What About MY Freedom of Choice?

[Dieselman]

I would consider a Adult whom promotes childhood sex, a pedophile .

Absolutely.

I don't care what ancient societies did when they were beseiged by enemies, needed warriors to continue to survive and had a short life expectancy. America had a strong social structure that was centered around the family. We jknow that children do best when they are raised with a mother and a father. Liberals have bastardized this country by encouraging unwed parenthood and replacing the father with the welfare system. No society has ever survived such a destruction of its moral fiber. The only reason for encouraging sexual activity in the young is to increase the market for those looking to score with them.

Of all the eamples of child abuse, encouraging your minor children to drink and have sex are among the most evil. Even a physical attack is less evil than leading them to their own destruction by openly encouraging immoral behavior.

 

[Dieselman]

I would consider an adult who closes his or her eyes for the reality that teenagers will have sex with each other, an idiot.

That's a term I would use for one who encourages an underaged, underdeveloped and immature person to engage in dangerous adult activities. Where teen sex is discouraged it happens. Where teen sex is accepted it happens frequently.

By the way. Remember that stoned hippy whith the T shirt that read "If it feels good, do it?" He's now teaching your third grader.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is hard to believe that people actually think that teachers are trying to 'sexualise' children; to turn schools into 'government funded whorehouses'. Are people really that paranoid and delusional?

Having been a teacher for years, I can proudly say I've never sexualized a child in my entire career. So I think the answer is "yes."

People see that the world has problems, and their first (and only) step is to seek someone to blame.

 

[Tomk80]

That's a term I would use for one who encourages an underaged, underdeveloped and immature person to engage in dangerous adult activities. Where teen sex is discouraged it happens. Where teen sex is accepted it happens frequently.

Where teen sex is discouraged, it happens and the teens are completely unaware on how to take proper precautions. Where teen sex is accepted and proper information is given it happens and teens know how to take precautions. There is very little evidence that teen sex happens less frequently in places where it is discouraged. The research cited in this thread shows that the drop in sexual activity is small (33% had sex with abstinence-only, 40% with comprehensive sex-ed, and that was only for the ages up to 15 years, whereas most teenagers start having sex after that age).

According to the Guttmacher institute, sexual activity between US and Europe is comparable. However, Europe has a better program of sexual education, increasing their use of the best available contraceptives. This explains the much lower teen pregnancy and STD-rates in Europe compared to the US. The increases in teen pregnancies and abortions in the states where abstinence only education is given speak for themselves on that as well.

By the way. Remember that stoned hippy whith the T shirt that read "If it feels good, do it?" He's now teaching your third grader.

That's a nice strawman of comprehensive sex ed you have there. Come back if you have an actual argument.

 

[Tomk80]

Absolutely.

I don't care what ancient societies did when they were beseiged by enemies, needed warriors to continue to survive and had a short life expectancy. America had a strong social structure that was centered around the family. We jknow that children do best when they are raised with a mother and a father.

No, we don't. We know that children do best when raised in a stable environment. But if that stable environment is a mother and father, two mothers, two fathers, or single parents with a supportive environment, the research shows no differences in outcomes on how children do.

But good to see that you think we should teach kids to use contraceptives, so they won't get children until they are ready for it.

Liberals have bastardized this country by encouraging unwed parenthood and replacing the father with the welfare system. No society has ever survived such a destruction of its moral fiber. The only reason for encouraging sexual activity in the young is to increase the market for those looking to score with them.

Of all the eamples of child abuse, encouraging your minor children to drink and have sex are among the most evil. Even a physical attack is less evil than leading them to their own destruction by openly encouraging immoral behavior.

And more paranoid fear-mongering.

 

[selfinflikted]

Where is this "If it feels good, do it!" mantra coming from? I have never heard this line of thinking advocated anywhere.

 

[DaisyDay]

Where is this "If it feels good, do it!" mantra coming from? I have never heard this line of thinking advocated anywhere.

I think it's from the late 60s, early 70s hippie era. It's not that far from the ancient Epicureans' "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die".

Epicurus believed that pleasure is the greatest good. But the way to attain pleasure was to live modestly and to gain knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires. This led one to attain a state of tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from fear, as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia). The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. (wiki)

 

[Tomk80]

I think it's from the late 60s, early 70s hippie era. It's not that far from the ancient Epicureans' "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die".

Perhaps the question should be, where does the idea come from that this is taught in schools, or here, sex ed lessons?

 

[selfinflikted]

Perhaps the question should be, where does the idea come from that this is taught in schools, or here, sex ed lessons?

Well, that's what I meant when I asked. I have never heard this.

 

[acropolis]

Where is this "If it feels good, do it!" mantra coming from? I have never heard this line of thinking advocated anywhere.

All atheists ever do is have 24/7 cocaine sex parties. Or at least that's what some religious people seem to think.

 

[Tomk80]

Well, that's what I meant when I asked. I have never heard this.

Don't know. I never heard it before, until I started these kind of discussions with American Christians. They seem to have some pretty weird views on what is taught in sex-ed classes.

 

[Tomk80]

All atheists ever do is have 24/7 cocaine sex parties. Or at least that's what some religious people seem to think.

