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?

A parasite is a different species to the host, if the upshot of jiggery pockery was the potential of being infected by a giant tapeworm I suspect people might think twice!

It's not a good or accurate analogy. We want to be careful with rhetoric like that, a parasite is alien in biology to the host. We are talking about the most vulnerable humans. And the "they die all the time anyway" argument is also weak, in my opinion. They are fast tracking assisted dying legislation. The NHS is collapsing, economic conditions are rapidly deteriorating, what proportion of serioursly stretched public funds should be allocated to artificially extending and supporting the lives the elderly and infirm, ones that'll 'die anyway'? Or migrants? Can't you see how they can be declared parasitic (unwelcome, resource costly) to the host (nation state of taxpayers) when deemed inconvenient? We have seen this already. When you devalue human life with distorted rhetoric, it's the thin end of the wedge and can lead to very dark places when we cease to view unwanted humans as human. No humans are parasites. I think it's evil to say they are.

Resorting to inaccurate and poor analogies like "parasite" also reveals a shyness from the truth, which is interesting.

Anyway, I didn't start this thread to make anyone feel bad, I have great sympathy with women who make difficult choices, it can be a necessary evil - that's why I said its surely not something we hope our daughters will experience? So I don't understand why I'm being told I lack empathy. I don't know what unwarranted accusations you are saying I have thrown, other than taking issue with a poster implying that it's no big deal if their daughter had 20 abortions because they're nothing.

I just thought it would be an interesting conversation about base desires and why they seem to be such a high priority, I find it curious. It's been derailed somewhat.

Nah as long as it's living in a woman's abdomen, it's nothing if she decides it is, as far as I'm concerned. It's not ideal to have 20 abortions but that's vanishingly rare and in the cases where it does happen, it's probably for the best. And those people can still have sex with a consenting partner.

I would say though - I think women should think CAREFULLY before deciding to continue with an unplanned pregnancy when the father has shown clearly he does not want it. Or prepare for single motherhood.

I agree with you the “parasite” language is problematic but think all of your examples are terrible. A foetus is making biological use of somebody else’s body. Migrants, the elderly, the infirm are not.

Come back to me with arguments about bodily autonomy next time there is a public health crisis and people are refusing vaccines

You may have noticed that nobody was forced to have vaccines. People who objected to them were allowed to have autonomy of their bodies regardless of our feelings about it.

I have no problem with people choosing not to take a vaccine. Also I do not recall anybody being threatened with punishment for refusing a vaccine.

So try again.

Personally, I don't use language like "parasite" although I understand why people do, because I see no reason to bring unnecessary emotion into the situation. For me, an abortion is simply a medical procedure that should be available to women who need and want it.

A parasite is just an organism that uses another organism's body as a host and derives nutrients from it. I get why the use of that word in this context bothers people, because they are looking it as an insult, but it's merely descriptive and accurately so.
The fact that the parasitic organism has human DNA does not alter the reality that it is using another independent organism as a host. Of course the host should get to choose not to be a host.

The problem with good access to abortion is that the sensible women who would have well rounded children have the abortions and the ‘not so sensible ones’ keep the baby and then society pays for it. We are a nation with a lot of problems and it’s getting worse when the children of so many already damaged children keep being born.
There’s a book called Freakomics which I recommend reading . The chapter on the introduction of abortions in America was very insightful. HOWEVER in America those living in poverty have the abortions because they can’t afford to raise the baby. In the UK those who can least afford it have the baby because they know the state will raise them. If they have more than two they just make sure they get a diagnosis for one and the benefit cap is null and void.

Abortion as contraception is not something we should be teaching our girls.

It's rarely more complicated than that, it's not 'a life' & it's not 'sinister' for a woman to be relieved she won't be forced to give birth against her will. Stop scaremongering.

@ConsuelaHammock "Abortion as contraception is not something we should be teaching our girls."

I don't think anyone is. Contraception as contraception, and the MAP and then abortion is what we should be teaching our teenage girls. And boys.

I would, and do, actively wish for any and every woman to be able to access abortion if they want one. I do think it’s a good thing. How ‘seriously’ abortion should be taken is entirely dependent on the individual having one. For some it’s heavy and something to be conflicted if not agonized over. For others, myself included, it isn’t a big deal at all and we shouldn’t be obliged to pretend it is to satisfy someone else’s sensibilities

I’d never have sex if having it was dependent on being willing to have and raise children with someone. So, er, fuck that.

This is not true re: abortion and poor people having them in the USA and not the UK. In both countries the numbers of those accessing abortion is higher among those from lower socio-economic backgrounds (proportionately speaking.)

And the book Freakonomics also says the same. It says that crime rates fell as those from the socio-demographic background most likely
to commit crimes were never born in the first place.

Oh give over with this thinly veiled no sex before marriage bollocks.

People need to be more careful with whom they have children, that part I agree with. Too many are having kids with people who don't want to take any kind of responsibility, or they aren't taking care of themselves with regard to effective contraception. Then they complain when things are hard.

Sex is a natural part of adult life and we need to access to safe sex healthcare and contraception, not shaming people into not having sex. We are WAAAAAY beyond the 1950s now.