What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

'Either face those risks, or see your marriage dissolve.'
...Or be a man.

If it dissolves for that, then your partner wasn't really up to the standard of not having sex unless you're willing to have children and endure any complications which might ensue. Someone defending this standard shouldn't marry such a partner in the first place, so good riddance.

Don't forget pregnancy and childbirth used to be for women what war was for men: a lot of them died.

So if you don't want kids you have to be a virgin for life?

That is quite impossible.

I think that people should use protections though.

Women who have the opportunity to use protections but get pregnant despite that are irresponsible.

If they had used protections, they wouldn't have had to go through all the physical pain abortion caused them.

Didnt want to involve myself, but we are already in the 21th century. So today its: "Couples woha have the opportunity to use protections but get pregnant despite that are irresponsible." Children dont come because of one person not using protections. They can only be created by two people not protecting.

I know its custom since garden eden to blame woman for everything bad, but I swear you, Scientists have proofen, that there are two people necessary to create children, and both must forget to protect themselves. Only then it works.

That was obvious.

I did a mistake when I wrote "women", sorry. Of couse I meant both.
Yes, couples are irresponsible.
Both the man and the woman.

basically you're saying that the majority of humanity should be single and celibate for life.

Humans are not dogs. We don't have sex like dogs, only when we're fertile and only to get pregnant. We have sex for social bonding with our partners; denying that is denying human biology.

Nobody is denying human biology.

What IS being denied, however, is human responsibility.

You said it yourself: Humans are not dogs. Unlike dogs, we are better equipped to make choices based on outcomes we find most desirable. We don't have to be ruled by our hormones. We can choose NOT to have sex in order to avoid unwanted consequences.

Chosing 'not to have sex in order to avoid unwanted consequences' is 'chosing not to bond with one's partner,' which is simultaneously denying our need for human companionship and theh fact that we use sex for something other than procreation - something that is arguably just as important as procreation.

Exactly what "need" are we talking about here? I made it a good 19 years without "bonding" with any partner. I seem to recall it was more social pressure that ended that run rather than "Holy crap, I have to 'socially bond' or I'm gonna DIE." I know bunches of people who made it longer than that, and they turned out just fine. I'd like to know more about these "needs." It seems all I "need" is shelter, lots of water, occasionally some food, and a nice cool place I can sit and take a dump from time to time.

I get sex a lot less than I used to, mostly due to the fact that when a toddler stumbles in after bedtime, looks at me, points, and says "dad, what's that?" it just gets awkward. Sure, I miss "bonding" three or more times a day as opposed to "bonding" three times a quarter, but I haven't lost any MORE hair, haven't gone blind, haven't grown hair on my palms, turned blue/green/any other color, shrunk, or shriveled up.

And that's just me. Let's not forget about those who forego "bonding" for various reasons and DON'T end up as pedophiles, going insane, or dying prematurely. It seems to me this "bonding" is nothing more than scratching an itch. Nobody "needs" it. We all do just fine without.

Procreation is the only purpose we have for which this "bonding" is 100% essential for most people, and given the artificial methods available you could technically go without even then.

If it's actually a NEED, then we can justify pedophilia and incest and dispense with this whole idea that children "can't" consent to sex with adults--provided, of course, it doesn't cause physical harm in the process. The kid got horny, mom helped him out a little. Disgusting, sure; another topic, absolutely; but the point is that only in the exception of procreation is sex an actual need.

I thought that was the anti-reality stance?

Thats good for you, but whats if other people are no clones of you? So as example I still freeze at 25° C/77° F, and feel fine around 35° C/95° F. Around 40°C/104°F it feels hot for me. So what the hell are people talking about a need to avoid such temperatures? I made it a good 33 years without any AC or avoiding being outside during summer. I seem to recall it´s more a socail pressure thatn ended that run rather than "Holy crap. I gotta go somwehere cooler, or my metabolism gonna break down." I know other people as well, that have no problems with high temperatures, as I have. I meet them regularly when doing sports outside during summer, they seem as well not to have any metabolism problems at 35°/95°F, and turn out just fine, or the woudnt be running or cycling around that temperatuers. So I´d like to know more about those "needs" that some people pretend to have, having that lame escuse of having another metabolism then mine, and so having other needs. I mean, we are all humans, and I am a human, so every human has to have my physical reaction and metabolism. It seem all I "need" is shelter, lots of water, occasionally some food, and a nice cool ....ohm, sorry but that must be nonsense, because of us both being forced to have the same physical needs you surely wanted to say a nice warm place, around 25-35°C = 77°-95° F I can sit and take a dump from time to time.

So beside the mistake about the cool place, I completely agree with you. I hope you have as well, no AC, because this is as well not needed. So when I can sit 45 minutes in traffic jam in full sun, without any driving wind, no AC, and an not functioning ventilation fan, there can be no other people, having other physical needs then me, Queen Schneekugel, idol of every human body and mistress of the united clone folks of earth.

Well, true about the temperature thing, but that wasn't really my point. Having a cold, porcelain or lacquered surface to sit upon while communing with nature is more of a creature comfort than a necessity. I despise those foam padded seats some people have. They have an insulating effect that makes my butt sweaty, and I find that to be too much of a distraction while I'm otherwise peacefully trying to relieve myself.

Whether I clean myself with freshly-picked grass, a corn cob or a tissue, I don't get the option of just not going. Excretion is a nasty but necessary human function without which we all die.

I'm particularly fond of cooler temperatures, but, again, that's a comfort or a convenience rather than a need. I make a point to turn off the A/C in the morning until mid-afternoon to save electricity since it's easier to cool at night anyway. Summer temps often exceed 100 F where I live and humidity is high. There was a time in this region when houses were built 2-stories tall but omitted the second floor. This was so that open windows could more easily cool the ground level floor and the higher ceiling would keep hot air further away.

Our winter temperatures, on the other hand, seldom sink below 40. We might have a few weeks of freezing or near-freezing temperatures, but not much. We have 3 low-wattage space heaters to make sure the kids don't get sick, but we only use those if the temps are in the 30s.

It's not about all human being pigeon-holed clones, or whatever. It's about basic survival needs. Reproduction isn't even required for an individual to survive from day to day. When pets get neutered, they don't take interest in sex and will survive for years in that state. Reproduction IS required for the survival of the species, however, and as human beings it comes down to the personal choice to continue a bloodline or not. If you don't wish to bear progeny, then it is your responsibility to take steps to avoid it. Abstaining from sex has a better track record than most contraceptives currently in use. I think when we talk about "needing" sex, what we're really talking about is needing it like a dope fiend needs heroin. We don't really need it. We might perceive an illusory false need, but abstaining from sex as far as I know doesn't kill anyone.

AngelRho, you say that you get less sex than you used to, which is valid; however, what would happen in your marriage if your wife said, 'I'm cutting you off until I hit menopause (after which I will no longer be interested in sex) because I don't want to risk another pregnancy.' You'd spend the rest of your life celibate, or you would get a divorce.

We're not talking about foot-water-shelter level need here, but we are talking about need. Shunning and isolation are pretty effective punishments for humans, especially over time.

According to those ideas, you obviously do.



Are you aware there's a sizable number of people, including quite a few members of these forums, for whom it is quite impossible to ever have sex? You always have the option of abstaining from sex unless you're raped, which is in itself a problem to be fought. Rape aside, the only people who don't have a choice are those who can't have sex even if they want to.



No protection is perfect. Therefore, it follows from your own words that they---both the man and the woman, of course, as Schneekugel pointed out---are irresponsible simply for having sex.



First off, I've never claimed to share the anti-abortion view I was describing, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

Secondly, I fail to see how adherence to the precept of having sex only when you're willing to have children as a result and take the responsibility would force the majority of humanity to be celibate for life. Don't most people in the world have children? Besides, there's nothing stopping them from having relationships and getting married without having sex. They just have to share these beliefs.



Nobody here is denying human biology. Humans have the ability to willingly repress their sex drive if doing so suits their beliefs, which is a different matter.



Is that a statement or a question? You should truly question it, because nobody is denying facts. What I said is that those particular facts LKL's link presented don't matter if you believe you shouldn't have sex unless you're willing to have children and face any problem whatsoever which might result from that, as many people do.

I think AngelRho's point is that sex obviously isn't technically a physical need, along the same lines as food, water, sleep, etc.
And even if it could be qualified as an emotional need for some people, that still doesn't imply a justifiation for abortion.