1

You would think by having brass ones that big and haning out that much dirty laundry, they would have been discredited by now...

2

You know, I could do "10 Reasons to Despise Focus on the Family," with better effect.

But I think encouraging hatred is an inappropriate and ineffective response.

I would also say that PP does good. And I challenge you to look for that good.

3

I also think Pol Pot did good. I challenge you to look for that good.

4

You know, I could do "10 Reasons to Despise Focus on the Family," with better effect.

Go ahead, no one is stopping you. And heaven knows they have done their share of boneheaded things. Maybe you'll shed some light on that.

But I don't see them condoning the murder of children like the Rumaisa, the premature infant delivered at 25 weeks and 6 days, who weighed only 8.6 ounces.

In the age of In utero surgery, corrective gene therapies, and legalized abandonment "safe haven" laws, one might wonder what justification could be errected for the utility of killing infants. And as long a second and third trimester abortions are legal, the term "fetus" is pretty much a misnomer.

But I think encouraging hatred is an inappropriate and ineffective response.

Pray tell, if one is disgusted by the actions of a group, what can one do besides draw attention to it? The majority of sources that Joe cites are from Planned Parenthood's own website. I hardly call that "encouraging hate," nor would I call it ineffective. When the subject of one's article provides such clear supports for your argument all and their own, then the case makes itself.

I would also say that PP does good. And I challenge you to look for that good.

How so? And since you're the one asserting this point, why do we have to be the ones to find supports for it?

This looks like to me (and correct me if I am wrong...I am not trying to be sarcastic), that you couldn't think of any actual supports or points for that statement.

Now, I've said what I am going to say and I am bowing out of the discussion. Don't expect a response from me.

5

None of those 10 (or 20) facts strikes me as any reason to oppose Planned Parenthood.

Many of them strike me as among the best reasons to support them.

And for anyone who's sporting #8 . . . I'm available!

6

Kevin None of those 10 (or 20) facts strikes me as any reason to oppose Planned
Parenthood.

Naturally, I'm not surprised that you support PP. But do you really condone flaunting the legal requirement to report admitted cases of statutory rape? Listen to some of the tapes. For example:

CLINIC: Okay. Hold on one second. How old are you?

CALLER: I'll be 14 in March.

CLINIC: Really?

CALLER: Yeah.

CLINIC: And do your -- I mean, this is just out of curiosity, but do your parents know that your boyfriend is 22?

CALLER: Yeah. They just really don't like him.

CLINIC: Really?

CALLER: Yeah. They think he's too old for me.

CLINIC: That's a big age difference.

CALLER: But -- why?

CLINIC: Why?

CALLER: Yeah. I mean, I don't understand.

CLINIC: As long as you guys both are happy that's all that matters.

CALLER: Oh, okay.

CLINIC: But no, I'm just --

CALLER: We're going to get married and everything.

CLINIC: Really?

CALLER: Yeah.

CLINIC: Oh, well, I wish the best for you. That's great. But I really don't hear too many teenagers like with somebody that's that much older. As long as you're happy, that's of course all that matters.

That doesn't bother you at all?

7

David Marcoe:

Pray tell, if one is disgusted by the actions of a group, what can one do besides draw attention to it?

Like I've said hundreds of times to folks such as you: Make them not needed. What need do they serve? If you- and Joe- get out of Sanhedrin mode for a nanosecond, maybe you can see that.

This looks like to me (and correct me if I am wrong...I am not trying to be sarcastic), that you couldn't think of any actual supports or points for that statement.

You mistook my not really caring that much about someone else's harrumphing for a lack of an argument? Please.

Joe Carter:

To me, anything from the "Traditional Values" "Coalition" is immediately suspect (like many of these right-wing groups, their name is a bit Orwellian: amongst whom are they a coalition??? While their about page makes lots of claims, the only credential backing them up is from an admitted degenerate gambler! ). Given, for example, that these groups lie about things like links to abortion and breast cancer, and have been on record as being opposed to sexual research of any kind, I cannot imagine that anyone would take a group like that seriously.

8

Mumon To me, anything from the "Traditional Values" "Coalition" is immediately suspect (like many of these right-wing groups, their name is a bit Orwellian: amongst whom are they a coalition??? While their about page makes lots of claims, the only credential backing them up is from an admitted degenerate gambler! ). Given, for example, that these groups lie about things like links to abortion and breast cancer, and have been on record as being opposed to sexual research of any kind,…

Have you noticed – because we certainly have – that you never actually make a counterargument that contains any evidence?

You say that that “anything from the "Traditional Values" "Coalition" is immediately suspect.” This was your response to my quoting from a transcript of a tape (one of dozens) which caught PP covering up for statutory rape and failing to report the incident as required by law. If you think the tapes are “suspect” then you could have simply shown PP disputing their veracity. Why didn’t you do that? Is it because you are simply too lazy? Or perhaps the truth can be discounted if it comes from a source you don’t like?

…I cannot imagine that anyone would take a group like that seriously..

And I can’t imagine why you think we should take you seriously when you never present any support for your arguments.

9

Like I've said hundreds of times to folks such as you: Make them not needed. What need do they serve? If you- and Joe- get out of Sanhedrin mode for a nanosecond, maybe you can see that.

Well, obviously, the Traditional Values Coalition servers some sort of need. Maybe you can see that mumon. Or maybe the argument was just lame at the start.

What "purpose" does PP provide except to mainly promote promiscuous sex and provide abortions? Just because some people demand a service doesn't mean the service should be provided.

10

Joe: Excellent post. Its about time that PP is exposed for what they truely are.

I actually heard a long-length interview with a woman on this subject(I wish I could remember her name now - she was from the Dallas area, I at least remember that much) a year or so ago who was discussing her book about the organization. She was involved with PP, and came to find out about much of what you mention above, in addition to some other rather nasty stuff. She gave her life to Christ, and then left the organization. I was both amazed and disgusted by much of what she said about PP - about their "buisness" practices, and how callous they were about what they were doing.

Its dialog and information like what you've written above that, I feel, so many Americans need to be made aware of. Thanks for posting this.

11

Chris LutzL

Well, I can meet the needs of the TVC as follows:

1. Educate people about them. Here's a good start. I personally don't think that corrupt organizations should be relied upon for information about "values." Do you?

2. Educate people about what the TVC is against and why.

Joe Carter:

All we really have- at least that I've seen- is something from the TVC. Now, as I've said, they're suspect because they're proven liars. Now maybe PP is also a shoddy organization- but you haven't shown that the transcript of that tape represents any official policy of PP. You seem to be saying, "Because one person made a mistake, this should disturb you."

Well, Joe, what about the mistakes of the TVC? Their lies? Their nepotism? Doesn't that disturb you? If not, why not?

12

mumon,

I submit that TWC does a lot of good, and challenge you to look for that good.

I would also like to see you get off the ad hominem bandwagon and address the charge Joe made and clearly has more evidence for. If there are a dozen tapes showing similar disregard for the law then I would call that a trend. To make an analogy, even if only one accountant at Arthur Anderson got caught mishandling affairs and shredding documents to cover it up, the firm as a whole has to answer for it.

13

Let's once and for all debunk Joe's post here:

10: And how do we extrapolate a failure rate of a condom during sex from a failure of a condonm being filled with air? Hmmmm???

9: Apparently TVC has a problem in this area, as the aforementioned link showed. However, with regard to PP, here is their last report for which anything is known.
The implication of your source is that somehow someone is making a profit from PP- either its sharholders or someone else. Frankly, even if the claims in your article are correct, it doesn't appear that PP is doing anything illegal.

8: Joe's cited source lies about the pro-choice position. Nice morality.

7: Who cares? This is a reason to hate PP?

