Society's Assumptions About Contraception, Sex and Abortion (long post ahead!)

[lily]

I'm not sure they/me were any less "Of God" than you are.




I was really, truly Christian. I was in a state of prayer, 24/7 for years. I prayed and fasted and did everything possible when I started suspecting that it (god) might all be in my mind. And I suspect this is an experience you can't relate with. Maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Kelly, I wasn't referring to you in my post. I was just trying to make the point that it's very common for people to have negative experiences having to do with religion, that lead them to reject the whole thing, including God - even though God and religion are two different things.

For example, I was a nonbeliever when I was younger, and my mom occasionally took me to the Catholic church. What did I see? I just remember seeing people who went through the motions, but the rest of the week they were just like everyone else. Therefore, my experience with religion was that there was no truth attached to it, it was just a cultural thing, just rituals and such. That experience probably had a lot to do with why I rejected religion/God altogether, for MANY years. Well, maybe that was the wrong choice of words. It wasn't really a blatant or angry thing at all. It was simply a lack of interest, I was completely apathetic to it, because I didn't see something real, true, or relevant to everyday life.

I know.
They're normal humans (imagine that!)


Yeah, I did that, too, at a mega-church, in front of god and everyone.

It didn't make me less sexually motivated and active. I thought the humiliation at least would. Biology trumped it all.

Correct me if I'm wrong (or out of line to say this) but based on your last few posts, it seems like sex was a big part of why you reject Christianity. You even used the word "evil" in regard to what you were told as a pre-teen.

I know we've gotten off topic here, but I want to ask you something.

As an atheist, do you believe in an objective (absolute) moral standard? If the answer is no, then what are you basing the word "evil" on? Your own personal opinion? If there is no absolute standard, in other words, if morality is entirely relative, then your opinion means no more than anyone else's opinion. In fact, it's completely meaningless, because no true universal standard would exist.

If the answer is yes, then please explain what you believe is the source for that absolute moral standard.

Thanks.

[optimus]

I think what's really going on here, lily, is that you're just having a hard time dealing with the fact that a lot of people have a different opinion than you. People look at sex differently than you. People look at abortion differently. It's how it is.

[AlbertJ]

I think what's really going on here, lily, is that you're just having a hard time dealing with the fact that a lot of people have a different opinion than you. People look at sex differently than you. People look at abortion differently. It's how it is.

Stop being such an asshole.

[optimus]

Was that assholish? Sorry about that, wasn't trying to be an asshole.

[kellyb]

Correct me if I'm wrong (or out of line to say this) but based on your last few posts, it seems like sex was a big part of why you reject Christianity. You even used the word "evil" in regard to what you were told as a pre-teen.

I rejected Christianity 5 years after I was married, shortly after my oldest, Noah, was born.
Yes, in retrospect, the guilt over masturbation and premarital sex showed me the way to atheism. After my first kid was born, the shit really hit the fan.. I had to crap or get off the pot.
I decided to dump religion.

[lily]

I think what's really going on here, lily, is that you're just having a hard time dealing with the fact that a lot of people have a different opinion than you. People look at sex differently than you. People look at abortion differently. It's how it is.

Haha! That really did make me laugh. But if you were serious, you're wrong. I even said a few posts back that I don't expect any non-Christians to agree with my personal views on things like premarital sex.

But that wasn't the way I framed the OP - I specifically left out any religious/spiritual views, and brought up things that should matter to everyone, such as the false security of the "safe sex" message, and the question of whether it's possible to sever the procreative aspect of sex from sex itself, and have that work in the long run.

As for abortion, that can't be compared to something like one's personal choice about premarital sex. Even though pro-aborts are blind to this, there is more than one person involved. Why do you think the abortion debate is such a hot-button, passionate issue? It's a life/death matter, and it affects not only the mother, the baby, often the father, but society as a whole. So, it's not like I "have a hard time dealing with the fact that people have a different opinion" - I am just debating things that any decent person should WANT to be on the right side of. And any open-minded person who values truth above partisanship, pride, stubbornness, etc should take an objective look and let truth be their guide, not those other things.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but please, PLEASE listen to that audio I posted a link to. Here, I'll make it easy for you and post it again:

How I went from pro-choice to pro-life

I really do want to hear your (and kelly's and others) thoughts on her speech.

[lily]

I rejected Christianity 5 years after I was married, shortly after my oldest, Noah, was born.
Yes, in retrospect, the guilt over masturbation and premarital sex showed me the way to atheism. After my first kid was born, the shit really hit the fan.. I had to crap or get off the pot.
I decided to dump religion.

If you don't mind me saying this, that type of guilt is not of God. In fact, I'd say it's from the other side, which of course you don't believe in, but I'm just sayin. God loves us even when we mess up, even when we have struggles. Where our heart is is the important thing, way more important than robotically following the rules. Eventually, that love and kindness CAUSES us to want to be more obedient or Christ-like - so it's completely voluntary, from our heart. And that's what (I believe) God wants - for us to follow Him completely willingly, because we make the choice to.

Not to get off topic (again) here, but I do believe there is such a things as a "healthy shame" but the type of shame you're talking about doesn't sound like that at all. That type of guilt, shame, angst, and sometimes self-loathing is DEFINITELY not a God thing.

Yikes, sorry if I overstepped my boundaries here and began preaching. But I wanted to respond to what you said.

[Zordar]

As for abstinence, you are very wrong, but your opinion is not surprising, it's the standard opinion held by most people in this "sex is for everyone as long as you're safe!" society.

Sorry. People with weird emotional or superstitious hangups about sex can successfully practice abstinence, too.

Btw, you completely ignored a lot of what I posted to you, and the questions I asked you, about the true nature of sex, and going against nature. I still would like to hear your reply to those questions. Thanks!

Sorry. I don't really think there is any "true" nature of sex, other than if you do it enough, you will get sore, and one or more parties may become pregnant.

The going against nature argument is absurd. There is nothing inherently wrong with going against nature, just be prepared to accept the consequences. Modern medicine is unnatural as hell, yet it is able to keep people alive and healthy far longer than ever before, even curing cancer that was a death sentence just fifty years ago -- I don't view this as evil, and I accept the consequence that there are going to be a lot more useless old people around in ten years. The anus doesn't naturally lubricate itself, which facilitates tearing and discomfort during buttsex -- a consequence if you're not careful, but totally not evil. Cars and planes aren't natural, either, but they allow for some pretty awesome reductions in travel time (with consequence of pollution, using up natural resources, etc.). If you're going on about human nature, I think you actually have a weak leg to stand on, but it's not like there aren't a hundred million exceptions to every rule, either, so I have a hard time getting worked up about it. Anonymous sex with no strings attached can be amazing, and isn't something to fear or regret later.

[optimus]

Listened to the audio. Not sure why you wanted me to listen to that, I've stated on this forum that I am essentially pro-life, however I wouldn't want to impose that on anyone, or any woman. I wish other pro-lifers would do the same.

[fat mike]

Any thoughts about the main points of my post? I would think you, of all people, would be mostly in agreement with me.

yes of course and you know that-its pretty typical that opty feels like he can win a point by insisting that the raw biology being widely accessible justifies the utter lack of airing of the ethical underpinnings

vindex and i havent agreed on everything but here we're in lockstep too

im distracted so i havent given the thread as careful a reading as i should but im pretty sure the parties remain in their appropriate corners

Fat girls need love too, FM.

thank goodness; the skinny ones sure arent tripping over themselves to get to me

[Šñøü†ê®]

... the raw biology being widely accessible justifies the utter lack of airing of the ethical underpinnings

Eggman, WTF? R U saying people who get laid a lot don't like to discuss if it is right or wrong to get laid a lot?

[lily]

Sorry. People with weird emotional or superstitious hangups about sex can successfully practice abstinence, too.

Sigh. That's not what I was getting at, but never mind.

Sorry. I don't really think there is any "true" nature of sex, other than if you do it enough, you will get sore, and one or more parties may become pregnant.

The going against nature argument is absurd. There is nothing inherently wrong with going against nature, just be prepared to accept the consequences.

First of all, I don't believe I ever said "going against nature is immoral." I tried to keep the whole "morality" discussion out, and talk about this in terms of what is best (healthiest, wisest, etc.)

But at least you agree with me on "be prepared to accept the consequences." That's one of the things I said.

Modern medicine is unnatural as hell, yet it is able to keep people alive and healthy far longer than ever before, even curing cancer that was a death sentence just fifty years ago -- I don't view this as evil, and I accept the consequence that there are going to be a lot more useless old people around in ten years. The anus doesn't naturally lubricate itself, which facilitates tearing and discomfort during buttsex -- a consequence if you're not careful, but totally not evil. Cars and planes aren't natural, either, but they allow for some pretty awesome reductions in travel time (with consequence of pollution, using up natural resources, etc.). If you're going on about human nature, I think you actually have a weak leg to stand on, but it's not like there aren't a hundred million exceptions to every rule, either, so I have a hard time getting worked up about it. Anonymous sex with no strings attached can be amazing, and isn't something to fear or regret later.

Again, you misread my post, or you added more to it than was there. I didn't use the word "evil" - I talked about how the many problems associated with trying to promote sex as purely recreational are evidence that it doesn't work, at least not in the long run, and on a societal level.

Also, you seem to have a different idea on what is "going against nature." I don't really consider cars or planes to be "going against nature" and I would explain why, but we're getting off track here.

So, you seem to be saying, "Yes, it may go against nature, but there's nothing wrong with that." Am I right? I don't want to misstate your position.

You seem to be ignoring a lot of the problems I mentioned. And one of the questions I asked you, you didn't really answer directly. I said, why do you think we have things like STDs, unwanted pregnancies, people who experience emotional hurt or trauma, etc, if there is nothing unhealthy or unwise about recreational sex? Do you think those things are just a coincidence, or just a fluke of nature?

Btw, I'm realizing more and more that it's nearly impossible to have this discussion with materialist atheists, who don't think ANYTHING has a purpose, design, etc. Even the negative consequences - like teen pregnancies, abortion, STDs, etc don't seem to be negative things to some atheists. So it's difficult to even have this discussion, because I guess to some here, there are no problems in the first place.

*ay yai yai*

[Šñøü†ê®]

I could have sworn jojo did fishing or hunting in his days in Colorado. I have had the difficult task of terminating the pregnancy of certain nuisance creatures around here such as Canadian Geese. Smashing the fertilized eggs in the nest is the same as killing the adult creature. It just does not show as much.

[lily]

I could have sworn jojo did fishing or hunting in his days in Colorado. I have had the difficult task of terminating the pregnancy of certain nuisance creatures around here such as Canadian Geese. Smashing the fertilized eggs in the nest is the same as killing the adult creature. It just does not show as much.

I wonder if some of these pro-aborts would also see nothing wrong with killing puppies in the womb - especially if the puppies' parents were a breed that is beautiful and expensive.

Or a baby horse in the womb? For no reason except for convenience. I somehow doubt they would support those things, but human life apparently has no value to them.

[fat mike]

Eggman

who? flash or fm/// but eggman???

, WTF? R U saying people who get laid a lot don't like to discuss if it is right or wrong to get laid a lot?

no youre saying that-vindex has a string of hawties waiting for him to fall

[hadit]

Having had 4, I agree that they're pretty cool, BUT, they can and often do change the dynamic between mom and dad, and Sounter's response was overly simplistic which is understandable given his lack of experience. I mean everyone is the perfect parent until they have their first child.

I totally agree.

[hadit]

I agree that societal expectations have an effect, but the sex drive is not like smoking.

Of course they are not identical, but society certainly can influence how early in life, and how often, teenagers do things. If you compare teen pregnancy and STD rates from the 1950's to today's, you have to acknowledge it plays a big part. And that's not even accounting for today's more effective contraception and disease treatment options.

And I don't think "Now, it seems to be expected, that there's something wrong if you have date someone and don't have sex by the third or fourth date." I was a teenager 15 years ago, and I never met anyone who looked at it like that.(and I even hung out with a kinda rough crowd!)

Is there evidence things have changed since the late 90's?

Since I'm not a teenager, I can only infer based on the popular culture. Entertainment, especially, today seems to be geared toward the idea that everyone has sex all the time, and waiting to have sex with someone is an outdated idea, and waiting until you get married is literally insane. The message that kids are getting is that virginity is a burden to be disposed of as quickly as possible, not something special that can be given to a loved one.

[Zordar]

If you compare teen pregnancy and STD rates from the 1950's to today's, you have to acknowledge it plays a big part. And that's not even accounting for today's more effective contraception and disease treatment options.

You are such a disgusting liar.

By the 1930s, young people were getting treatable STDs at such a high rate -- without knowing it -- that the Venereal Disease Control Act was passed, which led to mandatory pre-marital STD tests for couples in many states. This is not a "modern issue" tied to "liberal attitudes toward sex," it's an issue that has been following humanity since people have been having sex.

You may be right about pregnancy rates, liar, but we'll never know, since the social taboo was so steep, many girls "went to boarding school," or "went to live with Aunt Millie for a year" upon getting pregnant, without ever recording their pregnancy. Accurate statistics on sexual behavior are notoriously hard to come by, even today, and our culture is worlds more open about it than in the 1950s.

[kellyb]

If you don't mind me saying this, that type of guilt is not of God. In fact, I'd say it's from the other side, which of course you don't believe in, but I'm just sayin. God loves us even when we mess up, even when we have struggles. Where our heart is is the important thing, way more important than robotically following the rules. Eventually, that love and kindness CAUSES us to want to be more obedient or Christ-like - so it's completely voluntary, from our heart. And that's what (I believe) God wants - for us to follow Him completely willingly, because we make the choice to.

Not to get off topic (again) here, but I do believe there is such a things as a "healthy shame" but the type of shame you're talking about doesn't sound like that at all. That type of guilt, shame, angst, and sometimes self-loathing is DEFINITELY not a God thing.

Yikes, sorry if I overstepped my boundaries here and began preaching. But I wanted to respond to what you said.

I should probably clarify further. The guilt and shame led me to seriously question the validity of the evangelical interpretation of scripture and the doctrine of my church. Questioning authority in general proved somewhat addictive, and eventually, many years later, led to me questioning the very existence of God.

[Lulu]

Ok I'm sorry but I find it odd that 2 grown adults have to humiliate themselves and apologize for having sex like they are naughty teenagers. It's something that should be intimate and positive and cherished, not something to be judged on by peers or forgiven by the camp leaders even if the rule is no premarital sex. As for me, as a grown woman in a monogamous, respectful loving relationship, I'm going to have sex, I'm going to enjoy it and I'm going to be on birth control because I DO NOT want a baby.

It would be great if teens did not have sex until the are emotionally and physically equipped to handle it. That would make them about 19-20. Unfortunately, that is not happening and there are so many societal and family issues at play as reasons.

I do have a greater appreciation as why my mother rejected Catholicism at 19 and refused to raise me that way.