A good response to the “sex is not consent to pregnancy, so abortion is OK” fallacy

I support the concept of men being responsible for the children they create.  I don’t support the one-sided pro-abortion argument that sex – with or without attempted birth control – is not consent to pregnancy, therefore women have the option to kill the children they created.  It is a lousy argument to begin with, but even if true then these radical feminists should be consistent and let the guys have the same choice to opt-out.  Don’t let pro-aborts get away with the inconsistency.  If they use that argument, ask if they also apply it to men.

Via If a Man Doesn’t Want to be a Father, He’s a Deadbeat; A Woman is Just Pro-Choice.

When arguing about abortion, I’ve seen a lot of people claim “sex isn’t a contract.” Other variations of this idea include:
·         Consent to A doesn’t mean consent to B (that is, consent to sex doesn’t mean consent to reproduction).
·         You clearly don’t consent to reproduce if you use birth control.
·         Sex is not a crime and shouldn’t be punished / Rights cannot be restricted unless there is a crime.
The problem is, when it comes to reproduction, these arguments only apply to women.
If a man gets a woman pregnant–be it his wife, girlfriend, affair, or one night stand–he is legally bound to provide support for that child. In other words, because the man participated in the child’s conception (because the man had sex), his rights are altered. It doesn’t matter if the man was only consenting to sex, and not to reproduction. It doesn’t matter if he used birth control. It doesn’t matter that sex isn’t a crime. He fathered the kid, so the law considers him responsible for the kid.
secularprolife2And the law takes a pretty hard line on the subject. Courts can require a father to pay child support based not just on what he earns, but on what courts believe he has the ability to earn. Child support obligations remain even if a father goes to prison, or declares bankruptcy. Even if he wants to terminate his parental rights (and therefore his parental responsibilities), the courts usually won’t allow it unless there is another adult prepared to adopt the child and take over that responsibility. And there are many methods for enforcing child support. A man’s tax refunds can be intercepted, his property seized, business or occupational license suspended, and in some states his driver’s license can be revoked. If he still fails to make payment, he can be held in contempt and given jail time.
In short, if a man has sex he runs the risk of being (rather tightly) legally bound to any new life he creates. . .

Auditioning for marriage? How many tryouts is too many for a Christian?

A friend posted a link to My Big Virginity Mistake on Facebook to get me to respond.  For the sake of context, the friend isn’t a Christian but the author of the link claims to be one.  The final line of her article was, “I learned that sex is important enough not to wait.”  So she claims the name of Christ while explicitly opposing God’s word.

The issue isn’t whether people will always meet God’s standards.  We never have, which is why the truths of Jesus and God’s grace are such Good News!  But if we really know and love him we won’t teach the opposite of what He says.

Here’s the comment thread (Snark alert: We go back a long way and aren’t bashful with each other).

  • Me: Yeah, she definitely should have slept with hundreds of guys until she found one that was perfectly compatible with her. That never has any negative consequences. That is so much wiser than doing it God’s way and making a commitment for life. 

    I hope you are smarter with your daughters than you are on Facebook.
  • Him: i think the point of the story was that if she slept with the man she loved prior to marriage, she would not have married him. one is not 100s. and aren’t we being a wee bit hypocritical?
  • Me: If your premise was accurate, it would have been an error on my part, not hypocrisy. But let’s examine your premise more closely. You think that it would be better for the number to be more than zero. So in her case, if this person (who claims Christianity but obviously disagrees with what God clearly said) had premarital sex with the man she “loved” then she wouldn’t have married him. That’s a victory if you are right. 

    But wait, wouldn’t she have to have sex with the next guy as well before she married him? Oops, another one that isn’t perfectly compatible. So another victory for you and her! The system works. 

    On to number 3: D’oh! Still not a match. But your system is working just fine! I mean, once you, in your infinite wisdom, established that God is wrong and the number should be greater than zero, then the burden of proof is on you to establish the upper limit. In this case she would have had to have at least two out-of-wedlock encounters (assuming #2 was “the guy”). So if 2 is OK, why not 3? Or 4? or 100? 

    You haven’t completely suppressed the truth, so deep down you know something is wrong with 100. In fact, you thought it was outrageous that I brought it up. So that’s a good sign! There is hope for you. (Interestingly, the liberal Dear Abby said something similar once. While opposing God’s design for sex she was still aghast that at her current pace a reader would have 100 “lovers” by the age of 25. But she never explained the contradiction in her worldview.)

    But you and the sad author have some work to do to explain precisely what the upper limit is. And you have to explain why 5 is fine, but 6 is not. Or why 99 is fine, but 100 is not. Good luck!

