KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

The Reality of Abortion

▼

The Reality of Abortion

This is more of the future

from JoeUser Forums
I'm sorry if it seems as tho I'm harping here, but it's really bothersome to me to see this stuff happening to our kids. Here's the latest news I received today from Citizen Link.

FOX News cameras are rolling as a 20-year-old student undergoes an abortion, as part of a documentary titled "Facing Reality, Choice," that will air at 9 p.m. ET Saturday on FOX News.

The woman cries through the abortion and her mother, beside her for emotional support, learns this is her daughter's second abortion in less than a year. The documentary profiles three women as they make life-or-death decisions.

"According to preview accounts, the documentary centers on the emotional struggle and trauma associated with abortion," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "Some women face circumstances in which it seems that abortion is the only — or best — solution. However, we know from 30-plus years of legalized abortion that it hurts women and kills their preborn children.

"Abortion is a 'lose-lose' proposition for everyone involved. Hopefully, the documentary pulls back the curtain on the harmful and often-hidden effect of abortion on women."

This is the outcome of enabling middle schoolers to have sex."
11,416 views 130 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
LW,

I know that this is a subject that is very personal and painful to you. My heart continues to reach out to you. I do appreciate your perspective and your added insight. So, thank you for your participation in this discussion.

Sadly, I think I am in agreement with you about giving the MS kids BC right now because as you said they do not have self control and want to 'do it like they do on the discovery channel' (quote from a late 90's song). I hate to call them a lost cause but I think the only thing to do is encourage those who have refrained and protect those who have not (from hurting themselves in this case). I agree from the fact that you cannot help those who do not want to help themselves in this case 'self control.'

As for teaching a child about self control I think the current resolutions have proven themselves unsuccessful. To me I strongly disagree with current psychologists who suggest that we are a product of our society. I also strongly disagree with the 'sheltered' ideology that seems to be the other well known non-resolution. Sex should not be discussed as being a shameful act. In fact I would hold more similarly to what TW mentioned. Deceit will most likely not yield a desired result. To me I think the last place a child should receive sex education would be from the school. The first place it should be is in the home with a foundation in self control.

Self control is not just about withholding from sex here this is about not allowing your hormones do your thinking for you. This also extends to other areas (such as anger management). The younger a child begins to learn and appreciate (for themselves not because someone told them they should) I think the better off they'll be.

I do not see Self Control being the one part solution. I see potentially several others but haven’t fully thought them through. Dealing with hormonal awareness and methods of management is another area I think needs to be better addressed.

My thoughts for now as I gotta get back to work .
Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
And yeah, Freud was a cokehead.


agreed. Freud in my mind revolved everything around sex. In my dream I was writing a letter to my aunt. Hmmmm, the pencil I was using to write with in my dream represents the male phallus. Yeah, other than his argument for the shape I fail to see the connection Siggy.

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
Natural innocence and modesty? Haha, is that why parents are constantly telling their little boys not to play with their pee-pee in public, and reminding little girls to sit with their legs closed?

Pffft.

And yeah, Freud was a cokehead. You might want to keep that in mind as you embrace his theories.


Seriously, LW, I didn't know I was embracing Freud's theories on this. What is the connection between Freud's theories and little children's natural innocence and modesty during their latency period when they are experiencing a period of tranquility and serenity as far as their physical sexual development.

Youngsters touching themselves or sitting immodestly are normal and natural stages of development where children are naturally at ease with their bodies...nothing sexual per se about it. This where the importance of parenting comes in. When lessons are taught in formative fashion (vs. informative), young children willingly accept the need for being guided in modesty in dress and behavior. In other words, there is no interest whatsoever in sexual genital functions unless it is shown or taught by someone.

Reply #104 from JoeUser Forums Top
LW,

As AD, I too wish you peace in your personal life journey.
Reply #105 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks, AD, I appreciate it.


Hey we may but heads from time to time but I do have respect for what you write.
Reply #106 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's only a few kids who are sexually active, so self-control is there now. Offering birth control is normalizing the behavior which will lead to less self-control/deterent in that area.
Reply #107 from JoeUser Forums Top
Didn't you already quote these stats and I already said it was only around 50%, utilizing your stats? If 50% of women say "Blah" and 50% of men say "Blah" that's not 100% of the population saying "Blah". It's 50%. IIRC, you applied each percentage to the total population, not to the male or female population respectively, which gave you a really high, yet wrong number. Regardless, I was speaking of the number of middle school students having sex, which apparently was only a few. That is, under 13, which I think is a bit of a different stat than under 18, and, by default, MUST be less than or equal to the under 18 number. Which is about 50%.
Reply #108 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's only a few kids who are sexually active, so self-control is there now. Offering birth control is normalizing the behavior which will lead to less self-control/deterent in that area.


Absolutely. (and they call this "progressive education"!) Progressing towards what?

Follow the educating for sex (sex-ed) lesson plan and you'll see that using birth control is already normalized in the sex-ed classroom. Five sexual libertines at the King Middle School have given themselves the liberty of moving the into the next step..from teaching to use birth control to doling out it out. There are no two ways about it---in doing so they've given a green light to children to engage in recreational sex.

Don't be surprised that the next rung on the progressive sex education step ladder is a lowering on the age of consent.



What's it going to take for people to understand that classroom educating for sex is not the way to go for our youth?
Reply #109 from JoeUser Forums Top
I didn't know I was embracing Freud's theories on this. What is the connection between Freud's theories and little children's natural innocence and modesty during their latency period when they are experiencing a period of tranquility and serenity as far as their physical sexual development.


?????

freud originated the concept; it's a key element in his model of psychosexual development. freud was hardly a scientist and there's no scientific evidence to support his 'discovery'/your assertion. nor will there be for obvious reasons.

as a practical matter, if you and sigmund are correct, there's no need for pg-13 movie ratings or parental locks on cable boxes until kids reach puberty. those kids still happily playing with themselves or others don't go to the movies by themselves. even the most precocious would barely be able to read the cable guide or master a remote control. those who were old enough to do any/all those things would all be latents who'd have no interest in that sorta content.
Reply #110 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's it going to take for people to understand that classroom educating for sex is not the way to go for our youth?


as i attempted to explain in my reply 104, it didn't do a damn thing for me. if by classroom sex educating you mean one 15-minute lecture over the course of 12 school years, i'm in complete agreement.
Reply #111 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was masturbating for several years before I had any idea what I was doing, what it was called, or why it felt so good. Young boys have wet dreams, and those who haven't been taught what they are are frightened by the experience, thinking there's something wrong with them. That doesn't make the event non-sexual.


I agree with you here LW. It is this ignoring or oppressive reaction to something that is normal. This is where I see the parents totally dropping the ball. I can say the same for me when I was around 12 and things started happening. There was no guidance or help with what I was going through. I recall feeling like a freak during this time as my body went through changes. The little birds and bees video was little use. It was a 'feel good' because you are maturing video.
Reply #112 from JoeUser Forums Top
Natural innocence and modesty? Haha, is that why parents are constantly telling their little boys not to play with their pee-pee in public, and reminding little girls to sit with their legs closed?

Pffft.

And yeah, Freud was a cokehead. You might want to keep that in mind as you embrace his theories.


Lula posts:
and in doing so they violate their latency period, their natural innocence and modesty. Each successive year the educating for sex gets more and more explicit...by now their natural innocence and modesty is gone. So by the time the student is 11 and in middle school, they've had 6 years of being educated or primed for sex.

We mustn't violate their natural latency period....their time of innocence. This is a gift from God in His creation.

They are physically, mentally and emotionally asleep for any kind of sexual activity. It is awakened naturally and normally when puberty starts



LW POSTS:
Natural innocence and modesty? Haha, is that why parents are constantly telling their little boys not to play with their pee-pee in public, and reminding little girls to sit with their legs closed?

And yeah, Freud was a cokehead. You might want to keep that in mind as you embrace his theories.


kingbee posts:
freud originated the concept; it's a key element in his model of psychosexual development. freud was hardly a scientist and there's no scientific evidence to support his 'discovery'/your assertion. nor will there be for obvious reasons.


Lula posts:
Seriously, LW, I didn't know I was embracing Freud's theories on this. What is the connection between Freud's theories and little children's natural innocence and modesty during their latency period when they are experiencing a period of tranquility and serenity as far as their physical sexual development.

Youngsters touching themselves or sitting immodestly are normal and natural stages of development where children are naturally at ease with their bodies...nothing sexual per se about it. This where the importance of parenting comes in. When lessons are taught in formative fashion (vs. informative), young children willingly accept the need for being guided in modesty in dress and behavior. In other words, there is no interest whatsoever in sexual genital functions unless it is shown or taught by someone.


LW AND KINGBEE,

Thank you both for the lesson on Freud...I learned something new! I had no idea before this that he was connected to "latency period".

I also learned that "latency period" has several conceptual definitions, anywhere from geological to menustrual to psycho-analytical. Freud's type of psycho-analysis being one.

My understanding of "latency period" is as I have described, the period in a child’s development, from about age four to about age twelve, during which sexual drives are latent, meaning potential, but not the sexual genital stage not yet awakened as opposed to the puberty stage. During the latency period, children generally identify with the parent of the same sex and play with other children of the same sex.


I maintain that classroom sex-ed in kindergarten through middle school interrupts and violates children's latency period.

As long as society goes along with schools sexualizing young children through sex-ed programs, we will witness more and more social, emotional, mental, and sexual problems.

