NationStates Jolt Archive

A) I dunno, but there's probably some sort of study...

B) THERE IS NO CHILD IN A WOMB. It's a fetus. Fetus =/= Child. If a child never exists, I can't see how it could have a bad life.

Proof that abortion is not good for the bastard fetus in the womb? You are really reaching when all you've got is quibbling about words.

Proof that abortion is not good for the bastard fetus in the womb? You are really reaching when all you've got is quibbling about words.

That would depend on your definition of good. Not to mention overlooking the fact that you reworded the problem unnecessarily.

Proof that abortion is not good for the bastard fetus in the womb? You are really reaching when all you've got is quibbling about words.

There is no "good" or "bad" to a parasitic, non-sapient life form.

Also, there is no "bastard" at that level either.

If you will read the thread you will notice that this has been answered.

A. If you will study the actual failure rates of birth control you will find that even for the pill they are rather high. I am not talking about the rates on the package that are based on controlled use, I'm talking about failure rates in the actual population. The odds are a woman that has regular sex will become pregnant.


And what's wrong with the other 11 forms? It's funny, I've had plenty of sex and I've never gotten pregnant. I'm allergic to latex, so you'd think I was at a disadvantage.

Proof that abortion is not good for the bastard fetus in the womb? You are really reaching when all you've got is quibbling about words.

We're not asking you for proof that it hurts the whatever-you-wanna-call-it in the womb. We're asking you why that's relevant, because in the end, there's still no child the woman has to take care of, same as if she used birth control.

And what's wrong with the other 11 forms? It's funny, I've had plenty of sex and I've never gotten pregnant. I'm allergic to latex, so you'd think I was at a disadvantage.

Aren't you a guy?:confused:

Show me a scientific study that shows that being black doesn't cause poverty. After all, people who would suggest that something about being black makes people poor are using the exact logic you are using - that correlation = causation. So, show me the study.

Being born black is detrimental to your success in the US. Your parents don't decide to make you black or white. Your parents do decide if you're a bastard or not. Both black and white parents (or green and blue parents) should do the things in their control to give their child the best odds possible. What's not in their control is sad but that's the way it is.

Aren't you a guy?:confused:

Snafturi is a lady. thankyouverymuch.

"A study of 2,746 women in the National Survey of Family Growth performed by Dr. Kahn of the University of Maryland and Dr. London of the National Center for Health Statistics found that nonvirgin brides increase their odds of divorce by about 60%." (http://www.members.aol.com/cohabiting/soc.htm)
According to Catholic teachings, sex outside of marriage is always a grave sin. (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/110/story_11090_1.html). It's pretty unfortunate that it's not taught or known like that. I'm not saying that anyone who has done it is going straight to hell, but knowing that it's wrong, and refusing to repent or anything is pretty bad. That's the Catholic view, just to be clear, and you can't call yourself a good Catholic without believing this to be true.

If you will read the thread you will notice that this has been answered.

A. If you will study the actual failure rates of birth control you will find that even for the pill they are rather high. I am not talking about the rates on the package that are based on controlled use, I'm talking about failure rates in the actual population. The odds are a woman that has regular sex will become pregnant.
1. That would be why it's important to make sure you use contraceptives correctly. The fact that people who don't wear their seatbelts are more likely to be killed in car crashes doesn't mean that they shouldn't put seatbelts in cars.
2. You do realise those probabilities are per year, not per event, yes?
3. Using one form of contraception doesn't prevent the use of all others. Probabilities of failure multiply to become smaller. significantly so. Let's do an example:

Assume female hormonal contraceptive, probability of success 95% over a year.
Assume condoms, probability of success 90% over a year.
Both of these, if you're being careful, are low estimates (they're typically 0.98+ and 0.95+, used properly, which is what those trials will tell you).

Therefore, the probability of them both failing in a year is 0.1 * 0.05 = 0.005, giving you a 99.5% chance of success over the year. One in two hundred couples are expected to suffer a failure.

Now, I don't know if you can assume that contraceptive success or failure year-after-year is a series of independent events (like rolling a die or tossing a coin would be; probability of success is the same every year), but it's not likely to be worse than that (ie. success this year means failure is more likely next year), so we'll use that model here.
Let's assume the couple use those contraceptives, carefully, for twenty years. The probability of success for every one of those years can be calculated (probability of success)^(number of years):

0.995 ^ 20 = 0.90461

So, if a series of independent events is an accurate model, the probability of success over 20 years is about 90.5%. Hardly "the odds are a woman who has regular sex will become pregnant".

B. I have mentioned several times the well being of the child both in the womb and outside. Both are worse for the bastard child.

No, you keep asserting that bastard child == child with only one parent, which isn't the same thing at all.

Ah, spotted in the preview:
The condom is about the worst method but if you want to use two types I won't object. How often does that happen in the real world?
Well, there are at least two such examples who've posted in this thread...
Actually, an advantage to condoms is that some of their failures are obvious to the users, allowing extra precautions to be taken.

And what's wrong with the other 11 forms? It's funny, I've had plenty of sex and I've never gotten pregnant. I'm allergic to latex, so you'd think I was at a disadvantage.

The pill is the most effective even in the general population, but not nearly as good as the controlled studies quoted on the box.

The other types lessen the odds but not as much as the pill. The point is in the general population there is a significant failure rate of even the best. An individual can beat the odds or can lose to the odds. Over a population there is a significant failure rate.

The pill is the most effective even in the general population, but not nearly as good as the controlled studies quoted on the box.

The other types lessen the odds but not as much as the pill. The point is in the general population there is a significant failure rate of even the best. An individual can beat the odds or can lose to the odds. Over a population there is a significant failure rate.

I can name three that are more effective off the top of my head:
1. IUD (metal or hormonal)
2. Norplant
3. Depo

Forget about those?

Edit: Two more:
1. Lunelle
2. Serilization

Being born black is detrimental to your success in the US. Your parents don't decide to make you black or white. Your parents do decide if you're a bastard or not. Both black and white parents (or green and blue parents) should do the things in their control to give their child the best odds possible. What's not in their control is sad but that's the way it is.

Being a bastard doesn't lower a person's worth except in the eyes of those who think marriage magically makes children superior to others. There are benefits to being raised by a single parent, and there are there benefits to being raised by two parents. It's all a matter of opinion.

