Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Planned Parenthood posting Message-ID: <957@bunker.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 10:55:25 EDT Article-I.D.: bunker.957 Posted: Tue Aug 27 10:55:25 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 22:15:03 EDT References: <681@mit-vax.UUCP> Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct Lines: 257 > In article <944@bunker.UUCP> Gary M. Samuelson wastes a lot of disc > space on a lot of computers by pointing out all of the places where my > article "put words in other people's mouths." He also spends a lot of > memory saying "this argument is wrong" and "you overgeneralize too > much." I'm sure you have read all that, so I am going to respond to the > actual ARGUMENTS he made, and let you make your own decisions about what > Gary has to say about me personally. Which wastes more disk space: Making faulty arguments, or pointing out the faultiness of the arguments? (I guess to stop wasting disk space I'll have to delete more of Mr. Forsythe's text.) Seriously, we probably are wasting disk space, and I for one am going to drop this particular discussion. Mr. Forsythe may have the last word. Are you saying that pointing out faults in someone's arguments is saying something against the person? > >> Did you ever read Romeo and Juliet? I'm sure their parents were highly > >> responsible... [I do not agree that their parents were "highly responsible," by the way, but I am not going to argue literary interpretation with you.] > But Romeo and Juliet is not science fiction, Gary. I was trying to > illustrate that the idea that teenagers won't pay any attention to their > parents is too old to argue against. Until some kind of "brainwashing" > technique is developed, one must accept the fact that teenagers are > prone to be rebellious and impulsive and deal with it, rather than > trying to argue it away. I am not trying to argue it away; > >> I've inferred (I could be wrong) that your children have not reached > >> their teenage years. > > > >You infer correctly; we have only one child, a daughter, who will > >be 3 in December. > So what do you know about being a parent of a teenager? At least I can > claim that I know what it's like to be a teenager in the 80's! And I still claim that being a teenager in the 80's is not significantly different from being a teenager at any other time, an assertion which you agree with when it suits you (see your above comment about Romeo and Juliet), and disagree with when that suits you (your claim that the 80's are so much different from the 70's or 60's). > >Oh, I thought I would just ask them, straight out. I will try > >to let my children (assuming we have more later) know that there > >isn't anything they can't talk to me about. > Perfect example of your ignorance of parenting. I've seen this before. Pfui. To want to keep the lines of communication with my children open is ignorance. And if I don't know enough about parenting, because I don't have teenage children, you know less about it. > Your daughter, if you do what you say, may come and talk to you about > your feelings on her becoming sexually active. I'm inferring that you > will let her know you disapprove. Then what? She might go out and do it > anyway. She wouldn't be the first to have done so against her parents > wishes. Do you think that she will continue to discuss it with you? > Maybe, but if she follows the pattern that I have hypothesized, then it > is not likely. She will know (or believe) that since you look down on > the behavior, she will be punished. If she said,"Daddy, I've been > sleeping with my boyfriend for the past three months." Would you wisk > her down to the gynocologist and have her fitted for a diaphragm? From > what you've said, I have reason to believe the answer is "no". If this > is the answer, then you will probably do something to stop her... the > saga continues and you end up as another estranged parent. Hypothesize all you want; it proves nothing. You don't know that I would do what you hypothesize (Greek word for "guess," anyway). I won't know for sure, either, until it happens. > But that's only if she tells you. Face it Gary, unless you keep her on a > leash, you will never REALLY know whether she's sexually active. > Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. Make my day. (By the way, I was > hypothesizing. I don't mean to claim your three year old daughter is > actually going to grow up to be a slut.) I didn't think you were claiming that; in fact, it hadn't occurred to me to think that my daughter, if she were sexually active, was therefore necessarily a slut. > ... These, apparently, have not been questioned. Well, I have neither the time nor the inclincation to pick on every detail. It would be useless for me to even discuss your assertions, since it seems I have zero credibility in your eyes. A lot of what I have been writing, I wrote to try to establish that what I had to say was worth considering. I seem to have failed, at least as far as you are concerned. > Also, where in the > Bible does it mention birth control (explicitly). I never said the Bible discusses birth control. I don't even recall saying that I was categorically opposed to birth control (I'm not). What we used to be discussing is whether abortion was an acceptable form of birth control, and whether the ease of obtaining an abortion encouraged casual sex. I apologize for getting so far off the subject. > I think you'll find > that women are only mentioned when they are being raped, murdered, or > giving birth to a male. Shows what you know about the Bible. Read about Ruth, Deborah (in Judges), and Esther for starters. See also the second half of Proverbs 31. Amazing how people who know so little about the Bible reject it out of hand. > As