    And then for extra credit you can explain why people who practice violating God’s design for sex before marriage will feel obliged to follow it afterwards. We all sin, so I’m not saying this as an expectation for perfection from anyone, but if we can’t even point to the right standards then that is a sad thing.

    You might consider if your premise is false. Perhaps sex isn’t something you audition for to see if you are compatible (If one is male and the other is female then you are compatible. Trust me.) or good enough. Perhaps it is “God’s wedding gift” so that you can enjoy it under the safest possible conditions — emotionally, physically and spiritually.

Sex is like duct tape

Work with me here, people.

The truth that people who have sex create a bond isn’t just biblical (“one flesh”), it is scientific.  Anyone supporting “comprehensive” sex education should be teaching this.

J. Budziszewski is a philosophy professor at the University of Texas.  He shares the following illustration, summarized well by Chuck Colson when describing Budziszewski’s book, Ask Me Anything: Provocative Answers for College Students:

My favorite question is why “sowing your wild oats” never works out the way it’s supposed to.  Sexuality, he says, is like duct tape. The first time you use it, it sticks you to whomever it touches. But just like that duct tape, if you rip it off and then touch it to someone else, it isn’t as sticky as it was before. So what happens when you pull it loose from one partner after another?  Budziszewski explains: You just don’t stick anymore, your sexual partners seem like strangers, and you stop feeling anything.

Ripping the duct tape off is extremely painful as well, especially the first time – just as the break-up of a sexual relationship can be more painful than a regular one.  It may seem progressively easier to “tear off” with subsequent partners, but you can’t make it stick on command when you finally decide to commit.

Here’s an article from the Boundless Webzine that describes it in more detail.

“But how do you know if you have a commitment?” he asked.

“Easy,” I said. “If you’re married, you’ve got one. If you’re not married, you don’t.”

Science confirms that this isn’t just a clever illustration.  Consider oxytocin, a chemical that, among other things, encourages bonding of mates.  More about it here.  It is no wonder why people form sexual addictions and why encouraging people to experiment with any sexual behavior will lead to problems.

Do these “experts” pushing to normalize fornication and homosexuality not understand the psychological and physiological implications of such behavior?  Or is the problem that they understand them too well?  Teaching the sex without consequences myth (“just use condoms and everything will be ok!”) is cruel and stupid.

I like this duct tape example because it is provocative, accurate and helpful in exposing the lies of the sex-as-recreation crowd.  Regardless of what Planned Parenthood and the rest tell you, sex outside of a one man, one woman marriage will always hurt you.  No amount of birth control and abortions can change that.

This concept is right out of the Bible:

1 Corinthians 6:16-18 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”  But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.  Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Once again, God’s way is the best way.  When God described the union of a man and a woman as “one flesh,” He meant it.  You become one.  When your flesh is joined and you tear it apart it will be extremely painful.

Yet as He shows again and again, redemption and healing are possible with him.  He loves to forgive and help people out of bondage.  Today is a great day to stop the cycle and educate people about the truth.  Here’s a book designed to help (I haven’t read it but heard the author on a radio show) – The Invisible Bond: How to Break Free from Your Sexual Past.

Note: This is a somewhat edited repeat from 2008.

This is from The Onion, right? “Councils pay for disabled to visit prostitutes and lap-dancing clubs from £520m taxpayer fund”

From Roxanne via da Tech Guy, this is truly from the Dave Barry “I am not making this up” category.  Read the whole thing.

A ‘man of 21 with learning disabilities has been granted taxpayers’ money to fly to Amsterdam and have sex with a prostitute.

His social worker says sex is a ‘human right’ for the unnamed individual – described as a frustrated virgin.

His trip to a brothel in the Dutch capital’s red light district next month is being funded through a £520 million scheme introduced by the last government to empower those with disabilities.

They are given a personal budget and can choose what services this is spent on.

The man’s social worker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said his client was an ‘angry, frustrated and anxious young man’ who had a need for sex.

Uh, then why are they limiting that to the disabled?  Seems like a “few” teens might fit into that category.

‘He has been to two sexual health and sexual awareness courses and basically wants to try it.

‘The girls in Amsterdam are far more protected than those on UK streets. Let him have some fun – I’d want to.

‘Wouldn’t you prefer that we can control this, guide him, educate him, support him to understand the process and ultimately end up satisfying his needs in a secure, licensed place where his happiness and growth as a person is the most important thing?

‘Refusing to offer him this service would be a violation of his human rights.’

The social worker added: ‘Who says he can’t do what he wants? We can’t place restrictions on a young man who wants to experience the world.’

