Continuation on the Reproductive Rights Topic

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Sex education only reduces pregnancies because of abortion. Do you actually think people are going to report being pregnant?[/quote]

lol

what

How can you report the pregnancy of a thirteen year old girl if she gets an abortion and conceals it? Sex education encourages abortion. Therefore, sex education only appears to reduce pregnancy because the pregnancies are concealed. I understand you like to laugh, but really try to listen to what I have to say because its important. God is going to talk to you soon.

lol[/quote]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Our society has an addiction and it doesn’t want to give it up. Sex education programs are akin to the serious alcoholic’s attempt to “moderate” his drinking. What he needs to be doing is getting the hell away from alcohol and from the situations that trigger his need to drink himself to death. “Moderation” is just more of exactly what he doesn’t need. [/quote]

No. Most of us just have a healthy attitude towards sex. It only appears as a “sex addiction” to you because of your religious views. Human sexuality is innate in all of us.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Now, what needs to be done heal this terrible wound (from a secular point of view, as I’m sure none of you are interested in prayer)? [/quote]

No, I’m interested in something that has demonstrated to work.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I sorry to say that I am not sure there is a viable solution at this point. What I DO know is that government enforced “BRAINWASHING” of my children, teaching CHILDREN how to engage in acts that I would be ashamed to “teach” to adults, and presenting this material as if it is somehow normal? This is not even dysphemism. This is what is actually being proposed here. With straight faces all around and an equal measure of atheistic evangelizing. Good grief. [/quote]

How did you come to the conclusion that teaching contraception use is brainwashing?

So you not only think it’s inappropriate to teach contraceptive use to adolescents, you also consider it improper to give this information to adults too? Really? Good grief.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

In fact, the mere supposition that we are so helpless as individual members of society that we need a bureaucrat to explain to us that touching our pee-pees will make us feel good down there, the infantilization and disrespect for people as rational, intelligent beings, most certainly also plays a huge role in the exact result we are both interested in eradicating.

What am I proposing, if anything?

Personal responsibility.
[/quote]

The choice is still theirs, abstinence is taught. They are just being provided the information.

Raj,
You never answered my question.

"Would you mind me teaching your wife how to have sex with other men and hide it from you? If I could statistically show that it lowered your chance of divorce, and is “good for society”. "

Do you at least understand my point now?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

it’s both funny and sound advice…

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Raj,
You never answered my question.

"Would you mind me teaching your wife how to have sex with other men and hide it from you? If I could statistically show that it lowered your chance of divorce, and is “good for society”. "

Do you at least understand my point now?[/quote]

I understand the point that you aren’t required to support everything that prevents something else you’re against.

However your example above doesn’t really make sense. Adolescents eventually do become of age and have sex. It’s inevitable. You want your child to eventually carry on your genes by reproducing themselves, just not when they’re teens.

At no point do you want someone to cheat on their spouse. Sex is an inevitability, adultery is not.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

it’s both funny and sound advice…[/quote]

Kinda misogynistic no?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Raj,
You never answered my question.

"Would you mind me teaching your wife how to have sex with other men and hide it from you? If I could statistically show that it lowered your chance of divorce, and is “good for society”. "

Do you at least understand my point now?[/quote]

I understand the point that you aren’t required to support everything that prevents something else you’re against.

However your example above doesn’t really make sense. Adolescents eventually do become of age and have sex. It’s inevitable. You want your child to eventually carry on your genes by reproducing themselves, just not when they’re teens.

At no point do you want someone to cheat on their spouse. Sex is an inevitability, adultery is not.[/quote]

Obfuscating again. He’s not talking about ‘sex at some point in their lives’ he’s talking about sex before marriage or sex during teenage years neither of which have to happen - i.e. they are not inevitable.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Raj,
You never answered my question.

"Would you mind me teaching your wife how to have sex with other men and hide it from you? If I could statistically show that it lowered your chance of divorce, and is “good for society”. "

Do you at least understand my point now?[/quote]

I understand the point that you aren’t required to support everything that prevents something else you’re against.

However your example above doesn’t really make sense. Adolescents eventually do become of age and have sex. It’s inevitable. You want your child to eventually carry on your genes by reproducing themselves, just not when they’re teens.

At no point do you want someone to cheat on their spouse. Sex is an inevitability, adultery is not.[/quote]

Obfuscating again. He’s not talking about ‘sex at some point in their lives’ he’s talking about sex before marriage or sex during teenage years neither of which have to happen - i.e. they are not inevitable.[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if he was focusing on pre-marital or teen sex…

Sex in general is inevitable making this information at some point useful. Adultery is not. That’s my point.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Raj,
You never answered my question.

"Would you mind me teaching your wife how to have sex with other men and hide it from you? If I could statistically show that it lowered your chance of divorce, and is “good for society”. "

Do you at least understand my point now?[/quote]

I understand the point that you aren’t required to support everything that prevents something else you’re against.

However your example above doesn’t really make sense. Adolescents eventually do become of age and have sex. It’s inevitable. You want your child to eventually carry on your genes by reproducing themselves, just not when they’re teens.

At no point do you want someone to cheat on their spouse. Sex is an inevitability, adultery is not.[/quote]

Obfuscating again. He’s not talking about ‘sex at some point in their lives’ he’s talking about sex before marriage or sex during teenage years neither of which have to happen - i.e. they are not inevitable.[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if he was focusing on pre-marital or teen sex…

Sex in general is inevitable making this information at some point useful. Adultery is not. That’s my point.[/quote]

Why must people desecrate what’s holy.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Our society has an addiction and it doesn’t want to give it up. Sex education programs are akin to the serious alcoholic’s attempt to “moderate” his drinking. What he needs to be doing is getting the hell away from alcohol and from the situations that trigger his need to drink himself to death. “Moderation” is just more of exactly what he doesn’t need. [/quote]

No. Most of us just have a healthy attitude towards sex. It only appears as a “sex addiction” to you because of your religious views. Human sexuality is innate in all of us.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Now, what needs to be done heal this terrible wound (from a secular point of view, as I’m sure none of you are interested in prayer)? [/quote]

No, I’m interested in something that has demonstrated to work.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I sorry to say that I am not sure there is a viable solution at this point. What I DO know is that government enforced “BRAINWASHING” of my children, teaching CHILDREN how to engage in acts that I would be ashamed to “teach” to adults, and presenting this material as if it is somehow normal? This is not even dysphemism. This is what is actually being proposed here. With straight faces all around and an equal measure of atheistic evangelizing. Good grief. [/quote]

How did you come to the conclusion that teaching contraception use is brainwashing?

So you not only think it’s inappropriate to teach contraceptive use to adolescents, you also consider it improper to give this information to adults too? Really? Good grief.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

In fact, the mere supposition that we are so helpless as individual members of society that we need a bureaucrat to explain to us that touching our pee-pees will make us feel good down there, the infantilization and disrespect for people as rational, intelligent beings, most certainly also plays a huge role in the exact result we are both interested in eradicating.

What am I proposing, if anything?

Personal responsibility.
[/quote]

The choice is still theirs, abstinence is taught. They are just being provided the information.[/quote]

Here we go. I can see exactly what SexMachine is saying about you, raj. You have to be either very dim-witted or outright disingenuous to so thoroughly modify my every point to so perfectly fit your presumptions. Although I suspect it of some of the other posters around here lately, I do not believe you to be the former; so I am going to have to assume you are just here to “win,” rather than to actually get to the heart of the matter at hand.

First: I never said sex addiction. Ever. So stop. If I must be tediously clear in my every point: Our society has a SELF-addiction; a solipsistic, primitive infatuation with beauty, power, money, youth, and fame that manifests itself in sex, narcissism and an attitude of entitlement. As I said, the problems I’m talking about are WAAAAAAY more entrenched than even my stuffy Victorian insecurity with myself as a sexual child of Gaia.

Second, I never said anything about thinking sex education “inappropriate,” either to adults or children. My dad sat me down for “the talk” when I was 4 years old. I remember it vividly. He chose this age because my mom was pregnant with my brother and he wanted me to understand what was happening. He also bought me a book called “Where Did I Come From?,”

which I think is a fabulous book to teach sex-ed to kids. Far, FAR better than what has been proposed thus far in this thread.

I don’t want my son receiving sex-education in school. Matter of fact, I don’t want my kid receiving abstinence-only education in school. When my kid is in school, I want him studying English, math and science. That’s what he’s there to do. Let. Him. Do. That. And quit wasting his time with pseudo-scientific pap.

My problem, as other posters have been stating despite your every attempt to recast their points as you have done mine here, is that it is, has been, and always should be, a PARENT’S JOB to teach their children about such questionable material. I KNOW you don’t want your kids being taught Creationism or ID without their having any choice in the matter. Well I don’t want my son being taught how to apply a condom with his mouth, or the proper way to sexually stimulate himself. How hard is it to understand that something this contentious needs to remain the domain of families and how they choose to raise their kids? And if you don’t like what some parents teach their kids? Too fucking bad.I don’t like what your group teaches their kids, either. I happen to think that making sexual “education” material available (to say nothing of mandatory) is one more part of the larger problem of normalizing the fetishism of the body as a whole, depersonalizing and objectifying humans, recasting (ooh!) us as mere animals, slaves to our every desire and whim, devoid of control or self-determination.

No thank you.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

No. Most of us just have a healthy attitude towards sex. It only appears as a “sex addiction” to you because of your religious views. Human sexuality is innate in all of us.

[/quote]

I also wanted to give this special consideration. We often hear this canard, that our society is no worse, and if anything better, than it once was, because we are now, on the whole, more “comfortable with our sexuality,” to paraphrase.

Well, that may well be so, but it sure ain’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about this:

[i]The sudden drop in the percentage of children living with both parents starting in 1970 is profound but not unexpected given the changes which began around the same time with regard to out of wedlock births and divorce. We are clearly in uncharted territory. The plateau starting around 1990 is very interesting, and at first glance looks like fairly good news. Here is the yearly breakdown between married and unmarried couples in Table 1 from the paper (note table is in reverse chronological order and is split between all races on the left and white on the right)

The leveling off in the living arrangements chart appears to be entirely due to the drop in divorce rates which started in the 1980s, because out of wedlock birth rates continue to increase at an alarming rate. Given that 40% of all babies born in the US in 2007 were out of wedlock and the very small percentage of out of wedlock children who live with both parents, even if divorce rates and out of wedlock birth rates remained constant moving forward I think we can assume that the percent of children in two parent homes would continue to decline to below 60% before leveling off again. The only way we could avoid this level or greater decline would be if divorce rates continue to fall and/or unmarried parents became a more stable relationship.[/i]

But at least we’re all “comfortable with our sexuality.”

Oh, and keep in mind that the above census data does not take abortion into account.

But I’m sure the only thing holding us back is the lack of appropriate sex-education programs in schools. Damn, maybe you guys are right. Maybe we’d better start grooming, err, teaching them in kindergarten. We’ve got a bona fide crisis on our hands.

More than half of births are now to unwed mothers under thirty.

It doesn’t matter if you’re for a generous welfare state or not. That’s a disaster. Won’t be enough young workers to keep up entitlement obligations (or to vote for cuts and reform to avert disaster). Additionally, what youth are born, are born into a situation associated with higher socioeconomic negatives, meaning higher rate of tax consumers versus producers. Perfect storm.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
More than half of births are now to unwed mothers under thirty.

It doesn’t matter if you’re for a generous welfare state or not. That’s a disaster. Won’t be enough young workers to keep up entitlement obligations (or to vote for cuts and reform to avert disaster). Additionally, what youth are born, are born into a situation associated with higher socioeconomic negatives. Perfect storm.[/quote]

Well Sloth, see, it wouldn’t be this way if we had a comprehensive, mandatory, Planned Parenthood sponsored sex-education program in every public school, K-12. Also universities, as some of them still haven’t figured the whole thing out, either.

We’ve brought this upon ourselves.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
More than half of births are now to unwed mothers under thirty.

It doesn’t matter if you’re for a generous welfare state or not. That’s a disaster. Won’t be enough young workers to keep up entitlement obligations (or to vote for cuts and reform to avert disaster). Additionally, what youth are born, are born into a situation associated with higher socioeconomic negatives. Perfect storm.[/quote]

Well Sloth, see, it wouldn’t be this way if we had a comprehensive, mandatory, Planned Parenthood sponsored sex-education program in every public school, K-12. Also universities, as some of them still haven’t figured the whole thing out, either.

We’ve brought this upon ourselves. [/quote]

What’s funny is, we’re stuck. Sure we might be able to contracept and abort this away. But it won’t have done jack for the demographic impossibility we’re in. The problem isn’t that they’re having children…We’re going to need young future workers/tax-producers, and badly. The problem is HOW these children are coming into the world (again, associated socioeconomic negatives).

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
More than half of births are now to unwed mothers under thirty.

It doesn’t matter if you’re for a generous welfare state or not. That’s a disaster. Won’t be enough young workers to keep up entitlement obligations (or to vote for cuts and reform to avert disaster). Additionally, what youth are born, are born into a situation associated with higher socioeconomic negatives. Perfect storm.[/quote]

Well Sloth, see, it wouldn’t be this way if we had a comprehensive, mandatory, Planned Parenthood sponsored sex-education program in every public school, K-12. Also universities, as some of them still haven’t figured the whole thing out, either.

