I'm up late waiting

ITA, Helen.

Kelly
#4 2/12/05

"H Schinske" wrote in message
...
Exactly. As my husband said, global warming is a moral issue, and one with
a
hell of a lot of lives at stake. Gee, let's take away the rice crop that a
third of the world depends on for food -- that's not about life? not about
morality?

--Helen

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:08:30 -0800, "Circe"
scribbled:

Chotii wrote:
I doubt I will ever forget overhearing some of the 'ridders'
(cowboys) at my high school talking about the girls at the dance at
the county fair. One of them was talking about one girl being so
ugly...you know, he'd "do" her, but he didn't think she was worth
spending the money on a condom.

The irony, of course, is that failing to use a condom could well have meant
he'd have spent *much* more money on her over the course of the succeeding
18 years.

How, in this society, do we raise males who are so foolish as to not realize
that preventing pregnancy is as much about protecting *themselves* as it is
about protecting the girl?

As the mom of an almost 21 year old ds, it's not easy. Of course I
emphasized that 3 (more if you include extended family) would be
affected by his decisions, I emphasized that his wallet would take a
beating. Whichever point got through to him, I don't know, but he's
responsible about keeping himself covered.

Sadly, if she'd been made to believe herself ugly, she'd probably
take sex in lieu of the love and acceptance she really wanted.....

I agree, it is sad. But I think it is equally sad that boys/men aren't
raised to recognize that an unplanned pregnancy is (or at least can be) as
great a problem for *them* as it is for the girl/woman.

I almost agree. The real truth, imo is that girls/women are affected
moreso. The father can reduce himself to a walking checkbook if he
chooses, and the girl is left holding the entire bag.

BTW, I am not sure I would assume that those young men you heard talking
were particularly confident that they had the love and acceptance *they*
really wanted, either...

agreed, but they'd never admit that.

Nan

Barbara asked:

How, in this society, do we raise males who are so foolish as to not realize
that preventing pregnancy is as much about protecting *themselves* as it is
about protecting the girl?

When they no longer have the easy option of coercing girls into having
abortions which will cost them only a couple of hundred dollars, perhaps?




Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

Barbara said:

Well, perhaps I misstated/overstated myself slightly there. I don't think
it's unreasonable to *try*. I *do* think it's unreasonable to try and expect
that it will work so well that other possibilities are not considered or
discussed.

OK.


I think it's *desirable* that teens
abstain until they're out of high school, simply because having a
sexual relationship is pretty emotionally time-consuming and
goodness knows, teenagers have *plenty* to do to get out of high
school with a successful education! But at the same time, as Emily
said, in many cultures, our 15+yo high school students would be
considered and treated as adults. I believe that a big part of the
reason teens chafe so much against adult authority in the teen
years is because they instinctively recognize themselves to be
"adults" while society still tries to treat them as children.
Maybe part of the reason we find teens to be relatively
irresponsible and incapable of making good decisions is that we
don't force (or even allow) them to take true responsibility!

There are other ways we can give them responsibility--maybe that
would give them other ways of acting "adult" than sex--or do you
think those hormones are just too much for them?

I think that showing teens that we actually trust them to behave responsibly
in other arenas of their lives and not patronizing them when it comes to
talking about sex (as well as other moral choices) would go a long, long
way. So, no, I don't think the hormones are too much for them and I do
believe treating them more like adults generally would make a positive
difference. That may be just wishful thinking, though!

I appreciate that it can. But you know, I had several sexual
relationships before I met my husband and got married (I'm sure
this won't come as a shock to my mother, who reads this
newsgroup!) and I am not sorry that I did. I think those
relationships, with their partial successes and partial
failures, were what allowed me to ultimately choose the right man
to marry. I'm not at all sure that preventing myself from
experiencing the full gamut of an intimate adult relationship
before I got married would have been a GoodThink(TM).

There are probably studies on that too, but I don't have the
emotional energy to look for them right now. :-) I KNOW I've read
ones that say cohabiting couples have higher divorce rates than
those who did NOT cohabit.

I know about those cohabitation studies. To be perfectly honest, though, I
don't think the reasons that cohabitation leads to more failed marriages has
*anything* to do with sex. (It's much more about the fact that cohabitation
often happens when one partner is trying to convince the other to commit.
It's the imbalance of power in such relationships that causes problems, and
those problems get magnified when the couple marries.)

Well, that's the problem with all these social science studies--they are always
correlative and can't really prove anything!


But the thing that strikes me about this is that, when I was that
age, I would have had neither the interest in nor the opportunity
to have sex. So I don't see how instructing me either in
abstinence or in the proper use of contraceptives and safe sex
would have had the slightest effect on my likelihood of engaging
in sexual activity.