Note the creepy and baseless rationalizations by the social workers.  I assume you’ll realize what self-parodies they are so I didn’t elaborate on them.

As Roxanne noted:

Find me a political philosophy, other than conservatism, that can logically delineate the full range of moral problems with this.   I would also like to know what the barriers are between forcing people to pay for others to get laid and a system like the Japanese “comfort women” (i.e. government-instituted gang-rape).

She is absolutely right about the “comfort women” analogy.  If these men have a “right” to sex then that means someone else is obliged to provide the sex.  Therefore, the government “must” procure it somehow, including the option of using force.   If you ask about the rights of the women — which you should — then you are on the right track.  And that track leads to the same logic with government run health care and other alleged human rights: Can the government force people to become doctors and nurses to treat you?

This is a logical conclusion of people’s gross misunderstanding of what real human rights are.  This culture ignores/mocks the most obvious human right (the right to life), but makes up other rights as it goes along.

Roundup

Eons Of Darwinian Evolution Somehow Produce Mitch – fun from The Onion.

Despite initial efforts to understand how the Albuquerque native came into being, one researcher told reporters that even a modification of Darwinian theory might be insufficient to account for Mitch.

“I know this is controversial, but we have to consider the possibility that Darwin was wrong, ” said Victor Siles, a geneticist at the University of California–Berkeley. “Nothing we currently know about DNA, no fully mapped genome, can account for the presence of someone whose apartment smells that much like Chef Boyardee.”

Creationists, meanwhile, have been surprisingly muted in their celebration of a man whose existence would seem to disprove so much of evolutionary theory.

“It’s great that Mitch has been so disruptive to the evolutionist camp,” Jim Moore of the Colorado Springs–based Genesis Ministries said. “But quite honestly, there’s no way we can explain him in terms of a perfect or loving God, either.”

“We’re just going to sit this one out,” Moore added.

If you have an iPhone that can upgrade to the new operating system (iOS 4) I highly recommend it.  It downloaded quickly.  The unified inbox alone will save me lots of time, as now I don’t need to use so many taps to get from one box to the next.  Editing music playlists is handy.  Not sure how much the multi-tasking will impact me.  The folders feature for similar apps will be useful.

Note: you need to upgrade to iTunes 9.2 first.

Terrific list of guidelines from Randy Alcorn for sexual purity.

Free Condoms in Public Elementary School – really bad on multiple levels.  Encouraging kids to have sex and deliberately leaving their parents out of the discussion.  Another reason to home school: Protect your kids from these freaks.

These days public schools don’t pay much attention to the tired old topics of yesteryear — reading, writing, arithmetic, etc. Now the emphasis is on learning fun stuff, like sexual intercourse and disregarding the wishes of parents: A New England school district has approved a measure that will provide free condoms to elementary school students and direct teachers not to comply with parental wishes to the contrary.

Obama to AZ Sen Kyl in Private Meeting “Problem is…if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” – Obama says he’s lying.  I’ll spring for the cost of polygraphs and put my money on Kyl.

Gary and Tony have a baby — CNN helps feed the narcissism and more child sacrifice.  Sad.  Note how CNN has a whole section devoted to sexual perversions, as if it is a category akin to Sport or Weather.

Serious persecution of Christians in Nigeria — Muslims attacking Christians — “Beyond anything I have ever seen.”

Today we were able to see numerous patients at several hospitals. There were fewer gunshots and far more machete and knife wounds than I have seen in the past in northern Nigeria. It looks to me like the Muslims had sharpened their weapons before the attack, because the wounds on these folks were significantly deeper and more destructive than any of those I saw in January when Muslims attacked Christians in Jos. The epitome was a 4-year-old little girl whose left arm was slashed and amputated above the elbow.

The Lakers beating the Celtics = fantastic.  Beating them in 7 games?  Extra fantastic.  Not as good as 1985, but a nice 2nd place.

Loved Ron Artest’s interviews.  None of that silly “giving 110%” blather from this guy.  It was great to see him come through like that.  He was so cool the whole game.

Digg This

From the flying pigs category, I sort of agree with Maureen Dowd

Maureen Dowd wrote Their Dangerous Swagger about some reprehensible behavior by some high school boys.

It was set up like a fantasy football league draft. The height, weight and performance statistics of the draftees were offered to decide who would make the cut and who would emerge as the No. 1 pick.

But the players in this predatory game were not famous N.F.L. stars. They were unwitting girls about to start high school.

A group of soon-to-be freshmen boys at Landon, an elite private grade school and high school for boys in the wealthy Washington suburb of Montgomery County, Md., was drafting local girls.

One team was called “The Southside Slampigs,” and one boy dubbed his team with crude street slang for drug-addicted prostitutes.

. . .

Before they got caught last summer, the boys had planned an “opening day party,” complete with T-shirts, where the mission was to invite the drafted girls and, unbeknownst to them, score points by trying to rack up as many sexual encounters with the young women as possible.

“They evidently got points for first, second and third base,” said one outraged father of a drafted girl. “They were going to have parties and tally up the points, and money was going to be exchanged at the end of the season.” He said that the boys would also have earned points for “schmoozing with the parents.”

. . .

Another parent was equally appalled: “I think the girls felt like they were getting targeted, that this was some big game. Talk about using people. It doesn’t get much worse than that.”

Landon is where the sons of many prominent members of the community are sent to learn “the code of character,” where “a Landon man” is part of a “true Brotherhood” and is known for his good word, respect and honesty. The school’s Web site boasts about the Landon Civility Code; boys are expected to “work together to eliminate all forms of disrespect” and “respect one another and our surroundings in our decorum, appearance, and interactions.”

. . .

Time for a curriculum overhaul. Young men everywhere must be taught, beyond platitudes, that young women are not prey.

I completely agree with the problems she identified and that women — young or old — should not be considered prey.

But where is Ms. Dowd’s grounding for such complaints?  How can a pro-Planned Parenthood person be surprised at such coarse behavior?  They have spent decades and millions of dollars teaching our youth that you can have sex without consequences if you are careful enough, that you can hide the evidence (i.e., abortion) if something goes wrong and that even if you end up HIV positive you don’t have to tell your sex partners.  They tell kids to ignore their parents and their religion and just have sex when they think they are ready — which, not surprisingly, is the same time as when they want to have sex.

It is extremely well documented that Planned Parenthood hides statutory rape, so if Dowd really cares about these teenage girls she might want to speak up about that as well.

Dowd is correct to point out the despicable behavior of the boys.  What she misses is that she has been part of the problem.  She and all the Planned Parenthood-types successfully taught kids that sex is a recreational activity and that any relation to marriage or creating new life is purely coincidental.  Looks like these boys were listening.

Roundup

Some insightful thoughts about the pill and the sexual revolution by Raquel Welch — seems to be pro-life as well.

Go see a picture of a huge event of what, according to Liberal-speak, must have been a bunch of racists.

Below is a photo of a crowd of White people. Clearly the exclusion of blacks indicates these folks are hate-filled White racists. Can you identify this White racist event?

Predictable “Heads, we win, tails, you lose” reasoning from the evolutionists on the human eye — Just like they were wrong with junk DNA and not-so-vestigial organs, they miss again on the eye.  Its fantastic complexity mocks their neo-Darwinian theories so they take something they can’t quite understand (the blind spot) and use it as “proof” that an intelligent designer could not have made it.  Then they learn more and instead of recanting their theories they just change sides.  Hey, it is still proof of evolution!  Tautology 101.

University of Calgary convicts eight pro-life students for pro-life display — good for them for standing up for free speech!  Shame on the university.

John Piper on why homosexuality is wrong — a thorough and concise 7 minute message

A rather long list of specific contradictions made by Ergun Caner — I hope he repents.

Facebook group of the week: ‘Let’s eat Grandma!’ or, ‘Let’s eat, Grandma!’ Punctuation saves lives (I didn’t join it, I just like the title).

Roundup

Now here is a good use of taxpayer funds (seriously, we need more humor like this):

Hat tip: Biblical Christianity

That is almost as good as this old favorite:

Abortionist distraught over killing wrong twin — He would have been fine if he had done it “right” and killed the child with Down Syndrome.  Such moral schizophrenia.

From the “I am not making this up category” comes unisex restrooms for public schools.

Transgender students must be allowed access to the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity or expression or, if they prefer, to existing single-stall bathrooms.

Christian “music star” now lesbian — I might have put the quotes around Christian instead of music star, but whatever.  Sadly, she trotted out the lame shellfish argument, which is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument.  I am so tired of the deliberate ignorance people use to distort Christianity and teach whatever they like.  It isn’t that hard to study the Bible.

She wants to dismiss Leviticus 18:22 (You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination), so does that mean the verses before and after are outdated as well? (“You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. . . .  And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.)

Obama’s back-alley healthcare — not enough doctors, forcing un-qualified people to administer care, etc.

Why would any church have Shelby Spong speak there, let alone “preach?”  Sadly, a United Methodist church is having him do just that.

