Did enjoy USNA commencement. Attended in 2001 as a parent, and this one was different but also very special. Have interviewed candidates for 10 years, and was invited to pin on the shoulder boards by one of “my mids”–young Hmong woman who came here as a “boat person” and who has amazing courage, determination, and initiative.

This is just the kind of work that I think is a great example of something people of all political viewpoints can come together on.

I think both sides have major trust issues, and one way to overcome that is to start working together on common goals. Certainly dealing with means of combatting unwanted teen pregnancy is a goal we can all work towards.

But it just goes to the point that the solution is far bigger than a law can achieve, and also the point that I think there is common ground we can find.

I'll check out your link–looks like an interesting article. When I was in Indiana, I was astounded by the number of my students who were pregnant outside of marriage, and that in a community where a church was on every corner. It's anecdotal, but it just seemed it was on a much higher occurrence than in other parts of the country–even those parts that didn't have a church on every corner.

I wish I had the magic answer to implementing the solutions, Squeaky. For 6 years, I served on the board of a foundation that had teen pregnancy prevention as its main goal. This was not a white-glove board; we actually went into the community to get to know firsthand the teens and the organizations working with them. The most effective programs we witnessed were those that actively promoted self-respect, encouraging the young women to believe in themselves and their abilities via community projects that typically paired them with strong women as role models. The programs that failed were those that just preached at the young women, whether they advocated abstinence or birth control.

Personally, I believe we've made “discarding” too easy in our society–discarding spouses via divorce, discarding virtue via casual sex. Both commitment and weighing consequences appear to be perceived as old fashioned.

Recommend reading “The Real Pregnancy Crisis” by W. Bradford Wilcox in the 22 May 2009 Wall Street Journal. You should be able to find it online at WSJ.com. Contains some chilling statistics on the number of children born outside of marriage in the U.S.

If those are the solutions, what is your proposal to implement them?

October 31, 2004

“This adds up to a total of over $100 million of federal taxpayer dollars given annually, during George W. Bush's presidency, through just these two programs, made possible by President Bush's own signature of approval on repeated HHS Appropriations bills, to Planned Parenthood, the largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers in America”

“George W. Bush is NOT Pro-life

“The thought of calling someone who authorizes over $100 million per year of taxpayers' federal funds to be appropriated to Planned Parenthood (Murder, Inc.) “Pro-Life”, is outrageous. “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” Proverb 17:15

“By funding Planned Parenthood, President Bush and the Republican-majority Congress are justifying the wicked. Therefore, according to the Word of God, President Bush, and all those in Congress who voted to pass this baby-killing-funding legislation, are abomination to the LORD. So what would that make a Christian who voted “for” someone who is “abomination to the LORD”?”

“BUSH: “… My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.”

“Conclusion # 1: George W. Bush did not speak the truth to Americans on October 8 in the Second Presidential Debate.

“Conclusion # 2: George W. Bush is NOT Pro-LIfe!” (sic)

http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine041031.htm

Isn’t Google great?!

That’s a loaded question, but thanks for asking.

The Church, of course, does not oppose saving lives.

Aside from the fact that that an embryo is considered by Catholics to be a living human being, the Church also opposes in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and contraception based on the doctrine of the purposes of marriage – fecundity:

“This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” CCC 2366

In other words; marriage, sex, and procreation cannot be separated.

I’m not defending the doctrine, I’m just answering your question.

Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_ac...

Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning: Questions and Answers
http://www.usccb.org/stemcellcampaign/q_and_a.s...

See, we do share some common ground.

“'This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient – especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.'”

I am not Catholic, I am Episcopalian. The Episcopal Church does not oppose embryonic stem-cell research. So I am unclear about why the Catholic church opposes this.

My understanding is that embryonic stem cells come from embryos that would be destroyed in any case; none of these embryos would ever be born. Using stem cells from these embryos can save lives. It's like the people who are brain dead who end up donating their organs so that others can live. I've signed up for donating my organs once I am gone.

So why is the Catholic Church opposed to saving lives by using these cells which are going to be destroyed no matter what?

I do see a significant difference between opposing abortion and opposing embryonic stem cell research.

Nowadays, the same sorts of people who used to scream “states rights” are the same people who now want the Feds to pass a Federal Constitutional Amendment to prevent states such as New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and others from passing laws allowing Gay marriage.

When states' rights = denying rights, these people would support states' rights. When states' rights = acknowledging rights, these people now oppose states' rights. Barry Goldwater believed in states' rights on principle rather than as convenient excuses to deny people civil rights.

Back then (and still now), I disagree with what Goldwater said then about states' rights. This was because states were violating a Federal Constitutional right to vote. Still, I can respect Goldwater for his views even when I disagree with some of them.

JC Watts
Barbara Lee
Al Sharpton
John Edwards
Tim Pawlenty
Arnold Schwartzenager

Do you any of these candidates could fashion a middle-of-the-road campaign attracting about 15 whites and 15 blacks? i.e. Not a dominant campaign (like Obama) that attracts all of one racial block and part of the other.

Do you not see a significant number of blacks and whites with a range of common interests who will move in unity?

Ironically, Barry Goldwater was a social libertarian. He believe in equality not only for Blacks but for such groups as Gays. And I believe (though I might be wrong) that he was pro-choice.

He would be rolling in his grave over all of the current-day social conservatives and their calls for government intrusion into peoples' personal lives.

Not in our lifetimes. The division is still way too wide for people to come together because, frankly, too many whites still play the culture war game in the South. Bear in mind that Southern conservatism is, and always was, somewhat reactionary, which blacks generally are not.