Pages

Monday, December 1, 2014

Make an impact this World AIDS Day

Although treatment options have progressed substantially, so that HIV-positive people are now able to live long and healthy lives, it's still important to be knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS. Here are some things you can do as a pro-life advocate to commemorate World AIDS Day.
  1. Educate your social media network about HIV/AIDS prevention. You're probably used to sharing memes and articles about pregnancy and prenatal development. Take this opportunity to expand beyond that and become a peer educator about sexual health in general. Two links you can share to get you started: 
  2. Get tested. If you're sexually active and/or have had contact with another person's blood, get tested. Get tested even if your sexual partner(s) believe that they are HIV-negative. According to the CDC, one-sixth of HIV-positive Americans are unaware that they carry the virus.
  3. Definitely steer clear of Planned Parenthood, though, and advise your friends to do the same. Not just because they're an abortion business: they've also demonstrated some serious skeeviness when it comes to HIV prevention. They were caught on tape advising someone who wanted an STD test to donate blood instead—horrible advice, for reasons that should be obvious. And a few years ago, Planned Parenthood put out an "educational" pamphlet for HIV-positive people that suggested that it's totally fine to have sex with someone without disclosing your HIV-positive status. Thankfully, Planned Parenthood is not your only option for HIV testing. HIVtest.org is a good place to start, or try your local health department or regular physician.
  4. Donate to an HIV/AIDS charity. Having lived in the D.C. area, which has one of the worst HIV/AIDS rates in the nation, I'm partial to Whitman-Walker Health; they do great work. But there are many, many other great non-profits for you to choose from.

246 comments:

1 – 200 of 246   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

Just to correct this:

No, you need not disclose your HIV status to everyone you have sex with, providing you only have safe sex.
If there's no risk of transmission - if you're not engaging in penetrative sex / no bodily fluids exchanged - you don't have to tell your contacts your HIV status.

More to the point: unless you and your partner have both been tested and you're in a mutually-monogamous relationship with an agreement you can trust to tell each other of any exposure, you should always assume your sexual contacts could be HIV+ and take care of yourself accordingly - and you should take care that your contacts assume the same of you.

That's responsible behaviour. Advising people to steer clear of Planned Parenthood because they're "skeevy" is grossly irresponsible, just what I'd expect from a prolife site.

secularprolife.org said...

They hate PP here. A few commenters have repeated thr lie that PP sells inferior BCP so that women will get pregnant and therefore have to seek abortions at PP.

And the nonreligious here claim to be *skeptics*, no less. Yet they buy the woo that is peddled by the RCC, when it comes to birth control.

secularprolife.org said...

Safe sex (condom) doesn't protect 100% from Guttmacher institute it may be as low as 60% or high as 96% through condoms. That is a decent chance to give someone HIV/AIDS who wouldn't know it.

Most will call your example foreplay, or possible oral sex(not saying one cannot have sex without bodily fluids exchange but the average person thinks it.). There is risk in oral sex of getting HIV, It is one that hasn't been able to statistically given yet because one doesn't know how many, just that people have become infected this way.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/hiv?page=basics-00-08

secularprolife.org said...

Read the actual booklet, EdinburghEye. It doesn't contain the caveats you've added. If you want to "correct" someone, correct PP. http://www.ippf.org/resource/Healthy-Happy-and-Hot-young-peoples-guide-rights

secularprolife.org said...

Goodness me, did I specify 'condom'? I did not.

Safe sex includes a huge range of mutually pleasurable activities, with no risk of seroconversion if there's no risk of exchange of bodily fluids.

secularprolife.org said...

I have more confidence in Planned Parenthood to deliver legally and ethically correct information than I do in prolife site with a kneejerk hatred of PP.

Indeed, given the prevalence of 'sting' operations carried out by prolife fraudsters, which prolife sites love to quote and hate to factcheck, I have no confidence in any criticism of PP by a prolife site.

If prolifers genuinely wanted to help women they'd love PP. The fact that the US prolife movement loathes PP is a major clue that prolifery is fundamentally misogynist.

secularprolife.org said...

Ah, that's how it always is, isn't it? When the facts aren't going your way, throw out an accusation of misogyny. Quite the conversation-stopper. The booklet speaks for itself no matter how you try to change the subject. I'm not going to waste any more time debating you.

secularprolife.org said...

Well it seems to me that HIV stigma prevents people from seeking treatment and/or even using protection as it might give the wrong "impression" and IPPF is trying to combat that
http://www.ippf.org/our-work/what-we-do/hiv-aids/reducing-hiv-related-stigma

secularprolife.org said...

wow. Really? As you pro-choicers are always fond of reminding (and justifiably so), no method of safe sex is foolproof. There is always a chance that the condom/dental dam will break, that bodily fluids will go where unintended. You have a responsibility to disclose with anyone you are getting physical with, if you are HIV+, or if you have any STD for that matter. Legal or not, doing otherwise invites direct harm to other people, which is immoral. Should someone always be prepared to ask their partner about their status? Of course. But to put the onus of the responsibility on the potential victim is along the same line as putting the onus of the responsibility to a potential rape victim who gets drunk at a frat house, telling them they should have taken other precautions.

secularprolife.org said...

Planned Parenthood never does anything wrong. Recall that it's the most important organization in the world.

secularprolife.org said...

Consenting to sex isn't the same as consenting to pregnancy. But it is consent to getting AIDS.

secularprolife.org said...

ha!

secularprolife.org said...

EE stated...

"
If there's no risk of transmission - if you're not engaging in penetrative sex / no bodily fluids exchanged - you don't have to tell your contacts your HIV status."

secularprolife.org said...

The kneejerk loathing of Planned Parenthood is misogynistic, Kelsey, and since it's indefensible, I'm unsurprised you won't debate it.

secularprolife.org said...

I did mention more than just 'condoms' but hey you are fixated on that apparently. I mentioned Oral sex which some will say isn't exchanging fluids and most consider it very safe, some are don't even realize that it can give the virus that way.

Other forms of foreplay or outersex can still be dangerous depending on how close one gets or keeping track of where their fluids go. It is a risk and pretending it isn't there is just well, naive. It is a decent risk when your sex partner isn't aware of the danger and may not be cautious of keeping bodily fluids away from sex organ, mouth, or other points of entry such as wounds.

Sex is a two way thing, and need both sides to understand and communicate for it to work out nicely. Communicating and understanding the way HIV works and spread is important to having sex and relationship with one another.

secularprolife.org said...

