I would assume by the cover art and full page illustrations throughout, this book is aimed at children as young as four.
The man puts his penis between the woman’s legs and inside her vagina. After a while, a white liquid shoots out of the man’s penis and into the woman’s vagina.
— My Mom’s Having a Baby!: A Kid’s Month-by-Month Guide to Pregnancy by Dori Hillestad Butler
Unless this is a blatant slap at heterosexual parents, Ms. Hillestad Butler should soon be coming out with children’s books describing where two men in bed put their penises and/or what two women do with their vaginas and why babies don’t pop out of them later.
We are emailing this publisher to tell them they should advise parents prior to allowing a “child” to read this book. Contact the publisher here: http://www.albertwhitman.com/content.cfm/contact-us
Okay, let’s ignore the obvious fact that no preschooler needs or can understand this level of detail about sexual activity. Just what are they teaching these children?
They are careful to be very technical and call everything by its proper scientific name except when they get to where the man ejaculates. Rather than calling it semen or sperm, they then just say the man squirts out a “white liquid.” Great, now kids are going to think that is where milk comes from.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive” Will it end when a little boy ask his two progressive male parents what they did or will it end when a little girl ask her two progressive female parents what they did?
Progressive Truth is every word out of Marx’s Manifesto. In particular, “On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”
Marx was wrong. The “bourgeois” family has always existed, both under capitalism and communism. The community, and ultimately the state, are only concerned with enterprises which are most profitable to the elites. The remainder of our lives are governed by the free market and other natural orders, especially the familial bond stemming from natural reproduction.
The only value of a totalitarian system is to progressively redistribute the product of individual labor. This is not a reasonable compromise to establish and preserve civilized society.
There is a fine line which separates prediction and manufacture. The difference should be judged by its implicit goals.
That said, in the future, when hundreds of billions of people populate this planet, the communal system may be justified. There is not yet the need for an extraordinary compromise of individual dignity. Hopefully, before that condition is realized, we will have the capability to settle other planets. Realistically, that condition will not soon be realized. There is a sustainable balance which remains enforced by the natural order (no intervention by left-wing lunatics required).
Disgusting perverted liberals, again trying to befoul our precious children. It’s bad enough they expect us to accept their bad behavior, watch it on TV and in the news; but this is going to far, this is about the children. There will be a war over the insidious ways they’ve destroyed our youth. I for one, am ready for them.
I’m so confused. Does the intercourse occur before, during, or after the pregnancy? This doesn’t answer any of my questions.
Bob:
It’s not progressive to acknowledge natural activity, when “scientists” claim the ability to create life. To their credit, they are proficient manipulators.
absolutely disgusting
The next book in the series teaches how to get the liquid to shoot out and instead of getting pregnant you get a new car, jewelry or a high rise condo.
And the sequel’s title: “My Sugardaddy has a Baaaby: a Kid’s Step-by-Step Guide to Golddigging”
There is a footnote that says something about saving the blue dress….
Don’t forget the free book that comes with the sequal, How to befriend a liberal lawyer to protect your money and protray you as victim, as well as the supplimental How to be rich and hide your money from the IRS (so when the rich get taxed you don’t have to worry)
With a foreword written by Rielle Hunter
How to be a:
“Baby mama”, or “Baby daddy”
WTF!
Soon to be required in the progressive government skrewl curriculum near you!
What’s next? “My Mom’s Having an Abortion: A Kid’s Step-by-Step Guide to Partial-Birth Pregnancy Termination”?
They believe that abortion is a moral imperative to, ostensibly, preserve individual dignity. They believe that they are capable of distinguishing between origination and expression, and that knowledge is the underlying premise for their rationalization of abortion as morally sound. They are, in fact, incapable of making that determination. Their acceptance of an arbitrary distinction is actually an article of faith. In this lies our differences. We each have our articles of faith, irrespective of our self-identification as religious, agnostic, or atheist. Their ideology reflects their faith.
In the end, as each of us are guided by our accepted articles of faith, it is for us to choose principles compatible with our faith. That is in reference to what we know, don’t know, and are incapable of knowing. It is this last class of knowledge (or rather lack of) in which faith is active. The atheists, in the majority, and agnostics, in the majority (?), claim knowledge based on circumstantial or incomplete evidence. This is not the domain of science but of philosophy (e.g., faith). (Then there are apostates who justify their alliance through manipulation of ego.)
Personally, I believe the normalization of abortion, promotes the devaluation of human life, and as such should be rejected as a rule. However, the only sustainable approach to counter the activities of teachings by the secular cult, is through the process of normalization. In order for this to be possible, individuals must accept responsibility for themselves, and must recognize the merits of life (not just their own). The liberals/progressives believe this contradicts the valuation of individual dignity, but it does not, since the goal is to simultaneously value life and maximize the preservation of individual dignity. For this reason, the conservative path must be chosen, and cannot be imposed, since the valuation of both principles requires an axiomatic basis or faith to establish precedence. The progressive left is willing to compromise some lives more than others. Not based on individual dignity, but arbitrary selection by an elite few.
Unfortunately, the principles of the secular cult represent the path of least resistance. And when other individuals follow it as the exception, they contribute to a progressive corruption of our society. This is periodically reversed through force and often with mortal effect.
It is our right to decide what represents the best path for us. Some choices seem to be easier to make than others. Let’s hope that our choices are sound. The success can be, and has been, judged in the health and longevity of a society. Our society is sick. Everyone has an opinion claiming to know what ails us. I think the American liberals, generational progressives, and left-wing ideologues in general, are fundamentally wrong in their assessment.
Abortion should not be a right. It should be the exception, with consideration given to more than one life hanging in the balance. At least, that’s the faith which I have acknowledged.