A controversial bishop who denies belief in a personal deity will speak at a Madison church on Sunday. Retired Episcopal Church Bishop John Shelby Spong will lecture on the divinity of Christ at First United Methodist Church.

Spong, who has denied the deity of Christ as well as his bodily resurrection and virgin birth, plans to give two lectures on April 10th, as well as preach on April 11th. His views contradict the teachings of the United Methodist Church and of all traditional churches.

Bishop Spong’s former diocese in the northern half of New Jersey shrunk by 40 percent under his helm, a pattern of decline typical of ultra liberal churches.

What do you call an organization that brings in someone to speak on the divinity of Christ who doesn’t believe in the divinity of Christ?!  Non-Christian.

Roundup

This quote from The Simpsons sums up the history of unions quite nicely:

Factory Worker (circa 1900): You can’t treat the working man this way! One day, we’ll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we’ll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!

Remember Planned Parenthood’s revenue is proportional to the number of abortions they perform, so they have every reason to lobby the Democrats to pass laws that allow Planned Parenthood to bypass parents and entice children as young as 10 into sexual activity. It’s all about the money.

Castro Regime Secretly Tapes Hollywood Liberals – ugh.  Will they change their views now that they know Fidel spied on them, or were they so effusive in their praise because they were blackmailed?

Listen to the Hollyweird elite gush with their love of the brutal communist dictator Fidel Castro, who took over a prosperous country and reduced it to a slave state so hellish that people take to shark-infested waters in inner-tubes to escape:

Jack Nicholson: “Fidel Castro is a genius! We spoke about everything. Castro is a humanist. Cuba is simply a paradise!”

Chevy Chase: “Socialism works. I think Cuba might prove that.”

Oliver Stone: “Castro is very selfless and moral, one of the world’s wisest men.”

Harry Belafonte: “If you believe in freedom, if you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy, you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!”

Hitler was pro-abortion — as least for non-Aryans.  That reminds me of the pro-choicers who favor abortion to “prevent” children from being poor. 

Roundup

Great witness by many of the Texas Longhorn football players, and not just post-game comments, either.  These guys set a great example year-round.  Now if they’d just lose the burnt orange school color I’d be a convert.

Nice pro football weekend.  If the Steelers aren’t in it then I don’t watch much, but I am always glad to see the Cowboys lose.  I’d be happy with any of the remaining teams winning.  Minnesota @ New Orleans should be action-packed. 

As I’ve noted before, the parallels between scientific misbehavior with evolution / Intelligent Design and the Global Warming scandal are very similar.

Ever notice how people try to dismiss conservative views by labeling them as extremist?  But if 72% of Americans oppose public funding of abortions, how does that put opponents of the health care plan in the “extreme” category? 

How to Deal with the Guilt of Sexual Failure for the Glory of Christ and His Global Cause – important message from John Piper about a key issue in the church.  It isn’t just about how to avoid sexual failure (though that is a great message also), but how to persevere and still serve Christ despite failures.  Hat tip: Mathew

I can understand why people are afraid or feel ill-equipped to share their faith — even though I would challenge them to work to overcome those barriers by prayer and study.  But what I can’t tolerate are the fake or wildly ignorant Christians who take pride in not sharing the Gospel, as if that is some sort of virtue.  They think Christianity is right — or at least right enough – for them, but they don’t want to share it with anyone else.

Sadomasochist testified for “gay marriage” just four days after sadistic sex- and drug-laden killing – I think the MSM forgot to report on this one.

No wonder men don’t want to get married

wedding-rings2.jpgI love being married and wouldn’t trade it for anything (Best. Wife. Ever.).  But I can see why young men today are so fearful of marriage. 

Go read Jennifer Roback Morse evaluates the economics of no-fault divorce by Wintery Knight.  It is a major reason for men to be scared of commitment.

It is especially important for unmarried women to understand how no-fault divorce laws and activist family courts dissuade men from marrying. My concern today is that the feminist ideology has become so entrenched that young women will drag themselves through the muck of the sexual revolution without even reflecting on how a string of drunken hook-ups destroys their innocence, vulnerability and capacity to trust and love.

This is not just bad for men, who will increasingly face financial ruin, and loss of access to their own children. No-fault divorce opens the door to totalitarian control of men, women and children by the state. Women who wish to marry and have children will find it increasingly difficult to find men willing to take the risk of marrying and raising children. Women need to consider the incentives created by a Marxist-feminist state.

And besides, when radical feminism convinced women that out-of-wedlock sex (and the inevitable abortions) were evidence of their equal worth to men, the men got the sex they wanted with little if any commitment or responsibility.  Something like Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free? comes to mind.

