reflection of whether or not she has a child out of wedlock. My 18-year-old niece was raised in church, had good Christian parents and got pregnant before marriage. You can only teach a child. You can't force him or her to live by your own convictions.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
This is a better woman than I am, 16 kids, ranging from birth - 17.
Arkansas Mother Gives Birth to 16th Child
By MELISSA NELSON, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Michelle Duggar just delivered her 16th child, and she's already thinking about doing it again.
Johannah Faith Duggar was born at 6:30 a.m. Tuesday and weighed 7 pounds, 6.5 ounces.
The baby's father, Jim Bob Duggar, a former state representative, said Wednesday that mother and child were doing well.
He said Johannah's birth was especially exciting because it was the first time in eight years the family has had a girl.
Jim Bob Duggar, 40, said he and Michelle, 39, want more children.
We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them, he said.
The Discovery Health Channel filmed Johannah's birth and plans to air a show about the family of 18 next May.
The Learning Channel is doing another show about the family's construction project, a 7,000-square foot house that should be finished before Christmas. The home, which the family has been building for two years, will have nine bathrooms, dormitory-style bedrooms for the girls and boys, a commercial kitchen, four washing machines and four dryers.
Jim Bob Duggar, who sells real estate, previously lost his bid for the U.S. Senate. He said he expects to run for the state Senate next year but isn't ready to make a formal announcement.
Michelle Duggar had her first child at age 21, four years after the couple married.
Their children include two sets of twins, and each child has a name beginning with the letter J: Joshua, 17; John David, 15; Janna, 15; Jill, 14; Jessa, 12; Jinger, 11; Joseph, 10; Josiah, 9; Joy-Anna, 8; Jeremiah, 6; Jedidiah, 6; Jason, 5; James, 4; Justin, 2; and Jackson Levi, 1.
President Bush flew BACK from vacation to sign the Terri Schiavo legislation.
President Bush flew OVER the Katrina victims.
It seems to help them understand better.
I hardly think that teaching kids...(sm)
how NOT to bash LGBTs is going to "force homosexuality upon your kids." Give me a break! They aren't teaching Peter how to kiss Paul. They're teaching Peter how not to beat up Paul. I think it's really sad that this actually has to be a lessen in school in the first place, and in grammar school at that --- not because of the LGBT issues being brought to light, but because of the parents who have obviously taught their kids that its okay to bash others who are different. How many times have you called an LGBT a bad name in front of your kids? Hmmm....
They aren't teaching
Peter how to kiss Paul. They are, however, trying to reinforce to our children that if Peter kisses Paul, it's acceptable. We will continue to teach them that it's not. We do not teach our kids to bash others who are different but to bash the bad behaviors that others engage in. The homosexual community's doublespeak isn't going to work.
Teaching about contraception is the key, IMHO
We need to start teaching men and women about contraception. Im amazed when I read medical reports at how many do not use anything or the *rhythm method*. Yes, I agree with you..I would love for there to be no thing such as abortion..It is a terrible thing, breaks my heart, however, until we educate people about contraception and taking responsibility for their sexual lives, abortion will continue, whether it is legal or not..and that is the terrible part. I can remember back in NY in the 1970s..Abortion was not legal..and women ended up dead in back room alleys, dirty motel rooms, in their own homes, trying to end a pregnancy with a coat hanger, their insides ripped out. I remember seeing pictures in Ms Magazine of police files of women who died trying to terminate a pregnancy. I fear it will go back to that..
The only ones teaching hate are people
you continue to lie and say he is. He is not teaching hate. In fact, it's quite the opposite. He's showing grace and dignity and trying to bring people together, but about 20% of Americans don't want that. They want to continue the divide that Bush started. 20% people hate Obama and they represent most of the posts on this board, day after day, whining, complaining, moaning and lying about Obama.
You would deny healthcare to people who need it. You would deny Social Security benefits to those who worked all their lives. As long as you have yours, you don't care about anyone else. There's a whole thread on this page devoted to hatred of gays and gay marriage. There's also a thread devoted to a **hate crimes bill** that you all hate, as well. Don't worry. Hatred comes from the heart, so you're not in danger of losing any of the overflowing supply you seem to harbor.
So it's the **national day of prayer**. There is not one person in this country who is deprived the right to pray. Not one. Everyone can pray regardless of their religion. The day was intended for everyone of all faiths to come together and pray for our country to succeed. But you don't want that. You, Cooter and Rush and the other nut jobs out there want it to fail. There are a lot of good people who happen to be Muslim, just as there are a lot of bad people who claim to be Christian. There are good and bad in both. One religion is no better than any other. They are all equal in this country. That's what freedom of religion means.
There's probably a good reason that there isn't a **national day of government** in churches across this country.
Once again, Obama is not a Muslim and you're a sick, hateful pathetic liar. If any harm comes to President Obama it will be from someone who hallucinates and promotes hatred just like you do.
