Pro-lifers have a "final solution" for anyone having extramarital sex--just say no!
In addition to the usual crimes against humanity, yesterday I saw at least two cases on the local news of horrendous torture, sexual abuse, and murder of innocent children at the hands of their own families. Is this the kind of blood the pro-lifers really want on their hands?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments376 - RedTard
Actually, fetuses do breath in the womb (amniotic fluid, not air) to stretch and strengthen their lungs and yes they are also alive. So an abortion does destroy a living, breathing human.
377 - Druxxx
Well then what it comes down to is, when can the potential human survive outside the womb, making it no longer just a potential human.
I think we could all agree that no amount of medical science could allow the fetus to survive outside the womb before the 16-18th week.
I think for now we could agree first on limiting abortions to the first 18 weeks, before you guys go for the whole thing.
378 - Mark
So according to that reasoning we should just kill off anybody who can make it on their own without a little help. Like people on respirators or insulin. The problem lies in the fact that we dont know exactly when this so called "potential human" actually becomes a human. If we cant tell when the baby is actually a baby, then why kill something unless your good and sure its a baby your killing. You dont just go off into the woods and shoot in every direction then if you hear something moaning in a bush say "I'm sure its not really a human". I'd like to think people like Druxx would want to make sure its a human theyre killing first.
379 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Druxxx,
I understand the thrust of your comments at #377 and #375. I don't really disagree. It is the standard viability argument. And it is a good attempt at bridging the gap between the "pro-lifers" and the rest of us. I thought up something similar in 1982 - though my date was 20 weeks.
But what happens if/when medical science makes it possible for a baby to survive outside the womb earlier than the 16th week?
That's when my wife lost our first kid. I got a good look at him. There was a lot of kid there. There was a human being there. And his face haunts me to this day. With the science available in the late '80's, there was no way he would have survived. But that can change - faster than you realize.
Then there is a second question that your argument needs to deal with. How can you really be sure of the date of conception? Your dateline concept for banning abortions (unless they endanger the mothers's life) depends on knowing with near certainty the date of conception.
Some women sense when they are particularly fertile. But not all women do. Some women sense when they have conceived. Not all women do.
Just something for you to ponder. This is a bitch of a question to wrestle with and I don't envy rabbis or doctors who have to deal with them.
380 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
That last word in #379 should have been "it," not "them."
381 - Anthony Grande
Druxx, inside the womb or not, human or alien, life or potential life you are still denying someone a life and since there is no afterlife you are sending them away to an eternity of blackness just so YOUR life can be that much better.
382 - Chris Evans
So sick of the conservative religious crap about abortion.
383 - Anthony Grande
So sick of liberal atheists killing babies and then turning around and saving death row inmates.
384 - Chris Evans
First of all, a fetus is not a baby. Second, you refer to death row inmatesa s though they are scum, not human beings. Which FETUSES aren't.
385 - Christine
Druxxx#371
"There is also a possibility that the soul and the body of a child do not meet until after birth."
Interesting statement...Unless you've been pregnant before,you wouldn't know what it feels like to bond with your unborn child.What an awful thought,the thought that I'm carrying around a souless child,and in an event of still born birth your sugessting that these babies were nothing??yet an interesting statement,which I've never heard before.
386 - Bong
At ten days a tiny but living human being sends a chemical hormonal message out into the mother’s body which stops her menstrual periods.
Later this tiny human being causes its mother’s breasts to enlarge in preparation for nursing, softens her pelvic bones to prepare for labor, and sets his or her birthday. The onset of labor is solely a fetal decision.
The heart begins to beat at 18 days and by 21 days the heart is pumping through a closed circulatory system with a blood type different from that of the mother.
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on an Electroencephalogram (EEG). Brain function as measured on the EEG is normally present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation, or six weeks after conception.
Until recently, doctors used the ending of respiration to measure the end of human life and doctors were using the end of heartbeat to measure the end of human life. This meant that life is present when the heart is beating.
Today the measure of the end of human life is brain death. This happens when there is irreversible cessation of brain function. The final measurement of this is the permanent ending of brain waves. Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual’s life is measured by the end of brain function as measured by brain waves on the EEG, it is logical to agree that an individual’s life begins with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument.
Pro-Life or Anti-Sex?
Pro-LIfe -- Yes.
Anti-Sex -- No, that is how humans are born.
Abortion makes us guilty of the worst possible crime imaginable -- infanticide.
If we are going to kill. Let’s do it to those deserving of that punishment, not kill the most innocent among us.
387 - Elvira Black
Mark:
Thank you for addressing my question on birth control. It is more than many here have done. Although I cannot adhere to your particular religious preferences (abstinence, no birth control) I do appreciate your explanation of same.
KYS and Druxxxx: I think your arguments here are sound--at least from where I sit.
Ruvy: Your bring up some interesting points, but I was a little amazed at your admission that if you were single you would be chasing women (and I can only assume the rest). If you are teaching your kids not to do this (are you) why would it be ok for you to do so? I know I'm assuming a lot here that you didn't directly say, but I think you know what I mean. One of the many reasons I never became a parent is because parents are often stuck in the "do as I say, not as I do" quagmire.
Just for a goof, here's my personal feelings on the matter.
Though I can understand the debate over when life begins, this does not negate the reality that people are out there as we speak having unprotected sex, having unwanted pregnancies, abortions, etc.