for what you say, talk to me again in ten or > eleven years when you have had the experience of being a parent of a > teenager. But my daughter will be a teenager in the 90's, and so, by your reasoning, I still just won't understand. > >So you would like me to believe that Planned Parenthood is impartial? > It would be nice. At least they are consistent. > >> On the other hand, teenagers are not interested in philosophy. > > > >Really? It was a pretty popular subject when I was in school, back > >in the dark ages. > I'm not talking about Socrates, I was talking about morals. But you said "philosophy." And the moral code one adheres to is a function of, or at least tightly coupled to, one's philosophy. > How about "an inability to veiw sexual congress as a positive > experience?" > This "Groin Control" insinuates that sex is bad. No, it doesn't. It "insinuates" that sex, like everything else, can be misused, overdone, etc. Food is good. Gluttony is not so good; it leads to various health problems, both physical and mental. Likewise, sex is good. But casual sex leads to various health problems. > Well, Gary, a lot of people believe that sex is NOT bad. > A lot of these people are teenagers. Another example of putting words in my mouth, or setting up a straw man (whichever way you want to express it). But you consider it a waster of disk space to point out that I never said that sex was bad. > >> I'm not talking philosophy, I'm talking fashion. > >I hope you are not seriously saying that "fashion" is a good measure > >of, well, goodness. > I AM serious. Teenagers are very much driven by fashion. What I wanted to know is if you thought fashion *should* be used as a moral guide, not whether some people actually use it that way. > >> Also, if you don't give them birth control, will that make them less > >> impulsive? > >Never said it would. If they are given *all* of the facts, they > >might be less impulsive. If *all* you do is give them contraceptives, > >that will probably encourage impulsiveness. > Good for you! But, remember, you said *all* the facts, that includes > accurate data about those nasty pills and such. Yes, I said *all* the facts. > >Nope. Sex was being sold before MTV; perhaps the medium has changed > >(slightly), but the message hasn't. > Slightly? If you had described cable TV... [wonders > of modern technology deleted]. But the *message* hasn't changed. > >This is getting so repetitive. Have I not said several times that I > >am in favor of giving teens the facts? > No, you are in favor of giving YOUR teens the facts. Teens with > negligent parents are left to fend for themselves. Planned Parenthood > gives facts to teenagers who need them. But PP leaves out a few things. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Now, to finally clear up this bullshit: > >> >> I happened to have liked, and respected, my parents during high-school. > >> >> If, however, I told anyone this, I was immediately put on the defensive > >> >> wherein I'd have to illustrate some "cool" behavior they'd exhibited in > >> >> order to win the respect. > >> >That may be the saddest thing you have said. You didn't have a whole > >> >lot of respect for your parents, if you were ashamed to admit it. Nor > >> >did you have a lot of respect for yourself, if you felt you had to > >> >give in to others' demands that you be "cool." > >> I wish you would read what I write (you're just like a typical parent :-), > >> I said I was put in the defensive BY THEM. > >You also said that you had to "illustrate some 'cool' behavior" to win > >the respect of your peers. That shows me that your respect was shallow. > I said I was "expected to" why do you think I did? Because you said "I'd have to illustrate some 'cool' behavior." If I say, "I had to do X," that would imply that I had *done* X. > You seem to think > that all teenagers do what is expected of them. Well I never did. Well, good, but you certainly had not made that clear until now. > Now if you keep insulting my relationship with my parents, which > happens to be very close to ideal, I will follow you home and beat you > senseless with a kosher salami. I apologize; I really thought that the way you phrased your statement, and the fact that you never explicitly denied doing what your peers expected, implied that you had done it. I also considered your statement that they put you on the defensive; in my opinion one cannot be "put on the defensive" except by those whose opinions are valued. E.g., if I don't care what you think of me, you can't put me on the defensive. I said all that to explain why I thought you did what your peers wanted you to, not to say that I still think so. > >I think it can be improved, and want to help with such improvement. You > >don't think it can be improved, as so are content with stopgaps and > >workarounds. > Oh, Gary, stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not; we both agree that teenagers are impulsive. You keep saying that it's a fact of life which cannot be changed, and I (sometimes a bit of an idealist) think that it is a situation which can be improved. And if it can't be improved universally (which we won't know without trying), it still can be improved in specific instances. But you keep saying, in effect, "Don't try to tell them there's a better way; they won't listen." One last thing; a question that has been asked at least twice, and still not answered: Does Planned Parenthood, in their counseling, *ever* recommend abstinence? Never mind; I expect you'll just say that no one who visits Planned Parenthood is undecided. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that that is true, where do the undecideds go for advice on matters sexual? Where, in your opinion, should they go? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys