If killing your baby was acceptable, would more women do it?

As I already said...I am not against contraceptives but, they are not 100% effective. Shouldn't the default position be that we teach our kids that human life is precious, that they should plan their lives. Especially with young girls who really have the most to regret from a 1-time uncommitted, irresponsible 'romp.'

I don't want to offend and no offense is intended but I have to ask. When did you know about your mother's sexual escapades?

 

yet we should all be forced to pay for other people's contraception? do you see how hypocritical that is?

 

Pasithea said,

good moral values?????? LOL What does that mean?

Most kids care about a lot of people. Many today have FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS. So a teenager, a good moral one that is...could have a lot of sexual romps.

Cared about for how long? A week, month.

If someone is having sex and old enough...aren't they old enough to pay the piper should something happen? You talk about sex here in a recreational way. You think that is moral?
How about growing up and taking responsibility for ones actions. LIke having the baby instead of killing it.
Wow....so if a girl or boy dated around for years which they should when they are young...their sexual encounters could really add up couldnt they?
Yes morality...such a cheap word today.

Normal...to screw 50 guys a year? 30? 20?......but then it does not matter to those who think sleeping around is great.


"You can teach kids to be responsible with their sexual choices and also teach them to have good moral values at the same time. If they were put more hand in hand with one another then we might just have less teen pregnancies, less sex at extremely young ages, and less unprotected/unsafe sex when people do finally choose to be intimate with one another."

What is moral? Killing an unborn child? Screwing the football team? After you screw the baseball team? Of giving a friend a blow job during lunch? Or a weekend group romp in the hay? Or switching things up and trying same sex relationships?
What is moral...whatever feels good?

 

As you writhe in jealousy of all those carefully described sex acts could you take time to answer why you think ONLY women who have lots of FUN sex are immoral.....you seem to ignore the men who do it too.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Teaching kids to be responsible when they have sex and teaching them to take care in who they have sex with and when they choose to.

Just goes to show a lot of parents aren't sitting down with their children and discussing the potential ramifications of having frequent casual sex with multiple partners. If kids have a good relationship with their parents they will listen.

Dated for three years in high school.

Yes, I think recreational sex (not procreational sex) with a person you deeply care about, whether you've been dating for a long time or are married is perfectly moral. Sex is a natural and normal thing to have. I don't know why you are so insistent on the idea that sex must be some evil dirty thing because it is not if it is done safely. Sex is bonding and helps to bolster two people's closeness, love and intimacy with one another. It helps to strengthen the bond those two people have. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. I don't know why you think it is wrong or immoral.

Look, what I am discussing here is the widespread use and better education on birth control to prevent unplanned pregnancy from happening in the first place. This is something both sides should be able to easily agree on. The goal should be less unplanned pregnancies to begin with and therefore less abortion in the end. You have a problem with this?

My experience is different from most others I suppose. I have only ever had sex with two men in my life. My first boyfriend who I dated for two years and my second boyfriend (now fiance) I met three years later. I dunno, I just had a good close relationship with my mom and I listened to her advice and wisdom and took it to heart. I feel like if parents had a better relationship with their children and who were also willing to face the reality of what their children see and have to deal with every day (lots of sexual pressure growing up) that they would teach them to try and wait for someone they love and even if they can't to just be safe about it. That's all a good parent can do, you can't control people no matter how much you want to.

And to those who will sleep around with hundreds of men and women in their lifetime I can only hope they do it safely. That is there choice, again we cannot control their choices we can only give them the tools and instruction to try and make better, safer and healthier choices.

What is moral is exactly what I said in all my posts. I don't know why you are so pessimistic and have so little faith in the youth of today to actually listen and make better sexual choices or to actually wait until later in life. It's a bit sad that you have given up all hope in them as much as you have here. You have grandchildren don't you? I should hope you don't believe they will behave this way, surely you didn't teach your own children to behave this way and so surely they will pass on those same good morals to their own kids, right?

 

My mom didn't go into great detail until I was about 16 when she told me about how she was raped at 14 and then told me how that dramatically changed her life and psychologically messed her up for some time in her life and she married my abusive father and finally left him and pulled herself together.

But she did start telling me about sex in very simplistic ways when I was beginning puberty at 9 years old. She told me how women get pregnant, told me about sexual predators, told me about how sex should be between two people who really love one another, etc.

 

Because it's a lie. We have a higher availability of contraceptives than we have EVER had, and still there are more *unwanted* children than ever before. How do you justify the fact that you state the exact opposite..i.e., that contraceptive availability reduces the number of unwanted children? Please cite and link.

 

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child. How could someone who purports to be sooooo concerned about them use that term??

 

No. In Canada, doctors will not do them electively past 20 weeks, even though there are no laws against it.

 

It's shorter than saying "children whose parents aren't married and whose fathers aren't in the picture."

 

And, as usual, you'd be wrong. Illegitmate children are those born to parents who aren't married whether the father is present or not.....it's an old fashioned term that really has no use today....unless a person really hates children and wants to give them a label to make them feel bad and if someone loved children WHY would they do that?????.....

 

Much better to just kill them, I suppose. Save them from potentially being called "illegitimate" from someone who doesn't want to run out of breath while defining the situation.

 

No, much better to call them people without the stigmata.

 

The word you're looking for is "stigma".

Stigmata:

 

Stigmata - from the greek stigma meaning a mark, tattoo, or brand and only associated with Christ like wounds at a later date and as a noun the plural of stigma ie meaning more than one stigma placed upon them.

 

So it's okay to call children a nasty, perjorative word because one is lazy?

 

Or more probably because "one poster" actually hates the children "one poster" pretends to defend....

 

LOL .. "killing babies" Trolling again are we ?

It is human to make mistakes. It is the fool who repeats the same mistake over and over again despite being corrected numerous times.

 

And yet some women keep getting abortions over and over again.

 

So what ? They're human just like men who keep making the same mistakes over and over again....and don't have to pay for them the rest of their lives.

And there are very few women who have multiple abortions....and , as I said , so what?

 

.. and some keep repeating the same logical fallacy over and over again despite being corrected numerous times.

Good examples of this are folks who run around claiming all abortion is "killing babies".

It is just silly to claim that a single human cell is a baby .. can these people not think ?

I mean .. even an 8 yr old .. playing a game of "which one is not like the other" .. given three pictures Man, Ape, Single cell .. can tell which one does not fit.

Yet .. grown adults in large numbers can not seem to pass this simple exercise. Their minds have been brainwashed so thoroughly that they cant even see what is in front of them anymore.

As soon as they see something that does not jive with the brainwashing they go straight into denial .. and continue changing the same mantra over and over again "its a baby .. its a baby"

 

I never claimed this. However, those who advocate for abortion at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever, are baby killers. Plain and simple.

I was just pointing out that just because a practice is widespread and legal does not mean it is not absolutely horrible.

 

So you call them murders if they end a pregnancy but YOU advocate killing DS babies after they're born and that ISN'T murder????


You're rather "confused"....

 

It's putting them out of their missery, a Mercy Killing.

If I did not say that women should be allowed to abort DS babies, pro-choicers would be moaning and screaming about how horrible that is, and how I want women to be forced to carry DS babies. There's no winning with the pro-abortion crowd. Either you accuse us of being inconsistent, or you want try to make a big fuss to rally pro-choice supporters to your cause about the ridiculous situations women are not allowed to get an abotion for.

 

I say women that keep having abortions over and over again should have their cervix sewn up tight, so they can never have reason to get an abortion ever again!