The key difference is how much of a positive influence and role model the parent(s) is/are to their child(ren). You can have a child with two shitty parents, and they turn out bad.

You could just as easily have a child who is raised by one parent and they can turn out just fine and be a productive member of society.

I was raised by divorced parents and I choose in the end to live with my father because my mother was not the best parent; in fact, most days I found her to be insufferable and she hurt my self-worth more than she helped it. She was a negative person and it made me feel bad about myself. My father was a better role model in my eyes.

One of my friends in high school was a "bastard" but you know what? He was a good person and he had high ambitions. He had tried to do too much at once in his last year of school and had to cut back. He wanted to follow in his dad's footsteps. Even then, I don't see how being a bastard made him any less of a person.

Another friend of mine in high school was raised by just her mother for most of her life. They didn't have much money but the girl was smart and did incredibly well in school and was one of the nicest people I knew.

I knew more assholes who came from families that were whole/conventional/traditional rather than those that came from broken families. I found people from broken families easier to associate with and often nicer.

I can name three that are more effective off the top of my head:
1. IUD (metal or hormonal)
2. Norplant
3. Depo

Forget about those?

Is "Depo" the contraceptive injection? We don't use trade-names for most contraceptives... If you've not listed it, that's more effective than the pill too.

And GL: The cap is significantly less effective than condoms. Actually, I think it's less effective than "good" old coitus interruptus, too.

Is there a way to unread this thread? I want that time back and the space in my brain it's taking up. Watching someone make the same absurd arguments without any thought or reason to back them, without considering the arguments of others, just because he really, really wants to keep women from having and enjoying sex is just such a waste of my time that I feel like I need to run out and do a charity run or something to make up for it. The only response I can think of that is appropriate to the level of reason in the argument is...

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Is "Depo" the contraceptive injection? We don't use trade-names for most contraceptives... If you've not listed it, that's more effective than the pill too.

And GL: The cap is significantly less effective than condoms. Actually, I think it's less effective than "good" old coitus interruptus, too.

Yeah, sorry.

The generic list:
1. 2 different injectibles
2. 2 different forms of IUD
3. One underskin implant
4. Surgical sterilization.

Is there a way to unread this thread?
I hear denial is fashionable these days.

Is there a way to unread this thread? I want that time back and the space in my brain it's taking up. Watching someone make the same absurd arguments without any thought or reason to back them, without considering the arguments of others, just because he really, really wants to keep women from having and enjoying sex is just such a waste of my time that I feel like I need to run out and do a charity run or something to make up for it. The only response I can think of that is appropriate to the level of reason in the argument is...

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I regret stepping foot into this thread. Then again, we all know what they say about curiosity.

I regret stepping foot into this thread. Then again, we all know what they say about curiosity.

Curiosity mangled the cat. *nods*

The pill is the most effective even in the general population, but not nearly as good as the controlled studies quoted on the box.

The other types lessen the odds but not as much as the pill. The point is in the general population there is a significant failure rate of even the best. An individual can beat the odds or can lose to the odds. Over a population there is a significant failure rate.

But I'm not the population. I'm an individual and you're talking about individual actions that would lessen the chances of having a bastard child. Proper birth control adequately does that to a level of success that begins to become negligable. I could assume that for some reason I managed to actively engage in sex for 20 years that 95 % likelihood I'll never slip one past the goalie (of course, ignoring the morning after pill and the abilty to get an abortion which increases it to 100%) is too big of a risk, but that would simply be unreasonable and I don't see the value in moving into unreasonable argument. Obviously, you do, but it's not making anyone take it seriously. I'm more likely to be in a car accident. Perhaps I should sell my cars and hide in a padded room.

I regret stepping foot into this thread. Then again, we all know what they say about curiosity.

I did say... Still, at least Jocabia hasn't moaned about my statistics this time.

Yeah, sorry.

The generic list:
1. 2 different injectibles
2. 2 different forms of IUD
3. One underskin implant
4. Surgical sterilization.

Stop it, you. Women who have sex WILL get pregnant. Stop trying to make that statement look silly using reason. It's not fair.

But I'm not the population. I'm an individual and you're talking about individual actions that would lessen the chances of having a bastard child. Proper birth control adequately does that to a level of success that begins to become negligable. I could assume that for some reason I managed to actively engage in sex for 20 years that 95 % likelihood I'll never slip one past the goalie (of course, ignoring the morning after pill and the abilty to get an abortion which increases it to 100%) is too big of a risk, but that would simply be unreasonable and I don't see the value in moving into unreasonable argument. Obviously, you do, but it's not making anyone take it seriously. I'm more likely to be in a car accident. Perhaps I should sell my cars and hide in a padded room.

1000 (or was it 10000?) people a year die from unintentionally strangling themselves in their sleep, so you're still not safe.

I hear denial is fashionable these days.

It seems to be the primary argument against pre-marital sex.

Stop it, you. Women who have sex WILL get pregnant. Stop trying to make that statement look silly using reason. It's not fair.

Dammit. Well let me withdraw my previous statement and instead respond with the following: Bananas!

Sorry, I can't help to say this...



Yes, it is a mortal sin, and you will spend the rest of your days in the darkest depths of hell. Or not, your pick.


So this is my take..

unless you go to confession before you die. then it matters not one whit.

I did say...

And that's why I ran right over here.

"Don't go in there, you'll just end up stabbing your eyes out with a pencil."

Me: Hells yeah! I'm heading in now!

I have no idea what's wrong with me.

It seems to be the primary argument against pre-marital sex.

We could just hijack it and talk about cake?
It worked with the thread about Scientology and Tom Cruise in Germany...

I have no idea what's wrong with me.

I blame the bananas.


We could just hijack it and talk about cake?
It worked with the thread about Scientology and Tom Cruise in Germany...

Wait, Tom Cruise has cake?

*Worships*

What kind of cake?

unless you go to confession before you die. then it matters not one whit.

Or you can convert to Christianity and streamline the whole process. *nods*

Anyway, aren't all sins equal in the eyes of God?

unless you go to confession before you die. then it matters not one whit.

I think he might refer to Terry Pratchett's idea that the afterlife will be whatever you believed it to be while you were alive... so hell for you if you believe that you committed a mortal sin ;)

I blame the bananas.




