Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/10/16 at 7:01 pm to wmr
quote:and it's not even close.
A) Roe v Wade
Posted on 8/10/16 at 10:38 pm to wmr
The one where they appointed bush president
Posted on 8/11/16 at 6:15 am to Volatile
quote:
Just because something is morally wrong does not mean the government should make law on it.
Our Government legislating morality is like ISIS legislating the Geneva Convention.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 7:14 am to Wtodd
White Catholic Southern Republican checking in. I would not overturn either. People have the right to marry who they want. As far as abortion goes, I personally think it is morally wrong, but I shouldn't be allowed to make that decisions for someone else.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 7:34 am to MIZ_COU
quote:
The one where they appointed bush president
Here's your test for the day. What would the result of the Florida vote have been if Gore had got what he wanted?
Posted on 8/11/16 at 7:49 am to wmr
Christian, socially liberal.
I would overturn neither. I'm of the belief when it comes to gay marriage that it's not my place to make the judgment whether it is morally right or wrong. That is between them and their Maker.
As far as abortion, I have a moral issue with the notion of overturning Roe v. Wade while not establishing programs that will deal with the aftermath of that. The instant reaction is people should deal with their responsibilities but the reality is that won't always happen. Especially when talking about an unwanted child. We continue to cut social services (which are constantly lumped in with welfare), limiting the number of CPS workers, and making the adoption process in the US difficult enough that many look out of country instead. If we truly believe that those lives matter and something could be made of them then there needs to be some kind of support there.
I would overturn neither. I'm of the belief when it comes to gay marriage that it's not my place to make the judgment whether it is morally right or wrong. That is between them and their Maker.
As far as abortion, I have a moral issue with the notion of overturning Roe v. Wade while not establishing programs that will deal with the aftermath of that. The instant reaction is people should deal with their responsibilities but the reality is that won't always happen. Especially when talking about an unwanted child. We continue to cut social services (which are constantly lumped in with welfare), limiting the number of CPS workers, and making the adoption process in the US difficult enough that many look out of country instead. If we truly believe that those lives matter and something could be made of them then there needs to be some kind of support there.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 8:32 am to JustGetItRight
quote:I don't know what that means.
Gore had got what he wanted?
R u talking about this
'After the election, recounts conducted by various United States news media organizations indicated that Bush would have won if certain recounting methods had been used (including the one favored by Gore at the time of the Supreme Court decision) but that Gore might have won under other scenarios.'
If so this is contradicted by other studies. The result was so close nobody knows for sure (since scotus did not let the State of Florida finish their recount).
This post was edited on 8/11/16 at 8:44 am
Posted on 8/11/16 at 9:41 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
As far as abortion, I have a moral issue with the notion of overturning Roe v. Wade while not establishing programs that will deal with the aftermath of that.
Yup, that's why I always try to couch my pro-life stance from the standpoint of making sure an overturn of RoevWade would go hand in hand with a complete overhaul if our domestic adoption/foster care infrastructure.
I do believe abortion is outright heinous, but also have to realize that just taking it away without purposefully filling the void with practical/supportive alternatives is folly.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 10:02 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Overhaul the adoption and foster care systems to make abortion less attractive and condemnation it for the heinous practice it is.
I do believe abortion is outright heinous, but also have to realize that just taking it away without purposefully filling the void with practical/supportive alternatives is folly.
yes.
or even teach kids about abstinence. at least until in a committed relationship. or even just having a single sexual partner.
i welcome any and all downvotes.
This post was edited on 8/11/16 at 10:03 am
Posted on 8/11/16 at 10:39 am to 3nOut
quote:
or even teach kids about abstinence. at least until in a committed relationship. or even just having a single sexual partner.
I'm pretty adamant about schools providing full-on sex education for students and that religious preference of the avoidance of pre-marital sex is really only targeting families where that is reinforced at home.
Kids need to hear about the risks of teenage sex, especially with the development of antibiotic resistant STDs. It's really a public health issue. In a perfect world, full-on sex education would be offered to all students with the option for parents to opt-out without penalty or opt for an abstinence only course.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:35 pm to BluegrassBelle
Even as a religious person, I think that teaching abstinence can be a little extreme in a bad way. I think so many sex-related marital problems can be avoided beforehand by "test-driving," if you will. Both in the bedroom and through living together for awhile. It's not a panacea, but it's a damn sight better than putting the pussy or dick on a pedestal for so long, only to find out that you're not into the same sexual things as your partner (even though you did everything "by the book"). Just an alternate set of potential problems that I've seen arise from other couples.
I like this suggestion, because, like you said, those parents would be more likely to reinforce abstinence-only at home.
quote:
Kids need to hear about the risks of teenage sex, especially with the development of antibiotic resistant STDs. It's really a public health issue. In a perfect world, full-on sex education would be offered to all students with the option for parents to opt-out without penalty or opt for an abstinence only course.
I like this suggestion, because, like you said, those parents would be more likely to reinforce abstinence-only at home.
This post was edited on 8/11/16 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:49 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
In a perfect world, full-on sex education would be offered to all students with the option for parents to opt-out without penalty or opt for an abstinence only course.
Isn't this already the case in most states? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was. I'm in my 40's and we started getting sex ed in 8th grade. It was really just 8th and 9th grade, and parents had the option to opt their kids out of it. I don't remember many opting out though. And this was in ultra conservative Alabama.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:52 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Isn't this already the case in most states? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was. I'm in my 40's and we started getting sex ed in 8th grade. It was really just 8th and 9th grade, and parents had the option to opt their kids out of it. I don't remember many opting out though. And this was in ultra conservative Alabama.
We used to have it here but it got pushed out all together because of time needed for standardized testing instruction and in part because some of the funding/materials came from Planned Parenthood for the course.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 12:55 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Kids need to hear about the risks of teenage sex, especially with the development of antibiotic resistant STDs. It's really a public health issue. In a perfect world, full-on sex education would be offered to all students with the option for parents to opt-out without penalty or opt for an abstinence only course.
i'm not saying that we should only teach abstinence and leave it at that. i know, as much as it is the BEST option, it's just not that viable to too many.
what i would suggest is that perhaps it's presented as a better option than condoms, etc. so i'm not saying just teach abst. and leave it at that. Provide full education, but don't treat it like a red headed step child to be mocked.
it's laughed at far too often and called "unrealistic," when it's only failed 1 time in history.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 1:09 pm to 3nOut
quote:
it's laughed at far too often and called "unrealistic," when it's only failed 1 time in history.
Personally, I don't think it's unrealistic if the child comes from a household that'll reinforce it.
But I've worked with my fair share of kids raising themselves, born to families with thugs, trash, and welfare queens and that's where they're getting their "information".
Back when I worked as a clerk in a high-poverty, low-performing school I withdrew a girl to our district's teenage pregnancy program at 13. She thought she couldn't get pregnant because her Momma said, "Girl you can't get pregnant on top. Just make sure you let it all leak out.". At that point, teaching abstinence-only is putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 1:26 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
We used to have it here but it got pushed out all together because of time needed for standardized testing instruction and in part because some of the funding/materials came from Planned Parenthood for the course.
When I had sex ed, it was taught during PE in 8th grade, and in health in 9th grade. I think in 8th grade it was only a day or two, but a full week in 9th grade. It was called Reproductive Health in 9th grade.
In 9th grade all the guys were pretty excited about sex ed because the health teacher was pretty hot. We couldn't wait to hear her talk about sex and ask her questions about it to make her uncomfortable. The week of that unit though she was out and some old lady taught it. It was still funny being a stupid 14/15 year old boy and asking an old lady sex questions to make her uncomfortable. We were so dumb.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 1:33 pm to The Spleen
Ours was a basic one in 5th grade that explained how your body functions (focused FAR more on hygiene, especially for young ladies). Then 8th grade you got the full on one.
All it takes is seeing a some of those STD pictures and a video of a birth to be like frick all that.
All it takes is seeing a some of those STD pictures and a video of a birth to be like frick all that.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 2:54 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
But I've worked with my fair share of kids raising themselves, born to families with thugs, trash, and welfare queens and that's where they're getting their "information".
Back when I worked as a clerk in a high-poverty, low-performing school I withdrew a girl to our district's teenage pregnancy program at 13. She thought she couldn't get pregnant because her Momma said, "Girl you can't get pregnant on top. Just make sure you let it all leak out.". At that point, teaching abstinence-only is putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.
completely understood. my views on race/class have changed drastically in the last year. mainly what is reinforced at the home. another family and i have started working with a very low income apartment complex in the rough part of town and my understanding of what they get in support from the home unit compared to what my kids get is so drastically different than what they will receive that it's almost like living in two worlds.
i've become convinced that there is not white privilege and there is not class privilege. there is simply upbringing privilege.
Posted on 8/11/16 at 3:46 pm to Wanderin Reb
quote:
This should be a lot more difficult considering that all sins are supposedly equal.
Only equal in the sense that all sin separates us from God. There are certainly varying degrees of evil.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News