Reply #113 from JoeUser Forums Top
I maintain that classroom sex-ed in kindergarten through middle school interrupts and violates children's latency period


there's no clinical data to support or refute that latency period thing. won't be any either as i suggested in my earlier reply because research requires test subjects.

anectdotal evidence has been--and continues to be--collected and analyzed. while that sorta data is far less reliable, no question but that it trumps even the most perceptive intuition.

there was no latency period or anything close to what you're claiming in my life. i can't recall anyone--no matter how shy or sheltered they may have been as children--so much as alluding to such a thing.

my sisters have children as do most adults i know. not one of those parents has ever mentioned or expressed gratitude. relief, etc. because one or another of their kids were safely cocooned in sexual latency. to the contrary, most--if not all--could put together a five-minute standup routine based on the the 'i love lucy-esque' goofy consequences of their prepubescent kids' sexual curiosity.

one more thing: considering sexuality is so major a component of our beings, does a multi-year hiatus during those few years in which we develop into adults seem reasonable? what other major systems go latent during childhood?


The remainder of my 'sex education' came from the occasional bit of pornography one of us kids would come up with, tales told by classmates, an old medical reference book we had in the house, and eventually...experimentation, first with friends of my own sex, and later with boys.

I can't understand why anyone would choose to keep their prepubescent child so ignorant, leaving them totally unprepared for the intense feelings they experience as the approach (and go through) puberty, but many do.

So many in fact, that a couple of decades ago, our government decided it was best to take this matter into their own impersonal hands, relieving parents of the obligation altogether, sparing them that embarrassing little 'talk'.

Learning about these things does not automatically ensure that these children are going to rush out and DO them. To speak of despoiling their innocence not only denies the fact that we are sexual beings, but that sex itself is somehow dirty and corrupt, something that spoils rather than blesses.


i'm in complete agreement with lw.
Reply #114 from JoeUser Forums Top
And parents who don't want their children accessing birth control don't even have to opt out, all they have to do is refuse to sign the permission slip for them to use the clinic.It's that simple, really


Really? It's that simple?

So what happens when little Susie who has very permissive parents goes into the health clinic to get her BC pills to give to little Tammy whose parents aren't quite so permissive? Since Susie has no boyfriend at the moment and Tammy's parents are too UPTIGHT about such things, little Susie just thought she'd help out her best friend.

Who's going to stop that from happening?



Reply #115 from JoeUser Forums Top
So what happens when little Susie who has very permissive parents goes into the health clinic to get her BC pills to give to little Tammy whose parents aren't quite so permissive? Since Susie has no boyfriend at the moment and Tammy's parents are too UPTIGHT about such things, little Susie just thought she'd help out her best friend.


Obviously we have to stalk our own children.



Now tell me one thing...when do these 6th graders find time to have sex? Lunchtime? Far as I know you don't have a car or anything in 6th grade so you kinda have to go where your parents take you and you often don't stay out very late either.

Or maybe I'm just out of touch with the younger generation these days...

~Zoo
Reply #116 from JoeUser Forums Top

Now tell me one thing...when do these 6th graders find time to have sex? Lunchtime?

There are more times when they are not under direct eye contact supervision than one would think.  The question is not "when do" but how often is the opportunity.

Reply #117 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now tell me one thing...when do these 6th graders find time to have sex? Lunchtime? Far as I know you don't have a car or anything in 6th grade so you kinda have to go where your parents take you and you often don't stay out very late either.


Zoo,

Have you ever heard the saying, where there is a will, there is a way?

Evidently in the King Middle School debacle, 5 students had the will and found the way.
Reply #118 from JoeUser Forums Top

Have you ever heard the saying, where there is a will, there is a way?

The question is not "when do" but how often is the opportunity.

Well...the hell with romance, I guess.

"Hey Susie, we've got 5 minutes until class...let's hump like rabbits in the stairwell!"

*sigh*  Kids these days...

~Zoo

Reply #119 from JoeUser Forums Top

"Hey Susie, we've got 5 minutes until class...let's hump like rabbits in the stairwell!"
*sigh* Kids these days...

These days?  When I was in HS (back in the days of bear skins and stone knives), I heard of this happening at a middle school in my area.  From a parent of one of the Witnesses.

Given it was not first hand, and that kids are known to exagerate, you can take his account as is.  But it is not new.  Perhaps it is just more prevalent now. or more reported.

Reply #120 from JoeUser Forums Top
Given it was not first hand, and that kids are known to exagerate, you can take his account as is. But it is not new. Perhaps it is just more prevalent now. or more reported.


Good point. Most every school had one or two youngsters in trouble this way, but it didn't take the school system or village to work it through.

This just goes to show how much times have changed..I think, in this case, for the worse.