Wait, Tom Cruise has cake?

*Worships*

What kind of cake?

Er... fruitcake?

I think he might refer to Terry Pratchett's idea that the afterlife will be whatever you believed it to be while you were alive... so hell for you if you believe that you committed a mortal sin ;)

If that's true, then my afterlife will be very confusing, waning and waxing in and out of existence with the rules changing all the time.

Or you can convert to Christianity and streamline the whole process. *nods*

Anyway, aren't all sins equal in the eyes of God?

Yep and I'm wearing cotton and wheat stalks. Darn. Hell, it is.

Oh dear, I think the logic has prevailed.

Oh dear, I think the logic has prevailed.

Logic? On NSG? That's an unsubstantiated rumour...

Er... fruitcake?

With marzipan? Like Christmas cake?

Please? *Flutters eyelashes*

With marzipan? Like Christmas cake?

Please? *Flutters eyelashes*

Call me squeamish, but I somehow don't want to imagine Tom Cruise covered in marzipan

Yep and I'm wearing cotton and wheat stalks. Darn. Hell, it is.

And why are you sending the nutcase beacon up?

Call me squeamish, but I somehow don't want to imagine Tom Cruise covered in marzipan

squeamish!

oh and marzipan=fail
Tom Cruise=double fail

cover Tom Cruise in marzipan and the world is doomed, it would be like the unbeatable almond villain.

Logic? On NSG? That's an unsubstantiated rumour...

Yeah, but you know what beats logic don't you?

:sniper::sniper::mp5::upyours::gundge::gundge::rolleyes:


^That post pwns all.

Logic? On NSG? That's an unsubstantiated rumour...

but ma-awm those are the best kinds of rumors!

squeamish!

oh and marzipan=fail
Tom Cruise=double fail

cover Tom Cruise in marzipan and the world is doomed, it would be like the unbeatable almond villain.

Sigged!

oh and marzipan=fail

Heathen! Heretic! Unbeliever! And stuff!

Marzipan = WIN, in bold capitals forty lightyears tall.

It's so much win that anything it contacts is win. Even Tom Cruise. Even if I have to eat it from his naked body, although I'd prefer it if he wore clingfilm or something underneath the marzipan for hygeine.

Marzipan is just awesome.

but ma-awm those are the best kinds of rumors!

I'm not saying we should stop them, am I??
There'll always be unsuspecting noobs expecting logic and sanity here... *manic laughter*

Heathen! Heretic! Unbeliever! And stuff!

Marzipan = WIN, in bold capitals forty lightyears tall.

It's so much win that anything it contacts is win. Even Tom Cruise. Even if I have to eat it from his naked body, although I'd prefer it if he wore clingfilm or something underneath the marzipan for hygeine.

Marzipan is just awesome.

the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Marzipan is responsible for countless evil deeds, including the invasion of the evil mini-strawberries of 99

I say premarital sex is a sin if you're bad at it. So cut it out Snafturi.

I say premarital sex is a sin if you're bad at it. So cut it out Snafturi.

I am not!:eek:

Being born black is detrimental to your success in the US. Your parents don't decide to make you black or white. Your parents do decide if you're a bastard or not. Both black and white parents (or green and blue parents) should do the things in their control to give their child the best odds possible. What's not in their control is sad but that's the way it is.

In other words, you don't have a study demonstrating causation in either case. Gotcha.

Come back and make your claims when you have actual evidence, kk?

I say premarital sex is a sin if you're bad at it. So cut it out Snafturi.

But....how are you supposed to get good at it without practice?

the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Marzipan is responsible for countless evil deeds, including the invasion of the evil mini-strawberries of 99

But, no... Marzipan! http://209.85.12.231/html/emoticons/wub.gif http://209.85.12.231/html/emoticons/wub.gif http://209.85.12.231/html/emoticons/wub.gif

It's like the root of all that is good, but more so. And I don't know what you're going on about with the strawberries, but I'll eat them too. Especially with marzipan.

But....how are you supposed to get good at it without practice?

Who says you can't practice? But practice alone. No one needs to see you fumbling around trying to figure out where all your sensitive parts are or trying to control your obvious overzeal. Again points at Snafturi.

Who says you can't practice? But practice alone. No one needs to see you fumbling around trying to figure out where all your sensitive parts are or trying to control your obvious overzeal. Again points at Snafturi.

It's like building bridges; you have to read loads of books, take loads of tests and practice on loads of computer simulations before you're allowed to try it in real life.

It's like building bridges; you have to read loads of books, take loads of tests and practice on loads of computer simulations before you're allowed to try it in real life.

Exactly. And before you're permitted to put lives in danger you have to pass a final standardized test administered and created by old professionals. *nods*

Exactly. And before you're permitted to put lives in danger you have to pass a final standardized test administered and created by old professionals. *nods*

I failed mine 172 times before they caught on ¬_¬

Exactly. And before you're permitted to put lives in danger you have to pass a final standardized test administered and created by old professionals. *nods*

And this, right here, is a far, far better reason to be celibate than because god said so.

Or you can convert to Christianity and streamline the whole process. *nods*

Anyway, aren't all sins equal in the eyes of God?

dont EVEN get me started on protestant beliefs. i "lectured" my son about it for an hour after he told me about a minister who got canned for suggesting that it should be OK for gays to be members of their church.

I think he might refer to Terry Pratchett's idea that the afterlife will be whatever you believed it to be while you were alive... so hell for you if you believe that you committed a mortal sin ;)

but surely if you believe in "mortal sin" you also believe that there are ways to get it expunged from your record.

squeamish!

oh and marzipan=fail
Tom Cruise=double fail

cover Tom Cruise in marzipan and the world is doomed, it would be like the unbeatable almond villain.

yeah but what if you sat tom cruise on a pan of brownies then covered him with fudge sauce....

Who says you can't practice? But practice alone. No one needs to see you fumbling around trying to figure out where all your sensitive parts are or trying to control your obvious overzeal. Again points at Snafturi.

But shouldn't I have a sparring partner when I get decent at the solo moves?

But shouldn't I have a sparring partner when I get decent at the solo moves?

When you get decent. And even then you should practice sparring before the real match.

When you get decent. And even then you should practice sparring before the real match.

ummm

hire a professional whose job it is to help you do better?

ummm

hire a professional whose job it is to help you do better?

