Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abortion
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 226 of 264 (273700)
12-28-2005 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Phat
12-28-2005 5:42 PM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Phat, posted 12-28-2005 5:42 PM Phat has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 227 of 264 (273701)
12-28-2005 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-28-2005 6:14 PM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
yeah. what you said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-28-2005 6:14 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 228 of 264 (273712)
12-28-2005 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Phat
12-28-2005 6:26 PM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Phat, posted 12-28-2005 6:26 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Funkaloyd, posted 12-29-2005 12:17 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 231 by nator, posted 12-29-2005 8:16 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 264 (273718)
12-29-2005 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by macaroniandcheese
12-28-2005 11:57 PM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-28-2005 11:57 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-29-2005 12:26 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 230 of 264 (273722)
12-29-2005 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Funkaloyd
12-29-2005 12:17 AM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Funkaloyd, posted 12-29-2005 12:17 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 231 of 264 (273764)
12-29-2005 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by macaroniandcheese
12-28-2005 11:57 PM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
quote:
brad rottencrotch captain of the football team?
LOL!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-28-2005 11:57 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-29-2005 11:12 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 232 of 264 (273768)
12-29-2005 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Phat
12-28-2005 5:49 PM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
quote:
The key word is responsible.
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:
When kids are told that sex is natural and normal, they treat it like a snack...like eating candy instead of preparing a wholesome meal.
Are you actually saying that you do not think that sex is natural and normal?
quote:
Casual relationships slowly kill the soul.
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:
There is nothing healthy about becoming briefly intimate with all of the girls at the club!
Again, why do you think that teaching respect and responsibility would lead to this?
quote:
Young Adults need to be taught that intimacy is not cheap.
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:
It is more than pleasent, and it is designed to be lifelong.
Humans are not designed to be monogomous for life. That some of us choose to be is something different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Phat, posted 12-28-2005 5:49 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2005 1:21 PM nator has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 233 of 264 (273779)
12-29-2005 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-28-2005 12:30 PM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-28-2005 12:30 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-29-2005 12:49 PM Ben! has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 234 of 264 (273809)
12-29-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by nator
12-29-2005 8:16 AM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
his sister is mary-jane rottencrotch and we've all heard of her exploits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by nator, posted 12-29-2005 8:16 AM nator has not replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 235 of 264 (273839)
12-29-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Ben!
12-29-2005 9:10 AM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Ben!, posted 12-29-2005 9:10 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Ben!, posted 12-29-2005 11:37 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 236 of 264 (273856)
12-29-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by nator
12-29-2005 8:32 AM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by nator, posted 12-29-2005 8:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by nator, posted 12-30-2005 9:20 AM Silent H has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 237 of 264 (274055)
12-29-2005 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
12-29-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-29-2005 12:49 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-30-2005 12:20 AM Ben! has replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 238 of 264 (274061)
12-30-2005 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Ben!
12-29-2005 11:37 PM


Re: Morality and punishing sluts
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Ben!, posted 12-29-2005 11:37 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Ben!, posted 12-30-2005 10:26 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 239 of 264 (274078)
12-30-2005 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Phat
12-28-2005 5:42 PM


Corrected Information about Latex
Phat writes:
quote:
The virus can easily penetrate the pores in the latex.
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 wonder what Jesus WOULD think? He is presently available, should anyone wish to ask Him.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Phat, posted 12-28-2005 5:42 PM Phat has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 240 of 264 (274118)
12-30-2005 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
08-25-2005 3:22 PM


ATTACK THE RAT!!!
I am pro choice, I believe a woman can choose to have sex or not.
There are instances where I think abortion is ok.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 08-25-2005 3:22 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024