From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:09:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <=#_pfkp.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>Note followup change.
>
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>>	Having sex can result in pregnancy.
>>
>>	I would venture to say that MOST people who engage in sexual
>>activity know this. That being the case, if they were interested in 
>>avoiding pregnancy for sure, they would not have sex. Otherwise, they
>>are taking a risk, AND KNOW IT FULL WELL!! If that is not consenting
>>to the possibility of pregnancy, then I would like to know what is.
>
>Fine.  Driving a car can result in injury or death.
>
>Are you now going to claim that anyone who's is injured in a car
>accident should be allowed to die?  Or the people who live in Florida
>should _not_ get any federal assistance?
>
>As has been pointed out, even if sex can be inferred to be a consent
>to the _possibility_ of pregnancy, in no way can it be considered
>consent to carrying a child for 9 months and giving birth.
>
>-- 
>Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
>ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby

Oh, can we cut the "driving analogies already!" Here was my response in
August when someone used those analogies. I hope this helps.


From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Sex Drives :) Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:08:26 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

I love the game of Trivial Pursuit. :)

v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff) writes:
:eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes...
:>	First of all, I hope you knew what the risks were for a condom
:>breaking in the act of sex. Birth control is not perfect. If it breaks
:>and your partner has HIV, you're in deep goo. Second, putting all your trust
:>in birth control is not very wise.
:
:w.r.t. auto accidents:
:	First of all, I hope you knew what the risks were for an accident
:happening in the act of driving.  Seatbelts are not perfect.  If it breaks and
:the other driver hits you, you're in deep goo.  Second, putting all your trust 
:in auto safety measures is not wise.  
:
:So, you mean we shouldn't have sex (drive) because the preventative measures
:(seatbelts,etc) aren't perfect?  Do you live in a padded room?
	Well, a dorm room is just as bad, although I wouldn't mind more
padding to muffle out all the squeaking coming from the other rooms. :)
I don't have a car either, so I guess I wouldn't understand, right?
	I could go into why driving is better than sex (the Top 10
version), but I guess he was a bit more serious.
	Fact: seatbelts are not fail-safe either. If used incorrectly
(like placing the lap belt on your stomach or the shoulder belt across
your neck), in the event of an accident, you can die. Seatbelts also
don't help you in some sideways accidents. Many protective devices like
airbags have yet to be tested with regards to their safety and the risk
of injuries that they cause as well. However, seatbelts are tested and I
don't think you should worry about your seatbelt ripping apart (unless
you're really that big) upon a collision. The risk that that happens is
much less that the 2 to 10% failure rate of condoms. (Actual numbers?
Heck I can't remember from my biomechanics class.)
	Fact: you don't need a license to have sex. It can be argued
that there should be some competency test, but I won't get into that.
	Fact: you can get ticketed for risky behavior on the road: i.e.,
speeding, driving while intoxicated or drugged, not having your
headlights on while driving at night, etc. You can't get ticketed for
unsafe sex. A one-night stand with the wrong partner, it's the end for
you (as we understand HIV so far).
	Fact: you can walk away from an accident with no scratches to
paralegia to death. There is no such gradient with regards to pregnancy:
you either got pregnant or you didn't. If you die from an auto accident,
you will generally die within a short matter of time; you can get AIDS
as long as ten years after successful exposure.

:>	I'll admit who wants to think about such things. The mentality
:>of "I want to have sex with him/her << pick appropriate gender / name >>
:>because I love <<>>" or "because it's fun" or "because everyone else is
:>doing it" are common reasons why people engage in premarital sex. But
:>it won't excuse you if you get infected with HIV this way. And to be
:>consistent, it shouldn't excuse you if you get pregnant either.
:
:	I'll admit who wants to think about such things.  The mentality of
:"I want to drive to the << pick appropriate store name >> because I need
:milk or "because it's fun" or "because everyone else is doing it" are common
:reasons why people drive their cars.  But it won't excuse you if you get in
:an accident.  And it shouldn't excuse you if you're still out of milk...
:
:Using your logic, guess we should only drive for "legitimate" reasons, like
:going to work...  
	So you espouse having sex all the time whenever we want without
any inhibitions or any responsibility. I'd like to know what your
strategy is on tempering HIV infection. My preference is to encourage
responsibility and understanding your choices before you do it.
	Interesting how you can't verbatim extend my analogy. Note I
said "because I love" and you said "I need." For your situation, it
is a necessity; I submit that showing your love for someone does not
have to be proved with sex, i.e., in order for me to love a girl, I must
have sex with her. This as opposed to "in order for me to purchase milk,
I must drive." Not exactly true, right?
	Through your premises about the reasons why people drive their
cars, I'm sure that explains the high incidence of teenagers in car
accidents (the latter two reasons that is). Those were the reasons why
my brother and I both whined to our folks about why we needed to learn
how to drive. (Note: we don't whine to our parents to learn how to
engage in intercourse.)
	The point is that using driving skills as an analogy for sex
doesn't correlate very well. Driving is a skill that is used both for
necessity and recreation and transportation. Sex is commonly depicted
(note how I said that) as purely recreational without consequence. There
are consequences to driving (CO effusion, depletion of oil and natural
resources, destroying forests to build highways, etc.) as there are to
sex, but we can improve our cars' safety devices by using crash dummies
in order to save lives. We can produce cleaner fuels and test them in
laboratories to reduce CO formation and more effectively use our natural
resources.
	But, we have to change or temper human behavior to
save ourselves from rape, from HIV, and from abortion.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?


-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.