|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:17 pm
lymelady Actually, a large portion don't use any birth control at all, but that shouldn't matter if it's about bodily integrity. If it's about bodily integrity, it shouldn't even matter if they're trying to get pregnant then change their minds, though that does happen. It's legal because of bodily integrity. But my emotions on the different situations differ. And, while only a small portion got pregnant because of pure contraceptive failure, the majority were at least using contraception, if not perfectly. I hope that better education and access to free contraception will change this (but, then, I can't imagine having sex without protection, unless we were trying to get pregnant - and I don't really understand why anyone would do so). lymelady Why should a fetus need a woman's permission to exist when she and her partner are the ones who caused it to come into existence without its permission? Why should she and her partner be able to kill a being without its permission when all it is doing is trying to live due to their actions? Because the woman's body is being used by the unborn human. It might only exist there because of her actions, but that doesn't change the fact that it is inside her body, and needs her permission to stay there. Obviously, no one involved in an elective abortion wants the unborn human to be in the pregnant woman, or to die being removed from her. They would all be much happier had she never gotten pregnant to begin with! lymelady The fact is, sex isn't necessary for life. Elective abortion is a way to have sex without having babies, and that's the bottom line. Contraception is a way to have sex without having babies. Elective abortion is a very hard choice for couples who seriously feel that they have no better option, because of an unintentional pregnancy. Also, it is rather silly to expect people in an adult relationship to refrain from having sex. Perhaps one won't die without sex, but it will eventually kill an adult relationship to stop having it. lymelady One party is in that position through no fault of its own, one party is there through her actions combined with those of a partner. Now where does the burden of responsibility lie? Right now, the punishment is doled out to the one who had no choice whatsoever in the situation so that the people who actually caused the situation have an easier way out. There is no "easi er way out". When dealing with an unintentional pregnancy, all of the options are difficult, and all can take a life time to come to terms with (though most women do not).
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:26 pm
Actually, it's not legal because of bodily integrity in the US, but that's besides the point really, it's based on the right to privacy I believe. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html "RESULTS: Forty-six percent of women had not used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, mainly because of perceived low risk of pregnancy and concerns about contraception." Granted, that was 2000-2001. When I have the energy, I'll go look for more recent studies. Again, why does it matter that the human is using her body? It's using her body because of her actions. It could be argued this is implied consent, the same way you consent to lose your money when you go to gamble. Even if you cheat, count cards, hedge your bets, if you lose, you can't say, "But I took every precaution against losing, so I shouldn't have to give them my money! I was in it to win, not to lose!" Contraception is a way to have sex without having babies, and so is elective abortion. Or does elective abortion not end in sex without having babies? I know it's hard, I never denied that, but it still comes down to being able to have sex without having to have a baby. I do not feel it's rather silly to expect people to refrain from sex if the other option is to kill someone; if the result of me having sex was me having to kill you, I would abstain from sex for my entire life. I do not believe a relationship is impossible without sex. If my husband's p***s was cut off, I wouldn't say, "Oh, wow, time for a divorce honey." And yes, abortion is admittedly an easier way out than childbirth for many men and women, that's why they have it. It is the best, easiest option for them. It doesn't make it easy, but it is definitely easier financially and physically, and for a lot of people, they find it easier emotionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:53 pm
lymelady Actually, it's not legal because of bodily integrity in the US, but that's besides the point really, it's based on the right to privacy I believe. I should have been more clear. Bodily integrity is why I feel about needs to be legal. The right to privacy is what it was originally decided on. lymelady http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html "RESULTS: Forty-six percent of women had not used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, mainly because of perceived low risk of pregnancy and concerns about contraception." Granted, that was 2000-2001. When I have the energy, I'll go look for more recent studies. If you find any, I'd love to see them. I can't hunt anything more resent down (it would be very nice if less people were stupid). lymelady Again, why does it matter that the human is using her body? It's using her body because of her actions. It could be argued this is implied consent, the same way you consent to lose your money when you go to gamble. Even if you cheat, count cards, hedge your bets, if you lose, you can't say, "But I took every precaution against losing, so I shouldn't have to give them my money! I was in it to win, not to lose!" True, but when one gambles, one accepts that there is a possibility of losing (just like when one has sex, one accepts that there is a possibility of pregnancy). I still don't feel that consent to sex means that all pregnancies should be forced to continue, against a woman's will. lymelady Contraception is a way to have sex without having babies, and so is elective abortion. Or does elective abortion not end in sex without having babies? I know it's hard, I never denied that, but it still comes down to being able to have sex without having to have a baby. Okay. I feel that the reasons are more than that, but believe as you like. lymelady I do not feel it's rather silly to expect people to refrain from sex if the other option is to kill someone; if the result of me having sex was me having to kill you, I would abstain from sex for my entire life. I do not believe a relationship is impossible without sex. If my husband's p***s was cut off, I wouldn't say, "Oh, wow, time for a divorce honey." I wouldn't get a divorce, but there would have to be either sex toys or me having sex with other people. Do you honestly expect Pro-Choicers to suddenly stop having sex because you are against abortion? lymelady And yes, abortion is admittedly an easier way out than childbirth for many men and women, that's why they have it. It is the best, easiest option for them. It doesn't make it easy, but it is definitely easier financially and physically, and for a lot of people, they find it easier emotionally. I'll give you that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:13 pm
It would be nice, and it should be necessary, to have better programs and education in place. I am all for reducing abortions using contraception, financial aid, and resources for pregnant women.
I disagree with you on the consent to sex thing, but I think we'll never really agree there.
And yes, that's one of my points. There are things like sex toys. There are ways for sexual gratification without vaginal penetration from an actual p***s. You don't need to risk pregnancy to keep a relationship, or even to keep a sex life. Now sex with other people is different. I don't expect anyone to stop having sex because I'm against abortion; I just don't think it's silly to expect people to stop having sex if they know they'll kill someone because of it. I know they'll keep having sex, and yes, they'll keep killing for it, but whether or not they're killing a person is debatable, and even if they are, if this is all about bodily integrity and bodily integrity overrides life even when your own actions are what led to your bodily integrity being compromised, then the killing is perfectly justified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:21 pm
lymelady It would be nice, and it should be necessary, to have better programs and education in place. I am all for reducing abortions using contraception, financial aid, and resources for pregnant women. I know things (both pregnancy and abortion rates) went down in the mid 90s. I feel this was due to better Sex Ed and other programs that were available then, but aren't now. It would be very good if abortion rates went down, and that is something that I think everyone agrees with. lymelady I disagree with you on the consent to sex thing, but I think we'll never really agree there. That's sort of one of those deciding factors, if either of us agreed with the other on that, we would both be on the same "side". lymelady And yes, that's one of my points. There are things like sex toys. There are ways for sexual gratification without vaginal penetration from an actual p***s. You don't need to risk pregnancy to keep a relationship, or even to keep a sex life. Now sex with other people is different. I don't expect anyone to stop having sex because I'm against abortion; I just don't think it's silly to expect people to stop having sex if they know they'll kill someone because of it. I know they'll keep having sex, and yes, they'll keep killing for it, but whether or not they're killing a person is debatable, and even if they are, if this is all about bodily integrity and bodily integrity overrides life even when your own actions are what led to your bodily integrity being compromised, then the killing is perfectly justified. Sex is fun, though...*wink* Seriously...no...I don't feel like being serious. *grin* There's a lot in there, and I agree with a bit of it, and the rest is stuff that we basically have to agree to disagree on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:10 am
lymelady It would be nice, and it should be necessary, to have better programs and education in place. I am all for reducing abortions using contraception, financial aid, and resources for pregnant women. I disagree with you on the consent to sex thing, but I think we'll never really agree there. And yes, that's one of my points. There are things like sex toys. There are ways for sexual gratification without vaginal penetration from an actual p***s. You don't need to risk pregnancy to keep a relationship, or even to keep a sex life. Now sex with other people is different. I don't expect anyone to stop having sex because I'm against abortion; I just don't think it's silly to expect people to stop having sex if they know they'll kill someone because of it. I know they'll keep having sex, and yes, they'll keep killing for it, but whether or not they're killing a person is debatable, and even if they are, if this is all about bodily integrity and bodily integrity overrides life even when your own actions are what led to your bodily integrity being compromised, then the killing is perfectly justified. Lyme - just a point, although I may be alone here (I do see your point, and I know you said you wouldn't say to stop having sex) but on the alternatives to sex thing? It's said a lot, but sex is sex and nothing else is like it. I own sex toys and I have sex and they're still entirely different. Plus sex is waaaaaaaaaaay better for me than any of the alternatives. And I've always thought that the bodily integrity shouldn't count because you compromised it yourself analogy doesn't work. If I'm having sex and want to stop, and my partner doesn't, it's rape. I allowed my bodily integrity to be compromised in that situation, because there is every chance that he could just keep going and I'd be able to do very little about it. It just feels a very blame the victim mentality to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:39 pm
Fran Salaska lymelady It would be nice, and it should be necessary, to have better programs and education in place. I am all for reducing abortions using contraception, financial aid, and resources for pregnant women. I disagree with you on the consent to sex thing, but I think we'll never really agree there. And yes, that's one of my points. There are things like sex toys. There are ways for sexual gratification without vaginal penetration from an actual p***s. You don't need to risk pregnancy to keep a relationship, or even to keep a sex life. Now sex with other people is different. I don't expect anyone to stop having sex because I'm against abortion; I just don't think it's silly to expect people to stop having sex if they know they'll kill someone because of it. I know they'll keep having sex, and yes, they'll keep killing for it, but whether or not they're killing a person is debatable, and even if they are, if this is all about bodily integrity and bodily integrity overrides life even when your own actions are what led to your bodily integrity being compromised, then the killing is perfectly justified. Lyme - just a point, although I may be alone here (I do see your point, and I know you said you wouldn't say to stop having sex) but on the alternatives to sex thing? It's said a lot, but sex is sex and nothing else is like it. I own sex toys and I have sex and they're still entirely different. Plus sex is waaaaaaaaaaay better for me than any of the alternatives. And I've always thought that the bodily integrity shouldn't count because you compromised it yourself analogy doesn't work. If I'm having sex and want to stop, and my partner doesn't, it's rape. I allowed my bodily integrity to be compromised in that situation, because there is every chance that he could just keep going and I'd be able to do very little about it. It just feels a very blame the victim mentality to me. Actually, that's not rape in my county. I mean it is rape, but legally it isn't. It's infuriating, and really has nothing to do with this, but whenever someone brings up anything remotely like it, I get furious, and I should. But anyway, I'm not making the argument that bodily integrity shouldn't count because you compromised yourself. I'm arguing that it comes down to killing in order to have sex. I know the difference between sex and sex toys (and I greatly prefer sex as well), but if my having sex would result in me having to kill you, I would abstain until I was at a point where I wouldn't have to kill you in order to have sex because the bottom line is I'm making a choice to feel good at the expense of another life if I do. Having sex knowing you will have an abortion if you get pregnant is doing the same thing, which doesn't really matter if the fetus isn't a person, right? There is a way to avoid abortion without compromising bodily integrity. It's just a way that most people don't want to take. It's difficult. It's not as pleasurable. It's worth the possibility of killing a human, especially if you decide that human isn't a person. Heck, if a fetus wasn't a person to me, I'd support abortion. But since it is, I refuse to believe that the price of a human life is a good price for having sex. Maybe I just haven't slept with the right people, but nothing in my experience has shown that sex is worth killing for. (Complete sidenote, my husband just read that and whimpered.) But like I said, it only loses its silliness assuming a fetus is a person. And if you don't believe a fetus is a person, then it is rather silly, isn't it? Afterall, while there are a few militant religious folks out there insisting we don't treat STDs because "You had sex, now pay for it sinner!" not many people seriously suggest that STDs should go untreated and be allowed to live, and if a fetus isn't a person, it's sort of the same concept. There's an organism there that you don't want to be there, and yes, it's there as a result of having sex, but you shouldn't have to suffer for having sex. Sex is not a bad thing. It's a very good thing. But if a fetus is a person, an equal to you or me, who is only trying to survive because you and your partner forced it into that position (whether it was intentional or not, but I'm not even going to get started on people who purposely get pregnant THEN have elective abortions) then no, I do not think it is silly to say that sex is not worth killing for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:10 am
lymelady But anyway, I'm not making the argument that bodily integrity shouldn't count because you compromised yourself. I'm arguing that it comes down to killing in order to have sex. I know the difference between sex and sex toys (and I greatly prefer sex as well), but if my having sex would result in me having to kill you, I would abstain until I was at a point where I wouldn't have to kill you in order to have sex because the bottom line is I'm making a choice to feel good at the expense of another life if I do. Having sex knowing you will have an abortion if you get pregnant is doing the same thing, which doesn't really matter if the fetus isn't a person, right? There is a way to avoid abortion without compromising bodily integrity. It's just a way that most people don't want to take. It's difficult. It's not as pleasurable. It's worth the possibility of killing a human, especially if you decide that human isn't a person. Heck, if a fetus wasn't a person to me, I'd support abortion. But since it is, I refuse to believe that the price of a human life is a good price for having sex. Maybe I just haven't slept with the right people, but nothing in my experience has shown that sex is worth killing for. (Complete sidenote, my husband just read that and whimpered.) But like I said, it only loses its silliness assuming a fetus is a person. And if you don't believe a fetus is a person, then it is rather silly, isn't it? Afterall, while there are a few militant religious folks out there insisting we don't treat STDs because "You had sex, now pay for it sinner!" not many people seriously suggest that STDs should go untreated and be allowed to live, and if a fetus isn't a person, it's sort of the same concept. There's an organism there that you don't want to be there, and yes, it's there as a result of having sex, but you shouldn't have to suffer for having sex. Sex is not a bad thing. It's a very good thing. But if a fetus is a person, an equal to you or me, who is only trying to survive because you and your partner forced it into that position (whether it was intentional or not, but I'm not even going to get started on people who purposely get pregnant THEN have elective abortions) then no, I do not think it is silly to say that sex is not worth killing for. I don't really know when I feel an unborn human "becomes" a 'person'. I think that at medical viability, it certainly is one (since premature babies are people, of course). But at conception, I don't feel it is one. I think that there needs to be a level of development (and what level, I'm unsure), before I can say that an unborn human deserves the rights of a person. I really don't know, though, I mean sex cells certainly aren't people. But then, I think that some non-human animals, like dolphins and the great apes, are 'people'. I guess I feel that there needs to be some level of speech and higher brain function for something to be a person. Like, I'm willing to allow for AI to eventually get "person" status, but I don't think its really there yet. That was a bit random. Anyway, I wouldn't get an abortion unless my health was severely at risk, or my unborn human was very deformed (as in, unlikely to live long, or had some chromosomal defect). I mean, we do try to prevent pregnancy (because I want all of my pregnancies to be planned, if possible), but if an unintentional (but healthy) one were to happen, I would carry it to term and give it up for private adoption (to a nice gay couple, I hope). I just feel that bodily integrity and the lack of an immediate alternative mean that elective abortion should be legal. And so, if someone doesn't want to be pregnant, and feels that abortion is the best choice for them, then I don't feel it is my place to judge their reasons. I don't feel it comes down to wanting to kill in order to have sex (after all, pregnant women can still have sex *wink*). I think it comes down to being unprepared, for whatever reason, to go through a pregnancy after one has had sex, and believing that abortion is okay. I mean, once someone has gotten unintentionally pregnant, it's a bit late for them to stop having sex. I understand what you are saying (if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex), but almost all adult humans have a biological sex drive - something that makes it very difficult to be in an adult relationship for any long period of time without having sex. Which is why I feel that better education (in school or on tv or I don't care from where) telling people why to refrain from sex, and why to use contraceptives if they do have sex, and if they get pregnant anyway what all of their options are) is needed, along with far, far, far better support for pregnant women in our society. Sorry, that was long and rambled on for a bit too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:28 pm
Well, and I agree with you that we should be doing more, as a society, to encourage safe sex. That statistic on the amount of women who abort who did not use some form of contraception is scary, quite frankly. Insurance companies need to be held to paying for birth control. Freaking Viagra is covered, but not birth control, in a lot of policies. My pills cost about 20 dollars for me, with insurance, which isn't bad, but there are some plans where it costs people upwards of 100 dollars.
