Page 27 of 29 FirstFirst ... 172223242526272829 LastLast
Results 521 to 540 of 566
  1. #521  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    And that story may be apocryphal.
    DAMN! Why Ya gotta make me look words up on a Fri afternoon!?!?!?
  2. #522  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1
    .....Oh, are you are talking about abstinance "policies", which like any policy can be ignored, or actual, 'don't do it even once", abstinence itself?
    Can we agree that what we are talking about is promotion of policy?

    For a couple of generations now I have been proposing to young people the ideas of Mary Calderone. Dr. Calderone said that sex is for recreation, affection, and reproduction. (The Young people say "fun, love, and kids.") Recreation by one's self. Affection with a person of appropriate age and gender. Reproduction only with a partner committed to raise the progeny. I suggest to them in so many words, hand-to-genitals for one and two. Mouth-to-mouth and mouth-to-genitals for two. Genital-to-genital only for three. (A thirteen year-old recently told me that he would not have sex before marriage. In the meantme he would just make out.) I tell young boys that the responsibility for contraception and prophylaxis rests with them, not with their partner. I reinforce this by saying that some young girls really do want to be/get pregnant and that condoms protect, not perfectly, against both pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

    It will not surprise anyone that this advice outrages the righteous. I confess that that is part of its beauty.

    (Incidentally, Dr. Calderone says that those righteous who claim that they have never masturbated can be expected to lie about just about anything.)
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/07/2005 at 07:02 PM.
  3. #523  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    DAMN! Why Ya gotta make me look words up on a Fri afternoon!?!?!?
    Sir, if you are not the master of the one-liner, you took lessons from her.
  4. #524  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    And that story may be apocryphal.
    ... or as literal as they come....

    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  5. #525  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    ... or as literal as they come....

    Or both. They are not mutually exclusive.
  6. #526  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Or both. They are not mutually exclusive.
    Literal or of doubtful authenticity???

    I guess I'm not following you on your etymological journey...
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  7. #527  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Literal or of doubtful authenticity???

    I guess I'm not following you on your etymological journey...
    No? I accept your definition of "apochyrphal." Which definition of "literal" are you using?
  8. #528  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    It is clear that you do not understand. I do not expect you to appreciate my position. However, I am not prepared to leave unchallenged the idea that resisting the intrusion of the state into the most intimate decisions in our lives is the same thing as supporting abortion. I resent the inference that dathomas is in favor of what he does not want the state to punish or the church to condemn.

    I do not support abortion. I do not know anyone who supports abortion. I believe that abortion is morally wrong under almost all circumstances. As a matter of routine birth control, it is outrageous.

    That said, I do not trust the state to intervene between a patient and her doctor. I do not trust the state to say whether or not a pregnancy must go to term. I do not trust the state, having mandated that a woman must carry a pregnancy to term, to care for the pregnant mother. I do not trust the state to succor the child; God knows it is not doing so now.

    I dislike what I see as the punitive attitude of Christians toward sex. I despise the idea that carrying a child to term and condemning it to a life of deprivation is just punishment to the mother for illicit sex. I despise the idea that the punishment for illicit sex should fall on only the mother, rarely on the father, but it is much worse that any of that penalty should fall on the innocent child. I despise the idea that the punishment for most of the things that society wishes to discourage falls disproportionately on the poor.

    I have no problem with Christians promoting abstinence. I have a real problem with the idea that the state should promote abstinence by restricting access to alternative forms of birth control. I have no problem with Christians discouraging fornication but I have a problem with their discouraging all forms of sexual expression as a means of doing so. I have a problem with their promoting ignorance in children as though ignorance is the equivalent of innocence. I have a real problem with Christians, or others, using the coercive power of the state to accomplish what they are unable to accomplish by persuasion. I have a problem with any minority using the state to enforce their moral view on those that they cannot persuade, however much I may agree with the view.

    Needless to say, I have a real problem with those who are prepared to condemn me, let alone kill me, because I resist consigning indiivdual life and death decisions to the one institution in our society that takes lives wholesale. I distrust any alliance between religion and the state; individual life and death decisions are merely the most extreme example. And that takes us back to the beginning of the thread.

    As I said at the opening of this post, I do not expect to convince true-believers on either side of this issue. Rather I write for people of good will in the middle. Now that we have dispensed with slavery, prohibition, and Jim Crow, the proper role of the state in matters of reproduction, medical treatment, and end-of-life is the most troubling and divisive issue in our society. Like those other issues, it will take generations to resolve.
    I suppose the reason I do not understand is because I see abortion as not simply morally wrong (like adultery, for example), but as morally evil (like murder, for example).

    Religious conviction or belief is entirely beside the point for me on this issue. I have seen enough scientific evidence to convince me that the fetus is a developing human being with its own unique DNA structure and all the same potential as every other human being ever born. Even if we accept as a society that it's OK to end that life at some stages of development, I fail to comprehend why reasonable limits cannot be placed on the most extreme examples of the procedure. This is evidence of bad faith on the part of those who claim to wish abortion to be rare. We do this in other aspects of medicine all the time. And abortion, in my view, is not simply an "intrusive medical procedure" (not your quote, I know).

    People don't generally need counseling after a colo-rectal cancer screening.

    I'm sorry if this offends you, but I am offended that a large segment of our population feels it should be permissable to abort pregnancies that would result in new life because they might have a hard life or might make life tough for the mother or father (I do support programs run by many churches to assist women who choose not to abort). This is a slippery slope. In fact, we're well down that slippery slope. First, first trimester abortion. Then second. Then third, or partial birth, a truly vile practice. Next (we're here now), came euthanasia. Soon to come, terminating the lives of "undesireable" or handicapped children. For their own good, of course. The logic is undeniable. I am the father of a developmentally disabled child - I've got to tell you this stuff scares the hell out of me - not out of fear for my child, I'm not paranoid - but because some other beautiful child will be denied a chance to live and enrich some other father's life.

    You are correct in mentioning abortion along with Jim Crow and slavery. Abortion is no more a simple medical procedure than slavery was a simple economic transaction. I'd like to see abortion end just as those two institutions were ended. I think you would as well, we just see the issue differently.

    As I said... I waded into this with trepidation. You are correct that most will not be swayed from their position on this topic. I'm done with it (for now, anyway).
    Last edited by phurth; 10/07/2005 at 09:58 PM.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  9. #529  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Can we agree that what we are talking about is promotion of policy?

    For a couple of generations now I have been proposing to young people the ideas of Mary Calderone. Dr. Calderone said that sex is for recreation, affection, and reproduction. (The Young people say "fun, love, and kids.") Recreation by one's self. Affection with a person of appropriate age and gender. Reproduction only with a partner committed to raise the progeny. I suggest to them in so many words, hand-to-genitals for one and two. Mouth-to-mouth and mouth-to-genitals for two. Genital-to-genital only for three. (A thirteen year-old recently told me that he would not have sex before marriage. In the meantme he would just make out.) I tell young boys that the responsibility for contraception and prophylaxis rests with them, not with their partner. I reinforce this by saying that some young girls really do want to be/get pregnant and that condoms protect, not perfectly, against both pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

    It will not surprise anyone that this advice outrages the righteous. I confess that that is part of its beauty.

    (Incidentally, Dr. Calderone says that those righteous who claim that they have never masturbated can be expected to lie about just about anything.)
    How have your proteges faired with this approach?

    My experience is that it is not long before the law of diminishing returns kicks in. As such, when one engages in "recreational" interactions, it will not be long before the "affectionate" activity is needed to provide the same levels of gratification (with or without regard for level of affection the partcipants have for one another). Likewise, "reproductive" acts are subsequently needed to sustain the levels of gratification (with or without regard for the progeny that is inevitable under natural circumstances). And, then, because the underlying root remains "recreation" (though the activities have progressed across the continuum), varieties on genital-to-genital contact become necessary.

    Now
  10. #530  
    When I googled Dr. Calderone, I first thought we were referring to the horse doctor: http://www.otterbein.edu/dept/EQSC/dr_calderone.htm
  11. #531  
    and her 2002 class "Equine ***** Short Course"
  12. #532  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    How have your proteges faired with this approach?
    Now
    The first generation are now teaching the same lessons to their kids. No pregnancies before marriage or shot-gun weddings. No venereal disease.

    More important than that to me is that they are happy loving people. They love themselves, their spouses, their kids, their in-laws, and even me. They do not carry a burden of personal guilt for doing what everyone does. They are not imposing such a burden on their children.

