The problem with the extreme pro-life argument is that it assumes that human beings will rebel entirely against their human impulse to reproduce. Now, as thinking adults, we can certainly see the consequences of that reproduction and take steps to prevent it if we are not prepared to handle offspring, but to assume that the urge to propagate will vanish simply by waving a Bible at it is idiocy.

The data boils down the pro-life decision to a single question: is your distaste for sex so strong that you would prefer banning sex to having fewer abortions? Take your pick, people, sex or abortions, because you can't have both. Either acknowledge that people (particularly hormone-driven young people) are going to have sex whether you like it or not, or face the fact that your refusal to provide those people with birth control will result in more abortions - which is what you were opposing, right? Sex doesn't scare you, does it? Oh, it does? Damn. And here I thought we were trying to prevent young people from having children before they were prepared for them.

Hey now, hold it a second. I like sex, But I think the bible thumpers have a point. Must culture saturate us with Britney and Paris? Scantily clad women on the magazine racks by the checkout right at kid's-eye level??

It not like society is repressing teen's sexual urges. We're marketing sex to them at a non-stop pace. Movies, Music, Video Games, TV, commericials... All non-stop saturation.

It's gotten to the point where it's not their souls we should worry about, but their pocket books. We're selling them sex and burying them in debt.

When Britney got her kids taken away, I didn't feel Schadenfreude, but relief that humanity might not be doomed after all.

As one of those "particularly hormone-driven young people," I know that those hormones CAN be controlled. The message being sent to the young people "you are going to have sex, it is natural, and there is no way to control your urges" is a LIE. Maybe if we told them the truth that they can control themselves, more would actually control themselves, set an example, others would catch on, and we would see a major difference.

Actually, properly educated Christians love sex. Sex is one of God's finest gifts to the human race. In fact, it is only the biblical view that truly appreciates the beauty and wonder of human sexuality.

Compare fine china to a styrofoam cup. The china cup is carefully stored and only used on appropriate occasions. Styrofoam is casually used every day and carelessly discarded after one use. Now clearly, styrofoam is used more often than the fine china. But does that mean you value the styrofoam more highly? Of course not.

Now, is human sexuality more like the china or the styrofoam? If you use it like the styrofoam, what does that say about how you value it?

You make the classic mistake so many people do. You assume the kids think. You assume adults think. The number of people who are morbidly obese and have diabetes, the number of people who are buried under mounds of credit card debt, the number of people in jail, in trauma wards with nails in their head -- none of these people really thought about the consequences. Lots of people just do not think.

Teens don't control themselves not because of inability but because they don't want to and see no reason. And why should they? Other people have been there to step up and forcefully control them their whole lives. You can't expect repressed teens to make good choices when they get the chance to make decisions; they've never had any practice and of course they're immature -- no one treats them like adults! These are the kids who have unsafe sex and who are then frantic to get an abortion so their church and all their family ties don't find out about it. The kids whose parents always gave them real choices and responsibility, who told them about contraceptives, they have sex too, but you don't hear about it because nothing terrible comes of it. Clearly those kids were not so impulsive, so uncontrolled in their urges, that they didn't at least think to use a rubber before getting started.

If you want people to think before they act, you have to give them the chance to think at all. If someone is constantly telling them what to think and do, it naturally follows they will have poor impulse control. If you want abortions to stop you need sex education and you need to endorse contraceptives. By refusing to sell condoms to teenagers or teach them how to use them, you aren't preventing them from having sex, you're just preventing them from having safe sex.

You say: In fact, it is only the biblical view that truly appreciates the beauty and wonder of human sexuality.

Perhaps this has been your experience. historically, christians tend to be more sexually repressed, however. limited in experimentation, being taught that normal urges are "bad".... i think what you might be trying to discuss is the difference between fornicating and making love. but christians aren't the only ones to "make love".

and speaking as an adult who abstained until i was an adult, i agree with the teen who says that it is a lie and an excuse to act as if all teens are victims of their hormones. why do people feel so compelled to claim personal responsibility for their actions? agreed, marketing can influence one's attitudes, beliefs, wants, desires. but we should be teaching kids to resist marketing and to make logical decisions instead of reinforcing the idea that they are unable to make informed decisions.

You were doing so well until this part
"historically, christians tend to be more sexually repressed"

More repressed than who?

I'm very confused as to how 'extreme pro-lifers' became 'the Christian population' in this thread, but okay . . .

I'm not arguing that sex should be casual and inconsequential. I am saying that the notion that banning premarital sex (in whatever form - at the moment, it's prevention of birth control) is based on the assumption that young people will stop having sex before marriage. And that is simply not going to happen. For one thing, some of the most intelligent and well-rounded people I know made very careful decisions about their sex lives, when they began to have sex and with whom, and not a one of them is married as yet. Nor are any of them pregnant. They all, however, are of the fine-china view of sex.

I agree wholeheartedly that education is the solution, but bear in mind that providing all the relevant information will lead some of these kids to abstain, but many many others to decide that they would like to engage in sexual activity, but safely. Banning all education simply leads to the choices that cause premarital pregnancies and STDs.

Actually, my wife and I own Anne Hooper's "Illustrated Edition of the Kama Sutra, Updated and Edited for Today's Lovers."

It's a great book.

Oh, and I never said that only Christians treat sex as something more than mere fornication. I said that the biblical view of sexuality is the highest and best one, and the closer to the bible's view yours are, the better off you are.

The false choice you made was between being extremely pro-life and hating sex, or being pro-abortion rights and liking sex. Then you further equated not wanting kids to engage in sex before marriage with somehow hating sex. Both of those charges are baseless and frankly, bigoted stupidity.

You will be hard pressed to find pro-lifers of any kind (except certain Catholics) who want to make contraception illegal. What we oppose is teaching kids that pre-marital sex is just fine, merely one choice among several equally right options, so long as they use a condom.

We should teach our kids that if they get drunk they should call a cab instead of driving home. But we should most definitely not tell them that teenage drinking is just fine, so long as they don't drive.

As someone in a committed relationship, but with no plans to get married or get pregnant any time soon, I've got to object. I spent two high school years in Catholic school, where the sex education I received from our teachers was essentially "Don't." There were dozens of myths circulating among these good Catholic girls...you couldn't get pregnant your first time. You couldn't get pregnant if you were on top. You couldn't get herpes if you went down on a guy, but you could if he went down on you (and so on). I then spent two high school years in public school, where I learned actual practical information about sex: yes, you can get pregnant your first time, or standing up, or on top. Condoms work 97% of the time, 99% if you use the kind with spermicide. Sex hurts a little the first time, but not afterwards. I learned about the hormonal and physical changes that occur as a result of pregnancy. I learned about the connection between sex and certain types of cancer.

Guess what? I didn't lose my virginity till I was 19, had been in a relationship for a year, and was in love. I'm 24 now, and have never had a pregnancy or STD scare, in large part because of my GOOD sex ed classes in public school. If I had gotten pregnant, though, I'd have had an abortion with no regrets, because I know that I'm simply not ready to go through a pregnancy, childbirth, and possibly motherhood. On the other hand, many of the Catholic girls I know (who made do with hearsay and old wives tales in lieu of an actual sexual education) are on their second or third baby right now. A few of them are on their second husbands...all before the age of 25! More information = more, better choices. Pre-marital sex with good education, good communication, love and contraceptives IS, in fact, an equally moral choice to abstainance.

[Pre-marital sex with good education, good communication, love and contraceptives IS, in fact, an equally moral choice to abstainance.]

I disagree. You are equating escaping personal physical harm with morality. The two are unrelated.

How is abstinence the (supposedly) more moral choice? Is the potential for negative consequences what makes the activity of sex so "naughty" or "immoral," or is this just a throwback attitude to ancient property rights towards women? Why are we, as a society, so concerned about who is having sex with whom? I can understand concern from the disease transmission angle, but if you and your partner are clean, what does it matter if the two of you have had sex with 2 people or 200 previously?

VitM:

How is abstinence the (supposedly) more moral choice? Is the potential for negative consequences what makes the activity of sex so "naughty" or "immoral," or is this just a throwback attitude to ancient property rights towards women? Why are we, as a society, so concerned about who is having sex with whom? I can understand concern from the disease transmission angle, but if you and your partner are clean, what does it matter if the two of you have had sex with 2 people or 200 previously?

Well, I certainly don't support enforcing Christian morality by law. But I will still call fornication what it is - sin.

the true conservative:

Well, I certainly don't support enforcing Christian morality by law. But I will still call fornication what it is - sin.

But that's my question--why is it considered sin? Is it possible that the whole reason it is/was considered sinful was because a bunch of ancient tribesmen were seeking to preserve their reproductive rights over the women they controlled?

Assuming that both activites are engaged in solely for pleasure, why would a god care whether you're having sex or bass fishing?