Democrats & Liberals Archives

Immoral Morality

Bush and the Republicans were boosted into power on the wave of “moral values.” Evidently, the morality of the religious Republican zealots is based almost exclusively on avoidance of sex, which explains their hostility to sex-before-marrriage, abortion, same-sex marriage and even sex-in-movies. They hate sex so much that they think that having “non-sanctioned” sex is worse than dying from cancer! This is morality?

The most common cause of cervical cancer among women is the human papillomavirus or HPV. It kills abut 5,000 American women and hundreds-of-thousands of women abroad each year. Recently, Merck and Company developed a vaccine that if applied to young women before they become sexualy active prevents them from ever being infected with HPV.

Many tests have shown that this vaccine is almost 100% effective. It's a boon to women. The outstanding scientist and Nobel laureate David Baltimore said:

"This is a cancer vaccine, and immensely effective one. We should be proud and excited. It has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives every year."

Pretty straightforward, it seems. But not to the Republican religious zealots. They are holding up FDA approval. You know why? It's hard to believe, but they are against the vaccine because it may subject young women to greater temptation to have sex before marriage! As Leslee J. Unruh, the founder and president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, said:

"Premarital sex is dangerous, even deadly. Let's not encourage it by vaccinating ten-year-olds so they think they're safe."

Never mind that studies have found that "abstinence pledge" programs do not work. As Michael Specter in the March 13, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, states:

"Eighty-eight per cent of those who took such pledges and had sex before the end of the study did so before marriage."

Religious zealots would rather women die from cancer than be subjected to the temptation of having sex. Wow. These are the same people that tell us these women have free will. From where I sit, their stymieing the availability of the cancer vaccine is a highly immoral act. Here's Baltimore again:

"We are talking about basic public health now. What moral precepts allow us to think that the risk of death is a price worth paying to encourage abstinence as the only approach to sex?"

A true moral person would do his best to help girls (and others) live. A moral person is kind, generous and helpful. A moral person would not immediately assume the worst about others. A moral person would never stand in the way of adopting a vaccine that may enrich a woman's life.

Religious zealots practice an immoral morality.

Posted by Paul Siegel at March 13, 2006 5:30 PM
Comments
Comment #133144

I don’t pretend to know anyone’s mind. But it seems to me that pre-marital sex, the abstaining from, is important to some people. Important as perhaps the freedom to peruse both conservative and progressive forums on the net is to others.

In this case I would agree with the original author in that one issue doesn’t necessarily even affect the other so why not go along with it? But call it stubbornness or integrity, the people holding this back are standing up for what they perceive as a very important moral issue, whether anyone else does or not.

I’m not saying they’re right or the original poster is right. I’m saying that beliefs are a large part of our lives however illogical they may seem to others. And at the moment, the American people have voted into office people who may be making what seem to be illogical decisions. But it’s how our country works.

Of course, loud voices are also the way the country works, so speak up and be heard.

Posted by: Thomas R at March 13, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #133156

As long as Merck doesn’t get hauled into court when (as always happens) the drug doesn’t make everyone happy.

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #133176

The beliefs of one group should not be any more important than those of anothers. If the promoters of total abstinence before marriage don’t vaccinate thier daughters, that’s their decision. And visa versa. Enough said.

However, the “author” of this post makes so many erroneous and disparaging comments about morals, Republicans, and zealots - all in about 1 sentence - that I felt he was more interested in promoting sex (not necessarily safe sex) and putting down Republicans that the “point” of his post was lost in the rhetoric. To me, this is just another Bush-hate speach with overtones of anti-Christian bigotry. I would hope that being on the Democratic side of this forum, that the tolerance so often touted (but rarely practiced) will bring verbal knuckle-rapping to this author, from the Democrats/liberals.

But I won’t hold my breath.

Posted by: Ilsa at March 13, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #133185

Ilsa,

Here’s one.

Paul, I’ve agreed with most of your posts ,and agree with the basis of this one, but you lost yourself in your own message. Please stay focused. Those of us on the left know what you say is true, but those on the fence may be turned off by the extraneous verbiage.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 13, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #133186

Ilsa…you’re so right about one sides’ beliefs not being more important than the other side, but importance is not often the decider, it would be control.
” “Many tests have shown that this vaccine is almost 100% effective. It’s a boon to women. The outstanding scientist and Nobel laureate David Baltimore said:

“This is a cancer vaccine, and immensely effective one. We should be proud and excited. It has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.” “

Good grief, this is a shot to prevent cancer, not pregnancy ! Are you so narrow minded and paranoid to think that being injected with this vaccine would make a young girl turn to lust?? If that’s the case, then I’d say her moral upbringing and principles aren’t very deep-rooted.
I’ll tell you something else, too….I would have given my own life to have had something like this available a few years ago for my daughter…….but I lost her to the very thing this post is talking about. And she had not become sexually active, so even though I’m a hated liberal Democrat, I must have managed to impart some moral values on her !!!!!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 13, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #133189

IIsa,

Thats pretty ridiculous. He doesn’t promote sex at all - Your reaction is exactly the type of thing he’s talking about - Paul is not saying all republicans are zealots - he says ‘the’ republican zealots - the ones that don’t want to permit a CANCER VACCINE to hit the market for women - are zealots. Only them. And he’s right.

