• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Breaking News - Palin's Daughter

In article <b86fdd03-747d-4ecd-9389-3824f5260d49@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Moira  <moirac@abraxasgroup.net> wrote:
>
>First in a post many months ago.. one of the members (gold - I think)
>clearly stated they thought it would be ok for 14 and 15 year old kids
>to have sex.. supervised or something.. as long as they used birth
>control...sometimes birth control is not 100%.  But now it's get the
>Republican time because their child has had sex and is not 18..

Stopping sexually mature teens from having sex isn't quite as bad as
holding back the tide, but it's up there.  If you want them to have an
otherwise normal life, you're simply not going to be able to actually
watch them enough to deny them the opportunity.  Even back when
segregated boarding schools were common, sneaking out was as well.
And while teaching them not to will work for some teens, there are
other teens who (given the exact same teaching) are going to do it
anyway.

Same goes for birth control, BTW -- if given sex education that
includes use of birth control methods, and given free access to birth
control, some teens will use it and other teens will not.  One can
hope that more teens will be willing to use birth control than
abstain, but I'm unaware of any studies showing the effect on teen
pregancy rates either way.

Which brings us to a big difference between one side and the other:

The "religious conservative" side believes that it is teen sex (or sex
outside of marriage in general) which is wrong, and that the risk of
pregnancy is secondary.  (though some of the kookier ones think that
pregnancy is a divine _punishment_ for teen sex.)

The "pragmatic liberal" believes that teen sex is wrong only because
of its possible consequences, including pregnancy.  Eliminate the
consequences and you eliminate the wrongness.  Reduce the chance of
consequences and you reduce the wrongness.

So the pragmatic liberal isn't so concerned if teen sex increases as a
result of their programs, as long as teen pregnancy and STDs and such
decrease.  The religious conservative isn't so concerned if teen
pregnancies increase as a result of their programs, as long as teen
sex decreases -- and in any case, they'll never support anything which
appears to encourage teen sex.

The two sides will never admit to understanding each other, because
that would lead to a silent impasse instead of a frenzied debate past
each other.

(The logical consequence, IMO, of the "pragmatic liberal" position is
that teen sex is perfectly fine.  However, even self-proclaimed
liberals seem to have a gut objection to teen sex, particularly where
their own children are concerned, so they come up with IMO flimsy
rationalizations about emotional harm...  I'm willing to take the
position to that conclusion, but then, I don't have any children)

>Then the interesting comment that if you have a special needs child...
>your life should be over.. you should not go out and get a high level
>job.. but stay home and take care of this child...need money.. need
>stimulation.. stuff envelopes in your spare time....

I made the comment, but not the elaboration, which was not what I meant.

>Obama was a bastard...yep in the old time usage.. his mother was
>unmarried..

They were married when he was born (possibly even engaged when he was
conceived), so he wasn't a bastard in the old time usage.  It hardly
matters, though; without titles nobility and primogeniture and all
that sort of inheritance-related stuff, bastardy is pretty much
meaningless nowadays.

Antworten