Something that I am never amazed by are some of the pro-life arguments. some of them are valid, already being there and making those argument, I can understand them. Other are just beyond words in their short sightedness and denial of reality. hence this thread and one particular argument. The argument goes along the lines of "people take unnecessary risks, get pregnant, and then kill a child". Do I want kids? Probably. Eventually. Do I want them now? No. It would not just be a life changer, but a life ender. I very much enjoy hunting and climbing mountains, a child at this time would end all of that. What are these "unnecessary risks" exactly? The argument seems to hint at abstinence. Having already been there, you can take all of the precautions in the world, and bad things will still happen. While in the end not needing it, it is great knowing there are option available in the event that an issue does occur. So what are these risks? Having sex period?
You seem to be saying that you can still get pregnant when practicing abstinence. How so? All the precautions in the word would mean abstinence.
It is not hard to shoot on chicks instead of in them. I blame dudes as much as females. Though, most poor straight chicks have massive state funded incentive to have the kids, abortion being a higher economic bracket's, or strict religious, problem. But I must say, I find so many gay people being hardliner, vocal pro-choice types much more puzzling. As if male or female homosexuals face a risk of unwanted pregnancy.
Very true, thats my preferred method. Even with a condom, I hate finishing my act inside of a woman. There is a definite incentive, the tax returns on a litter of children is just incredible. I know a woman with five small children living at home, and two out of the house, who receives about $15K in a tax return plus access to a multitude of social programs.
If it is realistic, why do so many abstinence programs fail? Should I avoid driving as well? There are so many risks associated with that too.
Partly because the option to commit a legal abortion homicide is atill available. It would be the only way to ensure that you never have an accident (well if you stop riding along as well)
So do you see where you argument starts to fall apart? You are taking a hard line approach to the issue, not allowing any movement at all. Instead of thinking of ways to prevent pregnancy, you advocate abstinence. Which isn't going to happen. Ever.
I see where your argument falls apart, you claim that allowing women to kill their children in utero will motivate them not to get pregnant? That makes no logical sense. Taking away the homicide option might motivate them, but not allowing it.
You cannot take away the abortion option. Government tried it before and failed. So there is no allowing or disallowing women to abort. Do you think women didn't have unplanned pregnancies when abortion was a criminal act? We frequently talk about the women who died from illegal abortions, but we forget that a lot of women survived but were injured. As many as 26 in the hospital at any one time in one county. This is how it was: http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jan/21/local/me-patt21 Every big-city hospital had one -- a septic abortion ward, for women who had nearly killed themselves trying to abort a pregnancy. Dr. Daniel Mishell is now professor and chairman of the ob-gyn department at the Keck School of Medicine at USC. In the years before Roe vs. Wade, he was a resident at Harbor General Hospital near Torrance and later at what is now County-USC hospital. The women he treated "were the sickest patients, I'll tell you that, because of what they did and the infections they got" -- appalling infections like gas gangrene, which killed tissue and sometimes the patient. "We had ladies who got so infected they went in shock and their kidneys shut down. A lot of them did die." At any one time, 15 or 20 women lay in the county hospital septic abortion ward, an additional half a dozen at Harbor. They were too sick to talk, but Mishell knew the common thread: usually unmarried and abandoned by the man, uniformly, suicidally desperate.
Didn't they already prove guys can carry a baby to term? I say make guys who get a woman pregnant out of wedlock carry the baby. Dudes will never squirt in a chick again, after a couple of examples are made. Hell, do it as soon as a poor chick goes for state assistance. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
Show me where govt allowed abortion, then took it away and has concrete data to show the effects. IT DOESN'T EXIST!
Its not homicide nor are they killing there children. There is a huge difference between hauling your four year old out and executing him and removing a clump of cells from your body.
Pregnancy is a 9 month process that starts with a zygote and ends with the creation of a living human. Terminating that process prior to the creation of a living human is an option for women that do not want to have a child created. No need for abstinance when preventative measures can be taken should contraception fail or accidents happen. Why should folks deny themselves pleasure because some religious folks do not understand Biology or the Bible.
I have decided that I never want to have children. Should I remain abstinent my entire life? Should I never form a relationship because I am forbidden (by the militant lifer crowd) to show my love to my partner? Gee. What a boring life that must be...
A sexless marriage is a totally messed up one too. Read some stories about people in sexless marriages here. It can be very mentally abusive. http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Live-In-A-Sexless-Marriage/332
I think living in a sexless relationship would be okay, for two people who were both happy. But most people couldn't live like that - and they shouldn't be expected to.
If both partners were asexual and had absolutely no interest in sex, sure. But when you have one partner interested in sex and the other denying the intimacy from them for whatever reason, well it's just very, very messed up if you ask me.
Which is why their opinions of abstinence are unrealistic. They just don't realise it - or they do, and just don't care.
You guys are basing your opinion on a simple minded and frankly silly perspective that the only way to have sex is through the act that risks pregnancy.
