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.
Both men and women reject responsibility. No one is suggesting people stop having sex, but giving some forethought to the results of unprotected sex and guarding against such can eliminate many panic decisions.
"The single biggest reason for unplanned pregnancy isn’t ineffective birth control -- it’s from a couple not using any contraception. “Some women may not use birth control regularly, and others not at all,” says Maureen Phipps, MD, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island. “They may not like it, might not have access to it, or may even have a partner who doesn't want them to use it.”
So who is accepting the most risk in unprotected sex, the man or woman? Whoever endures the greater liability, physically and emotionally of an unintended pregnancy need take the lead in greater precaution. Yes it "takes two", but only one of those two become pregnant. I hear abortion is not cheap, nor a walk in the park. It's better not to face that emotional roller coaster in the first place when it can be avoided.
Plenty of posters here suggest no sex if you don’t want to be a parent, many. I agree it’s best avoided in the first place, but like wanting people to not have sex, that barn door is already open. The women who find themselves pregnant if it is their wish to terminate their pregnancy they can. No woman should be forced to remain pregnant against their own desire. Don’t care if she was on bc or not, no one should be forced to go through pregnancy and birth if they are unwilling.
Plenty of posters here suggest no sex if you don’t want to be a parent, many. I agree it’s best avoided in the first place, but like wanting people to not have sex, that barn door is already open. The women who find themselves pregnant if it is their wish to terminate their pregnancy they can. No woman should be forced to remain pregnant against their own desire. Don’t care if she was on bc or not, no one should be forced to go through pregnancy and birth if they are unwilling.
Well, if one is unwilling and doesn't want to go through pregnancy and birth, during her abortion of the fetus she is carrying, tie her tubes at the same time. Tubal ligation to prevent the pregnancy she doesn't want removes the need for invasive surgery to rid the fetus she doesn't want. This "oh well, abortion will fix it" is a irresponsible and barbaric approach.
Last edited by Stepnking; 05-28-2021 at 05:07 PM..
Well, if one is unwilling and doesn't want to go through pregnancy and birth, during her abortion of the fetus she is carrying, tie her tubes at the same time. Tubal ligation to prevent the pregnancy she doesn't want removes the need for invasive surgery to rid the fetus she doesn't want. This "oh well, abortion will fix it" is a irresponsible and barbaric approach.
No a woman can have a baby when she wants. Life circumstances change. A woman doesn’t have to tie her tubes unless she knows she doesn’t ever want children. You suggest 2 surgeries, one to tie tubes another to hopefully reverse later? A woman giving birth against her will is barbaric.
I think there is an epistemological disconnect, regarding abortion.
One side says it is wrong: Well, why is it wrong?
One side says it is right: Well, why is it right?
If both sides can't agree on an objective standard for what is 'right' and what is 'wrong', then we're reduced to subjective absurdity, and the argument won't end.
I think there is an epistemological disconnect, regarding abortion.
One side says it is wrong: Well, why is it wrong?
One side says it is right: Well, why is it right?
If both sides can't agree on an objective standard for what is 'right' and what is 'wrong', then we're reduced to subjective absurdity, and the argument won't end.
No. The reason it won’t end is because one side refuses to identify objective reality. One side is pretending one thing is another and the Law of Identity doesn’t exist. And that side, motivated most of the time by mystical indoctrination, is the anti-choice side.
Well, if one is unwilling and doesn't want to go through pregnancy and birth, during her abortion of the fetus she is carrying, tie her tubes at the same time. Tubal ligation to prevent the pregnancy she doesn't want removes the need for invasive surgery to rid the fetus she doesn't want. This "oh well, abortion will fix it" is a irresponsible and barbaric approach.
There is nothing barbaric about removing a fertilized egg and continuing with one’s life. In the case where a woman is not ready, willing, or able to create a future person, removal of the fertilized egg is correct, rational, moral, beneficial, and good.
No. The reason it won’t end is because one side refuses to identify objective reality. One side is pretending one thing is another and the Law of Identity doesn’t exist. And that side, motivated most of the time by mystical indoctrination, is the anti-choice side.
Thats a lot of words without saying much of anything.
Hey, at least it isn't your usual long winded format, Marc. Kudos
Plenty of posters here suggest no sex if you don’t want to be a parent, many. I agree it’s best avoided in the first place, but like wanting people to not have sex, that barn door is already open. The women who find themselves pregnant if it is their wish to terminate their pregnancy they can. No woman should be forced to remain pregnant against their own desire. Don’t care if she was on bc or not, no one should be forced to go through pregnancy and birth if they are unwilling.
Absolutely correct and well-said.
I was reading some articles the other say and I was shocked that 30% of all abortions are carried out not in clinics but at home with the various pharmaceuticals.
If Roe vs Wade is overturned, that percentage is sure to rise. But also, overturning Roe vs Wade will super-energize the left and Republicans can literally forget about controlling Congress or the Presidency for the next 20 years.
SCOTUS is going to deliver control of the federal government to the Democrats for the foreseeable future.
That will also effect state and local elections and maybe we can expect some of these evil mystic states to shift to the left a bit.
Be careful what you wish for, mystic fascists. You might not like what happens after you start the fire. Wind directions can be very hard to predict.
Oh, I’ll get to you. But I’m listing 3 properties and this stupid crazy market won’t leave me any free time.
Make that bank, Marc.
Money, money, money
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.
