It's just sex

Saturday, January 7, 2012

I remember the day a friend of mine joked about her favorite celebrity. She - a married woman - said, “If I ever met him and had the chance to sleep with him, I’d do it!” I must have looked shocked because she laughed and said, “It’s not a big deal, it’s just sex!”

All things considered, my friend could have been joking. But it got me to thinking: some people do seem to have the idea - or at least live as if they believe - that sex is no big deal; it’s just a physical act between two consenting individuals.

But can we be honest, here?

STDs, unplanned pregnancy, abortion, and pornography are big problems. There are so many more societal ills related to the misuse of sex that I only have room to mention a handful. I especially hope that if you're a young (or even not so young) person reading this, and you're considering having sex, this short listing will make you consider the topic in a different way.

On one hand, humanity claims sex is “not a big deal,” and on the other hand, humanity - for all practical purposes - worships it. But maybe that’s the problem... we’ve gorged ourselves on sex to the point where it’s lost its savor.

Sexually transmitted infections are rampant. Why? Simple, really. Indiscriminate, non-monogamous sex. Chlamydia is currently the number one STD in the US. Syphilis is on the rise, especially among homosexual men. (And I’m not even touching the homosexuality topic here because the research on its health effects is just plain scary.) The human papilloma virus is responsible for the majority of cervical cancer cases. This site has some pretty dastardly statistics as well, including the fact that one in four college students has a sexually transmitted infection. When you catch an STD from some “no big deal” sex, I would think at that point, it has become more than “just sex.” One moment of carelessness can lead to a lifetime of... well, you get the idea.

Unplanned pregnancy is nothing new. But there were times in our not-so-distant past when an unexpected pregnancy (within marriage, at least) was viewed as more of a happy surprise, a joyful blessing from God. Today, it’s a different story. When an unplanned pregnancy occurs between two individuals who are not in a committed relationship, and/or the individuals have no intention of remaining together or of considering raising a child, we have problems.

Come close, and let me whisper in your ear, friend: Heterosexual sex creates children. It’s not only a pleasurable experience, it’s one that comes with the utmost responsibility because of the possibility that, for about 5 days out of every month in a woman’s cycle, she has the ability to conceive a child. Forget this fact and you end up with something that’s not “just sex.” It’s a new human life you’ve created.

Which brings me to my next point: abortion. Some view this as a way for women to “be like men” and have so-called consequence-free sex. Hey, if men can get away with just walking away from a one-night stand free as a bird, why can’t women do the same? It may seem unfair, but the bottom line is, we women were given highly specialized organ, the uterus, for the purpose of human reproduction. This isn’t a pain; it’s a privilege. Once fertilization occurs, a new human life has been created. Period. There is nothing that can “undo” this. An abortion does not give a woman “reproductive freedom.” It simply kills the growing human who is the result of sexual activity. And to date, more than 50 million of these growing humans have been extinguished legally in the US. This isn't "just sex" and it's a very big deal when innocent humans have to pay for our irresponsible sexual practices.

And last on my very short list: pornography. You can’t even watch commercials today without some sort of soft-core porn hitting you in the face. Heck, we even have restaurants named after coarse terms for female anatomy. But the real problem is that pornographic images and sex are viewed as impersonal, harmless entertainment and titillation, when in reality, porn is a destroyer of relationships, families, and healthy sexual attitudes. It doesn’t enhance true intimacy or trust; it erodes it. Porn addiction has a strong link to separation, divorce, and extramarital affairs - which, in turn, affect not only the couple involved (or future partners) but also any children who might be in the picture. I could go on about rape and other sex crimes and their links to pornography, but if you're reading this, I know you can Google. So much for the “no big deal” nonsense.

Those who don’t make the connection between the “it’s just sex” attitude and some major societal ills are either being dishonest or short-sighted. What happens between consenting adults in the bedroom most certainly can affect the rest of society.

And what happens in Vegas really never stays in Vegas.

