actually no.  What do I have to be convicted about here? 

I didn't say you did.  I said everytime you respond to something I say....wherever (means not necessarily here) or whatever I say you play Devil's Advocate.  Everytime I see your avatar I know it can't be good. 

well that's good to know.  Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why I find you so argumentative when it comes to my comments?  There's something under your claw that bugs you about me, and I'd like to know what's bugging you so we can clear it up. 

and not surprisingly I would respectfully disagree.  First off every kid who has one single brain cell in his head knows about and can get access to Birth Control whether or NOT his parents advocated abstinence or not.  They know exactly how to obtain booze also even when the parents don't drink.  So that shouldn't be an issue. 

I also disagree to some extent about the parent's failure.  In some ways I agree with you but for diff reasons.  You can preach BC and still have your kid get pregnant so do you hold the parent as a failure then as well? 

I would say where Sarah failed her child was not knowing where she was and watching her behavior more carefully.  I would say that Mom was probably too busy running a state and left her daughter to herself maybe a bit too much?  It's a rare occurrance that anyone gets pregnant on the first try. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again....I'd much rather teach abstinence and have my child find herself pregnant (there are worse things than pregnancy)  than to teach BC and watch them die from an untreated STD or AIDS by living a life of promiscuity.  At least bearing and taking care of a child puts a curtail on sexual activity. 

me either and one of the things about the new format I don't like. 

And yet, you think I speak for the entire liberal movement -- how exactly to you reconcile those two thoughts?

If you somehow got that I think that murder is a family issue from what I wrote, then I'm not going to waste my breath responding because you wouldn't be able to comprehend it anyway. 

I don't think I'm playing Devil's Advocate -- I have different opinions from you.  But this is a good example of what bugs me -- you can't, for a minute, assume that I disagree with you and that I am presenting my opinions to you.  No, instead you have to assume that I'm playing and purposely disagreeing with you just because it's fun.  I fundamentally disagree with probably 95% of what you say -- and yet you assume that this can't be true, I must just be playing.  Wouldn't that bug you?

And here we are just going to have to disagree. Teaching BC doesn't encourage kids to have sex any more than teaching abstinence does.  In fact, i would argue that a kid who is taught birth control is less likely to get an STDs because they have been taught about safe sex and have the tools to protect themselves.  It's the kids who get abstinence only education that i'd worry about catching STDs.

(There's so much more that I could/shoud respond to, but I'm home sick with a pounding headache that just won't die -- so I'm going to take a pass)

Huh?  How does teaching the kids about birth control make kids promiscuous?  I have never understood that line of thinking.  What is so wrong with comprehensive sex education that strongly encourages abstinence since it is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy and STDs but still teaches kids how to use birth control properly so that if they do end up having sex they will be able to do so with some amount of intelligence on the issue and use a condom?  I have actually heard that some abstinence-only programs tell kids that condoms don't work which leads the kids that end up having sex anyway to do so without any protection because they have been informed that it doesn't work.  That doesn't seem very smart if you ask me.

When you teach comprehensive sex ed in school as they are today, you are in effect giving these kids a green light.  You can't say to a teen..."don't have sex, but if you do, take this (holding up a form of BC) with you."  You're contradicting yourself and the kids know it. 

They take that as permission.  Go back in time and remember what it was like when you were a kid.  Did you ever say to your parents..."but you said?"......when in fact you, as the child, were twisting their words around on them?  That's what kids do.  Give an inch they take a....what?

I had my son tell me that I gave him permission to run away.  Did I?  Well I guess I did in a roundabout way.  He threatened to run away and I said...."go ahead" thinking he was just pulling my leg.  He knew better. He knew what I meant.  But he used my words against me because he wanted to go to a place I had forbidden him to go.   

And this is so clear when you look at the evidence.  I raised three teens all at the same time.  I worked in a HS for years riding the bus with them frequently during X-Country season.  I was very involved with teens thru programs at church.  One thing that was very very very (can I say that enough?) evident to me was that teens who were taught that BC should be used in the event you may have sex outside of marriage were way more active at a much younger age than those parents who were teaching abstinence.  For the most part kids want their parents approval and acceptance.

Those parents who were teaching abstinence were very clear and expected that sex was to be delayed until either they were of age or married.  We told our kids, no piercings, no sex and no motorcyles.  That was expected. 

Now, obviously, this is not 100% as we've seen in Palin's daughter.  Sometimes these children don't follow the household rules and break them.  It happens.  When they do, they get burned and pay the consequences whether they abort or keep their baby or end up with an STD. 

Now, even though we teach our kids  abstinence, they'd have to have their head under a rock NOT to know about BC.  They all do.  My son chose not to obey our "house rules" and went right to the pharmacy.  He knew right where to find what he needed.  Still taught abstinence.  But he made a decision that went against what we taught him.  It was his choice, and eventually he did pay the price.  But I'll bet he'll teach his own son abstinence after learning what he's had to go thru.   

you think so?  I don't.  The kids more apt to get STD's are those like the girls on the pill who think they're safe.  They're the ones you have to worry about....or the boys who think the girl is ok because she's on the pill.  I knew one boy who was giving the girls VD all over the school.  The girls, with permission from their parents, were on BC.   One girl put up a sign on the girl's mirror warning other girls not to have sex with this one boy.  Now if the girl was taught abstinence and obeyed her parents (like many I do know) this wouldn't be an issue. 

I strongly disagree with this with some of the reasons listed above. 

Shades, it's not WHAT you say....it's HOW you say it.  There are others on JU that don't agree with me but I consider them friends.  I take a very strong stance on certain issues that I can't budge from because I use scripture as my foundation and that just never changes.   We have lively discussions, sometimes heated but it never turns nasty and hateful. 

I do believe you are purposefully disagreeing with me because of reasons you haven't disclosed.  Yes.  I don't care if you disagree with me, that's part of what goes on here.  I just want you to be honest with me. 

I'm ok with the 95% of the time we don't agree.....but even those I don't agree most of the time I try to let them know when I do agree with them and establish common ground even if it's a small thing.  Maybe if you once in a while let me know what the 5% was it wouldn't come across so Devil's Advocate all the time. 

What I take offense to mostly is the fact she was so quick to call me a hypocrite because I believe Palin's pregnancy is a family matter.  At first I didn't get why she was calling me this but now after she's explained what she means by the Roe v. Wade and my not wanting it legal I can see where she's coming from although I think she doesn't understand completely why pro-lifers can't just sit by and say a girl getting an abortion is just a family matter. 

Pregnancy is a family matter.  Murder should always be our business.  We should always rush to the defense of the helpless....always no matter who they are.  We should never find ourselves indifferent to the wounding and murdering of another human life.  Any decent person would step up when they see another being hurt especially when they have no voice to express this on their own. 

When the liklihood of murder enters the picture it's no longer just a family matter.   Just like we can't sit by and watch someone kill another without interferring, we also can't sit by and not get involved in these cases of abortion. 

I would hope to God someone would stop me if I held a gun to my three month old grandson's head.  Some have thanked God for sending another who stopped them from taking the life of their unborn before it was too late.   

That is just plain wrong on so many levels.  1) there are many schools that teach abstinence-only sex ed.  2) The idea that teaching kids about birth control is a "green light" to have sex is just plain wrong.  Comprehensize sex ed doesn't tell kids to go out and have sex.  It merely gives them information about available birth control methods as well as all of the consequences from having sex.  Comprehensive sex ed teaches kids that the only form of birth control that is 100% effective is absitenence.

Case and point, I received comprehensive sex ed in school and I didn't have sex until I was in a committed relationship.  Yes I had sex before marriage, but I ended up marrying the woman that I had sex with.

I'm glad that your son was smart enough to go to the local drug store and buy condoms so that he was at least somewhat protected when he had sex, unfortunately some of the abstinence-only sex ed programs out there teach the kids that condoms don't work so the kids don't bother to buy them.  Or they buy into the myth that condoms take away from the experience (something that could have been contradicted in a comprehensive program).

This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  So you are actually saying that a kid who has sex outside of wedlock and/or against their parents wishes deserves to get an STD or get pregnant when simply educating them a little could have potentially prevented either from happening?  That's like advocating not to teach your kids to look both ways before they cross the street until you are ready to allow them to walk across the street by themselves.  I mean if they decide to violate your rule of not crossing the street they deserve to get hit by the cars right?  Come on that's just insane.

Again this is a case of bad information getting out, something that could be prevented with comprehensive sex education.  The pill doesn't protect anyone from STDs and a comprehensive sex education class would be more likely to inform the kids of that than an abstinence-only class that ignores the topic of birth control pills altogether.  In your case if the girl had been told that the pill didn't do squat to protect her from VD she might have used a condom when she had sex and the problem would have been averted.  So yes I still think that comprehensive sex education is better than abstinence-only.

just go back and read almost ANY contact you have had with me. 

and this is the attitude from which I speak.  It's this type of fighting words you bring to the table constantly Shades.  I pride myself?  I sincerely hope not nor do I wish to come across that way.  If I have I  apologize. 

well this doesn't help matters now does it?  You came out of the gun shouting hyprocrite at me without even discussing this issue.  Have I done that to you? 

Where?  Not on this thread.  And out of context?  So can I quote that you said, and I quote "it must be true that liberals have no core ethics"?

You still dont see the trap even after KFC explained it in english, and you fell right into.  Yes, you would have KFC accept murder as a family value because of your say so, and nothing else.  So if she has to accept it, what exempts you?  Some "Noblesse oblige" that is bestowed on all liberals due solely to their beliefs and self righteousness?  Your superiority to the mere mud dwellers and common rabble who are not "intelligent" enough to accept the religion of liberalism?

I never said you thought abortion was murder, but you are so wrapped up in your own righteousness, that you failed to see how mean and spiteful you were to another - just because you do not agree with her (but cannot prove her wrong either).  You are so intent on browbeating KFC to accept your views, which are no better than hers, that you would so insult her and tell her that she must make murder a family value instead of the crime that most people believe it to be. Why?

twist words?  Show me a twisted word.  You accuse a lot, but you always fail to produce. I quoted you - you make airy accusations not backed up with quotes.

And you accuse me of assuming about you?

Stem cell research shouldn't be classified as a "shot in the dark", KFC.  They have goals in mind with research.  If they don't, then I am against support of the practice.  There needs to be a structure even though we don't always know what we're searching for.  Sure we don't know exactly what the potential benefits can be to medical advances and genetics research, but that's why we are doing the research and experimentation. 

Recall the differences between the different types of stem cells and that there is a reason for extracting embryonic stem cells since you are more likely to get a useable pluripotent cell line.  There are the branches of research that will need that specific culture of stem cells to make any progress on their ends.

If you have time, this report really does a great job summarizing the potentials for research and the ethical/moral concerns of the general public with these investigations.  Stem Cell Research and Applications.  Most of the article covers the ethical concerns and how scientists and research groups will be held accountable, but there is also a section about the benefits of those pluripotent cell lines I mentioned and the possible advances or understandings hoped to be made by the scientific community.  In a sense, the embryonic stem cells are more maliable than adult stem cells and can lead the way to other types of breakthroughs.

Dr. Guy and KFC -- both of you are accusing me of being mean, spiteful, nasty and hateful -- but neither of you have shown proof other than the fact that I called KFC a hypocrite.  My intent is not to be either -- so if you can show me where I am, I will gladly apologize.  That said, I do find it strange that you can forcefully have your opinions, but I may not forcefully have mine.

I'm going to let this thread lie now because it is clear that we are never going to reach agreement on this issue and there is no point in banging our heads against the wall.  And since it is clear, KFC, that you think I am out to get you, I will refrain from commenting on your threads in the future.

Make no mistake, republicans and democrats both want us to be dependant on them, they just go about it in different ways. You have the democrats up front nanny state or the republicans give us your devotion so that we may protect you from the evils, real, imagined or of our own making, of the world. The end result is the same our dependence.