|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
yeah. they taught me that lie in lms too. gues what. IT'S A LIE.
no condoms don't replace responsible behavior and testing, but it's a start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
yeah. what you said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
so move.
if you don't trust your children to make responsible decisions based on the truth, then you probably raised them faultily. if you don't trust them to make well-thought decisions on sex, why would you trust them to make well-thought decisions on religion or science or driving? let me tell you something magical. if we don't tell our children that their bodies and their sexuality is dirty and not to be talked about, what do you think will happen when uncle will comes by and locks your little boy in a room and tells him that if he tells anyone they won't believe him and will just say he's being dirty and punish him? if we are honest with our daughters about their bodies and how to understand and care for them, do you honestly think that they are going to decide to put more things inside themselves? as the proud owner of a vagina, let me tell you they have enough problems without putting dirty things in them. if we tell them where disease comes from and where babies come from do you really think this will weaken them against the advances of brad rottencrotch captain of the football team? the important thing is that if the majority of americans don't have your reservations, then you have the responsibility to raise your children outside of the public sphere. you don't get to pick and choose the taxes you pay. you don't pay taxes to support abortion and gay marriage liscences, you pay taxes to support the government as a duty of citizenship and/or the right to live here and benefit from the government. vote all you want. but, constitutionally, the government has a vested interest in the health of the citizenry. an std infested, teen pregnant citizenry is a useless citizenry. and we have the responsibility to prevent it. your method of sexual oppression has proven ineffective. now it's time to try it our way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
brennakimi writes: if you don't trust your children to make responsible decisions based on the truth, then you probably raised them faultily. Or it could be that they're normal children.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
no. children make responsible decisions when they have all the relevant information. sure they make mistakes, but generally they make responsible decisions.
they're not monkeys you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: LOL!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Right. If we aren't giving children all the information they need to make a level-headed, informed decision about their own bodies, then we are actively promoting irresponsibility in them.
quote: Are you actually saying that you do not think that sex is natural and normal?
quote: What makes you think that teaching children the truth about sex, and that respecting others and being responsible is very important, will lead to casual relationships? It would seem that teaching people to repect others and to be responsible in sexual relationships would lead to more meaningful sexual interactions rather than casual ones. It would seem to be promoting them as important and wonderful events worth paying attention to and "doing the right way" rather than a dirty, forbidden thing to be stolen as a way to rebel.
quote: Again, why do you think that teaching respect and responsibility would lead to this?
quote: I agree. They also need to be told that sex is not dirty or forbidden, and they need to be told all of the facts regarding sexual disease and reproduction so that we can promote responsibilty instead of ignorance.
quote: Humans are not designed to be monogomous for life. That some of us choose to be is something different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Abstinence is an unnatural and quite frankly unhealthy way to live life. At the risk of going off topic... I think bringing "natural vs. unnatural" into the debate is a poor decision. I'm not sure the word "natural" has any meaning, and it definitely serves to obscure the debate. "Natural" tends to be a word that sums up many facts and personal beliefs into one word. I think focusing on the reasons why you think it's natural, such as physical and/or mental health issues, and leaving behind the word "natural" is the better way to go. "Natural" can just have too many meanings, too many connotations, and makes the meaning way too underdetermined to be appropriate for use in a rational debate, IMHO. So my question would be, what do you mean that abstinence is "unnatural"?
If the pro-life crowd REALLY cared about killing babies they would be the biggest proponents of sexual education and birth control on the planet. This seems to be a non-sequitor to me. If the same people who are against abortion are also against sex-for-pleasure, then of course they would push abstinence as the solution to unwanted pregnancy. Everybody has ideals that they use when solving problems. We could try to solve unwanted pregnancy by castrating those who had one. One of the reasons I don't think we'd ever consider it is because it goes against our ideal of freedom to choose. Or another solution would be to attempt public brainwashings, to attempt to make everybody abstinent. Or, we could find populations that had lower unwanted pregnancy rates, and do what they do. Speaking idealistically, if it was shown that Christians had lower abortion rates than non-christians, would you be willing to legislate a belief in God in order to solve "killing babies"? Probably not, it probably goes against your (our!) ideals. At least, that's the way it appears to me. As always, I'm open to different perspectives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
his sister is mary-jane rottencrotch and we've all heard of her exploits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5863 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
At the risk of going off topic... I think bringing "natural vs. unnatural" into the debate is a poor decision. I'm not sure the word "natural" has any meaning, and it definitely serves to obscure the debate. "Natural" tends to be a word that sums up many facts and personal beliefs into one word. I think focusing on the reasons why you think it's natural, such as physical and/or mental health issues, and leaving behind the word "natural" is the better way to go. "Natural" can just have too many meanings, too many connotations, and makes the meaning way too underdetermined to be appropriate for use in a rational debate, IMHO. So my question would be, what do you mean that abstinence is "unnatural"? Good point.... I would say it's BIOLOGICALLY unnatural. Obviously sex is how our species procreates so it seems to be one of the most fundamental acts involved in our existence... No sex = no more humans (unless we start cloning/artificially inseminating/ etc.) So, I would say Biologically abnormal or unnatural would be a better term.
This seems to be a non-sequitor to me. If the same people who are against abortion are also against sex-for-pleasure, then of course they would push abstinence as the solution to unwanted pregnancy. Everybody has ideals that they use when solving problems. We could try to solve unwanted pregnancy by castrating those who had one. One of the reasons I don't think we'd ever consider it is because it goes against our ideal of freedom to choose. I disagree here. There is no evidence that telling people not to have sex is going to have much if any effect. I think it's safe to assume that it is a FACT that people (especially young people) are going to have sex. So if people are going to have sex anyways we have two choices. We can reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions by providing responsible sex education and contraceptives or we can refuse to do this and allow these unwanted pregnancies and abortions to continue. At some point you have to be realistic. And honestly, a solution of telling everyone not to have sex seems pretty absurd and unrealistc to me.
Or, we could find populations that had lower unwanted pregnancy rates, and do what they do. Actually, I discussed this in message 223. Several western european countries have lower unwanted pregnancy rates. What do they all have in common? Responsible, non-judgemental sex education and easy access to contraceptives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It would seem that teaching people to repect others and to be responsible in sexual relationships would lead to more meaningful sexual interactions rather than casual ones. Why? What does casual sex have to do with lack of respect and responsibility? Not to mention what does casual sex lack such that it is inherently less meaningful as a sexual interaction? People in relationships can have more irresponsible, disrespectful and meaningless sex with their partner than those who have an honest sexual encounter with someone else that desires them and yet they have no further emotional entanglements. Deluding children into believing sex should have something to do with strong bonding emotions and have a great impact on their life is just as mistaken as claiming abstinence is the answer. Its all phony. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
So, I would say Biologically abnormal or unnatural would be a better term. What do we care if things are "biologically abnormal" or "unnatural?" What does it matter at all? AbE: Abstinence doesn't mean no sex ever. In fact, abstinence and sex ed, if followed, would lead to approximately lead to the same birth rates--since both would lead to only wanted pregnancies. So between these two points, I don't see how your point about reproduction is relevant. No sex except for wanted pregnancies... is that "biologically unnatural"? If so, why should that matter at all to me? Like I said before, only adverse effects would matter to me, not some general label like "unnatural" that seems to have no consequence.
I disagree here. There is no evidence that telling people not to have sex is going to have much if any effect. I'm not sure, but I think you missed my point. My point was that some solutions are taken not because they are the best, but because other solutions that are better break some other ideals of the decision makers. I wasn't claiming that the solution was going to have a better effect; I was trying to discuss how having ideals and allowing them to guide your decision-making is pretty common, that I believe it's what's happening here, and that that prevents you from being able to make the point you were trying to make (that those who are against "killing babies" should be for birth control and sex ed.).
Actually, I discussed this in message 223. Yes, I did read that. It's good. But read it in the context of my larger point. The reason you accept that solution so readily is because it fits with your ideals. The question I was asking there was, if the solution did not match your ideals, would you be so ready to accept it? Hope that makes sense. Ben This message has been edited by Ben, Thursday, 2005/12/29 08:40 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5863 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
Hey man, all I want is for people to have access to information and contraception and allow them to make their own sexual decisions. If they choose to abstain... fine with me.... if not....... fine with me.
Is that really having ideals? Maybe. It's certainly different from trying to enforce abstinence based policies on people. That is legislating morality. It's a free country, people are going to make their own decisions... Do we want them to be informed? or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phat writes:
quote: Incorrect. We've been over this before. HIV cannot move on its own. It requires a medium to transfer it from location to location. Generally, this means a bodily fluid. In humans, that bodily fluid is water. You will note that a molecule of water is smaller than a particle of HIV. And yet, latex condoms are waterproof. But, let's not stop there. Let's go even smaller: Electrons. Electrons are about as small as you can get and not require nuclear reactions. You may notice that on each latex condom package is a statement such as this:
Each condom is individually electronically tested to help ensure reliability. Do you know what that means? It means that every single condom that is sold has been tested. Not a random sample, not the first 20 out of every lot. Every single one is tested. And do you know how they test it? They take an electrode and slide the condom onto it. The condom-wrapped electrode is then dipped into an electrolytic solution and a current is run through it. If a current is detected across the condom, that means the condom is defective and is discarded. Only condoms that don't allow electricity to pass through them are sold. So if the condom won't allow water to pass or even electricity, exactly how do you expect HIV to pass through? Ah, you say, but condoms aren't 100% effective! That's true, but it isn't because of a defect in the design. The condom is an effective barrier so long as it remains intact, doesn't slip, and withdrawal happens without spillage. The condom failure rate is primarily due to user error, not design flaws. You can reduce the risk of breakage by using lubricant. You can buy prelubricated condoms, but they rarely contain enough. You can reduce the risk of slippage by making sure the condom is put on correctly. You can reduce the risk of spilling by making sure that withdrawal happens as soon after ejaculation as possible and by holding onto the condom to seal it around the shaft of the penis. All of these things are skills that can and should be taught in sex education. When condoms are used properly, their effectiveness rate rivals that of the Pill.
quote: I just asked and he stared at me in disbelief that there is anybody out there who would counsel against saving people's lives due to some high-handed claim on moral authority. He repeated his comments about not casting stones, loving your neighbor as you love yourself, that anything you do to anybody else is the same as you doing it to him, and so on. He reminded me of the parable about the woman who was to be stoned for infidelity and of the lesson to be learned. He reminded me of the need to practice forgiveness and kindness. Why, what did he tell you? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I am pro choice, I believe a woman can choose to have sex or not.
There are instances where I think abortion is ok.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024