Young adults and being sexually responsible [slight rant]

[kis123]

Red was correct to say that after a certain point, young adults just need to be out on their own and get smacked in the face by reality a bit. What I see as a problem is when people get smacked by reality numerous times and still don't grow up and moderate their behavior. And perhaps this is just my imagination, but I do think that type of mentality is somewhat more prevalant in my generation than the ones preceeding it. Why this is, I don't know, but it's what I see.

I can give you a huge speech about generations that defied tradition and family values, but I won't. Ever since the 60's free love, drugged-out baby boomer movement that broke all the traditional rules, it's been downhill ever since. Some of those rules needed to be broken, but not all of them and it's biting our kids in the proverbial butts!

Now stick with me a moment before you start throwing tomatoes; let's face it-times have changed in child-rearing and not all necessarily for the better either. There was a time the entire neighborhood was responsible for a kid, now you can't even correct children's anti-social behavior in public or someone's "parent" snaps you up and tells you not to (you may stunt their growth). You can't teach kids sports the way you used to-there was a time someone is the winner and someone the loser. Teachers used to call parents when kids had problems; now they're either afraid to or are too burned out and disrespected to take the risk. We have molly-coddled our kids to the point they use guns to settle disputes. We are spending hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars on crap to entertain our children instead of spending time with them. We're not teaching them to earn anything-we just give it to them only for them to expect even more.

Congratulations; we succeeded in giving our children better than we ever had. Are they any better people than what we were at their age? Many (certainly not all) are spoiled overindulged ingrates who expect someone to give them everything they want instead of benefitting from hard work and patience. Very few want to pay their dues and earn their life experience.

But, I digress........

With all the birth control methods in today's society, the number of pregnancies and std's is on the rise. The fastest growing segment of AIDS diagnoses is in the ages of 15-25. How can someone write their obituary at age 15? Because they believe their youth makes them invincible. They believe that sex is something their parents don't want them to have so the fruit is more forbidden so to speak. Because parents simply haven't made them deal with the consequences of their actions and decisions before, why should sex be any different?

I have seen more irresponsibility when it comes to sex than I've ever wanted to see. I have people in my own family who can't seem to close their legs long enough to get something between their ears! There is a small group who seems to possess enough maturity to rise above the bottomless living many of our young people have chosen. When you see one, take the time to spend with him/her and offer some wisdom instead of criticism and blowing them off.

This is kis getting off her soapbox now..........

 

[Iggy pop]

I
With all the birth control methods in today's society, the number of pregnancies and std's is on the rise.

Yes, and the sad fact is this is not because birth control is failing, it is because birth control is not being used or being used improperly.

The fastest growing segment of AIDS diagnoses is in the ages of 15-25.

I remembered a few years ago when they told us the fast growing segment was women. Back in 1984, when AIDS first entered the hetrosexual community, there were those that said it would tear through the community and cause far more deaths than in the homosexual community. It did not happen. Today, the majority of those with AIDS are the same as they were back in 1984: homosexual men and iv drugusers. Hetrosexual epidemic with AIDS in the United States has not happened and most likely will never happen.

 

[Icycle]

In comprehensive sex education programs it is very clear that safer sex is sex with a condom, or non-insertive alternatives like mutual masturbation. Any assertion that kids are getting the message that all sex is safe sex is ridiculous and unfounded.

As for the popular argument that unmarried young people simply shouldn't be having sex (as if merely saying it would make it so), there was a scientific study released in December 2006 that shows that approximately 95% of all Americans have had pre-marital sex by the age of 44, and that this has been true for decades.

Pre-marital sex is the normal behavior of an overwhelming majority of Americans. I suppose if you are in the 5% that holds the moral high ground, you can shake your finger and say "DON'T FUCK!", while those American adolecents and adults continue to have premarital sex and potentially put themselves at risk for sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. But clearly the approach of trying to tell people to stop having sex hasn't actually stopped people from having sex, and it doesn't help the vast majority of people who do have sex.

