God's grace on display for the seemingly "unforgivable"

Where are your studies that show that education about sexual matters are successful?

"Education" has been touted for 50 years and absolutely none of the problems associated with sexual activity have diminished. As a matter fact, the problems have increased.

major bean wrote: As a matter fact, the problems have increased.

Source?

Which rather proves my point, doesn't it Bean. The attempt has not been focused on how to reason with regards to whether or not to engage in sexual activity, only in the how one should engage in that activity. When we shift the focus from what to think and how to act to how to reason and reach a well thought out decision, the problems that the former created will find correction. The current focus is indoctrination, not education. That is why the problems have gotten worse over time.

major bean wrote: Where are your studies that show that education about sexual matters are successful?

"Education" has been touted for 50 years and absolutely none of the problems associated with sexual activity have diminished. As a matter fact, the problems have increased.

I'm not sure traditional "sex education" helps at all but the #1 thing that has changed hearts and minds on abortion is ultrasound visualization of embryos and fetuses. Emotionally charged films like "The Silent Scream" fall into the category of "indoctrination" in my opinion,but I wouldn't be opposed to requiring that women contemplating abortion be informed that their fetus has a heartbeat by 21 days gestation that can be heard by doppler and/or visualized by ultrasound and give them the option of hearing/visualizing this before agreeing to an abortion. I understand this upsets a lot of people who support abortion on demand, but I don't see that it is any different than the kind of informed consent procedure required before many medical procedures. I think women have the right to be informed as to what they are actually doing, not just basing their decision on some vague idea of the fetus as a "clump of cells".

AspenValley wrote: [

Emotionally charged films like "The Silent Scream" fall into the category of "indoctrination" in my opinion,.

Yet again truth and fact being dismissed by a lib. What's left of you so called open-minded folk pay close attention. Anytime the truth or fact doesn't jive with the warped world view of a lib, guaranteed it will evoke any of the following:

You're a bigot
You're a racist
You're a homophobe
You're a kid, I'm an adult (AV and PS standard fallback. Pg 5 of the liberal playbook)
That is indoctrination (but preaching gay sex in schools isn't, by the way)
You're anti women
You hate women
You hate people
You're a corporate stooge
Jesus was a liberal (and?) ever notice that atheists are experts on what doesn't exist?

And the number one excuse preamble "I'm conservative/Republican BUT .........................yadda yadda yadda rofllol

http://wavs.unclebubby.com/wav/MOVIES/S ... ity_sn.wav

Baileyboy wrote:

AspenValley wrote: [

Emotionally charged films like "The Silent Scream" fall into the category of "indoctrination" in my opinion,.

Yet again truth and fact being dismissed by a lib. What's left of you so called open-minded folk pay close attention. Anytime the truth or fact doesn't jive with the warped world view of a lib, guaranteed it will evoke any of the following:

You're a bigot
You're a racist
You're a homophobe
You're a kid, I'm an adult (AV and PS standard fallback. Pg 5 of the liberal playbook)
That is indoctrination (but preaching gay sex in schools isn't, by the way)
You're anti women
You hate women
You hate people
You're a corporate stooge
Jesus was a liberal (and?) ever notice that atheists are experts on what doesn't exist?

And the number one excuse preamble "I'm conservative/Republican BUT .........................yadda yadda yadda rofllol

http://wavs.unclebubby.com/wav/MOVIES/S ... ity_sn.wav

How about "you're an idiot"? Because you are. AS PRACTICALLY EVERYONE BUT YOU HAS FIGURED OUT, I OPPOSE ABORTION.

And when I said this was going above your head, I was dead serious. You clearly are unable to understand any other viewpoint than your own cardboard-character ideas of life.

You also came in at a total FAIL at "getting" that I didn't think you were literally nine years old, but that your arguments and viewpoints would be what I would expect from someone with a mental age of about nine. You do the math, if you can, as to where I think that puts your IQ. Or at least your behavior. And from what I've seen of that here and elsewhere on this forum, I doubt I'd get many arguing with that assessment.

I'm serious, butt out of this discussion! You're adding nothing to it. Anyone fool enough to argue with someone who essentially agrees with them on an issue as important as abortion should keep his stupid trap shut and let others who can discuss the issue without acting like a badly brought-up child to do so. Do you think you have any chance at all of swaying the opinions of those on the fence on this issue when you attack with juvenile vitriol someone who is actually ON THE SAME SIDE AS YOU, who only differs in the means to achieve the goal?

You are not opposed to abortion. You are an advocate for less abortion.
Less abortion is still abortion.

major bean wrote: You are not opposed to abortion. You are an advocate for less abortion.
Less abortion is still abortion.

I am an advocate for less abortion while abortion remains legal and an advocate for abortion no longer being legally available on demand. Does that make my viewpoint clear enough?

towermonkey wrote:

major bean wrote: As a matter fact, the problems have increased.

Source?

This is only the first place I stopped to look at a link:

Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing Starting in the mid-1960's the out-of-wedlock birth rate began a rapid and relentless climb. This increase continued without pause for three decades. (See Chart 3.) Then, in 1993 and 1994, former President Clinton gave a series of speeches on social harm of illegitimacy; he was the first president to address this topic in nearly three decades.[1] He also proposed that Welfare use be limited to two years.[2] Then, in 1994, Republicans gained control of both chambers of the U.S. Congress for the first time in over fifty years. With this political shift came a dramatic change in the rhetoric concerning welfare. It became clear that future Welfare would indeed be time limited and would place a far heavier emphasis on self-reliance. Further, both parties now publicly asserted that illegitimacy was harmful to children and society; the new Speaker of the House of Representatives suggested that children born out-of-wedlock might be placed in orphanages

The link: http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-effects-of-welfare-reform

By the way, the 60s is whenever sex education in the public schools started. Its purpose was to diminish the illegitimate birthrate. The liberal thinking at the time was that girls did not know what caused pregnancy and education would stop the problem. Ha Ha Ha Ha! Even as a teenager back then, I thought that this was stupid and funny.

AspenValley wrote:

major bean wrote: You are not opposed to abortion. You are an advocate for less abortion.
Less abortion is still abortion.

I am an advocate for less abortion while abortion remains legal and an advocate for abortion no longer being legally available on demand. Does that make my viewpoint clear enough?

It makes you realistic. That's the trouble with this debate. The argument is always carried out on the extremes and it is always all or nothing. If there are 1.3 million abortions a year and you reduce that number by half, you've saved 650,000 lives.