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.
Two things are becoming apparent to me in this dialogue:
1) Some people on this blog seem to have a not-so-hidden agenda of controlling other people's sex lives. Again, pretty shocking to me that people on this blog would so oppose vaccine mandates (rightfully) due to a support for medical freedom, but want to control the sex lives of consenting adults.
2) The same people have no problem imposing their religious belief on others. Because the belief that abortion causes harm IS a religious belief.
My religious belief, on the other hand, is that if God wants a human soul to be born on the earth, He will make that happen. I don't think the soul enters the body until a later stage of fetal development. If a fetus is aborted, the soul that is due to be born will simply be born in another fetus to another mother. I think it is huge hubris to think that humans can prevent the birth of a human soul that God intends to be born and have a life on earth.
Now I completely admit that there is no way to prove that this religious belief of mine is correct. But neither can the opponents of abortion - who presumably believe that abortion interferes with God's plan for that human soul - prove that their belief is correct.
So, as a country that is committed to preserving religious freedoom, to me the obvious course is for us all to act in accordance with our own personal, unprovable religious beliefs. If you believe abortion causes harm and violates God's will, don't have one. But don't try to use governmental force and the threat of imprisonment to impose your religious beliefs on others.
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.
Two things are becoming apparent to me in this dialogue:
1) Some people on this blog seem to have a not-so-hidden agenda of controlling other people's sex lives. Again, pretty shocking to me that people on this blog would so oppose vaccine mandates (rightfully) due to a support for medical freedom, but want to control the sex lives of consenting adults.
2) The same people have no problem imposing their religious belief on others. Because the belief that abortion causes harm IS a religious belief.
My religious belief, on the other hand, is that if God wants a human soul to be born on the earth, He will make that happen. I don't think the soul enters the body until a later stage of fetal development. If a fetus is aborted, the soul that is due to be born will simply be born in another fetus to another mother. I think it is huge hubris to think that humans can prevent the birth of a human soul that God intends to be born and have a life on earth.
Now I completely admit that there is no way to prove that this religious belief of mine is correct. But neither can the opponents of abortion - who presumably believe that abortion interferes with God's plan for that human soul - prove that their belief is correct.
So, as a country that is committed to preserving religious freedoom, to me the obvious course is for us all to act in accordance with our own personal, unprovable religious beliefs. If you believe abortion causes harm and violates God's will, don't have one. But don't try to use governmental force and the threat of imprisonment to impose your religious beliefs on others.