Skip to comments.Jill Stanek: Obama and the sex life of 12 year olds
Posted on 04/16/2008 4:51:58 PM PDT by wagglebee
click here to read article
The leftists certainly don't.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
That is an erroneous statement as it stands. But it depends upon how normal is defined. It's normal from a biological point of view for pubertal mammals to have sex. Other points of view (religious, parental, etc.) may disagree
It's also normal from a biological point of view, in some cases, for mothers to eat their young.
How about the article’s statement that Obama is promoting pedophilia?
Really, its time to stop posting WND articles, they are just so ridiculous.
VERY disturbing! He also does not support giving medical attention to babies who have been born alive during partial birth abortion. That is a fact directly from his Ill. voting record!
Jill Stanek is a leader in the pro-life movement, she writes a regular column that they publish, she is not part of their writing staff.
“Look, I got two daughters 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
That is downright creepy! Even thinking about the sexuality of two babies that age...his daughters, no less.
He learned well in the Madrassah the roles of boys and girls in this world!
What I was saying was that my daughters are 9 and 6. And so if, at the age of 12 or 13, they made what I would consider to be a mistake, in having sex or unprotected sex, and ended up getting pregnant I think that statistically we know 12- or 13-year-olds who are having children are much more likely to be impoverished, are much more likely to have health problems, are much more likely to have trouble raising that child.
Human beings are not just mammals. Thery have intelligence and will. They do not have to blindly follow instinct.
Girls who start having sex at age 12 have not usually done so consensually. Early sexual behavior in girls leads to years of suffering from STDs, later abortions, loss of self-respect, lesbianism, low self-esteem and a host of other psychological and emotional problems.
Tell that to Margaret Mead.
So essentially, he wants to teach them 'values and morals'; but he also wants to make sure they know that there are no negative consequences for disrespecting those 'values and morals' - thoroughly typical.
I’m sorry to inform you that Margaret Mead is dead. Very dead.
“I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD....”
Man, I wonder how his daughters feel about his views on children. (”Okay, if I had to choose, I’m glad your mom had you rather than herpes, I guess”.)
Well, it's only proper that you should be sorry. I accept your apology.
You are wrong. However, explaining why is not the point of this thread.
How I tire of this argument. It's quite normal in some mammals for there to be a strict sexual order. The dominant males breed in a harem, everyone else goes bye-bye. And if you take over the harem from another male...you get to eat the cubs.
Oh, and some animals eat their own feces.
I guess these behaviors should be normalized for humans as well?
This article proves what I was trying to say to you on the last thread about the way the pro-life movement twists things to serve their purpose. It doesn’t work and it turns the majority of people off.
It doesn’t even work with the pro-life people on this site.
Now, if you have something to say about the article, the author or the content, by all means respond. But if it’s another Hildy’s a horrible person comment, save it.
No kidding. 12 years old! Truly troubling.
So, now we are supposed to define normal behavior by the way that a wild animal acts? Besides the scientific and religious problems with the theory of evolution this is another negative effect of the acceptance of Darwinism. It can be used to justify any behavior. I have even heard evolution used as a justification / explanation for rape. So, please spare me your attempt to drag humans down to the lowest behavior level of animals.
You need to read the whole article. It doesn’t twist anything at all but instead makes some very accurate observations. The only poster having problems with the article is an evolutionist who simply doesn’t expect human beings to behave any differently than animals. A big problem since animals have no problem with killing, rape, and many other unacceptible behaviors.
Really, its time to stop posting WND articles, they are just so ridiculous.
Agreed. I'm not an Obama supporter, obviously, but this is so low and disgusting.
Barak Obama said:
Look, I got two daughters 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.
If that means that his 9 and 6 year olds know what sex, contraception, disease and abortion mean, then I'm guilty of the same. Many parents are.
My once-9 year olds certainly knew what abortion was at that age, and knew about sex, and contraception were long before that. They knew our views on them, too.
Catholic believe that children are a blessing from God within marriage. That isn't something you wait to share until they are teenagers. It's something you live and model.
Education and instilling morals is not a one-shot thing, it is a continual process of giving information, answering questions, and giving your views. I have given frank, factual information to my kids for years and I am not a grandmother yet. Information is not the enemy.
FTA: I have never known or heard of a father, diligent or absentee, liberal or conservative, who pondered aloud that his 9-year-old daughter in three short years might have unprotected consensual sex, so we must make contraceptives and abortion available to her.
Aloud? Maybe, maybe not. Most fathers aren't running for office, making their positions known, though.
But why the focus on "father"? Are father supposed to be absent from this sort of thing? Are they supposed to walk away or not care? And you'll have to show me a parent who, upon hearing of a pregnant teenager somewhere, didn't say "There but for grace". It occasionally happens in even the very best families.
Actually, I have friends who had this problem with their then 13 year old, about 7 years ago, so I have heard it aloud. I've heard the anguish in their voice when their daughter ran away with an older boy she met on the internet and had "relations" before they could find her.
Such a father would be creepy, close to a pedophilia promoter.
That's lower than anything I've seen lately and is a disgusting comment by an obviously sick, tortured mind. The person who wrote that seems to have issues.
I'm not an Obama supporter, as I said before, but no parent wants their child to suffer early sexual experiences or pregnancy or disease.
