Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jill Stanek: Obama and the sex life of 12 year olds
WorldNetDaily ^ | 4/16/08 | Jill Stanek

Posted on 04/16/2008 4:51:58 PM PDT by wagglebee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-90 last
To: ricks_place
Not sure that is a completely accurate transcript.

"they made what I would consider to be a mistake, in having sex or unprotected sex"

I'm pretty sure that I heard a "corrective pause" instead of an "or" there, indicating that having sex at that age wouldn't be the "mistake", but having "unprotected sex" would be. Wouldn't want to cast judgement on 12-13 yr olds having "responsible sex".

51 posted on 04/17/2008 6:31:36 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

He’s been taking them to Trinity United all their lives in order to be taught the values that he agrees with.


52 posted on 04/17/2008 6:32:27 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: eclecticEel

consequences are so judgemental...

we must do everything we can to avoid ANY consequences for sexual behavior - this is the ONLY freedom that the left promotes.


53 posted on 04/17/2008 6:33:19 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Claud

Why not? After all, we all evolved from a common ancestor and there’s nothing special about humans, right?


54 posted on 04/17/2008 6:35:05 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

In a leftist society,

those who can get the most people behind them to put them in power “define normality”.


55 posted on 04/17/2008 6:37:59 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Finny
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.

Great point - this needs to be expounded upon and shoved in the faces of all the "multicultural" crowd.

56 posted on 04/17/2008 6:39:16 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Also notice, conspicuously absent from his response - the “A” word - ADOPTION.

Nor did he acknowledge that the girls parents are often willing and financially able to take care of their grandchild.

Once you get beyond the liberal "nuances" of a baby being a "choice" or a "blob of cells," most parents are not willing to say that they want to kill their own grandchild.

57 posted on 04/17/2008 6:40:09 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Why not? After all, we all evolved from a common ancestor and there’s nothing special about humans, right?

"'You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,' said Aslan. 'And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor in earth.'"

-C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian

58 posted on 04/17/2008 6:48:57 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

check the definition of pedophilia and you will have your answer


59 posted on 04/17/2008 6:49:29 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
can see where this may have at times come across as being a personal attack, if this is the case then I sincerely apologize.

I can honestly say I never expected to read that from you. I accept your apology.
SmileyCentral.com

60 posted on 04/17/2008 7:25:34 AM PDT by Hildy (Obama: "Yes, I sat in his church, but I didn't inhale.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
You're welcome. I know we generally agree, but I sense that you have a good heart and I do admire your willingness to stand firm on what you believe when many disagree with you.

If you want to see something that is beyond twisted, take a look at this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2002865/posts This leftist student at Yale has repeatedly had herself impregnated, then taken drugs to induce abortion/miscarriage and then turned the "waste" into "art."

61 posted on 04/17/2008 7:36:13 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

Here’s a better link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2002865/posts


62 posted on 04/17/2008 7:44:27 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Claud
You seem to be adopting the idea...that "normal" is defined by what actually occurs in human populations.

Uh, well, yeah. But, of course, the collective force of the society and culture within any given human culture shapes the definition of normal as well as individual behavior. (See my posts:33,37,39,40)

And there is this long-standing "notion of perfectibility" which has been introduced by Judeao-Christian religions which has systematized certain ideals to which humankind strives. And, finally, there's the notion of a duality: Animal-Man, or Beast-Noble, or Mind-Body (whatever you call it) that has also characterized mankind since...well, forever.

Is there an ultimate definition of "normalcy" and, if so, what is it?

Some people presume there is, others disagree...and on it goes.

63 posted on 04/17/2008 8:02:51 AM PDT by Rudder (Klinton-Kool-Aid FReepers prefer spectacle over victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"In a leftist society, those who can get the most people behind them to put them in power “define normality."

What society does not do this?

64 posted on 04/17/2008 8:06:46 AM PDT by Rudder (Klinton-Kool-Aid FReepers prefer spectacle over victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Sick. Some “people” do not deserve to be called Human.


65 posted on 04/17/2008 8:07:32 AM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
What society does not do this?

The society that the founders set up in the Constitution. Government was denied the power to define "normalcy".

66 posted on 04/17/2008 8:09:30 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Government and society are not synonymous and society has power beyond the government's. I think what you say is true, and the constitution and its resulting government is an effort to establish a society wherein the individual has well-defined rights. Nevertheless, society still is not limited to government---it has other behavioral-shaping powers beyond those of the government, and all societies attempt to define and delimit the conduct of human affairs.
67 posted on 04/17/2008 8:23:44 AM PDT by Rudder (Klinton-Kool-Aid FReepers prefer spectacle over victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
It's normal from a biological point of view for pubertal mammals to have sex.

It's also normal for mammals to eat their own feces.

Remind me never to eat at your house.
68 posted on 04/17/2008 9:06:06 AM PDT by Antoninus (Tell us how you came to Barack?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Tell that to Margaret Mead.

Uh, you do know that those "docile natives" that Mead was studying were having a go at her expense. She has been pretty thoroughly discredited these days:

Margaret Mead Hoax

Pacifist Hoax

The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead
69 posted on 04/17/2008 9:13:54 AM PDT by Antoninus (Tell us how you came to Barack?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Claud
I've heard it said that Samoans are...shall we say...not exactly thrilled with Mead's portrayal of them.

Uh, it's more than that. She's been almost completely discredited in the scientific community. Only cultural marxist Anthro professors and their students still hold her up as any kind of authority.
70 posted on 04/17/2008 9:15:30 AM PDT by Antoninus (Tell us how you came to Barack?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
But if it’s another Hildy’s a horrible person comment, save it.

How about this: You're not pro-life, so please don't deign to speak for those of us who are.

Fair enough?
71 posted on 04/17/2008 9:17:36 AM PDT by Antoninus (Tell us how you came to Barack?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
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?

This rhetoric is a classic example of what the cultural marxists hoped to achieve by indoctrinating students with their relativist pablum. You have bought their notion that "normal" human behavior should be defined as "any" human behavior, no matter how sick or depraved.

Realize this: Most of what they taught you in school to arrive at this conclusion was not based on science. It was based on lies. Promoting it only promotes the lie.
72 posted on 04/17/2008 9:22:08 AM PDT by Antoninus (Tell us how you came to Barack?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Hey, that might be true for you, but it’s not true for everybody else.

:)

I’m teaching my kids to avoid and disbelieve anyone with this worldview. After all, if there is no such thing as objective truth to these people, why would they tell you the truth?


73 posted on 04/17/2008 9:26:23 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: MrB
After all, if there is no such thing as objective truth to these people, why would they tell you the truth?

Excellent point. Never trust anyone who believes that the truth is relative.
74 posted on 04/17/2008 9:28:43 AM PDT by Antoninus (Tell us how you came to Barack?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; Rudder

Citing Margaret Mead as an expert on sexual norms is like citing Walter Duranty as an expert on Stalinism. They were both agenda-driven frauds.

However, what is most troubling is that people who consider themselves to be conservatives ACCEPT the premise of cultural relativism. I’m curious though if they accept this across the board or only when it comes to sexual immorality. For instance, do they accept as “culturally equal” the “right” of Muslims to cut off the heads of non-Muslims? Because if one is to accept Margaret Mead’s cultural relativism as legitimate, we have no right to criticize the Muslims for living the way they have been living for well over a thousand years.


75 posted on 04/17/2008 9:33:51 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MrB; Antoninus

God’s laws for morality are just as inflexible as God’s laws for nature. They are true whether we believe in them or not.

The next time someone suggests that they can “opt out” of God’s laws ask them if they are willing to prove it by trying to defy His law of gravity.


76 posted on 04/17/2008 9:36:50 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Walter Duranty as an expert on Stalinism"

Another blast from the past" of Award Winning Journalists///Make that "Urinalists"

77 posted on 04/17/2008 9:40:28 AM PDT by litehaus (A memory tooooo long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: litehaus

I’m sure in Dan Ratherbiased’s mind, if Duranty had had a word processor, Photoshop and a Kinkos he would have gotten away with it.


78 posted on 04/17/2008 9:42:45 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

It struck me recently that God’s laws are not just to “restrict” us or for us to show our obedience.

This realization hit me when I saw the statistic of the average American having a $5k credit card balance and 40% of Americans spending more than they earn.

“Thou Shalt Not Covet” is not a restriction, it is a PROTECTION.

Follow God’s laws, and you will have a good life.
Oppose/ignore them, and your life is much harder than it needs to be.


79 posted on 04/17/2008 10:46:12 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Very true. The idea that He wants our lives to be any more difficult than we already make them through our own selfishness is absurd.


80 posted on 04/17/2008 10:51:00 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Is there an ultimate definition of "normalcy" and, if so, what is it?

Ultimate normalcy is less interesting to me than ultimate purpose. The perfection of a thing is when it fulfills the purpose for which it is made. And to find out what that purpose is, well, you have to consult the Person that made us.

And I think you are not quite understanding "perfectibility" in a Judeo-Christian sense. Perfection in Christianity comes about not through one's own actions/thoughts/powers but as a free gift of grace.

This idea that humanity is approaching perfection apart from grace is the doctrine of secular humanists, socialists, and utopians.

81 posted on 04/17/2008 11:11:54 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

According to the ever-reliable wikipedia, the academic verdict is still out on Mead.

The claim has been made that “Samoan culture changed” since when she documented it—because of Christianity, so that the girls who bragged of sexual mores once upon a time were too ashamed of what they had done as grandmothers. Why that itself is not an interesting piece of anthropological data, I have no idea.

A culture can borrow all sorts of gods and theologies from other pagans and can be praised for its expansiveness, but once it comes in contact with Christianity, it is regarded as tainted and becomes something radically different from what it used to be. Fascinating that.


82 posted on 04/17/2008 11:17:34 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Follow God’s laws, and you will have a good life. Oppose/ignore them, and your life is much harder than it needs to be.

Precisely. And I think this is what's at the root of the high depression rate lately....I know from my own life that when I was my own moral arbiter, I was becoming more and more miserable.

83 posted on 04/17/2008 11:22:19 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

84 posted on 04/17/2008 12:25:29 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

I would never speak for everyone at FreeRepublic, especially the pro-life crowd. If it sounded like I did, I apologize as well.


85 posted on 04/17/2008 3:44:53 PM PDT by Hildy (Obama: "Yes, I sat in his church, but I didn't inhale.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: babble-on

The definition:

American Heritage Dictionary - The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.

I guess a 20 something guy having sex with a 12 year old qualifies.

Perhaps you should check the definition of ‘statutory rape’...it may provide YOU with an answer.


86 posted on 04/17/2008 3:56:44 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Let's win Congress - the Presidency is lost!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Sorry, I don’t see where he says “with a 20 year old guy”? You think a guy has to be 20 before a girl can get pregnant?? Maybe you need a biology class, not a dictionary.


87 posted on 04/17/2008 6:18:59 PM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: babble-on

If you read the article, that is the average age of the guy who has sex with a 12 year old. It isn’t a couple of 12 year olds messing around and going too far...

And 20 or 13, it is still below the age of consent, isn’t it?

And in any case, saying ‘it is a mistake in my opinion for a 12 year old to have sex’ encourages those 20 year olds who are typically the ones engaging in sex with 12 year olds - probably because they can be taken advantage of easier than an older girl.

Sorry, but a decent man would have said, “If anyone messes with my 12 year old daughter, the bastard will learn my REAL feelings about gun control!”


88 posted on 04/17/2008 6:41:52 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Let's win Congress - the Presidency is lost!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I just think he’s detestable enough on the things he’s really saying, that one doesn’t have to twist his words to the extent of claiming he’s “promoting pedophilia”.


89 posted on 04/17/2008 6:53:29 PM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

I suspect that people who still believe in Margaret Mead are easily susceptible to Obamania.


90 posted on 04/19/2008 7:00:15 AM PDT by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-90 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson