Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[MaryJohnZ]

Thanks, Mary. I wondered why you stayed with it so long – but you’re bringing up some very good points along the way.

I agree that much sex education treats people like animals.

Or how about this?

“there is obviously some evolutionary basis to rape just like there is some evolutionary basis to all aspects of living things,” claims anthropologist Craig Palmer, coauthor of A Natural History of Rape. “Rape might be an adaptation. There might have been selective favoring males who raped under some circumstances in the past. And therefore there might be some aspects of mail brains designed specifically to rape under some conditions.” (Thornhill and Palmer – Natural History of Rape).

I wonder what Darwin would say to that?
Scray how the above quote seems to be such a cold hearted view of evolution, pratical, utilitarian and cold.

Since ‘altruism’ or selflessness is so much a part of Christian belief the question of whether Darwin’s writings are a basis for encouraging altruism or being inselfish compared to looking out for #1 or self centered love. Darwin in 'Descent of Man" seems to say the pursuit of one’s own happiness is the main initiator of people’s actions. Isn’t that quite openly promoting selfsishness?

Altuism on the other hand would be the denial of self for others.
How does Darwin or would Darwin explain that?

"Philosophy Dictionary: altruism
Term coined by Comte for the disinterested concern for the welfare of another, as an end in itself. Questions include the reality of altruism (see egoism), and its value. While altruism is frequently thought to be a cornerstone of Christian ethics, as a category it is unknown in Greek thought. It was energetically attacked by Nietzsche as entailing an unhealthy suppression or devaluation of the self, although in fact there is no evidence that altruistic personalities in general have particularly low self-esteem. In evolutionary theory behaviour is defined as altruistic only if it decreases the fitness of the animal, and there is the corresponding question of how such behaviour could exist and sustain itself.

And that goes back to evolution which is godless being cold and caculating. Whoever wins the advantage in the situation, natural or cultural, survives and wins.

I do see evidence in Darwin that he wanted mankind to move toward a higher morality than all that, but I don’t think his theory and the way he explains and writes about it encourages that striving toward selfless altruistic love of all others.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

But you are deeply aggrieved when Darwin says that God created life. This seems inconsistent to me.

I never saw it. That is the problem. Overwhelming historical documentation exists that Genesis was a mythological story to Darwin and he was an agnostic.

You don’t have to accept evolution at all. You can deny electrons, if you like. It’s not required. BTW, even scientists today don’t accept Darwin’s theory as he wrote it; since then, there has been much understanding of evolution, and while Darwin’s basic four points remain valid, many other things he wrote have been found to be wrong.

True…so why are you so adamant about arguing for Darwin?

Turns out that even atheists and agnostics can do science. But of course, Darwin was a Christian when he wrote The Origin of Species.

Too bad he didn’t hold on to his faith. Too bad he didn’t find more opportunities to make sure others knew he was adamant that God was the ultimate Creator.

Darwin was a racist in the same sense that Abraham Lincoln was a racist; they both thought that whites were better than blacks. They were not considered racists in their day, because they were more liberal with regard to blacks than most Europeans or Americans. They opposed slavery and asserted that all men were equal in having rights to freedom and the fruits of their labor.

I give Darwin credit for his stand against slavery.

As you learned, Darwin denounced letting even the least of humans die as an overwhelming evil. You learned that Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan denounced eugenics as scientifically unsound. Why deny it?

Well, we have gone over that quote many times and I always thought Darwin said it was an evil unless it could be justified for a greater good. He was more a ‘means justifies the ends’ person at times.

As you saw, he attributed the origin of life to God.

Not in Descent of Man, and not directly in Origins…and in personal journals certainly not.

You mean Luther. Darwin denounced even letting the weak die. The Nazis actively followed Luther’s advice on what to do with the Jews, and freely gave him credit for it.

That is pure propaganda then and now…

I’d be pleased to see your evidence that Darwin influenced Luther.

Anti-semitism and racial purity of thr white supremicist German Nationalism are two different things and you are purposefully confusing them to take Darwin out of this.

Horsefeathers. You may have noticed on these and other boards that scientist repeatedly say that nature is no place to look for values.

In fact I don’t think the same scientists believe in values ultimately.

But no scientists? Imagine that. This is why the Anti-Defamation society condemned Stein’s blood libel against science; in doing so, he denied the causes of the Holocaust and made excuses for the Nazis.

His vicious lie that scientists were pushing the Jews into the gas chambers makes it clear that he is merely struggling with some personal demons. And he is losing.

Well a lot of other scientists out there agree with the tie between science, Darwin, eugenics and the holocaust. German documents from the period agree with the link. It seems like you have to hide an awful lot of material to deny it. That is why you are wrong.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[reggieM]

And that goes back to evolution which is godless being cold and caculating. Whoever wins the advantage in the situation, natural or cultural, survives and wins.