6: If TVC's "evidence" was so airtight, why is PP not being prosecuted? Maybe it's because TVC's reputation is itself so shady that it makes PP look pure as the driven snow?

5 &4: Who cares? Ah, yes those who want to censor non-PC/RC speech. Deal with it. BTW, whether abortion is in and of itself shameful is up to the individual, and not somebody with selective morality that likes to criticize abortion but gives a free pass to someone who heads an organization called the "Traditional Values Coalition."

3. You don't want teenagers to know about anuses, and what some people do with them? Why not?

2. While Sanger's eugenics leanings were indeed despicable, the idea of birth control was positively lifesaving at the time she brought it out.

1. Sorry, but abortion is not infanticide.

3:

14

Mr Ed :

TVC does a lot of good helping to organize moderates and progressives against them.

15

"On their site aimed at teenagers, they include a an article ("All About the Anus") which teaches kids that, "Some straight couples use anal sex as a way to preserve the woman's virginity."

As uncomfortable as today's straight people are with the subject, anal sex has long been used as a contraceptive by heterosexual couples. Especially before the advent of birth control methods such as condoms, etc. There is nothing strictly untrue about the statement PP made, although its rather Clintonesque. As for preserving "virginity" it depends on how you define it doesn't it? The hymen would remain intact. Of course this is typical male thinking, as we do tend to compartmentalize sex into categories. Christianity has its own set definitions about sex, and often they even conflict with each other about the morality of certain sexual practices, including the use of birth control.

As far as comparing Planned Parenthood to Focus on the Family and other Christian organizations or businesses. You cannot compare something on the scale of abortion directly with FOTF, but its dishonest if you don't admit that they are equivalent in some ways, if only in a matter of degree. To a certain extent they both depend on other peoples misery in order to make a profit.

PP's industry and business depends in part on abortion. FOTF on other hand gets quite a chunk of it's change from promoting an anti-gay agenda in the form of books, tapes, etc.

This agenda causes misery in many families, something supposedly contrary to FOTF's stated purpose.

Whatever the original intent of it's founders were, FOTF has become a business hiding as a non-profit org. FOTF has realized that there is a buck to made in producing anti-gay literature and media. There seems to be a ready audience in the Christian community for such materials. It's rather curious. They seem to enjoy reading books about the threat of the Homosexual Menace, or on how to become "Ex-gay", etc. The "ex-gay" books make more money selling to straight people than they do to gay people. Who do you think buys them? It's certainly not gay people. And its books and material that is a modern version of the snake-oil that used to be sold by traveling salesmen.

It's written in pseudo-scientific language in order to make it sound more believable than it really is. It's written by authors of questionable ethics and integrity who often invent or distort data to support their own conclusions. It's often almost completely dishonest work, yet it gets treated as "truth".

FOTF doesn't seem to have a problem with promoting 24/7 lying charlatans so long as it makes them money. And the fact that they are inflaming prejudice against gay and lesbian people also doesn't seem to be a moral issue that they worry much about either.

Since we are worried about proof today I'll dig up some references tonight after work. But it's not like it isn't easy to find.

16

"I submit that TWC does a lot of good, and challenge you to look for that good."

LOl. You could say the exact same thing about PP. In some communities it's the only source of women's health care availble. Perhaps Christians should do something about that.

17

Patrick :

Exactly. In some communities, it's the only source for information about- and treatment of STDs. How many lives has PP saved?

And again, by advocating birth control in an era when 20% of women died in childbirth, how many lives did they save?

18

Mumon Now maybe PP is also a shoddy organization- but you haven't shown that the transcript of that tape represents any official policy of PP. You seem to be saying, "Because one person made a mistake, this should disturb you."

If you’ll notice, the website contains 93 different tapes – and that is just in California. I would highly suspect that this is not the “official policy” of PP. But it is also apparent that (at least prior to this investigation) they turned a blind eye to their civic and moral duty.

Well, Joe, what about the mistakes of the TVC? Their lies? Their nepotism? Doesn't that disturb you? If not, why not?

We can certainly discuss that another day. For now, though, why don’t we try to stay on topic?

10: And how do we extrapolate a failure rate of a condom during sex from a failure of a condonm being filled with air? Hmmmm???

How do you think condoms are tested?

9: [snip]The implication of your source is that somehow someone is making a profit from
PP- either its sharholders or someone else. Frankly, even if the claims in your article are correct, it doesn't appear that PP is doing anything illegal.

No one said it was illegal. But Southern plantation owners weren’t doing anything illegal when they made a profit off the labor of their slaves either. Immoral does not always mean illegal.

8: Joe's cited source lies about the pro-choice position. Nice morality.

What is the pro-choice position that it should be inscribed on women’s underwear?

7: Who cares? This is a reason to hate PP?

It goes to show that they think there agenda should be promulgated as widely throughout the culture as possible.

6: If TVC's "evidence" was so airtight, why is PP not being prosecuted? Maybe it's because TVC's reputation is itself so shady that it makes PP look pure as the driven snow?

Um, no. First of all, TVCC wasn’t the one who did the investigation. That honor goes to Life Dynamics. Second, no one was prosecuted because it was a piece of investigative reporting and would not have held up in court. It did, however, force PP to change their “training” methods and start documenting the number of statutory rape cases they report.

5 &4: Who cares? Ah, yes those who want to censor non-PC/RC speech. Deal with it.

I suspect that you might possibly believe much of what you are writing because I cannot believe that anyone would knowingly build such strawmen. No one is calling for a government censorship of “non-PC” speech. I am simply pointing out a disgusting example of PP’s attitude toward abortion.

BTW, whether abortion is in and of itself shameful is up to the individual, and not somebody with selective morality that likes to criticize abortion but gives a free pass to someone who heads an organization called the "Traditional Values Coalition."

Your attempt to change the subject is so pitiful that I’m almost ashamed for you.

3. You don't want teenagers to know about anuses, and what some people do with
them? Why not?

Why not? Um, why would a 13-year-old need to be told such a misleading statement that implies that virginity can be preserved by resorting to anal intercourse?

2. While Sanger's eugenics leanings were indeed despicable, the idea of birth control was positively lifesaving at the time she brought it out.

Do you even know what forms of birth control that Sanger advocated?

1. Sorry, but abortion is not infanticide.

I don’t believe that I said it was. I said it was the killing of a “human being.” Now unless you twist the meanings from those words and redefine them to fit your agenda then that point is indisputable.

Patrick LOl. You could say the exact same thing about PP. In some communities it's the only source of women's health care availble.

For example...

19

[fake caller lies to PP switchboard operator, claiming to be a teen pregnant by an adult, asks about availability of reproductive health services and healthcare law; PP staffer answers truthfully and agrees to provide appropriate, legal services]

That doesn't bother you at all?

It's very bad that some 13-year-olds have sex with 22-year-olds, but since that doesn't actually seem to have happened here it doesn't seem to be much of a problem. At the very least it's not Planned Parenthood's fault.

The complaint seems to be that PP doesn't report cases of teen/adult sex to police as potential statutory rape. (I gather that the complaint is not that this anti-sex organization is wasting other people's time by making dozens of crank phone calls and then posting the transcripts on a Web site.)

That's a valid concern, and an old one. It arises in many areas of medical confidentiality, not just that of teen sexuality.

There are lots of cases in which a breach of confidentiality might, arguably, produce some good: a patient who appears to be a criminal could be turned into the police (a common conflict in emergency rooms), a cheating spouse might be exposing their spouse to STDs, an addict could be ordered into drug treatment, and so on. Arguments have been made in all these cases and many others for breaches of confidentiality; the arguments get stronger when the subject is a minor whose legal rights and degree of personal autonomy are understood to be weaker than for adults.