Posted by: Kimberly at March 13, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #133192

Those against this should remember that cervical cancer usually occurs after marriage, and most likely the infection or introduction of the virus.

I would have my children given this, with the understanding and hope that they have been already grounded enough in values that this would not suggest to them an encouragement of premarital or extramarital sex.

If it hasn’t been instilled, this is not going to change that. And I would STILL want them protected.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 13, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #133195

It is a shame that some people are blocking this. First, adolescence itself creates the temptation towards sexual activity. Even the threat of AIDS is not enough to discourage adolescent sexuality.

Additionally, let me note this, to the Christians out there: It is an act of divine charity to give mercy to others for their sins. Jesus tells us to extend to others the mercy we would desire for ourselves. It is a merciless and unchristian thing to do, to take the authority God has to punish sinners into our own hands. If we withhold a cure, any kind of healing from a person in judgment for their sins, we’re holding out on Christ himself, despite the mercy that those of us who call ourselves Christians seek for our own sins. He healed the Lepers, the unclean untouchables of his day. If we hold out on those who get STDs and AIDs, we’re betraying his charge to us to heal in his name.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 13, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #133213

Some of the ‘Postees’ above are either Tom Delay employees or just want to ‘control decent’. They are not interested in fair reasoning or discussions.

Our religions have been hijacked, our patriotism questioned, our jobs exported, as we are made to live in fear! Wake up America! Where are you? Your children need you. It takes a good man to keep quiet for evil to flourish!

Posted by: Ken at March 13, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #133236

The conservative reaction is a typical attempt to deflect the comment by attacking the extraneous issue. The fact is, the logic being used to justify the denying the use of this vaccine is at best strained-There is no need to tell a 10 year old anymore than the vaccine prevents a certain type of cancer. Who needs to mention sex?

If one believed in conspiracy theories, one could make an even more paranoid extrapolation- Those preventing the release of the vaccine want a bigger campaign contribution or they favor a different drug company.

Posted by: Bill at March 13, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #133237

NO, wrong. I am a somewhat moderate Republican, and I think that Bush was elected because of intellectual honesty, something which democrats and other lefties greatly lack.

Posted by: Tim at March 13, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #133246

Tim,
Saying that Bush was elected, and I presume re-elected, because of intellectual honesty is one of the best jokes I have heard in years. Bush is neither intelligent nor honest. He is however a mental midget that has trouble with the truth. To claim Democrats are entirely “lefties” just continues to show your lack of a grasp of what is going on in this country and world. If we had elected the candidate with the most intelligence and honesty we would be speaking of President Gore.

Just think it over, Tim.

Nice try though.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at March 13, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #133248

Tim,
Keep on dreaming! One day you might just wake up, only I hope that it will not be too late! I used to be Republican but now I like to think that I am just conservative!

Posted by: Eric at March 13, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #133249

Sandra Davidson,

I am so sorry to hear about your daughter.

The Republicans are in control and the American people are getting the government they deserve - especially those who did not vote. We may not like Bush’s followers forcing their moral judgments on us - but we failed to motivate our base to get out and vote - either that - or our base was too amoral to get out and vote - maybe they really are more moral than we are. Elections have consequences - in this case - bad consequences.

Posted by: Ray G. at March 14, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #133250

Tim….talk about an oxymoron….emphasis on the moron !!!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 14, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #133251

Ray G..
Thank you… and I just don’t understand, if someone is given an opportunity to prevent such a disease from attacking our daughters, how rejecting it can be supported using morality.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 14, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #133262

I never understood the war between the pro-abstinence folks and the pro-condom folks. Condoms work 99% of the time and abstinence works 100% of the time (in regards to avoiding STD’s, unwanted pregancies, etc.) … pretty high marks for both groups I would think!!!

For the liberals who war against abstinence, I guess this is part of their “we don’t try to dictate anyone’s lives” talk except, well, you can’t be abstinent, you have to have sex!! “No abstinence programs, booo!!!” Having pre-marital sex with a long time lover and having sport sex every couple months with someone different … 2 different things in my opinion.

In any case, like I said, condoms and abstinence are 2 things on the good side … why can’t we accept both??

Posted by: Ken C. at March 14, 2006 1:58 AM
Comment #133267

CT Rich,

If you’re one of the “Bush is a Liar” crowd you may want to check out todays (3/13) NY Times article detailing how even the Iraqi Generals thought Saddam had WMD. It kinda snuffs those 1.2 Bazillion people who kept yellin’ “Bush Lied!!! Bush Lied!!! Bush is Hitler!!! Bush lied!!!”

Or. you can claim the NY Times is a mouthpiece for Bush … either - or … .

Posted by: Ken C. at March 14, 2006 2:58 AM
Comment #133268

gore? HA-ha

now -thats funny!

