But I also can’t believe how quickly everyone jumped from “for pleasure” to “casual”. The alternative to having a right to have sex for pleasure is having sex only when there is a desire to procreate. I’ve been married for ten years, and my husband and I have sex for pleasure — what’s casual about that?

(Edited to try to make the message seem less “spammy” to the filter — probably the result of using the word “s3x” too many times.

Speaking of philosophical legs, how can you equate pregnancy with mandated organ donation without anything to back that up? To be (extremely) charitable, that analogy would only apply to cases of rape, in terms of a complete lack of consent. Are you willing to oppose all acts of abortion, except in cases of rape?

Didn’t think so.

Want to try the philosophy thing again?

So now let me say it, Mike, you are an idiot.

Your argument has no validity because it has no logic. As has been pointed out you are comparing a decision not to act to help someone with the very active decision to dismember another human being in the womb. A helpless creature if ever there was one.

Women, or the men they are with, who don’t want to get pregnant have several choices including the choice not to have sex. But once conception occurs, all parties have gone beyond the sex for pleasure that Joyce Arthur advocates as a right and have in fact created another human being.

If you dispute when life begins, stop denying science and read the report of The Westchester Institute – http://tinyurl.com/699syu

All you people who support abortion for the easy access to sex need to grow up.

I understand that my example is not exactly the same as yours because yours involves a person’s right to control his/her own body, and mine does not….but it still illustrates the hole in your argument, which exists regardless.

I mean, a person’s right to his/her own body certainly DOES supercede all else if the person is in danger of being killed or seriously harmed. If I’m about to get stabbed, I have the right to kill the other person to protect my body. But do I have the right to kill the other person if they, say, simply give me a harmless but unwanted hug? Obviously not. You have the right to your own body, but you can’t just go doing anything to anyone in the name of that right. Abortion is similar. The baby is not setting out to harm anyone… so does your right to your own body give you the right to kill the baby?

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that there are strong pro-choice arguments out there, which is why I’m on the fence. I just don’t think yours was very convincing.

The thing is, with the advent of DNA testing, men don’t have consequence-free sex anymore.

If a woman gets pregnant, and decides to keep the baby, the father will have financial responsibility toward that child until the child is responsible for itself. The man may argue until he is blue in the face that he is not ready to be a father, that he didn’t want the child, that they used birth control that failed, that it was only a one night stand, and, should the woman sue him for paternity, the courts will only say “tough s**t–you willingly engaged in an act that is known to lead to a child; you need to take responsibility for your actions.”

If the courts have the jurisdiction to impose an 18-year financial sentence on a man who is unwilling to have a child, shouldn’t they be able to impose a nine-month sentence on an otherwise healthy woman who is unwilling to have one?

Just my two cents

We’re looking to build a solid group of social conservatives who’ll frequent our site regularly and contribute to some good discussions. I hope you’ll check us out!

If you’ll add us to your blogroll we’ll gladly add you to ours. Just drop us a comment over at our blog so that we’ll know to add you. Our blog is called Religion and Morality.

Thanks!

Much like those who would refuse a woman the right to control her procreation.

The security of the person and of ones own body is sacrosanct and respected, even if it means that some other person will die as a result. You cannot force me to give up a life saving organ to donate, you cannot force me to carry one within me, if a do not consent. Even if it means certain death for another person (even someone whose legal status and morphological humanness is not in question). Its my body, not yours and you have no say in what I do with it.

So unless you intend to support giving the stat the authority to take peoples internal organs against their will to save lives, to force bone marrow and blood donations, you have no philosophical leg to stand on.

All to say, Kevin, that you are far closer to the attitude of a rapist than anything the pro-choice side advocates.

If you think abortion is wrong, don’t have one. And mind your own business.

- At what point does a child’s life mean the end of their mothers?? It’s so ridiculous I can’t even fathom. The child is not the enemy lady.