Risky business. Those professionals are currently in an unregulated industry, so there's no telling what their qualifications might be, or if their resume is legit.

Risky business. Those professionals are currently in an unregulated industry, so there's no telling what their qualifications might be, or if their resume is legit.

We should regulate it! Also, they should have to provide references - with video documentation of the jobs they've done.

We should regulate it! Also, they should have to provide references - with video documentation of the jobs they've done.

I agree. In fact, those videos should be made free on the internet so that anyone can hire them when they need to by merely checking their qualifications...

Risky business. Those professionals are currently in an unregulated industry, so there's no telling what their qualifications might be, or if their resume is legit.

hmmm

maybe they should start a sexual sparring association so that one can find qualified professionals...

We should regulate it! Also, they should have to provide references - with video documentation of the jobs they've done.

Heh. Jobs. I think the way you think. But then you're married, so you're allowed to.

Heh. Jobs. I think the way you think. But then you're married, so you're allowed to.

LOL.

Of course, there's no reason that work and play can't be mixed in this arena, eh?

Exactly. And before you're permitted to put lives in danger you have to pass a final standardized test administered and created by old professionals. *nods*

And now we get to the heart of the matter...

dont EVEN get me started on protestant beliefs. i "lectured" my son about it for an hour after he told me about a minister who got canned for suggesting that it should be OK for gays to be members of their church.

I love the nutcases. "Let's ignore 90% of the Bible in favor of three very obscure passages."

I love the nutcases. "Let's ignore 90% of the Bible in favor of three very obscure passages."

Actually, you should. Jesus made it clear what we are to believe and summed it up in a couple of passages. Unfortunately, these people wouldn't know those passages if it was tattooed on the inside of their eyelids.

Actually, you should. Jesus made it clear what we are to believe and summed it up in a couple of passages. Unfortunately, these people wouldn't know those passages if it was tattooed on the inside of their eyelids.

1Timothy 6-7
Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions

Show me one scientific study that doesn't use statistical analysis?


Analytical chemistry - which I do for a living.

It relies on specific results of specific tests.

Straight off the top of my head, because it's what I do.

You need to speak up, your pants are muffling your argument.


While you're at it show me one scientific study that shows a bastard child has better odds than a child in a married family. It matters not if that is the only statistical contributor (which of course it isn't) or if it is one of several contributors. All of the other things mentioned in this thread can be contributing but that doesn't eliminate a missing father as contributing to the problem.

I don't need to. You've completely failed to show causality. until you can present even a suggestion of support for your 'argument', there is no need to defeat it.

The prosecution has provided many sources. The defense has provided none.

This is, quite simply, a lie.

The 'prosecution' (as it would like to style itself, perhaps) has shown suggestions of CORRELATION, but no evidence of CAUSALITY.

Matthew 22: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

I can name three that are more effective off the top of my head:
1. IUD (metal or hormonal)
2. Norplant
3. Depo

Forget about those?

Edit: Two more:
1. Lunelle
2. Sterilization

Anal is quite effective at preventing pregnancy... as is any (other) same-sex intercourse. :)

Matthew 22: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

It's amazing how many people forget that. Hence the Timothy quote.

I love the nutcases. "Let's ignore 90% of the Bible in favor of three very obscure passages."

its the part where they excuse all the sins that THEY commit and condemn this "sin" that they dont commit as somehow unforgiveable. (didnt smunkee make a post on that concept recently?)

its the part where they excuse all the sins that THEY commit and condemn this "sin" that they dont commit as somehow unforgiveable. (didnt smunkee make a post on that concept recently?)

She might have, I haven't been on general lately.

I just love how they just throw Jesus's own words aside. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but it must be evil. Jesus spoke strongly against divorce, but it must really be okay. I mean, it would be too inconvenient if we were really condemned to hell for divorcing.

And I love pointing this out to them, and I just get a blank stare or a "I never read that." Because, you know, who reads the Gospels? Why would a records of Jesus's teachings be important?

Anyway, that's my rant.

And what's wrong with the other 11 forms? It's funny, I've had plenty of sex and I've never gotten pregnant. I'm allergic to latex, so you'd think I was at a disadvantage.
Shockingly, I too have been involved in frequent, shameless, premarital sex, for upwards of a decade at this point. I have produced precisely zero bastards.

I'm not bothering to reply to any of the hoo-hah from GL, because he very clearly didn't trouble to actually read what I wrote, but I must say that reading recent pages of this thread has been extremely entertaining. And greatly uplifting, too, since it reminds me once again that this forum is primarily full of informed, intelligent, bitingly witty folks. You know who you are. :D

She might have, I haven't been on general lately.

I just love how they just throw Jesus's own words aside. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but it must be evil. Jesus spoke strongly against divorce, but it must really be okay. I mean, it would be too inconvenient if we were really condemned to hell for divorcing.

And I love pointing this out to them, and I just get a blank stare or a "I never read that." Because, you know, who reads the Gospels? Why would a records of Jesus's teachings be important?

Anyway, that's my rant.

To be fair, they probably never read the other passages either. They were just told that such passages exist by a preacher.

Shockingly, I too have been involved in frequent, shameless, premarital sex, for upwards of a decade at this point. I have produced precisely zero bastards.

I've been sexually active for, oh, lets see....7 years? During at least the past 4 years, the only method of birth control used has been the birth control pill. I've yet to produce any bastards (not that they would be "bastards" now). I've only had one or two pregnancy scares (and those were more me getting freaked out over a day or two than anything really convincing). Either I've seriously beat the odds, or the odds simply aren't what they're made out to be.

She might have, I haven't been on general lately.

I just love how they just throw Jesus's own words aside. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but it must be evil. Jesus spoke strongly against divorce, but it must really be okay. I mean, it would be too inconvenient if we were really condemned to hell for divorcing.

And I love pointing this out to them, and I just get a blank stare or a "I never read that." Because, you know, who reads the Gospels? Why would a records of Jesus's teachings be important?