Posted by: cw at March 14, 2006 3:15 AM
Comment #133270

Liberals don’t war against abstinence, they war against abstinence-only sex education. (ALL the parents I know, liberal and conservatives, want their teens to wait to have sex.) Teenagers need complete sex education including birth control, disease prevention as well as the physical and emotional implications of sex.

Sometimes it feels like were regressing as a nation. Thirty years ago thorough sex education seemed like norm – and I attended a conservative Catholic high school. As a pro-lifer, I find teaching abstinence-only programs unconscionable when the US has the highest teen pregnancy and abortion rate in the developed world.

Posted by: Don G. at March 14, 2006 3:39 AM
Comment #133278

Alright, Im really sorry to go off topic in this thread, but one comment on here just irked me to no end and I cant just let it stand without rebuttal:

As long as Merck doesn’t get hauled into court when (as always happens) the drug doesn’t make everyone happy.

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2006 06:26 PM

I cannot even believe the callousness inherent in this sentence. I assume that this person is speaking of the recent spate of lawsuits concerning Vioxx. I must say that there is a huge difference between the drug not making someone happy, and killing them outright. Estimated numbers of dead from this drug range from 30,000 to 60,000 people.

Holy Crap.

Wow. That is a freaking massacre; I dont really care how you spin it or try to justify it. Were willing to go to war (multiple times) over 3000 peoples deaths on 9/11. But yet, on this issue, with over 10 times (minimum) the number of deaths, people are actually showing outrage that the culprits may have to reimburse the victims family?

What Bizarro World kind of logic did I just stumble upon? Is it because the company responsible made money killing people? Does that make it okay? Or is it because they also do some (questionably) positive things for society as well? Last time I checked, simply because a person is a contributing member of society does not give them carte blanche to commit crimes against humanity.

The drug company in question hid data from clinical trial results which clearly showed that the risk of heart attack/stroke was significantly higher than what patients and doctors were told. Due to this, both doctors and patients were unable to properly calculate the risks involved when prescribing or ingesting the medication. Therefore, the people responsible are complicit in mass murders, and IMO, deserve a lot more than a slap on the wrist before we turn our heads away, allowing them to do it again. Jail time, and lots of it, I believe, is how we normally punish such offenders.

Without informed consent, we are all just merely guinea pigs waiting for our turn under the needle.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at March 14, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #133279

Sandra:

Sorry to hear about your daughter—that must have been hard on your family.

There’s an issue here that bears discussing, and that is how cures for sexual or sexually related diseases are marketed and proposed.

Condoms have been promoted as “safe sex”, when in reality they aren’t totally safe. But they’ve been promoted as a means of having sex without getting pregnant. Far too often, the message of abstinence is lost or mentioned at the end of the conversation. To a teenager, hearing that sex can be okay if you use a condom ends the conversation. The whisper at the end that “you really shouldn’t have sex, but if you do….” gives them a freedom to have sex.

I’m in favor of preventing cancer with this drug, but I’m not in favor of how I can see it might be promoted. There are those who truly feel that sex is fine from all aspects but the disease side, and I disagree with that viewpoint. I know this to be true because I’ve talked to many people who say that sex is just a physical act. But in reality we know it carries great emotional weight as well.

The conversations need to be held in the middle ground, not on the fringes. Abstinence is a wonderful virtue, and should be a key ingredient in the discussion. Cancer vaccinations should be an ingredient as well, but should not be promoted (as condoms have been) as a means to allowing sex to be “safe”.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 14, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #133284

Liberal Demon,

Yes, are living in a bizzaro world - a sick bizzarro world - a sick bizzarro festering scab on the buttocks of the universe world. Next time around, I intend to incarnate on a vacation planet. This place sucks, but here we are.

I think Sandra makes the best point here. There are other ways to catch STDs than just through sex. Sex is merely one vector for these diseases. I don’t know which bizarro parallel universe these fanatic fundamentalist extremist live in, but when I was a teenager, the risk that I might get an STD was not the number one concern that restrained me. It had more to do with my girl friends manually removing my hands from the locations that were unappreciated. That is the only thing that restrained me. But I had an ill spent youth. Still if these good Christian folk are so afraid that their daughters are going to run wild, that even a treatment for one STD is going to push them over the edge, then I think that it is time for all of the horny young teenage studs out there to start working the churches. Spread the “good word” - Christian girls are ripe and ready - go get em boys.

Posted by: Ray G. at March 14, 2006 8:49 AM
Comment #133287

Ray G.,

LOL (sorry, its late and that’s the only response I have right now)

Posted by: Liberal Demon at March 14, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #133290

This whole discussion points to what’s going wrong in the larger picture. People are willing to let other people die for ideological purity. The President is willing for innocent Iraqi’s to die so they don’t have to live under Saddam Hussein. There is no reasoning with this type of logic it is an uncomprehending fanaticism. It is NOT Christianity.

