Comments on: Thirteen women, one man and no abortion

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:16:19 +0000

Who's advocating a "state religion"?

I want Americans in general to be concerned about the common good especially when it comes to youth.

And you're mistaken, Jayson. You're not free to live your life however you like in America. We have laws and their foundation is in God's natural law.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:16:19 +0000

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:16:19 +0000

By: jayson

jayson — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:01:04 +0000

You said that "abstinence has not yet been tried in this country."

Your complaints, namely that our "secular society" is one in which kids spend too much time at "God-less schools, listening to sex-saturated music," etc.

Since you say that your four daughters are going to be at risk no matter what you do, I have to assume that you are stating that abstinence is something you can not impress upon them, but which could only work if the whole country does it.

The only way a whole country is going to do something in lock step is if it is a society like Saudi Arabia's, where they have a state religion which dictates morality.

I'm asking if you think that would be a better idea than how we do things here in America, where we're free to live our lives how ever we like.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:25:23 +0000

A better idea than what?

By: jayson

jayson — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:47:32 +0000

Are you suggesting that a country run on religious principles, which legislates morality and keeps offensive content out of the media would be a better idea?

I'm just asking, because that country already exists. It's called Saudi Arabia.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:47:53 +0000

I'm sure there are married women who get caught in these unfortunate situations but, with the help of a spouse they are more able to recoup from such a trial without government intervention, i.e. tax money.

A single woman with children is pretty much dead in the water when something catastrophic happens such as a child afflicted with a lengthy illness. No amount of tax money is going to make her life easier - she needs a spouse and the kids need a father.

While there are always exceptions, two-parent homes are the ideal. I don't think it's politically incorrect to tell the truth, especially when the truth is a good thing.

Peace.

By: LyndaWaddington

LyndaWaddington — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:27:46 +0000

Many of the women who could benefit from paid family leave are married women starting families, caring for an ailing parent, or needing time off to help with a sick child. Women (and men) are sometimes forced to choose between continuing their career and caring for their families. This is because those who do take time off will be “re-hired” at an entry or lower level position than where they were before.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:08:03 +0000

Some of the "family values" crowd have been advocating abstinence but most fell off the radar long ago and have blended right in with the rest of our secular society. Your ridicule of parents who teach their kids abstinence in hopes that they will have a happy, healthy life is just more of the same peer pressure we face on a daily basis. Not many parents have the cajones to stick with it because of the constant barrage of comments like yours.

Stop and think about how many hours in a day any given American teenager spends either with his parents or in a church-related setting. Then ask yourself how much time they spend at, for most, a God-less school, listening to sex-saturated music on iPods, passing pornographic 'jokes' and pictures around on their cell phones and the 'Net, and watching television, where everybody is jumping into bed with whomever turns them on.

Abstinence has not yet been tried in this country.

I have four daughters and know that, regardless of what I do, stopping short of locking them in a closet until they're 25, odds are that at least one of them will have sex out of wedlock, end up pregnant, contract a venereal disease, get divorced, move back home with minor children, etc., etc., so you'll have to forgive me for not wanting any of these things for any of my children or anyone else's.

I can only infer from the title of the book you recommend that "success" is measured by one's financial portfolio. My definition of success has nothing to do with this world.

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." If, as you suggest, there is no truth, then why bother to offer an opinion on anything?

By: RegularJoe

RegularJoe — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:45:03 +0000

“Teaching women that their worth is immeasurable and they shouldn't sleep with a man unless they're married to him costs nothing; we haven't tried it yet.”
Huh? Thought the 'family values' crowd had been advocating premarital abstinence for ages now, and we see how well that works out here in what I like to call 'reality'. I see many fundie groups push abstinence-only education based only on their particular beliefs in their particular invisible monsters, which leads, sometimes even in the 'best' families, to teenage pregnancy and difficult choices.
Worth is, by definition, measurable.
Want a good read? Try “Freakonomics” by S. Levitt and S. Dubner. You'll get insight into how the “traditional family” – two-parent, etc. – has less to do with a child's success than their socioeconomic position…as well as seeing many of our other common-sense preconceived notions turned on their heads.
In the end, what 'truth' is there?