Well I loved the sex education classes in Junior High, but I’ve heard that the proponents of those classes promised that these classes would end all kinds of problems from teen pregnancy to “VD”.
I think the left used to lie way back when.
(On the other hand the “Boy to Man” film they showed us in 5th grade pretty much had me confused all to heck.
Chef: Look, schools are teaching condom use to younger and younger students each say! But sex isn’t something that should be taught in textbooks and diagrams. Sex is emotional and spiritual. It needs to be taught by family. I know it can be hard, parents, but if you leave it up to the schools to teach sex to kids, you don’t know who they’re learning it from. It could be from someone who doesn’t know, [pans to Mr. Mackey] someone who has a bad opinion of it, [pans to Ms. Choksondik] or even a complete pervert. [pans to Mr. Garrison]
Mr. Garrison: What? Why did you pan to me just now? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Okay children, so what other sexual positions have we talked about? Yeah, the wrap-around butt grab. Sure, can’t forget that. Uh huh, reverse cowgirl. Good, Kevin. Hot Lunch, sure, she likes that. Donkey Punch, uh huh. Glass-bottom boat. Good one, yes. Fish-eye. Good, Jenny. Chili dog. Mm-hm.
Justin B. - 02:07pm on 07/19/2007
If abortion is a basic human right, then it is an obligation of the taxpayers to financially help those unable to afford access to abortion services.
The Left insists that under the right to privacy to wit: “Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution The enumeration (specifically listed or named) in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage.” Thus, the Left insists that by virtue staris decisis (to abide by decided cases) abortion has become a new basic human right retained by the people.
Of course, the only problem is that the people had nothing to do with it, it was a matter of activist judges and liberal organizations that have manufactured a human right out of whole cloth and absent the consent of the governed. So, even if we have bad law and it gets confirmed X amount of times, that alone makes it settled law and in this case a basic human right? Not in my world and I suspect the Founding Fathers would see this as an abuse of the 9th Amendment.
So, I agree with Rob about not paying for someone to use abortion as a means of birth control, but if the people by their silence uphold abortion as a basic human right, shouldn’t we pay for it? Oh sure it’s the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings unable to defend themselves, but what the hell it’s a human right to murder innocent human beings. Wait a minute, what about the baby’s basic human right to life?
Sex education as part of science, to teach the basic biological lessons is necessary in school, but at what age should be up to the local community standards and NOT a matter to be decided by the elite educational establishment, exercising authority over the children in any community not granted to them by the people. The educational establishment, especially the NEA has no authority over our children unless we are silent, so if the parents in local communities don’t object, then “let the devil take the hindmost,’ which among its several meanings tells us that if we are lazy and don’t keep ahead of the devil, he will surely overtake us and force his will upon us.
Sadly, I think I am guilty of bloviating on this issue; that is, to enlarge upon a subject beyond any real reason or need.
Neiman - 02:07pm on 07/19/2007
If abortion is a basic human right, then it is an obligation of the taxpayers to financially help those unable to afford access to abortion services.
The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. When are the taxpayers going to get me that .45 I’ve had my eye on?
The right to free speech is in there too. When are the taxpayers going to pick up the hosting costs of this blog?
How about the right to practice religion freely? That’s in there too. When are the taxpayers going to start subsidizing churches?
That is a specious argument if I’ve ever heard one.
Rob - 02:07pm on 07/19/2007
Sex education as part of science, to teach the basic biological lessons is necessary in school, but at what age should be up to the local community standards and NOT a matter to be decided by the elite educational establishment, exercising authority over the children in any community not granted to them by the people.
Very correct. It is science and is specifically part of biology. I am not adverse to teaching it as part of a 6th-7th-8th grade science course or during the similar timeframe as part of health and nutrition. But as a stand-alone class, it is not something that belongs in a special category. I cannot imagine that schools that lack health or science curriculums should instead spend class time teaching an “optional” subject.
Problem is that in the schools that have the most “children left behind” they are in the worst need of sex ed.