So does Oral sex count as an exchange? Or the numerous sexual activities that bodily fluid that can accidentally hits the other's sex, or share toys, or many other ways to have their fluids touch the right spots to come in contact with it. The risk is especially higher when your partner doesn't know to be careful.

secularprolife.org said...

http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/prevention/reduce-your-risk/sexual-risk-factors/#practices


NO-RISK SEXUAL ACTIVITIES
These activities carry no risk of HIV transmission:


Non-sexual massage
Casual or dry kissing
Phone sex, cyber sex, sexy talk
Masturbation (without your partner's body fluids)
Frottage—also known as "dry humping" or body-to-body rubbing

secularprolife.org said...

Not to mention well funded.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't know about misogynistc. Personally I feel like taking a shower after reading anything that is published by PP

secularprolife.org said...

Hey, not gonna read that article on the development of the egg? The one I linked to twice? You keep referencing science, then pretend it doesn't exist when actually confronted with it.

secularprolife.org said...

A non-profit focussed on providing reproductive healthcare for women. How unclean that must make you feel: prolifers loathe reproductive health for women.

secularprolife.org said...

Liar liar pants on fire.


The PP in my city does not do abortions. Many PPs do not. Abortion is 3% of PP activity.

PP is a fine organization. I used them for low cost gynecologic care and contraception for years when I was a young Mother and Student. Now my daughters use them.

If any young people stumble on this board and need advice about sex, contraception, STDs and pregnancy that is confidential, the place to go is PPs TeenWire. And if you need financial help to get an abortion, they may direct you to local charities that help women. PP can also help you with prenatal care if you decide to give birth.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teens

secularprolife.org said...

I read the booklet. You are a liar.

secularprolife.org said...

You are a liar.

secularprolife.org said...

No, only the sexually explicit stuff they peddle to kids

secularprolife.org said...

A non profit focusing on lowering the age of first sexual activity in young people, you mean

secularprolife.org said...

... I fail to see how it is okay to fuck someone up by giving him/her HIV without tell someone the disclose.

secularprolife.org said...

Pearl clutcher. Filthy minded Strega.


Age of first intercourse for young women in America is 15 on average. In the old days, they solved teenage sex problem by getting married like my Grands at ages 16 and 19. You want to go back to that?

My youngest daughter had sex the first time at age 12, in spite of all Mom could do to educate and proselytize and be open and be serious etc.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, my daughter who does not make more than 20K a year has a small sum sent to them automatically every month because she values the contribution they have made to her health.

secularprolife.org said...

That's because it's *not* ok to do that.

secularprolife.org said...

HIV infection requires two things. First, bodily fluid containing the virus. Second, broken skin or mucous membranes. I have no idea what you mean by bodily fluids hitting the other person's sex. I believe HIV by oral sex is transmissible to the receiver. HIV is not transmitted in saliva. It is present in seminal fluid. Lesbians have a non-existent rate of transmission. HIV is a fragile virus and doesn't survive long outside the human body. I've never heard of transmission by contact with any surface, including toys, eating utensils, plates, sharing cups, etc. Never, ever.

secularprolife.org said...

The Planned Parenthood clinic here doesn't do abortions either, and they never have. Everything they do there would be considered health care by anyone sane, including contraception.

secularprolife.org said...

No, Guest. Consenting to sex is not consenting to gestation. Pregnancy is a risk to anyone who has a functioning uterus. Pregnancy is a risk, as is HIV infection. Pregnancy is curable.

secularprolife.org said...

What ARE you talking about? Because Planned Parenthood exists, teens have sex? What about all the teens who had sex before there was such a thing as PP or modern contraception? Teens have sex. They always have. Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with that. That's nature. I have never seen such a group of people laser-focused on what strangers do with their genitals. It's not too bad here, but other blogs like lifesitenews are infested with those types. It always comes down to punitive attitudes about sex and particularly sex for women with you people. It's disgusting.

secularprolife.org said...

Facts do not matter to zealots. Scary folk.

secularprolife.org said...

Because kids have no need of information about their bodies, sexual health and proper boundaries, right? If we could just ignore it hard enough, it would all go away. I suppose you would think my mother was just *horrible* for buying me a book about sex when I was 12 and full of questions she didn't have answers for. I'm thankful every day that I didn't grow up in the kind of ignorance my mother and grandmother did. You look at your sweet daughter, and you think tomorrow will always be there. You can do it later. That's the girl who will be pregnant in high school, or molested by a pedophile. The one who doesn't know any better.

secularprolife.org said...

HIV is notoriously DIFFICULT to transmit. You are a scare-monger.

secularprolife.org said...

You are an idiot.

secularprolife.org said...

I am not the one lying on a public message board when my assertions are so easily checked out.

secularprolife.org said...

Hmm. So I guess the women accusing Bill Cosby of raping them are just bloviating. And Darren Wilson put Michael Brown in his proper place because he was never convicted of homicide.

Providing evidence would be a waste of time anyway. If I linked you to a Planned Parenthood document that clearly stated deliberate HIV transmission should not be criminal behaviour, you would just call me a liar.

secularprolife.org said...

You know, you were doing so well with this article ... right until the point when you tried to cite the frequently discredited Liar Rose as a reliable source for why one should not have an HIV test at Planned Parenthood.

secularprolife.org said...

It really is amazing how little creativity the anti-choice have where sexual activity is concerned. I mean, seriously. Who hasn't heard of the things you mention ... except them, of course.

secularprolife.org said...

Liar Rose and her flying monkeys haven't presented any facts, though; just badly edited videos. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/planned-parenthood-lila-rose-mammograms

secularprolife.org said...

Why? Do facts squick you out?

secularprolife.org said...

A non profit focusing on lowering the age of first sexual activity in young people, you mean

Citation needed.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, and they all picked on EE and insinuated that she was arguing that it is morally permissible to go around infecting people with HIV without disclosing that one is HIV positive.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, look! Rosie here is a fan of the now-defunct Comstock Act, which stated that any discussion of contraception was pornography. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/130734/Comstock-Act

secularprolife.org said...

Faith-based organizations? Oh, you mean shaming, religious groups with no medical training, etc.? Yeah, that's a big freakin' help.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, the U.N. disagrees with you

secularprolife.org said...

not sure why you would think contraception is pornography. I am against pornography in itself though, if that's any consolation.

secularprolife.org said...

No, planned parenthood and Margaret Sanger squick me out, though.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, you may be ok with encouraging your teens to have sex, I prefer to tell my children, not just daughters what sex is. According to PP sex is something you need to protect yourself from. It needs to be safe, or it will be risky. That is a lie. Sex is not dangerous or risky, LIFESTYLE CHOICES can be very risky.

secularprolife.org said...

Well we all need our heroes

secularprolife.org said...

