Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i disagree. once you consent to an act that can lead to pregnancy, then you have consented to that pregnancy. and the only birth control method that is 100% effective is in fact abstinence, or sterilization, everything else falls short.
i disagree. once you consent to an act that can lead to pregnancy, then you have consented to that pregnancy. and the only birth control method that is 100% effective is in fact abstinence, or sterilization, everything else falls short.
You can disagree all you want, but consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Sterilization is not 100% effective either, and abstinence has been preached and taught in schools for decades. How is that working out? My state has abstinence only sex ed, and is in the top 10 for teenage pregnancy.
That is the exact argument used to justify forcing men to pay child support for children they don't want.
Pregnancy is always a risk when engaging in sex. Now, you may end that pregnancy with abortion. But you were still pregnant. So yes, consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. You know going in that it may result.
For some reason in today's society saying to men "if you don't want a kid then keep your pants zipped" is seen as encouraging responsible behavior, but saying "if you don't want to get pregnant then keep your legs closed" to women is seen as misogynistic.
thats not the point the poster was trying to make.
how about we get back to some old fashioned morality, instead of having sex with anyone at anytime, lets put it back with in a committed relationship where it is supposed to be. i realize that sex is fun, but it also leads to procreation, and thus carries certain responsibilities with it. we have to look past the pleasurable recreation and remember that responsibility that comes with the pleasure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
i disagree. once you consent to an act that can lead to pregnancy, then you have consented to that pregnancy. and the only birth control method that is 100% effective is in fact abstinence, or sterilization, everything else falls short.
morality is subjective. why should all the world live by your morality. we all have the right to live out lives as WE wish, not how your values wish we live. not many women want to go back and live in the 50's when we had no birth control save the diaphragm, condoms and rhythm methods. sex is for fun the majority of the time.
women are allowed to control their bodies as they see fit. to take or not take birth control. that is their responsibility. birth control fails, women are victims of raped and incest. some women already have too many children or are not in a position to take care of anymore. all women now in America and other parts of the world have a choice. remember there are 3 birth, adoption, abortion. it is theirs to make for their life. they have no obligation to make their choice based on anyone else's life but their own.
thats not the point the poster was trying to make.
how about we get back to some old fashioned morality, instead of having sex with anyone at anytime, lets put it back with in a committed relationship where it is supposed to be. i realize that sex is fun, but it also leads to procreation, and thus carries certain responsibilities with it. we have to look past the pleasurable recreation and remember that responsibility that comes with the pleasure.
That would be something! Alas, it's mere wishful thinking. You are also, quite often - and particularly in largely impoverished nations - dealing with a large contingent that lacks such basic understanding or believes there are simple remedies.
Heck, look at our nation with all its money and all its education: There are actually adults who believe that the female body can simply shut down a pregnancy the woman does not want, for example, after having been raped. If that's the degree of ignorance you find here, just imagine what you'll find there...
I had my daughter in the "third" world and the degree of superstition and the lack of general knowledge is mind-blowing (and ranged from throwing remnants of the umbilical cord into the ocean to prevent drowning to cooking a soup out of squirrel tails to stimulated thick hair growth).
its called procreation, if you dont want to do it, then have your ovaries cutout and then you dont have to worry about it.
what a callous remark. you think a woman that doesn't want to be pregnant in the present might not want to in the future? a woman should just cut out her ovaries in her early 20's because she isn't ready to bear children then?
That is the exact argument used to justify forcing men to pay child support for children they don't want.
Pregnancy is always a risk when engaging in sex. Now, you may end that pregnancy with abortion. But you were still pregnant. So yes, consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. You know going in that it may result.
For some reason in today's society saying to men "if you don't want a kid then keep your pants zipped" is seen as encouraging responsible behavior, but saying "if you don't want to get pregnant then keep your legs closed" to women is seen as misogynistic.
If I consent to driving a car, is that consent to get in a car wreck? No.
Is a wreck a possibility? yes.
Can I reduce the risk? yes.
Can I return my car to it's original condition after a wreck? yes.
If I consent to sex, I am not consenting to pregnancy.
Is pregnancy a risk? yes.
Can I reduce the risk? yes. (birth control)
Can I return my body to it's original condition if pregnancy occurs? yes. (abortion)
Not to mention that when I consent to sex there is absolutely 0% chance I can get pregnant.
I would tell men and women that there is a risk of pregnancy when having sex. Then teach them how to reduce those risks, not "just say no" we know that that gem doesn't work. Women have one advantage here as it is her body, so yes, she does get more choice in the situation, but she also has more of the responsibility in the situation. The woman ALONE is the one who is pregnant. When a man can get pregnant I fully support his right to choose too, until then it is the womans choice alone.
If one defines oppression as withholding the right to kill anyone who is a huge inconvenience to you in your life then ... my wife should be allowed to shoot President Obama and you just need to accept her right to do it without consequence. Obama is proving to be a rather massive inconvenience in her life and mine. Fair's fair, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Um ... sure. Nice non-answer. The point is simple. You either have a right to kill anyone or anything that is a major inconvenience in your life or you do not. If you favor the right to exterminate the life because it is inconvenient, then be consistent. You don't get to pick and choose which inconvenient lives can be legally terminated or you're just being a hypocrite.
It's funny. Liberals tend to view themselves as the party of love, peace, non-violence and standing up for the rights of others. Pretty ironic considering that Liberals are quite happy to defend outright assault in this case and so many others -- as long as the violence is being done in favor of their own ideology.
Obama and any other living human outside the woman as you know, but like to forget is not dependent on a woman's womb to survive. killing anything human that lives outside the womb is murder.
a fetus is nothing like a newborn or person dependent on the help of others to survive. the job of caretaker can be given to anyone willing to do the job. unlike that of a fetus. but you knew that already.
But abortion is not just about her body. There is another person in this debate, the unborn, who is a separate individual with just as much right to life as anyone else.
That is the question, isn't it? To you, the unborn is a person. To others, it's just a mass of cells up to a certain age.
You've seen the pictures of seeds with the argument that a seed is not a tree.
To me, it has the potential to become a person but unless there is a birth, laws have largely held that the unborn lacks individual rights. In recent years, there have been exceptions with late-term pregnancies but I have yet to see a court argue that the "Morning-After-Pill" destroys anything other than a small cluster of cells.
I believe one of the problems in this debate revolves around the "idea" of abortion. To some, abortion means the violent destruction of a healthy human being all the way up to the moment of birth. This is, of course, by and large a gory and appalling image. To others, abortion usually means access to a procedure long before birth would ever be possible. They generally talk about abortion within the first few days are weeks after discovering pregnancy. Thus, the mental image is often one of simply taking a pill.
Then there appears to be the tendency to argue in extremes: Easy, on-demand abortion without any restrictions at all versus categorical prohibition of abortion even in extreme cases.
I would think that the answer lies somewhere in between: Not extreme, not categorical, not based on wishful thinking, not ignoring reality.
Were there any Catholic women standing with the men in front of the cathedral?
If not, I'm wondering why not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
