mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/18/85)
In article <1710@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > I think dispensing data about making sex safe and describing >alternatives to people IS the very purpose of an information center on sex, >and I for one am glad they do it. I am generally opposed to premarital sex (and in particular, to teenage sex), but I find myself in support of wide availability of birth control and information. Too many people are going to have sex anyway, and, taking the lesser of two evils, I'd rather see them using birth control than having kids at 15. The main problem with most current programs (and here I think I'm more concerned with sex education than last ditch sorts of things) is that, in their zeal to avoid offending the extreme liberals, they refuse to approach the moral issues at all, thus tending to imply that there aren't any, and that it is OK to do what you please. Well, maybe it is OK, but I'd at least like to see them say "Yes, there are moral questions about such and such, but it is not our place to talk about them." A teenage girl who has had one abortion already and is about to have another really needs to be confronted with the moral issues involved, even if no answers are given. Charley Wingate
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/19/85)
> In article <1710@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > > > I think dispensing data about making sex safe and describing > >alternatives to people IS the very purpose of an information center on sex, > >and I for one am glad they do it. > > I am generally opposed to premarital sex (and in particular, to teenage > sex), but I find myself in support of wide availability of birth control and > information. Too many people are going to have sex anyway, and, taking the > lesser of two evils, I'd rather see them using birth control than having > kids at 15. The main problem with most current programs (and here I think > I'm more concerned with sex education than last ditch sorts of things) is > that, in their zeal to avoid offending the extreme liberals, they refuse to > approach the moral issues at all, thus tending to imply that there aren't > any, and that it is OK to do what you please. Well, maybe it is OK, but I'd > at least like to see them say "Yes, there are moral questions about such and > such, but it is not our place to talk about them." A teenage girl who has > had one abortion already and is about to have another really needs to be > confronted with the moral issues involved, even if no answers are given. > > Charley Wingate As I see it, there is a reasonable compromise. Moral issues concerning abortion are disputed, sex education program could acknowledge their presence, however. More importantly, there are real dangers, both physical and emotional dangers in casual approach to sex, plus in engaging in sex before the age of emotional maturity. I myself received sex education of this sort (in the last grade however, when almost everybody was 18-19, this was a funny side of the program). Even "extreme liberals" do not equate hedonism with happiness. Since the implicit message coming from the mass media (especially advertisments) suggest otherwise (e.g. the presenting the joys of having an intercourse prelude while wearing Calvin jeans), possibly the school could try to counter this influence. This would accomodate non-religious parents. Others, still not happy, should remember that their children do not live in a vacuum. In the absence of responsibly given information, children will learn from Forum section of Penthouse and soap operas. Piotr Berman
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/20/85)
> I am generally opposed to premarital sex (and in particular, to teenage > sex), but I find myself in support of wide availability of birth control and > information. Too many people are going to have sex anyway, and, taking the > lesser of two evils, I'd rather see them using birth control than having > kids at 15. The main problem with most current programs (and here I think > I'm more concerned with sex education than last ditch sorts of things) is > that, in their zeal to avoid offending the extreme liberals, ... [WINGATE] I.e., anyone who recognizes that proper education about sexuality is a necceary part of responsible adolescence and adulthood. > they refuse to approach the moral issues at all, thus tending to imply that > there aren't any, and that it is OK to do what you please. Well, maybe it > is OK, but I'd at least like to see them say "Yes, there are moral questions > about such and such, but it is not our place to talk about them." Perhaps that's YOUR job as a parent to say such things if you feel they are appropriate. Frankly, I am more repulsed at the notion that some yutz is going to imply religious morality to my children in school where it is totally inappropriate. Not everyone feels that pre-marital sex is the heinous awful thing that you think it is, and their children should not be subjected to whining moral impositions. > A teenage girl who has had one abortion already and is about to have another > really needs to be confronted with the moral issues involved, even if no > answers are given. Sounds to me like another example of parents not doing their job in the first place and expecting someone else to pick up the slack. (Ironic that I just watched the Senate record rating hearings, and saw, of all people, Dee Snider, an upstanding Christian, answer Sen. Gore's question "Do you think that's reasonable to expect parents to do (check out the content of the albums their children buy)?" His answer: "Being a parent is not a reasonable thing. It's a hard thing." Who would have thought Dee Snider had something to say?) -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
