Oh, the old "people should not have sex if they don't want to have a child." Find me an example of any time in history or any society where people abstained from sex at this level? It doesn't exist, because this is not realistic for human beings.
So if a married couple does not want to have kids, they should not consummate their marriage?
There’s so much about our body and it’s cycles that we aren’t taught and should be. There’s a really good book out called ‘Taking Charge of your Fertility,’ that I think young women should be encouraged to read. You’re only fertile about 4 days of your cycle.
Yes. This is what is called NFP in Catholic circles. This doesn't mean it is easy, either. My husband and I certainly had our moments of frustration because when a woman is fertile, the biological drive is pretty overpowering.
I guess I need to know what you mean by "at this level." Really we are just talking about if you aren't in a place to accept the possibility of a child being conceived as the result of a sexual encounter, then maybe postpone it. That's all. Or, if you can't or don't want to, take some precautions (which, yes, can fail which is why I go back to my first point).
What you are proposing is that we should have a society in which no one ever has sex unless they wish to conceive a child. I am saying that no society like that has ever existed, or ever will. You are being entirely unrealistic about human nature.
Have you polled all the 20 something men you know to see if they would be willing to completely give up all sex except when they intend to conceive a child? Because I think I can guess what the answer would be from almost all.
I don't think the poster was arguing for sex only when a couple "intends to" conceive a child. Rather they were suggesting along the lines of, have sex only if you are *willing to* carry a pregnancy to term (or support your partner in doing so, if male), in the possibly unlikely event that pregnancy happens (depending on what choices of contraception you make).
Precisely. I am not naive about human nature. I have five children, 2 of them currently young men in their 20s. I'm also in the middle of a Bible study which reminds me almost daily that there is "nothing new under the sun" and sexual temptation and the consequences of it have always been and will remain with us. I'm asking for a little self-control exercised judiciously. It seems, you Allie, are suggesting that humans can't possibly display this sort of control.
It's fine for you to live as you wish. It is not fine for you to think you have the right to impose your life style and religious beliefs on the rest of the country.
It's amazing to me that so many commenters here are, rightfully, appalled at vaccine mandates, but have no qualms about imposing very similiar mandates when it comes to abortion.
"Keep Your Laws Off My Body" should apply in both situations.
So we've reached the point where even suggesting the exercise of self-control is now "imposing lifestyle and religious beliefs on the rest of the country." As such, we are likely at an impasse. I could engage with the rest of your comment, but I am certain you will not concede that an additional, separate, distinct, individual is present in the abortion equation.
More specifically, the couple should use all the birth control methods at their disposal and have a plan of what to do if they do get pregnant. Which does not include killing the child they WILLINGLY created.
Pro-abortion proponents have successfully removed 'personal responsibility' from the equation for my entire life. It's a cornerstone of progressive thought.
Oh, the old "people should not have sex if they don't want to have a child." Find me an example of any time in history or any society where people abstained from sex at this level? It doesn't exist, because this is not realistic for human beings.
So if a married couple does not want to have kids, they should not consummate their marriage?
There’s so much about our body and it’s cycles that we aren’t taught and should be. There’s a really good book out called ‘Taking Charge of your Fertility,’ that I think young women should be encouraged to read. You’re only fertile about 4 days of your cycle.
Yes. This is what is called NFP in Catholic circles. This doesn't mean it is easy, either. My husband and I certainly had our moments of frustration because when a woman is fertile, the biological drive is pretty overpowering.
Yes but it’s more than that. As a woman who has struggled with fertility issues I wish I had been taught this earlier in life
Absolutely! I agree.
Agreed, I had no idea until I read that book.
It’s amazing how in 2022 you can make the argument you just made. Laughable really.
I guess I need to know what you mean by "at this level." Really we are just talking about if you aren't in a place to accept the possibility of a child being conceived as the result of a sexual encounter, then maybe postpone it. That's all. Or, if you can't or don't want to, take some precautions (which, yes, can fail which is why I go back to my first point).
What you are proposing is that we should have a society in which no one ever has sex unless they wish to conceive a child. I am saying that no society like that has ever existed, or ever will. You are being entirely unrealistic about human nature.
Have you polled all the 20 something men you know to see if they would be willing to completely give up all sex except when they intend to conceive a child? Because I think I can guess what the answer would be from almost all.
I don't think the poster was arguing for sex only when a couple "intends to" conceive a child. Rather they were suggesting along the lines of, have sex only if you are *willing to* carry a pregnancy to term (or support your partner in doing so, if male), in the possibly unlikely event that pregnancy happens (depending on what choices of contraception you make).
Precisely. I am not naive about human nature. I have five children, 2 of them currently young men in their 20s. I'm also in the middle of a Bible study which reminds me almost daily that there is "nothing new under the sun" and sexual temptation and the consequences of it have always been and will remain with us. I'm asking for a little self-control exercised judiciously. It seems, you Allie, are suggesting that humans can't possibly display this sort of control.
It's fine for you to live as you wish. It is not fine for you to think you have the right to impose your life style and religious beliefs on the rest of the country.
It's amazing to me that so many commenters here are, rightfully, appalled at vaccine mandates, but have no qualms about imposing very similiar mandates when it comes to abortion.
"Keep Your Laws Off My Body" should apply in both situations.
So we've reached the point where even suggesting the exercise of self-control is now "imposing lifestyle and religious beliefs on the rest of the country." As such, we are likely at an impasse. I could engage with the rest of your comment, but I am certain you will not concede that an additional, separate, distinct, individual is present in the abortion equation.
Yes.
More specifically, the couple should use all the birth control methods at their disposal and have a plan of what to do if they do get pregnant. Which does not include killing the child they WILLINGLY created.
Pro-abortion proponents have successfully removed 'personal responsibility' from the equation for my entire life. It's a cornerstone of progressive thought.