How devastating is it to find out your high school teenage daughter is having sex?

*That argument from authority link is for what you were doing.

candela wrote:

It's that, despite all attempts to engage in safe sex practices, there WILL be mistakes -- many, many of them. Not to mention the fact that safe sex cannot prevent transfer of diseases.

Can you ever be 100% safe driving a car? You can take every precaution, but that doesn't reduce your risk of accident or death to 0%.

Take this case:

A family was driving along in the left lane of Highway 101-N when a tow truck landed on their car, killing three siblings in the passenger car. There is absolutely nothing they could have done to be any safer when it happened, and they still suffered a tragic result.

But do we say, "don't drive, because you can never be 100% safe?" No, just do your best to reduce your chances of putting yourself at risk for something bad.

Your argument (and it's a commonly used one) fails because transportation is a necessity in a modern world -- premarital sex is not.

candela wrote:

Your argument (and it's a commonly used one) fails because transportation is a necessity in a modern world -- premarital sex is not.

Driving a car is not necessary.

Facebook Phil wrote:

45 and a parent

What possibly qualifies you to give advice about the sexual mores of teenagers...other than you were, up until recently, one of them

candela wrote:

I think that I could raise most children better than 95% of the population despite not being a parent.

operative phrase - "I think". You have no idea what is involved, no experience, no knowledge. You are just guessing.

You are another child who thinks they have it all figured out.

You are right in that there is a chance I could be a bad parent; however, probabilistically, my family history suggests I have a high chance of turning out as a good parent.

The argument "I'm older than you and thus more capable of making good decisions" is not a strong one in a society where the evidence is significantly lacking.

"My argument for the immorality of premarital sex is NOT based upon a religion"

Then what is it based on? Who told you that premaritial sex is immoral?

Sandusky and Hutch Boy wrote:

"My argument for the immorality of premarital sex is NOT based upon a religion"

Then what is it based on? Who told you that premaritial sex is immoral?

Did you just enter this thread? Go back and READ. I'm not repeating myself.

candela wrote:

Facebook Phil wrote:

45 and a parent

What possibly qualifies you to give advice about the sexual mores of teenagers...other than you were, up until recently, one of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I think that I could raise most children better than 95% of the population despite not being a parent.

If you want more evidence, no one in my family (we'll say all the way up to my great-grandparents, including cousins, etc.) has ever:

-had an unwanted pregnancy

-had an STD

-been arrested

-been homeless

-committed suicide

-failed a class

Everything I'm arguing comes from what my parents have instilled in me, and they in turn got it from their parents. Seems like pretty good parenting to me (if you want to call it brainwashing, go ahead).

Wow. Congratulations. High standards in that family of yours.

hey, could i get her phone number from you?

candela wrote:

I don't know what part of the world you're from, but your ideal of normal is very different than mine, and I believe most people (NOT most people on the internet by the way -- they are not representative of the population at large).

Get real.

I am a doctor who has worked in small towns and large cities all over the US, in general practices and emergency rooms.

The funny thing about moralizing twerps like you is that all of your daughters wind up coming to doctors when they pick up an STD or need the morning-after pill.

There is no question that the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans have sex before marriage. This isn't a matter that's up for debate, really. If you think otherwise you are simply out of touch.

your daughter's doctor wrote:

Get real.

I am a doctor who has worked in small towns and large cities all over the US, in general practices and emergency rooms.

The funny thing about moralizing twerps like you is that all of your daughters wind up coming to doctors when they pick up an STD or need the morning-after pill.

There is no question that the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans have sex before marriage. This isn't a matter that's up for debate, really. If you think otherwise you are simply out of touch.

The vehemence of your argument does not make your point correct. I hate to think an attitude like yours spills over into treating your patients, although I think it is much more likely that you are not, in fact, a doctor.

And (if you had read my earlier posts, which obviously you didn't), I said I would accept that last paragraph if someone could provide me with a primary source for data, which no one has done as of yet.

candela, you have made your position clear. By this point you have had some impact on those it might have done so and the rest are not in agreement with your opinion, which is that it is 'inherently wrong'. If that is grounded in religious belief (that fine, not complaining), then it is not something I want to bother arguing with you about because there is really no sense -- it is not a position that is determined from a logical basis but from a belief basis. The one set you can argue about and try to get the other party to see why your (general you, not candela) position makes sense. However, if the only way to 'convince' you is to get you to change your religious beliefs then I am not wanting to do that. They are your beliefs that are valid for you and probably for a large number of people that you know.

Having said that, I think that the rest of this 'discussion' should be just that, a discussion. The best way to do that is to completely ignore any more posts from candela because he has stated his position and he is not interested in dialog, just in an absolute.

So apparently, in addition to 90+ percent of the population having had premarital sex, 90+ percent also CANNOT READ. I wonder if the two groups are the same?

Since it is apparently too difficult, let me quote exactly what I wrote not two pages ago:

"...from here out I'm going to argue the point that premarital sex is "impractical" rather than "immoral", because all of the side discussions involving what constitutes "morality" distract from the greater point I am trying to make."

I suppose to understand candela correctly, we must adhere to his way of thinking, agree with his way of thinking and act accordingly with his way of thinking. Here's my response put simply: I've had premarital sex, and not a day go's by do I ever try to 'rationalize' it. You know why? I'm off living my life, and enjoying it and all the while having premarital sex.

Quit taking everything your philosophy professor or parents say as the end all be all, and come to your own conclusions, because quite frankly, your argument, as sophisticated as it might sound, really doesn't hold water when you think about it. To be considered married you need to have a certificate. Your telling me that if im engaged to someone, yet not married, I should not have sex. Let's be practical, Sex is a beautiful symbol of the connection between two people, not a beautiful symbol of having a marriage certificate. Furthermore, cut out the legal document and your left with 2 people who are the only one's that can decide when "it's right" to have sex. Not the bible, not society, nor your parents, and certainly not you.

Anbessa

Actually, you don't even have to go that far back. If you just scroll up to the top of the page, you will see

"My argument for the immorality of premarital sex is NOT based upon a religion".

And I know the response you are going to make, and before you make it, go read my other posts. Thanks.

HOLY CRAP. I'm interfacing with a bunch of animals that CANNOT READ. I'll quote myself again: "Do I care if you all practice pre-marital sex? Not at all. I'm not imposing anything on you. All that I said was that I personally thought it was wrong."

So where in the heck do you think saying "we must adhere to his way of thinking, agree with his way of thinking and act accordingly with his way of thinking" matches ANYTHING I've written?

Okay, let me make a new argument: in addition to pre-marital sex, why don't you just quit having sex in general? The fact that you (and your offspring) are unable to complete a task as basic as reading is a great travesty to humans in general.

candela wrote:

I said I would accept that last paragraph if someone could provide me with a primary source for data, which no one has done as of yet.

The Journal of Sex Research

The role of religion in shaping sexual frequency and satisfaction: evidence from married and unmarried older adults

SECTION: Pg. 297 Vol. 48 No. 2-3 ISSN: 0022-4499

LENGTH: 11142 words

A cross-sectional analysis of the religion--sex relationship among married American adults revealed that just under 30% of "very religious" respondents refrained from premarital sex, whereas only about 7% of nonreligious respondents abstained (Janus & Janus, 1993).

That's the problem, you've changed and manipulated your argument to cover anyone who poses a threat to your way of thinking. Fair enough, but as a fellow college graduate, I suppose I take pride in being able to read, so let me bring forth something i've read, written by you in the beginning of this thread; "Inherently wrong - Victimless Crime - Guilt". Please, stop trying to sound so enlightened and resorting to the "I'm dealing with illiterate people here, GOD DAMNIT, your all so unsophisticated" routine and spare me. Your 22, I happen to be 23, and lets be honest here, you've probably thought about sex just as much as me, stroked it just as much as me, yet you claim to be against pre-marital sex? There's a simple word for you: Hypocrite.

You can walk and talk like a bully, but in reality, your just afraid of the truth.

Anbessa