Wow I'm sorry all you talk about chastity fell on deaf ears.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, you are definitely sorry.

secularprolife.org said...

My daughter's heros are the Evil Queen Maleficent and Maya Angelou.
You really are a flamer.

secularprolife.org said...

I give my children ongoing, reality based introduction into adult living. Giving real information like, oh I don't know, sex makes babies. The pharmaceutical companies know this very well for example. In our family we teach our children about their sexuality since they are very young by responding in age appropriate ways to their enquiries. We use matter of fact correct anatonical terms. They also see my husbans an I interact, kiss, embrace and they get a feeling of what a solid loving relationship is. We answer all and any questions. I would NOT trust anyone else with this awesome responsibility. We teach them since first grade how to stay safe with strangers. I do not think your mother is horrible at all. She took it upon herself to find a book that she knew would be the best way for you find answers she may have felt uncomfortable answering. My mother relied on the school sex Ed class and she NEVER talked about sex or private parts, EVER. Each parent does what they know is best for their own children. And I am sure we agree that we would like our children to be safe from abusers, chose a lifestyle which will safeguard their physical and emotional health. Honestly I don't see PP doing that.

secularprolife.org said...

You would do far better by letting your kids know that boundaries apply to EVERYONE, and it's not usually strangers you need to worry about. There are plenty of "funny uncles" and grandfathers out there, perhaps even parents and siblings. Not to mention preachers, and sports coaches. Jerry Sandusky. Need I say more? Bless my mother, she tried to answer all my questions. I didn't get the sense that she was uncomfortable, but you can't teach what you don't know yourself. There are plenty of mothers around even today that don't know the facts themselves. Sex education should be taught in school, starting from early on, and by health professionals or teachers with degrees in biology or health sciences. Planned Parenthood is an excellent source of information.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, being a health professional, I encouraged my kids to abstain. I also informed them about their bodies and how they work, boundary issues, and how to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs. This is not about "lifestyle choices." Sooner or later, most people *are* going to be sexually active. They need correct information, not shaming.

secularprolife.org said...

Correct. And if their parents cannot be trusted, Planned Parenthood and books like Our Bodies, Ourselves can do the job.

secularprolife.org said...

What is pornography?

secularprolife.org said...

I completely agree. Children and teens don't need shaming, and I agree that abstaining is best whe you are a teen.

secularprolife.org said...

You are one lucky lady of you have never come across it or have not have to deal with the devastating effects of its addiction

secularprolife.org said...

Wow. Go tell that to someone in Botswana or Malawi, or Lesotho, or South Africa, or any of the African countries suffering from this epidemic. Wow.

secularprolife.org said...

well then I guess PP should stay out of the business of telling strangers how they should be having sex.

secularprolife.org said...

**. I am against pornography in itself though, if that's any consolation.**


I'd suggest you move out of the USA and to a theocracy. We have this little thing here called 'Freedom of the Press'.

secularprolife.org said...

**Giving real information like, oh I don't know, sex makes babies. **

Umm. No. Most of the time, sex does NOT make babies, and there are a lot of 'babies' nowadays that did not come from sex.

**Each parent does what they know is best for their own children.**

Not really. And I'm curious as to your claim regarding this, because it would actually seem to be in favor of abortion.

**And I am sure we agree that we would like our children to be safe from abusers, chose a lifestyle which will safeguard their physical and emotional health**


Unless this involves giving your children guns and taking them out of public schools, you're pretty much fooling yourself.

secularprolife.org said...

so? I am also against racism, are you ok with magazines using the "n" word and many other racial slurs and insults nonchalantly just because of freedom of press?

secularprolife.org said...

No they should not. They have a role in sexual health education. You imply that they order people to have sex a certain way. That's absurd. They do answer questions honestly and give advice without judgment. And that's ok. Young people especially, have a need to realize they are normal, and sex is normal. You are a liar.

secularprolife.org said...

Where your precious Catholic "faith-based organizations" are refusing to give the people condoms. HIV is at epidemic levels because of ignorance on sexual matters. How dare you. That's the fault of Catholic anti-condom teaching. The blood is on their hands.

secularprolife.org said...

Answer the fucking question. I want to know what *you* believe pornography is.

secularprolife.org said...

It might be best. But they aren't all going to do that. Simply telling them not to have sex is not sex education. Even if they abstain as teens, eventually they will become sexually active. If that's all you've told them, you are not helping them.

secularprolife.org said...

**are you ok with magazines using the "n" word and many other racial slurs and insults nonchalantly just because of freedom of press?**


First of all, I'm also against racism. But that's irrelevent. Magazines have the right to print the word 'nigger', or any other word they want to print, regardless of how many sad feelies people have about it. Don't like it? Don't buy that magazine. If enough people don't buy a magazine, it will go out of business.


And, btw, racism qua racism really doesn't constitute a violation of anyone's rights, provided you do not commit an actual crime. A person has the right to not associate with, employ, buy from, or sell to, anyone they want to, for any reason, or for no reason. If I don't want to sell to people with black skin, white skine or who wear funny hats, or watch public TV, and you force me to do so, basically you are enslaving me.

secularprolife.org said...

Why? Because they talk about facts?

secularprolife.org said...

The Comstock Act stated that discussion of, or distribution of materials about, contraception constituted distribution of pornography. That's basically your claim here: that fact-based information about contraception, sexual activity, etc., should not be given to "children" (by which I presume you mean teens) because you think it's icky.

::shrug::

I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that you didn't bother to look at the link, which demonstrates the clear connection between the things you've said here and the Comstock Act.

secularprolife.org said...

Citation needed.

secularprolife.org said...

Non-responsive.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, heaven forfend that anyone get accurate, fact-based information about contraception, pregnancy, STDs, etc. /sarc

secularprolife.org said...

LIFESTYLE CHOICES can be very risky.

By which you mean what, exactly?

secularprolife.org said...

I agree that abstaining is best whe you are a teen.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. What teens need is fact-based education about contraception, how their bodies work, etc. Do you know what *doesn't* help them? Abstinence-only "education."

secularprolife.org said...

You can talk all you want, but that still doesn't force another individual's hand.

secularprolife.org said...

Prior restraint against journalists is against the law, actually. Just so you know.

/former newspaper editor nitpick

secularprolife.org said...

Wow. Talk about non-responsive? The question is quite obvious: what do YOU think constitutes pornography? After all, you've already made it plain that you think fact-based information about contraception is "sexually explicit," so I'm keen to know your definition as well.

secularprolife.org said...

And I am sure we agree that we would like our children to be safe from
abusers, chose a lifestyle which will safeguard their physical and
emotional health. Honestly I don't see PP doing that.


Then you aren't paying attention.

