unless they’re looking to have kids.

I don’t agree. With changes in attitude, culture, education and medical science, we can achieve this goal without going to a world where sex is always procreative. In fact, I think it is one of the great human imperatives, wherein we declare and establish our independence from our animal nature and our genetic inheritance; we are moral agents who seek to free ourselves from the bonds of reproductive tyranny.

Consenting adults find that sexual relationships are an important part of <strike>this complete breakfast</strike> a fulfilling life. This is who we are. We must wrest our reproduction away from this fact. We must have children deliberately, when we wish to have them, not as a hit-or-miss byproduct. And we can do this. We have already done so to a large extent. Half of all pregnancies in America are unplanned, it’s true. But this also means that half of them are planned.

Half down, half to go, that’s what I say.

Correct me if I’m wrong but there is no foolproof birth control other than abstinence.

If my goal is to free consenting adults to have sex lives independent of their reproduction, your goal seems to be the opposite: to control people’s sex lives such that it is only for reproduction. This is a step backward. And it is a futile attempt. And these kinds of efforts ensure the misery and misfortune of people everywhere who, in their attempt to have normal adult relationships, find themselves all too often reproducing when they did not intend to. I think that’s a tragic shame.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2007 at 0834 hrs

Post 11, Wow Scott that was very well said. I have never been able to really debate abortion. I have always thought it was morally detestable and so been against it. But, in real life I would rather an unwanted baby never be born rather than give it such a high potential for a hard and unhappy life, much less add to an overcrowded world. As much as I hate the idea, I have always been for abortion in rape cases, known serious defects, etc.

I do believe the best answer lies between Scott and Matt. I think having added explicit health classes to younger and younger ages just teaches kids how to do it. Kids test and experiment. It is like Santa Claus, a little mystery when you are young is OK and parents who taught their very young children there is no Santa Claus…have low esteem in my eyes. Sex without commitment as adults is not a bad thing in others, though I personally believe sex with commitment is much more worthwhile. Heck, if you are an atheist, sex is just a great way to get pleasure if you are not trying for kids and who am I to say you are wrong or bad. You don’t have the same parameters of comparison, it is apples and oranges.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2007 at 1012 hrs

Scott’s position that he’d like abortion to be legal but rare smacks of inconsistency. First off, if you think it should be legal, why should it be rare? To think that it should be rare is to at a minimum recognize that there is something ethically suspicious about it. But if aborted fetuses aren’t actually people, then what would be ethically suspicious about terminating them?

On the other hand, if the fetus is actually a person, then terminating its life would be not just ethically suspicious, but simply wrong. And if that’s the case, then it should be illegal as well.

Many on the pro-abortion side have tried to get away with this fence straddling for too long. They oppose abortion rhetorically (“I’m personally against it” or, “I think they should be rare”) but when it comes to the part that really matters (the actually legality of it) they are all for it.

I think there can be thoughtful people on each side of this issue, but unfortunately for Scott, a single thoughtful person cannot be on each side of the argument at the same time.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2007 at 1106 hrs

There is absolutely no ethical contradiction between saying abortion should be rare and saying that it should be legal. Reasons why I might want it to be rare need not include the idea that a zygote is a person. In fact I need not even get into the idea that abortion is naturally distasteful to arrive at the conclusion that it should be rare; as a medical procedure, it carries risks that women are better off avoiding.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2007 at 1121 hrs

If my goal is to free consenting adults to have sex lives independent of their reproduction, your goal seems to be the opposite: to control people’s sex lives such that it is only for reproduction.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I said I don’t believe it is possible to prevent all unplanned pregnancies other than forcing abstinence. I would like to prevent all unwanted pregnancies and thus render abortion irrelevant/unnecessary. What is your solution to this problem? Is there fool proof birth control other than abstinence?
Posted by Matt on May 16, 2007 at 1203 hrs

I have to echo Matt’s question about what other fool proof method birth control that exists, other than abstinence?

Please Scott, do tell. Your argument all along is that abstinence education is useless because people will just have sex anyway. So if we educate them about prophylactics then they’ll suddenly become good students who a) recall all of the lessons and b) abide by those lessons? It’s that simple? They ignore abstinence education, but will full comply with safe-sex education? Good luck.

Short of going into the bedrooms and unrolling the condoms yourself, or force-feeding a BC pill into the girl’s mouth every morning, just how do you come to the logic that classroom or parental lessons and lectures in those practices are going to result in their actual usage, and more than classroom and parental lessons and lectures in abstinence will?

As to this story about Planned Parenthood and the young journalism student: I think it’s hilarious. I love watching people and groups who proclaim some moral superiority over the rest of us getting caught red-handed as stark-raving hypocrites. Whether it’s a Christian minister who buys meth from his gay prostitute, or Planned Parenthood and their so-called “concern” for kids. That journalism student deserves and award for this.
Posted by David on May 16, 2007 at 1309 hrs

No foolproof birth control other than abstinence? Um, vasectomy and tubal ligation both come to mind, but don’t tell me—I bet they’ve failed in some extremely rare cases. And anyway, as with condom usage and abstinence, you can’t force them on teenage kids.

Saying abstinence is foolproof birth/STD control is the same sort of “well, DUH!” statement as saying you won’t get drunk if you abstain from alcohol. They’re merely stating what should be obvious, and are not effective deterrants to those who really want to try sex or alcohol.

I would like to see a survey of what sex ed. classes are saying about statutory rape laws, or see how many 15-year-olds know what statutory rape means. They may know they’re technically minors, but I’d bet real money that they think if they give their consent, it must be OK in the eyes of the law.

Does any of this excuse the PP reps in this story? No. But by and large, PP has been an organization that looks at sexuality—and unintended pregnancy—realistically. I would hope that after this report they look at themselves the same way and make some necessary improvements.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2007 at 1502 hrs

kwilli, are you suggesting that there be mandatory vasectomy and tubal ligation of everyone who reaches puberty to prevent unwanted/unplanned pregnancy? Or did you just not read all the comments and don’t know what we’re actually talking about?

Scott wants abortion to be rare, I’d like it to never be done. Both of these goals require either the outlawing of most or all abortions OR a complete/massive reduction of unwanted pregnancies. Scott says that the second option is possible. I’m asking how.
Posted by Matt on May 16, 2007 at 1514 hrs

I don’t see a future without abortion. There are medical cases that do not involve unintended pregnancy which merit the termination of pregnancies. Unless medical science does away with this possibility, abortion will always be justified for someone.

Frankly, I think it’s a no-brainer that we should seek to reduce unintended pregnancy to zero. We may never get there, but if we reduced it to 10%.. what a change that would be. And I don’t think that’s an unachievable goal. As I said before, cultural, attitude, public policy and medicine could come together for a concerted, multi-generational effort to do this.

We would, of course, have to change some things. The fact that a tv network can’t air a chaste and tasteful condom ad after 10pm depicting a married woman talking on the phone is outrageous. This from the same channel that brings us shows dedicated to sexually attractive singles trying to make married people cheat. Don’t even get me started.

But it could be done. And it must be done. The alternatives are these:

1. attempt to repress sexuality such that it is reserved only for procreation

2. deal with unintended pregnancies and all the associated societal problems that it brings

3. work toward a world where people only reproduce when they deliberately decide to, independent of their normal adult relationships with each other.

The choice is clear. Who’s with me?
Posted by scott on May 16, 2007 at 1527 hrs

Cultural, attitude, public policy and medicine could come together for a concerted, multi-generational effort

It occurs to me that this describes the real approach those of us on the Right have on promoting sexual morality, yet all too often we’re dishonestly portrayed as only wanting to ban abortions & condoms, then going home and expecting things to change overnight. Huh.
Posted by Calvin on May 16, 2007 at 1654 hrs

What exactly is your side doing, Calvin? I need a little help here.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2007 at 1809 hrs

Cultural - working to restore the idea that sex is about more than cheap gratification, that it’s something that carries too many ramifications - parental, healthwise, emotional, psychological - to be legitimized as a casual activity among youth and strangers.

Attitude - working to stress the fact that we are human beings with free will, thus capable of being more than the lust-crazy animals secular culture wants us to emulate. In other words, working to restore one of the basic ingredients of adulthood the Left has worked to destroy.

Public policy - fighting the lie that any Homo sapien, regardless of condition, is mere refuse to be sliced, diced, or otherwise murdered when the selfish interests of another dictate. Fighting the state stamp of approval which condom distribution gives to teen sex.
Posted by Calvin on May 16, 2007 at 2141 hrs

All of which is very noble sounding and very vague. I don’t disagree with any of it.

