Little did I know when I started writing about Halloween that new "research" by the Christian Broadcasting Network uncovered that witches were contaminating Halloween candy and allowing demons to be ingested by "Trick or Treaters." But here it is.
Now moving on to Planned Parenthood. I think it is morally outrageous that one of the most well-respected sources of information on sexuality and pregnancy prevention is given so little government funding, and that their clinics providing abortion services are not funded by the federal government at all. Why Congressman Mike Pence wants to cut funding even more is beyond me. Does he want young people to remain ignorant of human sexuality, or would he prefer they learn about it by finding their father's stash of old Playboy magazines? We are either going to be honest with young people or we have nobody to blame but ourselves when things go wrong.
Obviously, I am not privy to the details of your lawsuit regarding one or more Planned Parenthood affiliates' alleged "over billing." It seems that the state of California has already conceded that the rules were unclear and doubt that Planned Parenthood will ever owe anything. In addition, the state was apparently investigating this even before your "whistleblower" suit. We'll see where all this goes.
I would like to add that Planned Parenthood provides age-appropriate, scientifically accurate sex education materials that I think can easily be used in our schools, churches and other community groups. Frankly, this "protest" over a grant to Planned Parenthood to teach sex ed to teenagers in Ohio is a waste of time.
As one woman wrote to a local Ohio newspaper, "It seems to me that it would be a much more productive use of their time and energy, if those who are participating in the 40 days of protest would instead spend that time and energy working with others to find ways to improve comprehensive sex education in our schools, reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and reduce the need for abortions."
The statistics on teen pregnancies and those under the age of 25 infected with sexually transmitted diseases are astounding. Planned Parenthood does great work in educating our youth on these issues and deserves this funding to continue doing its job.
To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
What I meant was this: To downgrade humen life into some sort of unhumen living cell membrane is wrong. That is my point. As if people are not people and you can chop them up into little pieces as if they were a plant or a sponge or something.
That is my point!
As for people to be given the choice under legal law to provide for deathcare or public funding for Embryonic Stem-Cell research, frankly I think these actions should be completely destroyed by legal proceedings to protect people. These laws are completely against The United States Constitution of our posterity being defended and given rights like you and I.
So I will look to people who protect people for a common good, wrather thans those who choose to downgrade humen life into a blob of tissue for resail and science exsperiments.
Cara Floyd
"As for people to be given the choice under legal law to provide for deathcare or public funding for Embryonic Stem-Cell research, frankly I think these actions should be completely destroyed by legal proceedings to protect people. These laws are completely against The United States Constitution of our posterity being defended and given rights like you and I."
I think that is crazy. I allow for difference of opinion, and find myself supporting the opposite position. I sympathize with you to a degree, that people being allowed to behave in ways that you, personally, find wrongful is a cause worth seeking redress. The problem is, your position wrongfully imposes your will over the Supreme Court of the United States. You seek to super-impose your thinking onto everyone else, whereas I embrace the liberties reserved for the people. Please don't insist it is the will an almighty being which you uphold, it's crap. Okay? You don't wanna look at that probability, fine, stay dumb and die happy, but don't foist it on me. It won't do. And, what is this other about "our posterity being defended" being in an article of the constitution? Refer me as to where, ungw.
The Supreme Court is at this point putting into law that it is legal through abortion to murder people. Which is against The United States Constitution. This has nothing to do with religion or my personal will. It does however indicate you have a personal will in killing Embryonic Stem-Cell children as well as letting others decide to murder their prosterity. In any case, they are still our posterity. Since when is The Supreme Court able to rule over The United States Constitution? Embryonic Stem-Cell Posterity are being murdered. This too, is against The Constitution. Is that the law that our government and courts can go against our very own Constitution? Is that not why The Constitution was written to keep our government, courts and president in check? That way they or he or she is not a dictator or dictatorship of their own agenda and making our very own Constitution obsolete? Cara
"The Supreme Court is at this point putting into law that it is legal through abortion to murder people."
Incorrect, the Supreme Court, the law of the land, does not recognize embryo's or most fetuses as "people". Murder is legal term, abortion and stem cell research are legal--ipso facto, neither abortion nor stem cell research is murder.
"Which is against The United States Constitution."
Again, incorrect. You neglected to cite WHERE in the articles of the constitution you find this (because it isn't there), so I prefer to take the decision of the SCOTUS over your opinion because it is their JOB to uphold the Constitution.
"Embryonic Stem-Cell Posterity are being murdered. This too, is against The Constitution."
Again, not murder, not against the Constitution. Our descendants are comprised of citizens, people, not pre-people. No murder, no constitutional infraction; just...LIBERTY.
"Does he want young people to remain ignorant of human sexuality, or would he prefer they learn about it by finding their father's stash of old Playboy magazines?"
There is so much wrong with this statement I'm not even sure if I can dissect it. But I will try.
First: Apparently Mr. Lynn is assuming that young people only learn about human sexuality from programs outside the family. How about all the parents who are doing their job and teaching their children? It is the parents who need to be teaching their children, not outside programs; especially ones funded by the government.
Second: Is Mr. Lynn assuming that all fathers have a stash of old Playboy magazines? That is not true.
That whole statement was chalk full of connotations and presuppositions that are simply false.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.