We’ve brought this upon ourselves. [/quote]

What’s funny is, we’re stuck. Sure we might be able to contracept and abort this away. But it won’t have done jack for the demographic impossibility we’re in. The problem isn’t that they’re having children…We’re going young future workers, without a doubt. The problem is HOW these children are coming into the world (again, associated socioeconomic negatives). [/quote]

I know, this is exactly what I am getting at above. All of the talk about reducing the number of out of wedlock pregnancies and abortions and what not is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is our entire culture, this attitude of entitlement and victimization and the way our entire culture now perpetuates and encourages and feeds this disease.

I don’t see it getting any better without a massive, society-wide, crisis on a never-before seen scale (note I DO NOT DESIRE ANY SUCH THING!). What will more likely happen is, after a crippling depression, America will slowly fade into insignificance much like most of old Europe already has, while China continues to gain in strength and supersedes us as sole world superpower.

God help us all when that day comes.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

First: I never said sex addiction. Ever. So stop. If I must be tediously clear in my every point: Our society has a SELF-addiction; a solipsistic, primitive infatuation with beauty, power, money, youth, and fame that manifests itself in sex, narcissism and an attitude of entitlement. As I said, the problems I’m talking about are WAAAAAAY more entrenched than even my stuffy Victorian insecurity with myself as a sexual child of Gaia. [/quote]

You made an analogy comparing an alcoholic (a SINGLE SPECIFIC type of addiction) to an addiction society has. I interpreted your post as saying we’re addicted to sex.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Second, I never said anything about thinking sex education “inappropriate,” either to adults or children. [/quote]

You said:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

teaching CHILDREN how to engage in acts that I would be ashamed to “teach” to adults, and presenting this material as if it is somehow
normal?[/quote]

So you’re saying you’d be ashamed to teach it to adults, but you wouldn’t deem it inappropriate? You say I’m disingenuous, but I’m merely interpreting what you wrote.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

My dad sat me down for “the talk” when I was 4 years old. I remember it vividly. He chose this age because my mom was pregnant with my brother and he wanted me to understand what was happening. He also bought me a book called “Where Did I Come From?,”
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-I-Come/dp/0818402539/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_img_in
which I think is a fabulous book to teach sex-ed to kids. Far, FAR better than what has been proposed thus far in this thread.[/quote]

I’m not against making changes to sex education and having a compromise. The people on your side want it removed COMPLETELY. Tell me, were you damaged from your dad reading this book to yu?

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I don’t want my son receiving sex-education in school. Matter of fact, I don’t want my kid receiving abstinence-only education in school. When my kid is in school, I want him studying English, math and science. That’s what he’s there to do. Let. Him. Do. That. And quit wasting his time with pseudo-scientific pap. [/quote]

I don’t know how sex education is taught in school in the US, but it does not cut into English, math and science time here. It’s taught as a unit in gym class in grade 8 and grade 9 for 2-3 weeks IIRC.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

My problem, as other posters have been stating despite your every attempt to recast their points as you have done mine here, is that it is, has been, and always should be, a PARENT’S JOB to teach their children about such questionable material.[/quote]

I disagree.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I KNOW you don’t want your kids being taught Creationism or ID without their having any choice in the matter.[/quote]

This is really not a valid comparison at all. Creationism/ID has NOT passed the test as a SCIENTIFIC theory. It was put on trial in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case in 2005 where a judge put in place by Bush and recommended by Santorum deemed it NOT a scientific theory. If valid scientific evidence existed for Creationism/ID then I would be fine with teaching it in class. So to reiterate, it does not get taught in science class because it is not science. It has nothing to do with my “choice.” In fact, if they wanted to teach it as part of a world religions class I would have no problem with it, because that’s what it is.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Well I don’t want my son being taught how to apply a condom with his mouth, or the proper way to sexually stimulate himself. How hard is it to understand that something this contentious needs to remain the domain of families and how they choose to raise their kids? And if you don’t like what some parents teach their kids? Too fucking bad.I don’t like what your group teaches their kids, either. I happen to think that making sexual “education” material available (to say nothing of mandatory) is one more part of the larger problem of normalizing the fetishism of the body as a whole, depersonalizing and objectifying humans, recasting (ooh!) us as mere animals, slaves to our every desire and whim, devoid of control or self-determination.

No thank you.
[/quote]

I’ll be back for your other posts, I’m AFK

The longer we put off cuts in entitlements and reform, the more drastic and abrupt doing so will need to be. The more drastic and abrupt it becomes, the less likely we will. Already it seems an impossibility. Add on young, working, tax producers not having the demographic voting bloc to save themselves from the dependent, and it becomes simply impossible. It’s now a reinforcing problem.

A generous welfare state needs an orderly propagation of the citizenry in intact homes.

A smaller government society needs an orderly propagation of the citizenry in intact homes.