It’s debatable whether or not author & poet Maya Angelou was ever much of a role model – her autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, holds powerful lessons about overcoming childhood racism and being raped by her mother’s boyfriend, but it also concludes with her having a child out of wedlock in her teens, after having sex with a near-total stranger for the express purpose of figuring out whether or not she’s a lesbian, with (as I recall) no commentary on the morality, maturity, wisdom, or responsibility of her actions. Heckuva message!
Whatever the answer to that question may be, she’s certainly not someone to look up to any more. Via ALL, Angelou recently spoke at a big Planned Parenthood luncheon. Lending your support to the cause of murdering innocents in the name of personal gratification is nothing to emulate.
A news article in The Reporter (Feb. 12, by Sharon Roznik) on2009 Assembly Bill 458requiring changes to our school’s sex education instruction leaves out the most important information.
Why? This bill now allows Planned Parenthood as agents of the state under the Department of Health Services to come in to our schools and teach their version of “healthy sex” to our kids (SECTION 10. 146.89 (3r) (e)).
You know, the same organization that has been caught on videoin Appleton,in Milwaukee, andother clinics across the countrygiving false information to young girls regarding whether her baby has a heartbeat, what the dangers of abortion are, and failing to contact authorities in cases of rape to girls as young as 13.
Why does PPH do this? For the money! The more sexually active our children are, the more money PPH makes selling birth control, STD medications and abortions.
In 2007 in Wisconsin alone, more than $5.4 million was takenthrough our tax dollarsand given to Planned Parenthood. Part of this was used so girls as young as 15 could receive free birth control, without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
It is pathetic that in Fond du Lac we have a county health officer and a county board of health member/pediatrician who apparently find this acceptable for our children.
Those who support such a thing should read the bill. Then they could explain to the community why it is OK to have a bill that will not allow school employees to tell Johnny that he shouldn’t have sex with multiple partners (Section 4, 118.019 (2) (a) (9) (b)), why they are supporting an organization that has stated that religious groups, such as Catholics, “deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex,” (Fox News link above), and why they support an organizationthat had Valentine’s Day cards this yearwith condoms on the front and “I like playing with you” written on the inside.
Even though this bill is now law, we in Fond du Lac can do something about it. Since the state has deemed it necessary to take away our local control as to what we want our children to learn about sex, we can opt to remove sex education completely from our schools.
Let’s devise other local programs to help our kids deal with the pressures and consequences of sex before they’re ready. Let’s develop a community program outside the schools that reflects the faith and values we hold dear in our community.
The implication of this comment is the writer would prefer kids be kept ignorant about sex. That ignorance is somehow preferable to knowledge about the reality of sex too young.
Of course, to come to this conclusion, Cobweb has to completely ignore the letter’s main point, all the sleaze surrounding Planned Parenthood – including criminal conduct – and the supporting evidence Mom provided. “The implication of this comment is the writer would prefer kids be” subjected to the influence of an organization willing to ignore statutory rape and promote dangerous personal behavior to sustain their profits.
Further, Mom doesn’t say she’s against age-appropriate sex education in public schools. She is arguing for the people of Fond du Lac’s right to decide these matters for themselves, not be dictated to by radical, out-of-touch politicians in Madison. But if the state insists upon giving our money to Planned Parenthood, and subjecting our kids to their twisted “values,” then looking outside of the school system for their sexual education is the preferable alternative. Cobweb is free to disagree if she likes, but that doesn’t entitle her to mischaracterize others as believing in “ignorance.”
His “reasoning” was—you’re gonna love this—pro-lifers don’t really see abortion as a human rights issue, because if they did, they’d all oppose abortion in rape/incest/life-of-mother cases, too, and they’d also support the sex-ed and condom distribution policies Scott likes; but because they don’t, it’s really all about controlling people’s sex lives.