    I suggest no causality between my lessons and the results but, as best I can tell, I did no harm.
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/08/2005 at 08:20 AM.
  13. #533  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    My experience is that it is not long before the law of diminishing returns kicks in. As such, when one engages in "recreational" interactions, it will not be long before the "affectionate" activity is needed to provide the same levels of gratification (with or without regard for level of affection the partcipants have for one another). Likewise, "reproductive" acts are subsequently needed to sustain the levels of gratification (with or without regard for the progeny that is inevitable under natural circumstances). And, then, because the underlying root remains "recreation" (though the activities have progressed across the continuum), varieties on genital-to-genital contact become necessary.
    Now
    Is that your experience? I would call that growing up. I am glad that you made it without any accidents.
  14. #534  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    When I googled Dr. Calderone, I first thought we were referring to the horse doctor: http://www.otterbein.edu/dept/EQSC/dr_calderone.htm
    I hope you finally found the right one. She was a hero.
  15. #535  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I suppose the reason I do not understand is because I see abortion as not simply morally wrong (like adultery, for example), but as morally evil (like murder, for example).
    And so do I. Do you presume to suggest otherwise? I came to my reverence for life along a different path than the one you followed but it is no less genuine. (Yes, I know that you believe that there is only one path but, for all your wiles and authority, you have not convinced me to walk it.)

    However, we live in a society that does not agree with us. There is no consensus for our position; we are in the minority. The law disagrees with us. We are in the position of asking the state to enforce our view of evil on the majority who do not agree with us. We are asking the state to do by coercion what we are unable to do by argument and persuasion.

    When I was a child there was such a consensus. It fell apart. I think that it fell apart over the consequences but, whatever I think, it fell apart.

    The state is a very blunt instrument. You cannot give it the right to invade your neighbor's bedroom or regulate your neighbor's surgery and not expect it to invade yours. You cannot give it the right to invade for one reason and expect that it will not do something else.

    Be careful what you ask for: you may get it.
  16. #536  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    .....I fail to comprehend why reasonable limits cannot be placed on the most extreme examples of the procedure......
    As I have said, I think that abortions should be rare, the fewer the better. The difference between us is that you want the limits in laws executed by the state. I trust the parents and physicians to impose those limits. I do not trust the state to do it. I do not want prosecutors in the delivery room.
  17. #537  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I do not want prosecutors in the delivery room.
    Agree.

  18. #538  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    As I have said, I think that abortions should be rare, the fewer the better. The difference between us is that you want the limits in laws executed by the state. I trust the parents and physicians to impose those limits. I do not trust the state to do it.
    As I've stated, I see abortion as morally equivalent to slavery.

    I feel opposition to restrictions on the practice (no matter how mild) are analogous to pre-abolition state's-rights advocates who claimed to be against slavery, yet argued that it wasn't their place to dictate and impose laws upon the slave holding states. Today, with history's hindsight, we can see they were wrong.

    I do not mean to say that your opposition to abortion is not genuine. You just seem to lack the certitude to follow that belief to its logical conclusion - that a morally abhorrent practice should be stopped, or at the very least have reasonable restrictions placed upon it.

    It is faith (the path I chose to get here...) that provides me the certitude in the rightness of this cause, whether I'm in the minority or not. While clulup would surely deny it, this is also how the abolitionists gained support and eventually prevailed, first in Britain and Europe, and eventually here.

    None of this means that I would ever condone anti-abortion activists acting outside of the law in order to achieve their goals. Except for a small number of extremists, that is very rare. Actions taken within the law and simple acts of persuasion are what are needed. For the record, I disagree strongly with those who protest outside clinics with graphic posters, etc... They persuade no one.

    It also does not mean I oppose measures outside of restricting abortion itself that reduce the number of them. Whether it is the practice you outlined to Shopharim or sex-ed in the schools, if it works to reduce the number of abortions, I'm for it. I believe that pre-marital sex is wrong, but it is definitely the lesser wrong.
    I do not want prosecutors in the delivery room.
    Good bumber-sticker slogan, but surely you don't think infanticide should be legal?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  19. #539  
    People do n't want , state to be dictating , what they can or not do with their body parts.
  20. #540  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtreosexual
    People do n't want , state to be dictating , what they can or not do with their body parts.
    Who says the state should? That's not what I'm saying.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...

Posting Permissions