While the virus that causes the form of cancer the vaccine being discussed is primarily spread through sexual contact that is not the only means by which it can be acquired. Therefore, it is not disingenous to not discuss sex as part of preventing a fatal disease. The point is the disease should be prevented. Only those who value their ideologically driven beliefs over human life would insist that this is not true. They don’t ask the little girl who ends up dying if she wants to die for their belief. This is a very large inconsistency in the “pro-Life” movement. Almost as bad as supporting the death penalty and being “pro-life”. I by the way support the death penalty in the most extreme cases (Jeffrey Dahmer for example.)

Posted by: Bill at March 14, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #133296

Paul,

You have written some ridiculous posts in your day, but this one beats them all…

Others,

I find it amazing that you would post with out one single link to verify Paul’s claim…amazing…

It is just a bunch of:
I think…
You think…
They think…
We think…
It stinks…

Posted by: Cliff at March 14, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #133308

” that I felt he was more interested in promoting sex (not necessarily safe sex) and putting down Republicans that the “point” of his post was lost in the rhetoric. To me, this is just another Bush-hate speach with overtones of anti-Christian bigotry.”

“For the liberals who war against abstinence, I guess this is part of their “we don’t try to dictate anyone’s lives” talk except, well, you can’t be abstinent, you have to have sex!! “No abstinence programs, booo!!!”

“Good grief, this is a shot to prevent cancer, not pregnancy ! Are you so narrow minded and paranoid to think”

“They hate sex so much that they think that having “non-sanctioned” sex is worse than dying from cancer! This is morality?”

All of these statements have one thing in common. They’re statements made to get folks fired up.

The people who are against the use of this vaccine may have been misinformed. Remember the ads that some pro-life groups were promoting, that abortion increases a womans risk for breast cancer? How do we know that these people don’t actually believe this could cause promiscuity in ten year olds?
There are alot of organizations and religious groups who are more interested in promoting an agenda than offering facts.
The government has to bow to the wishes of this particular group because they are a large part of the current administations base.

“DEATHS from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050”
From Newscientist.com

It’s obvious that this is a serious situation.

“The trouble is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is sexually transmitted. So to prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.

In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. “Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV,” says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

“Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex,” From Newscientists.com

We have to convince those who oppose this vaccine that it is not about “sex” it’s about health and safety. Abstinence is wonderful and it would be great if all teens practiced it, but they don’t. Should we condemn them to HPV for making that choice?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 14, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #133321

I consider myself a liberal Democrat, and by all means, I think that Bush is the worst president that this country has ever seen, but the way the dice rolled for him, he has absolute power because the rest of the government at the time is republican. Because of this, if Bush says something, the people that can make it happen will let it happen, we have seen this over and over again the past six years.
This drug seems to be a scientific break through, and it would be great to see the FDA start testing. As the Republican standpoint from what I understand, we do not want to let girls have it because it would just give them the green light to have sex and feel safe about it, that is Crap. I do not know about you, but at the age of 10, when they are proposing this drug to be administered, I knew about girls, but I would not know what to do with one. If my dad gave me a condom at 10 years old, I would not have known what to do with it. Nor would I have had sex any earlier in my life. I agree with another post on this, why would we tell our ten year old that this shot is so you will not get sick when you have sex, just tell them the truth, this shot will help you not get cancer when you get older.
As for the topic of abstinence, give me a break people. Does anyone remember when they were teenagers? I think that there are a lot of ways we should teach children about sex. Abstinence is one of them for sure and it should be the number one method taught, but I know what I was thinking when I was 16, and that was my number one goal in life, as well as millions of other boys that age. Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of boys and (more girls thank god) that do practice abstinence, and to this day I have great respect for these people. But what I am confused, how does one (or a whole government) get we should not peruse a drug that would prevent cancer because the instructions say it should be administered before the girl becomes sexually active. I have to say before this, Bush saying that he can not do anything about the Gas prices, was the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Let not save our daughters lives, lets let them die instead because I think the instructions of the drug implicate after receiving this drug it is okay to have sex, at age 10.

Posted by: Jason at March 14, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #133351

Excuse me…
Would someone please show a link to some neo-con that is saying all this stuff…I see a lot of liberals spouting off about what they are saying, but I would like some proof to the post…

Posted by: Cliff at March 14, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #133352

Jason:

A couple points of clarification:

I don’t think this issue has anything to do with Bush nor Republicans at this point. That you point fingers in their direction is inaccurate. It would be equally inaccurate to point fingers at Democrats.

I often hear comments like yours about abstinence—that its a good thing, but… I believe that sometimes we have to hold our kids accountable to things, and by that I mean give them a black/white choice on things. For instance, I’ve told my kids that there is no discussion—none whatsoever—about drinking and driving, or riding with someone who has been drinking. There’s no middle ground here. If they have one beer and drive, I ‘kill’ them. If they have 10 beers and drive, I ‘kill’ them.

When it comes to sex, many people have a middle ground. It goes like this: “Son/daugher, you should be abstinent…. but if you do have sex, you should use….”

What children hear is the second half of that conversation. The first part is gone from their consciousness as soon as the second part appears.