You start ingraining these ideas, before they are practically
needed, IMO. That's the time to teach, before it is a real issue.
That's why I believe in kids knowing about sex early on as part of
their normal development, not waiting to introduce it like Some Big
Thing in middle school.

ITA.

Nice when we agree! :-)


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

Pro-choice people and pro-life people disagree on fundamental moral
principles -- that's what makes this such a nasty argument.


This conversation is giving me some different ideas . . . I can accept that
some of you here have reasons based in morality for pro-choice views, but it
has always been my impression in listening to the national argument that the
pro-choice side makes light of the morality argument. I can't recall ever
seeing it framed in that way.


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

Leslie wrote:
Barbara asked:
How, in this society, do we raise males who are so foolish as to
not realize that preventing pregnancy is as much about protecting
*themselves* as it is about protecting the girl?

When they no longer have the easy option of coercing girls into
having abortions which will cost them only a couple of hundred
dollars, perhaps?

I'm not particularly convinced that girls are all that easily coerced by
boys into having abortions. I suspect that for those girls who aren't
comfortable with the decision generally but have an abortion anyway, keeping
their parents from finding out that they were both having sex *and* got
pregnant is a stronger factor than what the boy wants, particularly if the
two are not involved in an ongoing romantic relationship.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

Tolerance, equality, and personal liberty *are* moral values!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Barbara wrote:

FDA was considering making them available over-the-counter without a
prescription. A panel of medical experts agreed that this presented no
danger to the public and made sense because, given the short window of
opportunity, many women couldn't get a prescription for MAPs within the
window required for maximum effectiveness.

And who blocked this and with what argument?


I *do* appreciate some people's discomfort with any form of birth control
that *might* prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. OTOH, given that this
is not the primary means by which MAPs operate, it seems to me
counterproductive for those who'd like to see fewer abortions to oppose
making it more readily available since the vast majority of pregnancies it
prevents will be prevented through preventing conception altogether.

If we aren't going to outlaw oral contraceptives, it doesn't seem to make sense
to outlaw that either, I agree.


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

Leslie wrote:
Barbara wrote:
FDA was considering making them available over-the-counter without
a prescription. A panel of medical experts agreed that this
presented no
danger to the public and made sense because, given the short
window of opportunity, many women couldn't get a prescription for
MAPs within the window required for maximum effectiveness.

And who blocked this and with what argument?

The FDA chairman, I believe, claiming that there wasn't sufficient data on
the potential side effects in very young teens. Given that very young teens
are, by definition, the *least* likely people to be using MAPs, it was seen
by most who favored its approval as pretty blatant pandering to religious
conservatives who fear that easy availability of MAPs would lead to more
promiscuity.

I *do* appreciate some people's discomfort with any form of birth
control that *might* prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
OTOH, given that this is not the primary means by which MAPs
operate, it seems to me counterproductive for those who'd like to
see fewer abortions to oppose making it more readily available
since the vast majority of pregnancies it prevents will be
prevented through preventing conception altogether.

If we aren't going to outlaw oral contraceptives, it doesn't seem
to make sense to outlaw that either, I agree.

Of course, MAPs aren't illegal now. It's just that as long as you need a
doctor's prescription to get them and they work best within a very short
window of time, the likelihood of getting them in time to do any good after
the condom breaks on Friday night is pretty slim. That's especially true for
the many woman who don't have a regular care provider they can contact
easily for a prescription.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

Tolerance, equality, and personal liberty *are* moral values!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Barbara said:

I realize that. But I can't remotely see how Catholics will ever get all
people in the culture to agree to eliminating both abortion and all methods
of birth control other than NFP. You want to talk about a population
explosion!

I don't think that's on the Catholic agenda, at least not that I've heard.
We'd just be happy if we could get our own members to conform to the teaching.
I'd certainly like to see NFP in more widespread use--I've found it really neat
to see how many people on this ng use it for non-religious reasons.


I will also say that one of the reasons the pro-life/pro-choice debate is so
bitter is this very fact. Certain elements of the pro-life movement are not
interested merely in preventing/stopping abortions, but in
preventing/stopping people from using other forms of birth control. I
frankly find that quite chilling.

Honestly, I don't know about that, other than Catholics wanting other Catholics
to conform to Church teaching. I don't care in the least what kinds of bc
non-Catholics use!


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

Ericka said:

. I see that sort of thinking
in teens on all *sorts* of issues, even issues where the
stakes are much lower (or much higher, as in issues of
drunk driving--better to risk driving drunk and getting
killed than to risk suffering parents' disapproval if they
find out you've been drinking).

There again so much is going to depend on the parents and the messages they
send to their kids from very, very early on. I certainly intend to let my kids
know that I would rather have them call me than drive drunk, and that I don't
want them to have sex or get pregnant but that if they do I will help them.


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth