Should Women Who NEVER Want Children Remain Abstinent Forever?

Why?

Abortion is not bad.

But why?

No, because she does not want one now.

Yeah. A real woman gets married at 16 and has her first child at 17 and stays home to bake bread, right?

 

If that doesn't actually characterize your position...
Then please explain why you have repeatedly brought up the issue of contraception not always being effective.
Or why you seem to support the argument in this thread which says that abstinence is not a realistic alternative.

I think that IS your argument. It's just in different words, to make it more obvious exactly what it is you are saying.

You have a bad habit of denying that you have said or are saying things, when that IS the obvious meaning of what you are insinuating with your statements!

 

When the question is HUMAN LIFE it's "fun" that is optional.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Uh, you can't make up someone else's position....do you think that is honest?

It may be the ONLY way YOU could win an argument ( by making up what others say) but I don't think it's honest..

You actually got something right !!!!
This:
contraception is not always effective.
abstinence is not a realistic alternative.

No, I have a good habit of correcting YOU when YOU presume to interpret what I and others say....and you don't like that

You have a bad habit of twisting what others say to suit your argument ...

Only to you....so it doesn't matter in the least

 

Why not?

 

Uh, not if you study female anatomy a little bit and find out where her 'happy places' are. Hint: there are usually three of them, located within a hands-breadth of each other. When you encounter any of them, you'll know it....

 

Hey guys...in todays world there is such a thing as the morning after pill which is not an abortion. It prevents fertilisation before it happens.
I would suggest that if the couple used the pill, a condom and the MA pill, any conception would have to have been the work of a very determined spiritual being.
And none of the above prevents either of them from having a rollicking good time.
This whole conversation is like something out of the 19th century.

 

Fun is never optional.
Why do you think people have sex?

 

"""I would suggest that if the couple used the pill, a condom and the MA pill,""

It's a suggestion and should only be a suggestion..,.women should have the choice of consuming drugs or not, using a condom, or not..

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
...
abstinence is not a realistic alternative....

Because there is nothing wrong with having sex and I hardly think humans will stop....they haven't in the past...they have a history of not stopping having sex....it's a silly , unrealistic idea....

yes, some people don't want or need sex....but most humans do...

 

There appears to be a whole generation (at least) of hollow, amoral, callow disgraces to humanity milling about in our crumbling society.

 

You think anything some hollow shell decides is "fun" is thereby justified at any time with no regard for consequences. No personal responsibility, no thought to a person's relation to family, honor, country, or human life itself. Nothing matters except what one pock on the world feeeeeeeeeels like doing at any given moment.

 

If men don't like abortion they should give up sex.

Everyone agree ?

 

Please quote my ENTIRE sentence when quoting me.
I asked if you thought sex had anything to do with political opinion.
I said nothing about the moral position one takes or ones personal sex life.
Please don't lecture me about mine.

 

And it's clear why.

 

You should decide that you have nothing to say about the moral
p.osition of others.
It is not an issue that affects you.
Just like RW Yanks whe want to legislate every aspect of one's life including which toilet to use.
The small but important example of the rights sense of entitlement while protesting far too much about a small state.
Get out of people's freedom of choice. Their decisions are not subject to your approval.

 

My first impression of this thread is: who cares? Society sometimes doesn't have a role in the personal choices of folks. My first question is if you are a woman, and you don't want kids, why engage in an activity that is purposefully designed to produce them? More, isn't this a luxury question? As in, women who don't want to have kids seems to be a condition of affluence or luxury that create the condition where a woman feels sufficient or safe or whatever to believe that they don't need or want a family around them? If so, why promote that antisocial behavior from them? It isn't government's role to address these issues thou. Why ask such a silly question.

 

GOODGAWD! Because sex is normal for human beings ...and NO gender should have to stop having sex, not even males who are against abortion ..

How TF do you know how individual women feel about having kids or not.

You are correct, the government has no business dictating women's reproductive life..

 

Ya, all that stuff was invented in the 1990's...never happened before that...


Do you believe pot was invented in the 60's and abortion was invented in the 70's ???

 

Isn't it so weird how some poster actually think anyone cares what their opinion of others is?

 

First, absence of children is not anti social. Women are not here to produce children on the command of a majority opunio.
And their social lives tend to be quite good.
Further if you think women don't need sex as much as men say they themselves do, you should get out more.

 

You seem to have missed the point. It's like saying that Heroine doesn't kill you until it does. Yes, you might likely be able to have sex in some form and not ever become pregnant. Well, until you do. Just like heroine.

The point is that women may feel they don't need to reproduce. Good for them. It doesn't then improve the world around them, does it? The removal of their potential DNA from the environment does seem to be counter intuitive to the idea that reproduction and evolution move with each new generation.

I never said women do or do not need sex more or less. Why bring that into it? I suggested that the behavior of not wanting children is a result of luxury and security. If you believe that you're not going to need children, it's a choice. It assumes that in your old age, society will take over the role traditionally provided by your families to care for you as you age out. Regardless, the point of the post was to point out that it certainly isn't a condition that requires any governmental or societal interventions.

 

The idea that people need children for their old age is one step from needing slaves to cater for them.
And not having children is most clearly in many cases doing the society a favour.

 

LOL.. sorry, I can't understand this notion of yours. Family isn't slavery. Perhaps that's because family is such an important part of my life. If that isn't your experience, you seem to then rely on everyone else, society to shoulder the burden you refer to as needing slaves, no? So society is your slave market? At some point, if you believe you are "doing society a favor" isn't that the most selfish of all potential and pejorative reasons?

 

Hey, let's discuss SELFISHNESS !

Selfishness is doing what you want without thought for others...as when you decide to HAVE CHILDREN...the children have no say in it , one has children because they selfishly want what THEY want,,,,they don't consult the kids to see if they want to be born....they just SELFISHLY have them...