Seriously, is it really -that- far fetched to think that if you don't want a baby to just not have sex? Really? I think that abstaining is a FAR better option then killing the baby to be!
It's just a ludicrous argument to say 'what, people aren't allowed to have sex now?'. Pretty much yup!
If you don't want a baby, then no sex for you, if you're willing to take the risk of a baby (which sex inherently entails, as I saw one person put it, it's re-creation, not recreation), and carry the baby (safely and responsibly) to term, and either raise it together, yourself, allow the other parent to, or give it up for adoption, then go have all the sex you want.
How hard is that? Apparently pretty hard for some people.
4 comments:
It shows you where the morals and values have went. IMO the free sex movement of the 60's was a HUGE mistake.
LIKE! Also...not to hijack, but I hate the argument "well I personally don't believe in it, but woman should have the right to choose" They do...they have the right to choose to have sex or not (yes there are extreme cases but the VAST MAJORITY of abortions are not due to rape or incest). And if they are so worried about human rights...what about the baby's rights? They didn't get any say in the matter, and I'm sure you wont find a lot of people in poverty or not that wish their mother had aborted them.
Ok...stepping of my soapbox now.
Amanda, you are right on, my stance is, yes , a woman has the right to choose...as soon as she chooses to have sex, her choice is made, she has no choice beyond that! I also agree about the babies right to live, you and are on on the exact same page!
Kim, I also agree, while i think it's good, I do think it went to far!
Hear hear!!
Post a Comment