This one's for the skeptics

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

After many conversations over the years with various pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike, I've come to realize that many are either willfully ignorant or just naive about what's going on in the world regarding abortion.

"Nobody's really pro-abortion," they say. "They're just for a woman's right to decide what happens to her body."

Let this be your wake up call.

Americans seem to have a myopic view of abortion because in this country, abortion is legal and is promoted under the guise of "reproductive choice," "freedom," and "women's rights." But I have news for you - it's only like this in the Western world (and even that could change in the very near future).

A few honest friends of mine have admitted why they truly support groups like Planned Parenthood, however. It's not really about "choice" for them. It's about saving the planet from ourselves. These individuals, while feminist at heart, don't seem to bat an eye at the oppressive governments elsewhere which wield abortion as a weapon against their own people. It is, after all, a means to an end.

Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, a group committed to opposing and raising awareness about forced abortion and sexual slavery in China, hit the mark in a press release this week when she said:

Make no mistake. China's One Child Policy is enforced through forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide. Women are dragged out of their homes, strapped to tables, and forced to abort babies they want, up to the 9th month of pregnancy.

Women sometimes die during these violent procedures. The One Child Policy is China's war on women. Adopting it world wide would hurl women's rights back to the dark ages.

So while American pro-choice advocates bicker about how everyone else should pay for their contraceptives, women in China and other parts of the world are actually living in the dark ages of oppressive regimes - regimes that do things like this:



[Photo via Women's Rights Without Frontiers]

This photo shows a young woman who has just been forcibly aborted at 7 months pregnant but is unable to pay the government officials to dispose of her child's body, so they have left the child in a plastic bag next to her on the bed. If the look on her face doesn't move you, you need a heart check. If her testimonial doesn't make you angry, I don't know what will.

The population alarmists seem to be out in record numbers, writing articles and letters to newspaper editors praising the new HHS mandates requiring every woman's (and child's) contraception - including the abortifacient "morning after pill" - to be paid for by American taxpayers. Eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger would be so proud. No doubt her sentiments are echoed today by a former PP director (and "family planning" population control advocate) Norman Fleishman, who wrote in a letter to the editor of the Napa Valley Register this week:

Ah, how I remember “Every child a wanted child,” our motto at Planned Parenthood. And I do welcome this [HHS contraception] legislation.

Half the pregnancies in America are “accidental.” Increasingly younger, unmarried women (or, as we might say, “girls”) find themselves mothers for life — long before they have an inkling of parenthood’s titanic, endless consequences....

Global population numbers having just passed the 7 billion mark (twice what it was when I opened a vasectomy clinic in Texas), it is overwhelming to contemplate the world struggling with this flood and its inevitable threats (including starvation, drought, pollution — and what leading scientists predicted long ago would be the main danger to civilization: war).

Unless we act (this legislation, along with China’s “one child” policy, is a start), the world is doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.

This is a PP director lending his approval to things like what you see pictured above.

Fleishman also pulls back the curtain on the "every child a wanted child" mantra, revealing that population control advocates don't believe it's necessarily the woman's view of a "wanted child" that matters - but that of the society in which she lives.

Convinced yet that some people really are pro-abortion? UK-based Optimum Population Trust's chief exec, Simon Ross, also recently condemned soccer star David Beckham and his wife Victoria for having a 4th child:

There is a big issue there, family planning is cheap, yet many people don't use it properly and accidental pregnancy rates are very high. We need to change the incentives to make the environmental case that one or two children are fine but three or four are just being selfish.

"The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families. There's no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child.

Ah, yes, those sacred carbon emissions. Soon they'll dictate the lives of every single one of us, regardless of the junk "science" and fudging of research behind the global warming and rabid environmentalist movements.

Since its inception as Margaret Sanger's Birth Control League, Planned Parenthood has been up to its elbows in eugenics - the "weeding out" of "undesirables" in society (remind me again where most of their clinics are located...). This organization works worldwide in support of China and other regimes that forcibly sterilize women, often without full disclosure to the women. This should be no surprise, as PP performs abortions in America without full disclosure to their patients, and fights against every informed consent law they can find, keeping women from knowing the truth about what abortion is and does.

