To think people shouldn't have sex with people unless you would both be happy and able to raise children together?

[Jjiillkkf]

Just reading the thread about the mother's of disabled children they have really struggled to cope with and no mention of fathers. Should society stigmatise abandoning families more? Would that not necessarily include discouraging quite so much recreational sex because of the potential outcomes?

Also inspired by other threads by women who alter an otherwise positive dynamic in their new relationship by having sex with their new partner.

Why is sex the be all and end all when it creates so many problems.

Aibu to think it is nothing but love and kindness to tell our sons and daughters to save it for a good person in a mutually loving, stable, permanent relationship?

Abbylikeswine · Yesterday 20:00

MrsSkylerWhite · Yesterday 10:49
Marvellous things called contraception are available.

One of my friends who was using Contraception, got pregnant not long ago.
**
They have never said that Contraception 100% prevents pregnancy”

Obviously. People should never have sex unless they want a child? Don’t be daft.

I spoke with someone recently who was working on a new type of contraceptive. He seemed quite pleased, until I asked him why he was not working on a male contraceptive.

In YOUR opinion. You seem to have that attitude that people have when THEIR life worked out exactly as they wanted. Nothing nasty like cheating husbands, failed contraception or not meeting the man of your dreams 🙄 And therefore on the basis of your sole experience you have decided that women should remain virgins until they meet the man of their dreams, get married (whether they want to or not) and then have the exact number of children, exactly when they intended and remain happily married forever. Newsflash…

What "attitude" and how is it "sinister?"
What a hyperbolic word to use.

Yet you take no issue with hyperbole in the other direction

IKR. It's like somebody who watched a lot of Disney movies and took it all to heart.
🎵When you wish upon a star.....

Excuse me? What are you referring to?
Btw, are you going to explain your remark, or just deflect?

I thought it was perfectly clear that I was referring to the attitude shown towards ending the life of the unborn child.

OP you sound young, naive and idealistic. I thought like you when I was about 16. Unfortunately humans are flawed and life is difficult.
You will learn as you live a bit longer

You didn't explain why it's "sinister."
Upthread there is a good analogy about intestinal parasites. Is it "sinister" to take medication to kill them? Because actually, they are more sentient than a human embryo. Sentience does not start until much later in pregnancy than when abortions are typically done, with exceptions for health emergencies.

Chemical abortion is only performed in very early stages of pregnancy. There is no "life* *or "baby" to speak of. They are not even called foetus at that point but a zygote which is a simple cell organism, essentially. I assume you are one of those "pro birth" people... Stop shaming women who make positive decisions about their life. I don't think anyone here takes abortions lightly but it is our fundamental right to have access to this essential medical service so I don't appreciate you perpetuating the stigma.

This!

Ha, so no more one night stands?
I have never wanted kids, so I guess that means I should stay celibate then. I have only gone out with men who also did not want kids. We would both be fine with abortion if it was needed.

Do you live in Gilead?

ending the life of the unborn child

I think you're a nasty gaslighting and emotionally manipulative piece work who has no regard at all for womens rights. Only a blastocyst that is unwelcome whose host it is sitting in. FYI this AINT A CHILD. Born or 'unborn'.

Yes, it's one thing to be anti-choice, but quite another to call women who choose abortion "sinister." That was needlessly nasty. All she had to say was that she has a different outlook on it. She didn't have to stoop to that level.
Notice she refuses to explain why she said that, yet there's no apology. If you have the courage of your convictions, you should have no problem explaining your statements and at least admitting the language you used was insulting.
The least I'd expect, considering she started the thread, is to refrain from maligning a large chunk of the people responding.

I beg your BIGGEST pardon

My husband and I weren’t sexually inactive before marriage, but I didn’t have sexual intercourse until I was married because I wouldn’t personally be okay with having an abortion.

I didn't refer to women who chose abortion as sinister. I said it was sinister to minimise the gravity of ending human life.

The human body does it all the time anyway. Look up miscarriage rates.

I fully appreciate the range of reasons women choose to terminate. But I imagine its a difficult thing to go through. I said that abortions are not something we hope our daughters have, and when someone responded saying that it was as much of a non event as eating a biscuit, I called that sinister. The consequences of a culture which disregards the value of human life are serious.

I'm not saying that nobody should ever have sex. I'm just suggesting that perhaps it's a little odd that we are so encouraged to indulge in these particular appetites when there are potential outcomes. Is it really worth it?

You referred to their alleged attitude as sinister, which is no different from saying they are sinister. Or do you believe there are non-sinister people with sinister attitudes? 🙄

The word, in this kind of context, means singularly evil or productive of evil, as per Merriam Webster.
Perhaps you were using the word incorrectly?

It is sinister to minimise the gravity of ending human life. As in evil, yes. But words schmords, what do you even care what I think anyway? I'm sure you think I'm evil

Between 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. So the real figure for miscarriages will be higher as a lot of women would not even know they are pregnant. The human body does a great job of ending "human life" without abortion.
Are you expecting them to self flagellate in public and be dressed in black for months?

It is not human life. It is not a life a that stage. No more than a tapeworm is a life, viruses are a life, or amoebas are a life. Cancer is a 'life' too, btw. Should we allow tapeworms, cancer etc to invade it's host and not be removed? If something is a parasite to the host, they have the right to remove it.

These flights of fancy are getting pretty wild. I don't have enough information on you to think you are evil. Nor do you have enough information on anyone else here to make that determination.
You still have not explained why it is evil to (allegedly) minimize the gravity of ending the life of a zygote or embryo. Who exactly does it harm?
Evil implies harm. Attitudes alone aren't harmful to others, but the actions that result from them certainly can be. So what actions are harmful here?

I certainly don't care what you think when you keep your thoughts to yourself, but I do care if you post unwarranted accusations towards women who have terminated a pregnancy. Again, it is the action more than the attitude that matters.

I have never had an abortion myself, but I feel for anyone who has been in that situation. You seem have more empathy for non-sentient beings than you do for sentient women who have had to make that choice. This is misplaced, as a non-sentient being cannot perceive or benefit from empathy.