That is right. It’s about winning or losing - and the winners are rewarded. This is the opposite of the Gospel paradoxes (which confound science) – the last shall be first, in dying you are born, in giving we receive (that’s St. Francis’ paraphrase of the Gospel, but it stands).

I do see evidence in Darwin that he wanted mankind to move toward a higher morality than all that, but I don’t think his theory and the way he explains and writes about it encourages that striving toward selfless altruistic love of all others.

Yes, it seems that Darwin was sensitive to the harsh morality that materialism provided, but he tried to solve this problem through scientific-natural means. Christ came to teach us the pure path to altruistic love and service. The attempt to replace that teaching with Darwinian theory has been a disaster.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

That is right. It’s about winning or losing - and the winners are rewarded. This is the opposite of the Gospel paradoxes (which confound science) – the last shall be first, in dying you are born, in giving we receive (that’s St. Francis’ paraphrase of the Gospel, but it stands).

Yes, it seems that Darwin was sensitive to the harsh morality that materialism provided, but he tried to solve this problem through scientific-natural means. Christ came to teach us the pure path to altruistic love and service. The attempt to replace that teaching with Darwinian theory has been a disaster.

Well put!! The dying to one’s self inorder to live in Christ and bear fruit cannot be accomplished without going counter to the selfish ethic in Darwin.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well a lot of other scientists out there agree with the tie between science, Darwin, eugenics and the holocaust.

So far you haven’t shown us any. And the fact is, as you know, that Darwin assailed the premises of classical genetics as evil. And you know that Darwinists showed that classical genetics was scientifically unsupported.

German documents from the period agree with the link.

Germain sources from the period assert a link between Christianity and the Third Reich. I think they are wrong on both counts.

It seems like you have to hide an awful lot of material to deny it.

What seems to have you outraged is that I’m turning up material that refutes your beliefs.

You’re wrong, for the obvious reasons. Stein lied about scientists sending his relatives to the gas chambers. He lied about the roots of the Nazi Holocaust, a libel that was so outrageous that the Anti-Defamation society denounced the excuses he made for the Nazis.

You’re stuck on the wrong side of the Holocaust, Mary. You have attacked the very people who sought to undermine the culture of death you tell us you abhor.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian,

Have you read any of my posts?

I have posted from the eugenics groups in this country who agree there was a link with Darwin.

The only scientists who don’t agree are scientists like you who want to tuen a blind eye…

Remember the posts from the German scientists?

But here…here are some sources for you Barbarian. This website had plenty that you can go to find the information to make the connection.

"There’s no credible doubt that eugenicists and Hitler found incentive and justification for their atrocities by seizing upon Darwin’s “prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species.” Origin.

** Too bad the research capabilities of Stein’s critics aren’t sufficiently evolved. They could have “googled” Darwin to Hitler (402,000 hits) or Darwin to Nazis (245,000 hits), or better yet, found resources that link Hitler’s reign of terror to eugenics and Darwin at the USHMM:**

From 1933 to 1945, Nazi Germany carried out a campaign to “cleanse” German society of individuals viewed as biological threats to the nation’s “health.” … This campaign was based in part on ideas about public health and genetic “fitness” that had grown out of the inclination of many late nineteenth century scientists and intellectuals to apply the Darwinian concepts of evolution to the problems of human society: “Bibliographies: Nazi Racial Science.”

Sources cited include:

    Haas, François. “German Science and Black Racism--Roots of the Nazi Holocaust.” FASEB Journal 22, no. 2 (2008): 332-337. (Subject Files)

Traces the origin of the concept of “racial hygiene” to the work of German physicians and scientists of the late 19th century. Shows how the spread of this idea, based on Social Darwinism, culminated in the Nazi T4 euthanasia program and the extermination camps.

· Weindling, Paul. Health, Race, and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870-1945. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. (RA 418.3.G3 W45 1993)
Examines the interplay between social Darwinist and eugenic ideas in German political goals for public health and welfare from the mid-nineteenth through the mid-twentieth century. Demonstrates how Germany’s scientific tradition in the treatment of social problems influenced the later more radical “solutions” developed for social and racial goals during the Nazi era. Includes illustrations, a bibliography, and an index.

· Zmarzlik, Hans-Günter. “Social Darwinism in Germany, Seen as a Historical Problem.” In Origins of the Holocaust, edited by Michael R. Marrus, 3-42. Westport: Meckler, 1989. (Ref D 810 .J4 N38 1989 v.2)
Focuses on the influence of Darwinian concepts such as “survival of the fittest” upon turn of the century mainstream anthropological and scientific thought in Germany. Relates how the German scientific community applied these concepts to the social problems associated with poverty and disease in Germany. Includes bibliographic notes. Part of the multi-volume anthology titled, The Nazi Holocaust.