As for me, I'm angry today. I'm angry that women like the one pictured above are being brutalized and their children stolen from them by these predatory governments. I'm going to go hug my children now - my "parenthood's endless, titanic consequences," (according to Fleishman) who bring me so much joy and purpose in life. My children are not titanic consequences and neither are anyone else's.

Skeptics, do your homework, and leave the dark side. Come into the light of the pro-life movement, where women and their children are more than just numbers or carbon emissions. They are loved and valued as they should be.

The sham of Planned Parenthood

Friday, March 4, 2011

Kirsten Powers has a great article in the liberally slanted Daily Beast today, picking apart Planned Parenthood's "charitable nonprofit, here only to protect women's health" facade.

First myth on her list: Without access to birth control, women will have more abortions.

In fact, says Powers, the Guttmacher Institute (research arm founded by PP) tells a very different story - that the majority of women who abort actually have access to and are users of contraception:

54% of women who had abortions had used a contraceptive method, if incorrectly, in the month they got pregnant. For the 46% who had not used contraception, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy; 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods; 26% had had unexpected sex, and 1% had been forced to have sex.

Not one fraction of 1% said they got pregnant because they lacked access to contraception [emphasis mine]. Some described having unexpected sex, but all that can be said about them is that they are irresponsible, not that they felt they lacked access to contraception.

And the real kicker?

Guttmacher reported that only 8% of women who undergo abortions have never used a method of birth control.

Eight percent? So much for the old "abstinence education makes people pregnant" tripe. Most women know about birth control, know how and when to use it, and have access to it. So, why is Planned Parenthood perpetuating this lie?

Second: By existing as a women's health provider and dispenser of contraception, we reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

Powers points out these statistics are unchanged from 3 years ago - and yet, the amount given to this organization which claims to help reduce unplanned pregnancies has skyrocketed. When Powers questioned the fact that PP had actually done nothing to decrease the unplanned pregnancy rate, she says:

I was pointed to a Planned Parenthood study that showed that one in three women voters reported having struggled with the cost of prescription birth control at some point.

Here's what I noticed: the key word here is prescription. Granted, some women in difficult financial straits might have some difficulty scraping together $25 bucks for the Pill every month, but did anyone ever hear of condoms? Spermicides? These things are cheap, over the counter options. (They also wreak less havoc on the female body, but that's another topic for another time.)

My OBGYN's office has bowls of condoms just sitting out for anyone who wants them. Even Planned Parenthood gives out condoms - for FREE! (Oh, but wait - remember that 2005 Consumer Reports research, showing PP's condoms as the least quality and least reliable? Hmm....) Perhaps one should just plunk down the $8 for a box of something else. I don't think I'd be trusting America's #1 abortion store to give me reliable contraception. Repeat business is one of their staples.

And another thing: PP charges. For everything. They've admitted going to a health department is cheaper. At least one PP stated on video that a pre-birth control appointment costs about $80. If a woman can't afford the Pill, how are they to afford the appointment? I thought PP got all this taxpayer money to provide low cost "women's healthcare." PP uses a sliding scale for its patients, but if your local health department does the STD testing for FREE, why not go there?

Please tell me again - why is PP necessary for birth control dispension, STD testing, Pap smears, and breast exams?

Third - an eye opener: We're just a charitable nonprofit, concerned with women's health.

Oh, really? Powers notes:

According to its most recent tax filing, the purpose of Planned Parenthood Federation of America is to provide leadership in “[a]chieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment; in stimulating and sponsoring relevant biomedical, socio-economic, and demographic research.”

So it is, in reality, a population-control organization. Funny, this was never mentioned in the gauzy $200k advertising campaign launched last week. It also doesn’t make it into the “About Us” section of the group’s website, which repeatedly claims its mission is to protect women’s health, when in fact the real mission is to keep the birth rate at whatever level the leaders believe it should be.

