From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:44:35 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <17610@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>>>   Oh, jeeez, I know that. That is my entire point. The emphasis wthin
>>>society is that sex is for pleasure, not reproduction. I am aware of that,
>>>and embarassed by it as well. Although the two should go hand in hand,
>>>it appears that the fetus, a sentient being or not, is the victim.

>>Embarassed??? Why? Leads me to wonder if you've ever had sex, or if
>>you are so inhibited by insecurity that you couldn't enjoy it. Have
>>you ever wondered why humans are the only species on earth that copulate
>>when they wish, instead of when nature dictates? Because it is pleasurable.

>   I am embarassed not for myself but society. Sex has been lowered
>to an ACT. 

To whom?  To everyone?  To me?  To you?  

>Not a hinge of a relationship, not the means to a child,
>not even a shred of responsibility. 

Responsibility for what?  I find people realizing that "at this time in my
life, children are not a good option" and thus taking every precaution 
they can to avoid pregnancy to be very responsible.  You evidently do not.

>The end result, the child has

Ahem.

The *possible* end result.  

Saying "a child is the end result of sex" is like saying "a car wreck is
the end result of driving".  

Thank you.

>lost priority and is often forgotten. That's what having sex is
>for dude. 

Steve, realize exactly what this says.

Among other things, this says that if I happen to be sterile, I should not
have sex, EVER.  Once a woman goes through menopause, she should not have 
sex, EVER.  If I'm married but poor and literally cannot afford children, I
should not have sex, PERIOD.

All of those statements are clear extrapolations for "sex is for having 
children and that's all".  I suggest you either retract your statement or
openly accept the three I've made.  To do otherwise reflects a certain 
hypocrisy.

>If I don't have sex, I"m insecure. 

Um...no, Steve.  Look above and read what Ronald wrote.  He said that he
wondered if you'd ever had sex, or if you'd been so insecure that you hadn't
enjoyed it.  Nowhere did he equate celibacy with insecurity.

>Nice. I'll 
>have you know that abstaining from premarital sex is a conscious
>and difficult decision. It's something I"m proud of, and I'm not going
>to be offended by your attempt to mock my practices. 

I don't believe he intended to.  I certainly shall not.  If that's your choice,
I respect it and you're welcome to it.  But kindly do not claim that this
somehow makes you superior.

>   You know why sex is "pleasurable" as you so adeptly summarized it?
>Because if it wasn't, our population would be a bit of a problem. 

Our population *IS* "a bit of a problem", Steve--though perhaps not in the
way you meant there.  

Steve, if sex is only meant for procreation, then why don't women simply
go into estrus like most female mammals?  Hmm?

>However,
>mother nature hasn't really allowed for Trojan condoms and abortions...

I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.  What constitutes 
"really allowing for" something?  And please explain why nature hasn't 
really allowed for condoms and abortions, but *has* really allowed for
open-heart surgery, the airplane, and the telephone.

>And I'm going to try not to be rude, but don't you EVER treat abstinence
>as an insult again. 

He didn't, IMHO.  Nor will I.  But what I will proudly argue against is
anyone who insists that "since abstinence works for me, everyone MUST do
the same".  Is my point clear?

>Lemme guess - you obviously didn't wait till marriage
>for sex, but do you wait till Christmas to open your presents? There's
>a time and a place for everything, and promiscuity is sure presenting
>us with a hell of a problem now isn't it?

As someone's already pointed out (Anneliese, I think, but I'm not certain),
having premarital sex is not equal to promiscuity.  I had sex before
marriage, and have been monogamous.  Your point?

>   Incedentally, I don't think there is a shred of insecurity in me.

Of course not.  You're perfect.  (Hint, Steve:  everyone has insecurities
about something; those who openly boast otherwise are lying through their
teeth, consciously or not.)

>However, you and your mentality telling people "if you dont' have sex,
>you ain't normal" has gotta go buddy. You keep telling yourself you're
>macho. I don't wanna hear about it.

I don't agree with the "if you don't have sex, you're not macho" argument.
I agree even less, however, with the "if you have sex before marriage, you're
immoral and vile" argument--and I don't see anyone trying to put the former
into law.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Science is the only self-correcting human institution, but it also is a 
process that progresses only by showing itself to be wrong."
			--Allan Sandage
Newsgroups: talk.abortion