How far does "Freedom of Religion" go?

[_harmony]

Again, the fact that they may teach something, doesn't not mean they don't loath doing so. I loathe square dancing, but I have square danced on occasion. I loathe cooked spinach, but I ate it quite frequently in my youth. I loathe hearing people gossip, but I have have subjected myself to it quite frequently here. ;-)

Are you starting to understand yet? Or, do I need to connect the dots?

When were appointed the official spokesperson for all those in what you label the "pro-abortion industry"? Because unless you really are the official spokesperson for them, you have no standing on which to make any statement about what they loathe or don't loathe. You simply are blowing smoke again.

That being the case (as per usual), it's not that part of your statement that I take issue with. This is the part that I know to be absolutely false

The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions...

That statement is pure unadulterated horse manure.

#1. Your blanket "pro-abortion industry" is both misleading and incorrect. There is no "pro-abortion industry", as a single entity. There are various abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood, etc., but there is no one single entity that represents them all.

#2. What sources are you using that document that women suffer significant psychological factors? What significant psychological factors? Are you talking about PAS (Post Abortion Syndrome)?

CFR, Wade. Put up or shut up.

[_Tarski]

Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

Good points. This incident has made me think about how much "sheltering" should be legal. I think it's quite possible that the FLDS women in Texas might actually believe they are "happy," and even more enlightened, intelligent, etc., BECAUSE they are sheltered from the wickedness of the world. They may even be hearing right now for the first time that older men marrying young girls, impregnating them, controlling them in every way is wrong!

So again, how much forced isolationism is okay, as it relates to freedom of religion?

This is an area where I have defended the LDS church. Even though I was advised not to read or view certain material, I was never threatened (in a worldly way) at all. I studied, chose to leave, and never had a cross word said to me during the process. To me, this is a significant reason I don't consider the church a cult, as some others do. I think if there is forced censorship, it is most likely a cult.

Just some rambling thoughts....

The question of "sheltering" comes up in secular debates as well. The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance. Many liberal schools and adherents wish to "shelter" young and impressionable minds from the alures of conservative and capitalistic thought. Etc., etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

BS warning!

[Guest]

The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health ... e-4215.htm

They do talk to the young woman about all the different birth control available, and abstinence is one of them -- they do this before a woman walks out of their door. If they want birth control pills (that's preferable than the woman coming back for another abortion) they are provided these by Planned Parenthood, as well. Planned Parenthood is not pro-abortion. If it was there wouldn't be such a push to get ALL the women that come to their clinics on some sort of birth control.

Thanks, -You're a Dodo

I was aware of the contents of that link--having read it prior to responding earlier to John Larsen.

Evidently, though, you lack the same capacity to make the distinctions I pointed out to John (as well as inclined to jump to the inane conclusion that teaching about birth control means one is not pro-abortion), which led him to mistakenly call me dishonest and you to mis-direct your use of the name "Dodo". ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You should have read the contents of the link before making a false statement and then trying to backtrack. It's a false statement. Own up to it.

Wade, read your own words:

The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance.

I replied to the second part of your sentence. It's false. They do not loathe it -- they infact do talk about abstinence with their clients.

Again, the fact that they may teach something, doesn't not mean they don't loath doing so. I loathe square dancing, but I have square danced on occasion. I loathe cooked spinach, but I ate it quite frequently in my youth. I loathe hearing people gossip, but I have have subjected myself to it quite frequently here. ;-)

Well, the difference between you loathing square dancing and the assumption that "pro-abortion" clinics loathe teaching abstinence is that you're not a "pro-abortion" clinic. Are you a mind reader? I bet you wear a nifty jeweled turban!

Are you starting to understand yet? Or, do I need to connect the dots?

I'll connect the dots for both of us! :)


Wade.... knows his own loathings........... Wade wears a jeweled turban and can read the mind of clinics everywhere..........

I then talked about the term "pro-abortion". If a clinic was pro-abortion would they want women to be on birth control so they no longer get pregnant and seek abortions?