Alternatively, you could acknowledge that pre-marital sex is happening and try to help people avoid unwanted consequences.

The abstinence-only moralists tend to behave as though there is no value in safer sex. The fact is that sex with a condom has a much lower risk of disease transmission and unwanted pregnancy than sex without a condom. One only has to look at countries like the Netherlands, where universal comprehensive sex education results in much lower rates of teenage pregnancy, despite similar rates of teenage sex.

Think about it this way. Driving a car without a seat belt is very dangerous and can result in paralysis or death. Would you suggest that everyone leave their cars at home? Or would you suggest that they continue to enjoy the benefits of driving a car, but wear a seatbelt and greatly reduce the probability of injury and death?

 

[drew70]

LOL. Dude, this country wastes millions on "comprehensive sex education" and we still have the highest abortion rate anywhere. It doesn't work. What we're dealing with needs no comprehensive education, but rather very simple cause-and-effect common sense. You fuck, and you risk disease and pregnancy. 'Nuff said.

 

[Headsnap]

Asking horny folk to exercise common sense is like asking Neo-Nazis not to be repressed homosexuals; it won't work. Perhaps if society decided to make people who got STDs or had a baby early in life take responsibility for their idiocy instead of constantly bailing them out (I don't know how it is in the US but over here if you have a kid you get all sorts of state benefits AND, if you're a single mother, you get skipped right to the top of the waiting list for a council house) it might make people think a bit more carefully about what they're doing when it comes to sex. Then again it probably wouldn't.

 

[Goodieluver]

LOL. Dude, this country wastes millions on "comprehensive sex education" and we still have the highest abortion rate anywhere. It doesn't work. What we're dealing with needs no comprehensive education, but rather very simple cause-and-effect common sense. You fuck, and you risk disease and pregnancy. 'Nuff said.

Ben a while since i been in grammar\hs but i thought the majority of sex ed went to the abstinence teaching

 

[isabeau]

best way to avoid AID's and the like? don't sleep with every tom, dick, and harry that comes along...people these days are too quick to have casual sex..young and old alike...it might be old fashioned of me to say this, but sex is, at least to me, an extremely intimate action, and shouldn't be given to just anyone like a hug or a peck on the cheek...

sits and waits for everyone to jump down her throat now...

 

[kis123]

Asking horny folk to exercise common sense is like asking Neo-Nazis not to be repressed homosexuals; it won't work. Perhaps if society decided to make people who got STDs or had a baby early in life take responsibility for their idiocy instead of constantly bailing them out (I don't know how it is in the US but over here if you have a kid you get all sorts of state benefits AND, if you're a single mother, you get skipped right to the top of the waiting list for a council house) it might make people think a bit more carefully about what they're doing when it comes to sex. Then again it probably wouldn't.

Sex is NOT the most important thing in the world; I'd been celibate for years so I know what I'm talking about. Ppeople should deal with it realistically and tell kids about it. I'm not talking about just abstinence only because that gives sex that almighty taboo kids are attracted to. I'm talking about letting kids know just how things really are and how your choices affect your outcomes. If you want to have sex, go ahead; just give them the options and consequences of their choices.

I had a sex ed class in 10th grade (about 100 years ago ) that dramactically impacted my life. He was real, left no stone unturned, gave choices and consequences. I was good to go until I got into college. If you can create that effect in one person, you've saved society from a lot of consequences.

But you're probably right; nowadays it's hard for me to determine what message would make an impact on kids today.

 

[kis123]

Yes, and the sad fact is this is not because birth control is failing, it is because birth control is not being used or being used improperly.




I remembered a few years ago when they told us the fast growing segment was women. Back in 1984, when AIDS first entered the hetrosexual community, there were those that said it would tear through the community and cause far more deaths than in the homosexual community. It did not happen. Today, the majority of those with AIDS are the same as they were back in 1984: homosexual men and iv drugusers. Hetrosexual epidemic with AIDS in the United States has not happened and most likely will never happen.

Every once in awhile Maury Povich does more than "who's my baby's daddy" shows. He had a panel of teenagers on his show between ages of 15-20, all being treated for AIDS. The problem is that kids use reckless abandon with sex ignoring the consequences and AIDS is a very real thing.

If you are black or hispanic (particularly a black female) your chances of contracting AIDS are extremely higher due to the "down low syndrome". For those of you who aren't familiar with the term it's when gay or bisexual men have sexual relationships with straight women (without disclosure of said homo or bisexuality). But again I digress.....

Our state governor is trying to get rid of the abstinence only program and go to something that applies to today's youth. They want to teach about pregnancy and STDs. What are the parents saying? They're filling the state with mail; they're worried that it would encourage kids to have premarital sex.
How stupid is that?? The problem is that kids are already participating in sex (sometimes before age 12); you might as well give everyone the facts so they can make better choices for themselves. Some of them will choose abstinence, some will choose to have sex. But there would be no excuse not to properly utilize birth control.

 

[GodlessTickler]

Drew;
We have high crime rates too... and I wouldn't consider all the money spent on law enforcement to be a "waste". It may not be perfect (far form it), but I don't we should just say "well, we tried this whole law and order thing... it's not working... lets go back to caveman days and beat each other on the head with sticks".
Second, despite your own personal agenda sexual education is not just a subversive way to get rid of abortion, its just about giving people information.
Also you are making a most likely unfounded claim that correlation = causation. "Abortion rates are high BECAUSE we spend millions on sex education" or more accurately perhaps "Abortion rates are high because sex education doesn't work" (or at least that seems to be the implication) I tend to doubt that. I think there are a lot of other factors that contribute to unsafe sex, one simple one being that America is a very religious country giving children a lot of mixed messages on the subject, and I am sure there are many others. Just because sex education doesn't always work, doesn't mean it is fundamentally flawed, get rid of the catholic church teaching that all kinds of birth control are bad (for example), I bet sex ed would have a better effect on Catholics, point is, there are a lot of factors involved.
Lastly, I am sure that in countries where they cut off your hand for petty theft, petty theft rates are lower than America too... but that doesn't mean it's the solution.

Headsnap;
First of I agree with you just a little bit. I am all for people taking responsibility, I am just also for helping them have all the information. I don't know what your sexual experience is (or do I care to get into anyone's) but I really think you over estimate the difficulty of taking a pill and putting on a condom. As I said, my friends are fairly sexually active, and they practice safe sex... I have never said one of them say to me "hey, I had the condoms in the dresser drawer but.... I just... couldn't ruin the moment" people who actually GET the message of safe sex tend to try to follow it. And if they are being completely nonchalant about it, I REALLY doubt that there going to go... "oh well I was GOING to be such a slave to my biological impulses that I couldn't even pull on a rubber, but since those new policies came into effect and if I get her pregnant I wont get the same support from the state I better just stop this right this instant and join a monastery!"
While it may be true that people should be forced to take more responsibility for the messes they get themselves into, it is not a substitute for proper sexual education.

 

[LindyHopper]

Ben a while since i been in grammar\hs but i thought the majority of sex ed went to the abstinence teaching

You are correct. Since 1997, Congress has allocated over half a billion dollars to abstinence-only sex education. By law, these programs must have as their "exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity." Programs that emphasize abstinence but also teach about contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (often referred to as comprehensive sex education) are not eligible for this money. With the addition of two other federal programs, federal funding for abstinence education now totals over $100 million per year. In contrast, no federal money whatsover is spent on comprehensive sex education.

Blaming comprehensive sex education for America's high teenage pregnancy and abortion rates is simply delusional, nothing more than wishful thinking that's completely inconsistent with the facts at hand. All the European nations with good figures in this area have comprehensive sex education. In contrast, abstinence-only sex education is pretty much unique to America. What conclusion would you draw?

 

[Iggy pop]

Every once in awhile Maury Povich does more than "who's my baby's daddy" shows. He had a panel of teenagers on his show between ages of 15-20, all being treated for AIDS. The problem is that kids use reckless abandon with sex ignoring the consequences and AIDS is a very real thing.

If you are black or hispanic (particularly a black female) your chances of contracting AIDS are extremely higher due to the "down low syndrome". For those of you who aren't familiar with the term it's when gay or bisexual men have sexual relationships with straight women (without disclosure of said homo or bisexuality). But again I digress.....

Los Angles County has a population of nearly 10 million people, and has roughly 10,000 people suffering from AIDS. This is .1% population. Furthermore if you subtract those that contrated AIDS from homosexul intercourse, iv drug use, childen of AIDS mother(the majority from iv drug users), and blood transfusion cases(amazingly some of them are still alive) you are left with about 400 cases or about .004% of the population of Los Angeles County. This does not even begin to compare to the Child Obesity and Type II diabetes rates for children in Los Angeles County. So if our children really are signing their own death warrant, it is when the eat their Super Sized fast food meals and do not exercise.

 

[kis123]

Los Angles County has a population of nearly 10 million people, and has roughly 10,000 people suffering from AIDS. This is .1% population. Furthermore if you subtract those that contrated AIDS from homosexul intercourse, iv drug use, childen of AIDS mother(the majority from iv drug users), and blood transfusion cases(amazingly some of them are still alive) you are left with about 400 cases or about .004% of the population of Los Angeles County. This does not even begin to compare to the Child Obesity and Type II diabetes rates for children in Los Angeles County. So if our children really are signing their own death warrant, it is when the eat their Super Sized fast food meals and do not exercise.

Can you please tell me what you're talking about? It's a helluva lot easier to get a kid off the couch than to cure one who has an incurable disease. How about if we compare apples to apples here; someone with a sexually transmitted disease is not in the same position than the kid with a Mcdonald's habit!

If you want to divide this into counties, let's not just stop with Los A county; if you count the millions of AIDS cases in this country, one person is too many. Why are you subtracting people-they all have AIDS regardless of method of contraction. I'm not getting your point, but I'm sure you're going to clue me in.

 

[chicago]

So yeah, safe sex...

 

[Iggy pop]

Can you please tell me what you're talking about? It's a helluva lot easier to get a kid off the couch than to cure one who has an incurable disease. How about if we compare apples to apples here; someone with a sexually transmitted disease is not in the same position than the kid with a Mcdonald's habit!

If you want to divide this into counties, let's not just stop with Los A county; if you count the millions of AIDS cases in this country, one person is too many. Why are you subtracting people-they all have AIDS regardless of method of contraction. I'm not getting your point, but I'm sure you're going to clue me in.

Why the comparison to Childhood obesity? Because Childhood obesity is far greater problem facing kids than AIDS. That is to say AIDS is a minor problem, and childhood obesity and Type II diabetes is a huge problem. Is it exactly an apples to apples comparison? No, I guess not. Compare Aids to other STDs in the hetrosexual, and you will find it very low on the list of contracted diseases.

Why did I choose Los Angeles County? I live in Los Angeles County and I researched Los Angeles County more that I have the rest of the nation. Los Angeles, has one of the largest infection rates in the nations. It was third behind San Francisco and Miami when I last checked. By the way there are not millions of AIDS cases in the United States. There are only about 600,000.

Why did I subtract all those people? Because I was concentrating on transmission by hetrosexual sex. For example, one in nine of homosexual men are infected in Los Angeles County. The account for nearly 7,800 of the 10,000 cases of AIDS in Los Angeles County. IV drug uses consit for another 1500. Yet these groups together count for less than 8% of the population. Hetrosexuals (non iv drug users) account for 92% of the population, but account for very few of the AIDS cases in the county. This is to say if you are iv drug user or engaging in homsexual sexual activity you are at a high risk for AIDS, but if you don't fall in to those group then you have a relatively low risk.

This is not to say that you do not have other risks with unprotected sex. I'm also not saying there is no risk of AIDS. I'm just saying the risk of AIDS for hetrosexuals have been overblown.

