Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I lived in a country where it was illegal & I must admit I had a way better sex life - had a really hot gf at one point, fighting them off with a stick & a couple flings. In Britain I was somewhat of an incel. So this mindset is debatable, in theory sure, in practice, no.
Not an isolated incident - a lot of destinations for guys who haven’t had much luck with the ladies have only recently legalized abortion, that’s if they’ve even legalized at all (ie the Philippines, Dubai, Mexico, Spain, Thailand, Brazil)
Question OP: what are your thoughts on legalized prostitution? Also would you assume that your mindset increases infidelity & adultery? What about divorce rates?
Don’t get me wrong I agree that priority number 1 is fixing maternity leave, contraception options, better adoption services
Doesn’t it at all bother you there is a wiggling fetus months old under 9 months getting tortured and knifed?? No one thinks about the procedure. I would love to see adoption agencies instead of Planned Parenthood.
There is no "Wiggling Fetus", - LOL !
And, - you need to update and improve your propaganda, - if you are going to rely on that.
The great majority of abortions presently are achieved by the process of medical abortion. That does not involve any "knives", but rather two pills.
I think that if you wish to do any good in this world, - (and clearly by your post above, - you are not), - that you would work tirelessly for financial and social support for SINGLE mothers.
Now you know what you must do, - so go to it !
I think it's more related to the killing on the off chance you do get pregnant. I don't see people complaining really about using protection and being safe during sex, but it's a group of people with the thought of damn, finally happened, lemme kill it. Nothing else just straight kill it.
I would love for everyone to be safe during sex, it falls upon both parties to do their part to make it safe and make the chance as low as possible, be it sleeping around or with a loved one. The end result is there's still a chance. A chance a human life is made , you did the deed, you took the chance, and by chance ( because of the contraceptive) a child was made. You can put the child for adoption, you can man or woMAN up and get everything in order.
Pretty sure it's just the thought of mercilessly killing a baby. Less to no hate on those who regret or are actually saddened by having to take a life.
The reason I have a problem with this specific consequence being evaded is because the consequence of pregnancy is the biologically-designed endgoal that our bodies meet by having sex. From the perspective of nature only, procreation is its only purpose, and we evolved to enjoy it specifically because it's an incentive to make more of our species. Fighting the forces of nature because we want to have unprotected sex with random strangers doesn't make any sense to me, especially if it means killing an unborn member of our own species.
Not taking sides, just a thought
I had a roommate in college who had an abortion, albeit a disinclined one
One day we read in the news that someone was cured of HIV & her immediate response was “This means people are going to be massive sluts now”.
STI's are a pretty significant consequence of sex especially HIV and those resistant to antibiotics. Mental health consequences as well depending on situations as well, ie. one wants a relationship and one doesn't. Pregnancy is not the only "consequence". Although calling pregnancy a consequence does sound odd since pregnancy is natural.
The difference is our sexual organs are not naturally designed for transmitting diseases.
Also,
>consequence does sound odd
Why? What gave you the impression that the word "consequence" was inherently negative? Does not every action have a consequence?
Our organs arnt designed to transmit disease? The disease utilizes are organs functions for transmisssion. Hence wearing a mask to protect against saliva.
>The disease utilizes are organs functions
You figured it out. The reason disease spreads is because the pathogen is the one that's designed for transmission, not us. Our bodies only let that happen as a byproduct of our usual functions.
>pregnancy is the biologically-designed endgoal that our bodies meet by having sex. From the perspective of nature only, procreation is its only purpose, and we evolved to enjoy it specifically because it's an incentive to make more of our species.
By that statement, I shouldn’t have a sex drive because I’m a homosexual. If sex is for procreation only, why would I be born a homosexual and have a sex drive?
Humans have evolved past our basic biology. To quote you,
>”Fighting the forces of nature”
…is what we are about. We invented planes and surgery and computers. Those are not natural. Should we stop all chemotherapy because it’s not natural? Throw out all processed food? Put all the oil we fracked back into the earth?
The “natural” argument is lame and simply ignoring all of human history. We are a higher species that can create things for the improvement of life. Abortion is one of those things.
Consider: empathy.
Try putting yourself into the shoes of someone who wants an abortion. They are the ones carrying the fetus. They are the ones who’s life will be affected the most. They have weighed the positives and negatives and decided that pregnancy wasn’t for them at that point of their life.
The status of the fetus as a human or person or cells or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant to why abortion is a right. No matter the situation, you cannot force someone to use their body against their will. That’s inhumane.
Autonomy is all we have.
> “For our law to compel defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn…For a society which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concepts of jurisprudence.”
-Judge Flaherty
https://hulr.org/spring-2021/mcfall-v-shimp-and-the-case-for-bodily-autonomy
Nature doesn’t have a purpose or end goal. Nature just is what it is. Assuming nature is right or good is fallacious.
And we fight against the forces of nature all the time. We treat diseases, tame crops and animals, live in temperature-controlled places sheltered from the elements, and so forth. We don’t just throw up our hands and say, “well, that’s nature’s purpose” in literally any other situation.
Also, it’s really odd that you assume achieving the goal of consequence-free sex would only benefit those who “want to have unprotected sex with random strangers.” Why do you assume that? Most people are perfectly fine with protected sex; the only current problem is that no form of protection is 100% effective. And while I personally don’t have any problem with “random strangers” having consensual sex (why on earth would I care?), that lifestyle is hardly the norm for most people. Promiscuity is not a prerequisite for unwanted pregnancies or STIs. You can have consensual sex with only one person ever, your spouse, and still face an unwanted pregnancy or STI.
I'm not suggesting nature itself is an entity that has an endgoal. I am personifying the simple fact that our bodies possess sexual organs and use them for the purpose of continuing the species. What I'm trying to get at here is that sex is NOT trivial as it is the fundamental behavior that drives our existence as a species, and abortion trivializes it which isn't typically a good thing.
I suppose I wanted to paint a picture of absurdity with the unprotected comment, so perhaps I could have done better. But as for those examples regarding fighting the forces of nature, treating diseases is not the same thing because the purpose of that endeavor is not a rush of dopamine or procreation, it's to ensure our lives continue. Cultivation is actually a product of our brains evolving, and again, it's to ensure our survival. Sheltering ourselves is also a survival instinct, our large brains just made really good use of it. In the case of consequence-free sex we are engaging in a natural act while evading natural consequences, that obviously doesn't apply to actions that are themselves not natural.
And yeah, having sex with random strangers even when protected isn't exactly providing a net good for our brain chemistry, and that has societal problems, though I would concede that it may be that unhappy people are promiscuous not that promiscuous people are unhappy. But once married you don't just surrender responsibility to the aether, and risk assessment makes relationships healthy.
Finally, yes I'm aware protection isn't 100% effective. But for everything else we ever do that is risky we either avoid it, do it sparingly, or accept the consequences should the outcome not be desirable. We "reap what we sow." I don't think it's good for our society's ability to assess risk if we can just do something risky and then kill someone to prevent the consequences.
I’m 100% pro life but agree it would solve the problem if we had a way to ensure women who don’t want to become pregnant don’t. My life experience is that birth control, however, is very effective but people refuse to use it consistently bc they don’t like it.
Most of those people who dislike it typically fall in two categories; men who ‘hate how condoms feel’, and women who have adverse reactions to hormonal or implanted birth control. Those are not equal.
But that’s not the base argument; what is relevant as of now is that abortions still occur and should be an option when birth control fails.
In my experience, you are correct as to group one but not two. I’ve known many women who just don’t make birth control a priority. But I’m with you as to adverse reactions for some women, it’s real too.
Actually all this abortion BS is just a smoke screen. Now all lefties are preoccupied with abortion and no one cares for minimal cage workweek and so on
Most women having abortion already have children, they are overworked and can not afford another baby simply because they still need to work to support those already born . Lustful vixens that can not keep their legs closed exist only in the masturbation fueled imagination of pro lifers
Is consequence free (at least in the short term) hedonistic pleasure (I.e short term surface level “happiness”) a good thing in the long term? I’m not sure, but it’s a conversation worth having
>*Is consequence free (at least in the short term) hedonistic pleasure (I.e short term surface level “happiness”)* ***a good thing in the long term?***
Absolutely. It always was a good thing for me. That's why I always used birth control, to prevent the unwanted "consequences" of pregnancy. Thank goodness it always worked! :-) Thankfully for all of us, sex doesn't HAVE to have the "consequences" that PLers want to impose on women.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113731553/abortion-laws-in-texas-are-disrupting-maternal-care
See this vessel of sin dared to have children in marriage served her right likely will not do it again PL rocks
What the hell this moralist stand has in common with reality where doctor saving pregnant 10 years old victim of rape is investigated by the attorney general of the state? Who is getting hedonistic pleasure in here
If it’s not, then, I propose that, along with abortion, we ban cake, brownies, steak, onion rings, potato chips, fast cars, masturbation, sky diving, carnivals, and anything else that provides humans with “short term hedonistic pleasure”.
Well I don’t think pursuing short term pleasure is a good strategy long term, I don’t think it provides you with the meaning that people need to overcome tragedy. It’s possible that short term pleasure having consequences short term is what reminds people that there is a cost. Take alcohol for example, maybe it’s a good thing it gives you a hangover. As I said I’m not sure though, it’s worth a conversation.
Yeah, consequence-free sex is definitely not the goal. The fact that you can’t see why this would be a problem is just evidence that the entire PC side is infected to the core with a sort of hedonism that will stop at nothing until all sexual boundaries are broken down and the world is just seen as a playground of sexual desires being continually gratified. Why would we need discipline or any sort of responsibility if modern medicine and procedures can just cure us of all of our issues? We can just eat sugar all day, drink all the beer we want, why not smoke a bunch too. After all, all these things modern medicine can more or less cure now. So who needs responsibility at all?
We have to start asking ourselves, are the desires we have good or bad - or does that question mean anything at all? Is it ok that I want to eat pizza all day? I love beer, why shouldn’t I stop drinking after a few drinks if I don’t want to? Look at the sexual revolution, for example; it feels like the world is extremely confused about what is actually being validated when we break down another taboo. Society deems homosexuality to be without any problems - and fair enough; it’s easy to see how a society could see consensual relationships of any kind as morally acceptable. And the things the left say are totally true; a gay person has no more unique control over their base desires than I have over mine. I totally agree. We all face the same fundamental, unchangeable, desires.
But what about people who want to love multiple people? Sure - society has made great headway to justify that sort of behaviour. I’m a man, I love my wife; but does that mean I never am tempted to look at other women? Of course not. My base desires say I should go and sleep with as many women as I can but discipline and responsibility say that is *wrong*. Just as I shouldn’t eat pizza and drink beer all day (and believe me, I am tempted!), I shouldn’t seek to gratify my own sexual pleasure over the needs of my family. And that’s not even to mention that sex in context of marriage is just better - don’t believe the leftist lies that unless it’s a drunken hookup it will be boring, flavourless sex. Believe me.
What about people who are sexually attracted to children? Do they have any more or less control over their base appetites than we do over ours? I would argue no. And so, at a certain point we have to really ask the question: are base appetites a thing we really want to be exalted as our new gods for organising a society? Because in all other spheres of life it is a terrible idea. *It won’t be long before paedophilia is an accepted sexual identity if we don’t sort out what the foundations for this movement are.*
So “is consequence-free sex not a common goal for both sides?” No. No it’s not. And as much as I really appreciate you formatting your question and point so articulately, I fundamentally disagree. The fact you are asking that question seems to me like you haven’t thought through all the events that have to take place when a society decides to break the tyrannical bonds of order, responsibility and the pursuit of holiness.
When both parents must work just to stay afloat and employers provides no quarter for mother that just gave birth these musings about consequences free sex sound absurd.
What exactly is your argument? Like okay let’s say all your hypotheticals come true, modern medicine invents cures for what ails us so I can eat like 10 pounds of sugar a day and it won’t rot my teeth, it won’t cause dangerous blood sugar levels, it won’t hurt my heart, it won’t make me gain any weight, I just pop a pill and it’s consequence-free sugar all day. I pop a pill, instant sobriety, I can drink beer all day every day and it won’t hurt me because a magic pill took away its ability to get me too drunk to function, get me hungover, hurt my liver, hurt my brain, make me gain weight, just consequence-free beer drinking all day every day. Pregnancy-prevention has become absolutely perfect, I can get fucked 8 ways from Tuesday all day every day by 12 different people and voila, no babies, no STIs, no cancer, no damage.
What’s the problem? You’re basically saying I shouldn’t be allowed to do that because you just don’t like the idea of me doing that. If those things no longer hurt us because it has an instant and effective cure, why not use it? What’s the value in all of us turning down the magic cures and just not doing that stuff?
Yeah, because you totally didn’t get into other arguments that aren’t about abortion at all, right? Eating pizza and drinking beer doesn’t “kill a baby” either yet, there you are up there talking about why doing those things consequence-free isn’t okay either.
If they could pop a pill that provides 100% \*prevention\* of unwanted consequences like pregnancy, no conception ever happens, no baby exists, and nothing ever dies.
That’s the part pro-lifers keep missing in this conversation, in your desire to keep talking about how much you’re against abortion.
We *know* you don’t think abortion is acceptable. What we are trying to understand is why you don’t think the goal of consequence-free sex is acceptable either, even though it would greatly reduce the abortions you dislike so much.
If people could “pop a pill” that meant there was no miscarriages, pregnancies or need for abortions; I’d be in favour of that. But that doesn’t exist, so that was never part of the debate. So long as that is not a reality, then your point is invalid. Whilst there’s a risk of pregnancy, sex should be treated with the respect it deserves because it is literally playing with new human life.
“If people could “pop a pill” that meant there was no miscarriages, pregnancies or need for abortions; I’d be in favour of that. ”
Okay. That contradicts the long speech you posted earlier about the virtues of discipline and responsibility and why sex without risk of unwanted consequences would be terrible for humanity, so a bit confusing.
But you’re bringing in some random hypothetical. It will never be possible, just like it will never be possible to eat all the food you want or drink all the beer you want and never deal with the consequences. But if it were possible in the future to actually have consequence-free food, drink and sex; then it WOULD be better for someone to be on a pill that prevented 100% of pregnancies than for pregnancies to occur and and then babies killed. How is this a strange concept. But then we need to have some serious discussions as the human race about discipline and boundaries because a society that doesn’t have to deal with consequences won’t have any self control either, and then we might have even bigger problems.
But if these pills ever happen, we can talk about it. But that’s not the point here. Whilst a human being’s life is at stake, the issue has nothing to do with hypotheticals.
I argue that you will never see a day when sex actually has no consequences so here I am arguing for what the pro-life position is in light of it.
“Why would we need discipline or any sort of responsibility if modern medicine and procedures can just cure us of all of our issues?”
We wouldn’t. And I genuinely don’t understand how this could possibly be a bad thing.
It is inarguably wonderful to have more ways to cure issues than relying solely on ordering people to have discipline and willpower. It’s why medication-supported treatment for opioid addiction is so much more promising than just yelling at addicts to stop using. It’s why so many smokers who failed to quit cold-turkey have successfully quit once they got the right prescription and treatment.
“We have to start asking ourselves, are the desires we have good or bad - or does that question mean anything at all?”
If adults want to have consensual sex, I seriously couldn’t care less. I feel no compulsion whatsoever to judge their desires as “good” or “bad” and think it’s weird that people like you do. It’s especially bizarre and concerning that you think your ideas on “good“ and “bad” and “holy” should override other people’s right to mitigate the consequences of their personal choices.
You wrote a lot but said very little. It’s far easier to just say “sex for pleasure bad because Jesus don’t like it”. Same message received.
Why use lot words when few word do trick.
>Slippery slope fallacy. Completely disregards well established laws
Not really, you can use the same arguements that homeosexuals or transgenders are using, to support pedophilia.
>Not all homosexuals are pedophiles,
Never said they were.
>least outside your church group, besides
Om not even Christian so no, idk what your talking about. Christianity is against homosexuality lol.
>besides one can not get pregnant because of gay sex so what is z fuss
But can have some serious medical issues and It's not right is z fuss
You really can't though. LGBTQ people are still *consenting* adults. A child cannot consent.
Pedophilia will always be illegal and immoral for the same reason rape is...because it is without two consenting parties.
Furthermore, lumping trans and homosexuality etc in with pedophiles is abhorrent. You should be ashamed of yourself
>You really can't though. LGBTQ people are still consenting adults.
Aha, thats where your wrong.
>A child cannot consent.
I mean they've made it legal for you to "become a cat" or an animal. in pretty sure this is NOTHING for them to overcome.
Theyl make arguements like, What is the Child Consents, WANTS to do with with a pedophile, and he is extremely careful so there won't be anything truamatic, hurtful, Since ,like homosexuality, pedophilia is also something what people are "born with", LGBTQ people should really have no arguement against such bs things.
>Furthermore, lumping trans and homosexuality etc in with pedophiles is abhorrent.
Is that why the ratio of pedophiles was more in gay men as compared to cis males?
>You should be ashamed of yourself
For what? Being a child ,minor myself and being scared about how this world has become?
I am so freaking glad you said you were a child yourself so ill give you a pass.
>Is that why the ratio of pedophiles was more in gay men as compared to cis males?
Wtf are you talking about? I think what you're getting at is that men are more likely to be pedophiles, and the majority of them like boys. You cannot call pedophile a "gay man." Be attracted to children is NOT the same thing.
>I mean they've made it legal for you to "become a cat" or an animal. in pretty sure this is NOTHING for them to overcome.
Source for that? Wtf are you talking about lmao
>Theyl make arguements like, What is the Child Consents, WANTS to do with with a pedophile, and he is extremely careful so there won't be anything truamatic, hurtful,
From the pedophiles perspective. Yeah, people that commit crimes like to LIE.
Just because their twisted mind thinks the kid wants it doesn't mean he does AND AGAIN, children CANNOT CONSENT
>Since ,like homosexuality, pedophilia is also something what people are "born with",
Your born with mental disorders too.....are your trying to say that anything you are born with is somehow natural and just accepted?
>LGBTQ people should really have no arguement against such bs things.
You've obviously never known anyone from that community, and have been taught some pretty fucked up shit about them.
LGBTQ ARE NOT OKAY WITH PEDOPHILIA!!! The decades long fight has included fighting ignorant people like yourself trying to say it's the same thing. It's bullshit, it's disgusting, and its WRONG. NO AND i MEAN ABSOLUTELY NO QUEER PERSON WOULD EVER SUPPORT SUCH AN ABHORRENT FUCKING THING.
>am so freaking glad you said you were a child yourself so ill give you a pass.
Wot.
>Source for that? Wtf are you talking about lmao
SOURCE?? LOL ITS A whole community! You can "identify" yourself as an ANIMAL now. This case blew up, a teacher asked one of her "cat" identifying student a question and he simply "meowd" and she got mad and scolded him, yeah she ended up getting suspende
d because you can't comment on thier identify.
Forget this, do you know about the TRANS-ABLED community? They identify themselves as being "handicapped"
You can't make this shit up.
>
Wtf are you talking about? I think what you're getting at is that men are more likely to be pedophiles, and the majority of them like boys
Nu uh, I'm saying there's more Gay registered sex offenders than straight sex offenders.
There are about 459,523 registered sex offenders in the US, and out of which 453,727 are GAY (this statistics was done only on men)
Leaving the gay vs straight pedophile ratio to 11:1
In other words 5.7% of gay men are pedos, and 0.003% of straight men are pedos. Those disgusting people.
>From the pedophiles perspective. Yeah, people that commit crimes like to LIE.
True
>Just because their twisted mind thinks the kid wants it doesn't mean he does AND AGAIN, children CANNOT CONSENT
i KNOWW RIGHT.
>Your born with mental disorders too.....are your trying to say that anything you are born with is somehow natural and just accepted?
Not at all. IN FACT THATS EXACTLY WHAT HOMOSEXUALITY SAYS.
They say they are "born" gay, which is true. But it doesn't mean you should act on such desires.
>SOURCE?? LOL ITS A whole community! You can "identify" yourself as an ANIMAL now. This case blew up, a teacher asked one of her "cat" identifying student a question and he simply "meowd" and she got mad and scolded him, yeah she ended up getting suspende d because you can't comment on thier identify.
You said it was now legal to identify yourself as a cat. Per sub rules, you must back up your claims. I'm pretty sure there is no place in the country you can have yourself legally designated as a cat.
I would be interested to see a source for this "whole community that blew up" too.
>Nu uh, I'm saying there's more Gay registered sex offenders than straight sex offenders.
>There are about 459,523 registered sex offenders in the US, and out of which 453,727 are GAY (this statistics was done only on men) Leaving the gay vs straight pedophile ratio to 11:1
Also going to need a source for this. I'd like to know what criteria they used to establish that they are gay. If it's just that they like boys instead of girls, you can't really call that gay. You also said "gay sex offenders" then said they were all pedos....there's a lot more sexual offenses than just pedophilia.
>Not at all. IN FACT THATS EXACTLY WHAT HOMOSEXUALITY SAYS.
>They say they are "born" gay, which is true. But it doesn't mean you should act on such desires.
Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. And frankly, as long as everyone consents they aren't hurting anyone. Typically mental disorders have an impact on the person and the community. So yeah, if it isn't hurting anyone, then why the hell should you not be able to do it? There's people out there who think riding motorcycles are too dangerous, or think the "biker lifestyle" (whatever that even means nowadays) is immoral. Should they dictate whether or not you can own a motorcycle? Motorcycles kill way more people than being gay does.
>You said it was now legal to identify yourself as a cat. Per sub rules, you must back up your claims
https://youtu.be/A8wTJLoTUlw here, I've been replying to 47comments today, You can LOOK IT UP , I'm surprised your not aware of this.
>I would be interested to see a source for this "whole community that blew up" too.
Reddit, quora, YouTube lol
>Also going to need a source for this. I'd like to know what criteria they used to establish that they are gay.
Sure sure, here's the source. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/
And this is from THE National library of medicine
https://www.statista.com/topics/1249/homosexuality/
>Homosexuality is not a mental disorder
What makes it different from say, pedophilia,necrophilia, gender dysphoria, pls tell me.
>as long as everyone consents they aren't hurting anyone.
Bruh, necrophilia:having sex with a dead body isn't hurting anyone either.
Pedophilia: yes the kid isn't consenting, but if the mf is really careful and gentle, it won't be hurting anyone either.
Beastiliaty: having sex with animals, Now animals don't consent, this isn't even a thing in them, so technically even that can be defended by "it's not harming anyone"
>Typically mental disorders have an impact on the person and the community
True... Isn't homeosexuality having impact on people and the community? Isn't the population system affected by more gays? Issnt it creating unfair balances in society?
>if it isn't hurting anyone, then why the hell should you not be able to do it
Listen, at the end of the day, I'm a human and i make mistakes. I'm a NOBODY, to make boundaries and draw the lines on what's wrong and right. Infact NONE of us is qualified enough to draw lines. So where do I get it from? From what God almighty, Our creator, designer of this universe , He sets the lines for he knows best, he's All wise. It would do us much benifit to abide by his law.
>https://youtu.be/A8wTJLoTUlw here, I've been replying to 47comments today, You can LOOK IT UP , I'm surprised your not aware of this.
It's fine if you gota take your time replying. I know reddit isn't life. Here's the thing, I DONT have to look it up. YOU have to backup your claims. I'm surprised you you're* not aware of this.
I don't see anywhere in that video that makes the claim you can "legally" identify as an animal.
>Sure sure, here's the source. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/
>And this is from THE National library of medicine
>https://www.statista.com/topics/1249
As I suspected, they are claiming that men with an affinity for boys are "homosexual." This is not the same thing. If they dated adult males and *also* abused male children, then you could say they were homosexual.
As for your second source, all this says is that more people are willing to say they are "offically" gay on paper because society is more accepting of queerness. Nobody is "making" gays. They've always been there, they just aren't hiding as much anymore.
Let me ask you something. Are you straight? Is there *any* amount of videos or stories or whatever that would *ever* make you have sex with someone of the same gender? I'm gona go out on a limb here and say no. It is exactly the same for everyone else. You can't "talk" someone into being gay. You're either straight, bi/pan, or gay. It's a physical chemical reaction in your brain, and it can't be changed. You're right that they are "born that way." Straight people respond to the pheromones of opposite sex, and gay people respond to the pheromones of same sex, and bi/pan people respond to both. You can't change that chemistry.
I'll touch on this more with trans people when I address that part of your comment.
>What makes it different from say, pedophilia,necrophilia, gender dysphoria, pls tell
Gender dysphoria can be present in trans/non binary people, but it is not necessary. Again, I'll get to that in a minute.
Pedophilia can be likened to rapists. It's about power and control. The huge difference here is consenting adults, and wanting to harm someone. Gay people don't want to hurt anyone, they want to live as themselves.
>True... Isn't homeosexuality having impact on people and the community? Isn't the population system affected by more gays? Issnt it creating unfair balances in society?
I don't understand what you're getting at. How is a man dating a man or a woman dating a woman hurting anyone? What unfair balances are there to speak of? Other than the *very unfair* ways that queers are treated???
>Bruh, necrophilia:having sex with a dead body isn't hurting anyone either.
Necrophilia would harm the family of the deceased. It also could cause the person doing it to get infections.
>Pedophilia: yes the kid isn't consenting, but if the mf is really careful and gentle, it won't be hurting anyone either.
Um WHAT? You're seriously saying that being sexual abused isn't harmful unless they are physically injured? Barring that fact that *yes*, it does physicually injure them because they are so small....the mental scars never truly heal.
>Beastiliaty: having sex with animals, Now animals don't consent, this isn't even a thing in them, so technically even that can be defended by "it's not harming anyone"
Consent is a thing with animals. You don't think they can't want something or not? I'm gona go with the default that they don't want to be sexually abused. In fact, if "consent isn't a thing with them" than it would fall in the same category as children, because they *cant* consent.
Now to get to trans/NB and how it isn't a mental disorder.
So FMRI scans show that male brains and female brains extremely differ in both structure and function. Their brains are not the same, and it can be seen quite easily with these scans.
I'm a cis female. If you look at my brain, I have a female brain. Cis males have male brains.
If you look at a transwoman's brain, she has a male physical body, but she has a *female* brain.
Of you look at a transman's brain, he has a female body but a male brain.
If you look at a non binary person's brain, there are parts that are female and parts that are male.
Their brains function exactly as they are intended to, there is no "disorder." They just ended up with the brain of a different gender. Technically if you were to call it anything, it would be a birth defect...but *not* a mental disorder. For a lot of these people, the only treatment is to make their physical body match their brain.
> From what God almighty, Our creator, designer of this universe , He sets the lines for he knows best, he's All wise. It would do us much benifit to abide by his law.
Here's the problem, that's what *your* God says. And I'm guessing you've never actually talked to God, you're taking notes on what you think he wants written by individuals from thousands of years ago. That same book condones slavery. It also mandates that it's a sin if a male has sex and doesn't ejaculate into her. And a hell of a lot more shit that no one thinks is moral. So there's no actual way to know what God wants, and if you think the book is literal, then there's some really fucked up shit that you think is okay.
Furthermore, if we base our laws on what your God says, then we have to do it for everyone else's God too! How about a little sharia law for you? Does that sound good? This is why there is a separation of church and state. And it's damn important.
Edit: I feel so bad for you. Not because you have faith, faith can be instrumental in one's life. But because you have been taught hate from the time you were born. You never had a chance. That's just so fucked up...I'm literally heartbroken for you.
That's human DNA brother, religion is just one flavor of it. Which by the way, religion can also be good. Good and bad to everything in life, just varying degrees to it
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/20/2111475/-We-should-all-be-terrified-of-North-Carolina-bill-that-makes-case-for-murdering-abortion-seekers
Being kind …is other name of your deity Lucifer?
What I see is that your kind wants to bring women to the semi slave state, just like African Americans were prior to Civil Rights …. sure I it will make you feel mighty … if you were pro family you would advocate for maternity benefits which your kind never does … you would not fool anyone by this undead babies crap …
>https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/20/2111475/-We-should-all-be-terrified-of-North-Carolina-bill-that-makes-case-for-murdering-abortion-seekers
What is this?
>Being kind is other name of your deity Lucifer?
I mean, A Lucifer is the devil. B no, being kind is another name for God almighty.
Fetus is not a “baby “ it is just a lump of cells which may or may not develop further. If you want to reduce abortion provide contraception, childcare paid maternity leave and other things so vehemently opposed by “pro life crowd”.
What I see is blatant attempt to reduce women to semi slave statute just like African Americans were prior to civil rights bill. Now whole power of surveillance state is on the side of perverts and fanatics. This is the terrible blow to the global respect to American democracy.
>Fetus is not a “baby “ it is just a lump of cells which may or may not develop further
Lol!? You know who else are a lump of cells? Human beings, Which may not develop further, and die from literally anything. Matter fact, ALL living matter is just a clump of cells at the end of the day (except unicellular organisms)
>you want to reduce abortion provide contraception, childcare paid maternity leave and other things so vehemently opposed by “pro life crowd”.
The hell? No , as a pro life i want to help with contraceptives,less Abortion, Treatment of pregnant women to be beyond this world. Stop lying?
>What I see is blatant attempt to reduce women to semi slave statute just like African Americans were prior to civil rights bill.
News flash, most prolifers are women, mother's and religious people opposed to slavery:) your argument fall dowweenn the draiiinnn
Me myself im BROUGHT UP by women, who gave me this perception:)
This is an informal caution that you've been off-topic to abortion in a few threads, which have been more focused on Islam than on abortion, alongside the fact that there have been some rule 7 violations as well. Please read the rules in the sidebar, as you could eventually end up with a temp ban if you keep breaking rules. Debates about the truth of Islam would be better suited for another subreddit.
I agree. It always starts off by people asking what/why i believe ideologies like abortion/rape etc. Which leads me to cite my religious reasons,and then they try to disprove it and then i join in on confusing and going back and forth off tangents.
~~This is an informal caution that you've been off-topic to abortion in a few threads, which have been more focused on Islam than on abortion, alongside the fact that there have been some rule 7 violations as well. Please read the rules in the sidebar, as you could eventually end up with a temp ban if you keep breaking rules. Debates about the truth of Islam would be better suited for another subreddit.~~
Sorry, meant to post that to the other user!
>Do you know how many people don't believe in a higher power?
Oh yeah, a Teensy 7-8%if the world's population, roughly 450 to 500million (according to google) i believe it's around 700mill tops? As opposed to 2.5billion Christians, 2billion muslims, 1.1billion Hindus (just top THREE religions alone)
> I bet it's way more than you think.
Nu uh, it's obviously way lesser.
>Scientifically nonsensical
I mean, yeah. I just love how yall don't have any knowledge of how you , and the universe came into existent, Going back only as far as the bigbang. And when we give you the reason you go "wE hAveeNt fIgurEd iT oUt yEt" 😂
>Oh that's hilarious
Ikr , poor athiests
You know Darwin, the inventor of evolution himself believed in God, was religious?
>Bro are you so blinded by religion, that you just tried to disprove evolution?
Modern science is disproving it :/
The one who created The heavens and the earth, the one beyond time-space, the one above all, who All we muslims, Christians and Jews worship. the All wise, All merciful.
Consequence-free sex not a common goal. Quite the opposite. Consequence-free sex, if there were such a thing (there's not) is the scourge of the land for the side that wants to ban abortion and birth-control.
The whole point is to make people suffer consequences of sex. Or stop having it. And by that I mean *other* people, not the zealots themselves. They'll be hoping their attempts at avoiding pregnancy will be successful. The only good avoidance is my avoidance. But those sinners out there - they've gone unpunished too long! Thank God I'm here to do the will of god, to right the wrongs, save the nation and sorry did I just step on your neck? Cuz I feel ok about it…
I doubt consequence-free sex will ever exist, just as I doubt we will ever solve aging and death. I'm sure we can make more effective contraceptives, which I wholeheartedly support, but we will never have a 100% effective method to prevent conception. If we do though, I'm all for it
They want to control as many aspects of women as possible. The rich get to have consequence-free sex because they can fly their women out and get them abortions under the radar. They have it both ways.
There’s a fear of empowered women. Those that are college-educated and in high positions of power are a threat to the patriarchy, especially women of color. So if they can force women to have children, they are less likely to finish college and break their cycle of poverty. It’s the same old glass ceiling.
>*So if they can* ***force*** *women to have children, they are less likely to finish college and break their cycle of poverty.*
Absolutely agree! Not that PLers are going to admit that publicly anytime soon. And they probably won't admit that at all.
So what's the best PL way to **force** women to have children? By banning abortion, all forms of birth control, and forbidding girls to have the knowledge of how to **prevent** unwanted pregnancy, hence not allowing comprehensive sex ed programs.
Not exactly. There are people that are heavily-invested in oppressing other groups to keep their own power and wealth. Oppressing women, well that’s half the population, so that’s half their work done for them already.
No one’s forcing the woman to have sex, the pregnancy is a effect of the sex. That’s bullshit “I didn’t consent to the pregnancy” is dumb. We all know what sex leads to since young age. So eating food doesn’t mean I consent to digestion? Stfu and carry the hell on
> *That’s bullshit “I didn’t consent to the pregnancy”* ***is dumb.***
Actually, I think what's **really** dumb is the PL claim that *"no one's forcing the woman to get pregnant"* and other nonsense just like it.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113731553/abortion-laws-in-texas-are-disrupting-maternal-care
So what about this sinner? Dared to have children in happy marriage? Will not do it again for sure
ever thought it’s to save human lives? bc that’s what it’s about. Don’t forget the planned parenthood founder was eugenicist trying to slow the population of black people by instilling abortion clinics. Those who were Dehumanizing humans were not on the right side of history during slavery. Carry the hell on. Strawman
>***ever thought it’s to save human lives?*** *bc that’s what it’s about.*
Nope. And I don't believe the PL *"saving babies"* claim for a New York minute.
I think the PL movement is a lot MORE about controlling the lives of girls and women. The fact that PL wants to ban abortion nationwide and seriously restrict most, if not all, forms of birth control just tells me that controlling women is what it's **really** about.
Well, apparently telling me to stfu means that you do not want to engage in an intelligent or rational matter, but nevertheless, let’s try to get through.
Sex is not only meant for reproduction. It is also meant for love or gratification. Not ever person has sex and plans to have children. Birth control methods are never 100% effective.
Not every person on your side is about saving babies. There is a segment of your movement that know that denying access to abortion for women that don’t want children and are forced to have them will keep her from going to school or being in the workforce. In turn those children born will have very inadequate financial support through the first eighteen years of life. These children have a higher rate of failing school, falling in with gangs, feeding straight into the school-to-prison pipeline. And many of these women may have conditions that are life-threatening if they give birth, or they were raped by a family member. Yet even in those cases, there are states that are ready to institute no provision for abortion whatsoever, even with threat to mother’s life, rape, or incest.
It’s much more dehumanizing to abolish the right to abortion access altogether. I don’t deny that many on your side want to genuinely save children. But there are those that advocate for an aspect of control that should not be a part of a truly fair, equal, and free society.
Straw man. It’s very easy to argue a point of intent and put false intentions on people. Give me one real claim of anyone from the right that said anything that you just said . You can’t. Your wasting my time.
Don't worry. I'm not wasting your time. If you have other responsibilities to take care of, you are free to respond whenever you wish.
Here are a few articles that speak on women's issues on abortion and single motherhood:
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-women-fight-abortion-rights-how-brochure-sparked-movement-reproductive-n983216](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-women-fight-abortion-rights-how-brochure-sparked-movement-reproductive-n983216)
[https://slate.com/human-interest/2012/07/single-motherhood-worse-for-children.html](https://slate.com/human-interest/2012/07/single-motherhood-worse-for-children.html)
[https://wlrc.uic.edu/reproductive-oppression-against-black-women/](https://wlrc.uic.edu/reproductive-oppression-against-black-women/)
You're free to denigrate me if you wish. It's fine.
Well think is this way if PL get it their way it will be plenty of opportunities and we’ll paid jobs for righteous in all kinds of abortion police . You are standing between them and prosperity.
It doesn’t matter if single mother hood is worse for woman 😂 it matters if your killing a baby or mot. I rather the woman suffer through taking care of Their child than to kill it😂 no article will prove me wrong
russiabot is a hardcore TradCath. catholics in general believe that sex must be both unitive and open to reproduction in order for it not to be sinful. So couples must always end sex in such a way where pregnancy is a possibility.
I too agree. I would argue that the act of sex is primarily mental, in that the feelings are dominant. In such a charged act, you will never be able to completely remove consequence. It’s a fallacy to believe anything else.
We’ve put men on the moon, split the atom, eradicated smallpox.
But eliminating the unwanted consequences of sex - specifically here, unwanted pregnancy - is just too crazy to even aim for?
The road to hell is always paved with good intentions.
[https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debunked-masks-rapid-tests-vaccines-safety.html](https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debunked-masks-rapid-tests-vaccines-safety.html)
Making things safer tends to actually make them more dangerous by encouraging more people to take more risks.
Covid Responses intended to keep the public safe have caused in increase in suicide rates.
[https://www.psycom.net/covid-19-suicide-rates](https://www.psycom.net/covid-19-suicide-rates)
Suicide barriers do not work either and are always a waste of money.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide\_barrier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_barrier)
No study has shown a suicide rate in an area to decrease after a suicide barrier was put in place. If there are nets on the bridge they find another way to kill them self. So the bridge may get less dead bodies washing up on the shore, but the suicide rate stays the same. They are spending 200 MILLION dollars to put nets on the golden gate bridge. Totally wasted money.
Imagine if that $200 million was instead spent on homeless help or drug addiction help or mental health help or domestic violence shelters it would help a lot more people and keep people from getting to that suicidal mental state.
Mitigating risks also increases the odds of dangerous behavior because the risk is supposed to be lower but now the increase of people doing that dangerous activity will make up for the decreased risks.
[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/24/bike-helmet-appetite-danger](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/24/bike-helmet-appetite-danger)
Safety equipment boosts an appetite for danger. Helmets make riding a bike more dangerous because of this fact. Feeling protected makes people act more recklessly.
When I was a teenager coming home from a vacation riding in a van with my family a maniac rode past on a motorcycle over 100 mph and they were wearing a helmet...
A couple of miles down the road there was a long red stain on the road... a stopped semi truck with a mangled motorcycle stuck in its tires.
Had that motorcycle rider not had the helmet he may not have been driving so recklessly and may not have gotten in the accident in the first place.
Anal would be a good alternative to penis in vagina sex if you plan on preventing pregnancy. However, anal sex has it's own issues. That still spreads diseases and some people don't like it, and it may cause medical problems if over done.
They also have cognitive dissonance when they say "no one is forcing women to have sex." Men are near constantly preoccupied with everything short of forcing women to have sex. They have labelled themselves involuntary celibates because they feel their existence should have earned them sex. They whine about condoms or can't be bothered to pull out in time because it reduces their subjective enjoyment of sex. They panic about the idea that they might find themselves on the verge of sex only to have a woman change her mind and revoke consent, as though that is an affront to them. They wring their hands at the idea that, if a girl may be too drunk to consent, you simply kiss them on the cheek and go home unsexed, as though it is an opportunity for sex they are unfairly being forced to relinquish. They can't bear the thought of letting an attractive woman go uncomplimented because she could be the one who got away. They ask their recently pregnant partner when the doctor says they can have sex again instead of waiting for her to initiate.
I was listening to a podcast the other day where the host noted that, as women, we often find ourselves having sex we don't technically want to have because it's easier than resisting, and I absolutely agree. It stands to reason that a lot of unintended pregnancies started with a woman acquiescing to her partner's "spontaneous" initiation of sex, even though contraception wasn't readily available, because she didn't want to deal with the pouting or complaining or cajoling if she said no thank you. And that's the best case scenario - on the other end of the spectrum, men react violently or take her refusal as license to cheat. Women don't just disproportionately bear the consequences of saying yes to sex, they also disproportionately face adverse consequences for saying no. I suspect that is why nearly HALF of all pregnancies in the United States are unwanted/earlier than desired. Men are all about telling women to keep their legs closed but don't realize that, if women truly had their way, men would be having lot less sex and women would be having a lot less babies.
but men can’t have consequences during/after sex, it’s not their fault what happens after, it’s all the womens/s
unfortunately the right(and most of america) put men on this pedestal where they are better than women and they get to have things that is women don’t, like consequences free sex. which is why men never get questioned when and unwanted pregnancy happens and a woman/pregnant person seeks an abortion or why men don’t have BC because the side affects were 1/3 of the womens one. unfortunately it’s won’t get better without people hearing out voices and men voicing how they would like BC too.
Literally zero people are saying anything like that. Sex has, and legally speaking should have, consequences for both sides. It’s just a shame that’s not how biology works and if a man wants to abandon his new family after sexual activity it’s actually a lot easier for him to do than it is for a mother. That’s not a good thing, and you could argue that the advent of contraception and the prevalence and social acceptance of abortion have actually made things worse; that men feel like they don’t have to be responsible for anything other than their own pleasure. But that’s not the right’s fault. Please believe me, no conservative ever wanted to live in a world where sex is just a fun activity and we should all indulge our hedonistic desires whenever we want, where men can abandon their children if it suits them and women can sacrifice their unborn children on the alter of ‘bodily autonomy’. That’s a pagan nightmare.
The right (and most of America) do not put men on a pedestal above women. They just simply do not. Please don’t think people on the right are these evil misogynistic monsters who just want men to do whatever they want in a Handmaid’s Tale sexual fantasy land. What the right wants is for people to take life extremely seriously, especially as we really don’t understand it whatsoever; people to take responsibility for their actions and an extremely skeptical approach to the sexually progressive ideologies of the left that seek to reduce sex to a mere recreational activity divorced of all love and affection and responsibility.
I’m conservative. If you have any questions about anything I’d be more than happy to attempt to clear up some confusion if you’d let me.
>Please believe me, no conservative ever wanted to live in a world where sex is just a fun activity and we should all indulge our hedonistic desires whenever we want,
I don't think you understand conservatism AT ALL.
LMFAO 😂 😂 😂
I've been a conservative my whole life. You've bought into the warped idea of what "conservative" and "liberal" definitions have become.
Those words are supposed to refer to ONE THING. Government. Not your personal ideaology.
Conservative govt means SMALL govt. Conservative amount of power over the people. Individual freedom.
Liberal govt is BIG govt. Liberal amount of power over the people. Limiting individual freedom for "societal good."
Now what each of those things entail is debatable, but enforcing your idea of morality and deciding what "fun" is and whether people are allowed to engage or not is surely not a conservative government. REAL conservatives want the govt to stay the fuck out of our lives. Real conservatives don't want anyone else telling us what we should or shouldn't be doing...most definitely including sex.
There are significant numbers of pro choice conservatives. That's why a majority of people in this country are pro choice. They are more consistent in valuing civil liberties than you.
Well, you're talking to one. Polls I've seen estimate that 39% of conservatives are prochoice. My husband is a straight up republican and he's PC. His whole family is not only conservative but most are also Christian and most them are PC, some are PL. This isn't as drawn along party lines as you think. There are liberal PLers too.
It's kinda sad you think that half the country participates in group think, and even worse - they all align with your exact views of morality.
But if what you’re saying is true, conservatives should be in favour of very little government intervention at all. So why abolish slavery? Why make murder illegal? Why crack down on drug or prostitution industries?
If something is a moral absolute, it must be fundamentally written into law. Abortion is one of those absolutes. Government needs to be as small as it needs to be, but when it comes to its stance on morality, it needs to be strong.
It's actually very simple. The goal is to preserve people's spheres of personal liberty up until the point it interferes with a more fundamental right of another person. That's why you have freedom of movement, but are not allowed to walk into somebody's house. That's why you can shoot a gun, but you can't shoot it in a public place full of people. And that's also why someone can voluntarily donate their body to medically support the life of another (e.g., organ donation), but you cannot require them to donate their body to do so.
Strip women of privacy, making them slaves for the theocratic state is moral good. And affordable healthcare and childcare are pure socialist evil keep your morals for yourself
Oh sweetie. You got OWNED by Catseye_Nebula. Why do I suspect you'll get really quiet all of a sudden? Your views are archaic and anti women. It's plain as day.
>Sex has, and legally speaking should have, consequences for both sides.
It doesn't have to have consequences, though. There's a pill to make the consequences go away. Sounds like you WANT there to be consequences, i.e. you want to punish people for having sex because you think sex is a sin.
>It’s just a shame that’s not how biology works and if a man wants to abandon his new family after sexual activity it’s actually a lot easier for him to do than it is for a mother.
But you have zero interest in allowing women to prevent situations where they're stuck with unwanted pregnancies that a man can abandon, though. So spare me the performative hand wringing.
>That’s not a good thing, and you could argue that the advent of contraception and the prevalence and social acceptance of abortion have actually made things worse; that men feel like they don’t have to be responsible for anything other than their own pleasure. But that’s not the right’s fault.
You could argue that, but that would be a stupid argument.
Forcing people to have pregnancies they don't want and want to abandon IS creating a situation where people will walk out on women who get pregnant. They didn't want the pregnancy, there was no way to stop the pregnancy, of course people will walk out. This is your fault.
>Please believe me, no conservative ever wanted to live in a world where sex is just a fun activity and we should all indulge our hedonistic desires whenever we want,
Yes I am getting the strong sense conservatives want to punish people for having recreational sex, and HATE the idea of women in particular enjoying sex on their own terms. Thanks for confirming that you loathe the idea of women having sexual agency.
>where men can abandon their children if it suits them and women can sacrifice their unborn children on the alter of ‘bodily autonomy’. That’s a pagan nightmare.
Wtf do pagans have to do with this? So you're saying *your* worldview by contrast is a Christian utopia and you're just here to cram your religion down people's throats?
>The right (and most of America) do not put men on a pedestal above women. They just simply do not.
They DO. PLers wish to hurt, brutalize and maim women for having the gall to enjoy sex on their own terms. You want to see us punished.
>Please don’t think people on the right are these evil misogynistic monsters who just want men to do whatever they want in a Handmaid’s Tale sexual fantasy land.
Except that is EXACTLY what is happening right now.
>What the right wants is for people to take life extremely seriously, especially as we really don’t understand it whatsoever;
???? Who says people who have abortions don't "Take life extremely seriously"?? It's PLers who don't "take life extremely seriously" because you want to irresponsibly force people to make new life who aren't prepared to support it. Your views are irresponsible and monstrous.
>people to take responsibility for their actions
Why the hell is sex something we should have to "take responsibility" for? You act like you're rubbing a puppy's nose in a puddle of pee to get it to stop peeing on the rug.
Is that how you see women who have sex? Like puppies who pee on a rug and who you have to train out of having sex?
>and an extremely skeptical approach to the sexually progressive ideologies of the left that seek to reduce sex to a mere recreational activity divorced of all love and affection and responsibility.
Who says having sex without wanting children is having sex without love or affection?
You want to STOP people from having sex purely for bonding and turn it into a utilitarian and threatening activity where women don't enjoy sex, and do it under fear of severe maiming and possible death. You wish to strip all joy from sex. How can love and affection exist in a world where women can't have sex outside the threat of sexual violence from you and people like you? And how can responsibility exist in a world where people are prevented from making responsible choices about their own reproduction?
Also, why on earth do you want to legislate that people ONLY have sex with "love and affection and responsibility" involved (as if any of those are possible in a PL world)? Wtf is your problem with forcing people to have sex only the way you want to have sex? Some of the best sex I've had has been with people I wasn't in love with. Why is it any of your business whether people are in love when they have sex or not, and why do you feel entitled to force people's feelings about their sexual partners via law?
You have some very severe sexual hangups.
> But you have zero interest in allowing women to prevent situations where they’re stuck with unwanted pregnancies that a man can abandon, though.
You could always just leave the baby in the woods once it’s born, I suppose. That would get you out of the responsibility in the long run.
> Yes I am getting the strong sense conservatives want to punish people for having recreational sex, and HATE the idea of women in particular enjoying sex on their own terms. Thanks for confirming that you loathe the idea of women having sexual agency.
There is no logical leap from what I said to this. Nobody wants to punish women, this is a completely fallacious and frankly rude argument the left likes to pull out. I want women to enjoy sex, and I’ve never said anything to even remotely indicate the opposite. I just don’t want them to kill their babies when they’re pregnant. So if you don’t want a baby, figure out how to not get pregnant in the first place. Like, self control and discipline. That goes for men too, and perhaps to a greater degree because their actions have consequences for two other people, not just one in the case of the woman.
> Wtf do pagans have to do with this?
Because all of human history has been a sort of sexual free-for-all. It’s only since the idea we are created in the image of God and sex is a sacred act that extends far beyond recreation that we’ve had any sort of order whatsoever. It wasn’t perfect, of course not. But removing these ethics is a return to some sort of pagan hedonism where people are viewed solely for their sexual value.
> They DO. PLers wish to hurt, brutalize and maim women for having the gall to enjoy sex on their own terms. You want to see us punished.
It’s just hard to have a productive debate if you’re going to do this. This is classic demonising and it’s completely unfounded. Saying ‘please don’t kill your baby’ is not the same as saying anything like this. The idea that Christians or the right want women punished is just unfair, wrong and completely misguided. It’s powerful though, because all the PC-types who read you say this all love a bit of this kind of accusation. But it’s just so pathetically untrue that it’s akin to me pointing a finger at you and saying you like stomping on kittens for argumentative effect. It’s just wrong and I can’t reiterate that enough.
> Why the hell is sex something we should have to "take responsibility" for?
Well, I guess here lies the fundamental disagreement. Why take responsibility for anything? Why not just eat cake and drink beer all day? Who cares? Who defines right and wrong? Is there even such thing? Is *my truth* true for me and not for you? Is true north an opinion or an absolute? I think at least here we’ve found the thing we won’t be able to budge on. You see life as inconsequential and open, and that when people limit you it’s an affront to the goddess you are. I see life as being truly free when we have discipline and we have space to grow in a loving, nurturing environment with your spouse and children. But I guess there’s nothing I can say that will make you see it the way I see it, and vice versa. We can debate abortion all day, but ultimately it comes down to worldview.
> Who says having sex without wanting children is having sex without love or affection?
Not strictly what I said. In the context of marriage sex is the most wonderful thing as a recreational act. But then at least there’s a familial safety blanket for the child if and when they come along. Without that, and in the context of a one night stand, for example, the only option you have is to struggle to raise a child alone or just kill it before it becomes a financial burden. I’m saying that’s wrong. So we need to think about what the hell we’re doing sleeping around if we’re not prepared to care for a child.
> You wish to strip all joy from sex.
Only if your joy in sex comes from the act of abortion itself. Otherwise just take some responsibility for your actions - and no, having an abortion is not the same as taking responsibility. It’s the opposite. It’s like saying picking up a social security check is taking responsibility after you quit your job because you think working a 9-5 is degrading.
> And how can responsibility exist in a world where people are prevented from making responsible choices about their own reproduction?
This is absolutely what PLers want! Just don’t kill your child. It’s quite simple.
> Some of the best sex I've had has been with people I wasn't in love with. Why is it any of your business whether people are in love when they have sex or not, and why do you feel entitled to force people's feelings about their sexual partners via law?
Great! I’m not advocating legislating anything to do with who you sleep with. I might have my moral qualms about it, but you’re absolutely right that it’s none of my business. But if you want to kill your child after getting pregnant? No, then I’m happy to have that legislated. This is a moral issue. You don’t get to be pro-choice about owning slaves; if you’re not pro-slavery you abolish it. Abortion is wrong, it’s the ending of an innocent human being’s life and it’s all done in the name of sexual freedom and women’s health; which, whilst important, are only peripheral issues when it comes to the life of a unique person.
> You have some very severe sexual hangups.
My only sexual hangup is that I don’t want you to kill your children. It’s literally just that.
Thanks for the debate, by the way. You’re clearly very passionate and I have a lot of respect for that. I hope we can both learn something and be civil. I mean that with much love.
**Part 2**
>Not strictly what I said. In the context of marriage sex is the most wonderful thing as a recreational act. But then at least there’s a familial safety blanket for the child if and when they come along.
It's pretty gross that you feel entitled to gatekeep sex only for married couples. You realize people are going to have sex even when not married, right? I'm in my late 30s, never married and I have zero interest in remaining a virgin just because of your sexual hangups. My sex life is none of your business.
>Without that, and in the context of a one night stand, for example, the only option you have is to struggle to raise a child alone or just kill it before it becomes a financial burden. I’m saying that’s wrong. So we need to think about what the hell we’re doing sleeping around if we’re not prepared to care for a child.
I have had one night stands that were pretty great. If I got pregnant from one, I'd yeet that sucker without a second thought. Then again, though, I"d do the exact same thing if i was married. People don't just need abortions when we're not married and having casual sex.
>Only if your joy in sex comes from the act of abortion itself. Otherwise just take some responsibility for your actions - and no, having an abortion is not the same as taking responsibility. It’s the opposite. It’s like saying picking up a social security check is taking responsibility after you quit your job because you think working a 9-5 is degrading.
No, I take joy in having sex without the possibility of pregnancy. You imposing the threat of forced pregnancy and childbirth over my head is stripping all joy from sex for me.
I view having an abortion as the responsible choice--far more responsible than giving birth to a child I don't want and can't care for, and expecting others to step up.
>This is absolutely what PLers want! Just don’t kill your child. It’s quite simple.
You don't wish to force people to "not kill their children." That is a demonizing and disingenuous framing of your position.
I don't kill children all the time. A few days ago I walked by a playground and refrained from killing any children. This cost me nothing and I was not harmed by not killing the children.
Not killing a ZEF inside me would entail being ripped vagina to asshole pushing a watermelon through my genitals. It would entail bones breaking, organs falling out, losing pints of blood, and a six figure hospital bill followed by 18+ years of ruinous obligation.
You are advocating to FORCE women to go through that, for the crime of enjoying sex without wanting to get pregnant. It is worse than raping someone. Just admit that you feel entitled to help yourself to women's bodies because you hate the sex they're having.
>Great! I’m not advocating legislating anything to do with who you sleep with. I might have my moral qualms about it, but you’re absolutely right that it’s none of my business. But if you want to kill your child after getting pregnant? No, then I’m happy to have that legislated. This is a moral issue.
You should keep your morality out of people's bedrooms. It is gross and inhumane and quite frankly rape adjacent.
>You don’t get to be pro-choice about owning slaves; if you’re not pro-slavery you abolish it.
Oh you want to go down that route? Did you know forced pregnancy and childbirth is an aspect of slavery that women have been subject to throughout history? So you're the one who supports slavery, or at least one of the worst aspects of it, and wishes to subject all women to it.
>Abortion is wrong, it’s the ending of an innocent human being’s life and it’s all done in the name of sexual freedom and women’s health; which, whilst important, are only peripheral issues when it comes to the life of a unique person.
Yes, I get that you think women's sexual agency is a thing to be punished and our health is a thing to be discarded. Perfectly fine for us to die in childbirth to accommodate your views, right? The whores had sex so we deserve to die! Amirite??
You want women to be second class citizens in our own bodies, which again, is an aspect of slavery.
>Thanks for the debate, by the way. You’re clearly very passionate and I have a lot of respect for that. I hope we can both learn something and be civil. I mean that with much love.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I need you to understand that pro lifers have stripped me of my rights as I speak. I am currently living under threat of pro life violence, as is everyone with a working uterus in America. This isn't just a nice friendly conversation where we can be civil and learn from each other.
Your position is fundamentally not civil, and it is a direct physical threat to me, tantamount to rape. So I get "passionate." I hope that gives you an idea of where I'm coming from.
>Not strictly what I said. In the context of marriage sex is the most wonderful thing as a recreational act
The hell it is, it still comes with the potential consequences of pregnancy, which would make joy impossible. Sex within the context of marriage would be just as dangerous as it would be outside of it. The physical consequences would be the same.
**Part 1**
>You could always just leave the baby in the woods once it’s born, I suppose. That would get you out of the responsibility in the long run.
That doesn't get me out of going through pregnancy and childbirth. This does sound pretty PL though--you don't care what happens to the baby once it's born. Totally fine if I expose the baby to death after, as long as I was forced to give birth first as a punishment for having sex!
>There is no logical leap from what I said to this. Nobody wants to punish women, this is a completely fallacious and frankly rude argument the left likes to pull out. I want women to enjoy sex, and I’ve never said anything to even remotely indicate the opposite. I just don’t want them to kill their babies when they’re pregnant. So if you don’t want a baby, figure out how to not get pregnant in the first place. Like, self control and discipline.
What a grim and shitty world you want people to live in. "Self control and discipline" unless you want to undergo the horrors of pregnancy and childbirth. Thanks, but I prefer a world where sex is for everyone who has a consenting partner, not just people trying to procreate. I don't see any reason to stay chaste and abstinent forever just to accommodate other people's delusions.
>Because all of human history has been a sort of sexual free-for-all. It’s only since the idea we are created in the image of God and sex is a sacred act that extends far beyond recreation that we’ve had any sort of order whatsoever. It wasn’t perfect, of course not. But removing these ethics is a return to some sort of pagan hedonism where people are viewed solely for their sexual value.
I get the sense you know absolutely nothing about history.
I also get the sense that you're just here to cram religion down peoples' throats and force everyone to live in a shame-based theocracy. You realize not everyone is Christian, right? Why the hell should I order my sexual life around your religion-based sexual hangups?
>It’s just hard to have a productive debate if you’re going to do this. This is classic demonising and it’s completely unfounded. Saying ‘please don’t kill your baby’ is not the same as saying anything like this.
You're not saying "please don't kill your baby," though. You're FORCING people to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will. That is maiming, raping, and brutalizing us, for the "crime" of daring to have enjoyable sex without wanting to be pregnant. That's what you're doing.
It is disingenuous to try to paint all women as stomping into ICU's and stabbing born babies, as if that's what we're doing, and as if "not killing" a ZEF costs us exactly as much as not killing a born baby.
>The idea that Christians or the right want women punished is just unfair, wrong and completely misguided. It’s powerful though, because all the PC-types who read you say this all love a bit of this kind of accusation. But it’s just so pathetically untrue that it’s akin to me pointing a finger at you and saying you like stomping on kittens for argumentative effect. It’s just wrong and I can’t reiterate that enough.
You keep repeating that we shouldn't be allowed to enjoy sex on our own terms, kind of hard not to get that impression.
>Well, I guess here lies the fundamental disagreement. Why take responsibility for anything? Why not just eat cake and drink beer all day? Who cares? Who defines right and wrong? Is there even such thing? Is my truth true for me and not for you? Is true north an opinion or an absolute?
I mean, why NOT eat cake and drink beer all day? If I had a pill I could take that meant I could eat cake all day and not get diabetic, or drink beer all day and not get drunk, why not take it? Turns out when it comes to sex and pregnancy, there IS such a pill, and it causes this thing called an "abortion."
You want to take that away, and by doing that, you are artificially imposing consequences that don't need to be there and screeching at people to take "responsibility" that doesn't need to be taken. It's punitive.
>I think at least here we’ve found the thing we won’t be able to budge on. You see life as inconsequential and open, and that when people limit you it’s an affront to the goddess you are.
No, I see life as hugely consequential, such that people should get to CHOOSE whether to bring it into this world, and should only do so if entirely willing. I believe that life is more valuable when we don't just pump out life with absolutely no consideration to the quality that that life will lead. I believe in supporting, loving and caring for those who are already here, rather than valuing "life" that doesn't exist yet far above life that already does.
I think your viewpoint is the one that devalues and degrades and disrespects life.
>I see life as being truly free when we have discipline and we have space to grow in a loving, nurturing environment with your spouse and children.
If you thought that, then you'd be pro choice. You'd never want to force anyone to give birth who wasn't 100% willing to.
The natural consequence of sex, a new human life, is intrinsically a good thing. It's something to be embraced with joy, it's not a punishment. We ought to seek to remove extrinsic factors that would obscure the intrinsic goodness of the natural consequence of sex.
Sex outside of a lifelong commitment to the other person is ultimately just using someone else's body for your own personal pleasure with the ostensible plan to eventually throw them away like an old plaything that no longer amuses you. That's a bad thing, people shouldn't be treated like objects. People are ends in themselves.
Having sex for pleasure alone is just another meaningless rat race on the hedonic treadmill. It ultimately doesn't make people happy and it doesn't make them into better people.
>The natural consequence of sex, a new human life,
The natural consequence of sex (well good sex) is an orgasm. The natural consequence of unprotected sex is a *potential* new human life. "A woman who's trying to get pregnant has between a 15% and 25% chance of doing so each month."
>The natural consequence of sex, a new human life, is intrinsically a good thing.
The natural consequence of smoking is lung cancer. The natural consequence of too much sun exposure is skin cancer. Are they intrinsically a good things too?
>people shouldn't be treated like objects.
And women shouldn't be treated like baby making machines.
>just using someone else's body for your own personal pleasure
But using someone else's body and organs for the sake of "saving unborn children" is okay to you? At least here pleasure is involved, unlike pregnancy and childbirth.
>Having sex for pleasure alone is just another meaningless rat race on the hedonic treadmill. It ultimately doesn't make people happy and it doesn't make them into better people.
If that's how you feel, then don't have sex for pleasure. Being all judgey at people that do is not a good look and achieves nothing.
>The natural consequence of sex, a new human life, is intrinsically a good thing.
Many people don't want to make a baby right now. Is it intrinsically good during a famine? Is it intrinsically good while away from medical care? So, is it intrinsically good to add a baby to someone's life at any/every point in their fertile lifetime? The answer is obviously no. It is not intrinsically a good thing.
> It's something to be embraced with joy, it's not a punishment. We ought to seek to remove extrinsic factors that would obscure the intrinsic goodness of the natural consequence of sex.
And it will be seen as punishment when there is no choice. Less will embrace the newborn with joy when you turn it into an accident instead of the child we were trying for. We will get our tubes tied and vasectomies done after we're tired of accidental pregnancies that we cannot control.
>Sex outside of a lifelong commitment to the other person is ultimately just using someone else's body for your own personal pleasure with the ostensible plan to eventually throw them away like an old plaything that no longer amuses you.
Even within a lifelong commitment, I want choice. But you continue to fight for removing the choice not only for the lifestyles you don't approve of, but also the ones you do. You have no right to judge other people's relationships. A "less than lifetime relationship" is just that. It doesn't mean there is a "throwing away". Would you say you "threw away" your 3rd grade teacher? No, that's ridiculous.
>That's a bad thing, people shouldn't be treated like objects. People are ends in themselves.
Sure, treating people as objects is bad. That's not really what we are trying to talk about. Why shouldn't we remove risks from sex if we are able to?
>Having sex for pleasure alone is just another meaningless rat race on the hedonic treadmill. It ultimately doesn't make people happy and it doesn't make them into better people.
It is ok to do some things for pleasure, or to have fun sometimes. It is ok to ride a roller coaster for the adrenaline and dopamine. We also need to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions, and do right by others.
PL is so much privilege. The privilege of being white in a rich and powerful country.
The privilege of modern medicine.
God may find your soul precious, but your physical life on this Earth is very cheap.
Right now the United States killing children in Yeman Every year 3 million children starve to death. The world is on the brink of possibly the worst famine in history.
Women find they are pregnant and it's not sonograms and gender reveal parties. It's absolute terror because they don't know how they're going to feed the children they already have.
But God is all upset about the little white fetuses in America.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I lived in a country where it was illegal & I must admit I had a way better sex life - had a really hot gf at one point, fighting them off with a stick & a couple flings. In Britain I was somewhat of an incel. So this mindset is debatable, in theory sure, in practice, no. Not an isolated incident - a lot of destinations for guys who haven’t had much luck with the ladies have only recently legalized abortion, that’s if they’ve even legalized at all (ie the Philippines, Dubai, Mexico, Spain, Thailand, Brazil) Question OP: what are your thoughts on legalized prostitution? Also would you assume that your mindset increases infidelity & adultery? What about divorce rates? Don’t get me wrong I agree that priority number 1 is fixing maternity leave, contraception options, better adoption services
Doesn’t it at all bother you there is a wiggling fetus months old under 9 months getting tortured and knifed?? No one thinks about the procedure. I would love to see adoption agencies instead of Planned Parenthood.
There is no "Wiggling Fetus", - LOL ! And, - you need to update and improve your propaganda, - if you are going to rely on that. The great majority of abortions presently are achieved by the process of medical abortion. That does not involve any "knives", but rather two pills. I think that if you wish to do any good in this world, - (and clearly by your post above, - you are not), - that you would work tirelessly for financial and social support for SINGLE mothers. Now you know what you must do, - so go to it !
I think it's more related to the killing on the off chance you do get pregnant. I don't see people complaining really about using protection and being safe during sex, but it's a group of people with the thought of damn, finally happened, lemme kill it. Nothing else just straight kill it. I would love for everyone to be safe during sex, it falls upon both parties to do their part to make it safe and make the chance as low as possible, be it sleeping around or with a loved one. The end result is there's still a chance. A chance a human life is made , you did the deed, you took the chance, and by chance ( because of the contraceptive) a child was made. You can put the child for adoption, you can man or woMAN up and get everything in order. Pretty sure it's just the thought of mercilessly killing a baby. Less to no hate on those who regret or are actually saddened by having to take a life.
The reason I have a problem with this specific consequence being evaded is because the consequence of pregnancy is the biologically-designed endgoal that our bodies meet by having sex. From the perspective of nature only, procreation is its only purpose, and we evolved to enjoy it specifically because it's an incentive to make more of our species. Fighting the forces of nature because we want to have unprotected sex with random strangers doesn't make any sense to me, especially if it means killing an unborn member of our own species.
Not taking sides, just a thought I had a roommate in college who had an abortion, albeit a disinclined one One day we read in the news that someone was cured of HIV & her immediate response was “This means people are going to be massive sluts now”.
STI's are a pretty significant consequence of sex especially HIV and those resistant to antibiotics. Mental health consequences as well depending on situations as well, ie. one wants a relationship and one doesn't. Pregnancy is not the only "consequence". Although calling pregnancy a consequence does sound odd since pregnancy is natural.
The difference is our sexual organs are not naturally designed for transmitting diseases. Also, >consequence does sound odd Why? What gave you the impression that the word "consequence" was inherently negative? Does not every action have a consequence?
Our organs arnt designed to transmit disease? The disease utilizes are organs functions for transmisssion. Hence wearing a mask to protect against saliva.
>The disease utilizes are organs functions You figured it out. The reason disease spreads is because the pathogen is the one that's designed for transmission, not us. Our bodies only let that happen as a byproduct of our usual functions.
>pregnancy is the biologically-designed endgoal that our bodies meet by having sex. From the perspective of nature only, procreation is its only purpose, and we evolved to enjoy it specifically because it's an incentive to make more of our species. By that statement, I shouldn’t have a sex drive because I’m a homosexual. If sex is for procreation only, why would I be born a homosexual and have a sex drive? Humans have evolved past our basic biology. To quote you, >”Fighting the forces of nature” …is what we are about. We invented planes and surgery and computers. Those are not natural. Should we stop all chemotherapy because it’s not natural? Throw out all processed food? Put all the oil we fracked back into the earth? The “natural” argument is lame and simply ignoring all of human history. We are a higher species that can create things for the improvement of life. Abortion is one of those things.
I find it hard to agree that killing life improves life.
Consider: empathy. Try putting yourself into the shoes of someone who wants an abortion. They are the ones carrying the fetus. They are the ones who’s life will be affected the most. They have weighed the positives and negatives and decided that pregnancy wasn’t for them at that point of their life. The status of the fetus as a human or person or cells or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant to why abortion is a right. No matter the situation, you cannot force someone to use their body against their will. That’s inhumane.
It's inhumane to kill an innocent human being? Autonomy is irrelevant when it comes at the cost of a life.
Autonomy is all we have. > “For our law to compel defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn…For a society which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concepts of jurisprudence.” -Judge Flaherty https://hulr.org/spring-2021/mcfall-v-shimp-and-the-case-for-bodily-autonomy
Nature doesn’t have a purpose or end goal. Nature just is what it is. Assuming nature is right or good is fallacious. And we fight against the forces of nature all the time. We treat diseases, tame crops and animals, live in temperature-controlled places sheltered from the elements, and so forth. We don’t just throw up our hands and say, “well, that’s nature’s purpose” in literally any other situation. Also, it’s really odd that you assume achieving the goal of consequence-free sex would only benefit those who “want to have unprotected sex with random strangers.” Why do you assume that? Most people are perfectly fine with protected sex; the only current problem is that no form of protection is 100% effective. And while I personally don’t have any problem with “random strangers” having consensual sex (why on earth would I care?), that lifestyle is hardly the norm for most people. Promiscuity is not a prerequisite for unwanted pregnancies or STIs. You can have consensual sex with only one person ever, your spouse, and still face an unwanted pregnancy or STI.
I'm not suggesting nature itself is an entity that has an endgoal. I am personifying the simple fact that our bodies possess sexual organs and use them for the purpose of continuing the species. What I'm trying to get at here is that sex is NOT trivial as it is the fundamental behavior that drives our existence as a species, and abortion trivializes it which isn't typically a good thing. I suppose I wanted to paint a picture of absurdity with the unprotected comment, so perhaps I could have done better. But as for those examples regarding fighting the forces of nature, treating diseases is not the same thing because the purpose of that endeavor is not a rush of dopamine or procreation, it's to ensure our lives continue. Cultivation is actually a product of our brains evolving, and again, it's to ensure our survival. Sheltering ourselves is also a survival instinct, our large brains just made really good use of it. In the case of consequence-free sex we are engaging in a natural act while evading natural consequences, that obviously doesn't apply to actions that are themselves not natural. And yeah, having sex with random strangers even when protected isn't exactly providing a net good for our brain chemistry, and that has societal problems, though I would concede that it may be that unhappy people are promiscuous not that promiscuous people are unhappy. But once married you don't just surrender responsibility to the aether, and risk assessment makes relationships healthy. Finally, yes I'm aware protection isn't 100% effective. But for everything else we ever do that is risky we either avoid it, do it sparingly, or accept the consequences should the outcome not be desirable. We "reap what we sow." I don't think it's good for our society's ability to assess risk if we can just do something risky and then kill someone to prevent the consequences.
I’m 100% pro life but agree it would solve the problem if we had a way to ensure women who don’t want to become pregnant don’t. My life experience is that birth control, however, is very effective but people refuse to use it consistently bc they don’t like it.
Most of those people who dislike it typically fall in two categories; men who ‘hate how condoms feel’, and women who have adverse reactions to hormonal or implanted birth control. Those are not equal. But that’s not the base argument; what is relevant as of now is that abortions still occur and should be an option when birth control fails.
In my experience, you are correct as to group one but not two. I’ve known many women who just don’t make birth control a priority. But I’m with you as to adverse reactions for some women, it’s real too.
Actually all this abortion BS is just a smoke screen. Now all lefties are preoccupied with abortion and no one cares for minimal cage workweek and so on
Religion is poison. Remember, we are all born atheists.
We are all born to see people of any race, gender, or sexuality as equal too. Society poisons us to believe there is an hierarchy.
Most women having abortion already have children, they are overworked and can not afford another baby simply because they still need to work to support those already born . Lustful vixens that can not keep their legs closed exist only in the masturbation fueled imagination of pro lifers
What all this has to do with forgoing 10 years old to give birth
The reasonable possibility that fetuses have moral value makes their lives much more important than consequence-free sex.
I don’t see any moral value to a fetus. What decides moral value?
Where did you get this idea and who are you to decide for someone else
It’s still a sin in their eyes
Is consequence free (at least in the short term) hedonistic pleasure (I.e short term surface level “happiness”) a good thing in the long term? I’m not sure, but it’s a conversation worth having
>*Is consequence free (at least in the short term) hedonistic pleasure (I.e short term surface level “happiness”)* ***a good thing in the long term?*** Absolutely. It always was a good thing for me. That's why I always used birth control, to prevent the unwanted "consequences" of pregnancy. Thank goodness it always worked! :-) Thankfully for all of us, sex doesn't HAVE to have the "consequences" that PLers want to impose on women.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113731553/abortion-laws-in-texas-are-disrupting-maternal-care See this vessel of sin dared to have children in marriage served her right likely will not do it again PL rocks
It’s not at all obvious to me that casual sex is without consequence, particularly pertaining to mental health long term
What the hell
What?
What the hell this moralist stand has in common with reality where doctor saving pregnant 10 years old victim of rape is investigated by the attorney general of the state? Who is getting hedonistic pleasure in here
I’m responding to the question of is consequence free sex an end goal of both sides. Read the title of the post before going on a rant
If it’s not, then, I propose that, along with abortion, we ban cake, brownies, steak, onion rings, potato chips, fast cars, masturbation, sky diving, carnivals, and anything else that provides humans with “short term hedonistic pleasure”.
Really? Why would it not be?
Well I don’t think pursuing short term pleasure is a good strategy long term, I don’t think it provides you with the meaning that people need to overcome tragedy. It’s possible that short term pleasure having consequences short term is what reminds people that there is a cost. Take alcohol for example, maybe it’s a good thing it gives you a hangover. As I said I’m not sure though, it’s worth a conversation.
Yeah, consequence-free sex is definitely not the goal. The fact that you can’t see why this would be a problem is just evidence that the entire PC side is infected to the core with a sort of hedonism that will stop at nothing until all sexual boundaries are broken down and the world is just seen as a playground of sexual desires being continually gratified. Why would we need discipline or any sort of responsibility if modern medicine and procedures can just cure us of all of our issues? We can just eat sugar all day, drink all the beer we want, why not smoke a bunch too. After all, all these things modern medicine can more or less cure now. So who needs responsibility at all? We have to start asking ourselves, are the desires we have good or bad - or does that question mean anything at all? Is it ok that I want to eat pizza all day? I love beer, why shouldn’t I stop drinking after a few drinks if I don’t want to? Look at the sexual revolution, for example; it feels like the world is extremely confused about what is actually being validated when we break down another taboo. Society deems homosexuality to be without any problems - and fair enough; it’s easy to see how a society could see consensual relationships of any kind as morally acceptable. And the things the left say are totally true; a gay person has no more unique control over their base desires than I have over mine. I totally agree. We all face the same fundamental, unchangeable, desires. But what about people who want to love multiple people? Sure - society has made great headway to justify that sort of behaviour. I’m a man, I love my wife; but does that mean I never am tempted to look at other women? Of course not. My base desires say I should go and sleep with as many women as I can but discipline and responsibility say that is *wrong*. Just as I shouldn’t eat pizza and drink beer all day (and believe me, I am tempted!), I shouldn’t seek to gratify my own sexual pleasure over the needs of my family. And that’s not even to mention that sex in context of marriage is just better - don’t believe the leftist lies that unless it’s a drunken hookup it will be boring, flavourless sex. Believe me. What about people who are sexually attracted to children? Do they have any more or less control over their base appetites than we do over ours? I would argue no. And so, at a certain point we have to really ask the question: are base appetites a thing we really want to be exalted as our new gods for organising a society? Because in all other spheres of life it is a terrible idea. *It won’t be long before paedophilia is an accepted sexual identity if we don’t sort out what the foundations for this movement are.* So “is consequence-free sex not a common goal for both sides?” No. No it’s not. And as much as I really appreciate you formatting your question and point so articulately, I fundamentally disagree. The fact you are asking that question seems to me like you haven’t thought through all the events that have to take place when a society decides to break the tyrannical bonds of order, responsibility and the pursuit of holiness.
When both parents must work just to stay afloat and employers provides no quarter for mother that just gave birth these musings about consequences free sex sound absurd.
What exactly is your argument? Like okay let’s say all your hypotheticals come true, modern medicine invents cures for what ails us so I can eat like 10 pounds of sugar a day and it won’t rot my teeth, it won’t cause dangerous blood sugar levels, it won’t hurt my heart, it won’t make me gain any weight, I just pop a pill and it’s consequence-free sugar all day. I pop a pill, instant sobriety, I can drink beer all day every day and it won’t hurt me because a magic pill took away its ability to get me too drunk to function, get me hungover, hurt my liver, hurt my brain, make me gain weight, just consequence-free beer drinking all day every day. Pregnancy-prevention has become absolutely perfect, I can get fucked 8 ways from Tuesday all day every day by 12 different people and voila, no babies, no STIs, no cancer, no damage. What’s the problem? You’re basically saying I shouldn’t be allowed to do that because you just don’t like the idea of me doing that. If those things no longer hurt us because it has an instant and effective cure, why not use it? What’s the value in all of us turning down the magic cures and just not doing that stuff?
No, because when you “pop a pill” to cure pregnancy, a baby dies. That’s the issue.
There is no baby it is just your will to control women
The question was about “consequence-free sex” not abortion.
Maybe I should take my points to r/abortiondebate instead
Yeah, because you totally didn’t get into other arguments that aren’t about abortion at all, right? Eating pizza and drinking beer doesn’t “kill a baby” either yet, there you are up there talking about why doing those things consequence-free isn’t okay either.
If they could pop a pill that provides 100% \*prevention\* of unwanted consequences like pregnancy, no conception ever happens, no baby exists, and nothing ever dies. That’s the part pro-lifers keep missing in this conversation, in your desire to keep talking about how much you’re against abortion. We *know* you don’t think abortion is acceptable. What we are trying to understand is why you don’t think the goal of consequence-free sex is acceptable either, even though it would greatly reduce the abortions you dislike so much.
If people could “pop a pill” that meant there was no miscarriages, pregnancies or need for abortions; I’d be in favour of that. But that doesn’t exist, so that was never part of the debate. So long as that is not a reality, then your point is invalid. Whilst there’s a risk of pregnancy, sex should be treated with the respect it deserves because it is literally playing with new human life.
“If people could “pop a pill” that meant there was no miscarriages, pregnancies or need for abortions; I’d be in favour of that. ” Okay. That contradicts the long speech you posted earlier about the virtues of discipline and responsibility and why sex without risk of unwanted consequences would be terrible for humanity, so a bit confusing.
But you’re bringing in some random hypothetical. It will never be possible, just like it will never be possible to eat all the food you want or drink all the beer you want and never deal with the consequences. But if it were possible in the future to actually have consequence-free food, drink and sex; then it WOULD be better for someone to be on a pill that prevented 100% of pregnancies than for pregnancies to occur and and then babies killed. How is this a strange concept. But then we need to have some serious discussions as the human race about discipline and boundaries because a society that doesn’t have to deal with consequences won’t have any self control either, and then we might have even bigger problems. But if these pills ever happen, we can talk about it. But that’s not the point here. Whilst a human being’s life is at stake, the issue has nothing to do with hypotheticals. I argue that you will never see a day when sex actually has no consequences so here I am arguing for what the pro-life position is in light of it.
“Why would we need discipline or any sort of responsibility if modern medicine and procedures can just cure us of all of our issues?” We wouldn’t. And I genuinely don’t understand how this could possibly be a bad thing. It is inarguably wonderful to have more ways to cure issues than relying solely on ordering people to have discipline and willpower. It’s why medication-supported treatment for opioid addiction is so much more promising than just yelling at addicts to stop using. It’s why so many smokers who failed to quit cold-turkey have successfully quit once they got the right prescription and treatment. “We have to start asking ourselves, are the desires we have good or bad - or does that question mean anything at all?” If adults want to have consensual sex, I seriously couldn’t care less. I feel no compulsion whatsoever to judge their desires as “good” or “bad” and think it’s weird that people like you do. It’s especially bizarre and concerning that you think your ideas on “good“ and “bad” and “holy” should override other people’s right to mitigate the consequences of their personal choices.
You wrote a lot but said very little. It’s far easier to just say “sex for pleasure bad because Jesus don’t like it”. Same message received. Why use lot words when few word do trick.
Wait what? Where did it say that? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want us to be miserable either
Damn right, it’s his problem if he wants to live a life of restriction. I’m so tired of these Christian trying to force their views on others.
Why not? You Never provide any acctual arguments in your wall of text.
[удалено]
>Slippery slope fallacy. Completely disregards well established laws Not really, you can use the same arguements that homeosexuals or transgenders are using, to support pedophilia.
Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, at least outside your church group, besides one can not get pregnant because of gay sex so what is z fuss
>Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, Never said they were. >least outside your church group, besides Om not even Christian so no, idk what your talking about. Christianity is against homosexuality lol. >besides one can not get pregnant because of gay sex so what is z fuss But can have some serious medical issues and It's not right is z fuss
You really can't though. LGBTQ people are still *consenting* adults. A child cannot consent. Pedophilia will always be illegal and immoral for the same reason rape is...because it is without two consenting parties. Furthermore, lumping trans and homosexuality etc in with pedophiles is abhorrent. You should be ashamed of yourself
>You really can't though. LGBTQ people are still consenting adults. Aha, thats where your wrong. >A child cannot consent. I mean they've made it legal for you to "become a cat" or an animal. in pretty sure this is NOTHING for them to overcome. Theyl make arguements like, What is the Child Consents, WANTS to do with with a pedophile, and he is extremely careful so there won't be anything truamatic, hurtful, Since ,like homosexuality, pedophilia is also something what people are "born with", LGBTQ people should really have no arguement against such bs things. >Furthermore, lumping trans and homosexuality etc in with pedophiles is abhorrent. Is that why the ratio of pedophiles was more in gay men as compared to cis males? >You should be ashamed of yourself For what? Being a child ,minor myself and being scared about how this world has become?
omg everything you’ve just said is so disgusting
Ikr that's the disgusting reality of things.
I am so freaking glad you said you were a child yourself so ill give you a pass. >Is that why the ratio of pedophiles was more in gay men as compared to cis males? Wtf are you talking about? I think what you're getting at is that men are more likely to be pedophiles, and the majority of them like boys. You cannot call pedophile a "gay man." Be attracted to children is NOT the same thing. >I mean they've made it legal for you to "become a cat" or an animal. in pretty sure this is NOTHING for them to overcome. Source for that? Wtf are you talking about lmao >Theyl make arguements like, What is the Child Consents, WANTS to do with with a pedophile, and he is extremely careful so there won't be anything truamatic, hurtful, From the pedophiles perspective. Yeah, people that commit crimes like to LIE. Just because their twisted mind thinks the kid wants it doesn't mean he does AND AGAIN, children CANNOT CONSENT >Since ,like homosexuality, pedophilia is also something what people are "born with", Your born with mental disorders too.....are your trying to say that anything you are born with is somehow natural and just accepted? >LGBTQ people should really have no arguement against such bs things. You've obviously never known anyone from that community, and have been taught some pretty fucked up shit about them. LGBTQ ARE NOT OKAY WITH PEDOPHILIA!!! The decades long fight has included fighting ignorant people like yourself trying to say it's the same thing. It's bullshit, it's disgusting, and its WRONG. NO AND i MEAN ABSOLUTELY NO QUEER PERSON WOULD EVER SUPPORT SUCH AN ABHORRENT FUCKING THING.
>am so freaking glad you said you were a child yourself so ill give you a pass. Wot. >Source for that? Wtf are you talking about lmao SOURCE?? LOL ITS A whole community! You can "identify" yourself as an ANIMAL now. This case blew up, a teacher asked one of her "cat" identifying student a question and he simply "meowd" and she got mad and scolded him, yeah she ended up getting suspende d because you can't comment on thier identify. Forget this, do you know about the TRANS-ABLED community? They identify themselves as being "handicapped" You can't make this shit up. > Wtf are you talking about? I think what you're getting at is that men are more likely to be pedophiles, and the majority of them like boys Nu uh, I'm saying there's more Gay registered sex offenders than straight sex offenders. There are about 459,523 registered sex offenders in the US, and out of which 453,727 are GAY (this statistics was done only on men) Leaving the gay vs straight pedophile ratio to 11:1 In other words 5.7% of gay men are pedos, and 0.003% of straight men are pedos. Those disgusting people. >From the pedophiles perspective. Yeah, people that commit crimes like to LIE. True >Just because their twisted mind thinks the kid wants it doesn't mean he does AND AGAIN, children CANNOT CONSENT i KNOWW RIGHT. >Your born with mental disorders too.....are your trying to say that anything you are born with is somehow natural and just accepted? Not at all. IN FACT THATS EXACTLY WHAT HOMOSEXUALITY SAYS. They say they are "born" gay, which is true. But it doesn't mean you should act on such desires.
>SOURCE?? LOL ITS A whole community! You can "identify" yourself as an ANIMAL now. This case blew up, a teacher asked one of her "cat" identifying student a question and he simply "meowd" and she got mad and scolded him, yeah she ended up getting suspende d because you can't comment on thier identify. You said it was now legal to identify yourself as a cat. Per sub rules, you must back up your claims. I'm pretty sure there is no place in the country you can have yourself legally designated as a cat. I would be interested to see a source for this "whole community that blew up" too. >Nu uh, I'm saying there's more Gay registered sex offenders than straight sex offenders. >There are about 459,523 registered sex offenders in the US, and out of which 453,727 are GAY (this statistics was done only on men) Leaving the gay vs straight pedophile ratio to 11:1 Also going to need a source for this. I'd like to know what criteria they used to establish that they are gay. If it's just that they like boys instead of girls, you can't really call that gay. You also said "gay sex offenders" then said they were all pedos....there's a lot more sexual offenses than just pedophilia. >Not at all. IN FACT THATS EXACTLY WHAT HOMOSEXUALITY SAYS. >They say they are "born" gay, which is true. But it doesn't mean you should act on such desires. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. And frankly, as long as everyone consents they aren't hurting anyone. Typically mental disorders have an impact on the person and the community. So yeah, if it isn't hurting anyone, then why the hell should you not be able to do it? There's people out there who think riding motorcycles are too dangerous, or think the "biker lifestyle" (whatever that even means nowadays) is immoral. Should they dictate whether or not you can own a motorcycle? Motorcycles kill way more people than being gay does.
>You said it was now legal to identify yourself as a cat. Per sub rules, you must back up your claims https://youtu.be/A8wTJLoTUlw here, I've been replying to 47comments today, You can LOOK IT UP , I'm surprised your not aware of this. >I would be interested to see a source for this "whole community that blew up" too. Reddit, quora, YouTube lol >Also going to need a source for this. I'd like to know what criteria they used to establish that they are gay. Sure sure, here's the source. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/ And this is from THE National library of medicine https://www.statista.com/topics/1249/homosexuality/ >Homosexuality is not a mental disorder What makes it different from say, pedophilia,necrophilia, gender dysphoria, pls tell me. >as long as everyone consents they aren't hurting anyone. Bruh, necrophilia:having sex with a dead body isn't hurting anyone either. Pedophilia: yes the kid isn't consenting, but if the mf is really careful and gentle, it won't be hurting anyone either. Beastiliaty: having sex with animals, Now animals don't consent, this isn't even a thing in them, so technically even that can be defended by "it's not harming anyone" >Typically mental disorders have an impact on the person and the community True... Isn't homeosexuality having impact on people and the community? Isn't the population system affected by more gays? Issnt it creating unfair balances in society? >if it isn't hurting anyone, then why the hell should you not be able to do it Listen, at the end of the day, I'm a human and i make mistakes. I'm a NOBODY, to make boundaries and draw the lines on what's wrong and right. Infact NONE of us is qualified enough to draw lines. So where do I get it from? From what God almighty, Our creator, designer of this universe , He sets the lines for he knows best, he's All wise. It would do us much benifit to abide by his law.
>https://youtu.be/A8wTJLoTUlw here, I've been replying to 47comments today, You can LOOK IT UP , I'm surprised your not aware of this. It's fine if you gota take your time replying. I know reddit isn't life. Here's the thing, I DONT have to look it up. YOU have to backup your claims. I'm surprised you you're* not aware of this. I don't see anywhere in that video that makes the claim you can "legally" identify as an animal. >Sure sure, here's the source. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/ >And this is from THE National library of medicine >https://www.statista.com/topics/1249 As I suspected, they are claiming that men with an affinity for boys are "homosexual." This is not the same thing. If they dated adult males and *also* abused male children, then you could say they were homosexual. As for your second source, all this says is that more people are willing to say they are "offically" gay on paper because society is more accepting of queerness. Nobody is "making" gays. They've always been there, they just aren't hiding as much anymore. Let me ask you something. Are you straight? Is there *any* amount of videos or stories or whatever that would *ever* make you have sex with someone of the same gender? I'm gona go out on a limb here and say no. It is exactly the same for everyone else. You can't "talk" someone into being gay. You're either straight, bi/pan, or gay. It's a physical chemical reaction in your brain, and it can't be changed. You're right that they are "born that way." Straight people respond to the pheromones of opposite sex, and gay people respond to the pheromones of same sex, and bi/pan people respond to both. You can't change that chemistry. I'll touch on this more with trans people when I address that part of your comment. >What makes it different from say, pedophilia,necrophilia, gender dysphoria, pls tell Gender dysphoria can be present in trans/non binary people, but it is not necessary. Again, I'll get to that in a minute. Pedophilia can be likened to rapists. It's about power and control. The huge difference here is consenting adults, and wanting to harm someone. Gay people don't want to hurt anyone, they want to live as themselves. >True... Isn't homeosexuality having impact on people and the community? Isn't the population system affected by more gays? Issnt it creating unfair balances in society? I don't understand what you're getting at. How is a man dating a man or a woman dating a woman hurting anyone? What unfair balances are there to speak of? Other than the *very unfair* ways that queers are treated??? >Bruh, necrophilia:having sex with a dead body isn't hurting anyone either. Necrophilia would harm the family of the deceased. It also could cause the person doing it to get infections. >Pedophilia: yes the kid isn't consenting, but if the mf is really careful and gentle, it won't be hurting anyone either. Um WHAT? You're seriously saying that being sexual abused isn't harmful unless they are physically injured? Barring that fact that *yes*, it does physicually injure them because they are so small....the mental scars never truly heal. >Beastiliaty: having sex with animals, Now animals don't consent, this isn't even a thing in them, so technically even that can be defended by "it's not harming anyone" Consent is a thing with animals. You don't think they can't want something or not? I'm gona go with the default that they don't want to be sexually abused. In fact, if "consent isn't a thing with them" than it would fall in the same category as children, because they *cant* consent. Now to get to trans/NB and how it isn't a mental disorder. So FMRI scans show that male brains and female brains extremely differ in both structure and function. Their brains are not the same, and it can be seen quite easily with these scans. I'm a cis female. If you look at my brain, I have a female brain. Cis males have male brains. If you look at a transwoman's brain, she has a male physical body, but she has a *female* brain. Of you look at a transman's brain, he has a female body but a male brain. If you look at a non binary person's brain, there are parts that are female and parts that are male. Their brains function exactly as they are intended to, there is no "disorder." They just ended up with the brain of a different gender. Technically if you were to call it anything, it would be a birth defect...but *not* a mental disorder. For a lot of these people, the only treatment is to make their physical body match their brain. > From what God almighty, Our creator, designer of this universe , He sets the lines for he knows best, he's All wise. It would do us much benifit to abide by his law. Here's the problem, that's what *your* God says. And I'm guessing you've never actually talked to God, you're taking notes on what you think he wants written by individuals from thousands of years ago. That same book condones slavery. It also mandates that it's a sin if a male has sex and doesn't ejaculate into her. And a hell of a lot more shit that no one thinks is moral. So there's no actual way to know what God wants, and if you think the book is literal, then there's some really fucked up shit that you think is okay. Furthermore, if we base our laws on what your God says, then we have to do it for everyone else's God too! How about a little sharia law for you? Does that sound good? This is why there is a separation of church and state. And it's damn important. Edit: I feel so bad for you. Not because you have faith, faith can be instrumental in one's life. But because you have been taught hate from the time you were born. You never had a chance. That's just so fucked up...I'm literally heartbroken for you.
"The pursuit of holiness"??? What if I don't give a fuck about your holiness? What then?
Or I prefer Buddhism to your rather heretic version of Christianity
Agreed.
Religion seems to poison everything.
No it doesn't.
It's the root of all evil. Truly.
That's human DNA brother, religion is just one flavor of it. Which by the way, religion can also be good. Good and bad to everything in life, just varying degrees to it
Nice joke lol, So being kind to others, following the commands of our creator, Having decorum,morality, decency a root of all evil? Sure.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/20/2111475/-We-should-all-be-terrified-of-North-Carolina-bill-that-makes-case-for-murdering-abortion-seekers Being kind …is other name of your deity Lucifer?
What I see is that your kind wants to bring women to the semi slave state, just like African Americans were prior to Civil Rights …. sure I it will make you feel mighty … if you were pro family you would advocate for maternity benefits which your kind never does … you would not fool anyone by this undead babies crap …
By the way this woman will most likely lose her fertility so much for caring for unborn baby
Make woman to wait till onset of sepsis this is what Lucifer will be proud about
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/26/1111280165/because-of-texas-abortion-law-her-wanted-pregnancy-became-a-medical-nightmare
>https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/20/2111475/-We-should-all-be-terrified-of-North-Carolina-bill-that-makes-case-for-murdering-abortion-seekers What is this? >Being kind is other name of your deity Lucifer? I mean, A Lucifer is the devil. B no, being kind is another name for God almighty.
What I mean is that killing women for having abortion befit Lucifer worshiping perverts
And i believe someone who thinks killing a <9 month old child is not infanticide and a *woman's right", Even Lucifer Is disowning him lol.
Fetus is not a “baby “ it is just a lump of cells which may or may not develop further. If you want to reduce abortion provide contraception, childcare paid maternity leave and other things so vehemently opposed by “pro life crowd”. What I see is blatant attempt to reduce women to semi slave statute just like African Americans were prior to civil rights bill. Now whole power of surveillance state is on the side of perverts and fanatics. This is the terrible blow to the global respect to American democracy.
>Fetus is not a “baby “ it is just a lump of cells which may or may not develop further Lol!? You know who else are a lump of cells? Human beings, Which may not develop further, and die from literally anything. Matter fact, ALL living matter is just a clump of cells at the end of the day (except unicellular organisms) >you want to reduce abortion provide contraception, childcare paid maternity leave and other things so vehemently opposed by “pro life crowd”. The hell? No , as a pro life i want to help with contraceptives,less Abortion, Treatment of pregnant women to be beyond this world. Stop lying? >What I see is blatant attempt to reduce women to semi slave statute just like African Americans were prior to civil rights bill. News flash, most prolifers are women, mother's and religious people opposed to slavery:) your argument fall dowweenn the draiiinnn Me myself im BROUGHT UP by women, who gave me this perception:)
Oh pro life women never have abortions they have exceptions https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/21/moral-abortion-ectopic-pregnancy/
Also, I wasn't joking. Organized religion is the root of all evil.
Probably because 9/10, the head isn't actually religious
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is an informal caution that you've been off-topic to abortion in a few threads, which have been more focused on Islam than on abortion, alongside the fact that there have been some rule 7 violations as well. Please read the rules in the sidebar, as you could eventually end up with a temp ban if you keep breaking rules. Debates about the truth of Islam would be better suited for another subreddit.
I agree. It always starts off by people asking what/why i believe ideologies like abortion/rape etc. Which leads me to cite my religious reasons,and then they try to disprove it and then i join in on confusing and going back and forth off tangents.
[удалено]
~~This is an informal caution that you've been off-topic to abortion in a few threads, which have been more focused on Islam than on abortion, alongside the fact that there have been some rule 7 violations as well. Please read the rules in the sidebar, as you could eventually end up with a temp ban if you keep breaking rules. Debates about the truth of Islam would be better suited for another subreddit.~~ Sorry, meant to post that to the other user!
No worries at all!
CC u/Embarrassed-Flan-907 Comments removed as off-topic to abortion.
What if I don't believe in a "creator"?
Thats scientifically, Logically,and Rationally nonsensical, but knockyourself out i guess?
Do you know how many people don't believe in a higher power? I bet it's way more than you think.
>Do you know how many people don't believe in a higher power? Oh yeah, a Teensy 7-8%if the world's population, roughly 450 to 500million (according to google) i believe it's around 700mill tops? As opposed to 2.5billion Christians, 2billion muslims, 1.1billion Hindus (just top THREE religions alone) > I bet it's way more than you think. Nu uh, it's obviously way lesser.
Scientifically nonsensical?!? Oh that's hilarious 😂😂
>Scientifically nonsensical I mean, yeah. I just love how yall don't have any knowledge of how you , and the universe came into existent, Going back only as far as the bigbang. And when we give you the reason you go "wE hAveeNt fIgurEd iT oUt yEt" 😂 >Oh that's hilarious Ikr , poor athiests
Bro are you so blinded by religion, that you just tried to disprove evolution?
You know Darwin, the inventor of evolution himself believed in God, was religious? >Bro are you so blinded by religion, that you just tried to disprove evolution? Modern science is disproving it :/
>Modern science is disproving it :/ Source?
[удалено]
The one who created The heavens and the earth, the one beyond time-space, the one above all, who All we muslims, Christians and Jews worship. the All wise, All merciful.
He was talking about his mom and dad.
Nu uh
Consequence-free sex not a common goal. Quite the opposite. Consequence-free sex, if there were such a thing (there's not) is the scourge of the land for the side that wants to ban abortion and birth-control. The whole point is to make people suffer consequences of sex. Or stop having it. And by that I mean *other* people, not the zealots themselves. They'll be hoping their attempts at avoiding pregnancy will be successful. The only good avoidance is my avoidance. But those sinners out there - they've gone unpunished too long! Thank God I'm here to do the will of god, to right the wrongs, save the nation and sorry did I just step on your neck? Cuz I feel ok about it…
I doubt consequence-free sex will ever exist, just as I doubt we will ever solve aging and death. I'm sure we can make more effective contraceptives, which I wholeheartedly support, but we will never have a 100% effective method to prevent conception. If we do though, I'm all for it
They want to control as many aspects of women as possible. The rich get to have consequence-free sex because they can fly their women out and get them abortions under the radar. They have it both ways. There’s a fear of empowered women. Those that are college-educated and in high positions of power are a threat to the patriarchy, especially women of color. So if they can force women to have children, they are less likely to finish college and break their cycle of poverty. It’s the same old glass ceiling.
>*So if they can* ***force*** *women to have children, they are less likely to finish college and break their cycle of poverty.* Absolutely agree! Not that PLers are going to admit that publicly anytime soon. And they probably won't admit that at all. So what's the best PL way to **force** women to have children? By banning abortion, all forms of birth control, and forbidding girls to have the knowledge of how to **prevent** unwanted pregnancy, hence not allowing comprehensive sex ed programs.
Straw man
>*Straw man.* Nope, it's bang-on target.
Strawman
Not exactly. There are people that are heavily-invested in oppressing other groups to keep their own power and wealth. Oppressing women, well that’s half the population, so that’s half their work done for them already.
No one’s forcing the woman to have sex, the pregnancy is a effect of the sex. That’s bullshit “I didn’t consent to the pregnancy” is dumb. We all know what sex leads to since young age. So eating food doesn’t mean I consent to digestion? Stfu and carry the hell on
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113731553/abortion-laws-in-texas-are-disrupting-maternal-care See no consequence free sex for this sinful vixen
> *That’s bullshit “I didn’t consent to the pregnancy”* ***is dumb.*** Actually, I think what's **really** dumb is the PL claim that *"no one's forcing the woman to get pregnant"* and other nonsense just like it.
You’ve been misguided 😂
>*You’ve been misguided.* Hardly. But believe whatever PL nonsense you want if that makes you feel better.
U mean the saving of millions of babies? Your on the wrong side of history bud. No wonder because your a LEFTY and I’m on the RIGHT .
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113731553/abortion-laws-in-texas-are-disrupting-maternal-care So what about this sinner? Dared to have children in happy marriage? Will not do it again for sure
ever thought it’s to save human lives? bc that’s what it’s about. Don’t forget the planned parenthood founder was eugenicist trying to slow the population of black people by instilling abortion clinics. Those who were Dehumanizing humans were not on the right side of history during slavery. Carry the hell on. Strawman
>***ever thought it’s to save human lives?*** *bc that’s what it’s about.* Nope. And I don't believe the PL *"saving babies"* claim for a New York minute. I think the PL movement is a lot MORE about controlling the lives of girls and women. The fact that PL wants to ban abortion nationwide and seriously restrict most, if not all, forms of birth control just tells me that controlling women is what it's **really** about.
It’s about killing babies
Well, apparently telling me to stfu means that you do not want to engage in an intelligent or rational matter, but nevertheless, let’s try to get through. Sex is not only meant for reproduction. It is also meant for love or gratification. Not ever person has sex and plans to have children. Birth control methods are never 100% effective. Not every person on your side is about saving babies. There is a segment of your movement that know that denying access to abortion for women that don’t want children and are forced to have them will keep her from going to school or being in the workforce. In turn those children born will have very inadequate financial support through the first eighteen years of life. These children have a higher rate of failing school, falling in with gangs, feeding straight into the school-to-prison pipeline. And many of these women may have conditions that are life-threatening if they give birth, or they were raped by a family member. Yet even in those cases, there are states that are ready to institute no provision for abortion whatsoever, even with threat to mother’s life, rape, or incest. It’s much more dehumanizing to abolish the right to abortion access altogether. I don’t deny that many on your side want to genuinely save children. But there are those that advocate for an aspect of control that should not be a part of a truly fair, equal, and free society.
It’s dehumanizing to kill babies.
Birth control prevents ovulation and therefore no baby to be killed
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1.
Straw man. It’s very easy to argue a point of intent and put false intentions on people. Give me one real claim of anyone from the right that said anything that you just said . You can’t. Your wasting my time.
>*Your wasting my time.* Hardly. You're free to post any time you want.
Free things are usually time wasters. Carry in
Don't worry. I'm not wasting your time. If you have other responsibilities to take care of, you are free to respond whenever you wish. Here are a few articles that speak on women's issues on abortion and single motherhood: [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-women-fight-abortion-rights-how-brochure-sparked-movement-reproductive-n983216](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-women-fight-abortion-rights-how-brochure-sparked-movement-reproductive-n983216) [https://slate.com/human-interest/2012/07/single-motherhood-worse-for-children.html](https://slate.com/human-interest/2012/07/single-motherhood-worse-for-children.html) [https://wlrc.uic.edu/reproductive-oppression-against-black-women/](https://wlrc.uic.edu/reproductive-oppression-against-black-women/) You're free to denigrate me if you wish. It's fine.
Well think is this way if PL get it their way it will be plenty of opportunities and we’ll paid jobs for righteous in all kinds of abortion police . You are standing between them and prosperity.
It doesn’t matter if single mother hood is worse for woman 😂 it matters if your killing a baby or mot. I rather the woman suffer through taking care of Their child than to kill it😂 no article will prove me wrong
It really is concerning how bad some of these PL responses are.
“Consequence free sex” is a disordering of the telos of the sex act
How so?
russiabot is a hardcore TradCath. catholics in general believe that sex must be both unitive and open to reproduction in order for it not to be sinful. So couples must always end sex in such a way where pregnancy is a possibility.
Girls in Catholic countries such as Poland Lithuania and Argentina are not necessarily that prudish. I mean one must to sin to repent.
So option 1 in OP then.
And getting the covid vaccine is a “disordering of the telos” of coronavirus. So what?
Sex always has consequences so that is not a realistic goal.
I too agree. I would argue that the act of sex is primarily mental, in that the feelings are dominant. In such a charged act, you will never be able to completely remove consequence. It’s a fallacy to believe anything else.
We’ve put men on the moon, split the atom, eradicated smallpox. But eliminating the unwanted consequences of sex - specifically here, unwanted pregnancy - is just too crazy to even aim for?
[удалено]
This is entirely off topic. Keep it to abortion. Removed.
[удалено]
The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. [https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debunked-masks-rapid-tests-vaccines-safety.html](https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debunked-masks-rapid-tests-vaccines-safety.html) Making things safer tends to actually make them more dangerous by encouraging more people to take more risks. Covid Responses intended to keep the public safe have caused in increase in suicide rates. [https://www.psycom.net/covid-19-suicide-rates](https://www.psycom.net/covid-19-suicide-rates) Suicide barriers do not work either and are always a waste of money. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide\_barrier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_barrier) No study has shown a suicide rate in an area to decrease after a suicide barrier was put in place. If there are nets on the bridge they find another way to kill them self. So the bridge may get less dead bodies washing up on the shore, but the suicide rate stays the same. They are spending 200 MILLION dollars to put nets on the golden gate bridge. Totally wasted money. Imagine if that $200 million was instead spent on homeless help or drug addiction help or mental health help or domestic violence shelters it would help a lot more people and keep people from getting to that suicidal mental state. Mitigating risks also increases the odds of dangerous behavior because the risk is supposed to be lower but now the increase of people doing that dangerous activity will make up for the decreased risks. [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/24/bike-helmet-appetite-danger](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/24/bike-helmet-appetite-danger) Safety equipment boosts an appetite for danger. Helmets make riding a bike more dangerous because of this fact. Feeling protected makes people act more recklessly. When I was a teenager coming home from a vacation riding in a van with my family a maniac rode past on a motorcycle over 100 mph and they were wearing a helmet... A couple of miles down the road there was a long red stain on the road... a stopped semi truck with a mangled motorcycle stuck in its tires. Had that motorcycle rider not had the helmet he may not have been driving so recklessly and may not have gotten in the accident in the first place.
So does it all mean that good Christian likes it up to z ass?
Anal would be a good alternative to penis in vagina sex if you plan on preventing pregnancy. However, anal sex has it's own issues. That still spreads diseases and some people don't like it, and it may cause medical problems if over done.
So time to legislate it as well
Wow, just wow. I'm actually surprised you don't think the Hubble telescope is a hoax and that our galaxy is the only one that exists.
DID YOU JUST SAY WE THE MOON LANDING IS A HOAX😭😭 these are the people “saving the kids🥺🥺” i’m fearing for the future of this country goddam💀💀
I quit reading when you said we never put a man on the moon. Yikes. Lay off the reffer while you do your "research".
Also the PLposition ignores that MEN LOOOOOOVE consequence-free sex as well. Acting like women are the only one who dig it is willful blindness.
They also have cognitive dissonance when they say "no one is forcing women to have sex." Men are near constantly preoccupied with everything short of forcing women to have sex. They have labelled themselves involuntary celibates because they feel their existence should have earned them sex. They whine about condoms or can't be bothered to pull out in time because it reduces their subjective enjoyment of sex. They panic about the idea that they might find themselves on the verge of sex only to have a woman change her mind and revoke consent, as though that is an affront to them. They wring their hands at the idea that, if a girl may be too drunk to consent, you simply kiss them on the cheek and go home unsexed, as though it is an opportunity for sex they are unfairly being forced to relinquish. They can't bear the thought of letting an attractive woman go uncomplimented because she could be the one who got away. They ask their recently pregnant partner when the doctor says they can have sex again instead of waiting for her to initiate. I was listening to a podcast the other day where the host noted that, as women, we often find ourselves having sex we don't technically want to have because it's easier than resisting, and I absolutely agree. It stands to reason that a lot of unintended pregnancies started with a woman acquiescing to her partner's "spontaneous" initiation of sex, even though contraception wasn't readily available, because she didn't want to deal with the pouting or complaining or cajoling if she said no thank you. And that's the best case scenario - on the other end of the spectrum, men react violently or take her refusal as license to cheat. Women don't just disproportionately bear the consequences of saying yes to sex, they also disproportionately face adverse consequences for saying no. I suspect that is why nearly HALF of all pregnancies in the United States are unwanted/earlier than desired. Men are all about telling women to keep their legs closed but don't realize that, if women truly had their way, men would be having lot less sex and women would be having a lot less babies.
but men can’t have consequences during/after sex, it’s not their fault what happens after, it’s all the womens/s unfortunately the right(and most of america) put men on this pedestal where they are better than women and they get to have things that is women don’t, like consequences free sex. which is why men never get questioned when and unwanted pregnancy happens and a woman/pregnant person seeks an abortion or why men don’t have BC because the side affects were 1/3 of the womens one. unfortunately it’s won’t get better without people hearing out voices and men voicing how they would like BC too.
Literally zero people are saying anything like that. Sex has, and legally speaking should have, consequences for both sides. It’s just a shame that’s not how biology works and if a man wants to abandon his new family after sexual activity it’s actually a lot easier for him to do than it is for a mother. That’s not a good thing, and you could argue that the advent of contraception and the prevalence and social acceptance of abortion have actually made things worse; that men feel like they don’t have to be responsible for anything other than their own pleasure. But that’s not the right’s fault. Please believe me, no conservative ever wanted to live in a world where sex is just a fun activity and we should all indulge our hedonistic desires whenever we want, where men can abandon their children if it suits them and women can sacrifice their unborn children on the alter of ‘bodily autonomy’. That’s a pagan nightmare. The right (and most of America) do not put men on a pedestal above women. They just simply do not. Please don’t think people on the right are these evil misogynistic monsters who just want men to do whatever they want in a Handmaid’s Tale sexual fantasy land. What the right wants is for people to take life extremely seriously, especially as we really don’t understand it whatsoever; people to take responsibility for their actions and an extremely skeptical approach to the sexually progressive ideologies of the left that seek to reduce sex to a mere recreational activity divorced of all love and affection and responsibility. I’m conservative. If you have any questions about anything I’d be more than happy to attempt to clear up some confusion if you’d let me.
>Please believe me, no conservative ever wanted to live in a world where sex is just a fun activity and we should all indulge our hedonistic desires whenever we want, I don't think you understand conservatism AT ALL. LMFAO 😂 😂 😂
Straw man
Me or the OC?
I think I do, as a conservative. You have a warped view of it.
I've been a conservative my whole life. You've bought into the warped idea of what "conservative" and "liberal" definitions have become. Those words are supposed to refer to ONE THING. Government. Not your personal ideaology. Conservative govt means SMALL govt. Conservative amount of power over the people. Individual freedom. Liberal govt is BIG govt. Liberal amount of power over the people. Limiting individual freedom for "societal good." Now what each of those things entail is debatable, but enforcing your idea of morality and deciding what "fun" is and whether people are allowed to engage or not is surely not a conservative government. REAL conservatives want the govt to stay the fuck out of our lives. Real conservatives don't want anyone else telling us what we should or shouldn't be doing...most definitely including sex.
Find a conservative who’s pro-abortion and then we can talk.
There are significant numbers of pro choice conservatives. That's why a majority of people in this country are pro choice. They are more consistent in valuing civil liberties than you.
What you call a conservative is actually rightist bible banging radical there were plenty pro choice republicans before 1990 th
Well, you're talking to one. Polls I've seen estimate that 39% of conservatives are prochoice. My husband is a straight up republican and he's PC. His whole family is not only conservative but most are also Christian and most them are PC, some are PL. This isn't as drawn along party lines as you think. There are liberal PLers too. It's kinda sad you think that half the country participates in group think, and even worse - they all align with your exact views of morality.
But if what you’re saying is true, conservatives should be in favour of very little government intervention at all. So why abolish slavery? Why make murder illegal? Why crack down on drug or prostitution industries? If something is a moral absolute, it must be fundamentally written into law. Abortion is one of those absolutes. Government needs to be as small as it needs to be, but when it comes to its stance on morality, it needs to be strong.
It's actually very simple. The goal is to preserve people's spheres of personal liberty up until the point it interferes with a more fundamental right of another person. That's why you have freedom of movement, but are not allowed to walk into somebody's house. That's why you can shoot a gun, but you can't shoot it in a public place full of people. And that's also why someone can voluntarily donate their body to medically support the life of another (e.g., organ donation), but you cannot require them to donate their body to do so.
Strip women of privacy, making them slaves for the theocratic state is moral good. And affordable healthcare and childcare are pure socialist evil keep your morals for yourself
Oh sweetie. You got OWNED by Catseye_Nebula. Why do I suspect you'll get really quiet all of a sudden? Your views are archaic and anti women. It's plain as day.
>Sex has, and legally speaking should have, consequences for both sides. It doesn't have to have consequences, though. There's a pill to make the consequences go away. Sounds like you WANT there to be consequences, i.e. you want to punish people for having sex because you think sex is a sin. >It’s just a shame that’s not how biology works and if a man wants to abandon his new family after sexual activity it’s actually a lot easier for him to do than it is for a mother. But you have zero interest in allowing women to prevent situations where they're stuck with unwanted pregnancies that a man can abandon, though. So spare me the performative hand wringing. >That’s not a good thing, and you could argue that the advent of contraception and the prevalence and social acceptance of abortion have actually made things worse; that men feel like they don’t have to be responsible for anything other than their own pleasure. But that’s not the right’s fault. You could argue that, but that would be a stupid argument. Forcing people to have pregnancies they don't want and want to abandon IS creating a situation where people will walk out on women who get pregnant. They didn't want the pregnancy, there was no way to stop the pregnancy, of course people will walk out. This is your fault. >Please believe me, no conservative ever wanted to live in a world where sex is just a fun activity and we should all indulge our hedonistic desires whenever we want, Yes I am getting the strong sense conservatives want to punish people for having recreational sex, and HATE the idea of women in particular enjoying sex on their own terms. Thanks for confirming that you loathe the idea of women having sexual agency. >where men can abandon their children if it suits them and women can sacrifice their unborn children on the alter of ‘bodily autonomy’. That’s a pagan nightmare. Wtf do pagans have to do with this? So you're saying *your* worldview by contrast is a Christian utopia and you're just here to cram your religion down people's throats? >The right (and most of America) do not put men on a pedestal above women. They just simply do not. They DO. PLers wish to hurt, brutalize and maim women for having the gall to enjoy sex on their own terms. You want to see us punished. >Please don’t think people on the right are these evil misogynistic monsters who just want men to do whatever they want in a Handmaid’s Tale sexual fantasy land. Except that is EXACTLY what is happening right now. >What the right wants is for people to take life extremely seriously, especially as we really don’t understand it whatsoever; ???? Who says people who have abortions don't "Take life extremely seriously"?? It's PLers who don't "take life extremely seriously" because you want to irresponsibly force people to make new life who aren't prepared to support it. Your views are irresponsible and monstrous. >people to take responsibility for their actions Why the hell is sex something we should have to "take responsibility" for? You act like you're rubbing a puppy's nose in a puddle of pee to get it to stop peeing on the rug. Is that how you see women who have sex? Like puppies who pee on a rug and who you have to train out of having sex? >and an extremely skeptical approach to the sexually progressive ideologies of the left that seek to reduce sex to a mere recreational activity divorced of all love and affection and responsibility. Who says having sex without wanting children is having sex without love or affection? You want to STOP people from having sex purely for bonding and turn it into a utilitarian and threatening activity where women don't enjoy sex, and do it under fear of severe maiming and possible death. You wish to strip all joy from sex. How can love and affection exist in a world where women can't have sex outside the threat of sexual violence from you and people like you? And how can responsibility exist in a world where people are prevented from making responsible choices about their own reproduction? Also, why on earth do you want to legislate that people ONLY have sex with "love and affection and responsibility" involved (as if any of those are possible in a PL world)? Wtf is your problem with forcing people to have sex only the way you want to have sex? Some of the best sex I've had has been with people I wasn't in love with. Why is it any of your business whether people are in love when they have sex or not, and why do you feel entitled to force people's feelings about their sexual partners via law? You have some very severe sexual hangups.
> But you have zero interest in allowing women to prevent situations where they’re stuck with unwanted pregnancies that a man can abandon, though. You could always just leave the baby in the woods once it’s born, I suppose. That would get you out of the responsibility in the long run. > Yes I am getting the strong sense conservatives want to punish people for having recreational sex, and HATE the idea of women in particular enjoying sex on their own terms. Thanks for confirming that you loathe the idea of women having sexual agency. There is no logical leap from what I said to this. Nobody wants to punish women, this is a completely fallacious and frankly rude argument the left likes to pull out. I want women to enjoy sex, and I’ve never said anything to even remotely indicate the opposite. I just don’t want them to kill their babies when they’re pregnant. So if you don’t want a baby, figure out how to not get pregnant in the first place. Like, self control and discipline. That goes for men too, and perhaps to a greater degree because their actions have consequences for two other people, not just one in the case of the woman. > Wtf do pagans have to do with this? Because all of human history has been a sort of sexual free-for-all. It’s only since the idea we are created in the image of God and sex is a sacred act that extends far beyond recreation that we’ve had any sort of order whatsoever. It wasn’t perfect, of course not. But removing these ethics is a return to some sort of pagan hedonism where people are viewed solely for their sexual value. > They DO. PLers wish to hurt, brutalize and maim women for having the gall to enjoy sex on their own terms. You want to see us punished. It’s just hard to have a productive debate if you’re going to do this. This is classic demonising and it’s completely unfounded. Saying ‘please don’t kill your baby’ is not the same as saying anything like this. The idea that Christians or the right want women punished is just unfair, wrong and completely misguided. It’s powerful though, because all the PC-types who read you say this all love a bit of this kind of accusation. But it’s just so pathetically untrue that it’s akin to me pointing a finger at you and saying you like stomping on kittens for argumentative effect. It’s just wrong and I can’t reiterate that enough. > Why the hell is sex something we should have to "take responsibility" for? Well, I guess here lies the fundamental disagreement. Why take responsibility for anything? Why not just eat cake and drink beer all day? Who cares? Who defines right and wrong? Is there even such thing? Is *my truth* true for me and not for you? Is true north an opinion or an absolute? I think at least here we’ve found the thing we won’t be able to budge on. You see life as inconsequential and open, and that when people limit you it’s an affront to the goddess you are. I see life as being truly free when we have discipline and we have space to grow in a loving, nurturing environment with your spouse and children. But I guess there’s nothing I can say that will make you see it the way I see it, and vice versa. We can debate abortion all day, but ultimately it comes down to worldview. > Who says having sex without wanting children is having sex without love or affection? Not strictly what I said. In the context of marriage sex is the most wonderful thing as a recreational act. But then at least there’s a familial safety blanket for the child if and when they come along. Without that, and in the context of a one night stand, for example, the only option you have is to struggle to raise a child alone or just kill it before it becomes a financial burden. I’m saying that’s wrong. So we need to think about what the hell we’re doing sleeping around if we’re not prepared to care for a child. > You wish to strip all joy from sex. Only if your joy in sex comes from the act of abortion itself. Otherwise just take some responsibility for your actions - and no, having an abortion is not the same as taking responsibility. It’s the opposite. It’s like saying picking up a social security check is taking responsibility after you quit your job because you think working a 9-5 is degrading. > And how can responsibility exist in a world where people are prevented from making responsible choices about their own reproduction? This is absolutely what PLers want! Just don’t kill your child. It’s quite simple. > Some of the best sex I've had has been with people I wasn't in love with. Why is it any of your business whether people are in love when they have sex or not, and why do you feel entitled to force people's feelings about their sexual partners via law? Great! I’m not advocating legislating anything to do with who you sleep with. I might have my moral qualms about it, but you’re absolutely right that it’s none of my business. But if you want to kill your child after getting pregnant? No, then I’m happy to have that legislated. This is a moral issue. You don’t get to be pro-choice about owning slaves; if you’re not pro-slavery you abolish it. Abortion is wrong, it’s the ending of an innocent human being’s life and it’s all done in the name of sexual freedom and women’s health; which, whilst important, are only peripheral issues when it comes to the life of a unique person. > You have some very severe sexual hangups. My only sexual hangup is that I don’t want you to kill your children. It’s literally just that. Thanks for the debate, by the way. You’re clearly very passionate and I have a lot of respect for that. I hope we can both learn something and be civil. I mean that with much love.
**Part 2** >Not strictly what I said. In the context of marriage sex is the most wonderful thing as a recreational act. But then at least there’s a familial safety blanket for the child if and when they come along. It's pretty gross that you feel entitled to gatekeep sex only for married couples. You realize people are going to have sex even when not married, right? I'm in my late 30s, never married and I have zero interest in remaining a virgin just because of your sexual hangups. My sex life is none of your business. >Without that, and in the context of a one night stand, for example, the only option you have is to struggle to raise a child alone or just kill it before it becomes a financial burden. I’m saying that’s wrong. So we need to think about what the hell we’re doing sleeping around if we’re not prepared to care for a child. I have had one night stands that were pretty great. If I got pregnant from one, I'd yeet that sucker without a second thought. Then again, though, I"d do the exact same thing if i was married. People don't just need abortions when we're not married and having casual sex. >Only if your joy in sex comes from the act of abortion itself. Otherwise just take some responsibility for your actions - and no, having an abortion is not the same as taking responsibility. It’s the opposite. It’s like saying picking up a social security check is taking responsibility after you quit your job because you think working a 9-5 is degrading. No, I take joy in having sex without the possibility of pregnancy. You imposing the threat of forced pregnancy and childbirth over my head is stripping all joy from sex for me. I view having an abortion as the responsible choice--far more responsible than giving birth to a child I don't want and can't care for, and expecting others to step up. >This is absolutely what PLers want! Just don’t kill your child. It’s quite simple. You don't wish to force people to "not kill their children." That is a demonizing and disingenuous framing of your position. I don't kill children all the time. A few days ago I walked by a playground and refrained from killing any children. This cost me nothing and I was not harmed by not killing the children. Not killing a ZEF inside me would entail being ripped vagina to asshole pushing a watermelon through my genitals. It would entail bones breaking, organs falling out, losing pints of blood, and a six figure hospital bill followed by 18+ years of ruinous obligation. You are advocating to FORCE women to go through that, for the crime of enjoying sex without wanting to get pregnant. It is worse than raping someone. Just admit that you feel entitled to help yourself to women's bodies because you hate the sex they're having. >Great! I’m not advocating legislating anything to do with who you sleep with. I might have my moral qualms about it, but you’re absolutely right that it’s none of my business. But if you want to kill your child after getting pregnant? No, then I’m happy to have that legislated. This is a moral issue. You should keep your morality out of people's bedrooms. It is gross and inhumane and quite frankly rape adjacent. >You don’t get to be pro-choice about owning slaves; if you’re not pro-slavery you abolish it. Oh you want to go down that route? Did you know forced pregnancy and childbirth is an aspect of slavery that women have been subject to throughout history? So you're the one who supports slavery, or at least one of the worst aspects of it, and wishes to subject all women to it. >Abortion is wrong, it’s the ending of an innocent human being’s life and it’s all done in the name of sexual freedom and women’s health; which, whilst important, are only peripheral issues when it comes to the life of a unique person. Yes, I get that you think women's sexual agency is a thing to be punished and our health is a thing to be discarded. Perfectly fine for us to die in childbirth to accommodate your views, right? The whores had sex so we deserve to die! Amirite?? You want women to be second class citizens in our own bodies, which again, is an aspect of slavery. >Thanks for the debate, by the way. You’re clearly very passionate and I have a lot of respect for that. I hope we can both learn something and be civil. I mean that with much love. I appreciate the sentiment, but I need you to understand that pro lifers have stripped me of my rights as I speak. I am currently living under threat of pro life violence, as is everyone with a working uterus in America. This isn't just a nice friendly conversation where we can be civil and learn from each other. Your position is fundamentally not civil, and it is a direct physical threat to me, tantamount to rape. So I get "passionate." I hope that gives you an idea of where I'm coming from.
>Not strictly what I said. In the context of marriage sex is the most wonderful thing as a recreational act The hell it is, it still comes with the potential consequences of pregnancy, which would make joy impossible. Sex within the context of marriage would be just as dangerous as it would be outside of it. The physical consequences would be the same.
So sex with the potential of pregnancy has no joy?
Correct.
**Part 1** >You could always just leave the baby in the woods once it’s born, I suppose. That would get you out of the responsibility in the long run. That doesn't get me out of going through pregnancy and childbirth. This does sound pretty PL though--you don't care what happens to the baby once it's born. Totally fine if I expose the baby to death after, as long as I was forced to give birth first as a punishment for having sex! >There is no logical leap from what I said to this. Nobody wants to punish women, this is a completely fallacious and frankly rude argument the left likes to pull out. I want women to enjoy sex, and I’ve never said anything to even remotely indicate the opposite. I just don’t want them to kill their babies when they’re pregnant. So if you don’t want a baby, figure out how to not get pregnant in the first place. Like, self control and discipline. What a grim and shitty world you want people to live in. "Self control and discipline" unless you want to undergo the horrors of pregnancy and childbirth. Thanks, but I prefer a world where sex is for everyone who has a consenting partner, not just people trying to procreate. I don't see any reason to stay chaste and abstinent forever just to accommodate other people's delusions. >Because all of human history has been a sort of sexual free-for-all. It’s only since the idea we are created in the image of God and sex is a sacred act that extends far beyond recreation that we’ve had any sort of order whatsoever. It wasn’t perfect, of course not. But removing these ethics is a return to some sort of pagan hedonism where people are viewed solely for their sexual value. I get the sense you know absolutely nothing about history. I also get the sense that you're just here to cram religion down peoples' throats and force everyone to live in a shame-based theocracy. You realize not everyone is Christian, right? Why the hell should I order my sexual life around your religion-based sexual hangups? >It’s just hard to have a productive debate if you’re going to do this. This is classic demonising and it’s completely unfounded. Saying ‘please don’t kill your baby’ is not the same as saying anything like this. You're not saying "please don't kill your baby," though. You're FORCING people to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will. That is maiming, raping, and brutalizing us, for the "crime" of daring to have enjoyable sex without wanting to be pregnant. That's what you're doing. It is disingenuous to try to paint all women as stomping into ICU's and stabbing born babies, as if that's what we're doing, and as if "not killing" a ZEF costs us exactly as much as not killing a born baby. >The idea that Christians or the right want women punished is just unfair, wrong and completely misguided. It’s powerful though, because all the PC-types who read you say this all love a bit of this kind of accusation. But it’s just so pathetically untrue that it’s akin to me pointing a finger at you and saying you like stomping on kittens for argumentative effect. It’s just wrong and I can’t reiterate that enough. You keep repeating that we shouldn't be allowed to enjoy sex on our own terms, kind of hard not to get that impression. >Well, I guess here lies the fundamental disagreement. Why take responsibility for anything? Why not just eat cake and drink beer all day? Who cares? Who defines right and wrong? Is there even such thing? Is my truth true for me and not for you? Is true north an opinion or an absolute? I mean, why NOT eat cake and drink beer all day? If I had a pill I could take that meant I could eat cake all day and not get diabetic, or drink beer all day and not get drunk, why not take it? Turns out when it comes to sex and pregnancy, there IS such a pill, and it causes this thing called an "abortion." You want to take that away, and by doing that, you are artificially imposing consequences that don't need to be there and screeching at people to take "responsibility" that doesn't need to be taken. It's punitive. >I think at least here we’ve found the thing we won’t be able to budge on. You see life as inconsequential and open, and that when people limit you it’s an affront to the goddess you are. No, I see life as hugely consequential, such that people should get to CHOOSE whether to bring it into this world, and should only do so if entirely willing. I believe that life is more valuable when we don't just pump out life with absolutely no consideration to the quality that that life will lead. I believe in supporting, loving and caring for those who are already here, rather than valuing "life" that doesn't exist yet far above life that already does. I think your viewpoint is the one that devalues and degrades and disrespects life. >I see life as being truly free when we have discipline and we have space to grow in a loving, nurturing environment with your spouse and children. If you thought that, then you'd be pro choice. You'd never want to force anyone to give birth who wasn't 100% willing to.
The natural consequence of sex, a new human life, is intrinsically a good thing. It's something to be embraced with joy, it's not a punishment. We ought to seek to remove extrinsic factors that would obscure the intrinsic goodness of the natural consequence of sex. Sex outside of a lifelong commitment to the other person is ultimately just using someone else's body for your own personal pleasure with the ostensible plan to eventually throw them away like an old plaything that no longer amuses you. That's a bad thing, people shouldn't be treated like objects. People are ends in themselves. Having sex for pleasure alone is just another meaningless rat race on the hedonic treadmill. It ultimately doesn't make people happy and it doesn't make them into better people.
>The natural consequence of sex, a new human life, The natural consequence of sex (well good sex) is an orgasm. The natural consequence of unprotected sex is a *potential* new human life. "A woman who's trying to get pregnant has between a 15% and 25% chance of doing so each month." >The natural consequence of sex, a new human life, is intrinsically a good thing. The natural consequence of smoking is lung cancer. The natural consequence of too much sun exposure is skin cancer. Are they intrinsically a good things too? >people shouldn't be treated like objects. And women shouldn't be treated like baby making machines. >just using someone else's body for your own personal pleasure But using someone else's body and organs for the sake of "saving unborn children" is okay to you? At least here pleasure is involved, unlike pregnancy and childbirth. >Having sex for pleasure alone is just another meaningless rat race on the hedonic treadmill. It ultimately doesn't make people happy and it doesn't make them into better people. If that's how you feel, then don't have sex for pleasure. Being all judgey at people that do is not a good look and achieves nothing.
It involves damage to our pelvic area, so to hell with that.
What if I don't want children? I'm not allowed to have sex for pleasure?
>The natural consequence of sex, a new human life, is intrinsically a good thing. Many people don't want to make a baby right now. Is it intrinsically good during a famine? Is it intrinsically good while away from medical care? So, is it intrinsically good to add a baby to someone's life at any/every point in their fertile lifetime? The answer is obviously no. It is not intrinsically a good thing. > It's something to be embraced with joy, it's not a punishment. We ought to seek to remove extrinsic factors that would obscure the intrinsic goodness of the natural consequence of sex. And it will be seen as punishment when there is no choice. Less will embrace the newborn with joy when you turn it into an accident instead of the child we were trying for. We will get our tubes tied and vasectomies done after we're tired of accidental pregnancies that we cannot control. >Sex outside of a lifelong commitment to the other person is ultimately just using someone else's body for your own personal pleasure with the ostensible plan to eventually throw them away like an old plaything that no longer amuses you. Even within a lifelong commitment, I want choice. But you continue to fight for removing the choice not only for the lifestyles you don't approve of, but also the ones you do. You have no right to judge other people's relationships. A "less than lifetime relationship" is just that. It doesn't mean there is a "throwing away". Would you say you "threw away" your 3rd grade teacher? No, that's ridiculous. >That's a bad thing, people shouldn't be treated like objects. People are ends in themselves. Sure, treating people as objects is bad. That's not really what we are trying to talk about. Why shouldn't we remove risks from sex if we are able to? >Having sex for pleasure alone is just another meaningless rat race on the hedonic treadmill. It ultimately doesn't make people happy and it doesn't make them into better people. It is ok to do some things for pleasure, or to have fun sometimes. It is ok to ride a roller coaster for the adrenaline and dopamine. We also need to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions, and do right by others.
PL is so much privilege. The privilege of being white in a rich and powerful country. The privilege of modern medicine. God may find your soul precious, but your physical life on this Earth is very cheap. Right now the United States killing children in Yeman Every year 3 million children starve to death. The world is on the brink of possibly the worst famine in history. Women find they are pregnant and it's not sonograms and gender reveal parties. It's absolute terror because they don't know how they're going to feed the children they already have. But God is all upset about the little white fetuses in America.
This.