Fox News guest: sex ed boosters want kids to get STDs.
By on Jan 2nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Fox News guest: sex ed boosters want kids to get STDs.
During the Dec. 31 broadcast of Fox News’ Special Report, Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright claimed that proponents of comprehensive sex education are trying to “encourage” sex because “they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions.” She then added, “You have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed.” Watch it:
[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/01/SexEdSTDs.320.240.flv]
(HT: Newshounds)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions.â€
WTF?
Is she an Anne Coulter wannabe??
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm“You have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed.â€
huh?
jesus talk about parallel universes!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071231/ts_afp/scienceastronomycosmologyfilmbooksentertainment_071230225859
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 pmWendy needs a name change to Wrong.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 pmIf there were any justice, this bitter hag’s teenage daughter would turn into a world class nympho.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pmSort of like the War on Christmas whores who have a new book about the pending death of Christmas every year.
This country is really getting on my nerves.
-GSD
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pmLOL – I guess she is trying to say that abortion clinics are somehow behind sex education?
It’s probably a case of correlation and not cause / effect. Poor policies in states are broad-based, and will tend to push sex-ed and free abortions simultaneously, while a more conservative government would push abstinence and deny public funding of abortion.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pmOff her website:
Policy Expert and Activist:
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:18 pmMiss Wright has been active in pro-life, family and religious issues for over 15 years. She has coordinated the challenge by doctors and women to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion drug RU-486 and a similar challenge to keep the morning-after pill as prescription only. Miss Wright has been involved in pro-life freedom of speech cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, Texas Supreme Court and Florida Supreme Court. Her international experience includes teaching at the Sri Lanka Bible College, advocating on behalf of Chinese refugees fleeing China’s forced abortion and sterilization population program and training pro-family leaders in Mexico.
use to date her in high school.
she was different back then.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:19 pmJust keep talking you freaks. Wow what a stupid woman. lol.
FOX is State Sponsored TV-
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm“Miss Wright has been involved in pro-life freedom of speech cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, Texas Supreme Court and Florida Supreme Court. Her international experience includes teaching at the Sri Lanka Bible College, advocating on behalf of Chinese refugees fleeing China’s forced abortion and sterilization population program and training pro-family leaders in Mexico.”
Let the Tancredoists find out she’s advocating for bigger Mexican families and she’s through.
-GSD
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:22 pmOff the wiki about CWA
CWA asserts that homosexuality is against the Christian idea of God’s wishes for sexuality,[26][27] describing LGBT people as “disordered,” “unnatural,” and “immoral.”[28][29][30]
CWA has been a consistent opponent of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,[31][32] which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment. Recent initiatives sponsored by CWA have placed emphasis on opposing programs geared towards LGBT teenagers on the basis that such programs “promote homosexuality,”[33] as well as opposing anti-bullying programs which explicitly mention sexual minority youth,[34] stating that “the radical homosexual lobby has done a masterful job of infiltrating our government schools to gain control of the minds of America’s youth. Their propaganda tactics are time-tested. With liberal school officials in tow, they brazenly circumvent and abuse parental authority to use good-hearted but misguided children as pawns to further their deceptive agenda.”[35]
CWA supports their position by saying that homosexuals do not suffer from a history of discrimination,[36] that reports of bias crimes against LGBT people are typically fabricated,[37][38] and that such protections would violate the religious liberties of Christians.[39]
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 pmFox is really cranking it up. This is getting a bit over the top.
Comment by Frank M — January 2, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
I agree, but thats what tabloids do. =)
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pmMiss Wright as been involved in pro-life freedom of speech cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, Texas Supreme Court and Florida Supreme Court. Her international experience includes teaching at the Sri Lanka Bible College, advocating on behalf of Chinese refugees fleeing China’s forced abortion and sterilization population program and training pro-family leaders in Mexico.
Comment by RUCerious
She sounds like a nice robot. No feelings, no experience with life, no passion for anything but other peoples’ sex lives. If she had her own sex life, her tune might change.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pmWendy has figured it out because before comprehensive sex education teenagers didn’t have sex. I’ll finish when the “eye rolling” ends.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pmHow can we get her to record TV ads for the Republican nominee?
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm“You have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed.”
As opposed to the people like Ms Wright whose advocacy and lobbying services are provided free of charge, right?
That’s why there is not a “Donate Now” link on their web site, that does not take you to a page where you cannot make monetary contributions with a credit card… no, they wouldn’t dare to do that. Perish the thought.
/sarcasm off
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm… Sooo our children won’t develop a libido if we ban sex education?
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 pmPerhaps sex education will help them handle these new funny feelings.
I have no problem with teaching abstinence, but why can’t they teach abstinence AND …. Why abstinence only? What’s wrong with telling kids “hey you shouldn’t have sex, wait until you’re married, blah blah blah, BUT, if you do end up having sex, here are a few precautions you might want to take ….” ?? Give kids both sides of the picture. Teach abstinence, but also teach everything else.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pmTeens have never needed encouragement to have sex…
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pmIt is going to be very difficult to accept if there are any individuals out there really believing this
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pmcrap.
