Police find remains of seven babies at Utah home -but Christians teach that motherhood makes women instant saints

Police find remains of seven babies at Utah home -but Christians teach that motherhood makes women instant saints

How can this be? A woman who was a mother – she got her freak on with a dude, got pregnant, was a mother – killed all of her babies? But most Christians teach that parenthood instantly turns a person into a saint who can do no wrong.

You can’t know God’s love or true love until you have a baby! And you stop sinning when you have a baby!

The Bible says so!!! /sarc

On a serious note: I am sorry for these dead children.

(Link): Police find remains of seven babies at Utah home

    By Janet DiGiacomo, CNN
    updated 8:07 PM EDT, Sun April 13, 2014

    (CNN) — Unbelievable. That’s how a police captain described the case.

    A 39-year-old woman in Utah is in custody, accused of murder, after authorities found the remains of seven infants at a home where she used to live.

    “During the course of the investigation, information was obtained that over a 10-year period a 39-year-old female gave birth to the infants and then killed them. The female was booked into the Utah County Jail on six counts of murder,” Pleasant Grove, Utah, police said in a statement.

    Capt. Michael Roberts identified the woman as Megan Huntsman. It was not immediately clear why she faces six, not seven, counts of murder.

    The bodies were found at a home where Huntsman had lived until 2011, said Roberts, adding that the residence is currently occupied by family members of her estranged husband.

Related posts this blog:

(Link): Parenthood Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread)

(Link): Is The Church Failing Childless Women? by Diane Paddison

(Link): Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Woman” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity

More Snarky Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming, Courtesy the “The anti-purity movement” Facebook Group – the blog page “My Secondary Virginity” – and a Proud Slut Parody

More Snarky Virgin- and Celibate- Shaming, Courtesy the “The anti-purity movement” Facebook Group and the blog page “My Secondary Virginity” – also: A Proud Slut Parody

Notice: this post contains some adult, racy, salty language – and some raunchy, sexual content

Link to the Facebook group:
(Link): The anti-purity movement

I do see one or two articles on the group I think I would probably agree with (just by going title alone, I have not read the pages), such as:

    But I need to ask, “Is it the purity culture that is to blame? Or is it the purity message?” A culture contains fallen humans and so any “culture” can become oppressive.

    I need to know if it is the purity message itself that is causing the harm. I want to address the factors that I think are causing the pain, but also look at the alternative.

    If we throw away purity culture, what will take its place and will the alternative be any better?

The person behind that group (the Anti Purity Facebook group) links to something on their Facebook group called:

“No Shame Movement” (noshamemovement), whose tag line is, “No Shame Movement functions as a platform to share stories of unlearning purity culture.”

I counter that with:
(Link): Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

Here is a page that satirizes the idea of virginity until marriage – the person at the “The anti-purity movement” Facebook group is very fond of this page; the group owner said ((Link): source),

    This is the best, snarkiest, most perfect post about “second virginity”, and the author wins the internet with it. Absolute perfection.

The page starts out ridiculing “secondary” virginity (which I’ve written about a few times on my own blog, such as (Link): this post and (Link): this post and a few others), in which they might have had a legitimate basis for critiquing, but, their opening salvo can also be applied to actual virgins – so I have to give them a big “fail” on the parts that can apply equally to true virginity.

Continue reading “More Snarky Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming, Courtesy the “The anti-purity movement” Facebook Group – the blog page “My Secondary Virginity” – and a Proud Slut Parody”

A Female’s Virginity Belongs To Her – Not Her Father or Husband – Re: Christian Purity Balls

A Female’s Virginity Belongs To Her – Not Her Father or Husband – Re: Purity Balls

This story has been making the rounds the past week.

(Link): ‘You are married to the Lord and your daddy is your boyfriend’: Purity balls, in which girls ‘gift their virginity’ to their fathers until marriage, sweeping America, from The Daily Mail

While I do believe the Bible forbids pre-martial sex and supports virginity until marriage; and that virginity until marriage has been under attack from Christians the past few years (in addition from secular culture); and that a person’s choice to remain celibate should be respected by all (not mocked); that Christian parents or parents with traditional values have a right to instill Christian or traditional morals in their children, I do not support things such as purity balls.

One of my first problems with these “purity balls” is that they focus on female sexuality.

In these balls, the young ladies are forced to dress in white wedding type dresses, dance with their fathers, their fathers give them purity rings, and the young ladies pledge their virginity to their fathers.

As far as I am aware, there is no male equivalent, where young males are told to give their virginity to their mother and later, should they marry, their wife.

The Bible is clear that pre-martial sex is forbidden for all, for both genders, not just the ladies.

It is sexist and unbiblical for Christian parents to emphasize virginity only for female children.

I do not feel purity balls are appropriate for several reasons, but if one is going to hold one for females, one needs to keep things evened out by forcing males to participate in them as well, by having the males pledge their virginity to their mothers.

Growing up, I was very much turned off at the idea of marrying a non-virgin male. My preference is still to marry a virgin male.

I do feel that people who have pre-marital sex cheat their future spouse out of something that is rightfully theirs (ie, their virginity).

I know a lot of liberal Christians, emergents, and so forth hate that reasoning, but I apply it equally to males. I am grossed out at the idea of going on a honeymoon knowing the guy I have married has already placed his penis in some other woman’s orifices.

As I get older, I realize I may have no choice, because fornication is rampant these days – adult, male virgins are not exactly a dime a dozen. I’ve made peace with that.

At any rate, male virginity is not valued or upheld nearly as much as female virginity is, especially in religious circles.

I suspect one reason for this is that religious parents do not want to deal with unplanned pregnancies. Who gets pregnant from sex, males or females? Exactly.

I suppose Christian parents find it easier to clamp down on their daughter’s sexuality so as not to have to deal with birth control, abortion, adoption, and medical bills, so they up the pressure on the female children not to put out. One does not have to worry about a son becoming pregnant.

A woman’s virginity belongs to her and her alone.

At this point, I don’t even want to say one’s virginity belongs to God, though I suppose a biblical case can be made that a person’s body, sexuality and so on belongs to God (and there are biblical passages which indicate this), but God does not force Himself on people, their bodies, and their choices.

I have seen numerous testimonies by Christian women who admit to having had slept around many times over their life, and they suffered no ill consequences from that behavior.

God may call pre-marital sex a sin, but He does not enforce any negative consequences – in this lifetime- upon those who engage in such behavior, so far as I have been able to ascertain.

I actually see the opposite: I often see testimonies by Christian women on television programs who said they were big sluts, they admit they knew the Bible is against pre-marital sex, yet had sex anyway, they say they came down with some kind of awful disease as a result, but when they turned to God again, that God completely healed them of their sexually transmitted disease.

Still others said the only bad outcome of whoring around is that they came to feel empty or guilty due to said behavior, later stopped, and later met a great Christian guy who they married.

So, in spite of all the pre-marital sleeping around, they later got married, and now live happy, conventional, married, middle- class- American life styles.

Whether a female chooses to engage in premarital sex is her choice and hers alone.

I am not opposed to parents teaching their children to save sex for marriage and bringing up potential health problems involved of having sex, but in the end scheme of things, one’s virginity is one’s own, and one can do with it as one pleases.

(Note, however, the Bible does in fact teach that pre-marital sex is a sin. You can certainly have pre-marital sex if you so choose, but God does not condone that behavior.)

Forcing girls to attend faux marriage-like ceremonies where they have to devote their virginity to their fathers is distasteful, borders on incestuous, and places unrealistic, unfair pressure on these young ladies.

Give the young lady the proper moral guidance and health information she needs, and step out of her way; stop it with the purity balls.

I find these purity balls to be just as bad as the porn-i-fied culture we live in.