Also keep in mind that black women are 3 times as likely as white to have abortions and despite being only 12-15% of the population, they make up almost 40% of the total abortions. Hispanics are twice as likely as whites to have an abortion and despite being roughly 12-15% of the population, the account for another 30% of the abortions.
Maybe Obama is stating that his CONSTITUENTS need sex ed and abortions paid for by the state.
Justin B. - 02:07pm on 07/19/2007
Basic Human Right??? What twit thought that up?
Next to the words “Fair” and “Fairness,” the word “Right,” used in a legal sense, is probably the most misused in the entire political lexicon.
As Rob points out, the fact that a person is entitled to do something does not make it a human or civil “right,” and it certainly doesn’t mandate an open-ended financial obligation by taxpayers to pick up the tab for anyone who says they can’t pay for it.
If we would all learn to use words with precision, and ignore the Left’s deliberate linguistic larceny this wouldn’t even be an issue.
Bat One - 03:07pm on 07/19/2007
Rob: Take a deep breath: 1. I was arguing against abortion being a basic human right. 2. While I still maintain that abortion is not a basic human right, surely there would be difference between denying a woman access to health care and denying her a gun?
I do not think abortion is a basic human right, I am on your side on this issue without an equivocation or shade of meaning; I am only saying that if a clear majority of the people through the Amendment process said they wanted it to be a human right for every female citizen, then I could understand why they would demand provisions would have to be made to help those who through financial deprivation could not gain access to the health care needed to access the full benefits of that newly established human right.
Stop arguing when we agree or I’ll tell Whistler to send out those naughty pictures to the media that he has of you.
Neiman - 03:07pm on 07/19/2007
Billy Jeff arued what the definition of is - is and now I know why:
If abortion is a basic human right, then it is an obligation of the taxpayers to financially help those unable to afford access to abortion services
.
Doesn’t if in this case indicate a let’s assume for the sake of arguement statement? That is what my opening paragraph started with, a simple ”If,” well if you people cannot understand what ”If” means, then ”If you!”
IF is a conjunction used to indicate the cirsumstances that would have to exist in order for something to happen or be true.
Neiman - 03:07pm on 07/19/2007
1. I was arguing against abortion being a basic human right.
I realized that. Not sure why you think I didn’t.
2. While I still maintain that abortion is not a basic human right, surely there would be difference between denying a woman access to health care and denying her a gun?
I don’t see a difference. The rights laid out in the constitution (and those are the only rights recognized in this country) are individual rights. Meaning that the individual can exercise them. Not that an individual has to exercise them, or should exercise them.
So while I, nor anyone else, can remove your right to speak your mind on politics...I don’t have to pay for you to speak your mind on politics.
The same applies to the abortion situation. If it is a right (it isn’t, but that’s how the courts are requiring us to treat it) women are free to exercise it if they want. But that status of a right doesn’t imply any duty to citizens as a whole for paying for the woman to exercise that right.
Well I loved the sex education classes in Junior High, but I’ve heard that the proponents of those classes promised that these classes would end all kinds of problems from teen pregnancy to “VD”.
I think the left used to lie way back when.
(On the other hand the “Boy to Man” film they showed us in 5th grade pretty much had me confused all to heck.
http://www.tv.com/south-park/proper-condom-use/episode/63618/trivia.html#quotes
http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_5/episode_507/epi507script/
To his Kindergarten Class-Mr. Garrison:
If abortion is a basic human right, then it is an obligation of the taxpayers to financially help those unable to afford access to abortion services.
The Left insists that under the right to privacy to wit: “Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution The enumeration (specifically listed or named) in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage.” Thus, the Left insists that by virtue staris decisis (to abide by decided cases) abortion has become a new basic human right retained by the people.
Of course, the only problem is that the people had nothing to do with it, it was a matter of activist judges and liberal organizations that have manufactured a human right out of whole cloth and absent the consent of the governed. So, even if we have bad law and it gets confirmed X amount of times, that alone makes it settled law and in this case a basic human right? Not in my world and I suspect the Founding Fathers would see this as an abuse of the 9th Amendment.