If  you combine a godless worldview with our current divorce laws, why would any guy take the risks?

There is still a better way, people: Follow God’s plan for sex and marriage – one man, one woman, for life.  Easy?  No.  Worth it?  Yes!

Even Dear Abby has limits. Sort of.

But she can’t explain them.  At all.

I remember a column a few years back when Abby did some quick math and informed a girl that if she kept acquiring sexual partners at her current rate, then by the time she was 25 she will have had sex with 100 different men.  Abby thought that was too many, but was a little sheepish in saying so.  And I know why.

Now I think that most rational people would agree that 100 sex partners is too many for a lifetime, let alone a 25 year old. 

Unfortunately, while Abby knew that 100 was too high she didn’t elaborate on what the proper limit was.  Abby certainly wasn’t limiting it to 1 partner — only one of those crazy right wing domestic terrorist Bible thumping abstinence promoting Christian freaks would suggest that. 

But what is the proper limit?  Probably not 2, or 3.  Is it 90? 80? 50?

Hey Abby and other Planned Parenthood types who don’t think the ideal is just one: What is the limit, and why is that the limit?  If not 1, then why not 100? 

Here are a few reasons you should not use:

  • Diseases — everyone knows they go up dramatically as you add partners, but they increase a bunch when you go from 1 to 2 as well.  If 100 partners is bad because of the risk of disease, then so is 2.  And the risk doesn’t increase that much when you go from 99 to 100.
  • Emotional attachment — again, if 100 would impact your ability to attach emotionally then so will 2.
  • Pregnancy — having sex 1 time with 100 different people is no more likely to result in pregnancy than 100 times with 1 person.  And we know that if you just do what Planned Parenthood says then you are very, very unlikely to get pregnant, right?!

In short, you need to explain why there would be a specific limit other than 1.

Theological Liberals should also explain why breaking God’s laws for human sexuality is acceptable before marriage, and why if your partner breaks them before the marriage you can still trust that he/she will follow them afterwards. 

I’m sticking with a target of 1 per person per life — other than death of a spouse or a biblical divorce (e.g., abandonment or adultery by your spouse).  I’ve got a bunch of reasons for why that is the ideal — no risk of diseases, built-in male and female parents if you have kids (go figure, and what a convenience!), less stress, more confidence in your relationship, it is the loving thing to do for your spouse, obeying what God says, and so much more.

—–

Another bad bit of reasoning by Dear Abby: She doesn’t recommend Crisis Pregnancy Centers because they “might” show pictures of abortions (I am not aware of centers which show pictures of abortions, but it may be possible.  CareNet pregnancy centers do not maintain any such images nor do they show them to clients).  And CPCs do a wide variety of amazing things to help women in their time of need. 

So Abby basically says that showing the picture of an abortion is so bad that because someone might do it you should ignore the great things they offer women, but the abortion itself is morally acceptable.  Everybody got that?

—–

When you deny the obvious ideal of one man, one woman marriages for life and you ignore the scientific fact that life begins at conception, then you end up trying to support all sorts of bizarre and illogical ideas.  It must be exhausting propping up such a worldview.

Of course many people break these commands of God.  Jesus even noted that lust was akin to adultery, which pretty much convicts us all many times over.  The good news is that forgiveness is possible.  But in the mean time, what ideal are we aiming at?  The consequences are serious.  Countless ills of society can be traced to sexual sin and the breakdown of the family.  And people like Dear Abby are not helping.

Roundup

Formalized intolerance training at universities — And you are only paying $45,000 per year for this!

Intolerant evolutionists biggest fear:  a critical evaluation of evolution in the public square

Barack Obama outlaws capitalism: threatens Chrysler’s non-TARP creditors « Wintery Knight Blog 

What does it mean when the President of the United States threatens and coerces private investors?

  • Private property is abolished
  • The free market is abolished
  • The rule of law is abolished
  • The Constitution has been abolished
  • Private contracts are abolished
  • Capitalism is abolished

It means that socialism has come to the United States, just as the rest of the world is abandoning a failed system.

The Pugnacious Irishman has a great follow up to the Day of Silence, not only in terms of analysis but in ways to charitably navigate through conversations with people to expose the flaws in the homosexual agenda.

Quote of the week (Hat tip: Slice of Laodicea)

People tell me judge not lest ye be judged. I always tell them, twist not scripture lest ye be like satan.

–Paul Washer

Great summary of the Carrie Prejean / Miss USA issue by Euripides.  The hypocrisy of the Left, particularly on behalf of alleged Feminists, is greater than usual. 

I admire her standing up and speaking the truth.  Having said that, I’m not convinced that the implant / swimsuit competition elements of this make her the best pro-family spokesperson. 

