Gloucester, “not a story about sex education”? Ha
USA Today questions today whether there was a pregnancy pact at Gloucester High School in MA that resulted in at least 8 of 18 girls all under the age of 16 – likely Freshmen – getting pregnant simultaneously on purpose.
Whether or not there was a pact, which the Time reporter who originally wrote the story stands by, the question remains, as Ray Lamont, editor of the Gloucester Daily Times, told USA Today: “‘Pact’ or not, these kids thought it would be cool to be moms together. Where did they get that idea?”
The standout line in the article was:
“This is not a story about sex education,” says Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. “This is a story about a failure to take childbirth seriously. These girls could have had condoms distributed in their living rooms, and they still would have gotten pregnant.”
Of course it’s not a story about sex education, because only comprehensive sex ed is taught in MA public schools.
The governor last year went so far as to reject federal abstinence funding, which PP of MA gleefully reported:
Had this been a school system that taught abstinence sex ed only, you’d best believe that point would already be central to the story.
Why is no MSM outlet researching Gloucester’s sex ed program? Could it be because PP and the comprehensive sex ed crowd are in the thick of it? Could it be this drama starkly highlights the difference between abstinence and comprehensive sex ed teaching?
Compared to abstinence education, comprehensive sex ed is values free, except perhaps to teach the “value” of how to avoid getting pregnant when having the sex it promotes.
Abstinence education focuses on self- and other-respect. It focuses on goals and dreams that having premature sex can stop. All this was abysmally lacking in the sex ed provided these girls.
Developing story….
[HT: proofreader Laura Loo]

The governor last year went so far as to reject federal abstinence funding, which PP of MA gleefully reported:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Over 16 states have rejected abstinence-only funds, and over a dozen – including a wild-eyed liberal state called “Texas” – discontinued the program after it was shown to be a catastrophic failure.
Aaaaaaaaah!
The results of abstinence-only education. (I wonder how many teenagers will die due to the “ignorance-only” policy)
Some Florida teens believe drinking bleach prevents HIV/AIDS
Last Update: 4/04 11:53 am
(Paul Pod, Creative Commons 2.0) TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Some Florida teens believe drinking Mountain Dew or smoking marijuana will prevent pregnancy and that swallowing a capful of bleach will prevent HIV/AIDS.
One reason those dangerous myths have spread is the state’s reliance on abstinence-only sex education, say advocates of a bill to require a more comprehensive approach in Florida’s schools.
The measure narrowly won approval from a Sentate committee Tuesday. Under the proposed legislation, schools would still be required to teach abstinence as the only sure way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseasese, but they would have to teach more about sex.
It would require, for example, teaching about condoms and other methods of birth control and disease prevention.
The bill’s chances, though, remain slim with the annual 60-day legislative session nearly half over. The bill would have to clear three more committees before getting a Senate floor vote. The House version has yet to get a committee hearing.
“Young people are getting too little information too late,” said Jenna Cawley, director of education for Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando.
Cawley urged the bill’s approval as she told the Senate Education Pre-kindergarten-12th Grade Committee about the Mountain Dew, marijuana and bleach myths.
Opponents, including anti-abortion activists, claimed the bill’s requirements would result in more, not fewer teen pregnancies as supporters argue.
“The only healthy, 100-percent effective way to prevent disease and pregnancy is abstinence,” said Alison Lambrechts, a field coordinator for Project Reality, which provides sexual, alcohol and drug abstinence materials for schools.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, said Florida’s current approach isn’t working because the state has the sixth-highest teen pregnancy rate nationally.
He cited a recent University of Florida study showing the state’s sex education programs vary widely in content, get little class time and that some students miss out entirely. Half of the middle schools and a third of high schools teach abstinence-only courses, according to the Florida Department of Education.
The committee voted 4-3 for the bill (SB 848). One Republican, Senate President Pro Tempore Lisa Carlton of Osprey joined the panel’s three Democrats in favor of the bill. The other three Republicans voted no.
(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
My teen-aged daughter had an interesting observation from overhearing her classmates earlier in the school year – apparently a lot of teens have seen the movie Juno and found the idea of being pregnant appealing.
Umm…ABSTINENCE-ONLY SEX ED, or condoms, or birth control, or ANYTHING ELSE UNDER THE SUN, will NOT WORK if a kid is TRYING to get pregnant!!!!!!! Jill, you are being ridiculous. I don’t think schools should have any sex ed at all, period, because I think that should be left entirely to parents, but these kids didn’t seem to have adequate parenting, either. Nothing could’ve helped these girls. They were living in a fantasy world, and they’re about to get a HUGE dose of reality. Any parents needing access to some “sex ed schooling” for their kids are welcome to borrow my 5 month old to help them. He’s teething right now, and would be an invaluable learning tool. :P
I think actually taking care of a REAL baby AFTER its born would’ve been a good activity for these girls so that their illusions about motherhood could be shattered, and they could see their idea for what it was: a VERY bad one.
I think it is interesting that they are rebeling against the mainstream by showing people that they want to have babies, however, it is a shame that they don’t want to have husbands too. BTW, it is cool to be pregnant and be a mom with your friends.
What comprehensive sex ed does is make sex “normal” in the mind of young women. Historically it is normal, but only within the confines of marriage. We live in a society where 14 year old girls are no longer in any way prepared for marriage or parenthood, but physically, they are just as ready as their grandmothers or greatgrandmothers.
We have a very strange situation going on right now that says that A)Having sex during the early teen years is normal and B) Getting married younger than 25 is WRONG.
So we set people up to have several sexual partners, and deal with conflicting emotions about parenthood, and yet no one wants to approach the subject honestly.
I’m not advocating for marrying off 15 year olds so they can go have lots of sex, but I do think we need to acknowledge that at 14 or 15 they are at an age that has historically been linked to the beginning of intimate relations.
We shouldn’t be shocked by these young women’s desire to be parents, but rather question exactly how we can honestly communicate all aspects of martial and sexual relations to the teenagers of today.
I think that problems like this “pact” are caused when we all turn the other way and go “lalalalla” in regards to the biological drives and emotional needs of teenagers and offer them only superficial answers.
Someone needs to set down with teenagers and ask them honestly how they feel about parenthood and marriage, and I think most importantly, talk to teenagers about how the decisions that they make in these areas today will affect their relationships tomorrow.
I don’t really see a clear solution,only the problem, but I think that together as a society we could come up with better solutions than the ones that have led to this.
Also, another issue I see as very interesting is how so many people are rushing in to say that they think these girls need a dose of reality.
I think this illustrates perfectly my point. Girls today have *no* clue what it actually means to be a parent because they have no experiences to go on. My grandmother got married at 14, and had my uncle at 15. However, she was one of eight children who grew up running a farm and taking care of the younger children so she was actually prepared to raise a child at that age.
Today, 14 and 15 year old girls know alot about alot of superficial things, but very little about what it actually takes to run a household. They do,however, have maternal instincts and thus jump head first into parenthood without really understanding what they are doing.
Perhaps most upsetting is that when our grandparents were raising children at relatively young ages, they generally had the support of a husband. These young women have the support of no one save their school districts and each other. They have peremantly set themselves up for the hardships of single parenthood because, for some reason, they felt that it would be a better option than going the traditional path.
We need to *talk* to these girls, not condemn them, and try to understand exactly what they were thinking. Only then are we going to be able to help other girls not feel like they need to jump into parenting unprepared.
I think actually taking care of a REAL baby AFTER its born would’ve been a good activity for these girls so that their illusions about motherhood could be shattered, and they could see their idea for what it was: a VERY bad one.
Posted by: xalisae at June 23, 2008 9:56 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Damn you, X!
Jill is totally opposed to shows like “The Baby Borrowers” that might lead teens to believe that motherhood is anything less than the lollypop walk through the the butterfly and puppy park!
(I’m not kidding. Check it out)
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/03/the_baby_borrow.html
My teen-aged daughter had an interesting observation from overhearing her classmates earlier in the school year – apparently a lot of teens have seen the movie Juno and found the idea of being pregnant appealing.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 23, 2008 9:45 AM
How great that you and your teen-ager communicate!!! From the comments on this site, one would think that it doesn’t happen anymore!
Juno was an awesome movie. It brought this whole problem of teen-age pregnancy out in the open. Sometimes good comes out of bad situations. Let’s pray that the people of this country learn something from the MA events that are unfolding before their eyes. God Bless America!
Laura said: (Paul Pod, Creative Commons 2.0) TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Some Florida teens believe drinking Mountain Dew or smoking marijuana will prevent pregnancy and that swallowing a capful of bleach will prevent HIV/AIDS.
One reason those dangerous myths have spread is the state’s reliance on abstinence-only sex education, say advocates of a bill to require a more comprehensive approach in Florida’s schools.
These Florida teens don’t need more sex education, they need more time studying human anatomy, chemistry, and food science, with a good measure of common sense to help dispel these myths. Hey, if they were abstaining, they could believe whatever they want. Which is the better CHOICE? Hmmm.
“The governor last year went so far as to reject federal abstinence funding, which PP of MA gleefully reported”
thats big liberal and Obama buddie Deval Patrick.
“Had this been a school system that taught abstinence sex ed only, you’d best believe that point would already be central to the story.”
Of course. This doesn’t fit their agenda, so they squashed it.
“Compared to abstinence education, comprehensive sex ed is values free, except perhaps to teach the “value” of how to avoid getting pregnant when having the sex it promotes.”
Exactly
“Abstinence education focuses on self- and other-respect. It focuses on goals and dreams that having premature sex can stop. All this was abysmally lacking in the sex ed provided these girls.”
bingo, right on Jill. I love you.
Umm…ABSTINENCE-ONLY SEX ED, or condoms, or birth control, or ANYTHING ELSE UNDER THE SUN, will NOT WORK if a kid is TRYING to get pregnant!!!!!!! Jill, you are being ridiculous. I don’t think schools should have any sex ed at all, period, because I think that should be left entirely to parents, but these kids didn’t seem to have adequate parenting, either. Nothing could’ve helped these girls. They were living in a fantasy world, and they’re about to get a HUGE dose of reality. Any parents needing access to some “sex ed schooling” for their kids are welcome to borrow my 5 month old to help them. He’s teething right now, and would be an invaluable learning tool. :P
I think actually taking care of a REAL baby AFTER its born would’ve been a good activity for these girls so that their illusions about motherhood could be shattered, and they could see their idea for what it was: a VERY bad one.
Posted by: xalisae at June 23, 2008 9:56 AM
I agree with you that sex ed should be handled at home, but educators don’t agree so that isn’t going to change any time soon. That said, a compromise solution is abstinence education. I don’t think Jill is being ridiculous in wanting to promote that over comprehensive sex ed.