Giving real information like, oh I don't know, sex makes babies.

Actually, most of the time it doesn't.

secularprolife.org said...

You have no idea how or why these epidemics are happening, do you? It's because of ignorant ideas about how "sex with a virgin will cure your HIV" and so on. Because actual NGOs (not churchy ones, with misinforation) were restrained from talking about condoms under Dubya because it was contraception (oh no!).

You need to read a book called "Our Kind of People: A Continent's Challenge, A Country's Hope." http://www.amazon.com/Our-Kind-People-Continents-Challenge/dp/B00BQ9KFHM Your lack of comprehension about the cultural issues that allow for ongoing transmission is shocking. Once you read that book, come back and we can talk some more. Until you understand how to deal with the cultural barriers, you *cannot* make headway.

No love, an anthropologist

secularprolife.org said...

"A person has the right to employ, buy from, or sell to, anyone they want to..." Ever heard of the cake baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple for their wedding. Nice to know you stand with the baker.

secularprolife.org said...

It's linked in the previous comment

secularprolife.org said...

Really? So you agree HIV is notoriously difficult yo spread. Again, go tell it to the 9 or 10 nations deeply affected. And indeed yes, cultural differences are precisely why one prevention model does not fit all. And yes FBOs are giving greater accessibility to antiretroviral drugs because of their capability to access people who would otherwise not be reached.

secularprolife.org said...

Like I said before, take it up with the U.N. if you disagree with the work FBOs are doing with them

secularprolife.org said...

Lazy! This site has a pdf of actual document, but you can go on the UNAIDS site and look there, sorry not used to dealing with lazy people.

secularprolife.org said...

http://jliflc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Report-brief-as-of-12may2014.pdf

secularprolife.org said...

She never looks at links.
She is profoundly dishonest.

She is also an anti-gay bigot.

Notice how progressive pro lifers are few and far between, even here?

secularprolife.org said...

So, what you have is a Catholic organization stating that Catholic organizations are doing something. This is NOT the UN saying that FBOs are better at doing it than NGOs. In fact, it is just the same organization tooting its own horn.

I've determined from your posts that you are a dishonest interlocutor. Where is the statement *from the UN,* not from Caritas, that says that FBOs are better at this than NGOs?

Oh, yeah. That would be *nowhere,* because it doesn't exist. Here's the *actual* resolution, not the nonsense that you're touting: http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/sub_landing/files/20110610_UN_A-RES-65-277_en.pdf

secularprolife.org said...

You're the one that made the assertion; it's incumbent upon you to provide the documentation, not to demand that other people do your homework for you.

And the PDF? Is NOT from the UN, but is in fact from the Catholic organization. The actual UN resolution has been provided to you.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, she's wrong. If one opens a public accommodation in any state except Arizona (which has no public accommodation anti-discrimination law of which I am aware), one cannot discriminate against the public when it comes to service.

Nice to know you stand with the baker.

Nice to know that you're an anti-gay bigot.

secularprolife.org said...

So-called "FBOs" aren't dong anything except shaming. Shall we talk about Mother Teresa and her disturbing remarks about AIDS patients under her "care"?

Oh, okay. Let's do that. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa/

Do the words :"just retribution for improper sexual conduct" sound like compassionate care to you?

This is why churches need to leave actual medical care to medical professionals and not Jesus at people in need.

secularprolife.org said...

Ah, you're one of those prolifers who thinks it's so much better for kids to be kept ignorant of how to have safe sex and that sex is fun and enjoyable. Prolifery is essentially anti-sex and anti-women: a conservative Christian movement.

secularprolife.org said...

Sounds like you're working to ensure that when your children start having sex, and need to use contraception, they'll lie to you.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, I'm ok with that. I don't agree with the sentiments. But I'm even more opposed to censorship. There is freedom of speech, and of the press, and I treasure that. Unpopular sentiments are those most in need of protection. The remedy to repugnant speech is not censorship. The remedy is more speech. We have a right to disagree, and express our disagreement. Deal with it.

secularprolife.org said...

I disagree with Ann Morgan on that point. Slavery is enforced labor without remuneration. If you run a business that serves the public, then you actually have to serve the public. Ann is wrong. If you want to pick and choose, start a private Christian Heterosexual wedding cake club or something. If you run a bakery, you bake what you are being paid to bake. PERIOD. Don't mind Ann, she's a libertarian. And libertarians have a few good ideas, and a lot of bad ones.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, still no explanation of what pornography is from you. Get this straight. Freedom of expression. Freedom of speech. Even if you don't like it. That's tough. It's none of your business what anyone else reads, views or discusses.

secularprolife.org said...

You got that right.

secularprolife.org said...

No, it's not. That link doesn't lead to any UN document.

secularprolife.org said...

Another fail. Caring for those living with HIV is admirable. More admirable is helping them not to contract HIV in the first place. And if they aren't teaching safer sex, they aren't doing diddley! That amounts to locking the barn door after the cow gets out. Not too bright. And it doesn't even say what you claim it says.

secularprolife.org said...

I am sure you mean SOME freedom of expression. If someone is viewing, say child pornography, it is my business as well as yours. According to your statement an old man fingering the anus of a 10 month old is ok, then. Thanks for freedom of expression. My question to you is: Is there anything that is perverse in your eyes? Per your statement above, even if there were, you wouldn't do anything about it because it is not your business what other people read or do. Good for you.

secularprolife.org said...

Pedophilia is an unpopular sentiment. Does that need protection?

secularprolife.org said...

No, like I said, my husband and I have been teaching our children about their own sexuality since they were quite small. How is that keeping them in ignorance exactly? My middle schooler, for example, knows exactly what sexual intercourse is because we answered very candidly. And our nine year old (a girl this time.... I noticed girls ask questions earlier) too (although for her it was appropriate for her age). I don't think they are ignorant at all. They are learning to respect themselves and others. You might wish to impart different values to your children, and that is your prerogative as a parent.

secularprolife.org said...

Why would they lie, and why do you ASSUME kids will necessarily have sex. Yes some do, but some don't especially those who do not feel it is expected of them. Many who precociously have sex, for example, do not have a father figure to guide them. My senior in high school obviously knows about contraception (granted the others do not yet, but they are quite younger) because we have talked to him candidly about it. Of course teens are teens and hormones are raging in that period of life, but I think it is wrong to give them the impression that they are expected to have sex. We expect him NOT to have sex until much later, but if he does he knows all the physical and emotional implications of being intimate with a girl and he knows about contraception. When we ask him more specific questions about his relationship with his girlfriend, for example, we do not demand an answer if he is not ready to give it. If he will lie, then he will lie, but that does not mean that parents whose kids are fed the PP sex ed, will not lie.

secularprolife.org said...

have you even read the article and have you even looked on the UN AIDS website? That is PRECISELY what they are doing. In countries where any headway has been made in slowing down the pandemic, the predominant factor was behaviour modification. Delayed first sexual encounter, faithful and monogamous relationships and THEN condoms.

secularprolife.org said...

anti-gay how exactly?

secularprolife.org said...

please don't be sore because you think I did not read your link. Exactly why am I anti-gay? because I told Ann Morgan she supported the baker who would not bake the wedding cake for the ss couple?

secularprolife.org said...

