posted
I really admire nurse people. I realize Sara is a doctor person but she has the nurse person personality.
Some of my greatest role models (my young women's leader, my grandmother, a good friend in college) are nurses, and they all seem to have such a great compassionate yet totally grounded, frank outlook that is vital for young people to hear.
It's important to hear the ideological reasonings behind lifestyle counsel, but it's also important to hear the straight up truth about it. And I really admire those who can talk about feelings and personalities and spiritual health in an entirely secular way.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, in fact, there is : You stop considering two-week fetuses as 'unborn babies.'
Regardless of what you consider to be the case, there will always remain the possibility that you are wrong. Even if you think there is only a slight chance that the thing you are killing is a person, it's not a very good risk to take just to have sex - and it's not going to be an easy decision to make, should you have to face it.
quote:Much of sex comes with no risk of resultant pregnancy, but it still counts. (Amazing how many young folk will not include anything but the traditional intercourse in the definition. Really amazing.)
It is amazing, actually. One of the most sexually active person I've known (at least among those who talked about it) was someone who claimed to follow abstenance because, to her, only the traditional intercourse "counted".
Needless to say, the are a number of related activities that can be nearly as risky, even though they don't carry the baby risk. I wouldn't be sure where to draw the line...
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regardless of what you consider to be the case, there will always remain the possibility that you are wrong.
I don't understand how one could be wrong about this. Does there exist a non-arbitrary definition of "human?" Are you appealing to a deity, here? How would I find out about it, if I were wrong? Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara - loved your original post (haven't read all the ones in between that one and this one here).
I agree that some words like that, or a person like you, might have helped guide me away from some foolish choices when I was a teen (25+ years ago).
I was insanely "curious" about sex -- and sex when it happened was mostly just a fulfillment of that curiosity, nothing more. I had no brothers, I grew up in a predominantly female household, and sex was very taboo to even mention. So of course I was curious about the male anatomy, and male affections.
I try to take all the mystery out of it for my kids by allowing all kinds of conversation about sex -- so that if they have sex, it won't just be to satisfy curiousity (as it was for me) or because the taboo-ness of the subject made it more appealing.
posted
I never got to have much of a wild time when I was a teenager. I honestly wonder if I've missed out...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No worries, Syn. You're not missing out on some wild heyday that is no longer to be found.
While much of the conversation about sex has used the trump card "but what about pregnancy?" can we try to discuss sexual relations in terms other than those? If only for the reason that many people practice "unconventional" sexuality, whether that be non-intercourse or same-sex partnering.
There's a term I've heard only in certain circles that might be of interest here. The term, "sex-positive," is often used to describe another viewpoint on sex than those commonly held here. From some searching, it seems that the following are ideals held by many who use the term "sex-positive":
quote:Pro Pleasure: We find sexual pleasure to be enjoyable and legitimate in its own right, and support all sex education efforts that we consider to be both pleasure-positive and honest. Pro Safety: We encourage the widespread availablity of effective safer sex education and supplies, and support whatever personal growth a person may find necessary to maintain his or her emotional safety and health while being sexually active. Pro Growth: We encourage open communication between people representing all genders, sexual orientations, sexual preferences, and consensual styles of sexual expression. We recognize that it is often from the people whom we perceive to be the most different from us that we have the most to learn. Pro Communication: We recognize that good communication in sexual matters is often critical in insuring consensuality, maximizing pleasure, and providing the best opportunity for personal development. Pro Expression: We find the erotic to be a legitimate area for artistic expression, and support the creation and enjoyment of quality erotic arts. Pro Education: We find the topic of sex to be inherently interesting, and support books, classes, discussions, etc. that increase our understanding of it on both personal and scholarly levels. We support efforts to increase the levels of tolerance, accuracy, and pleasure-positivity in contemporary sex education, and also support efforts to make quality sex education available to everyone. Pro Freedom: We support the legal right of all adults, regardless of gender, to engage in any consensual sexual activity they wish. We support the full extension of freedoms of speech to sexually explicit writings and discussion, whether in real-life, in print, or online.
Can the above occur outside of marriage? I say yes. Each person must know themselves fully, isn't that the real requirement?
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I also like Olivet's take on it. And I agree, that the best way to prepare your children for the pressures to have sex is not to treat sex as a giant mystery at all. Be open, be honest, and don't flinch from their questions.
Arm them with knowledge, and I especially appreciat the two answers Sara provided - if you loved me, you wouldn't pressure me. Sex should never be necessary to "prove" love, it should be an outpouring of love, but not a necessary ingredient. If my husband were somehow rendered incapable of having sex again the rest of his life, I would certainly miss it, but it wouldn't be fatal to our relationship.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may not be a logical argument, but it is a common sense one.
We do not know if X is true. If X is true, than Y is wrong. If X is false, than Y is right. If Y is wrong, it is very, very wrong indeed. Therefore, it would make sense to avoid even the possibility of the wrong by assuming X is true.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I won't go into the logic, because it's been quite some time since I studied syllogisms. But I would like to clarify my point : Arguing purely secularly, the only definition of "human" that makes sense is "whatever we decide is human," because there is no outside authority we can appeal to. Therefore, we can know whether an embryo is human or not : Look it up in a book of law.
From a religious point of view, of course, the matter is entirely different, and you find out whether or not you did right after you die.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, we've had a lot of discussions on this board where atheists have claimed that atheism is not a religion AND that a higher moral authority can exist without being based on the authority of a deity. So I'd say that just at this board there are people who would disagree with your analysis, KoM.
And, of course, if there is no higher authority and right and wrong are just what the law says they are, then there can be no over-arching reason for abortion to be a right. What moral principle would exist outside the law in such a scenario?
posted
...I guess this is mostly just a thank you for being so open and honest about such a controversial and often hard-to-define subject. I think people my age would generally be far less likely to make decisions and choices they are apt to regret later if only such issues were treated upfront with the respect and honesty they merit. Kudos to those of you who have been frank here and/or with your children, etc .
~A teen trying to sort out her own thoughts and feelings on the subject
Posts: 1548 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, we've had a lot of discussions on this board where atheists have claimed that atheism is not a religion AND that a higher moral authority can exist without being based on the authority of a deity. So I'd say that just at this board there are people who would disagree with your analysis, KoM.
I don't have the energy for the debate again, but count me as one of the anti-abortion atheists. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, of course, if there is no higher authority and right and wrong are just what the law says they are, then there can be no over-arching reason for abortion to be a right. What moral principle would exist outside the law in such a scenario?
Only the consensus morality that all or nearly all humans agree on and are willing to enforce. This is a fairly short list : I think most people would agree that murder, rape, incest, and theft are all wrong, but beyond that you have grey areas. Even theft can be justified in some instances, say to feed a starving child.
There is also an issue of practicality here, of course : If I were to agree that there is in principle nothing wrong with murder, who can say that I would not be the next target? I suspect industrial feudalism would be remarkably unpleasant. Therefore, it is in my interest to come down hard on murderers, and to teach children that "Thou shalt not kill." Similar considerations apply to the other crimes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I translated my steps from yours, the variables are the same. I did this an entire semester. I understand the argument, but your presentation implied a syllogism, which I showed in more strict (though not completely strict) notation.
1) X may be right (X) OR may not be right (NOT X), we can't be certain 2) If X is false (NOT X), Y is wrong (IMPLIES NOT Y) 3) Therefore we should not do Y (NOT Y)
It may be a correct argument, but in you presentation, it is a faulty syllogism. I understand it in the sense of Chris' restatement of it, but I was making sure you understood you were setting up the argument in the wrong format.
posted
Bok, I'm sure you don't believe that everything that is immoral should be done. Unless you're a strict utilitarian who considers all non-optimal actions immoral.
posted
Bokonon - not at all. The first is a state, the second is a course of action. One may instantly spur the other for you, but they are not the same thing, especially if you're trying to distill a complicated question into an algebra problem.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clara, it seems to me that the concept presumes that pleasure in and of itself is a good thing. There was a time when I agreed with that--then I read The Joy Machine . It's a Star Trek novel, but it brought a certain distinction home to me.
Pleasure is, at most, an indicator of goodness. Like all indicators, it can be spoofed. It registers many things as good when they are bad (cocaine, to take a particularly obvious example), and fails to register many demonstrably good things (it cannot tell me, for instance, when my car is running well). There is some truth to utilitarian theories, but a system that is to produce a functioning society must take into account something beyond pleasure.
Now what that means in this case is not the simple converse of your position--"Sex is bad". On the contrary, I agree with you that sex is a good thing. It is also a dangerous thing that must be handled with care. I'm not convinced that a "sex-positive society" would do a good job of actually making it a positive thing.
posted
Well, for one thing, sex-positive doesn't that you will "do it all." It's more of an understanding that repression and denial can be harmful ways of approaching sexuality (which some people might certainly disagree with). Someone who is sex-positive can say, "I enjoy X. I do not enjoy Y. I will do X with someone who also enjoys X. I will politely refuse Y." I like sex-positive thinking because it emphasizes:
1) Knowing who you are, and what you enjoy. 2) Letting other people decide those same things for themselves 3) Emphasizing self esteem, positive thinking. 4) Being educated, as to the risks, consequences, and safety concerns.
I have friends who are without a contemporary religion, but still intend on forgoing premarital sex. They can still be sex-positive individuals by being educated and supportive about their choices. I have one friend who certainly falls under that heading.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How I've explained it to my now 6-year-old. We use the word "mate" instead of "sex", because mating is what she understands. She does know that it's not appropriate for little kids to talk about having sex or being "sexy", because those words imply that you are ready to mate.
You don't want to have a baby until you find the right mate who will help you take care of the baby. Life is really hard when the baby's daddy and mommy aren't married to each other.
You aren't ready to marry until you can take care of yourself. My job as a mommy is to help you learn all the things you need to know to take care of yourself. You aren't ready to mate until your body is grown up enough, and your mind and heart are grown up, too. A person's body is usually ready to have a baby long before the heart and the mind are grown up enough, so you have to make wise choices when you are a teenager. If you are willing, Mommy and Daddy can help you.
Even after you know how to take care of yourself, you need to learn how to have a strong relationship with someone else before you have a baby. This can take time.
And then, when you have learned how to take care of yourself and you have learned how to live with somebody else, you are ready to have a family!
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yes, I test positive for sex myself. I am pro-sex. 'Tis a good thing.
However, like all things really worth experiencing, you must be willing to take on the consequences of your choices.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, as long as we agree that one can be willing and ready to take those consequences even outside of marriage.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, like all things really worth experiencing, you must be willing to take on the consequences of your choices.
Boy, this is just one of those statements that has the potential to derail the whole thread into an abortion argument. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yes, Dag. But I strongly encourage marriage before childbearing. It's ever so much better to have two people bearing that responsibility. Especially two people bearing different perspectives that are willing to commit to each other and their family. It's a beautiful thing. Not saying that other arrangements are unhealthy or bad. Just not as powerful or as easy to maintain in a healthy manner in the world/culture we live in.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Hopefully I am wiser now. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