Did you ever hear of just teaching your child to be nice to people, to not name call, bully or pick on anyone? That would just about wrap it up wouldn't it?
There are many young children in elementary school that do not even know the term "homosexual", so I certainly don't believe it is the school's job to bring that to the attention of a child. That is the parent's responsibility to explain what homosexuality is, if they so choose.
You think for a minute if a school starts talking about tolerance of homosexuals that questions wouldn't arise about what they do, what that means, why they do that, and every other question they could possibly imagine? I sure as heck don't care for the school system to educate my child on gays or their lifestyle, thank you very much!
Teaching a child about not making fun of a child with disabilities is NOT the same as teaching a child about homosexuals. You believe homosexuality to be a "disability". Funny you brought up those two things together..........
President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918: To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Senator Robert A. Taft (also known as Mr. Republican), 1941 (after Pearl Harbor): I believe that there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government..... Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy.... If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country more good than it will do the enemy, and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.
You can argue the difference between ethics and legal ethics till the chickens come to roost, but if this man would represent these kinds of clients and make thse kinds of oppositions, I don't think he is fit to be the second in command of the DOJ.
And there are doctors who want to do the right, moral thing.
They are the ones who care about patients and created the site where the links I posted are located.
I agree Lilly, especially about the moral decline...
Child molestation is on the top of the list for moral decline.
It just seems to me to be wrong on a basic moral level....
Christianity aside...that the power of life and death be given to one individual over another. Any OTHER time than abortion that is murder, not negotiable. Yet for the most innocent among us, the most vulnerable, in the eyes of some it is fine for one human being to decide to terminate the life of another on the basis of choice...and inconvenience.
I do not believe Obama sits around and thinks about how many babies will die every day (to the tune of over a million a year...!). I don't think he thinks about it much at all. How lucky for him his mother chose life.
I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral.
And the WMDs didn't have anything to do with it, although you'll never convince me that Sadaam didn't have the capability for such - he'd used them in the past to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Correct, legal, moral or whatever, if you're in line with a terrorist group, like many sent to these places were, then you have no rights. Plain and simple.
I just feel that we've gotten too far from 9/11 and remembering what that day was like and all those people killed. It seems like now we care more about the "rights" of those involved in terrorist activites than those innocent people who died that day. Maybe that's why we're such an easy target.
You take the moral high ground and watch video
nm
I so agree! And even if it was not a moral issue, what about the medical issues (sm)
that can arise? How dare someone even think of performing any procedure my child without my permission unless it is a medical emergency?
the moral majority spoke in CA but that isnt good enough
They banned it, voted against it. The state of CA spoke but the gays are not happy with that and have to march. They will push and push till they get their way. Whether it is against God or not. what a shame. I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.
There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.
Strong moral values, decency, propriety, and honesty: conservatives long ago declared these ideals essential to their belief system, achieving political ascendancy with promises of restoring honor to a government they view as tainted by liberal immorality and excess.
A fine notion, indeed, but one question lingers: what happened?
Barely a year into Bush's second term, the American political landscape is brimming with blatant examples of conservative deceit, dishonesty, cronyism, and hypocrisy.
Foremost among these examples is Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's right-hand man, who has been indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements before a grand jury. Not that this is cause for embarrassment among conservatives--indeed, many are relieved, pointing out that Libby is in trouble only for lying. It seems conservative standards on morality have slipped a bit.
Of course, the Libby indictment is but the tip of the beast's horn. The larger case is about a vengeful administration that was bent on destroying an undercover CIA agent's career by leaking her name because her husband, Joseph Wilson, also a CIA agent, challenged shoddy evidence buttressing the case for war in Iraq.
Let us forget for a moment the value of simple honesty. Let us forget also the importance of not undermining the nation's intelligence services when one's entire platform is national security.
What does this event tell us about the oft-invoked conservative call to respect the culture of life, so often invoked in abortion debates? Let us not pander to fools: this war was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, based on manifest lies and exaggerations. Therefore, can anyone seriously claim that this administration showed even the slightest respect for the lives of the 2,000 American soldiers, or the lives countless Iraqi civilians now lost to the war's horrors? Most intriguing, then, is this culture of life--a culture which champions life when it does not yet exist, and abandons it when it does.
Surely, however, could the Republican Party not redeem itself through its philosophy of Christian compassion? Apparently not. Congressional testimony two weeks ago revealed that when FEMA's sole representative in New Orleans--who was there only accidentally--found thousands of Americans stranded without food or shelter during the hurricane, he issued a desperate call for help to FEMA chief Michael Brown. Brown's aide replied--several hours later--with the following instructive example of compassionate conservatism in action: It is very important that time is allowed for Mr. Brown to eat dinner. The locale of choice? Baton Rouge. Marie Antoinette would have been impressed.