· From Darwin to Hitler: evolutionary ethics, eugenics, and racism in Germany, Weikart, Richard, 2004.

Susan Bachrach, PhD writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, links “Proponents of eugenics in the early 20th century [who] argued that modern medicine interfered with Darwinian natural selection,” and the “Nazi sterilization effort [that] was integrated into a comprehensive program of racial hygiene.” All of which “culminated in the “Holocaust.”

Jerry Bergman’s essay, “Darwinism and the Nazi Holocaust,” cites 75 resources including Yale University Press and American Scientist:

Nazi governmental policy was openly influenced by Darwinism, the Zeitgeist of both science and educated society of the time. This can be evaluated by an examination of extant documents, writings, and artefacts produced by Germany’s twentieth century Nazi movement and its many scientist supporters."

---

cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080428163145.aspx

Are those enough sources for you?

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Have you read any of my posts?

I have read many, many of your posts from people who say what Darwin believed. But none of them mean much, when Darwin described the ideas of classical eugenics as “overwhelming evil.”

None of the statements from people who hate science about what Darwinists thought mean anything, when you see that Darwinists thoroughly discredited classical eugenics.

Remember the posts from the German scientists?

I remember the ones from the praising Martin Luther for his recommendations on what to do with the Jews. I remember the ones from Darwinists like Morgan and Punnett, showing that the whole idea was scientifically indefensible.

"There’s no credible doubt that eugenicists and Hitler found incentive and justification for their atrocities by seizing upon Darwin’s “prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species.”

Hitler also found incentive and justification in Christianity. They could twist almost anything to their desires.

Susan Bachrach, PhD writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, links “Proponents of eugenics in the early 20th century [who] argued that modern medicine interfered with Darwinian natural selection,” and the “Nazi sterilization effort [that] was integrated into a comprehensive program of racial hygiene.” All of which “culminated in the “Holocaust.”

Note that Punnett, a Darwinian, showed that argument to be scientifically unsupportable. Susan is apparently not a geneticist…

As usual, Mary, you have to troll for claims about Darwin from people who disagree with or even hate him. This is precisely what got Stein in such disrepute.

If you were honest, you would rely on what Darwin and his followers wrote, not what people who hate him say. You defend Stein and Luther, who encouraged Hitler, or made excuses for his behavior. This is encouraging the culture of death. And there is no reason for it. It is a scandal that any Catholic would stoop to it.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian–

You say we should only rely on what Darwin said and yet when Darwin says something that shows he is racist you excuse it. Or if Darwin says he think Christian belief and a Christian God are totally mythological and that he finds too much evidence of cruelty in nature to believe in God you disredard tgose statement and say he is a Christian. It seems to me you conveniently pick and choose what you want to say is truth.

You also disregard the fact that ideas have consequences. Darwin’s ideas and writings as he presented them have consequences when interpreted by others to the extreme.
Darwin is still partof that and he has responsibility for those extremes because he did not guard against them.

In the bible it says you know a tree by its fruit and the tree of Charles Darwin has a fruit that is godless, self-centered rather than altruistic, and practical minded to the detriment of higher ideals of love and selfless behaviour. As Pope Benedict said no matter how you dress Darwin up the end ethic is bloody.

Historical documentation of the link to Darwin is clear and your refusal to see it is amazingly dishonest.

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[The_Barbarian]

You say we should only rely on what Darwin said and yet when Darwin says something that shows he is racist you excuse it.

That’s not an honest accusation. I told you Darwin was (like almost all Europeans of the time) a racist. He shared with Abraham Lincoln, the notion that other races were inferior, but were entitled to life and freedom as much as his own people.

He was considered to be a liberal at the time, because he opposed slavery and mistreatment of other races.

Or if Darwin says he think Christian belief and a Christian God are totally mythological and that he finds too much evidence of cruelty in nature to believe in God you disredard tgose statement and say he is a Christian.

I only said that he was a Christian when he wrote “The Origin of Species.” That is according to his own testimony. He later acknowledged becoming an agnostic, or at least leaning that way.

It seems to me you conveniently pick and choose what you want to say is truth.

You’re upset because you’ve discovered that the “truth” you were given is mostly lies.

You also disregard the fact that ideas have consequences.

Nonsense. I repeatedly pointed out to you that Luther’s ideas on the Jews had consequences when the Nazis took them and put them into practice. I showed you that the American eugenists refused to accept the findings of the Darwinists like Punnett, and this led to all sorts of horrors.

Darwin’s ideas and writings as he presented them have consequences when interpreted by others to the extreme.

If only they had. His opinion that all people have rights to life and freedom, and that it is evil to let the least of us die, would have prevented the Holocaust, widespread sterilizations, and the like. Would have, if people listened. But people like you refused to listen.

In the bible it says you know a tree by its fruit and the tree of Charles Darwin has a fruit that is godless, self-centered rather than altruistic, and practical minded to the detriment of higher ideals of love and selfless behaviour.

I know you want us to believe it. But you’re making excuses for the people who committed horrors, and you’re condemning the people who objected. Surely you must realize how that is seen.

As Pope Benedict said no matter how you dress Darwin up the end ethic is bloody.

Show us that one. Checkable source. And I’ll be asking until you show us.

Historical documentation of the link to Darwin is clear

You mean the historical link to Martin Luther is clear. Darwin, as you know, objected to that sort of thing. So did his followers, who pointed out that it had no scientific validity.

and your refusal to see it is amazingly dishonest.

You’re upset because you’ve sided with the culture of death, and you’re lashing out. But that won’t change anything, Mary.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I already posted the quote from benedict on darwinian ethiv being bloody. I know I had it foot noted in a past post but I would not know how to begin to locate it. However, here it is again…the same statement by Pope bBenedict which I paraphrased:

I am posting the paragraphs before the statment.
"Benedict’s deepest concern is that Darwinism has promoted scientific positivism, holding that only empirical science can produce certainty, and hence that religion, if it survives at all, can only do so as a subjective, emotional consolation against the cold indifference of the universe. In response, Benedict argues that Christianity relies on truths deeper than empirical observation, chief among them that life has purpose. In this sense, he believes in “intelligent design” – not necessarily as the product of scientific observation, but as a metaphysical principle.

In In the Beginning, Ratzinger writes: “We must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. … The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. … Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.”

n On the moral level, evolution as a “first philosophy” is dangerous.

Benedict draws this argument out in Truth and Tolerance: **“An evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic. … **All this is of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love of one’s neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which is what we need.”

The source:National Catholic Reporter
ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006c/090806/090806h.php

Here is a quote from John Paul II on materialistic Darwinian evolution:

"… theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. (1996)

---

Pope Benedict also said Darwin’s Theory is not completely provable:

“The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.”
Catholic News article:
cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=4630

---

And remember I am a strong pro-lifer. You are the one who has been supporting Planned Parenthood education programs at least in this forum. That puts you on the side of the culture of death at least in that area.

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[The_Barbarian]

I already posted the quote from benedict on darwinian ethiv being bloody. I know I had it foot noted in a past post but I would not know how to begin to locate it. However, here it is again…the same statement by Pope bBenedict which I paraphrased:

Well, let’s take a look…

I am posting the paragraphs before the statment.

Sorry, I’m not impressed with what others say Benedict says. Same as with Darwin. If you can support it with what they actually said, the game is up.

Benedict writes:
**We must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. … **

and…

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
Report of the International Theological Commission

So, even random change can be used by God to do His will.

On the moral level, evolution as a “first philosophy” is dangerous.

And highly unscientific. Darwinism cannot be a philosophy, since it depends on evidence and inference.

An evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic. …

As you yourself noted, Darwin rejected such an ethic as “overwhelming evil.” So Darwin would also agree with the Pope on this. You should, too.

Pope Benedict also said Darwin’s Theory is not completely provable:

Scientists firmly agree. No scientific theory is provable. The best of them can be only described as “virtually certain”, which is how the Pope described Darwin’s theory of common descent.

And remember I am a strong pro-lifer.

I would like to think so. But your support for those who make excuses for the Holocaust leads me to think that you aren’t as strong as you claim to be.

You are the one who has been supporting Planned Parenthood education programs at least in this forum.

No. That is a lie. I’m merely pointing out that comprehensive sex education has been more successful than “abstinence only.” I never endorsed the Planned Parenthood model, which does not include abstinence in a comprehensive education program. And you know that.

That puts you on the side of the culture of death at least in that area.

Since you endorsed programs that have resulted in increases in pregnancies (which often were aborted), HIV infections and other tragedies, it would seem that you are once more on the side of death.

If you want to be on God’s side, choose the side that produces fewer of these life-destroying events.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

The article was reporting what Benedict said. The same quote from Benedict was in the earlier post I added here. It was posted several times. he said no matter how you dress it up the Darwinian ethic is a bloody ethic of tooth and claw. (paraphrased0
I suggest you are so intent on supporting Darwin that you can’t admit there are other ways to present and articulate evolution, ways that allow for God and His intervention…ways that are not so soley focused on a materialistic explanation for everything, including human conscience and thought, and thus allow for the human person to be seen as being created in God’s image, not the image of advanced animals.

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
Report of the International Theological Commission

So, even random change can be used by God to do His will.

Radically different in kind and not only in degree!!! Sounds like they are purposefully paraphrasing Darwin’s assertion that man is not different from animals in kind, only in degree and opposing that. They are strongly asserting God as the Divine Designer.

I agree that what appears to us as random is not random to God. But would Darwin say that?

And highly unscientific. Darwinism cannot be a philosophy, since it depends on evidence and inference.

