It seems recently that there was a huge debate on whether or not the Catholic Church should be made by the government to offer contraception through its medical plan. However, some people disagree with this idea just because they do not believe that contraception should be used at all due to religious views. However, I disagree with the Catholic Church on the fact that it is immoral and wrong to use contraception, however, I am not totally on the government's side either.
Before we put the carriage before the horse, we must first ask ourselves: What is contraception? By the books, it is any artificial means to prevent pregnancy. Most people when they hear the word contraception think of oral birth control (the pill) or even sometimes condoms. However, contraception can take the form of spermicides, which kill the sperm right on the spot, to an implantation ring in the woman to prevent ovulation, to a woman getting her tubes tied, or a man getting a vasectomy, which cuts part off the vasectomia, the tube that connects the testicles to the penis, and in doing so, ejaculation, or release of sperm cannot happen. Most of these methods are not one-hundred percent effective, but they do cut down on pregnancies by a considerable amount, and in most cases, they can be reversed, and the woman can still get pregnant when she so chooses.
So what if women use contraception, and so what if men use condoms? They can stop using those methods almost whenever, and most surgeries used to make sure people don't procreate are reversable.
The Catholic Church does not believe in the use of contraception do to the fact that inhibits the main use for sex: Procreating human life. After a major document called the Humanae Vitae(Human Life) was published by Pope Paul VI in 1968, the Catholic Church starting taking its stand against contraception. It stated that sex was for only creating human life, and any means that go against that is wrong. They also believe that the pleasure derived from sex is the pleasure that God gave us in order to create human life, and that the pleasure can help a married man and woman become closer in bondage ot each other and God.
I, for one, do believe in the use of contraception, especially oral contraception for women, if they are willing to use it. It helps cut down on unwanted pregnancy because let's face it, not everyone who has sex is actually capable of taking care of a child. It could prevent the baby from the unwanted pregnancy from growing up in an environment in which the parents can't take care of it, and it could save to parents financially, because lets face it, which would you rather do: pay about 40-50 dollars for contraception, or pay out thousands a year, taking care of a child, and giving up your free time? Now, I am not saying all pregnancies are bad; if you want to have a kid, then I support you full heartily, but as for those who don't, contraception is probably your best bet.
Even for those not sexually active, I still approve of women using the pill contraceptive due to the fact it can help with periods. It has been shown to reduce period cramp pains, and make periods lighter in women who took the pill. The reson being is the fact that the pill releases oestrogen and proestrogen, which help with periods. While these hormones help with period pain, they also can cause some problems, such as spotting between periods, and chances of worsening depression. However, despite this, the chances of any side effects happening is low, and the benefits are well worth it.
Another option for women is getting their tubes tied, which prevents the egg from entering the uterus. Women can still get a period, but they cannot have children while tubes are tied. This method actually has about a 99% pregnancy prevention rate, with the remaining one percent happening from scar tissue connecting the Fallopian tubes to the uterus causing the woman to get pregnant, and if she does get pregnant, and some of these will end an ectopic pregnancy, which means the sperm and egg do not unite in the uterus, usually in the Fallopian tubes, or even the ovarian cavity, where the eggs are stored. These pregnancies will usually end in miscarriage, and if not treated, can cause the death of the mother but can also lead to hemorrhaging. Tying a woman's tubes can increases these ectopic pregnancies, with chances of an ectopic pregnancy However, this is considered a permanent surgery, and even though it can be reversed, the fetility rates of the woman are incredibly low.
Contraception for a man, in some ways, be a little bit easier than contraception for a woman. They can use a condom, a piece of latex that wraps around the penis in order to prevent the sperm from entering the woman. However, there is almost no other contraception, except for withdrawal, which is the withdrawing of the penis before ejaculation,but that is not one-hundred percent effective. Also, there is no approved "male contraceptive pill," like there is a pill for women, and vasectomies are optional, but after getting it reversed, the fertility rates for men sink, but not as far as a woman getting her tubes tied, due the fact it can be reversed easier. The last resort for a man to become infertile is (men hold your balls) castration, however, this would render a man unable to have sex, and a practically useless form of sterilization.