I’m not claiming that abstinence only is the right way to go. I don’t think that it is. But too many people simply soft pedal the idea of abstinence, and in doing so, they degrade the impact of the message. Kinda like a security guard telling you that “, you can’t come in this door, and you shouldn’t use the unlocked door around the corner, either”. You know what’s really being said.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 14, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #133368

Cliff:

I read about the HPV cancer in the New Yorker. But I think you can get more information online at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/31/MNG2LFGJFT1.DTL.

Just to clear a few things up. I am not knocking Christians, only religious zealots. I am not in favor of promiscuous sex. I am merely pointing out how immoral it is to risk having a woman die so that she may not be tempted by sex. This is outrageous.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at March 14, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #133373

First of all…
Thank you Paul for providing a link.

BTW - in order to view the link, you will need to remove the last “.” and hit “refresh”.

Now that we have some facts…
The statements made by “conservatives” are not as “flaming” as represented here…

Please read the post and rethink your comments…

Here is what Reginald Finger, the only conservative quoted said.

There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe, said Finger, emphasizing he does not endorse that position and is withholding judgment until the issue comes before the vaccine policy panel for a formal recommendation.

He just told us what he has heard…

And yes, I’m sure he heard it from Bush…

Posted by: Cliff at March 14, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #133377

Jesus healed people and He healed many. But vaccines don’t heal. Their job is to prevent diseases and in the case of a view actually help erradicate them.

I may one of the evil religious zealots that our main writer is not doing a very good job of criticizing. Name-calling isn’t a good way to convince someone that your position or agrument should be considered or even accepted.

Be that as it may, I don’t judge those who choose to engage in illicit sexual behaviors (pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexuality, etc.). This is the way the world lives or more biblically speaking, this is the way the world expresses its spiritual death, its separation from God. I don’t like it when I hear of it or see the results of deviant/licentious behaviors. It saddens me.

I am not sure abstinence programs help either nor am I convinced that current sex ed is helping keep our youth healthy and pure. I think you are right to say that some Christians don’t exhibit the compassion and mercy Jesus exhibited. That is true but mercy is not condoning otherwise it would not be mercy.

We don’t necessarily need vaccines that come from syringes and pills especially when it comes to sex. What we need is a change of heart and the courage to say that some behaviors are just plain wrong and harmful to our way of life. All of us have worth in the eyes of God. The trouble is we don’t agree with Him about that and our lives and what we permit in this area shows it.

Posted by: ILIndCon at March 14, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #133379

Ken C,

It doesn’t matter who thought or believed Iraq had WMD’s. It doesn’t matter when, where or how. It doesn’t matter if Clinton believed Iraq had WMD. The only thing that matters is how we respond to what we believe.
Bush and everyone else wound up being wrong. But only Bush can put the U.S into war. Only Bush can make the decision to put troops into harms way. Not the generals or congress, only Bush.
Now what did your post (or mine) have to do with the topic at hand? I apologize to the rest of you.

Posted by: Rusty at March 14, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #133384

Paul,

You will never be able to argue against religious groups because they’re not arguing points based on sound arguments but beliefs and emotion.
Did you happen to hear that the top issues of concern from southern Republicans were:
1)Abortion
2)Protecting the sanctity of marriage
3)More conservative judges
4)Tax cuts
There is a religious movement that is sweeping the Republican party. The more they can convince people that it’s morally superior to Democratic party they will be here for some time.
I question the “spirituality” of these groups because they seem to want to control and dictate moral policy more than adhere to the teachings of Christ.
They seem to judge more than forgive. They are focused more on condemnation than tolerance.
Christianity sure has changed.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 14, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #133387

How have so many managed to lose the subject of this post ??? It has nothing to do with sex or restraint from, but that medical science has a vaccine that can prevent a young woman from developing/contracting a devastating form of cancer!!!!! The kicker is that it must be injected before the young woman/girl becomes sexually active. So, if causing death is murder, what would you call the FAILURE to prevent it?????? Get a grip folks…..you’re losing it !!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 14, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #133393

Andre and Sandra,
You both are right on, there should be no reason that a young girl should not recieve this vaccine, IT SAVES LIVES, at some point and time in life, unless she become a nun, a woman is going to have sex.
Andre, you hit the republican party on the nose, that is why the republicans are using religion to run the goverment, and it is getting old, this is not a religious government, that is why the Clintion adminastration was so sucessful.

Posted by: Jason at March 14, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #133395

///

The Immoral Morality

Paul, that really shows the ideologues attitude towards women. I sometimes wonder if they have daughters, or how involved they are in their childrens lives. Abstinence, f*ck that. Holy Phonies, with their toxic brainwashing, trying to limit freedom as much as possible.

We will all have to go to Canada and Mexico to get the best medicine, and hope the border guards down confiscate our stash of unauthorized medications. I know someone who travels from Santa Monica to Tijuana, on a drug run, to get prescription medications for elderly friends and neighbors, because they are too expensive here.

Bush and intellectual honesty are a joke in the same sentence, unless it is something like, Bush would not know intellectual honesty any more than Cheney knows gun safety.