Obama’s first 100 days –  That’s a lot of failure in such a short time!

Classic pro-legalized abortion reasoning

pro-choice-baby.jpgWhich is to say, classically flawed.  A commenter on the From one collection of cells to another post made some comments that I thought were worthy to be addressed in a separate post.  I find them to be thoroughly flawed, but they contained many arguments that pro-legalized abortion folks find persuasive.  Here is how I would respond to them:

Ultimately we are not discussing whether a blastocyst is human, but whether it is a sentient human being. The mother clearly is and the fertilized egg clearly is not.

That is an arbitrary philosophical argument that proves way too much.  We are discussing whether a human being is destroyed.  And Theobromophile explained why the sentient criteria is incorrect here.

The mother may have been careless about birth control, or her birth control may have failed, but the fetus is part of her body and it is her body that will have to endure pregnancy and birth and her career that may be curtailed and her poverty into which the child will be forced to live.

Lots of problems here.  Career, poverty, education and the other reasons typically given for choosing abortion would never justify murdering toddlers.  So why do they apply inside the womb?  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings.  Our worth is inherent in our humanity, not in some arbitrary time frame or philosophical and fuzzy “personhood” model.

Using that reasoning, more than 80% of the pregnancies in the world should be aborted, because those children will be born into poverty worse than anything you find in the U.S. 

The concept that abortion is murder is simply not shared by most of the American populace. It is a concept that is not even shared by all Christians. You are right to bring up the parallels, and I would suggest that assisted suicide for the terminally ill in constant pain is one, as are the DNR orders hanging from a loved one’s hospital bed, and certainly the death penalty is another. These are areas where the nation’s morality is still evolving.

There have always been changes in our understanding of moral and ethical behavior and there always will be. Over time our laws change just as our morality changes. We once believed women belonged in the home as property of their husbands, but now they can vote, run for President, and have equal rights with men. We once believed that we could treat some our black citizens as inferior and conspire through law to deny them the right to vote, but we passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and now we have elected one to the Presidency. We once believed that gay people should not have the same rights as straight people, and one day soon we will abandon that prejudice. Will this happen with abortion? Who knows?

Until then, those who do feel strongly about abortion on both sides should work together to reduce the number of abortions.

This is pure double speak.  He has already rationalized that abortion is morally good or at least benign, but now he switches gears and says we should reduce the number.  But as I asked in an earlier comment, why should we reduce them?  If you don’t think they kill innocent human beings, why limit them? The pro-legalized abortion lobby insists they are safer than pregnancy and they are a cost effective method of birth control.  If you do think they kill innocent human beings, I’m not sure why you think they should be legal.

Simply scaring young women into rejecting abortion is not the answer. We should work to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and we have to employ realistic methods, not simply tell people to abstain from sex. I fear that many on the anti-choice side will not join in such an effort because their opposition to abortion is at least partially grounded in a rejection of normal human sexuality and a desire to return women to traditional roles.

He is using multiple logical fallacies here.  He begs the question and assume we are just trying to “scare” women.”  Pregnancy Resource Centers and other pro-life organizations just give the whole story and note the risks of abortion.  If the consequences are real, then “scare tactics” would be legitimate, anyway.

He uses the “anti-choice” dig to imply that we are trying to take away rights. But as I noted in Who is really anti-choice?, my first reaction is that I am not ashamed to be anti-choice, provided that they mean “anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings (regular abortions) or anti-choice to stick a sharp instrument in a baby’s head and suck out her brains (partial-birth abortions, aka infanticide) or anti-choice to let born-alive abortion surviving babies die in closets (the method of infanticide protected by Barack Obama).”

He says it isn’t realistic to tell people to abstain from sex, but the liberal efforts at birth control have been a disaster.  Where is the “audacity of abstinence message” and “hope” that we can convince people to stop participating in such counter productive behavior? 

Fact: If people follow the one man / one woman / covenant marriage guidelines for human sexuality then it would be impossible (or virtually impossible) to get STDs, out of wedlock pregnancies and affairs that destroy marriages and families.  Abortions would go down dramatically. 

The notion that we reject normal human sexuality is outrageous.  Pro-legalized abortionists typically support all sorts of perversions.  We realize what studies show: Married couples have the most and best sex.  Men were designed to be with women.  That’s normal. 

The notion that we want to put women in their place is outrageous as well.  Nearly all the volunteers and workers at CareNet are women.  Early suffragists were strongly pro-life.  It is a gross perversion of feminism to imply that women must have the right to destroy their children to be considered equal to men.

Also note that we could easily play the motive game to demonize our opponents.  I could posit that you just hate God and are rebelling against him by affirming the “right” to destroy innocent human beings.  I could assume that you know abortion is a sin, but that by affirming it you make your own sins look less bad by comparison.  And on and on.

But I don’t do that.  I stick to the facts: Scientifically speaking, abortion kills an innocent human being.  Morally speaking, we should defend the innocent from being murdered.

No such thing as moral neutrality with “same-sex marriage”

circle-slash.jpgA Stand to Reason blog post titled Same-sex Marriage Isn’t – Can’t Be – Morally Neutral made a lot of good points.  I encourage you to read it all, including the comments section.  Here are some snippets from the post and the comments:

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse points to instances of discrimination against a moral and religious point of view – objection to same-sex marriage.  Legalizing same-sex marriage isn’t neutral, it legitimizes governmental intrusion into private decisions to force citizens to abandon their own moral convictions.  Moral neutrality is a myth.  Legalizing same-sex marriage isn’t merely “tolerant,” it’s a moral point of view of it’s own, and placing it in law makes demands on other citizens and society.

The underlying pattern is unmistakable. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” has brought in its wake state regulation of other parts of society. The problem is sometimes presented as an issue of religious freedom, and so, in part, it is. But the issue runs deeper than religious freedom.

McGill University professor Douglas Farrow argues in his book A Nation of Bastards that redefining marriage allows the government to colonize all of civil society.

If same-sex couples can marry each other, they should be allowed to adopt. Anyone who says otherwise is acting against the policy of the state. If same-sex couples can have civil unions, then denying them the use of any facility they want for their ceremony amounts to unlawful discrimination. When the state says that same sex couples are equivalent to opposite-sex couples, school curriculum will inevitably have to support this claim.

Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order….

Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent….

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” insist that theirs is a modest reform: a mere expansion of marriage to include people currently excluded. But the price of same-sex “marriage” is a reduction in tolerance for everyone else, and an expansion of the power of the state.

Sex is like duct tape

Work with me here, people.

The truth that people who have sex create a bond isn’t just biblical (“one flesh”), it is scientific.  Anyone supporting “comprehensive” sex education should be teaching this.

J. Budziszewski is a philosophy professor at the University of Texas.  He shares the following illustration, summarized well by Chuck Colson when describing Budziszewski’s book, Ask Me Anything: Provocative Answers for College Students:

My favorite question is why “sowing your wild oats” never works out the way it’s supposed to.  Sexuality, he says, is like duct tape. The first time you use it, it sticks you to whomever it touches. But just like that duct tape, if you rip it off and then touch it to someone else, it isn’t as sticky as it was before. So what happens when you pull it loose from one partner after another?  Budziszewski explains: You just don’t stick anymore, your sexual partners seem like strangers, and you stop feeling anything.

Ripping the duct tape off is extremely painful as well, especially the first time – just as the break-up of a sexual relationship can be more painful than a regular one.  It may seem progressively easier to “tear off” with subsequent partners, but you can’t make it stick on command when you finally decide to commit.

Here’s an article from the Boundless Webzine that describes it in more detail.

“But how do you know if you have a commitment?” he asked.

“Easy,” I said. “If you’re married, you’ve got one. If you’re not married, you don’t.”

Science confirms that this isn’t just a clever illustration.  Consider oxytocin, a chemical that, among other things, encourages bonding of mates.  More about it here.  It is no wonder why people form sexual addictions and why encouraging people to experiment with any sexual behavior will lead to problems.

Do these “experts” pushing to normalize fornication and homosexuality not understand the psychological and physiological implications of such behavior?  Or is the problem that they understand them too well?  Teaching the sex without consequences myth (“just use condoms and everything will be ok!”) is cruel and stupid.

I like this duct tape example because it is provocative, accurate and helpful in exposing the lies of the sex-as-recreation crowd.  Regardless of what Planned Parenthood and the rest tell you, sex outside of a one man, one woman marriage will always hurt you.  No amount of birth control and abortions can change that.

This concept is right out of the Bible:

1 Corinthians 6:16-18 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”  But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.  Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Once again, God’s way is the best way.  When God described the union of a man and a woman as “one flesh,” He meant it.  You become one.  When your flesh is joined and you tear it apart it will be extremely painful.

Yet as He shows again and again, redemption and healing are possible with him.  He loves to forgive and help people out of bondage.  Today is a great day to stop the cycle and educate people about the truth.  Here’s a book designed to help (I haven’t read it but heard the author on a radio show) – The Invisible Bond: How to Break Free from Your Sexual Past.