Since this is the case, and if those who debate this issue are TRULY interested in stemming the tragedy of "murdering" foetuses, then I would think one of your first orders of business would be to come back down to planet earth and realize that condoms can resolve a lot of issues here without a "shot" being fired. Otherwise you can argue til you are blue in the face about the "scientific" or "unscientific" "facts" about the nature of the origin of life--and meanwhile the unwanted babies will continue to be born. Some of them will be neglected, abused, raped, tortured, and killed by their so called "loving" mothers and fathers--the loving mothers who carried them to term and are thus so "bonded" to them in the first place.
Men and women have to be held equally responsible for abstinence and/or birth control. No fair to dwell solely on the mother taking measures to prevent pregnancy or abort for her own "selfish convenience." Please don't tell me you're so out of touch that you don't see the hordes of unwed mothers with no outside means of support from the "fathers' who are nowhere to be seen and don't give a rat's ass about the precioius "life" they have brought into an often uncaring world.
I have always practiced birth control, but if, say, I were raped or a condom broke I dont think I'd have too hard of a time taking the "morning after" pill--but would do so asap.
Abortion would be a tougher dilemma to face. Similarly, if I decided to have one I would do it asap. I think that one of the problems is that underage teens do not get the chance to sit down with their parents and discuss sex, birth control, etc. without histrionics and unreasoning, unrealistic dictates about "don't you dare have sex." If a girl gets pregnant, will she then be able to come to her parents in a timely manner and discuss her options before it's too late--including, perhaps, adoption as an option rather than abortion? Some girls who might otherwise consider carrying their child to term may abort out of terror over what their parents may say or do when they find out she is pregnant. Has anyone thought of this scenario amidst all the "scientific" niceties of precisely when life begins?
Similarly, I don't think parents should be able to force their child to have a baby against her will, but neither should they force her to abort against her will. She was old enough to get preganant; it's her body and her life; thus her decision. But this decision can sometimes be a tough one, and can be altered or delayed esp. if she doesn't even know or is not certain she's preganant in the first place til things are considerably far along.
Again, for those who are pro-life--do you have to have the entire cake here? Can't you countenance the fact that people have a legal right to legal and safe birth control and yes, even extramarital sex, if they choose? Do they have to stop having sex (an impossible goal) because you wish to shake your finger at them and tsk tsk them for being selfish and sinful? Do you want to establish a police state where people must register before they are allowed to have intercourse, or monitored in their bedrooms to make sure they are doing so in the "correct" way? How far do you intend to take this "holy" fight of yours? What country are you living in? Are we in the Middle East or the USA?
Plus, the old "cast the first stone" rule applies here. Religious leaders who are sometimes cynically leading their "flock" are not always the best role models. How many of you are not aware that some of those who scream the loudest about abstinence are those who are later found to have had extramarital affairs?
"Let he who is without sin..." Remember?
OK, you're now free to continue to argue around my comment and debate some more about when life begins, while already- born, unwanted babies continue to suffer at the hands of abusive parents who brought them life--and sometimes bring them death as well.
388 - Kevin Surbaugh
It's not "just say no" to sex it's pre-marital/extra-maital sex. The concept of one woman on man thing.
Also an interesting survey done by planned parenthood, which has them concerned because it showed that more women then men were pro-life. Despite their arguement that its a womans body, its actually men who don't want to take responsibility for their actions using it. Most women as a whole support protecting the life of the unborn.
389 - Elvira Black
Kevin:
Marital sex--the ONE woman/ONE man thing?
OK, if that's the case, let's outlaw divorce. When you marry you vow to stick with your partner "for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health...
Till DEATH do you part."
How many people who rail against extramarital sex have NEVER, ever engaged in it? Moreover, Is remarrying not engaging in sex with more than one woman or one man? Hey, just because it's legal now doesn't mean it's moral, right? Who's for abolishing divorce? Do I hear any takers?
If I were to become a religious leader, my schtick would be--no divorce. No splitting up of families and traumatizing children with multiple mommys and daddys and stepsiblings. No screeching custody battles and latchkey children.
Please supply, only if you care to, a direct quote (not from a right-wing source) which states that Planned Parenthood has become "concerned" about more women than men supposedly being pro-life--and an unbiased survey proving that more women are pro-life than men. Not that it means or proves much of anything to me, so never mind all the research.
You said:
"Despite their arguement that its a womans body, its actually men who don't want to take responsibility for their actions using it."
My point exactly. How many unwed and abandoned mothers are out there, exactly? Just let the guys know when the party starts (and f#uck those condoms, they don't feel as good) and I'm outta here when it's over, babe....
390 - Anthony Grande
"The heart begins to beat at 18 days and by 21 days the heart is pumping through a closed circulatory system with a blood type different from that of the mother."
And they are not alive? Is this anough proof to call these heartless cowards "pro-death" yet?
391 - Elvira Black
"These heartless cowards"--"pro death"--I could say the same for some members of our current Administration.
I think for some of you this hopelessly insolvable argument about when life begins blocks out all reason and logic about what might be done to stem the tide of "death." I've posed some questions in the comment above, as I have before. For the most part, these questions have been ignored, because arguing about how all prolifers are pro death is much, much more simplistic and much more "fun." It's great, isn't it, to know exactly who your evil enemies are both here and abroad, and to be willing to fight them to the death? Ever hear of divide and conquer? Americans are at each other's throats over the abortion issue and the war, and it's not a pretty sight.
Kids like Anthony are too young to have experienced much of life's grey areas, or to have much empathy or understanding for anyone who disagrees with their extremist rants. Thing is, those much older and "wiser" are right there behind him all the way.
Some day kids like Anthony--if they survive serving in this war--may find themselves in a situational dilemma where their ideals are put to the test. This may even come during their time served--soldiers, despite their bravery, are not always known for their "cleancut" personal behavior in times of battle--meaning chastity and sobriety at all times. And who the hell could blame them? Anthony may even experience significant peer pressure to go a-drinkin and a-whorin with his new buddies. Will he resist the tempation and the possibly significant pressures to do so?
Oh well, I may as well just piss in the wind. But it is again most interesting that no one has fully responded to my comment and questions posed above. That might take some reasoned thought rather than mindless ranting and name calling--which takes no more brains or experience to do than, say, playing a video war game.
392 - Mark
Okay Elvira, I'll take a crack at your comments in 387. You're reasoning is that it is unrealistic to think that people will never have extramartial or premarital sex again and unplanned pregnancy will be erradicated so we should plan instead for how to deal with these problems existing. My problem with this is that it makes less sense to me. It is always a better idea to eliminate the results by dealing with the cause of a problem. You dont just put the towel on the ground to mop up the water coming out of the sink, you shut off the faucet. I agree that it is not realistic to think that people will ever stop having extramarital sex, but it is also unrealistic to think that people will start to use birth control and contraception properly all the time, every time they have sex. Teenage people are pretty much going to continue to accidentally get pregnant, but the difference between us is that I dont feel its acceptable to allow them to make an innocent baby suffer for their mistakes.
I would like to see abortion made illegal for this reason. It is unrealistic to think that no one ever will murder someone ever again, but I still think it is a good idea to encourage people not to and to have laws in place which will require people to face the consequences of their actions.
Another point you made was that some unwanted babies are raped, tortured, abused and neglected, but isnt it true that some "wanted" babies are treated this way as well? Simply because not everyone who is a parent is the best parent does not mean that we can say that its unfair to force people to be parents on the off chance that they might not be good at it.
Lastly you keep taking Bible quotes and throwing them in here and there to prove your points, but they dont always seem to fit. The "let he without sin" quote doesnt mean that we shouldnt try to tell other people when they are making mistakes, and it doesnt mean that only sinless people can tell others how to live. We are all sinners, but the Lord still wants us to help other people to get to heaven. Just because someone might be a hypocrite, doesnt mean that what they are saying isnt true. I could tell you that murder is wrong and then kill someone, but it doesnt mean that murder is right does it? Saying that I have no right to tell someone the truth, just because I have made mistakes in my life makes no sense.
393 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Elvira writes,
"Ruvy: Your bring up some interesting points, but I was a little amazed at your admission that if you were single you would be chasing women (and I can only assume the rest). If you are teaching your kids not to do this (are you) why would it be ok for you to do so? I know I'm assuming a lot here that you didn't directly say, but I think you know what I mean. One of the many reasons I never became a parent is because parents are often stuck in the "do as I say, not as I do" quagmire."
I didn't catch this is in looking at other posts and arguing there...
In the '70's when I was single, it was a different world. Sex was "freer" because it didn't have AIDS attached as a price. You didn't get the sense that in sleeping with a woman, you were sharing all the viruses and diseases deposited by her previous lovers...
Sleeping around was less of a "sharing" experience then.
I didn't always buy into the arguments I present now. I was quite a different person when I was younger.
AND I've suffered through a divorce and all the sense of failure that it engendered, including being homeless for a year. I'm just very grateful that there were no kids from that first marriage.
So when I was "in the market" for a second time, I had clear ideas as to what I wanted and didn't want, and had no trouble with the "do as I say and not as I do" quagmire. The world had sufficiently changed that I felt justified in not raising my sons to act as I did.
There is still no cure for AIDS.
Frankly, if I were single now, I'd feel like a mere hanger of a man. If I had a girlfriend, it would be some consolation, but I would have felt that I had not fulfilled my responsibilities to my parents or my people.
394 - Anthony Grande
Comment 391,
Uh...no. Just because your comment is long doesn't mean it proves anything. Infact, your comment didn't go anywhere.
How do you know my stances on other issues besides abortion?
And how does going drinking with my army buddies have anything to do with my pro-life stances?
I am an extremeist? Can you tell explain to me how I am an extremist and you are not?
395 - Silas Kain
No wonder I'm gay.
396 - justine
please don't conflate "pro-life" and "liberal".
I think the issue is really about whether or not people have the right to come to their own conclusions about these things.
Is a foetus a human? I don't know.
Would I ever have an abortion? No, never.
Am I fundamentally opposed to abortion and would I deny other women ther choice? No.
397 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Justine, NEVER say "never."
398 - Mark
Justine....you can go ahead and say never whenever you want. especially when it comes to killing people.
399 - Bob Uhl
"BTW--the "morning after" emergency contracepton pill that everyone is so up in arms about--the pill that women can take shortly after unprotected sex--does not abort anything. It is commonly confused with the so-called "abortion pill," which is an entirely different thing. Taken in a timely fashion, emergency contraception merely makes the womb unviable for sperm implantation. No more an abortion than using the Pill would be, but then, many members of the religous right apparently don't believe that anyone should have protected extramarital sex at all."
Umm, do you realise that doesn't make sense? Sperm don't implant in the uterus--the child does (the sperm and egg meet in the fallopian tubes; the egg is fertilised by the sperm and the two become an embryo--that is, a brand-new human being). Now, plenty of embryos fail to implant for all sorts of reasons; that doesn't make them any less human, any more than the fact that plenty of children die in their first year are still human.
The name 'emergency contraception' is a misnomer because conception occurs before implantation; emergency 'contraception' does nothing to act against conception that I know of.
"Verily I say unto you: if you are an Orthodox Jew, don't work in a pork store. If you are opposed to birth control, you have no business being a pharmacist. Try some holier line of work that doesn't compromise your religious beliefs and moral scruples."
But surely an Orthodox Jew can be a butcher, just not selling pork products. And surely one opposed to contraception can be a pharmacist, just not one selling contraception.
Personally, I'm unopposed to non-abortaficient contraceptives (e.g. condoms), but I see no reason to force people to choose between otherwise-attractive employment and their principles.
400 - KYS
Ok, so how do you propose we figure out which pharmacies will give out birth control? Should there be some kind of sign in the window? Maybe a condom covered penis with a line through it?
Hey, now that we're on the subject, why should a Jewish doctor work on a Muslim? Shouldn't he be able to deny that patient? How do we work that situation out?
While we're at it, Christian teachers shouldn't have to instruct Jews, right?
It's about tolerance, not judgement. Don't work in the public sector if you only want to deal with people on your specific wavelength.
401 - Anthony Grande
If a Jew is really offended to have a Christian teaching him or her then this Jew should go to an all Jewish school.
"Am I fundamentally opposed to abortion and would I deny other women ther choice? No."
Why is this always about the women? You wouldn't deny the WOMAN her choice to kill, but you will deny the little HUMAN inside her life?
402 - KYS
"If a Jew is really offended to have a Christian teaching him or her then this Jew should go to an all Jewish school."
You're missing the point. Again.
This is not about the consumer (the student); this is about the service-provider. If you don't want to teach a diverse student body you shouldn't be teaching in a public school. Likewise, if you don't want to serve the diverse medical needs of the population you shouldn't be a public pharmacist- and you shouldn't be licensed by the state to do so
.
403 - Elvira Black
Mark:
I understand some of your reasoning, but I also think some of what you say weakens your arguement.
I don't think that encouraging birth control will totally eradicate unwanted births and abortion, but it probably will help. And since every life is precious, I think this is an endeavor worth pursuing.
It is my belief that many so-called religious leaders who are caught with their pants down are very very greedy and often cynical souls whose goal is simply to take money out of guileless parisioner's pockets.
And I do think that being a hypocrite makes one less of a role model to follow--absolutely.
You said:
"The "let he without sin" quote doesnt mean that we shouldnt try to tell other people when they are making mistakes, and it doesnt mean that only sinless people can tell others how to live. We are all sinners, but the Lord still wants us to help other people to get to heaven. Just because someone might be a hypocrite, doesnt mean that what they are saying isnt true. I could tell you that murder is wrong and then kill someone, but it doesnt mean that murder is right does it? Saying that I have no right to tell someone the truth, just because I have made mistakes in my life makes no sense."
Yes, I agree to some extent with this. We are all "sinners"--for those who choose to use that word. But I also think that some people tend to "play G-d," and if they are going to preach from the pulpit that extramarital sex is wrong they should serve as a proper role model themselves. Same goes for the camel passing through the needle's eye passage as regards to greedy people who want to get into Heaven but want their "cake" of wealth as well. I think that some of these religious leaders twist around the words of Jesus to fit their own personal/political agendas.
However, I do respect your opinions, and see what you are getting at. But once again, I feel that we are still on earth and not heaven; that we are all "sinners;" and it follows that people will still have extramarital sex unless we invoke some sort of sex-police state. Therefore, I think that if one can't realistically oust what you see as the primary root cause that we should tackle the secondary issue, viz: in the interests of saving innocent lives/foetuses, birth control is a very viable option. People may still be sinning as we all do, but at least some innocent lives will be spared.
I thank you for addressing my comments so thoughtfully and thoroughly.
404 - Elvira Black
Ruvy:
Thank you for your comment #393.
However, to my mind, there is an amazingly simple little device that can help prevent AIDS and other STD's, unwanted pregnancies, and abortion to boot.
It's called a condom.
Anthony:
You may be right about my comments going nowhere, because very few people are willing to directly address them. Some are, but most are still too busy arguing about when life begins. This is fine, but I have posed some questions here that I think are worth addressing as well.
I know that you are planning to join the army, and that you feel wholeheartedly you will be serving both G-d and country in doing so.
Perhaps your views on chastity are not what I assumed considering your pro-life stance, but you did point out that underage drinking is illegal. Perhaps I deduced wrongly that you intended to wait until 21 or whatever the legal drinking age is to imbibe.
If not, it is interesting to note that alcohol often causes people to compromise their actions and beliefs, including their sexual ones. They may not be thinking too hard about what a sexual encounter may lead up to in the heat of the moment. It can lead to pregnancy, and perhaps even abortion, and you may not be able to contol the latter, and thus to your mind this may make you an accessory to murder. Not that you are holding your partner's hand at the abortion clinic, but it was your decision if you chose to have sex without a condom, and this can result in pregnancy AND possible abortion as well. If you have an encounter with a prostitute or other woman you will never see again, you will never know for sure if the woman in question will get pregnant and possibly abort your baby.
Those who do not believe in birth control and find themselves in this dilemma might consider what it infers here.
I think I have demonstrated at least to my satisfaction in my comments here why believe I am not an extremist. I think you have repeatedly demonstrated in many of your inflammatory comments why I believe you are. But then, this is an opinion piece, and I have a right to my opinion as you do yours.
405 - Elvira Black
Justine:
Some people here seem to have a huge problem with the reasoning that although they are entitled to their personal choice re: if they themselves would have an abortion, it does not follow that their personal choice should be forced down everyone else's throats.
I have no idea why some people here would say "never say never."
Many thanks for your comment.
406 - Elvira Black
Silas:
You're gay? Shhhh...don't say that too loud here (lol)!
Bob:
I admitted my ":ignorance" about the morning after pill, in terms of the fact that some would still consider it to be "abortion."
If you want to be a pharmacist who doesn't dispense birth control, I guess you would have to find a Christian-run pharmacy. Otherwise, you are being paid to perform the duties included in your job description.
You can be personally opposed to condoms, but they are perfectly legal, so you do not have the right to ask that they not be sold, or that people not use them. Your personal beliefs are yours; others are theirs.
KYS:
As always, superb reasoning.
Anthony:
KYS was talking about a doctor who might refuse to treat someone of another religious belief.
When you get out in the real world, perhaps you will be a little less sure of yourself when it comes to your grand pronouncements.
If you are going to war, do you not think it possible that you will be "denying life" to children who may be killed in the midst of war, however inadvertently?
407 - JR
Bob Uhl: Personally, I'm unopposed to non-abortaficient contraceptives (e.g. condoms), but I see no reason to force people to choose between otherwise-attractive employment and their principles.
Hmmm, I think being in the military could be a great experience - you get to travel, you learn self-defence, you get trained on all kinds of cool equipment. But this bit about getting bossed around is total bullshit. Nobody has the right to order me to do stuff I don't want to do. Otherwise, it's an attractive career; so they should just let me join but exempt me from having to follow orders. I know I have better judgement than most of those officers anyway.
408 - Elvira Black
Bob:
I apologize as I realize you said you are not opposed to condoms, but the rest of my statements still stand.
409 - Mark
Elvira, I just dont feel like my point is landing here. My feelings against contraception arn't solely based in religious belief. You hold that more contraception will lead to fewer "unwanted children" and thus to fewer abortions. I suppose this makes sense in a certian logic. You are saying that people can have their cake and eat it too. It seems to me that this dilemma has been dealt with throughout the course of human history and it has been proven again and again that you cannot in fact have your cake and eat it to. Sex is beautiful and it is meant to express total love and vulnerability to that person you love. My proposal to simply encourage people to respect themselves and respect the people they love enough to wait until they are married doesnt seem overly far fetched. I'm 23, HOT and a virgin and it really wasnt all that hard once I was armed with the facts. By saying that you are "living in the real world" you are simply saying that you dont believe in humanity enough to give it some credit. I think we are special. I know that we can control ourselves and act like adults. If people are so immature that they want to just sleep with anything that moves and refuse to accept the consequences then I may have to change my views on the true nature of humanity, or maybe this is just another stage of Darwinian natural selection.
410 - Mark
Another point I had intended to make there was regarding your whole reasoning with the situation. You solution to having too many unwanted pregnancies was to simply provide more contraceptives. Back to my overflowing sink analogy, if you want to keep the floor dry, you dont keep throwing more and more towels on it, you shut off the faucet. If you dont want unwanted pregnancies, start telling people its okay not to have sex until your ready.
411 - KYS
Mark,
How about we unplug the drain? That way, the water can run but the sink won't overflow.
Sorry, I got carried away with the analogy, but in all seriousness, why does it have to be either one way or the other? We need to provide information/choices/support for those who abstain AND those who want to have premarital sex with multiple partners. The prudes, the sluts and everybody in between should be free to make their own decisions.
I've said before, human beings are physiologically ready to have sex at around 12 years old. That's how god/nature made us. So...is it realistic to expect they will all wait until they get married? Heck no! So it's a Mexican standoff. Will you continue your message of abstinence (Hello, McFly? it isn't working!!)Or will you compromise and ENCOURAGE abstinence but include birth control education and availability for those who weigh the options and choose to have sex?
If you say abstinence is the ONLY way, you should just take your ball and go home.
412 - Roseanne T. Sullivan
Random thoughts about all these posts.
The posts that scoff about the futility of expecting people not to go to bed outside of marriage are denying the reality that for ages it was understood in the majority of cultures that sleeping with another person is reserved for marriage(except for the occasional disfunctional cultures dug up by anthropologists looking for justifications for their own sexual immorality).
Parents would protect their daughters from unprincipled men that would take their virginity and discard them. Decent fathers would advise their sons not to take advantage of women by seeking to have the thrill without being willing to give the love and commitment.
Before the sexual revolution, the norms were different than they are now. When something is illegal or recognized as immoral, only those who are on the fringes are likely to do it. Most people live within the values of their society.
Now everything is legal, and the consequences are horrible. I would argue that separating sex from conception and from love and that abortions are root causes behind child abuse, not the lack of available contraception or lack of access to abortion (which some claim). When love and child bearing and any inconveniences on our way to pleasure are perceived in such a negative light, then a child is seen as an object that can be abused when it interferes with our pleasure. Just as other people are seen as objects in the we live now.
What we do to our children with this Brave New Morality is damage them. Instead of training our children with the training that went on for ages and ages that physical "knowing" of a member of the opposite sex belongs only in marriage, we encourage our young people not to "repress" themselves. We now teach that people are incapable of self control.