Powers arrives at the conclusion that PP isn't the "charitable nonprofit" they purport to be, and that taxpayers shouldn't be funding it - and I'm inclined to agree. Funnel that money to actual community health centers which provide low to no-cost medical care for the uninsured and underinsured, and that do not provide child-killing "services." We'll all be better for it.

Trickle-Down Exploitation

Saturday, December 18, 2010

In general, I'm not a fan of the National Organization of Women (NOW). But they've got it right this time, filing formal complaints against the Hooters franchise for marketing their tawdry gear to children.

A friend of mine wrote a post on her blog quite a while back, taking Hooters to task for their exploitation of women. Women rushed to Hooters' defense, accusing my friend of being a jealous, ugly, unaccomplished and unintelligent hater (so far off the mark it's laughable), all because she dared to denounce the way the corporate organization markets itself. She's still getting hate mail, and she wrote the post 3 years ago.

Seriously, Hooters, enough is enough. According to CA NOW's press release:

In the late 90's, Hooters, Inc. told the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that their main function is not providing food, rather their executives characterized Hooter's Restaurants as primarily a provider of, "vicarious sexual entertainment." They have used this designation as a way to avoid compliance with regulations against sexual discrimination in the workplace, yet Hooters also advertises themselves as a family restaurant, and fails to comply with regulations for providers of sexual entertainment.

Holy carp, Batman, this is a bombshell! It's bad enough to do what Hooters does, in my opinion, but to admit to the EEOC that you're an adult entertainment franchise (as I've believed all along, thanks), and then continue marketing yourself as a "family restaurant?" Is this because they know they'll make more $$ if perv Daddies can bring their wee ones along and buy them kiddie meals while they order the "More than a Mouthful" burgers (oh, yes, check their menu - that's what they're actually called) and ogle the waitresses while their wives suck down the hot wings and pretend not to notice? Hmmm. I'm guessing that's a big, fat YEP.


The press release goes on:

On a typical evening, Hooters, Inc. serves children younger than 18 years of age and offers child menus, high chairs and booster seats. They also display and sell products of prurient nature, including t-shirts in child sizes with statements such as “Future Hooters Girl.” According to Hooter's own employment material, a “Hooters Girl” is employed as a sexual entertainer and as part of her employment can expect to be subjected to various sexual jokes by customers and such potential contacts as buttocks slaps. Hooters of America Inc. v Phillips, Case 173 F3d 933 (4/8/99)

Local and state authorities should demand that Hooters, Inc. either comply with EEOC prohibitions against sexual discrimination, if they wish to be a family restaurant that serves children, or comply with regulations covering providers of sexual entertainment, which prohibit children from the premises.

The sexualization of children is trending younger and younger. This isn't something anyone should be encouraging. And Dads, if you wouldn't take your 7-year-old son to a strip club, why on earth would you set a pattern for him to begin objectifying women at such a young age? Why would you buy him the "I only date Hooters Girls" t-shirt? You think he doesn't see you staring at the Hooters girls while Mommy is sitting there? You think it's no big deal? This is a pattern that, once learned, is difficult to undo. You think your little girl doesn't notice that Daddy stares at other women's chests and rear ends? You think that doesn't affect her self-image?

You're mistaken. And Hooters, you're just one big mistake.


In other news: TV programming isn't helping the "sexualization of minors" trend.

Fearmongering, feminists, and "fake clinics"

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

More on the assault against pregnancy resource centers comes from NYC, abortion capital USA. Two female NYC City Council members are trying to force pro-life pregnancy centers to post signage stating what services they do NOT provide. Try this with any other business or social service, and you'd probably be viewed as some sort of nut. (Sorry, we do not serve sushi at this Mexican restaurant. Sorry, we do not sell Nikes in this Adidas store.) But when it comes to the evil, nasty centers that offer women free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, adoption referrals, maternity housing and baby clothes... well, we must put a stop to those sorts of heinous places immediately.