It’s the reverse extreme: usually in our society, people are pressured to have sex, have a lot of sex with lots of people and to start young. They are told their sexual choice to remain celibate is ridicule-worthy, shame worthy.

The virgin’s or celibate’s sexual choice to refrain from sex is often not respected. It is belittled. Virgins are shamed and bullied into acting like whores.

The purity ball is the reverse, but just as bad – pressuring young women into a sexual choice they may not want to make for themselves.

It’s telling them that their body, their virginity is not theirs, but belongs to someone else, either a father or a future husband.

I do believe one should save one’s virginity for a future spouse – so in a sense, I’d say yes, your virginity is owed to your future spouse – but at the end of the day, one’s virginity is still really and finally one’s own.

Your body is yours, not your father’s, not your future husband’s.

What I am getting at is that one’s choices should be respected. If you make all your kid’s choices for her, she will never be able to function as an adult. At some point, she needs to make choices for herself about herself, and that includes what to do when it comes to sex and her body.

Another reason these purity balls are so damaging: they make the job of all Christians (or semi- Christian, semi- agnostics with traditional values) who defend the Bible’s teaching on sex, (such as myself), ten times more difficult.

I already have an uphill battle defending celibacy and virginity as it stands, without these lunatic, crackpot fringe Christian groups holding these bizarre father and daughter virginity dances.

Staying a virgin until marriage does not guarantee great, regular sex, as many Christians like to maintain. I have numerous examples on my blog; just use the search box and type in “sexless marriage” for example after example of people who stayed virgins until marriage, but then their sex lives were terrible or dried up totally.

By the way, I am not fully on board with the “you are married to God” talk one sees pop up among some Christians. It sexualizes God and Jesus. I am an adult single – God is not my husband, and I am not “dating” Jesus.

See these links for more:

Do the people who throw these purity balls ever stop to consider that their daughters may never marry?

I was a Christian since I was a child, I was raised with the expectation that I would marry some day. I am still single in my 40s. No “Prince Charming” ever entered my life.

Continue reading “A Female’s Virginity Belongs To Her – Not Her Father or Husband – Re: Christian Purity Balls”

Judges Who Force Insane, Negligent Women, or Addicts to Get Abortions or Undergo Sterilization – Also: Court Ordered Male Sterilization – Being A Parent Does Not Make A Person More Godly, Mature, or Responsible

Judges Who Force Insane, Negligent Women, or Addicts to Get Abortions or Undergo Sterilization – Also: Court Ordered Male Sterilization – Being A Parent Does Not Make A Person More Godly, Mature, or Responsible

I am a right winger and am pro-life. I am not “anti family.” However, I am opposed to the fact that many Christians have turned having or raising babies, the nuclear family, and marriage into idols.

Many Christians tend to exclude or talk rudely about never-married, celibate adults, and anyone who is childless, and other types of singles, such as the divorced.

Evangelical Christians – as well as Southern Baptists, fundamentalists, the Reformed and other types of Christians – harbor this wacko, unbiblical, weird idea that a person using his or her genitalia to make a baby automatically affords that individual godliness, maturity, and a sense of responsibility.

Single adults who never marry or make babies are said by many Christians to be selfish or irresponsible.

(Christians never take into account that some of these singles wanted to marry and/or have children but could never find a suitable partner or are infertile.)

The fact is that using your biological parts to make a baby does not make you more godly or mature than someone who does not.

See examples in this thread at this blog:
(Link): Parenthood Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread)

That a woman can reproduce and does so does not make her more mature, responsible, loving, giving, self-less, or godly than women who cannot, or women who can and choose not to.

Some women are so hideous at parenting, so immature, so selfish, that they neglect their own children, or abuse them – to the point that judges seek to have these women sterilized, or their family members do.

Here are some examples – never mind that some of these decisions were overturned, the fact is that some women are so horrible at parenting that someone, a judge or family member, was even considering these options to start with:

(Link): Appeals Court Overturns Judge Who Ordered Sterilization for Schizophrenic Pregnant Woman

    Posted Jan 18, 2012 7:15 AM CST
    By Debra Cassens Weiss

    The Massachusetts Appeals Court has overturned an order by a now-retired probate judge who authorized an abortion for a schizophrenic woman and decided sua sponte that she should be sterilized.

    The appeals court reversed the sterilization order and called for a new evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the woman, identified by the pseudonym Mary Moe, would have an abortion if she were competent. The Boston Herald and the Boston Globe covered the Jan. 17 opinion.

    The family court judge, Christina Harms of Norfolk, Mass., had appointed Moe’s parents as her guardians on Jan. 6 so they could consent to an abortion, according to the appeals court opinion. Harms said Moe could be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed … by ruse” to the hospital for the procedure.

    Harms also decided sua sponte and without notice that Moe should be sterilized “to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future.” According to the appellate opinion, “No party requested this measure, none of the attendant procedural requirements has been met, and the judge appears to have simply produced the requirement out of thin air.”

    Moe had testified she is “very Catholic” and would never have an abortion.

    However, she also denied that she is pregnant, asserted she had previously given birth to a girl named Nancy and had met the judge before. She had not met the judge and she previously gave birth to a boy, not a girl, who is being cared for by her parents.

    Moe has been hospitalized several times for mental illness. She is estimated to be up to five months pregnant.

Oddly, the secular feminist site Jezebel did not like this one bit:

Another link about the lady in Boston:

(Link): Mentally Ill Woman Fights Court-Ordered Abortion and Sterilization

    Jan 2012

    BOSTON — A Catholic mother, struggling with mental illness, is fighting for the life of her unborn child in a Massachusetts court. The 32-year-old woman, known by the pseudonym “Mary Moe” in court documents, successfully appealed an order that would have forced her to have an abortion and to undergo sterilization.

    Moe, who has schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, is believed to be five months pregnant. Her court-appointed lawyer, Douglas Boyer, did not return calls seeking comment.

Other news stories about sterilization by courts:

(Link): Stump v. Sparkman

    Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized in accordance with the judge’s order.

    The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function.

    In 1971, Judge Harold D. Stump granted a mother’s petition to have a tubal ligation performed on her 15-year-old daughter, who the mother alleged was “somewhat retarded.”

    The petition was granted the same day that it was filed. The judge did not hold a hearing to receive evidence or appoint a lawyer to protect the daughter’s interests.

    The daughter underwent the surgery a week later, having been told that she was to have her appendix removed.

From the UK:
(Link): Judge approves man’s sterilisation in legal first

Biblical Gender Complementarianism, Unacknolwedged Sexism on Right Wing / Republican Sites, and Rare Admissions by A Christian Republican Politician that Women Have Sexual Drives – Re: Mike Huckabee’s Controversial Comments on Women’s Libido and Birth Control – Unlike Most on the Right and Left Huckabee Believes Sexual Self Control is Possible

Biblical Gender Complementarianism, Unacknolwedged Sexism on Right Wing Sites, and Rare Admissions by A Christian Republican Politician that Women Have Sexual Drives – Re: Mike Huckabee’s Controversial Comments on Women’s Libido and Birth Control

Note: If I find editorials, pro or con, on Huckabee’s views that I find interesting, I will edit this post to add them later, probably at the bottom of this post.
Before I copy in comments from an article or two I’ve seen about this, here’s a reminder:
I am a Republican (GOP) and a social conservative. I don’t consider myself a feminist and disagree with secular feminists on many topics. So don’t get teed off about this post if you are right wing or a Republican.

Me being right wing and a social conservative does not, however, mean I always agree with how other Republicans or social conservatives handle situations, or with how they feel that U.S. Government, should handle things. Nor do I always agree with their premises or assumptions.

Some Republicans – such as ones of the Christian, biblical gender complementarian variety, yes, can be sexist.

(Some Democrats, atheists, and left wingers can be sexist too, but that would be a topic for another post on another day.)

Here’s an example (both links are from left wing sites):

(Link): Congressman: ‘The Wife Is To Voluntarily Submit’ To Her Husband

(Link): GOP Congressman: Wives Should ‘Voluntarily Submit’ To Their Husbands

    By Laura Bassett
    Posted: 01/22/2014

    A Republican congressman published a memoir last month in which he expresses his belief that “the wife is to submit to the husband,” The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

    Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), a Vietnam veteran, explains in his book that families, like the military command, need a leadership structure in which every person has a role. He says the wife’s role, according to the Bible, is to be obedient to her husband.

    “The wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice,” he writes. “The husband’s part is to show up during the times of deep stress, take the leadership role and be accountable for the outcome, blaming no one else.”

    Pearce goes on to write that the wife should have a say in important family decisions and that her submission does mean the husband should have “authoritarian control” or be considered superior.

    “The wife’s submission is not a matter of superior versus inferior; rather, it is self-imposed as a matter of obedience to the Lord and of love for her husband,” he writes.


Biblical gender complementarians (GCs, or gender comps, also known as “biblical womanhood and biblical manhood”) like to maintain this fairy tale, one that lacks biblical support, that women are equal in being but not in function (or role), which is really not a lot different from the Southern states’ “Blacks are equal but separate” philosophy of decades past.

The biblical gender complementarian expression that “women are equal in being but not in role to men” is merely a rhetorical device (and a shoddy one at that) to keep women from using and expressing all their God-given talents and skills, so that men can remain in charge, and not share power and influence.

If you truly think someone your equal, you don’t seek to maintain or limit their roles in life based on an inborn, immutable trait, or 2 or 3 Bible verses horribly plucked from context and twisted, and hide behind a flimsy rationalization that while you totally believe women are equal to men, you only think that is so in terms of their “value” (whatever that means), but that same inner value does not confer upon them the ability or right to use their skills or talents along side, or in addition to, men.

Using the authoritarian structure in military as an analogy to gender roles, or a boss to employee analogy, as gender comps are wont to do in these discussions, only further re-enforces and exposes their views as being what they really are: sexist – and not “women are equal but different.”

That is, if you truly believe women are equal to men, you are not going to seek to put a limit on what women may or may not do by using asinine analogies, such as comparing women to privates in the army and men to generals, and say, “See there, women are not lesser than men; we just don’t let them serve as army generals!”

If a woman is qualified to act as a general; if she has the traits, education, and talent to serve as a general – then yes, she should be permitted to act in the role of army general.

Your gender comps, though, say no, even should that woman have the set of skills needed for that particular role, she should be barred from holding it, based on her gender alone.

That is not equality in any way, shape, or form, no matter how much one blathers on about “being equal in worth and value but not in role.”

There is nothing in the Bible that says God the Holy Spirit grants “army general talents” (or ‘preaching to men,’ or ‘leadership ability,’ or ‘boss over employees’ talents) to men only.

If you want to read more on that topic and related ones, please see:

The end result in such thinking is the same from the gender complementarian, no matter how much they wish to couch it or soften it: you are basing who may do what, or be in power, based on an in-born, immutable trait.

It does not matter if you use the boss/employee analogy or the private/general analogy, the end result is limiting women based on their gender and not their education, talents, skill, or experience.

A woman can teach, preach, or lead as well as any man; the Bible says the Holy Spirit gives gifts to all believers, not just males, and the Bible even has positive examples of women, such as Junia and Deborah, leading and preaching to men, with God’s permission.


I, a right winger, have personally encountered rudeness, hatred, and vitriol by conservatives and Republicans on right wing forums, sites, and blogs, on topics pertaining to sex, marriage, divorce, gender roles, and family, with this hatred being based on sexism and very narrow views of what these types of right wingers feel is acceptable lifestyle choices for American women.

Many conservatives tend to assume, knee jerk fashion, that if one disagrees with them on gender roles or marriage, that one must be a feminist who hates marriage or traditional values.

They cannot seem to wrap their heads around the idea that a person can be a fellow right winger but one who realizes that women are not limited to only marriage and motherhood, nor should they be.

Even though I am usually careful to preface my remarks on right wing sites by reminding readers I am also a social conservative, sympathetic and respectful to a lot of Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that I vote Republican, the other conservatives – males in particular – will keep assuming or trying to paint me as a liberal, atheistic, feminist – or they treat me as such.

It’s also fascinating to watch how male conservatives will read things into my comments that I never said – even if I express the opposite belief!

For instance, even should I write, “I respect marriage and would like to be married some day myself,” and then mention that right wingers and Christians have made too much of marriage, some of the right wingers will act as though I said, “Hello, I am a man-hating feminist, a flaming lesbian, and I despise traditional marriage.”

They do this typically in discussions where I agree I support marriage, but I think many times, social conservatives and Christians have idolized marriage and pro-creation, to a point that not even the Bible supports.

I sometimes even provide quotes directly from the Bible to remind them of the words of Jesus and Paul about God’s valuing of singleness. The male conservatives (and sometimes females, though it’s usually males) really chaff at this reminder, though.

Many right wingers do not want to acknowledge that the Bible does not esteem traditional marriage and parenthood as much as they ASSUME it does.

Republicans, Christians, and social conservatives on political sites bristle and act upset when confronted with clear quotes from the New Testament that Paul wrote it is better to stay single than to marry.

Some right wing males behave as anything less than full nuclear family worship is tantamount to rejection there-of, or is an acceptance of homosexuality, or they assume I must be a liar who is really a lesbian, Democrat, feminist who hates right wingers, the family, and marriage.

In the process of hurling their many incorrect assumptions at me, and responding to points I never made, they tend to make very rude, sexist comments about all women in general.

I recently ran into one such right wing asshole on a political site who referred to any and all women as “sluts,” and he did this repeatedly in his posts. He was also very condescending to me, though I was polite to him through our exchange. I suspect that the guy might be a troll, but it’s hard to tell.

I have also noticed that many conservatives and Republicans, in discussions about sex, birth control, family, marriage, or divorce on political sites, also misquote and twist the comment from the Bible in Genesis about being fruitful and multiplying.

Just as atheists and liberals – some of whom can be terribly biblically illiterate who seem to know only ONE verse from the Bible (and that only when it suits them, and they tend to mis-use it), and that one verse being the one containing the comment of Jesus of, “judge not lest ye be judged” – your usual right wing, socially conservative Christians on political sites are only acquainted with the verse from Genesis about “being fruitful.”

(For more on this, see:
(Link): Misapplication of Biblical Verses About Fertility (also mentions early marriage) – a paper by J. McKeown)

Some Conservatives have blinders on about all the passages (which tend to be in the New Testament) which negate marriage and pro-creation being divine commandments or preferences, but which make each activity optional for believers.

Despite the fact I point out to right wingers on political sites that things changed under the teachings of Jesus Christ and Paul (e.g., (Link): Matthew 10:37), where-in pro-creating is no longer a mandate, not for believers, they remain incredulous about it. It’s in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, that marriage and making babies is not mandated, but some right wingers continue to act as though it were.

I was only able to shut some of them up about it in one thread months ago when I quoted straight from Scriptures, from the New Testament, about these issues.

It’s as though some conservatives minds go totally blank about the New Testament passages that talk in positive terms about singleness and celibacy. They tend to forget such passages are in the Bible, and some lapse into the incorrect, wrong, unbiblical view that only “some are chosen for singleness.”

The Bible does not teach that marriage and making babies is the norm for any one in any culture. Americans may assume that getting married is the norm for Americans, but the Bible does NOT contain a teaching saying, “God wants or demands most people to marry and make babies.”

As 44% of American adults are single these days, being married is not even the cultural norm in the United States any longer, not that it once was.