Why do these fugly women care about other peoples sex lives so much?
Obviously they cannot get off to save their lives.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pmHow can we get her to record TV ads for the Republican nominee?
Comment by Badger — January 2, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Especially for Huckster’s obedient servitude for women campaign!
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 pmDoes anyone know if abstinence only training includes a four piece masturbation kit?
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 pmWell, “cui bono” is always the right question to ask in pretty much any situation, but God only knows who she’s referring to, and how they benefit. It’s just weak-minded jibber-jabber with no articulated basis. Unless TP posted this wildly out of context, which I guess is possible.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm“According to a recent report on birth statistics by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics, more teenagers in the United States gave birth in 2006 than the year before, reversing a 14-year trend in which teenage birth rates declined 34 percent between 1991 and 2005.”
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071230/NEWS01/712300332
The supression of sex education is having its effect.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:33 pmHow did we get here. How is it possible that people this monumentally stupid are in charge of . . . anything? How did we let this happen? Can you imagine the grade you’d get if you gave this as a report? The teacher would assume you were just a moron and that there was no hope. Hell, Cartman could do a better job.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:33 pmWendy Wright truly thinks that I would want ANYONE to become ill needlessly? Or that a child that nobody wants should be conceived? Or that a fetus should be conceived just so it could be aborted?
This woman is so incredibly wacko that I can’t believe that even Fox News would treat her seriously.
I think it would be just peachy if all teens would just keep their legs crossed until they get married at an appropriate time in their adulthood, and then stay monogamous forever. Realistically, I know we’re fighting against hormones here, and even though we have been telling teens not to have sex for generations, they still do (yes, there was plenty of fooling around going on even in my grandmother’s day).
If teens can’t say no to sex, I would much prefer they be armed with factual information about STDs and pregnancy — and how to reduce the risk of both. This means I want to PREVENT STDs and unwanted pregnancy. Not promote them.
Sheesh.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 pmChina has faced overpopulation and food shortages over much of its history. As soon as the hunger sets in, people (any people) drop the whole “god/monster in the sky” fiction, and set reasonable goals for managing their populations. It will be no different here (the hunger is well on its way). During the Great Depression, babies were seen as additional mouths to feed – not as sweet, precious, bundles of joy sent to us by god. Too bad that the only free and fun activity poor people have is sex. At least we have a good grip on contraception.
God will not save us or judge us. God does not exist.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 pmJeez, if Frank M thinks this is “over the top”, who’s left to swallow it?
Faux News better be careful.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pmFox is really cranking it up. This is getting a bit over the top.
Comment by Frank M
You do say… interesting.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pmComment by Clumberfeet — January 2, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
i have funny feelings when i look at wendy.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pmMost STDs are medically treatable.
Poor Wendy, though, because stupid is forever.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:36 pmWhy are all those right wing fundie women blond?
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:36 pmWow, that’s one heck of a conspiracy theory. I’ve heard 9/11 theories that can’t even come close to that one. Sex education is an affront to get the sexually inexperienced sick? A concerted effort to increase abortions? Wow! She forgot to throw in child pornography and prostitution.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:36 pmWhat drugs are she taking? This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Just another Republican with artificial intelligence.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:39 pmOops… grammar error…. What drugs is she taking?
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:40 pmOMG!!! I have to jump in here….This is just about as bad as them saying that because my husband and I are the same sex it somehow endangers their marriages??? Get a clue.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:40 pmNone of their issue is anything more than an attempt at control and the power that brings.
Wow, that’s one heck of a conspiracy theory. I’ve heard 9/11 theories that can’t even come close to that one. Sex education is an affront to get the sexually inexperienced sick? A concerted effort to increase abortions? Wow! She forgot to throw in child pornography and prostitution.
Comment by Bob — January 2, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Seems to me that if one wanted to increase incidents of STDs, unwanted teenage pregancy and abortions, the way to go is to promote ignorance. Which, coincidentally, is EXACTLY what the fundies are doing.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:41 pmAnd Wendy has stormy eyes
That flash at the sound of her lies…
Wendy, ESAD!
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pmSo the abortion clinics make more money by WANTING sex ed. classes? You need to get out more lady.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pmLook at the financial motives? Funny but they don’t use that logic in looking at all those no bid contracts.
Selective morality is the downfall of the republican party. That and the uncontrollable greed.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:43 pmWhy are all those right wing fundie women blond?
Comment by Joefriday — January 2, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
It’s the peroxide leaking from their brains.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 pmlet’s just hope Wendy is practicing abstinence.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:46 pmDamn Capt’n, That logic doesn’t fall into the preceived mantra of republicans. Keep Govt out of my personal life.
You reek of big brother mentality.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:47 pmAccording to this group of people you can’t even masturbate, that is spilling your seed……….Yikes!
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pmWhy does Wendy hate kids… so much so that she wants to keep information from them?
Also, just got to thinking: Unprotected sex between newly married couples does NOT equal safe sex. So if her abstinence-only plan did work with young kids today, what would happen if they married someone who wasn’t taught abstinence and who didn’t practice safe sex previously? Shouldn’t they know how to protect themselves at all times?
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pmlet’s just hope Wendy is practicing abstinence.
Comment by LividLib
Men with eyesight will ensure that.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:49 pmAccording to this group of people you can’t even masturbate, that is spilling your seed……….Yikes!
Comment by Keith1Phx — January 2, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
yeah, but this is the same group that tap dances in public bathroom stalls.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 pmFor a brief and somewhat annoying time I actually had to teach public school health. It was sometime ago but the research I did then suggested that the age of first sexual contact has changed very little through time. Where do they find these freaks. Give kids some real information and some reasonable parenting and leave them alone.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 pmI’d give her a lot of credit if she only changed a couple words in that one quoted sentence, like this:
“You have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting invading Iraq and Iran.”
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 pmOh yeah, That dude looks like a lady
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:51 pmPoor Wendy. All those years rubbin the nubbin have made her brain rot.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:52 pmDoes anyone know if abstinence only training includes a four piece masturbation kit?
Comment by RUCerious — January 2, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
There’s a kit? Seriously?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 2, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
It must be a guy thing — I’ve never heard of it.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:52 pmyeah, but this is the same group that tap dances in public bathroom stalls.
Comment by LividLib
Yep, and we beat the pants off of this group here in Arizona because they were so rabid about their marriage amenment because they failed to realize that it was going to hurt more than us poor homosexuals and that did not sit well with our citizens.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:53 pmIt must be a guy thing — I’ve never heard of it.
Comment by missmolly — January 2, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Oh, come on now! They have the girl set and the guy set…
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:54 pmPoor Wendy.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 pmCouldn’t get any, and doesn’t think anyone else should either.
This is BS. The desire to have sex is hard-wired into the human being – starting at puberty. You can try to fight nature with the big bogeyman in the sky, if you want, but it won’t work, and I don’t want you wasting my money on it.
Parents should provide their pubescent offspring with contraceptives and instructions on how to use them (even if they’re not sexually active). STDs aren’t punishment from god, they are a threat to public health and welfare. If you love your children as much or more than your fictional deity allegedly does, you’ll follow this advice and keep them safe and childless until they are ready to care for someone else as much as you cared for them.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:59 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — January 2, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
voluntary? and this will accomplish what? Do you write anything down and look at it before you post? No thought on how this would work on the human body but that didn’t stop you from posting.
You realize suicide is voluntary as well. Would that accomplish what you want.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:01 pmTelling a teen not to have sex is like telling them to keep their hands out of the cookie jar.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:02 pmThus proving all republicans are idiots
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:04 pmCrikey. Can condoms prevent stupidity??
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:05 pmCrikey. Can condoms prevent stupidity??
Comment by Leftside Annie
They could prevent the spread of stupidity…..
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 pmYeah, Nevar – it’s a damned EPIDEMIC!!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 pmgood__golly and I agree for once. There was a time when many of my friends were conservative. We could discuss the issues and disagree on our point of view. I believe that the heavy politicization of certain “wedge” issues such as abortion, homosexuality and sex education has demeaned the meaning of conservative. The Republican party elites made a decision to drive wedges between certain conservative and liberal groups. It was not enough to merely disagree on policy. It was necessary to define those who opposed these “wedge” issue policies as bad people.
I do not like seeing religion defined in terms of gay rights, abortion and sex education. Just as important are those issues concerning the death penalty, providing for the poor, health care, ethical values and separation of church and state. Indeed, it is the separation of church and state that I believe does the most to protect freedom of religion. However, Bush only followed the tactics of the Republican party by saying that you were either for him or against him.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:16 pmThe mother of Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears has just written a parenting book along the lines of what I’m hearing from CWA. It’s release has been delayed due the seond half of her progeny becoming a little bit pregnant before she turned 16. This is NOT a joke. We know how well the first daughter turned out!
——————————————————————-
Art #27, I ‘m sure that recent spike in unwanted preganacies is due to the tv writers’ strike.
——————————————–
“CWA……..describing LGBT people as “disordered,†…..”
I don’t think so. Their homes and schedules are always a lot more ordered than mine.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:18 pmCM: how do you do a voluntary program with minors?
But basiclly I agree with you: a safe reverible treatment that prevents conception would be a boon to mankind. (better yet, two treatments, one for male and one for female, as long as we’re wishing.)
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:20 pmOf course, that treatment would be condemned as a license to screw and the triumph of the Whore of Babylon, and the Catholic Church would declare it against God’s plan and excommunicate those who use it.
I salute you captain, an no snark: you’re on the side of human freedom in this.
Crikey. Can condoms prevent stupidity??
Comment by Leftside Annie — January 2, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Yes, If George, Sr, and Barbara had used condoms the entire world would be far better off. [SHUDDER] Now I’m going to spend the rest of the day getting that image out of my mind.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 pmFor real, is that a dude?
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 pmThree words: Bat, Shit, Crazy. And people wonder why America is in decline? I give you Exhibit A of why…people like this ignorant Stepford Wife.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm50’s republicans: (my parents)..discuss,compromise.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:27 pmNew republicans: KILL
Comment by dbadass — January 2, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
Did you see the Ed Wood film “Glen and Glenda”?
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:28 pmComment by JMOHR — January 2, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
Good comment, JMOHR. You raise some interesting points. I think one thing that has happened to our national dialogue is that Rush, Mann Coulter, O’Lielly and Faux News in general, have all served to give cover to knee-jerk, non-thinking conservatives (not the majority of conservatives, I think) in expressing extreme views — views that otherwise might not have been spoken because of social revulsion.
Republican policies generally don’t do well in reasoned, fact-based debate, which is why they deride the “reality-based community”. They do much better when the waters are muddied and people respond emotionally.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:28 pmDon’t you think that is a strange way to advertise for a date?
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm“Just say no” hasn’t worked for the last 1-2 million years. But now because a few religious people with access to the media (and zero sociological/psychological/biological/anthropological/historical knowledge) say it will work, we are supposed to have faith that it will work?!? I used to have faith in Santa Clause, but I lost it last week.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:34 pmOk, has someone namejacked CaptainMantastic or is he just trying to convince us that he is really a reasonable human being? I don’t buy this abrupt about face that he seems to be in the middle of.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:43 pmno jas hendler today…
is wendy the ultimate troll repellent?
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:45 pmPeople like this are a waste of space. The goal of sexual education classes is a reduction in the number of STDs and unintended pregnancies. I am confident that a pack of Trojans is a hell of a lot cheaper than the alternatives.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:46 pmRepublican policies generally don’t do well in reasoned, fact-based debate, which is why they deride the “reality-based communityâ€. They do much better when the waters are muddied and people respond emotionally.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 2, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Agreed. People like Cheney, Karl Rove, Melhman, Craig, Foley, McCain, Gannon, Haggert, Vitters, Starr, Hyde, Livingstone, Giuliani, Gingrich, do not really believe this “conservative values ” B.S. they put out. They just know it is a divisive issue that gains them enough votes to (along with the voting machines) steal the elections.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:47 pmJust keep thinking those nice thoughts, Wendy.
Then you can FLY!
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:49 pmPeople like this are a waste of space. The goal of sexual education classes is a reduction in the number of STDs and unintended pregnancies. I am confident that a pack of Trojans is a hell of a lot cheaper than the alternatives.
Comment by fletc3her — January 2, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
I agree with the all but the last part. I think the pack of Trojans I saw last night are going to cost NFL teams a lot!
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:51 pmKnowledge about sex, HIV and other STDs is not a recommendation.
But, in those people’s eyes, any kind of knowledge is a bad thing -
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:54 pmremember the “tree”, in the bible? That’s what got ‘em thrown out of Eden….
come on folks, you got to have cultural references or these jokes aren’t funny. Maybe they’re not either way.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:55 pmI appreciate the fact that the conservatives around here recognize this absurd woman as batshit crazy. Thanks guys. I’m encouraged.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:57 pmThat’s what got ‘em thrown out of Eden….
Comment by judyinnm — January 2, 2008 @ 6:54
I thought the serpent was pretty phallic. But maybe I had read too much freud.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pmKeith, those were MY condoms, er trojans seen trampling Ditka’s alma materia.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pmpeople who are this morally stupid make me sick. figures faux news would show this puke of an opinion.
are these extremist’s really born with their names or do they make them up? really Wendy Wright? also sounds like the name of a hooker i met in Vegas
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:02 pmFrance had the morning-after pill nearly 20 years ago—no problem whatsoever But in the USA 2008, it is a big problem allegedly killing fetuses and encouraging sex.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:02 pmWendy is a dude.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 pmJeez, if Frank M thinks this is “over the topâ€, who’s left to swallow it?
Faux News better be careful.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 2, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
I know the answer to this one: Daryll!
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pmKeith, those were MY condoms, er trojans seen trampling Ditka’s alma materia.
Comment by RUCerious — January 2, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Thanks for the come back, but you Can’tbeSerious. Ditkas went to Pitt. Dick Butkus was an Illni. Jim Belushi who did a lot of commentary went to Southern Illinois. Will Ferrel and Marcus Allen are the leftover trojans there (bad phrasing).
My school is still #! (mensBB).
Protestor in New Orleans the other day: “They don’t want no projects—They want CONDOMS!”
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pmOk, has someone namejacked CaptainMantastic or is he just trying to convince us that he is really a reasonable human being? I don’t buy this abrupt about face that he seems to be in the middle of.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 2, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
I think this is the latest in troll behavior, acting like they’re one of us as with Bartlebee and justasking who act like friendlies and then attack us for no real reason disrupting the entire thread. This must be the calm before the storm.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:37 pmRucerious,
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:42 pmThis time your stars were McKnight, Maualugh, and Booty. Seems like they always come in packs of three.