Anyway, that's my rant.

that was part of the lecture (rant) that i was giving my son. one should ignore the "words in red" at one's own peril.

whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers that you do unto me, so they kick the gay tolerant guy out of their church (and disallow gay members)

I've been sexually active for, oh, lets see....7 years? During at least the past 4 years, the only method of birth control used has been the birth control pill. I've yet to produce any bastards (not that they would be "bastards" now). I've only had one or two pregnancy scares (and those were more me getting freaked out over a day or two than anything really convincing). Either I've seriously beat the odds, or the odds simply aren't what they're made out to be.
Heck, if we're talking about odds then I can beat any of them out there.

I can say, with absolute 100% certainty, that I will never have a child unless I fully and completely plan and intend to do so. There is exactly zero chance that I will ever have a baby that I'm not prepared to rear. No matter how much pre-marital, post-marital, extra-marital, or uber-marital sex I have in my lifetime, the statistical odds of me producing an unwanted child are zilch. Zip. Nothing. Nada.

Meanwhile, I already know at least three married couples who have "oops babies." Marriage isn't a magical contraceptive, and it certainly isn't a magic bullet for solving people's personal problems and turning them into super parents.

There are a lot of people who are good at being a spouse, but shitty at being a parent. And there are a lot of people who are great parents but shitty spouses. (I'm the former, and I have a strong suspicion that my brother will turn out to be the latter.) There are some wonderful folks who are great at both (like my parents), and there are some wonderful folks who stink at both.

The key is to not try to force everybody to live the same freaking life. That's just stupid.

The key is to not try to force everybody to live the same freaking life. That's just stupid.

Bah! That's crazy talk. Everyone should live the way I live.

In other words, you don't have a study demonstrating causation in either case. Gotcha.

Come back and make your claims when you have actual evidence, kk?

You remind me of all the conservatives that deny every study that disagrees with their preconceived decision. They deny evolution because even if every study shows it they demand that final "missing link". They deny global warming because they deny every study saying there isn't a "causal link". The tobacco companies denied any health links for 50 years because there was no "causal link". The auto companies argued against seat belts because there were so few in use that there could not be a "causal link" and nobody would pay an extra $25 for a car with seat belts without 50 years of study.

If you honestly look at all of the scientific evidence you will find that every study sees a "causal link" between a fatherless home and nearly all of the problems of youth. I listed the top 20 or so. I could have listed another hundred without finding one that denies a "causal link".

The research is over. There is evolution. There is global warming. Seatbelts do save lives. There is in every study ever done on the subject, including all of those I listed and the hundreds (maybe thousands) that I didn't list a link between problems of youth and fatherless homes. Out of the thousands available, if there would be just one exception, I'm sure you would list it. I have that much faith in you.

You remind me of all the conservatives that deny every study that disagrees with their preconceived decision.

Oh, the irony. Kind of like you did with every bit of evidence about birth control. You've been spouting nonsense for an entire thread about things you either don't understand or don't care to get right.

For example, do you know what went down when abortion was legalized? Guess what? Teenage pregnancy and unwanted children. If you cared about real evidence you should be holding up abortion as the end to all problems and suggesting that anyone not prepared to raise a child get one. You don't. Why? Because sex is evil and anything that allows people to have sex without affecting children by bringing them unwanted into the world would prevent you from your mysogynistic rants against sex.

It's okay. We recognize your motives no matter how you try to present them. Incidentally, so does God.

You remind me of all the conservatives that deny every study that disagrees with their preconceived decision.

Project much? Your actions are actually very reminiscient of fundamentalists and hard-line conservatives. You have decided that something is a fact and you are now going to interpret any and all evidence to back up that idea, despite the fact that none of it can directly lead to that conclusion.

You've shown a correlation. Congratulations. But that isn't even half of the work. All sorts of things correlate with "single-parent household." This doesn't not mean that they are caused by a single-parent household. Demonstrating causation is the real work.

If you honestly look at all of the scientific evidence you will find that every study sees a "causal link" between a fatherless home and nearly all of the problems of youth. I listed the top 20 or so. I could have listed another hundred without finding one that denies a "causal link".

Incorrect. You didn't list a single "causal link." You gave us correlation. Until you can give some evidence as to the mechanism by which a "fatherless home" causes these things, you have not provided any evidence whatsoever for causation. That's the problem here and actual evidence of causation is exactly what I've been asking for, and exactly what you have been unable to present.

Oh, the irony. Kind of like you did with every bit of evidence about birth control. You've been spouting nonsense for an entire thread about things you either don't understand or don't care to get right.

For example, do you know what went down when abortion was legalized? Guess what? Teenage pregnancy and unwanted children. If you cared about real evidence you should be holding up abortion as the end to all problems and suggesting that anyone not prepared to raise a child get one. You don't. Why? Because sex is evil and anything that allows people to have sex without affecting children by bringing them unwanted into the world would prevent you from your mysogynistic rants against sex.

It's okay. We recognize your motives no matter how you try to present them. Incidentally, so does God.

I'm old enough to remember when abortion was legalized and would never wish to return to those times. I remember the "butcher shop" back door abortions. But abortion is a "better" solution not a "good" solution. I know of 5 abortions among women that I am close to. None of the women would describe it as a good solution, only one that was the best of bad solutions.

Personally I think sex is great. I will take sex 24-7 if available. But that is the animal in me. The human understands the risks and rewards of the sex act. I also am very close to children (now teens to late 20s) that have suffered because of their parent's uncaring lust. Their life is ok but even they recognize that the loss they suffered. Some have reacted with bouncing from bed to bed themselves, others have become overly prudish in reaction to the same stimulus.

People are very strong creatures. They can survive and even be relatively happy under far less than ideal conditions. But I would want my children to be given as many advantages as possible. I want them to live a good life not an ok life where they need extra strength to overcome the circumstances of their birth and upbringing.

You want evidence of birth control--here it is. Please note that I'm the only one on this thread to provide evidence. And as with fatherless homes this is only one of hundreds that say the same thing.



http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/effectivenessbc.htm?r=9I

Contraceptive Effectiveness
From Tracee Cornforth,
Your Guide to Women's Health.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Fifty-three percent of unplanned pregnancies occur in women who are using contraceptives. When choosing a method of birth control women often consider the published success/ failure rates for the method they are considering. However, these rates are based on "perfect use" by women--that means using the method exactly as prescribed during every act of sexual intercourse.

The failure rates for a given method of birth control may actually be much higher during "typical use" than you might expect:
Typical Contraceptive Failure Rates

* Implants and injectables
2-4%

* Oral contraceptives
9%

* Diaphragm and cervical cap
13%

* Male condom
15%

* Periodic abstinence
22%

* Withdrawal
26%

* Spermicides
28%

Who is Most at Risk for Contraceptive Failure?

* Cohabiting women.

* Unmarried women.

* Women who live below 200% of the poverty level.

* Black women.

* Hispanic women.

* Adolescents.

* Women in their 20's.

The success or failure of various methods of birth control vary according to several factors.

I'm old enough to remember when abortion was legalized and would never wish to return to those times. I remember the "butcher shop" back door abortions. But abortion is a "better" solution not a "good" solution. I know of 5 abortions among women that I am close to. None of the women would describe it as a good solution, only one that was the best of bad solutions.

Personally I think sex is great. I will take sex 24-7 if available. But that is the animal in me. The human understands the risks and rewards of the sex act. I also am very close to children (now teens to late 20s) that have suffered because of their parent's uncaring lust. Their life is ok but even they recognize that the loss they suffered. Some have reacted with bouncing from bed to bed themselves, others have become overly prudish in reaction to the same stimulus.

People are very strong creatures. They can survive and even be relatively happy under far less than ideal conditions. But I would want my children to be given as many advantages as possible. I want them to live a good life not an ok life where they need extra strength to overcome the circumstances of their birth and upbringing.

You want evidence of birth control--here it is. Please note that I'm the only one on this thread to provide evidence. And as with fatherless homes this is only one of hundreds that say the same thing.



http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/effectivenessbc.htm?r=9I

Contraceptive Effectiveness
From Tracee Cornforth,
Your Guide to Women's Health.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Fifty-three percent of unplanned pregnancies occur in women who are using contraceptives. When choosing a method of birth control women often consider the published success/ failure rates for the method they are considering. However, these rates are based on "perfect use" by women--that means using the method exactly as prescribed during every act of sexual intercourse.

The failure rates for a given method of birth control may actually be much higher during "typical use" than you might expect:
Typical Contraceptive Failure Rates

* Implants and injectables
2-4%

* Oral contraceptives
9%

* Diaphragm and cervical cap
13%

* Male condom
15%

* Periodic abstinence
22%

* Withdrawal
26%

* Spermicides
28%

Who is Most at Risk for Contraceptive Failure?

* Cohabiting women.

* Unmarried women.

* Women who live below 200% of the poverty level.

* Black women.

* Hispanic women.

* Adolescents.

* Women in their 20's.

The success or failure of various methods of birth control vary according to several factors.

OK, let's do a typical multi-factor run:

Condom*Withdrawl*Contraceptives

So, the odds of failure are:

.15*.26*.09, or 0.00351, or 0.351%. Pretty low odds.

Project much? Your actions are actually very reminiscient of fundamentalists and hard-line conservatives. You have decided that something is a fact and you are now going to interpret any and all evidence to back up that idea, despite the fact that none of it can directly lead to that conclusion.

You've shown a correlation. Congratulations. But that isn't even half of the work. All sorts of things correlate with "single-parent household." This doesn't not mean that they are caused by a single-parent household. Demonstrating causation is the real work.



Incorrect. You didn't list a single "causal link." You gave us correlation. Until you can give some evidence as to the mechanism by which a "fatherless home" causes these things, you have not provided any evidence whatsoever for causation. That's the problem here and actual evidence of causation is exactly what I've been asking for, and exactly what you have been unable to present.

And you have provided nothing, zip, zilch, zed, nada.

OK, let's do a typical multi-factor run:

Condom*Withdrawl*Contraceptives

So, the odds of failure are:

.15*.26*.09, or 0.00351, or 0.351%. Pretty low odds.

15% is 1 in 7

26% is 1 in 4

9% is just short of 1 in 10

If I told you that you had a 1 in 10 chance of dieing tomorrow I doubt if you would call that low odds. But if I tell you that you might do an act that has a 1 in 10 chance of effecting a person for the next 80 years that's low odds?

15% is 1 in 7

26% is 1 in 4

9% is just short of 1 in 10

If I told you that you had a 1 in 10 chance of dieing tomorrow I doubt if you would call that low odds. But if I tell you that you might do an act that has a 1 in 10 chance of effecting a person for the next 80 years that's low odds?

Yes, comparatively. Why?

Chaos Theory. My actions have a near 100% chance of affecting someone. :)

15% is 1 in 7

26% is 1 in 4

9% is just short of 1 in 10

If I told you that you had a 1 in 10 chance of dieing tomorrow I doubt if you would call that low odds. But if I tell you that you might do an act that has a 1 in 10 chance of effecting a person for the next 80 years that's low odds?

You want people to be proactive. This is the odds not used properly. It's a fact that if you're taught to use these contraceptives properly the odds get much better.

It's also a fact that there is no requirement to use them alone, you seem set on only looking at them alone.

You're talking about with proper usage a 1 in 20 chance of getting pregnant over 20 years or regular sex. 1 in 20.

If I said you had a 1 in 20 chance of getting sick in the next 20 years you'd kiss me on the mouth.

It's also, of course, true that if these women had better access to education about these methods, about usage, and help for finding a birth control suited to them (for example for my sister the pill has no effect whatsoever, but most poor people would never be able to find that out). The problem is that instead of opening our eyes and addressing the FACT that women have sex, we instead scream lalalala and refuse them birth control, education, and proper support replacing it with dumb abstinence claims.

You want people to be proactive. This is the odds not used properly. It's a fact that if you're taught to use these contraceptives properly the odds get much better.

It's also a fact that there is no requirement to use them alone, you seem set on only looking at them alone.

You're talking about with proper usage a 1 in 20 chance of getting pregnant over 20 years or regular sex. 1 in 20.

If I said you had a 1 in 20 chance of getting sick in the next 20 years you'd kiss me on the mouth.

And then ironically get sick from some germ/virus you had. :p

I'm old enough to remember when abortion was legalized and would never wish to return to those times. I remember the "butcher shop" back door abortions. But abortion is a "better" solution not a "good" solution. I know of 5 abortions among women that I am close to. None of the women would describe it as a good solution, only one that was the best of bad solutions.