The truth is that people that have sex outside of marriage are playing havoc with their normal feelings. They have to learn how to repress instead a whole other set of associated feelings that come with sexual union without love or commitment.
The hatred of someone who "clings" or is "possessive" is part of that whole mindset. The real crime is to use without love, but in our society the natural feelings of jealousy, along with the desire to want to "own" or keep the other person in our life after we have given ourselves to that person in that most intimate of all acts, these natural feelings are perceived as being evil and we are taught to repress them.
Liberals in these matters give their children permission to freely engage in a heartless coming of age ritual that in many ways is a mutilation of the soul and body that is equivalent to or even worse than genital mutilation.
When a young woman and man have "sex," for the first time, they enter into a physical union that for the health and happiness of them both belongs in a committed relationship. The consequences are harmful psychologically, physically, morally, and spiritually. Breaking up is hard to do.
Learning how to manage the feelings is the rite of passage I'm speaking of, which is wrong because it teaches people to deny their real feelings in pursuit of an imagined freedom, which ironically often leads to slavery.
Women are especially cheated of the full expression of their natural instincts with that kind of relationship. When I was growing up, future thinkers like Hugh Hefner and Isaac Asimov and Isaac Asimov dreamed of a world like we have now, where a person could have intercourse with a stranger without any ties. Women's instincts are for child bearing and love of husband and children, but they are being taught the perversion of their natural instincts is for their good. Abortion, the violation of a woman's natural feelings of love for the fruit of her womb, is for the convenience of people like Hefner, whose vision of freedom is freedom to use women who are always young, never dependent, never fertile, never inconvenient.
Learning how to let go of someone with whom you have the sexual union is painful. Drugs and alcohol and meanness help dull the pain and guilt. Everyone acknowledges that when a "relationship" ends, it is like a little death. It can take six months or often a lifetime to recover from losing a person who is connected to you whether or not you want to admit the connection exists. Our society denies the connection exists, but that does not make it any less real.
The person who is rejected (the dumpee) is always diminished in their sense of their own value. How can that other person have known me so deeply and found me unworthy of love?
A lifetime of making and breaking these bonds has many evil consequences, and one of them is the people who are schooled in immoral sex find it very hard to make real and lasting commitments.
They start with what used to be called love, and don't call it love unless it suits them.
It's like we don't call a baby in the womb a child unless it suits us. A man can be tried for killing an unborn child if he kills a pregnant mother, but society paradoxically says that for a woman to kill a baby in her own womb is not murder.
Words used to deny the reality of love and of life are lies.
Don't laugh at the idea that you can avoid sexual disease and unwanted pregnancies by not having sex until marriage. Don't forget that for ages upon ages humans understood the natural results of intercourse are both a permanent connection with the other person and the creation of new life.
Just because birth control was invented doesn't mean that it is a good thing for the human race. If a pill gets invented that reliably enables people to eat more than they need without the food being converted into bodily nutrition and fat reserves, that won't make gluttony a good thing either.
People bond because they do literally become one flesh, whether or not they even like each other. Separating from that bonding is traumatic, but people accept the pain because it's part of the illusion of freedom that we value so highly. And when the person gets trained into lust separated from love, that person probably learns to be very cavalier about the pain that the pursuit of lust causes in their dealings with other people.
Oh Mean New World that has such people in it.
413 - KYS
"The truth is that people that have sex outside of marriage are playing havoc with their normal feelings. They have to learn how to repress instead a whole other set of associated feelings that come with sexual union without love or commitment. "
Playing havoc? That's quite an assumption on your part, I think. People can have loving, committed relationships that include sexual intimacy without marriage or children.
"Learning how to let go of someone with whom you have the sexual union is painful. Drugs and alcohol and meanness help dull the pain and guilt. Everyone acknowledges that when a "relationship" ends, it is like a little death. It can take six months or often a lifetime to recover from losing a person who is connected to you whether or not you want to admit the connection exists. Our society denies the connection exists, but that does not make it any less real. "
Certainly, any breakup can be painful. But this is so whether or not a couple has sex. Breakups don't have to be traumatic, however. Two healthy, well-adjusted adults should be able part ways gracefully when a relationship dies. I'm not sure what you mean by "connection". Are you saying that sex bonds two people for life? I don't think that is always the case. I certainly don't feel bonded to any of my ex's anymore.
"Don't laugh at the idea that you can avoid sexual disease and unwanted pregnancies by not having sex until marriage.'
I'm not laughing! You're absolutely right! But it's not the ONLY choice. I don't want to tell you how to live your life any more than I want you to tell me how to live my life.
414 - KYS
BTW, Congrats, Elvira- over 400 comments! Woo-hoo!
415 - T A Dodger
Rosanne:
1. People can love each other without being married.
2. Falling in love with someone does open you up to the possibility (certainty?) of intense pain. Very few people see this as a reason not to love others.
3. Women who have premarital sex aren't victims.
Women enjoy sex. We enjoy sex just as much as men (after all, potential for multiple orgasms = "what's not to like?").
4. Some women don't want to have children (shocking, I know).
5. People who don't like children don't make good parents.
416 - Elvira Black
Mark:
I understand your reasoning, and think it is admirable for yourself. I just don't think it is useful to deny the fact that in America, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiiness--and yes, maybe even unhappiness if we "choose" to. If someone wants to engage in extramarital sex and theoretically experience all the pain and suffering that you imagine they go through, that is still their choice as human beings. There is no point in imagining that you will be able to convince the whole world otherwise, at least not at this juncture.
