FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Parents kidnap daughter for planned forced abortion (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Parents kidnap daughter for planned forced abortion
Jayelle
Member
Member # 9745

 - posted      Profile for Jayelle           Edit/Delete Post 
Aside from the pro-life, pro-choice debate, this is one girl who is never, ever going to have a relationship with her own parents again. They effectively killed their entire relationship with their daughter.

And I'm guessing it can't have been that great in the first place.

Posts: 22 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post 
As long as we're in the relabeling mood, I'd like for my position to be "Pro-Choice".

By implantation, both parents, in 99.9% of cases, made their choice. All that's left is for the child to make his choice.

You'll find out what he decided within 10 months. [Razz]

Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't see how having sex equates to making the choice to have a child. I mean, I'm sure couples who already have children and don't want more still have sex. I hope so, anyway. I think that equating having sex to making the decision to have a child is far more indefensible than seeing a child as a possible result which becomes more probable if precautions are not taken.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't see how having sex equates to making the choice to have a child.
You're much too old for me to have to give you the "birds and the bees" talk. [Wink]

Sex is for procreation. That most also use it as a sort of recreation doesn't negate the fact that pregnancy is a possible, or probable, depending on the precautions taken, side-effect.

The position's only indefensible for those who already oppose it. I think it's perfectly morally acceptable. In fact, I'd love to see only people willing to accept the intended result having sex.

That said, I didn't mean to start another debate. Just trying to point out how arbitrary labels are. I mean, the Pro-Choice crowd isn't about Choice, it's about the woman's choice. Not the father's, and certainly not the child's.

I, personally, refer to myself as anti-abortion. Calling myself Pro-Life automatically aligns me to a group that sometimes does things I disagree with, and I'm not so in favor of life that I would want to get rid of the death penalty. Hell, sometimes I feel like I want to be the one flipping the switch. [Razz]

So when I refer to my opposite as pro-abortion, I'm not being deliberately inflammatory, I just don't feel like I need to affirm that they're in favor of Choice when they're really in favor of one preson's choice, not Choice.

Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I mean, I'm sure couples who already have children and don't want more still have sex.
Yes, and those who do and are sure they don't want children frequently have surgery done to make the reality reflect their mentality, and not the other way around.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blacwolve
Member
Member # 2972

 - posted      Profile for blacwolve   Email blacwolve         Edit/Delete Post 
You know, the more I hear pro-life people talk about how if you don't want a kid, you shouldn't have sex, the less I feel like remaining pro-life.

I'm pro-life simply because I think there's a chance the fetus is human, and I think that chance outweighs the mother's right to choose what happens to her own body.

Other people think there's more than a chance, other people think that the fetus is fully human. They think that a human life is worth more than the mother's right to choose what happens to her own body.

Nowhere in either of those positions is there any need to say, "If you don't want a baby, you shouldn't have sex." And yet I hear it from pro-lifers all the time. It's really starting to grate.

Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post 
It's probably grating to you because it's blindingly obvious...but over half a million abortions a year may make people think that not everyone understands this very basic fact.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blacwolve
Member
Member # 2972

 - posted      Profile for blacwolve   Email blacwolve         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisco:
It's probably grating to you because it's blindingly obvious...but over half a million abortions a year may make people think that not everyone understands this very basic fact.

It's completely irrelevant to the pro-life position.

And, now, in an age of birth control and adoption, it's not even true.

Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Theca
Member
Member # 1629

 - posted      Profile for Theca           Edit/Delete Post 
Adoption still means carrying the baby for nine months and then "having" it. [Smile]

And birth control isn't 100% accurate.

Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blacwolve
Member
Member # 2972

 - posted      Profile for blacwolve   Email blacwolve         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure what your point is Theca?

I wasn't trying to support the pro-life position. I was just saying that it's perfectly possible to be pro-life, not want to have a baby, and be having sex without any conflict between the three.

Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I was just saying that it's perfectly possible to be pro-life, not want to have a baby, and be having sex without any conflict between the three.
I suppose that's true, as long as when you get pregnant you deliver the baby you don't want.

But I think that the majority of people who say they don't want a baby will not keep it in the event they get pregnant. And those are the people comments like that are geared towards.

In other words, they're not talking to you. [Razz]

Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
erosomniac
Member
Member # 6834

 - posted      Profile for erosomniac           Edit/Delete Post 
I find that a much more sensible way of stating the same thing is: If you don't know how to adequately prepare in advance, and you're not ready or willing to deal with the consequences of pregnancy, you shouldn't be having sex.

Thus, someone who would not be willing to have an abortion should be ready to either raise any child they produce, or have the child and give it up for adoption before having sex.

A person who would be willing to have an abortion should be ready financially, emotionally and spiritually to accept that bump in the road.

One of the major problems I see is that short of actually getting (someone) pregnant, many people only think they're sure about what their position on aborting their own pregnancies is. I've seen a number of girls (and a few guys) who when faced with the decision to abort, regardless of a decision to abort any pregnancy beforehand, ultimately end up either unable to go through with the abortion or going through the abortion and suffering much more severe psychological trauma than they were prepared to deal with.

For many, there's no way to prepare for a decision about a pregnancy. In that light, Frisco's assertion (one that gets repeated, as blacwolve said, by many in the pro-life camp over and over again) makes more sense than it would otherwise (as someone who is pro-choice, does not view a fetus as a child, and is sexually active).

Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
blacwolve,

You can be tired of it all you like, but personally I think it needs to be said. Abstinence and redundancy are two things which our society gives basically zero heed to with regards to sexuality, and they're important things to mention.

Especially with regards to abortion because, given the known failure rate of even birth-control methods which are only used once per sexual activity...a very, very large majority of pregnancies resulting in abortion aren't involving properly used birth-control at all.

Furthermore, the idea that we shouldn't say such things is tenable only because of our current level of technology. It's only something anyone thinks of because we have abortion on demand, relatively inexpensive, along with cheap and effective birth-control.

If through some sort of tragedy our technological level were to drop sharply, and suddenly we didn't have abortion on demand and cheap, effective birth control as even an option to consider allowing...

Well, suddenly, "I don't see why having a child has to be the result of a couple having sex," gets thrown straight out the window. It becomes quite frankly laughable. I'm very uncomfortable making such potentially momentous decisions on a basis as subjective as our current technological level.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
With all the birth control methods available, why are there ANY abortions? The answers are:

1) Rape
2) truly failed birth control
3) failure to take proper precautions
4) concern over health issues of the mother or offspring.

I am totally in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion. I do, however, think there are some problems pointed to by our current number of abortions (and percent of pregnancies aborted).

First off, is there any doubt that reason #1 happens far too often in our society? Are we doing everything we can to drop that rate as close to zero as possible?

Secondly, as much as "failed birth control" gets brought up as a reason for abortion, I don't really believe it. I never used expired condoms, never had one break, and never once have had one fail in any way. So, what's the REAL incidence of failed birth control? The manufacturers claim less than 1% failure rate for most methods that have commercial viability in this country.

Granted, if a couple is really trying to avoid pregnancy and something does fail, then it's understandable that they would want a method available to terminate the pregnancy.

Does anyone here think this really accounts for a large proportion of our current abortions?

#3: Let's be honest...this reason includes people who have the "Oh Sh*t" moment, right? They put the condom on after penetration, or figured they were outside the fertile period, or the heat of the moment took over, or they just didn't care, or whatever. Sometimes it's an honest mistake (like miscalculating the date of the woman's period, or something similar -- I've know it to happen). So, really, really, REALLY, I'm not being pejorative here. I understand that the couple don't WANT to be pregnant and most of the time did "something." It just turned out not to be enough.

#4: There are some major-league legitimate concerns here, but there's also a BIG controversy looming -- as genetic science gets better at this sort of thing, should we let people abort if the fetus has the genetic predisposition for diabetes? How about a higher than average risk of heart disease or cancer? What if it's a girl and the couple really wanted a boy? Right now, we're basically "allowing" genetic screening for common genetic maladies, and some abortions are indicated when the mother's health would be put in jeopardy.


So...can we put numbers to these alternatives? Are 10% of abortions post-rape? Are 1% due to failed birth control? Are 10% due to health problems of the mother and/or child?

Those numbers should be toward the high-end of the estimates. (Although rape is still an under-reported crime in this country, so perhaps that number is higher.)

So, are we not saying that people not practicing a birth control regimen, or just plain not using one and that accounts for about 80% of abortions?

Are the numbers really telling us that?


Let's take it as given that the number of abortions in this country is too many and that the preferred option is to avoid abortion if at all possible. Right? I suspect that only the far end of the pro-choice spectrum will disagree with that (the position at that end being nothing else matters BUT the woman's right to choose) -- a position held by a small percentage of the population, last I checked.

So... Whether one is pro-choice or pro-life (I'll go ahead and use the self-selected terms), the question that we should be answering is which of these abortions could be avoided?

I am in favor of reducing the incidence of rape. I doubt anyone is against this.

I am in favor of better educating people in the methods and options of birth control.

I'm on the fence about genetic screening, actually. I think there's a place for it, but I worry that we're going to abuse it.

Health of the mother -- well, I suspect there are a few cases where the woman should pursue sterilization treatment, but otherwise, these abortions are pretty much unavoidable and should be performed.


I suspect that if people used birth control consistent with instructions, we'd could achieve about an 80% reduction in abortions. Maybe I'm off and the number would turn out to be 70%. It's still a big number.

I'd like to see us concentrate on that.

We don't really need to battle over this in the legal realm of things. We can achieve a huge reduction in abortion without any new laws. We just need to get people to use birth control in the most effective manner possible and we'll achieve a huge reduction.

Hey, what if the estimates are off by 50%...we STILL get a huge reduction.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Theca,

Where are people getting this 'black' thing from? Maybe I missed it, but it's not mentioned in the original article?

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know what the bias is on these guys, but the number of abortions match what was said in the last thread I read. About a fourth of all pregnancies end in abortion.

According to this Guttmacher Institute, the top four reasons given for having an abortion are:

quote:
Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
They also say 60% of women getting abortions already have one or more children. One third are between the ages of 20 and 24.

Only 1% of women receiving abortions reported having been forced to have sex. That's pretty low. Most women seem to have used the pill wrong. I think my favorite excuse are the 15% or so that had concerns about contraceptive use. What does that mean? I was afraid the pill would make me sick so I got knocked up instead? I hope someone can clarify the logic there for me.

So, it looks like only 2 and 3 on Bob's list are major concerns. What can we do about that? Personally, I've been on the Pill 10 years now and never had a glitch. And with the FDA claiming a 99.9% effectiveness rating, how do we have 10% or so claiming to have used the pill right and gotten pregnant anyway?

It looks like better education could take care of that 10%, all the people who know they used something wrong, and the 8% who never used a method of birth control at all. That could be an almost 50% reduction in abortions.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Theca
Member
Member # 1629

 - posted      Profile for Theca           Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, I got that from scholar's post on page 1. Ask him. I thought he must have read a different article about it.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, o.k.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lissande
Member
Member # 350

 - posted      Profile for Lissande   Email Lissande         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it was mentioned in the article mackillian posted.
Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Two of my sisters (not the twins) were conceived while my mother was using an diaphragm. And she was told when she was younger that she wouldn't be able to conceive at all. I have five brothers and sisters.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Aside from the pro-life, pro-choice debate, this is one girl who is never, ever going to have a relationship with her own parents again. They effectively killed their entire relationship with their daughter.
Only if she and her parents choose to hold this situation against one another to such a degree that a relationship is impossible. (I think it would be fairly foolish of them to do so.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
With all the birth control methods available, why are there ANY abortions? The answers are:

1) Rape
2) truly failed birth control
3) failure to take proper precautions
4) concern over health issues of the mother or offspring.

You've skipped over the biggest reason why there are abortions: Because people choose to have sex when they aren't prepared to have a baby!

It would be helpful to make people better informed about birth control, but it is wrong to think that being informed about birth control will make us safe from abortions. I'd be willing to bet that a large portion of those getting abortions thought they were informed about birth control beforehand, and thought they were safe. I'd also be willing to bet that a significant number actually WERE well informed, but simply made a mistake, or had a lapse of judgement, or got lazy, etc. People are always going to make mistakes - that's the nature of people.

For this reason, among other reasons, it is unethical to have sex if you aren't prepared and ready to accept the risk of having a child. You don't have to want a child beforehand; you might even choose to put it up for adoption if you think that is fair to the child and you realize you won't be able to care for it like it deserves. But if having a child will leave you with no option other than to abort (a.k.a. kill) it, don't have sex, period. (It's not like you don't have other things to do in life. [Smile] ) It is a failure to accept this ethical responisibility that is the big cause of abortions. Unnecessary abortions will continue to happen until either people accept this responsibility to refrain from sex until prepared for the possible consequences, or technology advances to a point where human error can be totally eliminated from the equation.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Please, think of the horses.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Posited question:

Is it unethical to have sex if one is prepared to have an abortion if they get pregnant?

Because, technically, there are many who view contraception + abortion to essentially be 100% birth control.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lissande
Member
Member # 350

 - posted      Profile for Lissande   Email Lissande         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
Aside from the pro-life, pro-choice debate, this is one girl who is never, ever going to have a relationship with her own parents again. They effectively killed their entire relationship with their daughter.
Only if she and her parents choose to hold this situation against one another to such a degree that a relationship is impossible. (I think it would be fairly foolish of them to do so.)
I have to say that anyone doing to me the things her parents apparently did to her would very decidedly result in a reevaluation and most likely termination of our relationship.

I would also like to point out to anyone thinking I'm too extreme that the most important word in the previous sentence is "reevaluation."

Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
(Stolen from another thread)


Sometimes there are things that one must express to another person and those things can only be truly expressed by nothing-held-back intercourse. At least for me, that is a different, more vital purpose than the physical pleasure/release of orgasm.

Now. I am a grown up and make grown up choices about sex. And I am willing and prepared to accept the natural consequences of those choices. But I do think that, in a perfect world, those consequences should be chosen. I believe that we should make it more possible for people to share sexual expression without taking on consequences they do not choose.

And there are ways that we can shape those consequences. There is a difference in saying, "let's see how we can make this safer" and, "well just stop doing that". Which response we choose has to do with the value of the activity and the possibilities and costs of making the activity safer. For me, the "well just stop doing that" response to sex fails to take into consideration the enormous, non- procreative importance and value of sex.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For this reason, among other reasons, it is unethical to have sex if you aren't prepared and ready to accept the risk of having a child.
Is it also unethical to travel by foot, bike, horse, car, bus, train, boat, or plane if you aren't prepared and ready to accept the risk of death?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For me, the "well just stop doing that" response to sex fails to take into consideration the enormous, non- procreative importance and value of sex.
Do you think that it's impossible to take all that into consideration and still think it's best to "stop doing that"?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
...or technology advances to a point where human error can be totally eliminated from the equation.

Also, we're at this point now. There are effective sterilization procedures for both genders.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Sometimes there are things that one must express to another person and those things can only be truly expressed by nothing-held-back intercourse.
There is nothing that you MUST express.

I suspect there are some feelings that one can only truly express to another person by physically hurting that other person... but not everything you may want to express is worth the potential costs of expressing it.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Tres, would you knock it off? Agreeing with you so often of late is seriously skewing my world view.

[Wink]

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Ya know guys, if you want to have sex without getting pregnant you could choose to be gay. It's such a simple choice really. All the cool kids are doing it. [Roll Eyes]

Seriously though, in regards to genetic screening, which Rakeesh brought up... We've been able to see a baby's sex for a long time on ultrasound... and I don't think (m)anyone turns around and aborts because of that. But when the gay gene(s) is found how many people are going to murder their baby rather than raise a fag or a dyke.

Pix

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
We've been able to see a baby's sex for a long time on ultrasound... and I don't think (m)anyone turns around and aborts because of that.
Maybe not here, but there's been a significant amount of that in China, Korea, and Japan.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
erosomniac
Member
Member # 6834

 - posted      Profile for erosomniac           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob:
Secondly, as much as "failed birth control" gets brought up as a reason for abortion, I don't really believe it. I never used expired condoms, never had one break, and never once have had one fail in any way. So, what's the REAL incidence of failed birth control? The manufacturers claim less than 1% failure rate for most methods that have commercial viability in this country.

People are a lot stupider than you're giving them credit for. The whole series of stupid stories like "yeah, I banged my girl then gave my friend the condom and he turned it inside out and used it and banged his girl" is REAL. People truly, honestly don't know how to use a condom properly.

Even the above ridiculous anecdote and its pals aside, there are a lot of ways to mess up using a condom that a lot of people fail to recognize. Pinching the reservoir tip, rolling rather than pulling, holding the base when pulling out - these are some of the things a surprisingly large number of people just do not understand you need to do.

quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
You've skipped over the biggest reason why there are abortions: Because people choose to have sex when they aren't prepared to have a baby!

This is already implied in points number 2 and 3, not to mention most of the rest of Bob's post.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
mph: true. And they will pay the price for it. Japan already is.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
We've been able to see a baby's sex for a long time on ultrasound... and I don't think (m)anyone turns around and aborts because of that.
Maybe not here, but there's been a significant amount of that in China, Korea, and Japan.
It's not as common here, but it does happen.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
mph: true. And they will pay the price for it. Japan already is.

As is China.

I don't know about Korea.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Libbie
Member
Member # 9529

 - posted      Profile for Libbie   Email Libbie         Edit/Delete Post 
WOW.

What the hell.

Yeah, I'm with Dag. What the crap did they think the doctor was going to do when they brought in a girl with ropeburns on her wrists, all distraught and protesting?

Jeeze, some people are unbelievably stupid. I feel so sorry for this poor girl and all she's been through.

Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Is it also unethical to travel by foot, bike, horse, car, bus, train, boat, or plane if you aren't prepared and ready to accept the risk of death?
Well, if I had no need to do it other than for my own enjoyment, and I thought the chances of accidently killing someone from traveling by car/train/plane/whatever were as significant as I think the chances of accidently getting pregnant (even from "safe" sex) are, then yes, I'd think it would be immoral to risk that person's life for my own enjoyment.

quote:
Tres, would you knock it off? Agreeing with you so often of late is seriously skewing my world view.
Oooops...sorry! I'll try to do better. Give me a little time and I'll come up with something crazier to say...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
But non-procreative sex is not just about enjoyment. That is what I am trying to say. It is a vital part of being human. Considerably more important, in my opinion, than driving (for example).
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It is a vital part of being human.
What about people who choose and live celibate lives? Are they not fully human?

That's not a snarky question, it's a real one. I've had times in my life where due to medical issues was unable to have sex for long periods of time. I didn't feel less human.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think it is at all snarky.

I think that celibacy is a choice to exchange one vital* part of being human for something that is to them more vital. I think that in some cases it is a real calling. I think that in a lot of cases it is a mistake made by institutionalized wrong-thinking about sex. In any case it should be a momentous decision.

I, too, have gone for long periods of time choosing not to have sex - as much a several years. Sex is not something to be taken lightly. Nor is abstaining. "Just don't do it" is as dismissive of its import as "just do it".

*by vital I don't mean exactly the same thing as essential.

[ September 21, 2006, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
erosomniac
Member
Member # 6834

 - posted      Profile for erosomniac           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Just don't do it" is as dismissive of its import as "just do it".

Well put.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
wow, kmb, I almost never agree with you but that was spot on.

Still love ya, Belle =)

Pix

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But non-procreative sex is not just about enjoyment. That is what I am trying to say. It is a vital part of being human. Considerably more important, in my opinion, than driving (for example).
Why? What reason is there to consider sex a "vital" part of being human, but not driving, or playing football, or doing crack for that matter?

Are people who have not had sex less of a human being than those who have? Putting aside deliberate celibacy for the moment, what about people who have not had sex because they don't want to get pregnant? Or people who are waiting for the right person? Are they (we) less human than you?

You say that by "vital" you don't mean "essential" - but then what do you mean? There are many things that people think they cannot live without, ranging from big screen TVs to spouses. People often have friends that move away that they think they'll never be able to live without. But the truth is, they do live on, and they live full lives anyway. The reality is that there are many things that feel "vital" but few things that actually are "vital". And ultimately, though sex may feel "vital", I suspect doing the right thing is much much more "vital" to living a good life - and that means not putting yourself into a situation where you have to kill your offspring simply for the sake of making your life feel more complete in whatever way sex does.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Tres: So I take it you're giving up non-procreative sex all together?

No?

Why not?

What makes it important to you?

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Just don't do it" is as dismissive of its import as "just do it".

Last I checked,no one is saying "Just don't do it." What I am saying and I think I speak for others is "Just don't do it unless you're prepared to responsibly deal with the consequences." That goes, by the way, for driving, for walking down the street, for any activity that involves a risk of an outcome you don't want. I don't want to be in a wreck and be injured, but I am prepared to reponsibly handle it if it happens. I have insurance, I wear my seatbelt, I take precautions, etc. I don't stay home and not drive, I take all necessary precautions, but I don't say "Driving is so important that I am going to do it anyway even if I have no insurance or don't care about the consequences."

When I had sex for non-procreative reasons, I was always prepared to deal with the consequences. Some of you know, some of you probably don't, but my oldest daughter is the result of birth control failure and was unplanned. My husband and I had been married less than three months when I conceived and we were not planning to have kids for some years yet nor were we financially in a good position for it. But, we knew that having sex carried with it the risk of getting pregnant and we responsibly dealt with the outcome - she's now 13 and I'm still having to responsibly deal with her. [Razz]

Saying "if you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not dismissive of the importance of sexual activity. It's simply a recognition of the fact that no sex (with the exception, as Pix pointed out of homosexual sex and sex with a surgically sterilized partner) can be considered 100% safe in regards to the risk of pregnancy. Sure sex has non-procreative aspects to it, but let's not forget the act carries with it the ability to create new life, and that's a heady responsibility and that should not be taken lightly either.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure what you mean by non-procreative sex. You mean having sex for some purpose other than having a child? Or do you mean sex that isn't really sex?

Either way, the answer is no, I'm not suggesting giving it up in all cases. The only thing I think needs giving up is having sex before one is ready to accept the possible consequences of that decision. And to accept it in a way that does not in any way entail killing someone in the event that something does not go as planned. I'm not going to put myself in a situation where I may have to kill my offspring, even if I'm not sure if it is really a person yet, just for the sake of (a) pleasure, (b) expressing myself to someone, or (c) living a "more full" life. I think my duty to not kill my potential children supercedes all of those, as important as they may be.

Of course, abortion is not the only reason not to have sex at any given time. Sex, I suspect, entails many more complications than that. But abortion is certainly among the most extremely serious dangers involved.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
erosomniac
Member
Member # 6834

 - posted      Profile for erosomniac           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Belle wrote:
Last I checked,no one is saying "Just don't do it." What I am saying and I think I speak for others is "Just don't do it unless you're prepared to responsibly deal with the consequences."

quote:
Saying "if you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not dismissive of the importance of sexual activity. It's simply a recognition of the fact that no sex (with the exception, as Pix pointed out of homosexual sex and sex with a surgically sterilized partner) can be considered 100% safe in regards to the risk of pregnancy.
I can appreciate that. Can you appreciate how it's a severe misjudgement to assume people who are sexually active but don't want children are as irresponsible as "just do it" implies? Can you appreciate that calling abortion in the event of birth control failure despite proper, conscientious use "irresponsible" is not only deeply irritating, but offensive?

I'm not saying or implying you do either of these things - but many, if not most, of the pro-lifers I know do.

As an aside, I know surprisingly few pro-lifers who feel the way you do as quoted above, and most of them are on Hatrack.

Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I am willing to concede that sex is not a vital part of humanity for everyone. For me - and I think for many people - it is.

I do think that there are folks who have the response of "well just don't do it" about sex and yet would find this response unacceptable about aspects of daily life that I (at least) find considerable less fundamental.

For example: With cars, we crash test them, put in safey belts, air bags, fix roads that are unsafe. While we are never going to make driving completely safe, (and we know that) we wouldn't want to start thinking that we don't need to keep working at it because accidents are just a consequence of driving.

Not a perfect analogy, but an attempt at illustrating a shift in perspective.

And I think a lot of people are ready to accept the "well just don't do it" response because they either underestimate sex or, at some level, really don't think people should be doing it.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2