lje@mtfmp.UUCP (L.ELSER) (09/20/85)
I would like to reply to Charles Wingate's statement that (forgive me, Charles, if I misquote) he wishes Planned Parenthood would inform their clients, especially their young clients, that there ARE moral issue involved, instead to implying that none exist. In all my dealings with Planned Parenthood, I have found them to be sensitive, caring, and openminded towards clients. Before a woman (and I use the term to refer to anyone old enough to require the services of PP) is given birth control, or even sees a doctor, she talks with a counselor about her needs (types of birth control available, her feelings about her pregnancy, etc.). I twice took young women to PP to pregnancy tests, and subsequently for their abortions. Both times, they got solid information as well as good, sound advice from their counselors. Also, PP arranged for them to get birth control. I was told that it is standard practice to be SURE that women who become pregnant accidentally know how not to do it again. If the agency sees a record of abortions that would indicate irresponsibility, they WILL have a long hard talk with the woman. No, they do not volunteer morals as such, but Planned Parenthood will discuss any issues that their clients wish to discuss, and yes, that includes ethical issues. They take a practical approach to a growing problem. Young people have ALWAYS had sex, and will continue to do so. Poor women have ALWAYS had difficulty getting birth control, or even advice about birth control since the days of the christian witch hunts, when village healers were slaughtered to make way for church-trained doctors. But Planned Parenthood tries to see that ANYONE can receive information and medical attention, regardless of their income, or age, and without fear. A woman never needs to worry that her parents or her partner will have access to her records. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/24/85)
In view of L. Elser's article, and accepting its truth, I withdraw any objections. Let them continue as they are. Charley Wingate
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/25/85)
>>>The main problem with most current programs >>>(and here I think I'm more concerned with sex education than last ditch >>>sorts of things) is that, in their zeal to avoid offending the extreme >>>liberals, ... [WINGATE] >>I.e., anyone who recognizes that proper education about sexuality is a >>necceary part of responsible adolescence and adulthood. [ROSEN] > No, it's those people who refuse to recognize the fact of moral authority as > it proceeds from the schools and other governmental agencies. Refuse to recognize the "fact"? My, my. > Rich, as usual, has ignored my statement above that I think kids should learn > about sex and birth control information. I would also point out that what is > "proper education" is entirely dependent upon one's ideological outlook. I have acknowledged that statement of yours. However, I question your statement about proper education being "entirely dependent upon one's ideological outlook. To bs sure, this is absolutely true regarding people's opinions about what proper education is. I reiterate that your labelling as "extreme liberals" those who would simply give the facts as they stand without the additional contamination of an injection of "moral issues". Those "moral issues" are just tack-on's from religious belief, and thus have no place in generic proper education. >>>they refuse to approach the moral issues at all, thus tending to imply that >>>there aren't any, and that it is OK to do what you please. Well, maybe it >>>is OK, but I'd at least like to see them say "Yes, there are moral >>>questions about such and such, but it is not our place to talk >>>about them." >>Perhaps that's YOUR job as a parent to say such things if you feel they >>are appropriate. Frankly, I am more repulsed at the notion that some yutz >>is going to imply religious morality to my children in school where it is >>totally inappropriate. > Well, I for one am not at all repulsed by your false implication of what I > said, mostly because I'm used to it. Where does it say I was referring to you, Charles? There are other "yutzes" in this world besides you, you know. :-) It's interesting how many people seem to WANT to be "attacked" by me so desperately that they "find" attacks where there are none to be found. > If you read the passage above, what I did NOT say was that ANYONE in a > school or PP should make statements about what is right or wrong. My > suggestion is rather that they should make the kids aware that there is > considerable controversy on the subject-- and not just on religious grounds, > as Rich falsely alleges. What "controversy" can you concoct for us that is NOT on religious grounds? *You're* accusing *me* of falsely alleging??? > I also