World Lit Essay Example

World Lit Essay The invisible characters King Laius and Mr. Alvings, in the plays Oedipus Rex and Ghosts respectively influence the future of their offspring. The past decisions of these fathers lead the boys on a downward spiral to failure. In the novel Oedipus Rex, Oedipus, the protagonist, tries to escape the prophesized fate he had just been made aware of. The attempt is futile, because he had already completed more than half of it. Oedipuss imminent fulfillment of the prophecy stems from his fathers, King Laius, efforts to eliminate him as a young child. The character Oswald, from Ghosts, is set up for failure, because of his fathers infidelity. Oswalds inner sickness, syphilis, and the failure of his love interest, Regina, are a result of Mr. Alvingss past affairs. Both fathers affect their childrens adult lives negatively. They do all this with no appearance in either play, only mentioned.King Laiuss attempt to have Oedipus left for dead, sets in motion Oedipuss tragedy. In Antistrophe II Joc asta tries to console her new husband when the seer, Tiresias, lets loose that he is the former kings murderer. To accomplish this she says,Once long ago there came to Laius/from-lets not suppose Apollo personally/ but from one of his ministers-an oracle,/ which said that fate would make him meet his end/ through a son, a son of his and mine./Well, there was a murder, yes,/but done by brigands in another land, they say/ Where three highways meet,/ and secondly, the son, not three days old,/ Is left by Laius (through other hands, of course)/ upon a trackless hillside,/ his ankles riveted together./ So there Apollo fails to make the son/ his fathers murderer, and the father/ (Laius sick with dread) murdered by his son. [Sic]In the passage Jocasta is telling Oedipus not to worry and that he can not be the killer. First of all she has heard he had been killed by a group of foreigners. Secondly, her husband was destined to be defeated by one of his own making. That predestined son was le ft for dead in an abandoned area, with no way to defend itself against the elements and wild creatures. If Jocastas second reason had been true Oedipus would have been in the clear.Jocastas second detail did not quite come to pass. The baby never made it to the trackless road. Instead he was pitied and given away to another shepherd. The shepherd of the Cithaeron slopes explains during his questioning that he was charged with the task of killing King Laiuss son, but could not do it. His reasoning for saving the child was only pity for the babe. He thought he could take him home and far away. Unfortunately that baby did return home as a grown-man and did fulfill the fate he was destined for him, the misfortune of killing his father and marrying his own mother.There does not seem to have been way to get out of the prophecys clutches. The surest way to stop it was to have the child killed. That plan didnt work and just caused major confusion. It is still King Laiuss fault that Oedipuss fate turned out the way it had. Since the prophecy was, just that, a prophecy Laius had many ways to go about it. He could have noted that the fate for his son was not specific. It just said he would kill his father. It did not say if it was an accidental or intended event. In retrospect, the safest way to try to prevent the prophecy from being completed would have been to keep his son at home. As said before his decision to kill him, just lead to more confusion when the deed was not committed. Oedipus tried to break away from his parents, and leave his home. That way the prophecy would never be fulfilled. He was not aware that the couple he shared bread with, were not his biological parents. In his identity confusion he went into the world, intent to escape his parents, and ran straight into his real parents on the journey.They were just random people to him, because he was given to Polybus and Merope at too young an age to know the difference. Another way Oedipus might have taken destiny into his hands is if he never killed or married anyone in his lifetime. To suggest to Oedipus not marry or kill anyone during his lifetime would have left him, or anyone else in Ancient Greece, vulnerable and fruitless. In Greek life it was very dangerous and ridiculous to not have children or be unable to fight for fear of killing someone for anyone, especially a prince. That being so, Oedipus can not be to blame, because he had no idea who his parents were and his culture and environment prevented him from completely steering clear of his destiny. He put forth a valiant effort against it, but was defeated, because of a factor he couldnt control, a false sense of identity. The only one who had control over that was King Laius. As a result he is to blame.Sins of the father are visited on the children is a theme presented in a couple of Henrik Ibsens writings. This theme is a big part in Ghosts. When the play picks up, Mr. Alvings is already dead and buried and Oswald has co me home to be with his recently widowed mother. Act II Oswald tells his mother that his mind has broken down-gone to pieces and he will not be able to work ever again. He then goes into explaining how in Paris he felt horrible pains in his back, neck, and back of the head. Foolishly he likened them to the headaches he experienced while growing up. Finally seeing a doctor he is diagnosed as vermoulu, or translated in English worm-ridden. The doctor then says, Sins of the father are visited on the children. The doctor is implying that Oswalds condition is his fathers fault. At the end of the play Oswald sits motionless in an armchair repeatedly saying, The sun-the sun. What do these instances suggest?All of the symptoms Oswald present point to the STD syphilis. The headaches he experiences as a child are the result of the second stage of the disease. The adult Oswalds pains, oncoming insanity, and paralysis are effects caused by the final and last stage of syphilis also known as the t ertiary stage. The happy years in between these attacks were results of the STDs latency period. How does someone contract this disease? One way is through sexual relations with an infected person, or getting the disease from your mother. She could contract the STD fooling around with other people or having sex with the father after he has been fooling around. The only character reported to have done the sleeping around is Mr. Alvings. With that being so, it is because of his infidelity that Oswald has this horrible inner sickness.Oswalds failed crack at getting Regina to be in a relationship has two problems. One he has a disease of the body that affects the mind and it would be incestuous for them to be together. The syphilis has already been pinned as Mr. Alvings doing, but what about Regina being Oswalds step-sister? That is Mr. Alvings doing too. Regina is revealed to be the product of his affair with the former housemaid Johanna. These factors are too much for Regina and she d ecides to leave the house altogether. In the process Oswalds heart is crushed and is pushed towards suicide. These problems originate from the father, Mr. Alvings, outer-marital relations.The fathers in the plays Oedipus Rex and Ghosts affected their sons lives. King Laius basically paved the way for Oedipuss walk of self-destruction, while trying to save his own life. Mr. Alvings in disregard to the consequences had multiple sexual encounters outside his marriage. The birth of a worm-ridden Oswald and Regina are what became of it. While looking out for themselves, the two dads ended up impairing the future of their offspring.

Sir Clement Freud, 24 April 1924 15 April 2009 - Emphasis

Sir Clement Freud, 24 April 1924 15 April 2009 Sir Clement Freud, 24 April 1924 15 April 2009 Writer, broadcaster, politician and chef: Clement Freud never ran short of ways to fill his time. This was true until the very end. He died at his desk yesterday. The grandson of Sigmund sometimes a cigar is just a cigar Freud, he first appeared in the public eye on adverts for Minced Morsels dog food, with his co-star and lookalike Henry the bloodhound. A varied career followed, from newspaper columns to the Houses of Parliament, but he is best remembered for his wonderfully dry wordplay. This quote sums up his humour and a way to laugh at our current situation perfectly: Theres not much doubt but we are in a period of great inflation. As the farmer said to me the other day, Apples are going up, to which I replied, This would come as a severe blow to Sir Isaac Newton.' Theres no doubt that his loss will be felt for much longer than just a minute.

Molecular Neuro-degeneration Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Molecular Neuro-degeneration - Essay Example It is evident that no drug has been discovered that could to completely protect neurons; there are two possible approaches to that may come up with the treatment of AD. One approach involves treatment which prevents the onset of the disease through curbing the primary targets and reducing the subsequent pathologies of the AD. This way, it becomes possible to slow the disease progression and hence prevention to the development of AD (Vradenburg 2013). The second approach involves the symptomatic treatment; an approach whereby the primary and tertiary symptoms of the AD are declined. Through this approach, reflection to the current state of treatment including the usual treatment the cognitive impairment, the decline in global function, deteriorating performance of activities of daily living and behavioral change ( Perry 2013). When searching for the appropriate treatment strategies, scientists concentrate on the severity of the disease and also the specificity of each individual. Currently the available therapeutic agents are the main target to specific symptoms of the AD; the agents such as cholinesterase inhibitors involved in the enhancement of cholinergic neurotransmission and also the inhibiting of acetylcholine degradation within the synapse are the Alzheimer’s disease main treatment (Vradenburg 2013). Going by the report on the role of the involvement of PI3 kinase signaling in AÃŽ ²-induced memory loss in Drosophila, the PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway regulation in AÃŽ ² oligomer neuronal cell cycle process and Amyloid-b Interruption of the PI3K-Akt-mTOR signaling pathway involvement in brain-derived neurotrophic factor-induced arc expression in rat scientists can improve theirs unleash a further superior drug to completely heal the Alzheimer’s disease (Perry 2013). One of the hindrances to the progress of other researchers on AD have been due to the fact that most drugs developed show general success in animal specimens but when testing them to human beings, they become less responsive, Therefore, it is safe to say that this project is still in its infancy and further studies have to be carried out but in the long run a solution will be arrived upon.

Contextualization of the Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Essay

Contextualization of the Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls - Essay Example In the aftermath of de Vaux’s excavations in the 1950’s up until the mid 1980’s, it has been commonly assumed that the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the nearby caves constituted the library of a Jewish sectarian community (most probably of the Essene sect that lived at Qumran). However, despite such apparent consensus, we ought not to narrowly focus our interpretation of the Scrolls, its authors (for which most scholars seem to agree are the Essenes) and the Qumran site itself when it comes to a proper analysis of contextualizing all three. In light of recent scholarship, the traditional sectarian explanation of Qumran combined with a more nuanced approach may possibly reveal that the site had at least a dual purpose beyond that of a certain sectarian settlement and more specifically was a place for the development of communal activities, including the production or manufacture of pottery. Moreover, could it have been possible that the Essenes employed non-Essen es to do certain functions? To be certain, it has long been argued since de Vaux’s excavation reports, that when placed in a proper historical and archaeological context, the caves, the scrolls and the ruins are altogether interconnected.To shed some historical perspective, according to Davies, Brooke and Callaway, the basis for this interconnectivity was originally the texts themselves found in Cave 1 and their later interpretation by de Vaux’s team of excavators, the members of the Cave 4 editorial team and most other scholars

Of Mice and Men - George and Lennie Essay Example for Free

Of Mice and Men George and Lennie Essay How does Steinbeck present the characters of George and Lennie? During the Great Depression of the 1930s when America was plunged into financial crisis following the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, levels of unemployment and poverty were at an all time high. In this ear life was a struggle and the mentality of society became survival of the fittest, every man for himself. Migrant workers toured the country in search of labour to provide money for food typically sent to relatives living on the bread line elsewhere in America. These men lead lonely and emotionless lives, which are reflected through Steinbeck’s portrayal of his characters in his famous, yet bleak, 1930s novella ‘Of Mice and Men. ’ In the novel, George and Lennie’s relationship diversifies them from the other ranch workers for the reason that they rely on each other for support and companionship ‘I got you and you got me. ’ In particular, the dream they share of owning their own land, reflects the American Dream of being the ringleader of your own life with a level of self-sufficiency. Steinbeck first introduces the reader to George and Lennie at the beginning of the novel ‘a few miles south of Soledad’, in the evening of a hot day where rabbits sat ‘as quietly as little gray, sculptured stones. ’ Disrupting the tranquil atmosphere ‘two men emerged from the path’ as the place was newly ‘lifeless’ for a moment. At first, the author presents George and Lennie as typical migrant workers, both wearing ‘denim trousers and carrying ‘tight blanket rolls’ en route to their next ranch. After creating the impression that the pair are similar, Steinbeck reveals that actually this is not the case ‘behind him walked his opposite. ’ George inhabits a small body with ‘strong, sharp features’ whereas Lennie has a ‘shapeless’ face and a ‘huge’ body. Irrespective of their appearance, it is inferred that both George and Lennie are victims of society ‘restless eyes’ and ‘dragging his feet’ constantly on guard as well as fatigued from both work and travel. Further into the first chapter, we learn that George has a level of authority over Lennie and it could be suggested that he stands as a ‘father figure’ to him. As Lennie ‘snorts into the water’ George ‘sharply’ orders him not to drink so much and informs him to never ‘drink water when it ain’t running. ’ At this moment it becomes evident that Steinbeck intends to present George and Lennie as Master and pet; the only way Lennie can cope is to be like a tame dog, tethered always to his master George and never let out of his sight ‘God you’re a lot of trouble. As the pair settle for the night under the stars, Steinbeck uses Lennie’s character to portray that the pair desire simple possessions ‘I like ‘em with ketchup’ which they can only but dream of having ‘Well we ain’t got any. ’ In this scene Steinbeck intends to emphasise that George and Lennie are unfortunate and t he reader is able to sympathise with them because basic amenities are taken for granted in society today. The scene also exhibits the fact that although George and Lennie are migrant workers they do not fit the ‘typical’ profile, this being because during moments of violence George describes what life would be like if he did not have Lennie to take care of; if he was a lone traveller, a ‘typical’ migrant worker ‘I could stay in a Cat House all night or set in a pool room and play cards. ’ Although George sometimes sees Lennie as an inconvenience it is clear that Steinbeck wishes to present George a companion to Lennie ‘he looked ashamedly’ as well as loyal ‘I want you to stay with me, somebody’d shoot you for a coyote if you was by yourself. This is poignant because it demonstrates that although Lennie keeps George in ‘hot water’ all of the time, George continues to care for Lennie because he knows the consequences of Lennie travelling alone and perhaps is also frightened of being lonely himself ‘that ain ’t no good. ’ In the same chapter, Steinbeck first incorporates the 1930s American Dream ‘An live off the fatta the lan. ’ Lennie makes George tell the familiar story of the small farm he intends to buy, delighting in hearing that he has a future. Evidentially, George does not believe the dream will ever become reality as he rhythmically reels off the words to Lennie as a matter of habit rather than optimism. That said, it is clear that although George does not believe the dream will come true he is thankful to have Lennie by his side ‘somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us’ which perhaps implies that although Steinbeck presents the pair as victims, he also presents them as lucky in the fact that they have each other and care for each other enough to build a firm relationship. To Lennie the dream is all about the rabbits he intends to keep and pet, rather than an engine of hope which drives George to continue the struggle. Lennie excites in the idea that one day he will own a rabbit hutch ‘An’ have rabbits’ because he is unable to see further than his own desires, however George dreams of simplicities such as ‘how thick the cream is on the milk’ implying that all he would like is a stable home. Regardless of their differences in the importance of aspects ncluded in the dream, their dream bonds them together in a shared goal which is to get a ‘stake’ so they can buy ‘a little house and a couple of acres. ’ Many migrant workers shared in dreaming of a better future but had nobody to share it with as everyman was for himself, making George and Lennie’s relationship a rare occurrence. Towards the end of the first chapter, George tells Lennie that if he gets in trouble he should go and hide in the brush until George comes for him ‘I want you to come right here an’ hide in the brush. This is because George recognises the cyclic nature of Lennie’s behaviour and uses his clever nature to devise a plan, something which Lennie would never have thought of doing as he is unaware of his own strength therefore he needs George for survival in the same way a child needs their parents for protection from the outside world. When George and Lennie arrive at the ranch, George reminds Lennie that he is not to speak when they are interviewed by the boss because the boss will not allow Lennie to work on the ranch if he knows of Lennie’s mental instability. George excuses Lennie’s silence telling the boss ‘he got kicked in the head, just ain’t bright’ and assures the boss ‘He’s a God damn good skinner. ’ Here, Steinbeck presents George as the voice of the pair and Lennie as the labourer, it could possibly be inferred that Steinbeck intends to present them as a team rather than George’s one man band with Lennie walking behind because Lennie is strong and can work twice as fast as one man alone, boosting their reputation leading to more work and more pay to add to their savings for the farm. It is also noticeable that the boss has ‘never seen one guy take so much trouble for another guy’ which infers not only that the boss surprised by George and Lennie’s relationship but also that because society was hostile and selfish the boss assumed that George was ‘takin’ his pay away. ’ This further infers that relationships were far and few for migrant workers during this era and that Steinbeck intends to present George and Lennie in the way he does because many would overlook the idea of a level of humanity during the 1930s. George’s companionship with Lennie staves of loneliness, but it also gives him a role in life; he has a clear task, looking after Lennie. When George explains the situation to slim in the second and third chapter ‘we kinda look after each other’, Slim offers the suggestion that ‘ever’body in the whole damn world is scared of each other. ’ Here the author offers the theme of violence because many people had lost the trust of those around them and were prepared to use violence to protect themselves, their belongings and any pride they had. George is honest with Slim ‘Made me seem God damn smart alongside of him’ admitting that early on it made him feel superior and he forced Lennie to do stupid things for the fun of it. However as his sense of shame stopped him, George began to realise that he is dependent on Lennie as much as Lennie is dependent on him because who would fight George if they knew they would have to fight Lennie as well. There are positives of George having Lennie, they defy the ethos of everyman for himself and at this stage it appears this is a key asset in their work. In the middle of the novella, George and Lennie both believe, for a short period of time, that their dream will come true ‘This thing they had never really believed in was coming true’ due to Candy’s offer of money for a place on the farm. Steinbeck demonstrates that although both men know their position, they easily become wrapped up in a fairytale unable to predict their fate of ‘grief and pain, instead of promised joy. ’ A significant part of the novel showing the devotion of George and Lennie’s relationship comes when Curley, bringing with him the theme of violence, picks a fight with Lennie. Showing his sense of justice, George won’t let Lennie get hurt as he is innocent ‘Get ‘im Lennie’, whereas the other men are reluctant to take sides; thinking of their own safety first. Experience with Lennie allows George to recognise Lennie’s strength and to encourage or discourage the use of it when appropriate. As the novel passes the midpoint when George leaves Lennie at the ranch to go to the local brothel with the other ranch hands, Lennie sees the light in Crook’s room and curiosity leads him inside. Crooks is not used to visitors in his room because of his black skin colour which he is heavily discriminated because of by the other ranch hands. He faces segregation and nobody ever wants to talk to him, this is why his bunk is away from the others. Lennie, being unaware of the social hierarchy ‘I thought I could jus’ come in’ is confused as to why Crooks is not wanted and so perseveres in conversation with him. Obviously, had George been around to keep Lennie on his tether, the situation would have been avoided. Lennie tells Crooks ‘me an’ him goes ever’ place together’ through this it is apparent that Lennie is totally dependent on George which Crooks sees as an opportunity to frighten vulnerable Lennie ‘s’pose he gets killed or hurt. ’ It is at this point where Lennie shows his sense of protection for George ‘Who hurt George? ’ and he begins to lose control of his strength walking ‘dangerously’ towards Crooks. Clearly, Lennie believes he should defend George because he is a friend, the man who is going to help him get the rabbits to tend; even when George is not around Lennie is constantly thinking about him and his safety, just as George worries for Lennie’s safety. As the novel draws to the end, Lennie’s lack of control over his strength becomes paramount. Stroking Curley’s wife’s hair, the atmosphere is relaxed and slightly playful as she prompts him to ‘feel how silky it is. When Lennie does not let go and Curley’s wife began to panic ‘struggled violently’ so does Lennie and he ‘began to cry with fright’ before he broke her neck and she ‘flopped like a fish. ’ Recognising that he has done a ‘bad thing’, Lennie acknowledges that he ‘shouldn’t have did that. George ‘ll be mad. ’ Significantly, Lennie has no moral judgement and things are ‘good’ or ‘bad ’ to him depending on what George would think of them; George could be perceived as the voice of Lennie’s conscience. Without George to guide him Lennie is lost, the pair are essential for Lennie’s survival. At the end of the novel, George becomes aware of the fact that Lennie has become a wild dog, needing to be ‘put down’ by his owner ‘I know, I know’ for the best intentions of both men. Features brought to George by his responsibility for Lennie, including his sense of shame and level of compassion and justice, all combine to force him to shoot Lennie and as Slim confirms, he ‘hadda. ’ Just before George releases the bullet, he encourages Lennie to think about the dream in order to ensure he dies in peace and happiness. This is significant in the relationship between George and Lennie as the other men from the ranch have no mercy for the ‘poor bastard’ it is only George who believes although Lennie should die, he should die a painless death. Overall, it is clear that Steinbeck presents George and Lennie as accepting victims of the economic crisis of 1930s America. He gives them a dream which should be realistic but is unfortunately out of touch and offers nothing but a chance of hope for better things to come, a reason to keep going. Ultimately, Steinbeck presents the pair as dependent on each other for their own needs. The reasoning behind Steinbeck’s use of George and Lennie comes from his intention to provide a novel that demonstrates that in the end fate is ways the winner no matter how you plan to avoid it. In this fiction, Lennie was like the mouse in the title; destined to die from the start as he is not fit for society and unfortunately George has to go on alone for himself because he recognises that with Lennie his too is closer to the hands of fate.

Zeus And Odin :: essays research papers

Zeus and Odin Zeus is the ruler of the Greek gods. He is the son of Cronos and Rhea, in fact the only son of these two to survive to adulthood. Zeus had been hidden by Rhea so that Cronos would not swallow him like he had all of his other offspring; he had been warned that one of his children would eventually overthrow him. Rhea sent Zeus to the island of Crete where he was raised. Zeus eventually killed his father. After he killed Cronos, he restored life to his brothers and sisters. He then drew lots with his brothers Poseidon and Hades to see who would become ruler of the various parts of the universe. Zeus won the draw and became the supreme ruler of the gods. He is lord of the sky, the rain god. His weapon is a thunderbolt, made for him by the Cyclopes under the direction of Hephaestus, which he hurls at those who displease him. He married a succession of spouses with whom he had many children including: Athena, The Fates, Ares, Apollo, Artemis, and Hermes. His last, and most well-known wife is Hera but he is famous for his many affairs. Odin is the leader of the Norse gods and has a myriad of names including Allfather, Ygg, Bolverk (evil doer), and Grimnir. He also has many functions within the myths including being a god of war, poetry, wisdom, and death. However, he is not considered the "main" god of each of these functions. Odin's symbol is his magical spear named Grungir which never misses its mark. He also owns a magic ring called Draupnir which can create nine of itself every night. It was this ring that Odin laid on his son Balder's funeral pyre and which Balder returned to Odin from the underworld. Odin also has two wolves, Geri and Freki, and two ravens, Hugin (thought) and Munin (memory). He sends his ravens out every day to gather knowledge for him. Odin was destined to die at Ragnarok; Fenris-Wolf swallowed him. Knowing his fate, he still chose to embrace it and do battle, showing the true warrior ethic. He is the god of warriors and kings, not the common man. Among his children are:Thor, Hermod, and Balder. He is married to Frigg, the goddess of marriage. The first obvious similarity between Zeus and Odin is in their appearance. Both are very large men, but they are not depicted as fat men. Both look very powerful and foreboding. They also are both shown as having beards. A beard represents manliness, in a very basic way as facial hair

Premarital Sex: A Morally Issue

Pre-marital sex, young Catholics know it is wrong. So why do they do it? Most teenagers have heard or coined the phrases â€Å"everyone†s doing it.† â€Å"If you loved me you†d do it† and also â€Å"It†s okay I have a condom.† Sex before marriage can be harmful to your body, your future, but the scariest of all your eternity. In this paper we shall look more into the Catholic point of view on pre-marital bliss. The purpose of sex is to unite a married couple as one loving body in consummating a marriage, to leave the possibility of procreation open, and to and to educate a child. The purpose of sex is to unite a married couple as one loving body. This is because God†s intention in creating the first man and woman was for them to love and create more men and women. To do so a married couple must join as one loving body or to have sexual intercourse. In having intercourse the first time in a marriage you are consummating the marriage therefore making the marriage official in the eyes of God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: â€Å"the union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating the flesh in the creators generosity and fecundity: ‘Therefore . . . and they become one flesh† (Gen4:24) All human generations proceed from this union† (Catechism 2335). Sex is meant for mature individuals who are prepared to face the consequences of sex. Two of the biggest fears in premarital sex are STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) and unwanted pregnancy. A married individual normally does not have to deal with such problems. This is because at the average age of marriage most STDs are not common. Second, in a marriage a couple normally wants a child to care for. However, teenagers do not want these responsibilities. Which leads to common use of contraceptives in teen sex. Sex is meant to leave an opening for procreation. Contraceptives are commonly used in premarital sex. These are used to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STDs. How can one use a condom and leave an opening for a child to be conceived? The Bible says â€Å"God blessed man and woman with the words: ‘Be fruitful and multiply†Ã¢â‚¬  (GS 50). Condom, the most popular choice for a contraceptive, is a latex cover for the male phallus, which prevents the sperm from entering the vagina and making it†s way to the egg. In humans sexual reproduction is done through intercourse. When the sperm meets the egg. When a condom does fail there is a high risk of catching a STD or having an unwanted pregnancy. In the chance of a pregnancy there are alternatives such as raising the child on your own, giving it up for abortion, and the sinful way out, having an abortion. Abortion is a mortal sin because it is the death of an unborn child. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: â€Å"By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and is in them that it finds their crowning glory† (1652, 460). Raising a child on your own is not impossible however it is not easy. Finally, Sex is meant to aid in educating a child. Without sex there is no child. In the cases of teen-parents, it is not probable that the child will grow up with the proper education. This is most probable because the teens themselves are still learning. In the instances of single parent parenting, the education can be very tedious. It would be tedious because the single parent would have to play the role of the mother and the father as well. Such examples prove that sex inside of marriage is the simplest choice. One would not have as many issues to face and will be able to raise a family almost problem free. In parenting there will naturally be problems too, however when an adult is there to help their children they have the personal experience and moral guidance needed to lead the offspring off on the right foot. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: † Parents are the principle and first educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life† (1653, 461). When your child comes to you and tell you that their boy/girlfriend is pressuring them for sex you can be able to tell them to abstain. â€Å"Abstinence is the only safe and morally correct form of contraception†. In conclusion, sex is meant to unite a married couple as one loving body in consummating a marriage, to leave the possibility of procreation open and to and to educate a child. The previous information has shown sex to only be moral and truly worry free in a marriage. â€Å"Let the Hebrews marry, at the age fit for it, virgins that are free, and born of good parents. But if the damsel be convicted, as having been corrupted, and is one of the common people, let her be stoned, because she did not preserve her virginity till she were lawfully married; but if she were the daughter of a priest let her be burnt alive† (Pastor David, Virginity/Marriage, 1)