So, I agree with Rob about not paying for someone to use abortion as a means of birth control, but if the people by their silence uphold abortion as a basic human right, shouldn’t we pay for it? Oh sure it’s the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings unable to defend themselves, but what the hell it’s a human right to murder innocent human beings. Wait a minute, what about the baby’s basic human right to life?
Sex education as part of science, to teach the basic biological lessons is necessary in school, but at what age should be up to the local community standards and NOT a matter to be decided by the elite educational establishment, exercising authority over the children in any community not granted to them by the people. The educational establishment, especially the NEA has no authority over our children unless we are silent, so if the parents in local communities don’t object, then “let the devil take the hindmost,’ which among its several meanings tells us that if we are lazy and don’t keep ahead of the devil, he will surely overtake us and force his will upon us.
Sadly, I think I am guilty of bloviating on this issue; that is, to enlarge upon a subject beyond any real reason or need.
The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. When are the taxpayers going to get me that .45 I’ve had my eye on?
The right to free speech is in there too. When are the taxpayers going to pick up the hosting costs of this blog?
How about the right to practice religion freely? That’s in there too. When are the taxpayers going to start subsidizing churches?
That is a specious argument if I’ve ever heard one.
Very correct. It is science and is specifically part of biology. I am not adverse to teaching it as part of a 6th-7th-8th grade science course or during the similar timeframe as part of health and nutrition. But as a stand-alone class, it is not something that belongs in a special category. I cannot imagine that schools that lack health or science curriculums should instead spend class time teaching an “optional” subject.
Problem is that in the schools that have the most “children left behind” they are in the worst need of sex ed.
Also keep in mind that black women are 3 times as likely as white to have abortions and despite being only 12-15% of the population, they make up almost 40% of the total abortions. Hispanics are twice as likely as whites to have an abortion and despite being roughly 12-15% of the population, the account for another 30% of the abortions.
Maybe Obama is stating that his CONSTITUENTS need sex ed and abortions paid for by the state.
Basic Human Right??? What twit thought that up?
Next to the words “Fair” and “Fairness,” the word “Right,” used in a legal sense, is probably the most misused in the entire political lexicon.
As Rob points out, the fact that a person is entitled to do something does not make it a human or civil “right,” and it certainly doesn’t mandate an open-ended financial obligation by taxpayers to pick up the tab for anyone who says they can’t pay for it.
If we would all learn to use words with precision, and ignore the Left’s deliberate linguistic larceny this wouldn’t even be an issue.
Rob: Take a deep breath: 1. I was arguing against abortion being a basic human right. 2. While I still maintain that abortion is not a basic human right, surely there would be difference between denying a woman access to health care and denying her a gun?
I do not think abortion is a basic human right, I am on your side on this issue without an equivocation or shade of meaning; I am only saying that if a clear majority of the people through the Amendment process said they wanted it to be a human right for every female citizen, then I could understand why they would demand provisions would have to be made to help those who through financial deprivation could not gain access to the health care needed to access the full benefits of that newly established human right.
Stop arguing when we agree or I’ll tell Whistler to send out those naughty pictures to the media that he has of you.
Billy Jeff arued what the definition of is - is and now I know why:
.Doesn’t if in this case indicate a let’s assume for the sake of arguement statement? That is what my opening paragraph started with, a simple ”If,” well if you people cannot understand what ”If” means, then ”If you!”
IF is a conjunction used to indicate the cirsumstances that would have to exist in order for something to happen or be true.
I realized that. Not sure why you think I didn’t.
I don’t see a difference. The rights laid out in the constitution (and those are the only rights recognized in this country) are individual rights. Meaning that the individual can exercise them. Not that an individual has to exercise them, or should exercise them.
So while I, nor anyone else, can remove your right to speak your mind on politics...I don’t have to pay for you to speak your mind on politics.
The same applies to the abortion situation. If it is a right (it isn’t, but that’s how the courts are requiring us to treat it) women are free to exercise it if they want. But that status of a right doesn’t imply any duty to citizens as a whole for paying for the woman to exercise that right.