Darwin and others formed a philosophical view of life based on his theories. The Descent of Man is very philosophical in nature, even analyzing and proposing as fact yhat the prime motivator for human beings is what will bring about the greatest happiness for themselves. Of course that excludes an altruistic view, seeking the happiness of others.

As you yourself noted, Darwin rejected such an ethic as “overwhelming evil.” So Darwin would also agree with the Pope on this. You should, too.

Darwin also wrote about how animal breeding showed how to improve the genetic pool and implied the use with human beings.

From another article:
news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21548399-663,00.html
"…the German-born Pontiff addressed these issues now because many scientists use Darwin’s theory to argue the random nature of evolution negated any role for God.

That is a philosophical or ideological conclusion not supported by facts, they say, because science cannot prove who or what originally created the universe and life in it.

“Both popular and scientific texts about evolution often say that ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ has done this or that,” Benedict said in the book which included lectures from theologian Schoenborn, two philosophers and a chemistry professor.

“Just who is this ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as (an active) subject? It doesn’t exist at all!” the Pope said. Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain.

“The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability,” he said.

“This … inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science … where did this rationality come from?” he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the “creative reason” of God. "

Scientists firmly agree. No scientific theory is provable. The best of them can be only described as “virtually certain”, which is how the Pope described Darwin’s theory of common descent.

So I guess that makes them all theories to a degree?! Why not allow Intelligent design as a theory to be discussed. At least to show that there is a strong sense of purpose and structure that flows through all of nature…

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

barbarian referring to culture of death and whether I am pro-life:
I would like to think so. But your support for those who make excuses for the Holocaust leads me to think that you aren’t as strong as you claim to be.

Sigh…
tell me, how often have you gone to the school your kids attend and ask to view the sex education materials? Have you asked to sit in on sex ed. classes?

No. That is a lie. I’m merely pointing out that comprehensive sex education has been more successful than “abstinence only.” I never endorsed the Planned Parenthood model, which does not include abstinence in a comprehensive education program. And you know that.

That is because they are using ‘comprehensive sex education’, not true abstinence education, and trying to say they have ‘abstinence based’ programs…it is a joke. You are supporting them by your attitude here in this forum toward abstinence education.

The way abstinence is presented is so minnimal with no real strong support for that as a choice that I would say these programs encourage early sexual activity rather than offer strong reasons in a postive way to delay it.

Since you endorsed programs that have resulted in increases in pregnancies (which often were aborted), HIV infections and other tragedies, it would seem that you are once more on the side of death.

If you want to be on God’s side, choose the side that produces fewer of these life-destroying events.

Sounds to me like you are supporting safe sex programs! You know maybe if students actually face the consequence of an unplanned pregnancy they would stop and think and not choose to have premarital sex… And since in my astate they don’t even keep track of abortions being done I would have no idea if the school programs were being effective or if they were just increasing the number of abortions being done.

You view that abstinence education would increase premarital sex goes against common sense. I don’t think you have a right to talk about the programs until I have proof you have gone to them and listened to the materials presented in the programs. When you do that ( as I have done) I will listen to what you have observed otherwise you are just drawing information from often biased sources who want these safe sex programs in our schools because they profit from them…

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[reggieM]

Sounds to me like you are supporting safe sex programs!

That does seem quite clear. It was important to have this exposed - thank you.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on Mary’s claim to be pro-life:
I would like to think so. But your support for those who make excuses for the Holocaust leads me to think that you aren’t as strong as you claim to be.

tell me, how often have you gone to the school your kids attend and ask to view the sex education materials?

Annually.

Have you asked to sit in on sex ed. classes?

Yes, and I’ve been asked by one principal to sit in, as I had a position of responsibility in youth activities in my community.

Barbarian observes:
No. That is a lie. I’m merely pointing out that comprehensive sex education has been more successful than “abstinence only.” I never endorsed the Planned Parenthood model, which does not include abstinence in a comprehensive education program. And you know that.

That is because they are using ‘comprehensive sex education’,

No. They do not include abstinence. Comprehensive sex education includes abstinence as the only absolutely safe mode. You are kinder to Planned Parenthood than I am.

The point is that “abstinence only” has been a disaster, leading to higher rates of pregnancy, STDs and ruined lives. Many states have now told the federal government that they will not accept funds for such programs. Supporting “abstinence only” as it exists today, is supporting teen pregnancies and death.

Barbarian observes:
Since you endorsed programs that have resulted in increases in pregnancies (which often were aborted), HIV infections and other tragedies, it would seem that you are once more on the side of death.

If you want to be on God’s side, choose the side that produces fewer of these life-destroying events.

Sounds to me like you are supporting safe sex programs!

No. That would be programs that do not advocate abstinence, such as Planned Parenthood. Contrary to what you think, they do not include abstinence.

