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.

Manchu wrote:Yes it would suck to have to drop out of school or whatever else if you are a pregnant woman but at least that makes women be careful about their own ... wait what were we talking about?

Girls don't drop out of high school when they are pregnant anymore... at least, not all of them.

That's just a stand-in for whatever harm is said to come from carrying a child to term.

Manchu wrote:There may be some "diehards" who advocate "Victorian" extremism but I don't think advocating a policy of abstinence is an example of it. Pre-marital abstinence itself poses no social harm whatsoever, either hypothetically or actually. The distribution of contraceptives and availability of abortion, conservatives argue, promote sexual activity (pre-marital or otherwise) that does pose social harm -- such as the spread of venereal disease and increased unwanted pregnancies.

Please keep in mind that although abstinence is often "packaged" with a loathing for sex ed and certain attitudes towards women's supposed duties those notions are actually independent. Also, you might consider abstinence as more of an ideal rather than a practice. Whether everyone actually lives up to an ideal has nothing to do with its value.

And now we're back to trying to legislate someone's ideal morality, which may or may not be my morality.

And while I have no doubt that the majority of women who have abortions are unmarried... I KNOW that some married women have had abortions since the wedding, because the time was all wrong, and the resources to support the child were not present. I also know several older married women who have had their kids, and take precautions to prevent future pregnancies... and if they fail, they WILL get an abortion because they don't want to be raising kids into thier 60's or later.

I'm not saying that abstinence should be required by law of unmarried people. Nor am I saying that it is what's morally right.

I am saying that if you want to avoid venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies then abstinence is the only practice that is 100% effective.

If you are willing to risk venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy then by all means do so. I would never say that someone with syphilis should not be treated simply because they contracted it as a result of choosing to have sex before (or after) being married. Meanwhile, pregnancy is not a disease to be cured.

The biological situation seems "unfair" because men cannot become pregnant but can catch venereal diseases where being treated for venereal diseases is something of an embarrassment but certainly not the grave moral transgression that abortion is. Thus men are generally able to escape the consequences of sex. Oh wait, no they are not: paternity tests and child support orders make this impossible. Why were these imposed? To be fair to mothers with the objective of fostering the care of children.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan, what would you make of a law that required women to have abortions if directed to do so by the fathers of their unborn children? Or how about a law where a father-to-be would not be liable to the mother at any time for child support payments if she elected not to have an abortion?

You can get some venereal diseases without having sex...

If you practice safe sex, is it really any more dangerous than driving to the FLGS to play Warhammer? What is the number of deaths each year from automobile accidents compared to STD related deaths? If 100% absolute safety is the metric there are more things that a person would need to cut out of their life than sex.

@Albatross: You mean, contracted in utero from the mother?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:If 100% absolute safety is the metric there are more things that a person would need to cut out of their life than sex.

I think the goal is avoiding venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy. Your LGS must be very friendly indeed if driving there is applicable to this discussion.

Jubear wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.

Bull gak. None of your business maybe, in which case, here, take this test. Oops looks like you're not sustainable. Please go stand in that line. Our attendants will help you shortly.

How is a decision that effects the health of woman have anything to do with you? What makes you think you have the right to impose your own misguided set of morals and values on someone else? I accept that if I knock a woman up and she wants to keep it/abort it I dont really get a say in things because its not my body being ravaged by pregnancy. Yes it would suck watching a large chunk of my wages going towards a child I do not want, But atleast it makes me be careful about my own sexual health because frankly having a kid is wayyy scarier then catching hepatitis.

You're talking about abortion. I could care less, keep your hands off me and I will keep my hollowpoints out of you. I'm talking about the original point of the topic.

Yes, surely in the case of infanticide, the mother can claim no special privilege or relevance regarding her desire to kill her child.

Manchu wrote:@Albatross: You mean, contracted in utero from the mother?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:If 100% absolute safety is the metric there are more things that a person would need to cut out of their life than sex.

I think the goal is avoiding venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy. Your LGS must be very friendly indeed if driving there is applicable to this discussion.

I would think avoiding being maimed, paralyzed, or killed would also be a good idea as well. When I drive I try to drive safely but there is still no guarantee that something terrible won't happen. If you want to avoid being in a collision, no matter how minor, never get on the road.

But what do potential car accidents have to do with avoiding venereal disease or unwanted pregnancy?

Manchu wrote:But what do potential car accidents have to do with avoiding venereal disease or unwanted pregnancy?

They have to do with the argument that sex should be avoided becuase it gives you a 100% chance of avoiding a situation. The problem is that using that argument, that the only way to approach something is to seek 100% safety, would make a lot of what we do in our daily lives very silly, as almost none of it is 100% safe. Just by meeting other people I am taking a chance of getting a non-venereal disease. The British Olympic Committee just told all their athletes not to shake hands with anyone for fear of getting sick. I just don't like the argument that in this one realm we will only accept 100% as the number, but let it slide in almost everything else.

I think venereal diseases are getting us a bit side-tracked.