don't see why the law should protect Rich's viewpoint simply because > he believes in atheism. So much for Wingate's perspective on religious freedom. > The deliberate avoidance of morality by the schools endorses the position that > there are no moral constraints at all. Why this position deserves > protection is quite beyond me. As are many other things in this world, it often seems. I've only spent several lifetimes explaining the notion of minimal morality and non-interference necessary for societal regulation from a rational non-religious perspective. Anything more than that is personal preference, most often based on religion, and has no place in the school. >>Not everyone feels that pre-marital sex is the heinous awful thing that you >>think it is, and their children should not be subjected to whining moral >>impositions. > So what? Not everyone believes that premarital sex is perfectly fine under > any circumstances, and their children should not be subjected to > implications that it is. You see? And what I am suggesting would do > neither. Gee, Charles, could you please delineate for me, in detail, what is not perfectly fine about it, from an exclusively non-religious viewpoint? >>>A teenage girl who has had one abortion already and is about to have >>>another really needs to be confronted with the moral issues involved, >>>even if no answers are given. >>Sounds to me like another example of parents not doing their job in the first >>place and expecting someone else to pick up the slack. > Well, unfortunately this is a fact of life. What an elegant way to dismiss questions and points raised about something. > Anyone who pays attention to > social statistics is aware that the teenage pregnancy rates in the ghetto > are very high (and also the illegitimacy rate). The effects from this upon > society are considerable. One might as well start rambling on in the same > way about teen age criminals. Whether or not you blame the parents, the > problem is still there. At the moment our public policy encourages these > births, with accompaning expense to society in terms of welfare, health > care, crime, housing, and whatever else. We have chosen to foster growth of > the ghetto-- and by "we", I mean in this case those who are in favor of > continuing the present system. "One" might as well. I can think of a number of reasonable alternatives some of which you yourself have proposed. But aside from dispensing of birth control information (I know abortion may not be to your liking), what alternatives can you offer that do not reek of impositional morality? -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/26/85)
Two points, Charley (and by the way, unlike some I try to read what you actually say rather than just what I expect you to say). First, do you really think there is anyone of average or higher intelligence in the United States who does not =already= know about the Christian sex taboos? Sorry, I don't buy it. Anyone who has managed to remain unaware of them is not likely to be paying much attention in any class.... Second, fundamentalist Christians object very strongly to teaching that there is a controversy about sexual morality. They call this teaching a manifestation of secular humanism (isn't everything?) and claim that it is inherently a position of support for moral relativism. It is one of their prime targets in the schools, as you'll see if you read their inane literature. How do you recommend we discuss the controversy or even mention its existence without driving these dogmatic fools up the wall? -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (09/26/85)
> I was told that it is standard > practice to be SURE that women who become pregnant > accidentally know how not to do it again. If I cross the street with my eyes closed, was my death accidental? Why are the only options being considered are pregnancy and contaception? If the girl (and anybody who shows this lack of planning ahead qualifies) didn't want to get pregnant, why did she have sex? -anonymous
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (09/27/85)
[Be prepared - always keep a condom/diaphragm tacked to your headboard] From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate), Message-ID: <1620@umcp-cs.UUCP>: >A teenage girl who has >had one abortion already and is about to have another really needs to be >confronted with the moral issues involved, even if no answers are given. I bet I'm gonna get it for this, but: Pardon me, but I trust you're going to be confronting the boys with a moral issue or two as well? Teenage girls who are having abortions did not get there by themselves, and they absolutely should not be the only ones bearing the moral responsibilities. A boy/man who is not willing to take on the responsibility of raising *HIS* child is at least as morally culpable as a girl/woman who chooses not raise hers. You can't tell who the father is as easily as you can tell who the mother is? Wouldn't hurt you too much to teach *ALL* boys a little bit about morals. Hell, go for it, teach 'em a LOT about morals. About taking resposibility for their actions (raising *THEIR* children, who have *THEIR* names by the way), about not inflicting traumas on other human beings (despite the "fears" of the "moral majority", deciding whether or not to have an abortion is *extremely* traumatic, even if one decides against it; and boys who inflict that kind of pain on girls have an additional moral responsibility of their own). G'head, teach 'em something. What annoys me most about this posting is that I'm positive it was just an "innocent" phrasing of an "innocent" example - you probably didn't even think about it when you wrote it. *THAT* scares me, that the population at large just easily accepts that girls who consider abortions are in need of "special" moral counselling. I think you (like myself and the rest of us) could benefit from a little moral education yourself. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "What if the after-effect of the terrible bomb is unusual beyond belief? Wouldn't you rather the whole population had listened to somebody like the old Indian chief?" (The Roches)
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (10/01/85)
>If the >girl (and anybody who shows this lack of planning >ahead qualifies) didn't want to get pregnant, why >did she have sex? > -anonymous I suppose I should not dignify this posting with a response, and I don't like to flame, but OK, I'm a sucker. It scares me that this came from a college of medicine. Perhaps you should learn to read and then do a little reading. Or maybe just observe and try to understand your fellow man (and women). You might find that there are quite a few reasons to have sex other than to get pregnant. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your lack of understanding and compassion. -- Sue Brezden Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb AT&T Information Systems 11900 North Pecos Westminster, Co. 80234 (303)538-3829 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your god may be dead, but mine aren't. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lkk@teddy.UUCP (10/01/85)
In article <1916@aecom.UUCP> berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) writes: >If I cross the street with my eyes closed, was my >death accidental? Why are the only options being >considered are pregnancy and contaception? If the >girl (and anybody who shows this lack of planning >ahead qualifies) didn't want to get pregnant, why >did she have sex? > -anonymous Maybe she wanted to enjoy herself? Maybe she was bored. Maybe she wanted to show affection to her partner? WHY SHOULDN"T SHE HAVE SEX? (Using contraception of course, using no contraception IS like walking with your eyes closed.) -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa Life is either a grand adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/03/85)
In article <1916@aecom.UUCP> berger@aecom.UUCP (anonymous) writes: > If the >girl (and anybody who shows this lack of planning >ahead qualifies) didn't want to get pregnant, why >did she have sex? If people don't want tooth decay, why do they eat sweets? If the major (or at least LOUDEST) religions forbade us from eating sweets, there would no doubt be people lobbying the government to prevent their children from learning about dental care. -- David Canzi "It's Reagan's fault. Everything's Reagan's fault. Floods... volcanoes... herpes... Reagan's fault." -- Editor Overbeek, Bloom Beacon
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/03/85)
> > I was told that it is standard > > practice to be SURE that women who become pregnant > > accidentally know how not to do it again. > > If I cross the street with my eyes closed, was my > death accidental? Why are the only options being > considered are pregnancy and contaception? If the > girl (and anybody who shows this lack of planning > ahead qualifies) didn't want to get pregnant, why > did she have sex? > -anonymous Because it is the natural thing to do. Why do you eat? Why do you sleep? Why do you get together with friends? Because these are both natural and pleasurable activities. Some people don't have many friends-that's up to them. Other people have many friends. Should somebody regulate who has how many friends with whom? Sex is different than mere friendship because it is a much more powerful bond and also involves the very great responsibility of bringing another human being into the world. Sex itself is not wrong if these two things are respected. But when somebody engages in sex without being able to care for a possible child then they are being grossly irresponsible. The irony is that it is many "Christians" who are actually irresponsible in this regard. I have read studies which indicate that religiosity and fundamental religious beliefs are not correlated with either premarital or extramarital sexual activity. (So much for your Christian backing of morality, Paul!) It has been my personal experience (which is hardly a scientific or representative sample but all I have in this regard) that fundamentalist women refuse to take birth control pills or other contraceptive measures because that would be "planning for sex" and therefore wrong. But when it so happens that they get swept up in the passion of the moment they wind up engaging in sex anyway- with the strong possibility of getting pregnant. For those that do get pregnant (and I have known some cases of this happening) they then face the choice of having a child they are in no way ready to care for or else have an abortion. I think this is incredibly irresponsible. tyim sevener whuxl!orb