How would you implement your idea of teens taking care of a REAL BABY – have them shadow their older brothers and sisters babysitting? I would like to force them to watch a season’s worth of the T.V. Show “Supernanny”. That would teach ’em. It’s a great teaching tool for any parent to watch with their children!
Jill:
Abstinence education makes most Liberals feel guilty. Why you might ask?
How can one not feel guilty telling children to keep themselve pure until marriage when you’re having immoral sex, i.e., homosexual sex, adultery, and sex outside of marriage?
I mean, what pro-abort Liberal on this site is not proclaiming they are having sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend except for maybe Hal (who appears to be a faithful guy)?
Who in the MSM that’s a Liberal is not involved in some sort of immoral sex? Liberals just don’t believe that anyone should be telling them, be it God Almighty or anyone else, how they should be conducting their personal lives. How do you expect such moral reprobates to educate young people?
The key to this is to remove them from any sort of power or position of political influence.
Pray and pray mightily. “If my people….”
And Laura:
It would do you a world of good to sit under the tutelage of a godly man or woman for about 5 years. That way, you could actually learn something about morals and ethics.
Being a teen and having a baby is difficult. This is not a reaon to kill the baby. At the same time we pro-lifers fight abortion and we stand for sex only in marriage. This is consistent.
Teaching a child about sex without a moral or godly compass to restrain behavior is like telling a kid how to buy a gun, where to buy ammunition, how to use the gun and then stopping there. Thank God that most kids know that murder of live people is absoluteley wrong, except for abortion, of course, (because that what pro-aborts teach).
Kids are blank slates. God has entrusted us to them to teach them about Him and His principles. To do oterhwise is a gross and grave sin with terrible consequences.
Matthew 18:6
But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Mark 9:42
Compared to abstinence education, comprehensive sex ed is values free, except perhaps to teach the “value” of how to avoid getting pregnant when having the sex it promotes.
I think she is being ridiculous blaming comprehensive sex education for these young girls pregnancy. These girls are just unfortunately very naive, and now their consequences will not only affect themselves but their children as well. I think sex education is important to have in schools, because honestly some parents don’t give their children the “sex talk”. Maybe that’s bad parenting, and maybe that doesn’t mean the schools should have to pick up the slack. But I think that comprehensive sex education that teaches about the gravity of sex, how sacred and highly held it should be, and should be shared once you and your partner are deeply in love and able to care for a child (because FYI sex can lead to children, that would be the most beneficial to ending teen pregnancies and many abortions.
Both abstinence only AND comprehensive sex ed focus on….
NOT GETTING PREGNANT
very different approaches – same goal.
Yet you think one or the other would have prevented a situation in which girls…
WANTED to get pregnant?
You dislike comprehensive sex ed because you believe it promotes casual sex, contraception, and abortion… and yet you are blaming it for…
girls having sex in order to HAVE A BABY?
the sense-making going on here is just overwhelming.
I don’t find any problem with that show, Laura. As long as they aren’t screaming “ABORT ABORT ABORT!”, it seems harmless, and I’ve known more people who switched to abstaining from sex altogether because of their mom or sibling or someone close to them becoming pregnant (quite a few) than anyone who aborted or would’ve aborted because of the situation (none, as a matter of fact). Other than not highlighting that it’s a little different when it’s your own child who you (should) have a close emotional attatchment to, and therefore will have more patience, love, and pride for when things happen than you would with a stranger’s child, I see nothing wrong with that show. Parenthood is difficult, but it’s also rewarding, as most difficult things are.
How can one not feel guilty telling children to keep themselve pure until marriage when you’re having immoral sex, i.e., homosexual sex, adultery, and sex outside of marriage?”
Not that we feel guilty about it, we just don’t think it’s good advice. Especially for those who wait a few years to get married. My advice for young people is to not have intercourse until out of high school, not get married until at least 25 years old, and use birth control if you don’t want a baby.
I believe adultery is wrong and immoral. Homosexual sex, premarital sex, post maritial sex, and most other kinds of sex are moral if between consenting adults.
Janet, I don’t think she’s being ridiculous for promoting abstinence-only over comprehensive sex ed, that’s her prerogative, whatever. I think that her trying so desperately to tie this story to comprehensive sex ed, which it OBVIOUSLY has NOTHING to do with, insane, especially considering the fervor she is using trying to do so.
And, I learned about the baby thing by being the oldest of 6 kids, the youngest of which was born when I was 13. It’s a great life lesson, and you better believe that once we start adopting/foster care when my kids are older, they’re going to help. ;)
I didn’t start thinking babies were cute again until I was 20.
I think we should use Lisa K.’s idea, until we fix families in this country (maybe reforming Child Services/DHS so that they actually help kids and families instead of harassing poor people). Then once families are fixed, discontinue it. Or maybe give out a questionaire to kids: “Have your parents discussed the topic of sex/reproduction with you? Yes/No” when they start jr. high, if they check “No”, have a conference with their parents to discuss it, see if they need or would want the info at school, or if the parents wanted to tell them when they thought they were more ready, etc.
Every kid is different, and giving them all the same “Everything About Sex!” talk and expecting the majority to be responsible and smart is just naive. Some kids aren’t ready to hear that stuff in fourth grade (I SURE wasn’t), some are. Some might actually need certain information more than others (like these girls would’ve needed how much of a huge undertaking it is to have kids stressed to them more than kids who didn’t seem interested in sex or kids). Comprehensive sex ed. as it stands is not the best alternative, but I don’t necessarily think abstinence-only is either.
And HisMan, you forgot to mention pro-lifers like myself, who have no qualms whatsoever with consenting adults in a committed relationship outside of marriage having sexual relations.
Sex ed starts when little people start asking questions about their parts and their brother’s parts as well. At least in this house. :)
X @ 11:46
I agree with absolutely everything in that post.
*claps*
Carla – thats true, but unless you ban all TV, movies, and music – the questions will get a lot more complicated than that at a much younger age than most parents are prepared for.
“I believe adultery is wrong and immoral. Homosexual sex, premarital sex, post maritial sex, and most other kinds of sex are moral if between consenting adults.”
Posted by: hal at June 23, 2008 11:29 AM
Hal,
I appreciate the forthcoming attitude on what you believe. No doubt you realize it subjects you to comments like mine, where I will point out what I believe to be inconsistencies. That being said, here I go:
1. What is the problem you have with adultery? Does that include having sex while you’re engaged? Does it include while you’re dating someone? Does it include people that get a divorce because they’re tired of sex with the same person? As someone who is saving myself for my future wife, I obviously disagree that pre-marital sex is ok. I guess what I’d like to know from you is what you feel the purpose of marriage is, then, other than a break-able contract of anti-promiscuity.
2. Homosexual sex: I admit I can’t make this argument without invoking religion, so I can’t and won’t make this argument in the context of what can or cannot be enforced. Some people don’t believe in my religion. I don’t agree though, that it is moral. Morality is a sense of what is right and what is wrong and compels us to consider what lies beyond just what we are or are not capable of and reach for a greater good.
I suppose the underlying point is that I would be glad to engage you in discussion for hours about to what extent I may enforce my morals on other people. But you can’t tell me that homosexual or extramarital sex is a moral act and get away with it. Just because you and I draw our lines at different points in the sand doesn’t change the fact that some things are right and some things are wrong. To believe otherwise would imply that the culture’s moral compass has no real “north”. It’s thinking like that which has led to condoms being distributed to 12 year olds, husbands leaving their wives for “younger tail” and 25-year old soccer coaches taking 14-year old girlfriends in for abortions. It’s what I like to call the “slippery slope” argument. Consider long and hard whether it’s a slope you’re on, here.
Alex –
typically, people do not consent to being cheated on and betrayed.
homosexual sex and pre-marital sex, when consenting adults are involved is a separate matter. Two people who believe one or both are wrong would opt not to participate and have every right to refuse to take part in things they believe to be wrong, whereas someone being cheated on (through adultery) doesn’t really have a choice. They do not consent to be part of something they believe to be wrong.
*takes a bow*
thanks, Amanda. ;)
And Laura:
It would do you a world of good to sit under the tutelage of a godly man or woman for about 5 years. That way, you could actually learn something about morals and ethics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cool! There are about 3500 recognized “supreme deities” on this planet. I’ll find someone who worships one of these gods so I can attain some of their moral and ethical standards.
And, I learned about the baby thing by being the oldest of 6 kids, the youngest of which was born when I was 13. It’s a great life lesson, and you better believe that once we start adopting/foster care when my kids are older, they’re going to help. ;)
VERY similar experience here, but we can’t magically make everyone be the oldest of six kids to provide them with the same life lesson. There are other ways to approach this story, but I’m not understanding your obviousdisgust with the way Jill is handling this story, and I generally understand where you are coming from….. Maybe I’ll take a break and come back later….
HisMan said: Teaching a child about sex without a moral or godly compass to restrain behavior is like telling a kid how to buy a gun, where to buy ammunition, how to use the gun and then stopping there.
Amen.
Thank God that most kids know that murder of live people is absoluteley wrong, except for abortion, of course, (because that what pro-aborts teach).
You’re giving kids too much credit, I fear. They play video games and kill for sport, and too often the game spills over into real life.
Quelle horreur….
The girls who wanted to get pregnant had all the sex education they needed, for that.
Abstinence-only education has very poor performance, but there would still have to be the presumption of not wanting to get pregnant for it to have any worth at all.
“Both abstinence only AND comprehensive sex ed focus on….
NOT GETTING PREGNANT
very different approaches – same goal”
No Amanda, you are not paying attention to what Jill said:
Abstinence education focuses on self- and other-respect. It focuses on goals and dreams that having premature sex can stop. All this was abysmally lacking in the sex ed provided these girls.
“but there would still have to be the presumption of not wanting to get pregnant for it to have any worth at all.”
EXXXXACTLY.
“Abstinence education focuses on self- and other-respect. It focuses on goals and dreams that having premature sex can stop. All this was abysmally lacking in the sex ed provided these girls. ”
And comprehensive sex focuses on the same things, only emphasizes contraceptive use.
How would that have changed anything for girls who WANTED to be pregnant? You can’t honestly compare this to girls who want to have casual sex but do not want to get pregnant. Its apples to oranges.
VERY similar experience here, but we can’t magically make everyone be the oldest of six kids to provide them with the same life lesson. There are other ways to approach this story, but I’m not understanding your obviousdisgust with the way Jill is handling this story, and I generally understand where you are coming from….. Maybe I’ll take a break and come back later….
Posted by: Janet at June 23, 2008 12:28 PM
Janet, it’s that this is the most obvious case of someone pushing an agenda that I’ve seen in a LONG time, and she’s so seemingly beside herself about it when there’s no connection between what she is upset about, and the actual story. Aaaaaand…it doesn’t have anything to do with saving babies, either. It’s just a difference in policy opinion.
~~~~~~~~
You’re giving kids too much credit, I fear. They play video games and kill for sport, and too often the game spills over into real life.
Posted by: Janet at June 23, 2008 12:34 PM
Uh-oh.
I am a gamer. PLEASE do not get me started on the flawed logic that is at work with many conservative groups who like to attack video games. Puh-leeze.
I’m just not anticipating my 5 year old going on a killing spree any time soon because I like to play Rainbow 6 Vegas.
“I am a gamer. PLEASE do not get me started on the flawed logic that is at work with many conservative groups who like to attack video games. Puh-leeze.”
But its so much easier to go after the large corporate game companies than to go after parents grieving after their kid goes on a murder/suicide rampage and ask them how they didn’t notice their son was stockpiling semi-automatic weapons and showed every single symptom of severe depression and nothing was done about it. It’s easier to blame those big evil money-making producers than to go after schools that turn a blind eye to bullying and extreme isolation. Also, because this is America, its easier to blame the game companies because they have more money to win when you blame them and sue them.
Just like blaming sex ed for a bunch of 16 year old girls wanting to be pregnant so badly they’re willing to sleep with homeless men. It is SOOOOO obvious to anyone without an agenda that the real problem is much, MUCH deeper than the scape goat we blame it on.
“And comprehensive sex focuses on the same things, only emphasizes contraceptive use.”
no, it does not Amanda. With comp.sex.ed, no morals are involved. It’s like giving free needles to a herion addict.
Amanda,
On the other Gloucester thread you mentioned your roomate who had 4 abortions total.
Are you at liberty to explain the circumstances of these abortions and your personal feelings about them?
Hi Amanda!
What I mean is that is where sex ed starts. It should not be a “sex talk” when a child reaches some arbitrary age. When they ask, they want to know.
Sex ed to me is an ongoing conversation with my children. Mommy pregnant 3 times had so many questions, my head was spinning!
Most TV, movies and music are not welcome in our home.
Not to worry, Amanda I am more than prepared for whatever questions come up.
MMmmkay Jasper… only thats not true at all.
You remember I went through comprehensive sex ed in Mass AND taught it, so please don’ try to tell me it what it is and isn’t. Do you happen to have a curriculum on hand? We can go through it together if you’d like.
One of the MOST emphasized and repeated messages is that YOU are the master of your own body, and that no one has the right to pressure you or tease you or judge you for choosing not to have sex or call you a slut if you do. They gave us robotic babies for a week that cried at 3 am to drive home the idea that having a child can stop those goals and dreams you mentioned. They paired us with parters and made us do all of our assignments with them – and if we did them alone, we got Fs, to drive home the idea that having sex can end up leading to a partner in life you might not want to be obligated to. We were taught how to empower ourselves and say NO, to have self respect not to cave to a boy you like or the pressure from your friends. Should I continue?
“Abstinence education focuses on self- and other-respect. It focuses on goals and dreams that having premature sex can stop. All this was abysmally lacking in the sex ed provided these girls.”
bingo, right on Jill. I love you.
Posted by: Jasper at June 23, 2008 10:42 AM
Why do we so despise the goal and dream of being a mom and not having any other career?
Being a mom is a worthy goal.
Carder – she’s Russian. I think that pretty much sums it up. Abortion was birth control for her and completely acceptable within her circle of friends. And I thought it was stupid and ridiculous, and horribly ironic that her parents both thought she was a virgin.
x: 1:00: Uh-oh.
I am a gamer. PLEASE do not get me started on the flawed logic that is at work with many conservative groups who like to attack video games. Puh-leeze.
I’m just not anticipating my 5 year old going on a killing spree any time soon because I like to play Rainbow 6 Vegas.
I didn’t know I was part of a “conservative group of video game attackers”. Why does everyone have to be pigeon-holed these days? I guess I’m just an old-fashioned, middle-aged, old-fogey. Now let me be! ( Just kidding!) :)
Amanda,
Only a small fraction of parenthood is a pain in the rear. Mostly babies are wonderful and rewarding and a pleasure to be around. If you pick up any parenting magazine and read the surveys you will find most moms report they would rather be home than working some job that society expects them to have.
I think women are still expected to fit society’s expectations and are pressured to work, just like they used to be pressured to be Dolly domestic even when it didn’t suit their temperament.
We say we respect diversity, but really we don’t. I don’t know how many girls attend the Massachusetts high school but if people flip out when 8 out of a thousand girls want to be moms, I think it is overreacting.
I find it amazing how little comment there is about the fathers of these babies. Have all of them rejected their pregnant partners and their children? Does anyone care?
Why do we always blame women?
Amanda: One of the MOST emphasized and repeated messages is that YOU are the master of your own body, and that no one has the right to pressure you or tease you or judge you for choosing not to have sex or call you a slut if you do.
Master of your own body??? What about the kids that say they were taught that their body is the “temple of the Holy Spirit”? Do you laugh at them? What kind of mixed message are you giving the Christian kids?
Carla – thats true, but unless you ban all TV, movies, and music – the questions will get a lot more complicated than that at a much younger age than most parents are prepared for.
Posted by: Amanda at June 23, 2008 12:00 PM
Maybe PARENTS are the ones who need the sex ed, not the kids.
Parents should be restricting the TV, movies and music their kids watch anyways.
testing of comment system
Hippie –
I actually AGREE with you. My posts were a reaction to others trying to place BLAME for this.
I don’t see how girls WANTING to have babies goes against the pro life agenda at all – in fact, I’m baffled by Jill’s reaction to this.
As for the fathers, one of them was a drunk homeless guy. Not exactly “dad” material. The girls had decided they were going to raise their babies together. They were not abandoned – this is exactly what they envisioned.
Janet…
OH come on. Yes, we point at them and laugh, and then put them in a corner and beat them with upside crosses. *eyeroll*. I knew someone would take it that way. Do you honestly think believing your body is a temple of God means you’re not the one person who gets to make the decisions about what you do and do not allow other people to do with YOUR body? (ie – being the master of your own body)
Amanda,
I am not trying to be frivolous, but she may not want to say who the father is and so the homeless man story seems a little dubious. I taught high school and middle school and while that may be true, I suspect she may not want to reveal the identity of one of her associates.
To me the saddest thing is that none of these girls even considered that her partner would want to love her and help her with a child. I wonder if other young women feel this way.
I feel sorry for women who really dream of being moms and having kids etc. and society just says forget it. Likewise I feel that it was terrible when families wouldn’t help daughters who wanted to go to college or be artists or writers etc.
The message seems to be that it is unreasonable to be a stay home mother and that having a career outside the home is mandatory.
I have so many friends who were engineers, analysts, dentists, etc. who worked maybe 5-10 years, had families and have no desire to ever go back. They never really wanted those jobs in the first place. But society and social class demanded they go into some respected field of endeavor. It is like you first have to prove to society that you aren’t just another stupid woman before you have the right to decide that being a stay home mom is what you really want to do.
Bottom line is that we don’t really respect women, especially those who want to be stay home moms with no other career.
If we really had respect for the intellect of women, we could respect equally the 16 year old who wants to get married and be a mother and the 16 year old who goes half day to high school and half day to a local college to get a head start on some college credit. Neither one is “earning her own way” Each one must be supported in her endeavor by someone else. However society values only one endeavor, yet despises the other.
But since we don’t really respect teen aged girls, we also don’t respect them when they want to have children.
Amanda: One of the MOST emphasized and repeated messages is that YOU are the master of your own body,
Sorry, but “MASTER” sounds hokey to me. I’d have laughed if someone had said that to me in a teen sex ed class.
Amanda and Hippie:
I agree with much of what you gals are saying. So many comments, such little time to reply!
Carla,
Most TV, movies and music are not welcome in our home.
Well, for us, it’s High School Musical, Dora, Word World, and anything with the Jonas Brothers. That’s right, she’s a boy band lover just like her mom. :)
And, I learned about the baby thing by being the oldest of 6 kids, the youngest of which was born when I was 13. It’s a great life lesson, and you better believe that once we start adopting/foster care when my kids are older, they’re going to help. ;)
I didn’t start thinking babies were cute again until I was 20.
xalisae: This is how things USE to be. Parents would have babies and teens would see how much work they were and wait, KNOWING what it was really like to look after a baby. I know I certainly was in shock after I had my first child and he was a ton of work. He cried alot and was a high demand sort of fellow!
However, not every kid is good to go at the same time for sex ed. This is one of the main reasons I’m against sex ed in the schools. It does not respect the latency period that children go through and whose length varies from child to child depending upon a number of personal factors. My 11 year old has no interest in anything sexual. She has 2 older sisters and she certainly has seen them change physically and emotionally. I’ve pulled her from the sex ed classes at our school (which by the way are VERY benign) and explained only very basic things such as a few of the changes her body will be undergoing in the next 2 years or so. I honestly believe if I were to explain sexual intercourse to this child she would be horrified and simply not able to process the information emotionally. In fact, I think it would do more harm than good. (BTW, the family life textbooks explain everything in GR 5, but the teachers don’t follow the text and are very uncomfortable teaching this stuff in mixed classes)
One of her 11 year old friends (from another school) has had her period since age 10. Despite her mother explaining what is happening to her body, this 11 year old has a very difficult time dealing with full blown periods at age 11. She such an innocent little thing!
I agree with Janet, parents know their kids best and should take the classes so they can give them the sex info as needed as well as impart their values, not the state’s.
Elizabeth,
I’m going to see your future hubby Thurs. at a banquet for Women’s Choice Services! He’s supposed to show up, we’ll see!
I agree 100% Hippie,
but when I explained that my boyfriend was saving up to buy a house so that when I was ready to have kids, I wouldn’t have to work, guess who gave me a hard time about it? Two of the most ardent pro lifers on this board. Go figure.
as far as the fathers’ go, I explained in the previous thread about this, but it bears repeating, that Gloucester has a uniquely high population of absent dads – not through divorce or single parenthood – but alcoholism and the nature of the fishing industry. A lot of these girls probably grew up seeing their mothers hold down the fort on her own – and may have some naive notions about just how hard that is – though not impossible. The fact that they wanted to raise their babies together is really striking to me – seems to me they discussed it and thought they’d be just fine without men in their lives. That notion alone proves to me that the root of this goes WAAAAAAY beyond sex ed.
At this point, with all this publicity, and all the BLAME going on, the fathers (many of whom are most likely kids themselves) are probably horrified (and rightfully so based on how these girls are being judged) to come forward.
Janet,
REALLY?!!! So..he’ll be in IL?!!Ahhh! We’ll be so close.
:sigh:
Amanda said: But its so much easier to go after the large corporate game companies than to go after parents grieving after their kid goes on a murder/suicide rampage and ask them how they didn’t notice their son was stockpiling semi-automatic weapons and showed every single symptom of severe depression and nothing was done about it. It’s easier to blame those big evil money-making producers than to go after schools that turn a blind eye to bullying and extreme isolation. Also, because this is America, its easier to blame the game companies because they have more money to win when you blame them and sue them.
You are way off interpreting my comment to HisMan about video games and killing. I didn’t say a thing about blaming the game companies. I believe it’s the parents’ responsibility to know what games their kids are playing and to police them accordingly; I think you would agree with me. I’m all in favor of placing blame where blame is due. I think parents are dropping the ball too often.
Hi Hippie,
I hear what you are saying. I thought I would teach forever and have 1 or 2 children. I quit teaching because I couldn’t bear to put my 2nd child in daycare. Been staying home for 8 years now and added 2 more children. It is the hardest career I have ever had, but the most rewarding!! :)
Elizabeth,
You forgot Cars, The Bee Movie, and Veggie Tales. :)
Eduardo? :) :) :)
Janet –
that comment was directed at X mentioning the conservative groups who blame video games every time a kid does something stupid – not at you.
Haha, Carla..I can’t get her to stop watching Word World to even watch those! Every time I say, “Wanna watch a movie?” It’s “Word Wor” I’m pretty glad it’s a show that teaches her how to spell and say words. I think it’s helped improve her vocabulary a lot. We have 3 of those dvd’s and I just keep changing them out. I know all the episodes by heart. AH!
I have so many friends who were engineers, analysts, dentists, etc. who worked maybe 5-10 years, had families and have no desire to ever go back. They never really wanted those jobs in the first place. But society and social class demanded they go into some respected field of endeavor. It is like you first have to prove to society that you aren’t just another stupid woman before you have the right to decide that being a stay home mom is what you really want to do.
Bottom line is that we don’t really respect women, especially those who want to be stay home moms with no other career.
OH hippie, aint this sooo true!
However, I do think it’s good for young women to get themselves well educated because you never know what life is gonna throw at you. A husband can die and leave you with small children to provide for. It would be nice to have something to fall back on, in this circumstance.
The Littles say Word Word. ha ha
Word up.
Hey, how could I have forgotten Little House on the Praire?? For shame.
…but when I explained that my boyfriend was saving up to buy a house so that when I was ready to have kids, I wouldn’t have to work, guess who gave me a hard time about it? Two of the most ardent pro lifers on this board. Go figure.
I think you missed the point behind the “hard time” Amanda.
Carla,
I love Charles Ingalls.
lauren: 10:11: Also, another issue I see as very interesting is how so many people are rushing in to say that they think these girls need a dose of reality.
I think this illustrates perfectly my point. Girls today have *no* clue what it actually means to be a parent because they have no experiences to go on. My grandmother got married at 14, and had my uncle at 15. However, she was one of eight children who grew up running a farm and taking care of the younger children so she was actually prepared to raise a child at that age.
Today, 14 and 15 year old girls know alot about alot of superficial things, but very little about what it actually takes to run a household. They do,however, have maternal instincts and thus jump head first into parenthood without really understanding what they are doing.
Perhaps most upsetting is that when our grandparents were raising children at relatively young ages, they generally had the support of a husband. These young women have the support of no one save their school districts and each other. They have peremantly set themselves up for the hardships of single parenthood because, for some reason, they felt that it would be a better option than going the traditional path.
We need to *talk* to these girls, not condemn them, and try to understand exactly what they were thinking. Only then are we going to be able to help other girls not feel like they need to jump into parenting unprepared.
Where was your Grandmother living when she got married at 14? That’s so young!!
I agree we need to talk to these girls. Speaking of grandmothers, they are excellent teachers and have wisdom to pass on to their granddaughters. I hope teens today are encouraged to maintain relationships with their Grandparents and vice-versa. My grandmother was like my second Mom!
So Patricia, when Yllas told me we were going to forclose and get divorced because we couldn’t live on one income, he was just dishing out some friendly advice…. right.
Amanda: Janet -that comment was directed at X mentioning the conservative groups who blame video games every time a kid does something stupid – not at you.
Sorry for the confusion! x was replying to me, which is why I assumed you were also.
Carla: Yes, Eduardo!! :) Imagine that!
Janet: I had a grandmother who married at 14. This was a french-canadian family. Her first 4 children died according to my dad. She didn’t know how to take care of the babies. And women back then (around 1910’s) were discouraged from breastfeeding which likely would have saved the babies and helped her space her children. My dad has told me he can remember her feeding younger children cows milk with bread in it.
My own mom knew nothing of the womanly art of breastfeeding.
o Patricia, when Yllas told me we were going to forclose and get divorced because we couldn’t live on one income, he was just dishing out some friendly advice…. right.
Posted by: Amanda at June 23, 2008 3:03 PM
Amanda, I can’t speak for yllas. My discussion had a different focus as I remember. I think we should stick to the topic at hand here.
Peace.
My 11 year old has no interest in anything sexual. I’ve pulled her from the sex ed classes at our school (which by the way are VERY benign) and explained only very basic things such as a few of the changes her body will be undergoing in the next 2 years or so. I honestly believe if I were to explain sexual intercourse to this child she would be horrified and simply not able to process the information emotionally. In fact, I think it would do more harm than good.
Posted by: Patricia at June 23, 2008 2:35 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’re 5th-6th grader has no idea what sexual intercourse is?
Believe that if it makes you happy.
Patricia, Interesting! I’m sorry your grandmother had to go through that. How rough! My mom wasn’t encouraged to breast feed, but my husband’s mom did. Her side of the family had some French-Canadian blood as well. Lots of French names in the family tree! Kind of different when the rest of the families are mostly English, German and a wee bit Irish!
Patricia – That IS the topic at hand.
Here we have Jill rushing to judgement about these girls, Jasper making statements about motherhood “stopping goals and dreams” and others telling me I can’t have a family with one income… and these are people who are supposedly pro life. Its VERY ironic.
Laura: it may be astounding to you but my daughter has no idea what sexual intercourse is. She is not interested – she is still in her sexual latency period. She is a very very innocent little lady. I’m sorry YOU are the one with the problem Laura – so much so that you can’t believe a little pre teen is so very innocent. It’s people like you who are out to corrupt such children. BTW, the teachers in the school were only too happy to assign her other tasks. Interestingly, a boy was also pulled out of this class.
Amanda: I have no problem with you having a family and being a stay-at home mom. You KNOW that was not my issue – it was the sex outside of marriage and the excuse that a home was needed before marriage was attainable and needed for the security of your man.
“You KNOW that was not my issue ”
Yeah I know – you don’t even think it’ll get to that point because he’s just using me for sex. I know. I know.
I was actually referring to Yllas and RSD who gave me a hard time about waiting to have kids so that we’d have enough money that I could stay at home. Not you.
Amanda,
I completely understand where you are coming from – you empathize with these girls who are in very difficult situations, due to many factors, broken families, economic hardship, etc.. I think most commenters here do, even if they haven’t come out and said so.
Would you concede just a bit, that these girls weren’t thinking clearly to have thought having babies out of wedlock was a good goal to pursue? I’d feel so much better if you could admit that. I certainly don’t think I could be as compassionate as you are being if it were one of MY kids in this story in MA.
And as a general question, where are the boys in this story? I’d like to know what they have to say, even if they want to stay anonymous.
“but it bears repeating, that Gloucester has a uniquely high population of absent dads – not through divorce or single parenthood – but alcoholism and the nature of the fishing industry.”
Amanda,
I don’t live to far from Glouster as you know and I have several friends who live in Glouster. There are many people who live there are not involved with the fishing industry, in fact, there are many rich liberals who live there.
“Would you concede just a bit, that these girls weren’t thinking clearly to have thought having babies out of wedlock was a good goal to pursue? I’d feel so much better if you could admit that. I certainly don’t think I could be as compassionate as you are being if it were one of MY kids in this story in MA.”
I think they were very misguided and naive – as most girls their age are. But do I think blaming a sex ed program gets to the bottom of the cause? Not even close. Do I think its fair to say their pregnancy is going to “stop their goals and dreams”? Not for a second. I’ve seen plenty of girls either make motherhood PART of those goals and dreams, or succeed regardless. Do I think this is some awful horrible thing like Jill is portraying it? Nope. These girls made a choice – they were not coerced, they were not forced, they chose life. I think condemning them and their sex ed program sends the wrong message about choosing life.
I would have thought Jill would have liked to use this story as an example that not all teenage girls think abortion is the solution – and that many young girls DO just want to be moms.
Patricia,
Although my 11 year old son is as curious as can be and asks more questions about sex everyday, his almost 8 year old sister is like your eldest daughter. Doesn’t want to talk about it.
I have several friends whose daughters are the same way.
Ahhhhh….parenting the tweenagers!! :)
test
Alex, sorry I was off line most of the day. Your questions were answered pretty well by Amanda I think. I agree there are some things that are objectively right or wrong. Some other things are personal views or preferences. Can you tell me, for example, what is “wrong” about pre-marital sex between two thirty year -olds? It might be wrong for you, but there is nothing objectively wrong with it.
You’re 5th-6th grader has no idea what sexual intercourse is?
Believe that if it makes you happy.
Posted by: Laura at June 23, 2008 3:16 PM
Laura, I didn’t either in 5th and 6th grade. I didn’t learn until high school health, and even then it was pretty sketchy. I personally don’t recommend that method, because by the time I got to college, it was like I had a huge target on my back for guys (they’re like vultures in college. luckily-and then unluckily once I was in a committed relationship-I was terrified of sex by that time), but I stayed a virgin until about 19 and didn’t have my first child until I was 21, which was just perfect for me, so I guess it works for some people.
Also, about the video game thing, I just find the idea laughable that a video game is going to compell a child to go out and actually kill people. If you’re a good parent, your kids will know that killing is wrong, no matter what they think is fun to pretend. I used to play army with my cousins, and actually pretend to shoot people ourselves (at least in a video game, it’s not actually you, but an avatar), and never had any problems avoiding murder (not even abortion!).
I also would find eating an apple full of razorblades followed by a bowl of salt preferable to either the Jonas brothers or High School Musical (I tend to have a hard time with most things Disney. Too squishy and soft. The old Disney stuff’s ok sometimes though.), so we try to avoid that. Foster’s Home For Imaginary Friends/Invader Zim/Naruto/Corpse Bride/The Last Unicorn/Nightmare Before Christmas are all acceptable. I will admit that I recently sent our Xbox 360 off to her dad in Iraq so we could get a Wii for more kid-friendly games (I still got Resident Evil though. >:) )
You’re 5th-6th grader has no idea what sexual intercourse is?