But again I’m asking whether you want to keep sex and procreation inexorably linked, or whether you really want to make a world where people reproduce only when they explicitly want to.
Posted by scott on May 16, 2007 at 2321 hrs

The two will always be inexorably linked, regardless of what we want. Biology 101. What I want is for people not to be surprised when that link pops up in their lives, and - just maybe? - take charge of their own lives before they make potentially-dangerous decisions.
Posted by Calvin on May 17, 2007 at 0743 hrs

The two should only be linked insofar as when we wish to reproduce it will certainly involve sexual activity. They should not be linked in such a way that in order to engage in normal intimate adult relationships we should automatically run a high risk of reproducing whether we want to or not.

People should be - must be - free to engage in normal adult relationships with minimal or no risk of pregnancy. This, as I said before, is a bold and necessary assertion that we are not slaves to our biology, that we are more than this.

In your world, apparently, having a sex life should continue to carry its natural 30% risk of pregnancy. I want a world where having a normal sex life does not carry this risk, where we have freed ourselves of it.
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 0823 hrs

And children under seventeen can hardly be expected to do that so stop ENCOURAGING it in health class, highly publicized free condoms, movies and video games, basic advertising, and get back to the idea that parents are responsible for their kids until they are 18 yrs old. I know Scott, it is high sounding and vague and puts responsibility on people who don’t want it. It IS a multi-generational effort as any good solution to this problem will have to be. I do believe the first step is putting the onus back on the parents and not only decriminalizing discipline, but actually encouraging it. I don’t mean beating children to within an inch of their lives, but when people get jailed for slapping a potty-mouthed child and the arrest gets highly publicized because the main stream media encourages political correctness, everyone thinks twice about doing something like that at least in public. The easily swayed or fearful (and I believe that is a very large minority) then adopt that as their policy because everyone else seems to agree with it. That attitude has to change first or neither your policy suggestions nor ours will be possible. Because right now, to authority, it is no ones fault for a child under 17 getting pregnant as this original article points out. PP is an ‘authority’ to young people in this type of situation. (Yes, I used the age 17 on purpose. Either you are an adult at sixteen or eighteen. You legally learn to drive cars at sixteen, not your girlfriend.)
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 0840 hrs

So basically you do want sexual activity to continue to carry its natural risk of pregnancy. You do not want people to reproduce only when they choose to, independent of their desire to have normal adult relationships.

Or do I have this wrong?
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 0858 hrs

PP is largely donor supported??????????

For its 2002-2003 fiscal year, PPFA reported a total income of $766.6 million, which is an increase of 10.7% over the previous year. Clinic income of $288.2 million accounted for 36% of the total income, while government grants and contracts (254.4 million) accounted for 33%, and private contributions (228.1 million) accounted for 30%. PPFA listed end of the year net assets of $688.0 million.

Planned Parenthood makes most of it’s money doing abortions and handing out abortion and birth control pills.

You think PP does great things? You support it. For the rest of us, let’s get government funding away from them. I work too hard for my money to let it be used to kill babies and ruin women’s lives.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1036 hrs

Wait, they made money from giving women birth control pills?!?!?!!!1 OMG NOE!@!!!!!!!!

Do you realize that there are many Americans who would not like their tax dollars funding the war in Iraq, but that they just have to suck it up because that’s how the cookie crumbles? Yeah, it’s like that for you, too. The majority of us feel that what they’re doing is perfectly fine, necessary even, and that it merits public dollars. You want to change that? Take it up with your neighbors.
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 1041 hrs

Oh, let’s see. Funding our troops so we can freely disagree.

Compared to Funding abortions so voices are never heard.

Your choice folks.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1049 hrs

Goodness knows that if we hadn’t invaded Iraq when we did we’d all be living under sharia law by now. Heh.

You want to reduce abortion? Work to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 1055 hrs

Anything’s possible when we don’t stand up to the terrorists.

It’s simple. No sex, no babies. I HAVE been working to reduce unwanted pregancies. Thanks for asking.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1059 hrs

Invading Iraq has made us less safe from terrorists, Peg. Read a newspaper.

And your solution to unwanted pregnancies is just to remain abstinent? That’s hardly a realistic solution for adults in normal relationships. I think instead we might want to encourage a lot more contraception use. Then perhaps we can do better than our current situation of half of all pregnancies being unintended.
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 1110 hrs

Keep on topic Scott the first statement in post 33 is provocative, even incendiary, and ridiculous. Way beneath what I have come to expect of you.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1118 hrs

I read much more than just the left leaning newspapers and we’re still safer.

If someone wants to use birth control, go for it, but don’t expect me to pay for it.

Hmmmm, I guess dating my high school sweetheart for 5 years before we married and not having sex is abnormal? I remember some really frustrating nights during those years, so yes, we were normal. We just understood the results of having sex and we didn’t want to have a baby out of wedlock. Many people have done this. What’s not normal about it? Maybe the word you’re looking for is irresponsible? Or possibly self centered?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1119 hrs

Tuergas, I’m puzzled. You think me saying that invading Iraq has made us less safe is “provocative, even incendiary and ridiculous”? When I said “read a newspaper,” I was quite serious. Perhaps you should try it yourself. It can be so illuminating.

Peg: I don’t care which newspaper you read. You don’t like the Times? Consult MSNBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, whatever. They call carried the story about the National Intelligence Estimate and how invading Iraq has increased our risk of terrorist attack.

What intelligence sources are you consulting that make you say invading Iraq has made us safer? I showed you mine.

Being abstinent before marriage really isn’t the issue here. Even people who are married need to be able to engage in real adult relationships - including sex - without risk of undesired pregnancy. Do you or do you not agree?
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 1129 hrs

I do not agree. Every time you have sex, you risk pregnancy. Just the way it is. People die. Just the way it is. We can do things in our lives to avoid death in many situations, but there’s still a chance we’ll get in a car and not make it home alive. Just the way it is. Life and Death. We’ll never understand exactly why it is that some people live and some people die. Why some people get pregnant and others don’t. It’s the dance. It’s life. Accept it. Do your best to make it better. Do your best to make it better for others. But don’t kill an innocent child so they’ll never have a chance to dance.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1140 hrs

Peg, my proposition is simple. I believe that with a concerted effort on several fronts, we could as a society dramatically reduce unwanted pregnancies. Maybe one day we could even reach the goal that nobody ever got pregnant who did not want to. Naturally abortion would become so rare as to virtually disappear from American politics, being used only for the one in a million unwanted pregnancy and the occasional life-or-death, or severe birth defect situation.

To my proposition you say: “no thanks. My solution to unwanted pregnancy is that if you don’t want that risk, don’t have sex.”

Do I have this essentially right?

(And maybe you should rethink the car crash analogy. I don’t think any sane person opposed seat belt laws by saying “that’s just the way it is” about crash deaths, do you?)
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 1148 hrs

I wear a seat belt because I feel it’s safer. Other people have stated they fear seat belts because they wouldn’t be able to get out of a burning car. Choices. Do what you feel is best and life goes on or doesn’t.

And YES, if you don’t want to risk being pregnant, then don’t have sex. With the contraception that’s available today, that’s your only choice. If someday someone comes out with a contraception that’s 100% foolproof and doesn’t utilize abortion, then you’ll have the world you wish. I think the world as it is, is filled with lots of people whom I adore who are here because birth control failed. I’m pretty sure that’s why I’m here.

I have to say, your statement regarding birth defects scares me. I had a nephew who was severely handicapped. He died when he was nine. He filled our lies with so much and he sure did seem to enjoy his life. Slippery slope deciding who should live and who should die, don’t cha think?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1201 hrs

Oops, that lives, not lies. Never can talk about my nephew without tears getting in the way.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1203 hrs

I’m really trying to boil this down to the essence.

If I gave you a magic button that would make it so that nobody ever got pregnant unless she explicitly desired to do so, regardless of the fact that they are sexually active, would you push it?
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 1203 hrs

Can you do that?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1215 hrs

“Tuerqas, I’m puzzled. You think me saying that invading Iraq has made us less safe is “provocative, even incendiary and ridiculous”? When I said “read a newspaper,” I was quite serious. Perhaps you should try it yourself. It can be so illuminating.”