The responses to these arguments are equally well known. They fall into two broad categories: assertions of patient autonomy, and utilitarian considerations of the greatest overall benefit.

Patients have a right to make their own decisions, and to be let alone to do so - whether or not we agree, whether or not we regard those decisions as morally right, and even to some extent whether or not they are harmful to others. We are simply not entitled to impose ourselves on others' lives because they are "not living rightly" and force them to change - and especially so when they have exposed their vulnerabilities out of need and in the expectation of professional service. Being a doctor (or working in a medical setting) does not give you the right to make use of the private information people reveal to you to force them to live by your standards.

That argument applies to minors as well as to adults, though of course it is subject to more limits in the case of minors. But the other argument applies to both, and possibly even more strongly to minors. The other argument is the claim that maintaining medical confidentiality produces better results in the long run than otherwise, even when in particular cases confidentiality conceals a bad situation.

There are obvious reasons to maintain confidentiality in medical treatment, especially in urgent or high-importance settings such as emergency care or unplanned pregnancies. If confidentiality is routinely violated - even if it is only occasionally violated - patients who are concerned about confidentiality will not be willing to seek treatment. This is most true for people who have most at risk (or who, like frightened teenagers, believe they are at risk).

We don't want to see criminals go unapprehended, and we don't want to see young teens sexually exploited by older adults. But we do want to see anyone in danger receive appropriate medical treatment, and anyone - especially young teens - at risk of or or already suffering from an unwanted pregnancy to get the support they need.

If we make hospital emergency rooms report people who appear to fit the profile of wanted criminals (or, as the GOP attempted to do last year, make them demand proof of citizenship from all patients), people in need will stay away, and some of them will die. If we make the only nationwide agency that provides contraception, sexual healthcare, and abortion services to teens report them to police for seeking those services, they simply won't do so. Reporting them won't stop them from having sex, and it won't make those who are in exploitive relationships end their relationships - it will simply mean they are having sex, getting pregnant, and contracting sexually transmitted diseases without anyone to help them or help them avoid these things.

We have a choice to make: let any criminal die who does not want to be arrested, or let everyone be treated for their injuries and sort out the legal problems some other way. We have chosen to help people in their greatest need, and place that as a priority over law enforcement. We don't condone crime - we just establish one place where the value of saving lives and promoting health takes precedence.

We have another choice to make: we can reach out to teens in unwise or exploitive relationships and provide the contraception, healthcare, and abortion services they need, or we can turn away teens in exploitive relationships and let them catch syphillis or AIDS, and have babies with the men who abused them in the first place. (We don't have the choice of ending abusive relationships by turning teens in need of healthcare over to the police. That's simply not an option, because that strategy doesn't work.) We don't condone sexual abuse, but we have other ways of dealing with that problem; we need to make sure we deal with it in a way that does not prevent teens seeking the healthcare services they need. We have made the decision that a teen in a bad relationship who gets healthcare and birth control is better off than a teen in a bad relationship who gets AIDS and an unwanted baby.

I know the Traditional Values Coalition thinks otherwise. That's only one of the disgusting things about them.

20

8: Joe's cited source lies about the pro-choice position. Nice morality.

Where was the lie?

21

Mr Ed:

Go to the link. Not all pro-choice people intend to get an abortion. If you aren't aware of that, I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with pro-choice literature. If you are aware of that, then you would admit that Joe's source is indeed bearing false witness.

22

9. Over the past 18 years PP has made a profit of $538 million, mainly off it abortion services.

Which comes out to about $30M per year. Not that impressive for an 'industry'. A single diner in a good location can easily make $1M profit per year. For those who subscribe to a 'follow the money' line of argument, PP would make a lot more off of pre-natal care and delivering babies.

As for the statutatory rape issue....I'm not sure that's so bad. Like the Confessional, there's a double edged sword. If people are aware that an organization will report them even if they don't want them too they will respond by not seeking help. If they don't seek help the moral issue for the PP rep is resolved but the underlying problem is just swept under the rug.

23

KTK - The fact is that state legislatures have weighed the competing interests in these situations and have resolved the conflict by statute. Of course, the legislation varies from state to state, but I am fairly certain that the majority require reporting. Do you have information to the contrary? Are you endorsing a right on PP's part to disobey reporting laws?

24

The responses to these arguments are equally well known. They fall into two broad categories: assertions of patient autonomy, and utilitarian considerations of the greatest overall benefit.

Patients have a right to make their own decisions, and to be let alone to do so - whether or not we agree, whether or not we regard those decisions as morally right, and even to some extent whether or not they are harmful to others.

Hold on here, minors by every other respect of the law are not 'autonomous'. We made the decision long ago that minors don't have the maturity and decision-making skills to be able to: vote; drive; drink alcohol; or have sex with adults. Why the last one? Because we know that an adult has the capacity the cajole minors into doing something they don't want to. Why is this important here? Because we're now talking about giving the minor the autonomy to make one of the most difficult decisions that is legally available. Now isn't it a bit hypocritical to give a child who doesn't have the maturity to drink a beer the decisison to have an abortion?

We have made the decision that a teen in a bad relationship who gets healthcare and birth control is better off than a teen in a bad relationship who gets AIDS and an unwanted baby.

I know the Traditional Values Coalition thinks otherwise. That's only one of the disgusting things about them.

What's truly disgusting is your mis-categorization of TVC's position. On one hand, I hope you don't really believe it; on the other I can't see why you would make such an outrageous claim if you didn't believe it other than to deliberately smear someone.

25

As for preserving "virginity" it depends on how you define it doesn't it? The hymen would remain intact. Of course this is typical male thinking, as we do tend to compartmentalize sex into categories. Christianity has its own set definitions about sex, and often they even conflict with each other about the morality of certain sexual practices, including the use of birth control.

Why not? Um, why would a 13-year-old need to be told such a misleading statement that implies that virginity can be preserved by resorting to anal intercourse?

As the first quote shows its not a misleading statement. First it is certainly true anal sex is a form of birth control. Second virginity is a word defined by the culture. In many traditional cultures (including Judeo-Christian ones) a broken hymen was considered *legal proof* of a woman's virginity on her wedding night. Trust me, even back then people knew about anal sex.

26

Go to the link. Not all pro-choice people intend to get an abortion. If you aren't aware of that, I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with pro-choice literature. If you are aware of that, then you would admit that Joe's source is indeed bearing false witness.

I did read the link and I did recognize what was employed as satirical commentary. It would be quite a stretch to call it a lie since it obviously wasn't meant to be taken literally.

27

Joe Carter :

I would think condoms would be test on a machine that might simulate how they are used in practice.

We can certainly discuss[TVC's corruption, lies and immorality] another day. For now, though, why don’t we try to stay on topic?

Look, I have no problem with that, although I suspect that "another day" is probably "never." I for one think that presenting a viewpoint, worldview, and exponents of said worldview warts and all is the best policy, at least because in a debate your opponent will mention said warts, but also because sincerity helps. You could - and many do- argue a pro-life position without ever invoking such sham groups as TVC and FOTF.

Second, no one was prosecuted because it was a piece of investigative reporting and would not have held up in court. It did, however, force PP to change their “training” methods and start documenting the number of statutory rape cases they report.

OK, so, then PP did something wrong and corrected it. I guess that kind of makes moot reason number 6, or at least gives information that for some reason you didn't disclose above.

Your attempt to change the subject ...

Huh? I was responding to the link in which you gave "justifying" a shirt they had.... Now as for changing subjects...

Um, why would a 13-year-old need to be told such a misleading statement that implies that virginity can be preserved by resorting to anal intercourse?

Again, depends on what you mean by virginity.

But this brings up another issue...the age of consent Here's a good reference on that.