Personally I think sex is great. I will take sex 24-7 if available. But that is the animal in me. The human understands the risks and rewards of the sex act. I also am very close to children (now teens to late 20s) that have suffered because of their parent's uncaring lust. Their life is ok but even they recognize that the loss they suffered. Some have reacted with bouncing from bed to bed themselves, others have become overly prudish in reaction to the same stimulus.

People are very strong creatures. They can survive and even be relatively happy under far less than ideal conditions. But I would want my children to be given as many advantages as possible. I want them to live a good life not an ok life where they need extra strength to overcome the circumstances of their birth and upbringing.

You want evidence of birth control--here it is. Please note that I'm the only one on this thread to provide evidence. And as with fatherless homes this is only one of hundreds that say the same thing.



http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/effectivenessbc.htm?r=9I

Contraceptive Effectiveness
From Tracee Cornforth,
Your Guide to Women's Health.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Fifty-three percent of unplanned pregnancies occur in women who are using contraceptives. When choosing a method of birth control women often consider the published success/ failure rates for the method they are considering. However, these rates are based on "perfect use" by women--that means using the method exactly as prescribed during every act of sexual intercourse.

The failure rates for a given method of birth control may actually be much higher during "typical use" than you might expect:
Typical Contraceptive Failure Rates

* Implants and injectables
2-4%

* Oral contraceptives
9%

* Diaphragm and cervical cap
13%

* Male condom
15%

* Periodic abstinence
22%

* Withdrawal
26%

* Spermicides
28%

Who is Most at Risk for Contraceptive Failure?

* Cohabiting women.

* Unmarried women.

* Women who live below 200% of the poverty level.

* Black women.

* Hispanic women.

* Adolescents.

* Women in their 20's.

The success or failure of various methods of birth control vary according to several factors.

You mean the people who we don't properly educate are the most likely to have contraceptive failure. Shut up. That just makes too much sense. Let's blame sex. It's funny that you know this information and you don't see the flaw in your correllation studies. You don't even pretend to be analyzing this.

Meanwhile, so you listed a form of birth control when used alone and having regular sex for a year has only a 1 in 50 chance of failure with a back solution. I'd say that's awesome really. You should be recommending the injection rather than abstaining from sex. But you didn't.

And since we don't want disease we can make that 1 in 200 simply by using a condom. Perfect. Most condoms have spermicides. 1 in 800.

Wow, those are damn good odds. And only if I have sex regularly for a year.

I love your links. They show how stupid your argument is. Present more evidence for our case. Sounds good to me.

And you have provided nothing, zip, zilch, zed, nada.

Why should I? I'm not the one making an assertion here. You are. All I'm asking is that you actually back it up. Correlation is the first step. Now I'm asking to see causation.

Why should I? I'm not the one making an assertion here. You are. All I'm asking is that you actually back it up. Correlation is the first step. Now I'm asking to see causation.

He proved it. He also proved that poverty and hardship are CAUSED by being black. Didn't you notice?

http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/effectivenessbc.htm?r=9I

The failure rates for a given method of birth control may actually be much higher during "typical use" than you might expect:
Typical Contraceptive Failure Rates

* Implants and injectables 2-4%

* Oral contraceptives 9%

* Diaphragm and cervical cap 13%

* Male condom 15%

* Periodic abstinence 22%

* Withdrawal 26%

* Spermicides 28%

You still don't have your stats right. Injections, implants, IUD's have less than a 1% failure rate per the FDA (http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html). I'd trust them over some cheesy magazine.

And weren't you just saying that the pill was the most effective methosd of birthcontrol?
The pill is the most effective even in the general population, but not nearly as good as the controlled studies quoted on the box.

He proved it. He also proved that poverty and hardship are CAUSED by being black. Didn't you notice?

Hmmmm. I guess not. I suppose that means I'm like conservatives who bitch about evolution, eh?

Though I personally believe that premarital sex is a sin, I recognize that this belief may not be for all, and would not attempt to force this belief on anybody else. Besides, they wouldn't listen anyway. People just need to go out there and do what they need to do to get them through to tomorrow, and then learn from their mistakes in life, and make whatever changes in their lives that they deem necessary. But ask yourself this..... How many hedonists do you know that are really happy? Do they really feel fulfilled in their choice? And most importantly, would that work for you?

I wouldn't volunteer, but you did ask.

Though I personally believe that premarital sex is a sin, I recognize that this belief may not be for all, and would not attempt to force this belief on anybody else. Besides, they wouldn't listen anyway. People just need to go out there and do what they need to do to get them through to tomorrow, and then learn from their mistakes in life, and make whatever changes in their lives that they deem necessary. But ask yourself this..... How many hedonists do you know that are really happy? Do they really feel fulfilled in their choice? And most importantly, would that work for you?

I wouldn't volunteer, but you did ask.

Personally, I could never do the casual sex thing. While I admit to some curiosity about it, I've never really been interested in doing it.

I do have a friend who had only been in fairly long-term relationships and decided to try it. For her, it was not satisfying and even her "casual" sexual relationships were like mini-long-term relationships. They were still monogamous, just shorter. (Note: I'm not saying this would happen toe veryone, just that it was the case with her).

Personally, I could never do the casual sex thing. While I admit to some curiosity about it, I've never really been interested in doing it.

I do have a friend who had only been in fairly long-term relationships and decided to try it. For her, it was not satisfying and even her "casual" sexual relationships were like mini-long-term relationships. They were still monogamous, just shorter. (Note: I'm not saying this would happen toe veryone, just that it was the case with her).

Yeah, I think good sex requires a relationship. Not everyone would agree, but that's my take. This really has nothing to do with whether or not pre-marital sex is bad, however.

Dem: Did you get my message? Were you interested?

Yeah, I think good sex requires a relationship. Not everyone would agree, but that's my take. This really has nothing to do with whether or not pre-marital sex is bad, however.

Indeed.

Dem: Did you get my message? Were you interested?

Yup. I meant to answer it, but forgot. Hehe. I'll answer it now.

Indeed.



Yup. I meant to answer it, but forgot. Hehe. I'll answer it now.

I gave you a detailed reply. I hope to see you. We probably won't start till tomorrow.

Gee, I remember back when I used to have long, deep, introspective thoughts wondering about the morality and sinfullness of pre-marital sex.

I used to do that a lot back in high school ..... usually while I was f*cking my girlfriend.

It probably wouldn't have crossed my mind except that she was a good catholic girl revelling in her naughtiness and just waiting to get to go and confess it all just to imagine her priest blushing on the other side of the wall.



So, you can probably guess my answer to the question at hand.

it's not a sin, and it's not immoral, it's like going to a baseball game, you either do or you don't, either way, it doesn't matter

P.S.- I don't believe in premarital sex for me personally, I don't know why, I just don't, but to those who do, Rock On!!

Though I personally believe that premarital sex is a sin, I recognize that this belief may not be for all, and would not attempt to force this belief on anybody else. Besides, they wouldn't listen anyway. People just need to go out there and do what they need to do to get them through to tomorrow, and then learn from their mistakes in life, and make whatever changes in their lives that they deem necessary. But ask yourself this..... How many hedonists do you know that are really happy? Do they really feel fulfilled in their choice? And most importantly, would that work for you?

I wouldn't volunteer, but you did ask.

*raises hand*
Happy as pink bunny in a Disney movie! :D

erotic gratification is not directly, in and of itself, a moral question, but rather one of the exercise of specific beliefs.

morality is about the avoidance of causing suffering.

there is of course potential for the two intersecting in a few specific contexts, but the prevailing assumption in the dominant culture of their congruence is absurd.

=^^=
.../\...

You remind me of all the conservatives that deny every study that disagrees with their preconceived decision. They deny evolution because even if every study shows it they demand that final "missing link". They deny global warming because they deny every study saying there isn't a "causal link". The tobacco companies denied any health links for 50 years because there was no "causal link". The auto companies argued against seat belts because there were so few in use that there could not be a "causal link" and nobody would pay an extra $25 for a car with seat belts without 50 years of study.

Here's the difference: you haven't provided a single study showing causality. There are ample studies demonstrating the activity of carcinogens in tobacco smoke.

Just because you are too lazy to actually do your homework doesn't mean that everybody in every other subject area shares your attitude.

Put up or shut up. At this point, you're just embarrassing yourself.


If you honestly look at all of the scientific evidence you will find that every study sees a "causal link" between a fatherless home and nearly all of the problems of youth. I listed the top 20 or so. I could have listed another hundred without finding one that denies a "causal link".

If you honestly look at what you're posting, you'll find that none of what you posted has done what you claim. Indeed, most of the researchers in the field are themselves honest enough to admit that they are not showing a causal link.


The research is over. There is evolution. There is global warming. Seatbelts do save lives. There is in every study ever done on the subject, including all of those I listed and the hundreds (maybe thousands) that I didn't list a link between problems of youth and fatherless homes. Out of the thousands available, if there would be just one exception, I'm sure you would list it. I have that much faith in you.
We've already disproven the assertion that fatherlessness causes all the things you've listed. Multiple times. See, all we have to do to disprove that notion is provide a single example of a fatherless individual who does NOT suffer the fate that you describe. We can say, with 100% certainty, that fatherlessness itself does not necessarily cause any of what you say.

The reason that I think that refraining from premarital sex is bad is because of the lessons that I have learned in my own life.
When I was 14 I became head over heels in love with a girl my age named Elizabeth. We were together a while and I really wanted her to be my first. Heck, I wanted her to be my first and only ever. She told me that she loved me as much as I loved her.

She was poisoned by some "premarital sex is bad business." I never had sex with her but then she moved away across the country. I waited and waited and eventually I visited her about three years later when I was just a few weeks from 18. She still did not have sex with me and my willpower broke. I decided to sleep with the first willing girl that I could find and it was some ugly fat girl. Then I was with pretty girls but I always felt sad that it was not with that girl that I loved. The whole experience destroyed my self esteem. No matter how many beautiful women I would be with, I was always shy around women because I always thought "if Elizabeth did not want me and she loved me so much why would this girl...".

I was so sad and depressed while I waited to be with this girl sexually. I went to visit her after I finished law school and still nothing happened. Finally she got married. Only then did I allow myself to be married because I always hoped I would marry her. Still to this day I think how much better my life would have been if I had made love with her even just once. I still get really sad when I think about it.

If I ever have a child who gets that sex is bad brainwashing I will probably go nuts and scream my head off at my kid and whoever brainwashed them into such a twisted belief.

I honestly do not believe that God was impressed with me sufferring and thinks that this is a nice way to make somebody feel. I was so sad and hurt for so long and all because of this damned no sex before marriage bullshit. I did everything right. I never pressured her in any way to have sex with me and I neither had premarital nor post marital sex with her.

Though I personally believe that premarital sex is a sin, I recognize that this belief may not be for all, and would not attempt to force this belief on anybody else. Besides, they wouldn't listen anyway. People just need to go out there and do what they need to do to get them through to tomorrow, and then learn from their mistakes in life, and make whatever changes in their lives that they deem necessary. But ask yourself this..... How many hedonists do you know that are really happy? Do they really feel fulfilled in their choice? And most importantly, would that work for you?

I wouldn't volunteer, but you did ask.

there is some slight middle ground between madonna and whore.

(no not the freaking entertainer, grow up!)

i think it is very sensible for an engaged couple to have sex many times before the wedding day, for example. sex isnt everything in a marriage but sexual incompatibility is very hard to overcome.

No, and indeed it's quite fun.

The whole 'sin' thing relies on religion, which I'm not into so much. Still, each to their own and that.

There is in every study ever done on the subject, including all of those I listed and the hundreds (maybe thousands)...


You can arrive at a conclusion that ALL the studies 'ever done' agree, but you don't know how many there are? I assume, then - that you haven't actually correlated EVERY study?

What does that say about your assertion?


...that I didn't list a link between problems of youth and fatherless homes.

Even if there were concrete evidence of a 'link' - a link is correaltion, not evidence of cause.

I really don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp?

immoral or not, my two {verified} bastards are sure glad i did have pre marital sex.

I don't agree with the original poster's logic. I agree with all the repliers who said that it depends on your religion.

In Christianity, I know that premarital sex is clearly a sin. There are a ton of verses in the bible condemning fornication, explicitly. If you don't believe in Christianity, then...it's not a sin. Unless you believe in another religion that also condemns it.

Sin- religion based belief. I disagree, but each to his own.

you shouldnt have it for practical reasons- I disagree, but I can understand

immoral- a completley idiotic and deluded idea.