quote: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?
To resort again to imperfect analogies, let's go back to driving. "I'm going to take every precaution to not have a wreck in my car. I'll obey all the speed limits, I'll be extra careful and vigilant and I'll always drive while alert and never while inebriated and I'll be the best driver I possibly can." That person would be considered a responsible driver, just as someone who practices birth control properly is responsible. But, say that driver assumes that because he's so good at driving and so responsible, there is no need to worry about the possibility of having a wreck, therefore no need to carry insurance. That is someone who is not recognizing that bad things can happen even if they do everything right. Even if you use birth control, even redundant birth control like the pill and a condom, you still cannot 100% eliminate the risk of pregnancy. (And though we haven't discussed it really, nor can you 100% eliminate the risk of STD's.) So in that sense, the person driving that uninsured car is still irresponsible just as a person who takes every birth control option and has sex while not prepared to deal with a possible pregnancy is still irresponsible.
I don't want to get into an argument over semantics only, I recognize that irresponsible has a negative connotation but I'm using it to refer to those people who think they don't need to worry about pregnancy just because they practice birth control.
Some people think abortion is a perfectly valid form of birth control and approach sex with the idea of "well, if I get pregnant, I'll just abort it." That is also irresponsible to me, but in a different way. Yes, that person has done what I would like, which is to acknowledge the risk of pregnancy and have a plan for dealing with it, but the plan includes something I find reprehensible which is the taking of a human life. (no need to tell me that not everyone thinks a fetus is a human life, I get it - and that's not a debate we're going to solve here, I'm talking about how I view things not how everyone does)
So I guess I'm using irresponsible in different ways and maybe I need to re-think my phrasing and terminology. I don't know if that helps or clarifies or just confuses the issue.
Now that's not to say that people who practice birth control and take precautions aren't being responsible AT ALL. They are taking responsibility and trying to prevent the outcome they don't want but at some point they are making the decision that their desire for sexual activity outweighs the risk of pregnancy and they're choosing to have sex. I don't want a human life to pay the price of that choice if things don't turn out the way the couple plans. I think the baby's right to life trumps the couple's right to not have children right now. Of course, pro-choice people disagree with me. That's why I'm not pro-choice.
If a couple approaches sex with the attitude of "hey, we'll do all we can to prevent pregnancy and if we do get pregnant we'll handle it" and "handle it" doesn't include abortion but rather take care of the child or put it up for adoption, then I would call that couple mature and responsible.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belle wrote: Even if you use birth control, even redundant birth control like the pill and a condom, you still cannot 100% eliminate the risk of pregnancy.
I started writing a post a good hour and a half ago with a bunch of statistics and realized that really, all I wanted to know was this: is there any risk threshold beyond which you would consider it acceptable to make "I am ready to have sex" and "I am ready to carry a child to term" two separate decisions?
After all, even surgery isn't 100% effective.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So I guess I'm using irresponsible in different ways and maybe I need to re-think my phrasing and terminology. I don't know if that helps or clarifies or just confuses the issue.
It clarifies it for me.
quote: Now that's not to say that people who practice birth control and take precautions aren't being responsible AT ALL. They are taking responsibility and trying to prevent the outcome they don't want but at some point they are making the decision that their desire for sexual activity outweighs the risk of pregnancy and they're choosing to have sex. I don't want a human life to pay the price of that choice if things don't turn out the way the couple plans. I think the baby's right to life trumps the couple's right to not have children right now. Of course, pro-choice people disagree with me. That's why I'm not pro-choice.
Right, exactly. This confirms for me that it's a semantic problem, since the use of "irresponsible" in this example is purely axiomatic.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky the answer is no. At no point do I separate "I'm ready to have sex" and "I'm ready to carry a child to term." I don't think you should answer yes to the first unless you're prepared to answer no to the second because to me, (emphasize to ME) the fetus is a human life and that baby should not have to pay with its life for someone else's decision.
Some surgical procedures may not be 100%, but others are. The removal of the ovaries and/or uterus is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. That is incidentally, my situation - due to endometriosis and adenomyosis and polycystic ovarian disease (talk about a trifecta!) I've had a hysterectomy and oopherectomy so yes, my chances of getting pregnant are 0%.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Well, I don't think it is "vital" for anyone. As I said, I suspect a number of people do THINK it is vital, but in the same way that people think they could not live without all sorts of other things.