As I pointed out in a previous post, pro-aborts balk when pro-lifers claim women can be misled by the abortion industry, claiming women who go to abortion mills are there of their own volition (in reality, over 60% were coerced in some way) and they are "empowered." However, when it comes to CPCs, who do not charge for their services, pro-aborts engage in all sorts of emotional hand-wringing about their "deceit" of women. As I said before, you can't have it both ways. You cannot say a woman is clear-headed when entering an abortion mill and confused when she is entering a CPC.

A recent NY Times article seems to promote this exact view, however:

They [CPCs] do not, however, provide a full range of alternatives (like the morning-after pill) or condone all choices. To the contrary, they oppose abortion, and their staff members try their hardest to talk women out of having one, even if that means, according to Planned Parenthood of NYC, showing them graphic images and telling them that “God will never forgive you.”

The accusation about God not forgiving women is really horrid. It's also completely untrue. Note that no CPC client was quoted here - but Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider worldwide. I guess if someone's hedging in on your profits (from killing unborn children), you have to make up bogus "facts" and feed them to pro-abort "journalists" who will regurgitate them like mindless parrots. Too bad those feminist journalists never report on the women actually harmed and killed by the abortion industry...

Also from the NYT article:

A yearlong investigation by Naral Pro-Choice NY found that crisis pregnancy centers — in addition to the E.M.C. centers, there are at least four others in the city — feed women information that has been medically refuted....

NARAL? Really? I suppose a stalwart of the abortion industry wouldn't have any sort of vested interest in the demise of CPCs, now would they?

Partly in response to findings in that report, Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, and Councilwoman Jessica S. Lappin, Democrat of Manhattan, are proposing legislation that would require the stance of these crisis pregnancy centers to be clear to all women who visit them — either intentionally, or by accident while seeking a Planned Parenthood clinic across the street, or because the word “abortion” loomed much larger to them on that subway sign than the word “alternative.”

Well, perhaps a NEON SIGN advertising "No abortions here!" would please these people. Planned Parenthood doesn't do pro-life counseling. As Chris Slattery, president of a CPC chain stated so well, “Why don’t we have on Planned Parenthood’s door ‘No pro-life counseling, only pro-abortion counseling’ — O.K.? Let’s just have a level playing field.” And by the way, isn't the name "Planned Parenthood" a little misleading? I mean, they abort children. That's not exactly planning parenthood, it's snuffing it out.

Further:

To compensate for ambiguities like unclear signage at the centers, the bill, set to be announced on Tuesday, would require, among other things, signs at the entrance and in the waiting rooms to inform women that the center does not provide abortions or contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and that it does not provide referrals for those options, either. Signage would also need to make it clear if no licensed medical professional is on the staff.

Funny how the article's pro-abortion, pro-contraception author felt the need to qualify contraceptives "approved by the FDA," as if those who do not use contraception are foolish and anti-science. Tell that to the World Health Organization...

And as I've also stated before, many CPCs DO have licensed medical professionals on staff. Just a thought: maybe we should have Planned Parenthood posting "No licensed social workers on staff; no actual adoption counselors. Only salespeople who are trained to sell abortion."

All of this really begs the question: why attack CPCs? If these organizations help women with basic needs so they can feel more able to continue their pregnancies, why are feminists and pro-"choicers" so against them? What are they so afraid of? And whose payroll are they on?

Eradication is the only solution

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Several pro-abortion groups have recently attempted to demonize and "expose" the workings of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). The main reason for this is that pro-"choicers" are about as much for women's actual choices as I am for the "right" to kill unborn children.

We've been led to believe a contradiction. On one hand, we're told women who seek abortion services are "empowered," (who needs to know those pesky biological facts about fetal development?), and on the other hand, women are "victimized" by those sly, evil, and nasty CPCs (how dare they try to give me baby clothes!). But you really can't have it both ways.

According to The Abortioneers, a pro-abort, after having her eyes opened to the eeevils of these pregnancy centers, took the time to phone one herself to expose their "deceptive practices."

The blogger seems to take issue with the fact that the center's social workers answered honestly. They didn't pretend to be a medical clinic. They told her there was no doctor on staff, but that they had free urine pregnancy tests. But naturally, she still had certain issues:

1. No doctor - or nurse, or physician's assistant, or nurse's assistant, or dental hygienist - was employed. They are not licensed to practice health care or give medical opinions (at least credible ones)

CPCs do not claim to be health care centers, and are even listed under "abortion alternatives" in the yellow pages. CPCs are primarily social service centers, so it's understandable that social workers would be there. Many CPCs, however, DO have doctors, nurses, or trained ultrasound technicians on the premises. I really don't see how #1 is an issue.

2. No clinically significant pregnancy test is administered, meaning they have no diagnostic/laboratory capacity. They buy stick tests from the drugstore that you could easily administer yourself.

As does my doctor's office. How is this even a valid complaint? In all of my pregnancies, I only had 1 laboratory blood test done. One. The others were in-office urine pregnancy tests which confirmed my pregnancies. CPCs order urine pregnancy tests from medical suppliers (not the corner drugstore), and they don't charge patients for them, which is nice if you don't have any money and you're panicking, and maybe you don't want to have to view the test results alone. Moral support is always good.

3. Ambiguous clinic name. I don't remember what it was when I called, and it didn't say on the bus signs, but I remember being confused by the name. It was very unclear what kind of enterprise this was.

I guess abortion clinics with the name "women's health center" are somehow... unambiguous? Right.

4. Insisting that I come to the center! They would not talk to me about anything over the phone.

CPCs are not going to dispense medical information over the phone (and that includes the standard pamphlet on fetal development). Neither will an abortion mill. Also, without a positive pregnancy test and a LMP date, how could they even tell a caller about an estimated stage of fetal development over the phone?

They wouldn't refer me to any external resources (not even external anti resources, which I found surprising). They wanted me to come in so they could hold me hostage and force feed me propaganda.

The "hold me hostage and force feed me propaganda" line is a real laugh. No one at a CPC will force a woman to stay inside, with no contact with the outside world, strap her down, or make her do something she doesn't want to do. I believe the blog's author is confusing an abortionist's chop shop with a CPC.


The author later laments, "Why can't they just say, up front, WE DO NOT PROVIDE ABORTIONS."

Actually, if she'd have asked them that question over the phone, that is the answer she'd have likely received.

She also lists some questions she thought about asking, but knew her ruse would be exposed if she asked:

Please cite the research that you use to determine that 50% of women die within one year after having abortions."

WHAT?! I've never heard this information given at a CPC. Not once. I've never even heard the most strident pro-abort claim a CPC told them that.

"Please describe the physiological mechanism by which abortion causes cancer of any kind."

Dr. Joel Brind can do that for you.

"Please explain why you have no health care professionals present to substantiate these health risks."

Oh, you mean like the health care "professionals" at Planned Parenthood who even deny to patients the actual facts about fetal development (a.k.a. basic human biology)?

"Is this center affiliated with any religious institutions? If so, why?" (After all, there must be some atheist antis out there!)

Why? Maybe because putting faith into action is important. Most food banks are also religiously affiliated, as well as homeless shelters, as well as many drug treatment programs, and many youth outreach centers for inner city kids. (Are we to assume since they're "religious," that somehow negates their benefits to the community?) These are faith-based, non-profit organizations. (Heaven forbid they should offer to pray with those who come there!) Sounds to me like someone has a bit of a religious hangup. As for atheist "antis," yes, they exist.

Bottom line: CPCs are places where women can go for support, information, and free services if they experience unplanned pregnancies. Unlike Planned Parenthood, they offer women choices other than abortion, as well as counseling for women suffering from past abortions. These services are needed and are certainly not being provided to women by the abortion industry.

If pro-aborts truly cared about women, they would stop touting abortion as the sole solution to a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy. Their rabid support for the killing of unwanted, preborn children has caused them to see the world (and therefore, help for women AND their children) through blood-colored glasses. To them, eradication is the only solution.


[Thanks to Jivin J for bringing this to my attention.]