Jump to content

Menu

Marylou

Registered
  • Posts

    2,066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Marylou

  1. I don't actually think that your virginity is your most prized possession.   I do think that *you* are your most prized possession.  I believe that you are vulnerable during s*x.  You are naked-- physically emotionally and spiritually--.  I truly do believe you give a part of yourself away when you have s*x.

    I want my children to understand that this is more than a physical release.

     

    So you need to be with someone you trust to take care of you.--all of you.

     

    You can be injured physically by a more powerful person.  You can be belittled by someone who is callus with your feelings.  Too many times young people act without thinking of the consequences.  I think there are soooo many more consequences to s*x that have nothing to do with babies.  It has to do with you.  Are you strong enough for this?  I think that having s*x with "just anyone" can do a lot of damage to your self.

     

    Your partner can:-- never speak to you again after one night--- can you handle that rejection?

    They can:-- spread rumors about what you did--- can you handle that?

     

    You could get pregnant--- do you want to be tied to this person for the rest of your life?  Will you have nothing but heartache parenting with this person?

     

    Too many people are controlled by emotions (fear of rejection, need for love and acceptance, desire for power)  All of those are also in the bedroom.

     

    It makes a difference who you are paired with.  The Bible talks about being unequally yoked.  This is more than just about marriage to an unbeliever--- this is about being on equal footing with your relationships.

     

     

    So -- I want my children to be sure they have the right person to be with (married or not) I want them to be sure they can trust them with their selves.

    With their emotions, feelings, any children that might come along.

     

    S*x inside marriage is supposed to be this way, but not if you married the wrong person. 

     

    .

     

    I want my children to be happy afterwards, glad that shared themselves with this person. I want them to have picked an honorable person, who likes them and wants to continue the relationship. I want it to have been loving and not rushed and pressured.

     

    This is not about virginity, or marriage-- but about being true to yourself.

     

    I really enjoyed your post until the last three words!  What does it mean~true to yourself?  Couldn't people take that and say that anything they want to do is okay and morally good because after all they are being true to themselves?  I really don't know what that means?!

     

    Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 1 Cor. 6:18-

     

    I realize not everyone believes that God's glory is the ultimate motivator, but that is what we teach our children.  And I agree with what  Scarlett said earlier.  I will not confuse my children.  "Glorify God in all things.  But if you choose to not glorify Him in this one area, here's some birth control".  :confused1: 

  2. An ideal doesn't have to be experienced in 100% of the population for it to be pervasive in society. Slut-shaming is pervasive enough that schools organize assemblies around it, churches reinforce it (with lessons like teaching kids that getting married to someone who had sex is like chewing someone else's old piece of gum), whole schools are run by religious organizations that embrace it (the state of Louisiana helps to fund it with taxes!). It's pervasive in that it's wide spread, it's found in many, many places in our society.

     

    I disagree.  I hear more "You're a slut" talk in p.s, FB and pop culture than anywhere else.

     

    I have heard about the chewed gum (or licked Oreos) thing in church youth settings (I'm not sold on it), but I believe it is used to get the one who is thinking of acting married though single to think twice before hooking up.  In other words, "Why make yourself less desirable"~not "Don't ever marry someone who has had premarital sex because he/she is worthless."   I don't think it is the best way to persuade a young person.

     

    Some things done by people ARE shameful, but that doesn't mean the person should be shamed.  There is a difference.

     

     And people are not animals.  

     

    And I am surprised how many parents buy birth control for their children.  If a "child" is old enough to become a mom or dad, he/she is old enough to buy her own personal items.

  3. For flavoring I think fresh fruit juice is a good idea, like, straight out of the juicer fresh.

     

    I would sometimes do a very simple second brew. Throw some fresh juice in the bottom of the jar, fill up the rest with kombucha (no scoby), then cap and let sit for another day or so before refrigerating.

     

    I worried about killing my scoby's by putting them in anything other than black tea+sugar (I grew one myself from a bottle of GT, so I was pretty protective). Though now that they have exponentially multiplied maybe I should experiment more. Now I just need more brewing jars!

     

     

    Just found this site! http://www.specialtybottle.com/swingtopbottlesmi.aspx

     

    Thanks, everyone, for your ideas.

  4. To a Catholic it seems odd because the liturgy is worship, and we do Bible study at a separate time. But if Bible study is a main part of the service, as in Protestant services, it makes more sense to take notes.

     

    And then to others, all of life is worship, and that would mean we can't take notes anywhere!

     

    I'd be in big trouble with this memory of mine :laugh:

  5. After gaining 60lbs over several years, I finally saw an endocrinologist. Prior to the blood work, he was positive I had hashimoto's. Blood work was normal, he said I was fine (other than very low vitamin D).

     

    I came across a LOT of websites linking gluten with all autoimmune issues, especially thyroid.