And I think that's a very dangerous misconception, because when something is vital, you do what it takes to get it. In the case of sex, believing sex is vital may lead you to risk abortions, rather than refrain from it. Or if you have no partner, the belief that sex is vital could lead you to rape someone, or abuse some prostitute, just to get what you think you cannot live without. Or it may just make you live in fear that you can never be a complete person, becasue you have no partner to have sex with. That's the danger of believing things to be vital when they are not.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, I think that our ideas of what sex is and should be are sufficiently different that further attempts to find agreement would be futile.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ah, the rapper + for theft part was news to me.
NP. I think it might be news to a lot of people.
"Mom! Dad! Guess what!?! I'm pregnant with MC Dipshit's baby! And he's in jail! For theft! Isn't that awesome?!?"
That's why I keep on saying that I understand on some level the parent's flipping out, though again, I don't condone it or think it was right.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that, in a long-term non-platonic relationship (like marriage), sex, when possible, is part of the maintenance of the relationship. It's one of many means by which a couple keeps themselves close to one another. It's not the only means, but it's one of them, and an important one, in my opinion. (IIRC, there's actually biblical support for this, though I couldn't find it if my life depended on it.) Right or wrong (and that's a whole other thread), part of how our (culture/society/natural inclination)* defines non-platonic relationships in the romantic, which ultimately becomes the sexual.
*There's the nurture vs. nature thing again.
I'm married, but I don't want children. According to the "just don't do it" philosophy, my husband and I shouldn't be having sex at all. Could we have had a completely celibate marriage and remained together, a la the Children of the Mind, from the book fo the same name? I don't know. I'm skeptical.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Tresopax, I'm interested to know how you'd answer the same question (near the top of the page).
quote:Some surgical procedures may not be 100%, but others are.
While that's true -- and that is indeed quite a trifecta -- those procedures wouldn't generally be performed on people merely seeking contraceptive surgery. Vasectomy for men and tubal ligation for women seem to be the "standard" surgical procedures for people who don't want to have children. While neither has a 100% effectiveness rate, depending on methodology they can certainly approach it.
I take your position to be that someone who wishes to separate the decisions about sex and pregnancy should use 100% effective methods. However, I don't think many (any?) doctors would surgically remove healthy sex organs upon patient request, for no reason other than to eliminate the possibility of pregnancy. Not to be crude, but I think that if I went to a doctor and asked to be castrated, they would probably laugh and tell me to get a vasectomy. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quoted from Dagonee: "However, I believe parents should have the power to forbid their daughter from having an abortion."
So then everyone is ok with me making mine have one? Becauses, Dagonee, it appears from your statement that it's ok for parents to make the medical decision for their minor daughters to have or not to have childen.
I, however, find the fact that these parents felt it was ok to impose their values on their daughter completely inappropriate.
Belle, I'm sorry, I may have missed it, but did you ever answer my question regarding whether your personal position on abortion was that it shouldn't be be an option at all? That is, that the choice should not be there? I realize that you may feel this way generally but wish the procedure to be available for cases where the mother's life is in danger, and perhaps a small few other cases as well.
On a larger plane, for those of you who identify yourselves as pro-life or anti-abortion, does your position apply to your personal desire not to have an abortion, to work toward alternatives, promote abstinence and safe sex, etc. but allow abortion to remain legal, or do you truly wish to outlaw the procedure?
I'd like to know just how off from each other we are.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Becauses, Dagonee, it appears from your statement that it's ok for parents to make the medical decision for their minor daughters to have or not to have childen.
He doesn't need me to defend him, but I distinctly remember him addressing this at some some length at least once in the last thread we had on the subject. Being able to forbid something is not necessarily the same as being able to [require] it. In other words, I believe his perspective to be that parental approval should be a necessary -- but not sufficient -- condition of having an abortion.
It isn't the same thing.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: Quoted from Dagonee: "However, I believe parents should have the power to forbid their daughter from having an abortion."
So then everyone is ok with me making mine have one? Becauses, Dagonee, it appears from your statement that it's ok for parents to make the medical decision for their minor daughters to have or not to have childen.
It only appears that way if you mistakenly assume that my reason for making such a statement is the same reason you would have for making such a statement. I'm not sure why you'd make that assumption.
Especially since I replied to that already 6 posts down from where you made the same mistaken point. Here's what I said then:
quote:No, it really doesn't. There are many situations in which a parent can prevent a child from doing something but can't force the child to do it. Underage marriage comes to mind immediately.
It's a common pattern: many people can stop an action from occurring, but consent of all involved in the decision chain is required to have it occur.
I haven't noticed anyone responding to that other than Theca complimenting me about it.
quote:I, however, find the fact that these parents felt it was ok to impose their values on their daughter completely inappropriate.[/QB]
I find the fact these parents thought it was OK to duct tape and take the daughter at gunpoint, for any reason, completely inappropriate.
You've also stated that "find it morally repugnant to try to force or influence someone to have or not to have an abortion." I'm not sure if moral repugnance is worse than complete inappropriateness in your scale of bad things, but the language suggests you find "imposing" to be on the same level of badness as "trying to influence" (you ranked that in the same category of badness as "trying to force.")
To me, that position is morally repugnant. I want people to attempt to influence others to act morally. There are limits, and these limits should change based on the relative importance of the moral point, but in general, wanting people to do good is a good thing. Attempting to influence people to do good is a good thing, too, depending on the means.
Edit: Or, what twinky said in his 04:41 PM post today.
posted
I think the problem with the pro-life getting into the whole just don't have sex thing is that it makes the issue about sex and views on sexuality. I think (could be wrong here) most people are pro-life because they believe that there is a life and that life should be protected. If the point in pro-life is not that life is there, then it is just about punishing people for having sex.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, you might want to be careful about how you phrase agreement with me in a thread like this one -- I know you're talking about my [4:41] PM post, but someone just skimming the thread might mistakenly think you agreed with my 4:26 PM one.
Also, not to nag (he says, as he begins to nag) but I'm still interested in those follow-up posts from the other thread. As always, no rush, especially if you're busy, but at some hypothetical future time I'd still like to read them. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I intend to do them. I might extract them to a new thread.
If you care about the reason why I didn't do the next installment last Saturday, I started playing EQ again last week. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gaming is always an excellent excuse. I myself have gotten completely hooked on Chromehounds. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's Disgaea 2 for me. And, of course, World of Warcraft.
Speaking of which, where'd all the Hatrackers go? Karl is the only one on consistently with us anymore, and we luuuuurve him.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: It's Disgaea 2 for me. And, of course, World of Warcraft.
Speaking of which, where'd all the Hatrackers go? Karl is the only one on consistently with us anymore, and we luuuuurve him.
sorry for double posting.
My wife recently discovered WOW and now I have to split the time with her fairly (and still find time to spend with her). That leaves me with literally only 2 raid nights a week and saturday mornings while she is at work.
I just can't lvl enough in one saturday morning to be able to keep doing higher and higher level dungeons. I still have my lvl 18 warlock though.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:IIRC, there's actually biblical support for this, though I couldn't find it if my life depended on it.
Perhaps 1 Corinthians 2-5: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto his wife due benevolance, and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, unless it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
And I'm pretty sure there's some in the Old Testament, too, but I'm not sure exactly where, I'd have to look.
Not hopping into any debates, just wanted to point Megan to what I think she was thinking of. *waves* Hi, Megan!
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Switch to World of Warcraft Dag, it will give you more bang for your buck.
I have a 58 SK with pretty much top of the line gear. No way I could catch up to this in even a year of playing. Plus, they just made a bunch of changes that really improve game play.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belle, I'm sorry, I may have missed it, but did you ever answer my question regarding whether your personal position on abortion was that it shouldn't be be an option at all? That is, that the choice should not be there? I realize that you may feel this way generally but wish the procedure to be available for cases where the mother's life is in danger, and perhaps a small few other cases as well.
If it were up to me I would ban all abortion with the exception of when it's medically necessary to save a woman's life. As for rape and incest, it would have to be examined on a case by case basis, but abortion should absolutely be the last resort and only in instances when carrying the child would cause severe harm to the emotional well being of the mother and I fully support morning after pills being available to any victim who reports a rape. The reason I feel that way is that I'm absolutely convinced that a fetus is a living human before it's born, and removing that human life for the convenience of the mother is not something I can sign on to. I'm not pro-life to punish people who have sex out of wedlock, or to punish married people who don't want children for that matter. I was one of those people. I just think the baby's right to life trumps the mother's right to decide when to have children.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:IIRC, there's actually biblical support for this, though I couldn't find it if my life depended on it.
Perhaps 1 Corinthians 2-5: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto his wife due benevolance, and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, unless it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
And I'm pretty sure there's some in the Old Testament, too, but I'm not sure exactly where, I'd have to look.
Not hopping into any debates, just wanted to point Megan to what I think she was thinking of. *waves* Hi, Megan!
Hiya!
That's one of em, though what I had in mind was Old Testament, I think. Then again, my memory for such things is horribly fuzzy and vague.
Edit: I'm finding some of the most bizarre things looking for it, though. Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I have a few minutes without "help" sometime in the next day I'll see if I can find it for you. lds.org has a pretty decent search feature on the online scriptures. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooh, yes, I know that but had forgotten the citation.
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh."
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. ) 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.
Tres:
I have two responses:
1) I already covered this. It's subsumed in reason #3, completely and without anything missing.
2) You are confusing personal justification for abortions with the reason for the unwanted pregnancy. This is very common, and, to me, muddles the issue for no good purpose.
Belle,
I'm very glad to see your inclusion of "mental well-being" of the mother. I place a very high premium on this and it is one of the reasons why despite my views on the absolute continuity of human life from gametes through to baby in the birth canal coming into the world, I still support the legal availability of abortion.
To all who are pro-choice, angered by the abstinence stance and using "failed birth control" as the big "exception that proves the need..." I have to ask:
If you know that birth control is ineffective for you, that your "mileage" is much lower than average (so to speak), how is this NOT an argument for abstinence in the face of a great need NOT to be pregnant?
I mean, realistically, I can see one unwanted pregnancy because the birth control results were not as promised. But two? three?
At some point doesn't the desire not to get pregnant over-ride all other considerations? Is the thought that "one more abortion" is really not a big deal and is somehow unavoidable?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, realistically, I can see one unwanted pregnancy because the birth control results were not as promised. But two? three?
At some point doesn't the desire not to get pregnant over-ride all other considerations?
Not necessarily, if you're married. See Megan's thing. And while generally I would say that most married couples are a little more stable and probably would be a little more prone to accept an unplanned pregnancy despite precautions as something they could "handle", there are notable exceptions, people who really, really do not want children for a multitude of reasons, and I've known some of them (and don't judge them for it.)
Just playing devil's advocate, as someone who has very bad luck with birth control and practiced abstinence until marriage. I actually would not have an abortion, personally. But I'm just saying. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, realistically, I can see one unwanted pregnancy because the birth control results were not as promised. But two? three?
On that note, 44% of all abortions are performed on women who've had one or more already. Legality aside, I can't imagine why someone would let it happen to them twice. Are abortions just that convenient and painless?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:is there any risk threshold beyond which you would consider it acceptable to make "I am ready to have sex" and "I am ready to carry a child to term" two separate decisions?
No.
In formal risk management, a risk has three attributes, the triggering event, the probability of the triggering event occurring, and the consequences (which might be expressed as a set of risks or as a single event).
People take all kinds of actions that have a low probability of death. Driving a car carries an X% chance of being in an accident per mile. Accidents carry a% chance of no bad effect, b% chance of minor property damage, c% chance of injuries (in various ranges), and d% chance of death.
But the consequence that Belle and I are talking about is not the risk of the child dying but of someone actively deciding to kill him or her and doing so.
This is why the threshold probability for sexual intercourse not resulting in a child must be 0 if the consequence of a pregnancy would otherwise be abortion. Otherwise, I do find the choice to have intercourse to be irresponsible.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) I already covered this. It's subsumed in reason #3, completely and without anything missing.
2) You are confusing personal justification for abortions with the reason for the unwanted pregnancy. This is very common, and, to me, muddles the issue for no good purpose.
Well, I was thinking based on the rest of your post that by "failure to take proper precautions" you meant "failure to take proper precautions before having sex." If by "failure to take proper precautions" you also include "failure to abstain from sex until the right time" then I suppose you are right.
But I do think it is misleading to suggest that the abortion is caused by the failure to take "precautions" rather than the decision to have sex in the first place, because the latter is the real mistake behind abortions, with the former being more of a patch to try and limit damages from that mistake. It is like speeding down the highway at 100 mph and then claiming the reason you got pulled over is because you didn't see the cop around the corner. In reality, it was speeding at 100 mph that most directly caused you to get the ticket, more so than your failure to be aware of nearby cops.
For this reason, I think it muddles things to suggest that the mistake was the failure to take precautions without also adding the decision to engage in the risky behavior itself as a cause. It gives the impression that it is okay to take the risk, and if trouble results then it just means you should have taken different precautions, rather than that you shouldn't have taken the risk itself.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alternatively, it could be that Gabe and Tycho happen to be writing about fun games.
------------
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In formal risk management, a risk has three attributes, the triggering event, the probability of the triggering event occurring, and the consequences (which might be expressed as a set of risks or as a single event).
Yes. We express it as frequency/severity or likelihood/severity in our process hazard assessments at work.
In the general risk assessment case, the required safeguards are determined by the likelihood of the event and the severity of the consequences. Cases where death is a potential consequence call for multiple layers of highly effective safeguards to mitigate the risk as much as possible if you're going to do the thing that carries the risk.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: People take all kinds of actions that have a low probability of death. Driving a car carries an X% chance of being in an accident per mile. Accidents carry a% chance of no bad effect, b% chance of minor property damage, c% chance of injuries (in various ranges), and d% chance of death.
But the consequence that Belle and I are talking about is not the risk of the child dying but of someone actively deciding to kill him or her and doing so.
I see the distinction between an accidental death and an intentional one, but I don't find it as compelling in relevance in this context as you do. The decision to have an abortion is deliberate, but the couple are confronted with the decision as the result of an accident. When I was looking at accidental death and unplanned pregnancy statistics yesterday for a post I ultimately didn't make, I didn't compare the likelihood of death in a transport accident to the likelihood that a pregnant woman would choose to have an abortion, I compared it to the likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy -- in other words, the likelihood of being confronted with the decision.
I think what I'm trying to say is something along these lines: if the likelihood of being confronted with the decision is sufficiently low, I am willing to consider "I am ready to have sex" and "I am ready to carry a child to term (or support my partner in doing so)" separate for practical purposes. In such a circumstance (that is, low risk/high severity) I consider "we'll cross that bridge if we come to it" acceptable provided you can move beyond a certain risk threshold (e.g. elective sterilization surgery).
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: This is why the threshold probability for sexual intercourse not resulting in a child must be 0 if the consequence of a pregnancy would otherwise be abortion. Otherwise, I do find the choice to have intercourse to be irresponsible.
This is an impossible standard to meet -- not even people who have had elective sterilization surgery meet it. Let's say, hypothetically, that I don't want to have children, ever (I'm not sure that's actually the case, but I do know that I'm in no rush). So I go have a vasectomy. Under the metric you, Belle, and apparently Tresopax are using, as someone who (hypothetically) does not want to have children and has taken the steps that are available to me through medicine to eliminate that possibilty, I would still be irresponsible were I to have sex.
I think I'm seeing the hazy outlines of underlying assumptions on my part, at least. I seem to be implicitly assuming that sex is a given. Also, because I don't think my (incomplete) opinion about the morality of abortion should be the deciding factor were the situation to arise, I'm more comfortable with the uncertainty of not having a hard-and-fast opinion than people who do have fully-formed opinions might be.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Under the metric you, Belle, and apparently Tresopax are using, as someone who (hypothetically) does not want to have children and has taken the steps that are available to me through medicine to eliminate that possibilty, I would still be irresponsible were I to have sex.
No, you are irresponsible if you have sex when you know that there is a reasonable chance of getting pregnant, and when you know that getting pregnant would require you to have an abortion.
Whereas if you don't want children, but are willing and able to take responsibility for them anyway if they result from your decisions, then you can still responsibly have sex.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if you have sex under those circumstances and defer the decision [about pregnancy/abortion] until and unless it comes up?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres: what's a reasonable chance of getting pregnant? BCP + condoms with spermicidal lubricant brings the chance of pregnancy to below the chance of dying in a car wreck, for instance. People (I suspect including you) still drive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, you are irresponsible if you have sex when you know that there is a reasonable chance of getting pregnant, and when you know that getting pregnant would require you to have an abortion.
Whereas if you don't want children, but are willing and able to take responsibility for them anyway if they result from your decisions, then you can still responsibly have sex.
Just to point out the obvious, but this pov works only within the point of view that abortion is wrong from the moment of conception.
I think that if the paradigm is that the blastocyst is not a child until X amount of time passes, then you can ethically have sex as long as you abort within a certain time period.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
-- those procedures wouldn't generally be performed on people merely seeking contraceptive surgery. Vasectomy for men and tubal ligation for women seem to be the "standard" surgical procedures for people who don't want to have children. While neither has a 100% effectiveness rate, depending on methodology they can certainly approach it. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