I also do support birth control because is is our natural instinct to want to have sex during and after humans hit puberty. Our bodies start making the hormones needed for sex, and the ability to make children. However, since humans are a bit more complex than animals, we realize that having children too young is a bad thing, due to one: we don't have the means to take care of them, and two: it is frowned down upon society. Birth control allows us to act on our instincts without having to pay the price of having to carry a child for nine months, and perhaps can save the potential father a bunch of money in child support. For the social standard, we look down on sex because of religion, and also, I think that some people think that humans are above animals, so there for we don't have to follow our instinct, but we are animals, and we have those hormones.
With most birth control methods being reversible, then why are people against them? I think the reason why they are sometimes frowned upon is because of social customs. Birth control basically states that women can have sex with out getting pregnant, and in a society where virginity is sometimes valued, it can compromise those values. In most Christian societies, sex before marriage is considered a sin, and is looked upon as being forbidden, and especially Catholic Churches who lay heavily on that, it can be turned into a bad thing.
As I have stated before, the main use of contraception is to prevent men and women from making children, and this could be looked at potentially as "playing god." If you can prevent the creation of life, then you are wrong, due to the fact the act is supposed to be used for making children in the first place.
Another argument against contraception is that Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) can be more easily spread through out the human population due to an increase of casual sex. True, the pill does not protect against STIs, condoms can help prevent transmission of these infections, though success rate of stopping them is not one hundred percent. Adolescences and young adults up until age twenty-six can get a series of shots that helps prevent certain types of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which cause cervical cancer and genital warts.
Overall, I see contraception as a necessary thing to society, due to the fact it can allow people to follow their natural instincts to have sex, and not pay the consequences of having children. Also, it can help you women regulate their periods, and with men it could enable them to have sex with out worrying about child support. It is a necessary evil in my mind, and it can benefit society.
Showing posts with label argument. Show all posts
Showing posts with label argument. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Friday, October 14, 2011
Definition of a Loli
In recent debates with one of my friends, the thing of what makes a Lolita, or loli, a loli. Is it height? And how tall or short must a girl be to be qualified as a loli? Is it age? Is it breast size? Is it body type? On my quest to find out what a true loli is, we must find the origin and how it came to be.
The term "Lolita" first came in to use after a Russian Novel was written under the same name, written by Vladimir Nabokov. It brings about the use of sexual lust between a grown man and a thirteen year old girl. However, the man loses the girl to death, and tries to move on with his life. However, he becomes obsessed with the desire to have sex with sexually aware young girls. He eventually meets Delores, or known as Lolita, and almost stalks her. He keeps all recordings of their meetings in a little log book.
Now, in the book, Lolita is a young girl, around twelve years in age. Under the presumption that age makes a loli,then my friend calling me a loli would not be correct, as I am 18. If a loli is a minor, or under 18, then most people, by the time they get out of high school should not be called a loli.
But what if height makes the loli? In anime, a loli is considered just about anyone shorter than average. Also, these individuals may be falt chested, and they may act childish and innocent. However, in some anime, they girls are average height, like anime like Mahou Shoujo Madoka★Magica or in cases of anime like Chobits, the main heroines may all considered lolis because of the way they are drawn. In fact, most Mahou Shoujo, or Magical Girl, animes may be considered loli because the girls are usually flat chested, and child like, but they lack the height of a true loli. Anime that portray a true loli would a (quite frankly messed up) anime like Kodomo no Jikan. The girls are short, and they are in fact true lolis, age-wise, height wise, and breast size wise.
Also, it also bring in the question: what about boobs size? Loli's are known for their flat chested-ness. People claim that loli's can have bigger boobs, but i disagree. If they have bigger boobs, then I believe that they loose some of the child-like inocnce that lolis are supposed to have. Lolis plus bigger boobs to me is not possible. Lolis with bigger boobs look wrong, and it signals to me that they are not as innocent as they seem. Imagine a twelve year old with a full rack, and no hips? That to me is not a loli, that is called messed up twelve year old.
Body type is also an important factor in determining whether or not a person is a loli. A person with full hips to me can not be considered a loli. They are not child like appearance enough, because, honestly, how many children do you see with full hips? Children are usually flat as washboard and lack curves, so if a full out adult tried to be a loli with hips, that is not loli.
Lolis also can reffer to a certain way some one is dressed. Lolita dresses are usually pink, frilly, and have tons of lace. This trend has also taken a turn to fit the those who don't like pink as much to Gothic Lolita, which has more black dresses. But, if an adult, full height and boobs dresses in a lolita dress, are they still considered loli? I say no, because they lack the innocence of a loli, and they are impersonating a loli.
Along with physical characteristics, there is the mentality of a loli. Lolis are usually child like, with the mentality of a child. These characters in anime may not be a aware of whats going on around them and may in fact be a little ADHD. These girls in harems will typically not interest the male lead due the fact he will find them too childish, and he will care for them like a little sister, unless it was a loli harem, then all the typical rules of a harem apply.
Now, can boys be lolis? The answer is yes and no. "Boy Lolis" are not called such; the term used for older women preying on such character is known as "shota-con," derived from a character called Shotarou. Though I don't know the specifics of the book, it
The Definition of a loli may vary from person to person, but to me, it will always be that a child who is sexually attractive, but it flat and acts childish. An adult cannot be loli, and neither can a male. If someone were to consider an adult with hips and boobs a loli, what kind of children have you been looking at?
The term "Lolita" first came in to use after a Russian Novel was written under the same name, written by Vladimir Nabokov. It brings about the use of sexual lust between a grown man and a thirteen year old girl. However, the man loses the girl to death, and tries to move on with his life. However, he becomes obsessed with the desire to have sex with sexually aware young girls. He eventually meets Delores, or known as Lolita, and almost stalks her. He keeps all recordings of their meetings in a little log book.
Now, in the book, Lolita is a young girl, around twelve years in age. Under the presumption that age makes a loli,then my friend calling me a loli would not be correct, as I am 18. If a loli is a minor, or under 18, then most people, by the time they get out of high school should not be called a loli.
But what if height makes the loli? In anime, a loli is considered just about anyone shorter than average. Also, these individuals may be falt chested, and they may act childish and innocent. However, in some anime, they girls are average height, like anime like Mahou Shoujo Madoka★Magica or in cases of anime like Chobits, the main heroines may all considered lolis because of the way they are drawn. In fact, most Mahou Shoujo, or Magical Girl, animes may be considered loli because the girls are usually flat chested, and child like, but they lack the height of a true loli. Anime that portray a true loli would a (quite frankly messed up) anime like Kodomo no Jikan. The girls are short, and they are in fact true lolis, age-wise, height wise, and breast size wise.
Also, it also bring in the question: what about boobs size? Loli's are known for their flat chested-ness. People claim that loli's can have bigger boobs, but i disagree. If they have bigger boobs, then I believe that they loose some of the child-like inocnce that lolis are supposed to have. Lolis plus bigger boobs to me is not possible. Lolis with bigger boobs look wrong, and it signals to me that they are not as innocent as they seem. Imagine a twelve year old with a full rack, and no hips? That to me is not a loli, that is called messed up twelve year old.
Body type is also an important factor in determining whether or not a person is a loli. A person with full hips to me can not be considered a loli. They are not child like appearance enough, because, honestly, how many children do you see with full hips? Children are usually flat as washboard and lack curves, so if a full out adult tried to be a loli with hips, that is not loli.
Lolis also can reffer to a certain way some one is dressed. Lolita dresses are usually pink, frilly, and have tons of lace. This trend has also taken a turn to fit the those who don't like pink as much to Gothic Lolita, which has more black dresses. But, if an adult, full height and boobs dresses in a lolita dress, are they still considered loli? I say no, because they lack the innocence of a loli, and they are impersonating a loli.
Along with physical characteristics, there is the mentality of a loli. Lolis are usually child like, with the mentality of a child. These characters in anime may not be a aware of whats going on around them and may in fact be a little ADHD. These girls in harems will typically not interest the male lead due the fact he will find them too childish, and he will care for them like a little sister, unless it was a loli harem, then all the typical rules of a harem apply.
Now, can boys be lolis? The answer is yes and no. "Boy Lolis" are not called such; the term used for older women preying on such character is known as "shota-con," derived from a character called Shotarou. Though I don't know the specifics of the book, it
The Definition of a loli may vary from person to person, but to me, it will always be that a child who is sexually attractive, but it flat and acts childish. An adult cannot be loli, and neither can a male. If someone were to consider an adult with hips and boobs a loli, what kind of children have you been looking at?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)