1. UN is committed to eliminating the pandemic and they use organizations such as FBOs to reach places in a more grassroot way.

2. I posted a link to a PDF of the UNAIDS/CARITAS consultation towards a joint response to AIDS.

3.You have no idea what you linked. That is an AGENDA (if you have ever worked in an office you know them as the boring meetings to set up the goals for the upcoming week/ month/ quarter etc.

4. "...Welcome the leadership and commitment shown in every aspect of the HIV and AIDS response by Governments, people living with HIV, political and community leaders, parliaments, regional and subregional organizations, communities, families, FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS (emphasis added), scientists, health professionals, donors, the philanthropic community, the workforce, the business sector, civil society and the media." Straight from the document you linked

secularprolife.org said...

That's because it was a CONSULTATION. do you know what that is? it is like a meeting. What I posted was the hand out. If you want a link that says they actually HAD the consultation here it is. SHeesh!


http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2014/february/20140227fboconsultation

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, I've heard of it. Assuming for the sake of argument that he owned his own bakery, and was not an employee of someone else or part of a franchise that sets policies that he would be obligated to obey (in which case his employers could fire him), the baker should not have to bake a cake for anyone he does not want to bake a cake for. This may or may not make him an asshole, but claiming that he should have to bake a cake if he doesn't want to is to claim he should be a slave.

secularprolife.org said...

**Pedophilia is an unpopular sentiment. Does that need protection?**


You're going to have to be more specific. Actual pedophilia is a crime, like murder, and should not be protected. And this, btw, is why child porn of a photographic or movie nature is illegal, it's for the same reason snuff films are illegal, because you have to actually commit a crime (either pedophilia or murder) to create such photographs or movies.


If you are talking about whether writing or discussing pedophilia should be protected, then yes, it should.

secularprolife.org said...

Exactly my point. Not all freedom is allowed and it is other people's business.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes of course. I was responding to LB who mentioned that although she may not agree with unpopular sentiments, they need protection. I think I will go and edit the graphic description now. Admittedly I have had a hard day and being tired and sleep deprived I may have a little overreacted. I just really wanted to make a strong point, but perhaps it was a bit much.

secularprolife.org said...

You're trying to conflate actual freedom and rights with violating other people's rights. Talking about pedophilia or 'niggers' or any other subject is a right. Actually committing pedophilia or lynching people is a crime, not a right. I'm not going to fall for that game. You've been told this before. There are no special rights for special people. Unless you're willing to put a kidney up for grabs by any dialyisis patient who needs it, then there is no 'right' to someone else's organs, and if there is no such right, that means embyroes don't have such a right, either.

secularprolife.org said...

There is a vast difference between 'unpopular sentiments' in verbal, written, or drawn expression, and actual crimes, or photographs of such crimes sold as perverted entertainment.


Regarding your contention that some sorts of freedom are limited, and it is other people's business, this is a ludicrous argument. To claim that the fact that some sorts of freedom are limited, therefore other sorts can justifiably be limited, is like claiming that since someone forcibly cut the fingers off my right hand, this somehow justifies forcibly cutting the fingers off my left hand. It does not, since the fingers should not have been cut off my right hand at all.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, you don't read links because you aren't actually interested in science, or in anything that prices you wrong

Yes, if I do recall, you are an anti gay bigot, based on your conversations with purple slurpy.

secularprolife.org said...

Hmmm, you might be confusing me with someone else. I used to have the screen name CristinaVenturi before my emailed was hacked. I think purpleSlurpy referred to me in the comments as CV. I remember having a conversation about how right wingers who are pro life also seem to be "anti-science" and against same sex unions being called marriage. But you know what? I realize I have loved a sheltered life with very open minded pro lifers, I think PS is right after all, that elected officials who are pro life also tend to (not all, but most) be pro traditional marriage to the exclusion of gays from this institution. I am not sure that's the population at large thinks this way, though. I, for one, sometimes reluctantly vote for pro life candidates, even there are only a few points on which I actually agree. Abortion is one of my non negotiables, and it is frustrating sometimes to know who my vote is going to, but it is the lesser of two evils. Ideally I would like to support a candidate who is pro life but who also supports strong legislation for a strong social safety net, education, I fact and pregnancy resources. Accommodations for pregnant workers on the job, economic policies that close the dreadful wealth gap. PS is right, such candidates are very hard to find.

secularprolife.org said...

Face it, sweetie; you've got *nothing.* The UN has *never* said what you claimed it did, i.e., that FBOs were better at taking care of HIV/AIDS than medical NGOs. They had a meeting with a Catholic group; so what? That doesn't mean they claimed what you said they did. You've been proven wrong already ... in no small part by your own "sources."

secularprolife.org said...

You made the extraordinary claim that the UN said FBOs were better at dealing with HIV/AIDS than medical NGOS. No such assertion was made by the UN.

And I'm sorry you cannot tell the difference between a resolution and an agenda. Maybe some remedial reading lessons to help with that. The fact that FBOS were listed as among the various organizations does NOT lend credence to your claim. ItIn fact, they're pretty far down on the list.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, let's see. You support people being able to discriminate against gay people. And your constant use of "lifestyle choices" is an obvious anti-gay dogwhistle term that implies that gay people choose their sexual orientation.

But hey, being a bigot isn't against the law. Rock on.

secularprolife.org said...

Should gays be permitted to marry?

secularprolife.org said...

**I think PS is right after all, that elected officials who are pro life also tend to (not all, but most) be pro traditional marriage**

I'd be a bit careful with that. What you call 'traditional marriage' is actually relatively recent, and up until a century or two ago, 'marriage' would consist of a woman 'marrying' the man she was TOLD to marry by her father. Regardless of whether she wanted to or loved him.

secularprolife.org said...

Have you taken lessons in evasion from myintx?

secularprolife.org said...

I guess you are one of those people who feel better about themselves by making stuff up bout others. That is fine. Just so you know, I was referring to early age of sexual encounter, having multiple partners, using drugs or drinking which can offuscate one's judgement. Was not referring to gays, who by the way I think do not choose to be attracted by their same sex. However these risky lifestyle choices apply to gays too I would imagine.

secularprolife.org said...

YOU made that claim. I just posted a comment that the UN is asking FBOs for help in reaching all segments of the population. Just because you have nothing else to say, you really ought not to start grappling at straws.

secularprolife.org said...

Where in any of my comments did I say that FBOs are better than NGOs? YOu are the one who said that (or assumed that's what the article is about). They had a meeting with a Caritas, which happens to be a catholic group, to seek help in reaching populations where Caritas Internationalis has operations, since it is one of the charities that is most widespread and their work at grassroot level is well known.

secularprolife.org said...

In most states, NO. Unless you operate a club that serves members only, it's assumed that any business exists to serve the public. There ARE laws, you know. No more 'whites only' hospitals are permitted. Or lunch counters, taverns, hotels, etc.

secularprolife.org said...

If everyone waited until marriage for sex, there wouldn't be transmission of HIV. Condoms. First time, every time. And the Catholic church had to be forced into doing that.

secularprolife.org said...

You mean speech about pedophilia? Yes, the first amendment applies to that. There is no 'thought crime.' Only actions are criminal.

secularprolife.org said...

Well first of all, that isn't what I said. Sex with a child under the age of consent is a crime. Reading fantasy literature about sex with a child under the age of consent is not a crime. That wouldn't be my cup of tea, but that's different from saying it should be illegal. Obviously, for such things to be viewed, a crime must be committed. That is the problem, the act. Not the thought. It doesn't matter what *you* believe is *perverse.* Don't view it. Don't read it. If it's adults acting out sexual acts, there's nothing you can do about it.

secularprolife.org said...

You said that the FBOs were 'better at' getting HIV/AIDS treatment out and that's why the UN was "relying on them." Please, don't bother backpedaling. Meeting with a group is not "relying on them."

You also said that the UN "disagrees with" my assertion that FBOs are primarily about shaming and denial of condoms, etc. I proved you wrong. You claimed that your citation backed up your assertion; it does not. So, yeah. You're just backpedaling at this point.

secularprolife.org said...

No, dumbfuck, I did NOT make the claim that the UN said FBOs were better at dealing with *anything.* In fact, I made quite the opposite claim.

People can read your words, you know.

secularprolife.org said...

The sad thing is that if you voted for the person who supports the strong safety net, and the strong job protections, you would be doing more to prevent abortion than voting for the "pro-life" candidate. But you're too dim to see it.

secularprolife.org said...

She votes on feelies, not actual real world outcomes, because it's all about moral purity with these people

secularprolife.org said...

Glad you see that. I also believe in a strong social safety net, and my impression is that the Catholicism tries to be this safety, and no doubt has done good things, though I think they'd do better if they dropped their dogma and focused strictly on policies that are empirical and based on science.

I agree with lady_black and night porter that voting for far-right candidates just because they are pro-life, may actually be doing more to make a society where women feel abortion is unavoidable. Far-right politicians are often against wage equality for women, against minimum wage, and against universal health insurance. Also, going against gay marriage and gay adoption disqualifies a sizable population of people willing to adopt - and some studies show gay people will adopt hard-to-place children. This is also a societal factor that, while won't reduce abortions, makes sure that those children born and put up for adoption, will be put into a stable home, and I've seen more than a few gay couples who are good parents.

Your mom sounded like a humanist. I think you should think carefully about whether your vote is really going to the lesser of two evils...

secularprolife.org said...

As a sidenote, here is a case study of Japan, one of the earliest industrial nations to legalize abortion.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2009/10/20/reference/abortion-still-key-birth-control/#.VICow4fXduQ

Points:

-- Currently in Japan, 95% of abortions take place before 11wks

-- # of abortions steady decline since the 1950s, about a 5-fold decline from 40~50/1000 to 9.3/1000. Improved economy and availability of the pill largely responsible.

-- One of the earliest industrialized countries to "legalize" abortion, was criticized for attracting rich foreigners to have a safe and legal abortion.

So consider if you voted for the pro-life US politicians, and miraculously overturned Roe v. Wade. Because the pro-life politicians largely do not care about social safety nets, the poor women will either be forced to get illegal abortions in the US under unsafe conditions. The rich women might jet off to Japan, or an EU country to get a safe one. As it stands, the government doesn't track who's pregnant and who's not. The poor women might get poor follow-up health care and may develop complications. They also may not have health insurance. They're fucked. The rich women, if they jet off early enough, for all intents and purposes, they will look like they just went off on a vacation. No one will be the wiser. If there are criminal penalties, the poor women might now be charged with a crime. The rich ones, they will just do it outside US jurisdiction. Their abortions will just go unpunished.

If you actually cared about the well-being of society, I think its better to support candidates who may be pro-choice, but also are addressing the root of the problem in which women feel despair when they are unexpectedly pregnant. The pro-life politicians just make it illegal to get an abortion, screwing the poor women, while the rich ones will just go overseas to obtain one. You most likely won't reduce the actual number of abortions, just screwing the poor women who will now slip through the cracks.

secularprolife.org said...

Well it doesn't look like it now that the most abortion happy president is in power, so I really don't think you are right.

secularprolife.org said...

Infant mortality rates are rising in red states because the ACA has been rejected by pro life politicians.

Does it bother you that babies are dying?

secularprolife.org said...

Ladyblack, I'm aware that that is the law. I disagree with the law, as it presumes to determine what people have 'consented' to in some arbitrary package. The way I see it, consent to sell to person A, B, and C does not mean consent to sell to person D, any more than consent to sex means consent to pregnancy, and your insistence that the government has a right to determine consent in such arbitrary packages, against the will of the individual, undermines a lot of the arguments against freedome of choice.

secularprolife.org said...

The government has every right to regulate business.

secularprolife.org said...

Teens need all the facts, even if they make you uncomfortable. You're not preserving 'innocence' by withholding it, but ignorance.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, see the thing is here, you're still undermining your own arguments. I notice you have a tendency to do that, for instance when you want to give women an 'out' after letting a penis ejaculate in their vagina, but not men.


Here's why you are undermining your argument. Let's take a very simple business model, say I am selling shiny pebbles. I am able to run this business by having a smart enough brain to know where to dig in my backyard to get shiny pebbles, and by using my hands to dig them up with a shovel. Then I put up a stand in my front yard, and I sell a pebble to Purple Slurpy for $1, and I sell another pebble to Fiona for $1, but I decide I don't like your practice of breeding munchkin cats, so I refuse to sell one to you.