Of course, Scott was confronted (by me and others) with credible arguments against all of this (by the way, here’s the latest counter-example to his anti-abstinence studies), but remained “skeptical.” Mind you, he couldn’t offer any good reasons for his skepticism, but proceeded to flaunt the nonsense anyway, as if he’d done…well, something to prove any of it or refute his opponents’ objections. As Allahpundit once said of Dingy Harry Reid, “like a two-year-old who’s just crapped on the carpet, he’s curiously proud of it.”
(Oh, and he also demanded to know what Planned Parenthood lied about, then when I told him exactly what Planned Parenthood lied about in painstaking detail, he ignored it for a hundred-something comments. ‘Cuz he’s such a stickler for the truth.)
But it gets better, my friends. Oh, does it get better.
This week, abortion came up once more on Boots & Sabers. Allow me to quote verbatim, so we can all revel in the majesty that is Scott’s madness:
If you believe—as you say you do—that a 3 month fetus is the legal and moral equivalent of a toddler, then you would either a) be storming the abortion clinic like Rambo to kill the murderous individuals who work there, or b) you’re a pathetic coward who wouldn’t risk his life to save roomfuls of innocent children from death. Of course there is a third explanation: You do know that 3 month old fetuses are not the moral and legal equivalent of you and me.
So, lemme get this straight: unless you also believe in abandoning the political process and the rule of law and killing abortion doctors, you don’t really believe in an unborn baby’s right to life.
There’s really only one way to respond to that:
Make no mistake: These aren’t sincere questions that Scott would stop asking if only someone would give him a good answer. He’s simply displaying a common tactic of left-wing hyper-partisanship: the need to attribute the beliefs of one’s opponents, no matter how sincere or well-argued, to any sort of ulterior motive other than the stated motivation, no matter how specious the evidence.
If Scott truly believes what he’s saying, then his ideology has so fully warped his mind that his capacity for rational, objective thought is completely gone. But I suspect he does know better. I think it’s all propaganda: he’s supporting a heinous practice, recognizes somewhat the odiousness of his position, and will throw out whatever he can to deflect moral judgment and make the other side the villains. Indeed, he deployed this gem of a point as a way of not answering The Family Guy, who noticed he described abortion as “sad and distasteful,” and asked the obvious follow-up: “If it’s nothing more than a lump of tissue, then why is it sad? Are you sad when you have a wart removed? It too was alive.”
Either way…pitiful.
UPDATE: As if we needed another indicator of how messed up the left-wing, pro-abortion mind is, consider the following: Scott says that because humans develop incrementally, meaning that in the period between just-conceived zygote and just-delivered newborn, increasing moral consideration should go along with increasing complexity (he also voted for a guy who had a a problem with those just-delivered newborns, but I digress). He also says that “a 12 week pregnancy can be terminated for any reason at all.”
Okay, so at 12 weeks, it must not be very developed or person-like, huh? I mean, it’s not like it would have any of the biggies, like a heartbeat, a fully-formed brain, or the capacity to feel pain.
Something seems to have failed rather significantly in Scott’s efforts at drawing “reasonable” distinctions. How do you think he’d respond to that? If you guessed “dodge & deflect,” give yourself a cookie.
Blood Money is an upcoming documentary exposing the true motivations behind the abortion industry, and the shattered lives it leaves in its wake. The producers are currently trying to build up enough support for distribution of the film, so please sign up at their website to express your interest and keep up to date on their progress.
One of my friends from Hillsdale alerted me to a remarkable find on Free Republic: a 1964 Planned Parenthood brochure, which in the course of promoting birth control, contrasts it with abortion, which PP says “An abortion kills the life of the baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it” (emphasis added).
Today, though, they sidestep the “life” question, instead making the issue “personhood,” which nobody really has a final answer for…but “what we are all sure about is that a pregnant woman is a person.”
What a difference a few decades makes…especially a few decades in which science has made PP’s original conclusion crystal clear.
Calvin Freiburger Online 