For more on this topic, please see: (Link): False Christian Teaching: “Only A Few Are Called to Singleness and Celibacy” or (also false): God’s gifting of singleness is rare – More Accurate: God calls only a few to marriage and God gifts only the rare with the gift of Marriage

Many Republicans and conservatives only hone in one “be fruitful and multiply” verse from the Old Testament and harbor the assumption that being married and having children is the only God-sanctioned manner of living life.

Continue reading “Biblical Gender Complementarianism, Unacknolwedged Sexism on Right Wing / Republican Sites, and Rare Admissions by A Christian Republican Politician that Women Have Sexual Drives – Re: Mike Huckabee’s Controversial Comments on Women’s Libido and Birth Control – Unlike Most on the Right and Left Huckabee Believes Sexual Self Control is Possible”

Mtv is Not Birth Control (articles) – Study Claims Mtv Show About Teen Parenthood Reduces Teen Pregnancy Rates

Mtv is Not Birth Control (articles)

(Link): MTV’s ‘16 and Pregnant’ helped reduce teenage birthrate, study says

(Link): MTV’s ‘16 and Pregnant,’ Derided by Some, May Resonate as a Cautionary Tale

(Link): Study, UNF Professor Agree, MTV Affecting Teen Pregnancy Rates

(Link): So MTV reduces teen pregnancy. Why are we surprised?

(Link): Mtv Is Not Birth Control

    The expressive view of culture helps explain why despite massive increases in depictions of violence and sex across every possible mode of expression over the past several decades, all indicators of problematic social behavior has declined. If popular culture really compelled us to act one way or another, that couldn’t be true. In fact, there is essentially no direct effect of a given show or song on us in terms of any particular behavior. The fault (or the credit) lies not in our TV shows but in ourselves.

    This is true even for teens, where arrests for violent crime are half of what they were 20 years ago and where teen sexual activity continues to drop. Despite easy access to ubiquitous and free online porn, only around 43 percent of girls and 42 percent of boys engage in sex before graduating high school.

    In 1988, the corresponding percentages were 51 percent and 60 percent.

    As Kearney and Levine themselves note, the teen birth rate—around 29 girls per 1,000 between the ages of 15 and 19 give birth—is about half of what it was two decades ago. The decline is even more pronounced if you start the trend line four or more decades back.)

Related Posts:

(Link): Students Discuss Dissatisfaction with “Hookup Culture” [Casual Sex, Fornication, Pre Marital Sex]

(Link): Today’s College Girls Explain Why They Are By-Passing Relationships To Be Big Ol’ Whores (partly because guys are man-whores) (Article)

(Link): Article: Not All College Women Whores, Just the White Wealthy Ones

(Link): The Trivialization of Sex (a post by A. Hamilton)

James Dobson’s Family Talk Begs For Donations

James Dobson’s Family Talk Begs For Donations

You can visit the barfy “Family Talk” group here (on Facebook). Why is it barfy?

If you are single, especially a never married, childless adult over the age of 30, the posts and photos on the page will make you hurl.

The top entry on the page has a graphic reading, “I love my spouse in every situation!” (You can view that post (Link): here.)

I will give the folks at Dobson’s “Family Talk” props for (Link): the post with content by pastor Greg Laurie on how to handle the death of a loved one, because death is something that affects EVERYONE, regardless or marital status.

Farther down the page, though, is a post with a photo of a laughing couple with text reading: “When two people Love each other deeply…” (you can view that post (Link): here). Clearly, given the photo and such, it is referring to marital / romantic love, not the love that two friends can have for one another. Christian culture never acknowledges or promotes Friendship Love.

It remains obsessed with pushing a very narrow view of love: love for God, love for spouse, and sometimes, love for one’s own off spring. What of people who have never married or who are childless? These sorts of messages are hurtful or irrelevant.

Anyway, Dobson recently sent out a letter begging donors for more money. You can see it here:

(Link): Dec 2013 Letter from Dr James Dobson of Family Talk

The relevant portion of the guy’s letter, and the parts I found interesting (as in nauseatingly obsessed with “marriage and family”):

    Family Talk is not only attempting to strengthen marriage, parenting and the family; we are also working tirelessly to defend righteousness in the culture.

    For example, with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, (ADF), we will be bringing a lawsuit this month against HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to stop her Department from assaulting the Sanctity of Human Life.

    As I hope you know, the Obama Administration has mandated and intends to require that pro-life organizations, such as ours, and our healthcare insurers or administrators provide abortion-inducing drugs and devices to our employees, and thereby violate our deeply held convictions.

    Family Talk has not yielded to those demands…

    I must close by telling you that our contributions during the summer and fall of 2013 have been far below our needs. It isn’t difficult to figure out where that leads.

    It is likely that this shortfall in income has been caused in part by economic uncertainty and the utter foolishness of Obamacare. But if you can help us here at the end of the year, it would be greatly appreciated.

    Will you prayerfully consider a gift this month to help us reach and impact millions of families? In the process, it is our desire to assist you in building your family legacy.

Now, some liberal Christians, or ex-Christians and atheists and agnostics, who I saw discussing this letter, on another website or two, had a fit over Dobson’s comments about Obamacare, or they laughed about it. They were offended or put off by the anti Obamacare commentary.

I do not care about that; I’m not an Obama supporter and resent the fact I will be forced, by the Obama admin, to buy something I don’t want and do not need.

Dobson can rag on Obamacare all he likes, and it doesn’t bother me at all.

((Link, off site): Owning Up to the Obamacare Lies / Liberals are finally admitting, quietly, that conservative critiques were right all along.)

So the liberal Christians, atheists, and ex-Christians can go suck a lemon on that score.

(You know, just because you were hurt or offended by a “conservative” Church at some point, or by conservative theology, does not mean you have to turn a 180 and become a liberal or an Obama-supporting Democrat, or toss out a literalist understanding of the Bible, or mock those who still adhere to literalism.)

What I find repellent are these “pro family groups” asking people for money. These idiots do little to nothing to promote adult singles, or anyone who does not fit into the very narrow paradigm of “married with children.”

They feed into the evangelical, Reformed, Fundamentalist, and Baptist tendency to worship marriage and procreation (having children).

This also reminds me of the news story several months ago where Focus on the Family was not only firing employees due to budget shortfalls, but also begging donors for five million dollars to make a “pro family” film. The world does not need a “pro family” film, what a waste of five million dollars.
Related posts:

(Link): Focus on the Family Members Practice Infidelity or Homosexuality and Get Divorced and Remarry – links to exposes

(Link): The Bible Does Not Teach Christians to “Focus On The Family” – The Idolization of Family by American Christians (article)

(Link): Focus on the Family having financial problems – aw, too bad (not!)

(Link): Good Grief! Five Million Dollar Family Idoltary on Display: Focus on the Family Launches $5 Million Project Targeting Family Breakdown, Social Ills – Please, when you say you support marriage, be honest about what you REALLY mean

(Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

(Link): Focus on the Family advice columnist perpetuates stereotypes about single women

(Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible

(Link): Focusing on the Family Causes Church Decline

(Link): Focus on Family spokesperson, Stanton, actually says reason people should marry is for ‘church growth’

(Link): Family Research Center (Christian group) thinks people (including the Nuclear Family) should be cut off food stamps

Social Conservatives Plot ‘Coup’ Against GOP over Family Issues

Social Conservatives Plot ‘Coup’ Against GOP over Family Issues

I feel sorry for anyone who visits this blog the first time.

They will probably find themselves confused about my beliefs, in particular my political leanings.

If you are new to this blog, I would encourage you to visit and read this blog’s (Link): “About” page.

In a nutshell:
Despite the fact I am critical of social conservatives on this blog, I myself AM a social conservative. (On occasion, I also pick apart left wingers when they annoy me.)

