Youths: Great Potential, But Some Things I Don't Understand

Youths today are amazing, astounding persons in many respects. They often accomplish great things. Many enjoy access to home computers, smart phones, and other modern devices I didn't even dream about when I was growing up. (I was born in 1958, so I primarily grew up during the 1960s and 1970s).

The current generation of youths potentially can do much to help make this world a better place if they use the resources available to them constructively. However, there are some things I fail to understand about these youths.

Why do so many youths get tattoos and piercings? Why do so many seek to visit tanning salons? Why do so many get involved in high risk behaviors such as drug abuse and sexting?

When I was a kid things like drug abuse existed, as did casual sex. But the advent of smart phones seems to make spreading messages about illegal and immoral activities easier and faster.

For much of my childhood, our family had one home phone, which was wired into the wall. Furthermore, my mom was a stay-at-home mom who seemed to almost have a sixth sense about where I was and what I was doing. Maybe she did! Also, many of our neighbors were also stay-at-home moms who could phone or visit mom if they saw me doing something that they thought was wrong.

Of course, many of us did do some things wrong and had opportunities to do many more things wrong if we had chosen to do so. Each generation throughout history has faced a different set of opportunities and a different set of challenges.

Furthermore, overall, I think modern social media like Facebook and Twitter can be a blessing if used properly, as are smart phones. The smart phones that allow sexting also allow parents and children to keep in contact with each other and to make emergency phone calls.

But, to me, it seems texting and video games may take up too much time in the lives of many young people today. Also, today's busier kids with their advanced phones who spend less time with their parents may be more able to engage in high risk behaviors than my generation was during our childhood. And I admit that is only a "maybe," because lots of opportunities for doing things wrong seem to exist for each generation.  

However, I think we need to do a better job of communicating to young people how to behave properly and why it is so important to do so. Far too few young persons seem to understand the risks that come from tattoos, piercings, sexting, etc. Does the typical youth understand how one's life can be impacted forever by one decision on one day to engage in one particular activity? Somehow, we need to communicate the risks that come from one's actions more effectively. I'm confident we can and that the current generation of youths can be our best one ever, but we need to do a better job of training them to ensure this happens.

One resource that may help in this regard is my book, True Christianity: It May Not Be What You Think, which I believe contains much helpful advice that can help Christians (and even followers of other religions, agnostics, and atheists) come closer to living the joyful, healthy, productive lives that the highest righteous authority (which I call God) desires us to, whether we are youths or adults. I self-published the second edition earlier this year.

My bias as the author is probably showing, but I think the book is a valuable resource. However, many other helpful resources are available, too, both religious and secular. Let's take advantage of them and help the upcoming generation be the best one ever. We can do it!

Want No Children? Practice Abstinence or Use Contraceptives

Though I strongly advocate sexual abstinence for singles (and for married couples who want no children), I realize that some people who desire to remain childless lack the discipline to practice abstinence. I urge such persons to use contraceptives consistently and properly.

Abstinence
First and foremost, I urge persons who can to practice abstinence.

• Abstinence has worked for millions of people, including me, through help from what I call the higher power of God, the teachings of parents and others, and logically reading and applying the advice from articles in newspapers, magazines, websites, etc.
• No other method of birth control is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy or the spread of venereal diseases.
• Furthermore, persons who lack the discipline to practice abstinence also often lack the self control, training, or access to use contraceptives properly and consistently.

Many years ago, when I was in about the fifth grade, a girl indicated a desire to have sex with me. I thought about the risk of a pregnancy (and of possible diseases and loss of reputation) and allowed logic to overrule any momentary emotional attraction. I think I had gotten my knowledge through reading newspaper and magazine articles about pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Through the grace of God, I practiced abstinence then and have since. Others can do the same if the teachings are provided, reinforced by others, and teens receive alternatives to the time alone in situations that can lead to succumbing to temptation.

Contraceptives
However, using contraceptives can reduce the likelihood of pregnancy substantially. As I understand it, measures of the effectiveness of contraceptives are typically based on the assumption that couples are having sex on average twice a week over a one year period. Thus, a birth control pill touted as being 99.5% effective would be expected to prevent 99.5% of couples using it from experiencing a pregnancy over the course of a year, if they have sexual intercourse twice a week and the female always takes the birth control pill.   

Using two or more methods of birth control in combination reduces the likelihood of pregnancy even more. Writing hypothetically, persons using a birth control pill that has a 99.5% effectiveness rate in combination with condoms with a 97% effectiveness rate consistently and properly would lead to a .995 + (1-.995)(.97)=.99985 or 99.985% effectiveness.

Proper use during each sexual encounter of multiple methods of birth control can be very effective in greatly reducing the likelihood of pregnancy. Male or female sterilization through a vasectomy for males or a female tubal ligation can be effective, too, but like any surgery there are some risks. Also, it may take months for all semen to clear out after a vasectomy, so alternative contraceptive methods need to be used until then. Furthermore, even vasectomies and tubal ligations are not 100% effective as pointed out by various articles on websites, including WebMD articles titled  "Vasectomy"  and "Tubal Ligation and Tubal Implants."