And Sandra Davidson Rules.
///

Posted by: orhealy at March 14, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #133404

“I find it amazing that you would post with out one single link to verify Paul’s claim…amazing…
Posted by: Cliff at March 14, 2006 10:00 AM”

***
Population Action International
“Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told Fortune magazine that – because HPV, which can cause cervical cancer, is transmitted sexually – he would not allow his 13-year-old daughter to receive the HPV vaccine, fearing it would convey the “false” message that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is acceptable.”
http://www.populationaction.org/news/views/2005/10_31_Dogma.htm
***
FORTUNE Magazine:
“Christian conservatives fear that new, amazingly effective cervical-cancer vaccines will spur promiscuity and undermine abstinence. Let the lobbying wars begin.”
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/10/31/8359188/index.htm
***
Washington Post:
“”In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus on the Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used.
“What the Bush administration has done has taken this coterie of people and put them into very influential positions in Washington,” said James A. Morone Jr., a professor of political science at Brown University. “And it’s having an effect in debates like this.”“
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000747.html

‘Nuff said?
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 14, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #133470

Let’s apply the fundie logic to other areas:
1. Seatbelts and airbags make us feel we can drive unsafely (and immorally), so let’s get rid of them.
2. Modern building codes make many buildings earthquake-safe, and that’s immoral (earthquakes are after all an act of god) so let’s build everything pre-quake-codes.
3. Our massive military budget (larger than the next 10 put together) makes us feel that we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world (obviously immoral) so let’s cut military spending.
This is not a real issue — it’s just another ring in the nose of a million fundie-retard voters. No politician actually believes this shit, they just repeat it to the dumbasses who vote for them. Teenagers have been fooling around for thousands of years and it ain’t going to stop because of WWJD. The only thing that changed along the way was that our nutbag Puritan forefathers decided to make sex taboo, and we’re still hiding issues of Penthouse because of that. Consensual sex is wonderful and awesome, both before and during marriage. In stark contrast, here are some bad things related to sex: rape, incest, abuse, genital mutilation, and dying of an STD related illness.
On the topic of sex ed. Know what the most memorable thing in my highschool sex ed course was? When the football-coach/teacher told us that the best sex we would ever have would be all alone. I laugh my ass off thinking back on that.

Posted by: Shameless Spanker at March 15, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #133492

Don G,

As a pro-lifer, I find teaching abstinence-only programs unconscionable when the US has the highest teen pregnancy and abortion rate in the developed world.

I didn’t know that was such alarming.
One may find here a link between a policy and its results, no?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 15, 2006 5:30 AM
Comment #133494

joebagodonuts,

When it comes to sex, many people have a middle ground. It goes like this: “Son/daugher, you should be abstinent…. but if you do have sex, you should use….”

What children hear is the second half of that conversation. The first part is gone from their consciousness as soon as the second part appears.

Yeah, right, but who is ready these days to risk their lives by saying them only the first part?

I’m not claiming that abstinence only is the right way to go. I don’t think that it is. But too many people simply soft pedal the idea of abstinence, and in doing so, they degrade the impact of the message.

Maybe because, well, such message has not as much impact on teens as on parents. Just remember when you were a teenager. At this time of life, it’s like since birth your parents said to you “don’t do that, don’t do this, you should not, it’s bad to bla bla bla”. And most of the time, thanks to all these warnings and forbids, you never have experienced what happen when you don’t follow them.
So, it’s no suprise teenagers don’t listen that much anymore to the usual “you should/you should not/I forbid you/it’s bad” parental speech. Instead, they are after the “make your own choice, take responsability”-like speech.

What about giving them the “make your own choice, take responsability but be well informed about this and that”-like speech they’re hungry to hear?

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 15, 2006 6:12 AM
Comment #133495

ILIndCon,

We don’t necessarily need vaccines that come from syringes and pills especially when it comes to sex. What we need is a change of heart and the courage to say that some behaviors are just plain wrong and harmful to our way of life.

Without sex, there would be no more human life on earth. Nor “way of life” to debate on.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 15, 2006 6:27 AM
Comment #133496

Oh, btw, I failed to see how having sex only *after* being married protect a woman from contracting HPV???
I guess the virus really don’t care at all…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 15, 2006 6:33 AM
Comment #133519

I don’t want anyone else’s beliefs or morals pushed on me. I believe in pre-marital sex, and feel that when one refrains from it before they get married, they tend to get curious and have a higher tendency to commit adultry. I would never expect my children to go into marriage or a sexual life-time partnership inexperienced. Not to get off the subject, but the same goes for me with masterbation, one needs to get to know what they like and get comfortable with themselves and the act of sex. I don’t promote sleeping around either…everything in moderation, and choose as wisely as you can. Also, be as safe as you can, but know that nothing is 100%. You can catch an airborne disease by walking out the door, but we don’t promote staying inside the house because of it. So why discourage the one thing that comes more naturally to us than anything else, sex? Education is the way to go, not fear. Let us make our own educated decisions on what we value. Holding up approval on what could be a cure to a disease because of religous beliefs is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever heard of. This country is supposed to represent freedom, freedom to chose our own beliefs and live the way we see fit. I can’t even see where these people have a leg to stand on! I will be giving my children a speech about real life, possible consequences, safeguards, and anything else I can think of so they have the tools to decide for themselves what they want to do. I will give my children the tools they need to help them decide what is important to them, and to develop the ability to say why. I chose to not live in the dark. I chose to support cures and prevention, but NOT by brainwashing my children into thinking that what their body makes them feel and desire is sin.

Posted by: Lynnell at March 15, 2006 9:19 AM
Comment #133520

joebagodonuts,

Do you find it interesting that the Catholic Church speaks out, so loudly, against homosexuality, the sanctity of marriage, abortion and other moral issues, let’s not forget, Harry Potter. Yet they have all but sanctioned through cover-ups and church policy, the systematic raping of children for years?

Do you find it interesting that the “Christian”(Hard to say with a straight face)Fundamentalists are in bed with gambling lobbyists, or that their leaders call for the assassination of foreign leaders?

Do you find it as fascinating as I that the “moral”(also hard to say with a straight face)Right-wing have done little other than to preach in condemnation of groups or individuals who are different or have dissimilar beliefs?
I always thought that the fear and condemnation of people who were different was called bigotry, now it’s called “Christian Conservativism.”
Let’s all become Christian Conservatives. It’ll be fun. We can ignore facts and science. We can rail against anyone who is different. We can call all the fags…well…fags. This feels so good. We can be as hypocritical as we want. We can judge others and condemn them. We can get our panties in a bunch over the biggest evil facing this once great nation….SpongeBob Squarepants and his homosexual agenda. I personally would like to see the assassination of all world leaders who think differently than my friends and I but I guess that would be a little too ambitious.
I am swelling with moral superiority.
I can think of plenty of books I think need burning. I would also like my neighborhood schools to teach inteligent design and that the Burmuda Triangle is a gateway to hell that opens up and swallows good god-fearing people if our daughters wear clothes that are too tight.
Go far-right!

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 15, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #133549

Andre, you forgot that gay purple teletubby, and remember, guns are good, sex is bad. It is better to shoot an old man than get blown by a young girl. Also, prisons are good, people who commit any crime deserve to get sodomized as punishment.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #133548

Andre, you forgot that gay purple teletubby, and remember, guns are good, sex is bad. It is better to shoot an old man than get blown by a young girl. Also, prisons are good, people who commit any crime deserve to get sodomized as punishment.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #133700

>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060314/cm_usatoday/theliberalbabybust;_ylt=Aj3AjFTHWuUqFxUbrlLcMxX9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA—

I have no idea how to post a link, but everyone on this site should read this post before saying another word…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 15, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #133713

Marysdude: That info is right above the box you are posting in. Type in the opening tag title the page again and the closing tag is /a inside the
include a space after your title before the closing /a tag inside

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #133714

Marysdude: That info is right above the box you are posting in. Type in the opening tag title the page again and the closing tag is /a inside the
include a space after your title before the closing /a tag inside

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #133717

sorry Marysdude, that last post did not work right, anyway the tage is the one that starts: a href.
here is the link you wanted:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060314/cm_usatoday/theliberalbabybust

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #133718

sorry Marysdude, that last post did not work right, anyway the tage is the one that starts: a href.
here is the link you wanted:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060314/cm_usatoday/theliberalbabybust

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #133770

ohrealy,

Yeah, that’s the one…thanks. This post has about run its course, so it’s a little too late, and that’s a shame. It would have influenced many who posted here.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 15, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #133779

Marysdude, I agree with that article. Conservativism is creeping up on us, generation by generation.

My parents were so good and liberal, that I can not even believe it, when I look back. They brought me to the Bahai temple here, and to Salt Lake City to learn about the LDS, and many other places. I am actually more conservative than they were.

I only have one step-daughter. When she was eighteen and eligible to vote, she mentioned that she thought that she liked the party of Ronald Reagan, who was the president when she was younger.

I was flabbergasted. I have always been a yellow dog democrat. My parents would have considered it a sin to vote for a Rpblcn. I explained to her about advertising and brainwashing, and I think she got it.

She is married, and living in Nevada. Her husband is an adoptee, and they will only have adopted children.

Many people of my generation, growing up in the cold war, thought it was wrong to have children, since there did not seem to be much of a future for them.

Children came to some of us and we raised them to think for themselves. Unfortunately, they are subjected to so much advertising, they do not even know when their thoughts are their own.

The message is always to consume more useless crap. I do not know if that is necessarily conservative, but it certainly is not helping the environment.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #133784

ohrealy,

Yeah, for a bunch of nuttoes that fear sex and anything sexual, they seem to be outbreeding us. I wonder how that works?!?!?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 16, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #133801

I think it might be because we are more knowledgeable about reproduction and how to prevent it, and have a different view of a womans role.

I am always amazed at geneologies of historical figures. Women literally had to have a child every year until they wore out or died. If they did not, it was assumed that there was something wrong with one of them.