Again, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who wants to avoid unwanted pregnancy absolutely as opposed to from a retrospective position asking what to do about an already-conceived unwanted child. It would be silly to say to someone injured in a car accident that it was their choice to drive, after all. Fine, yes, I chose to drive. Now what?

But if someone asks you "what is my best chance of never being in an auto accident?" then you are bound to say "by avoiding automobiles and places where automobiles exist." If that seems snarky, it's only because of the assumption that automobiles are necessary to carry on with our daily lives. By contrast, all jokes aside, sexual intercourse is not similarly necessary. No one except prostitutes will be out of a job by absolutely avoiding sexual intercourse, for example. (Bracing for inevitable joke.)

Also, while someone could still be in an automobile accident even if they drive safely, no one (female rape victims aside) has ever gotten pregnant while actually practicing abstinence. Whether one accepts the chance of getting in a car accident in order to speed up transportation really has no bearing whatsoever on the efficacy of practicing abstinence in order to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

Manchu wrote: By contrast, all jokes aside, sexual intercourse is not similarly necessary.

It is more necessary than automobiles, and has been around a lot longer.

To put it another way, if someone were to say that I could either never drive a car again or never have sex again, I would become one hell of a bike rider.

The question of sexual abstinence before marriage is not one of never having sex.

The notion that use of automobiles and sexual intercourse are equivalent for the purposes of this discussion is simply absurd.

Manchu wrote:The question of sexual abstinence before marriage is not one of never having sex.

The notion that use of automobiles and sexual intercourse are equivalent for the purposes of this discussion is simply absurd.

I find the idea that humans should avoid safe sex becuase it isn't 100% safe to be absurd, as it is cherry picking statistics, since almost everything we do is not 100% safe; it is perfectly reasonable to engage in safe sex and not want a pregnancy just as it is perfectly reasonable for me to drive a car and not want to get hit by another one.

I don't find the argument particularly compelling or practical, just as advocating not driving to avoid car accidents isn't really compelling or practical.

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote:The question of sexual abstinence before marriage is not one of never having sex.

The notion that use of automobiles and sexual intercourse are equivalent for the purposes of this discussion is simply absurd.

I find the idea that humans should avoid safe sex becuase it isn't 100% safe to be absurd, as it is cherry picking statistics, since almost everything we do is not 100% safe; it is perfectly reasonable to engage in safe sex and not want a pregnancy just as it is perfectly reasonable for me to drive a car and not want to get hit by another one.

To use this car metaphor....

Wouldn't we be able to draw from this comparison that you should be able to walk into a clinic with a broken foot, three cracked ribs, and missing an eye, and come out perfectly fine afterward by paying...... Oh hell, I don't know how much an abortion costs....


I'm not saying I'm for, or against, but that is what I am concluding from this....

Manchu wrote:If that seems snarky, it's only because of the assumption that automobiles are necessary to carry on with our daily lives. By contrast, all jokes aside, sexual intercourse is not similarly necessary. No one except prostitutes will be out of a job by absolutely avoiding sexual intercourse, for example. (Bracing for inevitable joke.)

I would argue that, outside a very narrow set of beliefs, a healthy sex life is roughly consistent with owning a car. That is, it is necessary given a broad set of contemporary circumstances. And, more importantly, that sexual frustration can effectively force someone out of a job in much the same way that the absence of a car can.

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote: By contrast, all jokes aside, sexual intercourse is not similarly necessary.

It is more necessary than automobiles, and has been around a lot longer.

To put it another way, if someone were to say that I could either never drive a car again or never have sex again, I would become one hell of a bike rider.

I'd ride a Ducati...in style.

Manchu wrote:But what do potential car accidents have to do with avoiding venereal disease or unwanted pregnancy?

No matter how careful you are accidents happen, both with cars and with condoms, both with unpleasant consequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The question of sexual abstinence before marriage is not one of never having sex.

The notion that use of automobiles and sexual intercourse are equivalent for the purposes of this discussion is simply absurd.

Well, so is the premise of the article in the OP, that killing an infant no different from abortion. I think we can all agree that killing an infant is bad, regardless of our stance on abortion.

Since we are starting the whole thread with that ridiculous equivalence, what's a couple dozen others?

Manchu wrote:There may be some "diehards" who advocate "Victorian" extremism but I don't think advocating a policy of abstinence is an example of it. Pre-marital abstinence itself poses no social harm whatsoever, either hypothetically or actually.

Actually this is not necessarily the case. The longer a woman waits to have a child the more likely the child will have genetic defects; this is because the woman has all the eggs she'll ever have at puberty, and never produces any more (instead releasing one every few/several weeks in the ovarian cycle). Because of this, the longer that the woman waits the more likely that hte eggs are going to be damaged through radiation, carcinogens, and other toxins or harmful effects. Thus there is a cost to society of not having children early on. It's a cost society ha so far been willing to pay, but it's still a cost.

A bit nitpicky I suppose, but it IS an established biological fact.

@Vulcan: Regarding abstinence as a means to avoid pregnancy, there is no need whatsoever to "be careful." A pregnancy has 0% chance of resulting.