Are you supposing that people can't be both pro-abortion and pro-birthcontrol? Because if that is what you assume, then you can easily test your hypothesis by calling the local Planned Parenthood office and asking them if they are pro-abortion. In fact, why not check out the same website you recommended to me (after I had alreay read it), and read the following position statement: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/

No, I'm not supposing anything of the sort. I am telling you what Planned Parenthood considers itself. It prefers women NOT to get abortions. Hmm... those that wish women never had abortions doesn't sound very pro--abortion to me. Yet, you know I don't have the special power of insight and ESP you apparently have.

No. You simply demonstrated your lack of understanding and logic.

So, tell me how your statement is true without the use of mindreading. Please? Hint: no mind reading allowed in this exercise.

[_Moniker]

Oh! Ha! Yer a silly fella, Wade.

I wonder if talking about the Church makes one a gossip and is equivalent to talking about "pro-abortion" groups? Or Cracker Barrel? Or HOOTERS?

[_Tori]

Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

Good points. This incident has made me think about how much "sheltering" should be legal. I think it's quite possible that the FLDS women in Texas might actually believe they are "happy," and even more enlightened, intelligent, etc., BECAUSE they are sheltered from the wickedness of the world. They may even be hearing right now for the first time that older men marrying young girls, impregnating them, controlling them in every way is wrong!

So again, how much forced isolationism is okay, as it relates to freedom of religion?

This is an area where I have defended the LDS church. Even though I was advised not to read or view certain material, I was never threatened (in a worldly way) at all. I studied, chose to leave, and never had a cross word said to me during the process. To me, this is a significant reason I don't consider the church a cult, as some others do. I think if there is forced censorship, it is most likely a cult.

Just some rambling thoughts....

The question of "sheltering" comes up in secular debates as well. The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance. Many liberal schools and adherents wish to "shelter" young and impressionable minds from the alures of conservative and capitalistic thought. Etc., etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Just what in the world is the "pro-abortion industry"? I've never heard of any organization that is "pro" abortion. I've heard of being Pro-choice or Pro-life, but "Pro-abortion".....I think you've made up this term.

And, where do you come up with the notion that 'they' (that would be the phantom "pro-abortion industry" people) loathe teaching (or I'm assuming you might mean informing/encouraging) that abstinance is a good thing?

You say and assume many ridiculous things, Wade....Is it just because you want to be so contrary to everybody on here all of the time?

[_Mercury]

Wade,

Just what in the world is the "pro-abortion industry"? I've never heard of any organization that is "pro" abortion. I've heard of being Pro-choice or Pro-life, but "Pro-abortion".....I think you've made up this term.

And, where do you come up with the notion that 'they' (that would be the phantom "pro-abortion industry" people) loathe teaching (or I'm assuming you might mean informing/encouraging) that abstinance is a good thing?

You say and assume many ridiculous things, Wade....Is it just because you want to be so contrary to everybody on here all of the time?

The pro abortion industry? You haven't heard? It was developed onthe same model as the pro-appendicitis and Pro heart disease industry. Those mythical segments of teh economy determined to cause medical procedures.

Don't pay any attention to the wade. He is in the "Troll savant" category of mopologetic taxonomy.

[_John Larsen]

Mr. Larson--as I've long suspected--is just another know-nothing liberal with a great many attitudes and a bag full of pop media revisionisms that have nothing to do with actual history, but just justify the Zeitgeist. "Safe sex", as Wade has correctly pointed out, was, for probably some thirty years, the sole acceptable teaching of the American Left and the public schools. Planned Parenthood, and similar institutions, from the seventies into the nineties, remained viciously opposed to abstinence, or anything that smacked of tradition Judeo/Christian moral values. This change to some degree of tolerance for abstinence is of recent date.

Larson's comment about Heritage is an utter riot, but the humor value is dampened by the dispiriting lack of well rounded education and intellectual depth this individual belies, as well as what is clearly (yes, yet again) the inability of liberals to explore and digest the ideas of those with whom they disagree, and instead rely on the old hoary crutch of self satisfied intellectual disdain. Heritage is very likely the most prestigious think tank in the country (and yes, it happens to be conservative) and its intellectual firepower is unquestionable (you need not agree with its conclusions on various issues, but this attribute is still unquestionable). The only thing the Left really has to compete with it is Brookings (other tanks of similar stature would be Hudson, Hoover, AEI etc.)