     

    I cut gluten and stopped gaining. Then I slowly started losing. I lost just over 20lbs and was starting to feel better, but stuff was always getting in my way; going out to eat with my father, someone insisting I try their amazing cake, etc. I put back on 10. :(

     

    My father's wife insisted we go to this family style Italian restaurant for MY birthday. Everything she ordered was pasta or breaded.

     

    Each exposure caused completely different symptoms and I tried to excuse it all away as something else. Some exposures have been really bad and I tried to blame it on the food (other than it having had gluten) not being cooked right or whatever. Chicken Marsala made with coconut, almond, or garbanzo bean flour is fine, but made with regular flour makes me sick, but I would try convincing myself I undercooked the chicken.

     

    I fit so many symptoms for celiac that I decided now I'm going to cut for good and be diligent about it. I'm cleaning my kitchen, replacing anything plastic or wood, and not bringing gluten in the house.

     

    Dd has also had some problems and she's been checked for thyroid issues and cushing's, both negative. But when I looked at her previous labs, whatever they look at for possible celiac was positive (I know biopsy is the only way to accurately diagnose). Ds's labs were also positive, but his biopsies were negative (it's possible they didn't get enough samples). Ds has also been nauseous for a while, nearly constantly.

     

    Today is day 1. No more. Not letting someone's "delicious" food, or their feelings get in the way again.

     

     

    Wow. Your post just made my day. I will post my story when I have time.

     

    Keep up the good work.

     

    You CAN do this!

  6.  

    Oh, I know he was violating laws but he was aloud to operate the center right? So, he could've technically had a chance of not being prosecuted specifically for that murder if he had taken the baby to the hospital when it was born alive. I just don't understand why he did that (beyond the fact he was a horrible man).

     

    I know, as well, I have a condition that makes it difficult for me to keep a baby in full-term and when I was pregnant with my first, I went into labor at 23 weeks at first so they had to stave off labor but we were looking at having a 24-25 weeker in the NICU. That is definitely what disturbs me so much because I personally think that once a baby is viable (unless there is a medical threat to the mother's life) abortion should be off the table so I can't imagine if a baby was born alive, how someone could actually kill the child. Disgusting.

     

    Marylou, I need to research and find that, I was honestly speaking from my mind, not quoting anything. However, my impression was that many states require a doctor's referral to have a late-term abortion and it is specified for medical necessity?

     

    Okay. Just beware that an abortionist can consider the emotional health of a pregnant woman and sign a paper saying he/she believes the mother's life is in danger if she goes full term.

  7. What he was doing was not actually legal. He was acting outside the laws and guidelines that are very clear. Even if he had not brutally murdered babies he should still have gone to jail IMO.

     

    In addition to the other charges he was convicted of 200 counts of violating Pennsylvania's abortion laws.

     

    Many of the babies in the NICU with ds were born at an earlier gestation period than some of the babies her murdered. :(

     

    I think if anything, this whole rotten deal just shows the arbitrariness of 24 weeks, 25 weeks, 26 weeks~or however many weeks old a child can be before she is considered too old to be terminated. If it was decided based on viability, science (and hospitals all over the world) are showing that with the right conditions, that number of weeks is falling like a rock.

  8. So, I'm somewhere in between pro-choice and pro-life. I guess I'd say I'm not anti-choice lol. I think one thing all pro-choice and pro-lifers can agree on is that this was a horrendous act and that INCLUDES the murder of the baby who was born living. I think the point that people who are pro-choice are making is that this guy could've stepped away when the baby was born alive, got it to a hospital, and said it was a failed abortion and then the child could've been adopted or whatever....however, he did kill it which is just disgusting. What makes this especially baffling is that he could've done this without being prosecuted for the fact he was performing abortions because abortions are legal. On the other hand, if back alley abortion clinics were the only way to get an abortion (and abortion was criminalized), then if things like this happened, you'd have more people who would not get the living child to a hospital because they want to cover up their crimes and what they are doing.

     

    I'd also like to remind those posting here that a large number of late-term abortions are done for medical reasons, not just because the mother didn't want the pregnancy (those tend to be first-trimester abortions).

     

     

    Citation.

  9.  

    Why should *Planned Parenthood* apologize? This has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. Or is there some other party that "should"? I'm confused by your statement.

     

     

    Wrong word, sorry. I wasn't thinking!

     

    I meant to say I don't know why PP would make any comment whatsoever about a dead baby or babies.

     

    Some people are making a stink (not talking about this thread) b/c PP did not mention the babies affected by the crimes. I don't see why they would venture there.

     

    And I'll just leave it at that.

     

    I realize you probably hold PP in much higher esteem than I do!

  10. I'm boggled by the legal logic here.

     

    The defense was that he hadn't killed them because he had already "induced their demise" or "terminated them." That, of course, means he had already killed the fetus/pregnancy/baby so he couldn't have killed them.

     

    I'm trying to look at this from a legal point of view and I just don't see this argument floating.

     

    If you see it floating, could you fill me in on how you see it?

     

     

     

    Don't try to figure it out. It all hinges on whether the child is wanted or unwanted. That is the sad reality.

×
×
  • Create New...