Believe that if it makes you happy
Laura, I didn’t either in 5th and 6th grade. I didn’t learn until high school health, and even then it was pretty sketchy. I personally don’t recommend that method, because by the time I got to college, it was like I had a huge target on my back for guys (they’re like vultures in college. luckily-and then unluckily once I was in a committed relationship-I was terrified of sex by that time), but I stayed a virgin until about 19 and didn’t have my first child until I was 21, which was just perfect for me, so I guess it works for some people.
Xalisae, that is very much like me.
I didn’t know till I was in the 9th or 10th grade, and even then, I didn’t really understand how it worked. I honestly wasn’t that interested either. I was much very fond of hugging and kissing, and didn’t need more than that.
x: Also, about the video game thing, I just find the idea laughable that a video game is going to compell a child to go out and actually kill people. If you’re a good parent, your kids will know that killing is wrong, no matter what they think is fun to pretend.
Point taken. It’s the child with absentee parents who are neglecting them that I’m concerned about. The kids who are growing up in violent neighborhoods. That’s when I worry that violent video games will just add fuel to the fire.
My parents had an interesting technique for teaching sex ed. In addition to the usual talks (I don’t remember not knowing where babies came from) they bought a general medical book and put it on a bookshelf at home. Since kids are naturally curious, they figured we would look through the book and eventually find the “interesting parts”. My siblings and I learned about human reproduction in anatomically-correct terms from the start.
Knowing about sex has nothing to do with a child’s innocence. By the age of 10/11, I had a pretty good idea what sex was, but I was completely grossed out by the whole idea until I was 14 or 15 and the hormones started kicking in.
And part of the reason I knew about sex was because my mom had three kids after me. She had a big book about women’s medical health, and I used to look at the pictures of pregnancy when my mother was pregnant. Since I’ve always been a curious person, it didn’t take long for me to figure out the sex part.
I think if I had kids, they’d know about sex since the age of 4. The less taboo you make it, the less mysterious and tempting it will be. Of course, all the other parents will be upset when my kids start explaining sex in class to their peers, but eh. Knowledge is power. :)
I agree Edyt!! wow
I think if I had kids, they’d know about sex since the age of 4. The less taboo you make it, the less mysterious and tempting it will be. Of course, all the other parents will be upset when my kids start explaining sex in class to their peers, but eh. Knowledge is power. :)
Posted by: Edyt at June 23, 2008 7:51 PM
Just a note: The experts say you don’t need to tell young kids about sex unless they ask. Then don’t go into long drawn out answers. Some parents think they need to tell kids EVERYTHING at once, when a simple, short answer should suffice. Kids get bored quickly, they don’t want details.
Hehe, Janet. “Experts” say a lot of things.
I meant to add more to the above post (8:36):
I think it would depend on the type of kid I had. For instance, I was a curious kid, but I would read books and go online (later on) for answers. I didn’t ask my parents.
Other kids aren’t curious, or would rather ask their parents, or just don’t have interest in that particular subject.
So yeah, it depends on the kid. I don’t believe there’s one right way to raise a kid, though I think there are many many wrong ways!
Hehe, Janet. “Experts” say a lot of things.
Posted by: Edyt at June 23, 2008 8:36 PM
No kidding. It goes both ways.
Patricia,
Although my 11 year old son is as curious as can be and asks more questions about sex everyday, his almost 8 year old sister is like your eldest daughter. Doesn’t want to talk about it.
I have several friends whose daughters are the same way.
Ahhhhh….parenting the tweenagers!! :)
Posted by: Carla at June 23, 2008 3:50 PM
It’s not that she doesn’t want to talk about, she’s not interested. It’s not even on her mind! And she’s my youngest. So that is rather surprising too.
That’s when I worry that violent video games will just add fuel to the fire.
Posted by: Janet at June 23, 2008 7:26 PM
~~~
Better they play the games than have them take their impulses out into the street.
Edyt: “I think if I had kids, they’d know about sex since the age of 4”
huh? please. Let kids be kids.
Hal:
There is one definer of morality. It’s not me, it’s not you, it’s Jesus Christ.
He’s say any sex outside of marriage is immoral and sinful.
What you or I think won’t change what He thinks.
The difference bewtwen you and I is that I believe Him, you don’t.
A new acronym for Planned Parenthood:
NAZI
National Abortion Zealonts Incorporated
A new acronym for Planned Parenthood:
NAZI
National Abortion Zealots Incorporated
Edyt: “I think if I had kids, they’d know about sex since the age of 4”
I’m so glad you’re not planning to have kids. Honestly.
How sad that anyone would want to take their childhood from them like that. They’re toddlers for Pete’s sake.
What in the world would a 4 year old possibly need to know about sex for? They aren’t even curious at that point.
My children at four years old are usually busy coloring pretty pictures and learning how to read and write, playing on the trampoline, and smelling the flowers outside.
“I’m so glad you’re not planning to have kids. Honestly. ”
Hrmmm. That doesn’t sound very pro life of you. She didn’t say “i think ALL kids should know about sex at age 4”, she said HER kids, and she has every right to teach her kids what she thinks is right – isn’t that the whole point YOU were trying to make? That its the parents decision, not anyone elses’, schools for example?
That goes both ways, not just the way you personally think is right.
What in the world would a 4 year old possibly need to know about sex for? They aren’t even curious at that point.
Posted by: Bethany at June 24, 2008 8:30 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’d sure want kids to know enough about the mechanics so they could know when they were being touched inappropriately, and to be able to accurately report what had happened.
Uh, you don’t have to teach them everything about sex to help them report it. You can say, if anyone touches you here or here, that is not okay, and you can tell me about it. No need for them to know what sex is or how it works for that.
Hrmmm. That doesn’t sound very pro life of you. She didn’t say “i think ALL kids should know about sex at age 4”, she said HER kids, and she has every right to teach her kids what she thinks is right – isn’t that the whole point YOU were trying to make? That its the parents decision, not anyone elses’, schools for example?
That goes both ways, not just the way you personally think is right.
Amanda, did you happen to catch this part?
” Of course, all the other parents will be upset when my kids start explaining sex in class to their peers, but eh. Knowledge is power. :)”
Allow me to clarify my agreeing with Edyt. My eldest son, now 11 has always been curious. ALWAYS. With Mom being pregnant 3 times after him he had a lot of questions about it all. I answered them the best I could and gave as much info as I thought he needed to know. The rest of my children ask about their bodies and their siblings bodies etc. I am generally speaking about sexuality not “the sex talk” that it seems Edyt is implying.
It is just an ongoing conversation in our house and they ask when they want to learn. :)
Carla, that I can agree with! (I didn’t even notice you agreed with her above till you just mentioned it lol) – I think that Edyt was implying that she will sit down with her four year old who has just recently learned to put sentences together, and tell him everything about sex – and I do mean everything. I just don’t think that’s appropriate and I don’t think that’s fair to children, to take away their innocence like that. If they have questions about how the body works, that’s fine. I think we should answer them honestly, but just don’t delve too far into details…I have seen Planned Parenthood’s idea of sex education for 4 and 5 year olds (scary), and I believe that is probably very similar to Edyt’s plan, which is why I responded to her post like I did.
Yes Bethany, I did see that, but are you going to not tell your kids things you believe because you’d be afraid of OTHER parents getting upset if your kid repeats it?
Stuff like “gays go to Hell”?
You believe it. You will probably tell your children that. They will probably repeat it to their peers. You bet it will upset other parents, but are you going to let that change the way you parent YOUR child?
Carla, Edyt, Amanda, Laura, everyone…have a good day today. I’ve got to run. :)
Yes Bethany, I did see that, but are you going to not tell your kids things you believe because you’d be afraid of OTHER parents getting upset if your kid repeats it?
Stuff like “gays go to Hell”?
You believe it. You will probably tell your children that. They will probably repeat it to their peers. You bet it will upset other parents, but are you going to let that change the way you parent YOUR child?
Wow, Amanda, that is quite an assumption that I tell my children that “gays go to hell”.
Ttys
“There is one definer of morality. It’s not me, it’s not you, it’s Jesus Christ.”
“He’s say any sex outside of marriage is immoral and sinful.”
Posted by: HisMan at June 24, 2008 12:19 AM
You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.
This is why we have individual rights.
Dieter,
“You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.”
You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.
So Patricia, when Yllas told me we were going to forclose and get divorced because we couldn’t live on one income, he was just dishing out some friendly advice…. right.
Posted by: Amanda at June 23, 2008 3:03 PM
Yllis again plays the mooncalf.
“You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.”
You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 24, 2008 1:24 PM
Thus leave it to the individual to decide.
Charolastra, we could also leave it to the individual man to decide whether rape is right or wrong for him.
“Thus leave it to the individual to decide. ”
No, I think my point was lost. My point was that the statement “You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.” is self-refuting since I could just as easily claim “You might think the statement ‘You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people’ is true, but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.” If that is true, then by the statement’s own criteria it isn’t true for some that certain things are true for some and not others. In other words, the statement which is relativistic allows absolutes, making the statement incoherent.
The problem is that relativism leads to incoherence and self-contradictions or a lifestyle that no one can live.
Hmm, this dieter uses the same words as other mind puppet’s of Dogma Doug.
Since financial difficulties is one of the top reasons for divorce, I stand by the fact that Amanda has a fifty/fifty chance of divorce. And that financial reasons are declared as a reason for divorce.
Fact is Amanda, you will not live on one income from being insecure and untrusting of this lover and the effect on your personal finances. You’ll work, have a child, and put the child in daycare as soon as possible from knowing your lack of work is a financial insecurity.
Trust in another is impossible when one begins with knowing that person can kill unwanted human beings. And if that person killed another human being for financial reasons, you can Double up the odds of divorce.
Does your lover agree with your ethics of killing a human being by abortion from financial reasons, or just wanting to kill? Bet he does, and is already lost financial trust in you Amanda, and knows such ethics predict protecting his personal finances from you already.
P.s. dieter has a crush on you and writes apologetics for ya Amanda. Maybe you can get the confidence of dieter, and ask for a gratis downpayment for a house.
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby,
Soon very soon, a pro abort will accuse you of being incoherent.
I think that Edyt was implying that she will sit down with her four year old who has just recently learned to put sentences together, and tell him everything about sex – and I do mean everything.
