Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
That wasn't really the point.

Of course not, but that's why that kind of thinking keeps producing a conclusion that sucks so bad in the real world.

Because, yeah, sure, abstinence is 100% effective at stopping pregnancy.

There.

That was the point.

Beyond that, I don't think it's inherently morally objectionable to have people pay for their own methods of contraception for recreational sex.

All sex is recreational. There is no guarantee that a baby will result from any particular sexual event. And the point is that while not having sex is effective at preventing pregnancy (although not 100% as you claim since there are a few ways of getting pregnant without having sex), people are not 100% effective at abstinance.

The word recreational is imprecise; I apologize for using it. What I mean, what I think many of you understand that I mean, is sex that is disconnected from the kind of circumstances and relationships that tend not lead to the abortion clinic when pregnancy results.

Towards the end of my marriage, the sex wasn't that recreational.

 kronk wrote:
Towards the end of my marriage, the sex wasn't that recreational.

It's high time you changed your avatar:

If I could have him beating on a cow bell I would be soo happy!

I use my personality as a contraceptive, and it's worked thus far.

 Monster Rain wrote:
There.

That was the point.

And, as I went on to explain, that point is so simplistic that it's actually just completely wrong. Useless. Does no good. Because on matters of health policy, it doesn't matter one piece of diddly gak how something might work if people did it, when we know they don't do it.

And so it only makes sense to stop wasting time with it, and start using policies that work.

Beyond that, I don't think it's inherently morally objectionable to have people pay for their own methods of contraception for recreational sex.

It isn't about morality. It's about what works and what doesn't. Giving cheap/free contraception works. Telling people to abstain doesn't work.

 sebster wrote:
It isn't about morality.

In the context of this thread, it kind of was at points.