Should Women Who NEVER Want Children Remain Abstinent Forever?

you act as if women on birth control and using condoms are getting pregnant left and right. If you want to have sex and you don't want children, then use a condom, stay on birth control, use spermicide before and after, and keep some morning after pills around.

seems like an awful lot of trouble but hey, if you are so adamently opposed to being pregnant but just can't stop humping, then you do what ya have to do.

there will always be a slight chance you will get pregnant when you allow sperm into the vicinity of your eggs...you take the chance, you take the risk on. There are couples that would gladly take the baby off your hands...

all of this is just going to extremes to justify abortion. I think it shows that you (you being generic abortion advocates) don't really feel all that confident that you are not doing wrong when you use abortion as a means of birth control instead of as a rare and dreadful thing.

 

Yes, people take risks. Taking risks does not suddenly exclude a person from receiving medical treatment should a potential risk occur.

And there are a good 100,000 unwanted children in adoption and foster care. There is no shortage of children in need of homes and women with unwanted pregnancies are NOT brood meres for the infertile.

 

What possible difference would that make?

 

Obviously not you.

 

Abortion isnt a "dreadful" thing, its just unfortunate.

 

The OP isn't about taking the risk and then having the baby because you got pregnant.
Its about women who never want children, therefore who NEVER wish to be pregnant.

Your post suggests that women should remain abstinent if they never want children.

 

Women who choose not to have children - Are useless to mankind.
And are good for only one thing......Appearance Pending................."BOY TOYS".

 

If breeding is the only thing of value to mankind, we can kill off all but a couple of fertile men whose sperm can be used to impregnate as many women as necessary to maintain population.

 

Nah, breeders are the ones that cost society a bit too much. Breeders are kind of expensive and don't give much back.

 

Ever had sex before mate? I'm just curious.

 

If childless-sex is all important then we should keep good, stout breeding stock (brood mares) to maintain the population and sterilize the rest of the women so they can be used for sexual purposes.

 

Apparently YOUR 'breeders' didn't 'give much back'...I hope they are sterilize by now...LOL

 

I don't see why it would have to be one extreme or the other. I'll never understand why more pro-abortionists can't grasp the concept of simply having responsible safe sex.

So my answer would be not unless she couldn't behave responsibly.

 

Should men have to pay child support just because they couldn't keep it in there pants?

 

My position is that any man who sticks his penis (protected or not) into a vagina had better have already made a commitment to at least an 18-year relationship with that woman, married or not because that is the age at which he will no longer have to support any outcome of his initial plunge. The courts do not look kindly on non-paying, absent fathers.

 

But to use the logic of the op that any man who doesn't want to pay child support should just remain abstinent. Personally any child I father I'm going to take responsibility for. Even if I do have to raise that child by myself.

 

We essentially agree then. If a man is gonna put his penis into a vagina, he should have already made a personal commitment. I think the OP is a bit vague on abstinence. After all, there are many ways to obtain pleasure other than doing the baby-making routine.

 

I'm not saying that I'm a "stud" and can get with a woman any time that I want, but one reason why I haven't been with a woman in a while is because I have to many personal issues to take care of in my life and I just don't have the ability to have take care of a kid if I had one right now. It's about being responsible. There are alternate methods that you mentioned that people can participate in that doesn't involve penetration. Personally I'm the kind of guy that wants the option to go all the way if I'm involved with someone sexually. But that's just me.

 

No, but they should be responsible and have surgery to make sure it doesn't happen.

 

no, I am saying that there is more than one way to have sex than vaginal, there are birth control methods, etc...but even with an abortion, she would have been pregnant. so if the idea of a sperm hitting an egg is so horrifying to her then yes abstinence might be her best option.

fortunately I think that women with such an unreasoning aversion to being pregnant wouldn't be all that interested in sex anyway.

 

If you want to leave the whole abortion thing out of the equation (simply because a responsible adult female has a vanishingly small chance of an unplanned pregnancy)...then no, I do not have a problem with a woman having sex for pleasure, not procreation.

 

Why do you think that?

 

WHO FRICKING CARES?? Abortion is fine in and of itself. I dont see what the issue is.

 

it just seems that if the woman is that hung up about procreation, that the idea of participating in the act that is procreation would not be her choice.

You can't seperate having vaginal sex from procreation, you can use birth control, condoms, abortion, morning after pills but vaginal sex is what causes pregnancy.

If you were adverse to eating sweets would you chew up candy and spit it out? If you hated deserts, would you go to New Mexico for vacation? If you were afraid of heights, would you walk a tightrope?

so why have vaginal sex if you are so terrified and opposed to being pregnant? It seems easy enough to avoid.

 

Why stay abstinent forever?

Do the responsible thing, go to the OB/GYN and get fixed if you don't want kids. Why just rely on a lifetime of abortions for birth control? It'll save you way more money in the long run to just make it permanent.