I wish social conservatives would calm down and stop trying to force their views on everyone else, and stop trying to use the GOP as their battering ram. So no, I’m not completely thrilled with this news:

(Link): Social Conservatives Plot ‘Coup’ Against GOP over Family Issues


    Thursday, 02 Jan 2014 08:18 PM

By Cynthia Fagen

  • Social conservatives are plotting a political “coup” on a GOP they deem has gone soft on issues such as gay marriage and abortion, Politico reported Thursday.
  • Recently, a secret strategy session between leaders of the religious right and its wealthiest backers was held at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Northern Virginia over ways to enlist mega donors into their “conservative civil war,” according to Politico.
  • During the mini-summit by invitation only, which was closed to reporters, part of the shaping of the master plan included aggressive super PAC spending against Republicans in GOP primaries, holding retreats at the Reagan ranch and holding donor conferences in Normandy for the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion.
  • High-ranking retired military officers have been consulted on military tactics that could be applied to campaign spending strategies.
  • The Conservative Action Project, chaired by former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese and funded by the secretive Council on National Policy, organized the event that brought together conservative groups, Politico reported.
  • Continue reading “Social Conservatives Plot ‘Coup’ Against GOP over Family Issues”

    Meet the New Anti-Adoption Movement

    Meet the New Anti-Adoption Movement The surprising next frontier in reproductive justice

    (Link): Meet the New Anti-Adoption Movement


      For a long time, Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy thought of herself as an adoption success story. Pregnant at 18 from an affair with her boss, she denied the pregnancy until her coworkers began to notice.

      Too far along to get an abortion, she looked up an adoption agency in the Yellow Pages and found herself agreeing to move to Boston and live with a host family until she gave birth.

      Her son, who she calls Max (his adoptive parents gave him a different name), was born in November of 1987 and handed over to a couple Corrigan D’Arcy had only seen in photos. And that was that.

      She told herself she’d done the smart thing. She’d given her son a two-parent family of means. It wasn’t until more than a decade later that Corrigan D’Arcy, by then married and the mother of three more children, began to rethink what had happened.

      By having her move to a new state while pregnant, she felt the agency was purposely isolating her from friends and family who might have helped her. Though she knew who her baby’s father was, the agency told her not to tell him she was pregnant.

      She could have sued him for child support—he was a wealthy lawyer—but the adoption agency didn’t talk about that, only about the hardships she would face as a “welfare mom,” should she keep her child. They called her a “family-building angel” and a “saint” for considering adoption. “It was crazy subtle, subtle, subtle brainwashing,” she told me recently.

      Adoption has long been perceived as the win-win way out of a a difficult situation.

      An unwed mother gets rid of the child she’s not equipped to care for; an adoptive family gets a much-wanted child. But people are increasingly realizing that the industry is not nearly as well-regulated and ethical as it should be. There are issues of coercion, corruption, and lack of transparency that are only now being fully addressed.

      The past decade has seen the rise of a broad and loose coalition of activists out to change the way adoption works in America.

      This coalition makes bedfellows of people who would ordinarily have nothing to do with each other: Mormon and fundamentalist women who feel they were pressured by their churches, progressives who believe adoption is a classist institution that takes the children of the young and poor and gives them to the wealthier and better-educated, and adoptive parents who have had traumatic experiences with corrupt adoption agencies.

      Continue reading “Meet the New Anti-Adoption Movement”

    Obnoxious and Sexist Preacher Mark Driscoll Wants Christian Singles to Stay Single Indefinitely – And Even Though Unwanted, Prolonged Singleness has Been a Huge Issue For Christian Singles for A Couple Decades Now – Driscoll: ‘Christians should not marry pro choicers’

    Obnoxious and Sexist Preacher Mark Driscoll Wants Christian Singles to Stay Single Indefinitely – And Even Though Unwanted, Prolonged Singleness has Been a Huge Issue For Christian Singles for A Couple Decades Now – Driscoll: ‘Christians should not marry pro choicers’

    Ah, yes, as if telling Christian single women who want marriage that they may only marry another believer, and teaching them wonky things about genders, dating, etc, has not already done enough damage to Christian single women, and causing a plethora of Christian women to stay single into their 40s, along comes sexist(*), obnoxious(*) Seattle area preacher Mark Driscoll to opine that Christian singles should not marry pro-choicers (the link to the article is farther below).

    I am pro-life myself.

    But it’s absolutely inappropriate for this caveman (ie, Driscoll) – who even monitors his wife’s e-mail account because he is a control freak – to create rules for Christian singles as though it’s on par with “Thus saith the Lord.”

    Christian women do NOT need another level of criteria limiting the pool of potentional, eligible marriage partners they may date.

    We already have a huge-ass problem (according to some surveys) with the fact that there are more unmarried Christian women than there are unmarried Christian men.

    Christians keep adding layer upon layer of characteristics on to what they feel Christian single women should expect, or demand, in potential mates.

    First, Christian dating books and preachers tell ladies to only marry another Christian, then they go on to say that single women should only date Christian men who are their “spiritual leaders,” and now we have Driscoll telling single women to steer clear of any male who may be ‘pro-choice.’

    Christians keep adding so many “must haves” on to the “list o’ traits” they feel Christian single females should hold out for in a man to marry, Christian women shall never be able to marry.

    Continue reading “Obnoxious and Sexist Preacher Mark Driscoll Wants Christian Singles to Stay Single Indefinitely – And Even Though Unwanted, Prolonged Singleness has Been a Huge Issue For Christian Singles for A Couple Decades Now – Driscoll: ‘Christians should not marry pro choicers’”

    Response to the Hemingway Editorial ‘Fecundophobia’ – conservatives and Christians continue to idolize children, marriage – which is unbiblical

    A Response to the Hemingway Editorial ‘Fecundophobia’ – conservatives and Christians continue to idolize children, marriage – which is unbiblical

    Ms. Hemingway must be out to lunch.

    Other than the secular, hyper-militant Child Free persons (and yes, they do exist, I’ve encountered them on forums or blogs for Child Free, and they are usually self professing pagans or atheists, and they are almost always very liberal and hostile towards Christians, pro lifers, and Republicans), I don’t know of many people who are pushing for, or embracing, “low fertility rates.”

    Nor do I know many people among the childless or CF (childfree) who are “afraid” or pregnant women or children.

    Here is a link (well, it’s a tiny bit farther below) to the editorial by the woman, Hemingway, who has a misunderstanding about the childless and childfree. Not all childless or childfree are alike in personality, political or religious views, or in their reasons as to why they remain without children.

    I’ll only be writing from my particular vantage as a childless woman, I will not be attempting to defend or explain the differing views of or for every single childless or childfree person.

    I have additional commentary below these excerpts; there are points where I agree with this author, and points where I do not:

    (Link): Fecundophobia: The Growing Fear Of Children And Fertile Women, By Mollie Hemingway

    The author, Hemingway, begins by quoting an article by a sportswriter about a football player who is about to have child number seven, and she seems to feel that the author is implying that it is “weird” for the footballer to have so many children.

    Here is the section Hemingway quoted:

      And he’s [the football player] also about to have his seventh kid. There are going to be eight people with Rivers DNA running around this world.

    If you visit the page in question, however, (Link): the page in question, you can see that the page’s writer is primarily riffing on this point:

      This is the only GIF necessary from this game [showing the footballer’s odd habit of making weird facial distortions and pumping his fists in the air on the sidelines during a game].

      Nick Novak hit a 50-yard field goal just inside the two-minute warning to give the Chargers a two-possession lead. This was Philip Rivers’s reaction. He’s like a sad movie character who pumps himself up in front of a mirror.

    The primary point of the page is not fertility at all, but rather, the player’s strange body language and facial expressions he makes during games.

    The part about him having six or seven kids is a minor thought that appears at the bottom of that page. It is not the focal point.

    Hemingway then goes on to criticize several papers for not criticizing the choices of other football players who asked their girlfriends to get abortions.