And eat kittens of course. Nothing like a nice, raw kitten with your 24/7 cocaine sex party.

 

[quatona]

All atheists ever do is have 24/7 cocaine sex parties.

Ideally, that is. Some of us sadly miss the mark - we aren´t perfect, after all.

 

[selfinflikted]

All atheists ever do is have 24/7 cocaine sex parties. Or at least that's what some religious people seem to think.

Oh. Damn. I've been doing it wrong this whole time?

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

Differences in Teenage Pregnancy Rates Among Five Developed Countries: The Roles of Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use

By Jacqueline E. Darroch, Susheela Singh, Jennifer J. Frost and the Study Team
Adolescent childbearing is more common in the United States (22% of women reported having had a child before age 20) than in Great Britain (15%), Canada (11%), France (6%) and Sweden (4%)

American teenagers are the most likely to have multiple partners. A greater proportion of U.S. women reported no contraceptive use at either first or recent intercourse (25% and 20%, respectively) than reported nonuse in France (11% and 12%, respectively), Great Britain (21% and 4%, respectively) and Sweden (22% and 7%, respectively).

The incidence of chlamydia among adolescents in the United States (1,132 cases per 100,000) is nearly twice that in Canada and Sweden (where reporting is relatively complete), five times that in England, and 20 times that in France (two countries where reporting is considered to be less complete, as it is in the United States). The annual incidence of gonorrhea among all U.S. adolescents (572 cases per 100,000) is 10 or more times the level in the other four countries.

So, when compared to a secular, liberal country like Sweden, more American teens get pregnant, more have abortions, more get STDs and they have more sexual partners.

Which state has the highest teen pregnancy rate? Mississippi, the most Christian state in the US, which follows abstinence-only sex-ed.

So, Dieselman, it is people like you who encourage unhealthy sexual behaviour in teens, so you can stop pointing the finger.

 

[now faith]

I would consider an adult who closes his or her eyes for the reality that teenagers will have sex with each other, an idiot.

Nice abuse of the word pedophile, though. Well done. I mean, given the rise in pedophilia (due to internet by the way, according to the experts), we really need to muddy the waters there.

Also very respectful for the victims of pedophilia, by the way, to compare consensual sexual relationships between teenagers with forcing preteens to have sex with adult men and women. But hey, whatever rocks your boat.

You stated 15 is a ok age for sex, now does that limit sex to 15 year olds or can they have sex with adults? My statement was fact ,not abuse of a term. You simply argue for the sake of argument . If you condone children having sex how would you keep them from sex with a adult? How would you keep them from being victims. It is a oxymoron statement to condone child sex and condem the use of the word pedophile if you are a adult. The rise of pedophilia would be due to ingornant people condoning children having sex. Its easy when the rape is encouraged by a consenting attitude from parents.

 

[Metal Minister]

I know! I'm glad we both wholeheartedly oppose sending soldiers to kill other people. Spending tax-payers money on a war they fundamentally disagree in, on the slaughter of adult human civilians, is deplorable. If only more hardcore Christian conservatives saw the wisdom of your views.

I keep seeing this non sequitor, and its getting silly. One is the killing of a child in the womb, while the other is the sending of people who willingly signed up for our military, to fight a war that is at least in its pretense to stop the killing of thousands of innocent people here or abroad. Do innocents die in war, yes and its tragic, but you can't compare the two. They're not in the same boat, in fact theyre not even in the same ocean.

May God Richly Bless you!

 

[Dave Ellis]

I keep seeing this non sequitor, and its getting silly. One is the killing of a child in the womb, while the other is the sending of people who willingly signed up for our military, to fight a war that is at least in its pretense to stop the killing of thousands of innocent people here or abroad. Do innocents die in war, yes and its tragic, but you can't compare the two. They're not in the same boat, in fact theyre not even in the same ocean.

May God Richly Bless you!

The point is not in sending the soldiers, it's in supporting the war in the first place.

 

[Metal Minister]

The point is not in sending the soldiers, it's in supporting the war in the first place.

Ok, but our tax dollars support the troops we send, and helps keep them safe. Tax dollars going to abortion is only for the killing of the unborn. Still a non sequitir
War (while I still believe should be an absolute resort) will, invariably save more lives than it takes, while abortion will always take more lives than it saves

May God Richly Bless you!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I keep seeing this non sequitor, and its getting silly. One is the killing of a child in the womb, while the other is the sending of people who willingly signed up for our military, to fight a war that is at least in its pretense to stop the killing of thousands of innocent people here or abroad. Do innocents die in war, yes and its tragic, but you can't compare the two. They're not in the same boat, in fact theyre not even in the same ocean.

On the contrary, the point was not to compare abortion to war. The point was to satirise his position that he can opt out of taxes because of personal preference. We don't need to debate the ethics of war to know that it is debatable. As such, if he can opt out of his taxes paying for abortions he finds objectionable, why can't we opt out of paying for wars we find objectionable?

The question of taxes being an opt-in or opt-out system, while fascinating economically, is, I think, misleading - his real grief is that he feels indignation at being somehow involved in abortions, because he considers them to be immoral. My point by glibly comparing it to war, is to highlight the inanity of his argument, not to seriously compare abortion to war.