Final Thoughts
With more effective and more frequent teaching about abstinence that leads far more persons who desire no children to practice abstinence, better access to contraceptives, consistent and proper use of those contraceptives, and more discipline by youths accompanied by better supervision, we can dramatically decrease undesired pregnancies.

I am pro-life, but even pro-choice persons desire to avoid the expense, risk, and pain of an abortion if reasonably possible. If both sides could unite to increase the number of people practicing abstinence and increase contraceptive use by those who can't/won't practice abstinence, we can virtually eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

Assuming legalized abortion (except for rare occasions involving major health risks to the mother and/or child) is a necessary evil, underestimates the effectiveness of proper education, access and use of contraceptives, and of the ability of adoptions, foster parenting, and orphanages to handle a relatively small number of unwanted pregnancies. Improved prenatal care and support for single parents can help, too.

NOTE: This article is expanded and adapted from portions of two comments I made on October 14, 2010 on Newsvine.com, a website that no longer exists. This article was last updated on May 18, 2019.

Rand Paul for President?

As an independent voter who is liberal on some issues and conservative on others, I often find it difficult to find one particular candidate to support for President. But if the Presidential election were held today, I would vote for Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

One reason may be my personal bias as a Kentuckian. And I am one of the people who voted for him when he ran successfully for the United States Senate.

I also like the fact that he seems to think for himself rather than toeing the standard Republican party line. I love his commitment to reduce federal spending, including substantially cutting military spending. I think that this commitment to cut the huge U.S. military spending separates Rand Paul from Republican front runners in the race.

As a medical professional, Rand Paul also may have insights into health care reform that most other Presidential candidates lack. Furthermore, Paul puts his Christian faith into action through doing some pro bono medical care for persons in Kentucky and internationally.

I don't agree with Rand Paul on every issue. But I do believe that he typically sincerely seeks to do the right thing rather than what a political party desires. And some time ago, I read on Rand Paul's website that he is not a Freemason. The masonic lodge may be a good organization, as some claim, but I am not a member. And I feel strongly that Christianity at its best is a great organization and that active members of Christianity sincerely seeking to obey the highest righteous authority, God, need not join a "good" organization that would likely make them bow to a human authority, as I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong) Masons do, with Masons being under the control and authority of human leaders within the lodge.

I don't expect Rand Paul to win. However, I voted for Ralph Nader for President in four consecutive Presidential elections, and Nader never won. But I still feel that Nader was the best qualified candidate, even though I didn't agree with him on every issue either. And if all the registered voters who didn't even bother to cast ballots in the infamous Gore-Bush election in which Nader was a candidate had voted and voted for Nader, Nader would have won.

Folks, let's all seek to vote for and/or pray for the best qualified candidate to help them win. I personally pray for the best qualified candidate to win, even if I vote for the wrong one. In fact, as an independent voter in Kentucky, I won't be eligible to cast a vote in the primary. However, my prayers typically do more good than my votes anyway. I am confident God is in control and answers prayers.

Cursive Writing: Should It Still Be Taught?

I remember learning cursive writing in the third grade in the 1960s. I also remember "writing" being my worst subject in fourth grade, based on my grades. Part of the problem was that I tried to write very fast, so I could go on to something else. Also, part of the problem may have been my not adequately developing my fine motor skills.

Is cursive writing important enough to warrant being a required subject in elementary schools today? I think good arguments can be made both ways. On the plus side, children who learn cursive writing will be able to read materials from the past (as well as the present and the future) that are written in cursive writing. Also, persons who are writing with a pencil or pen can typically write faster using cursive rather than printing, making cursive more efficient for many things, such as taking notes when a computer isn't available.

However, printed letters are much easier to read. Books, magazines, newspapers, e-mails, etc., are all printed with individual letters, rather than the flowing cursive writing. If books and other materials were written in cursive writing, it would likely take us much longer to read them.

When I write fast, my personal cursive handwriting is so poor that even I have trouble deciphering it. I can write neater, but I find that writing cursive neatly takes me as long as printing.

Since a primary purpose of writing (the primary purpose!) is for the writing to be read, why not make it easier on readers by printing instead of using cursive? That's my view.

When I took labs in college in the 1970s and 1980s, we were required to print our notes for experiments rather than do them in cursive. If I remember correctly, the primary reason is that printed materials are easier to read than cursive writing, and if our experiments were real world scientific experiments, records needed to be legible and accessible so the experiments could be read about, studied, and replicated to confirm the results.

Even printing is done far less often now. As computers and word processing become more and more readily available, there is less and less need to print or write things out using pen and paper. I still love printing out hard copies of things, including owners' manuals. But I am thankful that these are not in cursive or hand printed.

Personally, I agree with those who feel that cursive writing ought not be mandatory for elementary school students now. Some persons who have tried deciphering some quickly written things I've done in cursive are probably very happy that most of my writing is now done on a computer. I can write faster and more legibly with the keyboard. You probably can, too. And printing by hand suffices nicely for most things that can't be done with a computer, as I see it anyway. I am one person who is grateful that I seldom need to read or write cursive writing now.