The difference between back then and now is that schools are educating for sex, so it's stands to reason the amount of sexual activity in youngsters is up...dramatically so. Then sex was a personal word, homosexual was an unheard of word, and abortion was illegal.

Back then, the primary function of education was teaching of facts and subject matter not be human resource centers. Then public schools policies fully supported and assisted parental authority and values.

Then, the concept of institutuionalizing 13 years of sex instruction as a legitimate subject seemed utterly absurd given that no one of the generations before us ever had to attend school
to learn the role of sex in human life. We learned attitudes towards sex from our parents and went through a period of formation, without tons of too much, too soon information. Then, everyone respected that teaching the finer details concerning sexual matters is the right and duty of parents, not that of the State, school board, teacher's unions, or radical ideologues.

Parents alone have the right to be the primary educatiors of their children, particularly in matters of sexuality. They are the ones in the best position to know the development level and individual formational needs of their children. Parental rights and authority over their children is singular and irreplaceable and therefore when they are usurped by others---don't be surprised by the dire consequences such as what we are beginning to see now....

Sorry to rant on and on DrG.


Reply #121 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry to rant on and on DrG.


Rant on. I was not excusing or appologizing for it, only pointing out it was happening before. How bad was the problem? I never saw it as a kid, nor did my kids see it. But I will not fool myself into thinking it did not happen.
Reply #122 from JoeUser Forums Top
But I will not fool myself into thinking it did not happen.


Well, ya. For sure, sex happens, always has and always will ..but then, and I'm sure you'll agree, society looked down upon premarital sex..it happened and those involved quietly got married. Then society looked down upon all forms of sexual promiscuity..there were no movies or TV shows that fostered or promoted it, or put it in a good, or humorous light in any way, shape or form.

I really understand what my parents meant when they said ah, the good ol days.

Reply #123 from JoeUser Forums Top
there were no movies


Spoken like one who has never studied the history of film.

It was mainly INVENTED as a media for pornography. Most of the first films were filled to the brim with "sexual promiscuity".

You've really got your head in the sand about this stuff, Lula. Things haven't changed all that much in the course of human existence. You just fool yourself into thinking it has.
Reply #124 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was mainly INVENTED as a media for pornography. Most of the first films were filled to the brim with "sexual promiscuity".

You've really got your head in the sand about this stuff, Lula. Things haven't changed all that much in the course of human existence. You just fool yourself into thinking it has.


No I agree with Lula SC. I guess that means I'm snorting sand as well, eh? I still remember watching I Love Lucy and their not being able to show her being pregnant with her first child. When they showed their bedroom, or any others for that matter, twin beds were always in view. They were very careful in the early days not to mention or even hint of a sexual relationship even within marriage.

That's why when Elvis showed up shaking his pelvis, parents went into shock. Ha!! Today that's tame, wouldn't you say?

Over the years, it's been really easy to see the progression of innocence turned to smut especially on our local TVs.

Compare the TV families of yesteryear....Brady Bunch, Leave It To Beaver, Andy Griffith Show, A Family Affair, Waltons, even the Bill Cosby Show, etc. and try to replace them with modern TV. Big difference.



Reply #125 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then sex was a personal word, homosexual was an unheard of word, and abortion was illegal.


ignorance is bliss, huh?

i remember one of my 8th grade catholic school classmates, the only son and oldest child of aggressively religious parents, bragging about having looked up the word 'sex' in a dictionary. two years later, i found myself in a conversation with this same kid when i realized what he'd been telling me about a 'really cool new friend' with whom he'd been hanging wasn't at all what he'd naively believed it to be. by naive, i mean he was so clueless i wasn't able to convince him this 20-somethin who'd been molesting him had anything but the kid's best interests at heart. to assure himself i was mistaken, he asked his mom who went batshit, condemning her son on whom she blamed the whole sordid mess. for the next couple years, he was forbidden to leave the house except in her company or to go to school. she hauled him to the daily morning mass she attended when school was out for the summer. one day after he graduated hs, she turned him over to the us navy.

when i ran into him one last time several years later, he was on leave and had most recently been in the philippines. he hadda girlfriend in manila...a hooker with a couple kids. he gave most of his money to her to help support the children; he also claimed he'd never slept with her...because they weren't ready yet. (come to think of it, he may be related to lucas.)

while prowlin the net a few months ago, i decided to google him and found a link to a schedule of masses at our former parish for some week in 2002. one of em was dedicated to his memory.

dunno how or when he died, but i believe him to be--along with those two girls mentioned at the end of my reply #104--casualties of an inhumane and dehumanizing system you're hoping to revive and reinflict on america's children.

i have no idea what became of my other 55 or 56 elementary school classmates and i'd prefer to keep it that way. a 5% ignorance casualty rate is depressing enuff for me.