Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Is Abstinence Abnormal?
Message-ID: <511@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Aug-84 17:21:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.511
Posted: Mon Aug 27 17:21:34 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 20:40:25 EDT
Lines: 68

^M   > If you say that abstinence is
^M   > a perfectly good way to be ignorant and "responsible" at the same time,

^M   First, abstinence does not imply or require ignorance; you
^M   could be informed, responsible, and abstinent.

> Isn't that what I was saying?  

It didn't appear so.  Your statement seemed (to me) to make an
unnecessary connection between abstinence and ignorance; I am
glad that you did not intend it so.

^M   > let me respond by saying that Mama Nature has cleverly designed people so
^M   > that abstinence is unthinkable for normal people)

^M   I contest the statement that "abstinence
^M   is unthinkable for normal people."

> I was not saying that people who abstain are defective wierdos.
> Neither are people who can lift 400 lbs, or people who are rather 
> intelligent.  I was talking numbers, not health.  Abstainers are just 
> not average or common.

OK, you were not using the meaning of "normal" that I thought you
were; I have known people who did think that people who abstain
were defective.

> I suggest that you dig up some statistics on who has sex how
> early (in their life :-) and how often.  The last time I saw
> something along those lines in the newspapers, the abstainers
> were definitely in the minority.  (I have no recollection 
> of their frequency of sex, though.)

(Sometimes I wonder how many people really keep copies of
all the statistics they read.)  I recall reading such statistics,
and, yes, the abstainers were in the minority.  I also recall,
however, that abstinence had grown in popularity in the last
10-15 years (i.e., it was a larger minority).  However,
isn't the reasoning getting circular here?  Abstinence
shouldn't be recommended because it isn't popular?

> Peer and hormonal pressures which are countered by little
> personal morals push people to sex.

I certainly agree with that.

Your original statement was that "nature" made abstinence
unthinkable for "normal" (meaning most) people.  Of the three
factors in the above statement, however, I would only attribute
one (hormones) to "nature" (i.e., inherent, and beyond the
control, and hence the responsibility, of the individual).
Peer pressure and personal morals *are* within the realm of
personal control, even for normal people.

I think we could conclude, from your statement, that better
personal morals would lead to fewer (not necessarily zero)
unwanted pregnancies and hence fewer abortions.  Which, if
I remember right, was the contention which started this
discussion.

No doubt there will now be another round of "whose morality?"
and "there are no absolute moral standards" and "you can't
impose morals" and so forth.

Oh well.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys