All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

Planned Parenthood pushes intensive sex education onto 10-year olds

2 Comments

Story from Fox News. (H/T Protein Wisdom via ECM)

Excerpt:

The report, “Stand and Deliver,” charges that religious groups, specifically Catholics and Muslims, deny their young access to comprehensive sexual programs and education.

“Young people’s sexuality is still contentious for many religious institutions. Fundamentalist and other religious groups — the Catholic Church and madrasas (Islamic Schools) for example — have imposed tremendous barriers that prevent young people, particularly, from obtaining information and services related to sex and reproduction. Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex.” the report states.

The report demands that children 10 and older be given a “comprehensive sexuality education” by governments, aid organizations and other groups, and that young people should be seen as “sexual beings.”

[…]Michelle Turner, president of the Maryland-based Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, said Planned Parenthood was simply trying to eliminate parental say.

“What are they trying to do? They are trying to eliminate the role of mom and dad in the family,” Turner said. “For Planned Parenthood to decide that governments, private organizations and religious organizations should make decisions about kids’ sexuality is just going too far.”

“It is part of a bigger push to change the way we think about sex,” she said. That sex is all about pleasure and there are no consequences. They are wrong. No matter how much we teach children, some will make mistakes. They will forget. And Planned Parenthood doesn’t want to deal with that,” she said.

“They see religious groups, especially those that counsel abstinence and waiting until marriage, as bad guys,” she added. “We aren’t.”

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

Commentary

Canadian columnist David Warren on abortion evasions and euphemisms

3 Comments

This column from Canada’s 3rd best columnist is pure candy. Yum! (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

I have before me a packet of cigarettes with a Health Canada message in capital letters that reads: “Cigarettes hurt babies.” The text underneath this begins, “Tobacco use during pregnancy reduces the growth of babies.” Since an accompanying photograph further shows a pregnant woman smoking, it was unnecessary to specify “unborn.” Similarly, when we are discussing abortion, it is unnecessary to specify that the babies in question are “unborn.”

Indeed, the refusal to use plain language, the substitution of euphemisms and rhetorical evasions, is an infallible indicator that a speaker or writer feels uncomfortable with the truth.

Consider for instance the proposition, “a woman’s right to control her own body.” Not even men believe this, and a pregnant woman, who actually believes that the baby she is carrying is part of her own body, should wait for it to kick. Perhaps she has an astoundingly primitive notion of biology; but I should think even a woman of subnormal intelligence would understand the difference between what is in that bump she is carrying, and what is in the rest of her flesh. To wit: a different person.

I have myself had the experience of sitting inside a car. And yet even in the moment I was doing so, I did not consider myself to be a car, or part of a car. Nor — had the car the mind of a pro-active feminist — would I consider it had the right to do what it wished with its own body, if that involved tossing me out on the highway.

You know, if an unborn baby really were part of the woman’s body, then she would have four eyes, four arms, four legs and two noses! And imagine if it were a male baby! What then?

It makes no sense to talk about a woman have a right to control her own body when the unborn has a completely different DNA signature than the mother. The time for controlling her own body was before she consented to have sex with a man who was not fully invested in having a child to take care of. There are lots of things for men and women to do to express love without taking unnecessary risks with other people’s lives.

Related posts

Commentary

Does the Bible support redistribution of wealth or private property?

8 Comments

Article here. (H/T C.S. Lewis Society)

Excerpt:

The fundamental question for those who consider the Bible authoritative is not whether it advocates charity or helping the poor. Obama, Wallis, and other statist Christians are not arguing for charity. They are arguing for government appropriation of property. The issue isn’t charity, but property rights. If the Bible rejects the notion of a right to property, then these people may have a basis for their perspective. But if the Bible supports a right to own property, safe from government redistribution to others, then their policy proposals are unbiblical.

What follows is an analysis of what the Bible says, in both the New and the Old Testaments, on the subject of property rights. Whether the Bible, or parts thereof, should be considered authoritative or useful for Christians I will leave to theologians. My concern is with the text itself.

I would like to be able to report that the Bible argues firmly for an absolutist view of property rights. I would like to be able to write that the Bible is a strictly libertarian document. It is not. Yet in the balance and taken as a whole, the Bible support the individual’s right to own property and hold onto it. Briefly summarized, the Bible’s teachings are that humans are stewards of God’s property in a rental relationship and are accountable to him, not to the state, for the disposition of that property. The Bible advocates charity for the poor and condemns the parsimonious, but it does not grant authority to the state to act on God’s behalf to redistribute wealth. It is mostly a laissez-faire system of ideas, which libertarians should not forfeit to statist misinterpretations.

The Bible suggests three central principles regarding property rights. One is the prohibition against theft, enshrined in Exodus 20:15 “You shall not steal.” The second is the idea that the world ultimately belongs to God (not to the state), as exemplified by Psalm 24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world and those who dwell in it.” The third is a corollary: humans are temporary tenants upon God’s property, as King David said in 1 Chronicles 29:15: “For we are but sojourners before You, and tenants, as all our fathers were.”

Worth reading even if you disagree, because it’s well-written. I’d like to see a good debate on this topic, wouldn’t you? Jay Richards vs. Jim Wallis, maybe? I’d like to see that.