First, an interesting article in the NYTimes about sexuality and sexual desire. There's also another one that is, to put it frankly, about old peoples libidos. I found it refreshing that a major newspaper like the Times was pretty open about this kind of thing.
Even more surprising is New York City's new condom distribution plan. Basically, New York City has been giving out free condoms. Five million have been distributed so far. They've even got two short animations about the condoms (don't worry, the link is safe for work). The best part about the whole thing? Their slogan: "New York, we've got you covered." A major newspaper being explicit about sex and sexuality is one thing, a government agency being explicit and risque about it is even more amazing!
This isn't to say that all inhibitions about sex are bad. These inhibitions were sorely missed in the case where four middle school children had sex in a classroom while the teacher was out of the room. I'm not sure how something like this could happen. Is it glorification of sex in pop culture? Bad parenting? Declining sexual inhibitions?
Finally there is the case of an infertile woman* in Britain who is not allowed to use her frozen embryos that were inseminated by her partner. The man withdrew his consent to use the embryos because he did not want the emotional or financial burden of having someone raise his child. I feel sympathetic toward this woman, but I do think the court made the right decision.
Thoughts? Opinions? Comments?
*You might need a subscription to The Economist to read that article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I really don't know if I think the court made the right decision there. Doesn't make for a very good discussion. eh.
If you're coming at it from a pro-life perspective then I can see why you would think that. Is that your line of thinking or...?
Basically. Being pro-life myself, I think that those fertilized eggs are (probably) people who will now never live. Also, from the perspective of the woman, basically that's her eggs, her "half a person" that she can no longer contribute to a whole person.
Discussing whether or not a zygote has a right to life is something way behind the scope of all this. From the perspective of the court, the zygote is already assumed not to have a right to life.
Yes, but it is also half of the male. Shouldn't he have just as much say as the female?
Post a Comment