@Melissia: Unless you're talking about a chain-smoking 50 year-old woman who removes asbestos from contaminated nuclear power plants, I don't think that's really relevant.

Manchu wrote:
Vulcan, what would you make of a law that required women to have abortions if directed to do so by the fathers of their unborn children? Or how about a law where a father-to-be would not be liable to the mother at any time for child support payments if she elected not to have an abortion?

I'd support a law that allowed either biological parent to sign away their claim to the child. Men would be obligated to share all costs involved with the child up to and including birth/abortion regardless of relinquishing their claims. If abortion is legal, you can't force the woman to carry the child to term if she wants to abort.

But you can force a man to pay for an abortion he objects to?

biccat wrote:

Jubear wrote:Cant force a lass to make decisions about her own body. If she decides to keep it then its our business not before tho.

But she can force you to support that child for the rest of its life.

A nice double standard.

No, it's a fallacy of the false equivalent.

Men don't get pregnant, so they can't be compelled not to have abortions.

Women cannot father children, therefore are not liable to paternity suits.

They make a pretty obvious contribution to childrearing nonetheless.

(BTW paternity payments are not for life.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:But you can force a man to pay for an abortion he objects to?

A. Medicaid can pay for abortion expenses in the case of rape victims.

Some men object to any abortion, even after rape. If taxpayers, they are being forced to pay.


B. I doubt it would be practical in most cases, since the cost of bringing the suit would almost certainly be greater than the cost of the abortion.

Manchu wrote:@Melissia: Unless you're talking about a chain-smoking 50 year-old woman who removes asbestos from contaminated nuclear power plants, I don't think that's really relevant.

No, I'm talking about the average person.

The longer a woman waits, ANY woman, the more likely her child is to be born with a birth defect. That you suggest it requires such ridiculous circumstances as in the quoted text is hardly an uncommon belief..

It is, of course, wrong, and utterly ignorant.

@KK: I should have been more clear: should a father be forced by law to pay directly for the killing of his own unborn child?

@Melissia: So you are saying that the downside to abstinence as a means of preventing aborting unwanted pregnancy is that the longer women wait to have children the better the chances those children, who for purposes of this particular discussion are going to be aborted, will have birth defects? Your point is true generally but completely irrelevant to this conversation. Your point would not even matter in the high-risk case I presented above: yes, the child would have a high probability of birth defects but that would hardly matter to the mother who, as per the conversation, has no plans to carry the child to term any way. Be careful that your own stance is not utterly ignorant before throwing that kind of invective around.

Kilkrazy wrote:Men don't get pregnant, so they can't be compelled not to have abortions.

Men don't get pregnant, but they do experience a harm due to the woman's decision to carry the child to term or not. In fact, I think a pretty good argument can be made that requiring a man to labor for 18 years to support a child he didn't want or couldn't afford is more onorous than carrying a child to term.

Kilkrazy wrote:Women cannot father children, therefore are not liable to paternity suits.

Women, however, are liable for child support if they carry the child to term and then dump the kid off on the father. Women and men are roughly equivalent in the eyes of the law, except women get a second chance to avoid the consequence of their actions.

Men only get one.

I'd understand if you support sexism in the law. But don't try to pretend that there's no discrimination.

Manchu wrote:So you are saying that the downside to abstinence as a means of preventing aborting unwanted pregnancy is that the longer women wait to have children the better the chances those children, who for purposes of this particular discussion are going to be aborted, will have birth defects?

That is one of the downsides, yes. I'm glad you've come to accept that.

Manchu wrote:Your point is true generally but completely irrelevant to this conversation. Your point would not even matter in the high-risk case I presented above

I defy you to say that to the numerous older mothers, prospective and actual, who have children with birth defects; or the ones who suffer from miscarriage after miscarriage while trying to have a child because of the genetic defects in their eggs. These weren't women in high risk situations, but normal women who simply chose to wait before having a child.

Actually, don't say that to them, it'd just be cruel. This is a real issue that should be taken in to consideration. Our human biologies have distinct limits that medicine has not yet countered and it is unlikely that they will counter any time soon. If one actually cares about the potential life of the potential child (which, presumably, the pro-life side does), then this is very much relevant.

Of course, they don't really care.

Manchu wrote:Be careful that your own stance is not utterly ignorant

The point I was making was that the longer you wait to have a child, the more likely the child is to have birth defects. This is a price of all forms of contraception in truth, yes, but you said there was no price for abstinence and that is false without even going in to the social cost of it (a lack of sexual satisfaction can be quite disruptive and cause harm in other areas such as in stress levels). Thus there is definitely a distinct price for it; claiming otherwise is the real ignorance here.

The discussion should be on which price is the better one to pay, not about claiming that one choice doesn't have any form of cost at all. All choices have cost, even if the cost is sometimes limited to the opportunity cost of having made a different choice.

As long as we're talking about real ignorance:

The increased chance of birth defects you mention is relative to a woman's age/health and NOT whether she is abstinent or not. Practicing abstinence has no bearing on the chances of any child she bears having birth defects.

Abstinence therefore does not entail the consequence you claim.