You know maybe if students actually face the consequence of an unplanned pregnancy they would stop and think and not choose to have premarital sex…

I’ve had some people tell me that. And I think that’s the real issue. “If they’re going to sin, they need to suffer!” There are always consequences for sin, Mary, but I don’t think that we should want a child’s life ruined to get even.

You view that abstinence education would increase premarital sex goes against common sense.

The results are in. Higher rates of pregnancy and STDs occur where “abstinence only” is the practice. Reality trumps anyone’s reasoning.

I don’t think you have a right to talk about the programs until I have proof you have gone to them and listened to the materials presented in the programs.

Numerous states have evaluated them and found them to be too dangerous to children to continue. No one’s ideological crusade is worth the lives of our children.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Annually.

Name the curriculums you have observed.

Yes, and I’ve been asked by one principal to sit in, as I had a position of responsibility in youth activities in my community.

Barbarian observes:
No. That is a lie. I’m merely pointing out that comprehensive sex education has been more successful than “abstinence only.” I never endorsed the Planned Parenthood model, which does not include abstinence in a comprehensive education program. And you know that.

Not true. Although Planned Parenthood always hides its ifentity in some way. Reducing the Risk is a major curriculum used in our state and it originates out of a PP affiliated group, written bu former PP members. It is called ‘abstinence based’ because they can’t get into schools without talking about abstinence in some way, but right along with everything else from PP abstinence is just ‘one choice’, equal to all the others. I have seen the full curriculum. So don’t tell me PP curriculums don’t ‘include’ something about abstinence. Unfortunately they way they include it is a joke.

No. They do not include abstinence. Comprehensive sex education includes abstinence as the only absolutely safe mode. You are kinder to Planned Parenthood than I am.

Exactly…but they throw in a sentence here and there that abstinence is the safest choice inbetween the techniques for refusal, making it seem normal for guys to pressure their girl friends for sex… Wouldn’t it be so much better if they had the guys thinking in terms of how they could really protect and get to know the yound women they go out with without pressuring them to have sex. They also have lesson plans in how to contact PP clinics or local clinics and how they can get contraceptives without parental knowledge or permission. These course teach kid how to disobey their parents and make it seem like it is part of their maturing process.

The point is that “abstinence only” has been a disaster, leading to higher rates of pregnancy, STDs and ruined lives. Many states have now told the federal government that they will not accept funds for such programs. Supporting “abstinence only” as it exists today, is supporting teen pregnancies and death.

This article shows how PP and ACLU are pressuring states into refusing these monies.

cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080630171526.aspx

In Christ MaryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

No. That would be programs that do not advocate abstinence, such as Planned Parenthood. Contrary to what you think, they do not include abstinence.

I have seen the programs…
PP comprehensive sex ed mentions abstinence as the ‘best’ choice or ‘sfest’ choice…but does not support it or encourage it.

I’ve had some people tell me that. And I think that’s the real issue. “If they’re going to sin, they need to suffer!” There are always consequences for sin, Mary, but I don’t think that we should want a child’s life ruined to get even.

That is why we should return to abstinence programs and do away with the idea that kids can have ‘safe sex’. That is such a lie.

The results are in. Higher rates of pregnancy and STDs occur where “abstinence only” is the practice. Reality trumps anyone’s reasoning.

Reality or just politics tipping the evidence. I believe the second is the case. PP makes multi-millions of dollars selling contraceptives to teens. They need that group of customers. Every year they losed women as they get beyond child bearing years so they want the young teens to get hooked on contraceptives. They are vendors. We need to break their influence on our schools. Comprehensive sex is PP education.

In fact, both the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are aggressively seeking to do away with abstinence-only education. The ACLU has a page on its Web site headlined “Take Issue, Take Charge.” The subhead reads “Life, Liberty and Reproductive Freedom.” The site contains action steps readers can take to influence their local communities, including a call to support the “Responsible Education about Life” Act which seeks to fund comprehensive sex education.

cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080630171526.aspx

Here is another article:

…
…, I was startled to discover an alarming trend that has gone unreported: The ACLU and Planned Parenthood have teamed up in an aggressive campaign over the past several years—a campaign to pressure states to eliminate abstinence education and to reject federal funding for these programs. And though their work hasn’t drawn much attention, it has been remarkably successful. A year ago, only four states refused federal abstinence-education funding. Today the number is seventeen. The goal is to get enough states to refuse the federal abstinence-education funding to the point where the ACLU and Planned Parenthood can convince Congress to eliminate such funding entirely.

All this is happening, by the way, as fresh reports arrive almost every month about the benefits of teen abstinence and the effectiveness of abstinence programs.

But first, back to Karen Kropf. For ten years now, she has been speaking at local schools and community centers. **When she was invited to speak at an L.A. public school, she was always brought in as a supplement to the official comprehensive sex-ed programs. Planned Parenthood frequently provides **the official version, so you can imagine why teachers were eager to invite Kropf.
firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1097

Comprehensive sex education is PP education.

