tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post6561237936426648979..comments2024-01-09T15:03:54.986-05:00Comments on Wolf Howling: Bristol's Got A Bun (Updated)GWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-67292735296289455552008-09-03T11:59:00.000-04:002008-09-03T11:59:00.000-04:00>>Palin's daughter will never regret her...>>Palin's daughter will never regret her decision to keep her child.>><BR/><BR/>Well...maybe in about 18 years she may have a question or two about _what_ she was thinking!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-48284544032064272592008-09-02T11:56:00.000-04:002008-09-02T11:56:00.000-04:00Good post suek!"...the left will be well within th...Good post suek!<BR/><BR/>"...the left will be well within their rights to ask Gov. Palin how this reflects on her calls for abstinence only sex education."<BR/><BR/>How so? I would think more than ever she would be within her rights to promote abstinence sex education. As a mother, Sarah Palin, is living with the result of a daughter not abstaining from sex. I'm just thankful abortion is not an option for this unborn child. Two wrongs do not make a right, and a wonderful baby can only bring joy, hard work, and a change in plans, but then what in life is predictable anyhow. Palin's daughter will never regret her decision to keep her child.Joannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04644244465548927962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-8555674730196137022008-09-01T23:13:00.000-04:002008-09-01T23:13:00.000-04:00>>I am quite willing to hear debate from peo...>>I am quite willing to hear debate from people who have studied the social and moral implications.>><BR/><BR/>Well, that _is_ the issue, isn't it!<BR/><BR/>Palin's position, if I understand it correctly, is that she objects to "explicit" sexual education. I don't pretend to know exactly what the sex education in Alaska is, but I suspect that the program is rife with "how to" information more than just an explanation of biology. As if teenagers need more of the "how to" with the explicit nature of films and tv shows available today.<BR/><BR/>As I see it, no contraceptives are 100% effective. If sexual intercourse occurs, at some point there _will_ be a pregnancy. The left is adamant in their position that all sex is normal, and repressing it by limiting it to marriage is abnormal. The left doesn't seem to admit to this inevitibility, except that they say "oh well...in that case, get an abortion".<BR/><BR/>Religion, on the other hand, says that yes, the urge is normal, but you can control that urge, and limit it to marriage. In effect, you are _not_ just an animal - you are above the animals and can control your passions. The primary purpose of sex is procreation, and humans take nearly 20 years to reach maturity - marriage is the social condition that best serves that end.<BR/><BR/>What are the social implications of unlimited sex? I think we have a pretty good idea. We've seen the results over the last 30 years or so. Do you like what you see? How does it compare to the US culture of ...say 50 years ago? better or worse? Who's better off? the children of irresponsible parents?<BR/>Look at Great Britain. How are they faring with minimal religious influence? <BR/><BR/>You know....I believe there is a God. I also believe that if there is not a God, that man would need to invent one. We are an amazingly powerful animal...our intelligence makes us so. Without limitations, we can do terrible things. The only effective limitation upon us is a Being which is immutable and incorruptible, and can hold us to infallible justice in an afterlife, so that we place limitations upon ourselves. And those limitations we call religion.<BR/><BR/>Sex isn't bad. Sex isn't evil. But sex makes babies. Unless you're ok with abortions, the only 100% effective method of preventing unwanted pregnancies is abstinence.<BR/><BR/>And homosexuality. <BR/><BR/>Another issue for another day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-33041478648325640222008-09-01T17:27:00.000-04:002008-09-01T17:27:00.000-04:00You may well be right Suek. I do not pretend to k...You may well be right Suek. I do not pretend to know the answer to this one, which is one of the reasons I think it worthy of intellectually honest debate. To the extent that sex education is limited to nothing more than an explanation of biology, I think that does no harm and is morally neutral. In that sense, it does not detract from an abstinence message. But again, I just don't know on this one. I am quite willing to hear debate from people who have studied the social and moral implications.GWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05814327154035433443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5492310882851199969.post-20910689348803922612008-09-01T17:14:00.000-04:002008-09-01T17:14:00.000-04:00"...the left will be well within their rights to a..."...the left will be well within their rights to ask Gov. Palin how this reflects on her calls for abstinence only sex education."<BR/><BR/>50 years ago (well, maybe 60) there was no sex education at all. Abstinence was expected.... The percentage of illegitimate babies was....? (I found one table that said it was about 14%. Someone claimed that that was a fake figure - everybody lied) 50 (or 60) years later, after explicit sex education for the last 20 (30?) years, the percentage of illegitimate babies is ....? (that same table said it was about 44%)<BR/><BR/>Doesn't seem to me that sex education has done much other than to teach youngsters at the peak of their sexual urges how to indulge those urges, and remove their inhibitions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com