Sorry, I went off on a tangent, I know, but my point is, as good as sex is, if a fetus is a person, and there is a way to avoid abortion without compromising bodily integrity, then it is making the choice that sex is worth killing for if you have sex knowing you will have an abortion if you get pregnant.
This isn't an argument for making abortion illegal. It's just a fact that there is a way to avoid abortion without compromising bodily integrity, people just don't want to take it. Their pleasure is worth killing for. Which, again, totally fine if a fetus isn't a person, right? But if a fetus is a person, it gets shadier. It gets more difficult. The line between right and wrong becomes more blurred, because abortion is not necessary to protect bodily integrity (barring rape). Abortion is necessary to both have sex and maintain bodily integrity, and that's a different story.
I'm not saying people should stop having sex. They can have as much sex as they want. I'm not even asking people to agree with me that sex isn't worth killing for, because they won't. I'm well aware that there is a thing called a sex drive, and it can make relationships stronger. I'm also well aware of how powerful it can be; I'm an adult human, don't forget. I wouldn't want to make abortion illegal without better support in place for pregnant women, or better sexual health and education programs in place, and you know that.
None of that really changes the situation though, and the situation is that people make a choice to do something for personal pleasure, and they kill for it. Abortion is not necessary to protect bodily integrity, except, as I said, for rape situations. Abortion is necessary to have sex and protect bodily integrity. It's a distinction that may mean nothing to a lot of people, but it means something to a lot of people who are pro-life, and it my opinion, it really is an important distinction. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I respect your views, and I know just as strongly that I don't want to hurt any women, you don't want to hurt anyone either. This is just one area where we're going to have to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:00 pm
lymelady Well, and I agree with you that we should be doing more, as a society, to encourage safe sex. That statistic on the amount of women who abort who did not use some form of contraception is scary, quite frankly. Insurance companies need to be held to paying for birth control. Freaking Viagra is covered, but not birth control, in a lot of policies. My pills cost about 20 dollars for me, with insurance, which isn't bad, but there are some plans where it costs people upwards of 100 dollars. Depending on the method, yeah. I think that contraceptives need to be not only covered by all health insurance plans, but free under them - no copay. People having less children would save the insurance companies money anyway (since less children to cover means less children to possibly get sick and cost them money). Personally, it astounds me that anyone would consider having sex without using a contraceptive method. I couldn't even imagine doing so, unless we were trying to get pregnant (which we won't do until we can afford a child).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:23 am
lymelady There are ways for sexual gratification without vaginal penetration from an actual p***s. OMG WUT R U LIEK SUM KIND OF LEZBO FEMANAZI!??!?!1 surprised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:01 am
La Veuve Zin lymelady There are ways for sexual gratification without vaginal penetration from an actual p***s. OMG WUT R U LIEK SUM KIND OF LEZBO FEMANAZI!??!?!1 surprised Oh dear lord don't I wish. The world would be so much easier if I was attracted to women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:45 pm
lymelady The world would be so much easier if I was attracted to women. It's not. gonk I completely agree with men when they say that women are intimidating and scary. At least if they kick me in the crotch it won't hurt as much...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