    Note that Hemingway quotes this by Philips, when asked how he handles being father to six children:

      It’s a two-year rotation: Once the diapers come off of one, we usually have a newborn. And we have another one on the way, due in October. I help when I can, but my wife, Tiffany, is the key.

    This is actually one of several reasons I am somewhat opposed to the acceptance of, or pushing of, hyper fertility – the burden is always put primarily on the woman to look after the rug rats, while hubby gets the easier task of shuffling off to the 9 to 5 job daily.

    Mom never gets a break; she stays with the children 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

    But women like Hemingway think this lop-sided and unfair burden of child care foisted on the woman only is a good thing, I would suppose.

    Read about Andrea Yates and how she murdered several of her children after being expected to be a full time mommy with little to no help from anyone, not even her spouse ((Link): Yates information).

    Hemingway responds to the perfectly natural, “how the hey do you manage with six children?!” question by asking incredulously,

      — but what kind of question is that? Seriously. Who asks a question like that?

    Why, it’s the kind of perfectly normal, natural reaction of someone, of any sane, rational, and logical person, who thinks having more than two or three children is strange, expensive, and very time consuming – that is the sort of person who.

    Even people who are currently parents to two or three children might wonder in awe at, or in bewilderment at, why anyone would want to have more than three children, or how they handle more than three, without going broke or being physically exhausted all the time.

    It is not only the liberals, childless, or childfree who get puzzled by this sort of thing.

    Hemingway writes,

      It may be impolitic to suggest that men and women are in any way different, science be damned, but many women have a particular specialty in cultivating relationships and family. To denigrate women who acknowledge and accept this as a good thing rather than fight against it is not exactly life-affirming.

    Christian gender egalitarians note that there are some differences between men and women ((Link): visit CBE – Christians for Biblical Equality), but it does not follow that while women may be better at relationship, or more drawn to building them, that they therefore should all have at least one child, or up to ten of them.

    Women can just as easily use their interest in, and talent at, relationships for volunteering to help lonely seniors at senior citizen retirement homes, or volunteering to feed homeless people at soup kitchens, or, helping take care of homeless puppies and cats at the ASPCA.

    Hemingway’s argument shortly before that, which gets into how we are all interdependent, actually shoots down her other points which argue in favor of each person having ten children: you can go through life childless but depend on brothers, sisters, uncles, neighbors, friends, and if you are a church goer, fellow church members.

    One does not have to have children in order to have someone to depend on, or to be “interdependent.”

    Just because a larger percentage of people in contemporary society are choosing not to have children (and remember, some who want to are unable to – from lack of partner to infertility), does not mean all people will make this same choice.

    As a matter of fact, the number of babies among unmarried women have been skyrocketing, which is angering, or worrying, a lot of Christians:

    Nor does a decrease in people interested in pro-creating necessarily mean all of society will grind to a halt. There will always be someone, somewhere, who will keep getting pregnant and giving birth. (It’s just not going to be me specifically. And that is okay.)

    Then there’s this information, which would appear to refute some of Ms. Hemingway’s views:

    What Jesus Christ and Paul Taught About Family/ Having Children / Being Married

    As a matter of fact, that is the pattern that Jesus Christ sought to establish, that people be freed from the ancient over-dependence on family, because Jesus recognized that such a society ignored those without one, such as orphans, spinsters, and widows:

      While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

      Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

      He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”

      Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
      [source: Matthew 12]

    And further, from Matthew 10, Jesus speaking:

      “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

      For I have come to turn
      “‘a man against his father,
      a daughter against her mother,
      a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
      a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

      “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

    No where in the Bible does Jesus teach that one must have children in order to have someone to “depend upon.”

    Having children, in the New Testament, is not listed as a rule or commandment.

    Your spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ (that is, other Christians) are to be your primary family; you are not to seek family out in husband, children, mother, or brother.

    The Bible does not condemn marriage or having children, but it remains that singlehood, as stated by Paul the Apostle under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is stated as being preferable for believers – not marriage and procreating.

    Quoting Paul:

      Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. [source]

    Paul again,

      25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.

      26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.
      27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.

      28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.

      But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

      32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord.

      33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided.

      An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.

      35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
      [source: 1 Corinthians 7]

    Culture Still Puts Pressure on Women to Have Children, Contrary to What Hemingway Says

    Hemingway states,

      And keeping the womb empty at all costs during all, or nearly all, of one’s fertile years is the sine qua non of modern American womanhood. Woe to the woman who “chooses” otherwise.

    I am a right winger, I am a social conservative, and yes, I realize that a lot of the media -which is tilted left- rabidly supports abortion.

    I do not support abortion myself.

    I am not opposed to women having babies, if that is their informed choice.

    However. It remains a fact in American society that outside of left wing media, there is still a tremendous pressure, and expectation, placed upon people, especially women, to crank out babies.

    The cultural landscape is the direct opposite of what Hemingway states in her editorial.

    Outside of fringe, far left, kook, militant Child Free type groups or individuals, or rabidly militant, secular feminists, there is still a huge expectation from larger culture that women should have babies, and if they do not have children, for whatever reason, they are hounded for it, put down, and insulted, or scolded, or treated as though they are freaks.

    Women are attacked for remaining childless not only by commentators such as Hemingway in newspapers and blogs, but also by their baby-obsessed mothers, sisters, aunts, and grandmothers, and female co-workers.

    It is a very real perception and stereotype by the child-loving population, which is in the majority, that you are thought weird, baby-hating, evil, incredibly selfish, etc, if you cannot have children, or, if you deliberately choose not to have children.

    I have never liked children myself, so I never cared if I had a baby or not.

    But please note: I do not “hate” children, I do not fear them, I do not condone child abuse or abortion. I am simply not comfortable around babies and children: they are typically loud, messy, distracting. I prefer not being around them.

    At one point in her editorial, Hemingway talks about walking around a city, an area very liberal in flavor. She mentions seeing signs hanging up around that part of town reading, “Thank you for not breeding.”

    I suggest to her, I posit, that conservative and Christian culture does the same exact thing as that liberal section of the city she visited, only they are mirror opposites: rather than hanging up signs that say “thank you for not breeding!,” conservatives and Christians hang up signs screaming at women TO marry and TO “breed.”

    Continue reading “Response to the Hemingway Editorial ‘Fecundophobia’ – conservatives and Christians continue to idolize children, marriage – which is unbiblical”

    How Christian Obsession with Orphans Is Creating Problems (article) – Also: confirms my previous warnings about Christians ignoring Christians to help only special classes

    How Christian Obsession with Orphans Is Creating Problems (NYT editorial) – Also: confirms my previous warnings about Christians ignoring Christians to help only special classes

    As I have been saying on this blog for months, one major mistake in American Christianity (specifically, fundamentalists, Baptists, and evangelicals) is that they neglect to carry out the Bible’s command for Christians to care for and about other Christians primiarly (Galatians 6:10), but tend to pick “special interest groups” to shower compassion upon (eg, homeless crack addicts, strippers in sex clubs, African orphans).

    Here is a page reporting on how this Christian obsession with adopting Chinese and African orphans, and orphans from other nations, is creating problems:

    (Link): The Evangelical Orphan Boom

    You will have to click that link to read the whole page. Here are several quotes from it:

      Published: September 21, 2013

      IF you attend an evangelical church these days, there’s a good chance you’ll hear about the “orphan crisis” affecting millions of children around the world.

      These Christian advocates of transnational adoption will often say that some 150 million children need homes — though that figure, derived from a Unicef report, includes not only parentless children, but also those who have lost only one parent, and orphans who live with relatives.

      Evangelical adoptions picked up in earnest in the middle of the last decade, when a wave of prominent Christians, including the megachurch pastor Rick Warren and leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, began to promote adoption as a special imperative for believers.

