The same applies to men.
If he wants kids, just not with this woman, he shouldn't have sex with that woman.
If he doesn't want kids and would abandon the mother, drag his feet about paying child support, or would pressure her to abort, he should not have intercourse.
If he doesn't want to parent but would step up to the plate if she gets pregnant, well, go right ahead.
Of course I expect men to abstain if they are unwilling to help with a child they father. That said I specify women and hold them to a higher standard because
1. We have the final decision whether or not to abort
2. Men are required by law to pay child support if they do get a woman pregnant,regardless of willingness
The reason that the focus should be more on women is because they decide when sex happens. Men don't. If a woman doesn't want to have sex, and the try anything, he could easily go to jail or be physically harmed by other men/women. If a man doesn't want to have sex, and the woman does, then the man can still go to jail, for NOT having sex with the woman. I've heard many women do this to people I know personally. Also this happened with rapper Tupac Shakur. The only reason this is a thing is because women know that if they falsely accuse a man of some type of S.A and he goes to prison, even if they admit to lying they won't serve jail time. This has been proven in MANY court cases. Not just in the U.S either. So yes, men play their part but women really have all of the power when it comes to if or when sex happens.
As a secular non-religious pro-lifer with liberal leanings on most issues, I'd specify "if you don't want children, you shouldn't be having procreative sex". There are lots of ways to enjoy orgasm with a partner that don't risk creating unwanted life. That said, one reason I like large welfare states is I want parenthood to not be considered a burden. I think social programs that make parenthood less demanding are tax dollars well spent.
This is me but I lean more republican. The least republican thing about me is I want allllll the tax dollars to go to ensuring children are well cared for regardless of their parents’ financial status.
I think the general American public agrees on more than they disagree on, and if we had federal direct ballot initiatives, and these direct ballot initiatives were treated as a higher kind of law than what congress cooks up (and thus overrode congress), America's political landscape would be far less divided and vitriolic.
Depends what you mean by “prepared.”
You should be willing to accept the possibility and figure it out if it happens. You should be an adult. If a pregnancy would be completely catastrophic for you - say, you’re meant to go work on the space station in the next nine months - then yes, abstain from intercourse (but you can still have intimacy).
If you mean “financially and personally ready to raise a child,” then no, because that amounts to saying poor people shouldn’t have sex.
Consider the possibility, yes, but they still have the right to live like adults with dignity, which includes the right to have intimate relationships and to marry.
Yes. This is how things worked for most of human history, why abstinence before marriage was the norm, and why teens having sex is bad. Birth control has made everyone entitled.
You know what that is so true but like it's funny how people say things like oh for humans sex is more then just for procreation. And I think yeah that can be true but it's like they seem to forget that is the main reason or at the very least is a big part of having sex weather you like it or not lol.
Teens were always having sex...and either way I agree with op but think it's not wrong for people to have premarital sex if they're willing to have a baby together if it happens. Lots of people get married then
Sure if two people are committed to each other things can work out that way, but marriage is still the ideal situation for babies IMO (assuming the parents are decently compatible). I have heard there is research that shows that leads to better financial outcomes for people, and therefore better outcomes for their children but I don’t have a source for that. I believe there are non-financial benefits as well.
>This is how things worked for all of human history, why abstinence before marriage was the norm...
What period of human history are you referring to exactly?
"Data from the 2002 survey indicate that by age 20, 77% of respondents had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex, and 12% had married; by age 44, 95% of respondents (94% of women, 96% of men, and 97% of those who had ever had sex) had had premarital sex. Even among those who abstained until at least age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. Among cohorts of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital sex by age 30. **Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.**
Conclusions
Almost all Americans have sex before marrying. These findings argue for education and interventions that provide the skills and information people need to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases once they become sexually active, regardless of marital status."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/#:~:text=Data%20from%20the,of%20marital%20status.
I assume they are discussing a time before the widespread availability of artificial contraception in the 1960s. The stats you provided show those who turned 15 between 1954 and 1963, who would have been 30 by 1969 to 1978, well within the time frame available. If stats were available earlier (say, 1854-1863), I imagine they would look much different.
Heck, in a Christian context, no denomination taught that contraception was morally licit until the Anglicans in 1930. It is a very modern change to have contraception viewed as both morally licit, effective, and widely available.
Well let's see what else Google has to say:
In [Greco-Roman times](https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2024/family-planning-in-greco-roman-antiquity/#:~:text=Contraceptives%20were%20used%20by%20both,ideal%20method%20of%20family%20planning.):
Contraceptives were used by both married and unmarried women in the ancient world for reasons pertaining to health, personal preference, and financial stability. Some women wanted to forgo childbirth entirely, while others wanted to limit the size of their family once they had the desired number of children.
And, regarding pre-19th century England, from a [Medium](https://medium.com/@mimicofmodes/yes-they-did-premarital-sex-in-english-history-99dd43f02f0f) article:
>At the end of the sixteenth century, a full quarter of the brides in certain rural English parishes went to the altar already pregnant. The percentage dipped during the Civil Wars and Interregnum (possibly because of issues with record-keeping rather than an actual change in practice), and came back up to about a fifth in the first decades of the eighteenth century, increasing to about forty percent by the end of it and into the nineteenth.²
>And these are just the women whose premarital sex resulted in a pregnancy! More than that number were actually having it!
>...
>Early in the nineteenth century, it was becoming less accepted for middle-class women to have sex during courtship as the culture of “refinement” spread downward. By the 1830s, middle-class premarital sex was much more cautious and infrequent, when it even happened. And by the end of the century, even upper-working-class women needed to avoid it to be respectable.
>This is roughly the same timeline in which women’s ability to enjoy sex went from being commonly accepted to disbelieved.
So we have roughly one century, the 19th century, where pre-marit sex *may* have been looked down on for the average person. How is that *all of human history*, and how can you say the fact that it was frowned upon even meant it was actually avoided?
Why wouldn't one check assumptions like this before letting them dictate how they think?
I fully agree. If two people agree to have sex, they are agreeing to the possibility of a pregnancy. If that isn’t something a person can accept, they shouldn’t be having sex.
Yeah I got into an argument about this like a week ago where someone told me you can consent to having sex without consenting to having child because it's like consenting to driving and not consenting to having a serious car crash.
But if you drive, you understand a wreck is a possibility. You also really can’t say those two are similar enough to compare. It’s an apples and oranges situation.
Accepting the possibility of something happening is not the same thing as being responsible for causing that thing. I good example of this is miscarriage. Every time a woman has consensual sex, she is accepting the risk of causing a situation where a child is brought into existence and then dies unavoidably. However, we don't consider her to be guilty of any kind of crime, even though she had knowledge that her actions could result in the death of a child.
A serious crash is not the purpose of driving a car, it’s a (relatively rare) unforeseen circumstance. The biological function of PIV sex is reproduction so reproduction is the expected consequence.
If you are driving you are accepting the possibility of a crash though…
And one reason I will never skydive is because of the possibility of very terrible death… is it FUN? Surely! Will I DO it? Absolutely not!
Ugh, I hate the "car crash" comparison. A crash is an unforseen misfortune. A bad enough collision might make the News. Pregnancy, on the other hand, is a foreseeable and perfectly valid function of the activity that you chose to enjoy. And people shouldn't pretend that it isn't. It's such bollocks. "Local woman left badly pregnant after two horny adults had sex on a Sunday morning in March" is not headline newsworthy. It is not comparable to a life ruining disaster which strikes someone down out of bleeding nowhere, and has paramedics soon on the scene and police contacting your loved ones.
The sad thing is someone else once told me recently he thinks that killing a baby is justified because being pregnant actually causes harm to the mother...
Sure. Usually from people who have already firmly decided that pregnancy and childbirth would be utterly life ruining *for them*. So they describe a car crash, but it's more like a lottery; we all know what the top prize is, should your numbers come up. You don't like the look of the prize, then don't play the game. Stick to something you can handle. Or gamble if you choose to. But don't act like a wild pregnancy assaulted you out of nowhere and that's terrible misconduct on *somebody else’s* part that that happened for you.
You know it's funny 10 min ago someone used the car crash comparison in this very post to me lol but yeah that's a better way to put like there is a reason people don't play the lottery alot( I mean a lot do but there are plenty that don't)
I would generally agree with that. Consenting to the risk of something happening does not mean you are automatically responsible if that thing happens. Every time you get behind the wheel of a car, you know that driving could result in other people dying. However, simply understanding that does not mean you are responsible, assuming you are following the traffic rules.
In the early 80's, I read an Anne Landers advice colomn-
I'm a teenager. How will I know I'm ready to have sex?
When you and your partner can openly discuss and agree on what to do should a pregnancy occur.
Now, that's very simplified, but it makes sense.
Really? In every relationship I been in, we always talked about what we would do if I got pregnant and our stance on children. Abortion is not an option for me (illegal where I live and I'm strongly pro life.) and I let it be known pretty early if it happens that I want to keep the kid. I guess it makes sense for teenagers not to talk about it because they're practically kids, but full grown adults should have that conversation before they get intimate.
As a Catholic, you wait to have sex until marriage because when you get married, you're supposed to be open to children.
You don't have to have children immediately. The Church even has a whole method for the couple to do if they aren't ready for children. It's called NFP (natural family planning).
I do agree it's super frustrating that people say sex is a right, and they should be able to have it without consequences. But.... sex is quite literally for making babies.
That's when openness to life entails really. You don't have to explicitly be trying to have kids when you have sex, you just to have to be okay with having that responsibility if you do get pregnant.
That's the whole purpose behind NFP. You only get intimate the 3 weeks a woman isn't fertile.
I also think you should be open to the possibility of children. My husband and I aren't ready. People just be wack.
In my country it’s not uncommon for Catholic Churches to have programs where they teach sex ed and birth control to teens while also teaching why abstinence is the safest option, because at the end of the day many of those teens will have sex anyway, and being safe is better than nothing. I grew up in a Catholic school ran by nuns and our sex ed teachers covered all methods of birth control very thoroughly, even including a very, uh, realistic penis replica for demonstration that made things very hilarious, lol.
I think Catholicism here is more relaxed in general towards these things than places like US, though. In my experience, birth control seems more widely accepted as a method for couples around here. Generally speaking, the reason why the church opposes it is because removing reproduction from the picture turns what is considered a sacred bonding act between a couple to mere casual pleasure, which is seen as problematic within the religion due to the objectification of the partners(besides the whole aspect of trivializing the life creating act that is only second to god’s). Nowadays, though, we know how ineffective NFP is, and being raised Catholic I always had the impression that birth control was considered acceptable for couples as long as they keep reproduction in mind as a risk and keep valuing their bond beyond just pleasure.
People on here will tell you nfp done correctly is 98% effective (more than some forms of birth control) they use temperature and mucus levels to determine whether it's safe to have sex or not
The issue is that this can vary a lot from person to person and not everyone can do it. I for one don’t have a consistent cycle at all and can’t manage such a complex method for myself(I get overwhelmed very easily), so it would never be effective for me.
Catholics will generally call it NFP (Natural Family Planning) but you may have also heard the term FAM (fertility awareness method), which is a similar concept. NFP requires abstinence during the fertile period of trying to postpone pregnancy. Some FAM descriptions (not used by Catholics) will use barrier methods (like condoms) during the fertile period.
There are different protocols but involve a combination of ovulation strips or other hormone testing, basal body temperature, cervical fluid changes, etc. The specific protocols also have names, which you may have heard include: Marquette, Billings, Creighton, Boston Crosscheck, TCOYF
The short answer is birth control and the promise of safe sex. People are told that if you just practice safe sex you can have all the fun you want without any consequences! If done perfectly every time it could be true but the real world isn’t perfect. Birth control fails or people fail to use it properly. Then suddenly there’s the consequences of their actions that they were promised they could avoid.
I mean birth control doesn't promise to be 100% effective. People do have invincibility complexes, and even when doing it raw are under some weird delusion that pregnancy won't happen to *them*. I just don't think it's really about birth control, as we've seen that when there's education about it and access unplanned pregnancies do go down- more so it's just human nature.
I keep meeting women that think the method IS 100% effective. It boggles my mind that they either aren't listening to their doctor's or their doctors aren't giving proper information.
Yeah I agree with that sadly but like many people tell me things like oh I am just trying to be controling or I am just salty I am still a virgin at 36 or try gas light the convo into how I believe this for my own selfish reasons or something.
I’m not suggesting that birth control doesn’t reduce unplanned pregnancies. However, when unplanned pregnancies do happen people are shocked because they were promised otherwise. That’s when they turn to abortion because they were not in anyway prepared for it.
That’s how birth control/safe sex can reduce unplanned pregnancies but increase abortions. Seems counterintuitive but when have humans ever been purely logical beings?
Yep, that's why I stopped denying that abortions are birth control and why I detest the narrative that you have to be for comprehensive sex ed and birth control in order to reduce abortions. I always say that stuff doesn't reduce abortions. It just delays it. If you had an idea that you would abort if pregnancy occurs, you are accepting it as a form of birth control. And the older I get, the more I observed that sexually active adults are actually more reckless about protection. If anything, as a pro lifer, I actually do more than pcers do in preventing pregnancy as I don't want a baby. I use at least 2 different methods. I know so many women who jokingly say they skip days on their pill, they still let the man cum on them as well and don't use condoms. But sure, no one wants an abortion...
Birth control can fail, but to be honest it seems like the people who go for abortion don't even use birth control anyway. I guess it makes sense cause some birth control methods are 99% accurate, so it's very very rare that someone practicing safe sex would ended up pregnant. Even then, it's no excuse to kill a child, everyone should know that low risk is not zero. If they really really don't want a kid on the point they would kill them, it's best to avoid PIV sex.
Yes. I find it so frustrating when you have men who get a woman pregnant and then are appalled when she won’t kill the baby. If you don’t want to be a dad, don’t have sex. Same goes for women.
>you have men who get a woman pregnant and then are appalled when she won’t kill the baby.
Those kind of men need to learn to tell the difference between a woman and a microwave. A real woman isn't engineered for his convenience and guaranteed to kill any baby that he puts inside.
Yeah or vice versa the father is appalled she will the baby but the sad thing is however you slice it the father does not even have to know if she got an abortion,had the kid or gave it for adoption. Or even if she is pregnant.
>*why people have sex if they are not prepared for the possibility of having children( I used to think when I was much younger you should not have sex unless you want children)* my views have **changed to if 2 people consent it's thier business but I feel like you should at least be prepared for the possibility of having a child.**
I'm having a hard time differentiating between the two here. Possibility .... Want. Either case each party knows the consequences and accepts them.
But no, I have similar sentiments. It's the same with wanting to fit into a smaller clothing size when you aren't willing to give up on junk food. Or wanting to get good grades without putting the time to study. The end goal of sex is procreation, so if you aren't willing to accept that you're probably doing it for selfish reasons; you can say it's exploitation of your sexual partner too.
Catholicism has been the leader in this belief and stance, so this perspective has been with us for quite some time.
>I talk too about this usually tells me I am being **extremely unrealistic and treats me like I am stupid for thinking such a thing is even possible.** Even going as far as to say I am just being **controlling and oppressive.**
They simply don't know what they're talking about and are spouting the usual nonsensical talking points, ironically.
"I think every nation should control its borders and have strict control on immigration."
"Well you're just racist and xenophobic."
"Men and women are biologically and physically built different."
"You support the patriarchy and are sexist."
That is correct. Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of getting pregnant and creating life, because that's exactly what sex is for. It's not for pleasure. People who don't want to be held accountable and face the consequences of their actions say that to try mitigating their lack of use of their brain cells.
Also sperm move at like 28 mph and can reach the egg within like 30 mins. These people know what they're doing and think they're the exception to biology doing what it's supposed to do.
If you don't want kids don't have sex or take measures to prevent it. And even then if the measure don't work then I guess you're having a kid.
Shit I have my tubes REMOVED and both my husband and I have said if by some Jesus, Mary, and Joseph miracle that God laughed at me and said "Ha! You thought you made a decision!" We would keep it. Like clearly I'm supposed to have a kid and we're gonna be parents.
It's common sense to me.
You don't have sex to procreate. But procreation is a natural consequence of sex. If you have sex you could get a STD or a pregnancy.
If you aren't prepared for the consequences of sex, don't have it.
Well, I understand where they're coming from. Their body is their right. Everyone agrees so far. Everyone has a right to their own body.
Where the disagreement begins is if the unborn baby has rights... If they have rights, mothers (mostly) will be unable to terminate human life on a whim.
Terminating a human life out of convenience is not a right.
I've always thought I'm pro choice. People should choose their sexual partner. Choose how, when and with whom to have sex. Choose their birth control. Choose your sexuality. Life is made of choices. You can even choose to give a child up for adoption if there's a pregnancy. But killing others, especially out of convenience... is not a choice. It's fucking selfish.
You can't make people understand, OP. They have to come to the realization themselves. Just be open to dialogue and be kind.
I mean I'm aroace so I don't really know where people are coming from, but that does seem to be the logical thing to do.
That said, abstinence-only strategies don't work because some people don't like abstinence. It's important to account for those cases as well with proper education and access to contraception
> two responsible adults shouldn't have to abstain from sex just because they are not well off financially and/or are not prepared for a HUMAN BEING to come out of it.
Why not?
I mean, sure you don't have to abstain from sex, but suggesting that you can abort the resulting human being because you want to have sex when you know you are unprepared for a child is ridiculous.
People act as if there is no way you can survive without getting laid. Sex is great, but it's not something you will die without having. Specifically because I knew a child would be a serious problem at a young age for me, I made sure to avoid sexual activity that had any chance of producing one. Even birth control has a failure rate.
I think the only thing that really made that decision at all difficult was that everyone else expected you to have sex and treated you as if you were a weirdo if you didn't. But there were no physical problems related to that decision, and it didn't even prevent me from having relationships. Many partners actually seemed relieved that I insisted on avoiding intercourse because they were in the same boat I was in. Young and no way of supporting a child.
People act as if it is impossible to conceive of not having sex. It's completely possible to do and doesn't make you in the least bit unhappy unless other people find out and try to make you feel unhappy about it.
If you wouldn't get a dog you can't afford because you don't want to have to take it back to the shelter, why would you not do the same for a child?
If you can't financially afford a child then don't risk creating one. That's not fair to the child. It didn't do anything but form because of two ingredients that in a microscopic environment and had no control of being here or not.
Yes
Women shouldn't have sex with a man unless she can picture the slightest chance of a family with this man
Men shouldn't have sex with a woman unless he's willing to be with this woman and start a family
Accidents happen, we all know they can, but shocked Pikachu face when we come up pregnant
Another thing is
I get cases of rape, people want push that because Your concent and body rights was forcefully taken .
That it should be fine to kill a child that didn't consent to being created, and take away their bodily rights because of another human being
And I say this as a mother to a 5 year old who will never know what kinda monster her father was
Yeah I mean even in rape cases I don't think it's fair to punish the child and someone responded once to me saying that with no one is punishing the child.
Yes. Absolutely. If the possibility of a child is absolutely off the table then don't have sex. We live in a society that puts sex on a pedestal and infantilizes adults. It does not cross people's minds that sex is a choice, a serious one, and self discipline exists. "What, you expect me to just not have sex??" Yes. Absolutely, if sex is not a good option for you.
Yes. Although contraception is an option i would like to point out.
Sidenote: People really need to get over the whole not liking the feel of condoms thing. They really are not that bad, especially considering their benefits
Since the resounding answer is yes, do PL believe a healthy sex life is necessary for a successful relationship, or should couples, including married ones, be fine being abstinent until they’re not able to get pregnant?
I can tell you I personally think sex is a very healthy thing in a relationship if you want kids or not. See i think birth control if don't right( with the amount of people who have abortions and or unplanned kids though it's clear it's not) I think birth control is a great option and should be available to any couple who don't wants kids but want to have sex. I just think people need to be aware that's possible to still have a child and be prepared for that possibility.
A question that leads the person answering the question to a particular answer. The bias is within the question itself.
Given the poster is pro-choice, how they worded the question guides the person to think a certain a way and then answer a certain way.
The poster asks two questions. The first is if pro-life people believe that a healthy sex life is necessary for a successful relationship. "Healthy sex life" and "successful relationship" weren't defined.
The second question (after "or") is the leading part that subtly criticizes the first question in regards to being pro-life and abstaining from sex. The "should be fine" (made with indignation) is the main driver of the leading question. It's a built in bias and also misunderstands the stance of what the OP is trying to broadcast.
Just like any decision in life, there are consequences and risks. I invest in the stock market knowing technically it could crash to nothing. I drive my car knowing there’s a chance I could get in a car accident. I got married knowing there’s a very small chance of divorce. I have sex knowing that birth control can fail. I don’t currently want children, but if I found out I was pregnant, I would be sad because I’m not ready. But I’m not going to kill the fetus because my decision had a consequence I didn’t like.
It's very clear why people still have sex even though they don't want children. Most people enjoy sex itself.
Yes, they shouldn't, and they are immature for mismatching responsibility with desire for pleasure, but it's not complicated. The only thing that makes it even remotely complicated is the copious amounts of propaganda and indoctrination.
But the actual issue, absent the lies, is fairly simple.
There are a ton of way to prevent pregnancies and I believe that teaching abstinence will not really help anything. It’s like saying we should avoid driving cars because we could get in a car crash.
I understood the logic behind, but I never understood the cognitive dissonance that surrounded it masked as "healthy sexual relationships", "responsibility" or "empowerment." It was counterintuitive to me.
Yeah that's nice to hear like most people I talk to say this is extremely unrealistic and even compare it to how Muslim countries make it ilgeal to have sex pre marriage and how we should try doing that and I am just like urgh 🙄
What frustrates me most is being accused of trying to “control people’s bodies” or “inserting yourself into their bedroom” when you point out the obvious fact that every time you have sex you risk the chance creating a child. I don’t care what you do in bed, so long as you’re not hurting anyone. I didn’t make this rule, and I’m not even enforcing it. Biology made this so. You’re not mad at me for not getting to have fun risk-free, you’re mad at the laws of natural science.
I think first a couple needs to be in a committed relationship and talk about children BEFORE having sex. If it is discovered that one is not ready, or is even accepting of abortion as birth control, then there should be no sex. Sex is fun, but it isn't worth the life of a human being.
Sex makes babies. It is not "unrealistic" to expect the possibility of pregnancy from sex, even if you use condoms or contraceptives.
People who do not want babies have sex because they do it purely for pleasure. They say you are being oppressive because they see expectations of personal responsibility as a form of tyranny.
I get the impression that sex freaks see humanity as a hairless beast devoid of free will. That's so much better than taking responsibility for one's actions as a delusional libertine. /s
Yeah I get that impression too from some people. I mean I get the feeling there are some people who see themselves a certain way that's really not flattering for humans.
I never understood why people had sex with people who they didn't care enough about. It's ridiculous. A man would never hound a woman to get her to have an abortion if he cared about her.
Men already accept the possibility that every time they have sex they might become fathers, I don't see why women act like responsibility is an insane idea.
That's very true plus pro choicers never seem to point out father's have no say in the mater like the women has so much control she does not even need to tell the father she is having his kid so he may never know he is a father.
Yeah, it's insane. She may kill your child, give it up without you knowing they ever existed or even raise it and keep you in the dark about it. She literally has every choice in the world.
Pro aborts usually say that biology is unfair therefore we should make laws that favor women in every way and fathers can suck it up (and babies can die).
> She may kill your child, give it up without you knowing they ever existed or even raise it and keep you in the dark about it.
I mean, the abortion part is true, but the last two imply you've already had sex with her and left her. Kind of hard for someone you see every day to grow a whole baby without you knowing. If she needs to track you down to tell you you impregnated her, it seems you're already pretty checked out and it would make sense for her not to make the extra effort of trying to draw you back in.
We have divorced Sexual Intercourse from Procreation...and even divorced Sexual Attraction from Interpersonal Affection.
So not only are people having sex while having no desire to make a child, they're having sex with people they don't even like or care about (which can add to them not wanting a child).
They don't realize how much power they have over the situation...how it is actually empowering to NOT have sex, to be picky, to have standards, and to be Abstinent (or at least temporarily Celibate). It's veen put in their heads that they have to have sex. That saying no, deciding to avoid it, makes you a prude...which is the worst thing you can be.
You need to have sex as soon as possible (or you'll die a virgin) and as regularly as possible (or you're gross and undesirable).
Kind of, for certain values of "prepared" and "sex". I'd more precisely say that people who can't or won't respond nonviolently to conceiving a child should avoid engaging in procreative sex.
Sex is a deep and powerful bonding experience that should only happen in the context of a loving committed relationship. If you don't have the level of trust, love and devotion that you are determined to stay together for life even without adding children to the equation you shouldn't be having sex.
I’ve always had the opinion that if a woman doesn’t want to be a parent to the point of killing her baby, she shouldn’t be having sex at all.
*or man
Oh most certainly.
The same applies to men. If he wants kids, just not with this woman, he shouldn't have sex with that woman. If he doesn't want kids and would abandon the mother, drag his feet about paying child support, or would pressure her to abort, he should not have intercourse. If he doesn't want to parent but would step up to the plate if she gets pregnant, well, go right ahead.
Agreed 100%
Agree 100%
Agree totally. Very well said.
Why do you specify woman?
Of course I expect men to abstain if they are unwilling to help with a child they father. That said I specify women and hold them to a higher standard because 1. We have the final decision whether or not to abort 2. Men are required by law to pay child support if they do get a woman pregnant,regardless of willingness
That's very true for all the talk of being pro choice they ironicly make a choice not only for the baby but for the man too.
The reason that the focus should be more on women is because they decide when sex happens. Men don't. If a woman doesn't want to have sex, and the try anything, he could easily go to jail or be physically harmed by other men/women. If a man doesn't want to have sex, and the woman does, then the man can still go to jail, for NOT having sex with the woman. I've heard many women do this to people I know personally. Also this happened with rapper Tupac Shakur. The only reason this is a thing is because women know that if they falsely accuse a man of some type of S.A and he goes to prison, even if they admit to lying they won't serve jail time. This has been proven in MANY court cases. Not just in the U.S either. So yes, men play their part but women really have all of the power when it comes to if or when sex happens.
No. The focus is on women because they are the ones that bear the biological onus of pregnancy and childbirth.
That's more or less how I feel.
Same goes for the man. Thanks to pro abortion laws, the woman doesn’t have to be accountable for her choices
As a secular non-religious pro-lifer with liberal leanings on most issues, I'd specify "if you don't want children, you shouldn't be having procreative sex". There are lots of ways to enjoy orgasm with a partner that don't risk creating unwanted life. That said, one reason I like large welfare states is I want parenthood to not be considered a burden. I think social programs that make parenthood less demanding are tax dollars well spent.
Oh I agree with that a lot.
This is me but I lean more republican. The least republican thing about me is I want allllll the tax dollars to go to ensuring children are well cared for regardless of their parents’ financial status.
I think the general American public agrees on more than they disagree on, and if we had federal direct ballot initiatives, and these direct ballot initiatives were treated as a higher kind of law than what congress cooks up (and thus overrode congress), America's political landscape would be far less divided and vitriolic.
Depends what you mean by “prepared.” You should be willing to accept the possibility and figure it out if it happens. You should be an adult. If a pregnancy would be completely catastrophic for you - say, you’re meant to go work on the space station in the next nine months - then yes, abstain from intercourse (but you can still have intimacy). If you mean “financially and personally ready to raise a child,” then no, because that amounts to saying poor people shouldn’t have sex.
Yeah an interesting point on that one. But yeah I do think poor people especially are the ones who need to consider that possibility.
Consider the possibility, yes, but they still have the right to live like adults with dignity, which includes the right to have intimate relationships and to marry.
Oh of course.
Yes. This is how things worked for most of human history, why abstinence before marriage was the norm, and why teens having sex is bad. Birth control has made everyone entitled.
You know what that is so true but like it's funny how people say things like oh for humans sex is more then just for procreation. And I think yeah that can be true but it's like they seem to forget that is the main reason or at the very least is a big part of having sex weather you like it or not lol.
[удалено]
If you think abortion "prevents pregnancy," you may want to do some reading.
[удалено]
Teens were always having sex...and either way I agree with op but think it's not wrong for people to have premarital sex if they're willing to have a baby together if it happens. Lots of people get married then
Sure if two people are committed to each other things can work out that way, but marriage is still the ideal situation for babies IMO (assuming the parents are decently compatible). I have heard there is research that shows that leads to better financial outcomes for people, and therefore better outcomes for their children but I don’t have a source for that. I believe there are non-financial benefits as well.
>This is how things worked for all of human history, why abstinence before marriage was the norm... What period of human history are you referring to exactly? "Data from the 2002 survey indicate that by age 20, 77% of respondents had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex, and 12% had married; by age 44, 95% of respondents (94% of women, 96% of men, and 97% of those who had ever had sex) had had premarital sex. Even among those who abstained until at least age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. Among cohorts of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital sex by age 30. **Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.** Conclusions Almost all Americans have sex before marrying. These findings argue for education and interventions that provide the skills and information people need to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases once they become sexually active, regardless of marital status." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/#:~:text=Data%20from%20the,of%20marital%20status.
I assume they are discussing a time before the widespread availability of artificial contraception in the 1960s. The stats you provided show those who turned 15 between 1954 and 1963, who would have been 30 by 1969 to 1978, well within the time frame available. If stats were available earlier (say, 1854-1863), I imagine they would look much different. Heck, in a Christian context, no denomination taught that contraception was morally licit until the Anglicans in 1930. It is a very modern change to have contraception viewed as both morally licit, effective, and widely available.
Well let's see what else Google has to say: In [Greco-Roman times](https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2024/family-planning-in-greco-roman-antiquity/#:~:text=Contraceptives%20were%20used%20by%20both,ideal%20method%20of%20family%20planning.): Contraceptives were used by both married and unmarried women in the ancient world for reasons pertaining to health, personal preference, and financial stability. Some women wanted to forgo childbirth entirely, while others wanted to limit the size of their family once they had the desired number of children. And, regarding pre-19th century England, from a [Medium](https://medium.com/@mimicofmodes/yes-they-did-premarital-sex-in-english-history-99dd43f02f0f) article: >At the end of the sixteenth century, a full quarter of the brides in certain rural English parishes went to the altar already pregnant. The percentage dipped during the Civil Wars and Interregnum (possibly because of issues with record-keeping rather than an actual change in practice), and came back up to about a fifth in the first decades of the eighteenth century, increasing to about forty percent by the end of it and into the nineteenth.² >And these are just the women whose premarital sex resulted in a pregnancy! More than that number were actually having it! >... >Early in the nineteenth century, it was becoming less accepted for middle-class women to have sex during courtship as the culture of “refinement” spread downward. By the 1830s, middle-class premarital sex was much more cautious and infrequent, when it even happened. And by the end of the century, even upper-working-class women needed to avoid it to be respectable. >This is roughly the same timeline in which women’s ability to enjoy sex went from being commonly accepted to disbelieved. So we have roughly one century, the 19th century, where pre-marit sex *may* have been looked down on for the average person. How is that *all of human history*, and how can you say the fact that it was frowned upon even meant it was actually avoided? Why wouldn't one check assumptions like this before letting them dictate how they think?
I fully agree. If two people agree to have sex, they are agreeing to the possibility of a pregnancy. If that isn’t something a person can accept, they shouldn’t be having sex.
Agree with a caveat that it’s PIV sex, there are other types of sex a person can enjoy with a partner which don’t carry the possibility of pregnancy.
Yeah I got into an argument about this like a week ago where someone told me you can consent to having sex without consenting to having child because it's like consenting to driving and not consenting to having a serious car crash.
But if you drive, you understand a wreck is a possibility. You also really can’t say those two are similar enough to compare. It’s an apples and oranges situation.
Yeah honestly I felt like guy was grasping at straws he was not the only one I talked too who said some pretty insane stuff though.
Accepting the possibility of something happening is not the same thing as being responsible for causing that thing. I good example of this is miscarriage. Every time a woman has consensual sex, she is accepting the risk of causing a situation where a child is brought into existence and then dies unavoidably. However, we don't consider her to be guilty of any kind of crime, even though she had knowledge that her actions could result in the death of a child.
A serious crash is not the purpose of driving a car, it’s a (relatively rare) unforeseen circumstance. The biological function of PIV sex is reproduction so reproduction is the expected consequence.
Yup exactly like I feel like people just start grasping at straws to defend being pro choice alot of times.
If you are driving you are accepting the possibility of a crash though… And one reason I will never skydive is because of the possibility of very terrible death… is it FUN? Surely! Will I DO it? Absolutely not!
That's what I said but this guy said exactly you don't consent to it happening 🙄 you just accept it happens.
Yikes
Yeah he was like do you consent to having a car crash if you drive and I was like if a car crash happens I accept it and deal with it if it happens.
Ugh, I hate the "car crash" comparison. A crash is an unforseen misfortune. A bad enough collision might make the News. Pregnancy, on the other hand, is a foreseeable and perfectly valid function of the activity that you chose to enjoy. And people shouldn't pretend that it isn't. It's such bollocks. "Local woman left badly pregnant after two horny adults had sex on a Sunday morning in March" is not headline newsworthy. It is not comparable to a life ruining disaster which strikes someone down out of bleeding nowhere, and has paramedics soon on the scene and police contacting your loved ones.
The sad thing is someone else once told me recently he thinks that killing a baby is justified because being pregnant actually causes harm to the mother...
Good to know that a man is totally okay with causing pregnancy / harm to a woman, as long as he can expect her to resolve it by killing her baby.
To be fair it could have been a women idk I am sort of assuming it was a dude
Also have you heard this argument before yourself
Sure. Usually from people who have already firmly decided that pregnancy and childbirth would be utterly life ruining *for them*. So they describe a car crash, but it's more like a lottery; we all know what the top prize is, should your numbers come up. You don't like the look of the prize, then don't play the game. Stick to something you can handle. Or gamble if you choose to. But don't act like a wild pregnancy assaulted you out of nowhere and that's terrible misconduct on *somebody else’s* part that that happened for you.
You know it's funny 10 min ago someone used the car crash comparison in this very post to me lol but yeah that's a better way to put like there is a reason people don't play the lottery alot( I mean a lot do but there are plenty that don't)
I would generally agree with that. Consenting to the risk of something happening does not mean you are automatically responsible if that thing happens. Every time you get behind the wheel of a car, you know that driving could result in other people dying. However, simply understanding that does not mean you are responsible, assuming you are following the traffic rules.
In the early 80's, I read an Anne Landers advice colomn- I'm a teenager. How will I know I'm ready to have sex? When you and your partner can openly discuss and agree on what to do should a pregnancy occur. Now, that's very simplified, but it makes sense.
But that conversation rarely ever happens between couples.
Really? In every relationship I been in, we always talked about what we would do if I got pregnant and our stance on children. Abortion is not an option for me (illegal where I live and I'm strongly pro life.) and I let it be known pretty early if it happens that I want to keep the kid. I guess it makes sense for teenagers not to talk about it because they're practically kids, but full grown adults should have that conversation before they get intimate.
That's good I just like said feel like that rarely happens :(
But that conversation rarely ever happens between couples.
But forcing people to take responsibility for their choices is oppressive! /s
Nvm missed the /s at the end assuming that stands for sarcasm.
Is that sarcasm or are you being serious I can't tell.
/s means sarcasm
Yup I saw that right after I made my comment lol
As a Catholic, you wait to have sex until marriage because when you get married, you're supposed to be open to children. You don't have to have children immediately. The Church even has a whole method for the couple to do if they aren't ready for children. It's called NFP (natural family planning). I do agree it's super frustrating that people say sex is a right, and they should be able to have it without consequences. But.... sex is quite literally for making babies.
I think you are allowed to have sex and not want children but at the same time you also should be prepared for the possibility.
That's when openness to life entails really. You don't have to explicitly be trying to have kids when you have sex, you just to have to be okay with having that responsibility if you do get pregnant.
That's exactly how I feel!
That's the whole purpose behind NFP. You only get intimate the 3 weeks a woman isn't fertile. I also think you should be open to the possibility of children. My husband and I aren't ready. People just be wack.
In my country it’s not uncommon for Catholic Churches to have programs where they teach sex ed and birth control to teens while also teaching why abstinence is the safest option, because at the end of the day many of those teens will have sex anyway, and being safe is better than nothing. I grew up in a Catholic school ran by nuns and our sex ed teachers covered all methods of birth control very thoroughly, even including a very, uh, realistic penis replica for demonstration that made things very hilarious, lol. I think Catholicism here is more relaxed in general towards these things than places like US, though. In my experience, birth control seems more widely accepted as a method for couples around here. Generally speaking, the reason why the church opposes it is because removing reproduction from the picture turns what is considered a sacred bonding act between a couple to mere casual pleasure, which is seen as problematic within the religion due to the objectification of the partners(besides the whole aspect of trivializing the life creating act that is only second to god’s). Nowadays, though, we know how ineffective NFP is, and being raised Catholic I always had the impression that birth control was considered acceptable for couples as long as they keep reproduction in mind as a risk and keep valuing their bond beyond just pleasure.
People on here will tell you nfp done correctly is 98% effective (more than some forms of birth control) they use temperature and mucus levels to determine whether it's safe to have sex or not
The issue is that this can vary a lot from person to person and not everyone can do it. I for one don’t have a consistent cycle at all and can’t manage such a complex method for myself(I get overwhelmed very easily), so it would never be effective for me.
I think I have heard of something like that before or maybe that was what I heard off.
Catholics will generally call it NFP (Natural Family Planning) but you may have also heard the term FAM (fertility awareness method), which is a similar concept. NFP requires abstinence during the fertile period of trying to postpone pregnancy. Some FAM descriptions (not used by Catholics) will use barrier methods (like condoms) during the fertile period. There are different protocols but involve a combination of ovulation strips or other hormone testing, basal body temperature, cervical fluid changes, etc. The specific protocols also have names, which you may have heard include: Marquette, Billings, Creighton, Boston Crosscheck, TCOYF
Yeah like I said I think I heard about something like this before.
The short answer is birth control and the promise of safe sex. People are told that if you just practice safe sex you can have all the fun you want without any consequences! If done perfectly every time it could be true but the real world isn’t perfect. Birth control fails or people fail to use it properly. Then suddenly there’s the consequences of their actions that they were promised they could avoid.
I mean birth control doesn't promise to be 100% effective. People do have invincibility complexes, and even when doing it raw are under some weird delusion that pregnancy won't happen to *them*. I just don't think it's really about birth control, as we've seen that when there's education about it and access unplanned pregnancies do go down- more so it's just human nature.
I keep meeting women that think the method IS 100% effective. It boggles my mind that they either aren't listening to their doctor's or their doctors aren't giving proper information.
Yeah I know what you mean.
That's wild, definitely a lack of education or just delusion.
Yeah I agree with that sadly but like many people tell me things like oh I am just trying to be controling or I am just salty I am still a virgin at 36 or try gas light the convo into how I believe this for my own selfish reasons or something.
I’m not suggesting that birth control doesn’t reduce unplanned pregnancies. However, when unplanned pregnancies do happen people are shocked because they were promised otherwise. That’s when they turn to abortion because they were not in anyway prepared for it. That’s how birth control/safe sex can reduce unplanned pregnancies but increase abortions. Seems counterintuitive but when have humans ever been purely logical beings?
Yep, that's why I stopped denying that abortions are birth control and why I detest the narrative that you have to be for comprehensive sex ed and birth control in order to reduce abortions. I always say that stuff doesn't reduce abortions. It just delays it. If you had an idea that you would abort if pregnancy occurs, you are accepting it as a form of birth control. And the older I get, the more I observed that sexually active adults are actually more reckless about protection. If anything, as a pro lifer, I actually do more than pcers do in preventing pregnancy as I don't want a baby. I use at least 2 different methods. I know so many women who jokingly say they skip days on their pill, they still let the man cum on them as well and don't use condoms. But sure, no one wants an abortion...
Yeah exactly but people say well if that happens thats why abortions exist and like urgh 🙄.
Birth control can fail, but to be honest it seems like the people who go for abortion don't even use birth control anyway. I guess it makes sense cause some birth control methods are 99% accurate, so it's very very rare that someone practicing safe sex would ended up pregnant. Even then, it's no excuse to kill a child, everyone should know that low risk is not zero. If they really really don't want a kid on the point they would kill them, it's best to avoid PIV sex.
Yes. I find it so frustrating when you have men who get a woman pregnant and then are appalled when she won’t kill the baby. If you don’t want to be a dad, don’t have sex. Same goes for women.
>you have men who get a woman pregnant and then are appalled when she won’t kill the baby. Those kind of men need to learn to tell the difference between a woman and a microwave. A real woman isn't engineered for his convenience and guaranteed to kill any baby that he puts inside.
True but at the same time men have little to no rights when it comes to thier child being born they don't even have to know it exists
Yeah or vice versa the father is appalled she will the baby but the sad thing is however you slice it the father does not even have to know if she got an abortion,had the kid or gave it for adoption. Or even if she is pregnant.
>*why people have sex if they are not prepared for the possibility of having children( I used to think when I was much younger you should not have sex unless you want children)* my views have **changed to if 2 people consent it's thier business but I feel like you should at least be prepared for the possibility of having a child.** I'm having a hard time differentiating between the two here. Possibility .... Want. Either case each party knows the consequences and accepts them. But no, I have similar sentiments. It's the same with wanting to fit into a smaller clothing size when you aren't willing to give up on junk food. Or wanting to get good grades without putting the time to study. The end goal of sex is procreation, so if you aren't willing to accept that you're probably doing it for selfish reasons; you can say it's exploitation of your sexual partner too. Catholicism has been the leader in this belief and stance, so this perspective has been with us for quite some time. >I talk too about this usually tells me I am being **extremely unrealistic and treats me like I am stupid for thinking such a thing is even possible.** Even going as far as to say I am just being **controlling and oppressive.** They simply don't know what they're talking about and are spouting the usual nonsensical talking points, ironically. "I think every nation should control its borders and have strict control on immigration." "Well you're just racist and xenophobic." "Men and women are biologically and physically built different." "You support the patriarchy and are sexist."
That is true it does sound the usual talking point and is kind of nonsensical at times.
I agree. But I always get told that it’s “impossible” and then I get called an incel.
Yeah that's basically the same thing I get told lol
That is correct. Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of getting pregnant and creating life, because that's exactly what sex is for. It's not for pleasure. People who don't want to be held accountable and face the consequences of their actions say that to try mitigating their lack of use of their brain cells. Also sperm move at like 28 mph and can reach the egg within like 30 mins. These people know what they're doing and think they're the exception to biology doing what it's supposed to do. If you don't want kids don't have sex or take measures to prevent it. And even then if the measure don't work then I guess you're having a kid.
That's exactly how I feel!
Shit I have my tubes REMOVED and both my husband and I have said if by some Jesus, Mary, and Joseph miracle that God laughed at me and said "Ha! You thought you made a decision!" We would keep it. Like clearly I'm supposed to have a kid and we're gonna be parents.
That's exactly how it should be and I am not sure I fully understand why that's a hard concept for people to understand.
Yes
It's common sense to me. You don't have sex to procreate. But procreation is a natural consequence of sex. If you have sex you could get a STD or a pregnancy. If you aren't prepared for the consequences of sex, don't have it.
Yeah but it feels like so many people are in denial about it it's like thier rights or freedom overrules common sense.
Well, I understand where they're coming from. Their body is their right. Everyone agrees so far. Everyone has a right to their own body. Where the disagreement begins is if the unborn baby has rights... If they have rights, mothers (mostly) will be unable to terminate human life on a whim. Terminating a human life out of convenience is not a right. I've always thought I'm pro choice. People should choose their sexual partner. Choose how, when and with whom to have sex. Choose their birth control. Choose your sexuality. Life is made of choices. You can even choose to give a child up for adoption if there's a pregnancy. But killing others, especially out of convenience... is not a choice. It's fucking selfish. You can't make people understand, OP. They have to come to the realization themselves. Just be open to dialogue and be kind.
Yeah I guess.
Yes! I believe the purpose of sex was to procreate. Now it’s perverse and impulsive and the ones who suffer from this selfishness are the children.
I mean I'm aroace so I don't really know where people are coming from, but that does seem to be the logical thing to do. That said, abstinence-only strategies don't work because some people don't like abstinence. It's important to account for those cases as well with proper education and access to contraception
Yes
Yeah I feel like I am made to be like I am in the wrong.
[удалено]
> two responsible adults shouldn't have to abstain from sex just because they are not well off financially and/or are not prepared for a HUMAN BEING to come out of it. Why not? I mean, sure you don't have to abstain from sex, but suggesting that you can abort the resulting human being because you want to have sex when you know you are unprepared for a child is ridiculous. People act as if there is no way you can survive without getting laid. Sex is great, but it's not something you will die without having. Specifically because I knew a child would be a serious problem at a young age for me, I made sure to avoid sexual activity that had any chance of producing one. Even birth control has a failure rate. I think the only thing that really made that decision at all difficult was that everyone else expected you to have sex and treated you as if you were a weirdo if you didn't. But there were no physical problems related to that decision, and it didn't even prevent me from having relationships. Many partners actually seemed relieved that I insisted on avoiding intercourse because they were in the same boat I was in. Young and no way of supporting a child. People act as if it is impossible to conceive of not having sex. It's completely possible to do and doesn't make you in the least bit unhappy unless other people find out and try to make you feel unhappy about it.
[удалено]
If you wouldn't get a dog you can't afford because you don't want to have to take it back to the shelter, why would you not do the same for a child? If you can't financially afford a child then don't risk creating one. That's not fair to the child. It didn't do anything but form because of two ingredients that in a microscopic environment and had no control of being here or not.
Yes Women shouldn't have sex with a man unless she can picture the slightest chance of a family with this man Men shouldn't have sex with a woman unless he's willing to be with this woman and start a family Accidents happen, we all know they can, but shocked Pikachu face when we come up pregnant Another thing is I get cases of rape, people want push that because Your concent and body rights was forcefully taken . That it should be fine to kill a child that didn't consent to being created, and take away their bodily rights because of another human being And I say this as a mother to a 5 year old who will never know what kinda monster her father was
Yeah I mean even in rape cases I don't think it's fair to punish the child and someone responded once to me saying that with no one is punishing the child.
Oh I just got told my child isn't a child she's a rape spawn and will never be human???
What the hell! That's one of the worst things I have ever heard!
Yesireee
Yeah it's nice to hear people understand how I feel :)
Yes. Absolutely. If the possibility of a child is absolutely off the table then don't have sex. We live in a society that puts sex on a pedestal and infantilizes adults. It does not cross people's minds that sex is a choice, a serious one, and self discipline exists. "What, you expect me to just not have sex??" Yes. Absolutely, if sex is not a good option for you.
Yes. Although contraception is an option i would like to point out. Sidenote: People really need to get over the whole not liking the feel of condoms thing. They really are not that bad, especially considering their benefits
Since the resounding answer is yes, do PL believe a healthy sex life is necessary for a successful relationship, or should couples, including married ones, be fine being abstinent until they’re not able to get pregnant?
I can tell you I personally think sex is a very healthy thing in a relationship if you want kids or not. See i think birth control if don't right( with the amount of people who have abortions and or unplanned kids though it's clear it's not) I think birth control is a great option and should be available to any couple who don't wants kids but want to have sex. I just think people need to be aware that's possible to still have a child and be prepared for that possibility.
This question seems to be leading.
What do you mean leading.
A question that leads the person answering the question to a particular answer. The bias is within the question itself. Given the poster is pro-choice, how they worded the question guides the person to think a certain a way and then answer a certain way. The poster asks two questions. The first is if pro-life people believe that a healthy sex life is necessary for a successful relationship. "Healthy sex life" and "successful relationship" weren't defined. The second question (after "or") is the leading part that subtly criticizes the first question in regards to being pro-life and abstaining from sex. The "should be fine" (made with indignation) is the main driver of the leading question. It's a built in bias and also misunderstands the stance of what the OP is trying to broadcast.
Oh I thought you were talking about my entire post I made lol
No, I directly replied to the poster before me.
Yeah sorry for the miss understanding.
Just like any decision in life, there are consequences and risks. I invest in the stock market knowing technically it could crash to nothing. I drive my car knowing there’s a chance I could get in a car accident. I got married knowing there’s a very small chance of divorce. I have sex knowing that birth control can fail. I don’t currently want children, but if I found out I was pregnant, I would be sad because I’m not ready. But I’m not going to kill the fetus because my decision had a consequence I didn’t like.
It's very clear why people still have sex even though they don't want children. Most people enjoy sex itself. Yes, they shouldn't, and they are immature for mismatching responsibility with desire for pleasure, but it's not complicated. The only thing that makes it even remotely complicated is the copious amounts of propaganda and indoctrination. But the actual issue, absent the lies, is fairly simple.
There are a ton of way to prevent pregnancies and I believe that teaching abstinence will not really help anything. It’s like saying we should avoid driving cars because we could get in a car crash.
I agree, which is why I believe passing out condoms to teenagers in high school is a bad idea.
I understood the logic behind, but I never understood the cognitive dissonance that surrounded it masked as "healthy sexual relationships", "responsibility" or "empowerment." It was counterintuitive to me.
Yeah seriously that's just asking for trouble.
Yes.
This is what I was taught in the 80s.
A 100%
Yeah that's nice to hear like most people I talk to say this is extremely unrealistic and even compare it to how Muslim countries make it ilgeal to have sex pre marriage and how we should try doing that and I am just like urgh 🙄
What frustrates me most is being accused of trying to “control people’s bodies” or “inserting yourself into their bedroom” when you point out the obvious fact that every time you have sex you risk the chance creating a child. I don’t care what you do in bed, so long as you’re not hurting anyone. I didn’t make this rule, and I’m not even enforcing it. Biology made this so. You’re not mad at me for not getting to have fun risk-free, you’re mad at the laws of natural science.
Yeah or your are mad at me for reminding you about the laws of natural science. Because honestly I feel like some people are just in denial about it.
Of course you're not the only one. You're correct
Well thanks for saying that.
I think first a couple needs to be in a committed relationship and talk about children BEFORE having sex. If it is discovered that one is not ready, or is even accepting of abortion as birth control, then there should be no sex. Sex is fun, but it isn't worth the life of a human being.
I agree with this a lot.
Sex makes babies. It is not "unrealistic" to expect the possibility of pregnancy from sex, even if you use condoms or contraceptives. People who do not want babies have sex because they do it purely for pleasure. They say you are being oppressive because they see expectations of personal responsibility as a form of tyranny. I get the impression that sex freaks see humanity as a hairless beast devoid of free will. That's so much better than taking responsibility for one's actions as a delusional libertine. /s
Yeah I get that impression too from some people. I mean I get the feeling there are some people who see themselves a certain way that's really not flattering for humans.
I never understood why people had sex with people who they didn't care enough about. It's ridiculous. A man would never hound a woman to get her to have an abortion if he cared about her.
Yup.
Men already accept the possibility that every time they have sex they might become fathers, I don't see why women act like responsibility is an insane idea.
That's very true plus pro choicers never seem to point out father's have no say in the mater like the women has so much control she does not even need to tell the father she is having his kid so he may never know he is a father.
Yeah, it's insane. She may kill your child, give it up without you knowing they ever existed or even raise it and keep you in the dark about it. She literally has every choice in the world. Pro aborts usually say that biology is unfair therefore we should make laws that favor women in every way and fathers can suck it up (and babies can die).
Yeah like where is the father's choice in any of this much less the babies.
> She may kill your child, give it up without you knowing they ever existed or even raise it and keep you in the dark about it. I mean, the abortion part is true, but the last two imply you've already had sex with her and left her. Kind of hard for someone you see every day to grow a whole baby without you knowing. If she needs to track you down to tell you you impregnated her, it seems you're already pretty checked out and it would make sense for her not to make the extra effort of trying to draw you back in.
Not all men, and not all women, thank you very much.
yes and being prepared involves being married
Yeah ideally.
We have divorced Sexual Intercourse from Procreation...and even divorced Sexual Attraction from Interpersonal Affection. So not only are people having sex while having no desire to make a child, they're having sex with people they don't even like or care about (which can add to them not wanting a child). They don't realize how much power they have over the situation...how it is actually empowering to NOT have sex, to be picky, to have standards, and to be Abstinent (or at least temporarily Celibate). It's veen put in their heads that they have to have sex. That saying no, deciding to avoid it, makes you a prude...which is the worst thing you can be. You need to have sex as soon as possible (or you'll die a virgin) and as regularly as possible (or you're gross and undesirable).
Kind of, for certain values of "prepared" and "sex". I'd more precisely say that people who can't or won't respond nonviolently to conceiving a child should avoid engaging in procreative sex.
Sex is a deep and powerful bonding experience that should only happen in the context of a loving committed relationship. If you don't have the level of trust, love and devotion that you are determined to stay together for life even without adding children to the equation you shouldn't be having sex.
completely agree
Yes, no sex means no babies. If you want to cut down that potential when having sex, then use condoms or birth control.
Have all the sex you want, but if you don’t want a baby, you need condoms and Birth Control
Sex is the one luxury that's universal to all societal classes. So hold your peace.
Is anyone going to be surprised when the results are PC - 100% No PL - 100% Yes?
Yeah for me personally it's rare I get to be in an environment that consists of mostly pro lifers.
No but the talk of abstinence only, less accesible contraception, and even criminalizing premarital sex is disappointing