If you claim, that by having a 'business', the government has a right to 'regulate it' and arbirarily decide on various package deals for my 'consent', such that selling pebbles to Fiona and Purple Slurpy thereby constitutes consent to sell to YOU as well, what you are saying is that the government has the right to determine what I do and do not consent to do with my brain and my hands.


That being the case, then by what logic would the government then not have the right to determine the same sort of package consent deals with other body parts, such as your vagina and uterus, and decide that consent to sex means consent to gestation, regardless of your own opinion on the matter?

secularprolife.org said...

What's the matter, plump dumbling? Don't you like anyone having the audacity to question your precious, eugenics-based Planned Parenthood?

secularprolife.org said...

Plump dumbling is at it again!

secularprolife.org said...

Plump dumbling calls others 'scary'. lmao

secularprolife.org said...

If plump dumbling's alleged daughter had sex for the first time at age 12, I hope the child protection authorities were called on plump dumbling!

secularprolife.org said...

The 'gay' lifestyle may be a matter of choice. If you're going to show us that it is not, then provide the proof. IOW, put up or shut up.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, lady_black, you seem so intimidating when you use such a profane modifier. Not!

secularprolife.org said...

And let's not forget about all of the women who commit sexual child abuse!

secularprolife.org said...

Does calling her a 'dumbfuck' make you feel better?

secularprolife.org said...

More tone-trolling. Look, I asked nicely once and got what I usually get from this disingenuous poster. A non-answer. I don't deal with other people's direct questions that way, and I really, REALLY hate being condescended to. That's what she was doing . How about you put that remark in the context of what occurred, instead of tone-trolling. Because that's a really dickish move.

secularprolife.org said...

A 'dickish' move, huh? An attempt at an insult using a term for male genitalia. Commit misandry much?

secularprolife.org said...

Invalid comparison. Comparing commercial transactions to bodily autonomy. And yes, if you own a business that offers shiny pebbles for a dollar, you have to sell one to me if I come in with a dollar and you are offering shiny pebbles for a dollar. This may come as a surprise to you, but what I do for a hobby, my religion (or lack thereof), my sexual orientation, my politics, the color of my skin, disabilities I may have, my gender, etc. are *not* elements that are involved in a commercial transaction. If you offer the product for sale, and I walk in with the money to buy what you're selling, you must sell it to me. That's pretty simple. Imagine that what you offer for sale are essential items, and apply your ridiculous theory to items everyone needs at one time or another such as health care, food, utilities, lodging, fuel, medication and other such necessities. Also, imagine that you're the only game in town, because in many rural areas you may well be. Are you allowed to refuse to sell me groceries because there's something/anything you don't like about me, and you've decided I don't deserve to eat? No you are not allowed to do that. Laws like that protect everyone, including you. Don't act so flippantly about them and whine that your liberties are being infringed upon. They are not. The issuing of a business license includes the responsibility to operate your business in a non-discriminatory manner. If you want to discriminate, open a private club that serves members only. That's perfectly legal to do. It will, of necessity, reduce your customer base. But that's what you do if you want to discriminate.

secularprolife.org said...

Why? Are you one of those people who think kids don't regularly do things their parents have no idea about? Even good kids, with good parents.

secularprolife.org said...

Prove that there is any such thing as "the gay lifestyle." Do you describe yourself in terms of who you have sex with? That may or may not be a part of who you are (as some people are asexual). But it certainly doesn't define you. This, like the alleged "gay agenda" simply doesn't exist. GLBT people have the same agenda you have. To live their lives in peace, and be treated with the same human dignity you demand for yourself. That's not asking a lot. I seriously doubt you made a conscious decision to be straight. It's just what you are. The same thing goes for gay people. My nephew and niece are gay. It wasn't a choice, as they knew from an early age that they were different. Before they even had a working knowledge of what sex means, they knew that they were attracted to members of their own gender, while other kids have crushes on those of the opposite gender. GLBT people are wired differently than straight people. It may be genetic, it may be epigenetic, but it's biologically based, not "a lifestyle choice."

secularprolife.org said...

First, Fiona didn't omit women. Second, most pedophiles are male and identify as straight. When it comes to prepubescent children, there's little difference between boys and girls. Most pedophiles take whatever they can get. It's just harder for adult males to have access to young girls, and much easier for them to have access to young boys. As Fiona said (and it's true) pedophiles tend to gravitate toward activities that allow them unsupervised access to children, like children's sports coaches and scouting leaders. Jerry Sandusky got away with all his crimes because 1) he was a prominent "pillar of the community" who ran a program for disadvantaged boys, therefore 2) parents thought of him as a good person, selfless and charitable with his time and money, and therefore they trusted him. It took decades to bring him to justice because his victims were shamed into silence, and at the same time in awe of his celebrity status.

secularprolife.org said...

I wish you what you wish me.

secularprolife.org said...

I frighten you? Good. You have the right feeling.

secularprolife.org said...

Pedophilia is not a sentiment. It is a sexual orientation. Boy are you stupid.

secularprolife.org said...

Okay - it is a cunty move. That seems more apt anyway. If it talks like a cunt and it walks like a cunt ... well you know.

secularprolife.org said...

I know you dream about them at night while choking your chicken. Give it up. You are probably too old to have your dreams come true. I doubt you can even find a normal woman to do you.

secularprolife.org said...

You think having sex is a crime? No wonder you do not know anything at all about it and you hate women.

secularprolife.org said...

If one does not wish to be called out as a dumbfuck, one should not behave like one.

secularprolife.org said...

The majority of child sexual abuse is committed by men.

secularprolife.org said...

What is the "gay lifestyle"? I'm keen to know, and so are my gay friends ... because this comes up a lot. My gay friends' lifestyles look no different from mine, in which they go to the store, go to work, walk the dog, help the kids with homework, etc. So, in order for me to provide the proof you desire, you must first define "gay lifestyle." IOW, put up or shut up.

secularprolife.org said...

He seems to hate successful women and uses the line "put up or shut up". Both telltale signs of helpless rage. A d-bag for sure, but also could be cries for help.

secularprolife.org said...

I would be happy to talk to him. Problem is that he is so full of insults and anger there is no way to contact him.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you 12 years old?

secularprolife.org said...

OK, that made me laugh out loud.

You can let loose good zingers when you want to :p

secularprolife.org said...

Who said anything about two grooms? Those plastic tacky cake toppers are out of vogue, and no self respecting gay person would be caught dead with one of them. The couple asked to have a wedding cake baked. The business makes wedding cakes. The couple had the money to buy. PERIOD.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, you may be ok with encouraging your teens to have sex


That's not what Planned Parenthood does.

secularprolife.org said...