Here is an online report on abstinence only education showing the positive results it had:
hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Arizona_Abstinence_Only_Education_Program_Final_Report_2003.pdf

In fact there is evidence that abstinence only education was giving results:

“AS abstinence-only programs have become more common, rates of teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock childbirth in the United States have indeed dropped — by one-third for girls ages 15 to 19 in the years from 1991 through 2003. In New York State, rates not only of teen pregnancy and birth but also of most sexually transmitted diseases have been declining.”
feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/20/depressing-sex-ed-news/

In Christ, mary JohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. That would be programs that do not advocate abstinence, such as Planned Parenthood. Contrary to what you think, they do not include abstinence.

I have seen the programs…
PP comprehensive sex ed mentions abstinence as the ‘best’ choice or ‘sfest’ choice…but does not support it or encourage it.

In other words, they don’t present it as the best choice. Why are you defending those people?

Barbarian observes:
I’ve had some people tell me that. And I think that’s the real issue. “If they’re going to sin, they need to suffer!” There are always consequences for sin, Mary, but I don’t think that we should want a child’s life ruined to get even.

That is why we should return to abstinence programs and do away with the idea that kids can have ‘safe sex’.

Fact, is the “abstinence only” programs have led to higher rates of teen pregnancies and STDs. It’s why states are bailing out of the program, turning down federal funds for them.

Reality or just politics tipping the evidence.

Reality.

**In April 2007, a federally funded study of four abstinence-only programs by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., found that participants had just as many sexual partners as nonparticipants and had sex at the same median age as nonparticipants. The four programs had taught students about human anatomy and sexually transmitted diseases, helped them improve their communication skills, manage peer pressure, set personal goals and build self-esteem.

For Colorado, the study results sealed the decision to get out of the program. Dr. Ned Calonge, the state’s chief medical officer, said Mathematica’s methods were the gold standard for scientific studies.

“To show no benefit compared to nothing. That was striking,” Calonge said. “These are tax dollars that are going for no useful purpose, and it would not be responsible for us to take those dollars.”

Under the program, states have to put up $3 for every $4 they get from the federal government. The program, referred to as Title V, is one of three abstinence education programs funded by the federal government. Of the $50 million budgeted for the program this year, about $21 million has been distributed.
**
huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/24/states-reject-abstinence_n_109002.html

With Iowa and Idaho bailing out of the program only half the states are willing to accept federal funds for abstinence only.

The money is attractive, but the lives of kids are at stake. The “abstinence only” reply that maybe it’s good for kids who sin to get pregnant or HIV infections is an appallingly unChristian one.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian observes:
No. That would be programs that do not advocate abstinence, such as Planned Parenthood. Contrary to what you think, they do not include abstinence.

That is patently false. Planned Parents sites even give a nod toward abstinence because they knew they had to after Bush started pushing abstinence education but they are the ones who also say being abstinence can be defined differently by different people, meaning some people can consider oral sex not part of
becoming aexually active…the Monica Lewinski argument. It is on their website ‘Teenwire’ which is filled with awful material for teens.
But PP is very clever and hides their material in comprehensive sex education programs lie Reducing the Risk, one the their favored programs.

Go to this Planned Parenthood site where they describe their curriculums. Noteice the descriptions use the words ‘comprehensive sex education’.

One example:
STEPS Toward Adolescence
A comprehensive sexual health curriculum for youth aged 9-11 and 12-13. Included are highly interactive activities that address puberty, decision-making, and abstinence, in addition to, sexual abuse, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted infection, and HIV prevention.

plannedparenthoodmd.org/index.cfm?gid=3&id=57

In other words, they don’t present it as the best choice. Why are you defending those people?

They all say abstinence is the best choice, but the way they say it is what kills it as the choice kids will be prone to taking. You need to take the blinders off and really look at those programs closely.Either that or the education establishment and liberal teachers unions have pulled the wool over your eyes on that one.

Barbarian observes:
I’ve had some people tell me that. And I think that’s the real issue. “If they’re going to sin, they need to suffer!” There are always consequences for sin, Mary, but I don’t think that we should want a child’s life ruined to get even.

having a baby isn’t suffering. it isn’t a desease. it is a consequence. It can lead to maturity and growth. Maybe it is the best thing for the young person involved. They can choose to put the baby up for adoption if they are too young to be parents, but not abortion. Birth control is no safe guard, especially with a teen group which acts out of emotions and doesn’t plan ahead or ALWAYS use it…I disbelieve any statistic that says these programs work. In fact most of these programs have not beeen really reviewed. Oh, they will demand the abstinence programs are challenged, but their own programs, no…"

Fact, is the “abstinence only” programs have led to higher rates of teen pregnancies and STDs. It’s why states are bailing out of the program, turning down federal funds for them.