Why on earth would you think that? I can not for my life ever remember not knowing about sex, and it certainly didn’t “take away my innocence” or anything. My parents never ever sat me down and explained everything — or anything! — but I always knew about sex. It wasn’t a talk, any more than “science” is a talk or “history” is a talk. It was an ongoing discussion between family members, between one who knows and one who is at various stages of being able to know. My sisters and I had an age-appropriate book for the 4-6 age group that we adored, that was pretty vague in retrospect but covered all the main questions. I always understood as much as I was capable of being curious about, and as I grew older I just asked my mom whenever questions occurred to me. I learned about oral sex at age 11, orgasms at maybe 12, etc.
Alexandra,
So not going there with my 11 year old!!! TMI
” Soon very soon, a pro abort will accuse you of being incoherent. ”
Well, possibly yllaS. But it is very true. It’s of the same kind of contradictory substance as a sentence like “No sentence contains five words” or “I can’t write in English.” It’s just that sentences like the one we saw above and “who are you to judge?” take a little more work to see the contradictions.
Bobby. Yllas is projecting his own issues on you here. Nothing you’ve ever written has been anything but crystal clear, whether the PC’ers here have agreed with it or not.
Carla —
So not going there with my 11 year old!!! TMI
But what if your 11-year old asks? I asked my mom both questions. And then a snippet of each explanation, my mother’s voice saying very matter-of-factly, “Orgasms feel very nice” or “some people prefer oral sex to ‘real’ sex” rang in my head for the next decade, making sex seem significantly less enticing and taboo than my friends seemed to think it was. ;)
My parents were big fans of the “if you’re old enough to ask, you’re old enough to know” philosophy.
Amanda: Bobby. Yllas is projecting his own issues on you here. Nothing you’ve ever written has been anything but crystal clear, whether the PC’ers here have agreed with it or not.
:: laughing :: Indeed.
Alexandra: But what if your 11-year old asks? I asked my mom both questions. And then a snippet of each explanation, my mother’s voice saying very matter-of-factly, “Orgasms feel very nice” or “some people prefer oral sex to ‘real’ sex” rang in my head for the next decade, making sex seem significantly less enticing and taboo than my friends seemed to think it was. ;)
Certain questions, I’d answer, “Never mind, wait ’til you’re older”.
That’s all.
Amen to that, Janet.
Bethany 5:42:
Sometimes, we just can’t let our kids dictate our every word and action, you know? :)
P.S. I found some wild mulberries the other day. Ate ’em right of the tree…My mom used to make a pie every year after we picked ’em. YUM!
Alexandra: My parents were big fans of the “if you’re old enough to ask, you’re old enough to know” philosophy.
Did that philosophy serve you well?
Alexandra: But what if your 11-year old asks? I asked my mom both questions. And then a snippet of each explanation, my mother’s voice saying very matter-of-factly, “Orgasms feel very nice” or “some people prefer oral sex to ‘real’ sex” rang in my head for the next decade, making sex seem significantly less enticing and taboo than my friends seemed to think it was. ;)
Certain questions, I’d answer, “Never mind, wait ’til you’re older”.
That’s all.
Posted by: Janet at June 24, 2008 4:59 PM
……………………
Which tells the child that you either don’t know the answer or don’t trust them with knowledge. I usually clarified why the question was being asked before assuming an answer above my child’s maturity level was required.
P.S. I found some wild mulberries the other day. Ate ’em right of the tree…My mom used to make a pie every year after we picked ’em. YUM!
MMM ….they are soooo good, aren’t they? They sure do make a mess on your hands too! :) I
Alexandra,
First I would ask him where in the world he heard those terms and then I would tell him when I think he’s ready. I would like to protect his brain for a little while longer. :)
Did that philosophy serve you well?
It did, Janet. I have always felt that I could ask them anything — and I went to them with just about everything. I didn’t have sex until I was 22 and was in a monogamous, committed relationship that I’m still in now, three years later.
Janet 4:59: Certain questions, I’d answer, “Never mind, wait ’til you’re older”.
That’s all.
Sally:6:58: Which tells the child that you either don’t know the answer or don’t trust them with knowledge. I usually clarified why the question was being asked before assuming an answer above my child’s maturity level was required.
You have a right to parent how you wish. I’m specifically talking about discussing delicate subjects like sex with a young child. I’m the parent, so I handle it the best way I know how. I don’t care if they think I’m stupid or whatever. Two minutes later, they’ll forget the whole conversation anyways.
Bethany 5:42:
Sometimes, we just can’t let our kids dictate our every word and action, you know? :)
P.S. I found some wild mulberries the other day. Ate ’em right of the tree…My mom used to make a pie every year after we picked ’em. YUM!
Posted by: Janet at June 24, 2008 6:29 PM
……………………
I understand that the native mulberry is becoming extinct in Canada. It must have been exciting to find one! My childhood neighborhood was abundant with them. We kids would snack on mulberries while out exploring the neighborhood. Yummy!
Sally: I understand that the native mulberry is becoming extinct in Canada. It must have been exciting to find one! My childhood neighborhood was abundant with them. We kids would snack on mulberries while out exploring the neighborhood. Yummy!
I hope you don’t lose the mulberry trees in Canada! Is that where you grew up. What part? Bethany’s lucky, she has all kinds of fruit growing where she lives!
Sally: I understand that the native mulberry is becoming extinct in Canada. It must have been exciting to find one! My childhood neighborhood was abundant with them. We kids would snack on mulberries while out exploring the neighborhood. Yummy!
I hope you don’t lose the mulberry trees in Canada! Is that where you grew up. What part? Bethany’s lucky, she has all kinds of fruit growing where she lives!
Posted by: Janet at June 24, 2008 9:25 PM
……………….
I will refrain from commenting on the kind of fruits growing where Bethany lives. Too easy! : 0
I assume that you are addressing me. I grew up in Northern Illinois. Where are you from?
Well Doug and his mind puppets.
In other words, the statement which is relativistic allows absolutes, making the statement incoherent. Bobby Bambino.
Care to explain and paraphrase Bobby statement on relativistic statments allowing absolutes, thus rendering them “incoherent”?
When I state that a agnostic, such as Dogma Doug, is actually a absolutist and a contradiction of truth, or terms, you failed to understand the logic involved in that statement Dogma Doug. Even given the standard definition and etymology of agnostic, you failed to comprehend that a agnostic is a contradiction of terms, or truth. Which is why I have nicknamed you a dogmatist for the killing of innocent human beings, and your failure to admit the truth of your being a dogmatist. You hold your doctrine that a human being can be killed for a “want” Dogma Doug, and to be absolutely true, do you not?
Go ahead Amanda and Dogma Doug, explain the statement of Bobby Bambino, as you comprehend the statement.
So far, Dieter and Charlo have missed the point of Bobby’s logic. I bet you miss the point Amanda, and your fellow dogmatist will too.
Amanda.
No answer to my post directed to you in matters of finances and your love object? Especially that a person who can take the life of a innocent human being via abortion,reduces trust in that person, and any financial trust in you Amanda is reduced also.
If you state that you can kill a human being from the reason of “it not being wanted” and you “owning your body”, the same thinking applies to your lover when you don’t want him, and “deny him your body” often, on the way to a divorce.
Money and sex, top reasons for divorce, and the financial loss of divorce by making the parts less then the whole.
yllas: In other words, the statement which is relativistic allows absolutes, making the statement incoherent. Bobby Bambino.
Bobby writes clearly and honestly. You make ranting posts where you just prove over and over that you’re a clown.
Bobby doesn’t go for the fallacious ad hominem attacks, while you almost always do.
My point was that the statement “You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.” is self-refuting since I could just as easily claim “You might think the statement ‘You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people’ is true, but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.”
Holy Moly, Bobby… : )
…..
If that is true, then by the statement’s own criteria it isn’t true for some that certain things are true for some and not others. In other words, the statement which is relativistic allows absolutes, making the statement incoherent.
Oh please. We already agree that people believe things, no? And that some of them are unprovable, no? HisMan’s beliefs are internal to him (and certainly to some other people as well). They are not necessarily applicable to other people, however.
…..
The problem is that relativism leads to incoherence and self-contradictions or a lifestyle that no one can live.
Partially true, since our world isrelatvistic and not always perfectly coherent to a given observer. Yet our lifestyles are livable and we do it, within society to the extent of our desires, and sometimes outside of it, as well.
Dogma Doug.
“In other words, the statement which is relativistic allows absolutes, making the statement incoherent”. True or false?
A one word reply Dogma is all that is needed.
School would have been boring without the class clown. I guess you can say the same for internet groups. There has to be someone we can’t take seriously – it lightens the mood.
Hey Doug,
“Oh please. We already agree that people believe things, no?”
Yes, absolutely.
“And that some of them are unprovable, no? HisMan’s beliefs are internal to him (and certainly to some other people as well). They are not necessarily applicable to other people, however.”
But see this is exactly where we disagree. There are some truths internal to one (subjective truths) such as “I like ice cream” which are relative. Then there are objective truths, like those of mathematics. So far I think we’re in agreement, Doug.
But I would also put morals, the concept of right and wrong into the latter category, whereas I think you would put them in the former category. But aside from that Doug, the statement in question “You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people” was meant to be something that HisMan should agree with, no? But if HisMan agrees with is (as Dieter had hoped), then HisMan believes that there are morals which are true for HisMan but not for others. But one thing in particular that is true for HisMan and not for others is that morals are true for everyone and not just for HisMan, which is contradicts the belief that there are morals which are true for HisMan but not for others. This makes the statement “You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people” self-refuting.
Now the above is not HisMan’s logic, yet the implicitly assumed logic of the one uttering the phrase “You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.” And actually Doug, notice that I could actually disagree with what HisMan’s original statement was (that sex outside of marriage is immoral.) I could very well believe that sex outside of marriage is moral (I don’t), yet make the same argument as I did above to show that the way to argue that sex outside of marriage is moral is NOT by appealing to the statement “You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.” So this was just a logical fallacy which has no bearing on whether sex outside of marriage is moral or not.
“Partially true, since our world isrelatvistic and not always perfectly coherent to a given observer. Yet our lifestyles are livable and we do it, within society to the extent of our desires, and sometimes outside of it, as well.”
I would disagree that our world is relativistic, Doug. I believe on another thread, Bethany asked you about if it would be wrong for your wife to cheat on you and you said it would be because ya’ll had made a promise to each other. But supposing relativism is true, it is just a preference or a convention that keeping a promise is a morally upright or virtuous thing to do.