Dead pals are a sad fact of life. That would be really cool if you ended up befriending ordinaryguy1. PD, you strike me as a wise grandma who can befriend all kinds of people.

secularprolife.org said...

It would be kool.

secularprolife.org said...

His anger is not youthful anger, but anger of a more defeated sort. In life, we win some battles and we lose some, but ordinaryguy1 seems to not have learned to appreciate the battles he has won, and instead seems to focus on the battles he has lost, and feels anger towards the winners of those battles, because he perceives them as having cheated. Hence his anger towards successful women, towards grandmothers, towards the LGBT finally beginning to be treated equally.

secularprolife.org said...

It's a fair question, Rose. How do you define porn?

secularprolife.org said...

sometimes I wish I could reply to you the same way you write to people, but then I remember you are a my senior by many years, and for as much I would like to answer rudely, I cannot!! Darn polite upbringing!!

secularprolife.org said...

Dodge.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not uncomfortable with facts. like I said in another comment, our children are told facts since they are quite young.

secularprolife.org said...

I have never voted for a "far-right" candidate. Indeed I voted Obama the first time around but voted someone else entirely last election (neither Obama, nor Romney). I cannot vote for someone who actively promotes abortion. If, as Lady_Black said, their goal is to reduce abortions in the long run, then why not come out and say it? Why are there no democrats (except for my favourite group Democrats for Life of America) who come out and say, "we are proposing these social and welfare policies because our goal is to eventually make abortion unnecessary" I trusted Obama first time around and his promises to the Bishops, but on many grounds we have seen Obama's promises shatter spectacularly. I do not like to vote republican, but will (so far I have found candidate who are pretty much in the center: eg they oppose abortion and euthanasia, but support LGBT, and embryonic stem cell etc.) if there are no other alternatives. Until I see democrats committing to limiting abortion for non medical reasons (sex selective, or "ooops the condom broke", or "actually I changed my mind about this whole baby thing") I will not support them.

secularprolife.org said...

If you looked beyond your bipartisan spectacles you would see that there ARE candidates who support social safety nets AND oppose abortion. It looks like you are being deliberately myopic.

secularprolife.org said...

How many people in the US have sex-selective abortions? I'd gather the US data is similar to Japan, 95% before wk 11, way before you could tell the sex of the fetus. Also, what do you think about statistics for Japan, 5-fold reduction in abortion over the last 50 years without a pro-life movement to speak of? Just society working correctly. And what do you think will happen when abortion is actually made illegal? Do you agree with my scenario that the rich will just go off to a foreign country where abortion is safe and legal, while the poor will have to find an illegal one here?



Also, isn't it interesting that your moderate Republican candidates, the ones that supported LGBT rights, didn't even exist a few years ago? It took all those progressives changing their minds.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, I was just making an example of a type of abortion that is not due to a medical condition. You are probably right that sex selective abortions are a rarer in the US than in some other countries. Of course there are some restrictions in this country but all in all Roe vs Wade has made the US on of the most permissive when it comes to abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Also, I never said I DID vote republican. I said I do not like to vote republican but WILL if I can no longer find center/moderate candidates

secularprolife.org said...

yes, just go on Democrats for Life of America

secularprolife.org said...

to find a candidate who opposes abortion AND supports LGBT AND opposes guns AND supports environment, might be hard. Is there a candidate that supports ALL of your ideals? If you do, then you might be far to one or other side of the political spectrum, but for all of us moderates out there it will be harder. However I am sure you are not coercing anyone to move their ideals so they can vote for one of the bipartisan candidates, right?

secularprolife.org said...

This, after you yourself claimed you can't find them. Such candidates may exist. They aren't running, and aren't being elected in high enough numbers. Also, opposing abortion doesn't mean making it illegal.

secularprolife.org said...

Like you, there are two non-negotiable issues for me: LGBT rights and environment. Denying these two issues is not merely about opinion, but to me demonstrates a willful ignorance of science and empiricism, which is dangerous and delusional.


I know too many LGBT people, and there is no way its a chosen lifestyle. I've seen them physically assaulted and struggling to come to grips with who they are, it makes no sense for them to choose this path. Plus, the ones who I asked told me they knew they were different even before puberty. Plus, there is some new scientific evidence that genetic factors are at play.

Environment. As a scientist who knows some stuff and has worked a bit with dynamical systems, chaos and fluid dynamics, I find climate change to be fully plausible, and I understand the universal mechanism of things like global bifurcations and phase changes - and how dangerous they can be, because they will induce snap changes in the character of a system. Weather systems share many similarities with other known dynamical systems that undergo bifurcations and phase changes, and if things like this happen on an earth-wide scale, we might be in for real trouble. There is a mountain of independent evidence that human activity causes climate change, and dynamical systems theory tells us that the character of the earth's climate could go through an irreversible change like a hysteresis - a tipping point that would be hard to undo once we pass it.

Gun control - don't want to outlaw guns, so I'm not AGAINST guns, but would like to see more regulation.


If a candidate supported these AND was pro-life, I would be willing to vote for them.

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks, will look into them to see what they stand for. I can respect the pro-life stance if it is based on something more than a religious book and emotions. I won't adopt such a stance, but if a candidate is pro-life, yet also doesn't seem to be delusional about science and reality, I might vote for them depending on who else is running.

secularprolife.org said...

Polite? You are a creepy freak and the things you type here are a pukefest. You are under the impression you are good? LOL.

secularprolife.org said...

Countries with a strong social safety net and widely available contraception covered by insurance tend to have lower abortion rates.

secularprolife.org said...

Then what do you mean 'sexually explicit stuff' that you think they supposedly peddle to kids?

secularprolife.org said...

I could try being friendly rather than kick him. The kicking certainly is not working if the goal is communication. What is his goal in coming here? Maybe he likes to get kicked.

secularprolife.org said...

You do not like me. Why would ask me what is the matter?
I dislike liars. They try to steal reality for their own reasons.

secularprolife.org said...

http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php/elected-pro-life-dems/pro-life-democrats

There are 3 pro-ife democratic senators and 4 democratic house members. So they comprise about 6% and 2%, respectively of the democrats in the senate and house.

I wonder how many moderate pro-life republicans there are in the house and the senate.

secularprolife.org said...

ladyblack: here's the thing. You write down that it is 'assumed' that any business is there to sell to anyone from the public. Assumed by whom? I don't see that one person has the right to make that assumption on the behalf of another person.


Here's a question for you: Who owns the bakery?
1. The baker
2. Random customers
3. The state
4. You
5. Other

secularprolife.org said...

eugenics-based Planned Parenthood?

Citation needed. From a peer-reviewed source. Thanks in advance.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 246   Newer› Newest»