So my reasoning is , in this imperfect world that we live in, what do we do to prevent abortions? Hide our head in the sand and wish things were different? Sure, we can advocate for chastity, but we can't control what other adults choose to do.
Since children and underage teens are not completely free to choose their lifestyle, parents can counsel them against premarital sex if they choose. But again, it's simply not realistic to think you can parent the whole world.
Like Anthony, you are very young. You may find as you get older that your ideals may or may not stand the test of time.
As I've said before, plenty of people feel morally righteous about being serially monogamous as long as it is within the bounds of mulitple marriages. I think monogamy is monogamy. But I can't change the marrige laws and demand that people bond for life.
Condoms are legal, and I would be very incensed if someone told me I couldn't use them if I chose to. I am an adult, which means I still have the freedom in this country to decide certain issues of morality for myself.
In any case, I'm happy for you and wish you the best.
417 - Roseanne Sullivan
KYS wrote: "People can have loving, committed relationships that include sexual intimacy without marriage or children."
TA Dodger wrote: People can love each other without marriage.
But do they? WIthout marriage there is no real commitment. And love that is conditional on an emotion or thrill is not love. Love is an action. It's being there for the other person sometimes even when they can not do us a bit of good.
Gay "committed" couples I've met are promiscuous, with options for "relationships" on the side. If monogamous, their "committments" are usually short-lived.
It's the nature of sexual pleasure (when it is divorced from the bonding and the fruitfulness of engendering a child) to lead to disatisfaction. When the thrill is gone, the person looking for the thrill starts scanning the horizon for someone to regain the thrill with.
If you are a committed heterosexual couple, why not marry? How many movies you see these days show the answer to that question: the person is hoping to find a better partner, and if a better catch comes along the "committment" will be over in a flash, even up to the moment the vows are being pronounced. Or later.
Sure women enjoy intercourse. But they also enjoy being valued for more than orgasmic pleasure. Even the raunchiest woman I have ever met once expressed to me that she feels badly when a man breaks off with her. What she does, she told a group of us out for Mexican at Chili's one noon time, that she goes out and picks someone up. Waiting to see if the man she has a one night stand with is going to call her keeps her from thinking about the loss of the first guy. For even this clearly "sex"-loving woman, the attachment is real and is painful if ended. This woman has since divorced her third husband. To me she is one of a large set of people I've known whose lives show that uncommitted unions lead to an inability to commit.
Intercourse has a biological function and a psychological function, and but the philosophers of sex like Hugh Hefner who helped bring about the overthrow of morality like to pretend it is just an isolated act.
The way we live now:
People are denying the natural law built into their own bodies.
Yes, I'm saying that a bond is created with sexual union, whether or not you like the person or not. Whether or not you are "just using" (what a horrible phrase) that man or woman.
If a woman or a man doesn't want marriage or children, that person should not engage in intercourse, because the natural outcome of the act of what used to be called love is bonding for life and children.
If you really love someone you don't do things that damage them. Having sex outside of marriage is skimming the cream off the top and tossing the rest of the person aside. You are taking that person out of the full context of what they are. You are not building a life with that person and with the to-be-expected lives that are to be born of that union. Everything is conditional, even if you "love." We all know how fast "love" can disappear.
And all of a sudden a conceived child becomes "a by product of conception" instead of a human being. We have made sex our god, and we see that any consequences of worshipping sex are to be endured stoically because they serve the highest goal of life, which is to be free and to have as many orgasms as possible.
Do you know how much you have been brainwashed by the culture you were raised up in? The set of beliefs seem to me to be unreasoned and embraced blindly. THere is no right to have sex. Even for something as mundane as driving is not allowed to people who will not do it responsibly. You don't give someone a car unless they are licensed to drive.
"I don't want to tell you how to live your life any more than I want you to tell me how to live my life."
The Department of Motor Vehicles tells us how to live our lives.The people that make traffic laws tell us how to live our lives. The laws of physics tell us how to live our lives: If you crash into something because you are speeding you hurt yourself and others. These constraints on our freedom are to be desired.
In the same way, by nature intercourse is designed for a purpose and harm comes when the purpose is denied. There are laws about how to live our sexual lives that are for our own good. Sure I want to tell you how to live your life, because it is for your health and happiness. But if you want to keep driving 85 miles an hour without a seat belt four sheets to the wind, don't say I didn't warn you. And if I can, I will try to get your license taken away before you kill yourself or someone else.
There are many people who won't obey any laws because they don't want compromise their freedom. But they are risking a lot.
Freedom is not being free from constraints. Freedom is being free to choose to do the right thing.
418 - Elvira Black
Roseanne:
You say:
"The posts that scoff about the futility of expecting people not to go to bed outside of marriage are denying the reality that for ages it was understood in the majority of cultures that sleeping with another person is reserved for marriage(except for the occasional disfunctional cultures dug up by anthropologists looking for justifications for their own sexual immorality)"
I am not an expert on this by any means, but I am certain that even in cultures which officially condoned monogamy and marriage, people still did engage in extramarital sex. In some ages and in some cultures, it was simply done more circumspectly. And yes, in my parent's generation the divorce rate was much lower. But extramarital and premarital sex did take place.
I am actually with you on a lot of what you say. My personal experience was that in college I had a series of short term relationships and felt cheapened and cheated ultimately because the men did not feel as I did about commitment. But I considered it one of the lessons of growing up, and before graduation I met a man I would stay with for twenty years, though we never married or had children.
And yes, I do think that the sexual revolution was in some ways a disservice to women. I do think that sex for sex's sake can lead to heartbreak and alienation and despair for some--and that women as a rule are more vulnerable to this.
However, I still think it is a woman's choice. If she chooses to sleep with a guy on the first date, or the tenth date, or wait until marriage, that is her choice. She will, to use a tired cliche, make her own bed and have to sleep in it.
But again, there are women who wait til marriage, have children, a beautiful home, and at the age of 30 or 40 or 50 discover that their beloved husband has been having an affair and wants a divorce. It is simply a sad fact that people do not always mate for life. Personally, I am a romantic and think it very sad when children have to endure the upheaval of divorce. But this is something that noone here has addressed as yet.
Those commenters here who are young and idealistic have never experienced what a long term relationship is. They idealize sex as a spiritual bond, and in the first flush of young passion this is certainly the case. But for many couples, this romantic phase soon passes, and some look for that thrill elsewhere. In fact, millions do. I'm not saying this is "right"--just a fact of life and relationships, at least in our contemporary society.
There are and have been some societies also where a man may have multiple wives, or harems, or mistresses and this is considered the norm. Sad? Unfair? Perhaps--but it is reality, even if it is not always pretty.
Nevertheless, your points are well taken. Young women in particular often go through agony trying to please a man sexually only to be taken advantage of and dumped unceremoniously. However, it is up to each individual to decide for themselves how they will deal with this dilemma. They can choose to wait for marriage if they feel that is best for them. Again, I think this is admirable--just not the way for everyone.
419 - Elvira Black
KYS:
Thanks--who knew? (lol).
I value your comments here as the eloquent voice of reason.
T.A. Dodger:
Well put.
JR:
Touche!
Roseanne:
I guess you and I were writing our comments at the same time, and your second one came out before my first one did--or something (lol). I'll read your second one and probably add my two cents again.
420 - Elvira Black
Roseanne:
I understand why you believe what you do, but it is not illegal to have sex outside of marriage, and you are not the sex police.
I do not believe that people must have children or even marry if they choose not to. As I said, I never wanted children and had a committed 20 year relationship, with no cheating on either side, through good times and bad. Many people go through three marriages and multiple children in that time. A piece of paper does not a lifetime commitment make, and people break their marriage vows every day.
The implications of what you say are frankly a bit alarming to me. Would you outlaw extramarital sex? That may be acceptable in some other cultures--but not in ours, and I thank heaven for that.
Live your life as you see fit--enjoy--even advocate for what you believe in. But this is not a fascist dictatorship, and you have no right to figuratively stand by my bedside and dictate who and when and why and with whom I choose to have sex. You may not like it, but that's just the way it is.
421 - Mark
Roseanne, you rock. I appreciate you eloquence and your ability to stay on point, I tend to tangent. I just hope you feel good knowing that you did your best and placed the truth out there in front of them in a very plain and accessible fashion. Choice is an interesting thing, it seems as though these days people would rather allow the possibility of making the wrong choice over and over instead of ensuring themselves the chance to make the right choice every time. Freedom means making decisions right? (small tangent here for those using the rights clause of the constitution when the founders wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" life means LITERALLY, your life, meaning they cant kill you *coughbabiescough*, liberty means PHYSICAL freedom, meaning they cant take away your ability to move freely without just cause and the pursuit of happiness is NOT a catchall.) When people choose something they are trying to get to what they think is good. But we know man is fallible and thats why sometimes when we choose something we think is good it turns out not to be. However, if we can identify the all-good i.e. God, then since He is always good and nothing can ever be seen as better than Him then we still have the ability to make a choice but since we are going to go with what we identify as the greatest good then we are always going to choose God, so we really are in a sense both not-free and totally-free at the same time. take a breath.
422 - Katie
I LOVE YOU! I agree with you enough said!
423 - Elvira Black
Roseanne said:
"In the same way, by nature intercourse is designed for a purpose and harm comes when the purpose is denied. There are laws about how to live our sexual lives that are for our own good. Sure I want to tell you how to live your life, because it is for your health and happiness. But if you want to keep driving 85 miles an hour without a seat belt four sheets to the wind, don't say I didn't warn you. And if I can, I will try to get your license taken away before you kill yourself or someone else."
Where are you writing from, Roseanne? I assumed it was from the US, but maybe it's from--say--Saudi Arabia?
Mark said:
"I just hope you feel good knowing that you did your best and placed the truth out there in front of them in a very plain and accessible fashion."
Who's this "them," Mark? The heathens you must convert the way the Christian soldiers did during the Inquisition? Is that what you mean about placing the truth in front of "them?"
The truth, straight up, for real? You two scare the living shit outta me.
424 - KYS
"There are laws about how to live our sexual lives that are for our own good. "
Can you define these laws, please?
425 - Bennett
If I might cut to the chase about Roseanne's "time honored" and "traditional values throughout history" bit.
You ignore the reality that right up to 100 years ago, marriages happened between teenagers, and that you were an "old maid" if you were single and childless at 20.
We now ask our kids to put off for five to ten years, what used to take place at ~16. While subjecting them to ever increasing amounts of sexual stimulation.
We are actually in complete and insane violation of "time honored".
Please explain how we should deal with this perversion of traditional values?