Equally impressive is the Republican Party's idea of taking responsibility and not blaming others--a key conservative tenet--in the case of Tom Delay, the House majority leader indicted for pouring corporate money into Texas' 2002 state elections, which saw the reconfiguration of the state's congressional districts along even more pro-Republican lines. Censured three times in 2004 alone by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, Delay nonetheless views the indictment as a kind of vast left-wing conspiracy, calling the prosecutor an unabashed partisan zealot. Heaven forbid.
It goes without saying that Republican contrition for any of the outrages outlined above is unlikely: the arsonists are running the firehouse, and they take great pride in fanning the flames.
We would be sorely remiss, however, if we ignored the role of the Democrats in this affair. They have sat on their firehoses and idled their fire engines on key issues, enabling Republican misbehavior to go unchecked. Most Democrats, it must be remembered, voted in favor of granting Bush unprecedented war powers. And it was the liberal New York Times, with its neo-con pseudo-journalist Judith Miller at the helm, who led the drumbeat procession to invade Iraq based on the thinnest of lies.
Naïve liberal Democrats were also quite pleased to see conservatives break ranks during the Harriet Miers debacle, taking it as a sign of some kind of impending right-wing implosion. They apparently forgot the basic fact that it was the far right--not what passes for the left--that tore apart Miers' chances for judicial confirmation. Now, a staunch conservative, Alito, has been nominated and the implosion has disappeared into thin air. As usual, we can soon count on the usual centrist Democrats--those Klan-minus-costume-crats and heirs to the Dixiecrat legacy--to help vote Alito onto the bench.
Thus, while conservative wrongdoing is obvious, liberals must take a long, hard look at their own party's role in producing the present state of affairs. Americans are told, after all, that there are two major parties, and that one is supposed to act in opposition to the other.
A fine notion, indeed, but one question lingers: what happened?
I haven't seen the video, I don't think I need to because I myself will never have an abortion, but just like any procedure I would have done I would think I would want to know what it involves so you maybe someone having it should watch it!
I bet your child gives you
great joy. I am happy that you found a career where you can be home with your child. The anti-choice people seem to think as long as every child is BORN things are okay. It is the caring for them after they are born that does not seem too important to them.
if you are Liberal, post on the Liberals board, etc.
So you take this to mean that you should continually harass the liberal board when you are obviously a con?
And as far as libs posting on the con board, prior to recently it was pretty darn quiet. And we libs are no match for your uncouth and wretched posts for sheer cruel intent. No match at all, in general.
I would also tell you the same thing I told my kids when they were little, just because so-and-so is doing it doesn't make it right. So when you run crying that libs are posting on the con board, it still doesn't make it right - for you or anyone else. So get out of a 6year-old mentality. Or are you a 6yearold?
and to me a child in the womb
is already on this Earth...these children are the most vulnerable, but yes I agree with you...we need to take care of those already born IN ADDITION to those in the womb.
The child has no rights?
Have you viewed the video referenced below? Do you really think abortion should be a method of birth control?
Who knows...if we who believe that the unborn child...
has as much right to life as you, your husband and your children (good thing for them you did not want an abortion I guess or they would not exist, we will continue to speak for them. And maybe, someday, the right person will hear, and we as a country can stop the slaughter of innocents to the tune of 1.2 million a year. While you are okay with that on the basis of your choice, we are not. And nothing you can say or do will ever change that either.
How can one's child being in the military sm
equate to a point for foreign affairs experience? Please explain that to me. I know a lot of people whose children are in the military, in the war zone and not one of them would say they have foreign affairs experience. Also, didn't she herself say she doesn't know anything about Iraq.
Here's the deal, Ms. New Englander. JTBB has summed up the reason I posted in the first place. You can't have it both ways. If you insist on making something out of nothing with Obama and his so-called "affiliations," then you should have no problem when others try to insinuate connections which may or may not be true between two expectant grandmothers.
You are such a child, interested only in
sake. Do you know what leftie means?
OMG...now you get your news from a child!
Please spare us anymore newsflashes that come from children. We have enough problems with credible news sources on this forum without having schoolgirl rumors posted.
Child, listen up.
You have no idea who you are talking to, yet you seem to believe you know all about me. I have voted in 12 presidential elections in my lifetime, the first one being when Barack Obama was 8 years old. I've been active in politics for nearly 45 years, take my vote very seriously and keep myself well informed on all issues from both sides of the aisle.
Your simplistic dismissal of the jobs loss problems as being atrributable to the illegal immigrants only demonstrates how superficial your understanding is on the subject and speaks volumes about the sources for your information. You, my dear, are the follower, not me.
My support of Obama is based on the emergence of the right man at the right time for the job. I did not cast my vote this time around on my own behalf, like years past. This time, I did it for the sake of my son and the kind of world in which I want to see him live out his years and I can assure you, I do not envision that world being handed over to the divisionist viewpoints you have expressed where its okay to single out any given group on which to dump responsibility where it does not belong.
marks the location of current message within thread
