From: edm@halcyon.com (Ed Morin)
Subject: Re: Condoms in Public Schools
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:07:51 GMT

dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) writes:

>:>Which is more immoral, a child having safer sex, or denying access
>:>to protection from STD's?  Because some cannot *afford* condoms.
>:>Some cannot afford lunch, we help them don't we?
>:
>:You make it sound like sex is something that somebody needs to
>:survive.  It isn't!  Food is needed to enable a child to learn
>:more effectively.  It is medically shown (I think!) that starvation
>:hinders mental processes.  

>AIDS Related Dementia hinders mental processes.

>Syphillis maddness hinders mental processes.

Yes, but starvation comes as a result of _inaction_ of eating correctly.  The
things you mention come as a result of _action_ taken unnecessarily.  I see
this as a big key difference.

>:You either pay for birth control, pay
>:for the results of getting diseases or pay for the children that are
>:born (or all three!).  This is true no matter what the situation - moral
>:or not.

>So a basic part of being human is to be denied to some because they
>cannot afford it?

This isn't an issue of money, it's an issue of stepping up to the
responsibilities involved with the action and behavior.

>:>We provide drivers training, seatbelts, and airbags to drivers
>:>to reduce risk.
>:
>:All of this costs money.  You pay for drivers education classes,
>:you pay more for cars now that seat belts need to be in them and
>:last time I looked, airbags cost quite a bit too.

>And I willingly pay to provide all with the education and tools
>to help them participate in that activity safely as possible.

Since _I_ believe that such activity is wrong, _I_ am not willing
to fund it.  I would feel the same about funding parachute availability
for all kids in the event they decided to jump out of airplanes.  The
kids that want to jump should buy (or rent? :-) their own.

>:>Then again, no organization that I am aware of, deems driving
>:>an immoral act.
>:
>:I think this can be discussed without bringing moral values into
>:it (which is why I have tried to keep mine pretty much out so far).

>You have done a pretty admirible job, but you have brought it in
>a little (delinquency and such).  I really don't want to drag
>this into a morality argument either.  I don't think it would progress
>very far.

True.

>:Sex is _not_ free.  It never has been and never will be.  I think
>:our children need to learn that and should not grow up with the
>:false impression that it is something we have a _right_ to without
>:the associated responsibility.  There is no such thing.

>I think we have a fundamental difference in philosiphy here.

Yes, I think so.

>You see sex as something that has a hard cost and  it seems much 

Not a "hard" cost - just one that is a serious issue and needs to
be taken on responsibly.

>higher that I feel it has to have.  I know we differ on issues
>pertaining to sexuality, but I believe sex is just like every other
>part of our lives.  Just like eating, breathing, walking and playing.

Yes, but those things "cost" too.  The consequences may or may not be
as bad, but if you walk in front of a car hopefully you were responsible
enough to look first and/or buy insurance.

>All of it has risks of some sort, so why should we make one activity
>more risky than it has to be.  We need not lose respect for ourselves
>and what sex is, to do that.

>I am not preaching irresponsible emulation of rabbits, Ed.

That's good.

>I believe that no one should enter into a sexual relationship
>lightly.

That's very true.

>I'm talking about providing equal education and access to 
>resources for all.

We agree half way here.  I suspect that's about as far as we can take this
one!

>:I try!

>And I admire you for it.  Let's not let this get too personal, ok?
>It has a lot of potential to do so.

Donn, I want you to know I respect you even though I don't agree with
everything you believe.  I am trying to separate people from issues,
but I like so many others in this country are conditioned otherwise.
When we say "f**k you" to somebody for something they did, it is an
attack against them as individuals.  I am trying to strive for something
like "what _you did_ hurt me" (or something to that effect :-).  So,
please don't think I'm attacking you personally just because I may not
agree with you on some issues.

-- 
Ed Morin
Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice)
"Serving the Usenet community since 1987."
edm@nwnexus.WA.COM
Newsgroups: seattle.general