This is clearly a mess.

Do you even know what forms of birth control that Sanger advocated?

She favored the use of condoms, and the dissemination of information about contraception.

Remember the "Comstock" laws? Those were the good ol' traditional values days laws, in which people like Margaret Sanger went to jail simply for adovocating access to information.

28

Mr Ed:

Satirical commentary? No, it's not, it's hateful.

29

Sorry, the tags weren't working properly. Here is a report to my response to Kevin:

The responses to these arguments are equally well known. They fall into two broad categories: assertions of patient autonomy, and utilitarian considerations of the greatest overall benefit. Patients have a right to make their own decisions, and to be let alone to do so - whether or not we agree, whether or not we regard those decisions as morally right, and even to some extent whether or not they are harmful to others.

Hold on here, minors by every other respect of the law are not 'autonomous'. We made the decision long ago that minors don't have the maturity and decision-making skills to be able to: vote; drive; drink alcohol; or have sex with adults. Why the last one? Because we know that an adult has the capacity the cajole minors into doing something they don't want to. Why is this important here? Because we're now talking about giving the minor the autonomy to make one of the most difficult decisions that is legally available. Now isn't it a bit hypocritical to give a child who doesn't have the maturity to drink a beer the decisison to have an abortion?

We have made the decision that a teen in a bad relationship who gets healthcare and birth control is better off than a teen in a bad relationship who gets AIDS and an unwanted baby. I know the Traditional Values Coalition thinks otherwise. That's only one of the disgusting things about them.

What's truly disgusting is your mis-categorization of TVC's position. On one hand, I hope you don't really believe it; on the other I can't see why you would make such an outrageous claim if you didn't believe it other than to deliberately smear someone.

30

Satirical commentary? No, it's not, it's hateful.

Since when were those two things mutually exclusive? But hateful is not dishonest.

31

Kevin T. Keith wrote:
"We have another choice to make: we can reach out to teens in unwise or exploitive relationships and provide the contraception, healthcare, and abortion services they need, or we can turn away teens in exploitive relationships and let them catch syphillis or AIDS, and have babies with the men who abused them in the first place."

Kevin, those aren't the only choices. You seem to believe that these exploitive relationships are a necessary part of life, and the only decision at hand is what to do about them. What about taking steps to prevent and/or end the exploitive relationships?

What about building up our teenage girls' spirits so that they are less likely to be victimized? Perhaps we could also encourage our teenagers to see chastity as a matter of self-respect and encourage them to remain chaste. After all, if the teenage girls weren't "putting out", I strongly doubt that many of these exploitive men would remain in relationshops with them. If ALL of our teenagers would turn away from "helpful" liars like Teenwire, then perhaps the various problems that Planned Parenthood claims to remedy would quietly disappear.

Also, relentless prosecution and public shaming of the exploiters would have some impact. If these predators actually believed that they could be caught and exposed in their vileness, then they might be more reluctant to continue in their predations. Some high-profile prosecuting of statutory rapists might spread that belief.

By the way, I am not saying that any of these proposals are 100% guaranteed, or that they are easy to achieve. Truthfully, the Planned Parenthood solution of under-the-table birth control and/or abortion is a lot simpler and easier. Just like it's easier to use some makeup and long-sleeved shirts to hide the marks that an abusive husband leaves on his wife. Both solutions are easy, but neither one is right. The right thing to do is to prevent teenage girls from being exploited, crack down on the exploiters, and "drain the swamp" that has been created by the do-it-if-it-feels-good sexualization of our children. Planned Parenthood would rather turn a profit by covering up for the abusers.

32

KTK - The fact is that state legislatures have weighed the competing interests in these situations and have resolved the conflict by statute. Of course, the legislation varies from state to state, but I am fairly certain that the majority require reporting. Do you have information to the contrary? Are you endorsing a right on PP's part to disobey reporting laws?

Perhaps. I imagine those laws relate only to certain professions like doctors, nurses and teachers. These can be regulated because you usually need a license to do one of these things to begin with. I'm not sure these requirements would be able to apply to everyone...including volunteers who man an anonymous 'help line'. There's some thorny Constitutional issues in requiring people to report crimes.

We know that a pastor or priest who hears a confession, even one from a person who admits to performing statutory rape or child molesting is NOT required to report the incident to police by law.

33

Mr Ed:

But it was dishonest in that it conflates "pro-choice" with "intending to get an abortion."

We made the decision long ago that minors don't have the maturity and decision-making skills to be able to: vote; drive; drink alcohol; or have sex with adults. Why the last one?

Actually, in many cases they can, provided they get a parent's permission.

34

Actually, in many cases they can, provided they get a parent's permission.

Thank you for bringing that up. So why, then, would we choose this one instance as an area to circumvent the parent's permission?

But it was dishonest in that it conflates "pro-choice" with "intending to get an abortion."

No, I think it just verbalized what many, if not most, people were already thinking. I mean, having "Pro Choice" stitched to your t-shirt is one thing. But having it stitched to the crotch of your g-string has clear implications.

35

Kevin We have another choice to make: we can reach out to teens in unwise or exploitive relationships and provide the contraception, healthcare, and abortion services they need, or we can turn away teens in exploitive relationships and let them catch syphillis or AIDS, and have babies with the men who abused them in the first place.

Or we have yet another option: reach out to teens in a way that shows them they do not need to resort to sexual activity in order to fill that which is missing in their lives. We could explain to them that contraception and healthcare have a place, but that it is in a marital relationship where trust can grow and they can decide when the right time is to have a child. We could explain that the only safe way not to contract an STD or unwanted pregnancy is to refrain from behavior that leads to those problems. We could explain that contrary to what some people might believe, hormones do not determine their choices and that they have to take moral responsibility for their behavior. We could, in other words, treat them with the dignity they deserve.

(We don't have the choice of ending abusive relationships by turning teens in need of healthcare over to the police. That's simply not an option, because that strategy doesn't work.)

The teen is not the one who the police are after. The adult is the one that has to worry. And that is precisely why such laws are needed. If a predatory adult knows that they can exploit a young girl and that if she gets pregnant or catches an STD he can take her to PP without any repercussion, then they have less reason to think that they will ever be caught and so are encouraged to engage in that abusive behavior.

Mumon If you are aware of that, then you would admit that Joe's source is indeed bearing false witness.

It is becoming impossible to take you seriously. I truly don’t think you can be as dense as you try to make us believe. Dawn’s use of hyperbole makes it screamingly obvious that she is being sarcastic. If you truly think she was intentionally “bearing false witness” then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

I suspect, however, that you have found it nearly impossible to defend the indefensible and so are resorting to desperate measures.

Which comes out to about $30M per year. Not that impressive for an 'industry'.

PP isn’t an “industry” it’s a company. And an average profit of $30 million a year for 18 years is pretty darn impressive.

A single diner in a good location can easily make $1M profit per year.

I think you may be confusing “sales” with “profit.” I used to run a small newspaper that had about a half a million in sales every year. The actual profit turned on those sales, however, was barely enough to buy me a copy of my own paper.

For those who subscribe to a 'follow the money' line of argument, PP would make a lot more off of pre-natal care and delivering babies.

That’s a non sequiter. They could probably make more money off of selling milk but that doesn’t mean it’s irrational for PP not to open a dairy division. Also, the requirements to start a pre-natal care business are much differnent than in the aboriton industry. Even if it were more profitable that does not mean that PP would be better off changing their business model.

36

What about building up our teenage girls' spirits so that they are less likely to be victimized? Perhaps we could also encourage...then perhaps the various problems that Planned Parenthood claims to remedy would quietly disappear.

Yea yea yea. I'm all for encouraging people to be smart & make wise choices but the fact is human nature is both base and complicated. Even the Amish, whose contact with PP & popular culture is about as distant as you can expect, have massive problems with incest & exploitive relationships.

The fact is that while all such relationships are illegal not all of them are exploitive (quick, is a 17 yr old with a 24 yr old really that different than an 18 yr old with a 24 yr old?) & the confidentiality problem remains. If you insist on violating it you run the risk that those involved will not seek any help at all.

The same issue comes up with illegal immigrants going to emergancy rooms & reporting crimes to the police. If they are required to report them to INS then illegals will become the prey of criminals who know they will be afraid to speak up & society will run the risk of increased crime and disease (due to sick illegals not seeking help).

By the way, I am not saying that any of these proposals are 100% guaranteed, or that they are easy to achieve. Truthfully, the Planned Parenthood solution of under-the-table birth control and/or abortion is a lot simpler and easier. Just like it's easier to use some makeup and long-sleeved shirts to hide the marks that an abusive husband leaves on his wife. Both solutions are easy, but neither one is right.

Unlike the long-sleeved shirt, the 'easy' solution PP pushes at least lowers the risk of the added problems of an unwanted pregnancy & STD's in such a relationship.

As for high-profile prosecutiong of statutory rapists???? What planet are you living on? Why did Amy Fisher's lover spend a few years behind bars? There are high profile prosecutions (and low profile ones as well) of statutory rape.

37

No, I think it just verbalized what many, if not most, people were already thinking. I mean, having "Pro Choice" stitched to your t-shirt is one thing. But having it stitched to the crotch of your g-string has clear implications.

Really? I imagine its some company trying to make a buck with a bit of a joke. I wouldn't be surprised for a second if they sold the same g-string with 'pro life' on it to couples seeking to get pregnant!

I think you may be confusing “sales” with “profit.” I used to run a small newspaper that had about a half a million in sales every year. The actual profit turned on those sales, however, was barely enough to buy me a copy of my own paper.

Nope, assume you could maintain 20 people in your diner per hour each charging $25. That's $4.380M gross per year. If you have a 20% profit margin you can easily get close to $1M in profit per year. I'm sorry your small newspaper isn't as successful but you might be comforted to know its just as easy to lose your shirt in the food business.

You did also dodge my point about the profits of seeing pregnancies thru to birth. The requirements are usually the same. You need a doctor, exam room, diagnostic equipment etc. In fact, many upscale obgyns will do abortions but they don't advertise that. PP would make good money from patients who choose or are convinced to have their babies.

No the 'follow the money' argument remains unimpressive in this case.

38

Joe Carter:

I suspect, however, that you have found it nearly impossible to defend the indefensible and so are resorting to desperate measures.

I suppose that you can't defend the Comstock laws, and that's why you focused on trying to paint hate as humor.

39

lol! Just for the record, mumon, the phrase "who cares" counts as "debunking" as much as "nuh-uh" does.

40

Unlike the long-sleeved shirt, the 'easy' solution PP pushes at least lowers the risk of the added problems of an unwanted pregnancy & STD's in such a relationship.

I doubt if an older man taking advantage of at best a teen is going to use protection if he doesn't want to. You can make the prenancy argument, but lowering STDs is wishful thinking.

You did also dodge my point about the profits of seeing pregnancies thru to birth.

The insurances costs alone will kill you. Plus abortion "services" are a lot less regulated.

I suppose that you can't defend the Comstock laws, and that's why you focused on trying to paint hate as humor.

We aren't talking about the Comstock laws.

41

You did also dodge my point about the profits of seeing pregnancies thru to birth.

The insurances costs alone will kill you. Plus abortion "services" are a lot less regulated.

Since most doctors who perform abortions are also qualified to do births their insurance companies will most likely charge the same. (I'm not even sure an insurance company can demand a doctor tell them what procedures he performs on his patients...perhaps someone who is a doctor or insurance agent can chime in...)

Regardless, $30M a year ain't all that impressive in the big scheme of things. PP advocacy of abortion rights can hardly be said to derive from the big bucks in the industry...

42

"You would think by having brass ones that big and haning out that much dirty laundry, they would have been discredited by now..."

Journalists protect them, I hope that bloggers like this can change that some.

I did not know all that. That shirt is disgusting. Are these not the people who say that abortion should be "rare." Then, why a shirt promoting it?

I did know about Margaret Sanger though. It is interesting how the activism for eugenics parallels the modern sort with the same arguments.

43

Boonton:

Why should I use something I am indifferent about as a reason to despise something? If I am indifferent about something, than it refutes any reason to despise, doesn't it?

Chris Lutz:

We aren't talking about the Comstock laws.

We were talking about access to birth control. Please try to keep up.

44

Boonton:

Why did Amy Fisher's lover spend a few years behind bars?

Because she shot his wife.

45

Interesting take on the anal-"sex" "virginity".

May I assume that if you found your husband/wife having anal sex with someone else (besides yourself), you wouldn't consider that adultery? What if he said, "Hey honey, I would never cheat on you. That's why my secretary and I do anal."

Are you that stupid? I'm hoping not--so please don't pretend we are. After all, in that case, we shouldn't really consider homosexual AIDS an STD, as sex isn't really taking place.

BTW, kudos go to Patrick, above, for being more nuanced than usual in seeing the entire world through a homosexual prism--in bashing Focus on the Family, he dragged out their outreach to gays and labeled it "hateful", but he didn't do so, this time, until way down into the fourth paragraph.

46

If anyone honestly believes that America is anywhere close to passing laws like the Comstock laws then they are far out of touch with Americana.

There is just no way that it could happen. But look, at least they did actually advocate and pass a law back then. As far as PP goes, they will use the methods of a sort of oligarchic fascism through the federal judiciary that undermines all our rights.

Example,
"Like the character of an individual, the legitimacy of the Court must be earned over time. So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Their belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals."
112 S. Ct. 2816 (1992) (emphasis added) Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey)

Contrast,
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
(Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis (Sept. 28,1820) in 15 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 276, 277(Andrew A. Lipscomb & Albert Ellery Bergh eds., 1904)

It seems that Planned Parenthood is helping to bring about proto-Nazism, as the decadence of the American Republic matches that of the Weimar.

47

"Because she shot his wife."

Amy Fisher shot his wife, the 'he' spent several years behind bars for statutory rape. He was never implicated in the attempted murder.

May I assume that if you found your husband/wife having anal sex with someone else (besides yourself), you wouldn't consider that adultery? What if he said, "Hey honey, I would never cheat on you. That's why my secretary and I do anal."

Adultery = losing your virginity? Does that mean people who are not virgins cannot commit adultery???

Are you that stupid? I'm hoping not--so please don't pretend we are. After all, in that case, we shouldn't really consider homosexual AIDS an STD, as sex isn't really taking place.

Well first of all since the site talks about 'anal sex' I think its safe to assume it is not trying to argue that anal sex isn't sex. Does the site say that unprotected anal sex cannot result in the transmission of STD's? If so I'll be happy in joining you in condemming it as dangerous and misleading....but first please show me where it says that!

48

"....anal sex has long been used as a contraceptive by heterosexual couples."

That's not true. Also, it is bad to cause anyone to think it. Feces in the bloodstream and all that, degeneration seems to generate viruses.

The Nice Guy

Scroll down for the list of viruses and the like.

So no, it is not a good idea and you should not be going around saying that to people.

49

What's not true? That anal sex hasn't been used by hetrosexual couples for birth control? How do you know that?

50

Boonton:

Nobody said Joe Buttafucco had anything to do with his wife's shooting. But because Amy Fisher shot her, his escapades had a higher profile than they otherwise might have had.

51

"How do you know that?"

Because if it was a common or traditional practice then they would be getting the same viruses and the like.

Example,
"The logistic regression analysis indicated that only one type of sexual risk act was associated with serostatus: engaging in anal sex, which highlights the continued vulnerability of young, gay males. Contextual factors including life circumstances (substance use, living out-of-home, and knowing a person with AIDS) and gender were the most important predictors of serostatus."
(Pediatrics 1995; 95: 96-104
January, 1995
Comparison of HIV+ and HIV- Adolescents: Risk Factors and Psychosocial Determinants
By Karen Hein, MD; Ralph Dell, MD; Donna Futterman, MD; Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus, PhD; and Nathan Shaffer, MD)

Why do you deny the obvious? People are not using anal sex as a form of birth control, if they were then they would be getting odd viruses and the like just like self defined gays do.

52

Anal sex with an infected person will transmit the HIV virus (I'm not sure why you call it 'odd', its probably one of the most studied viruses on earth) faster than traditional intercourse. In both cases, though, having sex with someone whose infected will infect you given enough time. HIV and other diseases spread faster in the gay community because they have higher rates of promscious sex than others & since a single anal sex encounter with an infected person has a higher transmission rate than a single traditional encounter.

Couples, both straight and gay, who are monogamous and not infected would not become infected if they had anal sex. Hence you can conclude nothing about the prevalance of anal sex among hetrosexual couples.

53

".....would not become infected if they had anal sex."

I'm talking about things that people get from such behavior. They are not necessarily contagious.

I know what you are trying to say and it is dumb. You are saying that anal sex can somehow be safe and good. Why you want to say this, is a mystery. It is not safe. Feces in the bloodstreamd the like seems to just generate disease and there is just no way around that. Hence, one can conclude a lot about supposed claims of anal sex as a typical way of birth control.

Some of the list of diseases and a general dis-ease, too:
"Classical sexually transmitted diseases
(gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis....

and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome(AIDS)."
(W.F. Owen, Jr., “Medical Problems of the Homosexual Adolescent,”
Journal of Adolescent Health Care 6, no.4
(July 1985), pp. 278—85)

Also, anal cancers are thought to arise from squamous intraepithelial lesions in the anal canal.

How about a philosophical summary,
"What does it mean, I asked him, when a man puts the part of himself which represents the generation of life into the cavity of decay and expulsion? Seeing the answer all too well, he refused to reply. Permit me to spell it out. It means 'Life, be swallowed up by death.'"
--J. Budziszewski,
The Revenge of Conscience

Generation of the generations is exchanged for degeneration, conception exchanged for the anti-conceptual....and so on.

So, I suppose it may not make sense to make a conceptual argument to some people.

54

mynym,

I'll go so far as to say that anal sex carries with it the risks of injury (which can be minimized with proper precautions). Most of the diseases you cite are caused by specific virual agents and those viruses are not magically invented by 'fecal matter in the blood stream'. They are transmitted from an infected person to a non-infected person.

Anal cancer is one matter but two non-infected people can have anal sex with each other every day for the next 100 years and they will never develop AIDS or the virual diseases you mention.

55

Just to nit pick mynym some more (he is the type I think deserves a lot of nitpicking); the original PP piece that was criticized never said that most or even a lot of hetrosexual couples use anal sex for birth control. It said that some couples use it for birth control. Unless mynym has aquired supernatural knowledge of the sex lives of all hetrosexual couples throughout history, I seriously doubt he can maintin this is untrue.

56

"Make abortion unneeded"!? Man kind will always find ways and reasons to murder others. That is one of the primary purposes of government. To safe guard the innocent and punish the guilty.
I think making laws that make genocidal murderers "unneeded" is a better solution. Just think, if you all did to yourselves what you are advocating for your children, you would seriously and positively impact the world population explosion. The Russians would put a big red star on your coffin.

57

"Why do you deny the obvious? People are not using anal sex as a form of birth control, if they were then they would be getting odd viruses and the like just like self defined gays do."

Actually I was really referring to the practice of anal sex within confines of a relationship.

And you can't exactly compare gay sex to straight sex anyway. Who do you think has the rock-bottom lowest rates of infection? And the highest rate of monogamy? It ain't heterosexuals. Lesbians.

"May I assume that if you found your husband/wife having anal sex with someone else (besides yourself), you wouldn't consider that adultery? What if he said, "Hey honey, I would never cheat on you. That's why my secretary and I do anal."

Are you that stupid? I'm hoping not--so please don't pretend we are. After all, in that case, we shouldn't really consider homosexual AIDS an STD, as sex isn't really taking place."

I was not discussing my own definitions of adultery or virginity. But there are plenty of men who think exactly what you are describing above. There are even plenty of married men who rationalize having sex with men on the side as a way to avoid breaking marital vows. I think they call that nowadays "goin on the down low" if you watch Oprah. And not all of those married men are closeted gay men either, many are quite straight.

As I have said before men tend to compartmentalize sex in their head. They don't think these things because they are stupid, they think of them because they have the powerful motivation of guilt to make them want to believe it. It's a little rationalization bubble. That's why Bill "I did not have sex.etc..." Clinton, can actually believe he did not have sex with Monica because he only had blowjob. When men are thinking with their little head, you can never lose money overestimating just how low a a man's I.Q. will drop.

As far as my "homosexual prism" goes, I don't view my life through sexuality any more than a straight man. You simply freak out more when I do it. If two men are holding hands in a crowd of men and women holding hands, who do you notice? And we get accused of "flaunting it" when straight couples are engaged in the exact same behavior. This is because of your own distorted perspective on my sexuality. It has little to do with what I think about it.

Really, when I think of how many times I've seen statements from Christians like "homosexuals are the cause of the downfall of civilization", etc. I have to laugh. If they attribute that much power to someone like me, I think that it has to be Christians who are viewing the world through a homosexual prism. But it's one of their making, not mine.

58

While we are on the subject, RA, some Eastern European countries saw a decrease in their abortion rate after communism fell and the laws against abortion were relaxed. The reason? Because increased access to contraception prevented pregnancies that would have ended in illegal abortions.

For Discussion: Any proposed debate on PP's morality should give them credit for abortions that never happened due to their educational work on contraception?

59

Boonton:
"Unlike the long-sleeved shirt, the 'easy' solution PP pushes at least lowers the risk of the added problems of an unwanted pregnancy & STD's in such a relationship."

No, that's incorrect. You're not seeing the benefits of doing the right thing. Exploitive sexual relationships should not be happening. By "covering up" for the exploiters and promoting sexual hedonism for teenagers, Teenwire/PP is actually increasing the problem. They can't receive legitimate credit for "solving" a problem that they have helped to create. That was the point of my clumsy wife-beating analogy.

Abstinence is 100% effective at preventing both STDs and pregnancy. As an added benefit, it also prevents all of the emotional and psychological complications that foolish sexual decisions can bring. Anything less than abstinence is a compromise at best. When combined with the pro-promiscuity cheerleading on Teenwire's website, Planned Parenthood's "solution" seems to be more like someone who mixes watered-down cocktails for an alcoholic. Alcoholics shouldn't be boozing, and teenagers shouldn't be having sex, especially not with predatory adults who are using them.

60

I think that those that seek to raze PP to the ground frustrate making reforms to the abortion-industry to make its practices align more with general public morality.

Read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Smart activism must take into account its opponents likely responses. When you actively seek to decimate your opponents, they are not going to be willing to budge or compromise with you and your activism is far more likely to falter completely.

dlw

61

By this logic societies problems with alcohol would not be increased if the production of wine, beer and other light drinks were replaced with hard liquors such as vodka and whiskey. After all, isn't wine just a 'compromised form of whiskey'?????

