From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:11:06 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

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. 
  
>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)
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.  

>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)

>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. 

> 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. :)
 
>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)

PS Advice for the day: Don't attempt to do a tumbling series before warming
                       up and strecthing out. You have a tendency to either
		       over/under rotate and land on your head at high speeds.
				
				(Mikeey after landing on his head) ;)

>Sarah McCabe