Now obviously you know I don’t think this about your wife Doug, but suppose for the sake of argument that she believed that lying was virtuous. Now if she really believes that, then she has a moral obligation to break her promise to you and cheat on you. Furthermore, she could chastise you for not cheating on her, which means you told her the truth when you promised not to cheat on her, a moral abomination in her view. When it comes down to it in the world of relativism, there is nothing outside of ourselves or maybe society which says which one of you two is “correct.” There is no true answer to the question “Is lying virtuous?” It’s just a matter of subjective preference.
The point is that people DON’T live like that. Maybe we could find a few examples, but probably 99.9999% of all spouses would not accept the above argument if they found that their spouses cheated. We do not and can not live like that because in a truly relativistic world, the above would be perfectly a perfectly valid line of reasoning.
OH BTW, the other thing I wanted to say is that we are a culture of catch phrases and sound bites. We come up with these phrases and cool sounding slogans (both sides) that seem catchy, but have very little if any intrinsic meaning. Many times they are nonsensical and self refuting, as we saw above. It’s just a sad state of affairs in general, regardless of which side you’re on.
Amanda.
Fact is Amanda, you will not live on one income from being insecure and untrusting of this lover and the effect on your personal finances. You’ll work, have a child, and put the child in daycare as soon as possible from knowing your lack of work is a financial insecurity.
See something funny in that statement Amanda?
“In other words, the statement which is relativistic allows absolutes, making the statement incoherent”. True or false?
yllas: A one word reply is all that is needed.
If you can give up your childish syntax and approach, then I am willing to discuss this.
Let me go back and see what statement you’re talking about….
First, here is one thing you said: You hold your doctrine that a human being can be killed for a “want,” and to be absolutely true, do you not?
No, because I’ve never said anything about that being “absolute.”
It is true that a pregnancy can be ended due to the desire of the pregnant woman, yes, but that’s not “absolute” nor is it any “doctrine” coming from me.
That’s just true, whether we like it or not, and even whether it’s legal in a given society. Or, to look at legality then it’s true to a point in gestation in our society.
“Doctrine” isn’t an individual giving their opinion or belief. Doctrine comes from religion, government, governing authority, right?
Okay, now let me see about the statement which is relativistic allows absolutes deal… I’ll make another post.
Bobby, thanks for that great reply. I’ve got a ton of time today – I’m working on some transformers and have a lot of time just waiting – and I’ll reply as soon as I can.

Say hello to mah leetle 145,000 volt friend (the one on the right).
Cool Doug. I this where you are right now? How bout a picture of you as well, ehh?
“OH BTW, the other thing I wanted to say is that we are a culture of catch phrases and sound bites. We come up with these phrases and cool sounding slogans (both sides) that seem catchy, but have very little if any intrinsic meaning. Many times they are nonsensical and self refuting, as we saw above. It’s just a sad state of affairs in general, regardless of which side you’re on”
Agreed, 110%. As far as the relativism/truth discussion goes, I know we’d already talked about this a bit, and agreed that many things ARE relative (nudity and diet were two things we agreed on if I remember correctly). So if we can all admit some things are relative and some are not, we have to realize there’s no absolute line drawn. As another example, I know you and HisMan have very similar beliefs, yet VERY different methods of expressing them and communicating with people who disagree. But would you consider his methods immoral, or just different from your own? In that case, its true to him, but not to you, and vis versa. I mean, do you remember his post from a few weeks ago when he claimed that those of you who were kind and patient to pro aborts and liberals are not practicing true Catholicism and are permitting the “feminizing” of Christ? So even within groups of people who have *nearly* identical views on what is true and untrue, moral and immoral, there are still differences – and I think thats where many things ARE relative.
“See something funny in that statement Amanda? ”
Yes. The fact that you wrote it.
*yawn*
next?
Okay, yllas, here’s what Bobby said:
In other words, the statement which is relativistic allows absolutes, making the statement incoherent.
Concerning: the statement “You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.” is self-refuting
Where is the “allowing absolutes” part, there? Obviously, people think things and so you can’t argue with the “you might think that” part. Then to say that it doesn’t make it true for some other people is just common sense, plain truth, etc. “You might think that anchovies are good on pizza, but that doesn’t make it true for some other people.” Same deal.
It’s not dealing in absolutes. It’s leaving it open for the individual to believe that way or not.
So no, it’s not incoherent.
Dogma Doug.
You hold your doctrine that a human being can be killed for a “want,” and to be absolutely true, do you not?
But, you do Dogma Doug, and your missing the point that I’m making about your perfect or complete or pure(see definition;Princeton/edu.) truth for abortion.
You have stated “want” as reason for your perfect,complete and pure doctrine of abortion.
Do you not have a complete and perfect doctrine of abortion, and one of those reasons is perfectly and completley reasoned, by reason of “want”
If you do not have a complete,perfect,pure,absolute doctrine of abortion, then you contradict your own absolute statment which gave rise to me naming you a dogmatist.
“No one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do”
Is that statment by you perfectly and completely true? Yes or no?
You see Dogma Doug, dogma is a personal value(held in groups also) and is subjective to the person who holds the dogma.
When I write that your for a killing of human beings, that is absolutely true. You have written yourself that it is true and contains no false truth within that statement. It is absoultely true.
When you write that I’m a dogmatist, your right Dogma Doug. I’m a dogmtist for the exact opposite of your dogma.
You think it is some game of syntax and other motives of me. Your a dogmatist for the doctrine of killing human beings. Abortion.
It is a fact and a fact which you agree to Dogma Doug.
School would have been boring without the class clown. I guess you can say the same for internet groups. There has to be someone we can’t take seriously – it lightens the mood.
Amanda, yes.
P.S. I’m jealous since Jess said she’d marry you.
Doug –
tell you what, you can walk one of us down the isle. =)
Although as much as I love Jess, I don’t think this wedding will be happening. The bf set his closing date yesterday for mid August. Woooooot. =)
You hold your doctrine that a human being can be killed for a “want,” and to be absolutely true, do you not?
No, yllas, you’re making that up. I said I didn’t. What more do you want?
….
But, you do, and your missing the point that I’m making about your perfect or complete or pure(see definition;Princeton/edu.) truth for abortion.
Again, this is you being false. I never said anything about “perfect” or “complete” or “pure,” there. I’ve noted all along what was my opinion.
……
You have stated “want” as reason for your perfect,complete and pure doctrine of abortion.
You are confused. I don’t assert doctrine about this, though I will give my honest opinion. Now then, desire most certainly is the motivation for people having abortions, or for not having them (for that matter). That’s not making any moral judgments, though.
……
Do you not have a complete and perfect doctrine of abortion, and one of those reasons is perfectly and completley reasoned, by reason of “want”
No – this is you making things up, not you going by what I have said.
……
If you do not have a complete,perfect,pure,absolute doctrine of abortion, then you contradict your own absolute statment which gave rise to me naming you a dogmatist.
Wrong, this is you concocting a straw man and then trying to punch holes in it.
……
“No one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do” Is that statment by you perfectly and completely true? Yes or no?
It’s my opinion, which I gave in answer to a question. It’s true that to a point in gestation I do feel that way, but nobody told you it’s “external” nor “absolute.”
……
You see, dogma is a personal value(held in groups also) and is subjective to the person who holds the dogma.
You’re stretching things way out of whack trying to make a point. Dogma is really from a church or otherwise governing body, much like for doctrine. If you want to say that dogma is personal valuation, then we all have it, we all make it, etc.
Although as much as I love Jess, I don’t think this wedding will be happening. The bf set his closing date yesterday for mid August. Woooooot. =)
Ha! Congratulations, Amanda.
I bet Jess’ll be okay; her birthday just has her in high spirits I reckon.
Hey Amanda.
“Agreed, 110%. As far as the relativism/truth discussion goes, I know we’d already talked about this a bit, and agreed that many things ARE relative (nudity and diet were two things we agreed on if I remember correctly).”
Indeed, I remember.
“So if we can all admit some things are relative and some are not, we have to realize there’s no absolute line drawn.”
That is correct insofar as I’d say we all don’t agree on where the absolute line is drawn. Based on our discussion before, I think you would agree that although we can’t agree on it, such a line does exist.
“As another example, I know you and HisMan have very similar beliefs, yet VERY different methods of expressing them and communicating with people who disagree. But would you consider his methods immoral, or just different from your own?”
If I haven’t made it known before, I think HisMan is a fantastic, lucid writer who is able to articulate his points beautifully. At the same time, I know that he does frustrate a lot of people. Do I consider his methods immoral or different? I would need a specific example, as you’ll show me below.
“In that case, its true to him, but not to you, and vis versa. I mean, do you remember his post from a few weeks ago when he claimed that those of you who were kind and patient to pro aborts and liberals are not practicing true Catholicism and are permitting the “feminizing” of Christ? So even within groups of people who have *nearly* identical views on what is true and untrue, moral and immoral, there are still differences – and I think thats where many things ARE relative.”
I don’t remember that, but I will say this. While we may disagree on whether certain people are indeed “feminizing” Christ, both HisMan and I will agree that either they ARE or the AREN’T. In other words, we would agree that one of us is wrong. So I would not say it’s true for HisMan but not true for me; what I would say is that it is either true or false and we are in disagreement about if it is true or false. And that is the MAJOR difference with relativism. Relativism says that there is no right or wrong as to whether or not certain people feminize Christ. Both HisMan and I reject that statement. Does that distinction make sense?
Thanks Doug!
Bobby –
“Does that distinction make sense? ”
Perfectly, yes. I guess maybe relativism is used to solve those sticky situations when two people have very different ideas of right and wrong but there is no way to prove one or the other. I mean, with those types of discussions, there isn’t an article or a definition or a physical example where we can put it on front of the person we disagree with and say “see?” like you can with most math problems or other more concrete things. So the place I draw the line is where that disagreement causes harm to people who do not consent to whatever action/belief is affecting them. The only thing that would make me question this line I guess, is if you could find a rape or abuse victim or the family of a murder victim who say they’re perfectly content with the effect the rapist/abuser/murderer has had on them.
“And that some of them are unprovable, no? HisMan’s beliefs are internal to him (and certainly to some other people as well). They are not necessarily applicable to other people, however.”
Bobby: But see this is exactly where we disagree. There are some truths internal to one (subjective truths) such as “I like ice cream” which are relative. Then there are objective truths, like those of mathematics. So far I think we’re in agreement, Doug.
Right widju, babe.
……
But I would also put morals, the concept of right and wrong into the latter category, whereas I think you would put them in the former category.
Yes, and that’s not resolved, is it? I’d point out that there has to be a consciousness involved for there to be any such thing as morality in the first place, there has to be “somebody” to care one way or another or there would be no “right” or “wrong” in any moral sense.
……
But aside from that Doug, the statement in question “You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people” was meant to be something that HisMan should agree with, no?
