Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: O'Hara who wrote (13445)	10/28/1997 4:55:00 PM
From: Skipper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi Shalom, You shouldn't rely on the public to teach your kids anything, not just sex. But I would never point my kids to the bible for sex education either. I've told them that sex is normal (big surprise here), that a committed relationship is best, and that they should use condoms. I have not told them to wait for marriage. Pretty simple stuff. Thanks for your greeting last week. When I get a chance I will post an Ayn Rand quote for you (excerpts from John Galt's morality speech). Skipper

To: O'Hara who wrote (13445)	10/28/1997 11:13:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Shalom, first of all, Planned Parenthood is not one of the organizations I think about when I am discussing sex education. I was discussing a comparison of various studies showing that some methods of teaching sex ed in schools are more effective than others, and the ones that simply discuss anatomy and present a specific moral view are not as effective as those which involve a lot of thinking and discussion by teens, and role-playing and other means of resisting peer pressure. If you think you can teach sex ed by simply telling teenagers what not to do, or if you underestimate peer pressure, I think you may be mistaken. However, I do believe we both want the same thing, which is to delay teenagers having sex. Most teenagers want the same thing. So I hope we are not fighting, just debating what the proper method of teaching sexual responsibility to a religiously, culturally, and racially diverse group. If condom use is increasing in America, that is good, because it means there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies, and fewer sexually transmitted diseases. This would also seem to prevent SUFFERING, which I am sure we would both want to do. Shalom, you surely remember from our previous discussions that I would never have an abortion, and I don't know many women who would. The more effective sex eduation we have, however, the lower the rate of abortion in our society, logically speaking. Am I missing something here? We do not all have perfect, orderly lives, and some young people make mistakes. Some older women may find themselves in such emotionally or financially precarious positions, that having another child would be detrimental. And we know from a very long history on abortion, that women have been having them for at least the last 4,000 years. So unfortunately, drying up the source does not stop the practice. I think abortions should be hard to get, and that there should be more discussion of options, and a waiting period. But I also believe they should be legal and safe, because the only result of outlawing them is that women will start dying again from botched, back alley ones. And I think women should get the final say on abortions, because their understanding of what it is like to care for and nurture a child every day for at least eighteen years is more intimate and compassionate. I don't believe healthcare for women should be in the hands of men, although I am sure most men are very kind. It is simply a means of control which is unwarranted, in my opinion. The argument you seem to be putting forth is just a little like the ones leading conservative black ministers in America seem to be using. They are for the most part adamantly opposed to needle exchange programs, and yet these have been proven many times to reduce the rate of AIDS infection without turning out any new drug addicts. Since AIDS is decimating the black community far more than the white one, it would seem logical to promote needle exchanges. But instead of saving lives, they are preaching a certain position that may be elegant and morally unrighteous, but is totally failing to stop suffering. While I am sure they are confident they hold the moral high ground, I think they are causing deaths!! So as you can see, it is quite easy to have several VERY different positions and want the same thing. Practically speaking, though, strict morals and what works may be totally at odds with each other. I vote for less suffering, and saving more lives!!!!!!