Again, is there some reason fathers are not supposed to care? Is there something that makes them automatically suspect of being a pedophile when they do?
You haven’t been around much. Human beings all over the planet engage in voluntary sexual activity beginning around the time of puberty. Of course you don’t have to approve of that, they’ll do it anyway.
Sure there will always be some people who will do that. But isn’t having sex at 12 condemned in virtually all societies except for those societies (typically patriarchical and often polygamous) which marry off young girls at a very early age.
There are a whole lot things that human beings do that you would not like---but they do them despite your disapproval. What "animal" has been performing clitorectomy routinely on its female offspring for a thousand years? It's not aadvarks. What animal instituted the practice of no sex before marriage only a few hundred years ago? Before that, following the betrothal system, pregnancy came before marriage.
Normal human beings are weirder than you would like to consider.
Yes, you're correct---societies, in an effort to modify normal human behavior, institute a variety of means of control, including laws and social disapproval. They wouldn't have to do that if human beings would just straighten up and behave "normally" would they?
Normal is defined by the actions and beliefs of the group. For example, there will always be some serial killers in the human population. However, we don’t consider their behavior to be normal and society makes it clear that such behavior is wrong and will be punished. As to Margaret Mead and her study of the Samoans, Derek Freemans work seems to strongly suggest that she was either decieved by her sources or simply published a fraudulent work. http://www.stpt.usf.edu/~jsokolov/314mead1.htm
A lot of Margaret Mead's stuff was lies.
Humanity as a whole can't just "straighten up" due to the existence of sin in the world. This will not change until our Savior comes again. That does not mean that there is no right and wrong.
That depends. Some groups have no beliefs---animals, of course. Then, in human beings, it depends upon what group---those who strive to change human behavior, those who defy the controlling group, but themselves constitute a group. Take homosexuality, for an example, which group defines normality? Take cigarette smoking---which group defines normality?
That is why eventually I define normal by the Bible and as you probably guessed I am not a big fan of social anthropology (though I apologize for being a bit of a jerk to you in my first post). But even on a sherely scientiffic basis many of the biggest claims by social anthropologists have been suspect at best.
You are right, or should I say not wrong?
But,even that depends upon who gets to say what is right or wrong, and mankind has been struggling with that one since the Beginning.
Thanks, but I hold similar beliefs myself so I understand. It's that I've spent a career dealing with abnormal people and have been fully exposed to the underside of the human condition. We have a saying in my business: "We are all furry little beasts wearing human suits."
That is an erroneous statement as it stands. But it depends upon how normal is defined. It's normal from a biological point of view for pubertal mammals to have sex. Other points of view (religious, parental, etc.) may disagree.
Absolutely correct. There is no "normal." It's an illusion. The freest, most prosperous, productive civilzations in most of our history have been ones that declared a Judeo-Christian ethic. The most barbaric and cruel societies, where innocents including children are sacrificed, where females are supressed to sub-human status, where slavery either by law or by socialism, is okay -- not a one of them declares the Judeo Christian ethic.
Our Judeo-Christian foundation is the key that we turn and open the door to our lives, progress, pursuit, and freedom. When we allow its tenets to be rejected, we suffer the consequences and it should come as no surprise. It isn't as if there haven't been plenty of examples over the centuries.
To equate smoking cigarettes with homosexuality shows me the depth of your intellect.
I don’t smoke, but posts like yours make smoking seem attractive, if only for the “GET STUFFED” quotient.
My apologies if you're gay, no offense intended.
Yeah, right, okay.
If you had a brain cell, it would be quite lonely.
I am totally at a loss as to what it is in this commentary that you disagree with.
But if its another Hildys a horrible person comment, save it.
I have NEVER said that you are a horrible person. I have always been very open about the areas where I disagree with you; however, I can see where this may have at times come across as being a personal attack, if this is the case then I sincerely apologize.
What I was saying was that my daughters are 9 and 6. And so if, at the age of 12 or 13, they made what I would consider to be a mistake, in having sex or unprotected sex, and ended up getting pregnant...
To say, "...what I would consider to be a mistake..." implies two things:
Others could validly consider it NOT to be a mistake.
It would be an error, but not an evil, in his opinion if his 12 year old daughter had sex with some guy.
How does this NOT give tacit consent men having sex with 12 year olds? His refusal to judge condones the behavior - statutory rape in most states.
Really? I hadn't noticed! Shucks...I must be one of those poor naive religious folks.
You seem to be adopting the idea--and correct me if I'm wrong--that "normal" is defined by what actually occurs in human populations. So if people do it...then it must be normal.
But is that really accurate? So if, say, a culture evolves that promotes statutory rape...then that behavior is normal?
There isn't a society alive that works that way though...every society has a system of "ought". Though of course there are people that go against that system, the system doesn't go away because of those who buck it. And I've never heard of any culture, frankly, that basis said system on what it views in the animal kingdom.
If you listen carefully to his answer,
you’ll hear that he wanted to make sure that he didn’t say that having sex at 12 or 13 was a mistake, but qualified it with “unprotected”.
Obama’s stated, verbalized opinion is that it would be OK, even for his daughters, to have “protected” sex at 12 or 13. To state otherwise would probably be too judgemental for the lefties.
Also notice, conspicuously absent from his response - the “A” word - ADOPTION.