I doubt it – HisMan comes off as a real dogmatist, so why would it be expected that he’d agree with it?
……
But if HisMan agrees with is (as Dieter had hoped), then HisMan believes that there are morals which are true for HisMan but not for others.
Again, don’t think the expectation was that he’d agree. I think it’s a given that there are those who maintain their unprovable assertions must apply to other people.
……
But one thing in particular that is true for HisMan and not for others is that morals are true for everyone and not just for HisMan, which is contradicts the belief that there are morals which are true for HisMan but not for others. This makes the statement “You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people” self-refuting.
No, it really just means that HisMan can’t prove his assertion. If there is “absolute truth” for people (and “other people”) then mentioning HisMan’s unprovable opinion does not reference it – there is no sense in acting as if the unproven is the “absolute.” Saying that HisMan’s beliefs aren’t necessarily the beliefs of other people is simply a fact, it’s not saying that either set of beliefs reference anything “absolute.”
Perhaps I am missing something in your reasoning here – feel free to keep going – I figure this is the heart of the matter, here.
……
Now the above is not HisMan’s logic, yet the implicitly assumed logic of the one uttering the phrase “You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.” And actually Doug, notice that I could actually disagree with what HisMan’s original statement was (that sex outside of marriage is immoral.) I could very well believe that sex outside of marriage is moral (I don’t), yet make the same argument as I did above to show that the way to argue that sex outside of marriage is moral is NOT by appealing to the statement “You might think that but it doesn’t make it true for some other people.”
Again, the statement doesn’t necessarily point to anything absolute. The belief of the one and of the other people can both be subjective. Below, you say “logical fallacy” but the statement is equivalent to saying, “You have your subjective beliefs, and other people have different ones.”
……
So this was just a logical fallacy which has no bearing on whether sex outside of marriage is moral or not.
You’re presupposing that it’s externally one way or the other (right?), and there’s no proof of that. I’d say it’s obvious that people feel different ways about it. Isn’t this one place where we can agree it’s subjective? Heh – I guess not.
“Partially true, since our world is relatvistic and not always perfectly coherent to a given observer. Yet our lifestyles are livable and we do it, within society to the extent of our desires, and sometimes outside of it, as well.”
Bobby: I would disagree that our world is relativistic, Doug. I believe on another thread, Bethany asked you about if it would be wrong for your wife to cheat on you and you said it would be because ya’ll had made a promise to each other. But supposing relativism is true, it is just a preference or a convention that keeping a promise is a morally upright or virtuous thing to do.
It’s our desire. It’s us wanting to keep our promises and wanting the other person to do it too. It’s us wanting it to be “only us” in this way. Whether we “suppose relativism” or not, there has to be “somebody” caring one way or another for there to be any right/wrong/good/bad in the moral realm, in the first place.
……
Now obviously you know I don’t think this about your wife Doug, but suppose for the sake of argument that she believed that lying was virtuous. Now if she really believes that, then she has a moral obligation to break her promise to you and cheat on you. Furthermore, she could chastise you for not cheating on her, which means you told her the truth when you promised not to cheat on her, a moral abomination in her view. When it comes down to it in the world of relativism, there is nothing outside of ourselves or maybe society which says which one of you two is “correct.” There is no true answer to the question “Is lying virtuous?” It’s just a matter of subjective preference.
The answer there is a matter of preference, though in this case there is that “vast commonality of opinion” we’ve seen before. There are people in the world who like to eat some things that even to me, mighty adventurous of palate, are downright nasty. They’re less common than people who think that “lying is virtuous,” but they do exist.
No, my wife and I don’t “have” to be like we are, but we are like we are, and so are most people on earth. Doesn’t mean that there’s anything “absolute” going on, just a large majority of opinion.
“Lying is virtuous” really depends on the situation, for all or almost all of us. There are times when it’s felt to be better to lie than to tell the truth, for the sake of somebody’s feelings, for a “greater good” that is to be had, etc. In a vacuum, by itself, I don’t know of anybody who’d really say it’s better to lie than to tell the truth. Yet situationally, I think there’s no question that it can be a different deal.
…..
The point is that people DON’T live like that. Maybe we could find a few examples, but probably 99.9999% of all spouses would not accept the above argument if they found that their spouses cheated. We do not and can not live like that because in a truly relativistic world, the above would be perfectly a perfectly valid line of reasoning.
You are taking an area upon which there is great agreement among people, and extending it into the “absolute” realm. No, people who have made an agreement would likely not accept an argument which went counter to the agreement. No surprise there.
In looking at extramarital sex, however, we find far less than the 99.9999% agreement you mention. Sometimes the agreement is different, and there are quite a few American couples who “swing,” etc. In some other countries there is a substantially greater percentage of couples where sex outside of the marriage is tolerated if not applauded; there’s much less of a societal taboo against it.
Another example…
we had a patient in this morning for an evaluation to determine school placement because the parent had disagreed with a previous evaluation done elsewhere.
the therapist who conducted the first eval was an older woman – I think in her 50s. This patient was hostile to her, combative, not cooperative, etc. She ended up suggesting this patient be placed in a residential school for acutely mentally disturbed children.
when this patient came here, however, she was calm, friendly, and interested in successfully getting through her eval. Her medications had not changed, and the tests were the same. The difference was that our whole staff is 20-somethings. We’re just a little “cooler” – haha. But the suggestion from our department was that this patient could be mainstreamed, but with 1:1 extra help and a counselor.
Now is there a truth here? Or is it relative? I mean, both reccomendations were accurate based on their clincal expertise and the patient’s presentation. So in this case, I don’t think its simply a disagreement over who is wrong and who is right – but actually two different perceptions of the truth.
Amanda: I don’t think its simply a disagreement over who is wrong and who is right – but actually two different perceptions of the truth.
Yes, and also a matter of the truth changing, i.e. the patient’s behavior changes.
Firsr Dogma Doug.
Look up the definition of dogma again. Your prejuice is getting in the way of the definition.
I am not using the definition as defined as church doctrine. Dogma has more then one definition and I have given it to more then once. Once again Dogma Doug.
Dogma; 2. a authoritative principle, belief, or statement of IDEAS or OPINIONS,especially one considered to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Sample; “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” Abraham Lincoln.
What is revealed in you Dogma Doug, is a failure to remember the post of others which brings me back again and again to the definition of you being a dogmatist. Lincoln was not a man of the cloth or a preacher, but a secular president of a secular government, when those words were recorded for posterity.
Dogma is a personal value(held in groups also) and is subjective to the person(group) who holds the dogma.
No one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do” Is that statment by you perfectly and completely true? Yes or no?
You did not answer the question Dogma Doug. I didn’t ask you about gestation. I asked you for a yes or no to your statement which is a dogmatic statement. You made a statement which is a authoritative statement of your opinion, which is either not absolutely true to you and therefore is contradicting the word of absolute value in your statement which is, NO ONE.
I’m not arguing about objective truth,but your denial of your own words which are using absolute words in your statements.
I do feel that way, but nobody told you it’s “external” nor “absolute.”
Soo here we come to feelings and dogma.
My point is that your authoritative opinion is, and ARE absolutely true to YOU. It is no strawman Dogma Doug., If one doesn’t write statments which are authoritatively and absolutely true to the person writing statements of opinion, then your left with lack of truth in you Dogma Doug. Not me. forget me Dogma Doug. It’s about you and your first failure to know the definition of dogma in some form of prejudice and denial of yourself in being a dogmatist for the killing of human beings.
I’m a dogmatist for not killing innocent human beings and you are a dogmatist for the killing of human beings. What qualifications and quanity you give in defence of your dogma doesn’t change the truth of your own words which stated your for the killing of human beings. You are for killin’ and I’m for a livin’. Your a failure to know thyself and think any definition which you don’t even know, is some dysphemism heaped upon your character, and since your character is soo fragile and insecure, you think I am insulting you Dogma Doug. I ain’t.
yllas: I am not using the definition as defined as church doctrine. Dogma has more then one definition and I have given it to more then once.
As I said before, if you want to say that dogma is personal valuation, then we all have it, we all make it, etc., and you’d have no meaningful point – that’s just a given.
……
Dogma; 2. a authoritative principle, belief, or statement of IDEAS or OPINIONS, especially one considered to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
This really goes to the religion/governmental part – the “authoritative” deal rather than one person’s opinion. “Ideas, opinions” are plural, too, I note. As Amanda noted, you tend to project yourself onto other people. You are a dogmatist. I’m not. I will give honest answers to questions, yet I don’t pretend my opinion is anything but.
……
No one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do” Is that statment by you perfectly and completely true? Yes or no?
You didn’t ask it that way. You asked me, and I gave you my opinion. Nobody was talking about anything “perfectly and completely true” outside opinion. If you want “complete truth” then the answer is that some people are for legal abortion and some are not. Some people would say there is a good argument against abortion and some will say there’s not. You should know that anyway.
It is “completely true” that I don’t think there is a good argument against abortion, to viability, not good enough that we’d take away the legal freedom that women now have – there, if you want it like that, then that’s the correct way to say it. That’s also understood to be the context of the abortion debate, by almost everybody.
……
I asked you for a yes or no to your statement which is a dogmatic statement.
False premise on your part. It wasn’t a dogmatic statement in the first place. I leave the dogma to you. If there were no unwanted pregnancies then I’m not “for killing” as far as abortion. This is just another straw man on your part. I am for leaving the decision to the pregnant woman, to viability, your incorrect generalizations notwithstanding.
……
My point is that your authoritative opinion is, and ARE absolutely true to YOU.
Again, you’re being false. I’ve never said it’s “authoritative.” It’s my opinion, and we all have them, and yes, it’s certainly true that I feel that way. We all have feelings, and all your blathering and obfuscatory wrangling doesn’t change that.
Is it “absolutely true” that people believe things? Yes. So what? You’re acting like this is some big deal, whereas everybody already knows that. You’ve twisted things in your mind so much that you forgot, apparently.
If your arguments remain false pretense and straw man, then again – so what?
Yllas –
honest question…
when you post all of this garbage, do you think you’re being deep and profound?
I’m not trying to be mean, but if you haven’t noticed, even people who probably agree with your basic points don’t respond or discuss your posts, and many pro lifers as well as pro choicers completely ignore your posts because they’re ususually just rambling, insult riddled tangents. No one thinks you’re clever except you. It might benefit you to cool down the alliterations, stupid nicknames, and rhetoric, as well as your lovely habit of making assumptions and putting words in people’s mouths.
I’ve found the people who post here, even if I vehemently disagree with them, have at least a little something to say thats worth thinking about. You are the only exception. Again, I’m not trying to be mean…unless you enjoy not being taken seriously…in that case, by all means…