 

[kis123]

Why the comparison to Childhood obesity? Because Childhood obesity is far greater problem facing kids than AIDS. That is to say AIDS is a minor problem, and childhood obesity and Type II diabetes is a huge problem. Is it exactly an apples to apples comparison? No, I guess not. Compare Aids to other STDs in the hetrosexual, and you will find it very low on the list of contracted diseases.

Why did I choose Los Angeles County? I live in Los Angeles County and I researched Los Angeles County more that I have the rest of the nation. Los Angeles, has one of the largest infection rates in the nations. It was third behind San Francisco and Miami when I last checked. By the way there are not millions of AIDS cases in the United States. There are only about 600,000.

Why did I subtract all those people? Because I was concentrating on transmission by hetrosexual sex. For example, one in nine of homosexual men are infected in Los Angeles County. The account for nearly 7,800 of the 10,000 cases of AIDS in Los Angeles County. IV drug uses consit for another 1500. Yet these groups together count for less than 8% of the population. Hetrosexuals (non iv drug users) account for 92% of the population, but account for very few of the AIDS cases in the county. This is to say if you are iv drug user or engaging in homsexual sexual activity you are at a high risk for AIDS, but if you don't fall in to those group then you have a relatively low risk.

This is not to say that you do not have other risks with unprotected sex. I'm also not saying there is no risk of AIDS. I'm just saying the risk of AIDS for hetrosexuals have been overblown.

A kid gets a diagnosis of diabetes type I or II and they get a course of treatment that if they choose to follow, they will live a normal life. A person who gets an AIDS diagnosis has a death sentence regardless of how many years they get to live. How can you compare the two is beyond my comprenhsion. It's once again, an apples to oranges comparison in the worst way.

 

[Midnight Circus]

I mean the abortions aren't hurting the male or female, as long as they're performed successfully

Most females have a hard time dealing with the abortion emotionally after it happens, and most males have no say whatsoever in whether or not the female gets the abortion (that is, if the mother wants to pop her child's head with a pair of scissors and the father does not want the child to die, it's too bad for him). And as for the child itself, well, I've never died, so I don't know if it hurts or not. I would imagine that having one's skull crushed with forceps or punctured with a needle that sucks out the brain wouldn't exactly be the greatest experience...neither would being poisoned.

But, hey, that's just me. I mean, I'm one of those few people who thinks that children shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of their parents. I'm probably just crazy.

As for telling it like it is, you certainly are, unfortunately. The sad truth is that if a male so chose to ignore his responsibilities completely, he could slip by unscathed. Of course, I don't think anyone in their right mind would agree that such would be the right thing to do...

 

[Iggy pop]

A kid gets a diagnosis of diabetes type I or II and they get a course of treatment that if they choose to follow, they will live a normal life. A person who gets an AIDS diagnosis has a death sentence regardless of how many years they get to live. How can you compare the two is beyond my comprenhsion. It's once again, an apples to oranges comparison in the worst way.

I have to admit it is not exactly an apples and apples comparison, but it's not completely unrelated. You are correct that if you are diagnosed with diabetes that you can, if you change your lifestyle live a relatively normal life. There still a higher possiblity of problem later in life, but it is not exactly the death sentence that AIDS is. Still, even with the fact, Childhood obesity and diabetes is a problem because of the amount Children facing this problem as compared to the AIDS virus. The truth is far far far more people are dying from diabetes and heart attack than from AIDS.

 

[Midnight Circus]

The drive to procreate is one of the most powerful urges we experience.

So is the urge to kill, the urge to commit violence. Studies have shown that it’s quite normal to fantasize about doing harm to someone else, especially someone who humiliates you or causes you great amounts of stress. It’s even normal to be sorely tempted to strike someone. But just because you experience an urge doesn’t mean that you’re then bound by such an urge to act upon it. Indeed, urge =/= destiny.

Yes, I do believe it is inevitable that people are going to have sex, whether it is as minors or young adults. The fact is an overwhelming majority of Americans participate in pre-marital sex.

Majority? Perhaps. But a “majority” does not make a thing inevitable in any case. I think you’re making a broad generalization based on a perceived reality possibly fueled by your own personal experiences.

When people start having sex, I want them to be equipped with the knowledge to be able to avoid unwanted sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

“When?” More like “if.” Again, it’s a broad generalization that fails to take into account a number of factors, not the least of which happen to be one’s own religious faith and personal moral code.

The only opportunity we have to make sure this information is widely diseminated is by teaching comprehensive sex education in schools.

Oh, I agree that they should be taught the ins-and-outs of sex. I’ve never said that they shouldn’t. I do, however, think that treating the issue in such a flippant way as, “you’re going to do it anyway, so here’s a condom” is a bit…irresponsible isn’t the best word, but it is the closest I can come to at the moment. Perhaps lazy?

Blasé. There we go.

Conservatives might want to believe in a world where no one has sex before marriage, all people only have one partner their entire life, and all sex is for the purpose of procreation.

If they believe in one, then they’re daft; our world is no utopia. If they’re working towards one in the belief that such a world would be a better place, then, though I find their task insurmountable, I say more power to them. At least they’re trying to change the world to create what they perceive to be a better place, which is a lot more than most do.

But that is very much not the world we live in. In the world we live in, people have sex both in marriages and outside marriages, they have many partners throughout their lives, and most sex is not to create children. Because this is the real world that we live in, teaching people how to avoid unwanted diseases and babies is important.

Straw-man fallacy. I never said that we shouldn’t teach about such things. Indeed, I believe that we should teach them the pros and cons of all actions dealing with sex, including broken condoms, rape, faulty pills, STDs, pleasure, physical love as it relates to biology, true love as it relates to intimacy, emotional bonding, marriage, children, and killing one‘s own children through the process of abortion. Indeed, I think that education is the most important thing, as I think education will help young adults make better decisions about who, how, and when to have sexual relations.

I just don’t happen to take your pessimistic view of America’s youth. I don’t think that falling to one’s own sexual urges is by any means inevitable, as all urges can be controlled if one makes the effort. That's why we punish rapists...urges aren't the end-all be-all of human action. And I think that, through education, more will make the effort to control their urges.

 

[Redmage]

I was always taught that sex came with consequences; when people have sex, they are simply agreeing to the consequences. Pregnancy, STDs, emotional trainwrecks are all consequences to having sex. If you're not ready to at least behave in a responisble manner, please keep your pants zipped and skirt on until you are!

I got that instruction too. I don't remember that it did much to stop me or my classmates from having sex.

Abstinence-based sex ed is the same today. There's nothing "pseudoscientific" about that conclusion: When you go in and actually count the percentage of teen pregnancies, abstinence-only programs are found to actually increase them. That's based on the bottom line: how many young women get pregnant after going through these programs?

I think abstinence programs are popular with parents because they feel better about them. They like thinking that someone besides them is telling their kids "don't have sex." But that's pretty much the only benefit these programs offer. That lecture doesn't seem to work when we get to the back seat of the car.

 

[Midnight Circus]

I got that instruction too. I don't remember that it did much to stop me or my classmates from having sex.

Abstinence-based sex ed is the same today. There's nothing "pseudoscientific" about that conclusion: When you go in and actually count the percentage of teen pregnancies, abstinence-only programs are found to actually increase them. That's based on the bottom line: how many young women get pregnant after going through these programs?

I think abstinence programs are popular with parents because they feel better about them. They like thinking that someone besides them is telling their kids "don't have sex." But that's pretty much the only benefit these programs offer. That lecture doesn't seem to work when we get to the back seat of the car.

I think that can be related, in part, to teenage psychology...by and large, teenagers are rebellious. Though there are exceptions, most teenagers don't respect their parents or authority figures. Or much of anything, really. Hm. Maybe it's a cultural thing, as European teens are very family-oriented...

Who knows. Anyway, commanding them isn't the way to discourage them.

 

[Tickle Fiend]

Most females have a hard time dealing with the abortion emotionally after it happens, and most males have no say whatsoever in whether or not the female gets the abortion (that is, if the mother wants to pop her child's head with a pair of scissors and the father does not want the child to die, it's too bad for him). And as for the child itself, well, I've never died, so I don't know if it hurts or not. I would imagine that having one's skull crushed with forceps or punctured with a needle that sucks out the brain wouldn't exactly be the greatest experience...neither would being poisoned.

But, hey, that's just me. I mean, I'm one of those few people who thinks that children shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes of their parents. I'm probably just crazy.

As for telling it like it is, you certainly are, unfortunately. The sad truth is that if a male so chose to ignore his responsibilities completely, he could slip by unscathed. Of course, I don't think anyone in their right mind would agree that such would be the right thing to do...

I understand that the baby is getting killed but it doesn't make me feel sorry for the baby, as bad as that may sound. A baby dying inside it's mother and dying in the real world are two different things. It wouldn't affect me much if a girl got an abortion for my baby. I guess that's because I'm not ready to have a baby now and feel very strongly about it.

 

[Ayla ny]

I think that part of the problem is that older people perceive AIDS to be a deadly scourge, while the younger generation is growing up in an era where AIDS treatments are widely available and successful, so they may perceive AIDS as a managable medical condition, like diabetes. Why bother with a rubber when you can cure (or at least treat) anything you might catch?

Wow... I was reading this thread and this post just scared the hell out of me! Is this really how the under 20 generation looks at AIDS? I have a 17 yr old son, and I have lost friends to AIDS, so I really would like to know. My son is too young to remember ‘Aunt and Uncle So-And-So’ dying with purple spots and AIDS Dementia. But they did… and it was horrible.

Most of the time you don’t’ realize how important taking care of yourself is, until it is too late (and/or you realize that being young doesn’t make you invincible).

 

[Midnight Circus]

I understand that the baby is getting killed but it doesn't make me feel sorry for the baby, as bad as that may sound.

"MAY sound?" Try "does sound." You pretty much just presented yourself as a soulless, selfish human being with no conscience and no sense of compassion for anyone other than yourself.

You're going to make one hell of a parent someday.

A baby dying inside it's mother and dying in the real world are two different things.

How? You mind committing one, but you don't mind committing the other? All semantics. You say this as though geography invalidates morality. "If you kill him in this room, that's bad, but if you kill him in the kitchen, well, that's awwwwright. Giggity!"

A dead child is a dead child, no matter where it dies. A Supreme Court decision makes it legal; it doesn't make it right. If you have no problem killing your kids, then I really have to wonder about the state of our society.

It wouldn't affect me much if a girl got an abortion for my baby. I guess that's because I'm not ready to have a baby now and feel very strongly about it.

Strong enough to kill your own kid because he or she is "inconvenient," apparently. Hey, whatever. Who am I to judge strong family values like that?

 

[Tickle Fiend]

"MAY sound?" Try "does sound." You pretty much just presented yourself as a soulless, selfish human being with no conscience and no sense of compassion for anyone other than yourself.

You're going to make one hell of a parent someday.


How? You mind committing one, but you don't mind committing the other? All semantics. You say this as though geography invalidates morality. "If you kill him in this room, that's bad, but if you kill him in the kitchen, well, that's awwwwright. Giggity!"

A dead child is a dead child, no matter where it dies. A Supreme Court decision makes it legal; it doesn't make it right. If you have no problem killing your kids, then I really have to wonder about the state of our society.


Strong enough to kill your own kid because he or she is "inconvenient," apparently. Hey, whatever. Who am I to judge strong family values like that?

You may think I presented myself that way, but it's far from the truth. I have sympathy for the baby, I understand what's going on. However, I just don't have the same feelings for an unborn baby as I would for someone already born. I have sympathy but I'm apathetic at the same time. It's a legal, safe method and I'm just okay with it. It's just a choice/method that I agree with.