I once knew a real McCoy, from South Williamson, Kentucky, who was the youngest of 20 children. Very nice people, but culturally more conservative than anyone I ever met.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 16, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #133845

Cervical cancer is not certain if you don’t have this injection and death is not certain if you get cervical cancer,but getting pregnant when you have sex is almost certain and if you get pregnant your life will certainly change,and maybe not for the better.The ways of preventing pregnancy are not 100 % effective but only the Mother of Jesus ever got pregnant without having sex.Abstinance is GOD’s way of preventing pregnancy and STD’s.GOD’s morality is not having sex until you are married and only with your spouse.Repubs did not invent it.GOD blesses married sex and condemns all others.The purpose is procreation and the pleasure is a gift of GOD that selfish people abuse.The child that can come from the union is the greater blessing,but, they are abused also.GOD’s ways are the best ways even if you don’t believe there is a GOD.HIS ways are for the mental,physical,and spiritual health of men and women.The emphasis in our society has been to seek pleasure and the down side is the pain we find when we seek it in ways other than those approved by GOD.Our (man’s) ways are destructive and have consequences,GOD’s way builds us up and has an eternal reward.There is pain in living GOD’s way,but,it is usually caused by people who don’t.Failing to do GOD’s will gets us in the trouble we are in,not the Repubs or the Dems.The Old Testament gives the history of the creation of man and his fall from grace and GOD’s plan to redeem man from sin.The New Testament contains the whole plan of redemption.I am a Christian 1st and an American 2nd and my politics and way of life are from GOD’s Holy Bible.Study it to learn the way GOD approves and the blessings for those who do and the pain for those who don’t.I have no party in government,I see GOD’s way not observed by all sides.I embrace those who embrace GOD’s way although neither side has much knowledge.I have hope for the Repubs,I have given up on the Dems.I will not give up on GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GOD’s way is our only hope!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at March 16, 2006 10:08 AM
Comment #133917

>>but only the Mother of Jesus ever got pregnant without having sex.

RDAVIDC,

One of these days you’ll get something right…maybe…

It was not Jesus mother, but rather Jesus’ mother’s mother. Jesus was not born without sin, it was Mary, his mum.

Maybe you should read the Bible before you spout off to us real sinners…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 16, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #133924

Hey Marysdude, March 25 is coming up. That is the day that Mary got it on with the Holy Ghost, 9 months before Kratzmer.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 16, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #133979

Hi All:
How are you Stephan Daugherty, Womanmarine? It is a sorry state of affairs that here in the twentyfirst century we have GOP politicians who couldn’t find their collective asses with out a map, still think that they and those who support them are the only ones with morals. How POMPASS & ARROGANT!
I thought I’d check in on this Blog to see if the same people are still posting their same MORALS, The names have changed but the message is still same. Thanks for reminding me why I left in the first place. Stupidity and browbeating remain first and in the forfront. If I wanted to be browbeat about morality & Christianity I would have joined the Baptists Long Ago, however I believe in Diversity, and The RIGHT To CHOOSE. BTW…Jesus was a LIBERAL. He did what he did because it was the right thing to do.

I Will crawl back into my hole now.
As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: Wayne at March 16, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #134159

What I found just as bad is that a morning after pill (‘Plan B’) was going to be approved for over the counter use, however the republican administration blocked it for religious reasons. If they really want to ban abortion they should at least make sure women are able to prevent pregnancy in the first place. Now there are probably teenage girls and adult women who are needlessly getting pregnant.

By the way, this drug is available by prescription, but since it has to be taken right after sexual activity it’s not always feasible. This is made worse when many pharmacists are refusing to fill birth control prescriptions because of their religious beliefs.

Posted by: John at March 17, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #134162

A fascinating link. It’s weird how these demographic trends can completely change the future of our civilization. Looks like America will just grow more intolerant, fundamentalist, and disdainful of radical things like, you know, science, logic, and of course thinking for yourself, with each generation.

I think as America grows more irrational with each generation our country is bound to eventually collapse. At the same time, Europe will become a muslim society as europeans have less and less children. Unlesss something changes, it’s almost like western civilization is going back to the dark ages. Too bad people who are progressive, secular, educated or scientific, or liberal (or all of the above) can’t just found our own country free of idiots like Bush and Cheney and these jerks who want to control our society and make it a theocracy.

Posted by: john at March 17, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #134303

John: The 14th century, the 17th century, and the 20th century, were three of the worst in Western history with plagues, wars and mass murder respectively. People in 1406 and 1706 also had many reasons to be pessimistic, but civilization advanced greatly after those dark ages, with the printing press, and the enlightenment. We obviously do not know what will come next, but what could be worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and their lesser fellow haters of mankind.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 17, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #134302

John: The 14th century, the 17th century, and the 20th century, were three of the worst in Western history with plagues, wars and mass murder respectively. People in 1406 and 1706 also had many reasons to be pessimistic, but civilization advanced greatly after those dark ages, with the printing press, and the enlightenment. We obviously do not know what will come next, but what could be worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and their lesser fellow haters of mankind.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 17, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #204198

One cause of death was especially increased. Among men, those who took sleeping pills 30 times a month had 7 times the risk of suicide! WBR LeoP

Posted by: Leo at January 20, 2007 7:14 PM
Post a comment