"History is a voice forever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of eternity." ~ James A. Forude
I found this article by David Corn on my AOL home page this morning entitled, "Does Bob McDonnell want to outlaw non-marital sex?"
Well, the short answer is no.
But the thing that is really stupid about this whole issue is that the Democratic candidate for Governor in the Commonwealth of Virginia is actually trying to use this misleading topic to stir up controversy against his erstwhile opponent.
Read the story, and you'll find Creigh Deed's entire campaign strategy. He is, believe it or not, attempting to base his entire campaign on a 20 year old College thesis.
It seems odd to me that he thinks he would get any mileage with this strategy at all, given that referencing 20 year old books and papers didn't work for Obama's opponents in the last Presidential campaign.
I had been hearing snippets of information about this so-called controversy on the radio and television news over the last few days, but I didn't really know what was contained in the thesis that Deeds found so objectionable.
Now, I know.
According to the article, he once suggested (20 years ago) that non-marital sex should be outlawed.
Oh, horrors! What an incredibly radical and un-American concept! That non-marital sex could in any way be a bad thing!
I couldn't resist adding my comment:
"Mr. Corn, If that's the worst you Libs have found to sully your opponents reputation, you're in for a long campaign.
You and your cohorts had better think this one out a little more thoroughly. A whole lot of problems could be avoided by simply abstaining from sex until marriage. While making extra marital sex against the law may be taking it a little too far(although the Creator of the Universe might disagree), it isn't anywhere near as radical as hanging around with domestic terrorists, communists, and America-hating racist preachers.
In fact, one could say that extra-marital sex isn't a radical concept at all. It was, after all, the type of morality advocated by our founding fathers, and continued to be in line with the moral standards of Americans right up into the middle of the 20th century.
I would say the opposite of Mr. Mc'Donnell's thesis is the radical concept."
Then, if you're so inclined, try reading the comments left by the opponents of morality in support of Corn's article.
One said "Idiots should not be allowed to run for public office" To which I again couldn't resist replying:
If idiots couldn't run for public office, the Democrats would have to look outside their party to come up with a candidate.
That is, if David Corn and Creigh Deeds are examples of the best they have to offer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I find it sad, yet somehow amusing, that liberals want to teach sex ed in public schools, shown them how to put on condoms, use birth control, etc.
But teaching abstinence is teaching morality.
SERIOUSLY?
Need an answer for teen pregnancy?
ABSTINENCE!
Need an answer for STD's?
ABSTINENCE!
It's a freaking HEALTH ISSUE, people!!!
And I still don't understand how teaching a bunch of kids how to put a condom on a model of penis doesn't teach morality, or lack thereof, as well.
But what do *I* know? I mean, I won't let my children read "My Two Mommies" or "My Two Daddies" either.
Let's see if I understand this. AOL is still in business?
Not with my money. I cancelled them long ago. The only thing I use them for now is my e-mail address.
And with lead stories like this one, is it any wonder people keep canceling their service?
Their blatant Liberal bias is staggering.
"I find it sad, yet somehow amusing, that liberals want to teach sex ed in public schools, shown them how to put on condoms, use birth control, etc.
But teaching abstinence is teaching morality."
Krystal, I know of NO school system in this country that DOESN'T teach abstinence. It's an integral part of sex education in all California public schools. The curriculum teaches that abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. It also teaches that abstinence is not the only way.
So your comment seems pretty silly, doesn't it?
As most know, I live in Northern Virginia. In fact, I've been here my entire life. I've seen numerous gubernatorial elections. I also remember a time when cohabitation was socially acceptable in polite company. Believe it or not, such was the case in what is now a liberal bastion: Fairfax County.
The Dems are worried that Bob McDonnell may win in November. Therefore, they are trying to "macaca" him. Of course, in this case right now, Deeds is going after something McDonnell wrote ages ago. Hell, back when I was in high school -- back in the Dinosaur Age -- I wrote a paper as to why women should not be allowed to vote. Of course, I didn't believe what I wrote -- I was just being perverse and argumentative, largely because so many women in my family were politically active.
Besides, why should people get all riled up about McDonnell's college thesis when the very same people don't care one whit about what BHO did in college. Heh.
I hope that voters in Virginia are smart enough to see through this strategy to undercut McDonnell. He's got my vote!
AOW, I, too, live in Northern Virginia, albeit a little further south than you, and McDonnell has my vote as well.
Jim, you are correct. Most schools teach abstinence as one of many forms of birth control.
The problem with that is, they too quickly drop back and punt the entire message with, "But if you can't control your animal passions, here's what you do!"
Which kind of minimalizes the point. It's kind of like having a nutritious low calorie salad and washing it down with a chocolate milkshake
You know what I mean?
Mark, teenagers are teenagers. Just ask Bristol Palin. Nobody is giving kids permission to let loose their "animal passion". And it's the parent's job to instill the morality in their children to control their "animal passion", not the school's. The school's job is to teach best practices, such as abstinence, to promote and teach safety.
Kind of like the NRA.
"Nobody is giving kids permission to let loose their "animal passion"
Again, Jim, you are right. Nobody is giving them permission. But by teaching them how to put on condoms, and telling them they don't need permission from their parents to get abortions or birth control pills, they are subtlety encouraging experimentation.
In other words, they certainly aren't doing much to discourage morality.
Throwing in a short, "Oh, by the way, abstinence is really the most effective way to avoid STD's and pregnancy...(wink wink)" is nothing more than a transparent attempt at placating parents who don't want their children to be promiscuous.
Their real agenda is apparent and their lip service is disengenous.
Sorry. that should have read "discouraging immorality".
"they are subtlety encouraging experimentation."
What?! I think that's really a stretch. You seem to be implying that the ultimate goal of schools and sex education is more kids having sex. What, to produce more welfare babies, I suppose? More Democrats in a few years? More job security for teachers.
Is that the agenda?
Jim, I'm not implying that at all. I'm saying it outright.
"...to produce more welfare babies, I suppose? More Democrats in a few years? More job security for teachers.
Is that the agenda?"
Nope. To get more teen girls pregnant so they can have more abortions, so the abortion providers can make more money.
This isn't brain surgery, Jim. It's clear to even the most blind sheeple like you.
This isn't my crazy conspiracy theory by the way. This came from a woman who used to own a chain of abortion clinics and she said sex education in schools was one of the most successful means of getting abortion business.
I saw the video of her admission just a couple of days ago. If I can remember where I saw it and can find the video, I'll post it.
There is an agenda, just as Obama has an agenda to Socialize America with him as supreme dictator.
Jim, I found the video. It is a trailer of a documentary film. The woman's name is not mentioned in the trailer, but I have seen her before. She once owned an entire chain of abortion clinics.
In this trailer, she is the one talking about the goal of her sex education seminars was 4-5 abortions per teenage girl.
The video is here
.
I watched the video. Interesting, but unconvincing. If this woman was giving out low-dose bc pills and defective condoms in order to boost her abortion clientele, she is guilty of a heinous criminal fraud at the very least.
The actions of one owner of a chain of clinics (again if this is true) does not represent the majority of family planning professionals any more than the actions of one pervert priest represents the Catholic Church.
"Our goal was 3-5 abortions from every girl between the ages of 13 and 18." Right! That is the agenda and goal of every sex education class in every public school in the country. Right!
I frankly do not believe what I saw in the video without further evidence. I did some research of my own and found that others have claimed her supposed "conversion" is fraudulent and is using her involvement in the "documentary" to make money. According to Dr. William West, Jr. of Cedar Hill, TX:
"One thing Ms. Everett claims is that callous greed like hers is a common motive among those who are involved in the provision of abortion services. This is flagrantly untrue. She should know better. She also contends that legal abortion, as practiced in the United States today, is prohibitively dangerous. In actual fact, it is probably about as safe as having a wisdom tooth pulled and is certainly much safer than having a baby, its only alternative. She should now this.
"She claims to have "seen the light" and resigned from her clinic position in 1983. Actually, she was fired and was quite bitter and fiercely vengeful about it. It seems likely that she is still seeking revenge by ragefully attacking abortion providers in general, and with outrageous dishonesty.
"She was never even the owner of a clinic as she claims. This fact can be verified by reference to legal documents on file with the Dallas County District Clerk (Cause No. 85-522-L, styled Carol Everett vs. J. Harvey Johnson, et. al.).
". . .Among Ms. Everett's various fraudulent claims is her assertion that abortion surgery is deliberately performed on women who are not actually pregnant in order to get their money. Give me a break! I hope there are not many among us who are cynical and gullible enough to actually believe such garbage! "
I smell bulls**t.
No way this is the agenda of providers of sex education. Now way. But nice try.
So, Jim, You say, "I frankly do not believe what I saw in the video without further evidence. I did some research of my own and found that others have claimed her supposed "conversion" is fraudulent and is using her involvement in the "documentary" to make money"
You certainly have done your research, haven't you? The trailer didn't even mention the woman's name, yet whatever pro-baby murder site you went to apparently named her.
But now, it's time to think logically.
A typical abortion with no complications (clinically speaking)costs $450.00 and up depending on the developmental stage of the fetus. With over 850,000 abortions done annually in America, that means the abortion industry makes a bare minimum of 382,000,000 dollars a year.
Now, you say Ms Everett left this highly lucrative occupation so she could take a chance on some yet-to be-released documentary that most Americans won't see, and in most cases, won't even hear about. What do you suppose her cut will be?
So, assumumng that your Liberal web sites' (plural) logically challenged theory is true, which is highly doubtful anyway, that would mean what?
That your side murders millions of innocent babies for fun and profit and my side lies to stop innocent babies from being murdered?
Are you sure you want to go down the "moral equivalence" path?
There is no moral equivalence issue here. We're not talking here about whether or not legal medical procedures are murders.
You're citing a movie trailer as evidence that the agenda of sex education is to line the pockets of abortion doctors. This one person's claims supposedly represent the entirety of the abortion provider sector. Your assertion is unsupportable.
"The trailer didn't even mention the woman's name, yet whatever pro-baby murder site you went to apparently named her."
Sloppy logic here and completely false. I got her name from sites TOUTING THE MOVIE. Then I did more research to learn other sides of the story, because, you see, I like to research things especially when claims are unbelievable.
If I accept your $450 cost for abortion, which I will only for the sake of argument, are we to assume that the clinic or hospital where the medical procedure was performed has no overhead, no cost of medications, equipment, nurses, staff, facilities, pro bono work for community assistance for family planning including birth control to PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES and that the $450 is pure profit?
How logically are we thinking here?
"you say Ms Everett left this highly lucrative occupation so she could take a chance on some yet-to be-released documentary that most Americans won't see"
No I didn't. I quoted a source that said that she was fired and I made no connection or assumption as to whether she could make more money being involved in the documentary. And I reject your assertion that family planning is a lucrative business.
My "side murders millions"? I have no side. I'm not involved in health care or family planning.
Post a Comment