Anonymous #1 25w

Is the ability to choose if and when to have sex not the same thing? Or do people have a right to have sex without repercussions

-3

Anonymous #2 25w

Yes they should have the right to sex without repercussions. That’s like saying every time you have sex you should get herpes

9

Anonymous OP 25w

No bc sex has a repercussion: kids. Herpes isn’t a possibility for every sex

-2

Anonymous #2 25w

neither is kids…

8

Anonymous #2 25w

Yes actually people should have the right to have sex without “repercussions.” You’re acting like sex is a shameful thing that should be punished and not a completely normal thing for two consenting adults

2

Anonymous #2 25w

Plus, no kid deserves to have parents who see them as their “repercussion” the way you seem to imply you would

2

Anonymous #1 25w

I don’t think it’s shameful, but that’s like saying I should have the right to gamble without losing money. Some actions have consequences. And, unfortunately, some parents do view their kids as mistakes

-1

Anonymous #2 25w

those are not the same… I fear

4

Anonymous OP 25w

How so?

-1

Anonymous #2 25w

you literally HAVE to spend money on gambling but you don’t have to have kids to have sex

5

Anonymous #2 25w

Hey so gambling and having sex are not comparable like at all. And just because some parents do see their kids as mistakes that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to stop that from happening by offering people options that modern medicine has afforded us

1

Anonymous OP 25w

No no no you don’t HAVE to lose money to gamble, if you’re good. And also, it’s always this same argument, I think a mistake of a child is better than getting rid of that child

1

Anonymous #2 25w

i said spend, not lose. The mistake of a child disrupts the parents life and makes her dependent on the man, this therefore gives him a monopoly over the reproductive rights of the woman. It’s basically slave ownership at that point. The woman, financially, becomes a slave to the man and so does the child because she can’t work and all the child exists for is to work.

1

Anonymous OP 25w

Bruh I brought up the gambling point and originally said lose; you don’t get to change that. Once again, I don’t think your mistake justifies the killing of the baby. In most cases, the woman consented to this “enslavement”, so therefore, by definition, it is not slavery

1

Anonymous #2 25w

oh okay then sure, lose. If you spend money you’re still losing it. It’s not about the baby, why is the baby more of a concern than the woman? What if you just did non-lethal abortions? It’s so crazy that you think women WANT to be enslaved given that from birth their taught their purpose is to please their husband.

1

Anonymous OP 25w

They are actually of equal concern to me. My biggest concern is the preservation of human life, whether that be the mom or kid. What’s a non-lethal abortion? That sounds like an oxymoron. I’m not saying they actively want it, just that they consented to it when they decided to have sex. Kinda like a terms and conditions

1