Was going to post something along the same lines as Stedman, but he's said it better than I would have done.
To bring up a slightly more fuzzy angle (err, so to speak), we're already seeing a small spike (err, so to speak) in the HIV infection rate in the US amongst women. Surveys also suggest with internet porn being the beast it is, there's been a fairly significant an increase in the acceptance of anal sex with women the 'receivers'.
The exact picture is still being unpicked but one theory goes that the fairly massive increase in male-male transmission of HIV has meant an increase (not sure how much) in straight blokes who engage in gay sex (again, on the increase) having picked it up and possibly passed it onto their wives/girlfriends who, as I alluded to, are more receptive to the idea of anal sex these days. The surveillance of HIV/AIDS is a big, big picture so it's difficult to be certain about these things but that's one theory and it's interesting that it's come up at all.
If abortion was banned and people were terrified of getting pregnant, would we see a jump in HIV (or any STI, really) transmissions with those things impacting (err, so to speak) on the transmission rate? Anal sex has, historically, been quite common before reliable contraception appeared but there were far, far fewer STI's around, certainly not HIV and engaging in it increases the probability of STI transmission by heaps. No-one can predict human behaviour with any degree of certainty but, well.....
Haha ITSTL ^^
I've got a reasonably clear view on abortion. I'm pretty much totally pro-choice (hate the term pro-abortion, nobody is pro-abortion), I just think that a woman should be able to choose exactly what she can do to her body with regards to pregnancy, as it is such a massive deal.
Obviously I think that as much should be done as possible to try and stop women from getting pregnant in the first place, such as education about the proper use of contraceptives, but if a woman does want an abortion, I don't really see why anyone should be able to say that she has to go through with the pregnancy.
You can word it however you like, but if you're "pro-choice" you're tacitly accepting millions and millions of inevitable abortions. For mine, that's "pro-abortion". You'd rather abortion than no abortion, ultimately, because you're never going to have a world without unwanted pregnancy.
It's a massive deal because we're talking about life and death, the creation and development of human life, and the destruction of potential human life. If you accept that some people see a developing fetus as at least partially a form of "life", then you also need to accept that those people will see abortion as being one life form causing harm to another, and therefore very much a public issue, not just a personal one.I just think that a woman should be able to choose exactly what she can do to her body with regards to pregnancy, as it is such a massive deal
(I apologise if you feel I have misconstrued your views, I really just thought your post was useful in allowing me to raise a few issues, I'm not trying to make any assumptions about what you believe)
It works the other way around too: this is why (even though I've used it before and still sometimes catch myself doing it), I've come around to not calling people 'anti-choice' as a label. It doesn't represent their position even if that is indeed the outcome of their beliefs.
Funnily enough I was totally pro-choice....actually, I didn't even think about the issue much at all....until I started doing the nasty on a regular basis with my partner. Then it just smacked me in the face, all of a sudden, that we might accidentally make a baby. It just seems to me to be completely and utterly insane to take that risk (which is not to say that I stopped taking it.....which is partly why it's an issue that really gets to me. It seems to me that we live in an insane sexual culture that encourages absurd risks).
Oh absolutely. And I totally agree that just promoting abstinence and saying "don't have sex because it's too risky and abortion is bad" hasn't really worked throughout history...people will still have sex, and people who don't want the baby will still find ways of having an abortion.I also don't believe that the availability of abortion has an adverse affect on unwanted pregnancies. In fact the countries with the fewest teenage pregnancies (including those aborted) are the countries with most liberal abortion laws (Holland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden etc). This is more of result of high education standards and greater social responsibility.
The rate of unwanted pregnancies is dropping, not because women are slowly getting the right to choose what to do with their own bodies but because the information about pregnancy and the availability of contraception are increasing. So I absolutely agree with your priority to create greater awareness around safe sex.
There's just a big difference imo between "what actually works, factoring in the frailties of human nature", and "the ideal that we should always, ultimately, be aiming for". I feel like the human race has kinda given up on applying a sane level of discipline and risk management regarding sex.
Desire can't be suppressed, but the desire to engage in risky activity can be managed. It's all about discipline and it applies in all areas of human life. What I find weird is that I often feel like "sexual discipline" is almost discouraged.However, at the end of the day, people have sex because they enjoy it. It's a natural human desire and can't be surpressed.
If sexual desire can't be suppressed, what about people who for whatever reason simply can't get laid? What about the undesirable bloke who becomes the 40 year old virgin? I mean ffs, we all have a hand and an imagination. It's not like sex is this constantly available thing that we can just have whenever we want. It's not as hard as people sometimes make out to avoid sex. Quite the contrary, imo, people go way out of their way to actively seek out this risk.
For mine, these are a couple of assertions which sound good (and people will agree with) but don't make a shred of sense to me. The fact that a desire exists does not mean it is fundamentally "good" to act on that desire. You can't separate sex from pregnancy, the two things are inextricably linked and indeed, isn't the creation of life the basic biological reason why sex, and sexual desire, exist at all? I also don't see how it's damaging to say that sexual freedom should be restricted in the sense that discipline should be encouraged, risks acknowledged, and the consequences of that risk accepted. It's a logic which imo is applied to all other aspects of life and somehow excluded from sex.Funnily enough, women have sexual desires that can and should be separated from merely providing a womb. And I think views which suggest that sexual freedom is a bad thing are quite damaging.
People enjoy sex, it doesn't harm anyone - I don't see the risk? The risk of both pregnancy and STDs can be minimized, and in case of pregnancy, almost eliminated with birth control + condoms.
It's not that it can't be suppressed in anyone, just that it can't be suppressed in everyone and I don't see why we should try. If the partners in question are enjoying it, I really don't see how society should have any business with it or that it should put some sort of pressure not to do it.
The issue is that many people don't care enough to have that separation.
Last edited by silentstriker; 29-01-2011 at 09:54 PM.
I don't know how on earth you can say that pregnancy can be controlled and you can have sex without that risk, it completely flies in the face of everything that's ever happened in the entire history of mankind!
I have never really had a stand on abortion. Wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for abortion. A kid was aborted by my mom 3 years before my birth because of a medical complication. If that thing was born, my parents would have stopped at 2 kids and I wouldn't be here.
I was arguing (sort of) against the view expressed a few times in this thread that "I don't like the idea of abortion but I shouldn't be able to tell other people what to do". If you decide that a foetus has any level of rights, and is to any extent "human", then it makes perfect sense to say that its mother's rights to essentially kill it should be curtailed.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)