Since an anonymous phone line will not have the power to change behavior a compromise is acceptable if it results in fewer problems. A bad relationship with a baby is worse than a bad relationship. A bad relationship with an STD is worse than one without an STD.

Are you going to also tell us that giving a hungry person a meal is a compromise since it won't address all the hunger in the world?

62

Someone up above wrote

"You are saying that anal sex can somehow be safe and good. Why you want to say this, is a mystery."

Only at the Outpost, folks! I love this blog, I really do.

A couple points:

1) Regarding PP's popping prophylactics, I'm sure they'll upgrade even though I've never had one bust on my balloon-sized member.

2) Perhaps some of the local Bible students here can tell us whether any of our beloved Biblical characters were married and reproducing at age 14. I'm curious.

63

"Abstinence is 100% effective at preventing both STDs and pregnancy. As an added benefit, it also prevents all of the emotional and psychological complications that foolish sexual decisions can bring."

It also can lead to unpleasant surprises for married couples who have never had sex for. Perhaps that's why evangelical CHristians get divorced so frequently.

64

mynym:

"What does it mean, I asked him, when a man puts the part of himself which represents the generation of life into the cavity of decay and expulsion? Seeing the answer all too well, he refused to reply. Permit me to spell it out. It means 'Life, be swallowed up by death.'"

I hadn't realized that J. Budziszewski had a castration anxiety. Thanks for pointing that out.

But you raise another issue: Why would the "cavity of decay and explusion" have nerves in it that result in giving some people pleasure when something is inserted into said cavity? Is that another instance of "Intelligent Design?"

65

Couples, both straight and gay, who are monogamous and not infected would not become infected if they had anal sex. Hence you can conclude nothing about the prevalance of anal sex among hetrosexual couples.

But certainly, with all of the data we have, we would see an increase in the rate of HIV infection among the hetero population if there was any substantial amount of anal sex going on at all. And since the rates have never amounted to anything but a statistical anomaly in the hetero, non-IV using population, we can conclude at least something about the prevalence of anal sex.

66

I'll certainly agree that anal sex among the hetro population happens less than among the homosexual male population (I would imagine the homosexual female population would have the least amount of all). Since the gay male population rate is huge I'm not sure that really means the practice is all that rare among hetrosexuals.

Another factor to consider is that many women consider anal sex to be much more 'tricky', especially with an inexperienced lover. Do it wrong and you can be in for a world of hurt. If anal sex among hetrosexuals is typically reserved for longer term relationships then you'll see a much lower rate of STD infection since the most risky types of sex are reserved for the most monogamous relationships.

67

It also can lead to unpleasant surprises for married couples who have never had sex for. Perhaps that's why evangelical CHristians get divorced so frequently.

Unpleasant surprises are a part of life. I'd say that a case of gonorrhea would be a far more unpleasant surprise from your new spouse. No?

And the frequent divorce among Evangelicals is more likely due to the acceptance of the predominant worldview within the church. It's the conflict between worldviews that causes difficulties. If the divorce rates were based on couples who simply lived together and then separated (as opposed to being married and separating) we would see a much higher rate in the non-Evangelical population.

68

"....can have anal sex with each other every day for the next 100 years and they will never develop AIDS or the virual diseases you mention."

You cannot say that is true unless you know what generates HIV or AIDS, or HIV then AIDS. And you do not know. There is a whole host of dis-ease and diseases that go along with anal sex. That is all. It's not just HIV. HIV and AIDS are often the end, like a summary of what already is.

It is not as if I am an expert on it nor do I need to be. It's enough for anyone but moral degenerates to know that anal sex is associated with disease and death.

"For...it were not to Dionysus that
they made a procession and sang the
shameful phallic hymn...
...Hades is the same as Dionysus
in whose honor they go mad and rave."
(Heraclitus of Ephesus - 504/3-501/0 BCE)

A stygian stench is also noted about those who like such behavior patterns in the Bible.

Therefore, that is not something to be done to anyone you love. It should not be suggested as a form of birth control. It is an inherently abusive act. The high rates of other types of abuse among gays, i.e. beating each other up and the like, is not so surprising in this context. That seems to be what they tend to do, abusing each other in various ways.

69

This touches upon the subject of virginity. What the word means depends on the person using it. In our modern times it is often used to mean inexperienced (as in 'what does she know about sex, she's just a virgin'). Hence it sounds odd that someone having anal sex could be keeping their virginity.

In other times and places, though, a lot of emphasis was placed on knowing a woman was having your child. Marrying a virgin would be a guarantee that her family was giving you a woman you could have mother your children (once you got married, keeping her faithful was your problem). Hence the disconnect...

70

"Why would the "cavity of decay and explusion" have nerves in it that result in giving some people pleasure......"

The same reason it is possible for an alcoholic to burn up their brain and feel good doing it. Until, it is all burnt up. What reason? A perversion of the true version of things, that is all. And in perversion there is only a temporal self-soothing, sans true fulfillment.

Perhaps there are those here who should know, who do know.

71

"I would imagine the homosexual female population would have the least amount of all."

They have their own set of problems. That is what comes of denying the Yin and the Yang.

The sexes are complementary. Denying this is a perversion of the true version of things and causes problems.

Gay men do seem to have the most obvious, though.

72

Mr. Ed:

And the frequent divorce among Evangelicals is more likely due to the acceptance of the predominant worldview within the church.

Well, they could do better by adopting the worldview of Buddhists and atheists, and their divorce rates would go down noticably!

73

You cannot say that is true unless you know what generates HIV or AIDS, or HIV then AIDS. ... It's not just HIV. HIV and AIDS are often the end, like a summary of what already is.

AIDS is acused by a virus called HIV. HIV is transmitted from an uninfected person to an infected person thru the exchange of bodily fluids (sex, sharing a needle, blood transfusion, kissing may be possible in theory but it has never been documented). The HIV virus cannot be created by mixing fecal matter into the blood stream or by anal injuries.

74

I think it's amusing to see a Bible toting blog poster tell us that bad things happen when you ignore 'Yin and Yang'.

But hats off to him, it's entertaining to see science done by poetry rather than facts ;)

75

mynym :

That is what comes of denying the Yin and the Yang.

You do realize that this is a mangled metaphor, don't you?

OK, just in case you don't: Yin and Yang contain each other.

76

mynym:

A perversion of the true version of things, that is all. And in perversion there is only a temporal self-soothing, sans true fulfillment...

And you would know that it is not true fulfillment because...?

77

Ed

"And the frequent divorce among Evangelicals is more likely due to the acceptance of the predominant worldview within the church."

Um, I've no doubt that evangelicals behave like most modern humans. But that is a conclusion and not an explanation of why their divorce rates are so high.

"If the divorce rates were based on couples who simply lived together and then separated (as opposed to being married and separating) we would see a much higher rate in the non-Evangelical population."

Um, maybe but that is another issue entirely. We were talking about failed marriage, right? Are you trying to redefine marriage? :)

The fact is that evangelical divorce rates are relatively high. The question is why? In part, my guess is false expectations and naivety (i.e., ignorance) of what married life, including sexual issues, is about.

It would be interesting to know the divorce rates of evangelicals who admitted having one or more sexual partners before they were married. And the divorce rates of evangelicals who did "accept the worldview" and lived together for a while before they were married.

78

I've heard that the typical marriage lasts as long as it did years ago. The difference being that nowadays divorce ends many marriages while death ended many in the old days (plus people delay marriage more often today than in the past). I wonder what the stats look like if you controlled for increasing lifespan and delayed marriage.

79

The sexes are complementary. Denying this is a perversion of the true version of things and causes problems.

Gay men do seem to have the most obvious, though.

It's clear the sexes are complementary and the majority of humans find that fits themselves perfectly. I'm not sure what justifies such dogmatism, though.

Most people are attracted to someone of the opposite sex and end up settling down with 'em and having kids. But not everyone. No one thinks it is unacceptable for some married couples to be childless and no one objects to the fact that some people will desire to remain celebrate for their life. This would be a big problem if it applied to, say, 70% of the population but there's no indication that is going to happen any time soon.

So why is a lesbian couple 'denying the sexes are complementary'? Why can't 1% or 5% of the population be gay just as a small % of the population will be celebrate?

80

You are confusing different doctrines. A priest not only has a legal privilege not to report a crime of which he learns during confession, he is barred from reporting it. Unless there are states that recognize a "hotline counselor" privilege, this analogy is inapposite.

Is it your position that the person taking the call should not report anything unless it is required by law? Or do you believe that it should be reported unless prohibited?

And, assuming that your "imagination" is correct, and the obligations to report apply only to health care providers, PP provides abortion services. Do PP's doctors and nurses report the information they receive regarding statutory rapes/sexual abuse? One would think that if they did, PP would have responded to the criticism on this issue by saying that.

As to the origianl issue

81

Well, they could do better by adopting the worldview of Buddhists and atheists, and their divorce rates would go down noticably!

Atheists? You're reaching now. But they would do well to adopt a Christian worldview--since that is, of course, what they are. Then the divorce rates would be dramatically reduced.

82

Great timing on the post Joe.
I have been researching Abortion for a presentation.

On PP making money and condom failure rates....

I have found other references to PP encouraging sex using contraceptives, and then encouraging the use of less than great contraception. The case I found was a weak pill that had to be taken at the same time every single day, otherwise it was not at all effective.

They want failed contraceptives to make their money....

Such loving people

83

Um, maybe but that is another issue entirely. We were talking about failed marriage, right? Are you trying to redefine marriage? :)

No, its not another issue. The replacement of marriage with co-habitation necessarily skews the numbers when comparing divorce among groups that tend to co-habitate with groups that don't.

The fact is that evangelical divorce rates are relatively high. The question is why? In part, my guess is false expectations and naivety (i.e., ignorance) of what married life, including sexual issues, is about.

Of course you would. But your tendency to believe the worst about Evangelicals has little to do with reality. The reality is that Evangelicals are more likely than the non-religious to have pre-marital counseling. The reality is that most Evangelicals still go to public schools, which exposes them to the same sex education as the non-religious.

It would be interesting to know the divorce rates of evangelicals who admitted having one or more sexual partners before they were married. And the divorce rates of evangelicals who did "accept the worldview" and lived together for a while before they were married.

I agree, that would be an interesting statistic. It would probably show which one of us is correct in his assumptions.

84

Most people are attracted to someone of the opposite sex and end up settling down with 'em and having kids. But not everyone. No one thinks it is unacceptable for some married couples to be childless and no one objects to the fact that some people will desire to remain celebrate for their life. This would be a big problem if it applied to, say, 70% of the population but there's no indication that is going to happen any time soon.

Well, that all depends on who you mean by "no one". In many ethnic populations it is very odd to not be married by a certain age. And, in the same, it is very odd to be married and childless.

85

Mr. Ed writes

"The replacement of marriage with co-habitation necessarily skews the numbers when comparing divorce among groups that tend to co-habitate with groups that don't."

Again, the issue is that evangelicals divorce at a higher rate than non-evangelicals. Is it impossible for you to entertain any explanations which suggest that some arbitrary moral code of evengelicals (e.g., no sex before marriage) or some other correlating tendency (greater inability to compromise, tendency to marry younger) might be a factor in their high divorce rates?

"The reality is that Evangelicals are more likely than the non-religious to have pre-marital counseling."

Then why the high divorce rates?

"The reality is that most Evangelicals still go to public schools, which exposes them to the same sex education as the non-religious."

Then why the high divorce rates?

Like everyone else, I learned how to avoid disease and pregnancy in class. I learned how to make my women happy in the field. So to speak.

86

Again, the issue is that evangelicals divorce at a higher rate than non-evangelicals. Is it impossible for you to entertain any explanations which suggest that some arbitrary moral code of evengelicals (e.g., no sex before marriage) or some other correlating tendency (greater inability to compromise, tendency to marry younger) might be a factor in their high divorce rates?

Listen, Larry, you're not getting my point. If the percentage of marriages goes down accross the board because of the greater occurance of co-habitation then the percentage of divorce for those who typically don't co-habitate will rise as a percentage of the whole.

Here are some stats I dug up:

In 2002, the percent of population that was married was 59%. That is down from 62% in 1990 and 72% in 1970.

Likelihood of new marriages ending in divorce in 1997: 43%

Percentage of couples not affiliated with any religious group who eventually get divorced as of 1995: 46%

(for the record, that means couple not affiliated with any religious group were 3% more likely to divorce)

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

the higher theimportance attaqched to religion, the lower the likelyhood of marital disruption

unmarried cohabitations overall are less stable than marriages.

The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent, but the probability of a premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent.

After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent, compared with 62 percent for cohabitations.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/02news/div_mar_cohab.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

87

But Ed, why aren't you including all the couples who "went steady" for a while and then broke up? Why isn't that a relevant statistic for "your point"?

Just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle: evangelicals have relatively high divorce rates. Divorce = legal end of legal marriage (not end of friendship, not moving out of the house, not committing adultery, etc.).

You keep playing statistical games instead of trying to explain the fact. I would think that evangelicals would want to reduce their rates of divorce. Don't you agree?

Other than increasing the hostility of shame tactics directed towards evangelical divorcees, how might evangelicals reduce their rates of divorce?

Let me suggest two possible ways: don't marry so young and have more sex before marriage (safe sex, of course).

Consider it a gift to the evangelical community from Larry Lord.

88

But Ed, why aren't you including all the couples who "went steady" for a while and then broke up? Why isn't that a relevant statistic for "your point"?

Don't be silly, Larry. They don't factor in because people are "going steady" as an alternative to marriage. But people ARE cohabitating as an alternative to marriage.

Just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle: evangelicals have relatively high divorce rates. Divorce = legal end of legal marriage (not end of friendship, not moving out of the house, not committing adultery, etc.).

Okay, just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle: I originally pointed out that Evangelicals might have had a higher divorce rate because they bought into the predominant worldview. You were the one who suggested that the divorce rates would be lower if they bought into the predominant worldview. I clearly showed that what you hypothesize cannot be the case since the CDC reports show a lower rate of divorce for those for whom religion is very important.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

And I've shown that divorce for those who are not affiliated with any religion is roughly 3% higher than the general population.

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

Those aren't statistical games; those are relevant statistical facts.

I would think that evangelicals would want to reduce their rates of divorce. Don't you agree?

Yes, I agree. That's why posit that Evangelical Christians should start believing as though they were Christians and not pagans.

Other than increasing the hostility of shame tactics directed towards evangelical divorcees, how might evangelicals reduce their rates of divorce?

Who is doing that?

89

'On their site aimed at teenagers, they include a an article ("All About the Anus") which teaches kids that, "Some straight couples use anal sex as a way to preserve the woman's virginity." '

I knew a guy in south philly who's girlfriend was into that.

90

""Some straight couples use anal sex as a way to preserve the woman's virginity."

Indeed, one of my girlfriends in college told me that she had anal sex before vaginal sex. How old was she when this happened? You guessed it: 12 years old!! Her boyfriend at the time -- 17, and evidently quite a smooth operator.

The fascinating part of her story is that due to her sheltered conservative Catholic schooling she was under the impression that she could get pregnant from any contact with a guy's thing. So when her period was a few days late, she told her parents what had happened. Can you imagine their "relief" when the details came out???????!!!!

These