Reality.

**In April 2007, a federally funded study of four abstinence-only programs by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., found that participants had just as many sexual partners as nonparticipants and had sex at the same median age as nonparticipants. The four programs had taught students about human anatomy and sexually transmitted diseases, helped them improve their communication skills, manage peer pressure, set personal goals and build self-esteem.

For Colorado, the study results sealed the decision to get out of the program. Dr. Ned Calonge, the state’s chief medical officer, said Mathematica’s methods were the gold standard for scientific studies.

“To show no benefit compared to nothing. That was striking,” Calonge said. “These are tax dollars that are going for no useful purpose, and it would not be responsible for us to take those dollars.”

Under the program, states have to put up $3 for every $4 they get from the federal government. The program, referred to as Title V, is one of three abstinence education programs funded by the federal government. Of the $50 million budgeted for the program this year, about $21 million has been distributed.
**
huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/24/states-reject-abstinence_n_109002.html

With Iowa and Idaho bailing out of the program only half the states are willing to accept federal funds for abstinence only.

The money is attractive, but the lives of kids are at stake. The “abstinence only” reply that maybe it’s good for kids who sin to get pregnant or HIV infections is an appallingly unChristian one.

Here is an article that shows abstinence education programs as working:
heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2126.cfm

Since the Planned Parenthood organization is a multimillion dollar
business you can bet they will do what they can to make these programs seem ineffective. The truth is that safe sex programs (comprehensive sex ed) are respopnsible for teaching kids how to have sex, where to get contraceptives, implying that most teens do have sex, encouraging kids to make decisions separate from their parents, breaking down modesty in young women…all part of a sophisticated marketing program under the guise of a caring
health education program. The evidence is there Barbarian on PP websites, comprehensive sex ed is PP sex ed.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding Mary’s assertion that Planned Parenthood endorses abstinence as the best choice:
In other words, they don’t present it as the best choice. Why are you defending those people?

They all say abstinence is the best choice, but the way they say it is what kills it as the choice kids will be prone to taking.

Which means they say it in a perfunctionary way, but let the kids know they don’t mean it. That’s wrong, Mary. Why would you defend something like that?

You need to take the blinders off and really look at those programs closely.

Sorry, a truly comprehensive sex education program puts abstinence as the best choice, at the very least. You admit that Planned Parenthood doesn’t.

Barbarian observes:
I’ve had some people tell me that. And I think that’s the real issue. “If they’re going to sin, they need to suffer!” There are always consequences for sin, Mary, but I don’t think that we should want a child’s life ruined to get even.

having a baby isn’t suffering. it isn’t a desease.

It is a devastating event for a young girl who is not ready for it. It puts her health and that of the baby at risk, and it can put her in poverty for the rest of her life, again putting the child (who has done nothing wrong) at risk. To suggest this is an appropriate punishment for her and her child is not in the least Christian.

Maybe it is the best thing for the young person involved.

Maybe you need to get the blinders off, yourself. It is almost always harmful to the girl and to her child. The idea is to have fewer teen pregnancies, not more of them. This is why the administration’s “abstinence only” programs are being rejected by so many states; they actually make things worse.

Barbarian observes:
Fact, is the “abstinence only” programs have led to higher rates of teen pregnancies and STDs. It’s why states are bailing out of the program, turning down federal funds for them.

Reality.

**In April 2007, a federally funded study of four abstinence-only programs by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., found that participants had just as many sexual partners as nonparticipants and had sex at the same median age as nonparticipants. The four programs had taught students about human anatomy and sexually transmitted diseases, helped them improve their communication skills, manage peer pressure, set personal goals and build self-esteem.

For Colorado, the study results sealed the decision to get out of the program. Dr. Ned Calonge, the state’s chief medical officer, said Mathematica’s methods were the gold standard for scientific studies.

“To show no benefit compared to nothing. That was striking,” Calonge said. “These are tax dollars that are going for no useful purpose, and it would not be responsible for us to take those dollars.”**

With Iowa and Idaho bailing out of the program only half the states are willing to accept federal funds for abstinence only.

The money is attractive, but the lives of kids are at stake. The “abstinence only” reply that maybe it’s good for kids who sin to get pregnant or HIV infections is an appallingly unChristian one.

Here is an article that shows abstinence education programs as working:

Sorry, that’s not at issue. States made an effort to make them work, but they actually made things worse. That’s why they are refusing them, even when the federal government will pay for it. Kid’s lives are too important to subject to anyone’s ideology.

…all part of a sophisticated marketing program under the guise of a caring health education program. The evidence is there Barbarian on PP websites, comprehensive sex ed is PP sex ed.

You’re the one defending them. I’m the one pointing out that they don’t have a truly comprehensive program.