From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 06:10:30 GMT


I have the feeling I am fighting a losing battle here.  But I am going
to try again.  Mikeey, please bear with me here.  Read what I have
written carefully and please respond to that.  I am going to point
out below where I make a statement, you say that's not what you 
meant and then seem to repeat exactly what I said originally.
Now what we may have here is a failure to communicate, but I would 
like to understand what exactly you are proposing.

In article <1992Apr9.041106.13114@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>In <1992Apr9.023825.22758@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>
>>Mikeey, I am a little confused here.  I can't really follow your reasoning,
>>allow me to restate it in clearer (at least to me) terms.
>
>>1.  Teenagers should not be having sex.
>
>	I believe teenagers are free to do as they wish. However, I also
>believe that a large percentage of teenagers are not well informed about sex.
>Therefore, I think teenagers should not have sex without proper Sex-Education. 

OK, we are agreed.  Teenagers of all ages should not be having
sex without knowing the consequences.  (I take it this is what you
mean by "proper sex-education").
  
>>2.  Teenagers (over 15) should have access to both sex education and free
>>    or low cost condoms so that if they do have sex, they will be responsible.
>
>	I'm sorry if I confused you. I said I belive all teenagers should
>have access to Sex Education but we should not have contraceptives available
>in Junior High School. (This was what the main argument was about, in JHS)

Isn't that what I just stated?  "over 15" means teenagers over the age
of 15, i.e. out of Junior high School (BTW I picked 15 because as I
recall, that was the age you first proposed.)

>I was trying to point out that if we gave them proper education, they will be
>responsible enough to purchase it themselves if they chose to have sex. 
>
>>3.  Teenagers (under 15)  should have access to sex education because 
>>    obviously some of them are having sex now and they should act more 
>>    responsibly.
>
>	That's not what I was trying to say. I said I would feel uncomfortable
>about handing out condoms to younger teenagers. (age 15 was used just as an
>example) I also said Sex Education is important for all teenagers.  

Again, isn't that what I just said?  There is nothing in point 3 about
condoms at all.  I just said that teenagers of all ages should have
access to sex education.
>
>>4.  Teenagers (under 15) should not have access to free or low cost condoms
>>    because this will only encourage those who wouldn't have sex anyway
>>    to do so.  Those who need condoms (who know they need them because they
>>    had the sex ed classes) can go to the store and buy them.
>
>	Sorry again if I confused you. What I was trying to say was that
>we should have a minimum age when it comes to making condoms available in
>school. (I said Junior High School was the limit for me) I just thought that
>by having certain contraceptives available in JHS, we would be giving the    
>teenagers the "okay" to having sex. Then I stated if they wanted to get
>contraceptives, there's the "local drugstore". This of course includes an
>extensive Sex Education program. (Someone before mentioned starting some 
>plan for frist graders which I supported fully)

I am sorry, but again I do not see the difference between what you are 
saying and what I said.  Point 4 deals only with the issue of condoms and
junior high school aged teenagers.  Do you or do you not support the 
idea that junior high school students should have access to free or
low cost condoms?
>
>>Is this a fair statement of your views?  Does this really make sense to you?
>
>	NOT a fair statement! I guess I didn't mean to confuse anyone. :(
>
>>You acknowledge that some young teenagers are having sex now and will have
>>sex even with education, but we should deny them easy access to condoms
>>in order to remove the temptation from others? 
>
>	I never said deny access! I said deny access in Junior High School!
>Once again, there's the "local drugstore". It would be "uncomfortable" for
>them to purchase it at a durgstore BUT it's something they have to learn
>as responsible adults. 

Gee, I never said "deny access" either.  I said "deny *easy* access" by
this I mean that teenagers are going to have to go through some difficulty
(i.e. the embarrassment of shopping in a drugstore) in order to get a hold 
of condoms.  I am also puzzled that you expect Junior High School students
to act like "responsible adults" by shopping for their own condoms, but
concede that it is probably a good idea not to demand this from High 
School students.
>
>> Do you truly believe that 
>>a pre-teenager who has no interest in having sex at this point in his or
>>her life, will suddenly, upon seeing a condom machine in a restroom, 
>>decide that now is the time to start experimenting?
> 
>	He he he... I speak for myself only. I KNOW Pre-teenagers have an
>extreme sense of curiosity when it comes to sex. Of course they want to
>experiment, but must we provide them with condoms also? I think not. They
>have to learn to obtain the contraceptives on their own, like responsible
>adults that they'll grow up to be. :)

Again, you are trying to force children to behave like responsible adults
but don't expect older teens to do so.  I just don't get it.
> 
>>Even if this were true,
>>I am sure against teenagers (especially young ones) going out and humping
>>like bunnies, but for God's sake, we are not talking about some abstract
>>moral theory here.  We are talking about preventing children from having
>>babies and from dying of AIDS!  If freely available contraceptives saves
>>one life from AIDS or prevents one unwanted teen pregnancy (and subsquently
>>avoids one more abortion) I really can't see how any one can object,
>>especially anyone who identifies himself as "pro-life".
>
>	Agreed totally here Sarah. Think about one thing here. I have 
>stated only in restricting them in Junior High School, no where else. I'm
>sorry for confusing anyone out there. I'm a real slow and sloppy typer at
>times, I must have mistyped something. If that's the case, I apologize now.
>One more thing Sarah, I don't think I have ever "identified" myself as a
>"Pro-Lifer", I was especially careful about this in all my post. Believe it
>or not, I'm for Pro-Choice. It's just that I'm also very much against
>abortions. Confusing huh? (I know, I know) I only stated my view a few times
>on the Net and I "identified" myself as (Pro-Choice/ANTI-ABORTION). If I
>made a typo, please inform me. Well, thanks for your comments!!! Gotta go!
>
>						Mikeey
>				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
>				       (Pro-Choice/ANTI-ABORTION)

My apologies for any offense.  I hadn't realized your position.  Which
brings up the point that this really doesn't have much to do with 
abortion, but then neither does a lot of other stuff in t.a.
I still don't think your arguments are logically consistent; and I
think your policies could actually contribute to the hardship in this 
world.  

Sarah McCabe




Newsgroups: talk.abortion