That Larson is simply out of the loop regarding Heritage and its known and respected level of scholarship and research quality is just another bit of evidence (along with his, what I have already aptly termed "Romper Room scientism) that taking him seriously is probably a dead end.

Inferring all of that from my sparse comments reveals much more about you and they way you think than it says about me.

[_JAK]

Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

Good points. This incident has made me think about how much "sheltering" should be legal. I think it's quite possible that the FLDS women in Texas might actually believe they are "happy," and even more enlightened, intelligent, etc., BECAUSE they are sheltered from the wickedness of the world. They may even be hearing right now for the first time that older men marrying young girls, impregnating them, controlling them in every way is wrong!

So again, how much forced isolationism is okay, as it relates to freedom of religion?

This is an area where I have defended the LDS church. Even though I was advised not to read or view certain material, I was never threatened (in a worldly way) at all. I studied, chose to leave, and never had a cross word said to me during the process. To me, this is a significant reason I don't consider the church a cult, as some others do. I think if there is forced censorship, it is most likely a cult.

Just some rambling thoughts....

The question of "sheltering" comes up in secular debates as well. The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance. Many liberal schools and adherents wish to "shelter" young and impressionable minds from the alures of conservative and capitalistic thought. Etc., etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry but you are incorrect here, Wade.

First, there is no “pro-abortion industry.” Pro-choice is not pro-abortion and there is no “industry” as the context of your statements claims.

As many have advised here, you are incorrect. Moniker is correct regarding what is discussed in planned parenthood.

More information is superior to less information. While some favor keeping young people ignorant regarding options, it’s doomed to failure. Hiding or concealing information available contributes to the dangers of misinformation and false options.

JAK

[_JAK]

Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

Good points. This incident has made me think about how much "sheltering" should be legal. I think it's quite possible that the FLDS women in Texas might actually believe they are "happy," and even more enlightened, intelligent, etc., BECAUSE they are sheltered from the wickedness of the world. They may even be hearing right now for the first time that older men marrying young girls, impregnating them, controlling them in every way is wrong!

So again, how much forced isolationism is okay, as it relates to freedom of religion?

This is an area where I have defended the LDS church. Even though I was advised not to read or view certain material, I was never threatened (in a worldly way) at all. I studied, chose to leave, and never had a cross word said to me during the process. To me, this is a significant reason I don't consider the church a cult, as some others do. I think if there is forced censorship, it is most likely a cult.

Just some rambling thoughts....

The question of "sheltering" comes up in secular debates as well. The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance. Many liberal schools and adherents wish to "shelter" young and impressionable minds from the alures of conservative and capitalistic thought. Etc., etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Just what in the world is the "pro-abortion industry"? I've never heard of any organization that is "pro" abortion. I've heard of being Pro-choice or Pro-life, but "Pro-abortion".....I think you've made up this term.

And, where do you come up with the notion that 'they' (that would be the phantom "pro-abortion industry" people) loathe teaching (or I'm assuming you might mean informing/encouraging) that abstinance is a good thing?

You say and assume many ridiculous things, Wade....Is it just because you want to be so contrary to everybody on here all of the time?

Tori,

It is often construed that informing people of options is somehow favoring abortion.

Quite a number of people believe that despite the fact that it’s incorrect. There is no "pro-abortion industry" as characterized by some. Those who would prohibit all abortions by law fail to recognize that such prohibition would result in more dangerous abortions. If one of the George Bush girls became pregnant, we would never hear about it. We also would never hear about an abortion.

No planned-parenthood group opposes “abstinence.” They encourage it. At the same time, they do not conceal or attempt to promote ignorance of options. Virtually every grocery and drug store has condoms visible for easy purchase. Young people get into drug stores. Contraception is an option. Information is preferable to ignorance.

I’m sure you would not argue otherwise.

JAK

[_harmony]

Now, now, folks, let's give Wade a chance to explain. If a horse can be a tapir, then "loathe" can be something else too.

What I want to know is... what significant psychologicals factors happen as a result of an abortion that the clinics are supposed to warn women about, and don't? Because the APA says PAS is bunk.