Precisely why I used the term ridiculous. There is only a partial, non-clasified, report from the NIE, but I just read the nine page report that was released. The assessment stated only once that there was increased threat and it wasn’t specifically of terrorism. Specifically it stated “There is an increased threat to US goals” and in context it was talking about the situation in Iraq. The very anti-war newspapers misrepresented what was reported as usual when it comes to the war. The newspapers did interview people who read the whole report, but I don’t trust their summaries of those conversations (nor the questions asked) when it is verifiable that they were misrepresenting the available text. My source is the available portion of the NIE report and the 0 instances of reported terrorism since 9/11 on US soil. Other useless newspapers have used the deaths of US soldiers as part of their increased threat claims. It is arguable that more US lives have been lost to terrorists if you include soldiers, but it is not a given. War is on soldiers, terror is on innocents.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1302 hrs

Peg: would you push it or wouldn’t you? I ask this because I think it gets exactly at the essence of what we’re arguing about.

Tuerqas, the entire NIE was declassified shortly after the leaked portion hit the Times. Nothing that was subsequently released contradicted the earlier claim that invading Iraq has made us less safe. The only cover that the Bush administration had in the unreleased portions was the bit about how failure in Iraq might embolden jihadists - a point that has nothing to do with the earlier statement.
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 1307 hrs

My point is the NIE report does NOT conclude that, newspaper interpretations did. It doesn’t contradict a faulty conclusion, what is your point? Newspapers concluded that the report stated there was an increased risk of terrorism. The document does not conclude that. It doesn’t ‘contradict’ that too much chocolate could be bad for you either, the point is that it doesn’t SUPPORT THE NEWSPAPER’S CONCLUSION. I do read the newspaper, I love Pearls before swine and I like to see how the Brewers did.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1317 hrs

No, I would not push it. It would take the specialness out of sex. The oneness. It would make the act of love making no different than playing black jack.

I’m sure if this button existed, I could turn it over and see made by Satan on the bottom.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1326 hrs

Beautiful Peg
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1333 hrs

Aw, thanks Tuergas!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1345 hrs

I’m curious to know why you think taking the risk of pregnancy out of sex makes it cheap. Could you say a little more about that? I don’t know how it is for you, but risk of pregnancy isn’t what makes it meaningful and special for me. Please explain. Tuerqas, feel free to chime in, since you seem to be of the opinion that preserving the risk of unwanted pregnancy is “beautiful.”
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 1508 hrs

tuerqas: I’m intrigued. You say that the NIE report does not support the “claims” made by the news media. Specifically, when they say it contains statements indicating that the invasion of Iraq has exacerbated the terrorist threat, that this isn’t supported by what’s actually written in the report.

I think what you’re asserting here is probably wrong. As usual when debating with fringe conservatives I end up having to argue down to the grain-of-sand level only to have the argument disappear in a flurry of snakes eating their own tails. But before I go and read the entire NIE report in the raw, let me ask you this. Can you find any reputable news sources which say that the claim is not supported by the report? I mean like after the entire report was declassified. Did any of them go “whoa, it doesn’t say that after all”? Or are they all “in on” the deception?

I mean, look at this AP article - written after Bush declassified the bits that put him in his best lights. It “alleges” that the report says that the Iraq war is the new cause celebre for jihadists, and that the threat of Islamic extremism has grown in numbers and geography. (It also says that victory in Iraq might discourage them and losing in Iraq might embolden them, but that’s completely beside the point.) Are we to believe that the AP is misleading us about the content of the report? The AP and every other news organization I’ve seen with regard to the NIE? Isn’t that a little paranoid? Can you at least see where I am inclined to doubt you?
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 1626 hrs

Absolutely! I can see whole acres of room for doubt! I can’t find the entire declassified report anywhere. I have found two reports so far but, the first is just the nine page report that was cited in the article you sent me to. The second is longer, but it also states that parts have been edited for security reasons. I may still be wrong and for honest news reports I would gladly eat humble pie at your feet for a year.

Right now, however, my point is valid. The news article you sent me to had the nine page report that I have read linked and the conclusion they stated as fact was a blatant misrepresentation. Can you see where my distrust of the newspaper you sent me to stems from?

I don’t think of it is paranoia, I think of it as politics. I know conservative talk radio will slant what they report as heavily as they can too. I just believe (faith not facts if you will) that MSM liberal news outlets are debunked way too often in matters that concern politics to have any faith in them and I think their latitude for half-truths and innuendo has a much wider spectrum than “conservative” sources.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2007 at 1647 hrs

the conclusion they stated as fact was a blatant misrepresentation.

Please show me. I swear if you send me on a wild goose chase to find that the article clearly does not misrepresent the report, I’m pretty much done listening to you. Seriously. I’ve done this too many times with people on your side.
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 1738 hrs

They should not be linked in such a way that in order to engage in normal intimate adult relationships we should automatically run a high risk of reproducing whether we want to or not.

Well, then your quarrel is with God/nature/evolution. Good luck taking ‘em on. Maybe now would be a good time to consider devoting your life to bio-engineering research? I’m thinkin’ an old abandoned castle…or maybe an underground lab…

People should be - must be - free to engage in normal adult relationships with minimal or no risk of pregnancy.

We MUST be free to engage in a specific biological action without that action yielding its natural result. We MUST be free to place our bare hands on stovetops without burning our skin off. We MUST be free to engage in normal dietary habits with minimal or no risk of weight gain. Gotcha.

This, as I said before, is a bold and necessary assertion that we are not slaves to our biology, that we are more than this.

Umm…what? Now the conversation just took a turn for the weird, but that’s OK since it gives me an idea! Who wants to build a list of all the stuff that’s “enslaving” us under this logic? I’ll start us off: Confound you, gravity!

In your world, apparently, having a sex life should continue to carry its natural 30% risk of pregnancy.
It’s not about “should,” it’s about “does.” Earth is kinda funny like that. On Earth you, as a free person, can do whatever the heck you want to counterweigh that “risk”—condoms, (certain) pills, vasectomy—go for it. Just don’t reach into my wallet for ‘em.

I want a world where having a normal sex life does not carry this risk, where we have freed ourselves of it.

Interesting…is this world visible by telescope, mayhap? Does it have a name (“Scottopia” has a nice ring to it.)?

It seems Tuerqas & Peg have been representing the reality side of the debate pretty well, but I have one additional observation I just can’t resist:

a magic button that would make it so that nobody ever got pregnant unless she explicitly desired to do so, regardless of the fact that they are sexually active

I’d just like to point out that this is the same guy who waved off the concept of the human soul when debating an issue to which the soul is enormously relevant (whether killing preborn humans is permissible), equating it with “pink unicorns.”
(http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permali nk/mexico_city_legalizes_infanticide/)

What a phony.
Posted by Calvin on May 17, 2007 at 1800 hrs

Well, then your quarrel is with God/nature/evolution.

Well I don’t have quarrels with non-existent beings. But yes, my quarrel is with nature. Nature is not providing for our happiness, here; it is merely providing for lots of reproduction. I say we should not be slaves to this, as animals are. When we procreate it should be thoughtfully and deliberately.

We MUST be free to engage in a specific biological action without that action yielding its natural result.

Yes, that’s right. There are many things which we must do either to survive or to be happy and fulfilled that carry risk. There is nothing crazy about wanting to alleviate those risks.

Unless of course you see the activity as negative in some way.

Even pregnancy and childbirth carry enormous risks. Tell me, is it wrong to want to alleviate them, too? After all, shouldn’t we just want the natural consequences of the activity to remain unsullied by our selfish desire to, you know, be happy, alive and healthy?

can do whatever the heck you want to counterweigh that “risk”—condoms, (certain) pills, vasectomy—go for it. Just don’t reach into my wallet for ‘em.

Is this about money? Is that where you’re arguing from? Your wallet? If so, I got a proposition for you: virtually eliminating unwanted pregnancies will save you money. I know that the human dignity of the issue mean little to you, but hear this: you will be wealthier if we do this.
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 1821 hrs

“Non-existent beings”? *chuckle* So who wants to be the one to tell Scott he’s in for one heckuva rude awakening?

I don’t see alleviating risks as ridiculous; in fact, I said that the means to alleviate those risks as much as possible are already available for those who wish to do so. What I do see as ridiculous are the fantasy-world terms you used to describe “alleviating risks.”

When we procreate it should be thoughtfully and deliberately.

Amen. It’s called self-control.

It’s not about money; it’s about individual freedom. We are free to live whatever life we choose. We are not free to demand that others bail us out of every foolish & dangerous decision we make, and we are not free to force others to furnish us with the means of leading an irresponsible life.

It’s also incredible to hear somebody who openly advocates slaughtering the small & defensless turn around and make appeals to “human dignity,” when it’s painfully obvious those words mean absolutely nothing to him.
Posted by Calvin on May 17, 2007 at 2020 hrs

I still have no idea why you object to the proposition that people should be able to have sex lives while simultaneously only procreating when they wish to. After all, this would nearly eliminate the demand for abortion, which you claim to care so much about.

Is it more important to you to promote and protect the view that sexuality is a risky business and best done only between couples who wish to procreate than it is to eliminate tends of thousands of unplanned pregnancies and abortions? I would guess your honest answer would have to be yes.
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 2034 hrs

I object to people having sex without procreating? No I don’t. How many times do I have to repeat that the means to do so (to a degree) are already available?

I’m just saying that, no matter how many fantasy futures your kind proposes, there will always be times when no-consequence, no-responsibility sex results in the creation of a brand-new person.

People who consider no-consequence, no-responsibility sex such a high priority should keep in mind that - suprise! - there’s always fine print. And if your need for gratification yields a new life, you can place the blame firmly in the mirror.

I work to reduce unplanned pregnancies by working to restore society’s sense of self control and true dignity. I work to reduce abortions by combating the liars like NARAL & Giuliani, promoting real scientific fact, and changing laws.
Posted by Calvin on May 17, 2007 at 2051 hrs

I give up. To me your position is cold, petty, moralistic, self-defeating and wrong. But it’s clearly unassailable. I’ve made my own position as clear as I can make it, so I’ll just leave it at that.

Unsubscribing from notifications.
Posted by scott on May 17, 2007 at 2106 hrs

Allrighty then….
Posted by Calvin on May 17, 2007 at 2137 hrs

This is an excerpt of the article you sent me to in post 36.

“Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.”

The NIE reports that, because of the disruption of centralized terrorist efforts such as Al-Qaeda, the current trend of Jihadist terrorism is adapting to the diffusion of power by forming small independent cells and is spreading. The article clearly implies that the threat of terrorism is worse now than before. In some ways it is. Smaller cells means harder to find and/or smaller roll ups when capturing some. This is the context of the American Intelligence official quoted in the last paragraph.
He said it was worse because it is harder for intelligence agencies to follow the money and other leads of 100 small cells than it is 2 or 3 large cells. The threat of terrorism on American soil is smaller, but finding new small cells will be harder to prevent. He did not mean or even say that the overall terrorism THREAT is worse.

Similarly, the second paragraph sounds bad, like we should never have gone into Iraq, but diffusion is a malaprop in this context. Jihad ideology is not being diffused, Jihad power is being diffused. The NIE report does state how this is both good and bad. The Bush administration only publishes the good and newspapers I have ever read only publish the bad.

SPIN…truth…rarely the same thing. All I am arguing is that when you cite “facts” from a newspaper, it holds little weight, just as if I were to cite “facts” from a Bush administration press conference it would hold no weight (for either of us). You tend to believe newspapers because they slant to your beliefs and I tend to believe Charlie Sykes, for example, because he slants toward my beliefs.

It is the same for the original post of this blog. Peg, Calvin, and I believe in God and thus his teachings on morality. For us it is almost always a good thing. An atheist can be moral, but you use it as often as not as a swear word or condemnation(post 11, post 58). We all want less unwanted pregnancies. We, the left and right, atheists and believers, see it from such different angles that we have irreconcilable differences on the means and that sucks.

Note to Calvin, Peg deserves all the credit. I said right at the start that I have a problem debating abortion. Morality is not the only answer to the problem as Scott has been saying from start. It makes the total number of unwanted pregnancies less, but forcing kids to marriage because of pregnancy was not a great solution. I do not believe in large families as all religions support. I totally believe in sex for committed couples that does not result in pregnancy (i.e. not a devout Catholic or Mormon), but if it happens anyway a married couple should have, if not keep, the baby. I believe in abortion for rape victims (with convicted fathers) and where it puts the Mother at risk, and potentially other situations.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 18, 2007 at 1101 hrs

Tuerqas, you might want to rethink your view on abortion in cases of rape after you read this article.
Posted by Matt on May 22, 2007 at 1239 hrs

This changes nothing for me. I do not feel it is my job or right to make someone who has been raped have an abortion or have the baby. I feel she should allowed to choose in that instance. Nice spin attempt though Matt. I bet Scott or kr could come up with one or two instances of the exact opposite ilk.
One where some Jeffrey Dahmer type was the product of rape and one majorly outspoken women’s libber is an inspiration to a generation because she could leave the house after having the abortion. Single instances can be inspiring, and if I was a secular counselor, I would certainly cite the former rather than the latter instances, but I would not make a law that a rape victim cannot have an abortion.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2007 at 1402 hrs

So it’s okay to punish the child for the sins of the father?
Posted by Matt on May 23, 2007 at 1707 hrs

Matt, the fact that you use the word “child” so glibly indicates that you really don’t understand the entire controversy.
Posted by scott on May 23, 2007 at 1713 hrs

So it’s ok to punish a young girl for the sins of a brutal rapist, uh, I mean the father?

Even your statement is bull. The FATHER? Well…I guess denotatively it is an accurate question. Ask most adoptees though and ‘Father’ is not the term used for the sperm donor, or in this case, sperm injector.

Scott, his statement shows that he understands perfectly the entire argument and furthermore shows his exact position on it. At conception, it is a child. My own belief is closer to his than to “It is not a child until it is born.” My beliefs were just shaken a bit from my second marriage. My then wife had five ectopic pregnancies, the third of which forced her to lose one of her tubes and the fifth so severely damaging the second tube that it was judged she should never try again. It broke her and broke up our marriage. Ectopic pregnancies are when the conceived egg attaches to the fallopian tube wall instead of going all the way down to the uterus. It is impossible for the child to come to term in this way and if left untreated, usually ends in a natural abortion that first thoroughly destroys the tube. My wife was broken up enough. If someone had even hinted to her that having the eptopic removed from her tube was killing a child, I would have cheerfully dissected them with my fingers. Since then I have had somewhat more lenient ideas of when in the pregnancy abortion is murder and I firmly believe that between the two, the Mother’s life is paramount.

So Matt, what do you call it when a conception that has no chance of ever being born, is aborted? Your position so far, calls it murder, I call it a tragedy.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 24, 2007 at 0841 hrs

Nice move on changing the subject. Certainly it is a trajedy and I never said that abortion should be illegal when the mother’s life is at risk. As far as punishing a woman for being raped by forcing them to not take it out on an innocent person. That’s revenge, not justice. Neither choice is going to ease the pain of being raped, neither choice is going to hurt the rapist either. Why don’t we ask all the people alive today that were conceived via rape if they feel that should not have been given a chance? We can ask their mothers as well.

Life is hard, really hard. The right decision is usually not the easy decision.
Posted by Matt on May 24, 2007 at 1255 hrs

I wasn’t changing the subject on purpose. I was giving you my frame of reference for why I am no longer sure that the ‘conception’ is a child, got carried away and didn’t finish my thought. I apologize. To finish, I believe God always knew none of my five “children” were ever going to be born. Therefore, the embryo never had a soul and it wasn’t murder to abort them. Sops for my own sanity, perhaps, but how can I then condemn any unwilling victim of a brutal rape? It is for God to do, not me or the Government. I believe there are a good amount of women who will act suicidally if forced to have an abortion from a rape, and a good amount of women who will act suicidally if forced to keep a child conceived in rape. If there was a ever a debate to waffle on, this is mine. You are perfectly willing to condemn the women on one side of that fence. In this aspect of this issue I will happily watch from atop the barbed wire fence.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 24, 2007 at 1408 hrs

I’ll condemn the decision, not the women. Life is hard enough already.
Posted by Matt on May 24, 2007 at 1628 hrs

A good sounding end, but if you criminalize abortion for rape victims, you are condemning the women.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 24, 2007 at 1631 hrs

There’s a good way but it would be very unpopular, and for no good reason.
A reversible vasectomy for all newborn infant males. Only to be reversed after marriage.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2007 at 0913 hrs

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Planned Parenthood Encourages Underage Girls to Lie About Age

Show all recent comments

July 2009
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31