      Adoption mirrored the Christian salvation experience, they argued, likening the adoption of orphans to Christ’s adoption of the faithful. Adoption also embodied a more holistic “pro-life” message — caring for children outside the womb as well as within — and an emphasis on good deeds, not just belief, that some evangelicals felt had been ceded to mainline Protestant denominations.

      Believers rose to the challenge. The Christian Alliance for Orphans estimates that hundreds of thousands of people worldwide participate in its annual Orphan Sunday (this year’s is Nov. 3).

      Evangelicals from the Bible Belt to Southern California don wristbands or T-shirts reading “orphan addict” or “serial adopter.” Ministries have emerged to raise money and award grants to help Christians pay the fees (some $30,000 on average, plus travel) associated with transnational adoption.

      However well intended, this enthusiasm has exacerbated what has become a boom-and-bust market for children that leaps from country to country. In many cases, the influx of money has created incentives to establish or expand orphanages — and identify children to fill them.

      In some cases, agencies may hire “child finders” to recruit children of the age and gender that prospective adoptive parents prefer, sometimes from impoverished but intact families. Even nonprofit agencies with good reputations may turn to such local recruiters in countries where they don’t already have established partners — or where the demand for children exceeds the supply.

      The potential for fraud and abuse is high. Orphanages tend to be filled by kids whose parents want better opportunities for them, while the root problem — extreme poverty — goes unaddressed, a Unicef worker in Ethiopia told me. Worse, some families in places with different cultural norms and legal systems relinquish their kids believing that it is a temporary guardianship arrangement, rather than an irrevocable severance of family ties.

      Continue reading “How Christian Obsession with Orphans Is Creating Problems (article) – Also: confirms my previous warnings about Christians ignoring Christians to help only special classes”

    19-Year-Old Student at Christian College Bleeds to Death After Secretly Delivering Stillborn Baby in Dorm Room

    This is a rarity. Rarely do I hear or see stories where someone’s fornication did not end well for them.

    I usually hear and see Christians who say they had tons of pre marital sex, but it did not result in any negative consequences for them. This story is an exception.

    Oh, yeah. Add this to the file of “Being a Mother Does Not Automatically Make A Woman Godly, Mature, or Responsible,” since a lot of Christians stigmatize women like me who never got pregnant and popped out a kid. No, I’ve never had a kid, but then, I’ve never tried to abort one, either. (Note: some sources say her baby was still born, but one or two sources I read suggested she may have been trying to abort the baby).

    (Link): Sacramento woman, 19, dies after giving birth at college

    (Link): Student from California gives birth in dorm room, bleeds to death

      Ayaanah Gibson, a pregnant 19-year-old freshman from Sacramento, was alone in her dormitory room at Benedict College in Columbia, S.C., over the Labor Day weekend. At some point, Gibson gave birth, lost consciousness and bled to death, according to the local coroner.

      Gibson’s body was found late Tuesday night, along with the baby, which apparently was stillborn, said Gary Watts, the Richland County coroner.

      “She died from a loss of blood due to a spontaneous delivery,” Watts said in a telephone interview with the Los Angeles Times. He said Gibson, a chemistry major, was 30 to 32 weeks pregnant.

    19-Year-Old Student at Christian College Bleeds to Death After Secretly Delivering Stillborn Baby in Dorm Room

      September 6, 2013|2:09 pm

      A 19-year-old student who may not have known she was pregnant bled to death in her dorm room at the Christian-focused Benedict College in Columbia, S.C., after secretly delivering a stillborn baby.

      According to a WISTV report the student’s family was unaware that the teenager was pregnant and officials say she may not have been aware of the pregnancy herself. They found no evidence of prenatal care.

      What doctors know for sure though is that the dead teenager’s life could have been saved if she had received medical attention.

      The student, identified as Ayaanah Gibson, was between 30 to 32 weeks pregnant, according to County Coroner Gary Watt who said if she had gone to the hospital after delivering, the baby could have been saved.

      Three of South Carolina’s largest Hospitals- Providence, Palmetto Baptist and Palmetto Richland are within a mile and a half away from the college.

      “She was approximately 30 to 32 weeks pregnant, and it appears she bled out because of the delivery,” Watts said in a report in The State. “There is no sign of any kind of intentional delivery or anything like that,” he said. “It appears to be some kind of spontaneous delivery.”

    Related posts this blog:

    (Link): Magical Christian Thinking: If you have pre-marital sex you won’t get a decent spouse

    (Link): Cheating Married Christian Women and Lessons I Take Away – and Being a Virgin Does Not Guarantee God will Send You a Spouse

    (Link): Motherhood Does Not Make Women More Godly or Mature (Mother Suffocates New Born and Shoves It In Toilet)

    (Link): Why all the articles about being Child Free? On Being Childfree or Childless – as a Conservative / Right Wing / Christian

    (Link): Single Adults – Why They Stay and Why They Stray From Church – Book Excerpts

    (Link): Un Happy Mother’s Day – universal church continues to worship parenthood, family

    (Link): Mother’s Day Ain’t A Happy Holiday For Some

    (Link): To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

    (Link): Motherhood Makes Women Selfish and Thieves

    (Link): I’m Childless, Not Child-Incompetent (editorial by G. Dalfonzo) – The Christian Tendency to Worship Family, Motherhood, and Children

    (Link): Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman

    (Link): The Child Free City

    (Link): Childfree Christians / Childfree childless

    (Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

    (Link): The Decline in Male Fertility (article)

    (Link): Salvation By Marriage Alone – The Over Emphasis Upon Marriage (and “family”) by Conservative Christians Evangelicals Southern Baptists

    (Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible

    (Link): A Critique of the Family-Integrated Church Movement by Brian Borgman – Christians turning the family into an idol

    (Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

    (Link): Refreshing: Christian Researcher Disputes that Youths Are Leaving Churches in Droves, Disagrees that Churches Should Be Family Focused

    (Link): Fatherhood Not Quite the Producer of Manly, Mature, Godly Men Some Conservative Christians Make It Out To Be

    Motherhood Does Not Make Women More Godly or Mature (Mother Suffocates New Born and Shoves It In Toilet)

    Motherhood Does Not Make Women More Godly or Mature

    Christians think that parenthood (or sometimes just marriage alone) can mature a person, or that parenthood makes a person more godly and mature. They tend to view Child Free and Childless people as being immature goobers, or as selfish, evil twits.

    I am over 40 years old, have not had sex, so I’ve never had a baby. For this, I am treated like a freak by a lot of conservative Christianity, or else, I am told I am selfish for not reproducing.

    But please, let us count together the number of babies I have suffocated and shoved in a toilet: ZERO. Thank you.

    Oh, by the way? I am old school. You marry first, then you have a kid. These extreme procreation types (they ones who worry that Muslims are “out breeding” Christian people, for instance) have to get me a spouse first before I can have a kid, and husbands do not grow on trees. I can’t seem to meet any single guys my age.

    Here’s another example of how merely getting pregnant and popping a kid out does not instantly bestow maturity or godliness on a person:

    (Link): Police: Woman gives birth in sports bar, kills baby, goes back to watching wrestling

      A woman gave birth to a baby boy in the bathroom of a busy sports bar and then killed the infant by wrapping the body in a plastic bag and submerging it in a toilet tank, it has been claimed.

    (Link): Mom Suffocates Baby With Plastic Bag: DA

    (Link): Woman who gave birth and killed her baby in bar bathroom before rejoining friends to carry on drinking is denied bail

      -Employees at Starters Pub near Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, found a dead baby inside the tank of the toilet in the women’s bathroom August 17
      -Police say Amanda Catherine Hein, 26, of Allentown, admitted to giving birth to a live baby and suffocating it
      -She said she had known she was pregnant for months and did not tell anyone about pregnancy or going into labor
      -After allegedly killing her baby, Hein smoked a cigarette and continued watching pay-per-view wrestling for an hour until she went home
      -She could face the death penalty, if convicted

    (Link): Amanda Hein: Mother ‘killed baby and hid body in bar’s toilet’

    (Link): Woman Allegedly Gives Birth to Healthy Boy in Sports Bar Restroom, Suffocates Him, Then Hides Body in Toilet Tank

      A 26-year-old Pennsylvania woman could face the death penalty after she gave birth to a baby boy in the restroom of a sports bar in Allentown, suffocated him, then stuffed his body in a toilet tank before returning to the bar to finish watching a wrestling match in her bloodied clothes.

      The woman, Amanda Catherine Hein, is now facing a single count of murder that could attract the death penalty due to the age of the child. She is yet to be arraigned as is reportedly recuperating in the hospital from the incident.

      Court documents highlighted by a report in The Express-Times said Hein was watching a pay-per-view wrestling match at the Starters Pub with three male friends on Aug. 18. During the event she complained of pain and back spasms. One of the men from the group, Luis Rivera, told police that Hein left the group for the restroom for about 40 minutes.

      …During her absence they checked on her repeatedly via text messages but she did not respond. When Hein eventually returned to the group she watched the end of the WWE SummerSlam pay-per-view broadcast for another hour.

      …Hein later admitted to police that she gave birth to a healthy boy in the women’s restroom. She said she wrapped the boy in clear plastic bag from a garbage container and placed him in the toilet tank.

      … On Tuesday, District Attorney John Morganelli said at a news conference that it was upsetting seeing the dead baby boy and could not understand the woman’s motive for the murder.

      “I cannot get inside this lady’s head,” said Morganelli.

      …Morganelli noted that police were able to track down Hein because the booth she sat in was covered in blood and she was the only female in the group of four that had reserved the booth.

      … County Coroner Zachary Lysek said the baby boy was born late in the third trimester and was healthy. His office ruled the death a homicide after confirming the boy had died from suffocation.

      The baby was discovered by a member of the bar’s cleaning crew who was trying to figure out why the toilet would not work.

    Number of babies I have murdered in my life: Zero!

    Yet I get treated worse for being a celibate, childless person than women who screw around outside of marriage or kill their kids.

    The church heaps love and hugs on women who are prostitutes, who get abortions or who commit infanticide, and the churches gushes about “Jesus’ love” for these types of women.

    Apparently Jesus does not love virgin women past age 35. You know, the ones who have actually followed His teachings.
    Related post this blog

    (Link): To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

    Republicans Ditch Family Values As Strategy (article)

    Republicans Ditch Family Values As Strategy (article)

    I am a Republican and a social conservative, but I’m no longer on board with Christians (or Non Christian) Republicans wailing about “family values” anymore.

    Hopefully (and if this article is correct), maybe the GOP strategy of ditching family values will filter down to churches, and Christians will stop obsessing about “family values” so much, and all that goes with it, such as worshipping the traditional family and complaining non-stop about homosexuality and abortion (no, I don’t support either one myself, but Christians need to spend more time helping other Christians, IMO, than in confronting secular culture round the clock).

    Unfortunately, this article quotes (Link): Russell D. Moore who is a total chump when it comes to the topics of virginity and related matters.

    (Link): Republicans Take Up Cause Of Religious Liberty — And Ditch Family Values

    A shift from offense to defense in the culture war. “We’re not some sort of moral majority in American culture,” says Moore.

    McKay Coppins
    BuzzFeed Staff

    Aug 1, 2013

    When Texas Sen. Ted Cruz sat down for an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network last month, he didn’t spend much time bemoaning the moral rot embodied by the “homosexual agenda.” He didn’t call for boycotts of explicit rap albums, or express outrage at the availability of condoms in high schools, or champion some new law designed to combat the corrosive effects of pornography.

    Instead, he made headlines with a dire warning for Christians everywhere: Your pastors could soon be prosecuted for hate speech.

    “If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced,” he soberly intoned. “It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage.”

    Continue reading “Republicans Ditch Family Values As Strategy (article)”

    ‘Glory of Virginity’ Movement vis a vis Abortion / Porn other issues

    ‘Glory of Virginity’ Movement

    ‘Glory of Virginity’ Movement was mentioned in a CBN report about abortion (there is commentary by me about all this much farther down the page, under the link to a video):

    (Link): Man Up! Men Urged to End Abortion’s War on Women

      Women may get abortions, but without men, there wouldn’t be any abortions — or sex trafficking, or pornography. These are almost exclusively areas where male users create female victims.

      …Paul Cole leads the Christian Men’s Network, which specializes in mentoring men. He says many abortions happen because of men who refuse to step up and father the lives they’ve created.

      Brian Fisher, president of Online for Life, says abortion is the perfect convenience for such boyish men who desire to satisfy their sexual urges with no danger of commitment. “Abortion is the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for men who want to be sexually promiscuous,” Fisher stated.

      Cole pointed out, “The vast majority of abortions are paid for by men. Why is that? Because they don’t want to accept responsibility for what they created.”

      …According to Fisher, that means “men can sleep with whoever they want to and if the woman gets pregnant, not only does the man have no responsibility, he has no legal right to have responsibility.”

      ‘Man Up and Get Off the Porn’

      In his book, Abortion: the Ultimate Exploitation of Women, Fisher advocates “manning up” to fight abortion. One major way may seem surprising.

      “Get off the porn,” Fisher said.

      The author points to decades of research that show the results of pornography.

      “Multiple sexual partners, adultery, wrecked marriages, issues with long-term commitment,” Fisher stated. “All those things have been extremely well-documented. Well, those are all the seeds of unplanned pregnancy.”

      Cole cites research that shows for every 10 men in the average church, five have a major problem with pornography.

      He believes mentoring young people and teaching young men to be sexually pure and responsible can help control this sexual chaos.

      …Cole shared how a program tied to his ministry slashed the 33 percent AIDS rate in Uganda.

      “They began to train young men and women, 11, 12, 13, 14 years old, what it is to be sexually pure, what it is to be married to one person,” Cole said. “They began to meet in all the churches, all the schools.”

      This program introduced all over Uganda is called Glovimo: the GLOry of VIrginity MOvement.

      “Today in Uganda, the rate of AIDS is 6.4 percent,” Cole pointed out. “It is the only nation in the continent of Africa that has reversed the rate of AIDS.”

    Here is a video about the group (which I think is based in Africa?) – I have not watched this video myself:

    (Link): The Glory of Virginity Movement

      “The amazing story of a message on a videotape that changed the culture of Uganda and brought the rate of HIV-AIDS down from 32% in 1989 to 6.5% in 2011.”

    (Link): Video: Glory of Virginity Movement

    Edit: I have just watched part of that video which contains a sermon by a preacher who holds men equally accountable in sexual purity – he (I’m para-phrasing here; this is not a direct quote) mentions God expects MALES to remain VIRGINS too not ONLY FEMALES – a point I have raised several times on this blog.

    Both males and females who discuss sexual purity and modesty teachings rarely address MALE RESPONSIBILITY in these contexts. Only females are expected to remain chaste, pure, and covered up, and then the feminists, liberal Christians, and emergents go on and on about how sexist or repressive they find this.

    Even the feminists, (secular and Christian and emergent), who hate “sexual purity and modesty” teachings only address females in conversations about sexuality purity, modesty and virginity, never males. This is sexism (ironically).

    Everyone is holding only females accountable, or paying attention to female sexuality alone, but the Bible says God holds males equally responsible in matters of sexuality.
    Related posts, this blog:

    (Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity

    (Link): Emergent Christian Guy Says Christians Need to “Celebrate Pre Marital Sex” (Fornication)

    (Link): Are Christians Tossing Out Prohibitions Against Pre Martial Sex (radio show)