Capt Mantastic seems to be quite defensive of gays. Especially after I said how gay his name was.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:45 pmgooge search of pron stars gives: Wendy White, Wendy Knight, and Wengy Knight.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:57 pmComment by Keith — January 2, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Have you tried transvestite porn stars?
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:05 pmHave you tried transvestite porn stars?
Comment by dbadass — January 2, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
Yes, but I keep looking at that Adam’s apple and five o’clock shadow the whole time. BadaBoom!
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 pmWendy is insane and scary. She does not have an entry in wikipedia. CWA does. I added this there.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm#94 Comment by flex — January 2, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
are these extremist’s really born with their names or do they make them up? really Wendy Wright?
I knew a girl named “Penny Nickel” and it was her real name. Tthe song “A boy named Sue” comes to mind.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm#7 Comment by RUCerious — January 2, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
From her bio (thanks for posting it) her statements above fit perfectly. She is a qualified loony who is in a position to do a lot of harm. Extremists, by definition perhaps, are in fantasyland with no connection to the real world.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 pmTipical comment of someone that never had a healthy, yammy, delicious orgams!!!!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 pmThus proving all republicans are idiots
Comment by macd
What a funny statement! I’m with you!
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 pmMiss Wright has been active in pro-life, family and religious issues for over 15 years.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:57 pmThat does prove precisely my point: Tipical comment of someone who never had a serious, healhty, yammy and delicious orgams!
Give her a mirror so she can get to know herself a little bit better…
Fox is really cranking it up. This is getting a bit over the top.
Comment by Frank M — January 2, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Own it, Frankie. This is YOUR side in action.
Really, could some of these folks be any stupider and still be considered alive?
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pmDo you realize how paranoid that sounds?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 2, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Uh, I’ve been watching troll behavior for months now, and I agree w/ Shayne. That’s why I’ve never accept you here. You are ALWAYS going to be an outsider here, as far as I’m concerned.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 pmKeith Olbermanns ‘Worse Person in the World’…you guessed it..Wendy Wright…right on KO.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:55 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — January 2, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
I believe you when you say you are supportive of gay rights.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — January 2, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
I believe you when you say you are supportive of gay rights.
Comment by Keith — January 2, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
It would be self-hating to be otherwise. :-D
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 pmI guess it’s safe to assume that if Wendy is un-married, she’s a virgin.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm“I am so oppossed to abstinence only, I have contemplated (assuming the technology exists) that when people are pre-adolesent, they have their reproductive ability temporarily disabled, with the intent that they would only have that capability re-enabled when they chose to have children.
If you don’t want abortions, facilitate peoples ability to avoid unwanted pregnancy.”
I was thinking (snidely) before this post if conservatives would be up for some sort of hormone suppression therapy for teenagers. I didn’t actually expect an answer like that!! I am pretty sure it was a joke but I am guessing some of these nuts, like ole Wendy, would be all for it despite the ethical issues and the potential long-term effects of such treatments. Unless, of course it was brought about by stem-cell research…
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — January 2, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
I know I’m taking a risk, but, there is some merit there. I have often wondered why one must pass a test to receive a driver’s license while, dare I say, “unqualified” people may breed to their hearts content. Poor parenting skills, probably, kill more people than auto accidents.
Now, before you start name-calling, I have no idea how such things could be accomplished and I don’t pretend to be wise enough to decide who should be allowed to raise kids. However, it’s a subject which should be discussed no matter how unpalatable it is at first blush.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm“and Sabyen91. It’s not hormone suppression. Let people have as much sex as they want. That was just an idea to disable the reproductive capability until they are sure they want kids.”
So you are for mandatory birth control??? Hey, that is cool.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm“I know I’m taking a risk, but, there is some merit there. I have often wondered why one must pass a test to receive a driver’s license while, dare I say, “unqualified†people may breed to their hearts content. Poor parenting skills, probably, kill more people than auto accidents.
Now, before you start name-calling, I have no idea how such things could be accomplished and I don’t pretend to be wise enough to decide who should be allowed to raise kids. However, it’s a subject which should be discussed no matter how unpalatable it is at first blush.”
That would be unconstitutional. And eugenics has already been floated. And rejected soundly.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 pmThat would be unconstitutional. And eugenics has already been floated. And rejected soundly.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
The Constitution can be amended. “Eugenics” is a scary word, yet, when close relatives are discouraged from procreating we are practicing a form of eugenics. Ditto for those who decide, on their own, to reject parenthood because of various genetic disorders.
The only point I make is that it strikes me as strange that people must demonstrate a certain level of ability to drive a car, or operate a short-wave radio, yet there are no established requirements for raising children; short of various crimes after the fact.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:25 pmI am pretty darned liberal but the thought of the state deciding who can and cannot procreate, a right almost everybody has had since the beginning of the human race, is chilling. I have a visceral reaction to your suggestion. It appalls me. You can have that view if you want but you would never get any significant support for it.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 pmDo you realize how paranoid that sounds?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 2, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Even paranoids have enemies.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 pmWhy is Wendy Wight on my teevee?
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:41 pmWhere do these ignorant freaks come from and who gives a rat’s _ss what they think?
Oh, come on now! They have the girl set and the guy set…
Comment by RUCerious — January 2, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Darn! I’m finding out about this AFTER my Christmas shopping was all finished?
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 pmBut, your point is valid. The most important job on Earth; basically no regulation. Maybe that’s good.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 2, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
No it isn’t. Mandatory birth control or deciding who is fit to be parent despicable suggestions. Are you people even human. When the easy options are available like birth control, morning after pills and in the worst case abortion you people want to take control of another humans reproduction. Sick, sick, sick.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 pmComment by Shayne — January 2, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Where the heck did that come from? I haven’t proposed those, or any other, courses of action. I merely question why, virtually, no preventive measures are taken to insure a minimum level of suitability.
Children are removed from “unfit” homes all the time. I don’t understand why it’s taboo to even consider preventing the problem.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pmand Sabyen91. It’s not hormone suppression. Let people have as much sex as they want. That was just an idea to disable the reproductive capability until they are sure they want kids.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 2, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
We already have that. It’s called birth control.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:05 am“Children are removed from “unfit†homes all the time. I don’t understand why it’s taboo to even consider preventing the problem.”
Because it smacks of the “Ultimate Solution”
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:26 amImpolitics I was actually addressing CaptainMantastic who proposed that earlier in the thread.
But who is going to decide who is fit to be a parent. Are we going to let the christofascists determine that anybody who doesn’t believe in Jesus is unfit. Just about everybody I know has made some mistakes in parenting. The best parents admit they aren’t perfect and make mistakes. What is wrong with the system of removing children from homes where they are in danger and what makes you think you can predict which parents will be unfit.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 amComment by Shayne — January 3, 2008 @ 12:38 am
As I said, I have no ideas for “solutions”. “Ultimate” or otherwise.
But, one idea would be a minimal psychiatric screening, as part of standard prenatal care (including the Father when possible), to see if additional care is warranted. Perhaps more intense counseling, and a little supervision, for those who manage to get pregnant at a young age, despite the best “sex ed”?
An expansion of existing practices may be all we can do.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that society can do more to give children the best chance. Hopefully, before draconian measures (China leaps to mind) are needed.
The sad fact is that many children don’t have much of an opportunity even though there are some reasonable steps which could be taken. And, just like teen pregnancy, being silent won’t make the many problems go away. Some of those problems can be predicted and some tragedies might be averted.
Just as an example, I would think that most any reasonable person would have been able to predict some of (I can’t believe I’m typing this name!) Britney’s inadequacies as a parent. Though I doubt anyone would have been able to talk her out of parenthood; there might have been a “safety net” in place for the inevitable crash. (It seems like K Fed is doing a remarkable job, but, what if he were poor?)
As for “Christofascists”, I wouldn’t trust them with my pets, or garbage pickup, and will do all I can to keep them away from my children. I strongly believe that people should be allowed to make personal decisions about Faith when they are old, and wise, enough to make, hopefully, sound choices. (If I ever catch anyone preaching to MY kids? They may end up swallowing a few teeth.)
As a society I think we should do all we can to give children the best shot. Beginning with a little more scrutiny of prospective parents.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 amImpolitics, next we will have people deciding for you whether your genes are ok for mating. Your whole idea is something right out of a George Orwell novel.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 amPersonally, I don’t want my daughter to have a baby until she’s damn good and ready to face everything that goes with it. That’s why she only gets fact based information in our house, she has since since she was old enough to ask about sex. Age appropriately answered questions are more satisfying and truthful than telling someone: ” You’ll find out about that when you are older.” Doesn’t exactly build a basis for when the time comes and the really hard questions are asked…
Sex ed is just biology.
Comprehensive sex ed works; abstinence only ed doesn’t. Case closed.
Not teaching a child about their body and honest reproductive choices ( including bodily self-respect and not rushing in too soon) is like giving a child a driver’s license without the benefit of driver’s ed.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:23 am“As for “Christofascistsâ€, I wouldn’t trust them with my pets, or garbage pickup, and will do all I can to keep them away from my children. I strongly believe that people should be allowed to make personal decisions about Faith when they are old, and wise, enough to make, hopefully, sound choices. (If I ever catch anyone preaching to MY kids? They may end up swallowing a few teeth.)”
That is exactly the point. You feel you know how best to raise your children. Once you bring the state in whatever axes they have to grind or agendas they may have come in to play. And if this case worker that is deciding whether you are a fit parent doesn’t like something about you (say, your religious or political beliefs) you can be sure they will not be objective (just look at the majority of guardian ad litems). You are talking about the state taking away any sort of probable cause because I child may be abused. That is unconstitutional and (you say the constitution can be amended) I am certainly not going to sign on to that kind of huge power grab by a government.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 am“Not teaching a child about their body and honest reproductive choices ( including bodily self-respect and not rushing in too soon) is like giving a child a driver’s license without the benefit of driver’s ed”
Absolutely. If it is shown that left turns are the most dangerous…let’s not teach kids how to turn left safely. It is that simple.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 amComment by Impolitics — January 3, 2008 @ 1:17 am
You have good points, but the whole idea really is a slippery slope into an obscene amount of governmental interference in the family. Another thing, who gets to decide? The powers that be? The nutjobs in power now? The “leftists?” Yikes.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 am“You have good points, but the whole idea really is a slippery slope into an obscene amount of governmental interference in the family. Another thing, who gets to decide? The powers that be? The nutjobs in power now? The “leftists?†Yikes.”
The more I think of it the more disgusted I get. How would it be enforced??? Forced abortions? Chemical Castration? Forced historectomies? The more I think about it the more I think it is one of the craziest, sickest ideas I have ever heard.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 amThe more I think about it the more I think it is one of the craziest, sickest ideas I have ever heard.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 3, 2008 @ 1:51 am
He means well, JP. You’re right, it would be totally unworkable. When I was a kid, all the neighborhood parents watched out for all the kids, and the parents supported each other. Now people are just worried about getting sued.
Our values are all f_cked up, and the kids pay for it, no matter what we do.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:15 am.
SO,
Is Wendy promoting socialized health care because the private sector health insurance companies and agencies make money off of sex education?
.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 amAs a parent, it is truly a sickening thought. Some government agency sifting through your personal life looking for some reason for you not to be a parent. If you thought illegal wiretapping was invasive…sorry, Zoo. His idea gives me the creeps.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 amHis idea gives me the creeps.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 3, 2008 @ 2:19 am
It’s not the best idea I’ve heard, but I’ll give him/her the benefit of the doubt of not having considered all the angles.
I was more disturbed by the Captain’s idea of shutting down fertility. Apparently he’s not heard of birth control.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:22 amThat is not as disturbing to me considering shutting down fertility would be the least of the tactics used in the “Are you fit to be a parent” game. And really, when has Mr. P ever been serious?
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:26 amYou think the Captain is Pee? If so, he’s really doing a good job resisting the Islamostalinist idiocy.
I better get to bed. I’m about to turn into a pumpkin. Good reading you, JP. Nice to see you at the Zoo sometimes!
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 amHe is absolutely Mr. P. Have a great night, Zoo.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:33 amImpolitics, next we will have people deciding for you whether your genes are ok for mating. Your whole idea is something right out of a George Orwell novel.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 3, 2008 @ 1:21 am
Maybe I’m misunderstood because I said there is some merit too the “Captain’s” idea?
I don’t see why you make the jump from doing more to prepare and educate parents, or, giving them treatment for mental illness, to deciding “fitness”. And I’m not saying it should be in “the state’s” hands. I’m not advocating forced sterilization or denying parental rights. But, I believe society can do more to give children the best parents possible BY IMPROVING THE PARENTS rather than taking children away. The first step would be to insure that people, especially young people, are told how precious and delicate a child is. Far too many think kids are like dolls, or pets.
Young men would be an excellent place to start. I don’t think our society does enough to explain the responsibilities of fatherhood. We tell them, “you could get a disease or get her pregnant”, and that’s about it. When that fails? Fathers can and do just melt away.
Why not include a field trip to a maternity ward or daycare as part of health class? How many 16 year old boys have actually been in a room with a live baby? How “real” are babies to those who haven’t? How many teenage fathers are required to talk to the mother’s OB/GYN?
Once again, all I am saying is that society, not “the state”, can do better and fear of discussion dooms us to continued failures. And, who knows, maybe that mythical “100% safe and certain birth control” will come along? How about a “pill” for men? Or, better yet, an “implant” that will last months or years? What if a man had to make a conscious decision to have an implant removed to father a child? Or, a woman make the same decision to become a mother?
If such a product were available parents would not be able to “force” their teenagers to use it under the current climate. Why? Because anything that might interfere with “reproductive rights” is taboo. Mostly I speak of youngsters. I think we need to explore all the options available. Including mandating safe, effective, birth control for minors.
There is one other case though. How often have we seen tragic stories of parents, with a mental illness, losing their kids when the stress of parenthood makes them sick? Or, even worse, harming their kids. I fail to see the harm in giving those parents the choice of mandatory treatment or lose custody.
My wife is a psychiatric nurse and I trust her experience that most cases of mental illness can be diagnosed and managed. Some of her stories would break your heart and a few have turned my stomach. Most could have been prevented. Wouldn’t it be better to require screening for expectant parents and begin needed treatment before an innocent child arrives on the scene?
O.K. I’m sleepy and starting to ramble. I’m not advocating for the state to assume parental rights. I just think there are things we could do if we were not so frightened. Most of them would fall under existing law but I think we should be willing to change the law if we can make things better.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:38 amAnd, just to be clear, I’m not talking about “fitness tests” for prospective parents. I don’t trust “the state” any more than I trust “Christofacists”. Mostly what I would like to see is a little more “intrusion” by the medical community.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 amImpolitics, this was your first post.
“I know I’m taking a risk, but, there is some merit there. I have often wondered why one must pass a test to receive a driver’s license while, dare I say, “unqualified†people may breed to their hearts content. Poor parenting skills, probably, kill more people than auto accidents.
Now, before you start name-calling, I have no idea how such things could be accomplished and I don’t pretend to be wise enough to decide who should be allowed to raise kids. However, it’s a subject which should be discussed no matter how unpalatable it is at first blush.”
You said who should be “allowed” to raise kids. I am sorry, but the state has no right to say who should be allowed to raise children unless there is probable cause that they are abusive to their children. And those laws are in place. If you want to help kids fight for federal funding of Human Services. To go to barring parents for having kids is just horrible. “Unqualified people may breed to their hearts content”? And you suggest…what?
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 am“And, just to be clear, I’m not talking about “fitness tests†for prospective parents. I don’t trust “the state†any more than I trust “Christofacistsâ€. Mostly what I would like to see is a little more “intrusion†by the medical community.”
And this fitness test would clearly favor those with a lot of money over a poor family with a lot of love. Childrearing is not some exact science that you can test.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:45 amComment by Sabyen91 — January 3, 2008 @ 2:45 am
“Allowed” was an unfortunate choice of words as was “unqualified”. “Allowed” is mostly covered by existing policies and by “unqualified” I meant under-educated about the realities of child rearing. I wasn’t, and won’t, advocate “fitness tests” though I do find it odd that one needs a driver’s license or marriage license but not a parent’s license.
I understand where you’re coming from and I didn’t make myself clear. I really am talking about the role that the medical profession plays and, to a certain extent, the state in the case of minors having kids. “Forcing” expectant parents to take classes, mandated and PAID FOR by the state, doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Nor does it seem unreasonable to require everyone, especially expectant parents, to take a “personality test”. This would be to, hopefully, catch and treat issues before someone gets hurt.
Once again, I AM NOT saying “the state” should decide which people should be allowed to have/raise children. I AM saying that parents, especially young ones without a stable support system, should be given every bit of practical knowledge we can give them and that some supervision might be a good idea when problems are suspected. Such policies would improve things a great deal.
I’m really not a horrible ogre who wants to decide on personal issues and I understand the “slippery slope” argument. But, I think we need to do better and we can’t let fear stifle discussion.
Right now sleepiness is stifling discussion. I REALLY need to go to bed.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:16 amGood night.
Educating the ignorant certainly would cut into Mrs. Wright’s paycheck…
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 amRepublicants want America to go to war, so their contractor friends can rob us and get filthy (filthier) rich!
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 amThis is BS. The desire to have sex is hard-wired into the human being – starting at puberty. You can try to fight nature with the big bogeyman in the sky, if you want, but it won’t work, and I don’t want you wasting my money on it.
Parents should provide their pubescent offspring with contraceptives and instructions on how to use them (even if they’re not sexually active). STDs aren’t punishment from god, they are a threat to public health and welfare. If you love your children as much or more than your fictional deity allegedly does, you’ll follow this advice and keep them safe and childless until they are ready to care for someone else as much as you cared for them.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — January 2, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
You are mistaken in assuming that everyone shares your casual view of sex. Your view is almost as harnful as Wright’s. Some people believe that choosing to have sex with someone is more important than choosing to go to a movie. Some people actually wait until marriage because they feel it is that important or because they feel it is a moral choice. Teens should be given solid sex education which includes encouragement to wait until they are adults as well as access to birth control. They should also be told that some people, especially young girls sometimes end up regretting having sex too soon because relationships often don’t go as they hope. People who advocate abstinence only and those who want to assume every teen will be sexually active are the source of a lot of our problems. ;)
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pmI am beginning to wonder, that if you can’t see any merit in the proposal, you may not be as progressive as you think.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 8:06 am
Stop whining. I don’t fall in line with YOU, and that makes me less than progressive? Give me a break.
Yes, a perfect world would be where every child is wanted, but this has never been a perfect world, so we have to deal with what we have.
Woo hoo! You’ve come up with an idea that already exists. But you want to steer clear of endorsing birth control for our children, so you come up with “shutting off” the fertility. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Using the pill and condoms — each party being responsible for themselves — is nearly fool-proof. No need to spend anymore money than we do already. Isn’t that nice?
Education is the key. In the home, and in the schools. Parents can teach their children about feelings and whatever religious bugaboos they have, and the schools can teach about mechanics, disease risk and prevention, and birth control methods. If the parents have the knowledge to teach those things, all the better.
Are YOU open to these ideas?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:06 pmdid her attitude about sex lead to her sexual unattractiveness, or did her sexual unattractiveness lead to her attitude about sex?
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pmHate to break it to you, but we are in relative agreement on this issue. I won’t tell anybody.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
The planets are bound to align sometimes…
My thought is that if the vaccination to prevent cervical cancer later in life is a “license” to have sex, imagine what kind of hissy fit people would throw if the “punishment” of pregnancy weren’t available for those nasty kids with the “ultimate license” to have sex — total infertility?
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm