Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Planned Parenthood posting
Message-ID: <944@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 12:15:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.944
Posted: Tue Aug 20 12:15:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 06:59:15 EDT
References: <598@mit-vax.UUCP> <932@bunker.UUCP> <655@mit-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 442

> In article <932@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
> >Teen-agers definitely need guidance.  Ideally, this guidance is
> >supposed to come from their parents.  The world is sometimes less
> >than ideal,
> 
> I'm glad to hear that you are aware that the world is less than ideal.
> Your arguments, however are based on the following assertion:
> 
> 	"Teenagers are reckless and irresponsible,
> 	 so their parents should guide them."

That's not how I would have put it, but you seem to have no qualms
about putting words in other peoples' mouths (see below), so I see
no point in arguing the point.

> How could anyone argue with this idea? You can't. Unfortunately, it is
> not working and had not been working for years. Years, Gary. For YEARS
> parents have been ....ing up their job of guiding the young. You can
> tell the parents of America to start doing their jobs until you're blue in
> the face, but it won't work.

At least you agree that it is the parents' job. Parents' job, Charles.
PARENTS' job.  (Does repeating it really make it more persuasive?)
So, I will continue to attempt to persuade parents to do a better job.
Some may listen to me; maybe I will do a better job by continually
reminding myself of my responsibilities.

> And what if it did? What if the parents became ideal? Obviously, the
> reckless and irresponsible teenagers wouldn't listen to them, right?
> Right.

Do you enjoy arguing with yourself?  You obviously don't need me,
as skilled as you are at making up answers on my behalf.

> Did you ever read Romeo and Juliet? I'm sure their parents were highly
> responsible...

Yes, I have read several of Shakespeare's works.  But they are, after
all, fiction, so their conclusions (if any) are not necessarily valid
in the real world.

> I've inferred (I could be wrong) that your children have not reached
> their teenage years.

You infer correctly; we have only one child, a daughter, who will
be 3 in December.

>  When they do, how will you know whether or not they
> are having sex?

Oh, I thought I would just ask them, straight out.  I will try
to let my children (assuming we have more later) know that there
isn't anything they can't talk to me about.

> A lot of parents wouldn't suspect their children ("We
> didn't bring them up that way.") Here at MIT, I have an even better
> perspective. All of the girls (read "young women") here were the "best
> of the class -- all around good little girls." Now they are in college.
> It's interesting to see how many "never-been-kissed" types just hop in
> the sack when they are free of oppressive parents (I know countless of
> such types). It's also interesting to see how many of these girls, who
> can run circles around me on the subject of math or physics, have only a
> vague idea of what birth control is. All of them, luckily enough, are
> well-versed in biology and are not likely to do anything stupid.
> 
> >I didn't know you were a teen-ager.  That might explain some things.
> 
> This is typical of your judgmental attitude. Now that you know my age,
> you can label me as "too young to know" and throw away my arguments.

You have it backwards; I had been throwing away your arguments before
I knew your age, because your arguments were not persuasive.  Knowing
your age helps to explain why you have been using such weak arguments;
you need more practice.

> I'll have you know that everything I say is based on experience and
> observation -- not what the Bible says or what my parents told me or
> what the Moral Majority (which is neither) puts in it's pamphlets.

But I have more experience and more observation than you do, as did
your parents and the writers of the Bible.  So why do these other
sources have no value for you?  (If *everything* you say is based
on (your?) experience and observation, then *nothing* is based on
the what anybody else says.)

(Actually, I don't believe for a moment that "everything you say
is based on experience and observation" -- you never learned anything
from anyone else?)

> >After all, I am not a teen-ager anymore; I am a parent.  So, my ideas
> >must be silly and out-dated, even though they are the same ideas (to a
> >large degree) my parents had when *I* was a teen-ager and thought that
> >the same ideas were silly and out-dated.
> ....
> >And they think they know better than their elders, until years
> >later, when they (we) finally figure out that their (our) elders
> >weren't so dumb after all.

> This just proves my point. I never said teenagers had the right answers,
> but you are right -- they do think they know better.

But you said that the answers being suggested were "silly" and
"out-dated," implying that the answers you have are better.

And you object to anyone trying to tell them otherwise.

> You seem aware of
> the teenage mindset, so why don't you act with it instead of against it?
> If a teenager won't listen to his or her parents, he will learn only from
> experience, friends or AN IMPARTIAL THIRD PARTY.

So you would like me to believe that Planned Parenthood is impartial?

> "Don't trust anyone over thirty." Teenagers don't trust older people.
> They are having too much fun discovering what life is like. If you tell
> them what to do -- they'll get mad. If you tell them WHY to do
> something, they might think about it. 

I don't recall saying that teenagers shouldn't be told the reasons
why they should or should not do certain things -- putting words in
my mouth again?

> On the other hand, teenagers are not interested in philosophy.

Really?  It was a pretty popular subject when I was in school, back
in the dark ages.

> "It's a
> sin" carries NO weight whatsoever with most teenagers. Value judgments
> don't mean anything to a person who is FORMING their values. Teenagers
> are not acting on presuppositions, they are TESTING them. Typical
> exchange:
> Kid:"Should I try pot?"
> Authority:"No it's wrong."
> Kid:"I know that, but should I try it?"
> Authority:"It's bad for you."
> Kid:"I know that, but how bad -- can I die?"
> Authority:"No, but..."
> In fact, faced with HONEST reports of the health hazards, rather than
> biased rhetoric, many teens are staying away from pot. 
> 
> >...and so the guidance does not always come from the right
> >place and/or is faulty.  The guidance that says that it's OK to have sex
> >with anyone at any time for any reason, as long as one takes
> >"precautions," is faulty.
> 
> This is just the kind of value-judgments that teenagers hate. Anyway,
> who says the advice is faulty? The Bible? Society? These sources mean
> NOTHING, to the average teen. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. 

You know NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING about what my statements are
based on.  The epidemic of various kinds of sexually transmitted disease
and unwanted pregnancies say that the advice is faulty.  The psychological
harm which can result from an intimate relationship with a relative
stranger says that the advice is faulty.

> >> >Groin control works if you try it.

> So does LSD. Does that mean it's good?

LSD has a number of nasty side effects (not that its main effect
is particularly desirable, either, but I suppose you would say
that that was a matter of taste).  If you are suggesting that
groin control has similarly nasty side effects, state them.  If you
are not suggesting that, your reference to LSD is worthless.

> >> [Groin Control] is a silly idea that was out of date a long time ago.
> >First, the age of an idea, per se, has nothing to do with its validity.
> 
> Yes, but "Groin Control" is passe.

Another way of saying you don't like the idea because of its age.

> I'm not talking philosophy, I'm talking fashion.

I hope you are not seriously saying that "fashion" is a good measure
of, well, goodness.

> Maybe you can do a rock video or something and make
> celibacy fashionable again, but I really doubt it.

> >How unfortunate that her parents didn't teach her [birth control], as is
> >their responsibility.

The above is a misquote.  I was not referring to birth control exclusively,
or even primarily.  Another example of putting words in my mouth,
though this instance may have been accidental.

> They did teach her not to have sex (a nice Catholic Family). Funny how
> these things just never work.

"Never?"  "Never" is too strong a word; I never say "never."

> >"Smartness" has little to do with the facts available to you.

> Which is why even the brightest of teenagers needs the option of birth
> control counseling.

> >> The "confused children" who go to PP are PLANNING TO HAVE SEX. That's
> >> right.

> >All of them?  How do you know?
> 
> Because a teenager that had decided not to have sex (for sure) would
> not venture into a Planned Parenthood office. I'm sure, every now and
> then, one does, but that's a fluke. If they had decided to "abstain",
> they wouldn't look into birth control.

And what about the teenagers who haven't decided one way or the other?
Mightn't they venture into a PP office?  You have apparently overlooked
them.  You continue to overlook them, even though Ray and I have both
explicitly pointed out this group.

> You are a man who, I assume, does
> not cross-dress; do you go into womens' clothing stores?

Occassionally.  (Another analogy shot to pieces.)  Sometimes I
go into such a store to buy a present for my wife; sometimes I
accompany her on her shopping trips.

> >Ray says he knows some who visited PP because they were curious. Do you
> >say that he is lying, or that the kids he knows lied to him?

> No, but I ask: were they curious about birth control or sexual activity?
> If it was the former, then I was right -- they were probably planning to
> have sex. If it is the latter -- that is a value judgment that they
> will make by themselves.

You say that teens need information and guidance with respect to
birth control, but deny that they need information and guidance
with respect to the larger issue of whether to have sex in the
first place.  This is inconsistent.

> Studies show, by the way, that the majority of teenagers who seek birth
> control do so at least a month AFTER they become active [Source: Ask
> Beth syndicated column].

> I wonder how many (or how few) virgins walk into a PP office.

> >I don't think Ray would say that.  Putting words into someone's
> >mouth is not very nice.  I imagine that Ray would say, "It only
> >takes once to become pregnant."

> Unless, of course, you use birth control.

No, it only takes once to become pregnant even if you use birth control.
Contraceptives lower the risk; they do not eliminate it.

> In that case, you merely risk
> being a statistic (a LOW statistic). I'm sure Ray could conveniently
> forget that fact.

> >There you go again, putting words in someone else's mouth.

> True enough, but this is hypothetical.

Pardon me?  Putting words in someone else's mouth is OK if it's
hypothetical?

> >I'm all for telling teen-agers the "no-nonsense" (is there another
> >kind?) truth about birth control.  I'm also for telling them about
> >the risks of VD.  And *all* the facts about abortion, like the
> >problems it can cause later (increased chance of miscarriage for
> >future pregnancies, etc.), and the developmental stages of the
> >fetus.  They should know exactly what it is that's being aborted.

> Then why don't you work part time at Planned Parenthood? That's what
> they do.

> >> I happened to have liked, and respected, my parents during high-school.
> >> If, however, I told anyone this, I was immediately put on the defensive
> >> wherein I'd have to illustrate some "cool" behavior they'd exhibited in
> >> order to win the respect.

> >That may be the saddest thing you have said.  You didn't have a whole
> >lot of respect for your parents, if you were ashamed to admit it.  Nor
> >did you have a lot of respect for yourself, if you felt you had to
> >give in to others' demands that you be "cool."
> 
> I wish you would read what I write (you're just like a typical parent :-),
> I said I was put in the defensive BY THEM. 

You also said that you had to "illustrate some 'cool' behavior" to win
the respect of your peers.  That shows me that your respect was shallow.
(I am inferring that the "cool" behavior was something that either you
or your peers thought your parents would disapprove of -- otherwise,
it wouldn't have restore your reputation after it had been tarnished
by your admission that you liked and respected your parents.)  But,
perhaps more important is the lack of self-respect it shows.

> You have clearly demonstrated an incredible lack of understanding of the
> teenage mind.

Are you recanting your earlier statement that I seemed aware of the
teenage mindset?  And what were you saying about judgmental attitudes?

> >Far from not accounting for it, that scenario is exactly the thing
> >Ray's suggestion is supposed to deal with.  Remember talking about
> >"getting some no-nonsense advice"?  This is where it should come in
> >(actually, it should come in earlier).  Ray says teen-agers are
> >impulsive, and suggests that they should be advised to take time
> >to reconsider.  You're saying that that won't work, because they
> >are impulsive.  I.e., the solution won't work, because the problem
> >exists.
> 
> Wha...? Read what you said, Gary. Teenagers are too impulsive. Granted.
> They should take more time to think things over. Fine. Unfortunately,
> this "solution" fails BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPULSIVE. The solution won't
> work because it won't work. An analogous set of arguments:
> Man A:I hate my C compiler. I could write better code in LISP.
> Man B:Then write in LISP!
> Unfortunately, as we all know, you can't compile LISP with a C compiler...

I propose a better analogy:
Programmer A is only half as productive as Programmer B, and
therefore has to work late at night to accomplish the same
thing B accomplishes during a normal 8 hour day.
Programmer B suggests taking a course in structured programming
techniques, to which B attributes his higher productivity.
Programmer A says he doesn't have time to take such a course.

> Also, if you don't give them birth control, will that make them less
> impulsive?

Never said it would.  If they are given *all* of the facts, they
might be less impulsive.  If *all* you do is give them contraceptives,
that will probably encourage impulsiveness.

> >> If I may be so bold, Ray: when were you a teenager? 50's? 60's? (I'd be
> >> hard pressed to believe 70's).
> >
> >What makes you think that ten or twenty years make so much difference?

> Remember 1965? (I must admit that I don't!) There was no MTV. "Prince"
> was not singing "Little Red Corvette". The Pill was new. The sexual
> revolution was STARTING. People who wanted to assert their sexual
> freedom had the support of a vocal counter-culture.

> Remember 1985? (I do.) MTV sells sex (50% off :-), Maddonna shows us
> that a woman (and a girl) can have power through sex. The sexual
> revolution is taken for granted. People who want to assert their sexual
> freedom are given conflicting signals in an increasingly conservative
> atmosphere.

> Is that enough difference?

Nope.  Sex was being sold before MTV; perhaps the medium has changed
(slightly), but the message hasn't.  Power through sex existed before
Madonna.  The "sexual revolution" is hardly original with 20th century
America.  People who want to assert their sexual license have the
support of some groups and the not of others (which is all you have
said in mentioning a "counter-culture" and "conflicting signals").

> >> Maybe the kids of today have problems (I've sure seen enough), but as
> >> engineers (for the most part), we all know that you can't solve todays
> >> problems with yesterdays solutions.
> >What makes you think that today's problems are so much different
> >from yesterday's?  I guess every generation thinks that they're
> >the first.
> 
> That's right. So some smart people learned from the past: kids will have
> sex. Parents will not prepare their kids for this. Something must be
> done. Thus we have Planned Parenthood.

Well, if you admit that the problem has existed for a long time,
what did you mean by calling it "today's" problem, as if it were
new?  Just more empty rhetoric, I guess.  And, of course, you are
again dismissing ideas simply on account of their age ("yesterday's"
solutions).

> >> You say, "the kids just shouldn't have sex, don't encourage them." They
> >> ARE having sex (a lot, too). The DON'T need any encouragement.
> >
> >Ray is simply saying that they need *less* encouragement (to be
> >promiscuous), which comes from the TV, the radio, the movies, peers;
> >why should it come from PP also?
> 
> Planned Parenthood is the only positive thing going.

"All," "never," "only" -- don't you get tired of overgeneralizing?

> It gives answers which you call encouragement.
> Sex is fun -- nobody needs to be told
> that.

Correction: Sex CAN BE fun.  It can be disastrous, if mishandled.

> Planned Parenthood mentions pregnancy -- and how to avoid it.

Correction: they mention SOME of the ways to ATTEMPT to avoid it.
A question which I think has been asked before but not answered
yet:  Does Planned Parenthood ever recommend abstinence?  If so,
under what circumstances?  If not, why not?

> If I
> saw an advertisement that mentioned birth control as well as casual
> sex, I would faint.

The point being?

> >> The difference between a child and an adolescent is that a child can be
> >> told what to do and an adolescent must be helped to make the right
> >> decisions -- for him/herself!

> >But the adolescent often doesn't think he needs any help, except from
> >other adolescents.  Thus, one of the things a child needs to be taught
> >is how to make decisions, so he will be ready for adolescence.

> My parents taught me how to make those decisions, so I breezed through
> life.

You "breezed through life"??  You think you're done, that you have
arrived?  That you aren't going to have to face any more tough
decisions?  You are in for a rude awakening.

> Maybe you will teach your kids how to make decisions. Most parents don't.

> Also, would you make a decision if you didn't have all the facts?
> A lot of parents hide the facts about birth control from their
> children. The children, not having a firm understanding of pregnancy,
> go on to have sex. If they'd known the facts... 

This is getting so repetitive.  Have I not said several times that I
am in favor of giving teens the facts?

> I'm not arguing ideas. I'm talking facts. 
> >Ideally,
> Ideally, I can assert anything. I can say that pigs fly. I'd doesn't
> change the truth.

I talk about ideals because that's what I think we should strive
for.  "Pigs fly" is a fabrication, or a fantasy; an ideal is a goal,
something which is not, but may be.  I am not satisfied with the
way the world is; I think it can be improved, and want to help with
such improvement.  You don't think it can be improved, as so are
content with stopgaps and workarounds.

> -- 
> Charles Forsythe
> CSDF@MIT-VAX

Gary Samuelson